Courthouse parking still an issue
Questions about potential changes to courthouse parking may result in further meetings between county and city officials before the county agrees to the quitclaim deeds that will indicate who legally owns the land around the courthouse.
The issue came up at a meeting of the county’s Land Committee called specifically to vote on the quitclaim deeds, an issue the Building and Grounds Committee had already voted on and passed in an earlier meeting. But since both the Land and Building and Grounds committees have the power to purchase and sell land owned by the county, County Executive Kenneth Rogers and County Attorney Larry Stanley later decided both should vote on the transaction.
The questions were generated when Rogers showed the Land Committee artist renderings of the proposed Main Street downtown beautification that showed extra parking spaces on the east and north side of the courthouse as part of the Main Street project, a move Rogers said would encroach on the property ceded to the county with the quitclaim deeds.
“Then they’re taking part of the sidewalk away to put those parking places in there,” said commissioner George Smartt.
Rogers indicated it looked that way to him. “So I don’t know if this deed is going to be feasible if they’re going to turn right around and do this,” Rogers said.
The original dispute that lead to drawing up the quitclaim deeds began when Rogers removed the parking signs around the courthouse, ostensibly to allow for parking for courthouse employees. City officials replaced the signs citing an agreement with the county which gave the city control and responsibility for policing the area.
Rogers then maintained the county owned the area around the courthouse, but when a title search was conducted, no real deeds designating ownership of the property could be found, according to officials.
The question of ownership eventually resulted in an amicable joint meeting of the Building and Grounds committees of the city and county, where both committees agreed the city should continue to police the area and that quitclaim deeds should be drawn up delineating actual ownership of the land to avoid future disputes.
That agreement did not allow for any kind of designated parking for courthouse employees and basically kept the parking arrangement exactly as it had been set up in the previous agreement.
But Rogers now feels if the extra parking spaces shown in the Main Street drawings result from utilizing some of the sidewalk ceded to the county in the quitclaim deeds, then they should belong to the county and the county should be able to designate them as parking for courthouse employees if it so chooses, something he says the city has vetoed.
City Administrator Herb Llewellyn expressed surprise the Main Street drawings were generating this kind of concern, noting the Main Street projected plans were just that, projected plans subject to changes as the Main Street project progresses.
“If we quitclaim property based upon preliminary drawings,” Llewellyn said, referring to the Main Street drawings, “it would be foolish. We know the location of the sidewalks today.”
Llewellyn did say he was aware of the Main Street drawings and had even discussed them with Mayor Royce Davenport, concerned that if the project did proceed as shown in the current drawings, further quitclaim deeds would be required if the sidewalks were moved further in toward the courthouse, but said Davenport felt bringing the Main Street plans up at this point would just confuse the issue.
Which is apparently exactly what has happened, leading the Land Committee to make a motion to add a caveat to accepting the quitclaim deeds drawn up by the city. County commissioners believe they need more meetings with city officials to hammer out the details.