GJN3863 LA Lane County backup - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

To: ROYER Russ C Cc: FREEMAN Doug K Subject: FW: A-2 Channel properties Russ: Here is the result of Doug's research into the potential value of these parcels. I would feel comfortable recommending their sale to the City subject to a restriction for continuing public use. If you could send me a written request, I will prepare the materials for consideration by the Board. It would help if you could include some information as to what is planned out there. Frank Simas Right of Way Manager Lane County Public Works 3040 N. Delta Highway Eugene, OR 97408 (541) 682-6980 ______________________________________________ From: FREEMAN Doug K Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:41 PM To: SIMAS Frank D Subject: A-2 Channel properties Frank: I completed some research on the 3 contiguous County-owned parcels located between Jessen and Beltline, as well as researching the parcel located east of Terry Street. I found the following and am sending it to you for review and value consideration before forwarding to Russ. The parcels adjacent to Beltline, including 17-04-16-41, TL 9100 (1.43 acres), 17-04-16-14 TL 6400 (.09 acres) and 17- 04-16-42, TL 1800 (.03 acres) were, as Russ indicated in his earlier email, acquired by the County back in the late 1960's and for the purpose of re-routing the (now) A-2 channel in conjunction with the County's construction of Beltline. It is assumed that the two small triangular-shaped parcels were acquired for the purpose of maintaining the alignment of the channel, while the larger tax lot was acquired for actual channel construction. Over the course of the years the County has sold pieces and parts of tax lots adjoining to the south; primarily TL 9200 was sold to EWEB and a sliver of TL 9100 was sold to a private party and to EWEB. As maintenance staff is not available here on Fridays, I was unable to confirm whether the County or the City of Eugene are maintaining the channel, but as we do not have these on our mowing lists, I imagine Russ is correct in his statement that the City is probably maintaining them. All 3 of these parcels are located inside the Eugene city limits and are all zoned Low Density Residential. In considering value, the two smaller parcels have essentially no independent market value, whether considered separately or as part of the larger tax lot. Proximity to the channel, small size, irregular configuration and, in the case of TL 6400, lack of access, would probably preclude the "market" from assigning much, if any, value. Small sections of TL 9100 on the north side could provide some contributory value in an Across the Fence valuation, to the residence and field on that side of the channel, and it appears from the aerial that those ownerships are using those sections in any event. On a whole, however, this parcel is essentially a drainage ditch. Despite the legally permissible use, the configuration and location of the channel down the middle of the parcel realistically precludes the use of this parcel as a homesite. The properties bordering TL 9100 to the north are part of a semi-rural subdivision comprised of lots ranging from about 1/2 to 1 acre in size. Based on their location adjacent to Beltline, I estimate the land only for these lots would market in the $100,000 range, or about $2 to $2.50 per square foot. Technically, about 4,500 square feet of TL 9100 could be joined with the lot to the northwest and approximately 2700 square feet could be joined with the pasture area to the northeast. and, based on our methodology of purchasing right-of-way, the addition of those areas to each of the northern lots would be worth about $9,000 and $5,400; respectively. From a real market standpoint, however, I doubt there is much market difference between a .73-acre and a .9 acre parcel in this area, so going through the partitioning process to add to these ownerships, in my viewpoint, would not be worth the cost of getting there and would essentially be a wash. For these reasons, considering the benefit to the public of these lands remaining in public ownership, the potential for a bike path for public use and reduced County costs in the event maintenance ever became an issue, I would assign a de 2