Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Surplus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council moves to declare 2205 13th Street surplus; debate over RFP restrictions and flood mitigation
Summary
Council authorized a resolution to declare 2205 13th Street surplus and issue an RFP after discussion about recurring flooding, a prior city purchase, and whether the RFP should require a public‑purpose restriction or elevation covenants.
The Tuscaloosa City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution declaring 2205 13th Street surplus and to draft a request for proposals (RFP) for the site after extended discussion about flooding risks, prior city acquisition, and whether the RFP should include public‑purpose requirements.
Speaker 4 introduced the item as a property in his district across from the YMCA that has flooded repeatedly. He said the city has estimated remediation costs previously (stating an $11,000,000 figure) and that the city previously purchased a property there "somewhere in the 4 hundreds, $4.40 ish" (others said "$4.60"). He said the city demolished a house and filled the basement to reduce recurrence.
Speaker 5, identified in the record as speaking for the administration, said the administration did not oppose declaring the lot surplus but recommended three RFP conditions: that proposals maintain a public purpose, improve drainage and mitigate flooding, and disclose to the city any future flooding on the site. Speaker 5 said the parcel was acquired in 2016 for protective purposes.
Cam Parsons, who identified himself and provided an address, urged against a blanket public‑purpose restriction. Parsons said the core problem is "not the living elevation. It's the underground elevation. It's the basement," and suggested the city sell the lot with a restrictive covenant or require finished‑floor/elevation standards so future development does not include basements that could flood.
Council members debated the trade‑offs. Speaker 6 warned that strict restrictions in an RFP could "chill" competition and suggested those points be handled by respondents rather than embedded as overly prescriptive RFP language. Speaker 1 asked Speaker 6 (Scott) to outline process; Speaker 6 said staff would prepare a resolution for the next council meeting and then draft and issue an RFP with a judging body to recommend proposals back to council.
A motion to declare the property surplus and begin the RFP process was made, seconded and carried by voice vote; the transcript records vocal approval but does not provide a named roll‑call tally. The committee set the next meeting date (March 3) and adjourned.
