The Green Belt Committee opened extended discussion about dozens of small, underused city-owned parcels and agreed to prioritize a side-lot extension program while retaining some parcels for clustered green-space or future housing uses.

Committee members said the immediate goal is to return properties to private management and the tax rolls rather than hold scattered parcels indefinitely. The group asked staff to draft a recommended policy with explicit criteria — including buildability, size thresholds, and pricing formulas — and present it at the next property-management meeting.

Why it matters: small leftover parcels can be liabilities and cost the city for maintenance and insurance; a clear disposition policy could streamline sales or transfers, reduce insurance exposure and create opportunities for affordable housing or neighborhood green space.

Most of the conversation centered on how to treat two common categories identified in staff materials: side-yard extensions (small strips abutting private parcels) and larger parcels potentially suited for green space or development. Members said side-yard extensions are often adjacent to single owners and can be offered first to adjacent property owners, possibly at a discounted rate tied to assessed or appraised value. Committee participants noted the need for a size-based scale (for example, different treatments for very small triangles versus larger, buildable lots) and said applying a uniform low-price giveaway like one modeled in Charleston may not fit the city’s stronger land market.

Committee members asked staff to check three constraints before final recommendations: county appraisal versus assessed-value conversions (the packet includes both appraised totals and assessed calculations), FEMA flood-map exposure for specific parcels, and insurance-carrier impacts if the city removes properties from its inventory. Staff said the dataset in the packet includes some out-of-date parcel values and topography notes but that many parcels are still worth localized review rather than a fresh appraisal.

Members discussed several disposition options: (1) offer adjacent owners first-right-of-purchase at a percentage of appraised value; (2) offer buildable lots first to affordable-housing partners such as Habitat for Humanity or the local Housing Authority; (3) cluster and hold parcels that create a meaningful green-space or trail corridor; or (4) wholesale auction or bulk liquidation if the mission is rapid disposal. The group agreed the side-lot extension program should be developed and offered before pursuing broader green-space holdings, with leftover parcels reconsidered for parks or conservation uses.

Committee members also asked staff to contact interested parties who had already inquired about particular parcels and to return with a recommended framework that includes (a) square-foot thresholds for different treatment categories, (b) a recommended pricing approach tied to appraisal/assessment, (c) a buildability test (topography, lot size, flood risk), and (d) a short list of preferred disposition partners for affordable housing.

Less-critical details: participants identified example locations in the packet such as parcels off College Avenue, Jones Avenue, Wright Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue and Darst; staff noted one parcel near Pennsylvania Avenue sits close to a mapped flood area and was flagged for possible retention as green space. A prospective short-term tenant inquiry for an office property at 430 Spruce (raised later in the meeting) was noted but treated separately from parcel-disposition work.

Next steps: staff will prepare a draft policy with explicit thresholds and recommendations for pricing, disposition order (adjacent-owners first, housing partners next, public green-space retention only for parcels that fit targeted clusters) and present it at the next property-management meeting.