Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Real Property Lease topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dunn County facilities committee votes to keep transfer-station land for lease, will solicit bids

Dunn County Facilities Committee · February 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The facilities committee voted 3–2 to continue renting 20 acres adjacent to the transfer station rather than pursue a sale, and directed staff to put the lease out to bid and return with a solicitation plan at the next facilities meeting.

The Dunn County Facilities Committee voted to keep, and put up for lease, about 20 acres next to the county transfer station after hearing public comment and staff analysis.

Supervisor Bjork moved that the county not consider selling the parcel and instead continue the rental agreement; the committee adopted an amendment to direct staff to put the property out for lease and solicit competitive bids. The amended motion passed 3–2.

Jeff Merritt, who identified himself as a current tenant of the land, told the committee he would like to keep leasing the parcel and described it as “good farmland.” Staff reported the county had received roughly $3,000 a year in rent going back to 2018 and that a signed prior lease could not be found in county files.

Committee members debated the property’s future value and intent. One member found a recorded warranty deed dated June 26, 2017 that implied an earlier sale price of about $175,000 for the 20‑acre tract. Adjacent owner Justin Merritt said the county originally bought the property for possible expansion of recycling services but that the need no longer exists and he preferred continued agricultural use.

After the vote, staff said they would develop a draft solicitation and lease process and present that proposal at the next facilities committee meeting.

The vote was 3 in favor and 2 opposed; Supervisors Bridal and one other member recorded no votes during the roll call.