Oregon City commission tables proposal to designate 15.93 acres as future parkland, directs manager to continue negotiations

Oregon City Commission members on Sept. 3, 1997, voted to table a staff proposal to formally designate roughly 15.93 acres near Leland Road as future parkland and instructed the city manager to continue negotiations with affected property owners and return the proposal to the commission for further consideration.

The item, presented as Commission Report 97-130, would amend the parks master plan and the comprehensive plan to identify school-district-owned property and adjacent land as potential community parkland. Planner Tamara DeRidder told the commission the change would not obligate the city to buy the land: "This in no way says we will have to buy this property. It's only a symbol identifying the area for which we need to purchase the property in the future," she said.

DeRidder and staff explained the map change would convert the school-district parcel from low-density residential to parks on the comprehensive-plan maps and that negotiations with the school district had been authorized within certain limits. Staff also reported a title/access question over a 50-foot access easement across an adjacent parcel owned by Cheryl Vincini, whose attorney provided a conditional authorization the same day as the meeting.

Public testimony included residents and neighborhood association representatives who said they supported identifying potential parkland but urged careful sequencing: several speakers told commissioners they preferred staff continue negotiations and return with a clearer status of agreements, prices and access. Neighbors and the parks advisory committee had visited the site, and supporters described the site as a relatively flat parcel that could serve as a community park for a growing area.

Several commissioners raised concerns about changing plan maps before a signed purchase agreement. Commissioners questioned whether designating a specific site could create unrealistic expectations for the property owner or complicate negotiations. Commissioner comments also emphasized that the city already has undeveloped park parcels and limited maintenance funding; one commissioner said the park maintenance budget had fallen from about $45,000 a year to approximately $17,900 and cautioned against acquiring more land without addressing upkeep of existing parks.

Staff clarified funding options and policy: system development charges (SDCs) can be used for capital improvements (for example, installing a ball field or playground) but not for routine maintenance, and SDCs can be programmed through the capital improvement plan. Commissioners discussed alternatives including a plan-level service target that identifies acreage needs rather than specific sites.

After debate, Commissioner Anne (last name not specified in the record) moved to table the proposal with instructions that the city manager continue discussions with the school district and other property owners and return the proposal to the commission. An amendment requiring staff to bring the proposal back to the commission before a specified later meeting was added. The commission voted on the motion as amended and the motion carried.

The commission did not adopt the proposed map amendments at this meeting. By tabling the item, commissioners left staff authority to continue negotiations and directed that any returned proposal include clarifications on access, ownership consent and the relationship between acquisition and the parks master plan and capital program.

Next steps outlined by commissioners and staff included: continuing confidential negotiations with the school district and private owners, clarifying the existence or scope of the access easement via title review, and returning a revised recommendation to the commission that clarifies whether a site-specific designation is required for SDC programming or whether a level-of-service approach would be preferable.