Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-16; City Council; 3773-1; GREENWOOD PROPERTY REPORTc) CITY OF CARLSBAD e * r 3773 Supplement No. Initial: November 16,1976 City Manager AGENDA BILL NO. I_ Dept. €Id a [ .cy/I C. Atty.VSs_d DATE :: DEPARTMENT : C. Mgr. Suhj ect : d. - GREENWOOD PROPERTY REPORT Statement of the Pldatter At the Council meeting on September 21, 1976, the staff was requested to research the Greenwood property with relation to value, cost of Parks and Recreation Department relocation, and possible usage of the property if retained. Exhibit Report to City Manager from Assistant City Manager dated October 2 1976. Recommendation Counci 1 action 11-16-76 The City Council ordered the report filed, and staff was instructed to prepare a Public Facilities Assessment report. e e 1 f DATE : OCTOBER 27, 1976 TO : CITY MANAGER FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: GREENWOOD PROPERTY The City Council requested staff to research the Greenwood property in relation to its estimated value, cost of Parks and Recreation Department relocation, and possible usage of the property if retained. Staff investigations indicate an approximate value of between $175,000 to $200,000. An MA1 appraisal would be required to establish a minimum bid price if the property were to be offered for sale. The price would be somewhat affected by conditions placed on the property by the City pertaining to site development. Some concern has been expressed as to whether or not Mrs. Greenwood intended the property to be used solely for Parks and Recreation purposes. A letter in the City files from Mrs. Greenwood indicates her desire that the City retai all rights and usage of the property, In September, 1958, the City executed a lease and option to purchase the property from Mrs. Greenwood for $20,000. It was suggested to Mrs. Greenwood that the property be apprais by the Carlsbad Realty Board. While there is no documented appraisal in our files, from personal memory, I believe Mr. C. D. McClellan did make this appraisal for the City on behalf of the Carlsbad Realty Board. The term of the lease was for five years, October 1, 1958 to October 1, 1963 with an initial payment of $2,000 and semiannual payments of $1,200. Mrs. Greenwood was to pay the taxes and the City would pay the utilities and assessments; further, Mrs. Greei wood was to be provided with a life estate in the property until such time as she quitclaimed or abandoned the propert! The City exercised its option on November 27, 1963 having paid Mrs. Greenwood a total of $10,402.54. The balance of $9,597.46 was then paid, bringing the total sum paid to the agreed price of $20,000. On December 8, 1969 the City received a quitclaim deed from Mrs. Greenwood. e 0 4 l* October 27, 1976 Page 2 Subject: Gneenwood Property There are three possible sites for relocation of the Parks and Recreation Department: Magee Property The Magee property is presently being renovated. additional cost would be a Xerox machine and other office machines in order to eliminate travel time between that location and City Hall. The property could accommodate Parks and Recreation equipment as there is sufficient land available for parking. paving by City crews. completed by January, 19.77. St. Patrick Church Property (Harding Street Community Center It is estimated by the Parks and Recreation Director that th necessary remodeling and renovating of the buildings will co $60,000 to bring these facilities up to City standards. this is done the Parks and Recreation Department could occup a portion of this space. Their equipment, however, would ha to be stored at the City Yard. could be completed in early 1977. Leased Property One location has been found on Oak Avenue adjoining the present City Yard facility which would be available in about one month. The building contains 3,100 sq. ft. and the rent would be approximately $700 per month. There is a small are which could be used for parking, however, the Parks and Recreation equipment would have to be stored at the City Yar This building would adequately house the department and migh be a possible location for a Redevelopment Coordinator's office. It would cost around $20,000 to remodel the buildin including interior wall replacement, alterations to the structure to provide a reception area, an additional restroo carpeting and painting. An interior plan should be prepared to facilitate the best use of the building. Consideration could be given to relocating other departments of the City to the Oak Street location, such as the Building Department. The Parks and Recreation personnel could be moved into the City Hall building, however, their equipment would have to be stored at the City Yard. The only This might entail some asphalt The property renovation should be If If the work started now, it 4 e * '0 t October 27, 1976 Page 3 Subject: Greenwood Property Retaining the Greenwood Property If the property were to be retained, consideration should be given to renovating and remodeling the building. It does not adequately house the Parks and Recreation admin- istrative staff and is in a bad state of repair. Approxi- mately $15,000 for carpeting, interior painting, additional restroom, and remodeling. To build an additional 2,000 sq. ft. comparable to the present City Hall would cost approximately $90,000. This figure is based on information obtained from the Marshall and Stevens evaluation handbook updated to October 1, 1976 for government building costs. Marshall and Stevens rate a "good" office building structure at $34.00 per sq. ft. It would not be decorative concrete block but good wood/stucco construction. An additional 2,000 sq. ft. of office space at this figure indicates a building price of $68,000. Remodeling and renovating of the present structure, if possible, would probably cost an additional $25,000, bringing the total cost to approximately $100,000 to bring this property to full usage. This would provide room to house another City department and could provide additional parking for the City Hall. There has been no detailed study at this time as to the feasibility of using this property for additional City Hall space. The question is, is this site as suitable as other sites in close proximity to City Hall? After Council has had an opportunity to review this report, if additional information is required, staff will be happy to obtain it. +7 ./ f &.(,&L&& d WILLIAM C. BALDWIN Assistant City Manager WCB: ldg