New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: ROYER Russ C <br /> To: ETTER John F; MEDLIN Johnny R; KLEIN Glenn <br /> Cc: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> Subject: RE: Moon Mountain <br /> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 1:51 PM <br /> At this point I believe Steve Nystrom was still pursuing the possibility that we would not need the fee owned strip, <br /> under a natural resource exception. <br /> I noticed you referred to the meeting being tomorrow, I just wanted to make sure you knew it is actually this <br /> afternoon at 3:00. <br /> I believe having the reversionary clause in our present acquisition should be sufficient to allow the City to convey <br /> the strip back to the parent parcel without needing to go through the public sale process, but I will forward this to <br /> Glenn for his opinion. <br /> Glenn, the City is purchasing about 35 acres for a park property and to process a partition will need to acquire an <br /> additional strip of land, connecting to a public r /w, that we want to convey back to the present owners once their <br /> property is subdivided and other access is provided. Do you see any problems with the city obligating itself to <br /> conveying it back per a reversionary condition, without having to go through the public sale process at some later <br /> date? Do you think it would be necessary to take it to council at this time to accept such a reversionary clause? <br /> Thanks. <br /> From: ETTER John F <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R; ROYER Russ C <br /> Cc: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> Subject: RE: Moon Mountain <br /> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 10:50AM <br /> The surveyor (Swanson) estimated $2000 - 3000 to do the partition and field work. Am I correct in this <br /> understanding: In order to avoid the three lots, we need to have the panhandle run around the west side of parcel <br /> one? The revised Parcel #1 would be Debbie's, combining what is both inside and outside the UGB, and the <br /> remaining and resulting Parcel #2 would be the park. (The City would commit to quitclaim the panhandle when <br /> public r/w is created via PUD /subdivision activity at the NE corner.) <br /> Before the meeting tomorrow, I think we should be able to tell Debbie what vehicle will be used to guarantee that <br /> the City releases the panhandle when the r/w to the park is created, something that exempts it from surplus land <br /> disposition proceeding and council consideration. - -John <br /> From: ROYER Russ C <br /> To: ETTER John F; MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Cc: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> Subject: Moon Mountain <br /> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 9:40AM <br /> We had discussed the City agreeing to pay for the partitioning costs to partition the Coast Resources property into <br /> 2 parcels - the one the City is purchasing and the remainder. If the re -plat of the partition involves the deeded <br /> access strip as shown on the map it will create 3 parcels, with one being less than 10 acres. It is my <br /> understanding if a parcel being created is less than 10 acres, the partitioning will require field survey work and <br /> monumenting that would not otherwise be required. When Debbie Smejkal requested the offer be amended from <br /> 2 to 3 parcels, I told her if we agreed to the change, any additional costs would need to be assumed by them. <br /> Perhaps you could get an idea from the surveyor you are using as to how much additional cost this could be. <br /> Page 1 <br />