He says he wants to correct the false impression they don’t want to close. Sam says that’s not an impression: They were told outright. The counsel replies that the man who said that was not an officer of the company and does not represent them, even though he’s a family member.
Seevers: Do we have to retake the title search? Miller: Yep.
Seevers: She still believes that if we don’t have something to show at the end of the lease, “that is not spending good money for something that’s solid.”
Moves to have Miller repeat the title search and report back, with a recommendation for closing.
Tom Weidenhamer: We’d be spending more money if we buy, but he can see Sam’s point. However, he sees the point of city government as doing things for the public, not accumulating assets. There’s no point in spending money on a purchase when St. Andrews will offer the same benefits for less money.
Bagby: “I think ownership is right–the problem I have here is that we have a piece of property that we valued over six months ago. I do not believe the value of that property today or a month from now, whenever we close, is anywhere close to $3.125 … I wouldn’t pay $500,000 for a Volkswagen just so i could own it if I could lease a porsche for $20,000 a year.” If we buy in this case, “We are not spending the people’s money wisely.” He calls for a reappraisal to be made.
Some discussion of the rules of order follows.
Seevers: “How much money are we going to spend on a discussion of this issue?” It’s like we spend on a study because it’s not going the way the council wants, and she won’t support that.
Trammell: A reappraisal would kick things down the line several months, and at that time they might change their mind.
Counsel: If the city wants to come back and claim a lower price, we’d listen, but “We believe we have a contract.”

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.