My explanation of the appraisals is the same as Dan Smith's but with a little more in the weeds.
The higher value by the same appraiser preceded the Wright Contracting estimates of $28M in deferred maintenance. Of this, $9M was estimated by Wright, and utilized by the appraisers for immediate requirements to make the building commercially viable. One can argue with these numbers and the necessity of each line item, but I heard no one from the board (or anyone else for that matter) arguing that. Wright is relatively well known with a good reputation in the commercial field and predates me (but not Norbert).
The appraisers were asked to revise their value opinion given this new information. You can't utilize the higher value if there's new facts that tend to disprove the old. Appraisers aren't qualified to inspect roofs, heating equipment, etc. and generally assume they're OK unless otherwise known or observed.
It's standard appraisal practice to determine whether the value of the building and land, as it's currently utilized or can be feasibly utilized for some other purpose, is worth more than the land, as if vacant.
This is a hard concept for most people to grasp but we've seen it recently with the former lumber yard/tractor supply (now approved for a hotel) and the former auto dealership (now a CVS). Both improvements were demolished. The buyer was paying for the land (less demolition costs) and not for the buildings which were obsolete.
So, the question becomes: What's the value of the land, as if vacant and less demolition costs, and what's the value of the building plus land as utilized for a hospital. All the approaches to value by the appraiser showed a value of less than $600K as improved and $5.2M for the land less demolition.The higher of the two is the "highest and best use", i.e. the market value.
Jim Horn's only real opposition that I heard at the hearing I was at was his objection to the rent credit AAMG is getting for any deferred maintenance money they spend. I agree with Jim. The value and the rent are both based on land only and so unless they're spending more than $9M on the improvements, it ain't going to benefit us, the owner.
On the other hand, the rent is only $275K per year for a maximum of six years, including extensions. This is a small price to pay given that the district is $20M+ in the hole, has had multiple bankruptcies, losing close to $1M per month and doesn't seem to be viable to any other entity given the lack of response to the District's RFP.
I've voted for every hospital parcel tax and would have supported many more, but will be voting Yes on Measure A. I hope AAMG can make a go of it.
Howard

Norbu wrote:
...There was a high appraisal which included giving the building value and a low appraisal calling for demolition of the building. The low appraisal value was used for the sale price. However, the building is not being demolished. It’s being used by the purchaser. So why use the lower appraisal value as the price?
and also
why the language on the ballot that says the property can be bought at appraised value when it appears to me that the value has been already determined and the writer of the proposition seems to just be avoiding saying what it actually is, and that it is based on the lower of two appraisals. I am either in the dark about the full picture or the wording of the ballot measure seems misleading to me.
i humbly invite a response from someone more informed than myself.