12/19/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 19* 1979 BOOK 42 FACE386 ALL THEY HAVE IS THE DEDICATION. HE CONTINUED THAT IF THE BOARD SHOULD DECIDE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY SHOULD FIRST DECIDE WHETHER THEY DO WANT TO EXTINGUISH THEIR RIGHTS. IN THE EVENT THEY - WANT TO CHARGE SOMETHING, THEN IT WOULD BE LOGICAL TO BASE IT ON AN APPRAISAL. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO SELLING THE ABANDONMENT, AND THE ATTORNEY EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY HAS NO CONTROL OVER WHO GETS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, SO THEY CAN T SELL IT, BUT THEY CAN CHARGE A FEE FOR THE PROCESS OF ABANDONING. HE FELT THE FIRST DECISION IS WHETHER THIS IS EXCESS PROPERTY AND WHETHER THE BOARD IS WILLING TO GIVE IT UP; AFTER THAT POINT HE FELT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND AUTHORIZE THE PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE AN APPRAISAL AT THE SAME TIME SO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING YOU KNOW A PRICE. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS'TO GO AHEAD AND AUTHORIZE THE APPRAISAL AND THEN GO TO THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BENEFIT AND SEE IF IT IS WORTH THAT MUCH TO HIM TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS TO AUTHORIZE AN APPRAISAL OF SAID PROPERTY AND APPROACH THE OWNER OF LOT 9 TO DETER- MINE IF IT IS WORTH THAT MUCH TO HIM. COMMISSIONER Loy WISHED TO KNOW IF WE ARE SURE WE HAVE NO USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. MR. MARSH NOTED THAT WE HAVE A 70' RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 2ND ST. AND 14TH AVE. AND POSSIBLY THIS COULD BE FOR A PUMPING STATION, BUT HE DIDNIT THINK IT WOULD BE SUITABLE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SUBDIVISION. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE APPLICANT SHOULD SHOW AN OVER- RIDING REASON WHY THE COUNTY SHOULDN'T MAINTAIN CONTROL BEFORE THEY GIVE IT UP. COMMISSIONER LYONS' MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT UNLESS THERE IS A WAY TO GET FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY, HE WOULD RATHER KEEP IT AS IT IS. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THAT WE ABANDON THE. SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDED WE RECEIVE FAIR COMPENSATION. Eli