Argyle town hall

Isn't it unethical that the town is purchasing property from the mayor?

I thought they bought the methodist church?

Landrum purchased it from the church awhile back and has had it on the market. Seems fishy to me. Did he get to vote on buying property from himself? Are they planning on remodeling or tearing it down? Either way won't be cheap.

On Tuesday, August 26th 2008 during the Town of Argyle Council meeting 2 out of 3 council members present at the meeting voted to spend nearly 1 MILLION of of Argyle taxpayers dollars to purchase a property from the MAYOR of Argyle, to be used as Argyle's new town hall. The purchase price of the property does NOT include the cost of renovations, the property has NOT been legally subdivided and is NOT zoned for this type of use.
Votes cast to purchase the Mayors property on Tuesday, August 26th 2008:
According to the Argyle town secretary Mayor Landrum recused himself from the vote “because he has a financial interest in the property”. Mayor Landrum is in whole or part, owner of Lps Partners Ltd - the owner of record for the Methodist Church property on Denton street in Old Town
Argyle Council member Jay Pellicone recused himself from vote because he owns property close to the subject property. He had not yet arrived to the meeting when the vote occurred.
Council member Dona Schroetke recused herself because she works for the firm brokering the property. She had not yet arrived to the meeting when the vote occurred.
Council member Joe Phelps voted FOR acquisition of the property
Council member Bonny Haynes voted FOR acquisition of the property.
Council member Joey Hasty was the lone vote AGAINST.
According to the Denton Central Appraisal District the property, at first glance, appears to be owned by the Argyle United Methodist church. However, If you use the following link into DentonCAD. org, scroll down to Deed History, you will see that it appears to have been sold to Lps Partners Ltd (Mayor Landrum) in 8/06 for $900,000 for ALL 6+ acres and the church bldgs. However, if you look at the value in 2007 the appraised value was $670,337 for the ENTIRE property.During Tuesday nights council meeting the council agreed to purchase ONLY 2.25 acreswhich includes the aging church bldgs for $930,000.
It is also important to note that Lps Partners Ltd.(Mayor Landrum) also own the two properties west of that tract linking all of the property to 377 on the west and the Baptist Church property on the south.
This vote took place between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26th 2008.It is well known that most citizens and media usually arrive at the council meetings at 6:00 p.m. because that is generally when the public session starts. The timing of this vote is extremely questionable along with the complete lack of notice of this vote on the Tuesday, August 26th Council Agenda.
The Town of Argyle has put together committees, paid consultants, notified its citizens and spent a lot more time researching items that are far less significant and far less expensive than spending nearly $1,000,000 on an old church building (from the mayor) to be minimally remodeled into a town hall.
There has been no citizen notification or input allowed in regards to the location of our new town hall. Just 2 votes and nearly 1 million dollars of Argyle taxpayer money, that the city doesn’t have, is being paid to Lps Partners Ltd (Mayor Landrum) in exchange for an aging church building with past foundation problems and serious questions regarding asbestos and other structural issues.
I feel it is only fair to disclose that the Town of Argyle was also in negotiations with a developer, who was going to GIVE the Town of Argyle a tract of land to build our new town hall on however, some council members didn't want to give the appearance that they were 'favoring' one developer over another. So they decided to buy a property from Mayor Landrum…
If you are still reading this message I applaud you for your interest. I also encourage you to attend the next Town Council meeting on TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2008 and express your opinions/thoughts/concerns etc.about this transaction.

There is no way that the mayor can do this, a million bucks? Can't be legal, certainly isn't kosher. Our taxes are going to go through the roof to pay for this. How can it be stopped?

Hopefully the grass roots efforts of some citizens will put the brakes on this.

I don't know that any grass roots efforts around here have ever accomplished what really needed to happen. If the save Argyle email is accurate, this is a criminal case.

This is back room deal making with the mayor making promises and grand plans that he has no authority to make. Shame on those who voted to pay more for the property than what it appraised for, what is more underhanded than that?

"save argyle" did not cite the source of the 2007 appraised value. If Mayor Landrum's company purchased the parcel in 2006, why would a market value appraisal be conducted in 2007? The more likely case is that the appraisal referenced was a tax appraisal. Tax appraisals are always below actual market value. Don't be so quick to judge when only a portion of the facts are known. All the affected parties appropriately recused themselves from the vote. This is why we should be careful with each of our votes for city council members. There will be occasions from time to time where only a few, will be responsible for a very large decision. They have been elected to their positions and conduct the business of this town to the best of their ability.

I agree that tax appraisals aren't helpful to gauge market value. The town had an appraisal done to see how much it was worth - but even that was flawed.

What difference does it make anyway? You can figure it out without an appraisal: Landrum bought the church property, with 6 acres for $900,000, two years ago. The town offered to buy the church with ONLY 2 acres, for $30,000 more than he paid for the whole thing. In case you hadn't noticed, real estate values are declining. There is no way that property has appreciated at that rate.

citizen wrote:

I agree that tax appraisals aren't helpful to gauge market value. The town had an appraisal done to see how much it was worth - but even that was flawed.
What difference does it make anyway? You can figure it out without an appraisal: Landrum bought the church property, with 6 acres for $900,000, two years ago. The town offered to buy the church with ONLY 2 acres, for $30,000 more than he paid for the whole thing. In case you hadn't noticed, real estate values are declining. There is no way that property has appreciated at that rate.

Maybe it is not property appreciation we are talking about. Maybe there was a sweetheart deal from the church to Landrum because OF THE TERMS. It is so funny to watch people who have no idea what they are talking about discussing real estate transactions and property values when they don't know all of the facts.

Did you check into the deal Landrum made with the church. That maybe he got a good deal because he allowed the church to stay in the building for two more years?

All of the comments on this thread are guesses and innuendo. Maybe you should just GO ASK THE MAYOR ABOUT IT. It's that simple.

The rant by save argyle has so many errors of fact that it is ridiculous. Spend some time with the Mayor, he will be happy to answer your questions. Don't buy into this rumor and garbage being strewn about by people who don't have a clue. Check it out for yourself.

argyle resident wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe it is not property appreciation we are talking about. Maybe there was a sweetheart deal from the church to Landrum because OF THE TERMS. It is so funny to watch people who have no idea what they are talking about discussing real estate transactions and property values when they don't know all of the facts.
Did you check into the deal Landrum made with the church. That maybe he got a good deal because he allowed the church to stay in the building for two more years?
All of the comments on this thread are guesses and innuendo. Maybe you should just GO ASK THE MAYOR ABOUT IT. It's that simple.
The rant by save argyle has so many errors of fact that it is ridiculous. Spend some time with the Mayor, he will be happy to answer your questions. Don't buy into this rumor and garbage being strewn about by people who don't have a clue. Check it out for yourself.

One only has to look in the public records, or have been an active citizen when the town looked into buying the property when the church first went on the market. They could have bought all six acres for what they are giving for 2 acres now...and they decided against it then. If there was a "sweetheart deal" for the church, why has the property been on the market for the duration? Do you think it is right for the MAYOR to realize the benefits of a "sweetheart deal" on the taxpayer's dime?

The previous council voted to engage an appraisal, so obviously they had no problem with it.

The current council voted for it also. Pellicone recused due to proximity, Schroetke because of ties to the Broker, obviously the Mayor because of the conflict of interest. There were three left to vote and it passed. Why so bitter? Those with a dog in the hunt backed out of the vote. Still not kosher enough for you?

What did the independent appraisal of the property, hired by the city indicate? I think you will find out that the city is paying less than the appraised value.

How is this bad for the city? Regardless of who owns the property?

Where else can the city acquire existing buildings with parking at this price?

Its a win-win, but you know somebody has to have a beef with it - it is the nature of politics.

citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
One only has to look in the public records, or have been an active citizen when the town looked into buying the property when the church first went on the market. They could have bought all six acres for what they are giving for 2 acres now...and they decided against it then.

The nature of real estate my friend.

Prices, availability, scarcity, interest rates, terms - those are all subject to change and all impact value and/or marketability.

So many chances to buy before the price goes up. How much profit will be realized after paying taxes, interest carry, closing costs, Realtor fees.

Nobody is getting rich here.

gummy bear wrote:

<quoted text>
The nature of real estate my friend.
Prices, availability, scarcity, interest rates, terms - those are all subject to change and all impact value and/or marketability.
So many chances to buy before the price goes up. How much profit will be realized after paying taxes, interest carry, closing costs, Realtor fees.
Nobody is getting rich here.

You say that the nature of real estate (with our current economy) is the cause of the appreciation of the property. That's a bit hard to believe for anyone who has property on the market right now. Another company was willing to DONATE land and build a NEW building. There is no price issue or dearth of available land in that scenario.

You raise interesting points about the costs associated with closing this deal. Taxes? Isn't the town tax exempt?

Who were the real estate representatives involved in the transaction and what will their cut of the taxpayer dollar be?

?

Citizen, you seem to be desperately looking for an argument. You seem seem to be formulating your arguments and fortifying your position before fully taking in other's statements. For example, you seem to have missed that the "sweetheart deal" previously mentioned was a reference to terms of an agreement that were favorable to the Church's needs.

Also, you show that you are not actively listening when you make your question about the town being tax exempt. Gummy Bear was listing the carrying costs and transaction costs born by the seller, not by the town.

I agree completely with Proud Argyleian and also wonder, "Why so bitter?"

Citizen, the suspicions you are casting have no foundation and are gaining no traction. Citizen, you are not a "good citizen" if your intention is to make trouble. Your last question shows that you now want to cast your net of suspicion even wider now. Argyle has had enough of that. We've been there, done that, and don't want to do it again. What is the point in discussing something with someone who is bitter, whose mind is made-up, and who just wants to argue? I ask the readers here to join me in declining to participate further in this thread and to deal directly with those people for whom you may have questions.

Folks its not so much a real estate issue - although the church is without question a bad location. Its ethics. Read Argyle's Ordinances on line and make the determination for yourself. Pay special attention to 1.06.004

Anon wrote:

Folks its not so much a real estate issue - although the church is without question a bad location. Its ethics. Read Argyle's Ordinances on line and make the determination for yourself. Pay special attention to 1.06.004

Sec. 1.06.004 Disclosure of substantial interest
(a) If any public person has a substantial interest in a business entity or real property involved in any transaction, dealings, negotiations or decision pending before the town or a governmental body of which he/she is a member, such person shall disclose such interest as provided in subsection

(b) below and shall not discuss the substance of the matter at any time with the town, town staff or any other member of the governmental body of which he/she is a member or any other governmental body which will vote on or otherwise participate in the consideration of the matter.(2004 Code, sec. 1.319)

argyle wrote:

Your last question shows that you now want to cast your net of suspicion even wider now.

Why is asking about the real estate agents an unfair question? Who represented the town's interest and how were they chosen?

This and the "Gummy Bear" posts seem to have a lot of inside information on the original real estate transaction when the church sold to Landrum, as well as information about a transaction that took place in executive session. That detailed information is known by precious few. I think that much of the frustration could be overcome if the process was more transparent. Can you help the general public understand how the decision was reached?