Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant City Lands Inventory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Orchard committee asks staff to revisit city-owned vacant lands inventory after staffing constraints
Summary
Councilmembers asked staff to consider a future mapping and audit of city-owned vacant parcels to evaluate potential use for housing or other city needs but agreed the work is lower priority while planning staff remain short‑handed; staff expects to revisit in a few months after a new hire starts.
Land inventory and possible disposal options were discussed briefly, and committee members asked staff to consider a mapping exercise and an audit of city‑owned parcels when staffing allows.
Jay Rosapepe opened the vacant‑lands segment asking whether the city has done a comprehensive audit of land that could be surplus or repurposed for housing. Councilmembers noted the clerk’s inventory list is available in the meeting packet but is not published spatially on a public portal.
Jim Fisk, principal planner, said the clerk maintains the inventory and that most listed properties include city infrastructure (sheds, reservoirs) that make them impractical for disposal. “Most of them have some sort of city infrastructure like the shed or reservoir, things like that, that probably aren't practical,” Fisk said.
Rosapepe and other committee members asked if staff could show city parcels spatially; staff suggested the county parcel viewer can be used internally and that a clerk-provided list exists. Fisk said the department recently made an offer to hire an assistant planner who is expected to start soon and suggested revisiting the inventory project after that hire. “Potentially, maybe we revisit this discussion in a couple of months, see how it goes workload,” Fisk said.
Why it matters
Councilmembers framed the work as an informational exercise — knowing what property the city holds could reveal options for future affordable housing or civic uses — but they stressed it should not displace higher‑priority workload. Rosapepe said he did not intend to “give anything away” but wanted staff to be aware of city holdings.
Next steps
No formal action was taken. Staff suggested the item be revisited in a few months after the assistant‑planner hire and if workload permits. The committee did not direct immediate mapping or disposal actions.
Ending
The committee left the item as a lower‑priority, staff‑driven mapping/audit possibility to be revisited after staff capacity increases.
