- November 23, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Eyes wide shut: Commission votes to proceed with old hospital deal
Dear Editor:
I attended the May 6 meeting at the old hospital site in Bunnell and back again to the Emergency Operations Center for a vote. I heard there is asbestos in the building, there is not asbestos in the building, and there may asbestos in the building, so I chose to peak in rather than go in and be exposed.
So our Commissioners and others take a trip to the site armed with flashlights in the rabbit warren of a building. What did they see? To make any judgment about a building based on an uneducated look in the dark — what's the point?
Picture this scene: County Administrator Craig Coffey is sitting at the head of a U-shaped table, with his back to the Flagler taxpayers in attendance. On his left are three commissioners George Hanns, Nate McLaughlin and Barbara Revels, and on his right are Charlie Ericksen and Frank Meeker. Just behind Coffey's back is the microphone for the residents to use to speak.
After about one hour of discussion, and while the public had a bit of time to make comments, brown bag lunches were brought in for the commission, and we all got to watch them eat while the public made their pleas for fiscal responsibility to Mr. Coffey's back and a side view of the commissioners eating.
This showed no respect for Flagler Citizens. I tried to speak to one of the commissioners about the set-up during the site trip but was rebuffed. Recess could have been called so that we could all take a break.
How about having this meeting at a time when more citizens can attend? The county makes it difficult for citizens to participate.
As a result of the meeting, we will be paying $70,000 (no small amount of money) to prove the county is doing the right thing. My real estate and appraisal experience tells me to check out the building first (a building built in the 1970s and vacant for many years and at the end of its average life span) and then decide whether to make an offer and what it should be. Even after modifications to the hospital site, it is still a very old building.
There were other alternative plans presented to suit the sheriff's needs, but this runaway train in favor of the hospital could not be stopped. Thank you, Frank Meeker and Charlie Ericksen, for trying.
Linda D'Aguanno
Palm Coast
Questions arise about the appraisal of the old hospital
Dear Editor:
Three of our county commissioners, Hanns, Revels and McLaughlin have just voted to spend $70,000 taxpayer dollars to do due diligence on the proposed purchase of the old hospital building.
There are no other buyers for the building, which has been vacant for the last 10 years. The building will need a new roof, has "some" asbestos and probably has mold since it has been vacant for so long in a hot, moist climate. The last appraisal also mentioned structural joist issues.
The current owners paid $750,000 for it in 2006. The latest property appraisal in 2012 is for $353,951. Their current non-negotiable price is $1.23 million. The commission’s current estimate is that it will take $5 million to renovate just 28,000 square feet of the building. There is no estimate on what it would cost to do the remaining 32,000 feet. If bought for the non-negotiable sale price, the sellers would make approximately 60% profit, on taxpayer dollars.
Flagler County has a current budget shortfall of approximately $8.3 million.
Can someone explain to me how you can set a non-negotiable price for a piece of property that has been deteriorating for 10 years without any other buyers, at four times the appraised value? Can someone tell me, who in their right mind would consider buying it?
You will be hearing a lot more explanations from our politicians on this issue, but the math doesn't lie.
Edith Campins
Palm Coast
Editor’s Note: The purchase price was explained in this way by County Communications Manager Carl Laundrie:
“The current owners did not pay $750,000 in 2006. That $750,000 is a fictitious number and after our meeting, we were notified by the property appraiser of an error on their website caused by a software glitch. The property appraiser explained that this incorrect figure was somehow picked up when a street was closed and a quit claim deed was filed by the city of Bunnell. The property owners have stated repeatedly that they have a $1.65 million initial investment and they do have a mortgage of $1.47 million on the property.
“The property appraiser’s website had a taxable value of $353,951, but that is for land only.
“As we evaluate this option, once all the analysis is done, the county will be putting the information on our website in order for everyone to read and be informed on this matter.”
