New Search
Site M: Jessop 41.75 acres Current Rank: 1 Possible Cost: $1 million <br /> Willingness: The owner did not express a willingness to sell at this time, indicating that the <br /> property is jointly owned and would require agreement of multiple parties. However they did <br /> suggest a possible willingness to entertain offers at some point in the future. Interest from the <br /> owner could be described as among the lowest of the properties remaining under consideration. <br /> Analysis: This is the largest site, and offers excellent access and uncertain long -term <br /> potential for a full- service community park. It is, however, located outside the UGB and presents <br /> the associated restrictions to development of support facilities. As with many of the sites under <br /> consideration, this site is also located on prime farm land, located a short distance to the northeast <br /> of the McDougal site. <br /> PROCESS CHECK — FUNDING AND CURRENT PROPERTY VALUES <br /> As the analysis indicates, the two properties under consideration within the UGB are likely to cost 2 to <br /> 2.5 times the current available acquisition budget. The properties outside the UGB, although they are <br /> likely to cost more than the current budget, are more within reach with the addition of supplemental <br /> funds. At this point, decisions need to be made regarding how to proceed based on a number of factors: <br /> • Current available funding vs. property values <br /> • Willingness of sellers, and whether to make offers or pursue other alternatives <br /> • Timing of future bond, including the potential for additional funds <br /> • Project scope <br /> There are a range of strategies that we can pursue, including the following: <br /> Option 1. Make offers based on current funding <br /> Making no assumptions about future funding or other alternatives, the only choice remaining would be to <br /> make an offer on Site M, and Site E, in that order. This would engage the process of establishing the <br /> circumstances under which each seller would be a willing seller, if at all Offers would likely need to <br /> exceed the current, appraised market value of the properties due to the location adjacent to the UGB and <br /> resultant speculation. This would trigger either the need to seek approval by the City Council to offer <br /> more than this value, or condemnation proceedings. The recommendation would be to focus efforts on <br /> acquisition of Site M using all currently available funding and acquisition tools. <br /> Option 2. Make offers based on current and potential future funding <br /> Pursue a sales agreement for Sites D and E, in that order, to be contingent upon the successful passage of <br /> a parks acquisition bond in 2006. This would assume the addition of at $1.5 million - $2 million in <br /> acquisition funding for the community park. The recommendation would be to focus on Site D as <br /> described above, and subsequently pursue adjacent properties to expand the contiguous park property to <br /> a size suitable for full community park services (40 acres). <br /> Option 3. Wait for result of bond measure <br /> Continue conversations with property owners to narrow the conditions of willingness, and await the result <br /> of the ballot measure to determine the full potential funding source. Additional funding may trigger other <br /> opportunities beyond those considered at this time, or may facilitate the development of a purchase <br /> agreement with one of the candidate property owners. <br /> Santa Clara Community Park Acquisition - Update Page 3 <br />