Council Agenda - Regular Meeting

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 he can lead us in the prayer and pledge.

Lord, thank you once again for this, blessing us with a wonderful city that you live in.

Thank you for the 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 and are going to honor tonight. We also ask that 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 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. Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, Mayor.

Renee, can you call the roll? Here. Here.

Here. Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Thank you. Business from the audience, if anybody wants to speak on anything that is not on the agenda, please see Ms. Renee, and she will give you a little form to fill out. When we get into that part of the meeting, you'll have three minutes to talk about anything that you would like to talk to us about.

Very cool. I've got a couple things. I want to thank the fire department, Austin Maddox, 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 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 thanks. But, no, both teams did a great job, so it was really kind of nice to see that part of the community. Last week, the TDC had their award breakfast, so thanks, Casey's here, 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 Museum has their annual Memorial Day event. which is Monday, this Monday at 2 o'clock. You're all invited to come. It's a pretty good little ceremony. It's short and sweet, but it's really neat that you do a good job. And finally, I've got a proclamation here I'd like to read, and it really honors our first responders. It's in honor of Emergency Medical Services Week. So if I could have the fire department and you guys come on up, please, while I read the proclamation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Assistant Chief Austin Maddox, 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 gentlemen. So, I'm honored today to stand here and present to you five individuals that were able to make a difference in a person's life as well as their families. On May 7th, 2026, Sebring Fire Department, Engine 15 and Rescue 10 of Highlands County ran a cardiac arrest at a local restaurant on Highway 27 near the Marshall's Plaza. Now I'm gonna do my best to try to paint a picture for you all, okay? Because at times we use EMS terms and fire terms and people are like, where do they talk? So the City of Sebring Fire Department 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. Now obviously they're gonna 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 assist where needed. Engine 15 responded and were able to make it to the patient in five 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 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 after Engine 15's arrival, Collins 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 able to establish IV lines for medications, put the patient on a cardiac monitor, which also transmits data to AdventHealth immediately, and were able to secure an advanced airway to assist the patient with breathing. Once this was all done, the patient was transported to AdventHealth where he was immediately taken to the cath 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 to his family. One thing that I want to do today is I want to thank council and administration as well as our taxpayers understanding the importance of continued growth in our city and how our advanced life support program is continuing to grow and how important 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 also on behalf of Chief Border, I've got a challenge coin. So I'm going to call each individual up.

First up, Clayton Waldron.

All right, next up is Jonathan Sorensen, Highlands County Fire Rescue Paramedic. All 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. Irving Cruz. And last but not least, Cannon Bobo, he's not with us tonight, but he was the EMT on the rescue from Hunts 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. 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 continuing to work towards that, and we're also continuing to work with Highlands County, and it's just an awesome thing. So thank you all again.

Thank you all. That's all I have. Thank you.

Alright, over to council members' comments, concerns, liaison reports. We'll start with you, Rebecca. I'll report. Josh.

So a couple little things. One, congratulations to these gentlemen involved in that call. One of the things I want to piggyback on what Assistant Chief Maddox said when the fire department first approached us about ALS 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. And it has, and that is a big deal. It's expensive. It's not cheap. It's a big undertaking for a small tax base like ours, but it has a real impact. So I'm really happy to see that result and excellent work, you guys. The only other thing I want to mention is during I think our CIP meeting a couple weeks ago, we talked about 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 Kuhl, who was willing to come out and just do a visual inspection, not a written letter, not anything, you know. formal but to walk it he wanted with Steve and public works and myself and Scott and didn't observe anything that would warrant in his estimation. An extreme engineering response some ideas to maybe protect the peer in the future, should some of those are arise, but nothing that he observed that was an immediate concern so just a heads up on that and he did talk about some potential future plans with Steve on how to. basically do some maintenance to the pier. Still expensive maintenance, but less expensive maybe than potentially. And want to give you guys an update on that.

Is there any rebar exposed?

No, none. There's no spalling occurring. Some of the cement has worn away, so there's exposed aggregate on the piers. But no spalling, no evidence of rust occurring, no discoloration. And see, he had no concerns about that. And his advice really he said that that aggregate might have been exposed since you know he was a kid doing pe down there um 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 that addressed?

I believe Steve already had some funds in the budget to address maintenance there.

Very good.

That's really good news. David? No report. Roland?

Nothing to add.

Alright. I guess just to echo Josh, thank 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 county working together and accomplishing a lot. We've seen a lot of group trainings. We did the exercises at Lake Jackson at Veterans Beach. So it was just free. you all that's it so now we were looking at the 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 all right motion in a second is there anybody who has wants to talk about the consent agenda

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. There is no old business. Moving on to new business. This is Sonia. Do you want to come up and talk about the walkathon?

Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Someone put the microphones. Do you have any questions? So how should I start? This is my first time, so I'm a little bit lost here.

That's fine. Just tell us a little bit about the event.

Okay, perfect. We're planning to have a walk-a-thon, the Giving Hand walk-a-thon. I am with St. Vincent de Paul, with the Catholic Church here in Lakeview. It's a fundraiser to raise money to buy food. Why? Well, we buy food at the pantry, at the food pantry here. But it's not enough sometimes. They don't have, not always they have what our clients need. So we need donations We truly need a fund rate. We serve, in average, as the homeless we also give them 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 Right now, the funds are drying, so we need to do something about it. And this is one of the things that we came up with. And basically, that is the objective that is. And that's basically it. Do you have any questions?

Thank you very much. Any questions, counsel?

I'm assuming you're going to provide water and things like that for your walkers? Okay. Okay.

Thank you very much and thank you for what you're doing for the community.

So the walkathon will be a four-hour event where we will have a mapped out section around St. Catherine's Church on Lakeview. And the goal will be each participant to walk this mapped out area, which is currently approximately half a mile. And each walker will be responsible to get a sponsor. And according to how many miles they walk, that distance, they will be able to get that much money donated. So if a person, for example, were to say, well, I'll sponsor you $5 a mile. If that person completes eight miles, they will have that $40 and that money will go to um the efforts of saint vincent of paul which currently our main effort really is to provide food for those who need and we are we are always giving out food every thursday at 10 a.m and we accept all those donations mostly from our own parish at saint catherine's but the heartland food bank is one of the places we acquire a lot of of the food from that we purchase. And like Sonia said, we also help in those other needs, utility needs, and so forth. But I hope that answers your question on the walkathon.

And real quick too, sorry, could you state your name for the record?

Oh, my name is Anthony Fontan.

Thank you for that presentation. I'll request a motion.

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 a second got a motion a second any other additional comments okay Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay, so business from the audience, Ms. Debbie, 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 to speak to him. Yes, ma'am, if you would like to, so.

That said, Bob, it's your turn. All right. Agenda item 12A is a draft golf course lease. And you see it's what's called a red line or comparison version. The two versions that are being compared in this single document are the version that the Blackman group sent and my version that is a more 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 delete. through that kind of guide you the things that are underlined came from city side deleted things were things that we are asking to take out of the blackboard side so overall back through the RFP 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. And there was just comments made by council that those two should sort of travel together. So the nature of the changes... So on that, there was a concern expressed over the term, 99-year lease is what the Blackwoods have asked for, but you'll see in this draft is a shorter period at 50 years, similar to the belt course and being linked together at 51%. Well, let me address that in a minute. Rent, there was discussion of whether there should be more than the $1 per year that was proposed by the Blackmans. What you see in this draft is still the $1 that was raised as an issue during the council meeting where the RFP was discussed. And then the Searing Golf Association contract and current member benefits. The Blackmans had wanted to make some changes to those things. My version has them still abiding by all parts of that agreement. So going through the ground lease sort of page by page, if you will. uh... in paragraph you'll see the uh... purposes just express a little more than this the idea is that it links the two together uh... the golf course really ought to be an amenity to the 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 The renewal is now that there isn't a 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.

Yes, sir. Can we ask questions as we go through this or comment? 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 graph language that says that an extension may be negotiated, not a given 100%, but that there's availability to negotiate an extension.

That can be added.

agreements to make an agreement in the future are not binding but if 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 that may come in and if i can butt butt in too so i think for today too what i'm thinking with 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 tonight going through the lease going through the red lines going through anything that council wants to discuss mark it up so we can give some guidance to bob to say hey this is the idea of what we've talked about over the last several weeks since the rfp these are the adjustments that we agree on tonight that we want to establish tonight so hopefully by the end of it that we think is best for the city. And then we put a timeline of when we get that over to the Blackmans and if they agree to this lease agreement. And then I would like to personally, whatever you all think too, but I think that we should put a date on this too to say, this is what we think. We need a yes or no by I think June 15th. I think that gives them plenty of time knowing that we need to make a decision one way or the other. And if they want to take... uh ownership 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 redline comments we can make our comments and that's the the timeline what this looks like so we can give some clarity to staff employees this is the direction that we're going That's my thought, but that's where, before we dive into it, what our council thinks.

I'm happy with that timeline. I think we need to get this thing wrapped.

For the benefit of the audience, the city operates on a fiscal year that begins October 1. When we talk about timing and timelines, the idea is that the tenant would have the opportunity to undertake their due diligence with enough time to start taking over the golf course, not own it, but start at least taking over operation by October 1 of this year, which would then take it off the city's books for the upcoming fiscal year.

We're entering in a budget season. We need to know.

Right. Yep.

Rebecca, any thoughts on that before we dive into it? 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 then give the comments at the end and kind of see how it shakes out.

Yep. And I think as we go through it, too, if there's issues that we see during the red lines. That's fine. Roland, any thoughts on that?

I'm good.

I think with that being said, I know we talk about this, how we're going to run this, but so if we do, if we go through the red lines, so just so the public knows, too, and Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe this is version 13 of the contract? Maybe higher. 13 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 black ones for going on a year and a half, two years, going back and forth. So we're just trying to say we've been 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. And we want to be agreeable and work with them as well to make the most fair, equitable safe, protected contracting agreement that we can come up with too. So just want to throw that out there. This is a year and a half in the making. We need to make a decision. So with that being said, I think we already talked about the second underlying, or the second paragraph. Any comments or things so far?

I'm talking about paragraph four.

Well, so we talked about paragraph two. We talked about the renewal.

I'm fine 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 50 years wants to renew, it can, but not something that is an automatic renewal.

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 that's not my intention yeah 50. yeah all right so if we can add in

Yes, with the renewal option.

Yeah, as long as it is clear that it is an option, not an expectation, not an automatic, you know, future council can renew it if they want.

Are we putting a number to that for years for that renewal?

It doesn't matter. It's not binding.

The more specific you make it, the more likely it would be interpreted as 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 would have thought.

My intention is 50 years. I agree with the 50. Okay.

I understand, I mean, they're putting a whole lot of investment in that, so I'm okay with that too, but.

Right, in a perfect world, we'd love to have brought back an agreed form of lease for you all to consider. That didn't happen, so. We're trying to at least take a shot at seeing if we can get this done with them. That may be something they come back to us and say they want to have in there. And the idea is between now and, say, early June, we'd like to get 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. But that's sort of our hope 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 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. So in your mind's eye, the city owned, we called it the booth, but the city owned a piece of property. Scott, can you go... Can we get the GIS mode, Scott? Can you go exhibit... It doesn't really show us well. The city owns from the golf course, and if you're thinking, if you're going to the soccer fields at Max Long, there's a piece of property that comes out between the softball field that would be on your right, and it comes all the way out to Westminster.

Behind the recycling.

Recycling. That area, it looks a bit like Italy. We've called it the boot.

Scott, can you build both of those? That might be easier to do.

Well, while he's pulling that off, we have talked of carving that off and not having that as part of the lease for at least the last year and a half, so we intentionally did not include that in the RFP to what would be part of the leasehold. And the reason is council is looking at Max Long and what improvements it may wish to do there. They have requested, the Blackmans have requested a permanent access easement across that portion, that boot. And Scott's gonna bring it up here in a second. My recommendation is to not give a permanent easement across that if you may wish to do something otherwise later. You can always provide them temporary access through that portion of the property, through other city property, but dedicated permanent access gets in the way of or could get in the way of what you plan to do with that property down the road.

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 dig another pond is what they were talking about. That they wanted to have access there, so I think the 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 major temporary access, you know until it's not feasible or. Right, you know something like that it's not permanently ingrained, no matter what you know we don't want them tearing up fields we've got notes, you know yeah. So just basically access to get equipment in and out.

Correct. That's what I've been told. 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. Probably to and from MaxLong, but those that take care of both. Unless there's more comments on that, I'll move to 10. I think we are in agreement that the tenant would maintain the drainage on the golf course. They don't have to maintain anything off the golf course. 10 is the members agreement the SGA agreement and my are my version recommends that the city require them to to maintain 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 do otherwise now city would be in breach of that agreement when if the tenant were to change pricing reimbursements or whatever else that may come at that agreement or change the benefits primarily is for the sga group right and whatever members are there now yeah there's only i guess what scott you said there's only like 20 some members in the neighborhood

Jeff, I know you want to speak. Can we hold off all comments until we go through this?

Just a procedural question.

That's okay. Yeah, go ahead.

I'm sorry. My question is that you're covering page by page and paragraph by paragraph, and 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 that's what you want to do. Okay.

Thank you, Jeff.

I'm now in paragraph 17. It's on printed page 6 of 11. Blackburn's requested an inventory of any chemicals. presently stored on the property in the list of any that have ever been used there. That's a little much. So I recommend deleting that.

But we could get an inventory pretty easy.

Of current, yes. Of any that may have ever been used, which is one of 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 do whatever analysis they want to do to see if they have any.

But we can provide an inventory of what's current. Sure.

I recommend not doing it. Is there some stored somewhere that maybe nobody currently knows about? That we can do.

Before we move on from the door, sorry, can we go to 14 with alterations?

Yes, sir.

Which this is talking about the general improvement plan. So just anything that they want to do to change up the layout or add things. Basically, my reading is listed in the general improvement plan, but there's a small word, but during the due diligence period, the tenant, we may be able to request to see the general improvement plan. I feel like if there is a general improvement plan and if we want to be able to see it, If we want to be able to see it, we should be able to see it, not we may be able to see it. I want to know what's going on with it.

So as a whole, they have to have approval to make any alterations. The general improvement plan was if they bring a whole plan of improvements to you and you say 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.

So is that during the due diligence period they are going to provide that to us?

Well, then or from time to time during the term of the lease, they can provide that. It's really up to them how often do they want to come ask counsel for changes to this and that.

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 ask you for any changes now. Granted, they may just make some changes and you're not watching, you may not know, but this is pretty standard for leases that the tenant can't make improvements or changes without the landlord's approval.

So just for clarification for me, we're either improving the general permit 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 to do that.

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.

They can come back. We can do one at a time. Or later do another general.

Yes. Thank you for the clarification.

Anyone have any comments prior to 21? Maybe not. 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 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 permission

Essentially, it's tied to the majority owner of the Harder Hall Hotel unless they ask and grant otherwise.

Correct. And their request to you can't be sort of unreasonably refused, which that's normal. You'd have to have a reason for not wanting to approve that assignment. So my next comments are in paragraph 26, which is on the top of print, page 9.

Can we do a sublease? Sure. Okay, so right after that, sublease. I know the intent. It sounds like from what I read, this is really specific to the restaurant, but is there a way to remove the tenant-made sublease? So what would stop them from potentially subleasing the golf course to not a management company, but just to another company? I guess they're just taking my words approval though.

It does. Now, one difference here in 22 that you don't commonly see is a 30-day time limit. If we don't comment back, and that's above the red print in that paragraph, if we don't, then it's deemed to be permitted. I think they certainly intend to. hire a management company, whether that's considered a sublease or not. Depends on what level of control and things like that.

That's what they presented in their RFP. Right.

I don't know if they're attending to someone or not. just hiring them to run it.

But doesn't it specifically say at the bottom that they may elect to hire and retain a management company, and that doesn't constitute a sublease?

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 to lease the entire premise out to somebody else and just collect rent, if they just wanted to say, we don't want to be in the golf course business, or we don't want to be managing any of it, we're just going to lease that to somebody else. Because it sounds like this is more specifically, how do we take care of the restaurant side of that? Right. This could be further restricted if you wanted. So that's where I'm asking too, is there an appetite to make this a little bit more of a further restriction to keep it just subleasing the restaurant portion of this and just removing the option of leasing out the entire premise, the entire golf course? How does this compare to the previous paragraph?

It is very similar to previous drafts. Paragraph 21. Paragraph 21. If you wouldn't want a sublease sort of workaround, then you could tighten that paragraph 22 regarding subleases to not allow the full, the sublease of the full property. You probably would want to allow subletting of the restaurant, perhaps the pro shop. 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.

It still says it's got to be in landlord's approval.

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 caught my eye for sure.

I mean, it's pretty granular. I wouldn't stress that detail because we do have to grant permission.

Yeah, it's still approved. You guys can't do some in 30 days. You guys. I wasn't talking about Rebecca. I know she can. I can do.

Okay, I'm not offended by guys.

Right after that, too, right to encumber. I know, Bob, you know, I've talked about that. I still have a little bit of a heartache with the right to encumber and put to mortgage things. I understand with any improvements that they have done to the property once the lease is in place. but before that, is there any, and we're more for clarification than 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 assets?

If they have the right to encumber their leasehold interest in those assets, not, it can't be sold. Not to assets. Right.

Only their right to use it. Basically the value of the lease.

Which is what, if they were going to go to a commercial lender, the commercial lender would want... to have a leasehold mortgage. Maybe some other lending product, but that's very common when people that only have a leasehold interest want to build or renovate or expand, they get a leasehold mortgage.

So in non-lawyer terms, that means they could put a mortgage on basically just their lease. We have this 50-year lease. Can we get a mortgage using that as the security? Not the course, not the physical land, not real property.

Right, but the rent stream coming off of it for the next 50 years, that could be pledged.

Almost like a bond, like a municipal bond. But not.

I thought you were trying not to blow your tongue.

Okay, well. But that makes sense, right?

Makes sense. So ultimately, the city is protected on this. It's not a huge— That's very customary. Okay. a lot of these are comments i've been getting too so i just wanted to explain a little bit more and then just to put it on the records 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 for the golf course

for them to renovate it and that it was to any uses related to or supporting the hotel. And this closes that down. It restricts that to things like restaurant or a spa, not any use related to or supporting the hotel because that's a very broad category of use or structures. It also falls for, this is the default paragraph, It had a period, if it ceased to be operated as a golf course for six months, that six months has been reduced to one month, 30 days notice for a default rather than 180 days notice. 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 a hotel guest to play it. It's a default for an assignment of the tenant's property for the benefit of creditors. Or if the hotel stops becoming an operating public lodging establishment, so if it becomes a condo, if it becomes an apartment, if it's no longer a hotel, those things would be breaches under the contract that the city could enforce.

What if we have three hurricanes in one year again?

Force majeure would, which is later down that page, would sort of take control there and say it's out of their hands.

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 be gone in six months, you know, if it's not maintained well, if it ceases operations. I think that a shorter time frame is better than that.

I agree with that.

Can we go back? Sorry. Back, one, two. Well, I guess it's still on that one, too. It sounds like the original intent goes back to this, so if it fails to operate the premises of golf course, park, place, or public recreation, Again, that was one of my biggest points, too, is the original intent of what this property is, but they just want to use it for the golf course. So can we, for this contract, remove the park or the public place of recreation to say, well, they're not in the business to operate a park or a public place. We just want to limit to golf course use.

It can be further restricted to only using it to operate as a golf course. Thoughts on that?

I think that's their intent. I think that's our intent. I assume they wouldn't either.

Any heartburn with that?

No, that's just from the original lease, right? The original intent from the 1926 one. Yeah, for those four things.

And then substantive changes in 38, we've moved, this is the paragraph that says the lease automatically terminates if the hotel doesn't have a full CO by, and this has now reached September 30th, 2031, so five years to get the full CO. That only constitutes a CO on the existing structure, not any outbuildings and other things they might decide to build.

Could you clarify your recording of the lease? Just help me understand what that means. Why is that not recorded?

So you typically don't record the whole lease because of concerns on clouding the title. You record what's called a short form memorandum that has the name of the parties, the term of the lease, things like that. And that's often what lenders will look to to make sure it's clear that they do have that leasehold to use as collateral to make the leasehold mortgage. So that's the sum, certainly, of all of the significant changes. Did you hear anything?

So I have one question. We have talked about recording a conservation easement over the course just to protect it forever. Would anything in this lease restrict that or get in the way? Or do we need to add a line explicitly allowing that? With whatever, if there are any proceeds for recording that easement going to the city.

So the tenant under a lease, I think, would have to agree to a conservation easement being imposed. I don't know that operating a golf course qualifies.

We weren't sure if it's possible. Right.

Typically, conservation easements, they allow you to do things like farming and things a little less invasive, perhaps, than operating a golf course with whatever chemicals are used on a golf course. So I think if you were to consider doing a conservation easement, I would not enter into a long-term ground lease. Once you do that, I don't think you will be able to do conservation easement until the ground lease expires. But again, I'm not sure that you can do a conservation easement to operate a golf course.

I thought I found a couple of examples of that.

Maybe they exist. I'm used to seeing for cattle ranches and things like that.

So if we wanted to do a conservation easement, you're essentially saying we can't do it while there's an active lease on it?

Correct. I think that would be a big hindrance. Okay. The conservation easement is really sort of a promise to the grantee, which is commonly the state, that 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 under the lease that if they don't sign off on it, I don't think whomever would be receiving the conservation easement would entertain doing it. Usually they pay for conservation easements, so I doubt they'd want to come off with money in that situation, but certainly something that can be investigated if you want.

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, for recreation, effectively. Oh, okay. I think that was the only question I had.

I completely agree with you, and I would like to see that too, but I know that we want to make a decision on that too.

I don't want that to be the case.

is a quick way to find out if it's possible, great, but if not, then it's not a deal breaker for me. Okay. I didn't have any other questions I hadn't readdressed, so.

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.

I think they did. 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 revenues or a flat amount. I don't know. I think it would put a lot 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, and I think the red line version is with some of the things we've discussed tonight, I view the dollar as $250,000, because that's what So I don't really have heartburn over that. They will have to pay taxes and that sort of thing. So there will be some money coming to the cities away from this. So I don't feel strongly about it either way, if you're polling.

I mean, I would love to have some income, but 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 to tie it to the extension and set the expectation that there would be more of a lease payment after 50 years, if they get it going and get everything moving, I think that would be reasonable so that they don't come back and expect $1 a year.

I think that could be a good compromise. I'm with you, Roland, though. I would feel a lot better, and I think was a monthly or annual payment coming back to us. And even if we didn't start a lease payment for five or 10 years until they opened up, they're making some money too, and 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 what's on the table. So, but I don't want to kill a deal just because of it. And I think if, honestly, if we say, well, it's not deal breaker and we put 50,000 bucks on the table, but I'm also, David, I like your idea.

I could get on board with what you just said. I'm not voting for more than 50. I mean, No, I'm not saying extend it. I'm just saying make it... I'm not in favor of 99 years. But have a little bit more verbiage what he was saying earlier about 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 $5,000 a month.

Yeah, we'll say $50,000 and people carry that in their pocket. We might be, you know.

binding the city to an amazing 50-year deal. A good percentage of us will not be here in 50 years.

Probably a very high percentage. Always amazed looking at old leases that talk about they can have liability coverage for $100,000 for the business.

To me, the time frame is more important. As long as our leases, it protects the city and protects our public. retain access and make sure that we're locked in.

Alright.

Alright, so going back to the original timeline data, this is hypothetically with Bob writes this up version number 14 or 15. If there's any small things that Sykes or that the attorney wants to go back and forth on, and I say, if we could have the final, uh, contract on the agenda June 2nd. Is that reasonable? And then have it signed if they want to move forward with it or not, but it is what it is by June 15th.

So you're right. June 2nd only gives them two weeks.

Well, if we've been doing this for a year and a half, this is 80% of the original contract that we're tweaking.

Perhaps we could encourage comments back by June 1st with a firm deadline of the second meeting or... Wednesday before to have a final yes or no, a final agreed language.

You know, it seems like, too, I mean, I've talked with Scott, I've talked with the Blackmans, and their 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, to go back to the, you know, the committee function, whether it be, you know, council president, mayor, Nate Lickin, 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 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 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.

We can clarify language plenty of times for June 15th. And I'm happy to reach out and try and set up a time 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. Fifty years. I mean, I don't know if they are or not. I really don't know. You know, but that might give the two sides to have a conversation. I just have one conversation as opposed to this back and forth, and it seems kind of inefficient. Yeah.

No doubt. We aren't even back and forthing at the moment. We each sent a version. The majority of 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. It can't happen. Is that because they hate the whole deal then? I've not heard a word from them, so I can't tell you. Okay. 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 would be a good thing to do. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. But as of right now, there is no agreement, but it's possible to trade now on June 15th.

Well, I kind of agree with David. Maybe it'd be good to have a conversation. Instead of just going, attorneys shuffling papers back and forth, but, you know, clean up what we talked about tonight and here, and then we can sit on it. They can say yes here. We can say yes or no. And 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 to that committee in the meeting.

No, I was talking about you, Harrison, Scott, myself.

As long as it's not an appointed committee, all those that are allowed to can get together and talk about it.

I'd be okay with that. I just want to keep the... We've got to keep it going. So whatever we can do, because I feel like we're just at the last 99%, we can get there by June 15th. I'm happy to...

Good with that.

And it's just at this point clarifying things or...

I think there are 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.

So here's what I want to make sure we don't do. We've essentially agreed upon a lease that this council is okay with tonight. And I think we've identified the hard lines that we have. If they have a problem with those hard lines, the least that we're comfortable with, and that's it. Because 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 there may have to be some give and take in the committee. No committees. No committee. But the entity itself, I think, should be empowered to 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've got to figure out what we're doing. It's budget season. It's kind of a now or never in my mind.

Well, I mean, if they walk away, then we have to start over.

Yes, but we know what we're doing for our budget, and we can make plans to do that. There are employees who are probably waiting for this decision too.

Sure.

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'd rather know where we're at.

I would too. 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.

Right. So that takes it into a November or December type thing. It doesn't string. I mean, 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've kicked the can too far in my mind.

And we have to set a budget if it's going to take effect. If we don't have certainty for that process, we've got to have a budget set.

And that's fine. Personally, I don't feel like a couple more months would be something that's going to kill us as opposed to starting over or 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. Like Josh said, they're looking for guidance on what's next for them. off course, but we might not. It's just not fair to any of the staff.

But overall, we don't know if we can... Let's just be hopeful that we can get something by June 15th and that we can worry about it after that point. That can be the goal.

I just don't think it should be the well, we can't meet, we can't get it done by then. 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 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? Are you going to walk away over that?

I think if we don't impose a deadline, it's going to work out in months.

Yes. Anyway, I would say, depending on how close you are at that point, you're down to one or two issues. It's very different than

I mean, my expectation would be that this group would get together and they would hash this thing out. So it's really more of a timeline of how can this group get together and meet with the Blackmans to finalize it and get it taken care of versus leaving it in their hands and saying, well, we're willing to go past June 15th or whatever.

We're on March 15th. You've been going back and forth for a year and a half.

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 Blackmans. So I feel like, yes, you can negotiate with them, but we've got to have the conversation.

So let's put a pin on the public comments. Anybody have any thoughts? I know Jeff has some, and then Miss Debbie, I don't know if some of those questions got answered. After Jeff, after he states his name for the record.

I only have 17 pages, Jeff Carlson for the record. Mr. Lidell brings up a great point in having conversations with the Blackmans. In my mind, that conversation meeting is... to give you your 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. I think anything, I think Mr. Swain brought this up a couple of times that tying anything down in the extension is risk, gives us a risk of being locked into something or the interpretation of us being locked into something in the future. I would rather see us put something tied to the sublease, and I'll bring that up when I get to that page, but if you're going to put some sort of dollar figure on the lease, if they go sublease the property, that seems like it would be a good trigger point if they're going to get revenue off of it at $100,000 or $50,000 a year or whatever it is, why shouldn't 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. It seems to me that everything from sentence two all the way down to line one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, 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. It seems like all of that could just be stricken, and you could just say simply that if you want to make any alterations, you've got to come out. They could bring a master plan together. Mr. Hsu alluded to some sort of a plan that they have. Has anybody ever seen anything like that, a plan or any written plans or anything related to it? But somehow there are 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 lawsuit.

Did a farmer address that though, Jeff?

Yeah. We can take that out. Standard leases would just say a tenant has to get landlord's approval to make alterations. It simplifies it.

As I read through that, it's confusing to me, which anything time legalese sounds confusing, some lawyer is going to jump on that someday and say, hey, guys, I interpret that this way, and then we're at the whim of a judge. Anyway, I think that would be a great way to simplify that in a simple language. You guys touched on this a little bit, the contradiction between 21 and 22 on page 7 with sublease. 22, in my mind, essentially negates 21. If you give them the ability to sublease without any restrictions, then they could not assign it, but they could literally the next day walk in and sublease this thing for $250,000 a year to anybody they wanted. And you have no restrictions related to that.

They have to get the landlord's consent.

I know, but it's still... Putting the language in there that they could sublease gives you, again... This is going to show up in court, an argument about this issue, or someone's going to back down on this issue. It seems like you're restricting it in one place, but you're giving them a workaround in the next paragraph.

So if you don't address subleasing at all, the tenant is free to sublease all they want. So putting in a restriction that they have to have the landlord's consent. help solve what would be the result if you didn't address sublease.

Can we tie the two together that says the sublease will also be that so that at least it's explicitly stated in the contract?

If they were to sublease a portion of the golf course property, it would have to be to an owner of the hotel. Just like the assignment? Yes, it could. But if they were going to sublease it to a restaurateur, come in and operate a restaurant who has no interest in owning the hotel, they wouldn't be able to if that restriction was there.

And I think there was some discussion about carving out the restaurant space as a different carve-out from a lease versus the course itself. 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 thought course. So if they jump in and give it away the next day, then turns out that's not actually what the plan is. So I don't feel like we should give them any room move this to someone else other than the people that own the hotel, other than maybe a management company, which I feel should also be in a different paragraph, because management company has nothing to do with subleasing. You could say, we expect that you could potentially hire a management company. We don't have a problem with that. But leasing gives them some sort of more control or Defaults and remedies. I think you talked about this a little bit. This is paragraph 26A on page 8. I think Harrison brought this up on line 1234, where it says tenant fails to continuously operate premises as a golf course, park, or place for recreation. You struck that language, right? Yes. Okay.

Tonight, yes.

Yeah. So can you explain, this is to paragraph 20, the encumber, paragraph 23 at the bottom of page 7 and the top of page 8. So they can encumber the property up to their leasehold interest, which is $50.

No, all they have is a leasehold. They don't own. they have the right under the lease to operate it for a term of 50 years and they can pledge that to a lender.

So they pledge that to a lender, they default, the lender comes and says, there's a lease extending, we want the rent payments.

what the lender 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 repaid, they're allowed to come and put somebody else into operating so that the lender can get paid It would be up to the city to agree to that, but that's what – it'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. They don't want 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 force-place a new operator of this golf course so that they can get their money back, it seems like saying you can't do this.

So a deal between the lender and the city is not included in this. I'm just telling you, in my experience, that's what comes when the commercial lender is involved at some future stage. That's what the commercial lender is going to want. The city doesn't have to agree that they get force placed with a new operator. The city could have the ability to the city could just say no, but you're not helping your tenant out. I assume if we enter into this, you want the tenant to be successful and you're making life harder on them to not let them have access to commercial funding if they're going to build improvements that you think are valuable to to have? The unknown improvements.

The unknown. The concern I have is that this is a bait, switch, or shell game, right? And they come in, borrow $5 million on October 15th, maybe the lender's already in place, they bankrupt that 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 to invest in your whole contract.

I doubt that they only... collateral they would take or want is the leasehold interest.

So at the end of the day, what's the city's risk if they borrow $5 million against their lease? What am I out for as a taxpayer?

Nothing. You're not on the hook to repay any of that.

But the city still retains control of the property, even though they defaulted on a loan that has a leasehold improvement.

And the lease is in default, and the lease disappears. So, I mean, a leasehold interest, basically, when you loan on a leasehold interest, it's almost like an unsecured loan.

Yeah, I don't remember anybody ever doing that.

Because it's a good faith. That's why we didn't do it. But, I mean, it's a good faith loan is what it is, basically. And if they default, at least then they default on a lease, and the lease is worthless.

And the taxpayers are still hold. Yes.

It's not like what happened to Hunter Hall when they tattooed that HUD loan and we had to take it back.

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 don't know. Never talk statute invitations on that one.

We're talking about the golf course. We're talking about the golf course.

You brought it up.

No, you tried.

Alright, I'm good. Thank you very much for the indulgence and the extra time. I appreciate it very much.

Thank you. Any response that we have on those things? 14 and 22 and 21.

For the record, my name is Rob. I want to agree with Roland about the dollar. I know they've already offered the restaurant to someone for $8,000 a month. So we get a dollar, they get $8,000. That's not fair to the taxpayers. I'm a taxpayer. I don't like that. And I haven't heard if they decide to sell the hotel, does the lease go to the people that buy it? So you end up with a lease with somebody you don't really know or have negotiated with.

Yes, it's tied to the hotel.

So if they sell it, it's at least a dollar a year. I disagree with the dollar, but we have other city 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 afford it. And the council has to do it. So is there any protection that they can't come and say we need this or that?

I think they could ask for whatever they want. They can always come and ask. But those other properties are operated by nonprofits. I mean, I can't speak for everyone else or future councils.

If there was a city, we're giving them a big piece of property at nonprofit. If they lease the restaurant, they're going to get $8,000 a month.

Right now we get negative $250 a year. I mean, that's my thought on it. I mean, we already know this.

I'm just saying that's kind of a crazy deal there. We give them the whole thing for a dollar. They get a grand.

Thank you. Thanks, Larry. Anybody else who wants to speak?

good evening how's everybody today debbie mcnoll 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 was 28 sga members are you talking grandfathered menus The rest of us are still SGA members because we pay our dues to the SGA. I have a little card that says I'm an SGA member. But we pay a different dues structure. What protection do we have in there? Are we what you term SGA members if we are regular members? Or do we have to be a grandfathered member to be considered an SGA member?

the rates and benefits that were described in the contract from approximately 2006. And I can't tell you, I don't know if there are different classes of membership that were in that or not.

When it was purchased, to my knowledge, by the city from the members.

Right.

There was a very small group that were grandfathered. And they have a limited rate. However... a couple, two people is over 5,000 a year. And we pay an extra, I think $30 a year That's an important point for us.

Sure. I'm not certain that's the answer. My suspicion is that only those that were specifically provided for in the 2004 agreement get to maintain that pricing and benefit structure.

Others afterwards do not. Then the verb is incorrect. Because I do have an SGA membership card.

Right. This proposed lease refers to the tenant maintaining the benefits under that specific contract, not maintaining Sebring Golf Association benefits globally, just those described in that written contract from 2004.

So you're saying no.

Correct. It doesn't mean the council can't. It says the tenant will honor the pricing and benefits for current members of the golf course as well as receiving golf association members as described in that specific agreement.

Okay, so current members.

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 the black ones enter into a lease and begin to operate the course. Or if it's available, it may be at an increased price. It's current members, so it would take you through whatever the current 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 that doesn't allow you, I mean, people who've been current members for 10 years and aren't in the original 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 deal would end September 30th.

Well, I don't think that's great for the general membership of the Gulf Coast in any way, shape, or form, especially we're the ones that have been the most vocal about this, and we're just not being taken care of. To somebody who's in construction, is it realistic to have a CO in five years?

Yes. I believe he's the one that came up with that date.

right yeah i guess that's it um where would we be able to get a copy of those finalized funds if we if we get one 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 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 membership. The previous draft, I believe, did have that. Oh, the one in the packet today had that paragraph. But the one in the packet specifically said that there was a date that you had to stop selling.

So they won't sell them for more than the one-year timeframe.

Right.

Basically, it's not going to sell. They're not going to be sold to affect their pricing come October 1. Right. And anybody that had a membership, I thought it said one year. right but to scott's point all those in december it'll be good through december they're only good through september 30th apparently that's what's been sold over the course of one year yeah it did say one but as of january 1st they're selling through september anybody else from the public who wants to speak up on this final comment from council

Bob, do you feel like you got what you need to?

Yes, sir. And I'll ask simply, does anybody wish to make further revision based on?

We did the, what Jeff called us, 14. When it comes to the alterations in the general room plan, we got to look at that even more and just say the, basically keep the first sentence.

I'm comfortable with whatever Bob is calling it. It's too much legalese for me to try and make sense of myself.

It's better to carve it back some more, but in the spirit of trying to get something done, that is of lesser importance than other things, I think, to the city.

It's better for us, I'd say, let's carve it out, but if we need to put it back in. Throw it out there and see what's up next.

We don't need a motion or anything on this, I presume.

How about a motion to approve as discussed?

Well, I guess before we say that, too, going back to the assembly of discussions, not a committee, do we need any kind of, want to go in that direction, too?

Don't say, forget I said that. Yes, you can. I would encourage you not to have further specifics on that.

All right, so. So the way I would say this motion is I would like to approve the city attorney to modify the lease agreement as discussed tonight.

Okay.

I'll make a motion that we approve the city attorney to modify the lease agreement to the Blackmans as discussed this evening.

Second. I'll second. Second. Any other comments? Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. All right, Bob, you're up again.

Bob's got a stacked agenda.

Agenda item 12b is a proposed ordinance amending section 2-260.1. It's an ordinance amending section 2-260.1 of the Code of Ordinances of the 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 shall be ex officio to assign duties and responsibilities as Chief. We did something similar with having the mayor continue to serve, just saves reappointments. It's an admin effort.

Questions on this? I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we approve the proposed ordinance as presented and schedule a second and final reading. Second.

Motion to second. Comments from the audience? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Bob, you're a popular guy tonight. Let's talk about this.

Agenda item 12C involves the city retaining council to be involved in a class action lawsuit where the city could recover funds to clean drinking water. 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 an MCP, they only get paid from any recovery head. The city's not out for money if it turns out that the city isn't eligible for some reason. And this is, I think DuPont is one of the entities putting money into this settlement.

So is it an actual lawsuit or are they going ahead and just funding these?

It's a lawsuit. I believe the money has been set aside and the concern is that at some point regulatory bodies might regulate a more a perhaps lower level of this PFAS and the chemicals that are related to it than they do now. And so this is, if you're going to have to spend money to do cleanup, you just soon have some money come from somebody else to do it. Sure.

And your recommendation is to accept?

Yes, ma'am.

Do we know who we're suing?

You're joining in this national class act. Okay.

Any questions?

Make the motion to accept the Grossman Kelly retainer agreement.

Second.

Motion to second. Anybody else want to talk about this?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. We pay the bills.

You're going to be skipping Scott.

Oh, I did.

I'm sorry, Scott. Scott, what's going on? Good evening, council. I'm just gonna touch on the items that have changed in the report. We have received the analysis from the environmental firm looking at endangered species. At some point, we'll come back with a recommendation to council in reference to that. And then Senator Gee will be, I believe, at your next meeting, June 2nd, to present their results from the analysis that they've done. questions one way wall street sorry making wall street one way a wall street one way so um we've had some discussion of that on that at the staff level i think our opinion is to take baby steps maybe not make that drastic a change that would involve an incredible number of signs and locations that we don't even know that we could place them at this point And we're thinking that at some point in the future, if things don't get better from a perspective of, I'm gonna say road closures and stuff like that, then we may come back to you and recommend the closure. But right now, from a staff perspective,

Okay. That sounded very defeatist, Scott.

It just didn't seem like a good idea after we started talking about all the items that may or may not…

So it's effectively one way right now, just whoever is the first or the biggest, it's their way. Right.

And it works right now, the way it does.

Sure, kind of.

But, I mean, I will proceed forward making it one way if you really think you should, but I'm just... Our thought was, you know, looking at special events, we'll try to, you know, close everything down at Wall Street when we can. Mm-hmm. But just didn't think it was the best move to make at this point in time. But happy to go back and revisit it if that's what you really want.

I'm happy to put a pin in it. Re-evaluate maybe in the year, see how now it goes, the changes that we've made.

What are we going to evaluate in here? What changes in money?

Well, they said the way that we're doing events.

Anything that's Scott or works, just set a date. I mean, if the concern isn't about events, it's just making it one way, it's a different topic.

So what you're talking about doing is instead of allowing Wall Street to be open when events are going on, just closing Wall Street?

No, closing before you get to Wall Street.

Making sure it doesn't extend beyond.

Wall Street will be your exit if you go into the dead end where it's closed. That's what I proposed it.

Yeah, because that means you're going to have more traffic on this ambiguous road. I would think that would mean it's more important to have it one way. Because right now, you just kind of go and peek, right?

I understand. I understand. It's just perception. With respect to how the staff that works these events, I'm just relaying what our conclusion was. I am fine to take it back.

I guess I'm with Roland. I mean, it feels like that will cause more problems, not less, in my mind.

It seems to be, I mean, from staff's perspective, not the only one here, but from staff's perspective, it just seemed like it would be better or it works the way it is right now.

It 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 in different locations.

Because if you don't have enough signs, you could easily go the wrong way. Correct. Correct. I'm a bad one-way driver. I understand.

Well, I'll try. Chief Carl Hogan, for the record, some of the concerns we have from a one-way perspective is we 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 of the buildings on Wall Street that would require one-way signs either to turn right or left off of six alleyways that would be contributing roadways to Wall Street, We'd have to find out a signage component that would work there. 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 downtown. Aesthetically, it may not be pleasing. With special events and trying to get vehicles around the event areas, we run into a problem with our DOT or DOT road closures and the maintenance of traffic that's 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. We utilize North Pine Street on the north end for a detour that's established by DOT and approved by DOT. 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 when they get to Wall Street and they have to make a right or left hand 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. Some of the proposals were counterclockwise, so that you would not make a turn across traffic if you were coming up through the circle. Of course, that's philosophical and probably requires 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 on some of these closures, try to come up with a better or 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?

Yes. Now, the maintenance of traffic piece won't. You still have a requirement to give advance warning, to have signs that it's adequate to advise motorists on where they're supposed to go. And if you don't do it properly and somebody gets killed or hurt, certainly there's an exposure reliability potential there. Generally speaking, you're going to want to do it in close conformity to the FDOT design standards for road closures. 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 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 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. We don't have a significant documented traffic problem other than frustration of motorists, especially during special 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 support this, motorists will drive over your cones, they'll drive over the barricades, they'll drive along the sidewalk and get around them.

Those things won't change with this.

Did I help or hurt?

Yes. I meant Scott.

Any other questions I might help with? Thank you.

As soon as our president gets us there.

For the record, I apologize, Scott. You're very important. Your reports are very important.

So moved. Second.

Anybody have an issue with that? yes yes yes yes yes thank you all we're done