Agenda - Council - 10/22/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I Motion carded. ¥oting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beyer, Beahen and Peterson. Voting[No: None. Case #18: Land Sale Policy Discussion City Administrator Schroeder stated that awhile' ago, City Council asked what the policies were with regard to land sales. 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 agreemenJ: within which the City agrees to transfer a parcel of land in exchange for the construction of a man. ufacturing, facility. The availability of any particular parcel has not beon offered generally to any public person wishing to purchase the land but instead through a negotia!ed process with a business owner wishing to expand or relocate. This process allows the City to retain tighter control over the timeliness of development and the quality of construction. A~ ublic sale to the highest bidder could, theoretically, afford a lessor quality development than~s presently occumng. While a public bid process has not been strictly pursued, it is the fact that the property is being actively marketed.and was purchased with this intent and end result. Mr. Schroeder continued that recently, the process of property disposition was questioned relative to resale ~fthe 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 exc/ess Sunwood Drive property. It was suggested that perhaps these properties should be subjected to a public bid process. He summarized the process for the public works site and for the D.A.I~-.E. house. He stated that the most recent discussion included a suggestion that perhaps any land ~tisposition should occur only after a public bid process. If that means that a formal 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 t~o quality 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. He suggested there are different types of properties/purchases for which different procedures should be followed. In the case of commercial/industrial parcels, it seems that the current practice is working just fine. In cases where, for whatever reason, land becomes available that was originally intended for some other purpose, I agree >that a different process is most appropriate. In that case, at least public advertising as would occur with a street project, should be pursued. There may be cases, however, where the highest cash offered for the property may not provide the best result for the citizens of which he gave some examples. Councilmember Beyer stated that this issue was originally raised because she made a comment about land give-aways. With regard to the property on Highway #47, she did not believe there was a lot of intere~;t expressed in this and there was no opportunity to express it. In the industrial area, she did not have a problem with the way staff is doing it. However, in a highly exposed area, that should have gone out for bids. That was her concern. She agreed there are different situations. councilmember Ztmmerman expressed agreement and stated that other than in the industrial district, it wouldn't hurt to bring it before City Council and have them go out for bids. Councilmember Beyer stated that she believes the State Statutes are very clear that when the City disposes of property, it has to go out for bids. The Public Works property was handled in a very back-room type of manner and a lot of people were upset. Mr. Schroeder commented that he now has the direction he needs. He was concerned that a different procedure was going to be necessitated for the industrial area and that does not appear to be the case. City Council/August 13, 1996 Page 15 of 22