Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Infrastructure Blueprint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blueprint seeks school land for $5 million road extension; board cautioned against donating appraised funds
Summary
Board members were briefed on a Blueprint project that would extend a roadway near Robertson-Mumford and requested a portion of Leon County Schools land now held partly in a conservation easement; trustees voiced concern about donating the appraised value and noted the possibility of eminent domain action if negotiations fail.
School Board Member Smith and district staff briefed the Leon County School Board on a Blueprint infrastructure proposal that would extend a road near Robertson-Mumford and cross school-owned property, including land currently subject to a conservation easement. Blueprint has proposed using that parcel as part of a roughly $5,000,000 project and presented an appraisal valuing the district’s interest at about $300,000, Board members said.
The board heard that the parcel includes about 15 acres inside the conservation easement and roughly 3 additional acres not encumbered by the easement. Smith said Blueprint asked the district to consider contributing the district’s appraisal amount “in lieu of us being actually paid for it,” a request Smith described as “a hard no” for herself. She told Blueprint representatives the board would decide how to proceed.
Why it matters: The extension is intended to alleviate chronic traffic congestion near Robertson-Mumford by routing buses and parent traffic differently, board members said. The board discussed the financial value of the district land, potential use of proceeds for district priorities such as staffing or facilities, and the district’s interest in protecting its assets.
Details presented and questions raised: Board Member Daryl Jones and others said Blueprint argued the extension was not part of the original project and that Blueprint could choose to discontinue the extension, although presenters did not indicate Blueprint intends to do so. Smith and Superintendent said Blueprint described two transactional options: (1) pay the district the appraised value and negotiate further with the co-owner of the easement, or (2) request the district donate the parcel or roll the value into the project to help Blueprint negotiate a land swap with the conservancy.
District counsel and staff warned trustees that if negotiations with the co-owner of the conservation easement fail, Blueprint has indicated it could pursue eminent domain (sometimes referred to in the meeting as “imminent domain”), which would require payment of fair market value and could involve legal fees and appraisals. Opal McKinney Williams emphasized that the conservation easement complicates any transfer: “In order to use that property to construct a road or a stormwater facility… it's got to get pulled out of that easement.”
Next steps and timing: Blueprint plans to present formal materials, including maps and the appraisal, at the Feb. 11 board meeting and hoped for a tentative agreement by the second board meeting in February. Board members asked staff to include the topic on the February agenda so trustees can review the presentation and the appraisal. No formal action or vote occurred during the briefing.
Board context and considerations: Several trustees said the district must weigh short-term community traffic benefits against the long-term monetary value of the property and the district’s needs for personnel and facilities. Smith noted the appraisal sum could fund paraprofessionals, technology, or roofing projects. Trustees also discussed exploring formal representation with Blueprint (for example, an appointed liaison or advisory seat) so the district has a standing role in future planning.
Ending: Trustees requested the Blueprint presentation and appraisal be provided at the Feb. 11 meeting and said staff will return with additional information and options for board deliberation.
