Need it or list it? Council to examine public properties

Use it or sell it.

Those are the two options facing the Oxford Village Council as it begins the process of examining all of the municipal-owned land spread across the community.

At last week’s meeting, Assistant Village Manager Drew Benson presented council with a list of 30 village-owned parcels for consideration.

Benson compiled the list in response to a July 2017 resolution from council directing the administration to “identify” all village-owned real estate, “analyze each property’s need” as it relates to “ongoing” village “objectives and goals,” and “develop a controlling and detailed plan for the marketing and sale” of properties.

Based on his research, “the majority” of Oxford’s properties are currently being used by the village as parking lots, easements, public parks and municipal facilities such as the village hall and Department of Public Works garage.

But there are some vacant parcels not being used by the village. Examples include three on Dayton St., one just south of Round Lake and one just west of 544 Lakeville Rd.

Council decided to discuss the list of properties during a work-study meeting to be held Tuesday, March 27. At this meeting, officials want input from the village planner as well as the municipality’s department heads.

Village attorney Bob Davis made his feelings clear.

“If you have parcels . . . that are not serving or (don’t) have (the) potential to serve a municipal need, you really should dispose of the properties,” he advised.

“You don’t want to hang on to land because you’re not in the real estate business,” Davis told council. “It’s better to sell it and get it on the tax rolls.”

Councilman Erik Dolan agreed.

“It would be my preference to liquidate everything conceivably possible (that’s not needed) and return (the proceeds) back to the village,” he said.

Council cannot sell property without first seeking permission at the ballot box.

Voter-approval is required by the village charter “to sell any property of value in excess of five dollars per capita, according to the last preceding U.S. Census.” Based on the 2010 Census, which counted 3,436 residents in the village, any property worth more than $17,180 requires a vote of the people to sell it.

Right now, the village does have voter permission to sell a few parcels if it so chooses.

One of them is the village complex on W. Burdick St. In the November 2012 election, village residents voted 921-675 to give council the authority to sell the 1.7-acre site, which contains two buildings.

The others are two odd-shaped parcels totaling 2.1 acres. They are located off Dayton St., south of Maple St., west of Pleasant St. and north of Lafayette St. They border the Polly Ann Trail and are zoned for single-family residential development.

In the November 2016 election, village residents voted 805-738 to authorize the municipality to sell them if it so chooses.

Referring to the Dayton St. parcels, village President Sue Bossardet said, “I think everybody knows my feeling – we need to sell that property.”

“We don’t need to hold on to property that we’re never going to have the money to develop,” she said.

There was some question about a third parcel of vacant Dayton St. land, a 0.589-acre piece that did not appear on the November 2016 ballot with the other two parcels.

When asked about this, Davis told council, “I think you were approved to put all three on the ballot and a mistake was made between the county and (the village) office (which resulted in) not getting the third one onto the ballot.

“But you already voted to put that third one on the ballot. What I’m suggesting is that you’ve already (given) that approval, it just hasn’t gone to the ballot.”

However, this reporter looked into it and found that council never approved placing the 0.589-acre parcel on the ballot.

Based on village records, the motion to place the Dayton St. parcels on the November 2016 ballot – a motion written by former village Manager Joe Young and approved by council at its April 12, 2016 meeting – only contained two parcel identification numbers, not three.

A Leader article regarding the March 14, 2017 village meeting quoted Young telling council, “It was an oversight at the time.”

The story went on to say, “The manager explained that when council passed a motion authorizing the ballot question, the parcel identification number for the 0.589-acre property was not included.”

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *