MILTON — The Milton City Council has one final parcel to acquire for courthouse property; then, a long, often controversial process, will finally be complete.
CSX owns downtown land otherwise known as property 5 and appraised at $97,000, according to city documents.
That's the missing link, city officials say. But the acquisition process has been lengthy.
“CSX officials stated in the beginning it would take between six (and) nine months for the agreement to be met, and the city is currently at the nine-month marker,” City Manager Brian Watkins said in a phone interview.
As Property 5’s in the works, a number of residents have criticized the process, which included council members' April 4 vote in favor of purchasing Theresa Messick’s Property 7 for $125,000. Councilman Alan Lowery voted nay; Councilman Jimmy Messick, Theresa’s husband, abstained.
Lowery stated the asking price was too high — the property was appraised at $49,960 last October — and he questioned Councilman Jimmy Messick’s involvement in attaining the property.
Attorney Matthew Hargraves, who previously served on the city’s courthouse committee, said the Messick property was not originally part of the courthouse plan. “(Messick’s property) was not considered by the courthouse committee until the county commission basically directed that we needed to look south of Pine Street in order to keep the (courthouse) project downtown,” he said.
Supporters of the deal say it shouldn't be contested, and that Messick's property, like CSX's, was a missing piece of the puzzle that will become courthouse square.
Brad Johnson, also a former courthouse committee member, stated circumstances occurred in which city officials needed to inquire about Mrs. Messick’s property; those issues came in the form of two unattainable downtown parcels and issues regarding wetlands.
Johnson, Mrs. Messick’s attorney, said his client only considered selling the property in the city’s best interest in keeping the courthouse downtown.
The sale has inspired heated debate on social media and a few protest signs.
“I have had multiple citizens come up to me and talk about this all week long,” Mayor Wesley Meiss said. “The citizens are watching this right now; they are watching very closely at the price we are paying for this property and what is going on … and they are not happy.”
City Attorney Heather Lindsey stated in a letter that Councilman Messick is clear of any wrongdoing in this matter.
“… Councilman Messick has been proactive about seeking my advice and has consistently acted according to the ethical rules with regard to abstaining from voting and from discussion when appropriate,” the letter states. “He was not on the committee to keep the courthouse downtown. He voted to keep the courthouse downtown before Parcel 7 was identified as a parcel to purchase. He abstained from the discussion and vote once the Parcel 7 came under consideration.”
Still, Lowery said, “I understand that it is legal and that it is ethical, but this is why people do not trust government.”
The contract’s closing date is Dec. 15. With the council’s approval, the agreement includes a non-refundable $2,500 deposit, which the seller retains if the buyer does not purchase the property.
Watkins said the city has met county commissioners’ requirements, including finding adequate space for the courthouse, along with parking and storm water, and keeping current courthouse operations ongoing throughout construction.
Now, “It is up to the county to move forward at this point,” Watkins said. “The city will continue to support the county in any way we can,” he said.
IN FOCUS: OTHER LAND DEALS
The City Council’s decision to purchase downtown property for more than its appraised value in preparation for a new courthouse has ignited plenty of debate on protest.
But several pieces of property — not just Theresa Messick’s — are needed for the new courthouse, city officials said.
Milton's public information office provided the Santa Rosa Press Gazette with seven appraisal documents of properties originally sought to facilitate a new judicial center. The city originally sought eight properties, but the city deemed two parcels financially unavailable.
Letters between a city representative and an attorney representing the owner of 6875 Oak St. show the city offered $26,390 to purchase the property, but a counter offer proposed a land swap for two city-owned parcels on Quinn Street. A letter from the owner’s attorney last July informed the city official the negotiation was concluded unless the city agreed to the land swap.
Another property the city expressed interest in was not considered for sale.
Last year, the city did purchase two land parcels, known as properties 6 and 8. Property 6, purchased for $59,000 from Jerry W. Mathes Estate and Kimberley A..M. Cheney, was appraised at $60,000. The city purchased Property 8 — appraised at $58,000 — for $57,500. Both properties have vacant single dwellings that likely will be demolished to accommodate courthouse plans.
A number of people on social media, particularly the Milton Mockingbird Facebook page, have criticized Theresa Messick for seeking $125,000 on property appraised just less than $50,000, but she is not the lone downtown property owner seeking more than the appraised value.
Property 2’s owner seeks $38,000 for land appraised at $16,600. Neighboring property owners seek $100,000 for land appraised at $48,800 in Oct. 18, 2015.
Bagdad resident Michael Johnson sent a letter to the Press Gazette arguing on Theresa Messick’s, behalf:
“In my humble opinion, this issue falls under the umbrella of free enterprise, not political opportunity,” he stated. “In 2006, the seller and buyer had to agree on a price, no matter what any appraiser said, and in 2016, the buyer and seller must agree likewise.
“The offer and the asking price are both based on supply and demand. Two parties must come to terms, and that is all that matters.”
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: ONE MORE TO GO… Last parcel needed to complete Santa Rosa courthouse property