Tuesday, the city of Perry held its second regular meeting of mayor and council of May 2020. During the immediately preceding pre-council meeting, City Attorney Brooke Newby brought before council a resolution to accept a land donation from Cherokee Pecan Company of 3.14 acres in the area of the Stonewater and Stonebridge subdivisions. Newby explained that at council’s March 3 work session, council decided to accept the donation of land with no conditions. Newby was also informed that sewer and water connections would be allowed on the property as well as a road to be constructed, which would connect Stonewater and Stonebridge, to which the city was agreeable. Newby informed that a resolution was prepared based on these details and sent to the developer to accept the land with no conditions. The developer then approached the city, according to Newby, asking for confirmation within the resolution that a condition be made declaring the donation be subject to the construction and use of pump stations and storm water management areas, as well as public utilities, roadway construction and drainage utility easements.
Newby said that she brought the request before council to consider because originally, the council had decided to accept the property with no conditions.
Councilman Riley Hunt asked Newby if she saw any reason why the donation should not be accepted.
“From a legal prospective, provided that there is a clear title—and that is one of the things that my recommendation would be—that if you pass this resolution, it would be subject to confirmation of clear title, then legally, I don’t have any objections to accepting the donation of this property. I think historically, the city has accepted property donations for green space without conditions,” Newby responded, and further explained this would be a change in how property is accepted without conditions, but she thought it would be a policy decision instead of a lawful one.
Councilwoman Joy Peterson later posed the question as to why the property was not being sold from the owner to the developer. Newby’s response entailed her understanding that the property was currently part of a larger parcel of land that presently is under a conservation use easement, which would result in penalties involved if the land was to be sold, which would be a breach a covenant. Newby explained that if the parcel was donated to the city, it would not be constitute a breach.
City Manager Lee Gilmour advised that administration was opposed to the resolution, citing that the offer was originally for green space with no conditions, and all other donations of green space was “just for that.” Gilmour informed that the administration had no objection to sewer lines because they were underground, and the road did not dramatically affect the nature of the green space, but the additional conditions being asked for brought the concern that the parcel would no longer be green space. Gilmour also voiced concern that if the conditions were accepted, then the developer could make the argument that the improvements would have to be in that area because that was the purpose of the donation. He further explained that if, for some reason, the conditions could not be met; it could be problematic.
“I just don’t think it would be advantageous to the city at all,” Gilmour said, adding that he believed that the area should be part of the subdivision if these improvements were to be made. Gilmour also noted that there could be some value in sales as well as other issues that could be tied to the property, but that he did not believe the residents of Perry held the responsibility to make the property advantageous to buyers.
“The city’s responsibility is, if you’re going to donate green space to the city for public preservation and use, then that’s what the property should be,” Gilmour said.
Gilmour said that he had reservations about the conditions coming up “last minute,” noting that months ago, council originally stated what the intentions of the land would be.
Gilmour gave the recommendation that council not accept the resolution.
Mayor Randall Walker made the observation that considerations are being added to something meant to be donated as green space, and if the land was going to be incorporated into the development, then it was his belief that it should be done without involving the city.
During the regular council meeting, Councilman Robert Jones motioned not to accept the resolution, which unanimously carried.
In other business, council voted to cancel the Hotel Development Incentive Policy. City Manager Gilmour shared that goals that the policy had been created to achieve have been met, noting in memo to council the additions of the Holiday Inn Express, Avid Hotel, and the proposed hotel to be erected at the fairgrounds. In the pre-council meeting, Mayor Walker clarified with Gilmour that the city would continue to honor commitments made with the developers of the proposed hotel under this incentive program. He further confirmed that the cancellation of this policy did not mean that developers could not continue to approach council to ask for considerations, but that there would be no standing program to offer these incentives.
HHJ News
