My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/6/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
11/6/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:59 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 11:24:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/06/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Neuberger questioned the relationship between the benchmark figures being <br />presented today and assessed valuations, and Administrator Chandler specified there is <br />always a difference between assessed and appraised values and since appraisals have not yet <br />been done, the assessed values are the only ones available at this time. Administrator <br />Chandler understood the concern, but there was no other way to present this today without <br />using the assessed values. <br />Mr. Neuberger was concerned that the City's portion of the purchase might be <br />understated and he would have a problem if the amount for the City were doubled for <br />instance. <br />Administrator Chandler again mentioned that these were benchmark figures and that <br />many economic factors and points would have to be negotiated. Aside from the acquisition <br />expense, there is also the question of how to deal with property taxes, repairs and <br />renovations, and how to negotiate a return to the City and County on the revenues generated <br />by the operation of the stadium. Only when all these numbers are known will it be possible <br />to make a final recommendation on an agreement. Both he and Manager Taylor agree that <br />they are now looking at a concept and they both agree that there is the ability to proceed <br />forward. <br />Chairman Tippin understood that staff was looking for a consensus today so the <br />process could be moved forward. He agreed that State law needed to be amended. He had <br />spoken with Representative Sembler who suggested their consensus should include a request <br />to amend State law. Chairman Tippin felt this was a very doable undertaking. <br />Mr. Grossett felt they had put together a skeletal outline of a fine proposal and that <br />today staff was merely looking for acceptance or rejection. He saw no reason to not move <br />forward so everyone would know for certain what it will mean. He understood and wanted <br />it made certain that this would not place a tax burden on the people of the county. <br />Vice Chairman Macht felt the most important thing at this time is to continue to stay <br />in contact with the Dodgers since they are pursuing other alternatives. He felt the plan that <br />staff has outlined is ultimately doable. They also had to consider the estimated $30 million <br />annual economic benefit of having the Dodgers remain. Secondly, the good public relations <br />also has an economic benefit. Third, the financial support the Dodgers have given to various <br />organizations in the community has been extensive. <br />Commissioner Ginn thought it was prudent and important to move ahead with this <br />preliminary plan; that way we will know what the Dodger organization is wanting. There <br />November 6, 1998 <br />BOOK 107 PAGE 4V <br />A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.