New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> To: ETTER John F; MEDLIN Johnny R; LYLE Les A; ROYER Russ C <br /> Subject: RE: Land exchange -- consent calendar item <br /> Date: Tuesday, November 05, 1996 8:46AM <br /> Re: Surplus property designation. Although Russ's original notification was copied from a process used <br /> previously by Carol Case, we might be better off not requesting the surplus property designation, since that <br /> requires publishing public notice for two weeks in the RG, along with conditions for the sale. CM isn't <br /> required to accept any particular offer, but it's conceivable that another developer could come in and offer <br /> to meet the conditions in the public notice. Conditions of disposal could be written tightly enough that <br /> nobody else could qualify, but the notice could generate interest by others who could complain. <br /> If it's on the consent calendar anyway, there's no need to declare the property surplus and go through the <br /> public notice. Code 2.872 says a proposal acceptable to the CM shall be presented to Council for its <br /> action, without further process. <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: ETTER John F; LYLE Les A; ROYER Russ C <br /> Cc: FERGUSON Joe M <br /> Subject: RE: Land exchange -- consent calendar item <br /> Date: Tuesday, November 05, 1996 8:25AM <br /> Hi Les, <br /> I'II make sure each question is answered in the briefing <br /> statement. For everyone who has been following this here are <br /> the answers as I understand them to be in brief (if anyone <br /> understands these things differently please make sure to flag <br /> them. <br /> 1. The agreement states we will either buy or exchange at our <br /> option. If the Council doesn't like the exchange idea we can <br /> fall back on the buy option (However the appraised price is <br /> REAL spendy.) <br /> 2. Getting a neighborhood park in the area is identified in <br /> the Willakenzie plan but selling a portion of the current <br /> park is not. <br /> 3. Values are set by appraisals, difference to be funded by Park SDC. <br /> 4. Similar action - Gilham Park last year. Reason - the <br /> developer has the parcel we want, he wants this one and this <br /> is a tool to get him to give it to us without exposing us to a <br /> very high per acre cost. I'm not aware if we could sell the <br /> piece on the open market and bring in enough to buy the parcel <br /> we want. With this trade being based on similar values per <br /> acre, I'm not sure it would be worth the time to open it to <br /> others. I would be interested to hear Russ' opinion on this. <br /> 5. Options might be for council to decide no new park, <br /> purchase the new park with Park SDF at the very high per acre <br /> costs which came back in the appraisal, or approve this trade. <br /> Thanks for your input Les. <br /> Johnny <br /> From: LYLE Les A <br /> To: ETTER John F; MEDLIN Johnny R; ROYER Russ C <br /> Page 1 <br />