9/15/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S'EP 15 1992 s®oK '51 PnXI money and maintain the water and sewer plant and utilities throughout the entire complex. He continued that he would prefer it if the School Board could dispose of this facility directly without involving the County, and he would hope that the community itself ultimately would have complete control of the buildings they want. Commissioner Bird asked if the School Board was taking a position as to whether or not they would be willing to bring the buildings back to the state they were in previously. Dr. Burns informed the Commission that the School Board participates in a self-insurance pool and this would affect their premiums, but they do feel a moral obligation not to turn this facility over in its present state of disrepair since the Commission did not agree to accept it until October 1st. They certainly could replace the windows,. but how much they would get into replacing the plumbing, etc., he could not say. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the County Commission has any more leeway than the School.Board in turning this facility over to the community, and Attorney Brandenburg did not believe so. Dr. Burns explained that from the School Board's perspective, the County Commission is the governmental entity in the business of owning properties which the public can use for other than educational purposes while the School Board is concerned only with the education business. There is no problem with the School Board giving this facility to another governmental entity, but he felt they could run into complications trying to dispose of it otherwise. Discussion ensued as to removal of the reverter clause, and Dr. Burns explained that the clause in regard to the property automatically reverting if ever used for other than public purposes was not removed; the clause in regard to 64