Memo of Understanding 2 (MOU2) for Peeping Toms Only! NEW

Was it not ATA VP Terri Dean that called those wanting to know what shananigans the ATA is up to now "Peeping Toms".

Unlike ATA VP Terri Dean, I think all members have a right to know.

Here is MOU2.

No terms in article 5 that I can see.

The State of Illinois says this was confirmed by an ATA Vice President.



Note of thanks for getting us this information. You know who you are.

 

Not sure I follow your point about no terms in Article 5? As the document explains, the Amended Lease Agreement is being amended to incorporate the terms of the MOU. Those terms are added at 5.5(j) in the document above.

Everything else in the Amended Lease Agreement remains the same as it was previously.

 

You cannot incorporate terms of an MOU as there are no terms of an MOU. MOU's are not worth the paper they are written on. MOU's cannot be part of a binding lease and themselves are not binding.

If these were new terms on the lease then by law new terms equals a new lease to acquire real property. As far as I know there have been no meetings of the Real Property Committee with the BOD.

If this is defined as new terms to acquire real property as you say bat, and it was done without the advise of the Real Property Committee and the BOD then it would be my opinion that someone contact the Attorney General for clarification. The schedule O. filed with the state does not list powers to any person(s) in the ATA except the BOD.

This is more of the same bullshit.

 

Another MOU?

 

Bat

I am betting you are bright enough to have been on a Real Property Committee. Let's say you are right. The new terms of the new lease include language that will make / cause the ATA to assume the electric bill. Big bucks right? $300k past due now.

Then there is the other costs of maintaining the place to above minimum standards. Vague statement right? What is a minimum standard? Does that include mold issues or messed up trap houses. Hi grade oil or low grade for the machines?

Who pays the insurance when the ATA runs the joint for 4 months.

Did the Real Property Committee meet to discuss acquiring the land of the WSRC for that period of time?

If so, did they advise the BOD on the vote? How did the BOD vote?

 

butterly,

I did not say the terms of the "new lease" said anything about ATA assuming the electric bill...not sure where in the world you get that. As a matter of fact, there is no "new lease" that you refer to. The OP said there were no terms in Article 5 that he could see, and I was pointing out that all the terms in Article 5 are in the lease, not in the Amendment. An amendment only shows the changes, not the items that are unchanged. The lease was amended to add the wording in 5.5(j)... basically, all the terms of the lease remain unchanged except that 5.5(j) was added.

The First Amendment is posted above by Merlo. It clearly shows the portions of the lease agreement that have been changed. Specifically, 5.5(j) has been added. That section deals with DNR's responsibilities. All other terms of the lease remain the same, including ATA's responsibilities, lease payments etc. In other words, ATA is not going to assume the past due electric bill or the DNR's insurance premiums. I assume ATA will have, and always has had, their own insurance coverage in place.

 

I'll admit I'm not into this mess as much as the rest of you, but to me the solution is obvious.

The State of Ill. is absolving of all responsibility, so if the ATA is to rent it they will be responsible for all.

So, if the holes in the road bother you, maybe the shooters that go will need to bring some patch material, or maybe bring some Clorox Clean- UP for the Mold.

As far as Electricity, good luck. (WPT had a good idea)


Regards....Gerald

 

"In the event the DNR FAILS TO OPEN the facility" .... it should be "safe" to say "FAILS TO OPEN" is remain closed.

What "minimum operation standards" at a CLOSED "facility" is, has yet to be seen.

The State of Illinois/IDNR will get "rent money/fees" as the "lease" states, the same as in the past .... just now, and possibly for the life of the lease, it will be for "minimum operation standards".

IF .... this was some "last minute deal", it would be better than "nothing". But this is far from last minute, and more than stupid for giving the State of Illinois NO reason to do more than "minimum operation standards", for the life of the "lease".

I don't think the "ATA" would survive in the "real world" with their "negotiation skills".

 

Like that guy Terri Dean you all are nothin more than a bunch of peepin Toms. It aint none of your business. Move on.

 

What kind of lease is that?

 

Bat,

You have convinced me that a new MOU has been added to create new terms. Those new terms, call it what you want, create a new lease. You cannot start with a $4.00 lease and add new terms that cost the ATA $5million over the length of the lease and say it is the old $4.00 lease.

You say you imagine the ATA has the insurance already for this. That goes to the acquisition cost right? Or not? The AG could tell us. The electric bill, which was last at $300k gets mixed in right? Sewer, gas, maintenance....all that stuff?

You avoided my statement about you possibly at one time being a past member of the Real Property Committee. For now then we will assume you are the expert. That being the case are you saying that the new costs of this new lease does not have to go before the Real Property Committee and then to the BOD?

The schedule O. says nothing about these guys having broad powers. They are limited to spending $50k over the life of a deal to acquire real property? That is not monthly, or daily costs right? That is over the length of the contract / lease / addendum and all?

Or is this just another empty worthless MOU?

Just another peeping Tom

 

You can call it a new lease if you want, but that isn't what it is. What Merlo posted above is not a lease, it's an amendment to the existing lease. All the amendment does is add to the lease an obligation on the part of the DNR to to allow the ATA to use the property for specified time periods if DNR has not opened it by April 15th of any year during the lease term. That is all the amendment does from what I see.

I don't know where your $5 million figure is coming from, but it is not part of the amended lease. I'm only talking about the lease as amended. Something that is not part of the lease is beyond the scope of my discussion. If you want to speculate on additional costs that the ATA might incur outside of the lease, that's fine. I have no idea what, if any added costs will be incurred. All I can say is that nothing in the lease, as amended, requires the ATA to pay anything extra to the DNR.

No, I've never been on any Real Property Committee. I don't know why this amendment would have to go before the BOD, since all it did was add to the DNR's responsibilities, it made no change to any lease payments due under the lease.

 

Give it any name. If it costs over 50k for the length of the agreement the Real Property Committee had to advise the BOD right? And they did not right?

That speculation should have been done by the Real Property Committee and advice given to the BOD prior to the president agreeing right?

That would be the job of the Real Property Committee and BOD right?

It does not have to be lease payments to be a cost of acquiring real property.

The DNR has the clause that they will only maintain to a minimum standard. On what planet does that add to their responsibilities. It looks like the ATA has more responsibilties. The ATA has implied they would apply any resources necessary.

Are they doing that in violation of the by-laws and the schedule O. filed with the state? I don't have the answer.

 

Not really .... it also adds "minimum operation standards", whatever that may be ....

They should have added what "minimum operation standards" is to be. Is it equal to closed "operation standards" ???? Or something more or less ????

 

Bat,

Where did you get that? If the IDNR can't afford to make those payments someone has to do it. That is the point of the vague MOU right?

Electric is $300k now. Insurance premiums, labor, other utitlities. It the IDNR is getting out, someone is footing the bill. Who is burning the money?

Did Mr. Gipson negotiate this? Is his business part of the electric bill?

 

You peepers giving me the creepers.....ata vp

 

This is like a big nasty pimple (cyst), will come to a head and then we will all know whats in it ... There is nothing that can be in the favor of the ATA with the State starting out so far in the hole, some body has to pay sooner or later ... Members are obviously oblivious to cost factors, profit and loss etc ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

What lease. Did not the State default on the original lease so how can you amend a lease that was defaulted on by the State without a new one being drawn up. Am I the only one having trouble understanding how a party to a lease, defaults and then can agree to amendments to the defaulted lease. Is not a new lease required?

 

Lady, T,

There is only a default under the lease if the other party moves to enforce the provision. In this case, ATA did not move to void the lease. So, that leaves the original lease in place, now with an amendment that adds a contingency where the DNR has to let the ATA use the property if the facility is not open during those time periods specified.

 

The "ATA" is willing to go as far as it takes to get the "year-round vendor" some foot-traffic/walk-in business .... but, I would be willing to bet that not ALL Trapshooters/Vendors will be 'happy' paying the the same rent/fees for "minimum operation standards" ....

What do you think "Bat" ???? Is this little "detail" going to upset anyone paying "full price" ????

New "Lease", old "lease", "defaulted lease", amended "lease" .... the "ATA" doesn't care .... the 'show' must go on for the band to get paid .... isn't that correct "Bat" ????

 

I could swear I heard words like Possible, probable, tentative, maybe, MOU this, MOU that , void, un void the void, Enforce the provision, what provision, default, no default if they say no default, amend this, amend that, fix the Mold issues Virgil, all this was in the video and being discussed while Morris was trying to stay awake thinking about his new gun and when that was going to happen, mean while the Talking Head was telling the State about all of the increases the ATA provided while over 100,000 people come and visit if they can get the "Glock " guy out of the way in the local region and immediate area to the tune of 20/30 or more Millions of dollars ... I must of been the only one paying attention ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I was told that Terry Dean never heard any of the above words uttered out of any ones mouth in all his born days or even days before he was born, checking out new pick ups ... WPT ... (YAC) ..

 

Would you like to stay with that "story" ????

I think I can find something different .... Like the "ATA" claimed a "default" in writing, then changed their mind, then changed their mind about changing their mind, then .... who knows.

As long as the band takes the stage, it pays the same for 3 or 3,000 .... ain't that right "Bat" .....

 

Is this the final, I really really mean it amendment to the amendment of the MOU that VP Dean was talking about? And why was VP Dean chastising Merlo a few weeks back about how great a deal the ATA had secured and all is well, and that Merlo is a peeping Tom who only prints the bad stuff and not the good stuff? And if this is the final I really really mean it agrement why didn't VP Dean share it with the membership?

Why did VP Dean wait for Merlo to unearth the final I really really mean it amended MOU, does VP Dean think this final I really really mean it amended MOU is good and thus Merlo is in fact posting good stuff, or does VP Dan think this final I really really mean it amended MOU is a bad deal for the ATA members, and Merlo is once again posting just the bad stuff? And if it is bad why was VP Dean singing the praises of the deal in the first place? And more importantly why agree to it?

Ezekiel 33

 

Come on "Bat" .... it "adds a contingency" .... with "conditions" .... "minimum operation standards" ....

"Bat" you seem to leave that part out .... Is there something about "minimum operation standards" you do not like ????

If you are to be the one to "decipher" the "legal stuff", do tell the WHOLE story.

 

How soon the narrow-minded self-serving leaders of the "ATA" forget ....

Not long ago some rogue weeds at the "Grand" caused some high levels of stress. Some wondered how such deplorable conditions could be allowed at the "World's Greatest Trapshoot".

Now these same "Shooters" are expected to be "happy" shooting/camping/vending, at full price, under "minimum operation standards".

Karma for the Kool Aid Crew should make some fun cyber-chat.

 

Bat,

You know that is not true?

The State of Illinois can leave any or all of the lease if they chose to do so again. If the state decides it cannot afford to allow anyone in the park, the ATA will be left out. The empty MOU is attached to the same lease that was abandoned last year.

 

The State of Illinois as with any State can ignore any and all leases or agreements, its been proven time and time again in the past ... Leases, rental agreements, contracts as well and anything that would be of the same in nature is only as good as those involved in the agreement based on Integrity, and honor ... There seems to be very little if any of that floating around now days, especially when you get involved with Politicians ... I liked it when you could shake hands and it meant something, didn't need anything beyond that when I was growing up, and I long for those days ... The best thing anyone or any organization can do is eliminate them self from being put into a position that can put them at risk and walk away from known problems, that are not and cannot be resolved ... You cannot try to deal with or barter with the Legal Corporations that represent people of Politicians that do not have integrity because they will beat you hands down on any and all legal issues with presentation if you are not prepared to respond at the same or greater level of expertise ... The ATA when compared to the State of Illinois are a bunch of country bumpkins who do not have a fighting chance if the State pulls the plug and they will eventually ... In the mean time it will cost the ATA (members) a bunch to provide the continuation of a tradition for the few that attend ... There are no free rides with a few exceptions (ED, EC, and some of the BOD) so the show will go on, at least for now ... Wish them luck , but covering all bets ... WPT ... (YAC) ...