Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surplus Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Real estate briefing: 51 city surplus parcels (≈10 acres); council seeks limits on future uses and options for proceeds
Summary
Staff said about 51 city-owned surplus properties totaling roughly 10 acres are tracked in a GIS map; council members asked about the legal process for sale, exceptions, potential restrictive covenants and whether sale proceeds could be routed to district or maintenance funds.
Mike Shannon opened the surplus-properties briefing by defining surplus city property as parcels with no current or planned use and describing the disposition process required by state and local law. Shannon said the city currently lists about 51 surplus properties totaling approximately 10 acres and that the real estate team updates a GIS map monthly.
Shannon described the statutory steps for disposition—canvassing for planned uses, advertising the property, seeking fair-market value, and moving through planning commission and council ordinance for sale—and noted exceptions such as adjacent-owner purchases or nonprofit public-purpose conveys. He said the real estate team sometimes markets parcels proactively and that different transactions have different follow-on maintenance responsibilities depending on whether the city funded construction or the project is a funding agreement with a partner organization.
Council members raised concerns about post-sale uses and whether the city can or should attach restrictive covenants to prohibit what they described as harmful developments. "I think about the harm that they could cause if they were to be used to develop luxury condos or if they were to be a gas station or a car wash," the Chair said, and Shannon said he would consult with legal and real estate staff about whether restrictive covenants are available and whether they have been used previously.
Council members also discussed policy options for proceeds from surplus sales, including routing funds back to the district (NAMP) or into a maintenance fund rather than the general fund; staff cautioned that some sale proceeds must be recredited to original funding sources when properties were acquired with restricted dollars (for example, federal grants). Committee members requested information on recent surplus sales and asked staff to return with follow-up analysis.
Next steps: staff will research statutory constraints on restrictive covenants, provide sales-history data and present options for proceeds allocation and any necessary follow-up reporting to the committee.
