12/18/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r DEC 18 1990 mow COURTHOUSE SITE APPRAISALS Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 11, 1990 FILE: COURTHOUSE SITE SUBJECT: APPRAISALS Am E. Chandler FRO County Administrator REFERENCES: In the continuing consideration of the courthouse project, the Commission at the August 14, 1990 meeting considered several development concepts ( attachments 1 & 2) in the area bounded by 20th to 21st Streets and 14th to 17th Avenue. By motion the Commission indicated that Concepts J and M were the most favorable of those presented and also authorized proceeding with obtaining appraisals. An appraisal of the current courthouse and state attorney sites were also authorized for evaluation purposes. As would be anticipated the appraisals by the two appraisers (Armfield and Napier) differed from lot to lot. In meeting with the appraisers, staff feels extremely comfortable with the appraisals. The appraisals reflect lesser market property value than the selling price provided by Mr. Flick, which are the amounts contained in the alternate master plan concepts presented in August. Considering the appraisal differential, staff believes that in proceeding with site evaluation considerations and ultimately acquisition, the average value should be used. This approach is consistent with our past practice. , Florida Statutes require an extra -ordinary vote if the purchase price exceeds the average, on an individual parcel valued above $500,000. Although the individual parcels are valued less than $500,000, the total value of lands to be acquired is well in excess of $500,000. In estimating closing expense staff has applied an average 4% of the purchase price, as a result of discussions with our appraisers and attorneys office. The closing expense reflected by Mr. Flick is somewhat higher. — Included in some of the values provided by Mr. Flick are relocation expenses. The attorneys office has indicated the county may be liable for relocation (moving) cost for some of the properties. As a result of discussions with the attorneys office, staff has applied an average 5% of the purchase price for relocation (moving) expense. The county is not liable for business damage expense, unless only a portion of the business is acquired. There would be no partial business acquisition, with the possible exception of the Florida Federal drive -up teller facility. In some instances, a delineation between selling price, closing costs, and relocation expense was not reflected in the information provided by Mr. Flick. However, it has been assumed, if applicable, they are accounted for in the totals. The primary land acquisition expense comparison is between the total value presented by Mr. Flick and the average value established by the county appraisals including staff estimated closing and moving costs. Recognizing individual acquisitions may be the result of negotiations or condemnation, to be realistic a contingency has been included in the total estimated potential site acquisition cost. The figures reflected are conservative and in effect assume all properties would go to condemnation and all final judgments would be well in excess of the county's appraised value. This obviously would not be the case. However, to be consistent with our approach of utilizing conservative cost estimates in the master plan phase, we believe this figure should be utilized. It should not be misconstrued that the base property value will be increased and a new "floor" established. The preceding applies to each of the following concepts: E _I