Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/10/2015

Home

City Administrator Ulrich stated staff will refine the Policy for discussion at a future Work Session. 2.02: Discuss City Charter Language Related to Land Sale Process Asst. City Administrator /Economic Development Manager Brama reviewed the staff report and Charter regulations for disposal of City -owned property. He explained that currently, the City is required to pass an ordinance each time a piece of City -owned property is sold, which can take 60 days to over 60 days to complete. Asst. City Administrator /Economic Development Manager Brama stated there is a different interpretation of this Charter provision that would allow passage of a blanket ordinance to address more than one property sale. He stated the recommendation of staff and the City Attorney are included in the staff report. Staff's interpretation of the intent of the language is to pass individual ordinances at the time of sale of individual properties. However, a blanket ordinance would create efficiencies for the City and a cleaner process. He asked for direction whether the Council would be comfortable deviating from past practice of doing one ordinance per sale. City Attorney Langel stated the Charter requires an ordinance to dispose of property and the question is, at what point is the property `disposed of.' He asked if that occurs when there is a purchase agreement or when the land is listed for sale. He stated it comes down to what `dispose of' means in this context and raises the broader issue of the purpose of the Charter provision. City Attorney Langel stated there is no question it is more efficient to do a blanket ordinance, as buyers do not want to wait for the time it takes an ordinance to become effective. But, if the point of the Charter provision is to give the public an opportunity to voice comment on a particular sale, then an individual ordinance makes more sense. City Attorney Langel stated he expects that when this Charter provision was put into place, the thought was not that the City would ever own dozens of pieces of land. Councilmember Kuzma stated he likes the current policy because he wants the City to be transparent. He stated he understands this is not efficient but as a public entity, he wants the public to have the opportunity to provide comment and he does not want to waiver from it. Councilmember Riley stated he does not think it is a transparency issue. He stated efficiency is important and he thinks that by saying well in advance the City intends to sell this land, it gives the public more notice and ability to voice an opinion. Councilmember Riley stated the City never intended to own The COR and all agree it is surplus property, it is to be sold, and a broker has been hired to facilitate that sale. Councilmember Riley stated with The COR and the lot on Highway 10, all know they were never intended for public uses. Councilmember Williams agreed the intent is to declare property surplus and it becomes an administrative step when the property has already been marketed and every action taken that the intent is to sell the property. She felt it would benefit constituents to make the notice in advance. Councilmember Kuzma stated he agrees that is the case with The COR but should the City purchase a property in the middle of a residential area, he wants residents to have the ability to make comment. City Council Work Session / February 10, 2015 Page 4 of 9