On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   Approval of May 6, 2025 CRA Meeting Minutes

   approved

   The CRA Board approved the minutes from the May 6, 2025 CRA meeting by a 5-0 vote.

   • motion:Motion to approve the May 6, 2025 CRA meeting minutes. (passed)5–0

   👤Driscoll👤Manns#May 6, 2025 CRA Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:17 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:17] Manns, here. City Attorney Driscoll, here. May 6, 2025 CRA meeting minutes. I have a motion. [00:00:28] I move to approve. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. That's 5-0. 6131 US

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Cross Construction Services Incorporated” — transcript expanded below

   6131 US Hwy 19 Structure Demolition – Riverside Inn

   approved

   The CRA Board approved a contract with Cross Construction Services Inc. for $184,075.30 to demolish the former Riverside Inn Hotel at 6131 US Hwy 19 and conduct asbestos analysis, piggybacking on FDOT contract BE-137. The board also approved a budget amendment not to exceed $190,000, deferring boat ramp improvements from FY24-25 to FY25-26. Members emphasized the property's blight/crime issues and importance to the US-19 corridor redevelopment.

   • motion:Approve contract with Cross Construction Services for demolition and asbestos analysis of the Riverside Inn ($184,075.30) and approve budget amendment not to exceed $190,000. (passed)

   📍6131 US Hwy 19🏢Cross Construction Services Incorporated🏢Magnuson Hotel🏢Riverside Inn Hotel👤Matt👤Mr. Rivera#Boat ramp improvements project#CRA Contractual Services Account 63008043499#Community Redevelopment Plan#Downtown US Highway 19 Corridor Master Plan#FDOT demolition contract BE-137#Police Department LIFT team

   ▶ Jump to 0:34 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:39] Highway 19 structure demolition, Riverside Inn. The action that we're [00:00:46] requesting this evening is to enter into a contract for the demolition of the [00:00:55] former Riverside Inn Hotel, and Mr. Rivera will present the agenda item. [00:00:59] Thank you, ma'am. The cost proposal for the demolition, as well as the [00:01:04] asbestos analysis, is $184,075.30. [00:01:12] This is submitted from Cross Construction Services Incorporated. It is [00:01:18] for the demolition and, again, the asbestos analysis of the Riverside Inn. [00:01:22] The pricing in terms and conditions are in accordance with the FDOT demolition [00:01:29] contract, BE-137. The process is described as a piggyback and is allowed [00:01:36] under the city's purchasing guidelines. In addition, staff would request that the [00:01:41] directors consider for approval the attached budget amendment. This is in the [00:01:47] amount not to exceed $190,000. The budget amendment funding [00:01:51] source is designated for the boat ramp improvements, and it would be expected [00:01:56] that that project would move from the 24-25 year to 25-26. On May 9th, 2025, the [00:02:07] City's Community Redevelopment Agency closed on the purchase of the Riverside [00:02:11] Inn. As you know, it's located just west of the New Port Richey Bridge. [00:02:18] The CR Directors and the Community Redevelopment Plan has called out [00:02:24] that the downtown US Highway 19 corridor master plan identified this property as [00:02:29] one of the community's most important opportunities for redevelopment. Now that [00:02:35] the city has closed on that property, the first priority is the demolition of the [00:02:42] structure. This serves the process to secure the property from potential [00:02:48] vandalism, material theft, criminal activity, unauthorized occupancy, and [00:02:54] potential fire hazards, all of which are increased liabilities for the city now [00:02:59] that we own it. The funding source will be charged to the CRA's Contractual [00:03:06] Services Account 63008043499, and we would recommend that you do [00:03:14] approve the two proposals as well as the budget amendment. Any public comment? [00:03:21] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. Move for approval. [00:03:26] I'll second. To the maker. Yeah, this is well worth the money. That place has [00:03:32] been, you know, an eyesore, blight, crime, and it's gonna give rebirth to [00:03:37] something really, really great here in the city. So, looking forward to it. [00:03:42] I agree with Matt. It's just sitting there idle. Just gonna be a nuisance. I [00:03:48] think we need to get rid of it. Probably save the Police Department a little bit [00:03:52] of time responding to any issues of homeless or vagrants in there. So, thank [00:03:56] you. And, Mr. Mayor, if you'll allow me just after you vote. The boat freedom [00:04:08] discussion, Governor just announced today, yesterday, given people the right not to [00:04:18] have their boat, have the police come onto the boat, but does allow for them [00:04:26] to check the fishing and the bait wells. So, that was the criminal, you know, [00:04:31] freedom part of it, but as a backside to that, it indicated that the Governor was [00:04:39] going to increase his funding for boat ramps and water access, and he wants [00:04:47] Florida to become the best boating place in the country, I guess. So, to the degree [00:04:54] that we're just getting involved in not only what we do here with our boat ramp, [00:04:59] but whatever the county is planning to do with their boat ramp out there, I'm [00:05:05] sure that they should be licking their chops to try to figure out what that [00:05:10] means and how much extra money is going into that program and getting something [00:05:14] as quickly design-buildable as possible. Which means, yes, I'll vote for this so we [00:05:21] can get it started. I have plenty of time to listen to the radio coming back [00:05:34] from work every day, so I pick up my news. I would just say that comparing the [00:05:44] Magnuson Hotel demo to this one, what we're going to see is that now we have a [00:05:52] community action, excuse me, a lift team through our Police Department. We have [00:05:57] wraparound services. We have the ability, we have the infrastructure in place [00:06:01] socially for, and to be clear, the building wasn't sitting vacant. There [00:06:06] were people living there, and so being sensitive to that, this is a far better [00:06:12] arrangement where hopefully if anyone needed the help finding a place to stay [00:06:18] who was living there alongside whatever crime activity were occurring as their [00:06:23] neighbors, that they were given the opportunity to utilize our city services [00:06:28] and the incredible lift team that we do have. Other than that, I agree that this [00:06:33] is a necessary step forward, and I'll just reiterate, not necessarily the demo, [00:06:38] but the project as a whole, that we be considerate of those, we talked about [00:06:42] historic preservation and honoring those living around there, that as we start [00:06:45] focusing on US-19, we be considerate of those business owners who have been [00:06:51] there for years and find ways to work them into the plan as opposed to [00:06:57] potentially gentrifying them out despite the years of service they've, or years of [00:07:02] business activity that they provided to our city.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

4. 4

   Discussion Regarding the Proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement w/Pasco County Schools RE: Schwettman Education Center

   discussed

   The CRA Board discussed nine outstanding terms in the proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement with Pasco County Schools for the former Schwettman Education Center. Key issues included a shortened two-year payment term with proposed 3% interest, school board approval required for improvements until paid off, restrictions on multifamily use (defined as more than one unit per building), zoning/historic designation restrictions, profit-sharing if sold within 10 years, and obsolescence provisions. Board members expressed varying levels of support, with concerns raised about the school board's terms being one-sided; ultimately direction was given to staff to continue negotiations.

   • direction:Council direction to city manager and city attorney to continue negotiating and bring the purchase and sale agreement to closure with the school board. (none)

   📍Schwettman Education Center🏢Pasco County School Board🏢Pasco County Schools👤Bertel👤Ms. Manns👤Tim#25-year building maintenance covenant#Energy Management Center#Historic designation restriction#Multifamily use covenant#Obsolescence clause#Port Richey Bridge property sale (referenced)#Profit-sharing provision (10-year)#Purchase and Sale Agreement with Pasco County Schools

   ▶ Jump to 7:05 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:07:11] All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. That's five nothing. Now discussion [00:07:18] regarding the proposed purchase and sale of Pasco County Schools Swetman [00:07:22] Education Center. Okay, I will. The purpose of the agenda item this evening is to [00:07:36] conduct a discussion relating to specific terms and conditions of the [00:07:43] purchase and sale agreement from the, I'm sorry, between the school [00:07:51] board of Pasco County and the CRA related to the former Swetman Education [00:07:57] Center. There are actually nine outstanding matters that have been [00:08:09] advanced, which have been responded to, that we want to make sure we have your [00:08:17] concurrence on or some additional direction from you on so that we can [00:08:24] continue our discussions with the school board and hopefully bring this matter to [00:08:28] closure. And with that, I'd like Tim to talk to you a little bit about those [00:08:34] conditions. Okay, thank you, Ms. Manns. So as you recall, we had a contract with the [00:08:40] school board and that contract did not close and they asked for some additional [00:08:46] conditions on the purchase of the property. We prepared a contract and [00:08:51] proposed that contract to the school board's attorney late last year and we [00:08:59] had a meeting with them this last month in April and they, at that meeting, they [00:09:07] agreed to provide us with their proposed changes to the contract submittal that [00:09:12] we prepared and we received that in the last few weeks and that document was [00:09:20] circulated to all of you so you saw it in exact form that I received it from [00:09:25] their attorney, which was taking our agreement and redlining it. And I know [00:09:31] that this is probably, it gets kind of hard to read at some point. But what you [00:09:36] have in the backup in this agenda is that contract that I've taken and [00:09:42] finalized and then changed further with what you see in red lines. So it's a [00:09:46] little less redlining in it and I just want to go over how the [00:09:53] contract has changed from the original and from what we proposed. And so there's [00:09:58] a school board contract revisions page that's included in your package [00:10:03] and that really outlines the substantive changes and just want to [00:10:09] make sure you're aware of them and make sure that you are in agreement with us [00:10:15] proceeding with the changes as are outlined in this version of the contract. [00:10:20] And just, it's been submitted to the school board's attorney. I have not [00:10:24] received a response back yet from him on what the school board's position is with [00:10:30] respect to this contract. But as you see, the first one is that they would like [00:10:34] payment within two years rather than three. They would also like to be paid [00:10:39] interest. Now if the payment is not made within one year, they want interest on [00:10:44] that second year. And they proposed a pretty complicated formula and I [00:10:49] suggested let's just pick a number. And I suggested three percent. So I haven't [00:10:54] heard a response to that yet, but that's something we hopefully can work out so [00:10:58] that we're not trying to discuss a very complicated formula. We just pick an [00:11:02] interest rate that's only a year away. They did put in provisions that say that [00:11:07] the school board has to approve any improvements to the property [00:11:11] until the purchase price is paid. And they will no longer, prior version of the [00:11:18] contract and the prior one that was agreed to that didn't close, provided [00:11:22] that if for some reason, and keep in mind this was a three-year agreement [00:11:27] initially, and the city can't enter into agreements that span beyond one year [00:11:31] because you can't encumber your future budget authority. So what we do is we put [00:11:39] in a provision that says if you don't budget it, then we don't have to pay it. [00:11:45] And so you have to go through your budging process. Well what does the other [00:11:47] party do? You just decide not to budget it. So there's a provision for us to, for [00:11:53] them to take back the property from us. And in that process generally, you have [00:11:59] them pay you back the money that you paid them and for any improvements you [00:12:03] made, they're just saying we'll pay you back for what you paid us, but we're not [00:12:07] going to pay you for any improvements you made to the property. So I just want [00:12:10] to make sure you're aware of that. One of the covenants that they asked for from [00:12:15] the original contract was to limit residential use of the property. And [00:12:20] there was discussion about multifamily use. I propose that we define multifamily [00:12:25] by the city's definitions in our Land Development Code. They have specifically [00:12:31] asked that it be defined as any residential use beyond one unit per [00:12:39] building. So that's what's in this contract. So again, that's just something [00:12:43] I want to make sure you're comfortable with. Ours, just for the record, is [00:12:46] basically four units and up is considered multifamily. So it'd be a [00:12:49] little bit more of an intense development than just single family. [00:12:54] They've also added a change that until the purchase price is [00:12:58] paid, we can't change the zoning or at least make it more restrictive and we [00:13:02] can't designate it historic. That's a new provision. And then of [00:13:07] course, there's the provision that if the property is sold by the city within 10 [00:13:11] years, that there is some profit sharing of any money that the city would make on [00:13:17] that purchase. So we've defined the terms of how that would be calculated and you [00:13:21] can see it's a declining scale that starts at 75% split of the profit. And [00:13:27] the version of the contract wasn't very well rewarded. So I've reworded all of [00:13:31] that to make that clear that we're talking about any profit that the city [00:13:35] would make, which would be over and above what the city pays for it. And then just [00:13:40] finally, a provision that the school board has to be a [00:13:44] named insured on the property until it's paid for. Yeah, and we also, the [00:13:52] original agreement provided that the city has to maintain the building for [00:13:55] 25 years, but there was a provision that said if the building becomes obsolete as [00:13:59] determined by the city, then that covenant would no longer be there. They've [00:14:04] asked for it to be continued to be there, that there be no obsolescence escape, but [00:14:11] they did say that while there's, while the payment is still due in the two [00:14:16] years before the payment is made, that if we can mutually agree that the building [00:14:21] is obsolete, then there might be something, some relief being given. But it [00:14:25] would have to be by mutual agreement or they suggested that we go to court to [00:14:30] determine it. I replaced going to court with having an [00:14:32] architecture or an engineer make that determination. So I haven't received any [00:14:37] response to that yet, but that's what the proposal is that's before you. [00:14:41] So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions, but those are the highlighted [00:14:44] changes and we just want to make sure that we're proceeding in the right [00:14:48] direction with the direction of the City Council or CRA. Yeah, I think just up [00:14:55] front, I would say that the [00:15:00] The fact that the initial contract you got back from them provided a don't do anything without our, [00:15:10] don't add anything to it without our approval until you've paid it off is fine with me. [00:15:17] I mean, this takes time to decide what to do, get something built. [00:15:21] The fact that they said don't do a historic recognition of the building until you pay it off [00:15:28] is an indicator that really they don't want to do anything to damage their potential value if they had it back [00:15:37] because then they may well and could easily sell it for what the town doesn't want to have happen. [00:15:44] So I think what it does is it just underlines what you all have been saying to the group and what we believe, [00:15:54] which is we can trust ourselves to do the right thing. [00:15:57] We've got all five of us that seem to be in agreement, and the city manager has indicated to me her support for it. [00:16:05] We've got a county that's looking to try to participate with us, a university, others. [00:16:09] We don't know what it will be, but I feel very confident that based on that, that I trust the city, [00:16:18] and I don't need the school board to tell us whether or not we're going to demolish it or sell it [00:16:24] because we're not going to demolish it or sell it. [00:16:27] So I don't see anything that troubles me from their language to your proposed response language. [00:16:34] The only thing I would say is because I would not see us selling the property, as I mentioned before, [00:16:42] if at any point the CRA found as part of its mix that there was a component of commercial that fit in [00:16:49] as supportive of all of the other environmental, educational, recreational, whatever uses, a store or something, [00:16:58] if there ever was anything sold, which I wouldn't think that the city would do anyway. [00:17:03] They'd probably continue to lease it like most cities do. [00:17:07] Then that piece that would be sold could potentially have a profit, and if they want a profit, that's fine. [00:17:16] You're decelerating profit. [00:17:18] I wouldn't hold up the deal over it. [00:17:22] I'd be happy to say, yeah, we'll give you a share of the profit because we're not planning to sell it. [00:17:27] But you've done what you've done. [00:17:30] I would like to see us, because it is on the agenda, I would like to see us authorize the city manager [00:17:36] and the attorney to bring this thing home and get this deal because I understand it has to go back before the school board. [00:17:44] So if they have any objection to what you've sent them and it doesn't materially alter our rights to do what we want after two years, [00:17:57] after one year, we can pay it off sooner, whatever happens. [00:18:03] I'm not worried about the two-year time frame because I would hope we could pay it off sooner than that. [00:18:09] But we could go right in there and start using it. [00:18:12] And the orchestra is biting at the bit to find a place to put their orchestra roots down a little bit, and it's a wonderful bit of culture. [00:18:22] The art, the galleries, all of the groups that have made themselves known to wanting some use gives us a good six months [00:18:34] or whatever time it takes to really envision how the building would be used and how the property would be used. [00:18:41] And it doesn't mean, because I really want to throw some credit back to Councilman Bertel for your comment about getting the school board back involved, [00:18:52] I think we easily are going to draw them back involved with the whole education thing that we've learned, [00:18:59] the need for education from not only the Energy Management Center, [00:19:05] but learning anything that has to do with broadcasting or any of what historically Newport Ridge is about, [00:19:11] that these kids could come in to learn how to can, to fish, to make a mullet, some of the things that they have envisioned. [00:19:20] I see this as a chance really to fire up the community and the kids in our community, and I'm just excited to see what would happen. [00:19:29] So I'm ready to authorize you to close on this within the bounds of those two agreements, [00:19:35] or to at least let them know if they have modifications that aren't material to our basic structure. [00:19:42] Let's get them to vote on it, and if they make any changes, they can send it back to us to approve, [00:19:48] but why can't they vote on it as presented or get it on their board [00:19:54] and let them do what we're doing and talk about it and get it over with. That's all I have. [00:20:01] Yeah, I would just say that tonight we saw this presented to us, and it's definitely complicated. [00:20:12] There's a lot taking place. There's a lot of variables that are moving around, [00:20:18] but when you compare this to the sale we just did of the property right by New Port Richey Bridge, [00:20:27] that looks a lot more like you're buying it, you're putting it down, [00:20:33] you're doing what you need to do to recover your costs and make the community better. [00:20:40] To me, I feel like the school board is somewhat trying to be in the driver's seat here, [00:20:45] telling us what we can do with this property, but then also telling the community that it's for historic preservation, [00:20:54] when in reality they're asking us to pay for it and then asking us to give them interest on top of the payment. [00:21:01] In my mind, you're quite literally saying, if we take a while, if we preserve history, so to speak, [00:21:09] then we want profit on that history that you're preserving. [00:21:15] Or we want to charge you for waiting, for wanting to be sensitive towards history [00:21:19] and making sure we're making the right decision. [00:21:21] I don't know how we've gotten here and why the philosophy has changed as much as it has, [00:21:26] because from what I understood when I was on that side and when I got up here, [00:21:30] was that we were making an agreement, whether it was a partnership or not, [00:21:33] I would prefer it to be a partnership, but we were making an agreement to preserve the building. [00:21:39] That was the scope of this initiative, and it seems to have taken a route where it's more of a real estate deal, [00:21:46] where there's a potential for it to turn into us flipping it for residential. [00:21:51] For example, and this is where my questions come into play, before I get to questions for staff, [00:21:56] I would just add that the group here before us, I think your time would be better served in front of the school board, [00:22:01] because they're the ones presenting something that requires a lack of partnership [00:22:06] and requires the city to take the bulk of risk when it comes to historic preservation, [00:22:11] when the reality is that, although it's in the city limits, it was their history. [00:22:15] It was your history as it relates to schooling. [00:22:19] And so at the end of the day, it's their history to preserve with you, [00:22:22] and our city should be playing an extensive role in that. [00:22:25] If they don't want a role to play, that's fine. [00:22:28] But to me, it's insulting that they want to make money then off this deal, [00:22:32] and they have a different philosophy. [00:22:34] They think that they're not making money. [00:22:36] In terms of a real estate deal, they're not, but if they're genuinely behind historic preservation, [00:22:40] they are making money off of us having to eat the cost of preserving this property. [00:22:45] That being said, for my questions for staff, the .5, the covenant to restrict multifamily residential use of the property, [00:22:55] defines multifamily as more than one unit per building. [00:23:00] Can you elaborate on that? [00:23:02] If I'm a residential developer who wants to come into town and work with the city manager on a deal [00:23:08] to put some sort of project on this property, what's the limitation set based on this? [00:23:15] Anything above single family. [00:23:17] What's that? [00:23:18] Anything above single family would be prohibited. [00:23:20] Anything above single family, so I could put single family along the river if I wanted to. [00:23:25] Single family would be authorized under this. [00:23:27] And that's up to how we decide to do the zoning, how we decide to preserve the, [00:23:33] if we pursue historic preservation, do the building itself. [00:23:37] That's all determined within what this council decides over the course of the next two to five years. [00:23:43] The other question I had was the interest on the payment. [00:23:49] So you said they haven't come back to us on that. [00:23:52] And I'm not trying to play tit for tat here on what we're paying and what we're not, [00:23:57] but so we are going to pay that because we've budgeted to pay it over the course of two years. [00:24:02] So we are assuming we are going to pay that 3%. [00:24:05] We're not going to try to pay it off in a year. [00:24:08] You're asking them? [00:24:10] Yeah, I don't know. [00:24:11] I can't answer that. [00:24:12] I don't have financials. [00:24:14] Last I saw it was split, and then I was told at the last meeting that that's not what was budgeted. [00:24:19] So the last I was told it was split for two years. [00:24:21] We can't budget something until we know what we're buying. [00:24:24] We haven't budgeted for the second fiscal year yet. [00:24:28] We've only budgeted for one fiscal year. [00:24:32] So, no, we haven't. [00:24:34] But if we were able to do it sooner, we certainly would. [00:24:39] Helpful for you if I could answer the budget issue. [00:24:46] December 31st is less than one year from now. [00:24:50] That's the second fiscal year. [00:24:51] Right. [00:24:52] And all of that money for the entire year comes in on December 31st. [00:24:57] So that's a little over $8 million coming in in December that has yet to be budgeted. [00:25:02] So if we wanted to save 3%, it would just take the three of us up here to say we're paying it off. [00:25:08] And the reason why I'm bringing up this question is because, to be clear, 3% hasn't been agreed to. [00:25:13] No, it's not. [00:25:14] The school board has come back, and so instead of having to wait two weeks [00:25:17] and then they say they want to change the calculation, I'm just trying to get a general idea. [00:25:20] We plan on ultimately paying whatever percentages they continue to try to come up with. [00:25:27] So that's a hard stop right there. [00:25:30] I don't plan that. [00:25:31] So all I need is two other people to tell me, put it in next year's budget, let's pay the damn thing off, [00:25:36] and forget about the two years. [00:25:38] That's my idea. [00:25:47] And the last point I had was on, if the property is sold within 10 years, [00:25:50] a percentage of net profits from the sale must be paid for the school board. [00:25:54] And so it says, I didn't read the language on this, and that was my other question, [00:25:59] was in the strikethrough we were presented into your point, City Attorney, [00:26:03] it is very, there's strikethroughs but then underlines, so you can't tell what's actually strict or what's not. [00:26:09] For number five, this covenant for the multifamily is struck through, but I don't see where it reappears. [00:26:16] That's probably because what I did was he had language both in the contract and in the covenant. [00:26:22] You don't need to have that language twice, and some of it wasn't even accurate. [00:26:27] It wasn't the exact same language. [00:26:29] So I struck through all of the language that was in the contract and just referred to the covenant, [00:26:34] which will be attached to the contract, and that's really what you care about, [00:26:37] because that's what's going to survive the closing and be recorded. [00:26:41] And so we don't technically have that language yet, or is that in here? [00:26:43] No, that's in there. [00:26:44] It's in the covenant. [00:26:45] Is it at the very bottom then, because I couldn't find it. [00:26:47] It's the last document. [00:26:48] Okay, I'll get with you on where exactly it was. [00:26:51] But then to that point, I couldn't also find in the, thank you for the summary, because I couldn't find this stuff. [00:26:57] If the property is sold within 10 years by the percentage of net properties from the sale, [00:27:01] so they are agreeing to calculate it based on the purchase, the sale, [00:27:05] not like some convoluted formula where a developer is, because the formula that scared me [00:27:12] was the original one they had that based it on U.S. Treasury interest rates. [00:27:17] And so I know I'm probably asking a question that seems very simple, [00:27:20] but I don't know what the formula looks like. [00:27:23] They're basing it off of the sale of the property in 10 years. [00:27:26] That's it. [00:27:27] So, yeah, the Treasury interest rate thing was on the interest rate calculation. [00:27:32] But there's nothing in that. [00:27:33] And that's what I suggest that we remove, because it's way too complicated. [00:27:36] Those are the kinds of things you just go to court over for no reason. [00:27:39] Just give us a number. [00:27:41] Let's agree on a number. [00:27:42] It's a year away. [00:27:43] We can reasonably predict an interest rate that's a year away. [00:27:46] So I don't think we need a complicated formula. [00:27:48] As to the division of the proceeds, the language that they proposed was pretty confusing. [00:27:56] I think I know what they're trying to say, so I reworded it to say what I think they're trying to say, [00:28:00] which is that when this property, if this property is sold within 10 years, [00:28:05] you're going to make a calculation that's going to be what we paid them less whatever expenses we have related to the sale, [00:28:13] and then whatever we get from that sale. [00:28:16] And if that number happens to be a positive number when you deduct out all of that, [00:28:20] then we will share that, and they'll get a percentage of that profit. [00:28:23] But it has to be based on that. [00:28:25] So it's us selling it at an increase in value and taking off the cost of sale. [00:28:30] Now, we're not taking off the cost of improvements. [00:28:33] They didn't include that in there. [00:28:34] So we would get no credit for the improvements that we make. [00:28:37] But we would get, and then we can add that if you'd like, but that's what their proposal was. [00:28:41] So I'm just responding as to what they're proposing. [00:28:45] But the calculation is just the cost of sale, which would be brokerage fees and title insurance [00:28:50] and those kinds of things that would come off the top of that. [00:28:53] So we'd have to sell it at a profit. [00:28:55] That's the first thing. [00:28:56] So it's a profit-sharing agreement. [00:28:59] So whether that could happen or not, who knows? [00:29:01] But that's part of it. [00:29:04] Thank you. [00:29:05] Yeah, because I couldn't find that language. [00:29:06] And it does say here the city accepted the change. [00:29:08] So I was just making sure we proposed the language on net profits that we adjusted the language. [00:29:14] And now they need to accept it? [00:29:15] And that's what's in front of you. [00:29:16] No, they have not accepted. [00:29:17] I haven't gotten any response. [00:29:18] They need to accept it. [00:29:19] They need to accept it, correct. [00:29:21] All right. [00:29:22] That's all I have. [00:29:24] I'll clarify when I see it. [00:29:28] It's in there. [00:29:29] If you look at the Exhibit C, it's got all the terms of the cover. [00:29:31] No, I'm talking, I'll clarify where I stand when I see whatever they finally accept. [00:29:34] Oh, okay. [00:29:35] Got you. [00:29:36] Yeah, I just, I don't know. [00:29:38] There's just a lot of things that just seem weird. [00:29:41] You know, we've got a paying interest rate that is under discussion. [00:29:46] You know, we don't know. [00:29:48] The school board must approve any improvements to the property until the purchase price is paid in full. [00:29:52] So they're just dragging it out for two years. [00:29:54] So we basically can't do nothing to historical improvements, nothing, until we approve it. [00:30:00] purchase it, and let's say we do, we purchase it right away, then they still put a 10-year [00:30:08] on us for, you know, making some profit off it, which we're not trying to do anyways. [00:30:13] I just, you know, I just think they're trying to stranglehold everything and just, you know, [00:30:20] I say we buy it and the rest of it can go away because it's ours now and we're going [00:30:26] to do with it what we want, the city wants and the people want, so, you know, I'm for [00:30:31] taking it completely out of it after we purchase it. [00:30:34] I mean, we purchase it, paid money in full, it's ours, we're going to make it happen. [00:30:39] But I don't need them hanging around for 10 years trying to, you know, say they're going [00:30:43] to make a profit off it or something, but I'll go along with what the management says [00:30:50] and what makes sense to do it, but I just think that's, it's just a little ridiculous. [00:30:55] We know what we want to do with it, so. [00:31:00] I agree with what everybody's saying up here. [00:31:03] I just personally feel that the school board is playing our want for this property so bad [00:31:10] against us and I feel they know that we want it that bad and I feel that they're using [00:31:16] that against us and adding a lot of these provisions in there and I hate that they're [00:31:23] doing that because, like you said, it is their historic building, not ours. [00:31:29] I would think that they would be encouraging us to purchase it and be helping us and I [00:31:35] feel like they're just making it harder. [00:31:38] I mean, I'm not in favor of a lot of the things they have on here. [00:31:41] I think it's a lot of nonsense, but I just feel the longer we let this linger, the worse [00:31:47] this contract negotiation is going to be. [00:31:50] So I just feel we just need to get it done, move on, you know, take our lickings and pay [00:31:57] them off as quick as possible and get the property developed the way we want it. [00:32:03] I agree, agree, we all agree, but the thing that bothers me the most is why do they want [00:32:09] to be in our pockets after they sell it to us? [00:32:12] And it's just like, it's almost like your big brother gave you a toy and then decided, [00:32:17] you know, let him keep it in his toy box and not your toy box, but he gave it to you. [00:32:22] And I just have a problem with that because then he's only going to let you use it the [00:32:26] way he wants you to use it. [00:32:27] So, you know, we'll move on with what you've proposed because I think you're on our side [00:32:32] and your ideas, but it's why I don't understand why they're the big brother one in this whole [00:32:39] package. [00:32:40] It just doesn't, it just bothers me. [00:32:42] Yeah. [00:32:43] I mean, just one more thing. [00:32:44] I mean, how many people would, you know, go out and buy a piece of property or a home [00:32:48] and, and agree to, okay, you can't do any improvements to it until you've paid it off. [00:32:53] You know, it makes no sense. [00:32:55] You know, I don't know. [00:32:56] They just, what they're asking just seems silly. [00:32:58] Is that true though? [00:32:59] I mean, they have to approve of anything we would do. [00:33:03] And so if we said, hey, we're going to replace the windows and we go back to the schoolboy, [00:33:07] oh no, don't replace the windows and put brand new windows, they're not going to tell us [00:33:11] that. [00:33:12] You know, I think that. [00:33:13] They're not. [00:33:14] So at some point, somebody has got to be the bigger party and we are, and, and I'm proud [00:33:25] of us. [00:33:26] I'm proud that we're standing up for the community there. [00:33:28] They started by trying to wonder that we would just flip it and make money. [00:33:33] But then when they said, we're not going to flip it, we're going to use it. [00:33:37] Then they say, well, if you do flip it, give me some money. [00:33:39] So I'm not worried because we're not flipping it. [00:33:42] And so those are issues that are aggravators, but none of them bother me because I'm committed. [00:33:48] I'll be strapped up to the trees with these ladies here if anybody tries to sell it. [00:33:53] You know, because to me, this is like Sims Park. [00:33:56] This is our hundred year, this is our hundred year turnover for our community. [00:34:01] And we have an incredible vision that they've developed and others have found. [00:34:06] I think there's nothing but good things ahead. [00:34:10] And so I'm, I'm ready, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to authorize the city manager [00:34:18] to let the attorney go ahead, let the attorney present and ask them to put it on their agenda [00:34:28] and give us their, their word or any changes that they see that they don't want to agree [00:34:34] to. [00:34:35] And if that's the case, we come back. [00:34:37] So if the attorney, if they agree to us, we got a deal. [00:34:40] If they don't, to Bertel's point, that we come back and we hear, we hear what they didn't [00:34:47] like about our attorney's recommendations and we have to approve changes to it. [00:34:53] So I have a suggestion in that regard. [00:34:55] So what you could do, because we are the buyer and that means we make the offer to purchase [00:35:02] and this could be considered the offer to purchase, so you could make a motion to approve [00:35:06] the contract as presented and give authority to the city attorney and the city manager [00:35:11] to consider and approve reasonable changes in language that do not constitute material [00:35:16] modifications and material modifications would come back to this board if there were material [00:35:22] modifications. [00:35:23] I would like to expand that to say that a reasonable interest rate, two or three percent [00:35:29] in either direction would be, the city manager would be able to approve. [00:35:33] So that we're not coming back just because they want four percent or 3.5 percent and [00:35:36] our contract says three. [00:35:38] So to our, yeah but they're sitting there listening to this. [00:35:40] To our fat, well no. [00:35:41] They say move it down only. [00:35:42] That's all right. [00:35:43] Yeah. [00:35:44] Or two, two or two, two or two and a half percent. [00:35:45] To our fabulous city clerk who also hopefully has the recording she can go back to rather [00:35:51] than having all that said, I'd like to make the motion as stated by you to move forward. [00:36:00] That's good enough. [00:36:01] That everything I have is on the record. [00:36:04] Yeah. [00:36:05] As he said. [00:36:06] To get the SOS group to go to their meeting and make sure that they get aboard us instead [00:36:10] of pushing back at us again. [00:36:12] I'll second Peter's motion. [00:36:15] Before you vote on it Mr. Mayor, would you like to allow some public comment? [00:36:20] We don't have anything to really public comment on. [00:36:22] Well I think since you're moving on and I think they have the right to speak so I think [00:36:25] you should open it up. [00:36:26] Public comment? [00:36:27] Come on down and stand behind him. [00:36:37] Please don't repeat yourselves. [00:36:43] Calm down. [00:36:44] Calm down Mr. Mayor. [00:36:45] He hasn't even been up yet. [00:36:46] He just got. [00:36:47] I think it's great what you're trying to do. [00:36:53] The only reservation I have is about the residential development. [00:36:57] I don't know why we can't have an agreement in there and a contract that prevents the [00:37:05] sale of the property, period. [00:37:08] And so the residential part of it doesn't even come up. [00:37:12] And one of the things I would caution you is that I think one thing that was suggested [00:37:19] by your city attorney is that rather than have an opportunity to go to court if you [00:37:24] have to to decide about selling the property or not, to have it done by an engineer if [00:37:30] he comes in and says that the building is not tenable anymore, I wouldn't agree to [00:37:37] that because you always want to have the opportunity to go to court if you need to. [00:37:44] It's just one man's decision and we all know that those decisions can sometimes be tilted [00:37:52] in certain directions. [00:37:54] You want to control it. [00:37:55] You don't want to have somebody else control it. [00:37:58] So I think you're doing a great job. [00:38:00] I'm not here to complain about anything but I am here to try to just tell you because [00:38:06] I do a lot of contracts so I know the things that come up and so I have survival clauses [00:38:12] and things that you need in these contracts to make sure you protect yourself. [00:38:17] So great job and this is just all part of negotiation, you know, and I think as long [00:38:25] as you owe money to somebody, they're going to want to have a say in what you're going [00:38:30] to do with the property. [00:38:31] If you go to the bank, they're going to be the same way. [00:38:34] So I'd just look at it that way. [00:38:38] Just pay it off as soon as you can, you know, get rid of it. [00:38:42] So is that okay? [00:38:43] Thank you. [00:38:44] Mr. Mayor. [00:38:45] Thank you. [00:38:46] You're welcome. [00:38:47] Appreciate it. [00:38:48] Donna Jensen, 5922 Wyoming Avenue. [00:38:55] I'd just like to say that we have all agreed, all the council and everybody, that we don't [00:39:00] want any residential housing on there. [00:39:03] So I don't know why we're going on with the discussion of that. [00:39:06] We want the contract signed as soon as possible so that we can move on and get all these entities [00:39:13] that we have out there that want to help us to develop this into something for our city [00:39:20] to make it beautiful, to enhance it, to bring people back here instead of moving away. [00:39:27] SOS, Brainstorms, our Creek Group, we're all willing to work together with the city [00:39:35] and with anybody else. [00:39:37] So let's get this done. [00:39:39] Let's get it done as soon as possible so we can pay it off. [00:39:43] Who knows where the money might come from, from the outside. [00:39:47] We have all kinds of benefactors out there that are thinking of maybe helping us. [00:39:52] So let's move forward with it. [00:39:53] No more hesitation. [00:39:55] Thank you. [00:39:56] Thank you. [00:39:57] Thank you. [00:39:58] Thank you. [00:39:59] Thank you. [00:40:00] Anybody else? [00:40:01] I'll stop after this. [00:40:02] I've been sitting here listening and I'd like to thank you all for getting to where we are [00:40:10] on this thing right now. [00:40:12] I would not let this deal get away from us. [00:40:15] And I'm looking from the other side of the fence and you need to think about, and Bertel [00:40:19] said a couple of things, I truly do believe that they are selling us this property for [00:40:25] below market value. [00:40:27] I understand why they want something. [00:40:29] Why do they want to sell it to us for below market value and have us retail it? [00:40:35] That makes sense to me. [00:40:37] And if I'm understanding the financing, it would be on the balance. [00:40:40] So if you pay half, the interest is on the 800 and half, that's $26,000 a year. [00:40:48] Let's go. [00:40:49] Thank you. [00:40:54] Anybody else like to speak? [00:41:02] Just this journey started in, I don't want to get emotional, but it started in December [00:41:09] 2021. [00:41:12] And you guys need to make this happen. [00:41:16] Everything they said was running through my head. [00:41:19] We don't want any residential. [00:41:21] This has got to be for the community. [00:41:25] Sims Park, this is the other half of the whole puzzle to make this community stand out. [00:41:34] And so we trust that you're doing the right thing for us. [00:41:41] And I'm not talking just our SOS group. [00:41:44] I'm talking for the past, the present families, and your future generations that can enjoy [00:41:53] this forever. [00:41:55] We have a phenomenal vision. [00:41:58] We are getting incredible, it's beyond my dreams, the support that we are getting behind [00:42:06] this. [00:42:07] And it's all for the right reasons for our community. [00:42:12] Let's build for the past, those present here, and let's build for the future for them to [00:42:18] all enjoy. [00:42:20] And thank you so much for all that you're doing. [00:42:26] Anybody else like to speak? [00:42:29] Seeing no one else come forward, we'll come back and vote. [00:42:32] You have a motion on the floor. [00:42:35] Do we have a motion? [00:42:38] Yeah. [00:42:39] Do we have a second? [00:42:40] I second. [00:42:41] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:42:43] Aye. [00:42:44] Aye. [00:42:45] Aye. [00:42:46] Against? [00:42:47] Opposed? [00:42:48] Nay. [00:42:49] So we have four to one.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 5Adjournment▶ 42:50