Des Moines County work session reviews title history and plans sale of Block 7; nonprofit asks proceeds be reserved for Hope Haven

Des Moines County officials met in a work session to review the title history and planned sale of county-owned parcels that include the can redemption center (Block 7) and three adjacent vacant lots, and to discuss how any sale proceeds should be handled.

The session opened with staff summarizing deeds from the mid-1970s showing the county consolidated ownership of Block 7 after paying $1 to two grantees and $1,000 to a third, and recording the can redemption center and three vacant lots as a single parcel. "By those three deeds, the county clearly consolidated that ownership interest," county staff said during the meeting.

Why it matters: participants said clarity about title and deed restrictions matters for whether the county can sell the parcel and how the proceeds may be used. If deed conditions or reversionary interests exist, they can limit transfer or require proceeds to be used for specific purposes.

Jane Housewright, who identified herself as with Partners for Persons with Disabilities (formerly Des Moines County ARC), told the group that the title and abstract search provided by the county shows Partners "has no claim to that land" and that Partners previously gave two lots to the county via a quick-claim deed in 1975. She urged the county to direct any sale proceeds to Hope Haven, saying the property was purchased with the intention of serving Hope Haven clients and that "the money from that sale would stay with Hope Haven, and not with the larger, Imagine, organization."

County members said the board is inclined to sell the properties and return them to the tax rolls, but they flagged a remaining question: where the proceeds should go and whether the county should hold funds pending further title review. "I think we're all of a mind that we're gonna sell. It's just what happens to the proceeds," one committee member said.

Board members and staff discussed how best to market and sell the parcels. Several argued a realtor could advise whether to sell the can barn and the three residential lots together or separately to maximize return. Speakers noted technical constraints — for example, a referenced lot size "40 by 120" and local setback rules (5–7 feet) could limit how many new houses could be built without combining or reconfiguring lots. Staff said the county could pay for a survey or subdivision work in advance, but only if the financial benefit outweighed the cost.

An interested buyer had already contacted county staff about using the property for storage. County officials emphasized the need for a transparent procurement process: a public RFP or auction would give all interested parties a chance to bid. Participants agreed an RFP was imminent; multiple speakers identified "the ninth" as the date proposals were expected.

Procurement confidentiality and the question of closed sessions were also discussed. Board members asked whether reviewing confidential proposals would require a closed session under a statutory exception. One participant cited "21.5 I" as the statutory provision used in past meetings to evaluate professional competency and protect reputations where appropriate. Staff said past RFQ/RFP reviews had been handled by one board member with staff participation and later reported back to the full board.

What happens next: participants said they will receive RFP responses on the identified date and then consider how to evaluate proposals, whether to hire a realtor, and whether to pursue subdivision or other pre-sale steps. The group also agreed to examine the title history more closely and to document any donor or foundation restrictions tying proceeds to Hope Haven before final disposition.

The work session concluded without a formal vote; the board will reconvene as needed once proposals and further title information are available.