COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6d Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: October 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
The land swap was designed as a non-cash transaction. However, in the $16M transaction the
Port ended up with a credit from WSDOT of $758,020. The credit the Port has with WSDOT was
utilized to pay for the lease payments for the Soil Nail Wall, the right for a future bridge and the
approach lighting system with the understanding that the Port preferred long-term easements
instead of leases. WSDOT agreed to pursue the long-term easements but did not want to hold
up the land swap. It took numerous years, but the long-term easements are now in place for
the Soil Nail Wall and Approach Lighting System. The right for a bridge over SR 518 was not
included in the change from a lease to a long-term easement because it is not a lease. The right
for a potential future bridge over SR 518 will continue to be a $2,000 expense per year and is
included in the 2020 budget requests.
The Port expended $360,226.19 of the credit for the leases between 2009 and their conversion
to long-term easements. However, there still remains a credit balance of $397,793.29 that will
be paid to the Port in connection with this transaction.
It is important to note, that the FAA has approved the sale of this property.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Do not sell the property to WSDOT.
Cost Implications: No cost implications
Pros:
(1) The site could be available for a, yet undetermined, future use.
Cons:
(1) The Port would not receive the $7,410,000 for the property.
(2) WSDOT could institute a condemnation action.
(3) The Port would not have a key component for the development of south access.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Sell the property to WSDOT.
Cost Implications: No cost implications
Pros:
(1) The Port would receive fair market value for the property, $7,410,000.
(2) The Port would accomplish a key step in the future development of south access.
Cons:
(1) The property would not be available for an alternative use.
This is the recommended alternative.