Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albert Lea approves redevelopment agreement with Freeborn County and accepts two donated lots
Summary
Council authorized a redevelopment agreement with Freeborn County to acquire three tax-forfeited lots and approved acceptance of donated property (809 Clark St. W. and 825 S. 1st Ave.) contingent on clear title; the city attorney explained Tyler v. Hennepin implications for tax-forfeiture sales and indemnity provisions.
The Albert Lea City Council on Nov. 24 approved multiple property actions: a redevelopment agreement with Freeborn County covering certain tax-forfeited lots and the contingent acceptance of donated residential lots.
City staff said the county would sell the lots at 721 Saint Thomas, 816 South 1st Avenue and 705 Madison to the city for $4,000 each, with the sale price waived if the parcel is developed. Staff recommended using the city’s housing fund (approximately $500,000 remaining, as stated) to fund construction and said reusing existing foundations and utilities could save about $25,000 per house in development costs, according to developer estimates discussed with staff.
The city attorney explained legal context under Tyler v. Hennepin, describing changes to Minnesota tax-forfeiture law that require governments to return excess proceeds to former property owners and allow reasonable foreclosure costs to be retained. He said the city’s indemnity language is designed to protect the county and the city from title liability and refund exposure.
Separately, staff presented a resolution to accept the donation of property at 809 Clark Street West (previously abated) and to accept an additional parcel at 825 South 1st Avenue, both contingent on a title search and confirmation of clear title. The council approved both the redevelopment agreement and the motions to accept the donated properties, with the city attorney advising a title search prior to formal acceptance.
Councilors asked procedural questions about cost savings and title risk; the city attorney and manager replied that title searches and contingent acceptance would protect the city’s interests.
