Live Oak council approves amended lease term, awards finance audit and tables park design bids

The City of Live Oak City Council on May 11 debated terms of a proposed municipal lease for a relocated office, adopted an amended lease term intended to give the city time to recoup upfront improvements, awarded a contract to audit finance department procedures and tabled several park-design items while staff resolves paperwork discrepancies.

Council discussion focused first on facility and infrastructure needs for the leased building, including whether the adjacent parking lot must be refurbished, how electrical service would be routed and whether perimeter security (a privacy fence along U.S. 90) should be required. Staff told the council that firm cost estimates for electricity and renovations are not yet available because the final method of bringing power into the building is unresolved; members noted that vacating city-owned properties on Duvall Street would return those parcels to the tax roll when the properties are sold.

On the lease term, council members debated the risks of a one-year initial lease versus a longer commitment. Staff framed a one-year term as a starting point for negotiations; council members asked that the city seek an initial multi-year term (variously 3–5 years, with one member urging at least 10 years) followed by one-year renewals to protect investments in tenant improvements. The council moved to approve Resolution 2026-06 with a modified initial term; the transcript shows procedural confusion about who seconded an earlier motion, and the record indicates the council proceeded to adopt the resolution with the requested modification and asked that contract language clarify reimbursement of improvements.

Votes at a glance: • Resolution 2026-06 (lease modification): motion to approve the lease with a longer initial term and one-year renewals — motion carried (final vote not fully recorded in the transcript; council directed staff to negotiate the exact term and include reimbursement language in the contract). • RFP10-2025 (finance audit): awarded to Baker Tilly of Jacksonville for an amount "between $20,000 and $25,000" — motion seconded and the award carried; one opposition was registered in the record. • Agenda items G–J (including the Heritage Park contract award and associated resolutions): motion to table items G through J — motion seconded and approved to allow clerical review and to await the absent clerk's confirmation.

On the audit item, staff reported that proposals were solicited and scored by multiple firms and that Baker Tilly was the recommended vendor to audit the finance department’s policies and procedures for a cost in the $20,000–$25,000 range. The council approved the award and authorized staff to execute the contract.

Council then reviewed bids for a Heritage Park restroom, concession and pavilion expansion. The transcript lists three bids: Gamble and Associates ($180,000), Sheer Construction ($476,259) and International Construction Management Services, Inc. ($254,232). Staff said documents contain inconsistent RFP numbers and requested more time to confirm bid paperwork; the council voted to table the related agenda items (G–J) until the clerk can verify the records or a special meeting can be scheduled if the matters are time-sensitive.

Finally, the council announced that items K–O on the agenda will be handled in quasi‑judicial form. The council explained that speakers will be sworn, testimony should be based on competent, substantial evidence, and that members must decide those items on the record. The council referenced section 286.0115 of the Florida Statutes during the procedural instructions about ex parte communications.

The council did not set final contract details or precise lease term lengths on the floor; staff was directed to return with finalized contract language and cost estimates for consideration at a future meeting or special session.