Laserfiche WebLink
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT QUESTIONED THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR AP- <br />PRAISER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD HAD NOT AGREED WITH HIS APPRAISAL_ <br />ON THE PRISON PROPERTY, <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE FIGURES PRESENTED AND THE COMPARABLE <br />SALES USED. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW MUCH DELAY ANOTHER APPRAISAL WOULD <br />CAUSE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ESTIMATED TWO TO THREE WEEKS' DELAY. HE NOTED <br />THAT HE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR JUST NEED AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE FOR A <br />CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACRES UPON A PRICE AS DETERMINED BY THE APPRAISER SO WE <br />CAN MOVE AHEAD, BUT POINTED OUT THAT ANOTHER APPRAISAL CAN BE OBTAINED AND <br />WE CAN STILL MOVE AHEAD. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMIS- <br />SIONER DEESON, TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE FOR 190 ACRES FOR <br />THE SANITARY LANDFILL SITE BASED ON THE APPRAISED VALUE. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE <br />APPRAISAL AND POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE COMPARABLE SALES USED ARE WEST <br />OF I-95 AND SOME HAVE BUY-BACK AGREEMENTS. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE I-95 CONDEMNATION. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONERS SCHMUCKER, <br />DEESON, AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE VOTED IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT VOTED <br />IN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION CARRIED, <br />LETTER FROM PHILIP HOUCK, APPRAISER, DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1977, IS <br />HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. <br />19 <br />FEB 91977 0 <br />mA <br />28 371 <br />