Item 5 - Metro Plan/Land Swap - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responses to Councilor Questions a) There are a number of benefits being provided the owners in this deal that were not anticipated, could you provide a definitive list? I/ghy didn't the ciO;put this out as an RFP? 16' it a fair and legal government practice to negotiate this closely with one property owner to the exclusion of others? Some examples, splitting the cost of the land use processes now and in the future, allowing direct access to the parkfrom their newly annexed property, "owners" have to approve the city's choice of consultants and experts, guarantee that Parks will support the amendment to the Metro Plan not only for the city's interests but for the interests of the "owners," etc. Response: Real estate transactions are not subject to bidding requirements under public contracting laws, consistent with the long standing legal doctrine that each piece of land is unique. In this case, the City desires to purchase not one, but two of the property owners' parcels. The benefit to the property owner is the ability to develop their remaining property to higher densities than is currently allowed under existing zoning. The property owners realize that this is a significant benefit, and thus have agreed to a number of conditions that favor the City of Eugene, primarily the donation of parkland and the protection of the Laurel Hill Valley site. These benefits arise from their ownership of the City's preferred community park site. Any other benefits to the private property owner were by mutual agreement with City staff, who evaluated each condition of the purchase agreements to make sure that the City of Eugene would stand to benefit as much or more than the property owner by agreeing to a particular condition. b) 16' there a legal understanding of a definition for "willing seller, "and does this "collaboration "fit that definition? Response: A willing seller was one of the evaluative criteria, but not the only one. It is not a legal term, but is generally used to mean a property owner who is willing to negotiate with the City, rather than someone we would have to take to court. Other willing sellers may exist, but they do not own the preferred site for a community park to serve Santa Clara. c) How much was originally allocated in the Ballot Measure for acquisition of this park? Wasn't it only supposed to be at most a 40-acre park? Was the Moon Mountain site in the Ballot Measure as targeted for acquisition for a park? How much was allocated for it? and d) The 1998 ballot measure explanation pamphlet called for a community park of approximately 40 acres. I assume that size was set so as to be a quality, succes6ful community park site. So why are we up to 77 acres now ? Response: The bond measure earmarked approximately $1,000,000 for the purchase of a 40-acre park to serve Santa Clara. The bond measure did not target individual sites for Ridgeline Trail acquisition, but instead identified target acreage in six general planning areas. Approximately $400,000 was estimated to purchase 45 acres somewhere between 30th and Moon Mountain, of which 25 acres have already been obtained at a rough cost of $500,000. The 40-acre figure was identified as a minimum, not a maximum. While 77 acres was not originally sought, it is certainly preferable. This larger site is comparable to Amazon Park, which is 90 acres. It will accommodate the programming needs identified to-date, address future demands, and allow for the ability to provide desired natural open space in addition to active recreation facilities. It should be noted that not only does the Santa Clara area not have a Community Park, there are no Metropolitan Parks or Natural Area Parks serving River Road/Santa Clara residents. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC