Monday, September 14, 2015

CMP Lease Workshop Questions No One Will Ask?

When Council conducts its workshop today on the new CMP lease template..here are some questions I would ask...but no one else there will.   Baa, Baa, Baa

  1. Mr. Daniel, how much has the City of Pensacola spent for you to prepare this draft lease template?
  2. Mr. Daniel, you sent the template over last Wednesday.  Has Ms. Bowling reviewed this lease? Did she have any questions or concerns?  
  3. Did she just mumble something you couldn't understand, smile and stare at you?
  4. Mr. Daniel, of the two active leases at the Maritime Park which sections of your new lease template currently are not in effect with the current tenants?
  5. Section 2 - designation of a specific use of the leased premises
    • how specific?  can a person say "mixed use" and decide what that is later?
    • Can they say retail or do they have to say "clothing", "furniture"?  Do they have to name the store before the building is built?
    • If a restaurant, do they have to name the restaurant?  Type of food?  Sample menu?
    • What if they want to build a shell on spec and then fill it up?
    • Is there really enough room for a race track or a golf course anyway?
    • A wine shop is definitely out!
  6. Section 2 - is the City going to have to redo your template when the new market tax credits expire?  Extra fees for Beggs and Lane....Yippee!
  7. Section 4 (a) - The sublessee must commence construction of the Initial Improvements on or before thirty days after the commencement of the Construction Period...so 90 days after signing the lease?  90 days?  Here?  Pensacola?
  8. Section 4 (b) - Let me read this to you "Any alterations to the interior of any building that do no involve or affect the exterior appearance, roof or structural components of the building DO NOT REQUIRE SUCH APPROVAL BY THE SUBLESSOR OR THE CITY"  Really? Doesn't that contradict with the next statement?
  9. Wow this one is a little ambiguous from the people that brought us the Deepflex deal! Sublessee shall provide Sublessor and City with "reasonably satisfactory evidence of Sublessee's ability to pay the costs of such work"  What works here... a letter from Buddy McCormick?  Love you Buddy!  Just kidding!
  10. Section 5 - Man this makes Quint Studer's offer of immediate rent look like a gift from heaven!
  11. Section 6 - How does a lease term of a sublease extend past the lease term of the Master lease?
  12. Rent - market rate adjustment...come make the park a huge success so we can then hold your success against you and jack up your rent to obscene levels!  Love that!  That works in long term projections...a big fat who knows as to future rent.  Lenders love those!
  13. If I'm a developer, I need to keep rent adjustment dates in mind and, in adjustment years, write the few commercial appraisers in town a check to keep them on retainer.  Kind of like how couples race to John Myrick, Jim Chase and Kathleen Anderson at divorce time.
  14. Percentage rent AND fair market value adjustments...Quint you now have a template on how to market your ECUA property and crush the competition across the street.
  15. All books and records subject to audit.  Private tenants LOVE that.  Seven days notice....they love that more.  That audit become a public record??
  16. Sublessee pays for the costs to construct vehicular parking.  Did you hear that?  It's the sound of tenants running...not walking away.
  17. Doesn't every City contract need a public records clause?
This template has a few issues in my opinion.  I invite you to submit your issues in the form of posts.
It will be read.  They can't help themselves but read.





2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did the Beck lease meet all this same criteria? The same attorney that drafted their lease agreement that was approved by the City and used as a template for Studer is the same person writing this new template. If not, then why is all this needed in the template? Is this what the lease agreement looks like for the city's property at the end of Palafox (Jacko's and the Marina)? How about the Port Royal leases (city owned land)? How about the Fish House property and marina (city owned land). How about the city owned land at Oar House? How about the city owned land where the condo's are built at Plaza de Luna (city owned land)? Hardly seems fair and will assuredly keep the site empty and not on the tax rolls for the rest of my life.

Anonymous said...

This is why we lose great business opportunities.

The sites we have available are designed for small businesses, yet the City imposes "Big Business" clauses, that small businesses can't absorb.

Cue the Circus Clown music.