It has been my goal for three years to secure and preserve green space for parkland south of I-40. I also co-sponsored a resolution for the purchase of 8 acres on Tate Lane (off W. Division) for practice fields, and 57 acres on North Beckwith Road for nature trails.

In the fall of 2022, I added a discussion item on the BOC agenda to discuss coming up with an action plan to purchase property to reserve for a public pool and possibly a sportsplex. There didn’t seem to be any effort to commit at this time.

Mundy Park improvements 2022 UPDATE: Four Pickleball courts and three tennis courts have been added, along with extra parking, and a three-basket putting green for disc golf. At least a portion, if not all, of the walking trail will be paved and upgraded. Phase 2 in the next budget cycle, depending on leftover funding after Phase 1, will be an expansion of the playground.

UPDATE results from public work session November 16 2020:
At the December 2020 Planning Commission, they gave a positive recommendation for the Hayes property and Tomlinson property, which went before the BOC on December 28th. The property owner of Hayes decided to pull their offer for personal reasons and the BOC approved the purchase of 57 acres on North Beckwith Road. Beazer Homes submitted a letter of intent to purchase 20 of these acres ($4-600,000) with an offer to build a public restroom, a parking lot, a road, and chipped mulch from the property for trails.

PARKLAND DEFERRED!!!
Unexpectedly in November 2020, the Planning Commission voted to defer the purchase resolution contracts for both park properties (Hayes & Tomlinson) for December 17, which means the BOC will not be in a position to vote on either for at least a month.

According to the city attorney, the BOC’s hands are tied until the PC actually takes a vote on it, either a positive or negative recommendation. A deferral does not count as a vote.

This is unfortunate in my opinion.

UPDATE results from public work session November 16 2020:
A public work session took place Monday night at city hall on proposed parkland properties. 1) Hayes on SW Cook and 2) Tomlinson on Beckwith Rd (north).

If you weren’t aware of what took place during the BOC meeting on November 9th, a sales contract resolution for Hayes between the city and the property owner was still being negotiated, so we voted to defer to a work session. The Tomlinson property failed to get a second so it failed at the table to move forward. Both properties were further discussed Monday night.

The pending contract negotiation for Hayes was ironed out. On the BOC agenda next Monday, November 23rd, both properties will be back on the agenda as resolutions to purchase. There would be no immediate plans for either property, other than to preserve them for now. The contract agreement for Hayes includes a 30-year deed restriction (naming rights and guaranteed parkland) with no buyback plan, 20 acres instead of 30 (with no gas lines/easements), permanent access with tree buffer on side of property owner, for $925,000.

Again, Hayes property is located on SW Cook off Central Pk (west of SMJRD, south of I-40). It connects to the SW corner of Providence Central development where single family homes are planned in the future. And Tomlinson is located on Beckwith Rd north, not too far off Lebanon Rd ($975,000/57 acres).

UPDATE results from the November 9 2020 BOC:
1) Tomlinson (PURCHASE RESOLUTION) (57 acres on north Beckwith Rd for $975,000) – Failed to get a 2nd
2) Hayes (PURCHASE RESOLUTION) (30 acres on SW Cook Rd for $1.4M) – Voted to send to work session on Monday, November 16 at 5:30 pm at City Hall to further discuss sales contract negotiations.
The idea at this point for Tomlinson would be nature trails, pavilions, more of a natural setting. The idea for Hayes at this point is unlimited. This particular piece will connect to the SW section of Providence Central where the single family homes will be located. It also borders private property in the county that has the potential to develop at some point in the future. I believe securing these properties for future parkland and green space is essential in securing them so that they would never develop. Neither property comes with any immediate plans, but for the purpose of preserving the land for the future. The highest priority at this point is to complete the soccer fields on Tate Lane we recently approved, and have them ready by spring. The money was figured in the 20/21 budget. We continue to have an average of approximately $42,000/month coming in from the hotel//motel tax, which funds parks and recreation.

**UPDATE FROM 9-28 2020 BOC MEETING ON PARKLAND

The BOC did not have the votes to approve the signing of the sales contract for the Lyons property (22 acres) for $2 million on S. Rutland Rd. Therefore the Lyons announced during citizen comments they were pulling their offer off the table. I believe we missed a great opportunity for District 4 to have something comparable to a community center/rec center on the south end of town. The Parks Director presented several other pieces of property to explore, one of which, Hollis/Hassett (60+ acres on Old Lebanon Dirt Rd), received 3 votes to move forward with negotiations. The current offer is $3M, but I stated that was too much and asked for a lower price. They will come back to BOC with an update. UPDATE for 10-12 BOC. The actual price of the Hollis/Hassett property is $3.9M as stated by the landowner and not $3M the realtor estimated. I don’t believe this is even be considered.

Some of you may not know the history of how the Lyons property came about, so I’m glad to share that with you below. I pointed this out in the meeting as well.

Several months ago the Lyons reached out to me because they were exploring some options of what to do with their property. Fine dining, expensive steak house, etc so I put them in touch with the city planner. I didn’t hear anything else for awhile. Their property was not even on the market for sale by the way.

The city parks department “approached them” to ask about the option of purchasing. This was without my knowledge. The next thing I know, the parks department emailed and ask us all to come tour this property and they were all excited. I did two tours along with others. Ideas were pitched back and forth and general consensus was very positive.

The Lyons started out with a price of $2.5M but reduced to $2.3M. The next thing I hear is the Parks Board had met and “approved” this property, then forward it to the BOC for a positive recommendation. I decided to sponsor it. The PB however only wanted to pay $2M total. (The PB and the Land Search Committee are appointed groups of volunteers who spend their own time researching and evaluating properties for parkland. They spend long hours and work very hard with no pay. However the PB doesn’t get to set the price tag. That’s the BOC’s responsibility). It was stated by parks department that the homeowner had agreed to the $2M. I thought that was strange so I called homeowner to confirm only to find out they did not agree. The resolution was on the agenda for the BOC meeting that night but I had to pull it because of the price discrepancy. Had the homeowner at that time agreed to the $2M, it would have been voted on by BOC and more than likely passed.

As far as I and the homeowner knew, the PB decided to look elsewhere because they didn’t want to take $2.3 out of their fund account. “They” thought it was too much. No one ever told the homeowner their offer was no longer being considered.

The property owner proceeded and hired an independent appraiser. They called and told me and I called Rocky and told him and that it was expected to come back before the August 24 BOC meeting.

In the meantime the Tate Ln property was approved by the PB and I agreed to sponsor it. The Lyons appraisal came in too late to get on the agenda for Aug 24 and I got all the hard copies the afternoon of the meeting. I distributed and placed at the BOC table prior to the meeting. Since I didn’t have time to write up a resolution for the agenda, I motioned to add Lyons with Tate and it passed 4-0-1.

The complaints:

1. the BOC didn’t listen to the PB: Not true. The PB approved and recommended before they UNrecommended. They also had done this with several other properties. Windtree, Cedar Creek, Tomlinson, Baltz. All on the north side of town by the way.
2. The Lyons property has no plan: None of the other properties they recommended had any plans.
3. We wiped out their fund: Not true. Cash on hand is $2.8M with a budget of $6.8M. Hotel/motel tax continues to bring in an average of $42,000/month as of August with a trend upward.
4. The house is unusable: Really? Then why did the PB approve the house and land for purchase and allow me to sponsor it? Good question.
5. ADA upgrades are too expensive: This didn’t seem to be a problem to begin with and it was suggested we didn’t have to open second floor to public in order to keep expenses down, and therefore no need for an elevator. Only now after the fact since it’s up for a vote, has the ADA and elevator become a problem and too expensive. Were these issues not discussed at the PB meeting prior to approving and recommended to the BOC? Seems they weren’t. Why not? Why approve something like this and not have your ducks in a row? Good question.
6. The bottom line is, the PB approved this property to move forward for purchase. That is a fact.

Prior to tonight’s meeting the Lyons agreed to meet the city’s price of $2M in order to move on.

Tonight’s BOC:

1. Vote to split the two resolutions and hear them separately. Passed 3-2. The Tate Ln property passed to sign sales contract.
2. Vote to defer Lyons for 1 meeting, so PB can explore other properties. Passed 4-1. I voted to defer, but first I made clear all the same statements I have made to you so the public will know what happened and how all this came to be.
3. I also displayed the city’s Future Land Use Map that extends all the way down to Central Pike and beyond. Of course this is years down the road and it always starts with the property owners wanting to sell. If they want to develop they hire a developer, if they want to be annexed they go thru city planner. That’s the process. But nevertheless, the vision of the city’s future extends out that far.

The biggest complaint I hear is too much development which brings too much traffic. So to preserve these 22 acres in the middle of all surrounding development is a good thing, because it would never be developed.

I also hear we have nothing for kids. My vision for this is something comparable to Charlie Daniels Parks/community center and perhaps some sort of Rec center. And definitely something for kids. Something for the entire family including public fishing and picnics. The structure is there with unlimited options, electricity, water, and road, already in place.

In addition, this property/house used to be a hunting club and the swimming pool was also a public pool. Just a bit of history for you.

---

1) Tate Lane (off W. Division). Approx. 8 acres for soccer fields (planned for spring ’23) for $430,000.

2) Lyons property (1041 S. Rutland Rd.). Approx. 22 acres including a six acre lake stocked full of fish and home to other wildlife, picnic tables, barn, and a 10,000 house/structure. This property has endless opportunities for the city to provide much needed park land and green space and vision for a future community/recreation center on the south end of the city. $2.3 million.