Weidenhamer: Doesn’t matter unless we sell. City Hall Annex is probably on land worth more than we bought it for, but that doesn’t do us any financial good. “You may have lots of assets, but you don’t realize the value unless you continue to sell them to somebody … what are we going to do to run the city, borrow money to run the property?”
Seevers points out the location of the leased property is much less favorable.
Bagby: “If we didn’t want to listen to the analysis, we shouldn’t have asked the city manager.” He adds that “we are looking through a soda straw with respect to our parking challenges” because we’re putting all the money into this one site; the lease frees up enough money to get the other two sites the city wants. If we buy, “we’re going to put all our eggs in this one parking basket” and have no parking on the east and west ends. “We have blinded ourselves … my main issue is, we have paid way too much money.’
Craig: He really thought that when the financial analysis came back, buying would be a clear winner; he was surprised it wasn’t (by the way, I’m now so tired I keep misspelling analysis and have to correct it). Either lot would be a good asset but if the city is really worried about cost-effective spending, go with the lease.
Windes: They won’t do as good a job. The Clancy lot is better situated and provides a spot to build a walkover. The other parcel is further away, won’t serve people as well and won’t be used: “you’ll have vagrants living over there and roaches and used syringes on the floor.”
Sandy Trammell: If we own the land, we can do things that would generate money for us. Her biggest concern for the church piece is that it isn’t visible from 98.

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.