Jackson will not buy Pepsi property
Following a series of closed session discussions, Jackson County has opted to cancel its $500,000 contract to purchase a 5.61-acre tract in Whittier containing the old Pepsi-Cola plant.
“We’re under such a time constraint right now, it’s not feasible to try to do all the research that we need,” said County Commission Chairman Brian McMahan. “We’re running out of time, so we’re asking to cancel the contract and continue to explore options, maybe even help them find people to use it. We just could not legitimately find any use for it at this point.”
Commissioners voted unanimously to cancel the contract following a closed session Jan. 22. This represented a shift from the party-line vote Nov. 9 that allowed Jackson to enter into the contract.
During that vote, the two Democrats on the board — McMahan and Commissioner Boyce Deitz — voted against the purchase while the three Republicans — Commissioners Ron Mau, Mickey Luker and Charles Elders — voted in favor. In the intervening months, the board has flipped to a 3-2 Democratic majority with Commissioner Gayle Woody’s November victory over Elders.
Following the November vote, Mau had said that he believed the purchase would “provide the county with some opportunities to pursue some projects that would benefit the county and accomplish goals or address issues that have been ongoing in Jackson County for some time,” though he added that it would be “premature” to list what those opportunities might be.
The property is adjacent to the old Drexel Furniture Plant, which the county also owns and several years ago had considered redeveloping as an agricultural and community center. Those plants fell apart, partly due to the cost of renovating the aging building but also due to the restrictions imposed by the property’s location in the floodplain of the Tuckaseigee River. The Pepsi property is also in the floodplain.
Related Items
McMahan said that the Pepsi facility is a “great building” and that the county could even be interested in buying it at a later date if the property remains for sale. The county simply doesn’t have a need for it right now to justify the $500,000 price tag — though that price would be a steal, considering that the property’s tax value is $1.9 million.
“If somebody else comes forward and needs it and can help create jobs and put people to work or whatever the arrangement was, we would support that as well,” said McMahan.
While the county will not be paying the $500,000 purchase price, considering the transaction did not come without a cost. The county spent $1,250 on survey and title work for the property, though that amount is far less than $50,000 approved for due diligence costs Nov. 9.