##VIDEO ID:sHEl06FUxSo## Redevelopment AG board meeting Tuesday November 26 2024 like stand for the [Music] pledge to United States of America to the rep for it stands one nation indivisible withy and Justice m cler r please chairman Johnny R coou here Vice chairwoman Linda Rodriguez here member David erer here member Robert hubard let the record show that member Robert hubard is absent from tonight's meeting member Lisa bur here City attorney Nancy Meyer here city manager Matthew CER here okay I have a sen of board minutes to approve for 910 motion motion to approve board minutes from from 10 910 motion a second any for discussion all in favor second saying I I oppos motion carries next up comments from General Public I do not have anyone signed up anyone by show hands like to speak sing that I'll bring it back two comments from the city manager pass comments no comments comments okay moving on comments from the board I'll start with uh my right time member Muer no comments Vice chair Rodriguez I'm good thank you member Burke no comments I as well have none okay moving on to our board business item number two approval of RFP for CRA land not meeting the PRC plan objectives I'll pass it to Mr C for induction so you may remember um we had been approached by a resident on Betty that uh has encroached quite a bit on City owned land that's actually part of the canal that the city has um in that area um they've put quite a bit of a pull deck onto that and uh we're asking for the city to sell it to them uh because that portion of the city is in the CRA the way that we could only way that we could transfer that property is to go through the uh RFP process like we did uh very similar to what we did with the uh two properties that we allowed Whiskey Joe's to uh do the anary parking for their operation so what this uh propos does is puts out that area which is approximately 1500 square feet or so um and allows us to accept bids on that uh and then Council or excuse me the board would make a determination to accept uh whichever bid that comes in for the second piece with this so ultimately you're approving this uh proposal to go out so we could advertise it and receive those bids but the second piece of this is that we really need to have some type of minimum bid put in this um which makes it a very difficult very difficult thing to do because of the nature of the land where it's located um and fact that that really doesn't have a lot of value to most places because there's very little that can be done um I looked at it and basically said that M there's a portion of the property that uh the partiel adjacent to it uh is is assessed at I think is a151 per square foot this is500 foot it's going to be the same like that that other property that probably isn't you know high value because there's actually two different square footage values for the property there and so my guess is that the areas that are closer to the canal have lesser value than the areas like where the house is to the frontage of it um so I would say that that is the best uh measuring stick for the value of this and so doing that math it's uh $151 by the square foot about, 1500 so would be and I didn't have it here in front a value of about $2,200 as a minimum bid but obviously it's something that you as a board consent uh as a minimum bid to establish for it I don't know if I seen anything City attorney no the the um chapter 163 380 actually for this kind of a situation let you determine a a value determine to be in the public interest for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment plan in accord and in accordance with the reasonable disposal um procedures that the city has so it's not one of those biggest and best or anything like that that you see a lot of times with the request for proposals because it's um within the CRA um you essentially get to determine what's in the best interest to promote your plan and so that being said you could easily say we don't want to have a minimum bid and it would be acceptable and whatever you get is you know then your determination which is the best proposal for it I would I would recommend that we do have minimum bid though yeah I would I would concur with that um the only only question I want to ask just because if I look see what potentially could happen let's say that the property owner adjacent to that bids a minimum bid of 2200 and um somebody comes in and say hey that's waterfront property I'm GNA give you 100 grand for it and obviously the city has no obligation to take the highest bid Oly the goal here is to um uh obviously clear those lines up right it's to right or wrong yeah right exactly we're trying to do here and and my big concern is hasn't adverse possession doesn't that take over here and why not um ad possession means it's a hostile possession we've known about it we haven't cared about it we haven't been fighting about it there's there's well they're hostile occupying the property we know the city's known the city's known that they have it there's no we we we did the analysis there's like seven criteria for adverse possession and she didn't qualify that was one of the many that I said didn't didn't fit and my next question is we vacate the property I didn't look at that for this property to vacate you wouldd have to find there's no public purpose in it so you possibly I'd have to look at it I'm aware of property that has been vacated within the CRA on Miles similar situation except there wasn't anything built on it okay and then the third piece of this is how in the heck did this happen in the first place so the city must have approved or maybe it was not approved all that Paving that occurred in that property I believe at some point in time the real lines should have been to the water line This is a landlocked piece of property and nobody could have ever done anything right yeah well it's it's part of the canal it's part of the canal yeah it was part of the canal that was um given to the city as part of the the uh creation of the subdivision when when you go down and this is only looking at this one isolated lot what does the adjacent lot look like does it have a strip like that too or you mean going going to the West going to the West so to the West it's actually I'm not sure exactly where it happens I think it may be the next property um but that is owned actually the whole Canal the ownership goes across the canal to the side so I think the next two to three Parcels all the way all the way across they own across the canal so they could put anything they want no there's I think there's restrictions on that what about to the but as you go yeah as you go to the east uh to the East and to the South actually because you know those canals that go to the South um also owned by the city they sto but there is a ler I mean if you look actually on the uh the map one of the things that they they had uh they provided the owner of 8720 provided this description and you can see that on the east side of the that parcel they had also made a request to get that um so there is a strip of land similar to that it kind of goes larger and smaller um all the way to the end of the canal on both sides of the canal and as you look to the east in the main channel of the canal there is a lesser amount of uh acreage or square feet along that that main Canal that would be similar but less I mean you don't have the amount of encroachment in those other areas you have here this I will I will say that there there are a lot of encroachments in this particular can and the north south on as well yeah I me you have more what what you would expect to see in terms of encroachments would be permitted encroachments so seaw walls right um docks you know those type of things yeah you would expect to see those types of encroachments and in fact you have a process again you know one of the issues that the the owner brought up is well you know we have a a seaw wall that is crumbling well again most most sea walls um you know you go through a permitting process because either the canal is owned by someone else owned by the state some cases owned by the county some cases owned by us and and the area that they're actually putting the seaw wall on is a part of of that property um not all the time but there's quite a bit of that and so that process allows you as the owner to put a seaw wall on that to protect your property that's a part of of you know the permit you're allowed to do that in this case minus the you know whatever the 16 feet or whatever that distance is there um you know they be allowed to put that on there to protect their other parts of their property so you know they don't wake up one day and you know all of a sudden the canal is right next to their bedroom right that's why they put that se is that part of the reparan rights or how you say that word yeah they they can do that what's different here is they took the land that's between the seaw wall and their property line and they developed it and so that's the encroachment that we're trying to correct in all this but but when they developed it they would have had to pull permits yeah so this looks like it was done sometime back in the 80s right so I don't have don't have any records to that yeah well back to my adverse possession back in the 80s not I can tell you adverse possession isn't qualify because I've already analyzed it you might be able to vacate it that is something I can look into and I thought I actually asked about vacation and we couldn't do that I don't I don't remember analyzing that part so I I'm happy to look at it and see and we can do this this you know kind of at the same time you could move this forward I can figure that out and if that's an option we can come back and my concern is what if somebody else buys this so now what are you so this and remember the the let's say you get three bids you you as the CRA get to decide which bid is promote the SEC yes and so that that was the the second part of my question or actually the question is let's say that we get something astronomical difference right can is there I mean obiously we we would go with the the the $2,200 bid with the property owner because that's what we're looking to do but are we putting oursel up for any litigation because you just turned down a million dollar offer there's no requirement that you take that's the biggest that be my only concern like said as long as you as long as you support your decisions are supporting what your plans trying to promote and the problem is that these people can't sell their property because we've an that's creating no scenario they could they could correct it I mean they can clear the rideway then they wouldn't have the encroachment because again the the seaw wall isn't an issue I I know that they keep bringing that up but I I don't think that's an issue because they have a permit for it and and again if that's the case if if they're you know what they bring up as the issue is an issue then everyone along those canals has have the same issue but we're not out there I mean a number of those houses have been bought and swn and so they don't have that issue their issue is they built a lot more on the land well there's a lot more land in between yeah them in or seaw wall I mean pres for other for other people residents I guess is the thing well so I I think the answer is yes and I and I think we should I think we should clean up all lines it I mean it's we shouldn't have issues like this where the city has a parch of somebody's backyard um it's not like we're like I said not like we're using it for anything it's just just how it is so we might as well clean it up clean it up and collect the adum tax revenue on that additional property as opposed to just sitting there we're we're actually eating the adum tax on it because it's ours um and you know we're technically on the hook to maintain it I mean we should be able cutting that grass right I mean technically there's no grass it's just concrete oh is that all concrete yeah it's all developed it's what's this separate it looks like I got dotted stuff here and I got a like a side maybe that maybe that is grass I don't know hard surface two hard surfaces maybe maybe one's deck or if you don't know this about me you'll know it after I say this so so you don't know what that property is going to be needed for sometime in the future again ask yourself why why was that property given to us and why wasn't it put in that land when they separated it so my answer again and I don't know because I wasn't there when this was done way back when but it's on a main Channel you never know when things start happening where you may have to go out there and clean that up or or widen it for whatever reason um and and so in their Infinite Wisdom they you know turned over to the city more land so we have flexibility when when you give the land away you're not going to have that flexibility and if there is a need someday in the future right you take him in domain yeah then then we'd be spending money potentially a lot more than what we're spending and getting in return right and so I I I'm usually against this um and and again I know that it's an unpopular thing to say but you know that that Land There was always records showing that land is owned by the city and I can't because I can't give you a permit I can't tell you what was permitted and what wasn't permitted and so I know you may say and land or oh yeah we got to permit but it may not have got a permit for that they may have got a permit for the poll and they said well no one ever know so why don't we just do this so there's no way to know this at least again based upon what records I have to look at so I I guess I don't necessarily hold the same thought that that that you know the city said it was okay because I can't prove that City said it okay right I can only go by what's in in the record that I have and I don't have that well that so I live around the corner from this canal and I when I go out I have to make this left turn and go buy this property and I would I would assumed it was her property to begin with right and I I also say that um the uh it's plenty wide there um so the only reason I think maybe it was there is because the city actually owns those canals those are city-owned canals um as you get past this property the property owner actually owns like mlar live back here they actually own into the canal side right so but these stretch along here and down the two finger canals those are actually owned by the city and so I'm assuming that for whatever reason this lot was developed just like that and it they left that portion it's it's odd right well but but again I think you know if you look at it from a de developers perspective I get more money selling it than I do giving it to the city sure I so so why why didn't they sell it there there's a reason I mean there's some reason why they did it and and so again without knowing what those reasons are it's hard to say whether this is a good deal or a bad deal for the city because you know they may have known something back in 70s 60s 70s when they they created the subdivision that we don't know today let me ask this so in in this is there I don't think it's part of this that we maintain right of away we don't but that's something we could potentially add to that right well you're G to sell it right you're not going to have there not you're not going to if if if you sell the strip there's not going to be any city property back well right but right away is not is it considered city property like in front of my house obious have landscape whatever it's in the rway not rway yeah the canal what I thought on the either side of the road is called is rideway Road into your this this I'm not sure what you're talking he's talking about the front of his yard right well it's right away not on a road this this is a part of the canal right well that's exactly so EAS my right away same thing I don't know if there's rights on I think an EAS you can have an easement going across the piece of land that's that's not you know our responsibility to maintain we just have the right to put a water line I mean if you look at uh a number of areas where we have water lines in people's backyards we have an easement to put that in there but we don't maintain what's on top we limit them to what they can do on top of like you can't put a building on top of bar or we allow you to do that like for instance the the driveways and stuff if the city needs to do something with water lines they're going to tear them up it's just homework can't say no don't do that we have right easement to do that so this this is similar to a RightWay but this is property own by the city I I don't we don't need it need it right away if it's owned by the city right it's own I mean right that's why that's why I don't think vacation on this is I don't know how you vacate this part of this land I I don't either that's what have have to I think maybe that's where I maybe maybe there is a way and I just not familiar with it but I've never seen that on canals in in other words you're saying that this little strip isn't separately cared out it's part of the canal is what you're saying yes so what we're trying to do here is Define what that strip of land is and there's legal description on that and that's what's being addressed to separate that from the city right okay I have a question this strip of land is this because I haven't seen it in person I just see this the map here is this further out than the surrounding land or is no yeah yeah it's it's it's in the same same pathway is the rest so itn't it doesn't go like this it doesn't go no okay the property of buting it to the mean if you look there uh to the top middle you can see where the canal is all the way up to the top if you allow me absolutely see that up until the end of this one parel here and then starts to Wi down a little bit and go out to okay I don't know if this a help or not but let me yeah let me let me share this IED she get request I gu okay so here's the subject property right here's the city owned property along the the bank there and as you can see the the other property actually goes across so they own all that it goes along with it as well as the canal it's just this property for some reason this little area here is uh we're not looking at the L we're just looking at the one on the the north side right what about what about the little one outside so if you if you look down just the curve yeah but but there's a little piece here too so if you do it to that one why don't we why aren't we doing it to the one on the other side the other side about the east side to the yes thank you on the east side there if if you look down the you'll have that all along the the East bank and even on the on the West Bank of the opposite side it's it's common to have that line kind of not go all the way out that that was that is my question thank you but it's just that's a that's a big piece and obviously her pool deck and everything is there and it's just a big piece I don't know why that line is like I said it's it's kind of a mystery it is a little bit larger on that east side too but not uncomforable here's one over here if you look it's it's pretty W the amount of filled dirt basically that in between the waters okay no I understand answer my question thank you one of the things you want to consider there those green lines approximate they're not accurate yeah there's ultimately a leak it's at an angle so it's probably plus or minus three 3et I mean that tells the story what what they're trying to look at there is a strip but those lines might not be as accurate yeah but it gives the idea answer her question I guess yeah that's why the the the map that's on the RFP that that gives you the the legal description of that but going back to your concern obviously if you go past that you see we've got a lot bigger problems on down there because we've got they own the canal yeah so that would be something we would have to if we need to do anything along there we would obious have to get permission to do that so what is your recommendation that is establish back which which I mean my my my recommendation would have been way back when clear the the the rideway or clear the the canal Land We own I mean that's my position but it was my understanding that we wanted to convey this land to that owner that we put this together to allow the city or the CRA to offer the land for sale and make that uh a reality so if you're going to do this you need to establish what the the minimum bid is going to be if if you want one my recommendation would be You' want one and then approve the RFP so we can go out the bid I make a motion to approve the RFP for the C land not meeting the pr C land objectiv and the minimum bid price of 2200 which equates to approximately 151 per square foot second second okay motion a second any further discussion uh just going back question do we want to potentially look at having an easement there or do you think it's not need vacation no no not vacation sell it but maintain easement in case we would ever need to do something there which would fall into whatever the original intent you're thinking about would that cover that so at least we wouldn't have a in the domain issue in the future we we have easement to be able to do something with it we would need to know what what that something is your easement needs toas for you have something like that that's something we could look maybe we need to set a piece of equipment up there think if we we need to pause then and see if that's that probably needs to be disclosed in this if you're going to say we want to sell it we want to retain an easement that's different than we want to sell it oh hey now that we've given it to you we want an easement right so I think if you want to do an easement we need to start this over right and then that would also impact what the uh minimum bid would be as well yeah I'm the only reason I men that because it sounds like you're you have some concerns there and obviously want is there a short views on this are people asking to move forward on this so I mean I'm I'm good to put the vote now if you want do that I'll just bring that do the East I mean we have to look out for the city as a whole so doing it eement if we should need it I think is not is not a bad idea I mean our job is to look out for the city right yeah I mean I just I mean this has been going on for a long time another another two weeks for them to look into it is not what they the amount of time they've been looking into it my my like the only reason I bring it up is because like his his reservation from that perspective and I and I I recognize that and I want to value that um knowing the property like I do like I said it's it's right around the corner for me I can't imagine that we would ever need it for anything Never Say Never whatever but I just know that it's it's it's that's probably not a an issue so I I'm okay with without the easement but um again I want to make a good solid decision so I'll leave that up to the motion that easement it's probably going to limit the amount of action you're going to have on the property as well which would kind of solve the same problem that we're trying to solve yeah could it would it would deter sh potential buyers there's if all if it EAS and and I'm not saying ease the whole thing maybe just portion again I don't know what whatever staff thinks but said either way I'm I'm good you know I'm looking at this thing from a standpoint of somebody spent money to do that right wrong or indiffer it's in the past we can't justify you know whether it was a good permit or not it's it's a situation anybody look at the tax roles to see if they're already paying taxes on this no they're not they're not no they're not paying taxes on the pool and all that ping around there the pool's in their on their property what about all that Paving I I don't know the way that that they talk about it if it's that whole area or just the area that's on their property because when you look at the assessors Rec yeah there's some extra yeah there's there's like the pool I mean they have there sidewalks and like that yeah yeah so they may have been paying taxes on that even though yeah I well they wouldn't be paying tax on the land portion of it they the the uh the improvements possibly so it have to be written into their just paral description maybe if you pull up their tax record you can see how far back that I remember hearing about this a long time ago I can't even remember when it must have been when I was on planning on zoning I remember hearing it because I can remember her saying didn't want to work on the seaw wall or trying to sell the property and because what was the point so this has been going on for much longer than maybe even you realize no I I know it's been going on for a long time and it's but nobody's done anything with it now it's finally here but it's so this trip if if if we haven't been able to go back and look and see why we have it so there's on the tax roll there's uh there's davits there's uh those are on the those are on the opposite side actually those are on the east on the east side um po jacuzzi uh concrete patio Sund deck so there square footage in here so I don't know what all is included what's not there any dates when they driveway sidewalk you need dates when those sidewalks and all 80 so 75 the davits and it goes 81 was when the looks like they put the pool or no the fireplace seaw wall in 84 was a pool jacuzzi 86 floating dock 40 91 concrete patio 96 Sund deck and but they're paying tax on all that right yes certain units of it yeah okay so again I don't know what is figured out that but I mean it's I think it's the right thing to do is to clear the lineup so we haven't needed it for 47 years right so I've got I've got a motion second on the floor if that stands any more discussion anyone public I comment see hands up put to vote all in favor second by saying I I oppos motion carries you like to rec clarify that motion to hold on hold on uh old business any old business I will take that as no old business I have a motion Jour on the floor with a second all in favor s saying I hi me and J have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone