Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City updates 22-parcel disposition plan; council questions priority timing and funding flows
Summary
Community development staff proposed near-, mid- and long-term strategies for 22 city-owned parcels, recommending RFPs for several near-term parcels and a small-area approach for clusters of midterm parcels; council members asked about criteria used, accounting for acquisition sources and whether sales proceeds return to departmental or capital funds.
City community development staff reviewed an updated inventory of 22 city-owned parcels and recommended a staged disposition strategy that groups properties into near-term (0–3 years), midterm (4–6 years) and long-term (7+ years) categories.
Near-term recommendations included bundling two excess subdivision parcels into a single RFP aimed at producing single‑family or small‑lot housing; re-listing the excess parcel near Fire Station No. 2 (staff noted affordable‑housing developers have expressed interest); vacating a never‑developed right‑of‑way to create a taxable parcel or split it between neighbors; and continuing neighbor negotiations on a nonbuildable Foxcraft excess to vacate and distribute among adjacent owners.
Staff said previously completed dispositions include earlier sales near Fire Station No. 2 and a 2024 closing with Quick Chip Corporation; they also noted a recent development assistance agreement that cleared a financing milestone (multifamily housing revenue bonds) for a Civic Center North parking‑lot project with both affordable and market-rate units.
Council members sought the rationale for priority timing on specific parcels, asking staff to explain the development‑readiness, existing uses (including enterprise‑funded parcels held by the utility) and any legal or environmental constraints that informed the near/mid/long designations. Staff said the categorization reflects input from department heads and the development review committee and depends on factors such as access, infrastructure constraints, revenue source for acquisition, and whether parcels are actively used by city operations (for example, some RPU parcels require enterprise‑fund accounting).
Members urged timely RFPs for market‑ripe parcels and asked staff to return with acquisition history so the council can understand where sale proceeds would be directed when a parcel transfers. No action was taken at the meeting; staff said they will refine RFP timing and return with more detail on acquisition and accounting for specific sites.
