John P. Boan/Times-Georgian

A tract of property in Roopville that has been the subject of controversy since the middle of summer could be split between a local church and the city, a move that might appease both sides.

The issue arose in August when the Board of Commissioners voted to donate a 5-acre tract of land to Holy Ground Baptist Church. The church had previously been leasing the lot, which contains a baseball field. Shortly after that meeting, it came to light that because the deed for the property gave the Carroll County Board of Education the right of first refusal, the Board of Commissioners’ August vote to donate the property to the church was premature.

But the school board in October declined the property. That effectively ensured that it would go to the church, but a group of Roopville residents began the process of attempting to block the property transfer, citing the belief that the county’s donation of property free of charge to a religious organization violates the Georgia Constitution.

According to a letter sent to county schools Superintendent John Zauner from the Newnan law firm Rosenzweig, Jones, Horne & Griffis, the county’s decision to donate the property to the church violated two separate articles of the Georgia Constitution – Article 3, Section 6 and Article 1, Section 2.

Based on legal precedent, Article 3, Section 6 restricts county governments from granting “any donation or gratuity.”

The Constitution expressly limits the General Assembly from authorizing land donations, and the state Supreme Court case of Grand Lodge of Georgia, Independent Order of Fellows vs. City of Thomasville establishes that the same limits on donations extend to city and county governments.

In the past, County Attorney Cynthia Daley has justified the Board of Commissioners’ decision using the Georgia Supreme Court case Swanberg vs. City of Tybee Island. In that case, the court held that a gift by Chatham County of land to a marine rescue group was not a gratuity because the rescue of any animal was seen as a benefit to all citizens of that county.

But according to the letter, “the Church, even if allowing the public to enter the property, will be using the land to further its mission and not to promote the welfare or safety of the community,” rendering the exception inapplicable in this instance.

The letter goes on to argue that the donation would further violate Article 1, Section 2 of the state Constitution, as it prevents area governments from using public funds to aid any religious institution. In this case, the letter reads, “the land which is being given to the Church will be used to further and promote the secular missions of the Church ... [and] even were the Church to allow the public access to the property it would be in benefit of the Church’s mission and this is prohibited by the Georgia Constitution.”

The threat of litigation on the matter may now be moot. Commissioner Kevin Jackson, whose district includes the property in question, said he is hopeful that the church and the Roopville residents will be able to reach a compromise on the matter. Jackson said he has asked commission Chairman Bill Chappell to perform a survey on the property to determine the size, and once that is completed, he will meet with representatives from the church and the community in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Regardless of what is decided, though, Jackson said there are still going to be people who are not satisfied with the resolution.

“Am I going to make everybody down there happy? No. I’m trying to get something done that everyone can live with,” Jackson said. “Unfortunately this is one area that whatever decision we come up with there’s going to be some people who are not happy about it.”

Jackson said that if the decision is made to split the property, the final say will once again come to the Board of Commissioners.

Dr. Keith Runels, pastor at Holy Ground, said the church would be fine with a partial split of the land as long as the split didn’t eliminate space on the property to be used as parking for the ball field. As it was discussed several months ago, Runels said, the church would give a single acre to the city to be used for a new library or a senior center. For whatever reason, such an agreement has yet to materialize, though Runels said that it’s always been a part of the sale agreement that if the church ever decided it no longer wanted the land, it would go entirely to the city.

While Runels said he would still approve of a partial split of the property, he’s not exactly sure what the Roopville residents hope to gain from the situation, and for that reason he is unsure if an agreement can be reached.

“I really don’t know what Roopville wants anymore. I’m so confused,” he said. “I know we’re willing to work with them, but you’ve got to see my point. We believe it’s a blessing, and we’re praying it all works out.”

Kirby Hamil, head of the Concerned Citizens of the Roopville Community, referred all questions to the group’s attorney, Matthew Swope of Newnan. Swope could not be reached for comment.