Another Agenda Snafu

I was gone for a few days last week, so today, you get a special Saturday edition.

We are talking about the Betz Farm contract coming back for discussion on Tuesday. Batsel sent another letter, which we will cover below in a minute.

But before we do all that... Let's take a look at the agenda item Commissioner Davis is bringing to the board on Tuesday.

A couple things.

1) How can this be an agenda item? There is an ordinance that covers rescinding votes. It is Citrus County Ordinance 2-48. I will bold the relevant text.

(2) Rescind. A motion to rescind proposes that the board overturn a motion passed at a previous meeting. A motion to rescind can be made by any commissioner. It is in order as long as the original motion has not been implemented. An announcement of the intention to rescind a motion may be made at the meeting where the decision was made, or the commissioner seeking to rescind may place the matter on the agenda for the next meeting. At the next meeting, the motion to rescind will formally be made. If it is seconded, then the board shall debate and vote on rescission. A majority vote is required for the motion to pass. If a motion to rescind is passed, the original decision will be voided.

This ordinance states that to rescind a vote, the motion must not have been implemented and the rescind motion has to come at the NEXT meeting. The motion that Davis is going to talk about was a motion to send a termination letter to Dix Development terminating the contract. That has already happened. The motion has been implemented... it can no longer be rescinded.

Further, this is the 2nd meeting since that motion was made. It is not the NEXT meeting as the ordinance requires. Therefore, this action cannot be taken and should not be on the agenda.

Could the board ignore all this and vote to do it anyway? Sure... but what happens then? Well there is no specific punishment in this chapter, so that means the punishment outlined in Section 4 applies.

That says up to a $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail. Does this mean CCSO rolls in and hauls someone away? Doubtful... but curious how this is challenged and enforced. I also assume an ethics complaint could be an avenue as well.

Not pointing fingers at anyone and not sure who is to blame for this getting onto the agenda, but this is the 3rd meeting in a row that has had some type of agenda problem.

2) I wanted to show this agenda item because it references "potential financial exposure" as a reason to bring it for discussion. I am not sure if Commissioner Davis wants to rescind her vote or not, but apparently something has happened that caused her to want to talk about it. In order to talk about it, it has to be done at a meeting.

Not sure what she had heard prior to the due date for her agenda item. Maybe it was the first Batsel letter, that vaguely referenced further damages. Who knows, but something piqued her interest enough to put it on the agenda.

There was another letter sent by attorney Rob Batsel on behalf of Dix Developments. Here is that letter.

In this letter, Batsel points out what he feels are several flaws to the argument that they breached the contract. Does anyone really expect them to admit they are in the wrong? Of course not... but he lays out why the county is wrong, as a good attorney attempt to do.

This letter has four references to the May 12th BOCC meeting.

Further, this was part of the demand for this meeting;

This letter was sent on Tuesday. According to time stamps from emails I received, Batsel sent this to the County Attorney at 2:19pm. The agenda did not come out until Tuesday afternoon after 4pm. That is when the public sees the agenda.

How did Batsel know that this would be on the agenda? He sent the email specifically referencing the agenda item before the agenda was live. He would have had to have known it was coming to the agenda. Someone had to have told them and given a heads up.

The only people who know what will be on the agenda are the staff that work on it, the county administrator, the county attorney and the commissioners, although most tell me they don't know the full agenda until its released publicly. They only know items they submit or items they are told are already on the agenda if one of them wants to add something similar. Commissioner items are due Friday morning.

So... how did that happen?

Unlike the first letter, there is no request for it to be on the agenda at this meeting. He already knew it would be there.

Presumably someone told them they would bring it to the board, otherwise, he would not have known until Tuesday after 4pm. It is possible all five knew that this would be on the agenda by late Friday or early Monday. Any of them could have told Dix/Batsel. I suppose it could have been a staffer as well.

I will let you all make assumptions on who you think that may have been.

Bigger question... why is someone talking to Dix/Batsel, who has threatened legal action against the county? Rule #1 of these types of things... cease communication with the party threatening you with a lawsuit.

It makes ZERO sense to speak to them individually. Let them go through the County Attorney's office.

3) What is the financial exposure? According to the letter, it currently sits around $1,003,600 in hard costs.

That appears to be the minimum they would pursue in litigation. There was also mention that the market value of the property has increased due to the work that Dix Development has done to date. They claim this value is in excess of $1 million. The letter also makes reference to the Cunningham commission payment, although at the 6% rate and not the correct 4% rate.

So the threat appears to be more than $2 million that they claim the county will be on the hook for if they lose.

Pretty sure Right Rudder threatened to sue the county due to their termination and threatened a large amount. The commissioners didn't blink then, but now are reconsidering?

One question I have here. Let us say this goes forward and gets to the hearing in front of the BOCC. What happens if the BOCC denies the project? Is the county supposed to pay all those fees? No... so why would they have to pay those fees here? The county did not require those items in order to close on the property. Those were things the Dix did to move the project along to get whatever approvals he wanted. He could have come at any time to close without spending those dollars.

What is the path forward? This likely ends with some type of settlement. I am going to make the argument that the board cannot act on this item (should be removed from the agenda) due to Ordinance 2-48.

However, that does not stop a new agenda item coming forward at the next May meeting to direct staff to negotiate a way forward or to agree on some type of settlement if one is proposed.

How about this... The contract can get reinstated but Dix has to bring it to the PDC within 45 days and then to the BOCC from there within another 30 days or so. That should give time for staff to make the public notices and notice the adjacent land owners. That gets it on the agenda at the PDC and BOCC to move forward.

If those deadlines are missed, the contract is again terminated.

Personally, I would like to see this property remain in conservation, but if it has to move forward, I want a vote before the election. It has been two years. Make commissioners pick a side and not wait to "protect" them for the election.

But nothing should happen at this next meeting as the agenda item is not valid.

Have a great rest of your Saturday.