Laserfiche WebLink
_ M <br />Commissioner Bird noted that a critical factor is the disposal <br />of the present administration building at a reasonable cost to the <br />School Board. He asked whether the lease agreement with the School <br />Board might cause problems, but Attorney Vitunac advised that the <br />original plan included the eventual takeover of this building by <br />the School Board. <br />County Administrator Chandler agreed that during preliminary <br />discussions with the School Board about 2 years ago, there was an <br />indication that they had an interest in buying this building, but <br />that issue was never pursued. <br />Commissioner Bird encouraged more conversation with the School <br />Board to come to a decision on this matter. <br />Commissioner Eggert agreed that a new administration building <br />is a wonderful idea but she could not justify construction of a new <br />building in the next five years. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the old Courthouse Annex, and <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no legal reason why the <br />Utility Services Department cannot buy the old Courthouse Annex <br />building and pay for it with utility funds. That would eliminate <br />expenditure of $600,000 of Sales Tax funds. <br />It was the consensus of the Board to get more definitive cost <br />estimates on CR -510 and the bridge, as well as the School Board's <br />answer regarding the sale of the County Administration Building. <br />The date for the next Sales Tax Workshop will be discussed at <br />the next regular BCC meeting. <br />There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at <br />11:00 a.m. <br />ATTEST: <br />J. arton, Clerk <br />9 <br />FEB 23 1994 <br />John W. Tippi ,iChairman <br />BOOK 91 F.,v'E 9 <br />