Instead council members may have simply wandered back into a particularly messy chapter of Coastside politics.
City Attorney Adam Lindgren prepared the 39-page due diligence report, with input from much of the city's senior staff, in the summer and fall of 2004. It delineates the strengths of the site for park development as well as the potential pitfalls of the purchase.
 The city's parkland includes a much-needed corporation yard for municipal vehicles and Public Works equipment. |
t The need for significant setbacks if endangered species were to be found there. Months after the purchase consultants would find 14 federally protected California red-legged frogs in a manmade retention pond on the site - a finding that limits the developable area within the park.
t That the city was obligated to shoulder any liability for the land dating back more than 15 years. In his report, Lindgren cautioned the council that it would have to answer any future claims relating to the tenure of Nurserymen's Exchange and considered a scenario in which a toxic plume of agricultural chemicals might be found seeping into adjacent land years later.
t A notation that the land's current zoning didn't allow a maintenance yard on the site, something the council favored from the beginning. Despite that fact, the city has used the land for its Public Works activities almost since the purchase was complete.
All of those revelations and more came to light nearly three years after the city's agreement to purchase the land from Nurserymen's Exchange for $3.1 million.
Portions of the report were released by court order in 2005 after a lawsuit filed by the Cypress Cove Townhome Association sought documentation leading to the purchase. But a superior court judge allowed paragraph after paragraph to be redacted prior to release.
The Review asked for the report that year as well with a formal Freedom of Information Act request. Lindgren denied that request, citing attorney-client privilege.
And Lindgren seemed to be uncomfortable with the ultimate release as well. While he offered to go over the redacted portions line by line with the council, he told elected officials the night of June 5 that releasing the document "is not common practice." He indicated that staff might reconsider such candid appraisals of future issues knowing that the council might subsequently release those private ruminations at a later date
"It's your information," he said. "Would we evaluate the implications (of releasing it)? It would be noteworthy."
That was a sentiment echoed by City Manager Marcia Raines, who wasn't employed by the city at the time of the park purchase.
"Yes," she said. "We are on the same page."
The due diligence report was released toward the end of an extraordinary City Council meeting on June 5. It began with an hour-long discussion over whether to discuss the release of the report in private. Lindgren raised eyebrows on the council and in a packed conference room in the Ted Adcock Community / Senior Center by suggesting the council designate himself and Raines as "property negotiators" for the possible sale of the land.
While some council members have spoken openly about selling all or part of the land at some point to pay off the debt, no one has suggested such a sale was imminent.
Lindgren said the terminology pointing toward a sale was a legal maneuver to allow for a private discussion of the document and noted that naming property negotiators was a necessary first step should the council want to sell in the future.
His explanation was met with somber expressions from all five council members.
"I'm just very confused to be honest," said Councilman John Muller.
Colleague Jim Grady agreed, saying that he was unaware of any formal effort to sell the property until he saw Lindgren's terminology listed on a last-minute agenda that was posted one day before the meeting. He added that he wasn't informed of the special meeting in the usual manner. Looking across the table at Raines, he requested that the flow of information in the city be "cleaned up."
"I'm just trying to get from where we were last week to where my butt is in this seat," he said.
The release of the due diligence report does nothing to answer the biggest question related to the park sale: Just how is a city that is spending more than it's taking in going to pay the unbudgeted $3.1 million purchase price - let alone the $10.4 million developing the park would cost?
The Peninsula Open Space Trust acted as an intermediary between Nurserymen's Exchange and the city, and Half Moon Bay was originally to have repaid POST by this October. The note was interest-free for three years, but to date the city hasn't paid any of the principal.
The city has approached POST for an extension and has a verbal agreement to put off payments for another year, according to city sources who say that agreement comes with a caveat that the city use the entire tract for parkland.
City Councilwoman Marina Fraser said last week that she would consider selling a portion of the land for light-industrial uses to fund park improvements.
Shortly after the park purchase, then-Mayor Mike Ferreira suggested including the cost of the park in a wider bond sale that would also fund improvements to the city's library and police station, but that proposal hasn't been mentioned publicly since.
Muller, who wasn't on the council at the time of the purchase, seemed to sum up the current mood of elected officials: "If you don't have money to pay for something, what are you going to do with it?"
•
COST SO FAR
Acquisition: $146,797 *
Development master plan: $224,562
Design work: $99,611
Building improvements: $16,191
Total: $487,161
(*includes appraisal, legal fees and other expenses related to land transfer)
COSTS STILL TO COME
Purchase price: $3.1 million
Projected construction cost: $10.4 million
Total: $13.5 million*
(does not include annual maintenance, estimated at $337,000.)
- Source: City of Half Moon Bay
w