DISPOSAL OF AGGREGATE MIXED-USE SURPLUS
PROPERTY
Update: VA
Requested by: California
Survey Deadline: April 3, 2008
The California Department of Transportation (Department), like many transportation
departments across the county, is confronted with disposing of surplus property in a soft real
estate market. In a limited number of cases, the Department faces disposal of significant
numbers of parcels concentrated in one community. The nature of the property holdings
runs the entire range of property types from residential to retail, commercial, industrial, and
even open space. In an attempt to craft a property disposal solution that satisfies the needs
of the community and optimizes the return to state taxpayers, the Department would like to
consider approaches that may have been used in other jurisdiction. To facilitate further
analysis, the Department requests responses to the following questions.
1. Has your Department ever aggregated (bundled) properties within and/or across
property classes (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) for sale using a Master
Developer Request for Proposal (RFP)?
2. If you responded yes to question #1, what was the size of the landholding and
property mix (were disposals grouped/managed by property type)?
3. If a Master Developer was used, was the settlement amount for the real property
equivalent to the DOT’s appraised value or discounted?
4. Which, if any, agreements or intermediary structures were used to facilitate
property disposal and conveyance:
a. Cooperative Agreement (DOT and local agencies)?
b. Joint Powers Agreement (DOT and local agencies)?
c. Other (please describe)
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
The Arizona Department of Transportation is currently faced with the same conditions
noted in California’s request. We are tasked by Department management to sell as
much excess land (of various types) as possible within a real estate climate that is, to
say the least, “unsettled”. The ADOT Property Management team dealing with this
challenge has worked to streamline the land disposal process and to implement new
and innovative methods of marketing property. At this time we are not contemplating
the use of a marketing company, consultant or other outside entity as a means of selling
groups, or “bundles” of properties, as our current excess land inventory does not lend
itself to this sort of marketing approach. However, several years ago ADOT did contract
with private marketing companies for sale of a large number of properties that were
“bundled” for sale. One of these disposal projects involved approximately one hundred,
mostly residential, properties - houses, townhomes, some vacant lots; and the second, a
much larger disposal of approximately three hundred properties, included houses,
townhomes, commercial improved and vacant property, and other vacant land. In each
instance, the “bundles” involved properties on a single freeway corridor, and in fairly
close geographic proximity.
In each instance the sales company was selected as the result of the RFP process that
was handled through ADOT’s Procurement Group. The respondents to the RFP were
short-listed, then interviewed by a multi-agency selection panel as part of the final
selection process. When selected, the company was placed under ADOT contract and
tasked to market and complete the sale of all properties included in the “bundle”.
ADOT established the asking prices for the properties. The prices were the current
appraised values determined by ADOT fee appraisers. These appraisers took into
consideration the conditions of the sale of these properties (e.g. several properties being
offered on the market at the same time) when determining values. Once the appraised
value had been established, no discounts were applied to the asking prices for these
properties and if the properties did not sell at or above the established asking price at
one of the auctions held by the contractor, the property would not sell.
Fortunately, all properties eventually sold at auction during both disposal projects. This
success was to a large degree attributable to close cooperation between ADOT staff
and the marketing company throughout the sales process.
Other than the RFP process mentioned above, no other agreements (IGA, JPA, etc.)
were utilized for these sales.
Please let me know if additional information is needed.
R. Brian Rockwell
Assistant Chief R/W Agent
R/W Group, Arizona Department of Transportation
(602) 712-8787
brockwell@azdot.gov
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
The answer to your question is no.
There is nothing in Florida law that would preclude the Department from packaging
(bundling) different property types for surplus disposal. However, the majority of
inventoried excess properties available for surplus are small in nature, either small or
uneconomic remnants, which can more likely be sold to adjacent landowners for
assemblage rather than for development.
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
The Illinois Department of Transportation has not bundled up parcels of excess right of
way involving different highest and best uses for disposal purposes. If applicable, we
may assemble various smaller pieces of excess right of way into one larger excess
parcel as long as their highest and best uses are the same.
INDIANA
IOWA
1.
2.
3.
4.
No.
N/A
N/A
N/A
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
a. Yes, called Cooperative Endeavor Agreement in Louisiana
b. Yes, called Joint Use Agreement in Louisiana
c. Acts of Sale - Sale, in fee, of the subject property (As is, Where is)
Declaration of Abandonment - State DOT disclaims interest in highway servitude
Transfer & Acceptance - State transfers property to a local municipality
MAINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
No, MaineDOT has not done this.
N/A
N/A
N/A
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
With respect to Question #1 on the attached Survey, Mn/DOT's answer is "No". The
Minnesota Department of Transportation has not aggregated (bundled) properties within
and/or across property classes (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) for sale using a
Master Developer Request for Proposal (RFP).
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Bonnie
Mail Stop 632
8th Floor
Office of Land Management
Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
651.366.3476
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
Missouri has not, but it has been contemplated for a project that would create a large
excess. If possible, please let me know what you end up doing.
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
1. No. Each property is sold individually, although they may be more than one parcel
being sold as part of that property. Typically the parcels are in the same zone.
2. Not applicable.
3. NJDOT obtains State House Commission approval to sell property and at the time of
State House approval the property has a determined value which is what State
House approves the sale for. This amount is based on the NJDOT appraised value
of the property. So we either receive the appraised amount, or the property is not
sold.
4. a. N/A
b. N/A
c. NJDOT uses excess surplus land contracts to convey/dispose of property.
Depending on whom the Department is conveying the property to will determine
which excess surplus land contract to use.
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
1. No, NYSDOT does not have experience aggregating (bundling) properties within and/or
across property classes.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. N/A
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
OHIO
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
OKLAHOMA
1. No, we have not experience the same types of issues with our disposal process that
are currently at play in California.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. N/A
OREGON
1. In 2005, the State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Transportation, had a
number of timberland parcels, zoned FF or FG, that were grouped together and sent
out for proposals for surveys, timber cruises and land appraisals. We did not use a
Master Developer Request for Proposal.
2. ODOT declared surplus, 770 acres +/-, of timberland property, zoned FF of FG, and
grouped them together as 6 separate packages that were offered through a sealed
bid auction to the public.
3. No Master Developer was used. In 2006, when ODOT offered the timber parcels for
sale, the two sales sold for the appraised value. Later, the values were discounted
to reflect current timber prices.
4. a. N/A
b. N/A
c. I'm not sure if any of this information will be helpful to assist you with your project.
We did not use a Master Developer Request to market and then develop the
sites since they were zoned for timber/forest use. All the parcels were located in
a rural county in Oregon that even after the timber was harvest would not be
worth developing due to their location, topography, lack of utilities and no access. If
you have any questions, please contact me.
Gail A. Harbert
Senior Property Agent
Right of Way Section
503-986-3619 direct
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOUTH DAKOTA
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
TENNESEE
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
We have not bundled properties for sale through an RFP or a sole source vendor as the
cost is prohibitive to revenues received and program compliance in conjunction with
existing state laws is a consideration as well.
Instead, we recently revamped our program and shortened the conveyance process by
half. The revised process works well at both the District and Central Office levels. We
have staff persons in the field offices performing r/w acquisition that are cross trained to
perform disposal and lease work with Central Office staff responsible for review and
program compliance, who all utilize a common web-based database to track the status of
each property. We post our developable sites on our website and provide online access
to our bid package for potential purchasers, as well as utilize signage and newspaper
ads. For high dollar properties we would expand to other sources of advertisement as
well. In recent years we have generated revenues between 7 million and 27 million
dollars annually through the conveyance portion of our program.
We do assemble contiguous properties when they constitute a site capable of
independent development and offer “nuisance” parcels to adjoining landowners for
assemblage. We do not engage in the development process, subdividing or rezoning
property.
WASHINGTON
We have not bundled property as you describe and offered them for sale through an
RFP. We talked about trying to do something similar several years ago, and our
commission reminded us that we are not in the development business and could not
consider something like this.
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
1.
2.
3.
4.
No
N/A
N/A
N/A