WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=9kIYGxiVZVM

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: 9kIYGxiVZVM):
- 00:00:54: Call to Order, Prayer, Pledge, and Opening Remarks
- 00:02:36: Fire Department and TDC Thanks, Memorial Day Announcement
- 00:03:39: Proclamation Reading for Emergency Medical Services Week
- 00:07:32: Fire Department Recognition of EMS Personnel and Awards
- 00:13:39: Council Member Comments and Concerns: Pier Inspection Update
- 00:16:33: City and County Cooperation Discussion and Consent Agenda
- 00:17:40: St. Vincent de Paul Walkathon Presentation and Explanation
- 00:23:17: Walkathon Approval, Liability Insurance, and Golf Course Intro
- 00:23:52: Discussion of Golf Course Lease Agreement Redlines; Timeline
- 00:31:38: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Paragraph 2 and 4 Discussion
- 00:33:55: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Max Long Access and Drainage
- 00:37:35: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Member Agreements and Chemicals
- 00:40:03: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Alterations and Improvements
- 00:42:16: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Assignments, Subleases, Encumberance
- 00:49:09: Golf Course Lease Agreement: Renovations and Default Terms
- 00:54:12: Discussion of Conservation Easement Possibilities & Concerns
- 00:57:18: Disagreement on Lease Payments and Contract Extension Compromise
- 01:01:07: Finalizing Golf Course Lease: Timeline and Clarification Concerns
- 01:09:10: Public Comment: Jeff Carlson on Agreement Contradictions
- 01:19:44: Public Comment: Lease Payment Concerns and Sublease Clarification
- 01:21:44: Public Comment: Membership Issues and Future Concerns
- 01:28:13: Final Contract Revisions and Motion to Modify Lease Agreement
- 01:30:01: Ordinance Amending Police Officer Retirement Board Appointment
- 01:31:32: Class Action Lawsuit Discussion and Acceptance of Retainer
- 01:33:59: Environmental Report, Wall Street Street Direction Concerns
- 01:42:36: Approve Paying of Bills


Part: 1

1
00:00:54.559 --> 00:01:13.600
Well, good evening everybody. It is 5:30 Tuesday, May 19th. I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. Then I'm going to ask the mayor if you can lead us in a prayer and pledge. >> Sure. Lord, thank you once again for this blessing us with a wonderful city that you live in. Well, thank you for the

2
00:01:13.600 --> 00:01:29.119
wonderful city we live in. Thank you for the staff that keeps it moving gracefully and beautiful. Thank you for the council and ask them and guide them to make sound and right decisions. We ask that you watch over our first responders who we are blessed to have

3
00:01:29.119 --> 00:01:45.439
and are going to honor tonight. We also ask that uh as we approach Memorial Day, we pause with gratitude to honor the brave men and women who gave their lives in service for our nation. May their sacrifices

4
00:01:45.439 --> 00:02:00.320
never be forgotten. May their families find comfort and peace. And may God continue to bless and protect our veterans, our active military, and the United States of America. Amen. >> Amen.

5
00:02:00.320 --> 00:02:16.400
>> Pledge allegiance to the flag the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, Mayor

6
00:02:16.400 --> 00:02:36.239
Rene. Can you call the >> here >> Thank you. business from the audience. If anybody wants to speak on anything that is not on the agenda, uh please see uh Mr. Renee and she will give you a little form to fill out when we get into that

7
00:02:36.239 --> 00:02:52.080
part of meeting. You'll have three minutes to talk about anything that you would like to talk to us about. >> I got a couple things. Want to thank the fire department, uh Austinatics for organizing the bike rodeo they had this last weekend. Had a great turnout. Had a ton of bikes to give away and a ton of

8
00:02:52.080 --> 00:03:06.400
people that came. So, thanks to the fire department and also for PD for supporting it. They did a heck of a job in wrapping hot dogs. So, but uh no, they both both teams did a great job. So, it's really kind of nice to see

9
00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:23.280
that part of the community. Um uh last week the TDC had their awards breakfast. So, thanks Casey's here uh for putting that on and for all you do for TDC to promote the county and the city. And also, we have Memorial Day coming up. The sea services uh museum has their

10
00:03:23.280 --> 00:03:39.120
annual Memorial Day event which is Monday. This Monday at 2 o'clock. You all are invited to come. It's a pretty good little ceremony. It's a short and sweet but it's uh it's really neat. They do a good job. And finally, uh

11
00:03:39.120 --> 00:05:01.759
I've got a proclamation here I'd like to read and it really honors our first responders. It's just it's in honor of emergency medical services week. So, if I could have the fire department and you guys come on up, please read the proclamation. And whereas access to quality emergency

12
00:05:01.759 --> 00:05:20.560
care dramatically improves recovery those who experience and whereas services gaps by providing important out of hospital care medicine And whereas the emergency medical

13
00:05:20.560 --> 00:05:41.440
service, paramedics, emergency medical, firefighters, police officers, educators, administrators, prehosp nurses, emergency nurses, public Whereas members of emergency medical

14
00:05:41.440 --> 00:07:32.639
services team emergency medical service therefore 202 week ceremonies profession. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Assistant Chief Austin

15
00:07:32.639 --> 00:07:49.440
Matic, City of Sebring Fire Department. So, in honor of EMS week, we actually had a really unique event happen a couple weeks ago, and I'm going to speak a little bit on that and also give some awards out for these children. So, I'm honored today to stand here and

16
00:07:49.440 --> 00:08:06.160
present to you five individuals that were able to make a different in a person's life, a difference in a person's life as well as their families. On May 7th, 2026, SEN Fire Department, Engine 15, and Rescue 10, Highlands County ran a cardiac arrest at a local

17
00:08:06.160 --> 00:08:21.599
restaurant on Highway 27 near the Marshalls Plaza. Now, I'm going to do my best to try to paint a picture for you all, okay? At times we use EMS terms and fire terms and people are like what are they talking? So the city of Sebring fire department

18
00:08:21.599 --> 00:08:38.719
engine 15 responded from on highway 27 next to the old sunnies which is now the grill on Lake Jackson at the blinking caution light. Highlands County Fire Rescue Station 10 rescue 10 responded from Hammock Road.

19
00:08:38.719 --> 00:08:53.680
Now obviously they're going to be a little bit behind us. Captain Paramedic Rivera hearing the call also responded from downtown due to the nature of the call and provided scene control and assists were needed. Engine 15 responded and were able to

20
00:08:53.680 --> 00:09:09.360
make it to the patient in 5 minutes and 12 seconds at 4:45 in the afternoon. So you can imagine what Highway 27 was like at that time. Upon Sebring Fire Engine 15's arrival, both senior engineer Waldron and firefighter Cruz, which are also paramedic students, were able to

21
00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:26.160
immediately get a patient assessment and relay to dispatch in the incoming rescue unit that they were working a patient in cardiac arrest. They were able to use an AED to defibrillate the patient and start CPR and ventilations using basic life support skills. Roughly two minutes

22
00:09:26.160 --> 00:09:43.200
after Engine 15's arrival, Holland County Rescue 10 showed up with paramedic Sorenson and EMT Bobo along with Captain Rivera from downtown. The crews immediately unified and began advanced life support efforts. They were

23
00:09:43.200 --> 00:09:59.920
they were able to establish IV lines for medications, put the patient on a cardiac monitor, which also transmit data to Advent Health immediately, and were able to secure an advanced airway to assist the patient with breathing. Once this was

24
00:09:59.920 --> 00:10:16.000
all done, the patient was transported to Advent Health where he was immediately taken to the Kath lab for a procedure. After the completion of the intervention of the patient, he was stabilized and sent for recovery. Five days later, after continued monitoring, the gentleman was able to be released from the hospital and go home

25
00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:31.920
to his family. One thing that I want to do today is I want to thank council and administration as well as our taxpayers for understanding the importance of continued growth in our city and how our advanced life support program is continuing to grow and how important

26
00:10:31.920 --> 00:10:53.360
time can be a factor in saving lives. I also want to recognize Jim Light from Advent Health and his Cath Lab team for their interventions that day. So, round of applause. So, with that, I've got a plaque and

27
00:10:53.360 --> 00:11:29.200
also on behalf of Chief Border, I've got a a challenge point. So, I'm going to call each individual up. First up, Clayton Wal. All right, next up is Jonathan Sorenson, Highlands County Fire Rescue Paramedic. All

28
00:11:38.240 --> 00:12:26.639
right, next up and the one who has beat our heads to death about ALS and paramedic and has done a phenomenal job of getting this started with everyone's help is Captain Paramedic Carlos Rivera. Urban Cruz. And last but not least, Canon Bobo. He's

29
00:12:26.639 --> 00:12:43.279
not with us tonight, but he was the MT on the rescue for Hon County that day. So, we'll make sure that he gets this. But with that being said, just again what we're doing in the city nowadays, um it's things that probably weren't talked about 10 years ago. I don't think people would have ever thought we'd have been an ALS department, but we're

30
00:12:43.279 --> 00:13:39.279
continuing to work towards that and we're also continuing to work with Highlands County and uh it's just an awesome thing. So, thank you all again. Thank you all. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> All right. Over to council members

31
00:13:39.279 --> 00:13:56.480
comments, concerns, leazison reports. We'll start with you, Rebecca. So, a couple little things. One, congratulations um to these gentlemen involved in that call. Uh one of the things I want to piggyback on what Assistant Chief Maddox said when the

32
00:13:56.480 --> 00:14:11.600
fire department first approached us about ALS, you know, like I said, probably a couple years ago when that started, one of the things that they said is that this could and probably would result in lives being saved. Um and and it has and that is a big deal. You know, it's expensive. It's not

33
00:14:11.600 --> 00:14:27.120
cheap. It's a it's a big undertaking for a small tax base like ours, but it has a real impact. So, um I'm really happy to see that result and and excellent work you guys. Um the only other thing I want to mention is during um I think our CIP

34
00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:41.760
meeting a couple weeks ago, we talked about um getting an engineer out to the city pier to take a look and we were quoted a pretty high charge for an outside source. I did speak to Carl Cool um who was willing to come out and just do a visual inspection, not a written

35
00:14:41.760 --> 00:14:58.880
letter, not anything, you know, um formal, but to walk it. He walked it with um Steve in public works and myself and Scott and um didn't observe anything that would warrant in his estimation um an extreme engineering response. some

36
00:14:58.880 --> 00:15:16.240
ideas to maybe protect the pier in the future should some of those arise, but nothing that he observed that was um an immediate concern. So, just a a heads up on that. And he did talk about some potential future uh plans with Steve on how to uh basically do some some

37
00:15:16.240 --> 00:15:32.000
maintenance to the pier. Still expensive maintenance, but less expensive maybe than potentially. Um and want to give you guys an update on that. >> Is there any rebar exposed? >> No. None. there's no spalling occurring, you know, there some of the cement has worn away, so there's exposed aggregate

38
00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:49.680
on the peers. Um, but no no spalling, no evidence of um rust occurring, no discoloration. And see, he had no concerns about that. And his advice, well, really he said that that aggregate might have been exposed since, you know, he was a kid doing PE down there. Um,

39
00:15:49.680 --> 00:16:05.920
but he he gave us some recommendations on what we could do to reinforce that. basically some some supports and then pouring it again just to to protect the rebar. >> Just a new casing. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Is that something that we need to be doing in the budget this year to get

40
00:16:05.920 --> 00:16:33.519
that addressed? >> I believe Steve already had some funds in in the budget to address maintenance there. >> Very good. That's really good news. >> David, >> no report. >> Nothing to add. >> Um, I guess just to echo Josh, thank

41
00:16:33.519 --> 00:16:50.399
you. Fire department been in a lot of meetings in the last two weeks of how important it is to have really good relationships with our sister municipalities, with the county, with other districts. So, it's just nice to see city and and county working together

42
00:16:50.399 --> 00:17:06.000
and accomplishing a lot. We've seen a lot of group trains. We did the the exercises at Lake Jackson at Veterans Beach. So, it's just really good momentum and really thankful for the relationship and partnership with the county. Thank you all.

43
00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:21.760
And that that's it. So, u now we will looking at the uh consent agenda discussion or things about that. If not, then I'll entertain a motion. >> I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. >> Second.

44
00:17:21.760 --> 00:17:40.640
Motion in a second. Is there anybody who has wants to talk about the consent agenda? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Steuart? >> Yes. >> Yes. There is no old business. Moving on to new business. Uh Sonia,

45
00:17:40.640 --> 00:18:14.080
>> you want to come up and talk about the walkathon? I feel better. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> I was Do you have any questions? So, how should I start? This is my first time, so >> that's fine. Just tell us a little bit

46
00:18:14.080 --> 00:18:28.880
about the event. >> Okay, perfect. the we have we're planning to have a walkathon the giving and walkathon. I am uh with St. Vincent the Paul with the

47
00:18:28.880 --> 00:18:50.240
Catholic Church here in Lake Father said uh it's a fundraiser to raise money to buy food. Why? Well, we we buy food at the pantry at the food pantry here, but it's not enough. Sometimes they don't have not always

48
00:18:50.240 --> 00:19:05.039
they have what our clients need. So, we do donations from church. It's that we go out and we buy food at the uh supermarkets, the local stores.

49
00:19:05.039 --> 00:19:21.039
So, we we truly need a fun rate. We serve in average weekly 50 individuals and their families. So that hits between 136 and 151 individuals.

50
00:19:21.039 --> 00:19:38.640
I'm sure you're better than me with math. It gives you a total monthly probably between 6 and 800 individuals and their families that we help as well as the homeless. We also uh give them

51
00:19:38.640 --> 00:19:56.400
clothing if we have the clothing. Sometimes we go out and buy clothing for them if we have the funds and toiletries and we have been paying as I said upon availability of funds utilities. We have

52
00:19:56.400 --> 00:20:13.360
been paying gas, we have been paying uh Duke Energy and water and right now the funds are are drying. So, we need to do something about it. And this is one of the things that we came up

53
00:20:13.360 --> 00:20:30.960
with. Um and and basically that is the objective that is I think you have a map. They told us that you have everything else you could have a mile. We expect a lot of the air to elderly to

54
00:20:30.960 --> 00:20:48.640
join us. So we're not forcing them to. And then that's basically it. Do you have any questions for me? >> Thank you very much. Any questions, council? >> I'm assuming you're going to provide like water and things like that um for your walkers.

55
00:20:48.640 --> 00:21:08.080
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> I don't know if >> she just stepped out. Okay. And uh and I I asked her I said, "Do I have to request waver for the other?" If they don't know, we included

56
00:21:08.080 --> 00:21:28.919
that. Don't worry about that. So, I hope you us not for us. And thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. And thank you for what you're doing for the community. >> Thank you. Would you explain what a walk of

57
00:21:30.080 --> 00:21:49.600
So, the walk-athon will be a 4hour event where we will um have a mapped out section around St. Catherine's Church on Lake View. And the goal will be each participant to walk this mapped out area

58
00:21:49.600 --> 00:22:06.320
which is currently approximately half a mile. And each walker will be responsible to get a and according to how much um how many miles they walk that distance, they will

59
00:22:06.320 --> 00:22:23.760
be able to get that much money donated. So, if a person, for example, were to say, "Well, I'll sponsor you um $5 a mile." If that person completes eight miles, they will have that $40 and that money will go to um the efforts of St.

60
00:22:23.760 --> 00:22:38.240
in Nepal which currently our main effort really is to um provide food for those who need and um we are we are always giving out food every Thursday at 10:00

61
00:22:38.240 --> 00:22:56.159
a.m. and we accept all those donations mostly from our own parish at St. But the Heartland Food Bank is one of the places we acquire a lot of the food from that we purchase and um like Sonia said, we also help in those other needs,

62
00:22:56.159 --> 00:23:17.200
utility needs and such on so forth. But I hope that answers your question on the walkthon. >> And real quick too, sorry. Uh could you state your name for the record? >> Oh, my name is Anthony Fontanz. >> Y thank you. Thank you for that presentation. I'll request a motion.

63
00:23:17.200 --> 00:23:35.120
>> Make a motion that we approve the event as presented with the event organizer providing a certificate of liability insurance listing the city as additional insured at least 10 days prior to the event. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any other additional comments? >> Yes.

64
00:23:35.120 --> 00:23:52.120
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Stewart. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, business from the audience. this Debbie. Uh I see that you're listed, but we So the next thing on the agenda is going to be the golf course discussion with Bob. So happy to have you speak.

65
00:23:52.880 --> 00:24:13.360
>> Yes, ma'am. If you like to Bob, it's your turn. All right. Agenda item 12A is a draft golf course force lease. Um, and you see it's a what's called a red line or comparison version. And the the

66
00:24:13.360 --> 00:24:28.159
two versions that are being compared the single document are the version that the uh the Blackman group sent and it the the my version that is a more

67
00:24:28.159 --> 00:24:45.039
city favored version. And the city favored version has the underscores that you see in the document. The things that are stricken out were things that were in the Blackman version that my version would uh delete. So as as we're going through that kind of guides you the

68
00:24:45.039 --> 00:24:59.919
things that are underlined came from city side deleted things uh were things that we are asking to take out of the the black side. So overall, back through the RFP, uh

69
00:24:59.919 --> 00:25:16.080
there was a fairly strong sentiment that the golf course and the hotel ought to be sort of linked together, that it was going to be an amenity for the hotel. Uh and there was uh just comments made by council that those two were should sort

70
00:25:16.080 --> 00:25:30.960
of travel together. So that the the nature of the changes center on that. There was a concern expressed over the term 99year lease is what the blackwoods asked for. What you'll see in this draft is a shorter

71
00:25:30.960 --> 00:25:49.679
period at uh 50 years. Um similar to the golf course and and being linked together at 51% uh let me address that for a minute. uh rent. There was discussion of whether there should be more than the $1 per

72
00:25:49.679 --> 00:26:05.919
year that was proposed by the Blackman's. Uh what you see in this draft is still the $1 that that was raised as an issue during the council meeting where the RFP was discussed and then the uh Severing Golf Association contract and current member

73
00:26:05.919 --> 00:26:22.000
uh benefits. Uh the the Blackmans had wanted to make some changes to those things. uh my version has them still abiding by all parts of that agreement. So uh going through the uh ground lease

74
00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:39.520
sort of page by page if you will uh in paragraph two you'll see the uh the purpose is just expressed a little more that this the idea is that it links the two together. Um the the golf course really ought to be an amenity to the

75
00:26:39.520 --> 00:26:55.440
hotel and not one day separated out to be golf course operated by somebody else and a hotel that becomes maybe an apartment complex, condo or assisted living facility of some sort. Uh the renewal is now that there isn't a

76
00:26:55.440 --> 00:27:12.159
renewal certainly that is something that we can discuss. The term is now through the year 2076. So, a 50-year term. Obviously, the tenant at any point could ask for an extension of that. Council could certainly consider that. But

77
00:27:12.159 --> 00:27:28.000
>> yes, sir. >> Can we ask questions as we go through this or comments? >> Can we draft the language? I think a lot of this stuff is just a misinterpretation. We interpret it one way, they interpret it the other way. And we clarify to where we draft language that says that

78
00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:44.159
an extension may be negotiated, not not a given 100%, but that there's a availability to negotiate an extension. So that that can be added.

79
00:27:44.159 --> 00:28:00.799
agreements to make an agreement in the future are not binding, but it it we can add that if it makes them feel more comfortable that at least council, whatever council there may be at that time, we'll listen to the requests if they come in. >> And if I can butt in too, so I think for today too, what I'm thinking with with

80
00:28:00.799 --> 00:28:17.039
this whole process as we go through this, I think there's a lot of different ways that we can discuss this contract and what this lease is. I'd like to maybe set like a a time frame on this and say, "Hey, this is what we want to accomplish tonight." going through the lease, going through the red lines, going through anything that council

81
00:28:17.039 --> 00:28:34.240
wants to discuss, mark it up so we can give some guidance to to Bob to to say, "Hey, this is the idea of what we've talked about over the last several weeks since the RFP. Um, these are the adjustments that we agree on tonight that we want to establish tonight." So hopefully by the end of it, we can give

82
00:28:34.240 --> 00:28:50.720
you that framework of this is the agreement. This is the contract that we think is best for the city and then we put a timeline of when we get that over to the blacks and if they agree to this lease agreement, then I would like personally, whatever you all think too, but I think that we should put a a date

83
00:28:50.720 --> 00:29:08.799
on this too to say this is what we think we need. We need a yes or no by I I think June 15th. I think that gives them plenty of time knowing that we need to to make a decision one way or the other. And if they want to take u uh ownership

84
00:29:08.799 --> 00:29:25.520
and start their operations October 1st, that gives us enough time during the due diligence period of the 90 days. So that that's what I would propose. Let's go over this and Bob can explain the red line comments. we can make our comments and that's the the timeline what this looks like so we can give some clarity

85
00:29:25.520 --> 00:29:44.640
to staff employees of this is the direction that we're going that's my thought but that's where >> before we dive into what council thinks >> I'm happy with that timeline I think we need to get this thing wrapped >> David for the benefit of the audience

86
00:29:44.640 --> 00:30:00.720
the city operates on a fiscal year that begins October one when we talk timing and timelines. The idea is that the tenant would have the opportunity to undertake their due diligence and with enough time to start taking over the golf course, not own it, but start the

87
00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:19.279
lease taking over operation by October one of this year, which would then take it off the city's books for the upcoming fiscal year. >> We're we're in entering in a budget season. We need to know. any thoughts on that before we dive into

88
00:30:19.279 --> 00:30:34.799
>> I was just counting the dates. So, yes, that sounds good. So, yes, >> I mean, I like the way you want to run it and give the comments at the end and kind of see how it shakes out. >> And I think as we go through it, too, if if there's issues that we see during the

89
00:30:34.799 --> 00:30:51.200
red lines, >> that's fine. >> Roland, any thoughts on that? Like, >> I'm good. >> I think with that being said, I know we talk about this how we're going to run this, but we if we go through the red lines. Um, so just so the public knows too and probably correct me if I'm wrong. I believe this is version 13 of

90
00:30:51.200 --> 00:31:06.720
the contract. >> Maybe maybe higher. >> 13 or or 14. So this isn't like just the city is coming with the contract. Take it or leave it. We've been working with the Blacks for going on a year and a half, two years going back and forth. So we're just trying to say we've been

91
00:31:06.720 --> 00:31:22.159
doing this for a year and a half. We need to make a decision. So, it's and this is what we think is best for the city. Um, and we want to be agreeable and work with them as well to make the most fair, equitable, uh, safe, protected contracting agreement that we

92
00:31:22.159 --> 00:31:38.240
can come up with, too. So, just want to throw that out there. This is a year and a half in the making. We make a decision. So that being said, I think we already talked about the the second underlying or the second paragraph. What any comments or things

93
00:31:38.240 --> 00:31:52.559
so far? >> Talk about paragraph 4. >> Well, so we talked about paragraph two, we talked about the renewal. >> I I'm fine with it with something that says that may renew, but I don't want to lock in some automatic renewal. You know, it's got to be sure if council in

94
00:31:52.559 --> 00:32:08.480
50 years wants wants to renew, they can, but not is automatic. >> I think there should be something though that kind of alludes to the fact that the intention of this council was to enter into the lease, you know, for the period of time and not just

95
00:32:08.480 --> 00:32:26.480
>> That's not my intention. >> Yeah. 50 >> in. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we can add in Yes. The renewal option. >> Yeah. As long as it is clear that it is

96
00:32:26.480 --> 00:32:42.559
an option, not an not an expectation, not an automatic. You know, future council can renew it if they want. >> What number to that years for that renewal? >> It does it matter. It's not binding. >> More specific you make it, the more likely it would be interpreted as

97
00:32:42.559 --> 00:33:00.919
binding. >> I'd rather not do it. >> I mean, again, my >> it can be soft language that says the parties will, you know, because they may not want it in 50 years. >> Sure. So no matter what the city thought

98
00:33:00.960 --> 00:33:22.799
my intention is 50 >> I agree with the the 50 >> I understand I mean they're putting a whole lot investment in that so I'm okay with that too but right in in a perfect world we'd love to have brought back an agreed form of lease for you all to consider

99
00:33:22.799 --> 00:33:39.039
that that didn't happen so We're trying to at least take a shot at seeing if we can get this done with them. Uh that may be something they come back to us and say they want to have in there. And the idea is we between now and say early June, we'd like to get

100
00:33:39.039 --> 00:33:55.679
comments back if any from them. That way we can incorporate them and be ready with an agreed version by June 15 or not if they aren't willing. Uh but that that's sort of our our hope with with the time we have between now and mid June. >> Okay. So, we're really looking for if there's any non-starters in this from

101
00:33:55.679 --> 00:34:11.359
one side or the other. We need to know about those right now. >> Let me move on to paragraph 8 to be the next real substantive change. Uh, so in your mind's eye, the city owned, we we called it the booth, but the city owned

102
00:34:11.359 --> 00:34:30.960
uh a piece of property. Uh, Scott, can you get the GIS? M, >> can you go uh exhibit? >> It doesn't really show us. Well, >> uh the city owns from the golf course and if you're thinking if you're going to to the soccer fields at Max Long,

103
00:34:30.960 --> 00:34:47.440
there's a piece of property that comes out between the softball field on that would be on your right and it comes all the way out to Westminster. Uh we >> behind the recycling >> recycling that that area we it looks a bit like Italy. Uh we've called it the

104
00:34:47.440 --> 00:35:11.040
boot. Scott, can you build both GI? That might be easier. >> Well, while he's pulling that off, we we have talked of carving that off and not in not having that as part of the lease for at least the last year and a half. Uh so we intentionally did not include

105
00:35:11.040 --> 00:35:26.240
that in the RFP to what would be part of the leaseold. And and the reason is council is looking at Max Long and what improvements it may wish to do there. Uh they have requested the Blackmans have requested a permanent ease access

106
00:35:26.240 --> 00:35:42.880
easement across that portion that boot and Scott's going to bring it up here in a second. Uh my recommendation is to not give a permanent uh easement across that. If you may wish to do something otherwise later, you can always uh provide them temporary access through

107
00:35:42.880 --> 00:36:15.359
that portion of the property through uh other city property. But dedicated permanent access gets in the way of or or could get in the way of what you plan to do with that property down the road. Thank you.

108
00:36:15.359 --> 00:36:30.560
>> So, we can they had mentioned that they were going to do some modification to some of the fairways and wanted to bring some heavy equipment. They didn't want to take it all the way across the golf course if they did get another pond is what they were talking about that they wanted to

109
00:36:30.560 --> 00:36:46.000
have access there. So, I think temporary access. Now, if we reconfigure max long and that becomes all hard surface and you can't get there, but I think right now it's just a it's a sand road. So, >> I'm fine with with saying something that

110
00:36:46.000 --> 00:37:04.079
nature of temporary access, you know, until it's not feasible or right, >> you know, something like that as long as it's not permanently ingrained no matter what. you know, we don't want them tearing up fields if we've got >> No, you know, >> and so just basically access to get

111
00:37:04.079 --> 00:37:19.760
equipment, >> right? >> That's what I've been told. So, >> you can see that access right now. >> The city currently uses that. I'm not the right person to speak about what it's used for. It probably to and from Max Long, but those that take care of

112
00:37:19.760 --> 00:37:35.920
both. Uh anybody unless there's more comments on that I'll move to uh nine let's see 10 rather I think we are in agreement that the the uh tenant would maintain the drainage on the golf course. They don't

113
00:37:35.920 --> 00:37:51.760
have to maintain anything off the golf course. U 10 is the members agreement the SGA agreement. And my my version recommends that the city require them to to maintain

114
00:37:51.760 --> 00:38:08.560
do what the city said it would do when they take over the golf course that it would honor the pricing, the benefits, etc. That was put in the RFQ to do otherwise. And now city would be in breach of that agreement when if uh the tenant were to change pricing

115
00:38:08.560 --> 00:38:26.560
reimbursements or or whatever else that may come at that agreement or change the benefits >> that primarily is for the SGA group >> right whatever members are there now there's only I guess what Scott you said there's only like 20ome members

116
00:38:26.560 --> 00:38:47.760
>> in the neighborhood >> je I know you're a lot of Can we hold off all comments until we go through this? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Sorry. >> My question is that you're covering page by page and paragraph by paragraph and

117
00:38:47.760 --> 00:39:13.119
those of us that have notes on several paragraphs. Do you want us to not cover those while you're covering them and bring them back up at the end and go through our paragraph by paragraph? >> I think so. Okay. Thanks, John. Um, I'm now in paragraph 17. It's on

118
00:39:13.119 --> 00:39:29.599
printed page six of 11. The Blackman's requested an inventory of any chemicals presently stored on the property and a list of any that have ever been used there. That's a little much. So, I'd recommend deleting that.

119
00:39:29.599 --> 00:39:45.839
But we could get an inventory pretty easy >> of of current. Yes, correct. Of any that may have ever been used, which is one of the the second part of their request. I think that's too much to ask for. And certainly in the 90-day due diligence they have, they can do phase one environmentals. They can they can do whatever

120
00:39:45.839 --> 00:40:03.119
>> analysis they want to do to see if if there are they have any. But >> we can provide what's current. >> Sure. >> I I recommend not doing it just because there's is there some stored somewhere that Maybe nobody currently knows about

121
00:40:03.119 --> 00:40:23.280
>> we know about >> that that we can do. >> Move on from sorry uh can we go to 14 with alterations. >> Yes sir. >> Which uh this is talking about the general improvement plan. Um so just anything that they want to do to

122
00:40:23.280 --> 00:40:40.880
change up the layout or add add things. Uh it's basically my reading is listed in the general improvement plan but there's a small word but the during the due diligence period the the tenant we may be able to uh request and to see the

123
00:40:40.880 --> 00:40:56.480
general improvement plan I feel like if if there is a general improvement plan and if we want to be able to see it as the re if we want to be able to see it we should be able to see it not uh we may be able to see see it I want to know what's going on with it. So the as a

124
00:40:56.480 --> 00:41:12.480
whole they have to have um approval to make any alterations that the general improvement plan was if they bring a a whole plan of improvements to you and you say all all of those things are fine they don't have to come back and ask individually you're sort of blessing it all on the front end.

125
00:41:12.480 --> 00:41:28.000
>> So in a way is that during the due diligence period they are going to provide that to us? I I well then or from time to time during the term of the lease, they can they can provide that. Uh it's it's really up to them how often

126
00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:44.319
do they want to come ask council for changes to this and that. U >> so it basically says they could bring a master plan and have us approve it in one shot or they have to ask us each time they make an alteration. >> And they do have to ask otherwise. If they don't bring a plan, they've got to

127
00:41:44.319 --> 00:42:00.640
ask you for any changes. Now, granted, they may just make some changes and you're not watching, you may not know, but that this is pretty standard for uh leases that the the tenant can't make approve improvements or changes without the landlord's approval. >> So, just for clarification for me, we're

128
00:42:00.640 --> 00:42:16.640
either improving the general improvement plan as a whole or they're coming to us for individual changes that they want to make and they have to get our permission. >> Yes, sir. Or all the above. They can do the plan and then come back and say, "Hey, we have also remembered we want to do these things." >> Okay. The comps, they can combine. We could do one one

129
00:42:16.640 --> 00:42:47.359
>> or later do another general. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. U anyone have any comments prior to 21? This is what's tying the golf course and the ownership of the hotel together that somebody has to have a let me back up. The assignment and what is common in

130
00:42:47.359 --> 00:43:03.680
commercial leases is the assignment has to be approved by the landlord. This says if it is to someone that has a 51% ownership interest in the hotel, they can automatically assign the golf course lease without asking for permission. Otherwise, they've got to ask for

131
00:43:03.680 --> 00:43:20.160
permission. So essentially it's tied to the majority owner of the Harter Hall Hotel unless they ask and grant otherwise. >> Correct. And the their request to you can't be sort of unreasonably

132
00:43:20.160 --> 00:43:43.520
uh refused which that's normal. >> Okay. You'd have to have a reason for you know for not wanting to approve that assignment. So my next comments are on in paragraph 26 which is on the top of print page nine. Cool. Can we do a sub lease? >> Sure.

133
00:43:43.520 --> 00:43:59.520
>> Okay. So, right after that sub lease know the intent. Sounds like from what I read, this is really specific to the restaurant, but is there a way to remove the tenant may sub lease all or a

134
00:43:59.520 --> 00:44:16.960
portion of the premise? So, what would stop them from potentially subleasasing the golf course to not a management company, but just to another company? I I guess >> does it take my lord's approval though? >> It does. Now, one one difference in here

135
00:44:16.960 --> 00:44:34.720
in 22 that you don't commonly see is a 30-day time limit that if it if we don't uh comment back and that's above the red print in that paragraph. Um if we don't then there then it's deemed to be uh permitted. So um I think they certainly

136
00:44:34.720 --> 00:44:51.040
intend to hire a management company. Whether that's considered a sub lease or not depends on what level of control and and things like that. U >> that's what they presented in their RFP, >> right? I don't know if they're sub or not >> or if they're just hiring them to to run

137
00:44:51.040 --> 00:45:06.640
it. >> Um >> doesn't it specifically say at the bottom that they may elect to hire and retain company and that doesn't constitute a sub. >> You're right. You're right. >> And I'm not worried about the management company. I have no issue with the management company. It's just more of is there somewhere that they if they wanted

138
00:45:06.640 --> 00:45:23.520
lease the entire premise out to somebody else and just collect rent if they just want to say we don't want to be in 12 hours business or we don't want to be managing any of it. We're just going to leave something else because it sounds like this is more specifically how do we take care of the restaurant side of that

139
00:45:23.520 --> 00:45:39.119
>> right be further restricted if if you want it. So that's where I'm asking too. Is it is there an appetite to make this a little bit more of a further restriction to keep it just subletting subleasasing the the restaurant portion of this and just removing the option of

140
00:45:39.119 --> 00:45:57.680
leasing out the entire premise entire golf course? >> How does this compare to the previous? >> Uh it is very similar to previous drafts. paragraph 21 the 21

141
00:45:57.680 --> 00:46:13.680
>> with the sign >> right that if if you want the if you wouldn't want a suble sort of workaround then you could tighten that paragraph 22 regarding subleasases to not allow the full sub lease of the full property you

142
00:46:13.680 --> 00:46:28.400
you probably would want to allow subleting of the restaurant perhaps the pro shop u I don't know what else might be operated that they could come and ask you for the others if they thought there was something else.

143
00:46:28.400 --> 00:46:55.880
>> It's got to be landlord's approvals, >> right? But there is that time limitation that 30 days. >> This is not a deal breaker one way or the other. It's just something that my caught my eye for sure. It's pretty granular

144
00:46:56.400 --> 00:47:19.680
stress that detail because we do have to >> kind of still approve it. You guys can't do something in 30 days and >> yeah, >> I talking about Rebecca. I know she >> I can do that offended by the guys.

145
00:47:19.680 --> 00:47:33.599
Right after that too, right to encumber. I know Bob, you and I have talked about that. Is any I still have a little bit of a heartache with the right to encumber and put to mortgage things. I I understand with any improvements that they have done to the property once they

146
00:47:33.599 --> 00:47:49.520
once the lease is in but before that is is there any or more for clarification for me the right to encumber is that the existing assets that the city has that they have a right to encumber those and mortgage those

147
00:47:49.520 --> 00:48:04.480
assets. It's it they have the right to encumber their leaseold interest in those assets, not can't be sold, >> not the assets, >> right? Only their right to use it. >> Basically, the value of the >> which which is what if they were going to go to a commercial lender, the

148
00:48:04.480 --> 00:48:20.400
commercial lender would want to have a a leaseold mortgage, maybe maybe some other loaning lending in, you know, product, but that that's very common when people only have a

149
00:48:20.400 --> 00:48:37.440
leaseold interest, want to build or renovate or expand, they get a leaseold mortgage. >> So, in uh non-awyer terms, that means they could get a mortgage on basically just their lease. We have this 50-year lease. Can we get a mortgage using that as the security, not not the course, not

150
00:48:37.440 --> 00:48:52.559
not the physical land, not real property, >> right? rent the the rent stream coming off of it for the next 50 years that could be pledged >> almost like a bond I guess >> but not you were trying not

151
00:48:52.559 --> 00:49:09.520
>> okay well >> but that makes sense right >> makes sense so ultimately city is protected on this it's not a it's not a >> this that's very customary >> okay and a lot of these are comments I've been getting too so I just wanted explain a little bit more and then just

152
00:49:09.520 --> 00:49:24.559
to put it on the as well. If anybody else had the same concerns, >> so unless there's other questions or comments, we'll turn to the top of page nine. So, the um the language used to allow

153
00:49:24.559 --> 00:49:42.400
for the golf course uh to to for them to renovate it and that it was to any uses related to or supporting the hotel. And this um closes that down, restricts that to things like restaurant or a spa, not any use related

154
00:49:42.400 --> 00:49:58.079
to or supporting the hotel because that's a very broad category of uh of use or or structures. Uh it also falls for uh the this is default paragraph.

155
00:49:58.079 --> 00:50:14.240
It it had a period if if it ceased to be operated as a golf course for six months. It's been that six months has been reduced to one month. U 30 days notice for um a default rather than 180

156
00:50:14.240 --> 00:50:31.920
days. U it's been further restricted that the golf course has to always have availability for the public to play the golf course. It can't be a truly private course or only hotel guests to play it.

157
00:50:31.920 --> 00:50:50.880
Uh it's a default for an assignment of the tenants property for the benefit of creditors. Uh or if the hotel uh stops becoming a an operating public lodging establishment. So if it becomes a condo, if it becomes an apartment, if

158
00:50:50.880 --> 00:51:07.280
it's no longer a hotel, those things would be breaches under the contract that city could enforce. >> What if we have uh three hurricanes in one year? Again, >> force majour would which is a later down that page would >> okay

159
00:51:07.280 --> 00:51:24.800
>> would sort of take control there and say out of their hands that they were closed. >> What was the reason for limiting the amount of time 108. >> I can tell you I think that was a concern of mine. A golf course can can

160
00:51:24.800 --> 00:51:49.720
be gone in six months, you know, if it's not maintained well. If if it's operations, I think that the shorter time frame is better than that. >> I I agree with that. Can we go back? Sorry.

161
00:51:50.240 --> 00:52:06.800
Well, I guess still on that one, too. Sounds like the original intent goes back to this. So, if it fails to operate the premises of golf course, park, place your public recreation. Um, again, that was one of my biggest points, too, is the original intent of what this

162
00:52:06.800 --> 00:52:22.240
property is, but they just want to use it for the golf course. So, can we for this contract remove the uh the public place of recreation to say, "Well, they're not in the business to operate a park or a public place." They just want

163
00:52:22.240 --> 00:52:38.000
to limit to golf course use >> that it can be further restricted to only using it to operate as golf course. >> Thoughts on that? >> I think that's their intent. That's I think that's our intent.

164
00:52:38.000 --> 00:53:05.839
>> I assume they wouldn't any hardware with that. >> And that's just from the original lease, right? the original6 and then substantive changes in 38 we uh moved this is the paragraph that says uh the

165
00:53:05.839 --> 00:53:21.119
the lease automatically terminates if the hotel doesn't have a full CO by and this is now now reads September 30th 2031. So five years to get the the C full CO that only constitutes a CO on

166
00:53:21.119 --> 00:53:36.400
the existing structure, not any, you know, out buildings and other things they might decide to to build. >> Could you clarify your reporting lease? Just help me understand what that means. Why why is that not >> So you typically don't record the whole

167
00:53:36.400 --> 00:53:52.319
lease because of concerns on clouting the title. you do you record what's called a short form memorandum that that has the name of the parties, the term of the lease, things like that. And that's, you know, often what lenders will look to to make sure it's clear that the they

168
00:53:52.319 --> 00:54:12.480
do have that that lease will use as collateral to make the lease. >> Okay. So that's that's the sum certainly of all the of the significant changes.

169
00:54:12.480 --> 00:54:30.880
Happy to hear anything else. >> So I have I have one question. Um we have talked about recording a conservation ement over the course just to protect it forever. Um would anything in this lease restrict that or um get in

170
00:54:30.880 --> 00:54:46.319
the way or do we need to add a line explicitly allowing that >> um >> with with whatever if there are any proceeds for reporting to >> so the the tenant under a lease I think would have to agree to a conservation

171
00:54:46.319 --> 00:55:02.640
easement being imposed >> um I don't know that operating a golf course >> qualifies I don't we weren't sure if it's possible >> right typically conservation ements they allow you to do things like uh farming and things a little less invasive

172
00:55:02.640 --> 00:55:20.240
perhaps and operating a golf course with uh whatever chemicals are used on the golf course. So, um I think if you if you were to consider doing a conservation easement, I would not have a enter into a long-term ground lease.

173
00:55:20.240 --> 00:55:36.040
Once you do that, I don't think you're going to be able to do conservation easement until the ground lease expires. But again, I'm not sure that you can do a a conservation easement to operate a golf course.

174
00:55:36.319 --> 00:55:52.400
>> Thought I found a couple examples of that. >> Maybe they exist. I'm I'm used to seeing for cattle ranches and things like that. >> So, if we wanted to do a conservation piece, maybe you're essentially saying can't do it while there's an active lease. >> Correct. I I think that would be a big

175
00:55:52.400 --> 00:56:08.559
hindrance. >> Okay. The conservation really sort of a promise to the grantee, which is commonly the state, that you're these things are not going to be done on the property and only these things can be done and you've got a tenant with rights

176
00:56:08.559 --> 00:56:25.040
under the lease that if they don't sign off on it, but I don't think whomever would be receiving the conservation easement would would entertain doing it. Usually, they pay for conservation easements. So yeah, >> I doubt they'd want to come off the come up with money to in that situation, but

177
00:56:25.040 --> 00:56:39.599
certainly something that can be investigated if you want. >> Okay. My intention with that is not to benefit from, you know, money, but just to make sure that that's always city land available for city uses, you know,

178
00:56:39.599 --> 00:56:57.760
foration. Okay. I think that's the only question I have. I completely agree with you and I would like to see that too, but I know that we we want to make a decision on that too. I don't want >> I don't want to keep I don't want to

179
00:56:57.760 --> 00:57:17.559
kick the can if you don't have to. If there is a a quick way to find out it's possible, great. But if not, then it's not. >> Okay. >> I didn't have any other other questions I had addressed. So,

180
00:57:18.079 --> 00:57:33.599
police right now. >> I only have the same issue I've always had a dollar. >> Do you have an idea or do you have a thought of >> Let them come up with an idea. >> Think they did.

181
00:57:33.599 --> 00:57:48.720
>> I'm not okay with it. >> What's a number that you would be okay with? >> I don't know whether it be a percentage of um revenues or a flat amount. I don't know. I think it would put a lot

182
00:57:48.720 --> 00:58:10.640
of the public's problems at ease if there was a number tied to it. >> Pretty sure it'd be a deal killer. >> So, I'll say on my stance if we are our lease is airtight. I think the red line is with things we've discussed

183
00:58:10.640 --> 00:58:29.079
tonight. I view the dollar as $250,000. That's what so I don't I don't part over that. They will have to pay taxes and that sort of thing. So there, >> you know, there will be some money.

184
00:58:30.160 --> 00:58:47.280
>> So I'm not I don't feel strongly about it either way you're pulling. I mean, I would love to have some income, but I'm I'm okay with if they're taking it over and we can agree to this for the dollar. >> I am too. I mean, I think if you wanted

185
00:58:47.280 --> 00:59:04.119
to tie it to the extension and set the expectation that if you know there would be a more of a lease payment after 50 years after they get it going and get their get everything moving. I think that would be reasonable

186
00:59:04.480 --> 00:59:20.400
so that they don't come back and expect $1 a year. >> I think that could be a good compromise. Um, I'm with you, Roland, though. I mean, I would feel a lot better. I think the public a whole lot better if there was a or a monthly or annual payment coming

187
00:59:20.400 --> 00:59:37.760
back to us. Um, and even if there we didn't start a lease payment four or five or 10 years until they opened up, they're making some money too. It's more reasonable and feasible for them too. I don't know what that amount is. It's in my mind it's somewhere between a dollar and 200,000 because that was on

188
00:59:37.760 --> 00:59:54.799
the table. So, but I don't want to kill a deal just because >> I think Honestly, if we say it's not a deal breaker and we put 50,000 bucks on the table, I'm also David, I like your idea, but it's

189
00:59:54.799 --> 01:00:15.040
>> I could get on board with what he said. >> Yeah. >> I'm not voting for more than 15. I mean, >> no, I'm not saying extended. I'm just saying make it um I'm I'm not in favor 99 years, but have a little bit more

190
01:00:15.040 --> 01:00:30.720
verbiage what he was saying earlier about the the renewal term >> if it's tied to money >> is that enforceable >> it is enforceable but it's awfully hard to estimate I mean imagine what number would you have picked 50 years ago you might have said yeah we'll say000 a

191
01:00:30.720 --> 01:00:47.200
month $50,000 people carry that pocket >> right we might be you know >> binding the city to an amazing 50y year deal >> good percentage percentage of us will not be here in 50 years a very high percentage. >> Always amazed looking at old leases that

192
01:00:47.200 --> 01:01:07.040
talk about you can have liability coverage for $100,000 for the for the business. To me, the the time frame is more important as long as our our leases it protects the city. It protects our public

193
01:01:07.040 --> 01:01:27.680
retains access and makes sure that we're locked in. All right. All right. So, going back to the original timeline then this is hypothetically with Bob writes this up version number 14 15. Um, if there's any

194
01:01:27.680 --> 01:01:44.240
small things that heard that the attorney wants to go back and forth on and I say if we could have the final contract on the agenda June 2nd, is that reasonable? and have it signed if they want to move forward with it or not. But

195
01:01:44.240 --> 01:02:02.720
it's it is what it is by by June 15th. >> So you're >> June 2nd only gives them two weeks >> for a year and a half. This is 80% of the original contract that we're making. >> Perhaps we could encourage comments back by June 1st with the firm deadline of

196
01:02:02.720 --> 01:02:18.559
the second meeting or Wednesday before. Okay. to have a final yes or no final agreed language. >> And you know, it seems like too, I mean, I've I've talked with Scott, I've talked with Blackman's, and their

197
01:02:18.559 --> 01:02:34.480
interpretation and our interpretation of some of this stuff doesn't seem to go together. I mean would it not be more helpful to go back and say if we get comments back and that's assuming we get comments back uh to go back to the you

198
01:02:34.480 --> 01:02:50.559
know the committee function whether it be you know council president mayor Nate Lick and Bob to meet and sort of mediate you know the final agreement and bring that back so that you know any kind of you know because we think we're saying

199
01:02:50.559 --> 01:03:07.119
one thing and they think we're saying something else and clean that up to where it comes back. You know, that seems like it it may not get it done by June 15th, but it seems like it would save time if we're trying to get the deal done. >> But we can clarify language in plenty of time for June 15th if and I happy to

200
01:03:07.119 --> 01:03:23.599
have a to reach out and try and set up a time to to talk with them. Revising language to clarify intent is not hard. We can do that pretty quickly. >> And I don't know if there's any sticking points in here that they would say that they're completely unhappy with, you know, years.

201
01:03:23.599 --> 01:03:39.760
>> I mean, I don't know if they are or not. I I really don't know. Um, you know, but that might give the two sides to have a conversation and I just have one conversation as opposed to this back and forth. And it seems kind of inefficient. >> No, no doubt. We aren't even back and

202
01:03:39.760 --> 01:03:56.240
forth at the moment. We we each sent a a version. Majority of the what you're seeing tonight was given to them three weeks ago and we haven't had any calls clarifying language proposals or anything now.

203
01:03:56.240 --> 01:04:14.559
But >> is that because they hate the whole deal then? >> I've not heard a word from them so I can't tell you that this this is sort of an effort to kind of keep it going and we can get an agreement. Great. You spent lots of time. There's lots of reasons that it

204
01:04:14.559 --> 01:04:30.160
would be a good thing to do. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But >> as of right now, there there is no agreement. Uh but it's possible between now and June 15th. >> Well, I kind of agree with David. Maybe

205
01:04:30.160 --> 01:04:46.079
it'd be good to have a conversation instead of just going attorneys shuffling papers back and forth that you know clean up what we talked about tonight here and then maybe we can sit down and they can say yes here we can say yes or

206
01:04:46.079 --> 01:05:03.359
no >> then it'll be with the committee then whatever that is comes back. I would encourage you not to appoint a committee because then it's a sunshine it would be subject that committee in the meeting in >> talking about you person

207
01:05:03.359 --> 01:05:20.240
as long as it's not an appointed committee >> we we all those that that are allowed to can get together and talk about it >> I'd be okay with that I just want to keep the we got to keep it going. So whatever we can do because I feel like we're just at the the last 99%

208
01:05:20.240 --> 01:05:39.599
we can get there by June 15th. Happy to >> if it's just at this point clarifying things or I think they're bigger sticking items and not just clarifications but we have to find out and make sure we're not having a misunderstanding that's getting in the way.

209
01:05:39.599 --> 01:05:56.240
>> So here's what I want to make sure we don't do. We've essentially agreed upon a at least that this council is okay with kids tonight. Um I think we've identified our the hard times we have if they don't have if they have a problem with those hard times

210
01:05:56.240 --> 01:06:11.359
and we just submit the least that we're comfortable with and that's it. We could be back and forth here for months or years. >> Well, that would be kind of the point of the committee to hash out and I mean and there may have to be some give and take in the committee or groupies.

211
01:06:11.359 --> 01:06:27.680
>> No group. No committee, but you know the entity itself >> I think should be empowered to you know have that conversation and negotiate and there may have to be some give and take on both sides >> as long as they are empowered to enforce a deadline because we got to figure out what we're doing. It's budget season you

212
01:06:27.680 --> 01:06:44.480
know it's kind of a now orever in my mind. >> Well I mean if they walk away then we have to start over. >> Yes. But we know we're we know what we're doing for our budget and we can make plans to do that. You know, there are employees who are are probably waiting for this decision, too.

213
01:06:44.480 --> 01:06:59.920
>> Sure. >> And and we need to know for our budget what we're planning on. It's not going to be a fun budget season to start with. And I I'd rather know where we're at. >> I would too, but I mean, even if it ran into July, I don't know that that would >> that hits the due diligence that hits our fiscal year,

214
01:06:59.920 --> 01:07:16.960
>> right? So, that takes it into a November or, you know, December type thing. It doesn't string. I mean, it's it's a couple of months to get something done. >> I'm not willing to I don't want to This needs to be done and finalized. We we've kicked the can too in my mind

215
01:07:16.960 --> 01:07:32.400
>> and we have to set a budget if it's going to take effect. No, if we don't have certainty uh for that process, we got to have a budget set. >> I mean, and and that's fine. I don't think I mean, personally, I don't feel like a couple more months would be

216
01:07:32.400 --> 01:07:49.520
something that's going to kill us as opposed to starting over or, you know, any of the rest of it. I mean, a couple of months at this point isn't the end of the world in my mind, but >> we're looking at employees, too, that like Josh said, they're looking for guidance what what's next for them.

217
01:07:49.520 --> 01:08:05.680
They're on a month by month and who knows, we might have golf course, but we might not, but it's not fair to any of the staff. It's not >> But overall, we don't know if we can we can we let's just be hopeful that we can get something by June 15th and then we can worry about it after that point. So, >> that can be the goal. I just don't think

218
01:08:05.680 --> 01:08:22.640
it should be the well we can't you know we can't meet we can't get it done by then that that's going to be the deal breaker on our end if we're trying to get it done we should go forward with the attitude if we're trying to get it done let's have the group get together meet with them try to finalize this and get as close as

219
01:08:22.640 --> 01:08:38.560
we can I don't think you're talking extra months you know six months or nine months I think you're talking does this go from you know the middle of June to the first week of July Okay. You going to walk away over that?

220
01:08:38.560 --> 01:08:54.799
>> I think if we don't impose a deadline, work out. >> Yes. And I would say depending on how close you are at that point, >> you're down to one or two issues. Very different than >> I mean, my expectation would be that this group would get together, they would hash this thing out. So, it's it's really more of a timeline of how can

221
01:08:54.799 --> 01:09:10.400
this group get together and meet with the blackman's to finalize it and get it taken care of versus leaving it in their hands and saying, "Well, we're willing to go past, you know, June 15th or whatever." >> 15th. You've been going back and forth for a year and a half.

222
01:09:10.400 --> 01:09:25.600
>> I get that. I mean, I've probably disposed of 10 properties and it's never taken this long. And one of them was with the blackness. So they I feel like yes, they can you can negotiate with them, but we got to have the

223
01:09:25.600 --> 01:09:47.199
conversation. >> So let's put a pin on put a pin on the public comments. Anybody have any thoughts? I know Jeff has some and then I don't know if some of those questions got answered. So after Jeff after states his name for the record >> only have 17 pages Jeff Carlson for the

224
01:09:47.199 --> 01:10:02.800
record. Mr. brings up a great point in having conversations with black men's. My mind that conversation meeting is tonight. They should be here listening to the feedback of council, talking to council, having the representatives give you your

225
01:10:02.800 --> 01:10:18.560
feedback. So, I think it's a great idea. Not sure why they're not here doing that tonight. Delaying this anymore, I think is to the detriment of the city. I would have already walked away a long time ago. Roland, thank you for bringing up the dollars and the rent. Um, I think

226
01:10:18.560 --> 01:10:34.080
anything I think Mr. Swain brought this up a couple of times that tying anything down in the extension is risk put gives us a risk of being locked into something or the interpretation of of us being locked into something in the future. I would rather see us put something tied

227
01:10:34.080 --> 01:10:50.159
to the sub lease and I'll bring that up when I get to that page. If you're going to put some sort of dollar figure on the lease, if they go subleasase the property, that seems like it would be a good trigger point. If they're going to get revenue off of it at$1 or $50,000 a year or whatever it is, why shouldn't

228
01:10:50.159 --> 01:11:07.520
the city also benefit from that? So, I'll bring that up when I get back to that point. All right, page four, alterations, paragraph 14. Um, it seems to me that everything from sentence two all the way down to line one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

229
01:11:07.520 --> 01:11:23.600
around 11 where it says tenant would address any objections with landlord. The whole section about general improvement plan is confusing and leaves a lot of interpretation potential lawsuit. Um, it seems like all of that could just be stricken and you could just say simply that if you want

230
01:11:23.600 --> 01:11:39.600
to make any alterations, you got to come out. They could bring a master plan together Mr. Shu alluded to some sort of a plan that they have. No one's ever has anybody ever seen anything like that plan or any written plans or anything related to it, but somehow there are

231
01:11:39.600 --> 01:11:54.400
some plans because they're asking for an easement to potentially make improvements on a couple of the fairways. So, they do have some sort of a plan. They just don't want to share it with you. But it seems like that paragraph, you could eliminate all of that and leave a lot of room for interpretation when this ends up in a

232
01:11:54.400 --> 01:12:12.400
lawsuit um between the city and black. So, I think that could be cleaned up. Maybe it's Mr. Come up with that. >> Address that though, Jeff. >> Yeah, I mean we we can take that out. Standard leases would just say tenant

233
01:12:12.400 --> 01:12:27.679
has to get landlord's approval to make alterations. It simplifies as I read through that. It's confusing to me >> which anything time legal ease sounds confusing. Some lawyer is going to jump on that someday and say, "Hey guys, I

234
01:12:27.679 --> 01:12:44.480
interpret that this way and then we're at the whim of judge or someone. Anyway, I think that would be a great simplify that simple language. You guys touched on this a little bit, the the contradiction between 21 and 22 on page seven, the sub lease. 22 in my

235
01:12:44.480 --> 01:13:01.600
mind essentially negates 21. If you give them the ability to subleasase without any restrictions, then they could not assign it, but they could literally the next day walk in and subleasase this thing for $250,000 a year to anybody they wanted and you have

236
01:13:01.600 --> 01:13:17.840
no restrictions related to that. >> They have to get the landlord's consent. I know, but it's still it putting the language in there that they can sub lease gives you again this is going to show up in court an argument about this issue or someone's going to back down on

237
01:13:17.840 --> 01:13:33.360
this issue. It seems like you're restricting it in one place, but you're giving them a workound in the next paragraph. >> So, if if you don't address subleasasing at all, the tenant is free to subleasase uh all they want. So putting in a restriction that they have to have the landlord's consent

238
01:13:33.360 --> 01:13:50.320
helps solve what would be the result if you didn't address >> subleas the two together that says the sub lease will also be that so that at least it's explicitly stated in the contract >> the if they were to subleasase a portion of the golf course property it would have to be to an owner of the hotel

239
01:13:50.320 --> 01:14:07.520
>> just like the assignment >> yes it could but if they were going to uh subleasase it to a restaurant tour come in and operate a restaurant who has no interest in owning the hotel. They wouldn't be able to if that if that restriction was there. >> And I think there was some discussion about carving out the the the restaurant

240
01:14:07.520 --> 01:14:23.040
space as a different carve out from a lease versus the course itself. >> That that could be done. >> The whole idea was that the course is material to the existence of the hotel and the hotel cannot survive and will not survive without them being able to control and operate the golf course. So

241
01:14:23.040 --> 01:14:38.960
if they jump in and give it away the next day, then that's Turns out that's not actually what the plan is. So I don't feel like I I don't feel like we should give them any room to move this to someone else other than the people

242
01:14:38.960 --> 01:14:54.880
that own the hotel other than maybe a management company which I feel should also be in a different paragraph. This management company has nothing to do with subleasasing. You could say we expect that you could potent you could potentially hire a management company. We don't have a problem with that. But leasing gives

243
01:14:54.880 --> 01:15:17.360
them some sort of more control or um defaults and remedies. I think you talked about this a little bit. This is paragraph 26A on page eight. I think um Harrison brought this up on line one 23 4 where it says tenant fails to continuously operate premises of golf

244
01:15:17.360 --> 01:15:37.280
course park or place recreation. You struck that that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. tonight. Yes. >> Yeah. Some cont. So, can you explain this is to paragraph

245
01:15:37.280 --> 01:15:54.400
um paragraph 20 the the enumber paragraph 23 at the bottom of page seven and the top of page eight. So they can encumber the property up to their leasehold interest which is $50.

246
01:15:54.400 --> 01:16:11.280
>> No, they can encumber. All they have is a leaseold. They don't own the they don't own the property. >> 50 bucks. They can they have the right under the lease to to operate it for a term of 50 years and they can pledge that to a lender. >> So they pledge that to a lender. The

247
01:16:11.280 --> 01:16:26.560
lend they default. The lender comes and says there's a lease extending. Do you want the rent payments? >> What the lender typically typically would do, if there's a lender, they'll come and ask for the city to agree that during the term of the loan until it's

248
01:16:26.560 --> 01:16:42.480
repaid, they're allowed to come and put somebody else in to operate it so that the lender can get paid. Um, it would be up to the city to agree to that. But that's that's what this that's not in here, but that's what in the real world that's what a commercial lender is going to come in and ask for. So,

249
01:16:42.480 --> 01:16:59.360
>> it doesn't want their in their loan money to go away if they walk after a year. >> How much security interest would you have then if they went in and borrowed $5 million on October the 15th and then they walked away from it and the lender came in and said, "Okay, we want to

250
01:16:59.360 --> 01:17:16.080
force place a new operator of this golf course so that they can get their money back." It seems like it seems like saying you can't do this. >> So, the a deal billionaires anyway. So, they've got lots of money out there to pay for this. >> A deal between a lender and the city is

251
01:17:16.080 --> 01:17:33.360
not included in this. I'm just telling you in my experience, that is that's what comes when a commercial lender is is involved at some future stage. That's what the commercial lender is going to want. The city doesn't have to uh agree that they get forceplaced with a new operator. The city can the city could

252
01:17:33.360 --> 01:17:50.159
have the ability to the city could just say no, but you're you're you're not helping your tenant out. I assume if we entered into this, you want tenant to be successful and you're you're making life harder on them to not let them have access to commercial funding if they're going to

253
01:17:50.159 --> 01:18:06.560
build improvements that you think are valuable to have. >> The unknown improvements, >> the unknown ones, >> the the the concern I have is that this is a bait switcher shell game, right? and they come in, borrow $5 million on October 15th. Maybe the lender is already in place. They bankrupt that

254
01:18:06.560 --> 01:18:22.239
entity. They no longer have the ability to pay the debt. The lender comes in, wants to force place somebody else, and it's the shell over here that gets popped open, and then they're forced contract. >> I doubt that they the only collateral

255
01:18:22.239 --> 01:18:37.679
they would take is or want is the leaseold interest. I suspect at the end of the day, what's your risk? What's the city's risk if they borrowed $5 million against their lease? >> What am I on the hook for as a taxpayer? >> Nothing. You're not on the hook to repay any of that. >> But we the city still retains control of

256
01:18:37.679 --> 01:18:53.040
the property even though they defaulted on a loan that has a lease improvement >> and and the lease is in default and the lease disappears. So that I mean a leaseold interest basically when you loan on a leaseold interest is almost like an unsecured loan. >> Yeah. I don't remember anybody ever doing that

257
01:18:53.040 --> 01:19:10.080
>> because it's a good faith. That's why we wouldn't didn't get but I mean that's a it's a good faith loan is what it is basically and if at least I mean if they default at least then they default on a lease and the lease is worthless

258
01:19:10.080 --> 01:19:28.640
>> and the taxpayers are still whole where get the property >> the taxpayers ow it's not like what happened in her hall when they tattooed that HUD loan and we had to take it back and >> I mean we could bring that up because I don't know why you didn't use the pledge CDBG funds to cover that loan but I statute of limitations on that one.

259
01:19:28.640 --> 01:19:44.000
>> We're talking about the golf course. We're talking about the golf course. >> You brought it up. >> No, you tried. >> All right. All right. All right. I'm good. Thank you very much for the indulgence and the extra time. I appreciate very much. >> Thank you. Any response that we have on those

260
01:19:44.000 --> 01:20:02.560
things 14 and 22 and 21? >> For the record, my name is Uh I I want to agree with Roland about dollar. I I know they've already offered a

261
01:20:02.560 --> 01:20:18.239
restaurant to someone for 8,000 a month. We get a dollar, they get 8,000. That's not fair to the uh taxpayers. I'm a taxpayer. I don't like that. And I I haven't heard

262
01:20:18.239 --> 01:20:35.040
if they decide to sell the hotel, does the lease go to the people that buy it or so you end up with a lease with somebody you don't really know or have negotiated? >> Yes. It's tied to the hotel.

263
01:20:35.040 --> 01:20:52.640
>> So if they sell it, the lease dollar a year. I disagree with the dollar because we have other these properties out there for a dollar and every time they need something they come to the council and say, "Oh, we need a roof. We can't afford it. Oh, we need this. We can't

264
01:20:52.640 --> 01:21:10.080
afford it." And the council has they're reminded that, "Oh, y'all own the property. We just lease it." So, is there any protection that they can't come and say, "We need this or that." >> I think they could ask for they can always come and ask, but >> but those other properties are operated

265
01:21:10.080 --> 01:21:26.880
by nonprofits. I mean, I can't speak for everyone else or future councils, but >> the city, we're giving them a big piece of property at nonprofit, but they're going to they're if they lease the restaurant, they're going to get 8,000 bucks a month. >> Right now, we get negative 250 a year. I

266
01:21:26.880 --> 01:21:44.880
mean, that's my thought on it. I mean, you we already know this. >> Yeah, but I'm just saying that's kind of crazy deal there. We give them whole thing for grand Thank you. Thanks.

267
01:21:44.880 --> 01:22:07.679
Anybody else who wants to speak up? >> Good evening. >> How's everybody? Debbie McN, a member of the golf course. I just have a couple quick questions. Most of my questions have been answered. In the verbiage about the memberships, you stated there

268
01:22:07.679 --> 01:22:25.040
was 28 SGA members. Are you talking grandfathered menu? >> Around 20 SGA members, >> right? But there are those of us who are not the grandfather, but we are SGA. Now, there's a distinction

269
01:22:25.040 --> 01:22:40.480
>> because the old guard that were there have the grandfathered rate. >> Correct. The rest of us are still SGAA members because we pay our dues to the SGAA. I have a little card that says I'm an SGA member, but we pay a different

270
01:22:40.480 --> 01:22:57.360
due structure. What protection do we have in there? Are we what you term SGAA members if we are regular members or do we have to be a grandfathered member to be considered an SGA member?

271
01:22:57.360 --> 01:23:16.719
the the rates and benefits that were described in the contract from approximately 2006 and I can't tell you that I don't know if there are different classes of membership that were in that or not. Um >> when it was purchased to my knowledge by

272
01:23:16.719 --> 01:23:31.360
the me the city from the members right that's >> there was a very small group that were grandfather >> and they have a a limited rate however throughout the years there are many other of us that are members and we pay

273
01:23:31.360 --> 01:23:48.400
our full dues of a couple two people is over 5,000 a year and we pay an extra I think $30 a year to the SGA Now, are we considered an SGAA member or are they going to be able to not include

274
01:23:48.400 --> 01:24:04.000
us in memberships and not include us in these rates because we're not grandfathered? We're just savory golf association. And as a member who pays dues, that's an important point for us. >> Sure. I I think that the I'm not certain

275
01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:20.719
that's the answer. My my suspicion is that only those that were specifically provided for in the 2004 agreement get to get to maintain that that pricing and benefit structure. Uh others afterwards do not >> correct then the verb is incorrect

276
01:24:20.719 --> 01:24:37.280
because I do have an SGA membership card. >> Right. The the um the this proposed lease refers to the tenant maintaining the benefits under that specific contract. Not maintaining Sebring Golf

277
01:24:37.280 --> 01:24:52.880
Association benefits uh globally. just just those described in that that written contract from 2004. >> So you're saying no >> basically >> correct doesn't mean the council can't

278
01:24:52.880 --> 01:25:10.000
well it um current it it says the tenant will honor the pricing and benefits for current members of the golf course as well as for severing golf association members as described in that that specific agreement. >> Okay. So current members,

279
01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:26.719
>> is it an annual membership you're referring to? >> It's an annual membership. >> Although they only allowed us to pay six months this year. >> My guess is there won't be an annual membership opportunity any longer or may not. I don't know that it may not be available if uh the Black Ones enter

280
01:25:26.719 --> 01:25:41.840
into a lease and begin to operate the the course or if it's available it may be at a at an increased price. that contradictory what just read >> it's current members so it would take you through whatever the current

281
01:25:41.840 --> 01:25:56.960
membership period is >> but not promising >> so her membership would be valid until it expired >> right but as of January current memberships are only written through September 30 so

282
01:25:56.960 --> 01:26:13.360
that doesn't allow you I mean people who've been current members for 10 years aren't document will not count. >> Not that they don't count, but they don't get to continue having a membership at current membership pricing levels. That that deal would end

283
01:26:13.360 --> 01:26:29.360
September 30th. >> Well, I don't think that's great for a general membership in any way, shape, or form, especially we're the ones that have been the most vocal about this and not being

284
01:26:29.360 --> 01:26:45.199
taken care of. um to somebody who's in construction, is it realistic to have the CEO? >> Yes. I believe he's the one that came up with that date. >> Okay. >> All right. I guess that's it. Um where

285
01:26:45.199 --> 01:27:02.800
would we be able to get a copy of this finalized? >> If we h if we get one, it it would be a public record you'd be entitled to uh when it's signed. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, >> Mr. President. Jeff Carlson. Didn't it didn't that paragraph in the contract

286
01:27:02.800 --> 01:27:20.960
say that have a specific time limit on the city continuing to sell memberships? >> I thought it had a specific date where they had to stop selling members. >> The previous draft I believe did have that. >> Oh, the one in the packet today had that >> one in the packet specifically said

287
01:27:20.960 --> 01:27:37.840
there was a date that they won't sell them for more than effective date, >> right? Basically, it's not going to sell. They're not going to be sold to to affect their pricing come October one, >> right? And anybody that had a membership, I thought it said one year,

288
01:27:37.840 --> 01:27:54.480
>> right? But to Scott's point, all those >> in December, it would be good through December. >> It they're only good through September 30th. Apparently, that's what's been sold over here. >> Yeah, it did say, but as of January 1st, they're selling

289
01:27:54.480 --> 01:28:13.760
through September. Anybody else from the public who wants to speak up on this? Final comment from councel. Do you feel like you got what you need to >> Yes sir. Any I'll ask simply does anybody wish to make further revision

290
01:28:13.760 --> 01:28:36.400
based on >> 14 when it comes to the alterations and the general plan. You got to look at that even more and just say the basically take the first sentence. >> I'm comfortable with whatever Bob is.

291
01:28:36.400 --> 01:28:54.040
>> It's too much legally for me to try and, you know, make sense of myself. >> It's better to carve it back some more, but in the in the spirit of trying to get something done, that's that is of lesser importance than other things, I think, to the city.

292
01:28:56.639 --> 01:29:28.639
It's better for us than I'd say let's car it out, but if we can put it back in. >> Okay. >> Throw it out there and see. Uh, X, >> we don't need a motion or anything. Uh how about a motion to uh approve as

293
01:29:28.639 --> 01:29:44.320
discussed? >> Well, I guess before we say that too, uh going back to the assembly discussions, not a committee. Do we need any kind of want to go in that direction? >> I was saying I >> Yes, you can. I would encourage you not

294
01:29:44.320 --> 01:30:01.840
to have further specifics on that. >> All right. So, so the way I would say this motion is I'm would to approve the city attorney to modify the lease agreement as discussed tonight. Okay. I'll make a

295
01:30:01.840 --> 01:30:18.360
motion that we uh approve city attorney to modify the lease agreement to the black men's as discussed this evening. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Second. Any other comments?

296
01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:40.159
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Stewart. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, you're up again. >> It's got a stacked agenda tonight. >> Agenda item 12B is a proposed ordinance

297
01:30:40.159 --> 01:30:56.080
amending section 2-260.1. It's an ordinance amending section 2-26.1 of the code of ordinances city of Sebring to appoint the chief of the Sebring police department to the city of Sebring police officer retirement trust fund board and service on this board

298
01:30:56.080 --> 01:31:15.600
shall be exeicio to assign duties and responsibilities as chief something similar with having the mayor continue to serve it just saves three appointments and some admin effort >> questions on I'll entertain a motion.

299
01:31:15.600 --> 01:31:32.159
>> I make a motion that we approve the proposed ordinance as presented and schedule second and final reading. >> Second mention a second. >> Comments from the audience. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.

300
01:31:32.159 --> 01:31:53.120
>> Yes. >> Popular guy tonight. Let's talk about this. So, agenda item 12 C involves the city retaining uh council to be involved in a class action lawsuit where the city could recover funds to uh clean drinking

301
01:31:53.120 --> 01:32:10.960
water. Um with the number of lawyers that have communicated with us about this, they must be pretty confident that there's some real dollars there. This is a PCT fee. they will get uh paid from any recovery had the city's not out for money if it turns

302
01:32:10.960 --> 01:32:29.120
out that they don't city isn't eligible for some reason and this is I think I think DuPont is one of the the entities putting money into this settlement >> so is it an actual lawsuit or are they going ahead and just funding these

303
01:32:29.120 --> 01:32:45.760
>> it's it's a lawsuit they're uh I believe the money has been uh set aside side. And the the concern is that at some point regulatory bodies might regulate a um more

304
01:32:45.760 --> 01:33:02.000
a low perhaps lower level of the this PFAS and the chemicals that are related to it than they do now. And and so this is if you're going to have to spend money to do, you know, clean up, you just soon have some money come from somebody else to do it.

305
01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:20.679
>> Sure. Okay. >> And your recommendation is to accept. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And we know who we're suing. >> You're you're joining in this national class act. Okay.

306
01:33:20.719 --> 01:33:40.280
>> Any questions? >> Make the motion to accept the Grossman Kelly retainer agreement. >> Second. Motion >> in a second. Anybody else want to talk about this? Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.

307
01:33:42.560 --> 01:33:59.920
>> We pay the bills. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Scott. Scott, what's going on? >> Good evening, council. I'm just going to touch on the items that have changed in the report. Um we have received the

308
01:33:59.920 --> 01:34:17.040
analysis from the environmental firm uh looking at endangered species. Uh at some point we'll come back with a recommendation to council in reference to that. And then Senator G will be I believe at your next meeting June 2nd to present

309
01:34:17.040 --> 01:34:35.120
their results from the analysis that they question. >> One way Wall Street Sorry. >> Making Wall Street one way. >> Oh, Wall Street one way. So, um, we've

310
01:34:35.120 --> 01:34:51.520
had some discussion at that on that at the staff level. I think our is to take baby steps, maybe not make that drastic a change. That would involve incredible number of signs and locations that we don't even know that we could place them

311
01:34:51.520 --> 01:35:11.360
at this point. And, um, we're thinking that some point in the future if it if things don't get better from a perspective of say road closures and stuff like that then

312
01:35:11.360 --> 01:35:41.199
we may come back to recommend closure but right now sounded very defeist. Scott sit down. I mean now discussion is just it just didn't seem like a good idea

313
01:35:41.199 --> 01:35:58.560
after we started talking about all all the items that may or may not effective. >> So it's effectively one way right now just whoever is the first one or the

314
01:35:58.560 --> 01:36:14.560
biggest it's their way >> right. It works right now >> the way it does. Sure. Kind of. >> But I mean I we'll proceed forward making it one way if you really think you should.

315
01:36:14.560 --> 01:36:29.440
just from a we discussed it at you know public works law enforcement level perspective and our thought was you know

316
01:36:29.440 --> 01:36:45.840
looking at special events we'll try to you know close everything down at Wall Street when we can u but just didn't think it was best move to make this

317
01:36:46.080 --> 01:37:01.760
Happy to go back and revisit it. That's happy to put a pen in it. Reevaluate maybe in the year. See how how it goes. The changes that we made. >> What are we going to evaluate in a year?

318
01:37:01.760 --> 01:37:20.239
What changes? >> Well, they said the way that we're doing events, Scott. >> I mean, if the concern isn't about events, it's just making it one way. different different topic. >> So the what you're talking about doing

319
01:37:20.239 --> 01:37:36.239
is instead of allowing Wall Street to be open when events are going on, just closing Wall Street, >> no closing >> making sure it doesn't extend beyond. >> So Wall Street will be your exit if you go into the dead end where it's closed.

320
01:37:36.239 --> 01:37:52.239
>> That's why I proposed it. >> Yeah, because that means you're have more traffic on this ambiguous road. I would think that would mean it's more important to have a point way because right now you just kind of go and >> I know I understand I understand

321
01:37:52.239 --> 01:38:07.840
>> just perception perspective of how the staff that works these events just relaying what >> our conclusion was I am fine to take it back and

322
01:38:07.840 --> 01:38:24.639
>> I guess I'm with Roland I don't I mean it feels like that will cause more problems not less In my mind, >> um, >> it seems to be I mean for from staff's perspective, not the only one here, but perspective

323
01:38:24.639 --> 01:38:41.840
just seems like it would be better or it works the way it is right now. >> Seems like it would be an expense as well, you know, that we would have to add to >> it's an expense. There's a lot of signage I think that has to be posted at different locations >> because if you don't have enough signs,

324
01:38:41.840 --> 01:38:58.480
you could easily go the wrong way. >> I mean, >> correct. >> So, >> correct. >> I'm I'm a bad oneway driver. >> I understand. >> Well, I'll try. Uh, Chief Carl Hogan, for the record, some of the concerns we have from a one-way perspective is we

325
01:38:58.480 --> 01:39:14.000
don't own the right of way or enough right of way to put the signage up that may be required. So, for an example, all the buildings on Wall Street that would require one-way signs either to turn right or left off of six alleyways that would be uh contributing roadways to Wall Street, we'd have to find out a

326
01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:31.440
signage component that would work there. Um, I don't want to speak for Steve, but I think his preliminary estimate was that we would need at least 22 to 24 signs to appropriately sign it. You're going to have a sign nightmare down downtown. uh aesthetically it may not be pleasing with special events and trying

327
01:39:31.440 --> 01:39:46.800
to get vehicles around the event areas. We run into a problem with our DOT or uh DOT road closures and the maintenance of traffic required. We can't push trucks, we can't push box trucks, delivery trucks onto a one-way street and expect people to be able to navigate that area.

328
01:39:46.800 --> 01:40:02.239
We utilize North Pine Street on the north end for a detour that's established by DOT and approved by DOT. Uh those are some of the logistical issues with the road closures that we would run into. The concern is if somebody gets into the no local or no through traffic area, where do they go

329
01:40:02.239 --> 01:40:18.800
when they get to Wall Street and they have to make a right or lefthand turn? And are you going clockwise, counterclockwise from a northbound or southbound perspective? It all depends where you're trying to go and how you're trying to get out as far as what the best route might be. Um some of the proposals were counterclockwise so that

330
01:40:18.800 --> 01:40:36.080
you would not make a turn across traffic if you're coming up to the circle. Of course, that's philosophical and probably require some type of a road study to evaluate what the best solution might be. Those were some of the topics we had all tied to special events. Of course, the thought was take baby steps

331
01:40:36.080 --> 01:40:50.800
on some of these closures, try to come up with a better, more standardized road closure for special events, and if we're still having these problems, then perhaps revisit the one-way piece. >> Does the DOT issue go away when the road swap happens?

332
01:40:50.800 --> 01:41:06.719
>> Yes. Now, the maintenance of traffic piece won't. You still have a requirement to give advanced warning, to have signage, it's adequate to advise motorists somewhere they're supposed to go. And if you don't do it properly and somebody gets killed or hurt, certainly there's an exposure or liability potential there. Um, generally speaking,

333
01:41:06.719 --> 01:41:23.520
you're going to want to do it in close conformity to the FDOT design standards for road. Right now, we have to because it is a standard. >> What's our exposure liability wise right now? Since it's a two-way one lane road, >> it's going to be up to the individual driver and an at fault crash with what

334
01:41:23.520 --> 01:41:41.119
they did to help contribute to that crash. >> So legally, that's permissible and there's no issue with that. >> Right. It's not a problem until you try to control it. And when you control it and don't do it right now, you've increased your exposure is my general understanding. >> Do you have many accidents on Wall

335
01:41:41.119 --> 01:41:56.080
Street right now? >> I'll say not reported. That's not that somebody hasn't backed into a pole or backed into the building or a car. Um, we don't have a significant documented traffic problem other than frustration of motorists, especially during special

336
01:41:56.080 --> 01:42:14.199
events. You can't get there from here. That's with every road we close. And frequently you'll find out, and Steve and Toby would certainly uh support this, motorists will drive over your cones. They'll drive over the barricades. They'll drive on the sidewalk and get around them. Those things won't change with this.

337
01:42:16.639 --> 01:42:36.480
Did I help or hurt? >> Yes. >> Depends on who you're talking to. >> I meant Scott. >> Any other questions? I might help. >> Thank you. >> That's done by sales. I don't really say

338
01:42:36.480 --> 01:42:52.760
that >> say approve paying of the bills. So >> yes, >> as soon as our our president gets >> for the record, apologize, shot. They're very important. Your reports are very important.

339
01:42:55.040 --> 01:43:13.719
>> Pay the bills. >> So moved. >> Anybody have an issue with that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you all. We're done.