Mayor Statement and City Response on Land Use Issue

At the last council meeting, the Mayor made reference to a statement she wanted placed on the city website. Her unedited statement is provided here. In summary she claims: 

“Taken together, this review indicates that these properties, as presently designated, cannot be classified as utility or governmental facilities under applicable and use requirements. Therefore, the prescribed uses are appropriately identified as residential for the former Ball Properties and public/parkland for the former Walton Property. This also means that "no trespassing" signs are not required and that "recreational immunity" may apply for passive public use of the land, so long as the city is not grossly negligent or wanton.” 

The city planner has reviewed the overall statement for accuracy. His unredacted response is here.

Importantly, the city refutes the mayor’s misstatements. 

“The City has not changed the use of the former Ball property. While it remains R-1 zoned, in 1976 it was approved as a utility use necessary for the Phase 1 Planned Development of the Township 13 Subdivision. So, it did go through the lawful land use process as part of the planned development approval, including both the planning commission and city council."

In summary, the Mayor’s comment is incorrect regarding current land use and restrictions. Fortunately, the Mayor has no individual authority over city property - that is reserved by the City Manager under Charter title 21(d)(6). This was affirmed by Council Resolution #1327.