Council debates tennis-franchise rules; motion to deny applicant fails

The Fairhope City Council debated a franchise application from Mary Lee for permission to teach tennis at the Mike Ford Tennis Center and voted on a motion to deny the application, which the council later recorded as denied (the motion to deny failed). Councilman Burrell introduced the motion to deny, citing concerns about precedent and the risk of opening public facilities to many private instructors.

Council members said they were concerned the proposed three-year franchise agreement lacked sufficient limits and could create a slippery slope for other instructors and private uses of public recreation facilities. One councilor said the rec board did not recommend the application and staff (including the tennis pro, Tomas) were not supportive. "If I'm the next one, I'm going to say you approve this," Councilman Burrell said when raising his objection, arguing the city should avoid opening city facilities to a flood of private franchise requests.

The council heard an email from the applicant in which she wrote that she “paid in full for the franchise license” and that she had been told by Tomas, the tennis pro, "that I cannot teach there even if I had those two things." The email was read into the record by a staff member. Councilors discussed tightening franchise language (shorter terms, clearer exit clauses) and said franchise agreements for recreation facilities should be more limited and time-bound.

A motion to deny Mary Lee’s application was moved and seconded. The clerk called votes by seat (recorded responses included “Place one: Nay,” “Place two: Yes,” an abstention and multiple yes votes); the presiding officer then stated that “that motion is denied,” indicating the motion to deny failed and no final approval of a franchise was recorded at the meeting. Councilors briefly discussed whether the applicant’s nonrefundable application fee ($150) should be returned; staff noted the fee is nonrefundable because of processing costs.

The council did not take further final action to adopt or reject a franchise agreement at that meeting; several members said they would return with tightened franchise terms or seek a clearer recommendation from the recreation board before final approval.

What happens next: The council left the matter without a final franchise adoption and signaled a desire to tighten franchise agreements and get clearer recommendations from staff and the recreation board before approving similar requests.