New Search
e <br /> amount of park lands. <br /> 2. John, did you say the park plan identified this as a number one site? <br /> 3. The value began based upon an original appraisal completed <br /> by Charles Thompson, MAI. The appraisal was premised on the <br /> highest and best use, which was as single family residential. <br /> The appraisal was for $375,000 for the 2.08 acres. This was <br /> based on 10 lots at $47,500 each, Tess costs of development, <br /> marketing, etc. Since the plat was being finaled at about <br /> that time that was a reasonable approach and value. It was <br /> then determined parks did not want to spend almost $190,000 <br /> per acre for the park. That was when the exchange option <br /> became the most feasible option for the City. The parcel the <br /> city is offering to exchange to the developer is probably at <br /> least 2 years from development, compared to the site being <br /> acquired. The difference in value was an adjustment for the <br /> time value or cost of money between being available today <br /> versus 2 years from now. A difference of $20,000 should be <br /> considered very reasonable for the City on $375,000 property. <br /> Johnny, let me know if you want more detail on the <br /> valuation. <br /> 4 and 5. From the memo's I have received from Johnny and Joe, <br /> I think these ?? are addressed. Thanks. rr <br /> From: LYLE Les A <br /> To: ETTER John F; MEDLIN Johnny R; ROYER Russ C <br /> Cc: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> Subject: RE: Land exchange -- consent calendar item <br /> Date: Tuesday, November 05, 1996 8:07AM <br /> I Thanks for sending the copy of the letter from Linda to City <br /> Council. Here are some questions that you will need to <br /> address in the briefing statement. <br /> 1. In the letter you refer to having entered into an exchange <br /> agreement dated July 17, 1996. How can you do that prior to <br /> the Council declaring the property surplus? Seems premature <br /> to have done that unless there is some clause that says this <br /> is subject to completion of the surplus declaration. Need to <br /> have the history clarified for council. <br /> 2. Is this identified in the parks plan or Willakenzie Plan as a park site? <br /> 3. What is the value of each parcel, how was the value set <br /> (general terms), and how is the difference being funded? <br /> 4. Why is this not being advertised as being surplus to the <br /> general public? You will need to explain why this is an <br /> appropriate action to only consider one property owner and why <br /> an exchange is preferred. Do we have any other examples of <br /> similar actions (Council history ?) I'm sure there are <br /> efficiencies and other justifications you can articulate. <br /> 5. What options exist for the Council to consider? <br /> ( Alternatives section of briefing). <br /> So, there you go. All that from a one paragraph memo. Sorry <br /> but these are questions that would likely come up and if we <br /> don't address them you can bank on it being pulled from <br /> consent. The more you can argue this is a good deal for the <br /> City and not a sweetheart deal for a "developer ", the more <br /> likely you are to succeed. <br /> Good luck. Thanks Les L <br /> I From: ROYER Russ C <br /> Page 2 <br />