Details/Opinions About County’s Potential 648-Acre Purchase

By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor

As covered in the Sept. 12 Sentinel, Trust for Public Land (TPL) has approached the Dade County Board of Commissioners with the opportunity to purchase 648 acres that could become a “community forest” with outdoor recreation activities.

The Sentinel contacted Noel Durant (TPL Tennessee State Director), Sandy White (Alliance for Dade president and CEO), the current county commission, Bob Woods (District Three commissioner-elect), Don Townsend (county executive-elect), and several citizens to get their take on the opportunity.

Other key players in the story are Georgia-Alabama Land Trust (GALT). GALT bought the land from Klatt Lands LLC who reportedly were allowing clear cutting on the land.

Woods, Ted Rumley (county executive), Melissa Bradford (District Four commissioner), and Lamar Lowery (District One commissioner) did not respond to the Sentinel’s email.

In passing during another conversation, the Sentinel asked Rumley about the matter. He said there was no way the county could make such a large decision by the Oct. commission meeting. However, Durant confirmed that he wants an answer from the commission at the Oct. meeting because the Land and Water Conservation Fund pre-application is due Oct. 31.

Because Phillip Hartline (District Two commissioner) took the lead on this topic, the Sentinel particularly hoped to hear from him, but as of press time, Hartline and the Sentinel have not been able to connect.

Explaining TPL’s perspective, Durant said, “Seeing the property listed caught our attention.” He called GALT who then purchased the land. GALT doesn’t typically work with local municipalities, so this is where TPL comes in. Working with government agencies is their specialty, so TPL then approached the commission.

The Sentinel asked if, by committing the $500,000, the county is bound to the purchase. Durant answered, “Yes, contingent upon selection for additional grant funds. If selected, that triggers the county’s commitment.”

The Sentinel asked if at any point Cloudland Canyon State Park had been contacted about the property and its potential future. Durant said TPL started with the county commission because “we wanted to start the conversation at the local level,” but he believes there are opportunities for collaboration with the state park.

At the Sept. commission meeting, Durant said an advantage of the property is that it connects the valley to the mountain. Noting that Sitton’s Gulch already does that, the Sentinel asked how the 648 acres would increase revenue in Dade County. The land is right next door to Cloudland Canyon, so how would it draw visitors further into the county?

He said, “With a county owned and managed property, there is more flexibility, as well as its adjacency to more commercial activity. Sitton’s is amazing, but it doesn’t really put people where they can spend money and generate tax revenue for the county.”

Durant believes the land could be leveraged to keep visitors in Dade for longer periods of time (therefore more likely to need food and supplies) by providing novel opportunities. Since Cloudland Canyon already has over 60 miles of trails, the Sentinel asked what novel attractions the community forest would offer. Durant said, “It has two miles of Lookout Creek frontage, so there are opportunities for fishing and paddling and to improve stream bank health. Paddle sports don’t really exist in Cloudland Canyon.”

He also voiced his excitement for the local community to have input in how the land is used. “It’s not up to TPL; a project like this puts the community at the center of our work. Having county ownership gives a level of community responsiveness. It’s motivating for our organization to consider how we can support Dade’s vision for a brighter future.”

Of the deforestation issue, the Sentinel asked if the property is now protected for the future since GALT owns it. Would GALT refuse to sell to someone who planned to clear cut on the property? Durant explained that GALT does not typically own property for long periods of time. “GALT sees the conservation value in this property. They wanted to act quickly to acquire this property as an opportunity for conservation.” 

The Sentinel also asked White for the Alliance’s take on the question of creating more revenue. She said, “It will bring more tourism traffic, I believe, because it will then connect Trenton all the way to the Riverwalk in Chattanooga.”

The Sentinel noted that Sitton’s Gulch and the River to Clouds Route has already accomplished this, to which White noted that increased traffic in the Canyon Park Estates neighborhood is not ideal.

Like Durant, she sees the addition of creek access as a compelling new option for outdoor recreation in Dade. “This piece of property would open up activity for Lookout Creek. It would give us an opportunity for people to kayak here. It would open up more trails. It would add to the amount of biking and hiking opportunities.”

Noting that some towns have witnessed commerce and industry overtaking the community, White said, “I’m appreciative that the commission is considering buying anything for the purpose of protecting the land. Conservation is a big deal nowadays, and I think it will continue to be as communities become increasingly mindful of their natural resources.”

The Sentinel noted that the county can’t purchase every bit of land that is at risk for negative uses. White agreed but said that she doesn’t see anything wrong with the county buying some land.

She noted that because the land borders the county’s Sells Lane property on the northwestern edge and is just one parcel away from the Dade County Sports Complex (the Four Fields) on the southwestern corner, there is plenty of room for expanded attractions and activities in close proximity to Trenton. Going directly through the privately owned land parcel, the railroad also separates the Four Fields and the 648 acres.

She concluded, “We probably could accomplish the things that everybody wants to accomplish without this land, but I think it would provide a really vital asset to the community.”

Moving on to county officials, Goff wrote, “You have asked some very good questions, and that means there are many to be asked. I think it is a lot to rush into. I am a proponent for green space, and I am not at all saying I’m opposed to the plan, but we need to know more about what the plan is.”

He continued, “Unfortunately, due to the Sunshine Law we cannot meet and discuss it as a board unless it is in executive session. Land acquisition is one of the things we can go into executive session for.”

This is not quite accurate. Discussions about land are not limited to executive session; they are merely one of the few topics allowed to be discussed in executive session. Per “Georgia’s Sunshine Law: A Citizen’s Guide to Open Government” page 11, “The Law does not require that any meetings be closed. Agencies may close meetings only as permitted by a specific exemption provided by law.”

One of the Sentinel’s questions noted that the commission has talked about potential public recreation at the Sells Land property, so “why not focus on developing that property rather than acquiring more land?”

Goff answered, “We went through the ringer when obtaining the Sells Lane property, but I still believe it was a good deal for Dade County. I hope that someday that property will be something to give our citizens a place to be proud of. This other property would enhance its potential.”

The Sentinel asked if the commission has discussed further costs beyond the initial $500,000 investment, such as costs for building trails, park amenities, and maintenance in perpetuity. Goff wrote, “Funding is also a question, but we have avenues to pursue, like ARPA, SPLOST, and perhaps some other funding as well.”

Townsend provided detailed answers, explaining that Hartline approached him about the opportunity in the last week of May. As to whether one month (from the Sept. commission meeting to the Oct. meeting) is enough time to make this decision, Townsend said, “No, but Commissioner Hartline brought this idea to light back in late May 2024. Therefore, four months of research has been conducted.”

Townsend did not know if Cloudland Canyon or the Georgia Department of Natural Resources had been contacted about purchasing the property. He wrote, “I think your question has merit, and perhaps the GDNR should be approached before a final decision is rendered. However, Georgia typically does not want to own any additional land. Therefore, they make state grants available to local governmental entities.”

As of Sept. 10, Townsend had not been part of any discussion about further costs beyond the initial investment. He wrote, “I would be interested in knowing the exact appraised value of the land. Anytime a capitalized purchase takes place, the due diligence of that purchase should include ongoing costs. That would include the effects to the general fund budget, property taxes, utilities, zoning, and current appraisal/fair market value. Dade County has no zoning, so that seems simple enough. Are there any unknown utilities crossing the property? If so, will those utilities be responsible for remitting property taxes to the county? How will the purchase of this property affect nearby landowners’ property values? Will those owners consider this an asset or liability to their property? Since the land is already being held by a not-for-profit group, current property taxes are exempt. Would any parts of this property ever be considered to be relisted as taxable? These are only a few of the questions I have.”

The Sentinel asked which department would be in charge of the forest and if it would require additional staff to oversee/maintain. Townsend said, “Fallen trees, overgrown bushes/shrubbery, invasive grasses, etc. These are all issues that any trail faces. There’s always the possibility of volunteers, but ultimately it does fall upon the county commission to ensure property maintenance. Therefore, the parks and recreation and possibly public works departments would be responsible for maintenance.”

He continued, “Would additional employees be required? There are too many variables to determine that today. For example, if a culvert/tile needed to be installed on the trail system, or a road graveled/paved to access a portion of the property, most likely the Public Works department could perform this work. But the labor entailed to maintain the walkability of the trail would most likely fall under the Parks & Recreation department. Many times in the winter months, parks employees could add some of these services to their daily routine.”

The Sentinel asked, “Does the county have any expertise in developing and maintaining a public recreation area of this variety? The sports complex is very different from trails/hunting areas.” Townsend said, “Many of our current employees would have sufficient knowledge how to perform most of the maintenance required of such a trail system. However, additional training and labor most likely would be required.”

As for the Sells Lane property, Townsend said, “I would agree that the Sells Lane property would need to be maintained and developed in addition to the purchase of this proposed land. Parking, picnic tables, creek entry to Lookout Creek are all possible ideas being considered at the reservoir property. Public parking for future hiking trails may be utilized at the existing county property on Sells Lane. Therefore, I think both properties would be improved simultaneously.”

The Sentinel asked, “Would something on Sand Mountain be a better way to draw visitors further into the county while also giving Sand residents somewhere near them?” Townsend answered, “Absolutely, but I’m not aware of any large land tracts for sale that are currently held by a land trust company. I would prefer a private investor utilize property already on the tax digest for the purpose of encouraging additional visitors to our community to shop and purchase local products from our small businesses.”

However, if a Sand Mountain property that offered similar benefits to the county and citizens, reasons for conservation, and opportunity for grants became available, Townsend would be interested in that property as well.

He concluded, “I’m not a fan of making quick decisions, but if time allows for due diligence and federal and state grant funds are made available to Dade County for this property, then I would support this purchase. However, I do not take office until January 1, 2025, therefore, I don’t have a vote on the matter until that time. I would encourage the current county commission to move forward with grant applications.”

Lastly, citizens Cody Doyle and Ryan Faircloth offered their thoughts. Doyle noted that he likes the plan to use hotel/motel (Accommodations Excise tax) and ARPA funds to cover the due diligence costs, but he doesn’t like that the due diligence money would be lost regardless of the outcome.

Wondering if the county can pull grant applications at any point, Doyle said, “They were talking about trails, camping, kayaking, etc. I saw there’s a grant for improvements. If we don’t get the grant for improvements but get the grant for the property, are we still going through with this?”

Of practical details, he said, “Which department would be over the land? Are the people over the Four Fields going to be over this? Who would clear trees that fall on the trails?”

Of connecting to the Sells Lane property, Doyle said, “That would be a good thing. With this new land, the county would own two miles of creek-front property. This would give a good option for a two-mile kayak route with a put-in at the beginning and end.”

Doyle believes the purchase is a good financial deal, but he has concerns about the county’s ability to execute on plans. “We’re only spending $500,000 for 648 acres, but this is going to be a big project with a lot of planning needed. Where the county has failed in the past is planning. We shoot and then we aim. I think this has a lot of potential, but I don’t like how rushed this decision has to be.”

He would like to see a subcommittee formed of non-commissioners who have experience in outdoor recreation, land development, and other applicable areas.

Faircloth offered, “The general idea of what they are pitching is a great idea, but how do they plan to capture those tourism dollars from people who are already here visiting the state park? Noel Durant stated that if they could capture only ten percent of the state park visitors (roughly 40,000 people), that would generate $3 million annually. What are these people buying or what services are they receiving in order to spend about $75 per person?”

He asked, “Also, there is no other way that I see on the map to get to Cloudland with trails except by crossing GA-136 at least once. Is this a danger? Can it be done? Hartline mentioned maybe connecting it to the Four Fields. That’s a possibility within our own county, if they acquire [the property between the Four Fields and this] land.”

Cloudland Canyon does have road crossings, (such as the trail crossing on Scenic Highway about halfway between Lookout Mountain Pizza Co and Scenic Outdoors and Feed), but GA-136 going up the mountain seems to be more dangerous to walk across.

Faircloth continued, “Of the hotel/motel tax, I believe only eight percent can be used to purchase property that brings in tourism.”

The Sentinel asked Townsend about this, who explained that actually only three percent of the Accommodations Excise tax can be used for things like purchasing property. He added, “It would take a very lengthy period of time to accumulate sufficient funds in that account to use for such a large purchase. Plus, the county uses those funds to promote other advertising for local programs that would take a severe hit.”