Everyone, I'd like to call this meeting uh special meeting of the Cook County Board of Commissioners to order on Friday, April 3rd at 8:33 a.m. 2026. Uh first item is uh this is a special
meeting, but we have three uh uh items on our agenda. One is to award the YMCA cleaning contract. Another is permit application for raffle and then the sale per national uh loan approval. And so
moving with the uh first item here, hand it over to Brooke. >> Good morning, Brooke. >> Thank you. Um so we put it out for public bid for the clean contract for the YMCA. Had pretty good turnout. Five
total bids received. uh three from large corporations out of St. Cloud, Minneapolis, and Nashville, Tennessee, and then a couple local ones. Um after speaking with everybody and and uh going through their kind of plan on how
they want to tackle it, uh Morowitz Cleaning we feel is the best one to handle the uh the project and take over that cleaning contract. And we're currently we have a current monthly price monthly contract of $7,651.
So $91,812 annually. And uh Morowitz bid came in at uh $7,083 monthly. Um so $85,000 annually. So a savings of you know roughly $7,000 a
year. >> Questions? Yeah. Commissioner White. Uh could you explain to the public um what parts of the wide will be clean? Does he do the pool area, the locker rooms, the lobby? What
frequency? Uh just details like that. >> Yeah, it's a >> but before that um can you uh relate what the history of cleaning the YMCA was? Maybe it's before your time,
>> but I know the school did it for a while and >> Yep. Yep. I can touch on that. We uh so the history of it is um I believe I may get corrected on this that when the Y first opened, we had employees doing it
that were county employees. Um they had difficult time keeping employees. Um and then they went to the school which worked out really well and the school did it for a number of years and then the school was having issues with you
know employee retention and and finding new recruits. Um, so then it was done inhouse again for a while while uh they were looking for a contractor to do it and then it was awarded I believe three
years ago to the current cleaner and time to put it back out for bid and here we are. Um, >> what areas will be cleaned? >> So they don't have they don't do anything in the pool or the mechanical rooms. They do I mean the the largest
portion of course is the locker rooms um and then hallways, common areas and then also the two daycare rooms that are in there. They also do the gym floor with just a dust mop. We're we're looking into scrubbing it. But um and
then in the cardio room, the weight room, and the upstairs room, they clean that as well, but they don't do not clean the machines themselves. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Commissioner Gamble first. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. If you want to say so. Go ahead.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so originally uh the YMCA the agreement was that um the maintenance would be handled by the school and that um uh when we had our
initial meeting with all of the partners which would be the city, the county, the YMCA and the school. Um the question I asked was are we tracking the amount of hours that uh our personnel are having
to put in um which would be your press predecessor Brian Silence and uh the response was no and um I said well we should be tracking this by question uh why are we not tracking is because we
think that the the amount of time that's being invested in cleaning on the part of the county staff and the amount of time that uh the school is using the YMC facility, they thought that that was a wash. And I said that uh with a new
enterprise, you can make your assumptions, but you should track the time to see if your assumptions in fact are true. And what we found over time was the amount of time that our county staff were spending over there not consistent with the contract
arrangement. Uh it Brian's time is just getting to be unwieldly. And so then uh it was determined that we would hire uh an outside individual to clean it. And at that time we had a
commitment of so many dollars that we would pledge towards the operation of the Y. And so when it came before this before the board uh the proposal to hire an outside maintenance individual that amount of money I said is that included
in the amount of money that is pledged on behalf of the county towards the operation of the Y and the president or the county administrator at that time assured us that in fact it was but it it was not. And what we have seen over time
and to Commissioner White's point is that and I spent considerable time this is a line item that you would think just would go just like that and um but I would suggest because we have a new county administrator. we have new
opportunities to be able to evaluate things and um I was trying to put together a flowheet that would show the progression of what has happened in our relationship with the YMCA. The city has a fixed amount that they've been
set at. The county continues on multiple fronts to have to fund and support the Y at different levels. And I think if we choose to do that in all of the things that we're responsible for related to governance, we should do it knowingly.
But it seems incrementally that we have just and and it all comes under the umbrella of saying it's our building. However, if we use that rationale and we apply it consistently to all of the
buildings that we own as a county, we are inconsistent in how we support our buildings when it comes to what we pay for and what we don't pay for under the umbrella of our building. So, I would recommend
um in this situation, we're going to move forward and make this a simple line item and vote for it. But I I would recommend that we would do an evaluation. We would look at the language in the contracts that have evolved the amendments to those contracts and we would understand in the
context of what we choose to do as a committee for our YMCA and what is happening elsewhere in YMCA's and uh I just think that's our stewardship responsibility. So >> administer trouble. >> Thank you. Um to respond to that,
Commissioner Gamble, we had a YMCA advisory meeting um earlier this week and one of the things that we discussed was looking at and discussing the county contract and the city contract um in the future. So, I do think that this is
something that we will be be looking at and I do have the contract pulled up and um I don't see anything in our current contract that outlines specific hours that the county has stated that they will provide for these services. Um it
states that we are responsible for the maintenance of the building to include cleaning, but don't see any um in the current contract at least any any specific hour amounts. Um, so just wanted to respond. Um, and then also
Brooke, if you could just mention really quickly um the um the deep clean that's been happening this week for the public as well, so they're aware of that. >> Yeah. So, kind of getting it back to a better baseline. Um, starting on
Wednesday the 1st, the prior contract expired on the 31st for the previous cleaner. So, starting on the 1st, Caleb's been kind of leading our team, going down there and doing a deep clean and and getting all the equipment back up and running and doing some training
with the new cleaners just for expectations and and making sure we're getting back to a good position. And I've actually been getting really good feedback already in the first two days of this. So, it's it's going well.
That's right. >> Um, great. We're going to review the contract. Uh, in my first year, which was quite a while ago now, uh, Stacy Commissioner, um, H, she was Commissioner Hawkins then, um, she and I
were assigned as and then two people from the county that would we would do a review of the YMCA contract. And that's that we've never met yet. So, I really hope this goes forward and for a history with the YMCA,
having been around a long time and part of these different things as community member uh working in the school on the school board. I know that our handshake deals for all parties in this county that we did with the YMCA
were for not were for not. There were promises made and not kept by that organization that we all are have been paying for going forward. But I'm glad to hear we're going to review that contract and I do believe that the
school needs to I don't know if they need to be part of it or not but you need to learn what they have been through um in I mean the promise is that the for one the wait room would always be available for the students you know it
would be a shared thing well that the uh school has now built their own again because that was a promise not kept And there were others too. So um I just before that process gets started which I hope is really soon that uh some of the
people that were around for in the beginning days from the different entities can all chime in and fill in the backstory. So you go forward that way. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the discussion and and I would agree it
it's a discussion on many levels that that we have the opportunity to take a look at. I think foundationally what we want to do is we want to evaluate the benefit. This isn't isn't intended uh to um take away from certainly what
the YMCA represents and what it provides. I'm just saying as a an entity worldwide. Um, and so anything that we do should be with the idea of being good stewards of what we've been entrusted with. I mean,
you can say those words, but there's tangible evidence of how that works. And going back at the inception and what was promised, and there are many things that have been promised in this community to taxpayers who largely fund these enterprises. And uh when we when we
don't uh follow up with integrity on what we promised and the evidence shows otherwise, that's why we're not trusted. And uh we have to work together with their participation to understand where our values lie and where we can invest
dollars and what responsibility should be. It's just not it's not the mechanical aspect alone that we're looking at with regard to this obligation. If you look at the contract, and I think the latest amendments to that were in 2021, and you can correct
me if I'm wrong on this, but it's not just the work being done. It is the fact that the county is paying for the supplies, which are the mops and the cleaning materials, the toilet paper. And so, consequently, when we look at that, it's it's wow. >> Pool chemicals, all the chemicals.
>> Yeah. All of that stuff. >> All that Yeah. All the reoccurring. And if you read through it, you will see that here's what the county is going to do. And a lot of times when we spell things out, it it comes it the ending statement as and if the YMCA can't do
this, then it falls on the county to have to do this. And and the accountability factor that is measurable does not exist in the language of the contract. And that's what I'm saying. We need to we need to draft contracts that are clear and understood and balance the
responsibility of the providers as well as those that are funding in large part. And uh I would like to see a financial accounting which the contract initially that was drafted into 2020 indicated that we would get financial reports
monthly. It if we ever got a financial report monthly, it never happened in my term. And um and then when I left, the motion was made that the because it's our building, we will pick up any costs that the YMC
cannot cover and we'll only require one financial report annually. That's not how you manage a new enterprise. your stewardship says let's look at this let's partnership and work together for
uh demonstrating best practices and build the integrity that makes everybody happy with how we're handling the stewardship of this and that's why I think our discussion needs to be with a focus of trying to get it right but also
being responsible and not incrementally seeing how this has grown over time and fallen on the backs of taxpayers The comment is made was by Chris Francis that our YMCA has the greatest
percentage of participation per capita of any YMCA in the country. The statement as is not made and I would guarantee that this would be true is that our YMCA is subsidized per capita greater than
any other YMCA in this country. I I think that that's provable. So our our discussion needs to be one that is for forthright and inclusive when it comes to talking about our responsibilities and our mutual agreements on these properties. So appreciate the
discussion. With that, I'll make a motion to approve the um the bid as represented and award the YMC cleaning contract to Morowitz Cleaning. >> Thanks. We have a motion from Commissioner Gamble, support from
Commissioner Sullivan. Further discussion hearing or seeing none. All those in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. >> Moving on to special meeting 1B. This is
a permit application for a raffle for Arrowhead AED Incorporated. Brady, would you do the honors? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is uh a raffle for the uh the proceeds to go for
the Arrowhead uh AED. Um the raffle occurs on Saturday, April 11th, 2026 at Up Yonder. And the reason it's here today is that uh the next meeting would be after the raffle. So,
that's why we asked to schedule it early. They didn't think of it in time. Um, they've paid their $5 fee and uh it's a standard request. It would normally be on consent agenda.
>> All right. Thank you. Any questions or Commissioner Selvin? >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution um that a raffle permit for Arrowhead AED for the raffle occurring on Saturday, April 11th, 2026 at Upyonder in Grand Marray.
>> Thank you. We have a motion. Is there support? >> I'll support. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Sullivan, support from Commissioner White. Any further discussion hearing or seeing none? All those in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. And moving on to item 1 C now is the sales pier national approve the loan for the EDA gentlemen come on up please. Thank you. >> All right. Uh Kristen, would you kick us
off? >> Absolutely. Thank you. All right. So, we have our our um representatives here from the EDA, Peter and Mark. Um, and we have an item before us regarding a $200,000 loan request from the EDA. So,
this has come before the board on a number of occasions over the last few months. Um, and last at the March 24th meeting where we saw a draft loan agreement. It was presented and discussed by the board and there were updates to that um that our county
attorney assisted with and I believe the EDA and the EDA's attorney as well. And so we have reattached the loan agreement and that's what's before us. So I'll turn it over to the EDA. >> Great. Thank you. Yes. And and special thanks to uh to Gene Peterson for
reviewing and and making amendments based on commissioner feedback. Uh so yes, we um we've been before this uh body a few times. Uh I think the most uh impactful was that 24th of February meeting in which we provided options for
the board to consider. Uh and the one that was landed on was to go ahead with that $200,000 loan that'll see us through the closing of Superior National. There was concerns regarding the mechanics lean on Gunflint
View, which is the loan of course that we're relying on for for repayment. And we believe that uh the verbiage in here, especially as it relates to payment terms in section three, uh addresses that. >> Thank you. Uh any comment from attorney
Peterson? I would just say that after our last meeting, I did exchange some emails with um Peter Clissold and so I believe what's reflected here is um indicative of what the board had asked
as far as being really clear that no repayment or forgiveness of indebtedness will occur by reason of future levy dollars or um future tax monies. >> Thank you. questions from Commissioner Gav.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Jeanie, for working on that. Appreciate it. Um, and Peter and whomever else was involved in doing that. Um, couple questions that I have. At our last meeting, it was indicated that um, right
now the amount of funds needed to continue operations through the sale uh was 155,000 roughly. That I think was was said. Um, so just so that we're we're clear, one of one of the questions coming out of our initial discussion and
your request was what the funds are going to be used for. Traditionally, the EDA has requested monies in the shoulder season because operations from Superior National uh of course has not been able to get us through that shoulder season.
So, we would give you the money, you'd pay the money back when things were up and running and the grass was green. And uh uh so just to be clear that this this request came in um with with a a
statement that said this will get us through the sale in May and this will help us to bring to compliance the property relative to the irrigation and the septic and um uh
I I think you know just for understanding and certainly for the public's understanding planning is that that $200,000 that is being requested. If if in my questions that were posed in one of our previous discussions on this
was knowing where that money will be applied, it would appear that that uh the amount of money that was projected at 150% of anticipated costs for those two things to bring it up compliant that
that is what brought us to that $200,000 request. Is it true that in reality what we're looking at is we're looking at the amount of money to get us to the sale which is an operational contribution and not necessarily the contribution to
those two things which might be funded through esco escrow monies that that's a question I have. >> Sure. It it in fact is is both. We've got two buckets that we're solving for. One is uh the operation of the of the golf course between now and and the
closing and at the closing itself the impact of irrigation and septic for which unless they are fixed before our closing because the closing date isn't set yet would be required to be held in escrow at 150%. And and so if in fact what we're saying
is in order to operate through that closing date as you know projected at that point we needed 155,000 for operations. Is that correct or not correct? >> No, that was for both. So right now >> okay >> with a with a week
>> extra time looking at it we're looking at $70,000 for operations and $120,000 for closing. >> Okay. Thank you for that. both moving on >> because when I had asked that question originally and you came back I wasn't clear on you were telling me this what we need for operations because that
would be leave very little for you know bringing things up to speed. So thank you for clarifying that. So it's a combination of of of the things that you brought to us initially saying we need some money to get to closing and we need the money to bring it up to compliance.
The other question that I would put to you respectfully is that at the time that you initially came to us, were you aware of the mechanics lead? >> No. No. In fact, uh, the county made us aware of the mechanics lean. >> Yeah. >> Uh, Kristen, Jean, and and Brady reached
out to us, I think, on on or about the 25th or thereabouts of February, at which point we engaged with uh, Gunpoint View to get more information that we shared with with the county in in real time. Yeah, I I appre I appreciate that. Um
and and in talking to all parties that have any involvement with the Gunflint View and the EDA uh and our legal staff on this that it it was something that was found through the legal department and and then that's
when we became aware of it. It does speak moving forward just generically that in contracts that are written that as a person that has lent money that if the entity that owes that money has
something that a lean that gets placed or something else that jeopardize the feasibility of likelihood that you will get your loan paid back. that there should be language in a document that says that if should this happen you need
to notify you know the the lender so the lender is aware of that it would just it would just be be good and what it does it is ensures both the integrity and understanding in the original grant of the loan monies as well as you know
whoever is affected by that and when we find out after the fact that that uh there is an obligation that that supersedes our obligation that that isn't good fiscal management, but it's it's a learning opportunity certainly in that regard. The other thing I would
just say is that because in in asking questions about this mechanics lean, the nature of this mechanics lean is not as egregious as it would be if it were the fact that the money wasn't there. It's simply trying to address issues on a
punch list and using the leverage that you have both from the providers as well as the people that are paying those providers for the work to be done. So I um I think it's important I mean each these opportunities are opportunities
for us to learn. We have a history with EDA as as to what we do with funding and different things. But here again, as we're evaluating entities within our county overall under the umbrella of governance, I think it's important that
we look at at how things are managed. And the other thing is is that uh as commissioners we attend, you know, different events like departments do and entities that serve uh under the subordination of county government that
we learn things about best practice. We learn things about fiscal management. We learn things of what it is that builds trust and relationship. And those things need to be practically applied in how we do business. And um and so as we do this
evaluation u of governance overall in Cook County with a new administrator, I I I just hope that we can build integrity and processes that build trust with our community and and certain certainly
that's that's going to be important element to support the words that we say that what we want to do in how we serve our people. We have mission statements. So, we have values that are stated and as I always say, words have meaning and people have a right to hold us
accountable to the things that we pledge. So, uh hopefully we can uh learn from these experiences and get better at what we do. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner White.
>> Um number of things. One in Yeah. building trust. The whole history with the EDA in this county has not been very I wouldn't even go so far as sterling and there's been uh um
the ADA has had some uh management difficulties with their bookkeeping and how that uh how that has happened over time. bringing uh data to the board to support
to support the existence of the EDA. To date, I don't know of a project that the EDA has um not cost the taxpayers money. I believe if what I have heard
and I was not sitting in a government position, at least not county government position when the decision was made to create the EDA and the promise was that this this loan will never cost the the
golf course will not cost the taxpayers any money. It will be self- sustaining. That didn't turn out to be the case. Uh we have the and then we have the uh EDA at least is not responsible for
what or management helped us with with the YMCA and all but they uh we have the business part which has not turned out well. There's still quite a problem with water mitigation. Um there was never a
primary or single water treatment or not treatment water system put in the park on all the lots so that every person who owns the lot has to do
their own mitigation plan and they are responsible for diverting the water in each of their lot and that and then it's not been overseen to see that indeed those parcel owners have followed the
mitigation plan and this just comes from the engineer uh Steve Anderson who is the person who draws up those plans for the individual property owners and there's just not
enough oversight. So to that with that in mind what uh our Peter what our attorney has written up uh I would like to make some amendments or changes that I believe
that having the date up into 2027 for repayment is too far and two based on the history of the EDA and I want you too to understand that you're just here. No, it's not it's not personally you
two. It is the history of this organization in this county and how it is operated. So, not a personal attack. How about if we put a writer in this
contract that if if indeed there is a problem getting this loan repaid, we as a commissioners will not fund or will look long and hard at funding the
EDA in the next goround of of doing the levies of setting the levy. we will not they will not be able to they will not be able to um guarantee that they will have that money coming in
if they come back to us for more money. It's a thought. >> Attorney Peterson >> um I want to make three points. Um the first is that just because the interest of transparency has come up and when the you know the timing of the lean I would just add to that discussion that there
was no indication that the the lean was known by the EDA in any of the conversations that I had. Um the second point I forgot so I'm going to move on to the third point which is that um while we could amend the proposed loan
document the board is free to set the EDA dollars at any amount at any point going forward. So um the risk in tying it to these funds is that if the funding were to change in the future is it as a
result of this? So, say the payment were made entirely, but the budget changes and therefore the funds are there's less funding available for the EDA in the future. I don't know that the board wants to tie its hands by saying that this is tied to that when you don't have
to. Just something for consideration. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I would say that the the 2027 date is as we probably all understand is set because that is
the time period in which that the Gunflint view that the funding that they are saying is the collateral for this is going to come back to them. When I looked at the original agreement, I wanted to be sure that there was language which our attorney had put in
there that said should Gunflint View settle this and pay it off early that that money then will be that that loan that we've made will be paid off at that time. And that assurance was to asssure that those monies wouldn't be used for
other things other than what was represented in the request to us. So, I'm I'm personally comfortable with the language based upon their ability to get the collateral that's being pledged, which is the 2027 date, September, I
believe. However, if they do get it earlier, they are required by the agreement to pay it off so that that money goes where they say it's going to be designated. I think the broader issue in evaluation and this is a very very
fair and respectful and I would just say to you if if you feel like you're being crucified today, you're not the only one on Good Friday. But uh the uh the point is is that the accountability when we do things and we say things, it needs to be
measured and we celebrate outcomes that are what we say and we do. And when we don't, we've got to learn from that. And then we have to, as your suggestion is, Commissioner White, rein it in a little bit to make sure that we do get the
fiscal accountability that we need, that we have accurate, forthright information that we can act on, informed correctly. And a lot of that has not happened. timelines and requests and things have been represented not to give
commissioners opportunity to really do the work that they need to do to be good stewards of the allocation of taxpayer dollars. As I've said from the beginning of this request, I'm in full support of
selling the golf course. I do not believe in the idiom that says the end justifies the means for most of the things in life. In this situation, I'm
saying if this will do what we should have done a long time ago, then I I will support this motion. But as I've said before, I'm in conflict with the principles that should be applied in in how we do business in this county and
with trying to get this done. So respectfully, if if we can get this done and support this motion with the understanding that like the discussion this morning has indicated, we need to step back and re-evaluate how we do
things and how we measure the effectiveness of the decisions we make. And if if we do that, then it's another opportunity for us to demonstrate to the community that we take seriously the responsibility that is entrusted to us
as fiscal respons being responsible for taxpayer dollars. Many times there are things that come before us that that through the initiative and resourcefulness of our departments and entities they have garnered the dollars
that do not require tax payment. And um and it's a lot easier to make decisions in those situations where we can increase the quality of the services that we provide to our community through dollars that come from elsewhere.
If you look at stepping back to the YMCA, if you look at Baiji that is planning on u breaking ground this spring for a YMCA, Biji, Minnesota, and they hope to have it completed in 2027
that in their question and answer to the community, uh the YMCA is building a facility that they will own and be responsible for. And then a separate line item says in no instance will any taxpayer dollar be used to support this.
It'll be supported through its operation. That doesn't mean we have to follow suit. But it does show that there is that concern that exists on the part of people as to how are you going to spend my money? >> And um we hear time and time again about
government needs to learn to do more with less. And we don't seem to understand how that's practically applied because we keep doing more with more of taxpayer money. And the tax and spend model is a model that will not ex
you can't sustain it. So anyway, having said that, I will I will support the motion uh because in this case, it'll get us to where we where we need to be. But I think we've drafted a document that protects us um and builds that
accountability in there which if we mutually agree to we'll comply with and hopefully move on. >> Well, I just have one more thing and I'm sure this is way too late. We're way down the road at this point, but I think
no offense to you. I really believe we maybe should have gotten a second opinion because of the complexity of this sale and because of the personally uh sus skepticism I have with uh the EDA
and the numbers presented and the PE people that they truly this is not personal that they are presenting to us that will just trust us, trust them, trust us. And
that can't happen. That will never happen with the EDA until time goes along and they have proven and have not cost the taxpayers money and that they have indeed brought brought money into the county in support
of businesses, in support of development. So we do have uh I believe agreement with Fryberger Buchanan. Do you know >> we uh frequently work with them and have
>> contact and so there's a and it's too late now but it would have been good if we would have had another second opinion because doctors and lawyers practice they
practice law and there's not one straight answer. It's sort of like accounting and numbers. You can interpret things and you can get it set, you know, but there's things behind it's the investigative thing. And and I'm not
discounting the uh success of our our own uh lawyer, but um going forward, we you're absolutely right. as a as a
board need to be not just uh we can't put things just we can't say things and then forget about it and not follow through like oh yeah I'll do that and then we just like don't do that and it seems like we have to be
responsible it's like with the YMCA how many times have the boards people sitting up at this situation asked the YMCA for numbers and they haven't gotten them do they just blow us off. So uh we have to change
that. So and I believe we need to get rid of this golf course also. Even if we are really we have to end the pain for the taxpayers and even though we know that it even though I feel that we could have been getting a better deal, we just have to
get this done. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, >> I'm sorry. >> Can I just briefly respond? Um, I just want to make it clear that I was not representing the EDA in any of the sale or the seller. So, I haven't reviewed or
vetted. I'm not involved in that process. So, I >> No, I wouldn't be a second opinion. It would be a >> first opinion. Okay. >> So, >> uh, Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your forbearance here. >> Infinite. >> Yeah.
um and to respond. And I think that's important uh that our attorney has pointed that out >> because without clarity, it's easy for people to make assumptions based upon very little information. So, it's important. I I would I would agree with
your your comments, Commissioner White. I think the problem is is that um uh and I'll just say this a a generic statement, but oftent times organizations learn coming before the board. If we come at the last minute, we don't give them the opportunity to to
dig into it and to understand things. And that's a problem. And the only way you can stop that is is refuse to give them what they want at the point that they come because they aren't following the process that builds integrity in how we respond and allocate taxpayer
dollars. And so, um, unfortunately, we're running up against timelines in this regard, too. and and so we need to be fiscally responsible but also mindful of can we get the the ultimate end that
we're looking for which is to devest ourselves of the responsibility of this golf course and give it to somebody that has proven that they know what they're doing and hopefully they can do it here. So um I uh I appreciate the conversation. And
I hope we're we're learning from it. And um um I I will make a motion, like I say, conflicted, but making a motion to move this forward that uh given the the work that we've done in partnership to draft
language that we think protects us and we're clear and understand that language that uh I would make a motion to support that we take from our reserve fund $200,000 with the intent that it'll be paid back
no later than September 2027. And if those funds become available earlier, as defined in the contract, it will be paid off at that time. And should there be any problems unforeseen that come up, the language in the contract says that
the EDA will not come back and ask for taxpayer dollars or additional reserve fund dollars to retire this loan. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Is there support? >> Support. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Gamble, support from Commissioner Sullivan. Any further
discussion? Commissioner, >> I would just like to say that I also am quite conflicted because in my personal life, I would say take my chances. We'll walk away. There's some it's a good piece of real estate and there's a great
opportunity and and people people have money in this that come to this county where they can spend writing checks 1.4 4 million for their second home. So for another point4 million they could
have had this whole golf course which you know but um it's it has become an albatross and we need to get rid of this one. But going forward, we need to be far more uh
invested timewise eyes on what's going on with the budgets of the EDA and the HA and the YMCA and because they ultimately come to the deep pockets. So
I that's all I have to say. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. a question. I don't at least I'm not aware, but did we hear back from the Nelson family? >> No. No. The 90-day right of first refusal period is still open. We have not heard back from them yet.
>> Okay. So, at whatever point in time we hear back on that, we'll be appraised of that then, I'm assuming. So, >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other discussion? >> Also, I'll call the vote. All those in favor? >> I
>> I those opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much, gentlemen. >> And that uh brings us to our second item, which is adjournment. We are adjourned. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, I didn't make any friends, but I
don't >> which is why you're just going to throw them on there so that we can, you know, get done. >> Little quick whatever. talked to just not about this at all cuz she doesn't want to hear about it.