Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Title topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southport board directs search of historic alleyway withdrawal filings and delegates authority to manager and city attorney
Summary
At a special meeting, the Southport Board of Aldermen unanimously voted to enter recently received documents into the public record, direct staff and outside counsel to search past land records for declarations of withdrawal affecting city alleyways, and delegate authority to the city manager and city attorney to send notice letters and report back.
The Southport Board of Aldermen met in a special session to consider newly submitted documents and recorded filings that claim withdrawal of dedication for city alleyways. Mayor (S1) opened the meeting, called for disclosures of any conflicts of interest and moved to accept the agenda. The board then voted to enter multiple recently received documents — including a preliminary outside-counsel memo and letters from property owners — into the official record.
Boardmember Carol (S3) moved to add an outside legal memo dated Oct. 2, 2025, and related correspondence to the record; the motion was amended on the floor to include additional letters that arrived the prior day and was approved by unanimous voice vote. Carol read the memo aloud, noting it is “preliminary in nature” and “does not constitute a final legal conclusion or advice.”
The meeting’s primary action instructed staff and outside counsel to search the city’s and county’s public records for other instances where parties recorded declarations of withdrawal of dedication or similar filings affecting alleyways and right-of-way. Carol argued the city should treat similar cases the same way: “If it’s good for one, it’s good for all,” she said. Members discussed a pragmatic retrospective cutoff — roughly the 1930s — to focus the search where records are reasonably available.
City manager Noah (S6) provided a preliminary cost estimate for the work to date and for initial follow-up: outside counsel’s estimated costs were about $10,000–$12,000 so far, the local attorney Brady had logged roughly 13 hours (about $3,200 at his stated rate), and staff time was estimated at roughly $2,000, for a very rough combined total of about $15,000 to date. The board emphasized that the memo’s findings are preliminary and that attorneys should discuss facts with property owners before escalating.
The board then voted to delegate authority to the city manager and city attorney to send letters and take administrative actions to locate and respond to withdrawal filings affecting city-owned alleys and other public property, with the requirement that the manager and attorney report their actions back to the board. The chair called for the final voice vote; all motions passed unanimously.
Members stressed process and clarity going forward: they asked that future notifications and staff investigations be consistent, that outreach precede costly litigation when possible, and that the city post the newly entered documents online so the public can review them. The board also directed counsel to pursue an orderly search strategy and to coordinate with staff where appropriate.
The board’s actions do not themselves determine title; rather, they authorize a city-led search and a standard notice-and-review process that could lead to negotiated resolutions or further legal action after the facts are gathered. The meeting adjourned after the board confirmed next steps and timelines for reporting back.
