Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property And Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge the commission to review an MOU and protect deeded sports-complex property
Summary
A public commenter asked the commission to review a 2008 deed and a memorandum of understanding after concerns that county action could affect a 60‑acre parcel and an adjacent 60-foot access road; staff responded that the city was the grantee's umbrella for a grant and that the road remains the city's responsibility.
During the public-comment period, a speaker identifying himself as Branch urged the commission to review recorded documents tied to a 60-acre parcel deeded in October 2008 that is intended for a sports complex. He said an easement and utilities run through the parcel and that a later 2.5-acre conveyance to Sharon Gaskin allowed her to apply for state CDBG funds to build a daycare facility. Branch said he was concerned that another jurisdiction (the county) might be attempting to change the road name or otherwise alter city responsibility and that such a change could impose hardship on Ms. Gaskin.
Branch asked that the commission examine the memorandum of understanding (MOU) governing the road and utility maintenance and urged the commission to challenge county action if necessary. In response, Miss Pierce told the commission the record shows Gaskin was the grantee and that the city acted as the umbrella so she could apply for the grant; she said the road remains under city responsibility and that the commission should challenge any county intent to change ownership or name if that would impair the city's or grantee's interests.
The exchange centered on preserving the city's maintenance responsibility and protecting grant eligibility for the daycare project; commissioners asked staff to follow up on the MOU and records cited by the commenter.
