5. Review of attorney’s report issued by John Herin, Esq. and possible motion regarding the selfstorage project at Rock island Road and Commercial Boulevard.

[5. Review of attorney’s report issued by John Herin, Esq. and possible motion regarding the selfstorage project at Rock island Road and Commercial Boulevard.]

REVIEW OF ATTORNEY'S REPORT ISSUED BY JOHN HERIN, ESQUIRE, AND POSSIBLE MOTION REGARDING SELF-STORAGE PROJECT AT ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD.

SO AT THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO ASK CITY MANAGER, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO STATE AT THIS TIME? NO.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY OTHER THAN WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED MR. HERIN'S MEMO TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

I HOPE EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DISCUSSION IS WITH YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY ATTORNEY.

AND WAS THAT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD BEFORE WE GO TO MR. HERIN? NO MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

MR. HERIN, I DO NOT SEE YOU BUT I SEE YOUR INITIALS DOWN HERE, SO I KNOW YOU'RE ON.

YES, MA'AM AND MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU.

I HOPE YOU'RE ALL ENJOYING THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

AS SYNDICATED BY THE CITY MANAGER MR. CERNECH.

I HAVE PROVIDED TO HIM AND HE'S DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF YOU A MEMO THAT SUMMARIZES THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BACKGROUND FACTS AND ANALYSIS AND ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDATION THAT I PUT FORTH WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ELECTS NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CLOSING ON THE TRANSACTION, THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE SETTLEMENT THAT I WAS ASKED TO REVIEW.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS ON THE CITY COMMISSION THAT MAY NOT OR WERE NOT ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THAT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE MEMO TOOK PLACE.

JUST KIND OF BRIEFLY, THERE WERE TWO LAWSUITS THAT WERE FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF TAMARAC BY PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC INC THAT ULTIMATELY BECAME PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC LLC, ASSERTING A NUMBER OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY.

BUT REALLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION, THE FOCUS OF THAT LITIGATION AND ULTIMATELY THE ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION PERTAINED TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD.

I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTY.

THE WAY THAT THE CITY CAME TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY IS INTERESTING IN THE SENSE THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ITSELF REQUESTED IT, PARTICULARLY IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE DEDICATION OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC, TO A LARGE DEGREE, WAS A FUNCTION OF A REQUEST AND IMPOSITION MADE BY BROWARD COUNTY.

AND ULTIMATELY, THAT'S IN FACT WHAT DID HAPPEN WHEN THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOW CENTRAL PARK IN MANNER, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY WERE REPLANTED, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WITH-- THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS SEPARATELY PLANTED AS TRACK H.

IT'S L SHAPED AND CONFIGURATION, HAS A SMALL FRONTAGE ON COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD AND LARGER FRONTAGE ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMPRISES ABOUT THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FEET PLUS OR MINUS.

THE GENESIS OF THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THIS PROPERTY IS THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED, AS IS NORMAL IN THE PLATTING PROCESS, BROWARD COUNTY REQUIRED A USE DESIGNATION TO BE ASSIGNED TO TRACK H.

AND THROUGH THAT PLATTING PROCESS, THE NOTATION THAT WAS IMPOSED UPON THE PROPERTY WAS FOR THE USE AS A FIRE STATION.

IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, HE DID INDICATE THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT DURING THAT PLATTING PROCESS BY CITY STAFF TO PERSUADE BROWARD COUNTY TO GIVE THE PROPERTY MORE GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL DESIGNATION.

BUT NONETHELESS, ULTIMATELY, THE PLAT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT NOTATION ON TRACT H.

AND AS A RESULT, WHEN THE CITY ELECTED LATER ON, NOT NECESSARILY TO BUILD A FIRE

[01:00:08]

STATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE [INAUDIBLE] FILED SUIT AND IN THE [INAUDIBLE] LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT THE CITY OR THE DEDICATION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS IMPROPER.

AND THAT IS BOUND TO BE USED SOLELY FOR A FIRE STATION, THAT THE CITY DID NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD REVERT BACK TO THEIR OWNERSHIP.

LET ME STOP AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND THAT WE'VE COVERED SO FAR.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS RAISED AT THIS TIME.

OK.

SUBSEQUENT POINT TO THAT POINT IN TIME, DO THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT AS WAS INDICATED BY YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, MR. [INAUDIBLE] THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WAS IN FACT ASSIGNED TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES THROUGH THE FOUR [INAUDIBLE] TRUST FUND TO BE HANDLED AND TO BE IN FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

AND IN PARTICULAR, MICHAEL BURKE WAS ASSIGNED THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE] LAW FIRM TO HANDLE THAT LITIGATION.

AND I DO SEE THAT MR. BURKE IS A GUEST AND PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S CONVERSATION.

AND CERTAINLY EITHER MR. [INAUDIBLE] MR. CERNECH AND MR. BURKE, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AS WE GO ALONG, I CERTAINLY WELCOME THEIR INPUT SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES WHO BASICALLY LIVED THROUGH THIS WITH THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE TIME.

AT SOME POINT IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN, THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRESTIGE HOMES AND MR. BURKE AND THE CITY AND STAFF ABOUT WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS THE END TARGET.

WHAT DID EVERYONE WANT TO DO IF IN FACT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING THIS DISPUTE THROUGH A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT? THE [INAUDIBLE] SUGGESTED AT THAT TIME THAT THE CITY AND THE [INAUDIBLE] ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE TWO PARTIES WOULD JOINTLY SELL THE PROPERTY TO, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AN UNKNOWN UNNAMED THIRD PARTY FOR AN UNNAMED UNKNOWN USE.

BUT THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE DISCUSSION THAT ULTIMATELY TOOK PLACE AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AS TO WHERE THE CITY WANTED TO HEAD.

INTERESTINGLY DURING SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THERE WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR YOURSELF, AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON OF ACTUALLY BUYING OUT PRESTIGE AS OPPOSED TO ENTERING INTO SOME TYPE OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT WERE STATED, WHICH FRANKLY, THE CITY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].

FROM THAT POINT FORWARD THERE'S KIND OF A DEARTH OR LACK OF ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD.

BUT ULTIMATELY, WHAT DID OCCUR WAS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR THE PARTIES TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO A NOW IDENTIFIED PURCHASER, ROCK ISLAND STORAGE LLC, AND SPLIT THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY 50/50.

AND AGAIN, GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, THE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS WERE, WELL, WHAT SHOULD THAT SPLIT BE, ET CETERA.

PRESUMPTIVELY, THE [INAUDIBLE] CAME BACK AND SAID, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT.

AND ULTIMATELY, IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION, IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE THAT HAD NOW BEEN GOING ON FOR CLOSE TO A DECADE AND TO RID THEMSELVES OF THE LAWSUIT AND THE [INAUDIBLE] INDIRECTLY WENT AHEAD AND APPROVED THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT PROVIDED FOR THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY TO ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.

PURSUANT TO THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, STAFF BEGAN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THAT.

ULTIMATELY, MR. GOREN REPORTED BACK TO YOU ALL RECENTLY THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS READY TO BE CONSUMMATED AND TO FOR THE PARTIES TO MOVE ON AND

[01:05:03]

QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, WELL, WHAT ALTERNATIVES DO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY? ONE INTERVENING FACTOR, AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WHEN A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS TOOK PLACE, IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PARTIES ESSENTIALLY COMING TO AN AGREEMENT AND IN THEORY AS TO WHAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD BE.

AND AFTER THAT SETTLEMENT WAS APPROVED IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE PROPERTY BEGAN IN EARNEST, THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASE OF ROCK ISLAND STORAGE DID A SITE INSPECTION AND DISCOVERED SOME MONITORING WELLS THAT SUGGEST THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE CONTAMINATED.

AND AFTER SUCH, WITH DUE DILIGENCE, THEY IN FACT DID DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A LEVEL OF ARSENIC CONTAMINATION THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH.

SO WHATEVER THE END USE OF THIS PROPERTY MIGHT BE, WHETHER IT'S CITY OWNERSHIP, ROCK ISLAND STORAGE OWNERSHIP OR THIRD PARTY OWNERSHIP, SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BECAUSE AS SET FORTH IN MY MEMO, THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO RESOLVING AND MITIGATING THAT CONTAMINATION DIFFER DEPENDING UPON THE USE.

SO IF IT'S A USE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS GOING TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY GENERALLY, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A PARK, THEN THE REMEDIATION PROCESS IS MORE LENGTHY, MORE EXTENSIVE AND BY EXTENSION, MORE EXPENSIVE.

WHEREAS IF THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM, THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF [INAUDIBLE] PROTECTION SAYS, WELL, YOU JUST SIMPLY PAVE OVER THE CONTAMINATION, YOU CAP IT AND THAT IS SATISFACTORY.

SO IF THE PROPERTY IS IN FACT THE USE THIS TERM COMMERCIAL USE, THE REMEDIATION CAN BE IMPLEMENTED QUICKER AND LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IF THE PROPERTY WERE USED FOR A GOVERNMENT POTENTIALLY GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE WHERE THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD HAVE CONTACT WITH THAT PROPERTY.

AND BY THAT I MEAN GOING ON IT, PLAYING, ET CETERA.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT CONTAMINATED SOIL WILL ALL HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

NEW FILL BROUGHT IN AND THE CONTAMINATED FILL HAS TO BE DISPOSED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

AND THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION.

SO THAT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES WHILE THIS PROCESS WAS TAKING PLACE AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHERE DOES-- WHAT ARE THE CITY'S OPTIONS? SIMPLY REALLY THERE'S TWO.

AND AGAIN, I'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. BURKE, WITH MR. GOREN AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER, MR. CERNECH.

AND THERE'S SOME GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT EITHER THE CITY MOVES FORWARD WITH CONSUMMATING THE TRANSACTION THAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR AS INITIALLY OR AT ONE POINT, CONSIDER BUYING [INAUDIBLE] OUT FOR THE CLAIMS THAT THEY HAVE AGAINST THE CITY AND THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION.

HOWEVER, THAT LATTER ALTERNATIVE COMES PRESUMPTIVELY AT A PREMIUM COST TO THE CITY.

IT PRESUMES THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT.

THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THEY WOULDN'T OR THAT THEY WOULD.

AND ULTIMATELY, IF THAT IS A SOLUTION THAT GETS IMPLEMENTED, NOT ONLY WILL THE CITY IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HAVE TO PAY A PREMIUM TO THE [INAUDIBLE], IT IS ALSO GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO THE [INAUDIBLE].

ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS THE [INAUDIBLE] SELL THE PROPERTY TO ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

AND ALTERNATIVELY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THEN THE CITY WOULD BE THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAKING CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.

QUESTIONS? ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR PRESENTATIONS? YES, FOR THE MOST PART AT THIS POINT.

I'VE SUMMARIZED THE CONTENTS OF THE MEMORANDUM AND WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE SALIENT POINTS OF HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED, WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE INTERIM, WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AND NOW THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS THERE, WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVES, WHICH I

[01:10:03]

OUTLINED JUST A MOMENT AGO? THANK YOU.

AS IT WAS KIND OF A SEMI TIE FOR WHOSE HAND WAS RAISED FIRST, I'M GOING TO GO WITH COMMISSIONER BOLTON AS THIS IS IN HIS DISTRICT AND HE DID ASK FOR THIS SPECIAL REPORT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU ARE ON THE FLOOR.

AND THEN COMMISSIONER GELIN, YOU'RE ON DECK.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU'RE ON MUTE.

OK.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR.

I'M SORRY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

AND THANK YOU, MR. HERIN, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I THINK THAT YOUR EVALUATION OR YOUR MEMO WAS WELL PUT TOGETHER.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

BUT SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THIS UNCOMMON WHERE A CITY WOULD WANT TO BACKTRACK OR BACK OUT OF A DEAL OR A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR NOT ONE TO SIGN CLOSING DOCUMENTS? CAN YOU RECALL THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCES AS AN ATTORNEY ANY OTHER SCENARIOS LIKE THIS? YES, I MEAN, IT'S NOT COMMON.

LET ME SAY THAT TO BEGIN WITH.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT IN AN OPTIMUM WORLD, THE BEST WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY HAVE [INAUDIBLE] OUT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHILE WHEN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE TAKING PLACE AND IN FACT, WAS DISCUSSED COLLECTIVELY BETWEEN THE COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF.

AS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT OTHER INSTANCES, THERE IS ONE INSTANCE THAT I SHARED WITH THE CITY MANAGER WHERE THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES DECIDED ULTIMATELY NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN EXPANSION OF THEIR CITY HALL USING THE PARKING LOT THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THEIR CITY HALL, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THE CITY HAD ALREADY HAD VOTED TO EXPAND CITY HALL, HAD AUTHORIZED THE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT TO BUILD THAT CITY HALL.

THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXECUTED.

THE CONTRACTOR WAS MOBILIZING AND READY TO BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL THERE HAD A CHANGE OF HEART, THEY VOTED TO RESCIND THE APPROVALS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW CITY HALL AND INSTRUCTED STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE NUMBER, BUT THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES ENDED UP PAYING THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO WALK AWAY FROM THE PROJECT.

AND I WOULD ANALOGIZE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF, WELL, ACTUALLY THERE WAS LITIGATION.

IRONICALLY, THE CITY ENDED UP SUING ITSELF, STATING THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAD EXCEEDED AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THE CONTRACT WAS ULTRA VIRUS.

AND ULTIMATELY, THE PARTIES SETTLED FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT THAT I STATED.

OK, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT CITY COMMISSION, SINCE IT WERE A NEW COMMISSION, WERE RECKLESS IN THEIR DECISION TO BACK OUT OF THE AGREEMENT? AND I KNOW EVERY--.

IT IS INTERVENING FACTOR TO THE STORY I JUST GAVE IS THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CITY COMMISSION [INAUDIBLE], NEW COMMISSION CAME ON AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT GAVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND BACK OUT OF THE TRANSACTION AND TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR TO GO AWAY.

IS THAT RECKLESS? I THINK THAT TO SOME DEGREE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS.

IT RISES TO THE LEVEL NECESSARILY OF THE QUESTION IS MALFEASANCE OR MISFEASANCE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

BUT I'M SURE THAT THERE WERE AND ARE STILL PEOPLE IN CITY CORAL GABLES THAT DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A PRUDENT SOLUTION TO THEIR DILEMMA.

AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IF THIS COMMISSION DIRECTS STAFF TO UNWIND THE

[01:15:06]

SETTLEMENT, IF THAT IS IN FACT AMENABLE TO THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED, THAT THERE WILL BE SOME IN THE COMMUNITY WHO THINK THAT THAT'S NOT A PRUDENT DECISION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING WAS AN INTERNAL ISSUE, CORRECT? MR. HERIN? TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CITY MOVING FORWARD WITH A PARTICULAR PROJECT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER.

THE LITIGATION.

IT WAS DECISION WAS NOT THROUGH LITIGATION, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM, IT WAS--.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD AND HAD THAT CLEAR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LETTING ME CLARIFY.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, CONTINUE.

OK, SO.

MADAM MAYOR, I THINK OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS KNOWING YOU HAVE FINALLY FIGURED YOU OUT.

[LAUGHTER] OH, YEAH, WELL, MY FIANCÃ©E WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT TOO, SO TELL ME.

WELL, WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY HAS ASKED THE QUESTION THAT DOESN'T FIT YOUR NARRATIVE, YOU TRY TO BUTT IN SO THAT THE NARRATIVE CONTINUES TO BE YOUR NARRATIVE.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE SAYING--.

YOU'RE QUESTIONING WHEN YOU START MAKING IT PERSONAL, IT BECOMES AN ATTACK.

SO PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE ON ME.

PLEASE PROCEED TO FINISH YOUR QUESTIONS TO MR. HERIN.

THANK YOU.

TWENTY TWENTY ONE IS COMING AND I WANTED TO BE A DIFFERENT YEAR.

SO AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THAT UP, WE'RE GOING TO BE FIGHTING.

FRANKLY, YOU'RE MESSING UP MY NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION.

SO I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE ASKING QUESTIONS.

YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION.

CONTINUE, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

MR. HERIN, YOU SAID IN YOUR IN YOUR MEMO TO US.

THESE WORDS.

INTERESTINGLY, EARLIER, EARLY ON IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, YOU AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ADVOCATED FOR BUYING OUT THE [INAUDIBLE].

NO REAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT IDEA.

CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? YES, AS I INDICATED, AS I STATED BEFORE, THE STAFF CAME TO THE TO THE CITY COMMISSION COLLECTIVELY, INCLUDING WHEN I SAY STAFF, I'M.

I MEAN, TO INCLUDE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THEY CAME TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SAID THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE THIS DISPUTE.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PURSUE THAT DISCUSSION? AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE CHAITS HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED OR SUGGESTED THAT THE WAY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AND THE LITIGATION, EVERYTHING, ALL OF IT WAS TO THE CITY AND THE CHAITS TO GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDED GETTING THE NOTATION ON THE PROPERTY, LIMITING ITS USE TO A [INAUDIBLE] STATION REMOVED BY BROWARD COUNTY, WHICH IN FACT WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND THEN ENTERING INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY, WHICH ULTIMATELY BECAME ROCK ISLAND STORAGE, AND TO SPLIT THE PROCEEDS AT THAT.

AT THAT INITIAL POINT, WHILE, AGAIN, THE DETAILS WEREN'T KNOWN, THE CHAITS HAD SUGGESTED THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE MONEY WOULD BE SPLIT WOULD BE A 50 50, MAYBE EVEN SUGGESTED IT BE MORE ON THEIR BEHALF AND LESS ON THE CITY'S.

THEY WERE ALSO ASKING FOR A AN 80 APPROXIMATELY 80 THOUSAND DOLLAR CREDIT FOR SOME CODE LEADS THAT THEY HAD PAID OFF.

THE DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT WAS, IN FACT, HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS DID INDICATE, WELL, WHAT WHY DON'T WE JUST BUY THE CHAITS

[01:20:07]

OUT PERIOD? WHILE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND GENERALLY AGREED TO [INAUDIBLE] .

IT'S VERY CLEAR ALSO THAT STAFF RECEIVED THE DIRECTION TO CONTEMPORANEOUS THEIR DUAL PATH.

WAY TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS ALSO THE ALTERNATIVE OF SELLING THE PROPERTY.

WHAT CAME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ULTIMATE APPROVAL WAS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY MEMO THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION.

20876, THAT SPECIFIED THAT, IN FACT, THE CITY WOULD SELL THE PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH PRESTIGE HOMES.

THERE IS LITTLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THAT INITIAL DISCUSSION AND THE BRINGING THE RESOLUTION FORWARD IN THE FORM OF THAT CONTAIN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ULTIMATELY WAS APPROVED.

STATED SIMPLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

THIS PARCEL OF LAND WAS A PART OF THE GOLF COURSE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

TYPICALLY, GOLF COURSES ARE CONTAMINATED LAND, CORRECT? YES.

OK.

VERY COMMON.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT WANT THIS PIECE OF LAND TO SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE? IS THAT IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CITY THOUGHT BECAUSE THIS LAND IS CONTAMINATED, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR A PARK? NO, BECAUSE THE CONTAMINATION WAS DETERMINED TO EXIST LATER.

I MEAN, WHILE ULTIMATELY, IF WHOEVER HAD OBTAINED AND MAINTAINED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, I THINK WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS ARSENIC CONTAMINATION.

I BELIEVE THAT.

AND CERTAINLY INITIALLY, BASED UPON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF, THAT IT WAS PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF.

THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS ITS LOCATION.

SO FOR, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE AT SOME POINT BY SOMEONE PRIMARILY AT THE COUNTY TO PLACE A FIRE STATION ON THAT CORNER, IT DIDN'T LEND ITSELF FOR THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION AND THAT THE DECISION AND THE EVALUATION OF THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE SITE THAT WHERE THE EXISTING FIRE STATION IS AND THAT WHICH WAS REMODELED, IS THAT WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT EXISTING SITE, IT WOULD HAVE BETTER ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY THAN THE CORNER PARCEL ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL WOULD EVER HAVE.

OK.

SO THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRE STATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

OTHER USES, I THINK THAT THE DECISION WAS THAT IT JUST THAT LOCATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEND ITSELF TO A LINEAR PARK, THAT THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN THE CITY THAT ARE BETTER SUITED.

AND IN FACT, IN MY IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY MANAGER, HE INDICATED THAT VERY EARLY ON IN THE LITIGATION AND THE DISCUSSIONS, THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE PARCEL THAT MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED FOR TRANSFER TO THE TO THE TO THE CITY AND RATHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION THAT BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT NEVER CAME TO PASS.

AND FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, THE CITY FOUND ITSELF STUCK WITH THIS PARCEL.

OK, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT MR. [INAUDIBLE].

I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

MR. CITY MANAGER.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL PARK AND MANOR PARC DO NOT HAVE

[01:25:06]

POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARD? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THEY DON'T HAVE POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARDS, LARGELY BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THOSE SWIMMING POOLS.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY A THAT WAS ACTUALLY A DISCUSSION POINT WHEN 13TH FLOOR CAME THROUGH AND REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL TOWNHOMES THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THAT PROPERTY AND PROJECT THE TRANSITION FROM TOWNHOMES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, GIVEN THE PRICES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR THE HOUSES, PUT IN SWIMMING POOLS OR NOT.

AND MY RECOLLECTION WAS PARTICULARLY IN CENTRAL PARK, GIVEN THE ZERO LOT LINE CONFIGURATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES, THAT THERE TRULY WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE BACKYARD FOR SWIMMING POOL.

IF THEY WERE NOT ZERO LOT HOMES.

DO YOU THINK THAT POOLS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED IF THE BACKYARD SPACE ALLOWED IT? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WERE PERMITTED OR NOT, I THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED NOW IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO CONFIGURE THE POOL IN A WAY THAT MET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION ON SWIMMING POOLS IN MANOR PARC, CENTRAL PARK OR HIDDEN TRAIL.

I THINK THAT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS IS THE FACT THAT THE LOTS ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL THAT WOULD CONFORM TO THE BUILDING SET BACKS THAT ARE PLACED UPON THOSE LOTS GIVEN THE SIZE OF IT.

MR. CERNECH.

I WENT BACK MANY, MANY YEARS OF THE PAST.

I WENT BACK MANY, MANY YEARS.

RIGHT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MS. CALLOWAY SAID WAS POOLS CANNOT GO INTO THE BACKYARDS OF CENTRAL PARK AND MANOR PARC BECAUSE THE LAND WAS TOO CONTAMINATED FOR POOLS.

YOU DO NOT RECALL THAT CONVERSATION IN THE COMMISSION MEETING? COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I DON'T RECALL THAT.

NO.

AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, [INAUDIBLE] JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, THE CONTAMINATION ACROSS THE PROPERTY WITH WHICH WE SPEAK IS NOT UNIFORM.

AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO PROHIBITION ON SWIMMING POOLS IN ANY ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS, BLANKET PROHIBITIONS.

YOU WOULD YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THE SOIL TESTED IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATION.

AND SO WE, YOU KNOW MS. CALLOWAY COULD HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT CONTAMINATION IN CERTAIN AREAS OR CERTAIN SITES.

BUT THE REALITY IS YOU DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CONTAMINATION TO BEGIN WITH UNTIL YOU TEST AND THEN IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION, WHETHER IT'S SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CONTAMINATION TO CAUSE AN ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, A SWIMMING POOL CONTAMINATION IN A SWIMMING POOL DOESN'T DOESN'T NECESSARILY MIX, MEANING THE ISSUE WOULD BE WHEN THAT DIRT IS IS TAKEN OUT AND REMOVED.

YOU HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THE CONTAMINATED SOIL.

IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION, THERE IT IS.

IT IS THEN BURIED AT A CERTAIN DEPTH BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THOSE SUBDIVISIONS, IF THERE WAS CONTAMINATION PRESENT, A CLEAN FILL WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN OR THE PROPERTIES WERE CERTIFIED THROUGH THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT AS THEY EXIST TODAY.

SO THAT THE CONTAMINATION ISSUES REGARDING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BEFORE THAT WENT IN.

AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO MS. CALLOWAY'S SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT CONTAMINATION AND SWIMMING POOLS.

BUT THE YOU KNOW, THE NOTION THAT YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE CONTAMINATION, I DON'T I DON'T THINK IS A CORRECT ASSESSMENT, JUST UNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATION IS NOT UNIFORM ACROSS THAT

[01:30:02]

PROPERTY.

FOR ANY LITIGATING ATTORNEY, I THINK THAT IF THEY ARE WISE, THEY SHOULD, BEFORE SIGNING ANY CLOSING DOCUMENTS, TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THE CITY KNEW THAT THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED OR NOT, AND IF THE CITY IS TRYING TO PASS OFF A CONTAMINATED PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THEM.

I THINK THAT IN THE REALM OF THE INTERNET.

IS ANY PERSON WANTING TO BUY THIS LAND FROM ROCK ISLAND STORAGE SHOULD LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY KNEW THAT THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED OR NOT, BECAUSE I AM AS FAIR TO MY RESIDENTS AS I AM FAIR TO DEVELOPERS AND IT SEEMS LIKE A BUSINESS DECISION FOR THE CITY.

I REPRESENT MY RESIDENTS AND I ALSO HAVE TO HOLD THE HANDS OF DEVELOPERS AS WELL.

SO I WOULD CAUTION THEM TO DIG VERY DEEP TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS CITY WANTED TO PASS OFF A PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS CONTAMINATED TO SOMEBODY WILLING AND ABLE TO BUY IT JUST BECAUSE THE PIECE OF LAND IS PRIME LOCATION.

SO THAT IS MY COMMENTS MADE TO THAT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.

NOW, I WANT THE THIS COMMISSION.

THIS ONE.

NOT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHERE.

THEY DID NOT, AT LEAST IN THE OPINION OF SOME OF THE RESIDENTS.

DOES NOT LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS, I'M SPEAKING TO THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHERE THE MAYORS SAT ON COULD HAVE AT THAT TIME SAID TO OURSELVES, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S BUY OUT THE CHAITS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A BUSINESS DECISION, WE'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE WHO ARE BUSINESS MINDED.

IT'S BUY OUT THE CHAITS.

THEN IF THE LAND IS CONTAMINATED.

LET US FIX THAT ISSUE.

AND THEN LISTEN TO THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS, MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE THERE IS WHAT GOES THERE AND IF THAT'S NOT A PARK.

AND THAT'S A GAS STATION OR A RESTAURANT THAT WE SO ARE MUCH IN NEED OF.

LET'S SELL THE LAND TO [INAUDIBLE], LET'S SELL THE LAND TO [INAUDIBLE], SHELL, MORTON'S, WHOEVER THEY ARE, RIGHT? LET'S SELL THE LAND LINE, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT THIS COMMISSION TO HEAR WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS FINE CITY HAS SAID, BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A POINT OF CONTENTION, NOT JUST FOR THE REST OF A COUPLE OF DAYS, BUT IN TWO YEARS.

AND I'LL MAKE SURE.

THAT THIS COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT AND I REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS, SO THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WILL IMPALE THIS COMMISSION.

WHEN I POSTED ON FACEBOOK YESTERDAY.

QUESTION WAS, SHOULD THE CITY OF TAMARAC ALLOW THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD? SAID PROVIDE YOUR ANSWER DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW AND OR COPY AND PASTE TO MY EMAIL.

AND [INAUDIBLE] STYLE OF RESIDENCE, THEY CHOSE, SOME OF THEM CHOSE TO GO TO NEXT DOOR.

SOME OF THEM CHOSE TO STAY ON FACEBOOK AND THEY SOUNDED OFF.

[01:35:01]

[INAUDIBLE] SAID, NO, IT'S UGLY.

PAT PARKIN SAID THAT CORNER NEEDS TO BE PRINTED UP.

MARCY THOMPSON SAID IT'S A POCKET PARK [INAUDIBLE].

HERBERT DALY, WHO VOLUNTEERED IN YOUR LAST ELECTION, MADAM MAYOR SAID, I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND SINCE I ADDRESSED THAT THE COMMISSION SINCE I ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION WHEN THIS WAS FIRST INTRODUCED.

IT'S TOO BIG, IT'S TOO TALL.

AS I EXPLAINED, THERE ARE OVER 20 APARTMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY BEHIND THEM THAT WOULD NEVER SEE SUNSHINE AGAIN.

A SMALL OR POCKET PARK WOULD SHOW TO VISITORS THE BEAUTY OF TAMARAC, [INAUDIBLE].

PAT PARKIN.

ABSOLUTELY NOT, NOT NOT.

ROBIN [INAUDIBLE] HARPER.

AND WHEN I RESEARCHED THESE PEOPLE, NOT ALL OF THEM LIVE IN MY DISTRICT AND THINK MOST OF THEM LIVES IN DISTRICT THREE, WHERE ELVIN IS NOW THE COMMISSIONER, WHERE JULIE IS THE FORMER COMMISSIONER, JULIE FISHMAN, FORMER.

SHE SAYS NO.

BELONGS IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, NOT A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

JEFFREY [INAUDIBLE] LIVES IN THE WOODLANDS.

YOUR NEIGHBOR MADAM MAYOR, SAYS, I RECOMMEND NO.

THERE IS A LARGER FACILITY JUST A FEW BLOCKS WEST ON THIS OF THIS ON COMMERCIAL, AND IT HAS EMPTY UNITS AND IS ONE OF THE LEAST EXPENSIVE IN THE AREA.

I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I RENT A UNIT THERE AND HE GOES ON.

HIS COMMENTS ARE REALLY, HIS COMMENTS ARE VERY LONG.

LARRY [INAUDIBLE] HE SAID NO WITH EXCLAMATION MARK.

JOSEPH [INAUDIBLE] SAYS RETAIL.

JEFFREY AGREED WITH HIM.

ERIC [INAUDIBLE], LET'S ADDRESS THE ALL THE VACANCIES AND ALL THE SHUTTERED STRUCTURES.

AND HE LIVES IN DISTRICT THREE, BY THE WAY, AND I KNOW FROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT.

HE ALMOST SUPPORTS YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

TARA [INAUDIBLE] SAID NO.

SHAWNA SAYS [INAUDIBLE] ALWAYS SAYS, NOPE, WE CAN'T, CAN WE GET SOMETHING TO BEAUTIFY THE AREA? [INAUADIBLE] DALE SAYS, NO.

CARL [INAUDIBLE] SAYS NOPE, A SMALL PARK WILL BE BEAUTIFUL.

BETTY GAMBINO SAYS NO, PUT A PARK.

LISA [INAUDIBLE] SAYS NO BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY BAD ENOUGH AND TOO MANY ACCIDENTS HAPPEN BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.

MARCY, A LOT OF RESIDENTS MAY NOT EVEN BE ON NEXT DOOR, AND I MIGHT FEEL LIKE I DON'T WANT TO BOTHER TO SIGN UP SO.

TOMMY [INAUDIBLE], THE MAYOR OF MARGATE, SAYS WE HAVE THE SAME DECISION IN OUR CITY.

FIRST, CAN YOU PROHIBIT IT? PROS, THEY BRING IT, THEY BRING IN GOOD TAX MONEY BECAUSE IT'S THE SIZE AND NOT TO PROMOTE LARGE TRAFFIC.

AND THE CONS ARE WHAT BENEFIT DOES IT HAVE TO YOUR RESIDENTS, YOUR BOSSES? SOUNDS LIKE A PRIME LOCATION.

I WOULD THINK YOU CAN PUT SOMETHING MORE APPEALING.

GOOD LUCK.

KEEP US POSTED.

I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.

I WON'T BORE YOU, BUT THE COMMENTS ARE THERE.

I SUBMITTED TO THEM TO THE CITY CLERK AND I TOLD HER TO PUT IT A PART OF THE RECORD, AS A PART OF MY EXHIBITS.

I'M TALKING AND I KIND OF KNOW THE LAST TIME TAUGHT ME SO I CAN PUT IT AS EXHIBITS.

FROM WHAT I'M SAYING.

CORRECT SAM? YOU ARE CORRECT COMMISSIONER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

LET'S GO OVER TO NEXT DOOR.

WHERE THE CITY IS THE HOLDER OFF OF THE RECORDS FOR THIS, BECAUSE I POSTED ABOUT MY CITY 'S PAGE.

I DID A SURVEY, SAME QUESTION ASKED, SHOULD THE CITY OF TAMARAC ALLOW THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD? YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESULTS WERE? 92 PERCENT SAID NO.

EIGHT PERCENT SAID YES AND ZERO PERCENT UNDECIDED.

PEOPLE COMMENTED ON NEXT DOOR, TOO.

THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WHO WANTS TO GET UP EVERY DAY AND SEE AND LOOK INTO A CONCRETE?

[01:40:02]

IT'S UGLY.

AND WATKINS SAYS, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

FRED.

SAYS OR FREDDY SAYS, WE DON'T WANT MORE BUSINESSES LIKE THIS ONE.

DIANA SAYS WE NEED SOMETHING MORE LIVELY, NOT ANOTHER STORAGE FACILITY.

YOU KNOW, THAT EVERYBODY'S SOUNDING OFF, THAT THEY DO NOT LIKE IT AND THEY DO NOT WANT IT.

AND I MAKE THIS A POINT OF CONTENTION BECAUSE I BROUGHT TO THIS A THIS COMMISSION, SOME OF YOU WERE HERE.

THE COMMENTS OF MY RESIDENTS AND THEY ALSO CAME.

TO THIS COMMISSION AND ASKED THAT A STORAGE FACILITY NOT BUILT, NOT BUILT ON THE CORNER OF COMMERCIAL AND THIS COMMISSION ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN.

WHERE NOW WE ARE CHARGED WITH A DECISION WHETHER TO MAKE A BUSINESS DECISION OR NOT, NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS AND HAVE EXPOSURE.

WHEN THIS COMMISSION COULD HAVE.

JUST BOUGHT OUT THE CHAITS.

ADDRESS CONTAMINATION ISSUE.

CONTAMINATION ISSUES IF AND WHEN THEY AROSE.

AND.

SATISFY THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.

UNDERSTAND.

WE OR STAFF AT SOME POINT DECIDED THAT THIS COULD NOT BE A PARK.

WHY NOT? WHY NOT? I'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES, EVEN IN SUNRISE, THAT HAS PARKS SMALLER THAN THIS ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET.

OK, CANNOT BE A PARK, MAYBE.

WE CAN CALL IT FREEDOM CORNER, DIVERSITY CORNER PUT STATUES IN AND OR THE HISTORY OF TAMARAC ON THE CORNER SOMETHING BUT THIS COMMISSION DID NOT LISTEN AND THIS IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO GO STAND IN THE SUN FOR 14 DAYS AND 12 HOURS A DAY.

I WILL DO IT, I'VE DONE IT AND I'VE DONE IT, AND I WILL DO IT AGAIN.

I'LL MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS, THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY THAT I CARE ABOUT SO MUCH, REMEMBER WHAT THIS COMMISSION DID.

DECISIONS, THE BAD DECISIONS THAT WE MADE, THEY ELECTED US TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THEM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE FAILED THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

AND I JUST HOPE THAT IF A STORAGE FACILITY IS BUILT ON THE CORNER.

IT WILL.

HOLD THE NAME IN MEMORY OF.

MAYOR MICHELLE J GOMEZ ON THE TOP OF IT, I HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER OBLIGES ME AND PUT AND CALL IT MICHELLE J GOMEZ BUILDING AND MEMORIALIZE YOUR NAME ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE WHEN COMMISSIONER GELIN AND I DID NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.

YOU ALSO REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS OF MY DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTS OF WOODLANDS AND YOU FAILED TO ACT.

AND THE RESIDENTS WILL REMEMBER THAT YOU FAILED, THAT YOU FAILED TO ACT.

MADAM MAYOR, I'M NOT DONE.

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS FROM YOUR CAMPAIGN SPEECHES FROM TWO YEARS.

PLEASE, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT RUNNING AND TRYING TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER GELIN WHEN HE RUNS AGAINST ME.

CAN YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND? MADAME MAYOR, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

I DID.

I DID NOT INSINUATE THAT.

I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT POLITICS, I'M SURE SOMEBODY WILL RUN AGAINST YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE COMMISSIONER GELIN OR ANYBODY IN THIS COMMISSION.

PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.

YOU BROUGHT THIS UP.

YOU OPEN THE DOOR TIME OUT, TIME OUT, TIME OUT, TIME OUT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS THE FLOOR TO FINISH HIS QUESTIONS.

[01:45:03]

THANK YOU.

DON'T OPEN DOORS, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OPEN TOO.

72000 PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT, MR. [INAUDIBLE].

SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND.

IF SUCCESSFUL IN REMOVING IN THE REMOVAL OF THE PLAT NOTATION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, THE CITY AND [INAUDIBLE] AGREES TO JOINTLY SELL THE PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY WITH THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE 50 WITH PRESTIGE TO RECEIVE SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PLUS OR MINUS CREDIT TO RESOLVE THE CODE LIEN THE CODE LIEN ISSUE.

SO THERE ARE PRESENTLY CODE LIENS ON THE PROPERTY IS THAT 72 THOUSAND THAT WOULD COME FROM THEIR 50 PERCENT OR IT WILL COME FROM THE CITY'S 50 PERCENT.

WELL, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE.

THE CHAITS DISCHARGED THE LIENS WHEN THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO ULTIMATELY THE DEVELOPER OF THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES, AND WHAT THEY DID IS THEY THEN BROUGHT A SUBSEQUENT ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, ALLEGING THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WERE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AND THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A REBATE OR REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT AMOUNT.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHAITS THAT ULTIMATELY WAS REDUCED TO WRITING IN AND PART OF THE RESOLUTION.

THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED.

THE CITY DID AGREE.

AND TO CREDIT THE CHAITS THAT SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PLUS OR MINUS OF THAT WOULD COME, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WOULD COME FROM THE CITY'S 50 PERCENT.

OK.

BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS AND PLEADINGS, PENDING REVIEWS, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION, VARIOUS CITY EMPLOYEES EITHER GAVE SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OR PROVIDED DOCUMENTS DURING THE DISCOVERY PROCESS, INTERNAL E-MAILS AND FILES, DOCUMENTS STATING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT SUITED FOR THE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF A FIRE STATION.

FURTHER, ALTHOUGH NOT VERY CLEAR, IT ALSO APPEARS THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IDEALLY SITUATED FOR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL USES, SUCH AS A LINEAR PARK OR LINEAR OR POCKET PARK.

BUT WHO WERE SOME OF THOSE EMPLOYEES, DO YOU RECALL? WELL, LET'S GO BACK FIRST.

THE BOTH MR. BURKE AS WELL AS THE CITY MANAGER, MY CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH MR. CERNECH, HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR AND I RESPECT HIS THAT INITIAL DETERMINATION.

HE DID NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF THIS DEDICATION, OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND WHEN THE STAFF LOOKED AT AND TRIED TO CONFIGURE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR FIRE STATION, THE GEOMETRY DIDN'T WORK.

COMPARED TO THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE AND REDEVELOP THE EXISTING FIRE STATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TURNPIKE.

AND SO THE ULTIMATELY THAT INFORMATION THROUGH THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND THROUGH CONVERSATIONS OBVIOUSLY BECAME KNOWN TO THE CHAITS.

AND THAT TO SOME DEGREE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS PART OF THE GENESIS OF, WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT, LET'S JOINTLY SELL IT.

AND SOME OF THOSE THAT BECAME THE GENESIS OF A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, ULTIMATELY SETTLING THIS LONG, ONGOING, VERY 10 YEARS GOING LITIGATION.

I, YOU KNOW, THE SAME ANALYSIS WAS, TO SOME DEGREE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DONE WITH REGARD TO WAS THIS A OPTIMUM SITE FOR A LINEAR OR POCKET PARK? AND AGAIN, THE DETERMINATION WAS NO.

THROUGH YOUR THROUGH YOUR PROBE, MR. HERRON, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT, IN YOUR MEMORANDUM THAT THE PARTIES HAVE NOW COME TO REALIZE THAT CONTAMINATION WAS ON THE LAND AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER, MR. [INAUDIBLE] REPRESENTED THAT

[01:50:11]

THOSE CLAIMS. AND MR. BURKE, MIKE BURKE, HAS REPRESENTED THAT THOSE ARE NOW RESOLVED ? FOR THE MOST PART.

YES, SIR.

MY CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED INDICATES THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, SOME ASSOCIATED LITIGATION REGARDING THE CONTAMINATION THAT WAS DISCOVERED BY ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

THEY INITIALLY REFUSED TO CLOSE UNTIL THE ISSUE OF THE CONTAMINATION WAS RESOLVED.

TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYONE THAT I CONSULTED WITH, THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN A POSITION WHERE BROWARD COUNTY, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION OF BROWARD COUNTY HAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED A REMEDIATION PLAN THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY OR DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY AS A STORAGE FACILITY.

THAT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE TO ROCK ISLAND STORAGE, IS ACCEPTABLE TO BROWARD COUNTY, ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, ACCEPTABLE TO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES.

AND THAT'S WHY THE PARTIES ARE NOW IN A POSITION TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE ON THE TRANSACTION IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

DO YOU THINK THAT FURTHER LITIGATION COULD HAPPEN AFTER THIS IF THEY IF THEY REALIZE THAT THE CITY KNEW THAT THERE WAS CONTAMINATION ON THE LAND BEFORE THE CITY TOLD THEM THAT THEY FOUND OUT? I'M WHENEVER I'M ASKED THAT QUESTION BY GOVERNMENTAL CLIENTS OF MINE, MY STANDARD RESPONSE IS ALL IT TAKES IS THREE HUNDRED AND SOME ODD DOLLARS, THE FILING FEE THAT NOW THAT NOW EXISTS TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ANYONE CAN FILE A CLAIM.

THE LIKELIHOOD, I THINK, IS SOMEWHAT REMOTE.

AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS, AGAIN, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT AND REFLECTED IN MY COMMENTS HERE TODAY, IS THAT ALL THE PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE SALE AND ULTIMATE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY ARE IN FACT AWARE OF THE CONTAMINATION, THE EXTENT OF THE CONTAMINATION AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO RESOLVE THE EXTENT [INAUDIBLE] EXISTING LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PRESTIGE HOMES, THE CHAITS.

THE CHAITS HAVE ALREADY SIGNED.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

I WOULD DEFER TO MR. BURKE ON THIS PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND I'VE SEEN AND IT'S PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE CHAITS HAVE OR WILL EXECUTE A GENERAL RELEASE IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AS TO ALL CLAIMS THEY COULD THEY THEY DID OR COULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THE CURRENT LITIGATION, WHICH THEORETICALLY WOULD ENCOMPASS ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION.

I'M NOT SO SURE IF THERE ARE SIMILAR RELEASES UPSTREAM IN THE SECONDARY LITIGATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BY ROCK ISLAND SAND AGAINST THE PRESTIGE AND THE CITY REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION.

YOU SAID THAT ALL IT TAKES IS ABOUT 300 SOME ODD DOLLARS TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

I THINK ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE, ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE.

I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO DID THAT.

WELL, YOU KNOW, MR. HERRON, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE A STELLAR ATTORNEY.

YOU HAVE PROVIDED A SOUND MEMORANDUM.

I THINK THAT YOU DID A FINE JOB ON THIS.

I'M SATISFIED.

I THINK THAT MY RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THAT I FOUGHT AS HARD FOR THEM AS I POSSIBLY COULD.

I WILL TRANSMIT THIS TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN MY DISTRICT, AT LEAST, AND A

[01:55:07]

FEW KEY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND OTHER DISTRICTS AS WELL, SHOWING THEM JUST HOW MUCH I'VE FOUGHT FOR THEM.

AND I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD WANT TO OBLIGE IN THIS.

SO IF THERE'S ANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE THAT WANTS TO SEND OUT A [INAUDIBLE] TELLING THE RESIDENTS WHAT HAPPENED.

I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD.

I'LL YIELD FOR NOW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

AND I DO WANT TO SAY AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I DID NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR EARLIER WHEN I FIRST STARTED DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE AND THE MEMO THAT I'VE PROVIDED TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU THROUGH STAFF, I WANT TO SAY THAT BOTH OR ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT I SPOKE TO, MR. [INAUDIBLE] AND MR. CITY ATTORNEY MR. CERNECH, THE CITY MANAGER, AND MICHAEL BURKE, OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

THEIR ASSISTANCE AND THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED TO ME WAS INVALUABLE, AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY PROVIDED TO ME.

AND I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR ASSISTANCE THAT WITHOUT THEIR ASSISTANCE, THE WORK PRODUCT I PUT BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE PROVIDED IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THEIR ASSISTANCE, WHICH, AS I SAID, WAS INVALUABLE.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THERE ARE THERE ARE A FEW.

I SEE HERE, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP? NO, MA'AM, I DID NOT.

I'M SORRY, MR. CITY MANAGER, MY APOLOGIES.

I DID, MADAM MAYOR, BUT I LOWERED IT.

OK.

JUST DOUBLE CHECKING BECAUSE THESE GO UP AND THESE GO DOWN.

AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

YEAH, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS A QUESTION.

FOR, I'LL POSE THIS QUESTION TO BOTH JOHN AND THE CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT SURE WHO WILL BE BEST ABLE TO ANSWER, BUT REGARDING THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR REMEDIATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE ARSENIC.

ALTHOUGH THE STATE REQUIREMENT IS CHEAPER AND DIFFERENT FOR A COMMERCIAL USE RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL USE, IT IS STILL SAFE, IS IT STILL CONSIDERED A BEST PRACTICE AMONG, I GUESS, THE MORE REPUTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES? BECAUSE SOME AGENCY THAT IS MORE FRIENDLY TO BUSINESS AND NOT AS CONCERNING ABOUT THE REAL IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO OTHER STATES? SO MADAM MAYOR, IF I MIGHT, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THAT COMMISSIONER GELIN.

SO THE STATE OF FLORIDA SETS REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION DEPENDING ON LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION.

THE STATE OF I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO OTHER STATES OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT CONTAMINATION IS ALL THROUGHOUT OUR STATE.

AND THE STATE'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AT LEAST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS A STRONG ENOUGH AGENCY IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.

THE STATE'S AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED TO BROWARD COUNTY IN AN INSTANCE LIKE THIS, AND THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION IS THE DIVISION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GUIDING THE CITY OR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, A DEVELOPER, WHOMEVER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SEEKING TO MAKE CHANGES.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, BROWARD COUNTY HAS GUIDED US THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THIS PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION AND REMEDIATION, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN MITIGATED OR REMEDIATED.

THERE IS A PLAN NOW ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY WHICH SPECIFIES HOW THAT MITIGATION WOULD OCCUR IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY IS CONSTRUCTED.

IF THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED TO BE USED DIFFERENTLY, WE WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND AMEND THAT APPROVAL FOR WHATEVER INTENSITY IT IS

[02:00:03]

DESIRE FOR THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THAT.

SO.

AND DO YOU KNOW HOW? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CLEANUP IS MORE THOROUGH IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL USE VERSUS A COMMERCIAL USE.

YES, ABSOLUTELY, COMMISSIONER.

SO THE COMMERCIAL CLEANUP IS AT A CERTAIN LEVEL UNDERSTANDING THAT IT THE SOILS IN THIS CASE ARE ENCAPSULATED UNDERNEATH THE PARKING LOT AND UNDERNEATH THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF SO THAT THEY'RE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

IF YOU GO INTO RESIDENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENT, THERE'S MORE REMOVAL OF SOIL TYPICALLY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BRING IN CLEAN SOIL, IN ORDER THAT IF YOUR IF YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN PEOPLE ARE PLAYING IN THEIR YARD FROM THINGS THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING IN CONTACT WITH SOIL THAT'S LACED WITH ARSENIC OR [INAUDIBLE] OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

AND THEN IF WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, FOR INSTANCE, FOR A PARK OR FOR A SETTING WHERE PEOPLE WILL COME IN CONTACT WITH THE GRASS, THE SOIL, WHATEVER, I BELIEVE THAT IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LEVEL OF REMEDIATION.

AND I MY POINT IN DESCRIBING ALL OF THIS TO YOU IS THAT THE YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL, THE STATE AND THROUGH THE COUNTY HAVE ALL DETERMINED THAT THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS CAN BE MITIGATED SAFELY SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE YOU DECIDE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT LEVEL OF MITIGATION NEEDS TO OCCUR, DEPENDING ON THE USE THAT IS DECIDED.

OK.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RANGE OF COSTS ARE FOR THE DIFFERENT REMEDIATION LEVELS? NO, I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE ULTIMATE USE.

OK.

YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE STORAGE FACILITY BECAUSE THE BECAUSE THE SOIL CAN BE CAN YOU KNOW CAN BE CONTAINED ON SITE AND ENCAPSULATED UNDER IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE AMOUNT OF CLEAN FILL THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT IN IS FAIRLY MINIMAL.

THAT'S THE LOWEST COST REMEDIATION.

IT JUST GETS MORE EXPENSIVE FROM THERE AND I CAN'T PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT ASKED FOR AN OPINION FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FIRM AS TO WHAT IT WOULD COST TO REMEDIATE THE SITE.

BUT TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE ARSENIC CONTAMINATION FROM THE SITE TYPICALLY REQUIRES YOU KNOW APPROVAL OF CUBIC YARDS DEEP OF SOIL AND THEN BRINGING IN CLEAN SOIL TO REPLACE THAT.

AND SO ON A SITE THIS SIZE, THAT GETS TO BE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS.

OK.

AND I KNOW AT ONE POINT ROCK ISLAND STORAGE WANTED TO BACK OUT OF THE DEAL.

IS THAT NO LONGER THE CASE? THEY STILL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

[INAUDIBLE] YES, YES.

OK.

AND IF THERE WAS A LAWSUIT, WHO WOULD HANDLE THE LAWSUIT, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR [INAUDIBLE]? I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO IT, [INAUDIBLE] I'M NOT SURE.

COMMISSIONS IT WOULD BE A CONTRACT ACTION.

IT MAY NOT BE IT MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE FMIT MR. BURKE MAY WELL BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT.

HE'S CURRENTLY ASSISTING THE CITY ALONG WITH OUR OFFICES IN THE CO-PLAINTIFF'S SIDE WITH REGARD TO THE PENDING LITIGATION WITH ROCK ISLAND ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.

BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A CONTRACT ISSUE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES.

SO DO WE HAVE A CURRENT LAWSUIT WITH THE? YES, WHICH THE CITY IS A CO-PLAINTIFF IN ALONG WITH PRESTIGE, WHICH SEEKS TO EITHER LIQUIDATE THE DEPOSIT TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, ETC.. WE ARE WE ARE IN THE SAME LITIGATION WITH ROCK ISLAND, SELF-STORAGE.

OK, SO.

CITY COMMISSION AGREED TO JOIN THAT LITIGATION SEVERAL MONTHS AGO IN AN EFFORT TO GET THE DEAL CLOSED.

AND SO WE'RE IN A SUIT AGAINST ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

WE'RE IN A LAWSUIT TOGETHER, MR. BURKE, AND BEST RESPOND IS IN THE DETAILS.

BUT THE ANSWER IS YES.

OK, DID YOU WANT DETAILS ON THAT COMMISSIONER? BRIEFLY.

YES.

SO THE AFTER THE ARSENIC WAS DISCOVERED AND THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE, PRESTIGE HOMES INITIATED A LAWSUIT AGAINST ROCK ISLAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TO DEMAND THAT THEY CLOSE.

[02:05:01]

THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE CITY TO JOIN THAT LAWSUIT AND THE CITY HAS JOINED IN THAT LAWSUIT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF ROCK ISLAND TO CLOSE.

ROCK ISLAND COUNTERCLAIMS RELATED TO THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ARSENIC, WHICH WASN'T KNOWN UNTIL SOME INSPECTIONS WHICH WERE DONE LATE IN THE GAME.

AND SO THAT LAWSUIT HAS KIND OF BEEN ON HOLD FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHILE ROCK ISLAND LOOKED INTO WHAT COULD BE DONE TO REMEDIATE THE SOIL SITUATION, THE CONTAMINATION SITUATION, AND NOW SATISFIED THAT IT CAN BE REMEDIATED.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT ROCK ISLAND IS IN A POSITION NOW TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE CLOSING AND IS SATISFIED.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEN THE LAWSUIT CAN BE DROPPED.

BOTH BY PRESTIGE, TAMARAC AND ROCK ISLAND, THEY WOULD DROP THEIR LAWSUIT.

THE PRESS, THE OTHER LAWSUIT HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED OUT BY THE COURT WHOSE FINAL ORDER, THE ONE THAT PRESTIGE BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY BACK IN 2011.

AND THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED BASED ON THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THE COURT HAS APPROVED.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS ENTERED AN ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE AND HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION THEN TO ENFORCE THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S NOT FULFILLED.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

I DO NOT SEE YOUR HANDS RAISED.

SO TAKING IT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.

AND I WILL.

IS THAT? COMMISSIONER PLACKO GO AHEAD.

UNMUTE YOURSELF PLEASE.

I WAS CONTEMPLATING.

CAN SOMEBODY GIVE ME THE BOTTOM LINE HERE? I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT, WHAT ALL WHAT? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT TO DO NOT TO DO? WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES AND WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS? I'D KIND OF LIKE THE BOTTOM LINE.

JUST REMEMBER, THERE STILL SOME MORE COMMENTS WE HAVE.

[INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE FINE.

OK, I CAN WAIT.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE FROM THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING WAS THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF THE SITUATION FOR GOING FORWARD AND OF THE SELF-STORAGE UNIT ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL, THAT WAS WHAT MR. HERRON WAS HIRED FOR BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON TO DO AND THAT IS WHAT [INAUDIBLE] GOT DONE HERE NOW.

SO.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, IF YOU WISH TO FINISH ANSWERING THE REST OF THAT QUESTION, YOU MAY DO SO.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

LISTEN, HOW I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY.

AND THIS WAS MY INITIAL INTENTION THAT WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION.

MR. GOREN BROUGHT THE ITEM AS JUST AN UPDATE TO US AS A MATTER OF BEING A GOOD ATTORNEY AND WANTING TO UPDATE HIS CITY COMMISSION.

IT WAS NEVER AN ITEM TO VOTE ON.

SO I WOULD CAUTION THIS CITY COMMISSION TO AND I SAY THIS CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD VOTE ON THIS.

I HAVE GOTTEN MY REPORT OUTSIDE COUNCIL HAS INVESTIGATED THE ITEM.

I AM PLEASED WITH WHAT THE INVESTIGATION SAID AND.

I CAN NOW ADVISE MY RESIDENTS THAT THE BEST THING TO DO .

SOMEBODY [INAUDIBLE].

I WILL TELL MY RESIDENTS THAT THE BEST DECISION THAT WE CAN MAKE AT THIS POINT IS TO CONTINUE ON THE PATH THAT WE ARE ON BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF WE'D HAVE TOO MUCH EXPOSURE GOING FORWARD.

I JUST FEEL THAT IF WE STOP THE PROCESS AND NOT SIGN THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS, NUMBER ONE, WE'RE GIVING THE CHAITS FREE MONEY.

NUMBER TWO, WE'RE GIVING ROCK ISLAND STORAGE FREE MONEY IN THE EVENT THAT THE

[02:10:15]

CLAIM TO US AGAINST US.

YES.

AFTER ALL OF THAT, WE WOULD HAVE THE LANDS, THE THE BUSINESS DECISION THEN WOULD BE TO THEN FLIP THE LAND, TO GET TO RECOUP SOME OF THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD HAVE PAID OUT IN LAWSUITS, THAT'S A BUSINESS DECISION.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED SO MUCH SO THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS MONEY WOULD BE SHED OUT THROUGHT THIS.

THINK ABOUT IT.

WE PAY THE CHAITS.

WE PAY OFF ROCK ISLAND STORAGE OR WHOEVER IT IS, LET'S JUST SAY FOR COMPENSATION SAKE, IT'S TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

THE CITY NOW HAS THE LAND.

WE THEN SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHERE NOW THE RESIDENTS ARE MORE PALATABLE TOO AND WE SELL IT FOR ONE POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS, THEN THE CITY IS ONLY OUT ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IT IS NOT COMPLICATED.

IF IF YOU IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS OWNER AND IF YOU UNDERSTAND BUSINESS, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YEAH.

THE CITY MAY BE EXPOSED.

AND YES, WE WOULD BE PAYING UP MONEY UPFRONT NOW, BUT WE STILL HAVE PRIVATE LAND THAT WE CAN TURN AROUND AND SELL TO A DEVELOPER THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING ELSE, NOT A STORAGE FACILITY.

SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO PUT A PARK ON THE CORNER.

I'M SAYING THAT WE COULD PUT, YOU KNOW, A GAS STATION OR A RESTAURANT OR WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE COMES.

THAT'S WHAT A SENSIBLE BUSINESS PERSON WOULD DO.

BUT.

GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THAT THE THAT THE HORSE HAS ALREADY LEFT THE BARN.

AND.

REALLY AND TRULY, THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHO MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS HAS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES AT THE POLLS IF THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES THERE, BECAUSE THEY MADE THIS DECISION THAT NOW MY RESIDENTS HAVE TO LIVE WITH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. HERRON GAVE BROUGHT FORWARD A VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER MEMORANDUM AND IT SPEAKS TO OUR OPTIONS.

THAT IS ALL I WANTED OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DO.

GIVE US OPTIONS IN WRITING.

LET US SEE THE BOTTOM LINE.

OK, IF YOU IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

DON'T JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S MALFEASANCE, [INAUDIBLE], NEGLECT OF PUBLIC DUTY.

ALL THAT STUFF.

SIGN IT NOW.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.

THAT THAT IS NOT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

TO JUST GO TO OUR RESIDENTS AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

THIS DOCUMENT IS FAIR AND IT SHOWS THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHATEVER DECISION WILL BE MADE.

IT'S NOT SAYING, OH, MARLON, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES THAT.

I THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, OUTLINES WHAT THE.

WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE BOTTOM LINE.

WITH THAT SAID, I GOTTEN WHAT I WHAT I WANTED, SO.

THE CITY ATTORNEY GAVE AN UPDATE, JOHN GAVE AN UPDATE THROUGH HIS MEMORANDUM AND ON COURSE WE WERE YOU, MADAM MAYOR, WAS GOING TO EXECUTE THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT.

GO AHEAD AND EXECUTE THAT CLOSING DOCUMENTS.

AND WHEN SHE DOES, MADAM CLERK, I WANT A COPY OF IT, THAT'S ALL.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS AND ONE COMMENT IS WHILE THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE, I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH MR. BURKE, WHO I WORK WITH ON A LOT OF MATTERS OVER THE YEARS AND HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT.

AND I THINK HE'S AN EXCELLENT ATTORNEY.

AND TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BEFORE, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY REASONABLE THAT IN ANY SETTLEMENT THAT THE CITY NEGOTIATES WITH THE EXISTING LITIGATION THAT'S RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT THE PARTIES WOULD EXECUTE [INAUDIBLE] THAT STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY AND CERTAINLY WOULD APPLY

[02:15:02]

HERE IN A STANDARD PRACTICE WITH MR. BURKE AND MY DEALINGS WITH HIM IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

AND I WOULD GUESS THAT IT, MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT HE WOULD DO THE SAME HERE.

SO TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENS AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS FROM ROCK ISLAND AGAINST THE CITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION, I THINK THAT WILL ALL BE WRAPPED UP AND RESOLVED IN SETTLEMENT OF THAT LAWSUIT, ASSUMING THE CITY MOVES FORWARD WITH THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AS TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY COMMISSIONER PLACKO, I WANT TO BRIEFLY SAY THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, RESOLVE THE LITIGATION, OBTAIN THE RELEASES THAT I JUST MENTIONED AND THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE OR ALTERNATIVELY SEEK TO BUY THE PART OF THE PRESTIGE, THE CHAITS, AS WELL AS ROCK ISLAND OUT OF THEIR CLAIMS OR POTENTIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY.

THE STARTING POINT OF THAT DISCUSSION IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE THE NUMBER THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE, WHICH IS THE 50 50 SPLIT BETWEEN THE THE CHAITS AND THE CITY, WHICH IS AT EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SO THAT'S YOUR STARTING POINT.

THAT'S YOUR BASEMENT FROM A REALISTIC STANDPOINT.

AND IT CAN GO UP FROM THERE AT ANY POINT.

BUT AGAIN, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON POINTED OUT, THAT'S A BUSINESS DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO GO THE ROUTE THEY WANT TO GO.

AND THAT ALSO PRESUMES THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTERTAIN THAT CONSIDERATION OF THAT ALTERNATIVE.

THANK YOU.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY COMMENTS.

APPRECIATE YOURS, SO I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S A TENDENCY TO TRY TO MAKE FACTS, FICTION BE FACTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A VACUUM.

AND THIS IS A 10 YEAR SITUATION.

WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PRIOR COMMISSION AS WE SEE SOMEBODY LEAVING THE DIAS AREA AS WE TRY TO SPEAK.

SO IT'S NOT AS EASY.

IT'S NOT IN A VACUUM.

THERE'S A WHOLE THING PRESENTED TO US ON FACTS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND THE JUDGMENT OF IT ALL IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN YOU WERE SHARING ABOUT THE FIRST CITY YOU WERE DEALING WITH? THAT WAS AN INTERNAL ISSUE.

THIS COMES FROM A MAJOR ISSUE IN OUR CITY THAT STEM FROM 2006, 2007 WITH A GOLF COURSE THAT WAS BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND AS YOU ARE VERY WELL FAMILIAR WITH, THERE IS ALWAYS LITIGATION THAT DEALS WITH GOLF COURSES BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND IT IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE AND IT IS NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS EVERYBODY WISHES IT TO BE.

WE'RE ALSO DEALING WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS ELECTRICAL OVERHEAD AND IN A SHAPE THAT IT IS NOT VERY EASY TO CONTEND WITH.

AND WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY ACTIVE AND BUSY ROAD.

AND WHILE SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE SELECTIVE MEMORIES, SOME OF US WERE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE IT BE BOUGHT OUT AT THE TIME IN 2018.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO [INAUDIBLE] MOVE FORWARD TO REALIZE WHAT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

WE WERE DEALT A HAND THAT HAD A SITE THAT WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED, THE FIRE STATION THAT WE COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE.

WE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE BEST DECISION WE POSSIBLY COULD FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT, AS I SAID, IS ODDLY SHAPED, BUSY CORNER AND HAS [INAUDIBLE].

WHEN THE REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION CAME TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SETTLEMENT AND OPTIONS WERE GIVEN TO OUR CITY ATTORNEYS, CITY STAFF AND THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN IT.

THE.

SORRY.

WHEN WHEN THIS WAS DONE, WE ASKED FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD FOR OTHER FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

[INAUDIBLE] COULDN'T ACCEPT IT WITH THE WAY THE LAYOUT WAS, OTHER BUSINESSES COULDN'T ACCEPT IT WITH THE LAYOUT WAS WHETHER THEY WERE GAS STATIONS, WHETHER THEY WERE RESTAURANTS.

WE'VE DISCUSSED AT NAUSEUM ABOUT THE PARK FACILITIES AND HOW EVEN WITH A LINEAR PARK, THE IDEA OF HAVING ANOTHER PARK RIGHT THERE WITH POWER LINES, PEOPLE WEREN'T GOING TO COME TO IT.

AND THE BEST USES AND WE COULDN'T DO IT FOR OUR PARK BECAUSE THE COUNTY COMMISSION AT THAT TIME SPECIFICALLY SAID FIRE STATION, ONLY.

THEY WOULD NOT GIVE US OTHER MUNICIPAL USES.

SO THROUGH ALL THIS, THE BEST DECISIONS WERE MADE AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE MADE OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD, AND THAT WAS FOR THE STORAGE UNIT.

THE PROPERTY VALUES HAD GONE UP TREMULOUSLY FROM WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WERE TOLD THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY WORTH EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND TO NOW.

[02:20:07]

IT WAS WORTH ONE POINT SEVENTY FIVE, WHICH IS A TREMENDOUS.

I THINK COMPLIMENT.

CAN ANYBODY ELSE HEAR? WE'RE BACK ON.

I NEED TO ASK FOR A MINUTE TO JUST DO SOMETHING ON MY END.

SO I'M PUTTING THIS MEETING IN RECESS [INAUDIBLE].

MR. CERNECH, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO SEE A PASSING OF THE VIRTUAL GAVEL.

[LAUGHTER] SO SORRY.

I KNOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN WISHED FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, BUT CANCER OR THIS WILL NOT MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

SO ANYWAY, WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

SO AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE, TECHNOLOGY DECIDED TO HAVE ITS OWN LITTLE PAUSE BUTTON.

DECISIONS ARE MADE WITH THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AND THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE CAN DO.

I UNDERSTAND THAT ALSO STATISTICS ARE NICE AND SKEWED SOMETIMES.

98 PERCENT IS REALLY A LOT.

BUT FORTY NINE PEOPLE TOTAL OUT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON FACEBOOK AND ON NEXT DOOR WERE THE ONES WHO RESPONDED.

I LOOKED AT IT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE UPSET, BUT EVEN AS SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON NEXT DOOR SAID, WHY ARE WE REVISITING THIS? WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE [INAUDIBLE] AND APPROVED BY OUR COURTS.

AND.

THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE.

SO AS FOR THE QUESTIONS REGARDING CONTAMINATION AND FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT WAS BUILT, THEY HAD TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR THOSE COMMUNITIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT.

THIS ONE LAST PIECE OF PARCEL THAT WAS LEFT OVER FOR THE FIRE STATION HAS CONTAMINATION ON IT.

SO WE HAVE FOUND OUT.

ANYBODY WHO DOES A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHO SIGNS A CONTRACT HAS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS RAISED IN THE LAWSUIT THAT ROCK ISLAND STORAGE BROUGHT FORTH, BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE'S ARSENIC ON GOLF COURSES, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A WHILE.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, AND WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS ON THIS CALL, SO I WILL.

CITY MANAGER, YOU NEED A, YOU HAVE A COMMENT? GOT TO UNMUTE FIRST PLEASE.

MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING, BUT AFTER YOU'RE FINISHED, MADAM MAYOR .

YOU GOT IT.

SO.

THERE ARE SOME THERE ARE NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS WHO CAN HELP WITH THESE QUESTIONS, IF NEED BE.

THE [INAUDIBLE], WE WERE TOLD THAT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE OUR MIND AT THIS TIME.

THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY BUY OUT THE CHAITS, POSSIBLY HAVE TO BUY OUT THE STORAGE UNIT.

MY CONCERN IS CONTEMPT OF COURT.

WOULDN'T THERE BE FINES? WOULDN'T THERE BE ISSUES? THIS IS NOT JUST A REGULAR CONTRACT THAT WE ARE SAYING, HEY, MAYBE WE HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART.

THIS IS A SETTLEMENT OVER 10 YEARS TIME WORKING ON THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT.

WOULD WE BE POTENTIALLY IN CONTEMPT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS AT THIS TIME? MADAM MAYOR, I THINK I COULD TAKE THAT QUESTION.

PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

YEAH, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL CONTRACT.

IT HAS IT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO TO RESOLVE SOME LITIGATION.

IT'S BEEN FILED WITH THE COURT.

THE COURT HAS APPROVED IT.

THE COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE IT.

SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION UNLESS PRESTIGE HOMES WOULD AGREE TO SCRAP THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THE COURT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ENFORCE IT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO USE ITS POWERS, BE THEY CONTEMPT IF NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH THAT HOPEFULLY WOULD NEVER BE REQUIRED OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

BUT CERTAINLY THEY COULD JUST SIMPLY ORDER THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH IT.

SO THAT'S WHY PRESTIGE WOULD HAVE INCREDIBLE BARGAINING POWER TO SCRAP THE

[02:25:02]

SETTLEMENT.

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEMAND UNREASONABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, OR THEY COULD JUST SIMPLY REFUSE ALTOGETHER.

IN WHICH CASE, IF THEY REFUSED, THEN THEY COULD DEMAND THAT THE COURT ENFORCE IT.

AND THE COURT THEN WHAT THE COURT WOULD DO IS ENTER AN ORDER DEMANDING THAT THE CITY COMPLY WITH WHAT IT AGREED TO DO.

AND THEN IF THE CITY DID NOT, THEN IT COULD USE OTHER POWERS, INCLUDING THE CONTEMPT POWER YOU MENTIONED, TO OBTAIN ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO.

WOULD ALSO, THE COUNTY HAVE ANY ABILITY TO COME BACK AFTER THE CITY OF TAMANAC AS IT MADE ITS DECISION TO REVERSE THE LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS BASED ON A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS PUT BEFORE THE COURT AND THE AGREEMENT BY THE CITY TO DO WHAT IT PROPOSED IN THE SETTLEMENT? SO THE PLAT NOTE RESTRICTION, WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. GOREN WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE PLAT NOTE CURRENTLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO A SELF STORAGE FACILITY OR WHETHER IT RESTRICTS IT TO A COMMERCIAL USE.

I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

CERTAINLY LOTS OF MONEY WAS EXPENDED BY ROCK ISLAND TO, THE CITY DIDN'T SPEND THAT MONEY , THE CHAITS DIDN'T SPEND THAT MONEY.

BUT LOTS OF MONEY AND TIME WAS SPENT TO GET THE COUNTY TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIVE NOTE ON THE PLAT FROM A FIRE STATION TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE.

BUT WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THAT CHANGE.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT I MEANT IF IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ORDER FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THIS SETTLEMENT.

MY CONCERN WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY COULD COME FORTH WITH A CLAIM AGAINST US AS WELL DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY THAT IF IT CHANGED THIS SPECIFIC NOTE BASED ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT WE WOULD THEN NOT BE MOVING FORWARD WITH.

IT MAY BE A QUESTION YOU CAN'T ANSWER.

IT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT NONE OF THE ATTORNEYS CAN ANSWER.

AND I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE AS A AS A CONCERN.

THAT I'M NOT SURE OF THAT AND I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER THAT.

I'M SORRY.

WELL, IF WE HAVE TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE, WE'LL ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

MR. [INAUDIBLE].

YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

[INAUDIBLE] I GOT DISCONNECTED, SO, MR. HERRON, I [INAUDIBLE].

IT'S YOUR CALL IF YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED.

NO, I IMPLICITLY TRUST MR. BURKE'S RESPONSE.

THANK YOU.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS ALSO I THROW THAT OUT THERE AND IT MAY WIND UP BEING A MORE RHETORICAL ONE, BUT THE REPUTATION OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND BEING ABLE TO BE TRUSTED IN BARGAINING, WHETHER IT BE BARGAINING WITH OUR EMPLOYEES FOR PENSION, WHETHER BE BARGAINING WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTRACTING WITH OUR CITY OR THROUGH ANY OTHER KIND OF LAWSUITS.

WOULD ANY KIND OF REVERSAL OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NEW PEOPLE ON A COMMISSION BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HAVE OUR REPUTATION NOT BE SULLIED? I THINK MR. GOREN WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST TO DEAL WITH THAT HE KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT MUNICIPALITIES AND THAT THAN I MADAM MAYOR.

OK.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY? ARE YOU STILL AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WITH US AT THIS TIME, AND IF NOT? MAY I SPEAK? I'M ACTUALLY IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BECAUSE MY IPAD DIED AND THE BATTERY WOULDN'T CHARGE WHILE I WAS PLUGGING IT IN AND MY DESKTOP DOES NOT HAVE A MICROPHONE, SO I MIGRATED TO THE MANAGER'S OFFICE.

I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN SEE ME, BUT I'M HERE AND I HAVE NOT MISSED A BEAT ON MY IPOD.

JUST DIED REGRETTABLY.

IF YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, I'LL TRY TO BEST RESPOND.

I APPRECIATE THE [INAUDIBLE] OF TIME.

THANK YOU.

I THINK WE ALL SOME OF US HAVE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD THE ABILITY TO KEEP OUR EQUIPMENT ON OUR BATTERY PACKED AND ENERGIZED [INAUDIBLE] AND PLUGGED IN.

BUT FOR SOME REASON THE BATTERY WILL NOT RECHARGE AND I CAN'T GET [INAUDIBLE].

SO.

TECHNOLOGY.

WELL GLAD YOU HAVE ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS.

THE QUESTION BASICALLY IS THIS, AND IT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT RHETORICAL, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT, BUT THE CONCERN THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE IF WE WERE TO DETERMINE WITH A NEW COMMISSION TO REMOVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD.

SOMETHING THAT WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT NOW LATER ON, WITH A NEW COMMISSION COMING TO REVERSE THAT DECISION, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO HAVE BARGAINING POWER AND ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO TRUST US AT OTHER NEGOTIATIONS? WHETHER IT BE OUR EMPLOYEES THROUGH PENSION NEGOTIATIONS, WHETHER IT BE OTHER SETTLEMENT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY OR WITH ANY OUTSIDE COUNSEL OR

[02:30:01]

DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS WE WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO? MADAM MAYOR, THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS MINDED QUESTION, WHICH I AM NOT ABLE TO ANSWER.

IT IS ONE WHICH IS REALLY IN THE REALM OF THE COMMISSION.

IT'S A POLICY DRIVEN DISCUSSION.

IT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS INHERENT IN YOUR AUTHORITY AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

I CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCEPTION WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING TODAY AMONG LAWYERS, CONSULTANTS AND OTHERS.

IT REALLY IS YOUR EMBRACEMENT OF THAT CONCEPT, WHICH I CANNOT RESPOND TO.

I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE ENTITLEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY WHICH THIS COMMISSION OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOWEVER, THAT'S REALLY UP TO YOU ALL WHAT YOUR PERCEPTION OR YOUR THOUGHTS WOULD BE.

AND I WOULD BE LOATH TO RESPOND AND GUESS OR SPECULATE WHERE I THINK THAT IT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT A CITY ATTORNEY CAN REALLY DO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A BONE OF CONTENTION, WHETHER IT BE FROM PEOPLE NOT WANTING THE GOLF COURSES, THE[INAUDIBLE] IN MONTEREY BEING CONVERTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

TO THE ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A GAS STATION, BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS OFFERED TO BE A GAS STATION, PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT AS A GAS STATION.

POCKET PARK.

PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO PARK A PARK KNOWING THAT THERE'S THE OVERHEAD WIRE AND THE FILL ON THE GROUND.

THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT GOES INTO IT.

SO THE DESIGN AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD, THE VERY PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD.

THE SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE STORAGE UNIT HAS DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS LOWER, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING, TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A CONDOMINIUM, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE RIFF-RAFF, TO MAKE SURE THAT HAVE SECURITY.

ALL THINGS THAT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH HAS BEEN LISTENED BY THIS COMMISSION, HAS BEEN LISTENED TO BY ALL PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED TO MAKE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION THAT [INAUDIBLE] BEEN MADE.

IT'S ALSO OUT OF ALL THE OTHER ITEMS, WAS DEEMED THE LESS TRAFFICKED FOR THIS.

SO IT WAS A DECISION.

IT WAS THE BEST DECISION THAT WAS MADE AT THE TIME.

AND IT IS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION.

AND WE ARE IN SETTLEMENT AND WE ARE MINUTES AWAY FROM IT BEING RESOLVED, 10 YEARS OF LITIGATION VERSUS OPENING THE DOOR TO HAVE POTENTIALLY ANOTHER THREE TO FIVE, MAYBE EVEN 10 MORE YEARS OF LITIGATION.

SO THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS ON THIS.

AT THIS TIME, I HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS NOT A REQUEST FOR A VOTE.

I WILL THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME DURING THIS ALLEGED HIATUS THAT WE WERE HAVING.

I THANK YOU FOR VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, MR. HERRON.

MR. [INAUDIBLE], THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STAYING WITH US.

AND WELCOME ABOARD AGAIN.

AND CITY ATTORNEY SAM, YOU KNOW THAT AGAIN.

WE WILL MISS YOU.

I WILL DEFER TO GIVE YOU THE FINAL MOMENTS ON THIS CALL.

SO IT IS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO IS SITTING IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

PLEASE PROCEED.

I KNOW THE MANAGER WANTS TO SPEAK FIRST.

I'LL JUMP OUT OF THE SEAT AND SHIELD MYSELF FROM HIM MOMENTARILY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME FINAL CLOSING COMMENTS AS WE PRE CLOSE THIS TRANSACTION.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, BUT BEFORE WE DO, CITY MANAGER, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUMP TO MR. HERRON FIRST.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE THE CITY ON IT'S SELECTION OF MR. [INAUDIBLE].

I'VE KNOWN MR. [INAUDIBLE] FOR MANY YEARS, AS WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE BY MANY OF YOU ALL.

I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HIM AND TO AND TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

AND AND I THINK THAT THE CITY HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT CHOICE AND WOULD BE WELL SERVED WITH HIM AS YOUR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AND WISH HIM THE BEST OF LUCK.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HE SAT IN TO LISTEN TO THIS.

I SEPARATELY SENT HIM AN EMAIL SAYING THAT IF YOU WANTED TO REACH OUT TO ME CONCERNING THIS MATTER, HE'S FREE TO DO SO.

AND I ALSO LAST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION HAVING THE CONFIDENCE IN ME AND PROVIDING ME WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AND DO THIS WORK FOR YOU ALL.

AND I'M AVAILABLE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OFFLINE AT ANY COMMISSIONER'S CONVENIENCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M SORRY, CITY MANAGER.

YOU WERE FIRST.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I'M BACK.

I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON ASKED REGARDING SWIMMING POOLS IN CENTRAL PARK, MANOR PARC AND HIDDEN TRAILS.

SO I REACHED OUT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PROHIBITED AND IF SO, WHY.

AND I GOT BACK THREE DIFFERENT ANSWERS, BUT I'LL PIECE THEM TOGETHER FOR COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

THE FIRST WAS THEY WEREN'T PROHIBITED IF THEY COULD MEET THE SETBACKS.

THE SECOND WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE THIRD WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THE FOURTH WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS

[02:35:03]

FILED ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO SAFE TO SAY THEY ARE PROHIBITED.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY OTHER THAN I GOT FOUR.

I ASK A QUESTION.

I GOT PRETTY MUCH FOUR DIFFERENT ANSWERS.

BUT BETWEEN THE LOT SIZES, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, THE DRAINING AND THE DRAINAGE AND THE ENGINEERING, THEY ARE PROHIBITED IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

I HOPE THAT HELPS.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

SITTING IN THE MANAGER'S CHAIR, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE M [INAUDIBLE].

OH, THERE IT IS.

OK.

THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.

ABSENT A DIRECTION OR MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THIS ACTION, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON APTLY PLACED THE DISCUSSION EARLIER DURING THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, I WILL NOTIFY COUNSEL FOR THE BUYER AND COUNSEL FOR PRESTIGE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY IS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO FULFILL ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTION.

AS I MENTIONED DURING THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING, THE POTENTIAL WAS TO CLOSE DURING THE LATTER PART OF THIS YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE THIS WEEK, WHICH IS PROBABLY UNLIKELY BASED UPON THE SETTING A TIME WHEN I'M LIKELY THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND TO WHATEVER EXTENT AND TO WHATEVER THE NEED ARISES.

MR. [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE FULLY UP TO SPEED AND WILL BE PREPARED TO DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT CLOSED BEFORE THE 9TH OF JANUARY, IT WILL BE DOCUMENTS TO BE SIGNED, THERE WILL BE CLOSING STATEMENTS TO BE SIGNED, ETC.. YOU KNOW, MADAM MAYOR, WE WILL KEEP THE COMMISSION FULLY APPRIZED OF THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION OR ITS ANTICIPATION FOR CLOSING AND CLOSING AND FUNDING THE RELATIONSHIP AND SET FORTH AND [INAUDIBLE] BY MR. HERRON HAS DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION TODAY.

ABSENT ANY DIRECTION OR MOTION TO THE CONTRARY, WE WILL PROCEED ON YOUR BEHALF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION.

AND I THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TECHNICAL [INAUDIBLE].

ALL IS FINE.

ALL IS GOOD.

AND AT THIS TIME IT IS 3:18.

THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR TIME.

ENJOY THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON AND VERY HAPPY AND VERY HEALTHY 2021 TO EVERYBODY.

TAKE CARE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Dec 29, 2020 Special City Commission Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item