Thursday, 01 March 2012 06:26

Amador Property Committee may work with Jackson officials

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

slide3-amador_property_committee_may_work_with_jackson_officials.pngAmador County – Amador County Supervisors on Tuesday discussed property it owns in Jackson, including the old Courthouse at Court and Summit Streets.

Supervisor John Plasse said they should convene the Property Committee in conjunction with Jackson officials, because the Court Street properties are subject to Jackson municipal zoning and building codes. He said he believes it has potential commercial, value and the city may want to give input on some uses, such as housing, a brew pub or a bed & breakfast. He wanted to work with the city to see the benefit.

Jackson City Manager Mike Daly said the city’s Revitalization Committee has discussed the old Courthouse, and the infrastructure repairs that would be required to make it a usable space.

General Services Director John Hopkins said the County could engage an appraiser to look at the property. He supplied a photo of the original look of the Courthouse, before it was given the “art deco look” with plaster. Supervisors said he would prefer the old building, but the restoration process may be unfeasible in cost, or may not work, and may ruin the brick beneath.

Supervisor Brian Oneto said you are talking about a 15,000 square foot building, and that $5,000 a year spent on upkeep by the county is not really maintaining it. It’s deteriorating, and really maintaining it and making it functional could cost $75,000 or more. Hopkins said that cost was really unknown, but could include making it ADA compliant, and seismically sound.

Supervisor Richard Forster said some of the buildings the county owns on Court Street do not have a historic designation, so someone may purchase them and tear them down as the cheapest approach.

In public comment, Phillip Giurlani said if properties are not an asset and are a liability, the county should get rid of them.

Hopkins said the county Property Committee and officials in a working group have combed through a list of 129 county properties, and gleaned it down to 75. He said Supervisors need to decide whether they want to sell, develop, convey, lease or mothball some properties.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read 447 times Last modified on Thursday, 01 March 2012 07:24
Tom