CC 07/28/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of July 28, 2014 — Regular Meeting Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Fly asked specifically how Mr. Fraleigh had violated these rules, and Ms. Reischmann replied that it was a question of fact for the Commission and the Mayor had made that determination. She explained that if a Commissioner disagrees with the Mayor's determination, the procedure that would occur would be that the Commissioner had the right to call a Point of Order, and then the Commission would vote to either uphold the Mayor's ruling or overturn it; however, the speaker did not have the right to continue to speak when the presiding officer had determined that he was causing a disturbance. Commissioner Fly called attention to the fact that Mr. Fraleigh had sat down at the Mayor's direction, and he inquired of the Mayor what Mr. Fraleigh had done that she felt was out of order. Mayor Glancy advised Commissioner Fry that this was not a debate and the Commission needed to proceed with the meeting. Commissioner Fry indicated that he felt it was, in fact, a debate and he had called for a Point of Order. Vice Mayor Hufford stated she was in support of the Mayor's determination and agreed the meeting should proceed. She added that she felt Mr. Fraleigh was out of order when he began directing his comments directly to the Mayor and not to the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Fry again requested clarification as to in what manner Mr. Fraleigh was disruptive. Ms. Reischmann explained the procedure in the event of a Point of Order, stating that if the Mayor made a ruling and a Point of Order was called, then the Commission would debate the issue and either uphold the Mayor's decision or not. Mayor Glancy polled the remaining Commission members as to their support or opposition to the determination she had made that Mr. Fraleigh was causing a disturbance. Vice Mayor Hufford again expressed her support of the Mayor's decision, as did Commissioner Solomon. Commissioner Aramendia indicated he wished to proceed with the meeting. Mr. John Casselberry, 700 South Lost Lake Lane, stated he felt the City should not commit to purchasing the bowling alley property at this time, but instead should explore the possible uses of the existing building. He added he did not believe the Police Department should be relocated. No one else came forward. Ms. Reischmann called the Commission's attention to some differences between the contract being considered now and the previous one. She advised that the contract was now an "as is/where is" contract so there would be no hazardous materials affidavit which would normally be required. She added that it did not appear there had been hazardous materials on the site; however, that would be something that would be determined during the due diligence period. She also noted that the Seller and Buyer would be splitting the cost of the doc stamps, which would be an additional $3,000 cost to the City and that there was a provision that the Seller would be responsible for repairs for the period between contract and closing, but only had liability up to $25,000; therefore, if a fire or other catastrophic event occurred during that period, the City would have the option to terminate the contract if it desired. She advised that another change was that if there was a title problem which would cost in excess of $25,000 to cure, the Seller would not cure the problem; it would be up to the City to terminate the contract or cure the title problem itself. She did note that any title problems should be discovered fairly quickly during the due diligence period. In response to a question from