Betz Farm Contract Discussion

Happy Monday! I apologize for being MIA this past week for the most part. I have been at a photography conference in St Louis where I was a speaker for the event. We get these cool banners that are larger than life (8ft tall). Kind of weird looking at your giant face hanging from the rafters, but cool at the same time.

2000 photographers walked through the halls at this event and I taught 3 different classes. Needless to say, it has been a wild week. I got back home 3am Friday morning. I have not had much time on Social Media, but the time I did have... man.. seems like it has been a wild week.

I had fully intended to dive into campaign contributions today and do my chart I plan on doing, but honestly, did not have time to do that this weekend. Planning for that this week.

Side note... I am still waiting on the county's response to my records request about the sand mine. I may need to follow up on that, but once that drops, that will dictate the next steps. I am convinced we have not heard the end of that saga.

Today, going to something easy because the research is already done. I mentioned during the week on the Facebook page, that Commissioner Barek will bring a motion to vote to cancel the Betz Farm sales contract.

Why is all this coming up now? Because 6 months ago I exposed the possibility that we could cancel the contract due to a missed deadline or two. I have mentioned it several times since then. We did the NFLT study to show we needed conservation/park land and AGAIN I mentioned we need to cancel this contract. Apparently Barek is listening and wants a discussion and vote.

She was not on the board when this took place.

Here is a brief breakdown if you do not want to read the whole thing.

The Betz contract has specific dates that things are due. One of those items is the development application being due within 20 days of due diligence ending. They filed the application over a month after the deadline in the contract. That allows the county to exercise the buyer default clause and keep all deposits paid to that point.

Secondly, the 2nd deposit was paid 3 days late, technically another default in the contract terms, although the county accepted the deposit so not sure they want to go that route.

The application deadline is likely the way this goes.

Ok, all caught up.

I have since seen an email that was sent to a resident from Commissioner Finegan that says she will also be voting to cancel the contract.

Now, anything can happen between now and then, but unless some new information comes, it would be a bad look for Finegan to back out of the vote now and change her mind.

Which means we have a motion and a 2nd... that will bring a full board discussion and a vote.

What will happen?

I believe we know where Commissioner Kinnard is. He is on the "if we do this, they will sue... and we pay for attorney's fees and all that".

Here is an email he sent someone.

While he ultimately voted against terminating the Right Rudder lease, he never mentioned anything about a potential lawsuit then... but now it is of enough concern to mention it?

Remember, this whole extension to allow closing upon approval was Kinnard's idea. He is close with the buyer as well, although I have been told he declined his campaign contributions.

Now, let's address his concerns.

Will there be a lawsuit where the county pays attorney's fees if it loses? Lawsuit.. maybe.. Paying attorney's fees? Not likely.

Here is the clause in question. It appears in the original contract signed on Nov 28, 2023.

Clearly states losing party may pay attorney's fees.

But

The parties agreed to an addendum to the contract as part of that agreement that was signed on Nov 28, 2023.

In that same contract packet, the addendum was added that removed the attorney's fees section from the original contract.

The answer is now a resounding "No"... the county will not be obligated to pay attorney's fees for litigation under this contract if the county were to lose.

However, the county would have to pay for representation. When there is a lawsuit, outside legal council is brought in. That is standard practice. They cost money. However, as it was explained to me with the Right Rudder lawsuit, the county has an Errors and Omissions insurance policy that covers the cost of litigation after meeting the deductible... Along the same lines as other insurance types, once the deductible is met, no out of pocket costs remain.

I presume the deductible is in the $50k-$150k range, but I have a question out to to the county to confirm.

That would mean regardless of how long it goes on or even if the county loses, we would pay up to the deductible amount, at the most. Cancel the contract, we pay the deductible, we keep the deposits and that more than pays for the attorney's fees.

However, not sure they decide to keep the deposits.. but an option.

Or cancel the contract, battle a lawsuit, lose and he buys the property anyway for $6m or whatever... or the BOCC does not approve the project.. and he continues to hold it.

Remember, this does not close nor end until Dix says it does. If the BOCC denies the application, he continues to hold the contract. Remember, this ONLY closes whenever he gets whatever approvals he wants on the property (or he decides to close without them). No approval, he can try again.

There is minimal risk here in doing trying to force the cancelation.

This will come down to Commissioner Bays. Remember, when the addendum to the contract came to the board back in April 2024, she was against doing it. She showed reservation about allowing this contract to never end until he received whatever approvals he wanted. She ultimately joined everyone else in voting to approve it, but she was opposed initially.

Perhaps, this is a learning experience. The pinching your nose to vote is not a good look. Take your position and own it.

Now, will she remember why she was opposed the first time? Will she vote to cancel it? Remember, it is an election year and I can certainly see her going either direction.

What will Commissioner Davis do? She has been pushing conservation in Citrus County. She has tossed out the idea of a land trust to allow people to donate to expand conservation areas. She has gotten the green-printing study done.

Does she take all that information and decide Betz is more valuable as conservation or parks, as originally intended when given to us in 2005? Or does she side with the developer who she has only voted against one time that I recall (Pine Ridge in 2024) only to change the vote when it came back in 2025.

If I were a betting person, I would say there is two for cancelling (Barek and Finegan), two for keeping it (Kinnard and Davis) and one who will determine how this goes.... Bays. Tough spot to be in during an election year.

Ultimately, I think she goes the cancel side as that is the safest politically and everything is all about politics now.

I expect a decent sized crowd tomorrow and I will certainly be there to speak my mind :)