02/16/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Haws asked what other property in the area was selling for. Mr. Hanek, Parks Acquisition Specialist, said the appraisers looked for comparable land values, which ranged from $6,500 to $8,000; an adjustment had been made on this particular piece of property with regards to access to the property and the time limit involved, but that the price is within the range of comparable property in the area. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City would incur a tax. liability if the property were converted to another use than farm use, as it now stands. Mr. Long replied that there are statutes allowing withholding proceeds of the sale to pay taxes, and indicated that the negotiation sets procedures and processes. Mr. Obie asked how soon the property would be developed, to which Mr. Smith replied approximately five years, as the Peterson Park in that area had priority development. Managed indicated action should be taken at Committee of the Whole February 16. asking Council to authorize Manager and staff to exercise right of eminant domain in acquisition of the property. II. Shade Oaks Water Litigation e Mr. Long gave a background presentation for the benefit of new Council members. He explained that in 1975 people in the Shade Oaks Homeowners Association and the Willamette Water Company applied to the Boundary Commission to extend water services to the area for domestic water. The area is located outside the projected urban service boundary of the City, and EWEB sells surplus water to the Willamette Water Company. The Boundary Commission's approval of this contract amounted to directing city water through EWEB to an area outside the city urban service area. The agreement between Willamette Water Company and EWEB did not represent an agreement by the City to supply water for that area. The Boundary Commission's order was conditional upon EWEB agreeing to modify the contract so it could physically serve the area. Mr. Long indicated that Willamette Water Company can sell water wherever it wants to, and could sell from another supplier if it wanted to, or was able to. The case before the Boundary Commission dealt with a presentation by the Shade Oaks people, stating they did not have adequate water for household use, fire protection, etc. The Boundary Commission acted on the basis they simply had no water. The City testified this was contrary to City policy. When the request was granted by the Boundary Commission, three issues were at stake: (I) the integrity of the urban services area concept; (2) the county has no regulations or general or refinement plan in that area; (3) there was no proof of adequate water supply prior to the development. Mr. Long said the concerns included the effect this might have on "sprawl .a.spects" implicated in the decision, and that the Boundary Commission had not looked at or adhered to city laws or metropolitan planning policies. Therefore a Writ of Review challenging the validity of the decision was filed by the City. The Circuit Court reversed the decision for a technical reason in which Mr. Long argued that adequate legal reasons for the Boundary Commission's decision did not exist. The Boundary Commission argued that it did not have to have legal reasons. The Judge said there was no way he could determine how the Boundary Commission con- sidered or'~ached its decision. e. Executive Session 2/16/77 -2 132