Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

OKAY.

[00:00:01]

SO IT IS THREE 31

[1. Call The Meeting To Order - Mayor Jeff Gore]

AND WE ARE STREAMING LIVE SO WE WILL UH, GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT EVERYONE HERE.

OKAY, SO THIS IS CDN PIEPER HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, SPECIAL SESSION MEETING BEING HANDLED REMOTELY.

IT IS MAY 14TH, 2020 AND RIGHT NOW MY TIME SHOWS 3:31 PM.

SO THIS IS THE OFFICIAL, UM, CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

AND NEXT UP WE HAVE UH, WE WILL COMPLETE OUR PLEDGE.

SO IF YOU WOULD MIND, UH, STAND WHERE YOU'RE AT AND UH, FOLLOW ME WITH THE PLEDGE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE INJUSTICE.

MR. ROGERS.

NUMBER THREE IS OUR ROLL CALL, IF YOU WILL.

MR. SHAW HERE.

MS. BAKER? YES.

BAKER.

OKAY.

I DON'T WANT IT ON.

YEAH, I DON'T SEE THAT A KATHLEEN IS ONLINE YET.

OKAY.

ON MARKER IS ABSENT FOR THE TIME BEING.

MR. CAMPBELL HERE.

MRS. BERG HERE.

MR OTTO HERE.

MR. LYONS HERE.

MR. HILL HERE.

MR ROB HERE.

NAVARRE HERE, SIR.

OKAY, SO LET THE RECORD SHOW IT NOW.

EVERYONE IS HERE EXCEPT MS. BAKER.

IS THERE ANYONE I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO EXCUSE HER ABSENCE.

YOU TACTICALLY DON'T HAVE TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE FOR A SPECIAL SESSION BECAUSE REGULAR MISDEMEANORS ANYWAY.

OKAY.

SO NEXT UP IS I NUMBER FOUR ASSISTANTS, COMMENTS, SHAREHOLDERS.

UH, I ONLY HAD THE WINE THAT WE REFERENCED.

ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THAT AT A LATER JUNCTURE? YES.

OKAY.

WELL THEY KNOW EITHER.

OKAY.

AND THEN WHAT ABOUT RICHARD TO SPEAK ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS? I HAVE NONE OF THOSE.

PICKS UP AND SEE MEASURE, REPORT, MR SCHUMER'S, ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS IN THE CITY MANAGER REPORT THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED AT OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SO, AND THEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, AND I CAN DISCUSS THAT NOW OR I CAN DISCUSS THAT LATER.

UH, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL GO RIGHT TO A PENDING BUSINESS AND THEN WE'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO ACE.

THE NEXT UP WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PENDING BUSINESS.

UH, THERE IS NONE THERE.

AND I HAD AN EIGHT, WHICH HAS NEW BUSINESS AND I WILL PASS THIS

[6. City Manager Report]

PAST, UH, SCHARMER.

UH, WE'RE CLARIFICATION ON PURPOSE.

OUR PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OUR MEETING IN LONDON, MR. SHARP.

YES.

RESIDENT TOM MCMASTERS HAD SUBMITTED A COMMENT REGARDING QUESTIONING THE ENTERING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OUR LAST MEETING.

AND UH, HE IS, HE IS CORRECT IN THAT THE, UH, ENTRY TERM AND REQUEST, UH, DID NOT MATCH.

UH, SO WE WANTED TO CLARIFY, UH, THE FACT THAT PURPOSE OF GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION OF COURSE WAS TO DISCUSS THE REALM OF THE, UH, UH, PURCHASE AND OR SALE OF THE REAL ESTATE.

HOWEVER, THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE DISCUSSION WAS ORIENTED AROUND, UH, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT AGREEMENT AND THE, UH, THE, THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF IT THEREBY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED PENDING OR IMMINENT LITIGATION.

UH, SO, UH, WE DID COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD, THE DISCUSSION WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS IN FACT JUST THAT IT WAS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CITY'S POSITION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR, UH, REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT.

ALSO, UH, WHAT POTENTIAL, UH, LEGAL COURSES OR STRATEGIES INVOLVED ALL OF THOSE THAT WHICH THE LAW DIRECTOR WAS PRESENT FOR AND LED THE DISCUSSION ON.

SO FOR, UH, AGAIN FOR RECORDS PURPOSES AND MINUTES PURPOSES, THERE WERE NO DECISIONS MADE.

UH, THERE WAS NO ACTIONS TAKEN.

UH, THAT WAS JUST A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE AMENDMENT, TO THE REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT, UH, AGAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THAT ON THE RECORD AND ESTABLISH MINUTES.

UH, AND,

[00:05:01]

UM, UH, IT'S, UH, GOING INTO THIS NEXT ITEM, OF COURSE WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION AND WE WILL CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION AND THE PREMISE OF REQUESTED EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, UH, DISPUTES THAT ARE SUBJECT OF AND, OR PENDING OR COURT ACTION.

DO YOU THINK MR SCHOMER GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY ANYTHING ELSE, UH, WITH THAT BEFORE, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THE SAME MAJOR PATIENT? UH, YES.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ME.

YES.

UH, YES SIR.

UM, A LOOSE TERM, THAT SALE RIBBON TO THE, UH, NONETHELESS, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, UH, REGARDING THE PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT.

MATTER OF FACT, THAT IS A SUBJECT FREE THING.

IT WILL BE DISCUSSED REGARDING THAT MEETING IN ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THAT TOPIC.

WE'LL ALSO, UM, THE FACT TABLE THAT IS LIKE, SO, UM, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE SESSIONS TODAY, UM, AND THE DECISION MADE OUT FRONT, WHICH IS TYPICAL, UH, IT'D BE ALL SET.

I DO POINT OUT TO COUNCIL THAT, UM, IF EVENTS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT, LEDS AND LIKE THAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TWO.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES, MS. VERGE.

UM, SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF IT WAS, UH, MR MCMASTER'S CONCERN THAT WHAT OUR PURPOSE WAS AND WHAT WE STATED AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION DID NOT MATCH UP.

OKAY.

I BELIEVE HE CONCERN WAS THAT THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL ESTATE, UH, IT DIDN'T MATCH WHAT THE, I'M USING MR ROCHELLE AS CLARIFIES THAT ALTHOUGH THE CONTENT OF THE, UH, OF EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS AROUND THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL ESTATE, THE, UH, MAIN PURPOSE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THERE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AS AN ENDING OR EMINENT LITIGATION.

SO HOW WOULD HE KNOW THAT? EXCUSE ME, WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? MR MAYOR? IF I MAY, YES, PLEASE.

THE REASON FOR THE EXEC SESSION AS ARTICULATED ON THE RECORD WAS SIMPLY FAIL A REAL ESTATE LOAN, NOT A PROPER REASON TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ALRIGHT.

THEY NEEDED TO EXPAND UPON THAT.

BUT GIVEN THE COMMUNICATION ASPECTS, THINGS DROP, IT JUST WENT THROUGH WITH JUST THAT SALE, THE REAL ESTATE.

AND THAT WAS NOT A GOOD PURPOSE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND EVEN THOUGH WHEN WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION WAS REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT AND OPTIONS, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE NONETHELESS, GOING IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS NOT PROPERLY CALM.

THANKFULLY, NO ACTIONS TAKEN.

IT WAS JUST CAME OUT AND TABLED IT AND WE'RE NOW GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF THAT.

SO WHILE WE ADMIT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN HOW THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS CALLED, GOOD NEWS IS WE WON'T HAVE REPERCUSSIONS BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING CARE OF EVERYTHING WITH THIS MEETING AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT FOLLOW.

OKAY.

SO MR SCHIRMER, WOULD YOU READ ONE TIME AGAIN? WHAT WOULD THE PURPOSE FOR THE EXECUTIVE SECTION WILL BE BASED ON THE STATUTE AND THEN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ? SURE.

UH, JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ALSO THAT, UH, WE, WE HAVE REVEALED AND DISCUSSED WHAT THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION TOPIC OF DISCUSSIONS WERE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS RECORD THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, UH, REFERRING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS AND, UM, UH, OBVIOUSLY PICKING UP ON, ON KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS, UH, UH, THAT WAS ACQUIRED DURING HIS TERM.

WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE MR MCMASTERS, UH, AWARENESS AND, AND POINTING OUT THESE THINGS TO KEEP EVERYBODY, UH, UH, FOLLOWING THE PROPER PROCEDURES.

AND, UH, IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND, UM, UH, US AS A GOVERNMENT RESPONDING AND MAKING SURE THAT, UH, THAT WE ARE RESPONSIVE IN ANSWERING TO THAT.

SO WE GREATLY APPRECIATE, UH, HIS, HIS AWARENESS AND HIS MONITORING.

UH, FOR

[10. Executive Session]

THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

AGAIN, IT WOULD BE FOR THE, UH, TYPICALLY PENDING IMMINENT LITIGATION, BUT IT IS FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY CONCERNING THIS BUTTES THAT ARE SUBJECT OF PENDING OR IMMINENT COURT ACTION.

[00:10:02]

THANK YOU MR CHAIRMAN.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE REASONS THAT MR SCHIRMER JUST LISTED.

MR WILDE.

OKAY.

MR. WEBB HAS MOTIONED, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

MR. HILL.

MR. HILL HAS A B, THE SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? KATE'S HERE.

OKAY, WELCOME.

I'M SORRY.

I WAS LATE.

MY WIFE, I WENT DOWN AT WORK SO I HAD TO RE ALTERNATE.

OKAY, AND ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE MS. BAKER HERE? IT'D BE A YES OR NO FOR THIS ONE.

YES.

YES.

MR. CAMPBELL.

YES, THIS IS GOOD.

HELLO, THIS IS ROSE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? EXCUSE ME, MA'AM.

YES.

WHILE, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR MS. BURCH, I JUST WANTED TO GET WITH MS. BAKER AND MAKE SURE SHE UNDERSTANDS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE CAME IN THAT THIS IS THE MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION WITH THE ATTORNEY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T COME IN AND MISS THE MOTION WHEN YOU VOTED.

YOU CAME IN AT THREE 37 I NOTED IT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S VOTING ON.

YES.

IS THAT OKAY IF YOU CALLED MY NAME? UH, TONY? I, WE COULDN'T, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

OKAY.

I'M TRYING.

YOU'RE, WE'RE ON YOU YES OR NO ON THE VOTE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES.

MR .

YES.

MR. LYONS? YES.

MR. HILL.

YES.

MR. WEBB.

YES.

MR. SHAW.

YES.

GIVE US A COUPLE OF SECONDS.

OKAY.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD.

SO, UH, THE TIME NOW IS FOUR ONE AND WE'VE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH HAS

[ A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Enter Into An Amended Real Estate Purchase Contract For The Sale Of Property Known As Windbrooke II. (first reading)]

LED US TO ITEM EIGHT 88.

MR. ROGERS JUST PROTECTIVE ITEM MADE A, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AMENDED REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS WINDBROOK TWO.

AT THE FIRST READING THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MAKE A MOTION.

IT, MRS MERGES BUSHINGS THERE A SECOND.

DISCUSSES SECOND AND MR. HILL HAS A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR MAYOR? YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, I UH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IF I MAY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

MR MAYOR.

ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE THIRD PUBLICLY, UM, PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, THIS LEGISLATION IS SET TO DEFER $300,000 TO 2021 AND COULD DEFER A TOTAL OF $600,000 FROM THIS YEAR AS PLANNED REVENUE BUDGET OUT UNTIL 2021.

AND IN ADDITION TO THIS INCLUDES A NEW VOLUNTARY TERMINATION CLAUSE AS THE CURRENT CONTRACT, WHICH INCLUDES THE PREVIOUSLY PASSED AMENDMENTS OF ALL THE PROPERTY SUBJECT ON THIS AGREEMENT SHOULD BE CLOSED BY THE 15TH.

THIS MEANS THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS SHOULD BE RECEIVING $900,000 TOMORROW IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT A 10 TO 15% REVENUE DECREASE IN CITY DEPARTMENTS OR CNA STAFF DECREASE COMPARED TO THIS TIME LAST YEAR.

THIS REVENUE IN 2020 IS IMPERATIVE TO THE CITY'S FINANCIAL HEALTH AND MAINTAIN CITY SERVICES TO OUR RESIDENTS.

AFTER FURTHER REVIEW AND RESEARCH OF THIS AND PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS AND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, I'M UNABLE TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION THIS AFTERNOON.

MR MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE TIME TO UH, PROVIDE MY COMMENTS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR MAYOR? YES.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE VOLUNTARY TERMINATION PROVISION IS A CARRY OVER FROM THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE AGREEMENT.

IT WAS JUST PUT IN HERE IN THE AMENDMENT, UH, BECAUSE WE REMOVED AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, BUT THEY STILL WANTED TO KEEP THE VOLUNTARY TERMINATION IN THERE.

SO, UM, THAT IS NOT ANYTHING NEW.

EVERYTHING ELSE MR SHAWL SAID IS, IS ACCURATE.

UM, JUST THAT PROVISION ABOUT VOLUNTARY TERMINATION IS NOT A NEW PROVISION.

HEY MR MAYOR, IF I MAY CLARIFY.

YES.

UM, JERRY, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE VOLUNTARY TERMINATION CLAUSE IS,

[00:15:01]

AS YOU STATED, NEW IN THIS AMENDMENT IN THIS SECTION, THE PROVISIONS THEY HAD PERFECT.

THAT ALLOWED THE CONTRACT TO BE TRUMPED, TERMINATED BY VOLUNTARY PROVISION OR AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT, WHICH YOU MAY RECALL WAS PART OF THE AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE CAUSE WE DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY PROVISION THAT ALLOWED THEM TO TERMINATE IT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE REMOVED ALL OF THAT PROVISION.

BUT WHEN WE DID, SO THEY SAID RIGHTFULLY SO.

WELL THAT MEANS THAT YOU TOOK OUT THE PROVISION THAT SAYS IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE THEN IT CAN BE TERMINATED.

AND SO THAT WAS TRUE.

THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE PART WE WERE LOOKING TO A MAT THAT WAS ALWAYS IN THERE.

IT'S ALMOST IN ANY CONTRACT.

BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU, WE REALIZED IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AS WELL.

IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT THEY REQUESTED OUT OF THE BLUE THAT THAT WAS ALL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES MA'AM.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE WEEDS WITH IT, BUT JUST BASICALLY I WANT TO ECHO MR SHAW'S COMMENTS AND SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DECREASE IN REVENUE, WE'RE LOOKING AT NOT BEING ABLE TO HIRE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES TO HANDLE OUR PARKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND AS A SERVICE TO OUR PEOPLE.

UH, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO BE PUSHING OUT POTENTIALLY $600,000 FROM THIS YEAR'S POTENTIAL BUDGET IN THE NEXT YEAR.

THIS IS MONEY WE CAN USE RIGHT NOW AND, UM, AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS IS AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES, YES.

UM, IN RESPONSE TO MR OTTO AND MR. SHAW, UH, IF YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF PUSHING IT OUT, HOW ARE YOU, UH, SUGGESTING THAT THE MONEY BE COLLECTED? MAYOR MR MAYOR? IF I MAY? YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, HAD I HAD ANY, UM, DISCUSSION INTO THE NEGOTIATION, UM, I WOULD HAVE ASKED THE BUYER, UM, THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH KOBE 19 AND THE WORKFORCE, UM, AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF FOLKS HAVING FINANCIAL ISSUES, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS CONTRACT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'VE HAD ALMOST A A YEAR PLUS TO PLAN FOR THIS DATE COMING.

UM, I WOULD SUGGEST, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY A 60 DAY EXTENSION, UM, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ENTIRE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

UM, AND TO MRS. BURGESS POINT, UM, THIS DEVELOPER, UM, IS CURRENTLY, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKING PLANS, PROPOSALS AND AGREEMENTS, UH, FOR, YOU KNOW, 300 PLUS ACRES, UM, AND, UH, IN A CERTAIN AREA.

UM, AND THEY HAVE WORK THAT IS CURRENTLY CONTINUING IN WINDBROOK DEVELOPMENT, THE 10 ACRES THAT WE'VE SOLD THEM FOR A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT A FINANCIAL ASPECT, BUT JUST THE WORKFORCE ITSELF, I THINK ALLOWING A 60 DAY GRACE PERIOD, UM, AND GIVING THEM THAT EXTENSION FOR THE ENTIRE $900,000.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD PERSONALLY SUPPORT.

MAY I RESPOND? YES.

UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 300 ACRES ARE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT SINCE WE DON'T HAVE INSIGHT INTO THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION, IF THEY HAVE ADVISED THE CITY THAT THEY NEED THIS SCHEDULE FOR WHATEVER REASON, BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO RECOUP THEIR, SOME OF THEIR EXISTING INVESTMENT, THEN YOU CAN PUT ANY NUMBER ON IT YOU WANT AND YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP.

SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

YOU CAN MAKE ALL KINDS OF DEMANDS, BUT IF THERE A REVENUE STREAM FOR THAT COMPANY DOES NOT ALLOW IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

MR MAYOR, MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES, THANK YOU.

UH, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION DIRECTED TO MR SCHOMER.

HEY, UM, MR SCHOMER, COULD YOU ADVISE COUNSEL WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED BY THE BUYERS THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO MEET THE MAY 15TH DATE? I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE, UH, EXACT DATE, UM, IF, IF I HAVE ONE, BUT IT'S BEEN WITHIN THE LAST, UM, UH, I WOULD SAY EIGHT WEEKS.

OKAY.

SO, AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME OR PROVIDE ANY OPINIONS ON THIS.

UM, BUT THE ORIGINAL CLOSING OF PARCEL ONE

[00:20:01]

TOOK PLACE, UM, MAY 15TH OF LAST YEAR.

YEAH.

AND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT HAD ALWAYS HAD THE VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT THE ENTIRE PARCELS ONE, TWO, AND THREE WAS GOING TO BE CLOSED ON MAY 15TH OF 2020.

I'M SORRY, I THINK WE ALL WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UM, THAT THE ASSUMPTION WOULD BE MADE.

THEY KNEW THAT THIS TIME WAS COMING A YEAR AGO.

ALL YOUR POINTS I THINK ARE CORRECT AND VALID.

UH, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT WE WERE PRESENTED WITH, UM, MAINTAINING OWNERSHIP OF LAND WITHOUT A CLOSING AND REGARDLESS OF REVENUE IS GOING TO BE, UH, UH, ROLLED FORWARD OR DEFERRED, UM, IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION THAN NOT HAVING ANY OF THAT GUARANTEED PAYMENT TO BEGIN WITH.

UH, WE, UH, AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE ENTERTAINED THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT WAS, UH, TO MAINTAIN THE POTENTIAL OF A CLOSING ON THAT REAL ESTATE AND TO ACTUALLY SELL IT AND ACTUALLY COLLECT THOSE FUNDS, UH, ALBEIT AT A LONGER TIME SCALE THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, UH, THEY DID NOT JUST START WHERE THEY ENDED.

UM, THEY, UH, IN FACT I DID TALK ABOUT, WELL, HOW ABOUT EVERYTHING, EVEN UP TO BY THE END OF THE YEAR, UH, AND NUMBERS AND CONSIDERATIONS WERE GIVEN FOR THAT.

AND THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, UH, CALL IT BACK AND FORTH, UH, TO PRETTY MUCH, UH, THIS IS ALL THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AND, UH, OTHERWISE WOULD BE FACED WITH THE DECISION OF NOT ENGAGING A CLOSING.

UH, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE AT THAT POINT AS WELL.

SO THAT BASICALLY IS THE FORK IN THE ROAD, UH, NOT TO DISCOUNT ANY POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE.

UH, I PRESENT THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE THIS IS A SITUATION THAT THE CITY IS FACED WITH.

UH, TOMORROW.

IT IS, AS WE WELL KNOW.

VERY UNLIKELY.

I CAN'T SPEAK A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IS UNTIL TOMORROW HAS COME AND GONE, UH, THAT WE WILL NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT, NOR WILL THAT LAND BE CLOSED.

AND THAT PUTS US IN A POSITION AS TO WHAT TO DO.

UH, IS IT A LEGAL DECISION? YES, IT IS A WHAT THE COST TIMEFRAME OR THAT OR, UH, WHAT IS THE OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN A STRONG POSITION, UM, AND A RENEGOTIATE A POSITION UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS, UH, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IDEAL FOR EITHER, BUT AT LEAST STILL MAINTAIN THAT ORIGINAL PURCHASE AND GIVE THE ABILITY.

SO THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED IS THAT, UM, WE CAN COME UP WITH ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT IDEAS, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE THAT WE HAVE PROBABLY DISCUSSED THEM BECAUSE I'M QUITE FRANKLY, I WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE IN THIS APPROACH.

UM, ALL THE WAY UP TO EVEN AFTER PRESENTING THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, RETHINKING AND REALIZING, NO, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY NEEDS TO HAVE A STRONGER POSITION, WHICH LEADS US WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

SO THE, UH, THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE APPROACH HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO KEEP THE CITY'S POSITION FIRST AND BEST.

UH, AND AS OPPOSED TO HAVING WELL THE CLOSING HAS COME AND GONE COUNSEL, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO NOW? HERE IS AN OPTION.

SO, UM, IT MAY NOT BE THE BEST OPTION.

I AGREE.

I WAS CERTAINLY PUSHING TO HAVE AS MUCH OF THAT PAYMENT 20, 20, SO THAT AT LEAST IT WAS WITHIN THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR.

UH, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS VERY, VERY HARD PUSHING FOR.

UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY UP UNTIL THE POINT THAT WE EVEN DEALT WITH THIS MOST READ LANGUAGE THERE EVEN A POTENTIAL THAT THERE WOULD BE A, A WALK AWAY FROM THE, FROM THE TABLE.

SO THIS IS WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES.

YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN.

UM, I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE NOR DISAGREE.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE FACTS ARE, UM, IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE TOMORROW AND IF WE STILL WANT TO CLOSE AND ENTERTAIN AN OPTION FOR THIS DEAL, THIS IS THE ONE THAT, UH, AT LEAST THE PURCHASER IS WILLING TO AGREE TO.

AND, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TIMELINE, I AGREE.

IF I HAD A MILLION DOLLAR PURCHASE TO CONTEND WITH, I WOULD HAVE BEEN BUDGETING THAT AND COUNTING ON THAT AND BEING ABLE TO SEE WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

UM, AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY.

I'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, I BROUGHT THAT POINT UP AND UM, UH, BUT THIS, UM, THIS PURCHASER, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY WORKED WITH DEC BEFORE.

UM, THEY HAVE PRODUCED, UM, THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO DEVELOP THEIR MODELS AND METHODS HAVE WORKED.

UM, AND AS I INDICATED THE OTHER NIGHT, I HAVE NO INDICATION OR CONCERN THAT WE WILL BE IN THIS SITUATION OF, UM, DEFAULT.

UH, UNLESS WE WERE LOOKING AT TOMORROW THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE APPROACHED TO TRY TO AVOID THAT.

SO, UM,

[00:25:02]

WOULD THAT PROVIDE ANY INSIGHT AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION? UH, I AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS.

UH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RELAY AND SO SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS LEADING UP TO THAT, UH, WE DID AGGRESSIVELY ATTEMPT TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT MONEY AS POSSIBLE.

UM, BUT POTENTIAL 600,000 IS BETTER THAN NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

AND, UM, WITH, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THAT THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO INCREASE, UH, HOMES AND STILL CONTINUE TO BE GROW, UH, BUILT AND THAT, UH, AND NOTHING SAYS THAT IT CAN'T COME SOONER THAN THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE WERE VERY CLEAR ON THAT, THAT THEY, IT'S WORDED THAT NO LATER THAN, SO IF THEY CAN INITIATE A CLOSING SOONER, THEN WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AND PUSH FOR THAT AS WELL.

MR MAYOR, IF I MAY ASK ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION, I'LL BE DONE.

YES, THANK YOU.

UM, MR MR SCHOMER, UH, TO YOUR POINT AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION AND CLARIFICATION AND THE PREVIOUS NEGOTIATION, UM, AS I STATED DURING, UH, A REBUTTAL TO COUNCILMAN BERGE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE EVEN DECEMBER 31ST, YOU KNOW, TO, TO BE ABLE TO RECRUIT ALL OF THOSE FUNDS, MAN, I COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT, BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S IN THAT CALENDAR YEAR.

WE KNOW WE CAN COUNT ON IT.

UM, BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ADVISING A, ANOTHER GOVERNMENT THAT VERSAILLES PAYS THEIR HOMES, UH, THERE ARE LOTS, UM, ARE ON PACE THIS YEAR.

UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT 385 ACRES.

I JUST HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, UH, YOU KNOW, IS EXTENDING THIS OUT.

UM, YOU KNOW, IS THIS TRULY BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITY NOW OR LATER? BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, UM, YOUR PREVIOUS POINT, UM, THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, DID WE, THE CITY NOT BUY THAT FOR NEARLY $300,000 INITIALLY BEFORE THE WATER TOWER WAS BUILT? MMM.

I, I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT PRICE IS RIGHT.

SO I THINK WE ARE RIGHT WITH MY ASSERTION, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME AT ANY TIME.

UM, THE CITY PURCHASED THE ENTIRE AREA FOR ROUGHLY $300,000.

UH, WE BUILT A WATER TOWER ON IT TO IMPROVE CITY SERVICES, UH, TO, UH, ASSIST WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, RESPONSES TO ASSIST OUR BUSINESSES.

AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE ALSO SOLD 10 ACRES.

SO WE'VE MADE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, I WOULD SAY.

AND THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, THAT WITH ALL THAT CONSIDERED A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS SO FAR IS A PRETTY GOOD, UM, INVESTMENT.

SO I GUESS THE, WE HAVE A MORAL QUESTION.

UM, RIGHT NOW IS DO WE EXTEND, UM, AND DO WE DEFER NEARLY $600,000 INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET? UM, OR DO WE TELL THE DEVELOPER THAT YOU HAVE A CONTRACT, YOU NEED TO LIVE UP TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.

THE CITY NEEDS THAT MONEY NOW THE RESIDENTS NEED THE CITY SERVICES NOW.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.

SO I AM, UH, I'M DONE MAKING MY POINTS.

I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE TIME.

I DO WANT TO REAL QUICK MAKE A, JUST, JUST A COMMENT REGARDING, UH, THOSE FUNDS, ALTHOUGH THOSE ARE FUNDS THAT WE SHOWED ON THE AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE NOT JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY CLARIFICATION, WE HAVE NOT BUDGETED ON OR SPEND THAT MONEY IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING ANY TYPE OF OPERATIONS.

SO I MA, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY OR ANYBODY LISTENING UNDERSTANDS THAT IF THIS PURCHASE DOES NOT CLOSE TOMORROW, THAT WE ARE REDUCING OUR BUDGET AND CUTTING SERVICES BY THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

WE, WE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS EXPECTED REVENUE BASED ON THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS SIGNED, UH, WE WOULD NEVER BUDGET ON A MONEY THAT'S ON THAT.

SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ASSIGNED SERVICES OR PURCHASES CURRENTLY BUDGETING PERSONNEL.

I HEARD A WHOLE BUNCH OF MENTIONS OF A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS, UH, RELATED TO IT.

AND TWO THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

IF WE DO NOT COLLECT THE FULL AMOUNT TOMORROW.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO, UH, AND I, AND, AND I PERSONALLY APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, BUT PLEASE, I GUESS THE, THE ADDITIONAL FLIP SIDE QUESTION, IF WE DID HAVE THAT $900,000 TOMORROW, COULD WE POTENTIALLY HIRE THOSE CITY SERVICES THAT WE TALKED WEEKS AGO THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TEMPORARY SUSPEND? UH, I'M NOT REALLY

[00:30:01]

SURE WHAT CITY SERVICES WE HAVEN'T HIRED OR NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO THE SEASONAL WORKERS.

I, YES, IF WE'RE ABLE TO OPEN OUR FACILITIES, THEN WE WILL HIRE THOSE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES.

UM, WE DID SOME RESTRUCTURING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ZONING, UH, AND, UH, WE ARE HOLDING OFF ON THE SEASONAL GRASS BECAUSE OF THE REDUCTION IN SOME OF THE WORKLOAD OR THE EXISTING ONES.

UH, BUT ON TOP OF THAT, THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCES, UM, STRUCTURED PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE WOULD GO INTO THE TRANSFORMATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND AND THAT WOULD BE A RESTRICTED USE FUND.

SO WE WOULD, UH, EFFECTIVELY NOT BE ABLE TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY ARE ONE TIME, UH, FUNDS THAT AREN'T PART OF OUR, UH, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS AND WE WOULD NOT BE APPLYING THOSE FUNDS FOR USE OF PAYMENT OF PERSONNEL OR SERVICES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.

IF THIS DOES NOT DISCLOSE IS UNDER THE NEW SCHEDULE THAT WE WENT OVER AGAIN FOR JUNE 30TH AND DECEMBER 31ST THEY NEED A $50,000 THAT GOES TO A TITLE COMPANY FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND THEN THE FINAL PAYMENT, SO A TOTAL OF $900,000.

IF THAT PAYMENT SCHEDULES NEED, DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE CITY NEEDING TO REDUCE OR LAY OFF ANY CITY STAFF PERSONNEL OR REDUCE ANY SERVICES TO ANY RESIDENT IN THE CITY IF IN FACT PAYMENT SCHEDULE TURNS OUT OKAY.

UH, NO, WE, WE DO NOT BUDGET, UH, PERSONNEL OR CITY SERVICES BASED ON THE COM OF, UH, PROCEEDS OF SALE REAL ESTATE.

WE HAVE THE TRANSFORMATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT DEFINES THAT AND UM, THOSE, THOSE MONIES WOULD GO INTO THAT FUND AND WE DO NOT BUDGET THOSE SERVICES OUT OF THAT FUND AT ALL.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.

I DO MAYOR, UH, RE QUESTION CLARIFICATION THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF ROB CAN ANSWER THIS OR IF IT WOULD BE MORE JERRY'S A WHEELHOUSE, BUT MMM.

ASSUMING THAT THIS WASN'T APPROVED, TOMORROW COMES, THE CLOSING DOESN'T HAPPEN.

UM, THE LEGAL, THE LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE, WE WOULD MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE LAST TWO, UM, PARCEL ONE, SINCE THE ACTUAL SALES PRICE WAS 290,000, WOULD IT BE A, WE STILL WOULD BE OWED THE 190 FOR THE FIRST PARCEL, CORRECT.

WELL, THE FIRST PARCEL IS OVER AND DONE.

SO WE JUST SOLD THAT FOR A HUNDRED THOUSAND.

THEN WE BASICALLY, WE REDUCED THE PRICE AND THE AMENDED AGREEMENT BEFORE.

YES.

OKAY.

SEE, I HAD THOUGHT THAT IT WAS STILL TWO 90 WITH THAT ONE.

90 WAS JUST MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT WAS STILL FOR THAT PERSON.

IT WAS ROLLED INTO THE NEXT CLOSING WHICH WOULD BE NO JUNE.

RIGHT.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL APPLIED TOWARDS THAT PARCEL THOUGH THE PARCEL PURCHASE PRICE OF PARCEL ONE AT TWO 90 I DIDN'T THINK THE PARCEL COSTS HAD CHANGED IN THIS.

I THOUGHT WE JUST CHANGED THE PAYMENT STRUCTURE.

YEAH, SO IT WAS THE PARCEL TWO WAS $600,000.

PARCEL TWO IS NOW SPLIT IN TWO PHASES.

PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO OF PARCEL TWO, PHASE ONE BEING 300,000 PHASE TWO BEING 300,000 SO ORIGINALLY THERE WERE THREE PHASES.

PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, PHASE THREE.

PHASE ONE WAS THE TWO 90, UH, ROLLED ONE 90 OF THAT FORWARD.

THEN ONCE IT WAS CHANGED, CHANGED TO 100,000 THE REMAINING PARCEL WERE ADJUSTED IN PRICE TO REFLECT 600,000 AND 300,000.

THE 600,000, WHICH WAS PARCEL TWO IS NOW UNDER THIS AMENDMENT SPLIT INTO TWO PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO WITHIN THOSE PARCELS, ONE EACH OF 600,000.

SO THAT ORIGINAL ONE 90 IS MADE ALL THROUGH THE FIRST ADJUSTMENT AND NOW THE SECOND ADJUSTMENT, ONCE THE SECOND CLOSING OCCURS AND THE $600,000 IS RECEIVED.

OKAY.

SO DO WE, SO WE DID CHANGE THE PRICE ON PARTIAL ONE FROM THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

THAT WAS, THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THAT READ.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THAT WAS.

UM, UH, HOW THAT WAS PASSED AND SIGNED AND EXECUTED.

YES.

THE PRICE, THE PRICE FOR THE PARCELS WERE LISTED AND THE PRICES WERE, UM, UH, WERE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

I JUST, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT THAT WAY.

I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST

[00:35:01]

PUSHING THE PAYMENT FORWARD, BUT THE PRICES ON INDIVIDUAL PARCELS REMAINED THE SAME.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR MARK CAMPBELL? YES.

YES.

UH, MR SCHOMER, WHEN DID WE MAKE THE CHANGES THAT, UH, MR OTTO JUST REFERENCED WHERE WE TOOK A HUNDRED VERSUS ONE 90 ON THE LOT THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT WAS, UM, I THINK EARLY LAST YEAR I WOULD HAVE TO PULL THE DATA UP.

IT WAS PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF MAY LAST YEAR, UM, IS WHEN THAT, THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.

AND DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA, JUST A ROUGH IDEA, HOW MANY YEARS AGO WE PURCHASED THIS LAND? HONESTLY, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS FROM THE ABANDONED OBOR DEVELOPMENT.

WAS IT, WAS IT DURING THE, A GREAT RECESSION? OH, NINE, 10, MAYBE 10 YEARS AGO.

YEAH.

LIKELY.

AND OTHER THAN THIS DEAL, HOW MANY, HOW MANY DEALS WERE YOU NEGOTIATING PRIOR TO THIS ON THAT, ON THAT LAND THERE? ONE INTEREST OF PART OF THE, WHAT WE'LL CALL PARCEL ONE.

UM, BACK WHEN TIKO WAS LOOKING AT TAKING OVER THE, UH, WHAT WAS THAT BOSNIA UP THERE? UM, UH, THERE WAS ONE OTHER CALL IN FIVE YEARS THAT I KNOW OF.

SO THERE, THERE WERE NO DEALS.

YOU WERE NEGOTIATING? NO, NO, NO, NOT AT THE TIME THAT THIS DEAL CAME TO THE TABLE.

THESE WERE PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THIS DEAL THAT THERE WAS EVEN DISCUSSION.

AND, AND DID THE CITY COUNCIL TURN THOSE DEALS DOWN? UH, THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER CAME TO BE AN ACTUAL DEAL.

THEY WERE JUST, THERE WERE NO DEALS.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S BEEN NO DEALS AT ALL PRESENTED, UH, BUT OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT WE'VE GOT ON THIS LAND, CORRECT? AGAIN, ABOUT 10 YEARS.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND IF WE VOTE NO TONIGHT, WHEN WILL WE RECEIVE THE $900,000 BALANCE? UH, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR JERRY, BUT I WOULD ASSUME IF WE WERE AWARDED JUDGMENT AND JERRY MCDONALD.

YES SIR.

IF WE VOTE NO TONIGHT, WHEN COULD WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING THE REST OF THE MONEY AND IN YOUR OPINION, THE BUILD OUT OF THE RESIDENT CHILD DEVELOPMENT? I CANNOT SPEAK AT ALL TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF THE MONEY.

UM, WE MAY SUE FOR WHAT'S CALLED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, WHICH REQUIRES THEM TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY.

WE COULD SEEK DAMAGES, WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, BUT I WOULD VENTURE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THIS CALENDAR YEAR FOR SURE.

UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY COURTS ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING AND ALL OF THE MATTERS HAVE BEEN DEFERRED NOW ARE ALL GOING TO COME TO HEAD WHEN THEY FULLY OPEN.

SO I THINK ANY TYPE OF LITIGATION IS GOING TO BE PROLONGED.

AND MR SCHOMER IS CORRECT.

WE HAVE A STRONG POSITION, BUT THERE'S NEVER ANY GUARANTEES THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THE FULL PURCHASE PRICE THROUGH LITIGATION AND, AND JERRY IN, UH, UH, ROB SHELMAR IF WE VOTE YES TONIGHT AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, WHEN DO YOU FOLKS THINK THAT WE'LL GET THE BALANCE OF OUR MONEY, THE 900,000 BY THE END OF JUNE NEXT YEAR.

OKAY.

AND ROB AS A CITY MANAGER AND DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER, UH, DO YOU THINK THAT A YES VOTE TONIGHT WOULD BE OUR BEST BET TO ASSURE THE ACREAGE GETS BUILT OUT AND THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT WE WERE DEPENDING ON DO GET CONSTRUCTED? YEAH, IN MY OPINION, CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVE.

AND WE'VE GOT AN ACTIVE DEVELOPER AND A, AN ASSIGNMENT HOME BUILDER THAT IS ACTIVELY BUILDING HOMES, UH, BEING, WE HAVE NO OTHER POTENTIAL OFFERS, UH, TO, TO GO BACK AND EITHER TRY TO COLLECT, UM, MONEY, DO THROUGH THE AGREEMENT AND THEN TO TURN AROUND AND RESELL AND, OR RE-ENGAGE A DEVELOPER.

UM, THE LIKELIHOOD OF MAKING THIS DEAL WORK, UH, IN MY OPINION, UH, PROVIDES MUCH STRONGER POSSIBLE RESULTS OF GETTING PAID FOR IT AND GETTING THE LAND DEVELOPED.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE SELL PRICE, THE $1 MILLION THAT THE CITY WILL PUT IN THEIR GENERAL FUND, UH, WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE

[00:40:01]

THAT WE WOULD GET OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IF IN FACT IT IS BUILT OUT? YES, WE WOULD GET THE UH, RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OR THE TIF MONEY, UH, INVOLVED WITH THE, UM, THE BUILD OUT OF THAT LAND AND THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF EACH OF EACH LOT IN EACH OWN BILL.

AND DO YOU HAVE A, A ROUGH IDEA OF WHAT THAT WOULD GENERATE? IT'S ABOUT, YEAH, IF, IF YOU FACTOR IN ABOUT THE SAME VALUES IN THE SAME PACE AND EVERYTHING CLOSE TO ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS.

OKAY.

SO, SO IT COULD BE WHEN BUILT OUT A TOTAL INCREASE IN REVENUE OF $2 MILLION.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALRIGHT.

THANKS MAYOR.

YEP.

AND MR. GAMBLE, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP A POINT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONTINUATION OF THE BUILDOUT.

I THINK NUMBER ONE, I, I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, TO THINK ABOUT THE HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE PURCHASED A HOME.

HAS IT BEEN BUILT ALREADY IN PART OF THE SECTION EIGHT DONE.

AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE VERY, WHY IS IT CAUSE ANY KIND OF CONCERNS OR ISSUES WHERE THEY STOPPED BUILDING THEN LEFT SOME PEOPLE IN A PARTIALLY FINISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.

MMM.

DO YOU KNOW IF, IF THIS PARTICULAR NEAL EITHER WENT SOUTH OVER DIDN'T HAPPEN? SO, UH, I THINK IN THE END WE WOULDN'T BE MY OPINION.

NO.

AND RISKING YOUR POSSIBLE $2 MILLION, ALTHOUGH THE LATE, IT'S NOT THE PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT I CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT THIS AND SEE THAT IT'S THE BEST SOLUTION.

IT'S STILL AN OLD REVENUE.

IT'S NOT COSTING THE CITY MONEY IN TERMS OF, OF ANY REDUCED SERVICES, REDUCED BUDGETS.

UH, THERE ARE NO LAYOFFS AND GIVEN DISTRICT NUMBERS, THIS MONEY EVEN BE GOING SPECIFICALLY DIRECTLY INTO OUR TRANSFORMATION THAT JUMP AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR ANY OF THOSE SERVICES ANYWAY.

UM, IT JUST WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO RISK AT $2 MILLION OVER A DELAY, HAVE 13 MONTHS AND UH, CAUSE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD NOT BEING FINISHED WHERE THERE'S ALREADY RESIDENTS LIVING.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT AS MY 2 CENTS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? THE ONLY ADDITIONAL COMMENT I WOULD HAVE MAYOR AFTER YOURS IS ROB SHOMER.

YES.

JUST TO RECAP IN MAKING A DECISION HOW TO VOTE TONIGHT, IN THE LAST FIVE TO 10 YEARS, THIS HAS BEEN THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT CITY STAFF HAS BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL THAT THAT IS CORRECT.

AND YOU THINK THE LIKELIHOOD IF VOTING YES TONIGHT OF US GETTING OUR MILLION DOLLARS IS PRETTY GOOD.

YES, I DID.

AND YOU THINK THAT A BUILD OUT OF THAT SUBDIVISION WOULD GENERATE ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITION REVENUE? YES.

THAT THAT WOULD, UH, CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE, UH, THE NEEDED TIF FUNDS, UH, TO, UH, TO CONTINUE TO, UH, CONTRIBUTE TO, UH, OUR NEED FOR THOSE TWO FUNDS IN THAT AREA.

YES.

YES.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OH, MR LIMON, I JUST HAD A FOLLOW UP IF I MAY.

YES.

UM, MR SCHUMER, BASED ON THAT $2 MILLION NUMBER THAT WAS DISCUSSED, UM, IS THAT, IS THAT $2 MILLION A YEAR OR OVER THE LIFE OF THE BUILDOUT? THAT WOULD BE, THAT WILL BE OVER THE, UH, THE LIFE OF THE BUILDOUT.

AND THAT'S GENERALLY WHEN WE SEE, WHEN WE DO A TIF CALCULATION, WE JET, WE, WE GENERALLY CALCULATE WHAT THE, UM, THE VALUE OF THE TERM OF THAT BUILD OUT WOULD BE.

AND AS WE KNOW IN A, UM, UH, IN A, IN AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS IS UP THERE, IT'S A DEFINITE TIMELINE.

SO THE SOONER THAT THAT BUILD OUT OCCURS, UH, THE MORE AVAILABLE, UH, TIF REVENUE IS AVAILABLE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT WOULD GO ANOTHER FIVE YEARS BEFORE A NEW, ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT COULD PICK UP AND DO THAT, WELL, THAT'S FIVE YEARS LESS UNTIL THE DEADLINE.

AND I THINK WE'RE AT ABOUT 12 OR 13 YEARS OF AVAILABLE COLLECTION FOR THAT REVENUE INTO THE TIF FUNDS.

SO, UM, THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THE WHOLE FORMULA OF SUCCESS IS THE MOMENTUM AND MAINTAINING THAT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE, TAKE BEST ADVANTAGE OF THE RETURN ON THOSE REVENUES FROM THE TIF FUND BY GETTING IT BUILT OUT PRIOR TO IN AS MUCH OF A BEFORE THAT EXPIRATION DATE.

SO OUT OF THAT $2 MILLION, WHAT IS THE PER YEAR AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING? UH, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND THAT'S REALLY DEPENDENT ON EXACTLY HOW MANY

[00:45:01]

HOMES WERE BUILT.

SO, UH, BASICALLY THE TIP FORM DOES AN ESTIMATE UNTIL IT COMES, COMES REAL AND YOU'RE ESTIMATING, UH, BASED ON, UH, PREVIOUS AND PROJECTED BUILD OUT, UH, PREVIOUS AND PROJECTED VALUATIONS.

UH, AND, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT PACE, WHAT A VALUE OF HOMES, ET CETERA.

BUT IF YOU JUST TAKE THE GENERAL ESTIMATE AHEAD OF TIME AND SAY, WELL, THE AVERAGE VALUE IS X AND THERE'S THIS AMOUNT OF HOMES THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE REMAINING BALANCE, UH, IF YOU CAN DO X AMOUNT PER YEAR THAT ADDS ADS, ADS, AND THEN YOU FACTOR THE ENTIRE TIMEFRAME IN TO GIVE YOU THAT TOTAL AMOUNT.

SO WITH THESE PROPOSED, UM, AND AGREED UPON AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE DONE AND EVEN SPEAKING HERE THIS AFTERNOON, UM, HOW, WHAT KIND OF A DELAY ARE WE LOOKING AT IN THOSE TIMELINES? HI.

WELL, I MEAN, RUN IT BY ME AGAIN.

I'M SORRY.

THE DEVELOPER WAS SUPPOSED TO CLOSE TOMORROW ON ALL THE ACREAGE.

UM, DO WE KNOW WHAT THEIR BUILD OUT IS? WHAT THIS DELAY IS GOING TO COST THE CITY? NO, I DON'T EVEN THINK THEY KNOW.

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE ARE, WE ARE INTERNALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN A MULTITUDE OF THINGS, NOT ONLY SLOW DOWN OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOMES, BUT WE ALSO FACTOR IN, REMEMBER AS PART OF THAT IS OUR, OUR ESTIMATES AND VALUATIONS OF EARNINGS TAX AS WELL.

SO AS NEW PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE COMMUNITY, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EARNINGS TAX COLLECTIONS THAT THAT COULD BE APPLICABLE.

SO WE'VE GOT, UM, YOU KNOW, FIGURES IN FOR THAT AS WELL.

SO, UM, IT WAS JUST, AND I WAS JUST SPEAKING ABOUT THE WINDBROOK CAUSE I KNOW CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT THEY ISSUED OUT TO BETHEL, UM, JUST EARLIER THIS MONTH, THEY WERE ACTUALLY ON TRACK.

UM, SO ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH AND THE DOCUMENTS THEY PROVIDED TO THEM, UH, WHICH ARE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT HOME PACE IS ON, ON, ON PAR.

I JUST WONDERED WITH WINDBROOK WITH THE DELAY FROM THE DEVELOPER WHAT THAT HAS POTENTIALLY COST OF THE CITY AND WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT.

BUT AS YOU STATED, THAT'S AN UNKNOWN RIGHT NOW STILL TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

IT SURE IS BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF LATENT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF YOU GO UP AND LOVE, THERE'S A BUNCH OF HOUSES BEING BUILT.

BUT IF OVER THE COURSE OF LAST MONTH, THERE'S A REDUCTION IN THE SALES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT SLOW DOWN OF THAT CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE TIME THOSE HOMES ARE DONE.

AND THE OTHER ONES WERE, WERE, WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN BUILT.

SO THERE'S A BIT OF LATENCY AND WE'RE KIND OF IN THE, IN THE MIDTERM OF THAT TO SEE EXACTLY THE EFFECTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE, UH, OF THE SLOW DOWN.

THEN YOU GO DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

UH, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT ABOUT SELLING A HOUSE, IT'S ABOUT A LITERAL SLOWDOWN BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY SOMEWHERE DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

UM, AND, UH, ALL THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE FACTORED IN.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THIS MONTH WE'LL HAVE SOME COMPARISONS TO APRIL, WHICH WE THINK IT MIGHT'VE BEEN THE WORST.

SO HOPEFULLY ESTABLISHING SOME FORM OF CURVE IN THERE TO IDENTIFY IS IT A V, IS IT A SLOPING CURVE OR IS IT AS MANY PEOPLE SAID THE NIKE SWOOSH WHERE IT'S DROPPED AND THEN IT'S GOING TO SLOWLY, YOU KNOW, RECOVER.

SO, BECAUSE I KNOW LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, I THINK EVEN YOU'VE REPORTED ON IT THREE GAMES, STARBUCKS, UH, AND IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, THEY'RE STILL MOVING STRONG.

ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS BEFORE.

SO IT'S JUST AS IF YOU BOUGHT A CAR, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR CAR.

UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT PAYING FOR IT AND NOT STOPPING IT.

AND IF YOU STARTED, IF YOU, UH, CONTRACTED TO BUILD A HOUSE, YOU'RE STILL BUILDING THAT HOUSE.

SO, UH, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE SLOWDOWN OF THE INTERIM PERIOD FROM WHERE PICK A DATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT TO IT, RAISE HIM BACK UP TO A RECOVERY OF THAT THRESHOLD WHERE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING THAT INVESTMENT.

SO YES, THE PROJECTS WE HAD, WE HAD A LOT IN THE HOPPER AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY BEGAN, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, I WOULD SAY THAT KIND OF KEPT PUSHING THROUGH, UH, WAS STARBUCKS, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY MADE SOME REDUCTIONS IN SOME OTHER AND CLOSING STORES, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ALREADY STILL A PROJECT AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE STILL PUSHING THROUGH, ET CETERA.

SO, UM, I, I THINK ALL OF THAT IS KIND OF INDICATORS OF, OF STILL STRENGTH, UH, EVEN IN A LATENT ECONOMY.

AND THEN THAT'S, THAT'S KINDA MY CONFUSION AND I BELIEVE, I GUESS KINDA TO YOURS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE YEAR SPAN OF, YOU KNOW, WAS PROPER PLANS MADE AND, AND AGAIN, I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A MORAL DISCUSSION, INTERNAL DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO, BUT I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THOSE UH, DELAYED NUMBERS ARE AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THIS HAS.

UM, ONCE THOSE COMES OUT, YOU SAID PROBABLY IN A COUPLE MONTHS OR SO.

UM, SO WE PROBABLY KNOW BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

YES.

WE, WE, WE HOPE EVERY MONTH THEY, RIGHT NOW THEIR MODELS.

SO WE NEED SOME DATA TO PLUG IN TO SEE HOW THEY'RE FIGURING OUT, YOU KNOW, WE REPORTED ON SOME MODELS, WE THREW OUT SOME PERCENTAGES, UH, AND IT'S JUST BASING ON SOME OTHER MODELS AT HIGHER LEVELS, LIKE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, STATE LEVEL, ET CETERA WITH REVENUES AND COLLECTIONS.

SO, UM,

[00:50:01]

HOPEFULLY YES, WE HAVE SOME ACTUAL DATA TO PLUG IN AND WE'VE GOT A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THE ACTUAL EFFECT IS AND START CHARTING IT OUT.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU.

MR MAYOR.

BUT THE, THE TIF REVENUE THAT WOULD BE GENERATED THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DELAYS ON ANY HOME BUILDING OR DELAYS IN OUR COLLECTING PURCHASE OR, I MEAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE IN TERMS OF THE DELAY, WE WOULDN'T BE ANY PENT UP AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE HOUSING MARKET.

I THINK YOU'LL BE TALKING TO FIVE DIFFERENT ECONOMISTS, YOU'LL PROBABLY GET FIVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHAT THEY FEEL THE WHOLE MARKET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AS WE AS KIND OF THIS, UH, 19 SITUATION.

CORRECT.

I DON'T THINK THE DELAY FROM PURCHASING, UH, IF THE DELAY FROM PURCHASING THAT IS YEAH.

MONEY INTO THE ED FUND, BUT THAT, THAT DOESN'T REALLY TRANSLATE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE DELAY WOULD BE FROM A BUILDING PERSPECTIVE.

THE BUILDING THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES AND LOTS THEY SELL TO THE BUILDERS IS ALL GOING TO BE BASED AROUND WHAT THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING IS.

NOT, UM, HOW SOON THE DEVELOPER PAYS US OR CLOSES ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE COLLECT ALL THE FUNDS.

THE GREATEST IMPACT OF, OF THE TIF IS THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE ACTUAL COLLECTIONS OF THAT.

THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR LARGEST FACTOR THERE.

SO FROM THE, FOR THE CASE OF WINDBROOK, UH, SHOULD A HALT OR A NONEXISTENT DEVELOPMENT GO THE EXISTING PROPERTIES, UH, VALUES COULD BE AFFECTED.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY WOULDN'T, BUT COULD BE, UH, GENERALLY YOU SEE THAT, UM, AND THAT WOULD THEN AFFECT THE CURRENT COLLECTIONS AND FUTURE.

SO THAT CREATES THAT GAP.

WELL, WITH THE DELAY, I JUST WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE OUR ABILITY TO CLOSE OR COLLECT THOSE FUNDS WAS SEPARATE THAN THE ACTUAL BUILD OUT OF THE ACTUAL ELEMENT IN SUBSEQUENT DEFERRED REVENUE THAT WOULD COME FROM THAT.

YES.

MAYOR, YES.

UH, MR SCHOMER, YES.

UM, IN REGARD TO LOSS REVENUE FOR THE CITY, I THINK THE CONCERN THAT THE COUNCIL HAD WAS THAT THE LAND HAD SET FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS AND WITH COMPLETE BUILD OUT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE COMPLETE BUILD OUT OF THIS PROJECT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT 80 TO 85 HOMES.

DO I REMEMBER THAT CORRECTLY? UM, I WANTED TO SAY 122.

I DON'T, I FOR SOME REASON, THAT'S WHAT'S IN MY MIND.

CAN YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE VALUES OF THE HOMES BEING BUILT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN CARRIAGE TRAILS.

AND I KNOW A NUMBER THAT WE'VE ALWAYS USED IS ABOUT $1,500 A YEAR PER ROOFTOP FROM TIF INTO OUR BANK ACCOUNT.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT 12 YEARS LEFT ON THE TIF.

IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK YES.

LIKE I SAID, 12 OR 13.

YES.

SO HERE'S THE MONEY.

YEAH.

YEAH.

WELL HERE'S THE MONEY WE HAVE LOST.

IF THAT LAND IS SET FOR 10 YEARS AND IT HASN'T HAD ANY CONSTRUCTION ON IT, WE'RE, WE'RE LOSING ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AT LEAST.

YES.

AND WE DO HAVE A MORAL DECISION TO MAKE HERE AND I WISH THINGS HAD NOT BEEN DELAYED.

AND THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE COVE AT 19 VIRUS, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY MAYER SLOWED DOWN HOME SELLS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK BUILDERS THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY THEY'VE BEEN ENCUMBERED BY, UM, THE COVE AT 19, LIKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS HAS.

AGAIN, IT'S PROBABLY SOLD, UH, SLOWED CONSTRUCTION DOWN.

I HOPE THAT WE CAN