Marla Jones, Managing Editor
marla@southerntorch.com
FORT PAYNE, Ala.-- After nearly a year of dispute, Fort Payne will officially be getting a Food City.
A Public hearing, which is required under Amendment 772, to make sure all avenues of the incentive package were legally followed, was held on Thursday, December 29, at the DeKalb Courthouse. Judge Claude E. Hundley III, of Madison County presided.
The Memorandum of Understanding and Amendment 772, which was approved by a 3-2 vote of the Fort Payne City Council, states that the City of Fort Payne will give Marathon a total of 3.1 Million to locate at a property known as the South Y in Fort Payne. Fort Payne City will pay $1.2 million upon the beginning of excavation. Another million will be paid if Food City opens its doors for operation of business within 12 months. The final payment of $900,000 will be due upon the one-year mark of opening.
Those who testified in court for the proposed Food City were: Fort Payne City Clerk Robert “Andy” Parker and Fort Payne City Councilman Phillip Smith.
Parker took the stand to clarify that the legal debt limit for the City of Fort Payne was 15.9 million. The Memorandum of Understanding would in no way put the City of Fort Payne in excess of its legal limit.
Parker and Councilmember Phillip Smith both said the incentive would actually save the City a proposed 3.6 Million over previous incentives that were offered.
Smith stated that many other businesses were waiting to see if Food City would be coming to Fort Payne before committing to build locations. These businesses include Buffalo Wild Wings, Ulta, TJ Maxx and Hobby Lobby.
Those who were against were Melanie Miller, Dawn Nelson and Brandy Pecaut.
Most expressed their fear that the new store would hurt existing retailers and that the City could use the money to help “prosper what we already have”.
Melaine Miller expressed her concerns with the City paying to improve personal property and the effects that raising the flood zone would have on other properties.
After review, Hundley’s ruled that “no taxpayer or citizen of the City offered evidence in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Petition.”
