SuplusProperty

8/14/2019 SuplusProperty

1/25

1

City of Bainbridge Island EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Council

FROM: Real Property Review Committee

DATE: July 1, 2009

RE: Recommendations to Surplus Property

In accordance with Resolution No. 2009-02, the Real Property Review Committee (the

Committee) recommends that the following properties be declared surplus by the City Council.

1. Manitou Beach/Kane (Parcel No. 142502-3-109-2003)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is the .88 acre upland parcel onManitou Beach Drive. The City also owns the .13 acre tidelands, Parcel No. 142502-3-107-2005.

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The propertywas acquired by the Open Space Commission from Peter and Elyse Kane on March 12,2003.

c. Description of the funds used to acquire the property: Open Space Bond.

d. Recommendation as to which fund the proceeds from its sale should be credited: GeneralFund. The Committee recommends paying off a portion of the debt associated with theOpen Space Commissions purchase of Meigs Farm and the Williams Property(recommended for transfer to the Park District for use as open space/passive parks).

e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The property is currently not used. The OpenSpace Commission recommended that the City restore a historical salt marsh in the

Murden Cove Watershed following acquisition of the property, and City Council approvedfunding for a feasibility study. The results of the study and the objections of the neighborsled the City to abandon the restoration project. The neighborhood also objected to parkingspaces that would allow access to citizens outside the immediate neighborhood. Inrecommending the property for purchase the Open Space Commission recommended thatif the restoration project could not be completed, (1) the property be sold, retaining beachrights and area for several parking spaces, and the money returned to the Open SpaceFund, or (2) the property be sold, without the beach rights or parking spaces, and the


2/25

2

money returned to the Open Space Fund. There is an emergent wetland to the west and acattail marsh to the east that are Category II wetlands. In addition, there is a stream alongthe west property line. As a result, there are buffer and setback requirements making thelots nonconforming and as such will require a Reasonable Use Exemption in connectionwith any development. At the time it was purchased, the Kanes had obtained a permit fora septic design, but the permit has since expired. In connection with the purchase of the

Williams Property, the Open Space Commission recommended the sale of .5 upland acresof the .88 property as one building site, retaining the 200 beach and a parking easement.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: A complete summary appraisal of the parcel was done as of January 17,2003 and the parcel was valued at $350,000.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The assessed land value of thewaterfront parcel is $154,070.

h. Whether an appraisal is recommended and the type of appraisal: The Committeerecommends a limited/summary appraisal.

i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability, but it is likely the neighbors will be interested in itspurchase.

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: The Committee recommends that the City retain the tidelands foropen space. The Open Space Commission also recommended retaining an area for severalparking spaces.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that the property be listed for saleby a real estate agent through a multiple listing service.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: See (j) above. The Committeerecommends that the tidelands be transferred to the Park District, possibly with an area forparking from the upland parcel.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: The Committee recommends that the City retainthe tidelands parcel and an easement for parking on the upland parcel to allow beachaccess.

n. If owned by a City utility, recommendation as to whether the property should be sold ortransferred to the Citys General Fund prior to being conveyed or sold to a third party :Not applicable.


3/25

3


4/25

4

2. Miller Road Shed/Old County Road Maintenance Site (Parcel No. 202502-1-049-2002)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: A 3.28 parcel located at 8964 MillerRoad NE adjacent to Kol Shalom and near Bainbridge Gardens.

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The purchase of this parcel was approved by City Council on May 9, 2001 under a Real Estate Contractwith Kitsap County which was signed on August 13, 2001. Lovgren Pit and Meyers Pitwere purchased under the same contract. The City paid the appraised price for two of theparcels and received the third parcel at no cost. Final payment is due in 2011 at whichtime title will be transferred to the City. The City may acquire the three properties beforethat date by paying the remaining $60,000. The possibility of an early payment has beenraised with the Kitsap County Prosecutors Office.

c. Description of the funds used to acquire the property: General Fund.

d. Recommendation as to which fund the proceeds from its sale should be credited: GeneralFund.

e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The Road Shed site was used by KitsapCounty as a storage and vehicle servicing facility for Kitsap County Public Worksequipment. From approximately 1976 to 1991, the Road Shed parcel was leased byKitsap County to a private construction contractor who also stored construction materialsand heavy equipment on the site and serviced equipment there. Kitsap County demolishedstructures on the site and generally cleaned up the property in approximately 1991. Theparcel has periodically been used as a storage area for Operations and Maintenance. In thesummer, the Citys contractors use the cleared parking area at the front of the propertyadjacent to Miller Road. The property is zoned R-2; seven residential lots/units arepermitted. There are no critical areas on the parcel. An access easement, along thenorthern property line, is granted to adjoining properties to the northeast. A well on thesite was decommissioned to Department of Ecology standards on June 14, 2002.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal : Reference is made to an appraised price in the City Councils May 9, 2001meeting minutes, but there is no appraisal in the file.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The assessed land value of the parcelis $213,290.

h. Whether an appraisal is recommended and the type of appraisal: Given the value, alimited/summary appraisal is appropriate.

i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability.


5/25

5

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: No, the Committee recommends that this parcel be surplused andsold.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that the property be listed for sale

by a real estate agent through a multiple listing service.l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or considered

for transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the Committee recommends that thisproperty be surplused and sold.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: The Committee recommends that the parcel bereviewed by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee to see if retaining a traileasement is advisable.



6/25

6


7/25

7

3. Myers Pit (Parcel No. 272502 -2-016-2002)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is a 6.08 acre parcel in the Headof the Bay area just south of Carmella Lane; adjacent to the Old Decant Facility.

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The purchase of

this parcel was approved by City Council on May 9, 2001 under a Real Estate Contractwith Kitsap County which was signed on August 13, 2001. Lovgren Pit and the MillerRoad Shed were purchased under the same contract. The City paid the appraised price fortwo of the parcels and received the third parcel at no cost. Final payment is due in 2011 atwhich time title will be transferred to the City. The City may acquire the three propertiesbefore that date by paying the remaining $60,000. The possibility of this early paymenthas been raised with the Kitsap County Prosecutors Office. In connection with theBrewer Settlement Agreement, the City agreed that after the five-year phase-out of theagreed upon uses of the adjoining Old Decant Facility, and if the parcels have not beensold and/or the City has not opted to use the lots for some other permitted use under thezoning code, the City agreed to use the lot and the adjoining Old Decant Facility lot fornon-active recreation in conjunction with the adjoining Cooper Creek and Open Spacetrail. The lots may be a pu blic access point and trail head. No active recreationfacilities are permitted, and the City agreed to re-vegetate cleared areas consistent with theproposed non-active recreation uses of the lots.



e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The parcel was used by Kitsap County forextraction of gravel and for stockpiling road building materials. The site was used by theOperations and Maintenance Department following the Citys acquisition in 2001. It isunused at the current time.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal : Reference is made to an appraised price in the City Councils May 9, 2001meeting minutes, but there is no appraisal in the file.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The land is assessed at $405,770.

h. Whether an appraisal is recommended and the type of appraisal: A limited/summaryappraisal is recommended.

i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability. Access is from Eagle Harbor Road to the South witha potential secondary access on Carmella Lane to the North. Note that Carmella Lane isprivately owned and any future access would have to be negotiated by the future owner.


8/25

8

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: No, only a trail easement across the northern boundary should beretained to connect the Bethany Lutheran Church trail easement with the Lost Valley traileasements.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal

(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that the property be listed for saleby a real estate agent through a multiple listing service or by negotiated sale to PugetSound Energy who has expressed interest in the parcel.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the Committee recommends that it bedeclared surplus and sold.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: A trail easement across the northern boundaryshould be retained to connect the Bethany Lutheran Church trail easement with the LostValley trail easements. The City may also want to consider placing a conservationeasement in favor of Bainbridge Island Land Trust along Cooper Creek to protect thesalmon habitat and recent conservation work. The City may also want to retain a utilityeasement to the south of Carmella Lane.

n. If owned by a City utility, recommendation as to whether the property should be sold ortransferred to the Citys General Fund prior to being conveyed or sold to a third party:Not applicable.


9/25

9


10/25

10

4. Old Decant Facility (Parcel No. 272502-2-050-2009)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is a 6.2 acre parcel in the Headof the Bay area just south of Carmella Lane and adjacent to Myers Pit .

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: City Council

approved the purchase of this parcel on June 16, 1983 for use as a maintenance facilityand new well site. The property was purchased from Kitsap County on September 12,1983.

c. Description of the funds used to acquire the property: General Fund; Limited Tax GeneralObligation Bonds issued under Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Ordinance No. 83-06. The final payment was made in 1993.


e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The parcel was used as a decant facility andfor storage of equipment by the Operations and Maintenance Department. A well site islocated on the southern portion of the parcel which the City would retain. A traileasement is proposed for the western border of the property to connect the BethanyLutheran Church trail easement with the Lost Valley trail easement. Pursuant to aSettlement Agreement with Daniel Brewer, the City agreed to cease bringing spoils to thelot for storage and to remove the blue box used for decanting activities. This has beenaccomplished. The City was to cease storage of road sand and landscape materials nolater than five years after the date of the agreement (by December 21, 2010). The Citywas also to subdivide or complete a boundary line adjustment to move the northernboundary of Lot 36 to encompass the lower paved storage area of this parcel, plus areasonable buffer, so that all water utility maintenance activities are restricted to Lots 36and 38. After the five-year phase-out of the agreed upon uses of this parcel, and if theparcel and the adjoining Myers Pit parcel have not been sold and/or the City has notopted to use the lots for some other permitted use under the zoning code, the City agreedto use the lot and the ad joining Myers Pit parcel for non-active recreation in conjunctionwith the adjoining Cooper Creek and Open Space trail. The lots may be a public access

point and trail head. No active recreation facilities are permitted, and the City agreed tore-vegetate cleared areas consistent with the proposed non-active recreation uses of thelots. At the end of the five-year period, the City shall remove any remaining assembled ordisassembled bins from the property. The storage boxes have now been removed, butsand is still present on the site.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: No known appraisals.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The land is assessed at $408,610.



11/25

11

i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability. Access is from Eagle Harbor Road to the South witha potential secondary access on Carmella Lane to the North. Note that Carmella Lane isprivately owned and any future access would have to be negotiated by the future owner.

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: No, only a trail easement which could eventually be transferred tothe Park District.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that the property be listed for saleby a real estate agent through a multiple listing service or by negotiated sale to PugetSound Energy who has expressed interest in the parcel.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the Committee recommends that it bedeclared surplus and sold.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: The Committee recommends that a boundaryline adjustment be made to carve out a well protection area in the southern portion of theparcel. The Committee also recommends that a trail easement be placed on the westernborder of the property before it is sold. The City may also want to consider placing aconservation easement in favor of Bainbridge Island Land Trust along Cooper Creek toprotect the salmon habitat and recent conservation work.



12/25

12


13/25

13

5. Parcel adjacent to Sakai/Virginia Villa Parcels (Parcel No. 232502-3-047-2007)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is a 1.42 acre parcel located at200 Madison Avenue, adjacent to the Sakai property and behind Virginia Villa.

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The propertywas acquired from Bainbridge Performing Arts under a Ground Lease for the performingarts facility, dated June 24, 1991, and approved by City Council on May 23, 1991. BPAtransferred the High School Road property to the City as additional consideration forCitys agreement to allow BPA to develop and use the performing arts facility on theCitys property.

c. Description of the funds used to acquire the property: None.


e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The property is currently not used nor hasany future plan been developed.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: No known appraisals.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The assessed land value of the entireparcel is $125,360.


i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty may have the most appeal to abutting owners since the parcel has limited or noaccess to roads and utilities.

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: The Park District has considered whether this property would beappropriate for a pocket park given its proximity to Winslow. They determined it was notideal for that purpose.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that a negotiated sale with anadjacent property owner be attempted first, with the property listed for sale by a real estateagent through a multiple listing service if a negotiated sale cannot be reached.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the Committee recommends that it besurplused and sold. The Open Space Commission listed this property as a potential


14/25

14

property to surplus and sell when they were examining City properties in connection withthe funding of the Williams property.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: None.



15/25

15


16/25

16

6. Suzuki Property (Parcel No. 222502-4-006-2005)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is a 14.33 acre parcel located atNE New Brooklyn Road and Sportsman Club Road NE.

b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The parcel was

acquired for a police/court facility upon the recommendation of a search committee in2000.



e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The property is currently not utilized. Theproperty was purchased for a new police/court facility. Upon further study, it wasdetermined that the site was not appropriate, given its proximity to the schools. CityCouncil directed that the property be surplused and sold in order to fund a newpolice/court facility at a different location. A surplus resolution was brought before theCity Council on June 11, 2008, and the City Council directed that a task force determinethe highest and best use of the property. The Suzuki Task Force brought theirrecommendations to the Land Use Committee. LUC made a few modifications andbrought the recommendations to City Council for approval on November 12, 2008. Therecommendations include: 1) the City should rezone the property to a higher density, notto exceed R-3.5, 2) the City should wait on making the property available for sale until theInclusive Housing Ordinance and/or the Innovative Housing Ordinance is in place, 3) theCity should use a RFP process with a scoring system with suitable criteria to elicitinnovative ideas that will meet the communitys goals, 4) the development of the propertyshould incorporate environmental aspects such as green construction, low impactdevelopment, clustering of housing, community gardens, permanent open space,preservation of natural features, and/or wildlife corridors, 5) the pond and a stand of mature trees at the SE corner should be incorporated into a natural-area buffer that wouldserve as a wildlife corridor and open space, 6) the development should include non-motorized trails for walking and biking with a safe route to school next to Sportsman ClubRoad and 7) bonus points should be awarded in the RFP to each proposal that includesaffordable housing above minimum requirements.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: A summary appraisal was done by Anthony Gibbons on May 8, 2007, andthe parcel was valued at $3,520,000. A summary appraisal of the parcel was done byMcKee & Schalka on March 1, 2008, and market value of the fee simple interest wasdetermined to be $5,400,000.



17/25

17

h. Whether an appraisal is recommended and the type of appraisal: The Committeerecommends an updated appraisal given the changed market conditions since March 2008.

i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability.

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: No.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Suzuki Task Force and LUC recommended that the propertybe sold by RFP with a scoring system with suitable criteria to elicit innovative ideas thatwill meet the communitys goals.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: The Suzuki Task Force recommended thatany future development should include non-motorized trails for walking and biking with asafe route to school next to Sportsman Club Road, and the pond and a stand of maturetrees at the SE corner should be incorporated into a natural-area buffer that would serve asa wildlife corridor and open space.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: Yes, trail and water utility easements in favor of the City will need to be recorded at closing. Public Works recommends that the Cityretain 200 by 300 in the southeast corner of the parcel for reservoir access and a newwell. There are currently two water tanks in that area. The City may also want to retainan easement for wellhead protection in that corner. In addition, the City will need todedicate a road right of way at the corner of Sportsman Club Road and New BrooklynRoad for future intersection improvements. It is further recommended that the City retaina ten-foot easement for a pedestrian path along Sportsman Club Road NE, a twenty-footslope and sidewalk easement along New Brooklyn Road NE and a twenty-foot easementon the eastern border of the property for a pedestrian path. See also the Suzuki Task Forces recommendations in (e) above.



18/25

18


19/25

19

7. Portion of Vincent Road Landfill (Parcel No. 332502-2-001-2001)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: An area of approximately 8 acreswould be carved out of the Vincent Road Landfill parcel (40.03 acres) by a boundary lineadjustment. The subject acreage is in the Northeastern portion of the parcel and includesan area that could be used as a future access road for City and Bainbridge Disposal

vehicles.b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: The City

entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County which was approved by CityCouncil on February 28, 2001 whereby the City and Kitsap County agreed to shareequally in the total cost for clean-up of the landfill, estimated at two million dollars. Inexchange for the Citys financial contribution, Kitsap County agreed to deed the propertyto the City following clean-up. Kitsap County transferred the property to the City onApril 22, 2002 in exchange for the Citys one million dollar contribution towards clean -up.



e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The portion of the parcel under considerationhas been used by Bainbridge Disposal, Inc. as a solid waste and recyclable materialstransfer station under a use agreement with the City. The City currently has a decantfacility on another portion of the property. The City has a road easement connecting theparcel to Vincent Road. A portion of the parcel has been identified for potential futureroad access for the City and Bainbridge Disposal. At the time the parcel was acquired, aVincent Road Landfill Potential Land Uses Advisory Committee was formed torecommend potential uses. They recommended a transfer station (10 acres), materialsyard for the City (5 acres, impervious cap), compost facility and demonstration gardens(15 acres), ball field and farming acres (7 acres) and affordable housing units. TheCommittee recommends that a portion be sold to Bainbridge Disposal to maintain theirtransfer facility.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: None.

g. Estimation of value (pre-appraisal) of the property: The land value of the entire parcel isassessed at $854,700.


i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability. The City has a road easement for access fromVincent Road.


20/25

20

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: The Committees recommendation is to surplus and sell only aportion of the property to Bainbridge Disposal for a solid waste and recyclable materialstransfer station. The City currently has a contract with Bainbridge Disposal for use of theproperty. Bainbridge Disposal provides a significant community service by providing a

transfer station for citizens of Bainbridge Island and surrounding areas. The City wouldretain approximately 32.3 acres.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that a portion of the property besold to Bainbridge Disposal, Inc. by negotiation.

l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or consideredfor transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the Committee recommends that thedesignated portion of the Vincent Road Landfill be declared surplus and sold.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: There is a Restrictive Covenant that runs withthe land that limits and restricts the uses to which the property may be put. Any activitythat interferes with the integrity of the Remedial Action is prohibited, any activity thatmay result in the release or exposure to the environment of a hazardous substance thatremains on the property is prohibited, groundwater may not be withdrawn unlessauthorized by the Cleanup Action Plan, no conveyance of title, easement or lease shall beconsummated without adequate and complete provision for continued monitoring,operation and maintenance of the Remedial action, the Owner must restrict leases to usesand activities consistent with the Restrictive Covenant and representatives of Ecologyhave the right to enter the property for the purpose of evaluation the Remedial Action.The City will need to maintain an access easement for a well site within the portionrecommended for surplus for testing purposes in order to remain compliant with theCleanup Plan. A boundary line adjustment would also need to be completed prior tosurplusing the property.



21/25

21


22/25

22

8. Weaver Avenue Well Site (Parcel No. 272502-4-035-2005)

a. Description of the location and size of the property: This is a .69 acre parcel at theintersection of Shepard Way and Weaver Road NW, on the western edge of Winslow in aresidential neighborhood. Note: An appraisal and 2000 study refer to this parcel as being

.92 acres.b. Description of the circumstances under which the property was obtained: It is unclear

when the property was purchased. Correspondence from 1952 refers to a completion of awell on Weaver Avenue.

c. Description of the funds used to acquire the property: Unknown; the Finance Departmenthas no record of its purchase.

d. Recommendation as to which fund the proceeds from its sale should be credited: WaterFund.

e. Description of what municipal use the property has been put to in the past, if any, andwhat use, if any, for which it might be held: The property has two City non-potable wellsused to obtain water for use in the Citys operations. There is a small shed on the westside. The City proposed locating a decant facility on this site in 1999-2000 but facedsignificant community opposition. The site is zoned R-3.5, but a stream divides theparcel. The stream is an unregulated class V stream, and there are no stream setback requirements for use of the parcel. A 2003 appraisal says that the parcels highest and bestuse is subdivision into 3 lots.

f. The date of any and each prior appraisal of the property, and the value determined by eachsuch appraisal: A restricted report of a limited appraisal of the parcel was done onOctober 3, 2003 in connection with a proposed property transfer between Citydepartments and the parcel was valued at $210,000. The appraisal described the lot as .92acres, and the County records indicate the lot is .69 acres. The Public Works Departmentcalculated the value of the water right for the two wells to be $320,000 in October 2008.The City may retain the underlying water rights or transfer them to another site. Therewould be certain costs associated with decommissioning the wells and transferring thewater rights.



i. Whether the property is usable by abutting owners or is of general marketability. Theproperty is of general marketability. Interest has been expressed by a non-profit to usethis parcel as a future site for affordable housing.


23/25

23

j. Whether special consideration ought to be given to some other public agency that has ause for the property: No.

k. Whether the property should be sold at auction, by sealed bid, by request for proposal(RFP) or by negotiation: The Committee recommends that the property be listed for saleby a real estate agent through a multiple listing service or by a negotiated sale if the non-

profit agency desires.l. Whether the property should be designated for consideration as Open Space or considered

for transfer to the Metropolitan Parks District: No, the property is near Strawberry PlantPark.

m. Recommendation as to whether any special covenants or restrictions should be imposed inconjunction with the sale of the property: The Committee recommends that the City retainan access and utility easement for monitoring the wells.

n. If owned by a City utility, recommendation as to whether the property should be sold ortransferred to the Citys General Fund prior to being conveyed or sold to a third party :Unknown.


24/25

24


25/25

25

INDEXProperty Name Page Number

1. Manitou Beach/Kane 12. Miller Road Shed/Old County Road Maintenance Site 43. Myers Pit 74. Old Decant Facility 10

5. Parcel Adjacent to Sakai/Virginia Villa Parcels 136. Suzuki Property 167. Vincent Road Landfill (Portion) 198. Weaver Avenue Well Site 22

SuplusProperty

Documents