Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Conveyance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duluth council reviews multi-step transfer to convey strip of Gary/New Duluth land to JOTO LLC
Summary
City staff explained the council must accept tax-forfeit land from St. Louis County and pass related resolutions and an ordinance before the parcel can be conveyed to JOTO LLC; questions focused on the county transfer process, planning review and the ordinance’s timing.
Vice President Nephew opened discussion of a multi-part property transfer that would have the city accept tax-forfeit land from St. Louis County and then convey a small, oddly shaped parcel in the Gary/New Duluth neighborhood to JOTO LLC.
City staff described the transfer as a corrective step for a parcel “that really lies in the middle of an existing parcel” and said county rules require the land first be conveyed to the city before it can be transferred to a private owner.
The matter came up during the council’s agenda review, when Councilor Kennedy asked staff to “pack that a little bit” and explain why three related items were on the agenda. City staff member Stalling said the parcel appears to be an oversight dating back several years and that St. Louis County currently holds the tax-forfeit title. “In order to effectively convey it to J O T O LLC, it needs to first be conveyed to the city of Duluth, for the city of Duluth to then convey it on to J O T O LLC,” Stalling said.
A city attorney explained the county would not transfer tax-forfeit land directly to a private owner because of litigation and statutory restrictions. “The county is not willing to do a direct transfer to a private property owner,” the attorney said, and added the city was willing to accept the transfer to facilitate the final conveyance.
Councilor Mayo asked about the parcel’s history and whether it had been a vacated easement or otherwise previously transferred. Stalling said he would provide additional factual history but characterized the parcel as an oversight the city is correcting.
The items discussed included: a resolution of intent to sell or convey the property (resolution 99); a resolution authorizing the city to request and accept tax-forfeit land from St. Louis County for economic development purposes (resolution 100) in the amount of $4,000; and a resolution authorizing execution of a purchase agreement with JOTO LLC for sale of the parcel for $4,620 (resolution 101). Councilors and staff also discussed an ordinance required to complete the conveyance; an ordinance requires two readings before final action.
Councilors asked whether the matter had been reviewed by the planning commission. The city attorney and Stalling said planning staff were queried about future city need for the strip but that the transfer was not a planning commission land-use decision. Stalling said planning staff indicated they had no future need for the parcel and that the city should not retain title.
There was also a brief procedural exchange about whether related consent items should be pulled or tabled until the ordinance completes its second reading. The city attorney said they would confirm the appropriate sequencing and get back to the council.
No formal vote or final action was recorded during the agenda session; council discussion occurred as part of agenda review and staff committed to follow up with additional history and to confirm sequencing for the ordinance and related resolutions.
