Ralph M. Brown Act, Emergency Agenda Item

Regulations, specifically the Acting Appointments section for all Acting CPO's. The acting appointment allowable term did expire prior to the amendment to the Personnel Rules and Regulations. The Acting Chief Probation Officer has been paid as an experienced and qualified Chief Probation Officer even though the employee's original experience and qualifications failed to meet the standard. The Acting Chief Probation Officer should have only received a 5% pay increase upon

Lassen County Personnel Department should develop and implement a written procedure to ensure that the Lassen County Personnel Rules and Regulations are updated and posted to the website in a timely manner. Response/Comment: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. The Board of Supervisors agrees that annual review of the County Personnel Rules and Regulations is in order. This review will begin this year.

Former Planning Commission Member.

Former Susanville City Councilman.

Former County Sheriff.

Former County Clerk/Recorder.

Current City Attorney 8. ì The most striking example is from this most recent Grand Jury year. The foreman of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury is the sitting Susanville City Attorney. This person has also recently served as the Attorney for the Honey Lake RCD, the subject of one of this year's reports. This year, the Grand Jury received twenty-two complaints. They chose to file a total of fourteen reports which make up its year-end report (the Grand Jurors Association considers and teaches that each topic is its own report). Of the fourteen published reports, four were of detention facilities in our community, and were generated likely as a result of the Grand Jury's obligation to look into these facilities. The manner in which the remaining ten were selected is of most interest to the Board of Supervisors. Nine out of the ten deal with general County functions. There were no published reports that dealt with any City functions. The one report that did not deal with a general County function related to the Honey Lake Valley RCD, the foreman's prior client. That report appeared superficial and did not find any fault on the part of the Honey Lake RCD, despite considerable public criticism of their activities. The individual relied upon for a real estate "appraisal" referenced in the Herlong Property Sale report was the chair of the RCD board during the time the foreman of this jury was their attorney, and this person continues to serve on that board. The point to be made is simple. The Board of Supervisors wants Lassen County Government to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Board believes that the Grand Jury, by and large, does too. Nevertheless, an incomplete report, presented by individuals that do not present with the independence that Grand Jury service contemplates, does not further the mission of the Grand Jury. Over the next pages the Lassen County Board of Supervisors will be presenting its response to this year's Grand Jury report. Contrary to past years where the Board has been fairly quiet, this year the Board will actively point out inaccuracies and misperceptions. This year, the Board of Supervisors will highlight the fact that the Grand Jury sometimes is composed of people who are not infallible, not always properly informed, and not always motivated to come to the proper conclusions. ii Grand Jury Report: Herlong Property Sale Finding: "A member of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors should have recused himself from all discussions and action taken on the selling of the Herlong property, as he had a preexisting (sic) business relationship with an individual who was the successful bidder." Response /Comment: Disagree. The report makes no effort to identify that Supervisor. Respondents are left to speculate to whom the Grand Jury was referring and to formulate a response based on that speculation. As there was only one sentence in the report dedicated to the "Conflict of Interest" discussion, respondents are also left to guess what the basis for the alleged conflict is and upon what authority that assertion is made. Finding: "Other than for the drafting of the sales contract the Lassen County Board of Supervisors did not seek any outside expertise in deciding how to market the Herlong property. They also did not seek an appraisal or advertise outside of Lassen County." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees there was no "outside" expertise sought in deciding how to market this property. The Board further agrees that no appraisal was sought immediately prior to its being offered. The Board does not agree with the statement that the property was not marketed outside of Lassen County. In fact, the Request for Proposal was posted on the World Wide Web. Finding: "The Lassen County Administrative Officer did not exercise oversight of the Treasurer/Tax Collector." the Planning Department Director, the County Surveyor and County Counsel to ensure accuracy of the sale of the Herlong property." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The County Administrative Officer is not authorized to exercise "oversight" over the Treasurer/Tax Collector, County Counsel, or the County Surveyor. The Treasurer/Tax Collector is an elected official accountable to the voters. County Counsel, is appointed by, and supervised by the Board of Supervisors. The County Surveyor is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and supervised by the Director of Planning and Building Services. The only party identified with whom the County Administrative Officer serves in a supervisorial role is the Planning Department Director (the position is correctly identified as the Director of Building and Planning Services). The CAO certainly had some ultimate responsibility 1 involving the error, but the Jury fundamentally misconstrues the organization of County Government, and the role of the County CAO. Finding: "The turnover in the Lassen County Administrative Officer position created turbulence, a lack of continuity, poor communication, lack of oversight and uncertainty in county departments. Lassen County has had three County Administrative Officers in the less than three year period encompassing the decision to offer up the property for sale and the execution thereof." Response/Comment: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with the suggestion that the changes in County Administrative Officer had any significant connection to the legal description error which occurred related to the Herlong Property or the handling of the matter thereafter. Finding: "The County Administrative Officer, the Planning Department Director and the county administrative staff failed to review the Lassen County Surveyor's legal description of properties included in the first RFP." Response/Comment: Disagree. These materials were reviewed by the parties identified. Nevertheless, these parties did not detect the error which occurred. Finding: "When the mistake of including the Fort Sage One Stop was discovered, county administrative staff chose not to inform the Board of the error in the RFP. Instead, county administrative staff chose to verbally notify buyers of the mistake by phone or in person but failed to document these conversations. By failing to notify the Board prior to the opening of the proposals it eliminated the possibility of the cancellation of the erroneous RFP." Response/Comment: Agree. Finding: "In order to legally remedy and attempt the reversal of the erroneous sale of the Fort Sage One Stop property, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors could have invoked the referee clause in the sales contract. The Board elected to not contest the Fort Sage One Stop sale and impose the referee clause, even after being advised to do so by their attorney." 2 Response/Comment: Agree. The Board agrees that it could have and did not invoke the referee clause. A majority of the Board of Supervisors, in a split decision, after considering many factors, chose not to. Finding: "After the mistaken sale of the Fort Sage One Stop property was completed, the Board directed County staff to negotiate with the new owners a lease of the Fort Sage One Stop building. The current Fort Sage One Stop does not comply with the American(sic) with Disabilities Act (ADA). The County cannot invest money into the building to make it so because it is now owned by a private party." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that it directed staff to negotiate a lease with the new owners of the One Stop. The Board agrees that the building that is currently occupied by the One Stop does not currently comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Board disagrees with the idea that general fund money could not be spent to improve this building. There are some circumstances where this could legally be done. Finding: "A sense of urgency was displayed by the Board for disposing of properties in the recently concluded RFP process. There was general consensus among Board members and Acting CAO when interviewed, that funds were being expended monthly on the maintenance of the Fort Sage One Stop from the Lassen County General Fund and it was causing concern. This runs contrary to the fact that it was the intent of the Board and county staff not to include the Fort Sage One Stop in the RFP's. The reason for this was that the Fort Sage One Stop contributes significantly in providing valuable community services to south Lassen County." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the One Stop service, wherever it is located in the Herlong-Doyle area, provides a valuable service to its constituents. The Board agrees that it was interested in expediting the disposal of the surplus Herlong property. The cost of maintaining these properties, paid from general fund monies, was mounting. The Board and staff decided not to offer the One Stop building in the RFP as the funding stream utilized for its upkeep were available without impacting the General Fund. The error highlighted the costs associated with maintaining this building. The Board disagrees with the implication that the County intended to keep the One Stop building solely because it "contributes significantly in providing valuable community services to south Lassen County". The Board intended to keep the property for a variety of reasons, most notably that the building was 3 currently being utilized and despite its less than optimum utility, it would at least provide a temporary space for County services. Finding: "The funds received from the State Mental Health Department came to Lassen County with the county attesting that the Fort Sage One Stop was owned by Lassen County and that they would continue to maintain the building and meet all applicable codes and regulations, including ADA requirements. It was also stated that the county would dedicate the Fort Sage One Stop in Herlong to the intent of MHSA based on the availability and continuation of ample MHSA funding. Sometime in 2012 the State Mental Health Department was dissolved and responsibilities were transferred to the Lassen County Community Development Department." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that MHSA funds were received from the State and the intent was, in part, to utilize those funds to operate the Fort Sage One Stop. The Board agrees that it intended to continue to operate this One Stop in Herlong as long as the MHSA funding continued. The Board disagrees with the statement that the responsibilities of the State Mental Health Department were transferred to the Lassen County Community Development Department. The Lassen County Department of Building and Planning Services is not and has never been responsible for the functions of the State Mental Health Department. Finding: The condition of the Fort Sage One Stop property was called into question by county officials. It was stated that the property was in poor to terrible condition with minimal value. The Grand Jury toured the properties including the Fort Sage One Stop and the consensus was the building was in good condition with a new commercial roof and new heating/ventilation/air conditioning system. Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the condition of the building that the Fort Sage One Stop occupied was called into question by county officials. As a result of the erroneous transfer, it became apparent that the building occupied by the One Stop was not well suited for its intended use. Specifically, it contained a chapel and far more square footage than necessary for the County functions. Finding: "The Grand Jury obtained the services of a professional appraiser to review the Fort Sage One Stop property to determine appraised value and to determine costs of a replacement building and/or cost of new construction. The Fort Sage One Stop was described in the appraisal as in average condition with a value of $200,000." 4 Response/Comment: Disagree. The California Business and Professions code defines an appraisal as "...a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion in a federally related transaction as to the market value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information." (See California Business and Professions Code section 11302(b)). Upon investigation of the finding made by the Grand Jury, the County Administrative Officer spoke to Grand Jury Foreman Talia and Appraiser John Bentley. The Board has concluded that no proper appraisal was performed or delivered to the Grand Jury on the One Stop building. When contacted, Mr. Talia indicated to the County Administrative Officer that he had, "out of his own pocket", contacted Bentley for an appraisal and that Talia asked Bentley to just "give him some numbers." Talia told the County Administrative Officer that he was unsure if a written report was ever prepared. Foreman Talia has not responded to further requests for a copy of any such document. When the County Administrative Officer contacted John Bentley, Bentley was also unsure of the level of analysis that went into the "appraisal" for the Grand Jury. Bentley said that a full appraisal would probably cost about $5,000.00 dollars to produce. Bentley reported that the Grand Jury simply asked him to provide some "ball park figures." Bentley is licensed as a residential property appraiser. The building "appraised" is a commercial property. It should be noted that Foreman Talia, also currently the attorney for the City of Susanville, represented the Honey Lake RCD while Bentley was chair of that board. The Board of Supervisors rejects the Grand Jury's valuation of the One Stop building which is the premise of this finding and others. Finding: "The county is looking into an alternate site to house the services currently provided by the Fort Sage One Stop. The existing Fort Sage One Stop is about 10,200 square feet which includes a chapel and space for other services. The cost of a replacement commercial building, based on comparative sales, averages $24.50 per square foot. The Grand Jury estimated the cost of purchasing a used building based on the average of $24.50 per square foot at approximately $150,000 to $250,000." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that it is looking into an alternate site for the location of the One Stop. The Board agrees that the existing Fort Sage One Stop building, which includes a chapel, is approximately 10,200 square feet. The Grand Jury has not provided a credible basis for their assertion of the $24.50 per square foot cost to replace this building and consequently does not accept the statement that purchasing a used building to replace it would cost taxpayers between $150,000.00 and $200,000.00 dollars. Findings: The replacement cost of a new building of comparative size is about $1,200,000." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that construction costs for public entities are high due to many factors. The Board questions the relevance of the finding given the abundant availability of existing suitable commercial space nearby. Findings: The county's(sic) lack of oversight resulted in the mistake of selling the Fort Sage One Stop in the Herlong property sale (an approximate $200,000 mistake) and the cost of replacing the Fort Sage One Stop ($150,000-$200,000) results in an approximate cost to county taxpayers of $350,000 to $450,000. Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. There can be no dispute that the transfer of the building currently occupied by the One Stop was not intended to be part of the overall RFP transfer. Nevertheless, it was done. The County Assessor has recently valued the property at $125,000. Because of the buildings lack of marketable utility, staff believes the property could be purchased between $70,000 and $75,000. The finding that the cost to the taxpayers would include both the cost of the mistake, as well as replacing the building is both overstated in terms of value, and simply not logical, in that it double counts the error. Response to Recommendations:

ì The most striking example is from this most recent Grand Jury year. The foreman of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury is the sitting Susanville City Attorney. This person has also recently served as the Attorney for the Honey Lake RCD, the subject of one of this year's reports. This year, the Grand Jury received twenty-two complaints. They chose to file a total of fourteen reports which make up its year-end report (the Grand Jurors Association considers and teaches that each topic is its own report). Of the fourteen published reports, four were of detention facilities in our community, and were generated likely as a result of the Grand Jury's obligation to look into these facilities. The manner in which the remaining ten were selected is of most interest to the Board of Supervisors. Nine out of the ten deal with general County functions. There were no published reports that dealt with any City functions. The one report that did not deal with a general County function related to the Honey Lake Valley RCD, the foreman's prior client. That report appeared superficial and did not find any fault on the part of the Honey Lake RCD, despite considerable public criticism of their activities. The individual relied upon for a real estate "appraisal" referenced in the Herlong Property Sale report was the chair of the RCD board during the time the foreman of this jury was their attorney, and this person continues to serve on that board. The point to be made is simple. The Board of Supervisors wants Lassen County Government to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Board believes that the Grand Jury, by and large, does too. Nevertheless, an incomplete report, presented by individuals that do not present with the independence that Grand Jury service contemplates, does not further the mission of the Grand Jury. Over the next pages the Lassen County Board of Supervisors will be presenting its response to this year's Grand Jury report. Contrary to past years where the Board has been fairly quiet, this year the Board will actively point out inaccuracies and misperceptions. This year, the Board of Supervisors will highlight the fact that the Grand Jury sometimes is composed of people who are not infallible, not always properly informed, and not always motivated to come to the proper conclusions. ii Grand Jury Report: Herlong Property Sale Finding: "A member of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors should have recused himself from all discussions and action taken on the selling of the Herlong property, as he had a preexisting (sic) business relationship with an individual who was the successful bidder." Response /Comment: Disagree. The report makes no effort to identify that Supervisor. Respondents are left to speculate to whom the Grand Jury was referring and to formulate a response based on that speculation. As there was only one sentence in the report dedicated to the "Conflict of Interest" discussion, respondents are also left to guess what the basis for the alleged conflict is and upon what authority that assertion is made. Finding: "Other than for the drafting of the sales contract the Lassen County Board of Supervisors did not seek any outside expertise in deciding how to market the Herlong property. They also did not seek an appraisal or advertise outside of Lassen County." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees there was no "outside" expertise sought in deciding how to market this property. The Board further agrees that no appraisal was sought immediately prior to its being offered. The Board does not agree with the statement that the property was not marketed outside of Lassen County. In fact, the Request for Proposal was posted on the World Wide Web. Finding: "The Lassen County Administrative Officer did not exercise oversight of the Treasurer/Tax Collector." the Planning Department Director, the County Surveyor and County Counsel to ensure accuracy of the sale of the Herlong property." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The County Administrative Officer is not authorized to exercise "oversight" over the Treasurer/Tax Collector, County Counsel, or the County Surveyor. The Treasurer/Tax Collector is an elected official accountable to the voters. County Counsel, is appointed by, and supervised by the Board of Supervisors. The County Surveyor is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and supervised by the Director of Planning and Building Services. The only party identified with whom the County Administrative Officer serves in a supervisorial role is the Planning Department Director (the position is correctly identified as the Director of Building and Planning Services). The CAO certainly had some ultimate responsibility 1 involving the error, but the Jury fundamentally misconstrues the organization of County Government, and the role of the County CAO. Finding: "The turnover in the Lassen County Administrative Officer position created turbulence, a lack of continuity, poor communication, lack of oversight and uncertainty in county departments. Lassen County has had three County Administrative Officers in the less than three year period encompassing the decision to offer up the property for sale and the execution thereof." Response/Comment: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with the suggestion that the changes in County Administrative Officer had any significant connection to the legal description error which occurred related to the Herlong Property or the handling of the matter thereafter. Finding: "The County Administrative Officer, the Planning Department Director and the county administrative staff failed to review the Lassen County Surveyor's legal description of properties included in the first RFP." Response/Comment: Disagree. These materials were reviewed by the parties identified. Nevertheless, these parties did not detect the error which occurred. Finding: "When the mistake of including the Fort Sage One Stop was discovered, county administrative staff chose not to inform the Board of the error in the RFP. Instead, county administrative staff chose to verbally notify buyers of the mistake by phone or in person but failed to document these conversations. By failing to notify the Board prior to the opening of the proposals it eliminated the possibility of the cancellation of the erroneous RFP." Response/Comment: Agree. Finding: "In order to legally remedy and attempt the reversal of the erroneous sale of the Fort Sage One Stop property, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors could have invoked the referee clause in the sales contract. The Board elected to not contest the Fort Sage One Stop sale and impose the referee clause, even after being advised to do so by their attorney." 2 Response/Comment: Agree. The Board agrees that it could have and did not invoke the referee clause. A majority of the Board of Supervisors, in a split decision, after considering many factors, chose not to. Finding: "After the mistaken sale of the Fort Sage One Stop property was completed, the Board directed County staff to negotiate with the new owners a lease of the Fort Sage One Stop building. The current Fort Sage One Stop does not comply with the American(sic) with Disabilities Act (ADA). The County cannot invest money into the building to make it so because it is now owned by a private party." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that it directed staff to negotiate a lease with the new owners of the One Stop. The Board agrees that the building that is currently occupied by the One Stop does not currently comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Board disagrees with the idea that general fund money could not be spent to improve this building. There are some circumstances where this could legally be done. Finding: "A sense of urgency was displayed by the Board for disposing of properties in the recently concluded RFP process. There was general consensus among Board members and Acting CAO when interviewed, that funds were being expended monthly on the maintenance of the Fort Sage One Stop from the Lassen County General Fund and it was causing concern. This runs contrary to the fact that it was the intent of the Board and county staff not to include the Fort Sage One Stop in the RFP's. The reason for this was that the Fort Sage One Stop contributes significantly in providing valuable community services to south Lassen County." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the One Stop service, wherever it is located in the Herlong-Doyle area, provides a valuable service to its constituents. The Board agrees that it was interested in expediting the disposal of the surplus Herlong property. The cost of maintaining these properties, paid from general fund monies, was mounting. The Board and staff decided not to offer the One Stop building in the RFP as the funding stream utilized for its upkeep were available without impacting the General Fund. The error highlighted the costs associated with maintaining this building. The Board disagrees with the implication that the County intended to keep the One Stop building solely because it "contributes significantly in providing valuable community services to south Lassen County". The Board intended to keep the property for a variety of reasons, most notably that the building was 3 currently being utilized and despite its less than optimum utility, it would at least provide a temporary space for County services. Finding: "The funds received from the State Mental Health Department came to Lassen County with the county attesting that the Fort Sage One Stop was owned by Lassen County and that they would continue to maintain the building and meet all applicable codes and regulations, including ADA requirements. It was also stated that the county would dedicate the Fort Sage One Stop in Herlong to the intent of MHSA based on the availability and continuation of ample MHSA funding. Sometime in 2012 the State Mental Health Department was dissolved and responsibilities were transferred to the Lassen County Community Development Department." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that MHSA funds were received from the State and the intent was, in part, to utilize those funds to operate the Fort Sage One Stop. The Board agrees that it intended to continue to operate this One Stop in Herlong as long as the MHSA funding continued. The Board disagrees with the statement that the responsibilities of the State Mental Health Department were transferred to the Lassen County Community Development Department. The Lassen County Department of Building and Planning Services is not and has never been responsible for the functions of the State Mental Health Department. Finding: The condition of the Fort Sage One Stop property was called into question by county officials. It was stated that the property was in poor to terrible condition with minimal value. The Grand Jury toured the properties including the Fort Sage One Stop and the consensus was the building was in good condition with a new commercial roof and new heating/ventilation/air conditioning system. Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the condition of the building that the Fort Sage One Stop occupied was called into question by county officials. As a result of the erroneous transfer, it became apparent that the building occupied by the One Stop was not well suited for its intended use. Specifically, it contained a chapel and far more square footage than necessary for the County functions. Finding: "The Grand Jury obtained the services of a professional appraiser to review the Fort Sage One Stop property to determine appraised value and to determine costs of a replacement building and/or cost of new construction. The Fort Sage One Stop was described in the appraisal as in average condition with a value of $200,000." 4 Response/Comment: Disagree. The California Business and Professions code defines an appraisal as "...a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion in a federally related transaction as to the market value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information." (See California Business and Professions Code section 11302(b)). Upon investigation of the finding made by the Grand Jury, the County Administrative Officer spoke to Grand Jury Foreman Talia and Appraiser John Bentley. The Board has concluded that no proper appraisal was performed or delivered to the Grand Jury on the One Stop building. When contacted, Mr. Talia indicated to the County Administrative Officer that he had, "out of his own pocket", contacted Bentley for an appraisal and that Talia asked Bentley to just "give him some numbers." Talia told the County Administrative Officer that he was unsure if a written report was ever prepared. Foreman Talia has not responded to further requests for a copy of any such document. When the County Administrative Officer contacted John Bentley, Bentley was also unsure of the level of analysis that went into the "appraisal" for the Grand Jury. Bentley said that a full appraisal would probably cost about $5,000.00 dollars to produce. Bentley reported that the Grand Jury simply asked him to provide some "ball park figures." Bentley is licensed as a residential property appraiser. The building "appraised" is a commercial property. It should be noted that Foreman Talia, also currently the attorney for the City of Susanville, represented the Honey Lake RCD while Bentley was chair of that board. The Board of Supervisors rejects the Grand Jury's valuation of the One Stop building which is the premise of this finding and others. Finding: "The county is looking into an alternate site to house the services currently provided by the Fort Sage One Stop. The existing Fort Sage One Stop is about 10,200 square feet which includes a chapel and space for other services. The cost of a replacement commercial building, based on comparative sales, averages $24.50 per square foot. The Grand Jury estimated the cost of purchasing a used building based on the average of $24.50 per square foot at approximately $150,000 to $250,000." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that it is looking into an alternate site for the location of the One Stop. The Board agrees that the existing Fort Sage One Stop building, which includes a chapel, is approximately 10,200 square feet. The Grand Jury has not provided a credible basis for their assertion of the $24.50 per square foot cost to replace this building and consequently does not accept the statement that purchasing a used building to replace it would cost taxpayers between $150,000.00 and $200,000.00 dollars. Findings: The replacement cost of a new building of comparative size is about $1,200,000." Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. The Board agrees that construction costs for public entities are high due to many factors. The Board questions the relevance of the finding given the abundant availability of existing suitable commercial space nearby. Findings: The county's(sic) lack of oversight resulted in the mistake of selling the Fort Sage One Stop in the Herlong property sale (an approximate $200,000 mistake) and the cost of replacing the Fort Sage One Stop ($150,000-$200,000) results in an approximate cost to county taxpayers of $350,000 to $450,000. Response/Comment: Agree in part, disagree in part. There can be no dispute that the transfer of the building currently occupied by the One Stop was not intended to be part of the overall RFP transfer. Nevertheless, it was done. The County Assessor has recently valued the property at $125,000. Because of the buildings lack of marketable utility, staff believes the property could be purchased between $70,000 and $75,000. The finding that the cost to the taxpayers would include both the cost of the mistake, as well as replacing the building is both overstated in terms of value, and simply not logical, in that it double counts the error. Response to Recommendations: