Park Acquisitions - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

B. Background and Analysis The Crescent park site was acquired in 1983 to both serve as a neighborhood park, and to provide space for athletic fields for broader community. Such development would be modeled after other joint school /city park site developments elsewhere in the city wherein such coordination results in economies of both development and operation. In the early 1990's plans for this area began taking shape. The result was that the park would be effectively be at the end or corner of a neighborhood rather than in the middle of it. For neighborhood park purposes, more people would be served by a relocation toward the middle. The new location is much more central to the development now occurring, including a medium density residential area south of Crescent Avenue. Second, Sacred Heart Hospital will be developing the site immediately south of the existing park, eliminating a high density residential development that would have benefitted from having an adjacent neighborhood park. Third, assuming that an elementary school is built on the 4 -J site, the school playground would somewhat duplicate what the city neighborhood park offers. In the context of policies in both the Willakenzie Plan and the Parks Plan, reevaluation of existing assets is encouraged with the objective that a better location or arrangement of assets can result. The objectives of the site in relation to the school are met, with remaining 8.92 acres dedicated to athletic field development in coordination with school development. The high ranking this park received based on site evaluation criteria can be largely attributed to the size of the population it is projected to serve, and avoiding a duplication of facilities that would eventually be provided by 4 -J with the school. The value of the new site was appraised by Charles Thompson, MAI. A raw land value of $132,000 per acre (for 2.08 acres) was too high to be purchased outright. For purposes of an exchange, it was agreed to consider both sites of equal ultimate value, but that the new site had a $20,000 advantage since that area is served with streets and utilities and available for immediate marketing. ($20,000 represents a negotiated cost for holding an asset valued at $275,000 until development in two -to- -three years, or about 3.6% per year if in two years.) This cost will be paid from the Parks Systems Development Fund. C. Alternatives /Options 1. Proceed with the exchange as recommended. 2. Outright purchase: If the City were to pay the appraised price, the cost would have been $275,000. In discussions with the developer, there was an indication that a slight reduction might be negotiated, but not enough to suggest that limited funding should be used for a site valued so much above opportunities that exist in other parts of the city.