The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-10-23

| board entered into a contract with P.
| McNally of the Sixth ward, for the
| purchase of two lots, each 5OX150 feet,
| the consideration to be $4,000 cash and
| the old school property, including both
building and land, the district to be
| allowed to use the building until such
time as new structure was built. The
controller refused to sign the warrant
for the first payment of 81 900, and had
two appraisers, George Cooper and G..
| +. Reynolds, investigate and report
on the value of the property.
They reported that $2.1O0 and the
school property was all that should be
paid for the property and pointed out
that by purchasing the Corcoran prop
erty $500 could be saved. The con-
troller figured out that the actual loss
to the district by purchasing the Nc
Nally property would be an even $4,000.
BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
The committees report points out
that the controller of the Sixth ward
secured bids from various parties de-
srous of selling land to the district,
and that these bids We're considered by
the building committee in open meet
ing and Mr.. McNally's proposition ac-
cepted after due deliberation.
The report states that the members
of the committee We're not satisfied
with the report of the viewers appoint
ed by the controller because certain
circumstances were not taken into con-
sderation at all. Then follows the
report of two viewers appointed by
the building committee to look into the
TOW ntcn 1,n ,0l, >f ha
various properties. These viewers
We're I. l.. Williams and John Benore.
These two viewers value the McNal-
ly property in it's present condition at
$500; the land being valued at $4,000
and the buildings at $500. The value
of the school property which it is
proposed to give Mr.. McNally in ad-
dition to the $4,000, is placed at $2.4OO.
Then the viewers take into considera-
tion fact which was not taken into
consideration by the controllers view
erS.
This is the fact that if any other
proposition than that of Mr.. McNal-
ly's We're accepted it would be neces-
sary to hire anreXes. while a new
building was being built They figure
that these annexes would cost to rent
for one year and to ut up properly
just $2,515, which added to $500, the
cost of the Corcoran lot, would bring
the total up to $6,O15, If the Corcoran
lot was purchased. From this they
subtract the $4,000 to be paid by the
school board, and thus figure out that
the school board would lose $l,7l5 If
the Corcoran lot was purchased, COM
pairing it with the NIcNally PROPOSE
ton.
THEY OVERLOOK THIS.
The viewers neglected to add to the
$4,000, their own valuation OF $2,400
placed on the school board property
to be given to McNally in addition to
the latter amount. Had they done
this. it would be found that on the
face of it the McNally offer is really
$685. above their own figures on the
Corcoran proposition.
The committees report little FUR
ther on, however, explains that in
case the Corcoran property We're
bought. it would be necessary to erect
retaining wall on it, an improve
ment which would not be necessary IL
the McNalley lots are bought. they
being on a level with the street. The
fact is also mentioned that no anneXes
of a suitable nature are procurable in