Friday, September 14, 2007

"The Board was well aware"

I want to assure you that the Board was well aware of the $3.3 million valuation for the property. Although I cannot get into details, the difference between the two appraisals was very understandable, and was due to several differences in assumptions and ground rules, including a different "highest/best use" assumption. It was clear to the Board that the second appraisal more accurately represented the current commercial value of the property.

The Board [considered] these property transactions very seriously, always striving to use capital project funds as wisely as possible.

Gary Noble
Edmonds School Board
425-342-5181, Cell: 425-931-5118

Editor: I would be willing to bet that Mr. Noble couldn't articulate the details even if Marla was holding his cue cards.

12 comments:

ESD15.org said...

Gary,

The Board should immediately launch an investigation into every appraisal provided by their most qualified and prolific appraiser. Clearly, if he missed this appraisal, God only knows how many other appraisals he must have missed.

This appraiser was actively involved in the Lynnwood High School valuation and now many people must be questioning its validity.

Mark Zandberg

Anonymous said...

What would have happened if the seller's appraiser would have claimed the marginally-contaminated site was worth $10,000,000.00?

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Board doesn't know that the seller bought the property in 2001 for just $900,000.00. Less than four years later he sold it to the District for $5,800,000.00.

ESD15.org said...

Any purchase of real property by a school district shall be preceded by a market value appraisal by a professionally designated real estate appraiser as defined in RCW 74.46.020 or by a general real estate appraiser certified under chapter 18.140 RCW who was selected by the board of directors.

Judson Clendaniel was not selected by the Board of Directors. He was selected by the seller.

ESD15.org said...

Conflict of interest: No appraiser or review appraiser shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the real property being appraised for the agency that would in any way conflict with the preparation or review of the appraisal. Compensation for making an appraisal shall not be based on the amount of the valuation.

No person shall attempt to unduly influence or coerce an appraiser, review appraiser, or waiver valuation preparer regarding any valuation or other aspect of an appraisal, review or waiver valuation. Persons functioning as negotiators may not supervise or formally evaluate the performance of any appraiser or review appraiser performing appraisal or appraisal review work.

No appraiser shall act as a negotiator for real property which that person has appraised, except that the agency may permit the same person to both appraise and negotiate an acquisition where the value of the acquisition is ten thousand dollars, or less.

If the District did not select Judson Clendaniel, how do they know for whom his loyalties reside?

Anonymous said...

If all of the esd15.org comments are true, why didn't the state auditor issue a finding or even identify it? I don't get it.

ESD15.org said...

I agree that the Auditor was not smart enough. However, in his defense, the investigation is on-going. I will post their formal response as soon as possible or you can e-mail Sadie Armijo and ask her directly.

Thank you.

Mark Zandberg

Anonymous said...

Gary, please try to write in a way us common types can understand. Maybe start with why you decided to pay millions more for a piece of property than a well established appraiser, hired by the district, said it was worth.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, how can a government transaction on land purchased and to be built on for government use with taxpayer money be considered as highest and best use? This is not a commercial investment so, as I understand it, should not be considered as such. If it therefore does not qualify in this category why was this purchase allowed to continue without proper negotiation?

Are there any other vacant land purchases in the area that had such a huge increase in value over a 5 year period?

If this overpayment cannot be regained then all involved should repay the District for it either in cash and/or with the loss of their jobs. Does anyone agree with what might otherwise be considered harsh judgment?

Anonymous said...

Gary,

I don't believe the word "aware" can be used in the same sentence as "board", let alone the words "well aware". But please, keep reading esd15.org, hopfully you will become "aware".

Anonymous said...

Who was the seller in the property the Edmonds School Distict purchased for the new Administration/Transportation site?
Will the roads surrounding the property be widened to accommodate the heavy traffic for new site? If roads are to be widened, who will pay for the work?

Anonymous said...

I asked this question previously on this web-site and did not get an answer. Who did the Edmonds School District purchase the property (land-fill) from? I do know that the District owned the property which housed Cedar Valley Elementary for years, but what about the surrounding property? I just don't "get it" - I do not hold a Master's Degree, but it does not take a Rocket Scientist to look into the issues at hand, and complete a "perk test", and other environmental tests, before signing on the dotted line to purchase the property, using TAX PAYER DOLLARS! I, for one, will never vote to pass another levy and the kids will suffer! Sad but true.