Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Promise Lease Addendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Melbourne council rejects addendum letting Promise pause operations and seek sublessee
Summary
Council debated an addendum to Promise’s lease that would have let the nonprofit close for up to six months while seeking a sublessee; proponents said a sublease could preserve resources for Promise residents, but several council members said the change departs from the original intent that the facility be used by Promise. The motion failed 4-3.
Council members sharply debated a proposed addendum to the lease with Promise, the nonprofit that operates a café and employment program at the park, before voting the change down 4-3.
Jeff, identified in the record as a representative of Promise, told council the organization is seeking flexibility so it can “close shop for 6 months to lease the property” while it looks for a tenant. He said a successful sublease would “create instead of a loss in income” and allow Promise to preserve resources “for the residents of Promise.”
Several council members said the addendum would alter the original bargain. Councilmember Bentley said he was “having a hard time” with the change and reminded colleagues that when the original agreement was written the council intended the facility to be operated by Promise and used to employ Promise residents. Another councilmember questioned why a list of “harmonious uses” would exist if the contract still allowed other uses to be proposed later.
City staff and the city attorney explained the addendum would be a temporary protection so Promise would not be in breach while seeking a tenant. The attorney said the addendum would permit Promise to close for six months and, if a prospective tenant was close to being found, allow up to an additional three-month extension while terms were negotiated. Any permanent change to the contract would require a future amendment brought to council.
Councilmember Volz moved to approve the addendum with a no-alcohol provision; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Adams. In the roll call, four members voted in favor and three opposed, so the motion failed and the addendum was not adopted. The city attorney said the addendum failing means Promise must continue operating under the existing lease; Promise may still seek a tenant but would have to continue to operate unless and until the council approves a different amendment.
Council discussion also touched on donor concerns, maintenance responsibility under a sublease, and the potential market value of the building. Jeff said the building itself represents a substantial asset and that he had kept the donor informed and supportive of the nonprofit’s plans. The attorney reminded council that any future amendment permitting a different permanent use would require language to address what happens if a new lessee breaches the contract so that Promise remains accountable for the building.
The council concluded the agenda item after the vote; staff and Promise representatives indicated they would continue discussions within the constraints of the existing lease.
