Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 3/8/2010 . . MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: March 8, 2010 TO: Mary Smith, Accounting Technician/Assessments FROM: Brenda Jones, Administrative Specialist SUBJECT: Reconciliation of Miscellaneous Deposits Oak Leaf Property- BM 37 Deposit, receipt # 320080000000000602 The following deposit fees totaling $ 500.00 were deposited in Miscellaneous Deposits account 821-215525 to off-set City cost regarding BM 37 Claim. City cost for processing 8M37 Application $3,256.74. No refund due to applicant Deposit Date 12/1/2006 LRP2006-00033 Oak Leaf Property Mgmt. 602 Amount of Deposit $500.00 Journal Number Name of Applicant Receipt # Please make the following Joumal entries to re-class the applicant's deposit in . Miscellaneous Deposit, for reimbursement of City cost incurred on the project: $500.00 to 481001-100-00000 If YO' h",,, aoy '''''''''0"" pl~" 00"",01 Breoda '"j;' at exte Date Signed: ~ A1' J1 1.;;.&1 () . Approved: City Manager Date Signed: ) (" II b . Date Received MAR 82010 Planner: BJ " City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 \ 541.726.3753 DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION UNDER BALLOT MEASURE 37 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (Please type or print) McKav Investment Companv. LLC Name of Property Owner Name of Firm James W. Spickerman Name of Representa~ve (If Any) Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott LLP Name of Firm 2350 Oalcmont Wav. #204 Street Address Eugene. OR 9740i City, State, Zip 485-4711 Phone 975 Oale Street. Suite 800 Street Address Eugene. OR 97440.1147 City, State, Zip Fax 686-8833 Phone 345.2034 Fax 485-4714 Public Meeting Does Owner request a public meeting? Yes No]!; Private Real Property Description A Demand shall be for a single property or separate contIguous properties under the same ownership. Map and Tax Lot # 17.03.25.34 tax lot 3900 Site Address 1650 Centennial Boulevard. Springfield. OR Owner's Interest in the Real Property Fee Title REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (SEE REVERSE OF THIS FORM) AND COMPLETENESS This Demand and' all attachments required on the reverse side of this form must be provided' before acceptance by the City Manager. Only after acceptance will the 180 day processing period commence as specified under Ballot Measure 37. (Springfield Municipal Code Sec. 2.900 et sec.) NOTARIZED SIGNATURES I, J. Douglas McKay, Member- In McKa depose and say that I/we am/are the owne <;r20::ofl:De~sa:e I ~re ! Repn!$entatlve SI a Owner SlgnabJre Subscribed to me tl1ls 30~ day of 11 OV ~ 20.Jl.Jg". Notary Signature Notary Stamp I) OfFICIAl. SEAL .. 11IACY A STRODI! .. .i NOTARYPUBlIC-OAEGON .. ... COMMISSION NO. A388292 MY cor.MIS ON EXI'IRE JAJIlJARY 6 2009 DISCLAIMER NOTICE: Approval ofcompcnsationormodification, n:m()\lal ornon-application orland use n:guIlltion doC! not WIU'I'Ul1t or otherwise gunruntee that. the pn::lcnt prnpmy owner orlny SUCCCS30r3 inten:st can legolly use the subject property for the purpose, or in the manner, approved by the City Il5 such use or purpose may impact third parties. including right:! establi5hed by Covenant!, Conditions and RL!trictions (CC&.R3). other privnte restrictions., or other regulations. restrictions or contnu:ts. STAFF COMPLETES T,llS SECTION \ File# 1K12JIio.:f11ll Date Demand Submitted /1/'( 0 ~ . Received by: ~, . -fh~ Fee P:- -1 '?D. bO .Date Demand Accepted for Processing ived 'W,R' 82010 Planner: BJ. . . CHECKUST & REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION - BALLOT MEASURE 37 Reference Springfield Municipal Code,~ections 2.920(4), 2.930 and 2.940 1. Application Form. A completed application famn (the front page of this packet must be filled aut) to indude: a) The name, mailing address, telephone number and authorization signatures for all the property Owners or contract Owners; b)The designated Owner or agent who is the Owner's designated representative regarding the processing of the application; and c) Every Lessee and Lessor of the property and their mailing address and telephone number. Please use additional sheets if all the information cannot fit an the front page. 2. Property Description. A legal description and tax lot number of the property as well as a street address far the property (if any). 3. Title Report A title report issued within 30 calendar days of the application's submittal, induding: a) Title history; b) A statement of the date the Owner acquired Ownership of the property; c) The ownership Interests of all Owners of the property; d) Every person or entity holding a lien against or security interest In the property, and (e) Every person or entity holding a future, contingent, or ather Interest of any kind In the property. 4. Copy of Regulations Applicable to the Demand A statement specifically identifying all the sections of the Springfield Municipal Code, Springfield Development Code, or ather current land use regulation that allegedly restrict(s) the use of the real property and allegedly causes a reduction In the fair market value of the property. 5. Demand Statement. A statement specifying: a) The proposed use of the property; b) The amount of the Demand and the fair market vaiue of the property before and after application of the identified land use regulation; c) To wham any compensation determined must be paid and why the Owner is entitled to compensation under the requirements of the provisions added to ORS Chapter 197 by Ballot Measure 37 (see also Item 6 below). 6. Demand Criteria. A statement addressing s!I of the fallowing criteria: a) The City has either enacted or enforced a land use regulation that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein; b) The restriction on use has the effect of redudng the fair market value of the subject property or any interest therein; c) The identified land use regulation was enacted, enfarced or applied after the current Owner of the property (the OWner) became the Owner; and d) The identified reguiation is not an exempt reg.Jlation as defined in SMC Section 2.920(4). _7. Appraisal. An appraisal by an appraiser licensed by the Appraiser Certification and Ucensure Board of the State of Oregon supporting the amount of the Demand that addresses the following issues: a) The appraisal must expressly note all existing Infrastructure limitations and value the property without an assumption that the infrastructure will be improved at governmental expense or through discretionary governmental action; b) The appraisal must expressly address and indIcate the amount of the alleged reduction in the fair market value of the property at the time a complete Demand is submitted to the City by showing the difference In the fair market value of the property resulting from-enactment or enforcement of each of the identified regulations individually identlfied in the Demand and after the application of ail of the identified regulations cumulatively; and c) The appraisal must expressly consider the effect of the aforesaid Ballot Measure 37 on the availability of ather real property induding the extent to which the supply of such ather real property is or will be.lncreased due to the non--enforcement, discontinuance, repeal or waiver of regulations following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 (see also Item 11 below). . 8. Additional Documentation. Caples of any leases or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CCR's) applicable to the real property, if any, that Impose restrictions on the use of the property. 9. Acc:ess to Property. Written permission for access to the property by the City Manager or his/her designee induding but not limited to agents or appraisers necessary to evaluate and appraise the property and the Demand for purposes of determinIng whether or not regulation(s) have had the effect of redudng the fair market value of the property. _ 10. Fee. A Demand shall include a fee established by Coundl resolution to at least partially cover the City's cost of processing the Demand. If a Demand is detemnlned to be a Valid Demand' the City shall reimburse the Owner far any fee paid. _11.Statement Regarding Exempt Land Use Regulations. A statement by the Owner making the Demand of why the fallowing exemptlons to the requirement far compensation do not apply: a) Restricts and prohibits commonly and historically recognized public nuisances under common law, induding but not limited to SMC Chapter 5 as amended from tlme to time and the criminal laws of the State of Oregan and the City of Springfield; b) Restricts or prohibits activities far the protection of public health and safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, and pollution control regulations; 0) Is required to comply with federai law; d) Restricts or prohibits the use of property far the purpose of selling pomography or perfomning nude dandng; or e) Was enacted prior to the date of the acquisition of the property by the Owner, or prior to acquisition by a family member of the Owner who owned the subject property prior to the acquisiti:ln or Inheritance by the Owner, whichever came first [If "family member" status is claimed, it must also be addressed in.the title report required by Item 3. above]. Date Received . MAR 8 2010 Planner: BJ . . " December 1, 2006 Hand Delivered Attn: Greg Mott or Gary Karp City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Demand for Compensation Under Ballot Measure 37 Dear Development Services Department: This fIrin represents McKay Investment Company, LLC in its demand pursuant to Ballot Measure 37 for waiver or compensation pertaining to land use regulations for property located at 1650 Centennial Boulevard, SpringfIeld, Oregon, map no. 17-03-25-34, tax lot 3900. Attached as Exhibit A is the status of title report confIrming our client's ownership of the subject property. McKay Investment Company, LLC intends to construct a major commercial development on the subject site. More specifIc information concerning the proposed development may become available during the processing orthis claim. As you know, Ballot Measure 37, ORS 197.352(1), provides that if any land use regulation placed on properties has the effect of "reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein...," the owner of the property must be paid compensation for the loss of value or. the land use regulations waived. The subject property was conveyed to McKay Investment Company by Warranty Deed on August 1, 1962. A copy of that deed is attached as Exhibit B. That company, a co- partnership, included as partners J. Douglas McKay and Linda Lee McKay which is reflected in Exhibit B. Phone: (541) 686-8833 Fax: (541) 345-2034 975 Oak Stn=et Suite 800 Eugene, Oregon 97401-3156 Mailing Address: P.O. Box] 147 Eugene, Oregon 97440-1147 Emai!: info@orbuslaw.com Web-Site; www.orbuslaw.com Sean M. Bannon Frederick A. Batson )onV, Bumtatte Josh", A. Clark A.j. Giustina Thomas P. E. Hemmmn* Dan Webb Howard Stephen O. Lane William H. Martin' Laura T. Z. Montgomc=ryt Tanya C. O'Neil StandleeG. Potter Ian T. Richardson Martha), Rodman Douglas R. Schultz Malcolll) H. Scott James w. 5pickerman Kate A. Thompson Jane M. Yates On January 1,2000, the subject property was conveyed by McKay Investment Company, aka McKay Investment Co., a partnership, to 'Also.dmitt,d McKay Investment Company, LLC by Warranty Deed. A copy of 93ate Received MAR 8.201Q Planner: BJ . . €:ity of Springfield Development Services Department December 1,'2006 Page 2 deed is attached as Exhibit C. McKay Investment Company, LLC included as members J. Douglas McKay and LindaMcKay Korth, members of the original partnership. A copy of the fIrst page of the January 1, 2000 Operating Agreement confIrming the continued ownership is attached as Exhibit D. While it may not be the case that some transfers between one entity and another entity constitutes a change in ownership, here J. Douglas McKay and Linda McKay Korth have retained ownership of the property "or an interest therein" from the date of the 1962 conveyance. Our client seeks compensation for the effect on the value of the property for all land use regulations applied to the subject property, since that 1962 date or a waiver of those regulations. Adequate compensation for the burden of regulations adopted since 1962 would exceed that indicated in the appraisal referenced below. I am aware that some local governments have claimed some transfers , to limited liability companies constitute a change in ownership. As indicated above, particularly in this instance, we do not believe that is the case. For purposes of this claim, should there be a fmal decision on that issue at the Oregon Supreme Court or the Oregon Court of Appeals determining such a transfer is a change in ownership, we' demand compensation or waiver of all nonexempt regulations applied to the property since January 1, 2000. Regulations applied'to the property since that 2000 date for which waiver or compensation is sought include, but are not limited to, application of the Nodal Development Overlay designation to the property, the Mixed-Use Commercial designation, all provisions of the Springfield Development Code in Article 31, Minimum Development Standards and Site Plan Review Standards, and Article 32, Public and Private Improvements. Attached as Exhibit E is a letter from Richard J. Duncan, MAl, SRA, Duncan & Brown, establishing the effects of the Mixed-Use Commercial zone on the value of the subject property. Attached as Exhibit F is a supplemental letter provided by Alan Evans pertaining to the effect on value of these regulations and, in particular, the effect of site review requirements on the value of the property. Mr. Evans has been a commercial real estate broker with a primary focus on retail real estate for more than 20 years. The intent is to include in this claim all necessary information for ~~ . City to process the Measure 37 claim. While there may be indivi~te Received MAR 8 2010 Planner: 8J . City of Springfield Development Services Department December 1,"2006 Page 3 , . requirements of the City ordinance for such a claim which may not be addressed here, ORS 197.352 does not contain such requirements but only the requirement of a demand on the government body. If there is additional information that would be of assistance in processing this claim, please advise me. Attachments: Filing Fee $500 Exhibit A Title Report Exhibit B Warranty Deed (1962) Exhibit C Warranty Deed (2000) Exhibit D Operating Agreement (1/1/00, 1st page) Exhibit E Duncan & Brown Report (9/19/06) Exhibit F Alan Evans supplement letter (11/28/06) Jca cc: McKay Investment Company, LLC (w/o att) Joseph J. Leahy (wiatt) Date Received MAR 8 2010 Planner: BJ . Exhibit E . DUNCAN & BROWN, Inc. REAL ESTATE ANALYSTS iJJ RICHARD]. DUNCAN, MAl, SRA COREY S. DINGMAN JASEN D. HANSEN \ ASS0CL47ES moMAS S. MORGAN ALAN ClARK DAVID 1. CEIl.ERS LEAH CARTER Cl.lNT BECRAFT September 19, 2006 OF COUNSEL JOHN H. BROWN. MAl McKay Investment Company, LLC 2350 Oakmont Way, Suite 204 Eugene, OR 97401 RE: Mohawk Property Springfield, OR Dear Ms. Korth- This letter is in response to our recent conversation regarding the approximate 9 acres as referred to above that is located adjacent to the Bi-Mart property on Mohawk Blvd. in. Springfield. You were interested in my input concerning any potential loss of value due to the change in zoning from Major Retail Center to Mixed-Use Commercial. As a basis for discussing loss, the $5,600,000 offer you have on the property would seem to be a good starting point as a basis of the value of your property "as vacant" under its prior zoning of MRC, which I understand would have to be the zoning for tl:ris buyer. The rezone of properties to Mixed-Use Commercial under the Springfield code is somewhat similar to that in the Eugene code. Although Mixed Use zoning has occurred, both communities are having difficulty attracting redevelopment into these mixed-use areas. The main problem is the high cost that is incurred in this type of development. Mixed use developments have not been shown to be financially feasible in either community. Mixed use commercial development may be successful at some point in the future, but to date mixed use projects are generally untested. I have had discussions with several developers who have tried to develop projects that fit within these mixed-use .areas. To date all have said that without major subsidies the projects simply do not "pencil out". The main reason is because of the high increase in development costs that do not return a significant amount of income to cover the cost. The building and site cost components for development are the most difficult to control, because there are so many different building elements that are brought together. In most situations where these projects have been "successful", either land is acquired at a very low cost and/or there are government subsidies or abatements that allow for an increased cash flow, or reduced cost; usually occurring when land is given or sold cheaply. A great example of that currently is the old Sears site in Eugene, in which the City is looking to offer the property at a nominal price simply to attract a mixed-use project. After reviewing the Springfield devejj'afe ~eceived 1260 CHARNELTON STREET, EUGENE, OREGON 97401 (541) 687-1938/683-3400 FAX (541) 683-0932 infO@duncanbrown.co"h1 ' BJ ROSEBURG, OREGON (541) 673-3300 r anner: . MAR 82010 . . '. and other proposed projects, it would seem that a large reduction in the value of the land would be required before a project might be successful. After reviewing the information on mixed-use projects, it's evident that likely the highest and best use of the property is as it currently exists, because the return to value based on current income exceeds the value of the "mixed use zoned" land "if vacant" if a new project is required to be a mixed-use development (as discussed above). Truly, if someone is to buy today under the current zoning, that buyer would look to the existing property and its current income stream as the basis of value. I do not believe a buyer today would add value with the hope that at some unknown future date the property could be redeveloped. I would venture to say that, at this point, the Mohawk area of Springfield is one of the less desirable locations for a mixed-use project. The economics and demographics of some of the other mixed-use areas in Eugene-Springfield would likely better afford an opportunity for a more successful project. Since the conclude Highest and Best Use of the property currently is as it exists, a simple income approach will offer a general value range for the property. A typical buyer would expect a property of this caliber to be purchased for an overall rate in the .075 to .080 range. Based on a review of the property's 2005 and year-to-date 2006 income and expense information, the expected net operating income (NOl) would be about $275,000 to $300,000. Based on the above discussed overall rates and expected NO!, the current value of the property based on its income/expense data is well below the current offer of $5,600,000. Hopefully this information will help in your decision as to how to best work with that property. Respectfully Submitted, Date Received MAR 8 2010 Planner: BJ <;. t,_,," -. .', . .,~'-,. E-.:~ans,;t~;: m'vd, &;;':",:,',:.: er "', './f B....own,\r:lK !1.' [rlet . .' . ".:";,~~'i.: . . Exhibit F COMMERCiAL REAL ESTATE ", November 28, 2006 Mr. James Spickerman Gleaves, Swearingen, Potter & Scott, LLP 975 Oak Street, Suite 800 Eugene, OR 97401 Re: M 37 Claiml Mohawk Shopping Center Dear Jim: I have reviewed the letter that Rick Duncan has written and wish to offer some supporting evidence of loss of value. The imposition of the MUC zone makes the property unusable for its highest and best use, which is for a major retail format anchor store. This use is consistent with the owner's present offer of $5,600,000. If this property is sold as-is, with the MUC zoning in place, we would have to capitalize the existing net operating income of approximately $300,000. The capitalization rate would be heavily weighted by the physical and functional obsolescence of the present improvements, the short-term nature of most of the leases, and the fact that the property is contaminated and subject to a DEQ clean up. A market rate cap without these factors would be approximately 7.5%. With these mitigating factors, I believe that the appropriate cap rate would be between 9.5% and 10%, say 9.75%. This results in a value of $3,077,000. Therefore the loss in value is $2,523,000. You have asked me for an opinion about the loss in value associated with Site Review. This is a more difficult task as there is a great deal of subjectivity involved but I will attempt to quantify for you as best I can. For a major format retailer to prepare the submittals necessary for site review, an applicant can expect to pay at least $300,000 in professional and City fees associated with a complete submittal, and expect that it will add at least six to ten months to the project between the time getting to completeness and the one hundred and twenty day period ih which the City has to respond. If we assume an implicit cost of funds of 9% and split the range in time and say eight months, then the loss of value associated with the time this adds to the project is $378,000. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, c:u.--- $i/~ Alan Evans 101 East Broadway Suite 101 Eugene, OR 97401 TEL: (541) 345-4860 FAX: (541) 345-9649 "'Date Received ,MAR 8 :2010 Planner: BJ . . ., \ ti3~TH!:?.FfA:CE OFJIiIS j)1U~1.~NrH.4S,A~COI..OR~D ~CKq~9UN,?: :; '. ..'~.....,.;;..... . ~....~./;':Ocf ..:-~.'.' .,;~t~. "i~'i 'V' "'U. 0 ,'jl""~ ' A ,.......~,;t' \ . t ,;~\~.\ ., ~';";.~m:!t.':"":;:"~ ~~~~ ....,,"""'.. ......'''...r'''.... ''''''''-oa'"", . i' ~.,~., ,"';1' ~...lj",o' " .,... ~ ~ ' .,. . I" /", ,\(,.,t,'. '..f'(";:f. .'It~."" t'::'.,"" . '~'.'; .','. '. '.. ~".f;,.".. .." ,~~~~ ".. . ," ~,..:::. .cn'~..i#{~:.t~~);z:,..}"::~~~! 'f?~~ C~ ~ '0 tv 'S ,..... '<" , .... ~ ..t?:~~ 0''''1' , """:;''')'' .... ::J"V>l!;l.~:I! ...:'.'.,:;.1;,...... '.. '1:\~,'g:" '0.' <1,~!. ~ 1-7, _',,'.! , .',.- ,. '"... .,=-' Ctl,~ ''\,.., . "0<>, .............0- . ~ . .'"""'". . ."""'" s:. 't.... '...., .,' 9'. . .."'-" 0 ~ ~''''''':g'' ........ .,,,..i> .' ..., , _ ~ "'lii-'-i" "'"' 'w .;.. ':'* _~~:,,\.\ ,\!. _. ;", "c::f3'. ~,~ . .' ......,'.".1(>" .....ej.,UJ... ..~~"" .,~ '., ....""_.... " !i.~~~~.,~\f~j;~~~:;:':'.~,~:~;~~t .:.~~: r\..~...~~~ 'g >~~ ~!?f:~:tl..,f~~<\.,)\~f: . ';j ; .'''~' -':;7.:;~;,:~ 6J:l~~::q: .-. f"J' -.J '''... ',"., ~..",.tl. .' .' .'i'".''' '.' ..... 1" '. .,;. "o:'.;ilb . ~.,. \'~~.~ ,..I)'J:.~"'~lt,'.J\' '.-=",', . ,: ~';.4\.' f v ",' . .J":' ' " on~ . . ~;jH'~~ ." -- o' - :~; )J~fi"~~ . '. ,-0" :\t~ '. . ",' .... '. ~.. '..;<<" Ji'~ Ji<. b',~.::1 /':">r. . .... -1'\\'"" . . ,\, """..;,:,,."'. t'~l,gi' ",7i';~.,;,""", /...I-'\, ~7ir' '_~' >(f!' 'lI" "'_:' H', 4'4'~'", ~,:..' ~" "'" "OJ' .....,. '~f"< ,....1"...",,.,,,,,,,, '" .... ,''''':;'' .; ..,....;iii~~~....;::\;,.\~'~"" ""'-r ",;\. \.\~." r:--<f.,""t.d ,o'j,,!\ . ~. . 'W' ~\;""" .... '*-r ,r 11" . ..i;t~' ~~- ".,i . ':,',' " ~i~~~~.' ",,,,;,,j,.'\i) i/'''''';'',% 'Iff;' "'~";,>~~ '. tOil '1!'!i',' .';'.;"'~' ...~':#'. ,', ;::; ~.~. ~ti1 .... '..')~\::'ltJeJ:j, '.' ". "'''':';~''~~~'<' "t,. ,.;.'.4 ~J " .' ;'::; . # S(~~'1,1if . ". . l!l' '., ~{.~,.. _.' ill "' "", , .... ,+_, ' ,00 .~. ~, . .,\, N""~ '" ~'. ....,.." ,.... ,,,,.g-'" ':";' . -~~< g V:=: ,,'!~',l~::.tk ~...,~ } ":7; ,.,; ;,"l;;;j,.. .:t:~~,;:;;.}. ...,..J'.~'\l\ \~~\Jt:.,...'p'~';',.. "".,.... .. ""c.' '\r..,\';"\'~'.l . ,'~' , "., . r" ~i." ,.".....'t ~ idr"'i, · ,"~'*""!'\."d!! [...d;F:J.,',~ '/..' : . ,', ~ ~~~ (';;;". 31'~., '" .J<"''\~ - .' . /'. ..~"'-~ . .~. ~~..ij '.. . .. :..<t'.., "'" ,'. . .... ' ,. "':,y,'j' ";;j~ 1 1 ,. . . .'~ .,- Jf~'A.h' ..; . "'.' "~~"'~ \:,~;;}. '.l.i;t:l1""~;" '> J \"''5. (V ;;f.J"~",\;ier '. } i' l'" '''''0 "".' ..j:>. ,.' n, l!.;....,,,~ (#~,~. . ~.lj;7\.j:>. . ,.~ ,.., . \.- ..... ,J> t<'1' ~"~ t!"~r ;' ,,F""'%, - ,- .-lV" . ." ,,,. .' ~~ . .#~~ ~ \.t:. ...... r~!fr' ~v;) H"'.... ',: l~;~'\' ~ ~~. ..lIr""" J..i"' r\ "~.:;."'~';". .~ .",,/- -. ~,pr- , ,;1'.~' ~~ SHf'l.i'n::! .t!.rdn~:!s !EH10 }yrfS'd38t::! l!f3:;s3Hon~Nl~il3,!G ... 1M! EB Date Received MAR 8.2010 Planner: B.J 225 Fift!1' Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 541-726-3759 Phone . eity of Springfield Official Receipt Development Services Department Public Works Department RECEIPT #: 1:42:20PM 3200600000000000602 Date: 12/01/2006 Job/Journal Number Description LRP2006-00033 · Ballot Measure 37 Payments: Type of Payment Check Paid By OAK LEAF PROPERTY MGMT emm Item Total: Check Number Authorization Received By Batch Number Number How Received . Amount Due 500.00 $500.00 Amount Paid 8744 In Person Payment Total: $500.00 $500.00' Date Received . MAR 82010 Planner: BJ 'P'20...... 1 I"l.fl ,,,J1I""Jnn..c . . "Jld~"!I~r~~dY~nJ. ~:~,-~~ ~ '.c~~ ^~::~ :. .~ .~:~.-:.:_, ~.~ ~ _', _::~-.: .2-.~. _~~ ~_. . -..~_,., - ,':n' _ ~. .', ~~~ EiIe ~ QptiOnO - ~.. ...--- ....--.-- ! . .-.-- --------. lJ.' Ll ~ 21 '" . "" ... .".. T.....liR ... '" \ ..____._.____u_ _..n_~_' 1m 'W ..: oil 'lo Ii ~ -. . ~ " "- >€I 1;) . "- ... ...... -...... co- ....... -- ,- ,- - "-'"- c-_ '''' --- '" " . ~ '","c ," _ ,,, ~ ';_":";"."'"'_~";"',.~'::':O':.,,,c-,',.:"'_,c,..-.,','; . _., ,., ''"' /, 'Name:MCKAY INVESTMENT CO LtC :. .; ..,' .:''':.:\Jp~at.~;121112006:, ,",' KAt.:"" .j~I~~~Hi~,~~~~~~,~~~~;i';:~~~~~M'J~~~t~~!~;;i~,~~~i?'?J!, , allat Measure 37 J\pplicalion @ 1650 Centennial Blvd ~ For Tracking Purposes only J.. ,-"., ,_.-. .-:_:;';,-~':::~~.~ -'"'. ~/';'~f< >., .;;-; -'-" -'.<<" '_'.~ i,"I' /".\ . -~ :?."~~: "'~ ,'.' -., ;:/ . ',t~, .,..... ;. ;-~. ';,'" ',' " ~)k~,:~;~;~r~: .~: !..", -"'. . "-",,-' ".,,-.- "0 '>3:':\ '-;,;,;.,;'" "'-' :'Jri~~'i'N~~:'j ."'-0- 'Ready- Date Received MAR 8.2010 Planner: BJ . . 08-Mar-10 0.00 " DEPOSITS-MEASURE 37 821-215525 ACCOUNT RECONCIUATlON: 1/31/10 " DATE IRANS TYPE I liTEM DESCRIPTION 30-Nov-06 1-Dec-06 1-Dec-06 1-Dec-06 1-Dec-06 17-Jul-07 1275 1275 1275 1275 1275 1275 BLDGJPROJ IDSD RECEIPT # SHILOINN ,-*p~ OO"-OOO~I PURCELL LIVING TRUST L-r:l..P?-oo ~- 00 (J 3;1- OAK LEAF PROPERTY MGMT L.R-P 61 0 0 ~ -C 0" ?::I FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH EUGENE LJJ.{' ~O 0 (,- Of) 0 B+ BARBARA PARMENTER L.-f<.p.;j /l"O II - 0 Co?'? PHILIP MARVIN ~Ii ;}.O''1~OOll"J.-? v:\common\mary\215525 Measure 37 Deposits AMOUNT I ACCl. TOTAL I 598 ~ 500.00 600~ 500,00 602-1'1'U:trf 500.00 17131YJLt 500.00 1714 IUu 500.00 1146 lUUP 500.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 OK TO FLG Date Rece\ved MAR 82010 Planner: BJ L24g 8M 37 APPLICATION PROCESSING FEES .< , . Oak L.eaf Property First Baptist Ch4~ch . .~ Philip Marvin (TOO Shilo Inn Purcell L.ivlng Trust Management (Eugene) Barbara Parmenter Blue; L.L.C) " J ;.= i Journal Number LRP2006-00031 LRP2006-00032 LRP2006-00033 LRP2006-00034 LRP2006-00035 LRP2006-00023 Date Submitted November 30, 2006 December 1, 2006 December 1, 2006 December 1, 2006 December 1, 2006 Julv 17, 2007 City Attorney Cost: Time Spent on Application 3.80 Hours 3.70 Hours 24.40 Hours No Time Expended 26.60 Hours . 3.90 Hours Cost $342.00 $407.50 $1,539.50 . $0.00 $2,695.00 $435.00 Planner Assigned to Application Gary Karp Mark Metzger Mark Metzger Mark Metzger Gary Karp Gary Karp Time spent on: ~ication Intake . 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Application Review for Completeness . 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Prepare Inc~ete Letter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mail Incomplete Leter 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Review revised materials 1.00 1.00 Prepare Staff report 20.00 20.00 Pre-"are Notice 1.00 1.00 Mail Notice 0.30 0.30 Respond to notified Residnets 0.50 0.50 Present Report to City Council 1.00 Prepare Notice of Decision 0.50 Total Hours Soont 4.60 4.60 28.90 4.60 27.40 4.60 Planner Hourly Charge-Out Rate $59.35 $59.42 $59.42 $59.42 $59.35 $59.35 Total Cost for Application Process $273.01 $273.33 $1,717.24. $273.33 $1,626.19 $273.01 City Total Cost $615.01 $680.83 $3,256.74 $273.33 $4,321.19 $708.01 Amount of Deposit Submitted $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Balance Due to City $115.01 $180.83 $2,756.74 -$226.67 $3,821.19 $208.01 . . . rs :J8UUBld Olot 8 H\1~ pSA!e088 alBa , . , , !