Transcript of East Side School Discussion
Livingston City Commission July 23, 2007 Livingston, Montana
City County Building-Community Room
Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Blakeman, Beebe, Grabow (Commissioner Van Aken absent) City Manager: Ed Meese, Attorney: Bruce Becker, City Planner: Jim Woodhall, Public Works Director: Clint Tinsley, Police Chief: Darren Rainey, Fire Chief: Jim Mastin.
From Commissioner Packet “Action Item:”
A. Consider bid for East Side School. Only only one bid was received. Pgs. 127-130” (Pgs 127-130 attached at the end of transcript.)
City Manager Meece; You are all aware that we have had a bidding process on East Side School. We received one bid as a result of that process for the amount of $150,000 cash at closing for direct purchase and as an alternative, if we were to do the bill back at the office, under our own financial wherewithal, then the lease rate would be $9.00 per square foot. If this particular purchaser were to mark those costs, then we would be charged the $9.00 per square foot, plus a rate which amortizes the cost of the construction over three years for a three year contract.
We looked at this---staff looked at this and while it is certainly a genuine bid and we appreciate the, we feel that its below the market value that’s there for this building, uh, as it was priced four years ago, so it would be our recommendation
that, uh, the city commission consider either a direct rejection of this bid or, perhaps we could authorize that just a negotiations with respect to the purchase price.
Commissioner Caldwell: “Do you have ? what that appraised value was four years ago?”
City Manager Ed Meece: I think it was $225,000.
Commissioner Grabow: My understanding was that we would go ahead---that we talked about the possibility of going ahead with an appraisal as well as an appraisal should we condiminimize the building---those two. That is a more reasonable course. My suggestion is that we jump in a go ahead with the appraisals. The parties would be welcomed to come back with future bids.
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, that would certainly was staff’s intent and would still be our intent were we to go on that line---simply, in my absence, it one of those things that didn’t get done for that reason.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Further discussion. Is there a motion?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we decline the bid.”
Mr. Becker: “Motion should be in the positive.”
Commissioner: “Grabow: Okay. I’m sorry. What?”
Mr. Becker: “Move to accept the bid.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Okay, I move to accept the bid.”
Chairman Caldwell: There is a motion to accept the bid. Second?
Commissioner ?: ‘Second.”
Chairman Caldwell: “Discussion? Discussion? Roll call”.
T----: Vicky Blakeman: “Against.”
Mary Beebe: “Against.“
Steve Caldwell: “Against.”
Patricia Grabow: “Against.”
Commissioner Caldwell or Mr. Becker?: “Do you need further direction or we would leave there to renegotiate?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, I would ask the commission authorize that we enter into negotiation at this point to see if there is another agreement that could be reached before proceeding further.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I think it would be appropriate to do the appraisals first.”
City Manager Meece: “That could be part of our process.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is that a motion? Is there a second?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Could we include that in our motion---that we go ahead and approve the appraisals.”
Commissioner Blakeman: “Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a motion for authorization of staff to renegotiate with provision that appraisal be done.”
Commissioner Grabow:” “Mr. Chairman. I don’t see the ? being as viable as simply defined. It seems reasonable to go ahead and get the appraisal then make the decision as to whether or not we are going to even enter into negotiations with this party.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I am beginning to see if the staff’s discretion as to how to procede would require commission action, would it not?
City Manager: “We can do that.”
Commissioner Caldwell: (Public ready to speak at the microphone) “Please. If you could identify yourself.”
Robert Story: “My name is Robert Story, a CPA here in town. I live at 130 South 5th Street. As you may know, my firm studied East Side School building last year with the help of Patricia. And, uh, I just would like you to know that I represent a client who has another substantial piece of real estate here in town that is very interested in East Side School and wants to make an offer at least 20-30% higher.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “You understand, this bid process has been closed.”
Mr. Story: “Yes, I understand.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair.”
Commissioner Caldwell: Mr. Meece
City Manager: That could be part of staff’s discussion (untelligible)
Commissioner Caldwell: “With the understanding that are not currently in a bid process. Is that enough direction?”
City Manager: “Yes.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I wanted to note that the proposal that was made last November was with condiminimizing. There was an interested buyer who would buy just the office space off of East Side School (gym) and two other office spaces
would have netted $1,300,000, so, I mean we are talking about considering the disparity between this particular building being sold. |It seems unreasonable to go ahead. We need to go ahead with appraisals and have those in our hands.”
City Manager Meece: “For clarification, could I ask a question of Commissioner Grabow? You alluded to a $1.3 purchase price. I am just curious. Where does that come from?”
Commissioner Grabow: “From Mr. Story’s proposal last November.”
City Manager Meece: “We didn’t receive a bid to purchase the property.”
Commissioner Grabow: “It wasn’t allowed. The proposal indicated, if you go back and review the proposal then you will see ?”
Commissioner Caldwell: “That proposal was outside the process the city established for distribution of assets.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Yes. It brought up the issue of the value of condominimizing the building.”
City Manager Meece: “It was not a bid for $1.3 million dollars. It was an estimate. It said that there was a possibility that the building might be worth.”
Mark Hartwig: “If I may, I would like to make a public comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Please go ahead.”
Mark Hartwig: “One of the parties that bid on the property.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you, Mark.”
Mark Hartwig: “Obviously I don’t want to belabor the bid. That’s very clear. We would consider negotiating with respect to the lease term. What we set as three years ? square foot triple net as you folks could build out further than that on
the space that come back to you. Obviously as we do the build up ourselves and ask for amortization, then there could be a longer-term leaseten years or whatever works best. I am a little bit bothered by Ms. Grabow’s comments in the process. I understand the decision that’s been made, but Ms. Grabow talked about a $1.3
million dollar bidding process that didn’t exist. We submitted a bid in good faith. I
would pay some homberage, now that there is some talk of other bids that are out there---other people who want to bid in the process that has happened. We are very happy to go into negotiations and discuss with the city. I will say at the outset that things have changed drastically since the process started. One is that you have reduced the amount of land that is available by wanting to keep the parking lot that is on the west side of the building which, we thought, reduced the value. The other thing that has happened is that construction costs have gone up and the market is sliding in general property values, so our bid was made in good faith at 84 cents a foot, the costs of renovating ? handicapped. So, I just want to assure you
that the bid was made in good faith as you consider the options that might be out there.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a humble apology for a misinterpretation.”
Chris Rodgers: “Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with respect to procedure. One is, would it not be observing the bid process over at the Depot---one of the bids for labor came in too high so the foundation simply rejected the bids outright and went to a second round of bids. Would it not seem more appropriate to simply say we have to go through the bid process again rather than negotiating specifically with one particular party.”
City Manager Meece: “We could take another offer down the road. This is a point that Mr. Becker and I discussed several times and thought about the process ourselves. Mr. Rodgers is correct. That is certainly a way you could go. It’s the way we go several times like this or other types of purchases, but if you only have
one bid that is submitted with any type of interest and you go through a rather detailed bid process to get there, just repeating the bid process, doesn’t assure that you are going to have any more bidders or any more fair process. That’s why, and we discussed this earlier, I felt that the next step to take was to enter into negotiations because we have been through a very exhaustive process and its been, I don’t know, at least two or three different tour sessions, with meetings. I think we’ve done quite a bit, I feel like, if there were something that we had missed or some huge issue that create in the bid process, it would come to light.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a shelf life to this offer?”
City Manager Meece: “I think what we’ve done tonight ended the shelf life on this offer, but, from what I hear from the City Commission, we certainly have reserved the right to enter into negotiations, which may precipitate a new offer.”
Chris Rodger: “And yet, I would wonder, whether or not, and, still, I don’t know the extra work it would entail, but, it seems to me that you would not want to be appearing to close the door on any future bids, you know, irrespective of what the first might be.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, we haven’t closed the door on any future bids. We completed a bid process, according to Montana law and we have satisfied that bid process according to Montana law and we think its well within the
administration’s discretion to be able to choose. It’s a good step forward. Anything that would come up, would require approval of the city commission, so even if we enter into negotiations, there is nothing that we could do short of a city commission vote that would make it happen.”
Chris Rodgers: “My second question would be then the procedure would be, at the latter stage of the bids, proceding with this issue, would the next step not be, once you had a second bid in hand, would you not proceed to open public comment on the bid in hand? I was talking with someone earlier on the Historic Preservation
Commission and she suggested that it might be normal procedure that, rather proceed to vote directly on the bid, that public comment occur first?”
City Manager Meece: Mr. Chair, just a second. (Leans over and whispers to city attorney, Mr. Becker.)
City Manager Meece: “I just wanted to consult with Mr. Becker to make sure I was right. We’re not required to undergo a public hearing with respect to a specific bid. Uh, especially with the bid forms. These forms set out different types of information that we requested in the bid process. If we are not satisfied with the
information that’s provided or the information that comes back at the initiation, we will ask for more. We had discussions with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. At that time there wasn’t any discussion about a public hearing process. I think the administration probably said that we would entertain---if we
made a recommendation as a result of the city commission negotiation---part of the normal action item, would be a potential for discussion. If there were public comment, then they could certainly do it. At the same time, when we had the public hearing, over the sale of the building, we had no one from the community show up to give any comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I just want to reiterate that we are not precluding public input, written or oral, at this stage of the game. We just ? organized public hearings---“
Chris Rodgers: “Then the expectation would be prior to the commission’s vote on the negotiation.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Ms. Grabow”
Commissioner Grabow: “Did we receive any public input at all on East Side School---email, letter, anything? Ms. Wend?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wend did come in and testify. We didn’t have any other. In fact, I’m not sure it was a comment. I think it was a question with regard to whether or not the school would be---not a for or against type of comment.”
Action Item B. (End of Discussion on East Side School)
UBLIC COMMENT-City Commission Meeting :
Chris Rodgers comments at the end of the meeting on East Side School
Chris Rodgers: “I apologize for troubling you, but I had further thoughts with regard to the discussion. One of the remarks, and again I apologize, of having toured the building and seen the building and seeing its limitations, I just want to say that I concur with the manager and the staff with respect to stewardship, but I
think he’s off, personally, in my opinion, not by a value of a digit, but by an order of magnitude with respect to the value of the building. I’m not a professional. It’s just my opinion.”
“In a point of fact, he said that he and I were the only people attending, when there was not just one tour. I attended both. He was at the second only. Others were also represented on the tour of the property and, again, I don’t know how this falls under a point of order, but, it seems to me, that if negotiations are going to take
place, then the county should be part of it. The option may exist to discuss with other parties as well. It seems to me, that a county bid could be, essentially, competitive. So that’s the extent of my comment. Thank you.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really don't care what is done with the east Side School except that the folks making the deal have questionable agendas, They don't have a clue what their jobs are in my opinion. They have no idea what their duties are as elected representatives of the people of Livingston and Park county.They swore, or should have sworn an OATH ssupporting and upholding the constitution of the united States of America and the Montana constitution. (Of course we know, (if we look up the congressional reports) that the federal government and therefore the local governments have been bankrupt since 1933. they are "government" in name only, a "de facto" government that follows not the "rule of law" but "public policy", that policy is heavily controlled by international interests such as the "Planning associations", Agenda 21 and so forth...) The school building, being the property of the people, (As the city is said to have purchased it, (I am sure they didn't use their money to do it), should be handled with FULL DISCLOSURE as to the ramifications of the "re Zoning" that the commission is trying to pass. Economic "Zoning" is never addressed in any constitution, therefore the commission not only oversteps it's constitutional "Authority" in Zoning from the start, but in the case of the apparent "Spot" Zoning that they seem to be implimenting may be breaking their own "State" law. (It is illegal in Montana.)
Zoning is unconstitutional for the following reasons...
1. Zoning ordinances constitute cloud(s) on title, causing a degradation in the fee simple title, by depriving the property owner of the "free use and enjoyment", thus constituting a taking of the sum collection of the property rights apputenant to the property. Zoning laws rob the appellation "private" from the term "private property".
2.Zoning ordinances are unconstitutional, because they effectively degrade the monetary value of the property. If an owner wishes to sell the property, title fee simple cannot be conveyed, because the title is clouded by many encumbrances. This deliberate devaluation of the property effectively amounts to grand larceny (piracy).
3. Zoning constitutes a "slander of title", by this I mean the government is effectively saying that it has no regard for the fee simple title, and claims on it's own bare assertion that it haas a right to slander a title.
4.Zoning ordinances are unconstitutional, because they effectively amount to the taking of a property owner's property rights, thus makng the government co-owner of the property. this amounts to the taking of the property without paying the rightful owner just compensation, in direct violation to the fifth amendment to the constitution.
5. Zoning ordinances are unconstitutional becaue they amount to placing of a lien on the property. Liens are a remedy reserved for breraches of contract. The government is utterly incapable of showing any contractual nexus of an interest in the property. thus the lien is fraudulent. It is no lien at all. the government gets away with it simply because the courts back up their fraud. These days the "courts" are merely a rubber stamps to sanction the outright CRIMINALITY of the DE FACTO government.
6. Zoning laws are unconstitutional because the "government" that created the "law" in the first place, is not really the government. Zoning laws crept into use since 1933, after agents of the former government staged a coup d'etat, and organized themselves as a cabal which made pretense to be the government. The true government died in 1933. Early in March 1933, the the governors of all states met in a conference, where each governor respectively declared his State as bankrupt. The Feds did so on March 9, 1933. Once an entity is bankrupt, they are civilly dead. A bankrupt cannot sue or be sued. this means that the "government" had lost all power to seat courts, convene legislative bodies, pass laws (which are "suits" in the broad meaning of the term), or execute laws (the execution of laws are effectively "executive suits"). therefore the "government" that created the zoning ordinances does not really exist. It has no real power, because it cannot show any sort of contractual nexus or chain of title from whence their pretended power derives (the chain of title for succession of government was broken in 1933).
7. Zoning laws are unconstituional, as are all "laws" created by any government body, again, because they are not the government. If you doubt what I say, then ask for a tax refund to be paid in gold, and/or silver coin. See what kind of response you get. (c.f. U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 1 "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;")
Here is what Vickie Blakeman said in response to the question.."Would the zoning change revert to the original zone , "commercial/ residential" if the deal to sell/lease the property fails?", ...(Blakeman; "No,It would remain [central Business District], then we can do what we want."
This is what these folks are about, "doing what they want", not what is in the best interest of the people of Livingston, Park county or Montana.
I say kick all these fraudulent "officials" out and start over with an "American", "Constitutional" form of government.
All these people do is steal from the people and impliment the Global agenda.
(Look up "United Nations" Agenda 21, sustainable developement.)
WAKE UP LIVINGSTON! the socialists are not just running the federal "De Facto government", they are right here in Livingston, as a "De Facto" government ruining our future.
Post a Comment