Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises procedural, statutory concerns about jail land swap and RDC resolutions
Summary
A public commenter identified multiple alleged errors in redevelopment corporation resolutions, parcel numbers, recording and notice procedures related to a proposed land swap and jail site, urged commissioners to correct records, and said no legal conveyance exists; commissioners responded and discussed counsel and record corrections.
Pam, a member of the public, reviewed documents in detail and raised numerous procedural and statutory concerns about a proposed land exchange and the related redevelopment effort. She said several resolutions and exhibits list incorrect parcel numbers, wrong addresses and handwritten exhibits lacking legal descriptions, and asserted some required records were not recorded, delaying the public’s ability to seek review or a stay.
Pam disputed the assertion that legal counsel had confirmed the process was complete: "This resolution says the county's gonna sell that property. County hasn't even acquired that property yet," she told commissioners. She said the redevelopment commission (RDC) lacked authority to incorporate a partial parcel without a required split and that public notices required by statute had not been filed or recorded.
Pam urged the board to review changes made on Dec. 18 and earlier drafts, saying that language was removed that should have notified the public of amendments to the economic development area (EDA). She said that because the RDC later returned property interest to the county commissioners, there is currently no signed conveyance and no recorded agreement to support the swap.
Commissioners responded that they were relying on legal counsel and outside firms for advice and acknowledged that some dates and numbering could be corrected. One commissioner told Pam the board’s intent was not to hide records and pledged to address errors found in documentation. State guidance on whether resolutions must be recorded was raised in the discussion; a county official said she had just received a State Board of Accounts communication about recording requirements and that attorneys had advised recording would be necessary in some circumstances.
Pam urged greater transparency, corrections to the record, and compliance with statutory procedures before any conveyances occur. The board acknowledged the volume of material and said counsel and staff would correct items as needed and return with clarifications.
