Any way to delay it until after the Alabama game?
Kisela: We’ll have TVs set up. And by the time the party starts, Alabama will probably be finished, anyway (laughter).
And with no-one speaking from the audience: We’re adjourned!

“Maybe I’ve flunked basic math along the way” but he doesn’t see how the figures on the leased lot add up.
Kisela sketches out the technical details. Craig thanks Kisela and the other staffers for presenting the information on such a tough call clearly.
The vote: 3-2, with Weidenhamer and Bagby voting no and Windes and Dewey abstaining. Windes repeats his abstention statement from the earlier vote with a deadpan face.

Weidenhamer: Doesn’t matter unless we sell. City Hall Annex is probably on land worth more than we bought it for, but that doesn’t do us any financial good. “You may have lots of assets, but you don’t realize the value unless you continue to sell them to somebody … what are we going to do to run the city, borrow money to run the property?”
Seevers points out the location of the leased property is much less favorable.
Bagby: “If we didn’t want to listen to the analysis, we shouldn’t have asked the city manager.” He adds that “we are looking through a soda straw with respect to our parking challenges” because we’re putting all the money into this one site; the lease frees up enough money to get the other two sites the city wants. If we buy, “we’re going to put all our eggs in this one parking basket” and have no parking on the east and west ends. “We have blinded ourselves … my main issue is, we have paid way too much money.’
Craig: He really thought that when the financial analysis came back, buying would be a clear winner; he was surprised it wasn’t (by the way, I’m now so tired I keep misspelling analysis and have to correct it). Either lot would be a good asset but if the city is really worried about cost-effective spending, go with the lease.
Windes: They won’t do as good a job. The Clancy lot is better situated and provides a spot to build a walkover. The other parcel is further away, won’t serve people as well and won’t be used: “you’ll have vagrants living over there and roaches and used syringes on the floor.”
Sandy Trammell: If we own the land, we can do things that would generate money for us. Her biggest concern for the church piece is that it isn’t visible from 98.

For Jerry Miller to update the title search, reissue commitment for title insurance, review the title search results and return with a recommendation for closing.
Seevers made the motion. Wood seconds. On the dais, Kisela rubs his eyes wearily …
At a suggestion from the counsel, Seevers amends to set the closing before the end of the year.
Miller says he has some concerns that if everything isn’t worked out by the due date (specifically on the removal of tenants), and the city doesn’t take action, that could be construed as waiving the city’s rights. Some discussion follows. The counsel (Bowman, I think) seems optimistic everything can be resolved.
Sam: She’s going to keep the motion with a due date of Dec. 31; if the issues aren’t resolved, fine, the deal is off.
Tom: So if they are worked out, this doesn’t come back before us?
Miller: If there aren’t any problems, we close.
Craig: He’s a little concerned that after commissioning a financial analysis that shows the lease is a better deal, we’re looking at the purchase.
Seevers: “After spending almost $2.8 taxpayer dollars at the end of the road, we own nothing, we have nothing for our children and grandchildren.” Under the lease, that is. “I have a hard time spending that much money on nothing.”