Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 607 Sprout topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposed sale of city lot to Sprout for community garden after neighbor concerns
Summary
Council debated an ordinance to convey a city parcel to Sprout for a community garden; neighbors' concerns about parking, privacy and maintenance and split council views led the motion to fail on roll call.
The Little Falls City Council considered an ordinance to authorize a sale of a small city-owned parcel to Sprout for use as a community garden but rejected the measure after sustained debate about location and neighborhood impacts.
Staff member Alex summarized outreach efforts, saying staff contacted six neighboring properties and received responses from two neighbors: one signaled concern about privacy, upkeep, parking and potential vandalism; another called to oppose the location outright. Alex described the sale terms as $1 conveyance with reversion language that would allow the city to reacquire the property for $1 if it ceased to be a community garden, and noted that the Parks Board had earlier preferred the current lot over alternate sites.
Council members split on whether the selected lot was suitable. Council member Frank said the site is too close to a school and the anticipated traffic and pick-up/drop-off activity would increase congestion; he said he opposed the location and would vote no unless stipulations (fencing, odor controls for composting, maintenance requirements) were added. Council member Glaze and others argued Sprout has managed community gardens in the past and that the site could offer educational uses for nearby schools. Several council members suggested including fencing and maintenance conditions in any sale or lease agreement and developing a citywide policy for community-garden stipulations.
When the council moved to adopt Ordinance No. 607 (authorizing the sale), roll-call votes recorded yes votes from Kopa, Glaze and Logrand and no votes from Hansen, Go (recorded as "Gosh" in the transcript) and Meer. The motion failed.
No alternative site or immediate replacement motion was approved at the meeting. Council members said staff may incorporate neighbors’ concerns and draft specific lease or sale stipulations if the council later chooses to revisit a community-garden proposal or consider alternate locations.
The council did not adopt Ordinance 607 at the Feb. 17 meeting.
