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.”

If the city had screwed up and postponed the closing, that would be one thing: We should eat any drop in value. But it wasn’t the city. “$3.125 million is not a fair price today and I can’t believe there’s anyone in the city who thinks it is.”
Miller: Regarding Sandy’s comments, his position has always been that when there was no performance by the seller, that left the city in the position to decide whether to continue with the contract or not. He doesn’t want the city to think it’s painted into the corner with continuing with the contract.
So, the motion: To get a reappraisal. Windes and Dewey Destin will stay mute, since they have property interests on the harbor directly affected by this.
Motion fails: Wood, Seevers, Trammell all vote no.

He says he wants to correct the false impression they don’t want to close. Sam says that’s not an impression: They were told outright. The counsel replies that the man who said that was not an officer of the company and does not represent them, even though he’s a family member.
Seevers: Do we have to retake the title search? Miller: Yep.
Seevers: She still believes that if we don’t have something to show at the end of the lease, “that is not spending good money for something that’s solid.”
Moves to have Miller repeat the title search and report back, with a recommendation for closing.
Tom Weidenhamer: We’d be spending more money if we buy, but he can see Sam’s point. However, he sees the point of city government as doing things for the public, not accumulating assets. There’s no point in spending money on a purchase when St. Andrews will offer the same benefits for less money.
Bagby: “I think ownership is right–the problem I have here is that we have a piece of property that we valued over six months ago. I do not believe the value of that property today or a month from now, whenever we close, is anywhere close to $3.125 … I wouldn’t pay $500,000 for a Volkswagen just so i could own it if I could lease a porsche for $20,000 a year.” If we buy in this case, “We are not spending the people’s money wisely.” He calls for a reappraisal to be made.
Some discussion of the rules of order follows.
Seevers: “How much money are we going to spend on a discussion of this issue?” It’s like we spend on a study because it’s not going the way the council wants, and she won’t support that.
Trammell: A reappraisal would kick things down the line several months, and at that time they might change their mind.
Counsel: If the city wants to come back and claim a lower price, we’d listen, but “We believe we have a contract.”

At the cookout, she jokes, “he didn’t do a very good job with the hamburgers–but that’s not his job.”
Barker echoes her praise for staff. Applause from some of the audience.
Next, the pedestrian crossing plan: Kisela simply notes that they’re continuing to work with the DOT on it so there’s no action on it now.
Then the parking-lot discussion. In essence, the lease proposal from St. Andrew’s is financially a better deal, but the Clancy land is in a much better position for a parking lot. Jerry Miller reports that one issue, the presence of tenants on the Clancy property, is largely wrapped up (that’s simplifying, Jerry, I know).
Kisela: Basically this comes down to whether you want to lease or buy; there are pros or cons either way. So staff would like direction.
Seevers: A couple of questions. First, can the Clancy rep confirm that they intend to close. “The last time someone was here, they said they did not intend to close.”
Sean Clancy (president) steps up with counsel. Counsel says they have every intent to close, despite some stumbling blocks, but the company is working to resolve everything. The Lamar lease, which has an ending date of Feb. 28 is the only major issue and that can be terminated with 60 days notice; they’re trying to terminate earlier.

“everything that happens keeps damaging this area.” He says dredging sand for the 2006-7 beach restoration project created a hole off Holiday Isle that increased erosion. They’ve been getting nowhere “and the next one’s going to take the houses out.”
Kisela: We’ll continue to work on ways to get this resolved and to work with the DEP and the Corps. But any mixed messages could derail the dredging, even if the mixing was unintentional. We should work on helping Holiday Isle, but we can’t afford to send a message that we’re not completely committed to the dredging.
Eller to the homeowners: Withdraw your suit, let the dredge come in and do its work, and then press your suit. “If you can get it changed, I’m all for you, but do you really want to bear the burden of knowing that you have possibly stopped the dredging or delayed it?” If they press the suit after the dredging, he’d support it.
And we’re done.
Seevers: (We’re now in council reports): Salutes all the hard work staff put in on the 25th anniversary. “The staff made us all look fabulous.”

But I’m not hearing anything new or definitive.
Bagby: Given how much sand Okaloosa Island will get from Eglin, you’d think this pittance from dredging could go to Holiday Isle.
Craig: This project has to go forward–we can’t risk losing the funding. But there’s got to be a solution; however, it has to be driven by Tallahassee, since it concerns state law. The most we can do is work with them to see if we can come up with a “win win win” for everyone, including Okaloosa Island.
Windes: The governor came here this summer–the feeling seems to be even he doesn’t the authority to settle this.
“I don’t want to see houses fall into the gulf … but you’re trying to drag the fishermen down with you. I don’t think nothing’s going to happen in two months–we’ve been fighting for years and it’s not getting closer.”
JJ Chambers of Destin Pointe: Until this was filed, we were told there was no way we’d get even a grain of sand from dredging. We’ve been taking storm damage for a decade without any sort of restoration, and if we took a direct hit, we’d be destroyed.

Her concern is that if the Holiday Isle folks wins, the Sherrys will just file another challenge, sticking it up again.
But what she doesn’t understand is whether Statute 161 really does supercede the Inlet Management Plan. If it does, maybe the governor could intervene?
Kisela: “There is a difference of opinion whether that law trumps the Inlet Management Plan.” Seevers: “Can we not call the governor’s office and find out?” And we really, really need beach restoration!
Kisela; Agreed. That would provide long-term relief.
Seevers: Is it reasonable to propose contacting the governor about this?
Kisela: Nothing to stop us.
Bagby: Who has the authority to settle this?
Kisela: I got the impression nobody does.