7/1/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ASKED IF THE ARCHITECT FELT THE BUILDING WAS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO REPAIR. MR. CALMES RESPONDED THAT HIS INITIAL REACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY, WOULD BE TO TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER HAVING THE COUNTY AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAKE AVAILABLE THEIR RECORDS; AND ALLOW DR. FENNER AND ATTORNEY GRAHAM UP TO 90 DAYS TO WORK WITH THE SBA; BUT IT THEY CANNOT PRODUCE A COMMITMENT LETTER.FROM THE SBA FOR FULL FUNDING TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO CURRENT CODE, THEY WILL REMOVE THE STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY AND THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER LITIGATION. HE THEN REQUESTED THAT THEY PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND BRING THIS MATTER BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. ATTORNEY COLLINS INTERJECTED THAT HE HAD CALLED THE SBA TO INQUIRE IF THERE WAS A COMMITMENT WITH DR. FENNER, AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO COMMITMENT. ATTORNEY GRAHAM STATED HE DID NOT THINK THE BUILDING WAS SALVAGEABLE, AND THOUGHT THAT DR. FENNER WOULD AGREE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE-SUGGESTED THAT IF THEY DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REMOVE THE BUILDING, THEY COULD AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO REMOVE IT. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE COUNTY WOULD BE WILLING TO REMOVE IT, AND PUT A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO SEE IF THERE IS A POSSIBLE WAY TO RESOLVE THE CONDEMNATION AND LITIGATION PROCESS, AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING. AFTER DISCUSSING THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, CHAIRMAN LYONS REMINDED ATTORNEY GRAHAM THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE MUCH LEFT TO BUILD ON. ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT ATTORNEY GRAHAM TALK THINGS OVER WITH HIS CLIENT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND COME BACK TO THE MEETING AT 11:45 O'CLOCK A.M. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS SECOND.- JUL ECOND; JUL 1 1991 �oaK FA '147 15