Am I the only one that finds distressing the process use to justify the Legacy Lands acquisition on the agenda for our upcoming "virtual meeting?" Speaking of land values, it is interesting that the most recent major land sale in Camas, the last of the Sharp facilities sold to nLight (which is wonderful for the City) involved a 21 acre site with 165,000 sq. ft. of building, including a clean room, for less than the City is paying for 54 acres of raw land with a number of environmental constraints. That's down from an $18 million asking price a 18 months ago. Maybe someone should look at the appraisal...
Here's the comment I submitted. I wonder if there will be any sort of answer provided.
In this interesting time of virtual meetings I provide this public comment on the proposal to approve these purchases. I absolutely support their acquisition. Lacamas Lake and our trail system are one of the big reasons I moved here. Nonetheless, I have significant concern, and questions, of the public graphics supporting acquisition.
The slides infer the City of Camas would approve subdivisions as depicted showing substantial coverage of land by residential lot and building. Never mind trees and a watercourse (that somehow disappears beneath the subdivision). This in a city where people wonder if they can fell a dead tree on their property that is threatening a structure. Despite these significant constraints, including sensitive lands draining into a ecologically signifiant lake used for recreation, these subdivisions would be approved as depicted. I would also note that both of these depicted subdivisions depend on road access through undeveloped, and unapproved properties that have yet been subject to a public review process. It is not clear that these properties have confirmed access so support this level of development.
While perhaps I should, I'm not questioning the appraisal. For all I know the value of these properties for a handful of large estates, still closed off to the public, supports the appraisal. I do know depicting the result of a lengthy public development review as a "done deal" is not appropriate. This is especially the case when the properties involved are presently seeking approval of a sub-area plan that would formalize similar significant development on sensitive lands.
Is this depiction a "wink and nod" that the City of Camas presupposes approval of exactly what a developer would submit? The inference is there. I certainly hope this isn’t the case.
Before the Council votes on these acquisitions, I request the City Attorney answer the following questions:
(1) Does the depiction of development, specifically subdivision, in any manner imply or prejudge what the full City review of a development submittal would result in?”
(2) Does depiction of these potential developments in any manner imply the City of Camas supports and considers approvable further development proposals on adjacent properties within the North Shore sub-area plan still going through a public planning process, let alone development review?
(3) Do these subdivisions, as depicted, have approved access suitable for this intensity of development? Does this potential road access depend on expenditure of public money?
(4) Finally, if subdivision of this land was considered feasible and achievable, where do services (water and sewage) come from and does it require expenditure of any public money to make this development possible?
In conclusion, I ask you if a common person looking at those maps, seeing that both rely on road access from the undeveloped North Shore, and seeing these in a City document, would reasonably conclude that decisions on North Shore development have been made? I surely hope this isn’t the case. Moreover, it is this type of miscommunication with the public that led to the revolt against the Aquatic Center. Camas wants transparency.
Again I support the acquisition, but believe the justification for them cannot be circumvention of a public planning process. To preserve the sanctity of the City’s future planning options, I request these answers in the public record before approval.
Having grown up in the San Fernando Valley, whose existence is due to the aqueduct the subject of this movie, it is so very true. The whole story of Los Angeles draining Owens, and then almost Mono Lake. Let's keep Camas away from this world!
Randal, John, Phil.....Good work on your analysis and questions raised.
This whole thing, except for the concept of land preservation with no development, does not pass the smells bad test.
Too many people involved with too much opportunity for side deals and money to be shuffled around.
Looks like a duck, Quacks like a duck.........
Time to find a copy of, and watch, "The Flim Flam Man"...staring George C. Scott.
The agenda for tonight's meeting states " Closing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Earnest Money Provision" So does that mean it has been decided already and we are just being told this is how it's going to be like every other time?
I wanted to clarify that the numbers in the 2017 then Mayor Higgins presentation were for prior acquisitions including the Mills property. I haven't heard of any estimate the City has given out.
Having said that, I still think the cost is high, and that cost must be inferring the near inevitability of the City approving such a use. That's the crux of my public comment: Did the City including those maps essentially validate the real estate market's perceptions of the North Shore and if not, the City needs to publicly say so tonight. If that is what the City thinks, then why are we bothering to have this planning process. Let's move to downtown! Further, if we are paying top dollar for this then maybe the City should consider some creative use of the property not directly needed for Lake buffer.
For anyone following along, here's the newest story from WATCH Camas: What is a legacy land? Or Camas' "Inevitability" Problem
I concur John & No it does not make any sense & I believe theres' no way we can trust this city or the council. If this land needs to be purchased then we need to find ways to pay for it without putting us all in the poor house. What about Conservatory purchases, grants, state or federal money to save this land, this is an on going problem in our society there must be ways to protect this land.
City Council member Ellen Burton published a link to the following on her Facebook page. It's a 4-page "legacy lands" document.
Note the WSP at the bottom left.
I viewed this page as a questionable sales pitch. "Let us spend $17 million of your money, or else you'll get these subdivisions built."
Because the next graphic shows no subdivisions at all. Just nice walking and hiking trails.
Easy question #1 -- will the city GUARANTEE there will be no subdivisions on ANY of the acquired properties?
I doubt it.
Next question. Did the high-priced consultant WSP create the subdivisions in the first graphic? Did Camas taxpayers money fund the graphic of those "possible" subdivisions?
Let me tie this back to the information in the original posting. The Rose property valuation, over time.
I discovered the Clark County Assessor had valued the property at $365,000 back in 2014. It jumped to $1.65 million over a couple years. And last year jumped FIVE FOLD to $8.2 million.
What caused the value to increase FIVE FOLD?
In fact one could say the property jumped more than TWENTY FOLD, from $365,000 to $8.2 million from 2014 to 2020.
Did the Rose family get the land rezoned? If so, when?
Did the Rose family submit a plan to develop the land and did they pay for the graphic showing the layout of THEIR proposed subdivision? If so, when?
Or did the city begin negotiating with the Rose family, without their being a rezone of the land? Did the city begin negotiating with the Rose family without a specific subdivision/development plan being proposed or discussed?
What caused the value of the land to skyrocket?
The city proposal will REMOVE an $8.2 million parcel (Rose) from the property tax rolls. That reduces money from schools, in addition to removing property tax money from the city.
How much did the city pay WSP to create these maps? Who is driving this train, WSP or members of our city council or members of the city staff?
Finally, and most importantly, the city is BORROWING the money to make the $7.5 million purchase. It will require annual payments of $1.6 million from our money, at a time when we know taxpayer revenues to cities, counties and the state will shrink significantly.
Does any of this make sense?
Ditto!
I am very suspicious of the price paid for the legacy lands vs the price paid for the UL and Sharp campuses. I know the appraisals use a “ highest and best use“ standard, but a maximum density subdivision without any mitigation land, storm water control, etc is a false and unrealistic comparison . I would be very interested to see the appraisals. It seems like our city is being hosed , and I would like to know why.
Closer to home, consider the UL property the Camas School District purchased last year. 57 acres with 115,000 sq ft. of improvements for $11.2 million.. All utilities are right there and it is in a high value area of Camas. There is quite a bit of vacant land in addition to the campus UL used. There's quite a bit more development potential there. The entire property is zoned Light Industry/Business Park. Everything I see is property values already trending down before the virus hit. What bothers me even more is the inference I spoke of that basically says "who needs planning and approvals...just assume the very best outcome and value accordingly." Even with this, it seems overvalued compared to the last two large holdings sold in Camas. Too bad this is being virtually approved...I'm really curious what sort of answer we are given prior to the vote.
Randal -- thank you for your thoughtful post.
I DO question the valuation of the property. Why? Because I went to the county assessor website and found the following information.
https://gis.clark.wa.gov/gishome/Property/?pid=findSN&account=175721000#
The 2019 valuation (done BEFORE the land was under contract with the city in Jan. 2020) has a listed value of $8.22 million.
Prior year valuations:
2018 -- $1.65 million
2017 -- $1.5 million
2016 -- $1.4 million
2015 -- $1.2 million
2014 -- $365,610
What caused the Clark County Assessor's office to raise the valuation by $6.6 million in one year?
Was the land rezoned for a subdivision? Was there already an agreement in place (but not closed) to sell the land to the city for the $7-$8 million price tag?
Something is not passing the smell test here. I now have more questions that we, the taxpayers have answers to.
Is the city over-paying for this land? Surely today, in the reality of the Covid-19 Coronavirus "shelter at home" with record unemployment, real estate values will decline. If the 2008 Great Recession is a guide, real estate values will plummet precipitously.
Here's a graphic of the changed value from the Assessor website.
And Thank You Randal for your insight!
Randy
I would suggest an Attorney For the Citizens of Camas review the everything the City is trying to do.
I would like to see North Shore as a Dead Deal !!! No More Developments!
We do not "NEED" to do this, We "NEED" to protect our habitat!
So many of us moved here to enjoy the beauty we are surrounded by.