Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Properties Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over MOU requiring demolition of three school properties; council seeks legal opinion and moves to executive session
Summary
Public concern over a memorandum of understanding requiring demolition and transfer of three school sites (Van Cleve, Kyle and Haywood) led council to request a legal opinion on whether the MOU amounts to a binding contract; council recessed into executive session to confer with legal counsel about disputes and potential court action.
During public comment at the May 4 meeting, Amy Allen of 227 South Ridge asked why the city was discussing reuse of Haywood School after voters passed a levy and whether the community should be worried about potential future uses such as senior housing or subsidized housing.
City staff and councilmembers described an executed memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the city, Troy City Schools and the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC). Mr. Titterington explained the MOU required the schools to demolish and remediate Van Cleve, Kyle and Haywood and deliver those sites to the CIC in "shovel ready" condition by 2027 so the city could direct future use. "That MOU was fairly quickly... Ordinance 32, 2024 was passed by council... We have an executed MOU. It does require the school to demolish and remediate and prepare the site," Titterington said.
Councilmembers raised legal and procedural questions about whether the MOU is legally binding or merely an agreement that requires additional contract ratification. Several councilmembers asked the law director to provide a clear written opinion on whether the MOU constitutes a ratified contract and what authority remains with council after the properties are turned over to the CIC. "If Mr. Kerber comes back and tells us, 'oh, we have a contract,' then that means Van Cleve, Kyle and Haywood need to be demolished," one councilmember said, summarizing the stakes.
Council requested that the law director provide guidance to clarify the city's legal obligations and whether amendment of the MOU would require action by the three parties. Before adjourning to executive session to confer with legal counsel about disputes that are the subject of pending or imminent court action, the council moved to recess; the motion passed on a roll-call vote.
Council and staff did not make a final public decision about the future use of the school sites during the open meeting; they requested a legal opinion and said any amendment to the MOU would require action by the parties involved and possibly further council action. The council then recessed into executive session to consult legal counsel.
