Agenda - Council - 08/13/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background: By: LAND SALE POLICY DISCUSSION Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator c,s #/Z As far as we can tell, the City of Ramsey has never passed upon a policy or procedure to follow upon deciding to dispose of real estate. The exception to that statement is that the Charter provides that an ordinance must be adopted in order for a land transfer out of City control to actually occur. Over the past few years, the City has gained title to various parcels for the express purpose of resale to an industrial concern. In those cases, the practice has been for Council to approve a development agreement within which the City agrees to transfer a parcel of land in exchange for the construction of a manufacturing facility. The availability of any particular parcel has not been offered generally tO any public person wishing to purchase the land but instead through a negotiated process with a business owner wishing to expand or relocate. This process allows the City to retain tightercontrol over the timeliness of development and the quality of construction. A public sale to the highest bidder could, theoretically, afford a lessor quality development than is presently occurring. While a public bid process has not been strictly pursued (sealed bids and the like) it is the fact that the property is being actively marketed and was purchased with this intent and end result. Recently, the process of property disposition was questioned relative to resale of the old public works site at the intersection of 142nd and T.H. #47 as well as the D.A.R.E. house currently under construction in the Chestnut Ridge Subdivision and the disposition of excess Sunwood Drive property. It was suggested that perhaps these properties should be subjected to a public bid process. In the case of the public works site, the City did not purchase the parcel for resale. However, upon purchase of the Jaspar Street site, the property became available for disposition. Upon discussion, Council directed that an appraisai be gained so that the property could be resold to an interested party at the value of the appraisal. At the time of this direction, an interested party had ~ready been identified. The appraisal was completed and the Council subsequently approved a development agreement agreeing to transfer the parcel at the appraised price. The marketing of the D.A.R.E. house has been intended to occur in the same manner as one would sell a private homestead. While we have expected to provide for public notice, we also have expected to gain the services of a Realtor to assist with the marketing. In the Sunwood Drive example, a public bid process was followed. In that case, a developer/owner of the adjacent subdivision had made an initi',.d offer. Instead of accepting the offer, Council pursued the public bid. One bid was received, from the developer/owner, in the amount of his original offer. The most recent discussion included a suggestion that perhaps any land disposition should occur only after a public bid process. If that means that a form',tl notice on the legal pages of a paper of general circulation must occur prior to disposition, that is workable. However, at least in the case of the industrial park where the entire intent is to transfer the land to quaiity manufacturers and not just to whomever comes up with the most money, it Seems that any more rigorous process (such as sealed bids) would not best serve the public. There may be other circumstances, such as declaring excess park land, where that public bid process is probably the only reasonable process to pursue. In the Sunwood Drive example, however, it is reasonable to expect that a negotiated sale would have resulted in a somewhat greater return than what actually occurred (however, next time just the opposite could just as easily result).