For once, it was not Majestic Oaks that raised tempers at the Brooksville City Council meeting on April 21. The development that has repeatedly come before the council since last summer, due to the moratorium on building because of wastewater capacity limitations, finally seemed to have reached at least a temporary resolution.
The Council unanimously approved a new utility service agreement with Majestic Oaks for 762 equivalent residential units, replacing a 2005 agreement that Majestic Oaks had frequently referenced, which the city said had expired.
Back in February, the council agreed to add Majestic Oaks to the exemption list for the wastewater moratorium, provided Majestic Oaks would pay updated connection fees on 687 ERUs and 75 commercial units. The ERUs were raised to 762 since Majestic Oaks’ current plans for the space are solely for residential use.
Majestic Oaks had upset council members with continued last-minute updates to their requests, most recently attempting to tweak the agreement to include all 919 units the property had been zoned for in 2022. The council delayed voting on the agreement on April 7 until it gained legal assurance that Majestic Oaks wouldn’t sue if wastewater capacity was unavailable for all units beyond the 762.
That became unnecessary as Majestic Oaks and the city went back to the agreement hammered out in February. Total connection fees of $2,169,600 will be collected, $229,500 in water connection fees and $1,940,100 in wastewater connection fees.
While that agenda passed in a matter of minutes at the April 21 meeting, a lively discussion arose over the soon-to-expire lease agreement with Chinsegut Hill.
The city entered into an agreement with the county to operate the facilities back on July 1, 2023. That agreement will end on June 30 and the city must provide the county with 60 days’ notice to request a two-year extension.
The Chinsegut Hill Retreat and Conference Center can be rented for events such as weddings, reunions, corporate retreats, or to individuals or groups. There is a 65-seat dining hall, a 75-person capacity conference room and seven cottages for lodging, and the city had hopes of profiting while helping to preserve the historical site.
In 2024, the city took a net loss of $103,483, with $9,458 being attributed to lost revenue due to hurricanes and maintenance issues. Revenue was $28,736, compared to $54,133 in expenses as well as $78,086 in salaries and benefits.
“I value historic preservation, but our duty as councilmembers is to fund core services and protect the interests of the Brooksville taxpayers,” councilmember Betty Erhard said. “Government is not a charity and taxpayer money is not a donation. The state of Florida and Hernando County should assume full responsibility for Chinsegut Hill.”
Erhard, who was not on the council in 2023, called Chinsegut Hill “reckless, wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money,” considering the property is not within city limits.
Mayor Christa Tanner said while she shared the concerns about the profitability of Chinesgut Hill, the agenda item she approved was not to discuss a decision on the lease. Instead, she said she was led to believe the council would decide whether to have city staff speak with the county about their impending decision on their lease with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
“I feel like we are up here to prove certain political positions at the expense of Chinesgut,” Tanner said. “The county, as we all know, is in discussions right now with what they’re going to do with this. I had asked staff to talk to the county about waiting for them to make a decision and the county to understand that even though we have this time constraint of two months, that why would the city make a decision when the county could ultimately make a decision that would make our decision for us?
“I feel like this being put on the agenda makes all of us have to take a vote that might not even matter to prove a point of fiscal responsibility.”
Erhard continued to argue that the city should not fund a project beyond the city limits, though that is not an uncommon practice for city governments. Tanner reiterated that it could all be a moot point based on the decision the county is set to make at the end of May.
Ultimately, the council opted to hold off on any decision until the county takes action, especially since the lease will expire at the end of June regardless.
“I do not feel comfortable moving forward at all on this property until we know what the county is going to do,” Tanner said. “And then yes, I still have some questions about the viability of it in the city.”
