August 04, 2006

MARICOPA - The City Council's quest to purchase 140 acres west of town known as the PEED property for a future City Hall site has been much more difficult than originally planned.

After at least five public meetings, and numerous private executive sessions, the council has yet to agree on the controversial purchase of property that is currently located outside the city limits.

Councilman Will Dunn had asked that the $14.6 million purchase be tabled at a July 5 meeting, stating that he felt there might be more reasonable options available.

The city had already purchased and closed on 10 acres within the PEED property as part of the original agreement in late June. Close of escrow on the additional 140 acres was delayed until after the new fiscal year began July 1 to allow for the availability of funds from the city.

The council again tabled the issue during a July 17 meeting, as all council members were not present. On July 25, the council deadlocked on a vote to purchase the property, pushing the decision off to a special meeting at 3 p.m. on July 28 - to meet the 5 p.m. deadline set by the seller for the purchase.

Mayor Kelly Anderson opened last Friday's meeting by asking all council members to declare whether they had a conflict of interest related to any of the properties listed on a staff report compiled by City Manager Rick Buss. The move forced Councilmen Steve Baker and Dunn to recuse themselves from the discussion. Baker is the Realtor representing the seller of the PEED property, while Dunn's grandfather Sonny Dunn owns a portion of a parcel known as the Dunn-Kelly property.

Anderson's move was unexpected as the agenda specifically addressed the PEED property. By forcing both Baker and Dunn to leave the dais and leaving himself and four other council members to discuss the issue, Anderson eliminated the possibility of a stalemate from a council that had been historically divided on the subject.

Dunn showed his displeasure with Anderson's request, saying, "I do appreciate the way you've pointed this out to everyone so you can do this," as he huffed off the stage.

Anderson then called upon several audience members who had submitted requests to speak on the issue. Mark Magana, affiliated with Long Realty, barraged the council with questions about the PEED property, asking whether members had conducted traffic and drainage studies and considered the impact of the nearby railroad. Magana also asked if the city had contacted Beazer Homes to find out why it had backed out on a recent proposal to purchase the same property.

"Are you providing the community with the most accurate information possible to make an informed decision? Have you done your due diligence? I feel you have not property investigated this property.... A number of responses you've given have just gone around in circles. You've been arrogant in some of your responses," Magana said. "...Some members have been close-minded. Are you working for the public or are you working for your own interests?"

Following Magana's questions, the discussion quickly changed course as Councilman Edward Farrell asked City Attorney Denis Fitzgibbons if Dunn had been excused from the discussion specifically because the staff report had listed Dunn's grandfather as a property owner. Fitzgibbons had advised Dunn at a previous meeting that he could participate in discussions about the PEED property, just not about his grandfather's property.

"Since that meeting, I've had the opportunity to investigate and research and (I've found) he had a conflict of interest in voting on the property with his grandfather or in discussing any other potential offers because of the nexus between the two.... I gave him improper advice," Fitzgibbons said.

Farrell then questioned why Anderson should be allowed to remain on the dais when some of his own property, part of Anderson Palmisano farms, was listed on the staff report as well.

"I don't know of any offer (from the city on that property) that would lead me to believe that leads to a conflict of interest at this time," Fitzgibbons said.

Surprised by the response, Farrell pointed to the staff report and said, "It's in black and white right here!"

Showing a bit of frustration with the situation, Anderson said, "I'm going to take the high road and recuse myself from this discussion," leaving the dais and taking a seat in the audience.

Resident and Planning and Zoning Commissioner Rebecca Molus asked Farrell why he had not declared a conflict of interest when he is both related to Will Dunn and also a licensed real estate agent. Farrell had proposed the purchase of the Dunn-Kelly property at a previous meeting.

Farrell clarified that Sonny Dunn is his third cousin and that Owen and Shirley Kelly are fourth cousins.

"I did state that I am a licensed real estate agent," Farrell added. "However, I do not have a contract on this land. I did not and will not take one penny of commission on this property. If the city decided to negotiate, I would turn this over to (Finance Director) Roger Kolman. I have nothing signed with these people.... By no means was I presenting this property as a real estate agent. I was presenting it as a council member."

The council went on to hear several more arguments from citizens and Realtors. Sentiments were fairly evenly split among the speakers as to whether or not the council should move forward on the PEED property purchase.

With time moving swiftly toward the 5 p.m. deadline, and with Anderson out of the picture, the council again faced the possibility of a stalemate as only Vice Mayor Brent Murphree and Councilmen Joe Estes, Kelly Haddad and Farrell remained. Each provided impassioned speeches sharing their views on the property and hoping to sway a vote in their direction.

"When I saw the PEED property, I was excited," Murphree said. "It provides the opportunity for facilities like a medical center. We also have access to the west side of town for what is going to be an economic corridor for employment... We have the opportunity on this property for a public-private partnership to really make a showcase that can shine from the road, to be an image. It's something we can make a shining example of what our vision is for the future of Maricopa. I don't know that we disagree in principle. It's property that we are disagreeing on.... We looked at this property. I believe it's the best match."

Estes said that despite his differing viewpoint he considered Dunn 'a friend,' saying, "We may disagree up here but that's as far as it goes."

Estes went on to ask his fellow council members to consider spending $100,000 for a 30-day extension on the contract. Estes explained that because the city currently has the $14.6 million slated for purchase of the land invested in a high-yield savings account, that money would earn approximately $60,000 in interest over the 30-day period, making the actual out-of-pocket cost for the extension about $40,000.

"I think we have a way of buying some additional time," Estes said. "It would literally be buying some time.... That gives us that 30 days we need. There are so many issues we haven't had an opportunity to address. We could send staff out to do an analysis."

Haddad said he had lost quite a bit of sleep over the situation. He was especially concerned about the fact that the PEED property lies outside the current city limits, calling it a 'very big determining factor.'

"We're talking about a huge decision. We need to look at our options to the fullest extent before we make a decision.... (If the annexation falls through), then we own land outside our city limits. That's a huge concern. We need to look at that. We need to be cranking constantly to make the right decision."

Farrell said the council had made a mistake in doing so much of the legwork on the City Hall property purchase in executive session, which is closed to the public.

"We have been working hard on this PEED property," Farrell said. "We are a new council. When we started working on this three months ago we thought it was the right thing. It was the wrong thing....We didn't invite the public until two weeks ago. The citizens didn't know about it. Is that our fault? Absolutely. I think the council would agree we would do it differently next time.... We learn from our mistakes."

Farrell then expressed concerns about the lack of utilities on the PEED property, and its location outside the city limits and in a flood zone.

"It's about the taxpayer living within the city limits now," Farrell said. "I would not feel comfortable going two miles outside of the city limits and taking my taxpayers' dollars to build in a projected area when we have the opportunity to build in a realistic area.... It's the people that are going to use this complex. Do you want to put this complex surrounded by citizens in the area or two miles west of the city in the middle of the desert?... Let's look within the city limits and spend this money to keep it in the heart of the city for the taxpayers."

Citing concerns about the cost to taxpayers, Farrell went on to vote against a motion made by Estes to spend $100,000 on the extension. However, Estes, Murphree and Haddad voted in favor of the extension, giving the city an additional 30 days to consider their options.

The council then set a deadline of Aug. 15 at 5 p.m. for real estate agents and landowners to present possible options for the City Hall property. All information must be hand-delivered to the front desk at City Hall, where it will be date stamped and recorded. The council is expected to hold a special meeting during the last week of August to make a final decision on the PEED property.

©Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc. 2006