Buying is good, overpaying isn’t, and we’d be playing $3.6 million for a property that’s maybe worth $1 mill today. And “as somebody says, we’ve danced with these folks almost six months, longer than six months–we’re still dancing and I’m tired of dancing.” He’d much sooner see a right-to-own deal worked out with St. Andrews. “I can’t support the Clancy piece, we’ll be dancing here six months from now and paying for a property that might be worth $2.6 million then.”
Dewey: The key points: Which piece is going to be used more? Definitely the Clancy land. With the church we’d need a shuttle probably and to promote it to make the public aware of it.
Second question: How do we get people across the harbor? An overpass is a big decision point (putting one on the St. Andrew’s property is impractical because it clashes with the church’s front entrance).
Craig: Multiple harbor plans have failed in the past. He remembers one group of owners he gathered together to discuss the boardwalk, and the landowners were emphatic that was a no go without public parking.
“This is one of those rare occasions where engineers like Mr. Bagby and I can look at things objectively from a financial standpoint.” It’s simple to look at the debt service compared to the lease payments, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. He’d like to see more due diligence, more thought put into it. “I don’t think we should have a policy directive until we figure out the best deal” based on financial analysis.
Kisela: Can report back on the cash flow, but I don’t want to get into a lengthy debate over discount rates and stuff–that can skew current values.
Barker: I think this is one case where intrinsic values can settle things; if he were voting, it would be based solely on the best deal. But he realizes other values might be in play.
Weidenhamer: Agrees with Bagby about the possible drop in value; could we get another appraisal? Otherwise there might be legal questions.
Miller: “You have an enforceable contract until you vote otherwise and that’s the only face I have to show.” Mr. Bagby’s view does not change his opinion unless a majority votes to change their position.
Windes: We don’t want to bad data to kill us the way it’s killing amberjack fishing. Can we be sure of getting a Tier Two parking fee? Or any Tier Three fees? By the time we know everything we need to know, it might be too late.
Kisela: I would be happy to bring a financial analysis back to you at the next meeting. Windes: But we won’t know anything about the fees.
Kisela: I’m strictly looking at the cost of “the dirt”–not building the garage, just putting the basic spaces on the ground.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.