CC_Minutes_2019_0408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 8, 2019 Page 8 Finance Director Chris Miller briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated April 8, 2019. Councilmember Willmus stated under Amendment #3, Section 3, rent guarantee, he wondered what an example of the City of Roseville's default under this lease would be. Mr. Miller stated the default would be in the original lease. Generally, if the City ceases to maintain a tower that Verizon can occupy, and the City decides to re- purpose that site for something other than a water tower. Mayor Roe stated it would be any instance where the City does not live up to an agreement that the City has agreed to in the lease agreement. City Attorney Gaughan stated from his perspective, the most typical example would be on page four of the original lease, paragraph 8A, where owner (The City) agrees to maintain and operate the property in accordance with good engi- neering practices and all applicable FCC rules and regulations and to cause all other site users and users of the property where feasible, to do the same. He stat- ed the City's number one obligation is to make sure that the site is suitable for the use Sprint is looking for. That would be the most likely category default from his perspective. Councilmember Willmus asked if, in five years, the water tower is no longer tall enough for their needs how something like that is considered. City Attorney Gaughan stated he did not think that would be a default on the City's part. Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one coming for- ward. Councilmember Willmus asked, with respect to the new amendment number three of the lease, do provisions in the earlier lease become moot, for example, early termination fees and things like that. He stated there is a provision in the original lease on page eight, lease's liability for early termination. If Verizon or another provider were to step away from the lease there is a multiplier that kicks into ef- fect for the year in which the business leaves, so he wondered if those factors be- came moot with the guarantee, are those items contradictory. City Attorney Gaughan stated in a generic sense, anything that is not addressed directly in the amendment stands. Mr. Miller stated unless the amendment speaks to a different set of terms, the ex- isting terms that were in effect under the old lease would still be there at present.