Item 5 - Metro Plan/Land Swap - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the property using smart growth principles requires a mix of housing types. With this approach, unsubsidized but affordable housing is an expected outcome. b) In the case of the fees and expenses for the Metro Plan amendment application, including the cost of consultants, the complexity of this "special deal" will astronomically increase the cost of processing as the agreement commits the city taxpayers to paying half the costs of the above. How much more is it costing us to process this deal compared to a simple purchase from a willing seller followed by a metro plan amendment to bring the park into the UGB? (Include the costs currently accrued for all the considerable staff and legal work, and ongoing monitoring and implementation of the agreements, what about legal costs when there is a dispute?) Response: The most significant costs to date for this project was the development of the Santa Clara Community Park Advisory Committee, the consultants hired to study the land swap proposal, and the economic analysis. The cost of this work was approximately $70,000, half of which was paid for with the $35,000 Community Parks Forum Catalyst Grant from the American Planning Association. A cost estimate of the Metro Plan Amendment process is forthcoming, but it is estimated to be in the vicinity of $40,000, of which the City would pay half. This amount is felt to be less than the cost of pursuing eminent domain, developing a site master plan, and applying for a metro plan amendment. Due to specificity of the agreements, serious legal disputes are not anticipated. I understand and support the various benefits of the swap plan, but I'm worried about the costs to the citizens. As one example packet page 107 seems first to indicate that McDougal would be responsible for aY infrastructure improvements within their portion of the site, but then at 3.3 it says the McDougal will get SDC credits for part of their cost. Doesn't this mean that SDC balances will be diminished that will reduce potential application of these funds elsewhere in the city? Do we have an order of magnitude estimate of what these credits could be? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? The McDougals will be responsible for all infrastructure improvements within their portion of the site. As stated in the agreement, the McDougals are not entitled to any SDC credits for the donation of the land or for the improvements required to develop their land. The SDC credits relate to shared infrastructure improvements, mainly streets. Consistent with rules that apply to all development, SDC credits would be allowed for developer- constructed improvements which are required as a condition of development and are off-site or oversized to accommodate other future developments. These credits are calculated based on the portion of improvement costs that would otherwise be funded directly by SDCs so there is no net decrease in the balance of available SDC funds. The agreement ensures that, if the City shares in the cost of an improvement that qualifies for SDC credits, the City receives its share of the credits. A preliminary estimate of SDC credits for the overall project is in the range of $150,000 to $250,000, with parks receiving approximately 25 % of these credits. d) ~hy does the Laurel Hill Valley agreement say that the parcel is restricted to uses of conservation, parks, and trails FOR ONLY 36MONTHS? Could the Council decide after three years to sell it off j~br development? ~here did this "36 months" come from? Response: This property belongs to a charitable foundation created by the McDougals. The Foundation has appraised the property at a value that is higher than the amount the City wishes to pay for the property, based on the City's appraisal. Because the Foundation is a charitable entity, it is unwilling to accept what it views as a "discounted" purchase price unless the property is to be used for a public (charitable) purpose. The public-use restriction provides evidence for the Foundation's records that the property is being acquired for park purposes. The City was not willing to accept a permanent restriction on the property, however, and the parties were able to compromise on a limited term restriction. The public use restriction expires in 36 months after which the City will be free to use the property for any purpose that is consistent with City policies. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC