City of Johns Creek vs Autrey Mill Nature Preserve Association
The City of Johns Creek has created a public relations piece that it uses when challenged by citizens expressing concern about the lawsuit their local government brought against the non-profit Autrey Mill Nature Preserve Association (AMNP). As shocked as we (the AMNP Board) were when we were ambushed by the City’s lawsuit, we are now appalled by the many false statements the City spokesman included in the government’s official response to its concerned citizens. For example, the City contends that AMNP acted in bad faith and reneged on an agreement reached by the parties in December. That is a false and reprehensible charge totally unsupported by the record.
Some portions of the city government’s official response take positions on the legal questions they have asked a court to decide. While we dispute the City’s reading of the law, and are fortunate enough to be represented by a leading local lawyer, we do not intend to debate the legal merits here. Rather, the following examples show how little attention the city’s spokesman paid to the obtaining correct facts when he prepared their public statement trying to explain this highly questionable lawsuit.
The City said: “The park, consisting of 46.2 acres and various buildings, has always been a publicly owned facility.”
In fact, Autrey Mill is not a park -- it is a nature preserve and heritage center. Many of the buildings and all of the historic artifacts at Autrey Mill were donated to AMNP and relocated to the site. Therefore, much of what comprises the Autrey Mill heritage village is owned by the non-profit AMNP and not the Johns Creek city government.
The City said: “The land was initially donated to Fulton County . . . “
In fact, most of the land that now comprises the preserve was purchased by Fulton County and only about seven acres were donated to the government by Jim Cowart.
The City said: “We have no desire to see the Association dissolved . . .”
In fact, the City launched its lawsuit expressly designed to strip AMNP of its principal asset -- the leasehold interest in the preserve. Moreover, the City’s aggressive tactics appear calculated to bankrupt AMNP by diverting our limited funds from programming to legal defense. Fortunately for us, Michael King, head of the litigation department in the local office of Greenberg Traurig -- a leading national law firm -- has agreed to represent AMNP on a volunteer(
pro bono) basis. This enables us to both defend the preserve from the City’s hostile takeover and continue providing quality environmental and heritage education programs, including our popular summer camps. Only by virtue of the generous donation of legal services by Greenberg Traurig is AMNP able to avoid being bankrupted by the high cost of litigation, which the City funds with taxpayer dollars.
The City said: “Since buying the park, the City has been working with the Association [to reach an agreement] . . .”
In fact, this is a gratuitous and self-serving statement contradicted by City’s actions. The City has consistently refused to respond to proposals or counterproposals made by AMNP and instead they have repeatedly sought to impose without negotiation one-sided documents prepared by the City Attorney’s office. To most fair-minded observers, an “agreement” reflects an understanding reached by two or more parties after negotiation. The City apparently assigns a different meaning to the term.
The City said: “We have successfully created similar agreements with [Ocee and Newtown] . . .”
In fact, the terms of an agreement to operate athletic facilities, such as Ocee and Newtown, raise entirely different issues than those involved in supporting passive recreation at Autrey Mill. Ocee and Newtown provide a valuable recreational resource for our community, generate over $500,000.00 in revenue each and enjoy net income. On the other hand, Autrey Mill depends on memberships, donations, grants and fees from our environmental and heritage education programs and we have been operating with a small deficit.
In addition, the protection of historic buildings, preservation of donated heirlooms and preparation of environmental education curriculum are not issues encountered when managing athletic programs. Moreover, the Association Board has a record of two decades of stewardship in protecting the land and historic structures from destruction. Yet, the City has not been willing to take these important differences into account in approaching an operating agreement with Autrey Mill. Rather, it has stubbornly tried to cram down the same terms it used with the active recreation parks.
The City said: “In December 2008, it appeared we finally reached a mutually satisfactory agreement . . . Unfortunately . . . the Association subsequently returned its own version that materially differed from what they had previously agreed Not only did the Association renege on what they agreed to, they made additional demands that had never been brought up before.. . “
In fact, this is the most cynical and misleading statement made by the City’s spokesman. He was not involved in the talks with Autrey Mill and has apparently not bothered to check the record and compare the version of the documents. An impartial observer that compares the City’s version and AMNP’s version of the draft agreement with meetings notes from August 19, 2008 (not December 2008) will quickly conclude that the City has mischaracterized the situation and made an outrageous charge. The following
italicized paragraph is the text of a letter sent by the co-Presidents of AMNP to the City Manager promptly after we received their proposed Operating Agreement.
“We have received and reviewed the proposed Operating Agreement you sent Richard McMahan on November 4, 2008. We are disappointed that the document does not adequately reflect the discussions we held and the understandings we reached during our series of meetings this past summer. The members of the Autrey Mill Nature Preserve (AMNP) negotiating committee have examined meeting notes, compared recollections and observe that many of the terms and conditions in the draft Operating Agreement were not discussed nor agreed."
The AMNP Board sent the City our proposed revisions to the draft agreement on December 19, 2008 that more nearly reflected our earlier talks with the City and removed many of the extraneous provisions added by the City Attorney’s office. Rather than negotiate the differences between our respective documents in an open, honest and principled way, the City instead brought an aggressive lawsuit.
The City complains that a private citizen lives on premises
In fact, for many years AMNP has had an on-site caretaker to monitor and maintain 46 acres of mostly woodlands where trespassers have conducted illegal activities in the past. Our buildings are far from the main road and require more security than police patrols have been able to provide. Moreover, we host live animals that require care and feeding. The caretaker walks the trails daily, opens and closes the gate and will notify the police in the event of an incident. We believe AMNP has an obligation to protect the live animals, historic buildings and protect our neighbors from nuisance activities by having a resident caretaker. We frankly don’t understand the City fussing about a long-term practice that has provided valuable security without cost to the taxpayers.
The City said: it “bears all legal liability for the park including any liability resulting from the Association’s actions.”
In fact, City governments are protected from most types of legal liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Even if someone gets past the barrier of sovereign immunity and sues the City, the existing lease protects Johns Creek by indemnifying the City against all costs or losses resulting from activities at Autrey Mill. It is AMNP’s financial risk and responsibility (not the City’s) to pay attorneys fees and any damage award. Moreover, AMNP had named the City as an additional insured on its liability insurance policy. This means that the City is covered by insurance against liability at Autrey Mill and does not have to rely on the limited balance sheet of AMNP for its protection against liability. The City’s contention that it “bears all legal liability” is incorrect in at least three fundamental respects.
Shockingly, there are even more inaccurate or misleading statements in the City’s document. We should expect better from our public officials especially in a situation like this when they are appropriating taxpayer funds to sue a respected non-profit board. Ironically, the City recognized the service of the AMNP Board when it made the following statement:
“the fact that this icon [Autrey Mill] remains part of the community is a tribute to hard work by a committed group of volunteers, led by the Autrey Mill Nature Preserve Association, which preserved the property, built the trails and assembled the collection of buildings dating back to the 19th century for current and future generations to experience.”
Missing from the City’s statements about Autrey Mill is any indication about what the government would do differently to make the Autrey Mill Nature Preserve a better place if it were successful in seizing control. We urge our friends to press the City and ask for a truthful and complete explanation about the real reasons for spending taxpayers’ money on this extraordinary lawsuit against “a committed group of volunteers.”
Community advocacy can be very powerful. We hope you will use one or more of these following options to have your voice heard:
- Sign an online petition
- Write letters
- Send e-mails
- Make phone calls
- then spread the word of this lawsuit to friends and neighbors
|
|
Other methods of advocacy include making blog entries at local newspapers' websites and speaking during the community input portion of City Council meetings.
Read more about this lawsuit in the Q&A discussion.
Please monitor this website for further developments www.autreymill.org
