New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> To: JOHNSON Jim R <br /> Cc: ETTER John F; MORGAN Dick A; HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: Bambino Baseball Fields Lease <br /> Date: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 3:20PM <br /> Jim, <br /> have a number of comments and suggestions about the lease. I'll start with general questions; my <br /> specific comments are numbered according to the corresponding provisions in the draft lease. I apologize <br /> for the length and nit -picky nature of some of the comments, but that's the nature of contract law! <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> 1. What is the source of authority to lease this City property? Is it surplus or otherwise not needed for <br /> public use? Or is the intent really something other than a lease -- i.e., in exchange for Babe Ruth (BR) <br /> constructing the ball fields, the City grants BR permission to use the fields on certain conditions, while <br /> retaining rights of City and citizens to use the fields like a park? That would be more like a license than a <br /> lease, and it wouldn't be subject to the statutory standards that control sales /leases of public property. <br /> 2. It's not clear what consideration runs from BR to the City here. Ownership of the improvements may or <br /> may not be substantial -- depending on how much the City and the public get to use them. That isn't clear <br /> from the lease, and it needs to be spelled out much more clearly. <br /> 3. We need to make sure we have the proper authorization for signing the lease. See generally Code <br /> section 2.860 and following sections. <br /> RECITALS <br /> 1. We should identify what makes the property available for lease -- e.g., surplus, etc. (see comment #1 <br /> above). <br /> 2. The recitals should identify some consideration to the City. As written, the recital says, in effect, that <br /> BR wants to build fields for its own use and would like to do so on City property. <br /> 3. Depending on the source of authority to lease, we may need to follow some sort of selection procedure, <br /> or at least note why it's unnecessary to do so. <br /> AGREEMENT <br /> 1. a. Is lessee's use really exclusive? From other provisions, I gather not. But the extent to which others <br /> get to use the ball fields, and on what terms, isn't at all clear. I suggest: "Except as provided in <br /> paragraphs , and of this lease, lessee shall have the exclusive use " <br /> b. From A, I can't tell just what the leased premises are. (I don't see the cross - hatching...) <br /> 2 & 3. In effect, this is a 75 -year lease, unless the City will retain some control over the lessee's right to <br /> exercise its option to renew. Do we want to yield control for so long? (That may depend on the answer to <br /> the question about what rights the public has.) <br /> 3. First word should be "lessee" instead of "licensee" [if we stick with a lease]. <br /> 4. a. Change first words to read: "At its own expense, design and construct..." <br /> Can we be more specific about what the "necessary improvements" are? <br /> b. "Daily maintenance" -- will they really maintain rest rooms daily during the winter? <br /> I suggest adding two new provisions to this paragraph: <br /> " f. Obtain Owner's written consent before making any improvements on the premises." <br /> "g. Pay promptly any taxes that may be assessed against the property." <br /> 5. a. Should we be more specific about to what location we will extend the main utility lines? <br /> b. I doubt we want to be obliged to peform any daily maintenance. <br /> c.Should we have BR contribute to maintenance or upgrades of the associated non - leased park <br /> property? I think the answer turns in part on how much members of the public not associated with BR get <br /> to use the facilities or will use other parts of the park. <br /> 6. The City may want to retain the right to approve /disapprove the names of the fields and other <br /> Page 1 <br />