By By MaryClaire Foster
Legal proceedings began, but no final resolution was made, between the City of Atmore and defendants J.E. Golden Family Limited Partnership and Bobbie Weekley in a case heard Friday morning in Escambia County Probate Court.
The unresolved matter involves 22.99 acres of land owned and farmed by the defendant Golden and 1.03 acres owned by the defendant Weekley.
The case is based on the city’s attempt to condemn land surrounding the airport for runway protection and approach zones per stipulations of the Federal Aviation Administration for a grant the city received in past years.
Condemnation is the formal act of acquiring land through eminent domain, which is the acquisition of land by a governmental body, with just compensation given to the landowner, when it is deemed necessary for the public good.
The Golden family’s farm land is located at the south end of the runway of Atmore Municipal Airport and the Weekley land is located at the north end.
In recent dealings, there were five defendants in the case, but the city was able to settle out of court with all ,but Golden and Weekley.
Covington County Probate Judge Ben Bowden presided in place of Escambia County Probate Judge Emilie Mims who recused herself due to possible conflicts of interest.
Lawyers Ed Hines and Amanda Hines represented the City of Atmore.
In opening remarks, Amanda Hines stated the city’s reason for acquiring the land was based on complying with assurances made by accepting grant money from the FAA.
Outside of court, Ed Hines said proceedings for the acquisition of the land began before June 2007 when an offer letter was sent out to an original 12 landowners. Out of those 12, seven settled and the remaining five did not agree due to an objection in the content of the offer letters, according to Hines. Hines said the offer letters were amended and the process began again, and in October 2008 letters were sent to the remaining five landowners.
Of those five, three had settled with the city prior to Friday.
Shirley Darby, counsel for Weekley, said her client did not object to the taking of land, but wanted “just compensation” and was on hand Friday to have input in the appointment of commissioners, who will determine the value of the land if condemnation is granted.
Bowden responded to Darby’s statement that the portion of the proceedings that would be held that day did not include commissioners’ appointments and would be dealt with accordingly and if necessary.
As its first witness, counsel for the city called Atmore Mayor Howard Shell to the stand, who testified that the city was acquiring the land in compliance with the FAA and if it did not do so, would lose funding, leaving the city unable to maintain the airport. He also testified the city council had agreed that this was necessary, and that the city was working under statutory authority and was directed to condemn the property by the FAA.
In cross examination, Bill Stokes, counsel for the Golden family, submitted a map for exhibit and stated that his client was claiming the city, by condemning the 22.99 acres, would leave another 18.64 acres that is adjacent to the 22.99 acres as an uneconomic remnant. Meaning it would be useless to the owner, whose access would be cutoff and he would no longer be able to farm the land.
Shell testified that the city was not trying to take the Golden’s farming rights away from either parcel of land and said the city would grant easement rights if allowable under FAA regulations, but could not testify definitively whether it would be possible to grant them.
Following counsel examinations, Bowden asked Shell to clarify whether the city was seeking to condemn the property for expansion or safety reasons, because the resolutions submitted on court documents stated that the city was looking to complete a runway extension program.
Bowden then asked what specifically the city was seeking it for, not what was a requirement of the FAA.
Following Bowden’s questioning, Bowden asked if either counsel would like to question the witness again.
Stokes then asked Shell if there had been discussions about runway expansion and if it was part of the FAA requirements.
Shell responded, “Not at this time, that I’m aware of.”
Stokes then established, through further questioning of Shell, that the city became aware of the requirements for the grant through the engineering firm Volkert and Associates.
Mike Helmsing, vice president of Volkert and Associates, was the next witness to take the stand and testified his firm had drawn up a master plan of the airport and submitted it to the FAA, which then approved it and directed the land acquisitions based on the plan.
During his testimony, Helmsing answered a question regarding the FAA’s requirements of acquiring property fee simple absolute, meaning with complete ownership.
Hines then asked Helmsing about the land’s mineral and surface rights and the condemnation of the surface rights to the land.
Helmsing replied that condemning the surface rights is necessary to prevent a structure from being built on the land that could “interfere with the use of the airport” and said it was not uncommon that surface rights near an airport are relinquished.
In his cross examination, Stokes questioned Helmsing on Golden’s access rights to the 18.64 acres of land adjacent to that the city planned to acquire. Helmsing testified that he thought the FAA would allow for easement rights, but if not possible and the land was rendered an uneconomic remnant the FAA would allow for its purchase to be included with the land already being acquired.
Stokes then asked Helmsing about the possibility of a runway extension.
To which Helmsing replied that it was part of the overall master plan of the airport.
Stokes asked Helmsing if the current day’s proceedings had anything to do with the extension of the runway.
Stokes, in addressing Helmsing, said that in court Friday was the first time an extension had been mentioned.
Helmsing said it was part of it. Stokes asked if the current plan called for taking additional land. Helmsing said that the plan already included the necessary amount of land for an extension.
Helmsing responded, “I’m saying the FAA has sanctioned both of them.”
Stokes brought up the point that if there were an extension his client would no longer be able to farm his land, but Helmsing said it was only a “minor extension.”
In further testimony, Helmsing said that if the land was not acquired in compliance with the master plan, the airport’s grant funding would cease. He based this on previous cases with airports that he has had dealings with.
Following Helmsing’s questioning, Bowden adjourned the court and told both counsels he would be going to view the property immediately following.
Proceedings will continue at a later date to be set.
(See Wednesday’s Atmore Advance for a follow-up on this story including land owners’ reactions.)