MSJC Board votes 3-2 to pay $80,000 above appraisal valuation for Banning property
October 9th, 2008FYI
Trustees, Kadow, Sparkman and Schlange voted to approve the purchase of an additional 1.48 acre parcel in Banning at a cost of $350,000 which is $80,000 above the MAI appraisal valuation of $270,000.
Trustees Motte and McGargill opposed.
Kadow argued that the appraisal valuation “was not $270,000″, quoting “Pg. 48″ of said appraisal which states that “theoretically with improvements the property could be valued at near the upper end or $406,800.”
Fact: The parcel is NOT improved.
Blog:
The purchased parcel has two occupied older home structures and an old ranch barn, which were briefly discussed as to possible environmental hazards but no information was provided as to the status of those tenants and/or the future demo of the structures. The college has now taken 50 acres of property off the California tax roles for a future Banning Campus. However, until/unless the district files an official “letter of intent” with CPEC and fulfills the required criteria, the concept is pure speculation.
According to Kadow, “A MOU with the City of Banning is in the works” in which the City will provide infrastructure to the site and a Phase I study has been completed. Said documents were not provided.
Who’s interest do Kadow’s comments represent, the college or the seller? Paying thirty percent above appraisal value ($270,000) in a depressed market has the appearance of a gift of public funds.
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
Would Kadow, Sparkman or Schlange buy a personal residence $80,000 above appraisal?
I think not.
Talk about mismanagement of funds …
Agree. The taxpayer wallet is an easy hit. Of course, these folks would not pay a dollar over appraisal if it was their own wallet. There should be state law in regard to government agencies and appraisal valuations similar to laws regarding contract bids. And the newspapers don’t even report it! Amazing.
Usually I am right with you Ann, but on this one I don’t think it is quite as bad as you think. If the owner will not agree to sell at the lower price our only alternative is to use imminent domain. In the end that would cost us much more than $80,000 in legal fees I expect.
I will give you that Kadow’s explanations were very lame. I was suprised they didn’t just say what I just did above. To me it makes much more sense than the drivel he poured out as justification. I was also suprised he didn’t refer to the administrator who had negotiated the deal rather than try to cover it himself.
To “Concerned Employee” - Facts do not warrant your assumption. At the very least,for the extra 80k payout,the owner should have been required to deliver the property clean without further cost of demo/clean-up for MSJC.