Look at ATA, IDNR, Sparta Lease Agreement

Here is the lease agreement between the ATA and Illinois DNR for anyone who cares concerning the grand american. It's a pdf file about 32 pages of reading. Brad Dysinger

 

Brad,

That thing is wide open on Illinois' side.

The ATA left itself very exposed. Section 13.4 is particularly porous. I could have drafted a much stronger agreement on behalf of the ATA, but this reads like a contract a party enters into when they really wanted something and didn't want to press terms too hard for risk of the other side walking away.

Thank you for posting this.

 

I cannot get this to download, can someone open it and s end to me as an attachment, please ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Take a look at Exhibit "D"

Appears that whether the campsites are rented out or not, the ATA still has to pay the DNR for the whole campgrounds...(Except the primative)

Seems the DNR is renting the camp grounds to the ATA and it's up to the ATA to get them all leased out. Hope they don't have a slower than normal year.

 

Read 5.5 .... WOW

"DNR Obligations" ....

(a) .... "DNR shall provide or cause to be provided all maintenance services for the Facility and shall provide, at it's sole expense, all utilities to the Facility consisting of existing electric, water and sewage disposal. All water supplied shall be potable and safe for human consumption"

There are two 5.5 (i)s and 10.1 "Insurance" is painful to read .... the "limits" are at levels many have on their Auto Insurance.

How would you like to see the 'electric bill' for that place ???? During the summer heat the CEB alone would be a chunk for "all utilities" ....

It should not be a mystery why the "state" is losing money at that place ......

 

User1,

Bear in mind that the Lease only covers the Grand weeks.

 

I read the "lease" and understand the terms for 'when' it is in force.

I also know that even for 'just the Grand' the 'utilities' would take a big bite out of their (DNR's/State's) money taken in for their 'investment'. The Campgrounds, Vendors, Central Entry Building, lights, and traps would make the utilities for 'just the Grand' a large number of dollars.

And the 'Insurance Limits' in today's world would be one 'lawsuit' and done. "Commercial General Liability" ... "Limit" ... Medical Payments - Each Person ... $ 10,000.

A drunk could fall off the top of the 'bleachers' watching a shoot-off and cost more than 10k in 'medical payments'. Good luck getting his/her insurance to pay. Insurance Company's have large office buildings and pay their CEO's big money by NOT paying, and they sure are Not going to pay over the stated limits.

 

My grandson could have written a better lease.

But will remain sitting on my hands on this til at least September 1st.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Thank you to everyone who put forth so much effort to get me the copy of the lease agreement ... I got it and cannot believe anyone in their right mind would sign such an agreement ... Talk about LOP sided ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

As the Good Dr. brought up last week, is there a separate lease covering the fee for using the ATA's traps throughout the year?

 

4.3 seems to imply the shoots are to be held with factory ammo.

 

I'm not sure what to make of that last sentence in 4.3 Familly Guy.

Sort of looks to me that it is saying just that.

"The ATA will Implement the use of factory ammunition for events during the Grand American at the facility"

Anyone else reading it this way also ?

 

Isn't that covered in 3.4?

User1, don't confuse Med Pay with Liability. While they are both contained within the Liability policy, Med Pay is generally considered 'Good Will' type coverage. It's intended to cover minor injuries where there is questionable negligence on the part of the insured (ATA). The Liability requirements are $1,000,000 per occurence with a $4,000,000 excess requirement. On top of that, there is no Aggregate Limit. There is nothing wrong with the insurance requirements of this contract, IMHO.

 

When it comes to "Insurance" I have paid well for my 'education'.

Having owned/ran several 'brick-and-mortar businesses', by owning and leasing/renting commercial property, and owning and leasing/renting residential property .... and having been 'sued' .... my 'education' is well funded.

Since they have made public their 'cash-balance', for all to see, it is not protected very well ... in my opinion. Cash is an easy target, having to wait for the liquidation of assets slows down the wolves.

Read 10.2 ... and then pay 'extra' attention to the last sentence. They signed this with no 'term' stated for this provision.

This "lease" on the surface looks like a great deal for the ATA .... the 'Devil' is in the 'details' ....

 

User1, the contract simply states the Minimum limits required to satisfy the contract. NOTHING is stopping the ATA from carrying limits beyond what is required by this contract? If the ATA is under insured it's not due to this contract.

Seems like a decent deal to the ATA to me, unless I'm missing something. What I read from that section is the ATA will indemnify the DNR for a variety of things, EXCEPT (i) the negligence or misconduct of the DNR...(ii) the assumption of Environmental Liability as further provided in Article 8, Section 8.1.

Section 8.1 DNR shall, and hereby does, knowingly and willingly, assume all environmental respoinsibility and liability associated with the use of the Facility for ATA Tournaments, including, without limitation, responsibility and liability resulting from the use of lead shot, shotshell ejecta and target residue, except to the extent such liability asrises from Hazardous Materials used, maintained, stored or disposed of in violation of section 8.2.

Section 8.2 ATA shall not knowingly use, maintain, store or dispose of any Hazardous Materials other than lead shot, shotshell ejecta and target residue with the prior written approval of the DNR. ATA shall defend and hold DNR harmless from any liability, resulting from the use, maintenance, storage, or disposal of any Hazardous Materials in violation of the preceding sentence.

The last sentence simply extends this section beyond the termination of the contract. I really don't see any issues with that as the courts have statutes of limitations on the parts the ATA could be hung with and the DNR will continue with the environmental concerns.

If I'm missing something let me know.

 

My opinion ... and it is just my opinion, from living life fast and hard .....

You should NEVER leave anything 'open' on a lease/contract. If anything "shall survive" a lease/contract, it should have a 'death-date', for the sake of 'peace-of-mind' if nothing else.

"courts have statutes of limitations" .... is more for 'criminal-law', than 'civil-law' ....

What happens in 'real-life', and what happens on 'TV', is worlds apart.

The "ATA" may have additional or higher limits of 'coverage' on their Insurance ... they sure are 'tight-lipped' about what they do, and how they do it.

 

User 1, What we don't know (at least I don't) is how this contract negotiation went. Perhaps the original version was silent on the future liabilities and the ATA attorneys negotiated that opened ended wording for the environmental impact and had to take the same terms for the ATA liability. If that were the case, it seems like a reasonable compromise. I'm in the insurance business and General Liability exposures from a business like this have relatively short tails. They may take years to settle, but the suits are brought quickly. Im my opinion the ATA is getting a lot more than what they are exposing themselves to with that open ended term.

 

10.2 'covers' more than "environmental impact" ....

I have respect for people "in the insurance business" .... but, someone at the 'Agent' level, not saying that is you, has a limited amount of 'power'. They sell and service within their 'limits'. When large claims need attention they have 'other people' waiting to step-in.

It is, what it is ... as the saying goes ... my 'critique' of what others do is for entertainment only.

 

Is it possible that the insurance companies requested this or is it a demand from Illinois to collect tax revenue? I have not seen an announcement that this year is a factory only year. I suppose next year doesn't matter....or does it?

 

I read 4.3 as the IDNR acknowledging that during the 15 days of the Grand American Handicap, the ATA is in control with respect to "targets and ammunition." I see it nothing more than conceding that the ATA will implement the use of factory ammunition at its discretion just as it has done since 2006. The ATA permitted the use of reloads for for singles and doubles events to cut the cost of entering for shooters and that was a substantial reduction of their GAH income. As you know, new shells (factory-loaded) have been mandatory for all handicap events and their respective shoot-offs.

The sentence in my mind, merely verifies that the ATA will determine the events when the use of factory-loaded shells are mandatory. That's what they have been doing. At some stage of the game I would expect that factory shells would once again become mandatory for all events during the Grand American Handicap as it once was. I wouldn't think it will happen while attendance figures are where they are.

 

It is just one more example of a poorly written "lease".

"for events" should say, for 'select' events, or for 'all' events, or whatever they are thinking at the time. NOT one more thing for people to try and decipher.

By making the lease 'public', the use of, or lack of language becomes 'more' important. It is a binding contract between the (I)DNR and the ATA. They are who 'needs' to understand the 'intent' of the language. The 'enforcement' of the binding language would be at the discretion of those who signed the "lease".

"Sales tax" would only work if ALL 'new shells' were sold on location.

 

User1. I never stated that 10.2 only addressed 'environmental impact' but 10.2 is certainly worded in the ATA's favor with respect to it. Maybe as a compromise they had to accept unlimited term liability for other situations.

I'm in the insurance business but not an agent. Not that it should make any difference but it must to you since you brought it up.

In my opinion the wording in 10.2 does very little to expose the ATA. They aren't responsible for anything that happens outside the terms of the lease. Basically it states the ATA is responsible for anything that happens during the Grand regardless of when it's brought to light.

Think about it this way. An incident happens in 2007 and suit is brought in 2015 ( lease agreement still in force ) the 2007 insurance policy will respond. Let's then assume the lease ends in 2017. Incident happens in 2015 but suit isn't brought until 2025. The 2015 policy will respond. Explain to me how the open ended term has any impact.

 

iowa guy .... I will try to give my "opinion" about the "insurance business" to you sometime in person. We can have a beverage and exchange opinions, and I have a few 'stories' about my personal 'dealings' with the "insurance business", but will not drag this thread off topic.

"Maybe as a compromise they had to accept unlimited term liability for other situations." ... that ... is the dumbest thing any sane person would sign in their life. You may want to run that past the 'legal department' in the "insurance business" that you are in.

But ...the most important thing is ... my 'opinions' and 2 dollars will buy a small coffee at most Starbucks locations.

 

Well, take that last sentence out of there and it potentially exposes the ATA to future liability regarding the lead on the ground. You tell me, which is worse, unlimited term of liability for things you agreed to be responsible for, or unlimited liability for environmental clean up of the lead. Yes, today not a big issue, as it seems to be just mine it and all is good. Maybe in 20 - 30 years there will be a different position. I don't think the ATA is hurt by that last sentence at all.

I'd love to chat with you. I'll be at WI and IA state shoots over the next several weeks. If you're there we'll hook up and have a beer or two.

 

HB
You wrote:

I think it more implies that the ATA is in charge of the tournament but we (the IDNR) expect the ATA to use factory ammo. Certainly the Walmart across the street would want that.

Agreed if it were not for the omission of any particular event. The IDNR wanted the clause in there for a specific reason or it would not be in there. jmho.

 

Thanks for the invite iowa guy ... I probably won't be able to make either shoot, but who knows things change every day. I would like to chat and have a couple of beers with you also.

I was at the Ohio Shoot until Family Guy booted be out ...

 

Considering recent events, dates, threads, etc , it may be helpful to have this near the top for reference.

 

Can we just go into Walmarts to purchase shells and show ATA cards ?

Or do we have to buy a hunting licence?

Greta c

 

You must buy a hunting licence if you buy from Walmart, or be lucky enough to meet someone that has one. I did last year. You can buy shells on the grounds with out a hunting licence. They will be about $2.00 a flat more. Roger C.

 

How much is a hunting licence?

Thank yOu.

Greta c

 

Greta, I think they are $35.00 and can be purchased at WalMart where if they don't have it you won't need it ... Thanks for your Support ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Up for those asking about the lease.

 

I may be new to this forum. It is sad that posting this is a threat to some leaders.