Got a motion to second all in favor.

This is me and you care is item number one approval commercial peer permit for Beacon Point community.

Mark good afternoon, gentlemen.

This is for uh building permit for a dock at the Beacon Point Homeowners Association, the their community pier.

It's a very simple dock, it stretches out uh 40 foot into the lake and it's 20 foot wide, it's a T-shaped pier.

It actually meets all our homeowner regulations.

Um the only reason we're here is because it is it's not a residential dock, it's for an HOA, um, and by our code, it has to be approved by city council.

Any questions?

Make motion.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye, most curious.

Item number two, uh 2205 13th Street, RFP, Councilor Busby.

This is a uh property in my district across from the YMCA across from um 13th Street.

We had a problem there.

We have had a problem.

We've had a couple of properties that have flooded badly.

Uh we've assessed uh the cost of um bringing that to an end, and I think last time I saw it, we were in the 11 million dollar range.

So uh we went ahead and done what we've done in other neighborhoods in the city.

We uh uh bought one of those properties uh in exchange for closing off any future liability on it and closing off.

Um I believe there was a health liability issue circling that we closed off.

Uh we bought the property somewhere in the 400s, 440-ish, I think.

460 460.

Yes.

Uh we've torn the house down.

We've paid to have the basement filled in so that that doesn't keep occurring.

And so what's there is a uh a dead piece of property.

Um and what we're asking uh Dr.

Sproul is here, he owns the property horseshoe around it.

And I'm asking that we put declare this surplus and do it as we've done the other properties uh throughout the city, put it out for RSP, let people take a shot at it, let the market determine it.

Any questions?

Any comments?

Um we have no opposition to that.

Um we would ask though that within the RFP there be three things placed in it because the city purchased the property to uh help with the flooding issues that Mr.

Busby uh described.

Uh one that is maintain a public purpose and however it's incorporated, uh two, that improved drainage in the area and help mitigate flooding, and three identify the city of any flooding that may occur in that area.

Um so that's that would be the what we would recommend as the administration regarding this since we did acquire the property for time for 20 or 60, yes, and so that's what it was uh purchased for, and so we would just want those things as part of it as any development that occurred in and around that utilize that piece of property.

So I'll uh actually Mr.

Parsons.

Sure, come on up.

Give me name and address Camp Hartson, Mr.

Parson.

That way is a television audience.

It's not deprived of your uh your wisdom, we would not want them, Mr.

Busby's had to be deprived of.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Cam Parsons 2909 7th Street.

I'm real familiar with this property.

Uh in fact, um, the lady who lived there before had called me.

The problem with this property is uh not the living elevation, it's the underground elevation, it's the basement.

All right, so um I'd like to comment on the mayor's suggestions, and it let me state that I don't believe they're necessary.

First of all, on all the other uh surplus properties that we have in the city, there's been no tag that there's got to be a public purpose.

I don't understand that.

Um I just don't understand why if you're abandoning 30 pieces of property, you pick this one that's got to be served some type of public purpose to address the uh problem that's that we have with this house and actually another one that Dr.

Sproul has behind it that's been flooding, and I think at one time the city attempted to buy that property from sort of a defensive standpoint prior to Dr.

Sproul buying it, is once again is the basements.

But the city sell it with a restrictive covenant that states that the there will not that the living area be above a certain elevation to deal with the surface waters.

So I think that's palatable.

It doesn't flood.

So the elevation should be easily determined.

And that way no one's digging basements, you're not worried about basements getting flooded.

And the project that he's got around there, it's been designed.

We've spent hours with the city.

It's uh even with uh the buildings that he's putting up and parking and so on, it's uh it's actually improving drainage in the area.

Um I really don't understand all three of those sort of vague generic stipulations, particularly uh I don't understand why this particular piece of property would have to serve a public purpose.

It should it should be available for development as long as the development doesn't exacerbate or increase the drainage problem and cause a situation where the city's facing another lawsuit from the landowner.

So if you have the elevation up, you're not doing a basement, you're not worried about a basement flooding and mold and mildew getting up in the house is what which is what this prior property on your head, that's our problem.

I've got it in my house, it was built in 1831.

I you know, I got I got a basement.

The old cold cold furnace was down there, but you know, new houses don't have to have that.

They've got a slab and it and they go up.

So as a taxpayer and as counsel for the mayor, I I do not understand those conditions.

But I would ask uh the committee just to go ahead and and uh declare this surplus, put it out for RFP, and but I do think it's reasonable that the city should uh be a little bit concerned and that the uh final elevations be set uh so that they're consistent with the grade of the Rock Point office and uh the other houses to the left and the right of this one that's been flooded.

I I think to answer, I think they're very fair questions.

Um the the why on the public purpose, this is new terror's word for us, and in the properties that we've acquired, protective purchases for drainage, we've never had a situation like this.

Um so when we came to the city council to make those recommendations, the recommendations that we made to each and every one of you is that they would remain green spaces.

Uh, in the conversations I know that Mr.

Busby has had and that I've had, I think the concept we were looking for was more of a public parking type of public purpose in that area that somehow this development may fit around that property and there could be a parking process for it.

So that is the thinking on the public purpose side.

In terms of improving drainage and preventing flooding, I think what you described actually would fit that when you talk about being high of a higher level, so I don't think that's an I don't believe that would be an issue in the RFP.

The last one on the demifying the flooding is that if we have flooding on that street, people whose cars are parked on that street, they're likely going to file claims against the city.

See, I I disagree with you on that.

And I mean, if if first of all, we've been out there with the engineers, Tom and I have been out there.

There's only real there's a dip at one point.

In fact, you're familiar with the YMCA, I know you go there regularly.

Uh you've got you know how uh you've got the uh drainage covert there right in front of the Y, and there, and then you've got another little sort of build out.

I wish we had a picture here, but that area right there where there's a dip is really the only problem.

And uh, you know, my response to it was why if there's a problem there, why are we allowing people to park in front of the YMCA?

That you've got all the parking uh that's there now exists the parking in front of Dr.

Skrull's office.

He owns the house on the corner.

Where do you stop and where you can in other words?

How far are you going to prohibit people to park to try to avoid some type of unknown potential lawsuit?

We can't we can't protect it, get everything, and and we've had these conversations, and I think the engineering department sort of agreed.

Well, we hadn't any claims uh for people parked in front of the uh IMCA.

I think there's the discussion with Tom has been, and he can he can uh um reflect on this.

I think there's been a few car flood claims against the city, but we don't have any right here.

I don't know.

I I think uh you can restrict some parking in the dip there, and the project that Dr.

Spru has actually is designed to put the parking east and west.

And uh the engineering department agreed with that at the time.

If I can interject briefly, I understand the the proposal is to open up this property for a competitive purpose, and I appreciate uh Mr.

Parsons' comments.

I would I would suggest that that those comments and exploit explanations are voiced inside a response to an RFP, not one potential competitive uh party designing what the RFP should look like.

What you do what you do is you're putting a chilling effect on your RFP.

If you're setting it out with with restrictions, then you I'm sorry, Mr.

No.

I I was just gonna say I don't I don't think uh we are this particular item is to put it out for RFP.

I I don't think I I do kind of agree with Mr.

Hall, I don't think we need to get in specifics of a specific project just in case there's someone else that that is interested in putting in an RFP for it.

I don't I don't I don't think we need to get into a specific project.

I think we can I I agree with you.

I I do want to make one comment because I I've I've been with this through the process, and I you know the flood, you know, making sure a flood now doesn't turn into a flood later.

Yeah, that makes good sense.

But the if there were any ask that the RFP be in any way subsidized by the city.

I think the restriction of it to a public purpose would make perfect sense.

That's not what's being asked for.

We're asking it's dead property, so put it out, let the market decide, and people take a shot at it.

I don't see how on top how you could place a restriction to public purpose on top of that.

That's I'll be quiet.

I I might add to that, Mr.

Chairman.

Who who's who's interested in uh buying a surplus property if it's if it's limited to being a public purpose?

I think the idea actually, Mr.

Parsons came from some initial discussions, and granted, those plans may have changed of looking at using that maybe as some sort of green space.

Well, auxiliary parking or something like that for a development on that corner.

Now, those development plans may have changed, but that's where that concept was first the genesis of that concept.

I understand, and and we've gone from that concept to all of a sudden this this idea of public purpose has been thrown into it.

So that's that's really sidetracked the whole thing.

I think Scott, help me help me with the process.

I am new.

So once we open the RFP, anybody is is of can put an RP and it's up to the council to approve which so what we'll do is is Mr.

Bobbitt will prepare a resolution uh with for the council next week to declare this property surplus, um, and then we will draft and issue an RFP, um, and then those will will come the typically an RFP will contain a uh a judging body that determines what the best proposal is that is then presented to council for ultimate approval.

I make the motion I second it.

Um motion and second, all in favor?

I agree.

Next province committee meeting will be March 3rd.

Um I entertain a motion to adjourn.