READ ALONGSIDE THE SOURCE

Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 06-20-1967 Special — reading text

Part 1 of 2. These parts divide the reading text for browsing; they are not the source document's page numbers.

Machine-extracted text — fwb-31004-original.pdf

Machine-extracted OCR text · Review label: Machine produced / unreviewed

Compare this copy with the preserved source. Review labels describe the recorded status of this file; they do not guarantee that the text is error-free. Spacing and line breaks are retained, with long lines wrapped to fit the screen.

121 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 20, 1967 A Special Meeting of the Fort Walton Beach City Council was held June 20, 1967, at 5: 30 p. m. at City Hall with the following I members present: Mayor Pro Tern C. James M. William H. Ready H. Sconiers Rigdon, Jr. Sterlyn W. Killingsworth, and City Attorney, City Manager, City Clerk- Finance Director, and Roy Ricks, Architect. Bids for Boat Manufacturing Building were received and are listed as follows: o en 0 ~:;>;:: O~'"; J 0 to c:1" ~ P,...... . ro:E; ro 1-" I-' ro I-' c:1" s :: : to>p, 0 p,. I-\) 0' I-\)Q (Jq . cT ' 1:1 P- Q :: r ~""" I-' to ro tr:I 0 R<> O::S 0' ro Ii I-' 0' ()Q I-' ro 0' I-' to Q ~ P, c:1" R<> * p,. Ii to Q J::"to o I-' ~ s p,. I-' p,. s t: I\)Ij '"; J(f.I 0 "* 01-' 0 I-' ~ p, co :: So' 0 p,. 0 0 p' R<> 0 cT 0 1-" 0 0 0 0 :: s 0 0 0 1:1 I-' I\) S p,. w c:r ro w ...... P- s 0 0 I I-' to>.~ I\) ro ...... Ii p, 0 I\) cT J J 0...... I\) 0 ::s 0 SOQ 0 0 0 a- t7j I-' I-' I-' W 0 ro Q I\) 0 cT I-' J Ii 0 W J1 ...... Q J1 0 0 P, 0 0 0 I-' 122 Mr. Sconiers moved that these bids be turned over to the architect, the Public Works Director, and the Mayor Pro Tern for a recommenda- tion to Council at the next regular meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Killingsworth and carried' unanimously. Council discussedproposed Keltec lease with Mr. Bob Tomlinson the of AGA - Keltec. Manager explained that several draft leases had been discussed and exchanged back and forth, and this one was brought to Council by AGA for consideration at this time, and was for a building in the Industrial Park of about 10, 000 square feet or a building approximately like the Oster Building. He said the company would be operating a machine shop type operation. He said the negotiations were to a point of discussion of terms, prices, and determining whether or not the City could obtain financing for the building. Mr. Tomlinson said their revision of this lease over the sent him mainly consisted of correcting some of the English, when the rent would start, and terminology of the change was explained. Mr. Tomlinson said he was authorized to sign the lease as it stood right now. City Attorney glanced at the lease and noted that one thing the City would want to consider would be concerning subleasing or assigning without consent of lessor, or that it could not be done without City' s approval. He said that if this were not included would get into real problems if there should be a change of tenants. Mr. Tomlinson said they would have no objection to that being put in the lease. Attorney said possibly the City would want to specify the purpose it would be used for - industrial as opposed to strictly commercial, and retail sales. Mr. Tomlinson said the company had mentioned that the City would possibly object to this and if the City wanted to put wording in to that effect, they would have no objection. Mr. Killingsworth said this could cause a real difference in thinking. City Attorney said it would mean Keltec eould not assign or sublease without consent of the City, period, and the City now had a situation where previously had leased city property, and it had caused many problems. Mr. Tomlinson asked how City would like it worded, as it was originally? He said this would just strike out what they had added. Attorney suggested expanding the limit or scope broadening the of what the company does, purpose or the He of the business. said if Keltec wanted to go out and sublease or assign to whoever it may be, the City would have the right to absolutely refuse it; that the City would be looking at the person going 123 to be the other occupant of the building. He said the City had problems previously and were in litigation right now about this. He said this would be up to Council.

Download this text file with its original spacing ↓