Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council resists selling city land to Humanitarian Center; asks staff to explore lease options
Summary
River Heights council discussed a proposal from a humanitarian organization to buy the city’s former church property but generally opposed selling the land outright. Council members suggested alternatives including a long-term ground lease or partial lease so the city retains ownership while the group builds and operates a facility.
River Heights City Councilors discussed, but did not approve, a proposal to sell a small city-owned parcel that a nonprofit humanitarian organization wants to use for office and program space.
Dwight Whitaker, representing the humanitarian organization, presented the group’s need for consolidated space and told the council the organization currently pays about $4,800 a month in rent. Whitaker said the organization would seek roughly 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and estimated it might need about one-third to one-fourth of an acre for building and required off-street parking.
Why it matters: Council members said the parcel is the last undeveloped city-owned land near the municipal core and expressed reluctance to sell it because the city might need the property for municipal uses in the future, such as a maintenance shop or equipment storage. Several councilors said they favored exploring lease options that would preserve city ownership while allowing the organization to build and reduce its monthly lease burden.
Discussion highlights: Council members and the mayor raised several options: - A long-term ground lease (speakers noted such leases can be 40 years under some grant/land-lease programs), which would allow the nonprofit to build on city land while the city retained ownership of the ground. - A shorter or partial lease that would convey only a portion of the parcel for the nonprofit’s use, reserving land for future city needs. - Continuing the organization’s existing lease arrangement for an additional year while both sides studied site plans and usage.
Council members also noted regulatory constraints: the parcel is currently zoned R-18, so any new building intended for nonprofit program space would likely require a zoning amendment or conditional-use process. Council members asked the humanitarian group to provide a site plan; Whitaker said the organization’s board offered to pay for one.
Outcome and next steps: The council did not vote to sell the property and directed staff to gather more information, including possible lease models and the legal implications of a long-term ground lease. Several councilors said they would consult the city attorney about lease terms and about structuring an agreement that preserves city options for future municipal needs. Whitaker said his group is open to either purchase or long-term lease arrangements; he asked to be considered for a portion of the site rather than the entire parcel.
Ending: Councilors said they appreciate the humanitarian group’s local work but are not prepared to relinquish city-owned land at this time. The council asked staff to report back with lease options, legal review and any zoning steps that would be required for the group to build on the site.
