, a 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀽m6IsoN CITYMANAGER'SDEPARTMENT • (214) 450-7000' FAX (214) 960.7634 􀁾􀀺􀀼􀀻􀀢􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺..􀀭􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀿􀀠Post Office Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001-0144 5300 Belt Line Roud December 19,1996 Mr. Sam Stuart Addison Airport of Texas, Inc. 4505 Claire Chennault Dallas, Texas 75248 Dear Sam: The Town ofAddison appreciates AA TI's support of the toll tunnel project, and your staffs assistance with relocating the various tenants affected by the project. Because ofthis support, I was somewhat surprised by the tone of your letters dated December 9 and December 16. There must be some misunderstanding of what we have discussed in the past. Both the airport and the tunnel are important to the Town and it is essential that we are in agreement on how to provide for them both. I understand that you will be out oftown until after the New Year. Please call me upon your return and I will be happy to go over the issues you have raised. Sincerely, Ron Whitehead City Manager cc: Charles Carroll, Federal Aviation Administration I • I VIII. -.lU'U! 11J..J..J.. I am in receipt of your letters dated December 9 and 16 regarding the Airport. understand from John Baumgartner that you will be out of town for the holidays until some time after the first of the year, After that time, I would like to have the opportunity to visit with you and respond to your comments and concerns. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT • (214) 450-7000· FAX (21,1.) 9fiO-76A·J 5300 Bdt Lim\ Ront! July 3,1996 Mr. James W. Griffin, P.E. Executive Director Texas Turnpike Authority 3015 Raleigh Street Dallas, Texas 75219 Dear Mr. Griffin: Thank you for your continued patience regarding the right-of-way acquisition for Addison Airport Toll Tunnel. This is the single most important project for the Town ofAddison and is essential for mobility in our area. After reviewing your June 14 letter, we have amended our request to eliminate any further obligation for the TTA to provide replacement land in addition to the monetary proposal. The following summarizes our position regarding the outstanding issues related to the right-of-way taking: 1. Additional Ri ght-of-Way for Dooley Road Work: The Town of Addison continues to support the concept of using part ofthe airport to facilitate the construction ofthe tunnel on a temporary basis. However, the proposal to route Dooley Road onto the airport as a permanent facility is in conflict with the minimum FAA design requirements regarding building setback from the runway and part 77 protected surfaces. We want to encourage the TTA to develop a permanent solution and provide access to the Dooley Road properties north ofKeller Springs. It appears that the connection to Kellway Circle is the most viable alternative. lfthe TTA will implement this solution or another permanent solution for reconfiguring Dooley Road, the affiliated right-of-way goes away and this issue is resolved. 2. Damages at Concourse Plaza for Replacing Parking: Our study ofthis issue concludes re-striping the parking along the right-of-way will not replace the lost parking. Approximately 3,600 square feet of parking area must be added to the leasehold at Concourse Plaza to make it whole after the right-of-way is taken. Unfortunately, Mr. Duffy's estimate ofthe cost to replace the 3,600 feet of paving is somewhat low. The following estimate identifies what we believe is the true value ofthis cost to cure: 3,600 square feet of6" concrete paving @$2.50/sq =$9,000.00 Landscaping, irrigation & striping $2,000.00 $II,000.00 Mr. Griffin July 3, 1996 Page Two 3. Damages at Ultimate Sports Grill for Future Loss of Parking ifR.O.W. is Utilized; The simple solution to this issue is to relocate the right-of-way line so the parking is not lost. Ifit is necessary to provide for the future expansion ofthe interseetion, then we feel obligated to develop a cost to cure the impact of eliminating parking during a later phase. This would involve drainage improvements, paving, landscaping and reconfiguring the two leaseholds. We would appreciate the ITA's consideration of our request of $25,000 to cover our cost to cure the effects of the tunnel on this property. 4 & 5. Parcels C. D. E, F. G. H. J. K. & L: In lieu of segregating these parcels, we have consolidated our concerns into one issue that we wish the Texas Turnpike Authority consider. When the land acquisition is complete the remainders of parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, & L contain an area of 218,376.6 square feet, according to Mr. Miller. These combined remainders are configured in in two triangular tracts, and when re-developed by the Town leaseholder, will require special engineering, due to their shape. Even with special engineering, they will be impossible to fully utilize. Mr. Miller placed an aggregate value of $763,251 on the combined remainders before the taking. A modest claim of20% damage to these tracts would result in additional compensation of$152,650 that we would appreciate the ITA consider. 6. Temporary Construction Easement Area: After further review ofthe appraisal reports, it appears that Mr. Miller has addressed 74,588 square feet ofthe construction easement area. Our miscalculation of the area is based on an inconsistency in his appraisal report on Parcel F. On Page 6-A of his report, he refers to this area as containing 2,375 square feet; whereas, on the following un-numbered page he has revised the area to 4,175 square feet. This would leave 2,625 square feet of area not addressed in the reports. Attached herewith is a table reflecting our calculations. We would would respectfully request that the ITA consider increasing the proposed compensation by $1,654 for this item. 7. Parcels E and M: As stated in our previous communication, these parcels are of similar size, both in land and improvement area. Our major concern in these properties lies in the appraiser's conclusion ofvalue of the improvements. In the Cost Approach of both parcels, he reports a unit reproduction cost of$15.00 per square foot with depreciation estimated at forty percent. However, in the Income Approach, the contributory value ofthese improvements ranges from $1.04 per square foot to $1.15 per square foot This would indicate depreciation ofninety-two to ninety-three percent. In his appraisal reports on these parcels, Mr. Miller states that these improvements have a remaining economic life of 25 years. How could they be depreciated in excess of ninety percent with this amount of economic life remaining? Mr. Miller bases these values on annual gross revenues of $21,000 on each parcel. In his opinion, these improvements are worth less than one year ofgross annual income. Mr. Stuart's records reflect current income of $25,200 and, using this income, would result in improvement values of$48,000 to $49,000 for the improvements. Mr. Griffin July 3, 1996 Page Three Additionally, there appears to be a mathematical error in his Income Approach on Parcel M. The management expense should be $714, not $816. This would result in an upward adjustment of $2,141 for the improvements, based on his analysis. It does not seem fair to us that these improvements are worth less than one year's gross income stream in view of their remaining economic life. We would suggest the TTA consider increasing the proposed compensation by $ 10,924 for Parcel E, and $30,700 for Parcel M. The following table represents our summary of the compensation items we request the TTA consider. Addison Airport Compensation Summary # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Base Offer $1,291,059 I Dooley Road work O· 2 Concourse Plaza 1l,00O 3 Ultimate Sports Grill 25,000" 4,&5 Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, & L 152,650 6 Damages temporary construction easement \654 7 Parcels E, & M 41,624 TOTAL $1,522,987 * Assumes a permanent offairport solution is developed. ** Assumes relocation ofthe right-of-way is not possible. We appreciate your diligence in working on our project for the benefit of the citizens in the Addison Carrollton and North Dallas area. Please call me ifyou have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely Yours, Ron Whitehead City Manager PROPOSED ACOUISITIONS -,,CITY I'vlANAGER'S DEPARTMENT (214) 450-7000. FAX (214) 960-768,\ ®bIsoN ..􀁾􀀠_,.•..􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀧􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁦􀁯􀀧􀀺􀁬􀀮􀁦􀁴•• 􀁾􀀮􀁩􀀾􀀬􀀱􀀢􀀡􀀮􀀧􀀧􀀱􀀩..;.:•􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀷􀀠Post Office Box 144 Addi:;lon, Texas 75001-0144 5300 Dell Line nond To: MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and City Council July 1,1996 From: Ron Whitehead, City Manager Subject: KELLER SPRINGS TOLL TUNNEL Attached is a draft copy of the response letter we plan to send to the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) regarding our on-going ROWand appraisal negotiations with them. As you know, this project has been a complex and challenging effort for the staff; however, we believe the effort will be well worth the potential infrastructure improvements which the tunnel offers the community. The following provides you with some background on what brings us to this decision pOint as well as a recommended course of action to move toward the successful development and completion of the tunnel project. BACKGROUND The Town initiated conversations with TTA and Dallas County on the development of this project in 1987. The purpose of this $24 million infrastructure project is to afford the Town an alternative to our increasingly difficult east-west traffic flow problems. A number of public entities besides TTA have committed to the development of the tunnel project including Dallas County which will contribute approximately $3 million to the project and the City of Carrollton which has expended funds to improve the Keller Springs/Marsh intersection to better manage the anticipated traffic increase generated by the tunnel. Obviously, the value of the project has been recognized by these entities as well. Undoubtedly there is risk associated with an infrastructure project of this magnitude, but we believe the risk to the Town is worth taking if we can get TTA to make this important investment in Addison. ROW APPRAISAL AND FAA NEGOTIATIONS Approximately six (6) months ago, the Town secured the services of Mr. Jim Duffy of the JFD Group to direct negotiations with TTA and affected parties in an effort to come to a property appraisal figure that fairly and adequately compensates impacted tenants and AATI. The latest ROW proposal we are prepared to submit to TTA with Council approval is approximately $1.5 million with the offer that the Town will take on the land replacement obligation argued to be necessary by the FAA. Our estimate on the cost to obtain release from the various leasehold interests is $1.4 million. This difference between appraisal and cost to remedy leaves little contingency for a project with so many interrelated variables. The attached draft response letter presents this counter offer to TTA and offers details on the individual Airport parcels. 7/1/96 Toll Tunnel Pg.2 With regard to the FAA's assertion that we must replace the 3.0 acres lost to the tunnel, we propose the following solution. Mr. Thomas Wade of the Southwest Division of the FAA in Fort Worth supports the Town's efforts to acquire property for a proposed Cavanaugh Flight Museum facility adjacent to the Airport. Of the estimated 7-9 acres needed to be purchased for such a museum facility, the FAA would consider 3.0 acres from a Cavanaugh deal to account for that property lost to the tunnel. This position of the FAA moves us closer to solving the hmd replacement issue. In addition, further information from the FAA may assist in resolving our continued concerns over the impact the tunnel has on Dooley Rd. on the west side of the Airport. It 􀁩􀁾􀀠our belief that the best permanent solution to the Dooley Rd. question rests on the acquisition of two (2) parcels of land along Dooley Rd. Following the purchase of this land, we would then construct a connector street from Kellway Circle east east permitting easy ingress/egress from Dooley Rd. to Kellway Circle. TTA has offered to spend approximately $100,000 for the construction of the Kellway' 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁥􀀢􀁣􀁾􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁥􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀠Thomas Wade ofthe FAA has informed me that there is ron Ii elihoc e can _ access approximately $360,000 of unused FAA grant mo 0 the City of 􀁾, i_; Wichita Falls to go toward land acquisition for this connector street if required. It is 0 /)' f • 􀁾􀀠tJ1 important that we seize this opportunity to acquire these properties now and avoid more { :1'71 costly permanent access solutions for these property owners. Buying these properties also prepares the Airport for the eventual construction of the west side taxi-way and other aviation developments on the west side. For these reasons, I think the Town should go ahead and buy these properties as soon as possible. We will detail for you the exact location of these affected properties tomorrow night. There is the option of dropping all these efforts and requesting TTA begin a voluntary condemnation process on the needed properties. While a condemnation approach to the ROW issue might prove simpler, the Town would come out of an eminent domain judgement with no improvements to the Airport other than the tunnel. Our discussions thus far have included a proposal to AATI for the construction of a Jet Court hangar facility to compensate for the revenue stream lost with the removal of existing "T" and "patio" hangars along Keller Springs Rd. For this reason, staff is making every effort to make the negotiated approach work. As you see, the negotiation process associated with this project becomes quite complicated. However, I believe with Council endorsement of this proposed approach to resolving the disputed issues, we can effectively move forward. We will have Jim Duffy and our appraiser Mr. Marlin Blake at the Council meeting tomorrow night to carry you through a more in-depth discussion of the ROW process and I will further explain our plan for land replacement. Please call should you have any questions. RW:cl P.2 FROM "'''"RVICE CENTER 9316643 DRAFT July 1. 1996 Mr. James W. Griffin. P.E. Executive Director Texas Turnpike Authority 30 I S Raleigh Street Dallas. Texas 75219 Dear Mr. Grjffin: Thank you for your continued patience regarding the right-of-way acquisition for Addison Airport Toll Tuntlel. This is the single most important project for the Town of Addison and is essential for mobility in our IIrea. After reviewing YO\ll' June 141etter, we have amended our request to eliminate any further obligation for the TTA to provide replacement land in addition to the monetary proposal. The following summarizes our position regarding the outstanding issues related to the right-of-way taking: 1. /Addition.! Rj"h!-Qf-Wa,y for Dooley Road Wgrk: The Town ofAddison continues to support the concept of using pan ofthe airport to facilitate the construction of the tunnel on a temporal')' basis. However. the proposal to route Deoley Road onto the airport as a permanent facility is in conflict with the minimym FAA design requirements regarding byilding setback from the runway and part 77 protected surfaces. We want to encourage tbe 1TA to develop a permanent solution and provide access to the Dooley Road 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠north of Kel/er Springs. It appears that the connection to Kellway Circle is the most viable alternative. If the TTA will implement this solutioll or another permanent solution for reconfiguring Doolty Road. the 􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁤􀀠right-of-way goes away end this issue is resolved. 2. 􀁄􀁡􀁭􀀯􀁬􀁾􀀠at Concourse plaza fot Rl;placine Parking: Our study o{this issue concludes re-striping the parking alol'lil the righl-of-way will not replace the lost parking. Approximately 3,600 square reet ofpal'king area must be added to the leasehold at Concourse Piau to make it whole after the right-of-way is taken. Unfortunately, Mr. Duffy's estimate ofthe cost to replace the 3,600 feet of paving is somewhat low. The following elilimate identifies what we believe Is the true value ofthis cost to cure; 3,600 square feet feet of 6" concrete paving @S2.50/5q=$9,OOO.00 Landscaping, irrigation &. striping = S2,OOO.OO SII,OOO.OO FRon <;FRVICE CENTER 9316643 P. 3 Mr. Griffin DRAFT July I. 1996 Page Two 3. Damaees at Ultimate Sports Grill for flllun; Loss of farkine if R,Q W is Utilized' The simple solution to this issue is to relocate the right-Of-way line so the parking is not lost. If it is necessary to prc)vide for the future expansion oftb. intersection, then we feel obligated to develop a cost to curc tbe impact of eliminating parking during a later phase. This would involve drainage improvements, paving. landscaping and rceonfiguring the two leaseholds. 􀁗􀁾􀁤appreciate the ITA's consideration ofour request 0[$25,000 to cover our cost to cure thl.:/S ofthe tunnel on this property. 4 & S. PaWls C. D E F. G. H. J. K & L: In lieu of segregating these par;;els, we have consolidated our concerns into one issuc that we wish the Texas Turnpike Au1ll0rity consider. When the land acquisition is complete 1lle remainders of parcels C, D, E, F. G, H, J, K, & t contain an lIl'ea of 218.376.6 square feet, according to Mr. Miller. These combined remainders are configured in two lriangular tracts, and when fe·developed by the Town leaseholder, will require special engineering, due to their shape. Even with special ensineering, they will be impossible 10 fully utilize. Mr. Miller placed an aggregate value of $763,251 he combined remainders before the laking. A modest claim of 20% damage tothes. s would r II in additional compensation of$1 52,650 that we would appreciate the ITA co 􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠6. n true' . fte er review ofthe appraisal reports. it appears Ihat Mr. Miller has addressed 74,588 square feet ofthe construction easem;mt area. Our miscalculation of the area is based on an inconsistency in his appraisal rtport on Parcel F. On Page 6·A oHis report. he refers to this area as containing 2.375 square feet; whereas, 0111lle following ull-numbered page he has r"vised the area to 4,175 square feet. This would leave 2,625 square feet of area not addressed in the reports. Attached herewith is a table reflecting our calculations. We would respectfully request that the ITA consider increasing the proposed compensation by $1,654 for this item. 7. Parcels E Mud M: As stated in our previous communication, these parcels are of similar size. both ill land and improvement area. Our major concern in these properties lies in the appl"Aiser's conclusion of value of 􀁴􀁢􀁾􀀠improvements. In tbe Cost Approach of bo1I1 parcels, he reports a unit reproduction cost of $15.00 per square foot with depreciation estimaNd at forty percent. However, in the Income Approach,thc contributor value ofthese improvements ranges from S1.04 per square fool to $1.15 per square foot. This would indicate depreciation ofnine1y-two to ninety-three percent. In his appraisal reports on 1lle>;e parcels. Mr. Miller states thatlbese improvements have a remaining economic: life of 25 years. How could they be depreciated in CI