During the meeting, the board discussed the complexities surrounding the encroachment on city land adjacent to a canal. The city-owned land in question, part of a canal, had been developed without proper authorization. The city was asked to consider selling this portion to the resident, mirroring a past agreement involving Whiskey Joe’s.

City Manager Matthew C outlined the necessity of the RFP process to facilitate the land sale. He highlighted the challenge of determining an appropriate minimum bid value due to the land’s limited development potential. City Attorney Nancy Meyer provided legal perspectives, referencing Chapter 163.380, which empowers the board to establish a value aligned with public interests and redevelopment objectives.

A significant portion of the discussion centered around the legal implications of adverse possession. It was clarified that the criteria for adverse possession were not met, as the city had remained aware of the situation without contesting it. The conversation further explored the origins of the encroachment, speculating that prior approvals for construction might have inadvertently permitted the resident’s encroachment. Concerns were raised about potential complications if a higher bid were submitted by another party. Meyer clarified that the board was not legally bound to accept the highest offer, allowing them to choose a proposal that best served the agency’s goals.

The board acknowledged the prevalence of encroachments along the canal, noting that most were typical structures like seawalls and docks. However, the resident’s case was deemed problematic due to the unauthorized development of city land. The importance of rectifying this encroachment to clarify property lines and resolve ownership issues was emphasized.

Discussion extended to the potential consequences of selling the land, particularly considering future city needs concerning the canal. Members debated the necessity of retaining ownership to maintain flexibility for future developments or environmental considerations. One member voiced concerns about relinquishing control of land that might be needed for public use later, urging the city to weigh its long-term interests before proceeding with the sale.

As the discussion evolved, there was consensus on the importance of cleaning up property lines, with suggestions that collecting tax revenue from the land could be a positive outcome. However, uncertainties remained about the specific nature of the encroachment, with members seeking clarity on whether the land was completely concrete or included grassy areas.

Further deliberations explored the historical context of the land, with members contemplating the motivations of developers from decades ago. Questions arose regarding the original decisions made during the subdivision’s creation in the 1960s or 1970s, and whether insights from that era could inform the current situation. Members explored the city’s rights concerning the land, clarifying that while the city owns the canal, rights-of-way do not apply as they do to city property.

A proposal to establish a minimum bid for the land was put forward, suggesting an amount of $2,200, or approximately $151 per square foot. A motion to approve the RFP for selling the land was made, prompting debate about whether to retain an easement for future access or maintenance. Concerns were noted that including an easement might deter potential buyers, but there was also urgency to finalize the decision.

The meeting also touched on property tax implications, confirming that property owners were taxed only on improvements and not the land itself. This aspect added another layer to the long-standing development and ownership issues surrounding the property.