From "The Week of June 22" 1998 -
"He (Fletcher) said that he would sell the state that 733 acres of property for an amount of between $2.5 and $3 million. I (Langford) said that, by law, the state could not pay higher than appraised value, and he became agitated. He said he did not want to hear that kind of talk. I said that we would work hard to find creative ways in the appraisal process to support a higher price than he had paid for the property. He said he believed that the 733 could be developed into a residential area with a golf course. He said that a friend of his was going to provide the name of a site planner who could lay out the property for golf course and residential development."
From "June 30" -
"Lonice Barrett sent a letter to Mr. Fletcher asking for a 'right of first refusal' while survey and appraisals are being conducted. By phone, I informed Mr. Fletcher that this letter was on the way and that DNR would like the right of first refusal to be for 90 days. Mr. Fletcher wanted to know the purpose of the right, and I told him DNR was willing to spend some time and money getting the property surveyed and appraised but that DNR would like to have some comfort that the property would not be sold to someone else while this evaluation was underway. Mr. Fletcher said he did not want to give this right without some compensation."
From "Early August" -
"In the meeting with Mr. Fletcher, he said that the price for the DNR portion would be $3 million and 'not one penny less.' I told him that figure would be difficult to justify in the appraisals and that the high price per acre would not be viewed favorably by the news media or the public in general, especially given what he had paid for the property in June. I said that the public would say that 'this individual is ending up with his 382 acres for free and getting another half million dollars on top of that to build a house.' He said, 'So be it.' I said that we were working hard with the appraisers, and we would just have to see where the process ended. I said that some people would feel that he had a civic obligation to make it possible for the public to visit the battlefield site on a regular basis. He said, 'I'm performing my civic duty by even allowing you to come and discuss this with me.'"
From "September 28" -
"...met with Mr. Fletcher. Told him of $3 million problem. He wouldn't change his price. He came up with the idea that the state should lease or purchase a small portion of the property on the 'south ridge' located in the southeast corner of the property. This plan would also include his donation of a conservation easement on the balance of the 777 acres. Major stipulation - no visitation except two days per year on larger area and only under guided supervision of DNR." Web Note: In effect, this would exclude the majority of the battlefield and all of the Union entrenchments except on those special two days. According to the diary Fletcher put this in writing on October 13, 1998.
From "October 19" -
"We told him that we could not accept the latest proposal, and he came up with a new idea that included: 1)a sale of the south ridge, 2) a lease of the east ridge that parallels the interstate highway, and 3) the donation of a conservation easement on the 777 acres minus the acreage that the state would purchase. Fletcher said that he wanted a wooden, three rail fence constructed of 6 in. by 6 in. posts with 2 in. by 6 in. runners built on 8 ft. centers." Web Note: The fence was to be built by the State to separate the Park from Fletcher's remaining private property. “He said he wanted $50 per acre per year for the leased land on the east ridge. In calculating the price, we used Fletcher’s figure of $3,861 as outlined in his memo, and we arrived at a price of $115,830. He said that he also wanted $50,000 for the tenant house on the property, we rounded the purchase price to $200,000 for discussion purposes.”
From “November 9” –
“Fletcher had some questions regarding the operations of the site by DNR. I told him that DNR would patrol the site during regular hours of operation to be sure that no disallowed activity was taking place on the property. I said the site supervisor would likely be living on the property or in close proximity and that he could be available by beeper on a 24-hour basis. Fletcher said that he wanted to be able to access the property anytime he chose in order to ‘show people around.’ I said that an advisory committee of outside people might be created to review operations of the park and make suggestions about how to make the site better, and I offered that he would probably be welcome to be part of that group. He said that he didn’t want to be part of any advisory committee. Instead he was just going to say how he wanted things to run and he expected the state to do those things.”
From “December 28” –
“Meeting between me and Fletcher where he began the meeting by saying that he had been looking at a map of the property, and he wanted to know if it would be possible for visitors to enter the east ridge property by means of a new exit on I-75. He said that such a plan would eliminate the need for visitors to access the property by means of a road near his driveway. I said that I thought he intended to move his driveway several hundred yards to the west of its present location. He said, ‘But it’s still too close.’ Fletcher then laid out in a memo more details to consider about the scenario he first presented (in October).”
From “February 3” –
“We walked the area around the south ridge and Fletcher determined that the property line would be the creek bank on the state’s side of the creek, thus not allowing the state to access the creek. As we were leaving, Fletcher said that he wanted $50,000 for the small house and that this amount would be in addition to the $200,000 we had been estimating as the purchase price for the south ridge property. I said I would check my notes, but that my understanding of our previous discussions was that the house was included in the $200,000 figure.”
From “Mid-February” –
“Learned that the area of the proposed purchase was approximately 78 acres, and the area of the proposed lease was approximately 180 acres. Appraisers determined that the 78 acre parcel could be priced at about $4,000 per acre which was more than Fletcher’s price of $3,861 per acre as outlined in his October 13 memo. The appraisers had valued the house at about $15,000. The appraisers also said that they could not support a value for the leased portion higher than about $30 per acre based on comparable land leases in Gordon County.”
From “Week of February 22” –
Worked with Paul Michael to arrive at new method for valuing leased land. He found a formula that would support the $50 per acre per year that Fletcher wanted. We worked many hours on formulas for computing net present value on the property while incorporating the $50 per acre price and a cost of living allowance of 2.5% per year over the life of a 25 year lease. We requested and received a memo from Burt Weerts, director of State Parks and Historic Sites within DNR, which addressed all of Fletcher’s questions regarding site staffing, security and maintenance, as well as construction and design of the visitor center, and road signage and improvements.”
From “March 3” –
“Presented formal documents to Fletcher in a meeting also attended by Paul Michael. Documents included a purchase option agreement, a lease option agreement, a financial summary sheet and the memo from Burt Weerts. Fletcher questioned how the design of the visitor’s center would be determined, and we told him that it would likely be done by a committee that would include a number of people including representatives of the Georgia Civil War Commission and the Friends of Resaca. I invited him to be part of that advisory committee.”
From “March 15” –
“Meeting held at Fletcher’s office. He began the meeting by saying he had decided that the only way to make a historic site possible on his property would be for the visitor access to come directly from I-75 instead of from Fain Brown Road on the south side of his property. He then handed me a memo with a diagram describing the new proposal. In this new proposal, Fletcher would grant the state a 10-year option to buy the 180 acres of the east ridge for $1.2 million or $6,666 pre acre. I said that such a plan was not practical and that the cost per acre was far too expensive to meet appraisals. I said that I was surprised that he would make such a big change from his earlier proposal – one which we had invested so much time and effort. He said that he had changed his mind about having a ‘state park in his front yard,’ and he said he neighbors had begged him not to let the state put the entrance to a state historic site so close to their homes. He asked if the state would fund the purchase of the Bowater timber contract if he granted the conservation easement of 777 acres. I told him that the state constitution would not allow the state to own timber on property that it did not own. I said that, furthermore, the money to buy the timber was going to come from one of the private foundations and that they would likely have no interest in owning the timber if the state was not going to create a state historic site for public visitation."
From “March 16” –
“I discussed the matter with one of the private foundations and I received a very cold response to the idea of them buying the timber in exchange for the Conservation Fund taking the conservation easement on the property. I told Rex (Boner) of my conversation, and I called Fletcher to tell him that we could not find a way to make his new scenario happen. We agreed that our negotiations regarding the property were over.”
