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.
