West Linn holds public forum on Oppenlander property; council declines rushed May bond and seeks more options

The West Linn City Council convened a public listening session on Feb. 18 to gather community comment and consider options for the 10-acre Oppenlander site after the school district offered the city a letter of intent with a purchase timeline and a new appraisal-based asking price.

Mayor Saskia Bielandszkowski told the meeting the district’s most recent letter of intent gave the city until May to enter a purchase and sale agreement at a new asking price, and noted the updated appraisal raised the district’s expected price to $7,900,000 (district-stated figure). Several public speakers, local sports associations and children who use the park urged the council to preserve Oppenlander as open space and playing fields.

Dean (Friends of Oppenlander) and representatives of West Linn Baseball described the site’s community value. West Linn Baseball’s vice president, Seamus Barron, told the council the park provides three youth-sized fields and 2 senior regulation-size baseball fields; losing Oppenlander would eliminate half of available senior fields and “would cripple the program at the senior level.” Multiple resident speakers, including children, described Oppenlander as a unique local site for sports, recreation and neighborhood gatherings and urged the council to pursue purchase.

Speakers and advocates proposed several financing options: (1) use the city’s existing $3.5 million bond proceeds to acquire part or all of Oppenlander (the 2022 voter-authorized bond the council previously approved); (2) pursue a second local bond measure to raise the district’s asking price; (3) explore private fundraising or public–private development partnerships that would dedicate a portion of the site as a park; and (4) decline acquisition and focus funds on other priorities. Developer Icon Construction presented a compromise concept: a subdivision that would dedicate roughly the rear 3 acres as a park with two ballfields while developing the front 7 acres to create housing; the developer proposed to deliver an improved park as part of the subdivision and to use SDC credits or other mechanisms to offset public costs.

City staff provided updated ballpark capital and operating cost estimates for converting and maintaining the site as parkland. Parks staff estimated initial capital expenses for a fully developed park (restroom, play structures, drainage, pathways, surfacing and other amenities) could reach several million dollars, noting a wide contingency because no architectural design or engineering was complete. Staff also presented annual maintenance costing assumptions (frequent mowing, restroom cleaning, playground inspections and athletic-field upkeep) and noted adding the site to the city’s inventory would require additional maintenance funding or reallocation of existing services.

Several council members and participants stressed time pressure: the district’s letter set a May deadline for entering a purchase agreement tied to their timetable. Councilors said the deadline compressed the city’s options and asked whether a May ballot could be pursued; staff explained the procedural deadline to submit a ballot title for the May election would arrive within eight days, making a rushed May bond difficult and presenting significant legal and administrative risk.

Speakers urged multiple approaches: Friends of Oppenlander said they support a second bond and pledged fundraising support; others urged negotiations, land swaps or developer-led park dedication. Several councilors emphasized the need for more time for public deliberation and deep vetting of private partnership proposals. Councilors said they would not commit to a May ballot measure under the current timeline. Instead, the council signaled a preference to continue exploring options — including developer proposals, potential land swaps (for example, Parker Road property), fundraising and a November ballot — and asked staff to return with analysis, cost refinements and a schedule for additional public engagement.

There was no formal council vote to acquire the property or to place a bond on the May ballot at the meeting. City staff noted the district’s timeline and said they would continue to communicate with the district; the council asked staff to continue work on alternatives and to schedule follow-up meetings so the community and council can evaluate options carefully before any final decision.