Missouri City council members have accepted a negotiation with Quail Valley Country Club, L.P to pay $7.375 million for the purchase of the 390-acre Quail Valley golf property. The parties were scheduled to begin a trial today after several postponements.
The city, through eminent domain proceedings, originally paid $3.1 million for the property in 2008 after a ruling on fair market value by three special commissioners appointed by Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein.
The settlement discussions followed City Council authorization on May 17 to staff and outside counsel to negotiate a settlement of the city’s eminent domain proceeding to acquire the Quail Valley Golf Course property.
“This action is in the best interest of our city,” said Mayor Allen Owen. “We are beginning design of the tennis and recreation center and the clubhouse at Quail Valley golf course, and now we can move forward confidently with those two projects.”
Owen said that the two parties working to reach an agreed settlement means that the eminent domain issue and the property value would not be questioned in the future, and there would be no additional court proceedings and legal fees.
“The former owners had the property appraised at approximately $14 million. When the city took possession of the property in 2008, it was on the tax rolls for $6.59 million. Overall, we believe we negotiated a fair value for both parties,” said Owen.
In March 2008, the city filed condemnation proceedings to take 392 acres of golf course property – two 18-hole and two 9-hole courses, a club house, maintenance building and driving range – from Quail Valley Country Club, owned by Renaissance Golf Group LLC.
QVCC had stopped operating three of the courses, the city said, and one of the club owners acknowledged the property was experiencing annual operating losses of about $1.5 million.
Three months later Bielstein appointed three special commissioners in the case, who ruled that fair market value of the acreage was $3.1 million. The city deposited $3.1 million with the Fort Bend County Clerk’s office, and began operating the property as its own.
At Missouri City Council’s direction, the city has been renovating the property and has opened one course to the public.
But QVCC argued in a condemnation suit that Texas law doesn’t allow a government entity “to condemn a going business concern and utilize the property acquired for the same business purpose for which the property was being used at the time of the condemnation.”
Further, QVCC argued there was no required “public necessity” for condemning the property, an act it has called “merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on particular private parties, including the mayor and a number of city council members.” Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen and councilmen Jerry Wyatt, Brett Kolaja and Buddy Jimerson all live in Quail Valley.
Bielstein has ruled that the city had the right to take the property by eminent domain, and the remaining issue is the amount the city paid for it.
“We have had strong citizen support from throughout our community on this project,” said Owen. “By a 72 percent vote, citizens from the entire city approved a $17.5 bond referendum in November 2008, for use in property acquisition and redevelopment. City Council is very pleased we can get on with expanding recreation opportunities for our residents.”
The bigger question now for MoCity is what to do with QVGC. The reason that they invested in the El Dorado course was to help the operation come closer to break even. Once the Course is close to making a profit, they can open it up to privatization and reduce the tax burden on City residents. Privatization will ensure that the Course makes a profit. The main disadvantage to privatization (letting a private company manage it) is that the City will lose control of the green fee amount and lose the political advantage of managing the Course themselves. Will QV residents accept the higher green fees and will the Mayor and Council release control thru privatization and lose the biggest reason they get re-elected? Wait and see.
The area is already over golfed. Aren’t they planning another one across hwy 6 in SL ETJ on the MC side of the river?
A couple of things:
Act 3: the residents which happen to be city council condemn the property and take over for 3M and tell the developer to stick it
If your home was on this property, trust me – you would want them to do the same thing.
Act 5: the settlement give them 7M more
Wrong. They gave them a little more than 4 million more… 7.375 (7.373) million total, inclusive of the 3.2 million that was already in place.
Act 6: the city now has a golf course to fix up that they probably didn’t want. Now they have it so make the best of it.
Other than the E9 and the Club House, the City has not said anything about renovating any other areas of this property. They would like to eventually turn the Par 3 into a learning center, but that isn’t in the works at this point – likely won’t be for some time since they are getting ready to run out of bond money.
Was this settlement already in the works?
I would have to say that it is likely that they had something like this in the works. Frankly, I would be surprised if Voltman and his crew (the former owners) hit the Council up just after the elections… unless for some reason they were hoping that the Mayor would be ousted and they could try to collect more. But frankly that doesn’t make sense. Regardless of who the Mayor is, the support team would have remained the same. (Lawyers, Staff, Council, Etc.)
Personally, I would have preferred the HOA to purchase it and raise the HOA fees. However, that would have likely run several homeowners living on fixed incomes out of the community. QV is a rather aged place to live and most aren’t independently wealthy.
‘Personally, I would have preferred the HOA to purchase it and raise the HOA fees. ‘
I still would like to know how much the lawyers and hired consultants came away with. I too wanted to see a collaborative effort by the city prior to the use of eminent domain. They have a MUD with almost no debt and their HOA dues were raised to help but never used for that purpose. This would have helped keep the burden off the entire city or at least shared it.
How much will they ask for in the next bond and will they call it by a name that is descriptive of the proposal or will it be another ‘fool the voter’ effort? Why didn’t they put forth this effort for the golf course in district A? Questions, questions….
I need to make a correction, the original offer by the HOA was 5 million with the first counter at 9 but going from 3.1 to 7.3 plus whatever the legal costs ended up being for the taxpayers is no victory.
PS mcty–the HOA did raise the fees but never lowered them after the city took over the case.
Well, it certainly makes sense why this Owen crime ring would want to “chase down” and marginalize any patriot who brought light to their misdeeds. Misdeeds that have and will cost us all dearly. Voters should reflect on why they voted for these criminals; and other nonvoters for why they did not get out and vote against them. It is painful to wait for the tipping point of public participation, when it usually comes only after so many have been thrown into economic despair by elected opportunists.
Now that’s what I call critical thinking all! Well done.
Act 1: development company buys run down country club
Act 2: they propose a bunch of section 8 condos right in front of the golf course residents
Act 3: the residents which happen to be city council condemn the property and take over for 3M and tell the developer to stick it
Act 4: the developer sues
Act 5: the settlement give them 7M more
Act 6: the city now has a golf course to fix up that they probably didn’t want. Now they have it so make the best of it.
Act 7: the developers buy another golf course and bring those ratty section 8 condo plans with them. Where is Riverbend anyway? Think we can make 5M on that deal?
Cay you say roadshow?
We might consider the fact that this case was delayed until after the city election. Would this have caused some voters to consider electing candidates other than Owen/Wyatt/Nguyen to city offices? Was this settlement already in the works? Does anyone remember any statements from Owen/Wyatt/Nguyen regarding the settlement terms that was being considered. Does anyone believe that they did not know?
Guess that we will never know now, but those who supported the ED takeover and the incumbent slate can now bask in increased taxes along with the rest of us.
I fail to see how a very expensive protracted lawsuit, which probably cost as much as the difference between the original offering of 9 million in 2007 by the QVHOA-Fund (before the use of ED to acquire) can be thought of as a victory for the city. They tried to take it for 3.1 million and then settled for more than twice that amount and spent how much during the case?
They probably could have done this cheaper and without so much fanfare. Does anyone have the final tally for what all the attorneys made out of this show?