The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem B: Santa Clara Park UpdateEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Santa Clara Community Park Update Meeting Date: May 18, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Andrea G. Riner www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-4909 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an update to City Council on the Santa Clara Community Park land acquisition project. The update includes findings from the recent telephone survey and the property appraisals requested for the Santa Clara and Laurel Hill Valley sites. BACKGROUND Funding for the acquisition of land to provide a community park for Santa Clara was included in the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond measure. Since that time, a preferred site has been identified and property negotiations with the site owners, the McDougals, have proceeded. The land acquisition strategy includes a revision of the City's Urban Growth Boundary to move 197 acres of land in Santa Clara into the UGB and move 120 acres in the Laurel Hill Valley outside of the UGB. The difference, 77 acres in Santa Clara, would be donated to the City for parkland. In addition, the City would acquire 100 of the 120 acres in Laurel Hill to complete the Ridgeline Trail between Hendricks Park, Laurelwood Golf Course, and Moon Mountain, for a price of $950,000. An additional 30 acres of Ridgeline open space would be donated by the property owners to connect the site south to 30th Avenue and other public open space. Following City Council approval to initiate the Metro Plan amendment, a series of public workshops were held in Santa Clara to further communicate the goals of the project, identify concerns and issues, and develop a conceptual site plan aimed at addressing those concerns. Initial public involvement had been conducted via a community advisory committee convened for three meetings in the summer of 2003. Due to the level of concern raised by those who attended the more recent workshops, a survey was conducted to provide a better understanding of the level of public support or concern about the project and related issues. A summary of the results of this survey, including staff analysis, is included as Attachment A. The full survey report will be made available in the Council Office, and will be placed on the Parks and Open Space web site on or before May 18. In addition to the telephone survey, the council identified the need for additional information about current property values and requested that appraisals of both the Santa Clara property and the Laurel Hill Property be conducted. The appraisals for the Santa Clara site include an evaluation of the 77-acre donation site as well as a discreet 40-acre piece that would not be acquired as part of an associated development or land swap. A summary of the results of the appraisals are included in Attachment B. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc The land swap proposal was presented to the council at a November 24, 2003, work session, following a preliminary executive session. In July 2004, the council approved a joint request from the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division and the property owners to initiate a Metro Plan amendment. The council requested appraisals of the two subject properties at a February 9, 2005, work session. Also, following a question from Councilor Kelly, Parks and Open Space staff provided a response outlining an initial evaluation of the alternative proposals presented by the Santa Clara Community Organization. This council assignment was provided to the council in its May 5 council packet. Financial/Resource Considerations Financial resources for the Santa Clara Community Park include the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond measure for land acquisition and Parks System Development Charge funding for park development. Council Goals/Priorities Acquisition of parkland can be related to a number of City Council goals, including sustainable community development, healthy natural and built environment, and providing accessible and thriving cultural and recreational opportunities. Timing Issues The current agreement between the City and the McDougals expires on July 1, 2005. Staff has received a letter from the McDougals' representative Mike Evans indicating that while they support the project, they recognize that the level of concern raised by area residents presents a challenge and that they intend to let the agreement lapse unless substantial progress can be made in the near future. A copy of this letter is provided as Attachment C. RELATED CITY POLICIES Related City policy documents include the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond measure, the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan, the 2004 Draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan and the 1998 Growth Management Study. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Proceeding with the development of findings for the Metro Plan Amendment land use process, as needed to acquire land for a community park in Santa Clara and to obtain Ridgeline open space in the Laurel Hill Valley. 2. Table the land swap/UGB expansion question. Continue discussions with the community to identify priorities for community parkland in Santa Clara as identified within the Draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. 3. Abandon the land swap proposal. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends proceeding with the development of findings for the Metro Plan amendment, which will allow the planning and analysis to prepare findings and will include addressing the concerns raised by the public to date. This level of analysis is required as part of a Metro Plan amendment process. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is required; this is a work session only. ATTACHMENTS A. Santa Clara Community Park Survey Results B. Property Appraisal Information C. Letter from Land Planning Consultants dated 4/19/2005 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Andrea G. Riner Telephone: 682-4909 Staff E-Mail: andrea.g.riner~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc ATTACHMENT A Santa Clara Community Park Survey Results The staff analysis of key survey findings and a copy of the Executive Summary of the consultant's report are attached. The full report will be provided in the Council office and on the parks website. Overview The findings from the telephone survey are typical of the project to date - conflicting and complex. While they do not give a resounding go-ahead for the proposed land swap, neither do they clearly say the project should discontinue. While more people support the proposal than oppose it throughout Eugene (combining all responses), there is a significant level of opposition, especially in 97404, and general confusion. Table 1 provides a breakdown of support and opposition for the project according to the location of the respondent (city-wide versus 97404 residents) and initial versus final opinions. Table 1. Support of Support Opposition Undecided :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Project Data (08 & Initial Ei~l Initial Eiffel Initial ~i~[ 030) Support Opposition Undecided "~ Eugene 36% ~% 19% 45% 'o o ~, o, Santa Clara rY (Zip 97404) 38% S~0/° 26% ~% 36% Project Awareness Survey results show that there is a high level of awareness of the proposal. Generally speaking, when compared to city-wide respondents, Santa Clara residents are more aware of the proposal and more opposed (although not at the same rates). Of the respondents from Santa Clara, 66% were previously aware of the proposal, with a city-wide awareness level of 50%. Survey results also show that the sources of information differ between Santa Clara and city-wide respondents. Roughly 39% of Santa Clara residents reported hearing of the proposal through either "neighbors, friends or family," or "neighborhood meetings," compared with 18% of Eugene residents. These finding suggests that the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Space's (SCCSPOS) public outreach efforts had a significant effect on the Santa Clara resident's awareness and understanding of the proposal. Survey results also reveal that a core constituent of community parks - families with children - is relatively unfamiliar with the project. Specifically, an analysis of results to Q5 of the survey states, "Those with no children, those over 45, 97494 residents, and Santa Clara residents are more likely than others to be aware of the proposed project." Reasons for Opposition The biggest concern for all respondents is the impacts of the added housing development that would result from the land swap proposal, according to an analysis of open ended responses (Q40). The arguments against the project seem to be based primarily on two fundamental issues: the desire to preserve agricultural land and a general disapproval of development and developers. While traffic and school impacts were also a concern, these were not sited as the major reasons for opposing the project. Understandably, Santa Clara residents are much more concerned about the impacts of added traffic than city-wide respondents. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc Reasons for Support Survey results identified a variety of factors as compelling reasons to support the proposed project. The factors most likely to make Eugene residents support the proposal include protection of forest and stream headwaters, not net change of the Urban Growth Boundary, community involvement in project development, and the knowledge that city services are already in place. Ultimately, arguments in favor of the project are not as clear, again stemming from the complexity of the project and the difficulty in identifying the multiple benefits of the project. For example, protecting forest and headwater streams was one of the highest rated goals by Eugene residents. However, a similar question about acquiring ridgeline open space was the lowest rated factor in question #30. Obviously, these two goals were not seen as one and the same. Potential Misunderstanding of Project An important finding from the report is that certain questions in the survey may have been misinterpreted. Results for all respondents show a dramatic increase from initial opposition to final opposition (from 23% to 41%) to the proposal, as compared to the slight increase from initial support to final support (from 37% to 38%). While this implies that additional information sways many of the undecided respondents towards opposition of the project, other results suggest that confusion and misunderstanding of the proposal heavily affected responses to Q39: "Now, after what you have heard, would you support or oppose the proposed land trade, community park, and development of property in Santa Clara?" The questions that may have been misinterpreted include Q 15, Q 16, and Q 18, which ask respondents to determine how development scenarios, likely to occur without (instead of) the proposal, affect their support for the proposal. The high rates of opposition in response to these questions contradict responses to Q30 as well as Q40, which cite the impacts of additional housing development as the primary reason for opposition. The report notes that "regarding condemnation of land, it appears that people were rating the idea of condemnation, rather than the idea that without the project, condemnation could occur. The same is true for 'without the land trade proposal, the developer wants to develop the entire parcel with housing.' In other words, a majority of participants stated that they would move towards opposing the land swap proposal if they knew that without it government condemnation was involved. Clearly, participants were actually expressing their strong opposition to condemnation as a land acquisition approach. A likely cause of the confusion and an issue that has challenged staff from the beginning is that this proposal does not translate well into easily understood "sound-bites". Hot button issues, such as annexation, condemnation, agriculture, traffic, development and developers, trigger responses that are disproportionate with other responses. Important Actions Survey results from Q30 determined the importance of various actions the City could take with regard to the proposal. Community involvement in decision-making was rated as the most important factor. This suggests that both opponents and proponents of the project want more opportunities in determining how the development will look. Whether it has been made clear that the land swap approach provides the most public involvement opportunities is not known. The next most important actions the City could take are "minimizing traffic impacts to neighbors," and "preserving prime agricultural land." These results provide useful direction to staff for refinement of the project approach. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc SANTA CLARA COMMUNITY PARK SURVEY CONDUCTED FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DIVISION March, 2005 ADVANCED ~TING RESEARCH INC. P.O. Box 5244 · Eugene, OR 97405 · Phone/Fax 541-345-6600 · www.advancedmarketingresearch.com 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 3 Purpose of the Study .......................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................... 8 Quotas Observed .......................................................... 8 Response Rate .......................................................... 9 Tests for Differences Between Proportions ............................... 9 Notes on Chi Square .......................................................... 9 Bound on Error - Weighted Data ........................................ 10 Bound on Error - Unweighted Data ........................................ 11 Differences Between Percentage Points ............................... 12 ANALYSIS OF DATA ................................................. 13 Awareness of the Proposed Project ........................................ 14 Sources of Information ................................................. 15 Initial Support of the Proposal ........................................ 16 Effect of Various Factors ................................................. 17 UGB Would be Expanded ................................................. 18 Ridgeline Trail Would Move Outside UGB ............................... 19 Forest and Stream Headwaters Would be Protected ...................... 20 No Net Change ................................................................. 21 207 Acres for $1 Million ................................................. 22 City Budget is $1 Million ................................................. 23 Condemnation of Property ................................................. 24 Condemnation Would Cost More ........................................ 25 Development on Agricultural Land ........................................ 26 Developer Wants to Develop Entire Parcel ............................... 27 Only Developed Land Would Be Annexed ............................... 28 900 Homes and 10 Acres Commercial ............................... 29 Community Involvemem ................................................. 30 Progressive Design Methods ................................................. 31 City Services are in Place ................................................. 32 Traffic Would Increase ................................................. 33 Street System Could Handle Traffic ........................................ 34 Class Size Would Increase ................................................. 35 Least Parks Per Person in Santa Clara ............................... 36 No Other Parcels Available ................................................. 37 Support Changing the UGB? ................................................. 38 Importance of Factors .......................................................... 39 Final Support of Project ................................................. 40 Reasons for Opposition ................................................. 41 DATA TABLES .......................................................... 23 QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Awareness of the Proposed Project (Q5) 50% of Eugene residents are aware of the proposed community park and neighborhood development project in Santa Clara, near Prairie and Irvington Roads, while 66% of 97404 residents are aware of the proposed project. Sources of Information (Q6) 73% of Eugene residents, and 65% of 97404 residents had heard about the proposal through news media. 29% of 97404 residents (compared with 15% of Eugene residents) had heard about the proposal from neighbors, friends, or family. (Note: "Eugene Residents" means 400 Eugene residents, including 66 97404 residents.) lnitial Support of the Proposal (Q8) 36% of Eugene residents would support or lean towards supporting a project where the City would acquire land for a large park in Santa Clara, based on a land trade proposal with a developer. 19% would oppose or lean towards opposing such a project (compared with 26% from 97404). 45% of Eugene residents are undecided, compared with 36% of 97404 residents. Effect of Various Factors (Q9-Q28) The most compelling reason to support the proposed project is that "purchasing the Ridgeline Trail property would protect forest land and stream headwaters." Other factors that would cause people to lean toward supporting the project are: "community members could be involved in how the development would look," "the proposed development would incorporate design methods for ease of living and functioning," ''there would be no change in the total amount of land available for development inside the Urban Growth Boundary," "with the land trade proposal, the City would obtain 207 acres of parks and open space for under $1 million," "the City bas a budget of $1, million to buy park land in Santa Clara," and "city services such as water, power, sewer and streets are already in place adjacent to the proposed development." The most compelling reason to oppose the proposed project is that ''the project would allow a housing development on prime agricultural land." Other factors that would cause people to lean toward opposing the project are: "added housing would increase the size of classes in some Bethel schools," ''the proposed development would include over 900 new homes and 10 acres of commercial development in Santa Clara," and ''traffic would increase near the new park and neighborhood." Regarding condemnation of land, it appears that people were rating the idea of condemnation, rather than the idea that without the project, condemnation could occur. The same is true for "without the land trade proposal, the developer wants to develop the entire parcel with housing." UGB Would Be Expanded (Q9) 36% of Eugene residents said knowing that ''the Urban Growth Boundary would be expanded to include the park and a new housing development" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 38% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 4 Ridgeline Trail Would Move Outside UGB (Q10) 36% of Eugene residents said knowing that "Ridgeline Trail land in the south hills would be moved outside the Urban Growth Boundary and purchased for parks as part of the proposal" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 38% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Forest and Stream Headwaters Would Be Protected (Qll) 65% of Eugene residents (compared with 50% of 97404 residents) said knowing that "purchasing the Ridgeline Trail property would protect forest land and stream headwaters" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 16% (compared with 25% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. No Net Change (Q12) 49% of Eugene residents said knowing that "there would be no change in the total amount of land available for development inside the Urban Growth Boundary" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 18% (compared with 26% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. 207 Acres for $1 Million (Q13) 50% of Eugene residents (compared with 43% of 97404 residents) said knowing that "with the land trade proposal, the city would obtain 207 acres of parks and open space for under $1 million" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 24% (compared with 34% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. City Budget is $1 Million (Q14) 52% of Eugene residents said knowing that ''the City has a budget of $1 million to buy park land in Santa Clara" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 26% (compared with 33% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Condemnation of Property (Q15) 16% of Eugene residents said knowing that ''without the housing development, acquiring the targeted park site and ridgeline would involve government condemnation of property" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 52% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Regarding condemnation of land, it appears that people were rating the idea of condemnation, rather than the idea that without the project, condemnation could occur. Condemnation Would Cost More (Q16) 18% of Eugene residents said knowing that "condemning the targeted park site and ridgeline would cost more than the package proposed" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 50% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 5 Regarding condemnation of land, it appears that people were rating the idea of condemnation, rather than the idea that without the project, condemnation could occur. Development on Agrieultur~! Land (Q17) 17% of Eugene residents said knowing that "the project would allow a housing development on prime agricultural land" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 65% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Developer Wants to Develop Entire Parcel (Q18) 25% of Eugene residents said knowing that "without the land trade proposal the developer wants to develop the entire parcel with housing" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 51% (compared with 59% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Regarding the developer's intent, it appears that people were rating the idea of developing the entire parcel of land, rather than the idea that without the project, the developer wants to develop the entire parcel. Only Developed Land Would Be Annexed (Q19) 38% of Eugene residents said knowing that "only the land sited for development would be annexed as part of this project" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 31% (compared with 38% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. 900 Homes and 10 Acres Commercial (Q20) 30% of Eugene residents said knowing that ''the proposed development would include over 900 new homes and ten acres of commercial development in Santa Clara" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 50% (compared with 59% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Community Involvement (Q21) 55% of Eugene residents said knowing that "community members could be involved in how the development would look" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 21% (compared with 31% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Progressive Design Methods (Q22) 51% of Eugene residents said knowing that ''the proposed development would incorporate design methods for ease of living and functioning" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 21% (compared with 29% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. City Services are in Place (Q23) 52% of Eugene residents said knowing that "city services such as water, power, sewer and streets are already in place adjacent to the proposed development" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 23% (compared with 34% of 97404 Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 6 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Traffic Would Increase (Q24) 27% of Eugene residents said knowing that "traffic would increase near the new park and neighborhood" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 42% (compared with 55% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Street System Could Handle Traffic (Q25) 41% of Eugene residents said knowing that "the street system in the area can accommodate traffic increases resulting from the proposal" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 27% (compared with 34% on 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. 9% of 97404 residents do not believe that the street system could handle the increased traffic. Class Size Would Increase (Q26) 25% of Eugene residents said knowing that "added housing would increase the size of classes in some Bethel schools" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 53% said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Least Parks Per Person in Santa Clara (Q27) 45% of Eugene residents said knowing that "Santa Clara has the least amount of park land per person in Eugene" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 24% (compared with 32% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. No Other Parcels Available (Q28) 45% of Eugene residents said knowing that '`there are no other undeveloped parcels of land available for a large community park in the Santa Clara area" would make them more likely to support, or lean toward supporting the project, while 24% (compared with 33% of 97404 residents) said this information would make them more likely to oppose, or lean toward opposing the project. Support Changing the UGB? (Q29) 38% of Eugene residents support, or lean toward supporting changing the Urban Growth Boundary in order to build a park and housing development in Santa Clam. 40% (compared with 47% of 97404 residents) oppose, or lean toward opposing such a change. Importance of Factors (Q30) Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various actions the City could take. The most important action is providing opportunities for community involvement in decision-making, followed by minimizing traffic impacts to neighbors, and preserving prime agricultural land. Slightly less important are preserving wetlands, improving citizen access to parks and open space, and providing recreation services to an area currently underserved. Of moderate importance are maintaining the current Urban Growth Boundary, and acquiring ridgeline open space in the south hills. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Final Support of Project (Q39) After hearing all of the previous statements, the level of support of the proposal by Eugene residents went t~om 36% to 40%, while the level of support by 97404 residents remained virtually flat. The real shift was away from "undecided" toward "oppose." After the information, the level of opposition by Eugene residents went from 19% to 37%, and by 97404 residents from 26% to 44%. Reasons for Opposition (Q40) The most widely-stated reason Eugene residents give for opposing the proposed project is the development/developer/growth issue, followed by traffic. For 97404 residems, these two reasons carry equal weight, followed by a lack of trust for the City. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. SANTA CLARA COMMUNITY PARK SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE PARKS DEPARTMENT March, 2005 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to assist the City of Eugene in measuring awareness of, and opinions on, the proposed land trade, housing development, and community park project in Santa Clara. METHODOLOGY Advanced Marketing Research was hired to conduct the research project in order to obtain unbiased and statistically valid results. Using questions developed in partnership with City of Eugene Parks Department staff and reviewed by key stakeholders, Advanced Marketing Research designed a questionnaire instrument to be administered by telephone. Using a random list of residents living in Eugene as a sampling frame, 400 interviews of 97404 residents, and 400 interviews with "Other Eugene" residents, were completed. 97404 residents living both inside and outside city limits were interviewed. "Other Eugene" residents living outside city limits were not included in the sample. Telephone interviews were conducted between February 24 and March 16, 2005. Proper data analysis techniques were employed by Advanced Marketing Research to avoid introducing unnecessary error and bias into the study. QUOTAS OBSERVED The gender and age quotas below were targeted in the data collection process. Males 48% to 52% Females 48% to 52% Age 65+ 12% to 20% For the data tables with the banner containing "gender," "children, .... age," and "zip codes," the 97404 data was weighted to reflect the population of that zip code relative to the other Eugene zip codes. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 9 RESPONSE RATE Of the 1,296 qualified respondents reached by telephone, 800 interviews were completed, for a response rate of 62%. The overall breakdown of numbers dialed is as follows: Refusals 496 Disconnects 178 Wrong Numbers 4 Language Barrier 3 Spanish Language Barrier 3 Business Numbers 31 Fax 11 No Answer 731 Answering Machine 581 Busy Signal 55 Call Backs 15 No Qualified Respondent 26 Quota Filled 55 Completed Interviews 800 Total Numbers Dialed 2,989 TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPORTIONS When looking at the data tables, differences between percentage amounts can be misleading, and statistical tests must be conducted to determine if the differences are statistically significant. The computer makes these calculations for us, and the results are occasional plus or minus signs at the bottom of certain cells. These indicate that those answers are more different fi.om everybody else's answers than could be expected due to chance, given the sample sizes involved. Plus signs are used if the group picks that answer more often than everyone else; minus signs if it is less than everyone else. The number of plus or minus signs indicates the level of statistical significance. One means the 90% level, two the 95% level, and three the 99% level. For example, two plus signs would mean that you can be 95% sure that the people represented by that group really would pick that answer more often than the people represented by the rest of the sample. It should be noted that this test can only be done for banner columns that contain at least 30 people. Because of this requirement, it is possible that the test will be done for some banner columns on a table and not for others. NOTES ON CHI SQUARE Thc chi square value and its associated probability arc printed beneath thc first column in each banner heading. Thc probability (p=.xxx) indicates thc probability that the heading and row variables arc not related is .xxx. For example, a .05 probability of not being related means a 95 percent chance of being related. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 10 BOUND ON ERROR - WEIGHTED DATA, REPRESENTING ALL OF EUGENE SAMPLE SIZE Bound on Error at SEX Frequency Percent 95% Confidence Level Male 192 48% 6.5% Female 208 52% 6.2% AGE 18-24 18 5% -- 25-34 53 13% 12.3% 35-44 77 19% 10.2% 45-54 85 21% 9.7% 55-64 81 20% 10.0% 65+ 84 21% 9.8% CHILDREN? Yes 135 34% 7.7% No 264 66% 5.5% ZIP CODE 97401 85 21% 9.7% 97402 103 26% 8.9% 97403 24 6% -- 97404 66 17% 11.1% 97405 100 25% 8.9% 97408 22 5% -- TOTAL 400 100% 4.5%* * What this means is that we are 95% certain that the mean response of the entire population of Eugene lies within (plus or minus) 4.5% of the survey response. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 11 BOUND ON ERROR - UNWEIGHTED DATA, REPRESENTING 97404 AND "OTHER" EUGENE SAMPLE SIZE Bound on Error at 97404 Frequency Percent 95% Confidence Level City, North of Beltline 143 36% 7.5% City, South of Beltline 53 13% 12.3% County, North of Beltline 101 25% 8.9% County, South of Beltline 103 26% 8.9% 97404 Santa Clara 244 61% 5.8% River Road 156 39% 7.2% EUGENE 97404 400 50% 4.5%* Other Eugene 400 50% 4.5%* * What this means is that we are 95% certain that the mean response of the entire population of 97404 lies within (plus or minus) 4.5% of the survey response, and we are 95% certain that the mean response of the entire population of"Other Eugene" lies within (plus or minus) 4.5%. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. 12 MINIMUM DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE POINTS REQUIRED FOR STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN COMPARISON OF REPORTED PERCENTAGES FOR SUBGROUPS WITH 95% CONFIDENCE Subsample 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 50 20% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 100 14% 13% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 150 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 200 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 250 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 300 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 350 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 400 7% 7% 7% 6% 450 7% 6% 6% 500 6% 6% 600 6% Minimums are for reported percentages near 50%. When much smaller or much larger percentages are reported, a slightly smaller minimum is required. Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. ATTACHMENT B Property Appraisal Information The attached documents provide summary information of property appraisals relating to the acquisition of land for a Santa Clara community park, including both the Santa Clara site and the Laurel Hill Valley properties. This information is provided in response to a request from Council in February of this year. Santa Clara/lrvington Property This appraisal was completed by Charles P. Thompson & Associates on April 1, 2005 with a March 24, 2005 date of value. A value of $462,000 was determined for a 77-acre parcel in the northwest corner of the subject parcel, or that area proposed for parkland within the current concept plan for the 197 acres. The property was appraised based on the present Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoning and the site remaining outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). A value of $280,000 was determined as part of the evaluation of a 40-acre parcel located in the southern portion of the 197-acre subject property adjacent to Irvington Road. This appraisal was also based on the present EFU zoning and the site remaining outside of the UGB. Additional information is attached in the excerpts from the Complete Appraisal Summary Report dated April 1, 2005, and a letter from Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. dated April 12, 2005. Laurel Hill Property Appraisals had been conducted on this site previous to the recent Council request. One was done through a request of the City as part of preliminary-property negotiations. The appraisal, also conducted by Charles P. Thompson & Associates, determined a value of $950,000 for the approximately 100 acres to be sold in fee title to the City. In addition the appraiser was asked to provide an estimate for the value of the approximately 30 acre exclusive use trail and open space easement that was proposed to be donated to the City. The appraised value of the 30 acre easement was concluded to be $1,667 per acre or $50,000 for the total easement area. These values are based on the UGB boundary exchange scenario and the site being located outside of the urban growth boundary. Additional information is attached in a letter from Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc., dated April 15, 2004 and the Complete Appraisal Summary Report excerpts dated April 6, 2004. For comparison purposes an appraisal of this site based on its value inside of the UGB is also referenced. This appraisal was previously completed for the McDougals in March of 2000 by Charles Thompson. The value derived based on that condition was $2,150,000. Additional information is attached in the Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc., letter of March 22, 2000. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc Charles E Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselors April 12, 2005 Mr. Russ Royer Senior Real Property Officer City of Eugene Public Works Engineering Division 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 RE: Complete Appraisal - Summary Report of two undeveloped land parcels located north oflrvington Road, south of Beacon Drive, east of Prairie Road, and west of River Road, Lane County, Oregon (Property owned by LeeLynn, Inc., and Wiley Mtn., Inc.) Dear Mr. Royer: During our telephone conversation on Friday, April 8, 2005, you indicated a concern involving the analysis of Sale Nos. 2 and 4. Your opinion was that these two sales seemed to support a higher value for the subject then the values reported of $6,000 per acre for Subject Parcel 2, and $7,000 per acre for Subject Parcel 1. Sale No. 2, after subtracting $50,000 for the improvements, reflected a per acre value of$5.195 per acre. My analysis was that this sale indicated a value for the two subject properties of well above this figure, i submit that $6,000 and $7,000 per acre are well above this figure. Likewise, Sale No. 4 reflected a per acre price of $5,633 per acre. Again, my values of $6,000 and $7,000 per acre are above this figure. Perhaps, based solely on these two sales, I could have gone somewhat higher, perhaps $7,000 and $8,000 per acre; however, I based the value conclusions on all of the sales, rather thanjust those two. Our discussion regarding the lack of sales of properties adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary, prompted me to search back in time to find a 2000 sale, which involved a 77.03 acre (useable) land parcel located on the west side of Greenhill Road, adjacent to Barger Drive, and approximately 1,326 feet south of its intersection with Bodenhamer Road in Lane County, Oregon. This property sold in February of 2000 for a price $250,000, or $3,245 (useable) per acre. Adjusting this for time at 4% per annum, results in a time adjusted price per acre of $3,948 per acre. While this property is similar to the subject in that it is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and involves several drainage-ways, it is considered inferior in that it is also bisected in a diagonal fashion with a BPA power line near the eastern one-third of the property. Moreover, the soils are inferior to those 1~0. BOX 10233 · EUGENE, OREGON · 97't40-2233 · TELEPftONE (54l) 343-8895 · E4X (.541) 343-5190 Russ Royer April 12, 2005 Page 2 of the subject. However, this is a two-edged sword. This property because of its less than ideal soils, might be chosen to go inside the Urban Growth Boundary before the subject, which involves Class I and II soils. If you judge the subject to be 30% superior to this sale property, which is a stretch, it would only indicate a value for the subject of $5,132 per acre. This sale property was purchased based on speculation that it might be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in the future. As such, the purchase price was significantly higher than the typical farm property transaction. We appraised the sale property in late-1999 welt below $3,245 per acre. And then in 2000, we revised the appraisal upward to $254,000 or $3,297 per acre overall, based on the useable acres of 77.03. The sale then closed at $250,000 or $3,245 per useable acre. Based on the foregoing, ! believe that my value estimates are accurate and supportable. However. in a courtroom situation, a jury might well come in at a much higher figure. As we discussed, the solution might be to value the subject property based on an "extraordinary assumption" regarding annexation. _ If you have further questions, please feel free to call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES P. THOMPSON &~ A,~C., INC. COMPLETE APPRAISAL- SUMMARY REPORT of TWO UNDEVELOPED LAND PARCELS located North of Irvington Road, South of Beacon Drive, Il East of Prairie Road, and West of River Road Eugene, Oregon Date of Report: April 1, 2005 Submitted to: Russ Royer Senior Real Property Officer City.of Eugene Public Works Engineering Division 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Date of Value: March 24, 2005 Submitted by: Charles P. Thompson, MAI, SRA Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., I~. 1234 High Street, Suite A Eugene, OR 97401 ~-' Real Estate Valuations Northwest Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselo~-s Commercial Division Charles E Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselors I April 1, 2005 I Mr. Russ Royer City of Eugene Public Works Engineering Division I 858 Pearl St. Eugene, OR 97401 I RE: Complete Appraisal- Summary Report of two undeveloped land parcels, located north of Irvington Road, South of Beacon Drive, East of Prairie Road, and West of River Road, Lane County, Oregon. The two land parcels, one containing I approximately 40 and the other parcel containing approximately 77 acres, acres, are part of Tax Lot 200, on Lane County Assessor's Map 17-04-03. I Dear Mr. Royer: Pursuant to your request, I have personally inspected the above referenced properties for the I purpose of estimating the market values thereof effective March 24, 2005. The subject properties were appraised subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions I outlined in this report. The market values of the fee simple interests in the subject properties, effective March 24, 2005, were concluded to be as follows: i Parcel I (40-acre parcel) $280,000 ($7,000 per acre) I Parcel II (77-acre parcel) $462,000 ($6,000 per acre) The two subject land parcels are part of a larger parcel, Tax Lot 200 on Lane County I Assessor's Map 17-04-03, which contains a total of approximately 197.16 acres, adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary. The current zoning is Exclusive Farm Use with a 30-acre minimum division size. I This appraisal was completed in conformity with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Also, the appraisal was done in accordance I with the 2005 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), adopted by the Appraisal Foundation. I I P.O. BOX 10233 · EUGENE, OREGON · 97440-2233 · TELEPHONE (541) 343-8895 · FAX (541) 343-5190 This summary appraisal report is respectfully submitted and your attention drawn to the "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions" as set forth'beginning on page 24. If I can be of further assistance, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES P. THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. CharleYs . State Certified General App~mi~r #C000007 PLAT MAP FOR ASSESSMENT s~o. ANDONLyTAXATION ~ L~E,.,.~o.COUNTY ~ ~ IN'EX ~9-29 SEE ~P ,~.m ~.* 004-87 ? ~OT ~.14 004-17 ~ ~ ~~ 052-29 ~ [ I Parcel II Parcel I I M~ ~2-17 ~-~ 3 ~ 1704~34 I ] ~ ~o ~ k ~ _ I Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. 1 ] C-CityEugeneSantaClara.305 Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselors April 15, 2004 Russ Royer VIA FACSIMILE: 682-503'2, Senior Real Property Officer City of Eugene - Public Works Engineering Division 858 Pearl St. Eugene, OR 97401 RE: Appraisal of the McDougal Foundation properW containing approximately 98.68 acres, located on the north side of 30th Avenue, near its intersection with Spring Boulevard, Eugene, Oregon. Assessor's Map & Tax Lot No.: 18-03-10, TL 701 Dated: April 6, 2004 Dear Mr. Royer: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed my file on the above captioned appraisal for the purpose of rendering opinions regarding the value of the land under the BPA Easement. I have included values for that portion inside this Urban Growth Boundary (Tax Lot 701) and that portion outside the Urban Growth Boundary, which was not included in the appraisal (Tax Lot 702). Tax Lot 701. the subject of the appraisal, contained approximately 98.68 acres, while Tax Lot 702 contains approximately 137.77 acres. The property which is the subject of the appraisal, Tax Lot 701 was valued in the appraisal at $950,000 or $9,627 per acre. The portion of that property under the Powerline Easement is believed to suffer a reduction in value of about two-thirds, which results in the value tbr the encumbered portion of $3,209 per acre. This portion of the subject property cannot be built-on, but has some value in that it can be used for density calculations. Tax Lot 702, the 137.77 acre parcel outside the UGB, is valued based on Sale 2 which involved a property that was divided into two 50+ acre parcels which sold in 1998 and 1999 at between $3,868 and $4,062 per acre. Using a figure of $4,000 per acre updated for time at 3% per annum, results in a time adjusted price of $5,000 per acre. This figure is utilized for the land parcel outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Reducing the $5,000 per acre by two-thirds results in a per acre value for this parcel of $1,667. P.O. BOX10233 · EUGENE, OREGON · 97+¢0-2233 · TELEPHONE (5Ztl) 343-,0,895 · [AX (541)343-5190 In imposing a second easement on both parcels, which will be utilized as a hiking trail, will not in my opinion reduce the fee value further. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES P. THOMPSON &.ASSOC. Charles P. Thompson, MAI,:SR/A COMPLETE APPRAISAL- SUMMARY REPORT of PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MCDOUGAL FOUNDATION located on THE NORTH SIDE' OF 30TIt AVENUE NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH SPRING BOULEVARD IN EUGENE, OREGON Date of Report: April 6, 2004 Submitted to: Russ Royer Senior Real Property officer City of Eugene Public Works Engineering Division 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Date of Value: March 17, 2004 Submitted by: Charles P. Thompson, MAI, SRA Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. 1234 High Street, Suite A Eugene, OR 97401 Real Estate Valuations Northwest CMrles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate,Appraisers & Counselors Commercial Division Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselors April 6, 2004 Russ Royer City of Eugene Public Works Engineering Division City of Eugene 858 Pearl St. Eugene, OR 97401 RE: Complete Appraisal- Summary Report of a 98.68 acre land parcel, located on the north side of 30th Avenue near its intersection with Spring Boulevard, Eugene, Oregon. Dear Mr. Royer: Pursuant to your request, I have personally inspected the above referenced property for the purpose of estimating the market value thereof effective March 17, 2004. The subject property was appraised subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions outlined in this report. The market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property, effective March 17, 2004, was concluded to be $950,000, based on the hypothetical condition that the property is going to be outside the Urban Growth Boundary within a one year period. The subject property is currently inside the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Eugene. However, the City plans to move the property outside the UGB after acquiring ownership. Because the subject property is currently inside the UGB, the current owners could most likely develop the property into five 20-acre homesites without annexation and the extension of utilities. Assuming this was done, and then the City acquired the property, even though it was zoned F-2, the City would have to acquire the property with the potential for five, 20- acre homesites. In order to value the subject property on an equitable basis, recognizing the now existing development potential, the subject property is appraised based on the assumption that such a division is possible, which based on information from the Lane County Planning Commission, is a reasonable assumption. P.O. BOX 10233 · EUGENE, OREGON · 97440-2233 · TELEPHONE (541)343-8895 · FAX (541)343-5190 This appraisal was completed in conformity with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Also, the appraisal was done in accordance with the 2004 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), adopted by the Appraisal Foundation. This summary appraisal report is respectfully submitted and your attention drawn to the "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions" as set forth beginning on page 30. If I can be of further assistance, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES P. THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. State Certified GePi~l~;raise~0007/~/ PLAT MAP Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. C-CityEugMcDougal.404 i ] CORRELATION AND FINAL VALUE CONCLUSION: The Direct Sales Comparison Approach resulted in a value range for the subject property on an "as is" basis effective March 17, 2004, of $6,730 to $9,307 per acre. The value was judged to be near the high end of the r.ange, and was concluded to be $9,000 per acre times 98.68 acres or $888,000, rounded. The anticipated use or development procedure is considered to be the most valid in this case, even though many of the calculations are quite subjective. This is because developer's think along these lines, rather than along the lines of the Direct Sales Comparison Approach even when good data is available, which in this case good data was not available. In conclusion, the "as is" value of the subject property, in fee simple time, effective March 17, 2004, is concluded to be $950,000. Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. C-CityEugMcDougal.404 2 9 ,Real, Estate Valuations Northwest Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. Real Estate Appraisers & Counselors March 22, 2000 McDougal Foundation Inc. c/o Mr. James A. Youel, CPA 925 Country Club Road Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mr. Youel: Pursuant to your request, I have personally inspected the following described property for the purpose of estimating the market value thereof effective March 15, 2000. Re: A 100 acre undeveloped land parcel on the northerly side of 30th Avenue ,~d at the southerly terminus of Riverview Street. Lane County Assessor's Map #18-03-10 part of Tax Lot 700 (that portion inside the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Eug'~ne). This is a Summary Appraisal Report ~vhich is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client. The subject property was appraised subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions outlined in this report. The market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property effective March 20, 2000 was concluded to be $2,150,000. This appraisal was completed in conformity with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Also, the appraisal was done in accordance with the 1999, edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), adopted by the Appraisal Foundation. P.O. BOX 10233 · EUGENE, OREGON · 97440-2233 . TELEPttONE (54 I) 343-8895 · FAX (541) 343-5190 This summary appraisal report is respectfully submitted and your attention drawn to the "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions" as set forth beginning on page 22. If I can be of further assistance, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES P. THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. sCt~a~;lecSeP.rt.i~eh~ePSn~rn~,~000007 Location 1 11/93 RA-PD 90 $11,722.7 18-04-03, TL 8400 SW Hills between Warren St. & Bailey Hill Road 2 ': 3/93 is? 1°o Easts deB .tonRoad west of Sundial 3 2/97 ~-PD 91.71 $22,300 18-04-11, TL 302 ~W Hills- Timberline & Wa~en 4 7/97 ~;;:;~ ~ ~ $~;3~8 ::: ~8~03}16~30~ SEHilh. Di0ardRoad 5 11/95 RA-PD 65.31 $19,905 18-03-03, TL 106 SE Hills - S. terminus of Henderson Avenue 6 : 5/98 : $18,571'! :18~03¢03 *L 106 SE Hills- S: te~inus of ~ :::: :' Henderson Avenue 7 6/97 ~-PD 43 $17,857 18-03-20-2 I, Extends southerly ~om TL 101 Matin Street Subj: 3/00 AGT 100 : 2: 18-03~10, TL 700 Northerly side of3ffh :: .: : : .(Pad) Ave., eastofSpring Blvd. * 1 The price per acre orS11,722 was for the land inside the ciW limits. '2 The price per acre included 12.30 acres ouBide the UGB. The price per acre for the 22.70 acres inside the UGB was $25,925. General Discussion of Comparables ' Sales 1 t~ough 7 involve a wide range of sizes and unit prices, which is Wpical for south hills subdivision land. There have been relatively few recent sales of large, residentially zoned l~d parcels in the south hills, particularly in the southeast hills, that offer reasonable comparability to the subject. The above sales r~ge in size from 19.69 acres to 91.71 acres. By comparison, the subject land parcel contains approximately I00 acres. The time frame of the sales is 3/93 to 5/98. Two of the sales took place in 1993, one in 1995, t~ee in 1997, and one in 1998. The per acre price range for the sales is from $11,722 to $25,925. Analysis of Sales - Sale 1 involved 90 acres inside the City of Eugene and 122 acres outside the city and outside the UGB. It is similar to the subject with regard to topography and access. The major differences between this sale and the subject are size and the time factor. With regard to size, a comparison of Sales 1 and 2 indicates a 56% difference in price per acre between Sale 1, a 90 acre land parcel and Sale 2 a 27.44 acre lm~d parcel. Other factors likely entered into the unit price difference, however, most of the difference is believed attributable to the size difference. With regard to the factor of time, Sales 1 and 3 are nearly the same size. Sale 1 took place in late 1993 and Sale 3 took place in early 1997, a time difference of approximately 3.25 years. The two sale properties are quite similar, therefore, most of the Chades P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. C-McDougalLand 300 19 price differential is due to the difference in time. Sale 1 sold for $11,722 per acre in 11/93 and Sale 3 sold in 2/97 for $22,300 per acre, a compound rate of increase of almost 22% per annum. However, while this rate of increase may be applicable between late 1993 and early 1997, it is not considered applicable between 1993 and 2000. The rate of increase over this longer period is significantly smaller. Even so, it is apparent from these two sales and other data that land values in the south hills have increased significantly between late 1993 and early 1997. Based on this reasoning, Sale 1 suggests a value for the subject land parcel of more than $20,000 per acre. Sale 2 is similar to the subject with regard to size and general location, but it has better access. However, the sale took place in early 1993 and values have increased significantly since that time. Based on the reasoning recited above, Sale 2 suggests a value for the subject of significantly more than $18,244 per acre. Sale 3 involved a 91.71 acre land parcel which sold in early 1997 on the basis of $22,300 per acre. This sale is similar in size to the subject, but is better located and has better access. Overall, taking into consideration the time factor, this sale suggests a value for the subject of less than $22,300 per acre. Sale 4 took place in mid-1997 and involved a 19.69 acre parcel of land in the south hills, which sold for $24,378 per acre. It is significantly smaller than the subject, but otherwise similar. However, it is considered superior with regard to access (long frontage on Dillard Road). On balance with time, this sale suggests a value for the subject of less than $24,378 per acre~ Sale 5 involved a failed sale of a land parcel near the subject, which sold in late 1995 for $19,905 per acre. This property contained approximately 65.31 acres. The price and terms had been agreed to, however reportedly, the purchasers did not follow through and the sale did not close. This transaction indicates a value for the subject of mot than $19,905 per acre. Sale 6 - In mid-1998, the City of Eugene purchased 35 acres of the 65.31 acres for a park. The price was equivalent to $18,571 per acre overall. However, 12.30 acres were outside the UGB. The price per acre for the 22.70 acres inside the UGB was $25,925 per acre. This sale suggests a value for the subject of more than $18,571 per acre and less than $25,925 per acre. Sale 7 involved a 43 acre land parcel which was assembled in two parts in mid- 1997. The total purchase price for both parcels was $430,000 or $10,000 per acre. The parcel had steep portions, significant wetlands, and relatively poor access. A plat was submitted and denied by the City. Then, in 1999 the City purchased 16 acres of the steep portion for a price of $180,000 or $11,250 per acre. The remaining 27 acres was subdivided into 59 lots, which is only 2.19 lots per acre. The lots were situated on a 14 acre portion and a 13 acre portion was left as open space to accommodate the wetlands. A simplified analysis of the seller's effective price per acre is as follows: Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. C-McDougalLand.300 20 -Mid-1997 purchase price for 43 acres $430,000 Less price received from City for 16 acres $180,000 Balance of $250,000 for 14 acres of useable land is equivalent to $17, 857 per acre effectively. This sale is considered inferior to the subject on an overall basis, although significantly smaller. On balance with size and time, this sale indicates a value foi the subject of' significantly more than $17,857 per acre. Based on the foregoing sales, the value of the subject land parcel is reasonably concluded to be $21,500 per acre or $2,150,000. Special Note: When a land parcel such as the subject has gone through various stages of approval and has reached the status of a master plan approval, the value increases significantly. However, such approval would likely take several years and large outlays of money for professionals. Moreover, there are many risks along the way. Charles P. Thompson & Assoc., Inc. C-McDougalLand.300 2 1 ATTACHMENT C LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1071 HARLOW ROAD SPRINGFIELD OR 97477 Phone 541-726-8523 April 19, 2005 Russ Royer Eugene Public Works Department 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Russ, This letter responds to your inquiry concerning the McDougals possible interest in selling a portion of their Irvington Road property to the City. The McDougals are not and never have been interested in selling any portion of the property. Neither are they interested in selling their Laurel Hill property except under the current agreement involving a "swap" of lands within the UGB. The McDougals agreed to donate land to the parks department that was in excess of the 120 acres involved in relocating land within the Urban Growth Boundary from South Eugene (the Laurel Hill site) to the Irvington site. This proposal was believed to be mutually beneficial because the City would receive land at no cost for a regional park at Irvington and land at a rural value cost for the ridgeline park area in South Eugene. In return the McDougal's would be able to develop their more site-ready Irvington property with a design integrated with a park. In additional to an area for active use, natural areas would weave through the residential development. The Irvington property is not typical rural land but is what is considered as "opportunity" property. All public facilities necessary to support urban development either abut or exist on the site; the property is located within the urban reserve; and, it is projected for urban development in 2 of 3 scenarios within the 50750 Plan. It is well understood in the development community that there is a short supply of developable land within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary. It is only a question of when the Irvington site will be included into the UGB. In addition, the sale of a portion of the site would obstruct its future logical and efficient development, especially if the propea-t3,~s street frontage is impacted. The proposal under agreement between the McDougals and the parks department terminates July 1, 2005. The McDougals do not intend to extend the agreement and will retain ownership of bo~h of the properties involved. Hopefully this letter responds adequately to your inquiry. Sincerely, Mike Evans