Aug 22, 2022 Special City Commission Workshop

[00:00:17]

>> OKAY, EVERYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING FOR THE CITY OF PARKLAND ON MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022 AT 5 P.M. TO ORDER.

PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> ROLL CALL.

[4A. Discussion regarding the purchase of a portion of Heron Bay Golf Course]

[*A portion of this item is unavailable*]

WE HAD A SPECIAL MEETING A FEW WEEKS BACK.

TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION.

I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK THE COMMISSION, STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK TO DATE IN MAKING THIS PROCESS -- MAKING SURE WE HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS.

SO WITH THAT, NANCY? >> THANK YOU.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAD A PRETTY LENGTHY TO DO LIST TO GET INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION SO THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THE NET EFFECT OF THIS LAND PURCHASE.

SO TONIGHT, THE PURPOSE FOR THIS WORKSHOP, OBVIOUSLY, IS TO DISCUSS THE HERE AND BE A LAND PURCHASE.

WE ALSO HAVE LAMBERT ADVISORY HERE TO PROVIDE A MARKET ASSESSMENT SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR BUT THE POTENTIAL IS FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ERIC AND GO AHEAD AND DO YOUR PRESENTATION.

AND OF COURSE, COMMISSION CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> BEFORE YOU START, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

RIGHT NOW, WE ARE PROPOSING TO VOTE TO HAVE OUR FIRST VOTE ON AUGUST 29. SO TONIGHT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES, ANY QUESTIONS, ANYTHING WE NEED FROM STAFF, IF WE CAN JUST TRY TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.

YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SWAYS YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IF THERE'S INFORMATION YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

IF WE CAN JUST TRY TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF AS TO WHAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE A DECISION -- WHATEVER THAT DECISION MAY BE. BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UP HERE HAS AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING WHATEVER DECISION IT IS THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THAT INFORMATION POSSIBLE.

SO IF THERE'S, AGAIN, ANYTHING STAFF CAN DO TONIGHT, IS REALLY THE NIGHT WE NEED TO TRY TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.SO THAT IF WE DO HAVE THE BOAT ON THE 29TH, WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, KNOWING THAT WE HAVE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. AND WITH THAT --.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ERIC LIPP WITH LAMBERT ADVISORY I'M A PRINCIPAL TO FIRM.E WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE A MARKET ASSESSMENT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PURCHASE OF THE HERON BAY REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ANALYSIS IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BROAD RANGE -- YOU KNOW, BROAD-BASED MARKET ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT. IT'S RELATIVELY HIGH LEVEL (INDISCERNIBLE). BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND AND THE QUESTION WAS VERY CLEAR, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE MARKET OPPORTUNITY? THAT WAS ASKED IN THE LAST MEETING. SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT UNDERSTANDING. A LOT OF IT IN THE CONFINES OF WHAT IS PROVIDED FOR -- FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT.

BUT ALSO, EXPANDING A LITTLE BIT WITHIN WHAT THE DESIRESOF THE COMMUNITY -- LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES BEYOND THAT , WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AND SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT AN APPRAISAL. IT'S NOT AN OPINION OF MARKET VALUE. IT'S AN ASSESSMENT.

WILL PROVIDE SOME NUMBERS AND I WILL DISCUSS WHAT THOSE MEAN AND I WILL GET INTO DETAILS. WILL GO BY EACH PARCEL.

THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT DEVELOPMENT AREAS AS YOU KNOW.

I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, MAPS THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO VIEW.

THE NORTH PARCEL IS DESCRIBED AS THE DOGLIKE.

IT'S 22.4 ACRES. STRICTLY DESIGNATED LOW DOES TY RESIDENTIAL. THIS (INDISCERNIBLE) IS A

[00:05:04]

AND ALSO A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY AS WELL.

THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY PROPOSALS WHICH THE DISTRICT HAS RECEIVED BY MASTER PLAN STOP AS PART OF THAT, A .8 ACRES TO THE SOUTH IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE CITY

OF CORAL GABLES. >> CORAL SPRINGS.

>>CORAL SPRINGS! I'M SORRY.

>> NO PROBLEM! IT'S CLOSE !

>> CORAL SPRINGS. SORRY! (LAUGHING) THAT'S NINE ACRES. WE LOOKED AT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF RESIDENTIAL, BUT CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL AS WELL BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME INTEREST IN THAT REGARD AS WELL. BEFORE I BEGIN, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THE PRESENTATION.

GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS. I KNOW WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN THE EFFORT OF TIME HERE. I PREFER TO GO THROUGH IT, IF I COULD. BUT IF YOU WANT TO STOP GO TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS DURING THE PROCESS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

STARTING WITH THE NORTH PARCEL. AGAIN GIVEN THE LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE AND THE DESIGNS, THAT IT IS BEST SUITED FOR LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR UP TO THREE UNITS PER ACRE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE JUST ASSUME LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWABLE WITH THE THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

IN THIS CASE YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 63 HOMES.

THAT'S ASSUMING WE ALLOCATE AT LEAST ONE ACRE FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARK WHICH WOULD BE DESIRABLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

OBVIOUSLY CAN BE MODIFIED. THERE'S A LOT OF ITERATION AND WE DON'T GET INTO THE WEEDS BUT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT IT FROM A MAXIMUM STANDPOINT. AND JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND VERY QUICKLY.HIS IS INFORMATION THAT IS VERY PUBLIC. THE CITY OF PARKLAND, THE DESIRE AND THE VALUES OF HOMES ARE EXCESS BROWARD COUNTY.

SALES AS OF JUNE 2022, WE WERE IN ONE POINT (INDISCERNIBLE) MILLION DOLLARS IN AVERAGE SALES POINT COMPARED TO (INDISCERNIBLE) A BROWARD COUNTY.

ITS LOCATION TO THE SCHOOLS. T'S OBVIOUSLY THE COMMUNITY AND THE SURROUNDINGS, THE ENVIRONMENT, SENSITIVITY.

IN THAT REGARD JUST HOW MUCH PRICES ALL OVER HAVE INCREASED.

BUT WE REALLY ARE SEEING STRONG GROWTH.

AND IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED OVER THE LONG-TERM.

I KNOW THERE'S (INDISCERNIBLE) IN MARKET CYCLES, BUT THIS IS A HIGHLY DESIRABLE COMMUNITY. AND WHILE THE PRICES MIGHT FLUCTUATE, WE ARE SEEING PRICES THAT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IN TERMS OF SUPPLY, IT WAS MARCH THAT THERE WERE ONLY 63 HOMES IN INVENTORY AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE. AS OF JUNE IT WAS 138.

THERE WERE TWO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PARKLAND PARKLAND BAY. BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS STARTING AT $1 MILLION. EVEN THROUGH JUNE THE INVENTORY OF HOME IS LESS THAN THREE MONTHS.

VERY, VERY STRONG MARKET. JUST HEADLINE FINDINGS IN THIS.

GIVEN CONFIGURATION THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED, THE LOTS ARE APPROXIMATELY 14,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE HOMES ARE (INDISCERNIBLE) SQUARE FEET, MAYBE A LITTLE LARGER. WE BELIEVE BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT OF THE SALES MORE OR LESS ON A CONSERVATIVE BASIS, THE AVERAGE PRICE IS ABOUT $1.3 MILLION AND POSSIBLY HIGHER.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH THE 1.3 ON A MORE OR LESS CONSERVATIVE ASSESSMENT.THERE IS A RULE OF THUMB TYPICALLY THAT LAND VALUES IS ABOUT 20 PERCENT OF THE HOME VALUE.

OF COURSE I CAN FLUCTUATE. COASTAL AREAS EVALUATION IS A LITTLE HIGHER. IN DESIRABLE AREAS SUCH AS THIS IT CAN BE HIGHER. IN THIS CASE WE WILL STAY WITH THE 20 PERCENT. WE BELIEVE THAT SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE AS WELL. IN THAT CASE, THE VALUE OF THE NORTH PARCEL IS CLOSE TO $16 MILLION.ERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS WHAT WE CALL A FINISHED VALUE.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THE LAND AND THE HOME THAT HAS BEEN FINISHED AND BEEN SOLD. WHAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER TO GET TO AND AS IS WOULD BE THE SITE IMPROVEMENT COST TO GET IT READY FOR HOME. SECONDLY FOR THE (INDISCERNIBLE) COST. YOU'RE NOT GONNA PUT THESE UP IN A DAY. IT DOES TAKE TIME.

UNDERSTAND I AM PRESENTING THIS AS FINISHED COSTS.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS TO GET TO BE AS IS, THIS IS THE FINISHED EVALUATION, IF YOU WILL.THE CENTRAL PARCEL. THE CENTRAL PARCEL WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE.

NUMBER 1 WE SAID OKAY, WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW DENSITY?

[00:10:01]

IN THAT CASE YOU HAVE ABOUT 94 HOMES.

AND A LITTLE SPACE -- LEAVING AN AREA FOR OPEN SPACE.

THEN YOU WOULD HAVE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH IS MORE A TOWNHOME PRODUCT.HAT SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD YIELD ABOUT 220 TOWNHOMES. AND AGAIN, ALLOCATION PER OPEN SPACE. THEN WE ALSO CONSIDER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT HAD BEE PRESENTED IN PROPOSALS AS WELL. SO WE WENT TO LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF RETAIL AND OFFICE AND WE WILL GET INTO DETAILS AND A LITTLE BIT. I'M IN A SHOW YOU THE TOWNHOME.

WE'VE GONE TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY MARKET.

THE TOWNHOME MARKET IN THIS AREA IS VERY STRONG.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF INVENTORY AND ONLY TO TOWNHOMES FOR LISTING. THE SALES PRICE HAVE SCRAPPED UP FOR THESE HOMES. SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN (INDISCERNIBLE) COUNTY. WE KNOW GIVEN THE LACK OF INVENTORY AND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE AREA WOULD PRESENT ITSELF IS A RELATIVELY STRONG DEMAND IN THIS MARKET.

LOOKING AT THE RETAIL SNAPSHOT, JUST VERY QUICKLY.

ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE YOU CAN SEE COMPARED IS THE SUBMARKET WHICH WE DEFINE AS THE NORTHWEST BROWARD AND WEST BOCA AREA SURROUNDING PARKLAND. THE LARGEST SUBMARKET.

WE LOOK AT CORAL SPRINGS AND PARKLAND AS WELL.

IN THIS CASE, (INDISCERNIBLE). ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IT'S JUST A SNAPSHOT A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OCCURRED OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS. YOU CAN SEE PROPORTIONATELY CORAL SPRINGS HAS HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RETAIL ADDED. IN THIS CASE PARKLAND A MARGINAL AMOUNT OF RETAIL. (INDISCERNIBLE) BIGGEST OF ELEMENTS IN THIS CASE. OBVIOUSLY, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIAL IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL THAN THE SURROUNDING AREA. WHEN WE EVALUATE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND SPECIFICALLY RETAIL WE TALK ABOUT THE TRADE AREA. IN THIS CASE WE WANT TO DEFINE THE PRIMARY TRADE AREA BECAUSE IT HELPS US UNDERSTAND THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND VECTOR. IN THIS CASE, WE USE DATA SOURCE CALLED (NAME). IT ACTUALLY USES GEO-FENCING METADATA, CELL PHONE DATA, TRACKING RESIDENTS, VISITORS AND WORKERS TO AND FROM THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR WORK TO A LOCATION. HOW MUCH TIME THEY SPENT THERE, NUMBER OF VISITS. (INDISCERNIBLE) AND TOTAL ANNUAL. SO THEY HAVE THIS ENTIRE DATA MINING SYSTEM. IT HAS REFINE THE WHOLE PROCESS OF DEFINING A TRADE AREA. NONETHELESS IN THIS CASE 80 PERCENT OF ALL VISITORS DESK WHAT WE ARE DEFINING AS THE TRADE AREA CENTRAL POINT IS ACTUALLY THE SAWGRASS CENTER WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS A HERON BAIT PUBLIX.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THE CLOSEST IN PROXIMITY TO THE SITE.

WITHIN 8 TO 10 MILES OF THE PROPERTY, OR ABOUT A 15 MINUTE ? DRIVE TIME DEPENDING WHAT TIME OF DAY, IS THE DEFINITION OF THIS TRADE AREA. AND THEN, --

>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT? OUT OF ALL VISITS, WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE? HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT STRETCH TO ALL VISITS? ARE YOU TRACKING EVERY SINGLE CAR THAT'S COMING IN AND OUT OF

THAT PLASMA? >> NO, NO.

THIS IS TRACKING CELL PHONES THAT ARRIVED TO THE PROPERTY

FROM A DIFFERENT LOCATION. >> ALL RIGHT, SO HOW MANY CARS

ARE CELL PHONES WERE TRACKED? >> WE HAVE THE DATA NUMBER OF VISITS. (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ACTUALLY HAVE DATA THAT SHOWS THE NUMBER OF VISITS TO THE CENTER.

>> HOLD ON. I'M NOT ASKING THE NUMBER OF VISITS. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I DON'T WANT TO BASE OUR DECISION OFF OF DATA THAT IS CAUSATION VERSUS CORRELATION. WHEN WE ARE TRACKING THIS WE DON'T KNOW FROM WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM -- MEANING THAT'S THEIR ORIGINAL DESIGNATION, RIGHT? IF SOMEONE IS COMING FROM AN OFFICE THEY MAY NOT BE WORKING THERE BUT COMING FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CARS HAVE BEEN TRACKED.

>> THIS IS ACTUALLY RESIDENT. SO THIS DEMAND IS FOR RESIDENTS.ERSONS COMING FROM THEIR HOME.

>> OH, YOU SAID WORK. I'M SORRY.

>> THE DATA COLLECTED FROM RESIDENTS, WORKERS AND VISITORS. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT DOES BREAK OUT. IN THIS CASE IT'S RESIDENCE.

I CAN SELECT RESIDENTS ONLY AND THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF

RESIDENT (INDISCERNIBLE). >> HOW MANY RESIDENTS WERE

RETRACTING (INDISCERNIBLE)? >> WE ARE TRACKING RESIDENTS.

THE DATA IS TRACKING THE NUMBER OF VISITS THAT THAT CELL PHONE

USER HAD VISITED TO THE CENTER. >> I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER ISROW, IF I CAN -- HE WANTS TO KNOW IS THIS A SAMPLE SIZE OF A THOUSAND PEOPLE? OR IS THIS A SAMPLE SIZE OF

50,000 PEOPLE? >> IT'S NOT A -- IS ACTUALLY DATA. THE SAMPLE SIZES ANYONE WHO VISITS THE PROPERTY.

VISITING MULTIPLE TIMES? >> CORRECT.

>> ROSS TALK] >> IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS DATA REPRESENTS IN TERMS OF INDEPENDENT VISITS, HOW DO WE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PARKLAND VERSUS TRACKING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIKELY TO USE IT?

>> IT'S THE PEOPLE FROM BEYOND PARKLAND.

[00:15:01]

SEE SHADED (INDISCERNIBLE). >> SO YOU ARE SAYING TOTAL VISITORS? THIS TRACKS EVERY VISITOR THAT

COMES IN? >> EVERY VISITOR THAT COMES IN, YET. WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM.

(INDISCERNIBLE) AND THAT DEFINES YOUR TRADE AREA.> IT'S (INDISCERNIBLE) IT'S PROBABLY TENS OF THOUSANDS? ARE WE CLEAR? OKAY.

AND THEN, WHEN YOU DO AN ANALYSIS, YOU LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS. IN THIS CASE IT'S HIGH-LEVEL.

WE TALK ABOUT WE HAVE THE CITY OF PARKLAND.

OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE TRADE AREA AND BROADER BROWARD COUNTY. (INDISCERNIBLE) 4000 RESIDENTS WITH THE MEDIAN INCOME OF CLOSE TO 160,000.

WITHIN THE TRADE AREA THERE'S (INDISCERNIBLE) RESIDENCE.

80 PERCENT OF THAT IS BEING DRAWN TO THAT CENTER.

THEY HAVE VISITED THAT CENTER MAYBE ONCE OR MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND THE MEDIAN ALSO INCOME IS $80,000.

STILL WELL ABOVE THAT IN THE COUNTY.

A TREMENDOUS EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL IN THE AREA.

YOU CAN SEE THAT BY ALL THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT.

THE TRACER DATA ALSO SUPPLIES THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS, WHICH WE MINE FROM THEIR DATA. N THIS CASE, WE LOOK AT THE SUPPLIES BASED UPON THEIR INVENTORY OF RETAIL WITHIN THE TRADE AREA. AND THEN, THE DEMAND IS ACTUALLY FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE WITHIN THAT TRADE AREA. THERE EXPENDITURE, POTENTIAL FOR EACH DIFFERENT TYPE OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

AND IT'S A CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY.

>> I WILL MORE QUESTION. SO THE TRADE AREA, IS A PARKLAND IN THE SUBMARKET? WHERE'S THE TRADE AREA DEFINED

AS THE SAWGRASS CENTER? >> THE POINT AT WHICH WE DEFINE THE TRADE AREA IS THE SAWGRASS CENTER.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A CENTER POINT.

(INDISCERNIBLE). THE TRADE AREA IS THE AREA FROM WHICH YOUR PATRONS WILL VISIT A CENTER AND DRAW DEMAND TO THAT CENTER. YOUR BUSINESS.

YOUR CONSUMERS IS THE DEFINITION OF YOUR TRADE AREA.

SO THE VISITORS WHO VISIT THE CENTER, 80 PERCENT OF THE VISITORS WITHIN THAT DEFINED TRADE AREA VISIT THE CENTER.

THAT'S HOW WE DEFINE THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF USERS IN THE CENTER. THE PROXIMITY WOULD OBVIOUSLY

ASSUME -- >> DOES THAT MEAN THAT 90 OR 95 PERCENT OF THE VISITORS TO THE AREA ARE COMING FROM PARKLAND, AS OPPOSED TO SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE BORDERS OF THE CITY?

>> NO. BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE BY THE HEAT MAP IS OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE THE NUMBER OF VISITS AND THE FREQUENT VISITS. THE MAJORITY OBVIOUSLY COMING IN AND AROUND PARKLAND AND THE BOUNDARIES OF CORAL SPRINGS.

SO THAT PROVIDES YOU WITH THAT -- I GUESS THAT GIVES YOU AN INDICATION THAT YEAH A VERY LARGE PORTION IS COMING FROM THE RESIDENCE OF PARKLAND. AND SO IN THIS CASE WE DO A SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS. YOU CAN SEE, BASICALLY, IN THIS CASE THERE IS A GAP IN SUPPLY. BASICALLY WITHIN MOST OF THE TYPES OF SERVICES THAT WE PROFILED.

A LARGE GAP IN TERMS OF GROCERY, SPECIALTY FOOD, BEVERAGE SERVICES AND SO FORTH. CLOTHING IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY CATEGORY THAT SHOWS AN OVERSUPPLY IN THE MARKET.

>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE HERE THAT THERE IS A GAP.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE FOR FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT THERE IS A SUPPLY OF 139.3 MILLION.

ND A DEMAND OF 126.6 MILLION, WHICH MEANS WE ARE OVERSUPPLIED ON RESTAURANTS. AND WE ARE OVERSUPPLIED ON QS ARE. AND WE ARE OVERSUPPLIED ON DRINKING PLACES.

YEAH. >> ONE OF THE THINGS -- AND IT SHOUTED OUT TO ME BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN ANALYZING IS THIS NOTION THAT PARKLAND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH RESTAURANTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

BUT HERE, IF THESE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT, IT SHOWS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY -- THERE'S A SURPLUS IN AVAILABLE SUPPLY (INDISCERNIBLE).

HERE IN BABEL'S HABIT DOESN'T MEAN PARKLAND, BECAUSE CLEARLY, PARKLAND HAS FOUR OR FIVE RESTAURANTS.

FROM WHICH DESK OF THE TRADE AREA IS YOUR 8 TO 10 MILE, 15

MINUTE RADIUS. >> RIGHT.

BUT ISN'T THAT ALL OF PARKLAND? ALL OF PARKLAND IS WITHIN A RADIUS OF 8 TO 10 MILES.> OKAY.

YOU ARE RIGHT. WE HAVE ENOUGH RESTAURANTS IN PARKLAND.> BASED ON THESE NUMBERS.

RESIDENCE. >> THIS IS THE TRADE AREA AND I WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS.

BUT IN ANY CASE, YEAH. THERE IS A SURPLUS -- THERE'S A

[00:20:06]

>> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). >> THE DEMAND IS BASED UPON AGAIN -- PLACERS IS USING CENSUS DATA -- BASED UPON CENSUS TRACTS OR (INDISCERNIBLE) WITHIN THE TRADE AREA. IT CALCULATES -- DOESN'T DO THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE (INDISCERNIBLE).

WHAT IT DOES IS IT LOOKS AT THE INCOME FROM THE PERSONS THAT RESIDE IN THAT CENSUS TRACT, THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) GROUP.

THERE IS WHAT'S CALLED A CENSUS OF CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY THAT'S DONE BY THE SENSES. AND EACH BLOCKED GROUP IT CALCULATES -- IT ESTIMATES THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY TYPE OF GOODS. FOOD AND BEVERAGE, GROCERY, APPAREL, ELECTRONICS. IT HAS A DETAILED LIST OF THE TYPES OF RESIDENT W GOODS AND SERVICES -- CROSSTALK]

>> THIS DATA IS AN ESTIMATE? IT'S NOT FACTUAL?

>> IT'S NOT FACTUAL. >> WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE PART OF THAT CENSUS? ARE THEY ASKING THREE PEOPLE OR ARE THEY ASKING 100 PEOPLE OR 1000 PEOPLE?

>> IT'S BASED ON THE RESIDENCE THAT RESIDE WITHIN THE BLOCK GROUPS WITHIN THAT TRADE AREA THAT I DREW.

THERE ARE BLOCK GROUPS, RIGHT? CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS THAT DEFINE DISCO THERE MADE UP OF THE CITY, COUNTY, AND THERE'S ALSO BLOCK GROUPS WITHIN THAT TRADE AREA.

THE TRADE AREA, IT'S A BLOCK GROUPS WITHIN THE TRADE AREA? IT'S A SURVEY -- NOT A SURVEY, IT'S THE INCOME OF THOSE RESIDENTS BASED UPON CENSUS. AND THEN THE CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY, BASED UPON SURVEY DATA, THAT'S A CENSUS, ESTIMATES HOW MUCH THAT RESIDENT IS EXPANDING THEIR DOLLARS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

THEORETICALLY, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SURVEY OF THE PEOPLE VISITING THE CENTER. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. >> IT'SA GUESSTIMATE BASED UPON -- YOU ARE TAKING YOUR BLOCK, AND THEN YOU ARE TAKING A DIFFERENT SURVEY OF WHO USES THESE TYPES OF SERVICES, AND YOU WERE TRYING TO FIT IT IN THAT BLOCK AND THEN YOU ARE

COMING UP WITH A NUMBER? >> I'M NOT DOING IT.

THIS IS ALL THROUGH THIRD-PARTY DATA.

IN THE CONSUMER EXPENDITURE (INDISCERNIBLE) FROM THE SENSES. THAT'S THE CENSUS DATA.

THEY ARE DOING A SURVEY OF RESIDENTS WITHIN THOSE BLOCK GROUPS AS TO SEE WHAT PERCENT OF DOLLARS THEY SPEND -- HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE PART OF THAT SURVEY? IS IT THREE PEOPLE? 100 PEOPLE? 1000 PEOPLE?

>> HOLD ON.O THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE -- THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING THE TRADE AREA IS SIMPLY TO PROVIDE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS THE DEMAND AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RETAIL WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA. RIGHT?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE HAVING AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT IS.

I MEAN -- YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT WE ARE DOING AN ASSESSMENT BUT NOT AN APPRAISAL. AND YOUR ASSESSMENT IS BASED UPON CERTAIN STATISTICS THAT YOU'VE ACCUMULATED.

BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE STATISTICS ARE AND WHAT MAKES UP THOSE STATISTICS, SO THAT I CAN FULLY APPRECIATE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE TALKING OUR AREA OR SOME OTHER AREA, OR JUST SOME GENERAL AREA OF CONCERN.> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TRADE AREA, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF DEMAND TO A SPECIFIC CENTER. ONE THAT WE ARE STUDYING THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO, IN THIS CASE, OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY (INDISCERNIBLE). UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS THE AREA FROM WHICH WE ARE GOING TO DRAW MOST OF OUR CONSUMERS? THAT IS A TRADE AREA. THAT IS THE DEFINITION.

THAT IS HOW WE DEFINE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, SAY, THE SUBJECT SITE, RIGHT?> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> SO NOW WE HAVE DRAWN A TRADE AREA.

WITHINTHAT TRADE AREA, THE CENSUS HAS BLOCK -- THESE ARE CENSUS BLOCKED GROUPS. THE TRADE AREA OBVIOUSLY CUTS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF SOME BLOCK GROUPS.

WHAT IT DOES IS THE DATA IS COLLECTED FOR THE RESIDENCE , THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE WITHIN THE TRADE AREA, OKAY? IN THE BLOCK GROUPS WITHIN THE TRADE AREA.

THERE'S A CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY THAT SHOWS FROM THE CENSUS APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH -- WHAT THE AVERAGE INCOME -- NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT WHAT'S THE AVERAGE OR MEDIAN INCOME WITHIN THAT BLOCK GROUP AND THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE PER RETAIL GOOD OR SERVICES. IT'S A CENSUS DATA.

IT'S ACENSUS DATA. >> RIGHT.

I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THE REASON WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS A QUOTE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE, RIGHT ,

>> THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THIS. >> I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THIS IS THE OF FOUNDATION FOR WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING TODAY, CORRECTLY I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR ON IT.

[00:25:21]

IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE >> HOW ABOUT SUPPLY?

HOW DO WE GENERATE -- >> THIS APPLIES TO US AN ESTIMATE. THE USE OF THIRD-PARTY RESOURCE TO IDENTIFY -- AGAIN, IT'S NOT EXACT.

BUT THERE IS A SURVEY OF THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL BUY GOODS AND SERVICE THAT IS WITHIN THIS RETAIL TRADE AREA.

THAT IS BASED UPON THEN THEY LOOK AT GENERAL -- THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE THAT WOULD BE (INDISCERNIBLE) GROCERY STORE THAT HAS AN AVERAGE OF $5400 IN SALES.

SO THEY WILL APPLY THAT TO THE AMOUNT OF GROCERIES WITHIN THE AREA AND CALL THAT THE SUPPLY IN TERMS OF NUMBERS.

SO WITH SALES.> IT'S ANNUAL? >> EVERYTHING IS ANNUAL.

CORRECT. >> AFTER THIS, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT CLOTHING STORES ARE LOCATED IN THE TRADE AREA THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) $120 MILLION A YEAR.

THAT NUMBER IS A VERY LARGE NUMBER.

>> I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH ALL THE DETAILS.

WE DID NOT DO A DEEP DIVE.

EXPLANATION OF THE RETAIL TRADE AREA.

GO THROUGH THE MODEL WITH YOU. IT'S A DETAILED MODEL.

HERBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT. IF WE ARE BASING OUR CONVERSATION ON SOMETHING WE ALL CAN'T AGREE ON, I WANT TO GET TO A PLACE AND REALIZE WE GOT THERE BY SOMETHING THAT MAY

NOT BE LEGITIMATE. >> THESE ARE IMPORTANT TO ME FROM THE STANDPOINT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BUY THE HERON BAY GOLF COURSE. JUST DRILLING DOWN THE NEED.

WE'VE HEARD ANECDOTALLY FROM RESIDENCE WE NEED MORE RESTAURANTS IN PARKLAND.R WE NEED MORE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE FOR PARKLAND.

IT'S BEEN INTENTIONAL. IT'S BEEN INTENTIONAL THAT WE HAVE BEEN UNDERSERVED IN THE CITY.

THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE PRIMARY TENANTS OF PARKLAND'S DESIGN AND BUILD. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE COMMERCIAL THAT THE RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND NEED SO THEY GO OUT OF THE CITY FOR THAT STUFF. UT IF I'M SEEING THESE NUMBERS, AND WE ARE -- THE MARKET IN GENERAL IN THIS RADIUS IS OVERSUPPLIED BY RESTAURANTS, WHAT IS QS ARE

AGAIN? >> QUICK SERVICE.

>> AND DRINKING PLACES, THEN THAT CUTS AGAINST THE ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED TO ADD ANOTHER ONE.> NOT REALLY.

(INDISCERNIBLE). THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. THIS IS A POINT IN TIME.

THERE'S ANOTHER POINT IN THIS THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT DEMAND OBVIOUSLY CONTINUES TO GROW. AS WELL AS THE SUPPLY.

SO THERE IS A NET NEW DEMAND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE CAN CALCULATE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE'S NET NEW GROWTH

IN THE AREA. >> WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO -- AGAIN I VIEW THEM AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS RELEVANT FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON THIS NOW MAKING THE DECISION.

BUT IT'S ALSO A CONCERN BECAUSE OF WE ARE GOING TO CONTEMPLATE PUTTING ANY COMMERCIAL ON THAT PROPERTY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMERCIAL THAT GOES ON THAT PROPERTY HAS A CHANCE FOR SUCCESS. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE FOR SUCCESS BECAUSE THE MARKET IS FLOODED BY $25 MILLION OF QS OURS AND OVER SURPLUS AND BY $13 MILLION OF FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS AND $8 MILLION OF DRINKING PLACES, IF WE CAN GET THE ANSWER OF WHETHER THOSE NUMBERS ARE TRULY INVERTED OR NOT BEFORE THE END OF THIS MEETING, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, BUT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> YOU GOT A LOOK AT IT TERMS OF -- ALSO, DON'T FORGET THERE'S ALSO 4000 OFFICE WORKERS WITHIN TWO OR THREE MILES. THAT NEEDS TO BE FACTORED IN AS WELL. THE OTHER POINT IS WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING A CENTER, THERE IS ALSO A FAIR SHARE CAPTURE.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE SUPPLY HERE, SOME NONFUNCTIONAL RETAIL. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE MORE THAN YOUR FAIR SHARE.

SO THERE'S A WHOLE ANOTHER SIDE THAT CAN BE DONE IN TERMS OF THE DRILL-DOWN. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND IS TODAY.

AGAIN IT'S JUST THOSE ESTIMATES TO GIVE YOU AN UNDERSTANDING OF

WHERE THE MARKET IS. >> RIGHT.

SOME OF THEM WILL GO DOWN. CLOTHING STORES I IMAGINE THE DEMAND IS GOING DOWN FOR BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES.

I GET THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

IN THE GROCERIES (INDISCERNIBLE) UNDERSERVED.

>> I'VE GOT ONE LAST QUESTION BECAUSE I NEED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T HEAR CORRECTLY. WHEN I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT THE TRADE AREA I THOUGHT YOU CLARIFIED THAT WAS ONLY TO

RESIDENTIAL. >> AM ALSO MENTIONING -- NO, THAT'S NOT PART OF IT. (INDISCERNIBLE) ON TOP OF THIS YOU ALSO HAVE -- THEY DON'T DO WORKERS.

ON TOP OF THIS THERE'S ADDITIONAL DEMAND FROM WORKERS WHICH WOULD ONLY PUSH UP THE DEMAND SIDE.

WE CAN MAKE THOSE ESTIMATES, BUT THAT'S JUST -- MAKING THE POINT. WE HAVE DONE THE RESIDENT BUT YOU ALSO CAN'T DISCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 4000 OFFICE

[00:30:01]

THE DAY OFFICE WORKERS PROVIDE THAT DAYTIME, PARTICULARLY RESTAURANTS AND (INDISCERNIBLE) AND OTHER SERVICES.

SO MOVING ON IN TERMS OF SUPPLY.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED JUST THE TOP 10 LARGEST, MOST VISITED CENTERS WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS COMPETITIVE TO BE SAWGRASS CENTER. YOU CAN SEE DOMINATED BY PUBLICS IN TERMS OF BROCHURE AND OBVIOUSLY, TO SOME OF THE LARGER ANCHORS OF LA FITNESS AND SO FORTH.

ALL THE CENTERS. YOU CAN SEE EVEN WITH ALL THESE GROCERIES, THERE STILL DEMANDS FOR GROCERIES (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ALSO KNOW THERE ARE ADDITIONAL BROCHURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, THE ALL D'S AND FRESH MARKET DOWN IN UNIVERSITY WILDS. ALSO YOU'VE GOT THE TARGETS AND ALL THE BIG BUCKS, WHICH WE ARE NOT INCLUDING BECAUSE THOSE ARE MORE REGIONAL IN NATURE AND NOT PART OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE

ARE TRYING TO CREATE. >> I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT TO SES QUESTIONS. WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TARGET AND WALMART? WHY WOULD WALMART BEING

INCLUDED BUT NOT TARGET? >> THEY'RE NOT.

>> NO, THE GROCER.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IS INCLUDED.

THE WALMART NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER WOULD BE INCLUDED.

THE ONE ON WILDS UNIVERSITY IS NOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REACH THE (INDISCERNIBLE) OF THE TOP 10.

BUT A WALMART, THE LARGER WALMART THAT'S BEYOND THE FOOD SERVICE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS.

>> OKAY. >> AND SO BASICALLY, JUST LOOKING AT THIS SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AGAIN FROM THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE. IN LOOKING AT IT FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE OF CONCEPT. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST CONCEPTUAL.

E ARE NOT GOING DEEP INTO MERCHANDISING.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS. IT'S BASICALLY SAYING THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE CENTER THAT WOULD BE CREATED HERE.

BASICALLY GROCERY ANCHORED, WHICH IN THIS CASE, YOU DON'T SEE WHOLE FOODS, WHICH WOULD BE PROBABLY A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

YOU'VE GOT SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR DESTINATION DINING (INDISCERNIBLE). THE HILLSIDE RESTAURANTS OR HOUSTON'S OTHERWISE. YOU HAVE COFFEE AND BAKERY.

YOU HAVE QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANTS.

WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT DRIVE-THROUGH.

TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF QUICK SERVICE IN TERMS OF A DELI, A BURGER, PIZZA. A BOUTIQUE WELLNESS.

WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR LA FITNESS CO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BOUTIQUE. PERHAPS.

I'M NOT MERCHANDISING THE SITE. BEAUTY PRODUCTS, SALON, A BANK.

AND SOME SOFT GOODS LIKE LIFESTYLE.

WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT CLOTHING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12,000 SQUARE FEET AT THE MOST. THIS TYPE OF CENTER WOULD BE ABOUT 117,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

THAT WOULD BE VIABLE, OR AT LEAST HAVE MARKET SUPPORT WITHIN THIS LOCATION. THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TYPE USES. AND CONSIDER MAYBE THERE WOULD BE BOWLING -- THE LUCKY STRIKE OPPORTUNITY.

TYPICALLY THEY HAVE A 25,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING AREA.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE 33 ACRES. HOW ELSE DO YOU --?

>> WAS AT LOOKED AT IN COMPARISON WITH WHAT OTHER COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTERS WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY AND THEIR

VIABILITY IN COMPARISON?>> NONE OF THOSE EXIST IN THIS MARKET. I THINK WE'D ASSUME THAT PERHAPS IT COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY.

>> WHAT HE MEAN NONE OF THEM EXISTS IN THIS MARKET?

>> THERE'S NO LUCKY STRIKE OR FORMAT LIKE THAT --

>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CONCEPTUAL RETAIL PROGRAM IN GENERAL. WE HAVE THE SHOPPING CENTER RIGHT ON THE ROAD ON UNIVERSITY AND TRAILS AND THAT HAS A GROCERY STORE, A CAF?. SOME RESTAURANTS, SOME SALONS, ETC., ETC. ARE THOSE LOOKED AT IN COMPARISON TO LIKE SIZE AND CAPACITY IN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS?

>> ALL THE COMPARABLES THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT TO UNDERSTAND WITHOUT THERE WERE DEFINED AS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.

SO GENERAL SAME --. ON THE ENTERTAINMENT, WE KNOW

[00:35:10]

BASICALLY WHAT WE SEE HERE IS AT LEAST ON THE 33 ACRES, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE FORMAT, YOU CAN BUILD UP TO ABOUT 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. AGAIN THESE TYPES OF GOODS AND SERVICES WE'VE OUTLINED. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT EVEN COVER MAYBE HALF OF THE 33 ACRES.

SO WHAT IS THE OTHER OPPORTUNITY? THAT WOULD BE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO INTENSIFY THE SITE THEN YOU WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT ADDING OFFICE, BIG-BOX, AND/OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO I'M SEEING OTHER USES THAT WOULD HELP TO INTENSIFY THE SITE AND UTILIZE THAT LAND.

IT WOULD BE THOSE OTHER USES. AND SO WE DID A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW OF OFFICE AND SOME OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AS FAR AS NORTHWEST BROWARD (INDISCERNIBLE) SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE (INDISCERNIBLE) BUILT ANNUALLY.

THE MARKET IS 91 PERCENT OCCUPIED.

IF HE MOVED TO WEST BOCA -- BY THE WAY THE NORTHWEST MARKET REALLY DOMINATED IN TERMS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT MEDICAL TYPE OFFICE. WEST BOCA, 5 MILLION SQUARE FEET, (INDISCERNIBLE) A LITTLE LESS THAN THE OCCUPANCY AT 86 PERCENT. IT MAKES IT EXTREMELY STRONG LEASE RATE (INDISCERNIBLE). AGAIN THAT MARKET IS DRIVEN MORE TO THE PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE THE TARGET MARKET FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE.

AND JUST GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL OFFICE -- SORRY -- IN THE DEMAND AND THE AVERAGE GROWTH, WE ARE SAYING THAT THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 50 TO 75,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. WE DO NOT WANT TO OVERBUILD OFFICE. THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 150,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE. IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT DEMAND.

(INDISCERNIBLE). SO JUST DOING AN ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION BASED UPON ALL THIS INFORMATION, IN TERMS OF THE COMMERCIAL WHICH IS ON TOP. WE'VE GOT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AT ABOUT 175,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE BASE GOODS AND SERVICES AND THAT SOME OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPONENT.0,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

YOU HAVE 235,000 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL SPACE.

>> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE).

15 PERCENT OF THAT FOR COMMERCIAL IS ALLOCATED TO LAND IN THIS CASE. THE RETAIL WOULD BE ABOUT $13.1 MILLION AND FINISHED LAND VALUE.

THE OFFICE WOULD ADD -- CROSS TALK]

>> LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK. NONE OF THESE INCLUDE A RAW LAND VALUE? YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE AN

APPRAISAL? >> RIGHT.

OR THE CENTRAL PARCEL HAVE A RAW LAND VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AS I CORRECTLY IN OTHER WORDSIF WE WERE TO BUY THIS LAND TOMORROW, NONE OF THIS GIVES US ANY INDICATION OF WHAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND IS

FOR THESE PARCELS TOMORROW? >> NO, IT'S NOT RAW LAND.

>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE APPRAISALS.

>> CORRECT.

DETERMINE WHAT THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF THE LAND IS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS MARKET ANALYSIS IS FOR.

THERE IS AN APPRAISAL THAT TELLS US WHAT THE LAND VALUE IS .

SAME THING. THEY ARE SAYING IF YOU PUT SOMETHING HERE, THIS IS WHAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS.

AND I JUST WANT TO GET AT HOW WE'VE COME TO THAT NUMBER.

>> THE APPRAISAL --. >> THIS DOES THE SAME THING, RICH.

MARKET ANALYSIS, THIS IS NOT AN APPRAISAL.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET, THERE IS ALSO AN APPRAISAL THAT

WE HAVE. >> I LOOKED AT THAT.

(INDISCERNIBLE).

MARKET ASSESSMENT. REALLY TO UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY IN THIS SCOPE THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE MARKET OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VARIOUS USES FOR THESE PROPERTIES. I'VE TAKEN IT AND ACTUALLY DROVE DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER AT LEAST TO GET TO A FINISH VALUE.

JUST TO GIVE SOME SEMBLANCE (INDISCERNIBLE).

COMMERCIAL, AND HAS ABOUT (INDISCERNIBLE) LAND VALUE.

AGAIN, THE 33 ACRES WOULD ALLOW (INDISCERNIBLE) -- -- (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). SO AGAIN, THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO INTENSIFY IT IN TERMS OF RETAIL WOULD BE PUTTING A BIG BOX ON THAT PROPERTY. AND WE KNOW THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CONCEPT THAT'S BEING ENVISIONED FOR THE PROPERTY.

SO THE NEXT EVALUATION WAS THE RESIDENTIAL.

[00:40:01]

BUT I AM SAYING 1.2 MILLION -- $1.25 MILLION ON AVERAGE FOR THE HOMES. 230 IN TERMS OF THE LAND VALUE

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> AGAIN THAT'S A FINISH VALUE

AND NOT A RAW? >> THAT'S FINISHED (INDISCERNIBLE). THE TOWNHOMES, SAME THING.

(INDISCERNIBLE) (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE).

AVERAGE SALE PRICE (INDISCERNIBLE).

YOU'VE GOT THAT DENSITY AND THERE'S A STRONG DEMAND FOR THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT. SO VERY QUICKLY, THE SOUTH PARCEL. IT'S THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS 2.79 ACRES. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED OUT GOLF COURSE. WE SAID OKAY, WHAT IF THERE IS A LOW DENSITY THREE UNITS PER ACRE ASSESSMENT, A MODERATE, SEVEN UNITS PER ACRE. ALSO, WE CONSIDER THE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE STRONG LOCATION FOR RETAIL IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY -- ROADWAY.

THERE'S NOT MUCH TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET.

I KNOW THERE BEEN CONCEPTS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN INTERESTS FOR SOMECOMMERCIAL, I GUESS, WHICH COULD BE LINKED WITH THE HOTEL . IN THIS CASE, WITHOUT (INDISCERNIBLE) THERE IS NO WAY YOU'D BE ABLE TO PUT 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL WITHIN THAT SPACE.

THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH VISIBILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND

OR FRONT ROADWAY TRAFFIC. >> BUT WHY ARE THE NUMBERS -- WHY ARE THE NUMBERS DIFFERENT? IF WE HAVE, ON THAT SPACE, SO ON THE CENTRAL PARCEL YOU HAVE THE ESTIMATED RETAIL VALUE SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE $500. THE ESTIMATED LAND VALUE OF UNIT BEING $75. HERE YOU HAVE 420 AND 65.

WHY AREN'T THEY THE SAME? >> ON THE COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE YOU ARE MOVING AHEAD! THE COMMERCIAL NESTS IN THIS LOCATION WOULD NOT -- YOU WHEN I GET THE SAME USE RATES THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU HAD THAT IN THE CENTRAL PARCEL.

THERE'S NO WAY.OU DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESSIBILITY, VISIBILITY.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MIX OF RETAIL.INDISCERNIBLE) THEREFORE THE SALES PRICE IS NOT COMPARABLE.HAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL. SO THERE HAD TO BE SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT APPLIED. IN THIS CASE, THE SINGLE-FAMILY IS ABOUT $4.7 MILLION IN THE FINISHED LAND VALUE, TOWNHOMES ABOUT SIX AND HALF MILLION IN THE COMMERCIAL $3.3 MILLION.

OBVIOUS THE HIGHEST USE BEING RESIDENTIAL AND IF YOU COULD INTENSIFY IT, THAT WOULD YIELD THE GREATEST RETURN.

SO SUMMARY VALUATION. IN THE TABLE, YOU'VE GOT THE NORTH CENTRAL AND SOUTH PARCEL. YOU GOT THE SINGLE-FAMILY VALUATION BREACH AT (INDISCERNIBLE).

THEN YOU HAVE THE TOWNHOME VALUATIONS AND THE COMMERCIAL.

IN THIS CASE IF YOU TOOK THE COMBINATION -- IF IT WAS ALL SINGLE-FAMILY IT WOULD BE ABOUT $42 MILLION AND FINISHED LAND VALUE. IF YOU WENT TO THE HIGHEST (INDISCERNIBLE) IN THIS CASE STUDY AND SUPPLEMENTED TOWNHOMES WITHIN THE SOUTH PARCEL, IT YIELDS ABOUT $46 MILLION AND FINISHED LAND VALUE.GAIN IT'S FINISHED LAND VALUE. YOU WOULD NEED TO DEDUCT THE COST OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW.

IFTHERE IS ANY REMEDIATION, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW.

THERE'S ALSO CARRYING COSTS. DOES YOUR KNOCKING ABILITIES WITHIN A YEAR.T TAKES A COUPLE OF YEARS TO BUILD THESE OUT SO THERE'S A CARRYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IN TERMS OF OVERHEAD AND INTEREST AND SO FORTH.

THIS IS NOT A RAW LAND OR PRAISE VALUE, BUT IT GIVES YOU AN INDICATION (INDISCERNIBLE). AND YOU CAN COMPARE THATWITH YOUR APPRAISAL THAT COMES IN . I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, SO I CAN'T OPINE ON THE APPRAISAL, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AND PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT. AGAIN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS EVEN WHEN FACTORING IN NATURAL MARKET CYCLES AND FLUCTUATIONS , YOU KNOW, THE SLOWDOWNS IN THE ECONOMY, THE INTEREST RATES? THE FACT IS WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AN EXTREMELY STRONG DEMAND FOR SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY HOUSING WITHIN PARKLAND.

THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES TO NOT ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY, TOWNHOMES, BUT THERE IS A STRONG OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTI-FAMILY.

LASTLY LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THE CENTRAL PARCEL, WE LOOKED AT THAT AND IT ACTUALLY CAME IN THROUGH SOME DEVELOPER PROPOSALS ENVISIONING MORE AS A TOWN CENTER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. IN THAT CASE WOULD BE COMPRISED OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING IT. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING IT, WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S -- 33 ACRES COULD BE ENVISIONED AS A VIABLE, VERY ENERGETIC AND DYNAMIC TYPE OF MIXED-USE

[00:45:01]

THERE'S SO MUCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PARKLAND.

IT AFFECTS THE TAX REVENUE BASIS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, (INDISCERNIBLE) YOUR HOMES IN THE ANNUAL INCREASE IS CAPPED AT THREE PERCENT. WE'RE COMMERCIAL YOU CAN INCREASE ABOVE THAT UP TO 10 PERCENT.

WE JUST DID THIS HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS.

THE COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT WAS ALL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IF IT WAS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ONLY, OR IF IT WAS MIXED USE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE RETAIL, OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY.

WE JUST ASSUME FOR THIS CASE THAT MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE ABOUT 180 UNITS OF LUXURY PRODUCT.

THAT WOULD COVER EIGHT ACRES. HEN YOU'D ACTUALLY NOW FULLY UTILIZE THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE VALUATIONS WOULD BE ABOUT 120 MILLION TAXABLE VALUE.

COMMERCIAL LOAN WHICH IS UNDERUTILIZED AT 88 MILLION AND MIXED USE AT 140 MILLION. APPLYING THE MILLS, YOU HAVE YOUR ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAX (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND THEN APPLYING JUST A HYPOTHETICAL GROWTH RATE, OBVIOUSLY CAP IT AT THREE PERCENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND ASSUME IT CAN BE INCREASED AT SIX PERCENT FOR THE COMMERCIALS. BECAUSE THERE'S YEARS WHERE YOU CAN INCREASE IT TO 10 PERCENT AND YEARS WERE YOU PROBABLY CAN'T INCREASE IT TO THREE PERCENT ABOVE.

THE TOTAL CRIMINAL REVENUE BETWEEN THE THREE IS $25 MILLION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. THE COMMERCIAL IS 32 MILLION.

IF YOU DID A MIXED-USE OPPORTUNITY TO INTENSIFY THE SITE, MAXIMIZE UTILIZATION IS $50 MILLION IN INTERNAL REVENUE. THEN WE JUST APPLY

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> INITIALLY, THE RESIDENTIAL BRINGS IN MORE TAX REVENUE THAN THE COMMERCIAL.

I'M NOT GOING TO THE MIXED USE SET W YET, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. THE RESIDENTIAL BRINGS MORE --

UTILIZE. >> WHEN DOES THAT TURN? BECAUSE YOU SAID AFTER 30 YEARS, OBVIOUSLY COMMERCIALS 32 MILLION AND RESIDENTIAL IS 25. DOES THAT TURN IN 10 YEARS? 25? WHEN DOES THAT TURN?

>> IT'S A MODEL. IT'S BEYOND 30 YEARS THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS A 30 YEAR TIMELINE.

SO IT'S BEYOND 30 YEARS.> RIGHT.

I'M SAYING IS IT FIVE -- YOU KNOW, IS IT FIVE YEARS?

>> RIGHT. WHEN THOSE NUMBERS WILL REFLECT (INDISCERNIBLE).

(INDISCERNIBLE) I CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY RESIDENTIAL -- COMMERCIAL OVERTAKES RESIDENTIAL.

>> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). NOT RIGHT NOW!

>> SO THIS WOULD BE OUR DISCUSSION TIME, ACCORDING TO

THE SLIDE. >> DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE

TRADE AREA AGAIN (LAUGHING)? >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE MATH HERE. BECAUSE UNDER OUR APPRAISAL, IT SHOWS THE VALUATION OF 30 MILLION (INDISCERNIBLE) DOLLARS AND THAT'S BASED OFF OF PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 HAVING RESIDENTIAL OF 67 UNITS. PARCEL 5 HAVING SINGLE-FAMILY, 26 UNITS.O THAT'S 93 UNITS TOTAL FOR VALUE OF 30 MILLION PARCEL 3 AND SAW THE REMAINDER OF PARCEL 2 BEING COMMERCIAL.

WITH THIS MARKET CONSIDERATION IS TELLING ME IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT 94+26 IS 120 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND ABOUT

282 TOWN HOUSES. >> IS THAT THE APPRAISAL

(INDISCERNIBLE)? >> THE APPRAISAL IS BASED OFF A 93 UNITS. I'M SAYING THE MARKET STUDY SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT MORE OF SINGLE-FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES.

I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE --

>> IF WE JUST DID SINGLE-FAMILY, WE CAN CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY. DON'T KNOW WHAT OFF THE TOP OF

MY HEAD. >> AND ME, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT -- THIS IS A MARKET ANALYSIS, IT'S NOT AN

APPRAISAL. >> UNDERSTAND THAT -- WE CAN'T REALLY COMPARE. TO HIS POINT, HIS MARKET ANALYSIS SHOWED HE HAD ONE WITH HOMES, ONE WITH SOME TOWNHOMES (INDISCERNIBLE).

FINITE AMOUNT OF LAND. YOU CAN'T BUILD NO MORE THAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOMES REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE KEEPING IT TO R-3, CORRECTLY

>> IN ONE OF HIS MODELS, HE SHOWED 220.

IT IS GREATER THAN R-3 BECAUSE HE USED A CENTRAL -- A SOUTH PARCEL. OR WAS THAT R-3 OR DID YOU USE MORE THAN R-3? I BELIEVE USE MORE THAN R-3.

>> IF I ASSUME THAT WE WERE IN A BUILD TOWNHOMES.

THE APPRAISAL. >> BUT WE ARE ADDING THAT INTO

[00:50:01]

THIS MARKET ANALYSIS. >> LENORE PARCEL 67 HOMES.

WE ASSUMED THERE WERE 63 HOMES, OKAY? THE CENTRAL PARCEL, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DO NOT EVEN HAVE ANY HOUSING ON THERE. AND AGAIN, WE DID IT LOOKING STRICTLY AS COMMERCIAL LIKE THEY DID.

WE ACTUALLY TOOK A STEP FURTHER AND DID IT IF WE HAD LOW DENSITY AND MID DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

SO NOT APPLES TO APPLES. >> I KNOW IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND -- WE CAN'T VIEW THESE BOTH IN A VACUUM, RIGHT? ARKET APPRAISAL AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL, WHILE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ANALYSIS, THE OVERLAP IN TERMS OF CONSIDERATIONS. RIGHT? BECAUSE THE MARKET ANALYSIS IS FACING UP OVER THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF THE DEVELOPED LAND COULD BE.> CORRECT.

YES. BUT DON'T FORGET WE DID EXPAND HOURS DESK WILL BE LOOKED A LITTLE BEYOND IT.

IF THEY STUCK WITHIN ALL THE REGULATORY CONFINES OF WHAT'S REQUIRED, THEN NO THEY WON'T BE COMPARABLE.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO TO PLAN USE CHANGE FOR SOME OF THESE ANYWAYS. I MEAN ASSUMPTION OF HIGHER

DENSITY THAN THE APPRAISER DID. >> OKAY.THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO

UNDERSTAND. >> ALL GO THROUGH IT AND MAKE

NOTES OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

COMMISSIONER BRIER? >> NOT WITH THIS.

NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OKAY.

[SILENCE] >> SO WE HAVE THE APPRAISALS STEP I ASSUME THAT'S JUST DATA THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH?

>> YES. I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE

(INDISCERNIBLE) TO PRESENT IT. >> WHICH IS FINE.

ON THE APPRAISAL? >> YEAH, THE APPRAISAL GOES THROUGH AND IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS -- IT GIVES A MARKET VALUE FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

IT KEEPS ON USING THE TERMS HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT'S COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT PARKLAND WANTS TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T GIVE IN COMPARISON WITH ITS VALUE OF THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, IT DOESN'T GIVE WHAT AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IS GOING ON THAT PIECE TO ATTRIBUTE A (INDISCERNIBLE) VALUE. THEY ARE ALL HYPOTHETICALS.

I GET THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HAVING THE BENEFIT OF A $30 MILLION APPRAISAL WE DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS. FOR EXAMPLE WE'VE GOT 33.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL UNDER THIS BREAKOUT AT 16 POINT MILLION DOLLARS. IS THAT 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL? HOW IS THAT BROKEN OUT TO

ATTRIBUTE THAT VALUE? >> ON YOUR MARKET ANALYSIS, YOU HAD THE COMMERCIAL VALUED AT -- WHAT WAS IT --

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT AN APPRAISAL.

BUT HE'S AT 15.7 MILLION. MY ACCURATE?

FOR THE COMMERCIAL? >> WELL, BUT THAT'S -- THEY ARE ALL FINISHED VALUES, WHICH IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM APPRAISED VALUES. AS I UNDERSTOOD AND WE CLARIFIED THAT, ALL OF THE MARKET ANALYSIS VALUES WERE FINISH VALUES. MEANING AFTER ALL THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO FINISH THE PROPERTY AND SELL THEM, THAT'S WHAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND WOULD BE ONCE IT'S ALL READY TO GO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE VALUE WOULD BE FOR THE CITY PURCHASING IT. WE ARE TRYING TO GET A VALUE FOR WHAT THE CITY IS PURCHASING THE LAND FOR, ASSUMING WE PUT X AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL ON THERE. AND THE APPRAISAL DOESN'T GIVE US THAT. THE APPRAISAL JUST AS COMMERCIAL, 33 POINT -- DETERMINED WHAT WOULD GO THERE. SO IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE -- I MEAN, WE'RE JUST TALKING THROUGH THIS OBVIOUSLY.

>> YEP. >> WE HAVEN'T SAID WELL GIVE US AN APPRAISAL ON 150,000 SQUARE FEET.

GIVE US AN APPRAISAL ON 300,000.

ON 50,000. WHATEVER.

WE HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY GUIDELINES TO THE APPRAISAL.

BUT IN THE APPRAISAL, I'LL BE HONEST, I DID NOT -- I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THEY PUT A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL IN THE APPRAISAL.

AM I --? >> BUT IT'S THE TOTAL OF THE SITE. AT $16,680,000 FOR 11.50 PER SQUARE FEET OF THE SITE.

[00:55:12]

FOR EXAMPLE IT WOULD BE FAR MORE VALUABLE TO GET OUR APPRAISAL OR TO SAY PEOPLE 100,000 SQUARE FEET ON THAT PROPERTY, IT'S WORTH X. IF YOU PUT 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL ON THAT PROPERTY IT'S WORTH Y. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FAR BETTER ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL (INDISCERNIBLE).

MAYBE THEY CAN STILL DO THAT? BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T GIVE US

ANYTHING MORE THAN --. >> MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN THIS.

>> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). THE APPRAISAL WOULD BE -- THE ONLY DID A LAND COMPARABLE. SO THEY'RE JUST TAKING A SALE AND WHATEVER AVAILABLE SALE OF COMPARABLE ACREAGE (INDISCERNIBLE) THEY JUST TAKE, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THEY TAKE A COMPARABLE SALE WITH AND HOPEFULLY A COMPARABLE AREA.

BUT THAT'S ALL FOR X AMOUNT, THEREFORE YOU APPLY ADJUSTMENTS UP AND DOWN FOR THE SUBJECT SITE.

THAT'S WHAT THEIR BASIS OF APPRAISAL IS.

IT'S JUST THE LAND SALE. IT'S A LAND SALE.

IT'S NOT DOING WHAT WE HAD DONE, A CONCEPTUAL BUILDOUT, WHAT WE CALL THE INCOME APPROACH.

(INDISCERNIBLE).

SAYING WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

BUT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA FOR DOING THAT COMPARATIVE STUDY, THEY FOUND THAT THEY REALLY COULDN'T FIND PROPERTIES THAT WERE ENOUGH EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TO REALLY MAKE THOSE KINDS OF DETERMINATIONS. SO THEN THEY WENT TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF DOING THE ANALYSIS, WHICH IN MY OPINION, BASED UPON MY REVIEW, THIS IS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE IN NATURE.

I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING AT THINGS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THEIR BEST GUESS OF WHAT THESE VALUATIONS ARE JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING.OU WERE PULLING STUFF FROM THE MARKETPLACE, BUT YOU'RE NOT REALLY FOCUSED YET ON EXACTLY WHAT CERTAIN THINGS WE MIGHT DECIDE TO DO OR THAT A DEVELOPER MIGHT DECIDE TO DO ON THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT THAT WOULD BRING. I GET ALL OF THAT.

MY CONCERN IN THE ACTUAL APPRAISAL ITSELF IS AS SIMEON POINTED OUT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS IS VERSUS THIS SORT OF BEST CASE SCENARIO, WHICH I INTERPRET TO MEAN THE SAME THING AS YOUR FINISHED PRODUCT. THOSE TWO VALUES THAT SEEM TO BE IN THE APPRAISAL SUGGEST THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH NUMBERS FROM 19, 5 TO 30.6 IN TERMS OF THE AS IS VALUE MEANING WHAT IT IS TODAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT VALUE VERSUS WHAT IT COULD BE IF IT IS AT ITS ABSOLUTE BEST.

WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.

ALL THE BELLS, WHISTLES AND ALL THE LAND USE AND ALL THE EVERYTHING -- THIS IS THE VALUE.

SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SPREAD BETWEEN 19.5 AND 30.6.

>> THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT THE 30.6 NUMBER DOESN'T SHOW ME WHAT THEY ARE ESTIMATING BEING ON IT.

IN OTHER WORDS, I GET IT. MUCH LIKE NSID DID IN ITS PROPERTY AND ITS FEES. PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN EVALUATE IT. RIGHT? THAT'S NOT HOW WE WANT TO DO IT.

WE WANT TO SAY HERE'S WHAT OUR CERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE PROPERTY -- RIGHT? HEAR ME OUT.

WE DON'T WANT 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL ON THAT PARCEL. SO THE NOTION THAT THAT PARCEL IS WORTH $16.8 MILLION, IS THAT BASED ON IT BEING 100,000 SQUARE FEET OR 500? I DON'T KNOW, THE APPRAISAL

DOESN'T GET INTO THAT. >> BUT TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU ARE SAYING.

PART OF OUR DISCUSSION IS NOT ONLY IS THE CITY GOING TO MAKE MONEY, BUT IT'S WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS SHOULD THE CITY NOT BUY IT? AND IT FALLS INTO THE HANDS -- SO THE CONVERSATION IS TWOFOLD. ECAUSE I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND NOTHING THAT YOU SAID IS INACCURATE.

IT'S PART OF OUR DISCUSSION AND THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS.

THIS IS NOT STRICTLY A BUSINESS DEAL TO SAY OKAY, WE ARE NOW GOING TO MAKE MONEY. THIS WAS PART AND PARCEL OF US BUYING IT, CONTROLLING OUR FUTURE, AND US DETERMINING

EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE ON THERE. >> AGREED.

BUT THIS GETS BACK TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION WE ARE GOING TO HAVE. I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG OUR FOCUS IN THIS PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE ON THE CITY MAKING MONEY. BUT IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE ON THE CITY LOSING MONEY. WHAT I WAS HOPEFUL FOR THIS ANALYSIS, THIS APPRAISAL TO PROVIDE IS IF WE STAY WITHIN A

[01:00:01]

MAKING SURE THAT WE WEREN'T OVERPAYING FOR A REASONABLE APPROACH TO WHAT SHOULD GO ON THE PROPERTY.

BECAUSE WHAT THE RESIDENTS DON'T WANT IS THEY DON'T WANT US TO PAY $25 MILLION TO BUY THE PROPERTY.

AND BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET OUR $25 MILLION BACK, ALLOW THE SAME AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL TO GO ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN YELLING ABOUT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT AT ODDS WITH OURSELVES.

WHERE WE ARE FIGHTING OVER HOW MUCH WE ALLOW ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'VE SUNK $25 MILLION AND WANT TO GET IT BACK.

SO THAT GETS ME INTO WHETHER WE WANT TO DRIVE THE CAR OR BUY

THE CAR. >> TO YOUR POINT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT IN STRATEGIC PLANNING WE HAVE ALL AGREED -- I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY SOME ARE SAYING THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE THE CASE, BUT THE CITY OF PARKLAND DOES NEED SOME COMMERCIAL. IT DOES NEED SOME SORT OF TOWN CENTER, TO WHERE RESIDENTS CAN COME.

AND WITH THAT COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL COMES TAX REVENUE.

>> BUT THAT CAN HAPPEN IF A DEVELOPER COMES INAND BUYS IT TOO. BECAUSE IF THEY COME IN A 12 --

>> AND WE AGREE THAT THAT'S A LAND USE THAT WE WANT TO DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEIR , THEN WE WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL.

BUT WE STILL HAVE THOSE CONTROL FACTORS -- THE LAND USE CONTROL FACTOR IN THE ZONE USE CONTROL FACTOR.HAT DOESN'T (INDISCERNIBLE) THIS IDEA OF COMMERCIAL AT ALL.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO BUY IT TO HAVE COMMERCIAL.

>> I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD, AND I HAVE THIS POINT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH NSID, THEY HAVE AGREED TO ALLOW FOR THE ASSIGNABILITY OF THIS CONTRACT TO 1/3 PARTY. PARKLAND CAN ENTER INTO THIS CONTRACT AND ASSIGN IT TO 1/3 PARTY.

IF WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE PAYING $25 MILLION FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T PUT THE MALL ON IT, IT WAS WORTH $25 MILLION. THIS APPRAISAL DOESN'T YET GET US THERE -- IN MY VIEW. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. THIS APPRAISAL DOESN'T TELL ME THAT PAYING $25 MILLION FOR THE 65 ACRES IS A GOOD BASELINE FOR NOT LOSING ANY MONEY. MAYBE IT DOES, OR THEY HAVEN'T EXPLAINED IT WELL ENOUGH. MAYBE IT DOES.

LET ME SAY IT THAT WAY. MAYBE IT DOES.

BUT I THINK THE ASSIGNABILITY IS A CRITICAL ISSUE HERE.

BECAUSE IF WE ARE ABLE TO DEFRAY AND MITIGATE THE RISKS THAT WE ARE OVERPAYING FOR THE PROPERTY TO 1/3 PARTY, AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE RISK WITH SOME PARAMETERS THAT WE CAN SET UP NOW WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE ZONING LAWS AND THE BERT HARRIS ISSUES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I THINK THAT PUTS US IN A WIN-WIN. BECAUSE WE CAN SAY TO A DEVELOPER WE WILL ASSIGN YOU THIS CONTRACT, BUT YOU CAN'T PUT CONTRACTUALLY MORE THAN A, B AND C ON THAT PROPERTY.

>> BUT THAT, TO ME -- MY ISSUE WITH THE ASSIGNMENT IS THE TIMEFRAME IN WHICH WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHAT PARKLAND WANTS AND WHAT PARKLAND NEEDS.

WE WOULD HAVE THE TIMEFRAME TO DO WHERE WE HAD STARTED TO DO OUR BRD AND NEVER FINISHED THAT.O WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT PROCESS YET. WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF OUTLINING EXACTLY WHAT COMMERCIAL -- IF COMMERCIAL IS ULTIMATELY WHAT PWE WANT, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT PROCESS. TO ME, TO ASSIGN SOMETHING TO A CONTRACTOR, NOT HAVING DONE THAT HOMEWORK FIRST? WHILE IT DOES HAVE ITS BENEFITS, TO ME IT'S A BIT HASTY. TO WHERE WE ARE NOW FULL LAWN WITH A PARTICULAR DEVELOPER BEFORE WE HAVE DONE THAT

PROCESS. >> BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME BROAD -- I DON'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE FROM THE DAIS, BUT IF THERE ARE SOME BROAD-BASED PARAMETERS THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE TO BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENT FEEDBACK. THAT PUTTING SOME 60 ODD HOMES ON THE DOGLEG SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

THAT PUTTING SOME LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL THAT'S IN MEASURE WITH WHAT PARKLAND SHOULD BE ON THE CENTRAL PIECE SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. AND THEN, PUTTING SOMETHING -- WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED WHAT -- IN CONJUNCTION OF CORAL SPRINGS -- EITHER SOME SINGLE-FAMILY ON A SMALL LEVEL OR SOME ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL/ RESIDENTIAL ON A SMALL LEVEL.

I THINK WE CAN LAY THOSE OUT TO A DEVELOPER TO SAY CONTRACTUALLY, YOU ARE BOUND THAT THAT'S THE MOST YOU ARE

GOING TO GET. >> BUT IF WE ASSIGN IT --

>> NO, NO --

>> BUT IF WE ARE ASSIGNING IT, WE ARE NOW WITH THAT

CONTRACTOR. >> NO, NO.

WE'RE WITH THAT DEVELOPER SUBJECT TO CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS. YOU CAN PUT CAVEATS IN THE CONTRACT --

>> BUT WE HAVEN'T GONE TO PNC. WE HAVEN'T MET WITH CORAL

[01:05:02]

SO TRY TO ASSIGN IT TO A DEVELOPER, IN MY OPINION, IS HASTY. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ALL THAT HOMEWORK. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN OF NOT WANTING TO PUT THE MONEY -- I TOTALLY GET THAT.

BUT TO ME, IT'S -- YOU ARE TAKING THE SAME AMOUNT OF RISK, RIGHT? YOU ARE RISKING, MAYBE, SAVING YOURSELF FROM X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, BUT NOW YOU ARE RISKING THAT YOU ARE IN WITH THIS DEVELOPER NO MATTER WHAT.

I GET THE CONTRACTUAL THINGS. BUT TIMING -- ONCE THEY LAY OUT MONEY, THAT'S IT. ONCE THEY PAY THE CONTRACT,

THAT'S WHO THEY ARE. >> NO, NO -- CROSS TALK]

WE CAN PUT STIPULATIONS -- >> BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT WORK. WE HAVEN'T GONE TO PLANNING AND

ZONING BOARD STOP. >> CAN I TAKE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION ON THAT? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTRACT, I LIKE TO HAVE ANTHONY CHIME IN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE REVIEWED THE CONTRACT, SUBMITTED A BUNCH OF REDLINES TO NSID AND SUBSEQUENTLY, VERY RECENTLY, RECEIVED BACK FROM THEM ALONG WITH A LETTER THAT BASICALLY INDICATES THESE ARE THE TERMS, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT KIND OF DEAL. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WITH THE LATEST AND GREATEST IS FROM THAT? AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND, ALSO, AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING APPLES TO APPLES. MEANING THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF LAND DEAL THAT EAST COAST WAS GETTING. AND I WANT YOU TO TELL THEM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE 4.1 ACRES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS JUST

OCCURRED. >> ANTHONY SOROKA, CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE RECORD.SO I DID GET A RESPONSE EARLIER THIS MORNING FROM (NAME)'S ATTORNEY WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIOR REDLINES THAT WE PROVIDED TO THEM, WHICH SUBSTANTIVELY, THERE WERE THREE MAIN REVISIONS.

THERE WERE OTHER REVISIONS BUT I THINK THE REMAINING REVISIONS. ONE WITH RESPECT TO THE COVENANT RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THEY ACQUIRED ANY FROM LENNAR.

ALSO WC I WENT TO LENNAR AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT NSID MAY HAVE ACQUIRED THOSE COVENANT RIGHTS TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE.

THE SECOND ONE WAS RESPECT TO CLEAR LANGUAGE AND PER ALSO THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION AT THE LAST MEETING ON THE EXCESS EASEMENTS THAT THE CITY WOULD BE GETTING FROM NSID, WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER BODIES SET UP BUT (NAME) HILL.

THAT WAS A SECOND ONE AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THAT WAS FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OVER THERE.

NOBODY IS SWIMMING ACROSS THE WATER BODY TO GET TO THE PARCEL. THEN, THE THIRD ONE WAS MAKING SURE THAT THE CITY'S EXPOSURE WAS LIMITED TO THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF $250,000, SHOULD THE CITY PROCEED AND EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. AND THEN, GO PAST THE INVESTIGATION 60 DAY PERIOD WHERE WE COULD GET THE REFUND, BUT WAS LIMITED TO THE 250,000. ESSENTIALLY I GOT A REDLINE BACK TODAY THAT AGREE TO OUR REVISIONS BUT DID MAKE ONE TWEAK WITH RESPECT TO THE VEHICULAR ACCESS ON THE EASEMENTS ABIDING NOB HILL. TO THE EXTENT WE ARE GONNA PUT A STRUCTURE THERE. LET'S SAY A BRIDGE, THAT IT WOULD BE A DISTRICT APPROVED STRUCTURE.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE APPROVAL RIGHT OVER THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD THEORETICALLY GO OVER THE WATER BODY.

NEXT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING THE SAME EXACT TERMINOLOGY HERE. I'M LOOKING AT THIS REDLINE AND IT CROSSES OUT THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS. AND TAKES COMPLETELY OUT OF THERE. SO IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A STRUCTURE. WHAT IT DOES IS IT SAYS VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER NOB HILL ROAD EASEMENT, SUBJECT TO OR VIA A DISTRICT APPROVED STRUCTURE.

SO IT'S NOT LETTING YOU BUILD ONE UNLESS THEY GIVE YOU THE GREEN LIGHT TO DO IT. IF I'M READING THAT ACCURATELY.

> I THINK THAT'S ACCURATE, VICE MAYOR.

YOU READ THE PREFERRED LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD IN THERE.

AND WHAT YOU JUST READ, THE VIA DISTRICT APPROVED STRUCTURE IS

WHAT WE GOT BACK. >> CAN WE TWEAK THAT TO SAY THAT NOT ONLY WILL WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE VEHICULAR, BUT WILL GET THEIR APPROVAL ON IT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNREASONABLY WITHHELD? DOESN'T THAT SOLVE THEIR CONCERN AND HOURS? LETTER THAT CAME TO US WAS BASICALLY THESE ARE THE TERMS, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. YOU KNOW, AGAIN -- I'M NOT PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW THE PARTIES, I

[01:10:09]

AND I'M ALSOUNDERSTANDING THAT ORIGINALLY, EAST COAST WAS PROVIDED IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT THERE WERE 4.1 ACRES IN THE NORTHERN END OF THE SINK STEPS CAN BE PART OF THE DEAL.

IT WAS ONLY UNTIL -- WHEN AS IT, TODAY, ANTHONY? THAT THEY CHANGED IT. ALL OF A SUDDEN EAST COAST IS NOW INITIALING STUFF TO CHANGE WITH THOSE TERMS WERE ? SO YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE WITH THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE ENTITY THAT'S SELLING THIS AND, YOU KNOW? THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY HAVE SWITCH THINGS AROUND ON US. IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE TERMS ARE NOW DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT THEY WERE.

IT'S NOT, AGAIN -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE APPRAISALS AND IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL CONTRACT ITSELF COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. REALLY STRUGGLING HERE WITH

THIS THING. >> LET ME SAY THIS WAY, BECAUSE I AM IN FAVOR OF GETTING TO A DEAL WITH NSID TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY I WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AND I WANT TO GET ALL THE SUPPORT AND BACKUP THAT WE NEED. BUT I AM STILL IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO GET TO THE END GAME. I AGREE TO YOUR POINT, KEN, AND I RAISE IT AT THE LAST MEETING. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS A CONTRACT THAT WE WERE GETTING WAS PURCHASING THE SAME LAND FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS HAD BEEN PROPOSED TO EAST COAST (INDISCERNIBLE). IT WAS IN FACT THE SAME CONTRACT. AND THAT WAS MY LAST UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR MEETING AND IT WAS MY LAST UNDERSTANDING FROM SPEAKING WITH NSID.IF IT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEM AND HAVE THE

DISCUSSION. >> YOU CAN LOOK AT THE RFP THAT WENT OUT. IT HAD THAT 4.1 ACRES IN THERE.

>> I RAISE THAT TOO.

BRIER, ANTHONY -- AND YOU CAN THIS, ANTHONY (LAUGHING).

ANTHONY DID FIND THAT THE CONTRACT WASN'T -- GO AHEAD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

JUST TO FINISH UP ON THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED.

THE LANGUAGE I GOT TODAY WAS I WAS ASKED TO LET YOU KNOW WE HAVE NO MORE INTEREST IN FURTHER NEGOTIATION BUT IF THIS IS (INDISCERNIBLE) ACCEPTABLE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THAT IS THE CONCEPT THAT WE GOT THE AGREEMENT BACK TODAY.

>> I INTERPRET THAT AS TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

>> YOU GAVE THE SHORT VERSION, FAIR ENOUGH!

[LAUGHTER] >> THAT DOES SOUND LIKE AN

ACCURATE ASSESSMENT (LAUGHING). >> SO AS TO THE SECOND QUESTION STEP FOLLOWING I THINK A PRIOR MEETING, I THINK COMMISSIONER BRIER RAISED IT. WE WANT TO SEE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT THAT NSID MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD FROM EAST COAST DEVELOPERS. AND TO COMPARE IT.

SO THE CONTRACT DOES PROVIDE FOR THE SAME 25.4 MILLION PURCHASE PRICE. THAT IS IN OUR AGREEMENT.

KEEP IN MIND IT'S NOT AN EXACT WORD FOR WORD ON THE TERMS. BECAUSE SINCE WE GOT A COPY OF OUR CONTRACT, WE'VE ASKED FOR REVISIONS AND THEY'VE ACCEPTED THEM.

BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WAS PART OF THE SALE, THE WAY THE CONTRACT OF A STRUCTURE -- AND THIS WAS PROVIDED BY NSID, THERE IS AN EXHIBIT A WHICH DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY THAT'S TO BE TRANSFERRED.

AND THEN THERE IS AN EXHIBIT A ONE THAT'S CALLED THE EXCLUDED LAND. SO IN EXHIBIT A GENERALLY INCLUDES ABOUT 73 POINT -- 73 AND CHANGE ACRES IN THE EXCLUDED LAND IN OUR CONTRACT NETS OUT TO ABOUT A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES TO WHERE WE HAVE 65.

ONE PARCEL IN PARTICULAR, IT'S A 4.175 PARCEL WHICH IS AT THE WEST END OF DRILLS AND CURRENTLY OWNED BY NSID.N OUR CONTRACT, AND THE BACKUP, IT'S UNDER A ONE, EXCLUDED LAND. INOUR CONTRACT.

IT WOULD BE PART OF OUR TRANSACTION.

THE VERSION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME FOR REVIEW, THAT CAME FROM EAST COAST, HAD PART OF THE INCLUDED PROPERTY IN THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS A 4.157 ACRE DIFFERENCE . AND I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO NSID THIS MORNING ABOUT THAT.

>> YEAH, THAT CONFUSES ME. BECAUSE I HAVE HEARD FROM NSID THAT THE SAME PROPERTY, THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, WHETHER YOU WANT TO CALL IT 65, 69 ACRES, THAT WE HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO MATCH EAST COAST AND (NAME) BROTHERS PROPOSAL.

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE (INDISCERNIBLE) CAME UP.HEY GUYS, WE'VE GOT TO DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WILLING TO BUY THIS PROPERTY. WHEN I SAY THIS PROPERTY, X AMOUNT OF ACRES, RIGHT? THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY $25.41 MILLION FOR THIS PROPERTY. IF THE CITY WILL MATCH IT, WE WILL SELL IT TO THE CITY, RIGHT? THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING WE GOT FROM NSID.

THEY GAVE ME A COMFORT LEVEL, DESPITE A LACK OF CLARITY IN THE APPRAISAL THAT I SEE TONIGHT -- OR SAW YESTERDAY.

THEY GAVE ME A COMFORT LEVEL THAT WE'VE GOT TO DEVELOPERS, WORST CASE SCENARIO ARE WILLING TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY.

IF WE ARE HERE TODAY THAT IT'S NOT THE SAME EXACT PARCEL OF

[01:15:01]

ISSUE. >> TO COMMISSIONER CUTLER'S POINT, THAT WAS POINTED OUT. GO AHEAD, ANTHONY.> IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THEM THIS MORNING.

I DID RECEIVE AN UPDATED CONTRACT -- AN UPDATED VERSION FROM NSID LATER ON IN THE MORNING THAT INDICATED THAT -- I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK HERE, BUT THEIR LEGAL ATTACHMENTS WERE IN THE WRONG ORDER. ESSENTIALLY THEY WERE SAYING IT WAS A MISTAKE.LEASE DISREGARD THE PRIOR VERSION.

AND IT HAD THE 4.175 ACRES NOW MOVE DOWN UNDER EXCLUDED LAND AND IT WAS INITIALED. I DON'T KNOW WHOSE INITIALS THEY ARE COME UP WITH TODAY'S DATE.

>> BY TOLL BROTHERS OR EAST COAST?

>> IT APPEARS TO BE EAST COAST. >> THE ONLY SIGNED CONTRACT, OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE MOMENT, IS EAST COAST.

>> UNDERSTOOD. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS TO EXACT COPIES OF THE CONTRACT WENT OUT TO BOTH EAST COAST AND TOLL BROTHERS FOR THE SAME LAND AT THE SAME PURCHASE PRICE.

AND WHERE'S THE TOLL BROTHERS? DOES TOLL BROTHERS HAVE THE FOUR POINT WHATEVER ACRES INCLUDED OR NOT INCLUDED? WITH TOLL BROTHERS CONTRACT BECAUSE THAT CONTRACT IS NOT

SIGNED. >> BUT WHAT WAS SENT TO TOLL

BROTHERS TO SIGN? >> PRESUMABLY IT WAS THE SAME THAT WE GOT, WHICH WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN EAST COAST.

BUT AS OF THIS MORNING, THOSE PAGES WERE CORRECTLY ORDERED

AND SIGNED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CONTRACT THAT WAS SENT BY NSID TO BOTH EAST COAST AND TOLL BROTHERS, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT TOLL BROTHERS HAS YET TO SIGN IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EXACT CONTRACT. AUSMAC.

>> WE HAVE THE EAST COAST.

TODAY. >> CORRECT.

AS OF THIS MORNING. >> BUT THE TOLL BROTHERS -- IF YOU SIGN THIS,

>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I WANT TO TRY TO FORMULATE MY OPINION ON THIS SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR WILL STOP FIRST, I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT I'M EXTREMELY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT MANY OF OUR HERON BAY RESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN THE TIME AND MADE AN EFFORT TO BE INVOLVED IN WORKING WITH US THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO US. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAD TO MEET SOME OF THE HOA BOARD MEMBERS AT HERE AND BE AND TO RECEIVE SEVERAL EMAILS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO CANDIDLY HAVE OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION OF THE SAME. AND I'M EQUALLY GRATEFUL TO OUR CITY STAFF ARE WORKING THROUGH WITH A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE AND NOT A LOT OF TIME TO TRY TO GET US INFORMATION ON THIS THING.

BUT I GOTTA TELL YOU -- THAT AFTER TALKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TODAY, THIS MORNING, AND TRYING TO GET THROUGH ALL THESE MATERIALS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND WHILE I AGREE GETTING SOME CONTROLLED AND BENEFICIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO OUR REVENUE STREAM, I THINK WE CAN STILL GET THAT.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT I'M GOING TO BE OPPOSED TO THE CITY BECOMING A LAND DEVELOPER IN MAKING THIS PURCHASE.

I JUST CAN'T UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, AND ALL OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THIS THING THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED, THAT ARE NOT MAKING THIS A DEAL THAT I SEE REALLY -- COMING AT US AND BENEFITING US AS A CITY AS A WHOLE? I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CONFER UPON US THE CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY THAT EVERYBODY THINKS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU WILL INDULGE ME, I GOT SEVERAL REASONS FOR THAT. NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WHAT WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANY CLARITY ON THE CONTRACT WITH THE ENTITY THAT IS SELLING THIS THING.

IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME THAT WE TALK TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THE BALL CHANGES AND MOVES DOWN THE ROAD.

I SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND WENT THROUGH THE ANALYSIS IN DETAIL. THE CITY COULD AFFORD TO MAKE THIS PURCHASE AND I WILL CONCEDE IN MY REVIEW OF THIS FINANCES AND THE DISCUSSIONS WITH NANCY, WE DO HAVE THE MONEY NECESSARY TO PUT UP THE $25 MILLION IN THE CITY CONFERENCE. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT MEANS WE SHOULD SPEND IT. I'LL FURTHER CONCEDE THAT IF YOU TAKE THE APPRAISAL AT ITS FACE VALUE WITHOUT DRILLING INTO THE NUMBERS AS YOU DID, SIMEON, AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ACTUALLY APPLES TO APPLES WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, WAS ACTUALLY OUT THERE.

[01:20:02]

SO YOU ARE ALREADY $6 MILLION OVER WHAT NET VALUE IS.

AND AS TO THE VALUATION AND THAT AS HIS SITUATION, IF YOU DRILL DOWN INTO THE APPRAISAL ON PAGE 27, IT SAYS THAT ONE OF THE PROVISIONS FOR REZONING BY THE CITY OF PARKLAND, PARTICULARLY FOR ANY GOLF COURSES IS THE IMPACT FOR THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. IT'S NOT JUST CONSIDERED BY THE APPRAISER. IT'S ACTUALLY CONSIDERED BY SECTION 50 E- 30 OF OUR OWN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES.

THE CODE PROVISION REQUIRES THE MITIGATION FOR THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACES, PARTICULARLY THOSE CONTAINING A GOLF COURSE BY PROVIDING FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE AREA THAT THEY ARE BUYING.

NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN REALLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ANY OF THE APPRAISALS OR THE MARKET ASSESSMENT, AT LEAST THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE. AND THE APPRAISAL GOES ON TO SAY THAT UNLESS THE CITY WAVES THAT PROVISION, AND THAT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE APPRAISAL.

I TALKED TO ANTHONY THIS MORNING AND HE SAYS WE CAN'T WAIVE THAT. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ONLY INCLUDED IN OUR COCOAM IT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN BROWARD COUNTY'S CODE. SO THAT'S A POTENTIAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED.

SO I POSE A QUESTION IN MY NOTES, AS IS THE APPRAISER SAYS THE VALUE WAS 19.5 NOT 25 MILLION, WHY ARE WE BUYING LAND FOR MORE THE THE APPRAISED VALUE? ON THE SPECULATION (INDISCERNIBLE) UNDER THE PRESUMPTION THAT WE CAN DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAXIMIZE VALUATION TO ITS HIGHEST, BEST USAGE POTENTIAL AS SPELLED OUT IN THE APPRAISAL. BUT THERE ARE CLEAR ISSUES WITH THAT. TO GET TO $30.6 MILLION WE NEED TO TAKE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL MONEY TO GET TO THE HIGHEST BEST USES PLATEAU. JUST THE LEGAL COSTS OF GOING THROUGH LAND USE IN THE REZONING ALONE WILL BE INEXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING FACTOR.

WE ALL NEED TO GET APPROVALS AND BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES LIKE CORAL SPRINGS AND BROWARD COUNTY.

THEY MAY NOT GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE BRIDGE OR BRIDGES OVER THE CANAL TO ALLOW ACCESS OVER NOB HILL. THESE WILL COST MORE MONEY THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE AND IT'S NOT A GIVEN THAT THEY WILL BE APPROVED. TO GO TO THE COUNTY AND THEY MAY DISAPPROVE. WE NEED TO HOLD ONTO THE STOCK FOR TWO YEARS FOR ALL THE MOVING PARTS TO GET DONE WITH THE LAND USE AND REZONING REQUIREMENTS.

AT LEAST THAT'S THE ESTIMATE I WAS GIVEN BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

THAT'S JUST TO TRY TO GET US TO THAT HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH CORAL SPRINGS AND THEIR COMMISSION IN ORDER FOR US TO GET THE REZONING AND APPROVALS THROUGH THEM. SO I WANT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT (INDISCERNIBLE). HISTORICALLY 1997, (NAME) PROPERTIES CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX THE LAND OF HERON BAY INTO (INDISCERNIBLE). THE CITY PUT RESTRICTIONS (INDISCERNIBLE). THAT NUMBER ULTIMATELY WAS 3384. THEN IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AT A CITY COMMISSION MEETING, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2002-54 WAS PUT TO THE VOTE ON A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PETITION AND AN AGREEMENT FOR THAT ANNEXATION WITH HERON BAY OF HERON BAIN NORTH, TO BRING THAT INTO THE CITY.

WHEN YOU READ THE MINUTES OF THAT PARTICULAR MEETING, YOU GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THE PARKLAND CITY COMMISSION HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY CONSIDERED THE ANNEXATION.

SPECIFICALLY THEY WERE HOLDING FAST TO THE IDEA OF CONTROLLING AND LIMITING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN HERON BAY.

IN THAT UNANIMOUS VOTE, VICE MAYOR MARX MADE IT CLEAR WHAT THE VOTE WAS ABOUT. HE STATED, HE DESCRIBED THIS AS AN ANNEXATION OF ACREAGE THAT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO HERON BAY -- IDENTIFIED AS HERON BAY.HE EXPLAINED THAT UNDER THE ORIGINAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, WCI COMMUNITIES ALSO KNOWN AS CORAL RIDGE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD UP TO 3384 DWELLING UNITS. THIS AGREEMENT, MEANING THE AGREEMENT TO BUILD NORTH, HAS LIMITED THEM TO 2540 DWELLING UNITS, INCLUDING THE NEW AREA CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES.HE UNPATENTED LANDS IN HERON BAY CURRENTLY TOTAL 216 ACRES, A GRAND TOTAL OF 500 ACRES.

THIS AGREEMENT WILL LIMIT IT TO 1500 UNITS -- DWELLING UNITS -- BE BUILT IN THE NORTH. IN EFFECT WHAT THE CITY HAS ACCOMPLISH WITH WCI IS AT 1694 DWELLING UNITS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO WILL NOT BE BUILT IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND. THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN THAT DEAL. THEY WERE ACTUALLY CUTTING OUT

[01:25:01]

SO IT WAS THE INTENT AT THAT TIME BY THISCOMMISSION, BACK THEN, THAT NO FURTHER RESIDENCES WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BUILT IN THE ORIGINAL HERON BAY AREA, A PART OF WHAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING RIGHT NOW. OW -- YOU KNOW, I ASKED ANTHONY WHETHER OR NOT THAT CAN HOLD US LEGALLY .

AND I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED. IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULDN'T BE RECORDED.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND HIS TEAM HAVE LOOKED TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS RECORDED. SO AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT BIND SUBSEQUENT THIRD-PARTY PURCHASERS. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS COMMISSION IS THE THIRD-PARTY PURCHASER THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED. SO THE IDEA OF PUTTING OTHER RESIDENCES IN HIS SPACE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WITH THE INTENT THAT THIS COMMISSION'S PLAN WAS FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE ARE ACTUALLY IN CONFLICT WITH OUR OWN COMMISSION.HE CITY HAS SEVERAL STRONG -- VERY STRONG LEGAL POSITIONS RELATIVE TO WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT LAND AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.

THIS IS BEEN EXPLAINED AND DEPTH BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

FIRST WE HAVE LAND-USE AUTHORITY WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS OF ANY DEVELOPER WERE TO APPROACH US FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES HERE, WE CAN VERY SIMPLY SAY NO. SECOND WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ZONING. THIS COUPLED WITH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A VERY STRONG PRECEDENT RELATIVE TO WHAT IF ANY RESIDENCES GO THERE AND THE DENSITY THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED US WITH EXCELLENT CONTROL OF WHAT GETS BUILT THERE.

PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HAVE STRENGTHENED OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS OVER THE AIR. IN THIS SCENARIO WE HAVE ALL THE LEVERAGE FOR NEGOTIATIONS. IN THIS SCENARIO WHERE WE BUY THE LAND AND WE WANT TO SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER OR REASSIGN IT? EXACTLY WHAT RICH WAS ARGUING AGAINST -- THEY WILL IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON US THAT WILL MAKE IT A VERY DIFFICULT DEAL.

IT'S NOT A GOOD POSITION FOR US TO BE IN.

WE LOSE OUR LEVERAGE. INSTEAD OF A DEVELOPER COMING TO US AND SAYING WHAT CAN I DO TO BUILD THERE? AND THEN, WE BASICALLY DIRECT THE TERMS, IF WE BUY IT AND TRY TO FLIP IT TO A DEVELOPER AND TRY TO RECOUP THE $25 MILLION THAT NSID IS ASKING FOR, WE ARE NOT IN A STRONG POSITION RELATIVE TO ANY LEVERAGE IN THAT REGARD.O I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT. ONE OF THE MAIN CONDITIONS --

I'M SORRY. >> NO (LAUGHING).

>> I WANT TO GET IT ALL OUT. >> I KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT.

GO AHEAD. PLEASE.

>> BEEN FOCUSING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND I'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME AND I APPRECIATE IT.

I WENT TO GET MY THOUGHTS OUT SO WE CAN FURTHER THE DIALOGUE ON THIS. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I'M HAVING TROUBLE. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS -- OR CONDITIONS I PLACED ON THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WAS THAT HERON BAY WAS GOING TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THE WAIVER OF THE COVENANT AND EASEMENT WITH NO CHARGE.

MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM SHOW THAT THEY IN FACT CHARGE TO CHARGE FOR THE EASEMENTS. WHETHER THEY AGREE TO ACCEPT THE MONEY FROM THE CITY AS A PURCHASER OR LATER SUCCESSOR PURCHASER FOR DEVELOPERS PROBLEMATIC.

ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE FORCING THE CITY INTO A SCENARIO WHERE IN ORDER TO GET THE MONEY FROM THE DEVELOPER, WE NEED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH CONCESSIONS TAKING AWAY ANY LEVERAGE THAT WE HAVE WHEN THE DEVELOPER COMES TO THE CITY.

THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THE $500,000 LATER, THAT MEANS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WANT MORE FROM US IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DEAL HAPPEN. RELATIVE TO THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED AGAINST NSID, I EXPRESSED EARLIER MY CONCERNS ABOUT US BUYING INTO A LAWSUIT. I STILL DON'T HAVE ANY COMFORT LEVEL ON THAT ISSUE. I KNOW THAT ANTHONY HAS HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PARTIES IN THAT CASE. BUT WE HAVE NOTHING IN WRITING ON IT. AND THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT OTHERS, ONCE WE GO AHEAD, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO WRITE IT, IF WE WERE TO CUT THE DEAL AND THEN START TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THEIR AND THE RESIDENTS DIDN'T LIKE IT, THEY COULD JUST BRING US RIGHT BACK INTO IT AGAIN.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS BEEN NO VOTE IN HERON BAY AND THE MAJORITY OF IT IS HOMEOWNERS RELEVANT TO THE COVENANT OR EASEMENTS. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE.

THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN THERE THAT EXPRESSED THAT THERE ARE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS THAT THE CITY IS TAKING IN TRYING TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT SAYS THE FORMER AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND HISTORICAL GOLF COURSE LAND-USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED A BUSINESS ENVIRONMENRISK, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ASTM

[01:30:02]

WE ALL KNOW THAT THE LAND WAS INITIALLY USED FOR MANY YEARS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE. IN THE USED CHEMICALS THERE.

WE KNOW THAT EVERY GOLF COURSE USES PESTICIDES THAT HAS ARSENIC ISSUES. THE COUNTY WILL DO IN ENVIRONMENTAL ON THE SITE WHETHER WE DO THE NEXT PHASE LEVEL OR NOT.F THEY FIND PROBLEMS WITH IT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMEDY THAT TO BUILD THE LAND TO ITS BEST USE.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER COST WE STILL HAVEN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND SO, WITH ALL OF THAT, I'VE EXPRESSED MY OPINION. I THINK THAT GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTORS, I THINK THAT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITY, THIS IS NOT A DEAL THAT WE SHOULD BE ENTERING INTO.

>> CAN I ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS?

>> SURE. >> MAYOR CAVA IS THAT ALL

RIGHT? >> YES.

>> I HAVE BEEN A PROPONENT OF THE CITY INTERVENING HERE.

BECAUSE FOR THE TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN ON THIS DAY US, ALL I'VE HEARD IS THAT WHEN LAND OWNERS OWN PROPERTY AND COME BEFORE THE CITY, THE CITY HAS SOMEWHAT LITTLE CONTROL OVER WHAT THE LAND OWNERS CAN DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

AND SO, WHEN WE WERE FACED DOWN THE BARREL AS WE ARE NOW WITH THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY BY 1/3 PARTY THAT HAS DECIDES TO PUT SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE RESIDENTS MIND (INDISCERNIBLE) TO NOT COMMENCE RATE WITH WHAT THE PARKLAND LOOK AND FEEL IS, IT CONCERNS ME.N THE TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON HERE IT FEELS LIKE WE HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS FOR DEVELOPERS. WE HAVEN'T HELD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. WE HAVE A PLAY TOUGH GUY WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO SAY WHEN YOU COME BEFORE US AND WANT A PROJECT APPROVED, WE ARE GOING TO STICK TO OUR GUNS.

ORGANIST SEND IT TO PNC. IN FACT WE HAVE GONE AGAINST PNC WITH A RECENT DEVELOPMENT. I'M OKAY PLAYING TOUGH GUY.

BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PLAY TOUGH GUY AND MEAN IT.

BECAUSE MY CONCERN HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO GET THE SAME MESSAGE WHEN ANOTHER DEVELOPER BUYS THIS PROPERTY IF WE DON'T INTERVENE OUT. WHICH IS HEY GUYS, WE CAN ONLY DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WHAT WE COULD DO BECAUSE THE BERT HARRIS ACT PROVIDES CERTAIN RIGHTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE ONLY HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT WE CAN PUSH BACK ON.

AND IN MY MIND, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO AGAIN BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR A DEVELOPER TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO THE WHOLE GOAL HERE WAS TO SEE IF WE COULD TAKE CONTROL OF THAT.

IF WE CAN TAKE CONTROL OF THAT PROCESS BY BECOMING, WHETHER IT WAS TEMPORARY OR FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME -- MY OPINION IS IT SHOULD BE TEMPORARY. WHERE WE CAN BE THE DICTATORS OF WHAT GOES THERE. WE CAN CAREFULLY CURATE THE PARAMETERS FOR WHAT'S ALLOWED TO GO ON THAT PROPERTY WHICH BENEFITS ALL OF PARKLAND. IT BENEFITS THE RESIDENTS OF HERON BAY, MANY OF WHOM I'VE HEARD FROM IN THE LAST MONTH AS I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE. IN DOING THAT, WE CAN MITIGATE OUR RISKS. ONE OF THE REASONS I BEEN THE MOST VOCAL ON THIS DAY US BY ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE WHILE I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE MY OTHER FOUR MEMBERS OF THE DAY US KNOW THAT IT'S THE RIGHT DEAL OR THE RIGHT MOVE. NOT JUST THAT IT'S A MOVE THAT THE RESIDENTS WANT US TO MAKE. SO I BEEN ASKING THESE TOUGH QUESTIONS AND BEEN CRITICAL OF THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE CONTRACT AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO THE RIGHT END. MICHAEL, I THINK, IS TO AVOID THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO. BE IN A POSITION OF GREATER CONTROL THAN IT SEEMS WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST WITH DEVELOPERS. AND REALLY DICTATE AND PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPER WHAT CAN AND CAN'T GO THERE.

BECAUSE THE LAST THING THE RESIDENTS WANT US TO DO, AGAIN AS I SAID BEFORE, PAY $25 MILLION FOR THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THE SAME MONSTROSITY TO GO THERE BEFORE ONLY BECAUSE WE FEEL THE NEED WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO RECOUP OUR MONEY. THAT'S WHY PUSHED ON THE ASSIGNABILITY PROVISION.I PUSHED ON THE IDEA OF DOING A JOINT PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPER.

WE HAVE A DEVELOPER AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN THE WINGS WHO WAS WILLING TO DO WHAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE SAID IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE FOR THAT PROPERTY AND WOULD (INDISCERNIBLE) THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS.

NOT BEING SOME DETRIMENTAL PROJECT.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, KEN. IS $19.5 MILLION FOR THE VALUE AT 300 AND ACRE. AND THE APPRAISAL, WHILE IT

[01:35:01]

I DON'T VIEW IT AS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT THAT. THEY'VE ALTERED THE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO BE PAYING THAT MONEY -- IF WE GET IT FROM A DEVELOPER FOR ACCESS AND EASEMENT RIGHTS, THEY WOULD SHARE IN THAT BENEFIT.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOA WHO I THINK WILL BE A GOOD PARTNER IN THIS IN THE CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, WHO SEEM LIKE THEY WILL BE A GOOD PARTNER IN THIS, CAN WORK TOGETHER. WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, I AM WORRIED THAT SOMETHING IS GOING TO GET CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE FORTITUDE TO SPIT A BACKUP.

AND SO, THAT IS MY CONCERN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE ARE NOT TAKING A VOTE TONIGHT THAT'S WHY WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITH THE APPRAISAL, SOME OF THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS. I'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT THIS NOTION AND IT'S IN THE HOA'S TERM SHEET THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL ACREAGE OF LAND -- DEDICATED TO US FROM NSID. THAT SHOULD BE IN OUR CONTRACT.

BECAUSE UNLESS IT'S IN THE CONTRACT, YOU DON'T GET IT.

THAT SHOULD BE IN OUR CONTRACT. I HEARD TODAY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY WITH THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT WE ARE BUYING. THAT WOULD CHANGE THE VALUE.

BECAUSE IF WE ARE BUYING 69.9 ACRES OR 70 ACRES AT 300,000, ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT RAISES THAT ANOTHER MILLION AND AND A HALF DOLLARS. SO THAT WOULD CHANGE THE APPRAISAL VALUE. EVEN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE HOA'S ASSIGNMENT OR WAIVER OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND PROVIDING US EASEMENTS. I STILL THINK WE CAN GET THERE.

NOW HAVING SAID THAT, WE NEED A PARTNER ON THE OTHER SIDE AND NSID TO WORK WITH US WITHIN REASON TO GET THERE.

I THINK WE HAVE A PARTNER IN THE HOA.

I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL WORK WITH US.

SO IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE ON THE MONETARY COMPONENT FOR THE EASEMENTS, I'M SURE THEY WILL WORK WITH US. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE NSID BE A PARTNER. AND I DON'T KNOW BASED ON WHERE WE SIT TODAY WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.

I HOPE IT WILL BUT I DON'T KNOW.

SO WHILE I AM A PROPONENT FOR THIS PROJECT, I WANTED TO BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY. I WANT TO BE A 5-0 VOTE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL PRESSURE TESTED THIS THING 10 TIMES AND WE FEEL WHOLLY COMFORTABLE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT MOVE.

BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT IS I DON'T WANT US TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY. WITH THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR 4 MILLION OR WHATEVER IT WAS 10 YEARS AGO, I FEEL THAT THAT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO STOP LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES VALUE NOW. EVEN ON A CONSERVATIVE BASIS, 1/3 OF IT IS WORTH $20 MILLION. SO I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE. I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH MAKING MONEY AS I SIGH. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MONEY.

SO IF WE CAN GET TO THE RIGHT CONTRACT AND GET TO THERIGHT

DEAL, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ?

IF NOT, I'LL GO. >> I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

>> YET, PLEASE. >> CALL IT A HEALTHY DEBATE, RIGHT? THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE ASKING HAS BEEN ASKED SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THIS PROCESS.

SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

MAYBE NOT TO THE BEST OF WHAT WE ARE WANTING OR HEAR OR LIKE TO HEAR. AND SOME HAVEN'T.

I THINK THE CRUX OF THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE STILL WANT TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF CONTROL.

THAT DECISION IS GONNA BE BASED ON THE DEGREE OF RISK WHICH WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT AS A MUNICIPALITY, AS A BODY.I THINK THE RISK IS BOTH FINANCIAL AND ALSO IN TERMS OF WHAT THE OVERALL MAKEUP OF THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE.

BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN SAY WE ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY OR LOSE MONEY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE STILL CARE WHAT GOES THERE. DO PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THEIR TAXES GOING UP? SURE.

BUT THERE MAY BE MANY PEOPLE, MYSELF INCLUDED, THAT I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A SACRIFICE FOR A RELATIVE INCREASE OF TAXES TO KNOW THAT MY CITY IS GOING TO BE BETTER BECAUSE OF IT AND THAT I'M NOT JUST SPINNING THE WHEEL AND SAYING I WANT MY TAXES TO BE LOW AND I HOPE THAT IT JUST TURNS OUT RIGHT.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I THINK WE ARE AT HERE.

GOING BACK TO SOME YOUR POINTS, KEN, AND I LOVE HAVING THIS DEBATE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I CAN TELL YOU PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

THE FIRST QUESTION I'D HAVE, ANTHONY, IN TERMS OF THE PARKLAND CODE VERSUS THE BROWARD CO., TWO QUESTIONS -- IS AN IDS USE OF MAINTAINING GREEN SPACE, WOULD THAT SATISFY THE CODE REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU ELIMINATE THE GOLF COURSE

YOU HAVE TO ADD GREEN SPACE? >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE CODE REQUIREMENT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 50-30 C 12.

PROVISIONS FOR THE REQUEST OF REZONING.

THOSE ARE THE FACTORS THAT THE COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU HAVE A REZONING REQUEST BEFORE YOU. GENERALLY THOSE ARE THE FACTORS FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY SATISFIED THEM IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION AND THE BACKUP THAT THEY SUBMIT. SO THERE ARE 11 FACTORS IN

[01:40:15]

NUMBER 12 WHICH WAS REFERENCED BY THE VICE MAYOR SIZE FOR REZONING INVOLVING LANDS THAT CONTAIN A GOLF COURSE THAT WERE NOT REVIEWED UNDER POLICY 2.55 OF THE BROWARD COUNTY LAND USE PLAN, THE APPLICANT FOR REZONING SHOULD ADDRESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING. THE FIRST ONE LISTED SAYS THE IMPACT OF LOSS OF OPEN SPACE ON A SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA.

THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE MUST BE MITIGATED THROUGH (INDISCERNIBLE) PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO SERVE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME IN MY MIND IS WHEN A DEVELOPER OR APPLICANT COMES TO FOR REZONING, THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE BY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE HOW THEY MITIGATED THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE. THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THEY COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT.

THEY MAY SAY WE ARE WITHHOLDING FIVE ACRES ON THE EXISTING SITE. IT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR PARKS. FOR OPEN SPACE.

THEY COULD POINT, POTENTIALLY, AS ONE OF THE FACTORS TO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE (INDISCERNIBLE) 150 ACRES RIGHT NOW. ALTHOUGH WAS AT THEM DOING THE MITIGATION OR SOMEBODY ELSE? DOESN'T SAY HOW MUCH. I JUST SHOWS THAT THEY ARE MITIGATING. WHETHER IT'S -- YOU KNOW, FIVE ACRES, SIX ACRES OUT OF THE 30 -- OR 60, WHATEVER THE NUMBER

IS? >> RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T STATE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU NEED TO DO A ONE TO ONE. SO IF YOU REMOVE 30 ACRES YET TO PROVIDE 30 ACRES. BUT THEY DO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. BY THE WAY IF THEY WERE ASKING FOR A LAND USE CHANGE, AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THESE ARE THE SAME FACTORS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD USE FOR THE LAND USE CHANGE. THAT'S WHY I STARTED OFF WITH THAT REFERENCE TO THE POLICY (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, IF NSID WHO BOUGHT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WERE TO COME FOR THAT PURPOSE FOR THE REZONING PURPOSE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO POINT OUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH THE GOLF COURSE AND PARKLIKE AREA. BUT IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER ENTITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THEY CAN'T TAKE WHAT NSID MIGHT BE DOING AND USE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF REZONING AND DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY ARE PUTTING PARK OR PARKLIKE LAND

IN THERE. >> SO THEY COULD SAY THAT'S PART OF THE MITIGATION OF THE LOSS OF THE OPEN SPACE.

WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT'S SUFFICIENT, GIVEN THAT WOULD LIKELY EXIST WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND/OR BROWARD COUNTY, DEPENDING ON WHO THEY WERE GOING BEFORE. THEY COULD SAY THAT WE COULD SAY YEAH, WELL THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

YOU DID 150 ACRES. I'M SAYING THAT'S WITHIN OUR --

>> THEY WOULD NEED TO -- IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL TO CONSIDER THAT ALONG WITH ANY OTHER FACTORS THEY PRESENT TO SHOW -- CROSS TALK]

>> WE COULD SAY YES OR NO. >> IF WE SAID NO, WE COULD FORCE THEM INTO PRODUCING NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OR OTHER STUFF THAT THEY ARE BUILDING. THEREBY, HELP THE ISSUE -- THE PROBLEM OF DENSITY AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS.

>> JUST TO CHIME IN FOR ONE SECOND.

THAT'S WHERE, TO VICE MAYOR'S POINT, THAT'S WHERE SUCCESSFULLY OVER THE YEARS, COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN GAINING, I'LL CALL IT, DONATIONS -- PARKLAND BAY -- FOR SCHOOLS AND OTHER THINGS.

THAT'S WHERE THAT LEVERAGES. AND TO COMMISSIONER BRIER'S POINT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORCE SOMEBODY'S HAND. MAYBE WE HAVEN'T DONE IT? MAYBE WE HAVE BEEN STRONG ENOUGH.

BUT THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO IT.

>> BUT WE DON'T LOSE THAT ABILITY SHALL BE ON IT.>> WE DON'T. BUT WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH SOMEBODY TO BUY IT STOP AND REZONING IT -- BECAUSE YOU'RE POSSIBLY GOING TO DO THAT --

>> TO MY POINT, THE ONLY SMALL -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT A DISAGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER BRIER AND I ON THE FINAL PROCESS IS THE ASSIGNMENT. BASICALLY THAT POINT.

MY ONLY ANGST TO ASSIGNING IT IS THAT WE DO LOSE SOME OF THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOW THROWING OUR HAT IN WITH A SPECIFIC DEVELOPER.

WHEREAS IF WE HOLD IT, WE ARE LIKE HEY, LET'S HOLD IT.

LET US DO ALL.ET'S GET TO THE CODE.

LET'S DO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STOP LET'S DO ALL OF THAT STUFF, AND THEN WE GO TO THE DEVELOPER AND SAY HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. WHETHER IT'S TO A DEVELOPER THAT COMES BEFORE US, OR AN RFP PROCESS.

WHATEVER THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.

I JUST WANT TO SEE US TAKE OUR TIME, TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND TRULY GO THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WE ALL TALK ABOUT WANTING TO DO. AND I GET YOUR POINT OF TRYING TO MITIGATE THE RISK FOR THE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS WELL TAKEN AND WELL THOUGHT OUT. IT'S JUST -- I WOULD RATHER HOLD ONTO IT FOR TWO YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG THE BRD OR

[01:45:06]

WHATEVER -- >> IF TIME WASN'T A FACTOR, I WHOLLY AGREE WITH YOU. BUT WE ARE BEING PUT UNDER THE GUN BY AN OWNER OF LAND TO EITHER SIGN THIS AGREEMENT OR THEY ARE GOING TO PULL IT AND MOVE ON.

IF TIME WASN'T A FACTOR I WHOLLY AGREE WITH YOU.

IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'VE GOT DEVELOPERS WHO ARE WILLING TO PULL THE TRIGGER RIGHT AWAY.

SO WHY COULDN'T WE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES WITH NSID, SIT WITH THEM NOW?

>> I DON'T WANT TO --

I WANT HIM TO FINISH FIRST. >> THE POINT HERE IS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE SHOULD BE HAVING PARALLEL CONVERSATIONS. BECAUSE REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING US FIRST OF ALL.

IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S SOME SUNSHINE AS LONG AS INDIVIDUALS ARE HAVING THE CONVERSATION AND CITY STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY.

I DO AGREE IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET TO THE MIND OF THE DEVELOPERS AND NOT JUST TOLL BROTHERS AND EAST COAST.

OTHER DEVELOPERS OUT THERE. THERE ARE MANY OF THEM.

AS WE HEARD FROM MARKET APPRAISAL, THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEMAND FOR RESIDENTIAL AND PARKLAND.

WE KNOW THAT A PART OF THE MIX FOR THIS PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S 100 PERCENT OR SOME PERCENTAGE OF IT WILL BE RESIDENTIAL.

FROM A PRICE STANDPOINT, FROM A PURELY VALUE STANDPOINT, VICE MAYOR CUTLER SAID HE WASN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THE 19 POINT SIDE VALUATION AS IS. BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING 25 MILLION FOR IT. BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE ARE NOT BUYING IT FOR AS IS PURPOSES, RIGHT? WE KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR PURPOSE BEYOND WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY USED FOR. ALREADY, I THINK THAT 19 BEING THE FLOOR? KNOWING THAT THERE'S GONNA BE ADDITIONAL VALUE ADDED, I THINK, IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER. THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE FACT THAT IF WE DO NOTHING, THIS THING IS GOING TO SIT THERE.

BECAUSE HERE IN BAY IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WEIGH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR ANYONE ELSE UNLESS THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF CONFIDENCE. SO THERE'S A COST FOR THE LAND SITTING IDLE. NOT JUST THE COST IN TERMS OF THE LOST TAX BASE. BECAUSE OVER TIME WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECOUP THAT UNTIL MUCH FOR THE ROT.

IT JUST ADDS YEARS UNTIL IT'S DEVELOPED.

YOU CAN START TAXING THEM. BUT ALSO JUST THE ACTUAL LAND ITSELF IS GOING TO WASTE. YES, THERE IS MAINTENANCE THAT IS BEING DONE TO IT. I THINK OF THIS THING GOES ON ANOTHER THREE YEARS, I WORRY ABOUT WHAT THAT'S CAN ACTUALLY DO FOR THE AESTHETIC OF THE CITY.

AND SAFETY, RIGHT? I THINK THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT AS WELL. THE LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE HERON BAY RESIDENCE. I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T WHAT THEY WOULD DO IF WE WERE TO BUY THE LAND.

BUT TO ME, THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THEY FILE THE LAWSUIT IS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE NSID HAD THE BEST INTEREST IN MIND FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVE.

AND THAT WAS THE SOLE DRIVING FORCE OF WHAT THEIR DEAL WAS, ASIDE FROM WHETHER THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE IT OR NOT. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD STAND IN THE SAME SHOES AS NSID IF WE WERE TO TAKE OVER THE LAND FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT.

BUT IT SEEMS THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THEIR LAWSUIT.

THE VALUATION -- AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MARKET STUDY HERE. I THINK THE MARKET STUDY IS INSTRUCTIVE ON THIS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CENTRAL PARCEL SAID THAT IF YOU USED 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE FOR A TOTAL OF 235,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT CAME OUT TO AND IS MADE A LAND VALUE OF $16.7 MILLION. SO I GOT OUT MY TRUSTED CALCULATOR AND I SEE THAT THERE ARE 43,560 SQUARE FEET IN AN ACRE, OKAY? SO IF WE WERE ONLY LOOKING AT AN APPROXIMATE 235,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE CENTRAL PARCEL, WHICH I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE IS GOING TO BE THE PREDOMINANT USE OF COMMERCIAL, IF NOT A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL.

BUT EVEN ASSUMING IT WAS ONLY FIVE ACRES, THE APPRAISAL SHOWS THE COMMERCIAL OF PARCEL 3 AT 33.3 ACRES.

SO I THINK WE ARE ACTUALLY ON THE LOW END OF WHAT THE MARKET APPRAISAL COULD BE. THAT'S NOT EVEN USING THE FIVE ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE. NOT TO SAY WE NEED MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT FROM A VALUE PERSPECTIVE I THINK WE ARE MAINTAINING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IT WITHOUT USING THE FULL EXTENT. THAT'S EVEN ASSUMING IF YOU WERE TO USE THE SOUTH PARCEL, WHICH COULD BE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. 9.4 ACRES, ASSUME YOU DID IT ALL COMMERCIAL, THAT'S ONLY A TOTAL OF 14.4 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL OUT OF THE 65. AGAIN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE

USE ALL OF THAT. >> THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE

NORTH. >> CORRECT.

THE NORTH WOULD MOST LIKELY BE STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL BASED OFF

THE MARKET APPRAISAL. >> WHICH IS HOW MUCH?

>> LET ME GET THAT FOR YOU --. >> JORDAN, YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING?OU ARE TALKING ABOUT PARKING, SETBACKS, WHAT ELSE IS NEEDED.

>> YOU: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MARKET STUDY.

[01:50:02]

>> RIGHT, BUILDING IS DIFFERENT THEN YOU HAVE BUILDING AND

VALUE. >> RIGHT.

UNLESS THESE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE SURROUNDED BY MASSIVE GREEN SPACE, WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY EXPECT THAT TO BE THE CASE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS TRY TO ANALYZE THE APPRAISAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARKET ASSESSMENT. LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ANALYSES, BUT THEY ACTUALLY GIVE YOU SIMILAR PERSPECTIVE ON VALUATION. SO I AGREE WITH YOU, IT'S NOT BY THE LAND USE OF IT, BUT THE BUILDING USE.

BUT ALL WE HAVE BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF USAGE. SO I THINK FROM A PRICE STANDPOINT, I'M COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT WE WILL RECOUP -- IF NOT ALL -- AGAIN, THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE WE COULD ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY OFF OF THIS. BUT WE COULD RECOUP IF NOT ALL A LARGE SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF OUR PURCHASE PRICE.

EVEN ASSUMING THAT WE DIDN'T, AND I'LL GO BACK TO OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION THAT 1, WE'RE DECIDING THIS NOT JUST BASED OFF OF MONEY, RIGHT? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO THIS. THE CITY'S JOB IS NOT TO MAKE MONEY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE CITY'S JOB IS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS AND DO WHAT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. NOT TODAY, NOT TOMORROW, BUT 50 YEARS FROM NOW. AND IF WE PLAY THIS OUT, I THINK MY BIGGEST CONCERN WOULD BE KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW. EVEN IF WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING -- I AGREE WITH YOU -- THEY COULD COME IN AND JUST DEVELOP THE WHOLE THING RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? WITH HAD TALKS AT STRATEGIC PLANNING.

WE ARE STILL HAVING ONGOING TALKS RIGHT NOW ABOUT REDISTRICTING SCHOOLS. THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE OVERBURDENING OF OUR SCHOOLS, OUR PARKS, AND I THINK YOU COULD EVEN SAY OUR FACILITIES.HATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. IF WE ARE TO DO NOTHING, WE COULD SIT BACK AND LET A DEVELOPER COME TO US AND SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GOT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT LIFTED. FINE.

BUT NOW WE'RE PLAYING THE WAITING GAME.

FINALLY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LAPSES AND THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS FINE, I'M JUST GOING TO DEVELOP IT ALL RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT, BUT I PERSONALLY DO.

ONE FROM A TAX BASIS AGAIN. WE'VE SEEN THAT AS A BEDROOM CITY. 20 OR 50 YEARS FROM NOW, THERE WILL BE HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES THAT WE ARE NOW TAXING AT A THREE PERCENT INCREASE RATE PER YEAR.

WE ARE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE FLATLINE FOR OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT -- STRATEGIC PLANNING. STRATEGIC PLANNING, WE DO IT FOR A REASON BECAUSE WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT LONG TERM.

I COMPLETELY RESPECT AND APPRECIATE YOUR HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE. THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT.

I THINK THEY HEAR AND BAKE SITUATION WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THEY ARE BASED SITUATION WAS ABOUT TRYING TO AVOID ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.PUTTING ASIDE THE LEGALITY OF WHETHER THAT AGREEMENT IS STILL BINDING OR WHETHER IT WAS RECORDED, WE CAN GO INTO THAT FOREVER. BUT THE POINT IS IS THAT AGREEMENT WAS TO (INDISCERNIBLE) THE BENEFIT OF THE HERON BAY RESIDENTS. WCI ENTERED INTO THAT ANNEXATION SAYING LOOK WE ARE GONNA BUILD ANYMORE.

BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO PROTECT THE CITY AND THE RESIDENCE FROM SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WANT.

BUT HERON BAY IS HERE TELLING US NOW, AT LEAST BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF THE SURVEY, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS DO ONCE IN FACT TO SEE THE CITY TAKE SOME CONTROL AND HAVE EITHER A MIX OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, OR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER I THINK RELATIVE TO THE SURVEY WOULD BE OKAY WITH JUST COMMERCIAL. SO WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOT JUST FINANCIALLY, BUT ALSO WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING US FOR. AND PERSONALLY THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO ME. THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF PURCHASING IT. IT MAY HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO WHAT TO DO WITH THE LAND AFTER THE PURCHASE, AND THAT'S OKAY. FOR THE VAST MAJORITY, I THINK PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT WE ARE IN ONE OF THOSE CROSSROADS.

THAT THE CITY HAS COME TO IN MANY DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY. YOU EITHER GO LEFT OR YOU GO RIGHT. IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL. WE CAN'T SAY WHICH WAY IS GOING TO BE BEST. BUT I THINK WE CAN SAY THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PAST WHERE THEY WENT IN THE DIRECTION WHERE THEY DELEGATED THE CONTROL.

OR THEY LET SOMEONE ELSE TAKE OVER THE REINS AND YOU KNOW, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, WE ARE WHO WE ARE BECAUSE OF IT.

AND I DON'T THINK EVERY DECISION WHERE SOMEONE HAS DELEGATED THEIR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN CONTROL, I GET IT, WE ARE NOT A DEVELOPER. WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SPECULATING. BUT WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF PROTECTING THE CITY. AND THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY THAT I DON'T KNOW, OTHER THAN HENDRIX FARMS, WHEN WE WILL EVER GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO START DISCUSSING WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO A 65 ACRES IN THE CITY. WE TALK ABOUT GREEN SPACE.

UP TO GO BACK TO OUR LAST CONVERSATION WE WERE ASKING BETWEEN COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.

I LOVE THAT THE MARKET ANALYSIS STILL (INDISCERNIBLE) THE POTENTIAL OF A GREEN PARK. I THINK IF WE WERE TO ALLOW A

[01:55:02]

BUT IF WE PURCHASE IT, WE GET TO DICTATE HOWEVER MUCH OF THE LAND WE WANT TO MAINTAIN AS A PART.

GUESS WHAT? WE BOUGHT 36 ACRES FOR A PARK.

I DON'T RECALL -- I WAS IN HERE, BUT AT LEAST IN THE SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS, I DON'T RECALL HEARING SO MUCH OF A FIGHT OVER ARE WE REALLY COMFORTABLE SPENDING THAT KIND OF MONEY? WE TOOK OUT A $20 MILLION LOAN.

THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY THE LOAN. YES, WE ARE FINANCIALLY SOUND TODAY. WE EXPECT TO BE ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS. BUT WE KNEW BY TAKING OUT THAT LOAN THERE IS A RISK. BUT WE ARE DOING IT FOR THE REWARD. THE REWARD WAS ESTABLISHING MORE GREEN SPACE AND MORE PARKS AND PARKLAND TO PROTECT IT FROM BECOMING OVERDEVELOPED. WHICH IN TURN WAS GOING TO CREATE A HIGHER BURDEN ON OUR CITY AND ITS INFRASTRUCTURE.

FOR ME I THINK A PARK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THIS.

EVEN IF WE HAVE TO PAY FOR 300,000 SQUARE FEET OR WHATEVER THE ULTIMATE NUMBERS GOING TO BE.

THERE IS A HUGE VALUE TO THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BUY LAND TO CONVERT INTO A PARK.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RISK, SITTING HERE TODAY, WE ARE NOT DECIDING TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT. WE ARE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS.

TO SIGN A CONTRACT THAT AGAIN, GIVES US A PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE A DECISION IN THE INTERIM OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WISH TO CLOSE ON THE DEAL OR NOT. AND IF WE DON'T WANT TO CLOSE ON THE DEAL, WE SAY SO FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, AND WE DON'T LOSE THE THING. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY. THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO DELVE A LITTLE DEEPER INTO.

THERE WERE NO REAL SOIL STUDIES DONE, WHICH I KNOW IS A SHORT TIME PERIOD. BUT THE ARSENIC IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN.THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP WITH OTHER GOLF COURSES THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED.

I LIKE TO GET A LITTLE MORE COMFORT LEVEL ON THAT.

ASK IVY, I THINK THAT COULD BE PART OF OUR 60 DAY --.

>> I AGREE. >> YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE DECIDE NEXT WEEK TO SIGN THE CONTRACT, WE STILL HAVE 60 DAYS TO CONTINUE OUR DUE DILIGENCE. AS FAR AS PHASE II OR WHATEVER ELSE WE DECIDE TO DO. YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING, BOB? I HATE TO BE A PAIN, BUT IT'S VERY ANNOYING FOR ME TO TALK TO YOU GUYS IN THE MIDDLE. DO YOU MIND IF I GO DOWN THERE FOR A FEW MINUTES?> PLEASE!

[LAUGHTER] >> WHILE THE MAYORS DOING THAT, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE IGOT AN UPDATE WHILE I WAS HERE. I DID GET AN EMAIL FROM THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE INDIVIDUALS WHO I MET WITH ON FRIDAY , CONFIRMING THAT HE SAYS WE INTEND TO DROP A LAWSUIT AGAINST SID SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. SO PREDICAMENT AS WE WERE SPEAKING TONIGHT. JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT TO

ALL. >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD. >> THANK YOU VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER.

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME -- I LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU GUYS.

I KNOW AT A WORKSHOP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING A TABLE HERE AND MAKING IT A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS. BECAUSE UP THERE IT IS HARD.

I'M LOOKING OVER HERE AND I JUST WANT EVERYBODY -- ALL OF US TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EACH OTHER.

LOOK, I WANT TO START BY THANKING EVERYBODY FOR HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. STAFF HAS WORKED VERY HARD.

HOA, CORAL SPRINGS. WE'VE ALL BEEN WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY OF PARKLAND. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE NEED TO CONSIDER. AND EVERYBODY, WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT IT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE. A LOT OF TIMES, WE TALK ABOUT I WISH WE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT. I WISH WE WOULD ABOUT THAT.

I WISH WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS. YOU KNOW, I WISH WE SHOULD'VE -- I WISH WE SHOULD'VE. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW TO ACTUALLY DO THAT.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY RISKS THAT WE ARE TAKING IN DOING THAT.

IT'S NOT RISK-FREE. YES, WE HAVE CONTROLS.

WE CAN ABSOLUTELY STOP COMMERCIAL.

THAT IS OUR CONTROL. HOWEVER, RESIDENTIAL WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT TO STOP. WILL WE BE ABLE TO? MAYBE WILL BE ABLE TO LIMIT HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS THERE ARE, BUT THERE WILL BE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

CORAL SPRINGS HAS BEEN, THUS FAR, AND I'M SURE THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE A GREAT PARTNER IN THIS PROCESS.

[02:00:05]

THAT SOMETHING MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT PARKLAND WANTS. AND LOOK, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.

AND I WOULD DO THE SAME THING IF I WAS ON THE CORAL SPRINGS COMMISSION. WHAT WILL THEY DO? WE DON'T KNOW. THEY HAVE AGREED AS A COMMISSION TO WORK WITH US ON A COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT BENEFITS BOTH CITIES. WE'VE TALKED IN STRATEGIC PLANNING. WE'VE ALL AGREED WE NEED SOME TYPE OF COMMERCIAL. I THINK WE ARE ALL RELATIVELY CLOSE AND WHAT THAT SOME TYPE OF COMMERCIAL IS.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME OF US WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN OTHERS? WHATEVER. BUT LOOK, NSID WENT THROUGH TO RFP PROCESSES. THE FIRST PROCESS RECEIVED THREE BIDDERS. TWO BIDDERS WERE IN THE $20 MILLION RANGE -- EAST COAST BEING AT 20 MILLION, WHICH WAS THEIR ORIGINAL. UPPER BUENA VISTA WAS IN THE UPPER -- I THINK IT WAS 26 MILLION, WHATEVER THAT WAS.

555 WAS OVER 30 MILLION.I THINK WE ALL AGREE 555 WAS TOO MUCH COMMERCIAL. SO WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NSID, THEY ENDED UP PICKING UP HER POINT OF VISTA BECAUSE THAT SEEM TO BE MORE PARKLAND LIKE. IT HAD MORE GREENERY.

IT WAS LESS DENSE COMMERCIAL. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH AS PARKLAND RESIDENTS.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS DIDN'T GO THROUGH.

WE DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS DID NOT GO THROUGH. NSID GOES THROUGH ANOTHER RFP PROCESS. AGAIN, GARNERING THREE PROPOSALS. 38 MILLION FROM THE FALCONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED 400 APARTMENTS ON THE CORAL SPRINGS SOUTHSIDE. A COMMERCIAL AND SOME RESIDENTIAL ON THE DOGLEG. THEN THEY GOT A PROPOSAL FROM TOLL BROTHERS. WHICH ARE ORIGINALLY THERE COMMERCIAL WAS GOOD. IT WAS 175,000 SQUARE FEET.

PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE TOO MUCH OF A CONCRETE JUNGLE. THERE WAS TOO MUCH OF A STRIP MALL. WHICH I BELIEVE PARKLAND NEEDS A TOWN CENTER. IT NEEDS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RESIDENTS AT A PLACE FOR US TO COME TOGETHER.EAST COAST WAS THE THIRD BIDDER. THEY BID 20 MILLION.

THEY BUILD W BID 700,000 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL SPACE WHICH NOBODY WANTED. DURING THE NSID PROCESS, WE ASKED FOR APPLAUSE FROM NSID AND THEY OBLIGED BY GIVING US THAT PAUSE. WE GOT A COUPLE EXTRA MODIFICATIONS OF THOSE SITE PLANS.

TO YOUR POINT, BOTH OF YOU WHO BROUGHT UP PARK SPACE.

THERE WAS A SECOND PROPOSAL THAT HAD FIVE ACRES OF PARK SPACE IN THE CENTER OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND TO COME TOGETHER, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SHOPPER YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO RESTAURANTS, WHATEVER IT IS, IT GAVE THE RESIDENTS A PLACE TO GO AND BE TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT SMALL TOWN FEEL IN THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

I BELIEVE IN ALL THAT, JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO, COMMISSIONER BRIER. AND HE SAID ALL THE TIME.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL.

IT'S WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL DO WE HAVE? WHAT ARE WE DOING TO BE SMALL-TOWN? WHAT WE DO TO BE SMALL TOWN IS BRING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER.

FIND PLACES TO BRING US TOGETHER WITH FARMERS MARKETS.

WE HAVE EATS AND BEATS. WE HAVE RECREATIONAL SPORTS.

EVERYTHING WE DO AS A COMMISSION -- AND WE DO IT FANTASTICALLY -- THE STAFF -- WE BRING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER. THIS IS 100 PERCENT THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOT ONLY FOR US TO BRING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER, BUT 100 PERCENT CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THAT. WE CAN THEN COME UP WITH OUR BRD CODES, WHICH WE STARTED. I KNOW MR. AVELLA WAS HERE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STOP WE STARTED THE PROCESS.

WE GOT SIDETRACKED. AND WE GOT OFF TRACK.

WE NEVER FINISHED THAT BRD. THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO.

WE NEED TO DO THAT BEFORE WE PICK A DEVELOPER.

[02:05:01]

WE WANT TO PLAN. WE WANT TO DICTATE WHAT OUR FUTURE WILL BE. WE DON'T WANT A DEVELOPER TO COME TO US AND SAY LOOK, THIS IS WHAT I GOT.

YOU LIKE IT? WE DON'T KNOW.

SO WE NEED THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THAT TIME TO DO THAT.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT. SO WE TALK ABOUT THE MARKET (INDISCERNIBLE) APPRAISAL, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. IT'S FUNNY, OBVIOUSLY I READ FACEBOOK QUITE OFTEN. I TRY NOT TO REPLY, BUT I DO! AND YOU GET A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

SOMEBODY POSTED, WELL, YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT ON DEVELOPMENT OR REAL ESTATE. NO, I'M NOT.

BUT WE HIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE. WE ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE CODE THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE.

SO YES, I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN COMMERCIAL OR REAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, BUT I'M GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CODE. I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, YET WE PICK DSO OR OUR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT OR WHAT WE DECIDE TO DO. I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN FIREFIGHTING, YET WE ARE THE ONES WHO PICK OUR CONTRACTOR.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, YET WE PICK A WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE STAFF FOR.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONSULTANTS. E HAVE THEM TO HELP US GET THE INFORMATION TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR RESIDENTS. OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED TO TALK TO OUR RESIDENTS. WE NEED TO LISTEN TO WHAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE SAYING. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAD TO DO WITH THE RESIDENTS WANT, BUT THAT'S WE WORK FOR.

I DON'T WORK FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT THOSE WHO, WHETHER YOU VOTE FOR ME OR AGAINST ME, IT'S IRRELEVANT.

THAT'S WHO I WORK FOR. SO I HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THIS PROCESS SO FAR WITH STAFF. WE GOT VERY CLOSE TO NEGOTIATING A FINAL DEAL WITH THE HOA.I UNDERSTAND THE RESERVATIONS OF PAYING YOUR RESIDENCE.

THERE IS A VALUE TO THAT LAND. WHAT THAT VALUE, CAN BE ARGUED.

BUT WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO FINALIZING, REMOVING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, GAINING THE EASEMENT.

GAINING THE TRUST OF THE HERE AND A RESIDENCE.

IF WE DON'T MAKE THIS MOVE? WE ARE GOING TO LOSE THAT TRUST. A NEW DEVELOPER HAS TO COME IN AND RESTART THAT PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.

IS IT GOING TO BE EASIER OR HARDER? THAT'S JUST A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

NSID'S CONTRACT. IT'S BEEN A (SIGHING) IT'S BEEN AN EFFORT. LOOK, I APPRECIATE THAT A ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN'T FORGET IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 65 ACRES. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 220 ACRES. REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS BOAT OR WHAT GETS BUILT THERE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE TO ALL SIT BACK AND JUST, AT SOME POINT, REMEMBER 150 ACRES IS GOING TO BE A MAGNIFICENT PARK.

THERE WILL BE SOME GROWING PAINS.

IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE A GOLF COURSE.

I UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS OF HERON BAY ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH THAT PROCESS UNTIL IT ULTIMATELY TRANSFORMS FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY TO WHAT IT IS. I DON'T WANT TO GET TO SIDETRACKED IN THAT PROCESS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED TO DELVE INTO THAT. BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE TOPIC.

O WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 65 ACRES.

WHAT ARE BEGIN TO DO WITH THE 65 ACRES? LOOK, AGAIN, IT COMES DOWN TO WHO WANTS TO DICTATE WHAT WE WANT TO DO? THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY, BY BUYING THIS LAND AND REALLY SITTING DOWN AND DECIDE WHAT DO WE WANT PARKLAND TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE? IT'S 100 PERCENT FOR US TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.ECAUSE IF WE BUY IT, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES, WE MAKE THE BRD, WE MAKE THE CODE. WE DETERMINED ARCHITECTURE.

WE DETERMINE SIZE. WE DETERMINE QUANTITY.

WE DETERMINE EVERYTHING. HOW MUCH PARK SPACE DO WE WANT? WHAT TYPE OF FACILITIES DO WE WANT THERE? IT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE EXACTLY THAT.

IF WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DEVELOPER IS GOING TO COME IN.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S EAST COAST, TOLL BROTHERS

[02:10:02]

I JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND BUILD RESIDENTIAL.

SURE, WE CAN CONTROL THAT TO SOME DEGREE.

BUT WE CANNOT DENY THERE WILL BE SOME RESIDENTIAL THERE.

WHETHER IT'S 100 UNITS, 200 UNITS, 400 UNITS -- WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, THE NUMBER WILL BE.

CORAL SPRINGS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. AND WHAT THEY DO, 100 PERCENT DIRECTLY IMPACTS OUR CITY. AND WE HAVE ZERO CONTROL OF WHAT THEY CAN DO. SURE, WE CAN CALL IT MAYOR BROOKE AND (NAME) AND VICE MAYOR SIMMONS AND SAY HEY, GUYS, DON'T DO THAT! THEY HAVE TO DO WHAT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. I WOULDN'T BLAME THEM.

IN FACT, I WOULD BE UPSET IF THEY DIDN'T DO WHAT WAS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.HEY WORK FOR THEIR RESIDENCE AND WE WORK FOR OUR RESIDENTS. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE IF NOTHING, WE HAVE ALL SHOWN OUR LOVE FOR THE CITY. WE HAVE ALL SHOWN HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE OUR JOBS. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DO THIS PART-TIME. WE DON'T DO THIS A COUPLE MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING. WE DECIDE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. WE LIVE THIS, WE BREATHE IT DAY IN AND AY OUT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I CANNOT THINK OF FOR BETTER PEOPLE TO WORK WITH.

I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT STAFF, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE FANTASTIC TOO. YOU KNOW THAT.

SO YOU KNOW, IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO CHECK MY NOTES.

MAKE SURE I HIT EVERYTHING. I'M PRETTY SURE I DID.

YEAH, I DID. LOOK AT THAT!

I'M BETTER THAN I THOUGHT! >> A LITTLE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES (LAUGHING).

[LAUGHTER] >> THERE WAS NO CLOCK.

YOU'RE LUCKY I DIDN'T TAKE THE MICROPHONE AND START WALKING AROUND! NO, I DO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS LETTING ME COME DOWN HERE. AT THE END OF THE NIGHT MY NECK IS LIKE DESKTOP LOOKING AT HIM -- (LAUGHING) IT CERTAINLY -- I'M CERTAINLY NOT COMPLAINING (LAUGHING) EVEN THOUGH I AM.

>> I JUST WANT TO, I GUESS, EMPHASIZE IS THAT HEARING THIS DISCUSSION, WE DEFINITELY ALL GENUINELY CARE ABOUT THE CITY.

WE WOULDN'T BE UP HERE IF WE DIDN'T.

THE THING THAT WE DISAGREE UPON IS HOW TO GET THERE.

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS STATED, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE. YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAD A CRYSTAL BALL IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER. BUT HAVING SERVED FOR FIVE YEARS ON PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, AND SEEING DEVELOPERS COME IN, MAKE REQUESTS -- I REMEMBER CENTERLINE HOMES CAME TO PARKLAND RESERVE AND SAID HERE'S WHAT WE WANT.

WE TURNED AROUND AND SAID NOPE, GO BACK HOME AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE. SO WE'VE HAD THATOPPORTUNITY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT , YOU KNOW, AS COMMISSIONER BRIER HAD MENTIONED, IS THAT IF WE ARE WILLING TO LOOK AT OUR CODE AND SEE WHAT WE CAN ACCEPT. I MEAN, MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD TROUBLE WITH IS WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH ALREADY A ZONING THAT IS DESIGNATED. SO WHETHER IT'S THREE UNITS TO THE ACRE, THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT DESIGNATION.

NOW WE TRY TO NEGOTIATE HOW MANY HOMES TO PUT THERE OR NOT.

CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, THIS IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL ONE.

WHAT IS IT, ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRES?

ANTHONY? >> IT'S ACTUALLY LESS THAN THAT. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED IS NOT PERMITTED.

THE ONLY THING THAT'S PERMITTED IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

ACCESSORY TO LIKE AGRICULTURAL USE.

THEY WOULD NEED TO REZONE. FOR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THEY NEED TO RESULT. AS WE WENT THROUGH NOT ONLY WITH ANTHONY, BUT WHEN ANDY WAS HERE, THE PYRAMID? THAT'S IT YOUR HIGHEST LEVEL. THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE ABLE TO

NEGOTIATE. >> IS THE REZONING AT THE

HIGHEST LEVEL? >> THE LAND-USE.F THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM COMMERCIAL.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND.> WE COULD SAY NO? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S --

>> WE COULD TURN AROUND AND SAY IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE.

AND NOT REZONE IT. >> WELL -- IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA -- MY POINT IS IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA, IT'S HARDER --. I DON'T DISAGREE.

COMMISSIONER BRIER WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE HE SAID WHEN I WAS ON HERE, I KEEP HEARING HOW WE HAVE LIMITED ABILITIES, THE BERT HARRIS ACT. THAT RESIDENTIAL IS EXACTLY

[02:15:02]

MORE -- >> I GUESS MY POINT IS SIMILAR TO THE CHARTER SCHOOL. THEY CAME IN AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IT WAS EITHER GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. SO QUASI JUDICIAL.

THEY CAME IN.E SAT HERE AS JUDGE AND JURY.

KEN KNOWS BECAUSE WE WERE UP HERE UNTIL WHAT? 3:00 IN THE MORNING. AND IT WAS A MATTER OF THAT THEY WENT THROUGH TRAFFIC MITIGATION.

THEY WERE EVEN WILLING TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO PAY WHATEVER COSTS IT WOULD BE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC.

WE WILL LISTEN TO YOU ABOUT -- WE SAID YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE SPACE FOR STACKING.

NO PROBLEM, WE'LL DO THAT. YOU GOTTA HAVE MORE THIS.

NO PROBLEM, WILL DO THAT. EVERYTHING WE ASKED FOR WE GOT.

>> BECAUSE ONCE THEY MEET THAT CRITERIA -- THE PROCESS OF MITIGATION FOR TRAFFIC AND SAY NO, ALL WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO IS PAY OUR FAIR SHARE AND THAT WAS IT.

I KIND OF HAVE TO LAUGH WHEN I SAY GATOR ACRES.

BRIAN TUTTLE OFFERED US HALF A MILLION AND I SAID I'M VOTING NO AND HE SAID HERE'S HALF A MILLION ANYWAY (LAUGHING).

>> BUT WE DON'T LOSE ANY OF THAT BY OWNING IT.

>> WE DON'T LOSE ANY OF IT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT I LOOK AT. FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT NSID IS GOING TO CHARGE FOR INTERCONNECTS.

THAT'S GOTTA COME OUT OF SOMEBODY'S POCKET.

IT'S EITHER COMING OUT OF THE COST UPFRONT TO BUY IT.

IF WE ARE SELLING IT, SUMMON IS GOOD TO SAY HEY I CALLED UP NSID AND THEY WANT $14 MILLION FOR THE INTERCONNECTS.

I WAS PLANNING ON DOING THIS PWORK AND HERE'S WHAT MY ESTIMATED COST IS. THERE ARE THOSE THINGS IN THEIR -- BROWARD COUNTY. I LOOK AT WE'VE NARROWED IT DOWN, WE ARE ASKING FOR EASEMENTS AND WE ARE GETTING AT A CERTAIN AREA. WE ARE TAKING THAT ABILITY TO -- MAYBE THOSE EASEMENTS DON'T WORK OUT? MAYBE IF WE WANT IT, A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS I HAVE A BETTER IDEA. INSTEAD OF HAVING AN EASEMENT OVER HERE LET'S HAVE OVER HERE. MAYBE THE COUNTY TURNS AROUND AND SAYS YOU KNOW WHAT? LET'S HAVE THE EASEMENT IN HERE OR LET'S PUT A ROUNDABOUT, OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

I HAVE NO CLUE. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ONCE WE START TO DRILL DOWN -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY GET INTO THE WEEDS, BUT GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE WANT, WE THEN ELIMINATE ANY ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE OR PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE COULD SAY TO SOMEBODY THIS IS GREAT THAT THEY GIVE IT TO US. YOU KNOW WHAT, WE KIND OF LIKE IT BUT IF YOU TWEAK IT HERE IT'LL BE OKAY.

WE -- I SAY (INDISCERNIBLE) WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A VISION OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE LAND AT THIS POINT.

SO WE ARE BUYING SOMETHING THAT YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL. YEAH, WE CAN HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL OR SOME MIXED USE -- I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, TAKE IT OVER AND CREATE A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE.

THAT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOME POINT.

>> THAT WAS MY POINT ABOUT US TAKING THE TIME AND CREATING THAT VISION BEFORE WE ARE FORCED TO LOOK AT SOMEBODY

ELSE'S VISION. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT.

RATHER THAN US OWNING IT, CREATING OUR VISION, AND FINDING SOMEBODY TO MAKE IT. AS OPPOSED TO NOT BUYING IT, HAVE A DEVELOPER COMING IN AND TELLING US HERE IS MY VISION, IS THIS GOOD? TAKE THIS, ADD THAT AND NO, WE LIKE THOSE. HER NO, SCRAP IT ALTOGETHER.

> THAT STILL DOESN'T PROHIBIT US FROM DOING THAT WITH THE DEVELOPER.EVEN IF WE DON'T BUY IT, THEY JUST PUT DOWN THEIR PROJECTED VISIONS. HAT'S ALL THEY OFFERED.

HERE'S A PROJECTED VISION, HERE'S WHAT I PAID FOR IT.

IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT US FROM GOING AND TALKING TO DEVELOPERS AND OTHER PEOPLE AND GETTING AN EXPERT IN THE MATTER AND DISCUSSING WHAT WE WANT TO DO. AND SAY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE? I GOING BACK TO THAT DEVELOPER AND SING HEY, HERE'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO. ARE YOU GUYS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH US? AND THEY MAY SAY NO.

THEY MAY SAY HEY, SURE. IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

YOU WERE TELLING US WHAT TO DO, IT MAKES LIFE EASY.

>> OR THEY MAY SAY NO, WILL JUST GO TO RESIDENTIAL.

>> RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF LIPS.

I BELIEVE THAT WITH STAFF IN THIS COMMISSION, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. WITHOUT PAYING THE $25 MILLION.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, TO THE POINT WITH THE HOA, I THINK AGAIN, THEY HAVE MORE LEVERAGE NOT BEING PART OF THIS.

AND AGAIN, FORGET ABOUT THE TIME CONSUMPTION OR WHATEVER.

BUT THEY HAVE MORE LEVERAGE BY GOING TO THAT DEVELOPER AND SING HEY, WE WANT $5 MILLION FOR THE EASEMENTS.

THEY ARE ON A CLOCK THOUGH. THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM.

ECAUSE AT THE END OF THAT FIVE YEARS, THE COVENANTS RUN

[02:20:01]

OUT. >> BUT NOT THE EASEMENT.

>> RIGHT. >> AGAIN, HOA --

>> THE HOA COULD SAY HEY, IT'S $5 MILLION IF YOU WANT TO CROSS

THIS LINE. >> AND THEY PUT FAITH IN US AS A WILLING PARTNER IN THIS JUNCTURE.

>> WE STRIVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY TO GET EASEMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ROADWAY.

I MEAN, THEY STILL HAVE SWALES OR WHATEVER SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THEM AS WELL. AND THAT'S A LONG PROCESS.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN -- I STATED MY OPINION BEFORE.

I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO IT. BUT AGAIN, I'M JUST VERY -- I GUESS PLEASED WITH THE WAY THAT THIS PROCESS IS GOING ON.

I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN COLLEGIAL.

I THINK, AGAIN, YOU KNOW STAFF, HOA.

EVEN THE RESIDENTS. I'VE GOT TONS OF EMAILS OVER THE LAST 24 HOURS. I RESPONDED BACK.

SOME WERE LIKE I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOU. THAT'S OKAY.

>> NO, 100 PERCENT. >> THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS.

>> I JUST WANT TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS SO I UNDERSTAND.

IS IT THE MAJORITY FINANCIAL OUTLAY? OR IS IT MORE ABOUT CONCERN OVER WE DON'T HAVE A VISION YET

FOR WHAT IT'S GONNA BE? >> IT'S A MIXTURE -- LOOK WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BY NEXT WEEK.

WE DON'T HAVE A VISION. WE HAVE NO CLUE -- WE HAVE SOME IDEAS BUT NOTHING CONCRETE WITH WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

HAT'S NUMBER 1. MOST OF THE TIME, AND I'VE SPOKEN TO OTHER ATTORNEYS. I'VE SPOKEN TO OTHER CITY MANAGERS. I'VE SPOKEN TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS IN BROWARD COUNTY.

MOST OF THE TIME, WHEN HIS CITY ENDS UP BUYING LAND, THEY HAVE A VISION FOR IT. THEY BASICALLY WRAPPED UP THE DEAL BEFORE THEY PURCHASED IT. MOST OF IT IS ON ABID -- PEMBROKE PINES HAS PURCHASED A LOT OF -- ACTUALLY TWO PROPERTIES. THINK THEY PURCHASED THE POST OFFICE AND THEY PURCHASED SOME INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT I KNOW OF.

IF THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GOING WITH.

SO THEY HAD THE DEVELOPER IN LINE.

THEY WENT TO THE DEVELOPER AND SAID HERE WE JUST PURCHASED IT FOR 13 MILLION. WILL GIVE IT TO YOU FOR 16.

IT WAS ABOUT MAKING $25 MILLION ON IT.

WERE THEY HAD A VISION THAT SAID HEY WE NEED MORE INVENTORY AND HELP US. WE WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING WITH THE POST OFFICE AND WE WANT 1000 HOMES -- TOWNHOMES.

HATEVER THEY MAY BE. APARTMENTS.

HERE'S WHAT VISION IS. WE GOT IT.

WE SPOKE TO A DEVELOPER.E GOT THE DEAL.

-- >> SO I AGREE WITH YOU SITTING HERE TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEFINED VISION SO TO SPEAK.

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT I THINK WE ALL GOT PRETTY CLOSE TO ACKNOWLEDGING WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME FORM OF CITY CENTER THAT HAS AN ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL FOR THE REASONS OF NOT ONLY TAX BASE BUT ALSO THE RESIDENT SEEMED TO BE DEMANDING IT. LET ME ASK YOU A DIFFERENT WAY: DO YOU LIKE THE VISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY TOLL AND

EAST COAST BUILDERS? >> ARE NOT OBJECTIONABLE TO

THEM. >> OKAY.

THEN YOUR POSITION THAT IS MORE THE FEAR OF THE MONETARY OUTLAY? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO BUILD, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE CONCERN OF

WHAT'S GONNA GO THERE? >> AGAIN, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THE 675,000 SQUARE-FOOT, WHICH AGAIN, EAST COAST INITIALLY PROPOSED. BUT YOU'VE GOT TWO PROPOSALS.

ONE IS 110 UNITS, ONE IS 80 UNITS, ONE IS 265, I THINK WE.

>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT, IF WE GO DOWN EITHER THOSE PATHS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO REZONE CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF LAND FOR COMMERCIAL? ONCE YOU REZONE THAT YOU LOSE CONTROL FOR WHAT COMMERCIAL GOES EXCEPT FOR WHAT THE CODE

PROHIBITS. >> THAT IF YOU CREATED DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT -- IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE JUST REZONING AND SING HERE'S COMMERCIAL.

YOU TURN AROUND AND GO HERE'S WHAT'S COMMERCIAL, HERE'S WHAT WE ARE ALLOWING YOU TO DO. HERE'S WHAT'S PROHIBITED.

HERE'S WHAT WE WANT, HERE'S WHAT WE DON'T WANT.

PSALM THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT. WITH ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY.

>> THAT'S CATEGORICALLY. YOU COULD SAY HERE'S WHAT WE WANT -- WE WANT A RESTAURANT, RIGHT? WE CAN'T SAY DELVE INTO THE MORE SPECIFICS, RIGHT?

AGREE? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S MY ROLE TO DELVE INTO SAYING YOU KNOW WHAT? I LIKE TO HAVE A MCDONALD'S HERE WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH.

OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO A LOOSE PECAN HOSE.

>> BURGER KING! >> WENDY'S! EXCEPT PERSON COULD BE HERE TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW.

>> RIGHT, BUT THAT COULD HAPPEN EITHER WAY.

WHETHER WE BUY IT OR NSID SELLS IT TO SOMEBODY.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A GREAT CHINESE RESTAURANT IN THE AREA.

>> YOU AND ME BOTH. >> AGAIN, I CAN'T (INDISCERNIBLE) DESK WHEN IT CLOSES THREE DAYS LATER.

>> IF WE BUY THE LAND, WE CAN STILL ENTER INTO A (INDISCERNIBLE) AGREEMENT. BUT WE ALSO (INDISCERNIBLE) FOR A DEVELOPER TO CIRCUMVENT ONE THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE A SAY AS TO WHAT IS THERE, WHAT WE WENT THERE.

[02:25:01]

IF WE DON'T WANT TO REZONE IT? FINE, IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL.

MY CONCERN IS GOING BACK TO HISTORICALLY, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN HERE.

DID YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF BUYING 36 ACRE (INDISCERNIBLE)?

>> 24 ACRES AND YES. >> OKAY.

THE PRICE WE TOOK OUT A LOAN OF $20 MILLION TO PURCHASE?

>> NO. WE PURCHASED --

>> EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPMENT. YOU ARE CORRECT.

MY POINT IS YOU NEVER EXPECTED TO RECOUP ANY OF THAT COST, DID

YOU? >> NO, BECAUSE THAT WAS PURPOSE FOR THE INTENT OF HAVING A PART.

>> SO WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE BUYING SOMETHING WITH THE INTENT OF SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUT WE ARE STANDING TO RECOUP IF NOT SOME IF NOT ALL MORE THAN ALL OF WHAT WE ARE SPENDING. WE WOULD RECOUP EVEN IF WE DON'T SELL IT FOR WHAT WE PAY FOR IT.

OVER TIME -- >> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TIE THE RATIONALE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE RATIONALE BUYING UP (INDISCERNIBLE) WAS GOING TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ROOM AND SPACE TO BUILD OUT OUR VISION. THEN WHAT IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN THAT AND SPENDING $25 MILLION FOR -- I BELIEVE HISTORICALLY WE'VE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE DEVELOPERS COME IN. BEEN IN A BETTER POSITION -- ANOTHER WORD SOMEBODY BOUGHT IT, THEY PAID SOMETHING FOR IT.

NOW THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT. THEY'VE GOT PARAMETERS, THEY'VE GOT ? -- I DON'T KNOW, 10 PERCENT, 12 PERCENT, 20 PERCENT -- FLEXIBLE. WE CAN THEN GO TO THEM LIKE WE'VE DONE DESK WHAT WAS IT, PARKLAND BAY ENDED UP PAYING WHATEVER IT WAS -- $6 MILLION TO BUILD A 24 CLASSROOM EDITION AT RIVER GLADES.HEY PAID THAT.

>> RIGHT. BUT WE COULD STILL NEGOTIATE FOR THOSE VERY THINGS EVEN IF -- FACTOR. YOU WANT TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE KIDS HAVE A PLACE IN SCHOOL.

THEREFORE, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

THEY SAID OKAY, WE WILL PAY FOR IT.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WE COULD STILL HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT, EVEN IF WE WERE THE LAND OWNER.

>> YOU COULD -- ABSOLUTELY. YOU COULD HAVE THAT RIGHT BUT I DON'T THINK A DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT IS GOING TO SAY FINE, YOU ARE HE SOLD IT TO US. WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION.

>> WELL, NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PURCHASE -- IF WE GO OUT TO AN RFP, LET'S SAY FOR INSTANCE --

>> RIGHT. >> -- ANY DEVELOPERS GOING TO KNOW YOU HAD TO BE MORE THAN 25 MILLION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT

PARKLAND PAID. >> RIGHT.

>> SO WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ASSET DEVELOPER -- HEY, BUILD US A SCHOOL OR BUILD US LIST. IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE THE MONEY THAT WE PUT INTO A GENERAL FUND TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT FOR SUPPER NOT ASKING A DEVELOPER TO DO

ANYTHING. >> WELL YOU ARE -- DEVELOP A PLAN BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY COME UP WITH.

HERE'S OUR PARAMETERS THAT WE SET OUT.

WE ARE TELLING YOU WE WANT COMMERCIAL.

WE ARE TELLING YOU WE ARE COMMERCIAL FRIENDLY OR BUSINESS FRIENDLY. WE ARE TELLING YOU WE WANT SOME RESIDENTIAL. WE PARTY TAKING CARE OF THE COVENANT. WE PARTY TAKING CARE OF THE EASEMENT. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MEET THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND PAY US MORE THAN 25 MILLION.HETHER WE GO OUT TO ONE DEVELOPER OR TWO DEVELOPERS, AND UNSOLICITED BID? HOWEVER THAT WORKS OUT -- THEN THERE IS NO SAYING WELL, WE WANT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO SCHOOL OR WE WANT A PARK. WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE MONEY GOES INTO A GENERAL FUND WE DO WHATEVER IT

IS WE DEEM NECESSARY. >> RIGHT.

JUERGEN HAVE TO GET MORE THAN THE 25 BECAUSE YOU HAVE HALF A

MILLION FOR HERON BAY. >> AGAIN, THE DEVELOPERS KNOW WHAT WE ARE PAYING.> YOU HAVE AND A HALF $1 MILLION FOR HERE AND VAPOR STOP YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL ONE ACRE THAT WE ARE DEEDING OVER TO HERON BAY --

>> IF WE GOT IT. >> -- AGAIN, THAT'S A COST.

>> THAT'S NOT A COST -- > NO BUT IT'S A CAUSE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO WITH ONE ACRE.

BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY JUST AS WELL.

WE HAVE LAND WE ARE SITTING ON DOING NOTHING WITH.

>> RIGHT. >> WE HAVE LAND THAT WE ARE

SITTING ON PRODUCING REVENUE. >> I JUST WANT TO GET ONE ISSUE CLARIFIED BECAUSE I WANT CLARIFICATION MYSELF.

I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WANTED ANTHONY TO CHIME IN.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT IF WE DO NOTHING AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LAPSES, THAT'S A BUT HE COULD COME IN HERE AND AUTOMATICALLY BUILD RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

>> NOT AUTOMATICALLY. >> WITHOUT (INDISCERNIBLE).

WE STILL HAVE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY?

>> CORRECT. PYET.

JORDAN, IF WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GET REZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND LAND USE AND REZONING FOR COMMERCIAL BOATS. SO THOSE ARE LEVERAGE PIECES WE CAN USE IN TERMS OF CURATING WHAT GOES THERE.

>> AGAIN, AS OPPOSED TO LEVERAGING SOMETHING WE DON'T

[02:30:11]

MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM TO DEVELOP SAID PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD IN MY OPINION AND TITLE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

>> I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN I SAY I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MONEY -- WHEN WE DECIDE WE WANT TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY AND WE'RE GOING TO PRESERVE A PORTION OF THE LAND FOR PARKS OR GREEN SPACE, I DON'T VIEW THAT AS A LOSS OF REVENUE.

I VIEW THAT AS WE ARE PAYING MUCH AS WE DID THE OTHER PART,

WE ARE THANKFUL PARKLAND. >> THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.>

RIGHT. >> THIS IS POTENTIALLY A PARK

THAT WILL GENERATE REVENUE. >> I WANT BOB TO FINISH.BUT THEN I WENT TO GIVE SOME ACTION ITEMS.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE) (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE).

I MEAN, I'M JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH JORDAN.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO IT PRIVATELY.

>> WE KNOW WHY -- I THINK I GET THE SENSE OF WHY (INDISCERNIBLE). MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS THE SCOPE. IT WASN'T THE PROJECT.

WHEN WE MET WITH THE HERON BAY RESIDENTS, THERE MIGHT'VE BEEN OTHER FACTORS TOO, BUT IT WAS ALSO THIS SCOPE.

WHEN WE SAY COMMERCIAL, IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE -- IS COMMERCIAL A RESTAURANT OR A MEGAMALL? IT ALL DEPENDS ON SIZE MATTERS. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE OF IT. THEDENSITY AND EVERYTHING.

>> CORRECT . >> THAT'S A BIG FACTOR.

I VIEW IT AS -- WE TALK ABOUT VISION FOR PROPERTY.

I THINK WE'VE GOT THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THIS PROCESS DESK WHAT WE ARE ENGAGING IN IT NOW.

WE'VE SEEN THOSE RFP RESPONSES COME IN.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD SENSE ESPECIALLY FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR ABUNDANT TOWN HALLS. THE MAYOR HAS ATTENDED, I'VE ATTENDED. I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT WE WANT OR WHAT WE THINK IS GOOD AND WHAT WE DON'T WANT.

DEFINITELY WHAT WE DON'T WANT, RIGHT? I THINK WEARE CULTIVATING THAT VISION .

ARE WE THERE YET? ADMITTEDLY, NO.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S ALL THAT HARD TO GET THERE.

I THINK THERE ARE PARAMETERS, AND THIS GOES TO YOUR ISSUE ABOUT MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER NOW.

I THINK WE CAN WORK ON PARALLEL PATHS.

I THINK WE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME.

I THINK WE CAN HAVE OUR P&Z FOLKS AND CONSULTANTS WORK ON A BRD THAT COULD HELP US. WE SHOULD START THE PROCESS RIGHT AWAY. OTHER CITIES HAVE THEIRS.

THERE'S NO REASON WE CAN GET A COMPREHENSIVE ONE.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE BEFORE WAS IT WAS BRD LIGHT.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S COMPREHENSIVE.

I THINK WE CAN WORK IN PARALLEL PATHS.

I ALSO THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT TONIGHT, WHAT ACTION ITEMS WE CAN GIVE TO STAFF. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT VOTING TONIGHT ON SIGNING A CONTRACT OR CLOSING ON A DEAL.

WE ARE VOTING ON GETTING TO THE NEXT STEP.

OR AT LEAST GIVING STAFF DIRECTION ON THE NEXT STEP.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO FRAME THAT -- THOSE POINTS ON WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IN ORDER TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, RIGHT?

>> I MEAN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS WORKSHOP.

THIS WORKSHOP IS -- WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE RIGHT ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE THE ANSWER TO BS.

AND SO --

>> I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE APPRECIATE DESK BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS OF OUR DIETS AND WE ARE NOT ABLE TO TALK.

WE JUST GOT A COMFORT LEVEL THAT YOU CAN ATTRACT FLIES WITH HONEY OR YOU CAN (LAUGHING) SWOTE THE FLIES.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN'T ATTRACT THEM WITH HONEY, WE ARE READY TO SWAT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STIFFEN OUR SPINES AND SAY IF WE CAN'T GET A DEAL DONE WHERE WE ARE TOTALLY IN THE DRIVER SEAT? WHEN SOMEBODY COMES TO US WITH LESS THAN A PALATABLE PLAN, THAT WE ARE READY TO SAY NO. THAT'S NOT FOR TONIGHT -- WHAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF (INDISCERNIBLE) PARKLAND IS PARKLAND BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE SAT ON THIS DAY AS BEFORE. PEOPLE HAVE SET ON PLANNING AND ZONING BEFORE. I BE WILLING TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? WERE NOT GOING TO BE WILLING TO LET IT GO HERE. IF YOU WANT TO SUE US, SUE US.

>> BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU JUST SAY NO.

>> AGREED. AGREED.

CLOSE TO WHAT WE WANT, BUT NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.

SO, YOU KNOW, TO SAY SPINE -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT OR WHAT YOUR IMPLICATIONS ARE BUT -- LOOK, WHEN THEY PRESENT SOMETHING -- MY POINT IS ARE WE GOING TO BE THE ONES DICTATING THE PROCESS? OR ARE WE GOING TO BE THE ONES ANSWERING TO THE PROCESS? WHETHER WE HAVE SPINES OR WHATEVER?GAIN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.

BUT WE ARE EITHER DICTATING THIS PROCESS OR WE ARE

ANSWERING. >> SOME OF THIS IS OUT OF OUR CONTROL. WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO NSID WITH WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE THE PARAMETERS -- CROSS

TALK] >> THAT'S WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE

[02:35:02]

YOU KNOW --

>> THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THAT NSID MAY SAY NO TO. THAT MAY MAKE A DECISION FOR US WITHOUT THE ONES MAKING THE DECISION.

>> AGREED. SO WHAT -- HAVEN'T HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT YET IS THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NSID HAS CARVED OUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LAND THAT THEY INTEND TO USE FOR THEIR DRAINAGE AND THEIR PARK AND OTHER STUFF.

THEY'VE PUT OUT THIS LAND FOR SALE, THAT'S PART OF THE DEAL THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. BUT THAT LEAVES OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY OUT THERE THAT ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR.

AND THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION, I THINK, FROM SOME OF THE TERMS THAT HERON BAY HAS BROUGHT FORTH ABOUT HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL COVENANTS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

HAVEN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, UNLESS WE GET IT IN THE CONTRACT ITSELF, THAT WE ARE GOING TO PREVENT NSID FROM GOING BACK OUT FOR ANOTHER RFP ON THOSE OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY.

AND EVEN THAT FOUR POINT WHATEVER NUMBER OF ACRES THEY'VE CARVED OUT, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES TO US AS SOMETHING THEY WANT TO BUILD.

>> I AGREE. ONE OF MY COMMENTS IS THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND TERMS IN THE HOA TERM SHEET THAT ARE NOT REFLECTIVE AS OF YET IN THE CONTRACT OR THE DRAFT CONTRACT WITH NSID. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THEY NEED TO BE IN HERE FOR US TO AGREE THERE. SO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

BEING ONE OF THEM. >> THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT?

>> ON THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY?

>> RIGHT, BUT THAT'S NSID'S PROPERTY.

>> BUT THE HOA COMES TO US AND SAYS WE WILL ENTER INTO THIS DEAL WITH YOU IF YOU HAVE A, B, C AND D. IN ONE OF THEM AS I READ THE TERM SHEET IS HAVING NSID SIGN OFF ON THE -- FROM US. AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING THAT

FROM ANOTHER DEVELOPER EITHER. >> I'M NOT SAYING RIGHT OR

WRONG. >> BUT I'M JUST SAYING -- SHEET AS IT EXISTS NOW WITH THE HOA.AND SO, IT'S GOTTA BE IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT AGREEMENT WITH THEM? IT'S GOTTA BE REFLECTED IN THE NSID.

>> WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE. THERE IS A TERM IN THE HOA STUFF THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER.

WHETHER NSID IS GOING TO DO THAT UNLESS WE CAN GET THEM TO AGREE TO PUT THAT IN THE CONTRACT.

WE'VE GOTTEN BACK FROM THEM THEIR REDLINE STOP.

IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE TERMS THAT ARE PART OF THE HOA THING.

SO WE ARE NOT MEETING MINDS HERE ON THIS DEAL AS WE SIT HERE TODAY. THESE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE STILL PENDING THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONCLUDED AS FAR AS ALL THE PARTIES ARE CONCERNED.

EXISTING TERM SHEET WITH HERON BAY HOA.

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY RAISED THAT PRESENTS A CHALLENGE FOR THE CITY. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT WE, THE CITY, WOULD GIVE THE HOA ONE ACRE OF THAT 4.157 ACRES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AT THE END OF WEST END.

THE WAY I WROTE IT WAS IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY RECEIVES THAT ONE ACRE FROM NSID, THAT IT COULD BE PROVIDED, IT CAME BACK TO US THAT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE ONE ACRE.

WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE HOA THE ONE ACRE.

THE CITY DOESN'T CURRENTLY OWN THE ONE ACRE TO GIVE AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY WRITTEN, BINDING COMMITMENTS THAT WE WILL GET THE ONE ACRE. SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGE THERE -- HOW CAN WE BIND OURSELVES TO GIVE THE HOA AND ACRE THAT WE DON'T HAVE? WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO TRANSFER? RIGHT?

SO THAT WAS THE FIRST. >> BUT WE ARE BEING TOLD BY NSID THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US THAT ACRE, RIGHT?

>> ANOTHER ACRE. >> JUST ONE ACRE.

>> OTHERS HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT NSID IS GOING TO GIVE US DESK WITH ONE OF THE THINGS ON MY LIST -- LET'S PUT THAT IN THE

CONTRACT. >> OKAY, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD NOT GO IN THE CONTRACT.

AND IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HOA IS OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS PROVIDING WE GET THE ONE ACRE OF LAND --.

> CONTINGENT. >> YES.

GIVE IT, WHY ARE THEY PUTTING IT IN THE CONTRACT?

[02:40:01]

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). BUT THAT BEING SAID, TO BOTH OF YOUR POINTS, THE HOA HAS CONCEDED, APPARENTLY NOT IN WRITING, THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE LANGUAGE CONTINGENT.

AND AS FAR AS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -- > RIGHT.

SO THE SECOND ITEM IS THAT THE HOA HAS REQUESTED THAT WE REQUIRE NSID TO PUT THE COVENANT ON THE REMAINING LAND THAT NSID OWNS ON THE GOLF COURSE THAT NSID WOULD PUT A COVENANT ON THEIR LAND FOR 30 YEAR PERIOD.

CONTINUE THE EXISTING COVENANT FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WE JUST GOT NO INDICATION FROM

NSID IF THEY AGREE TO THAT. >> OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. IF THEY WERE TO SELL IT AND TRY TO DEVELOP IT, THAT COMES BEFORE US.

>> TO HAVE A BASIS FOR WHY THEY WOULDN'T --?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LAND IS PART OF A BOND.

>> IF THEY TRIED TO SELL IT AND BUILD AND PARKLAND -- WOULDN'T -- THEY TRY TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL,

WOULDN'T IT COME BEFORE US? >> NOT THE SALE.

ASK NOT THE SALE. >> THEY COULD ARGUE THE SAME THING THEY ALWAYS ARGUE -- THAT THEY ARE A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND (INDISCERNIBLE).

ARGUMENT. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EASY GIVE WHEN I THOUGHT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THATLAND IS SUBJECT TO A 30 YEAR BOND AND THEY CAN ONLY USE IT FOR -- .

EXACTLY ACCURATE. ANTHONY, CAN YOU PLEASE --

EXPAND ON THAT ONE? >> THERE WERE BONDS ISSUED.

I'M NOT A BOND EXPERT OR MUNICIPAL FINANCE EXPERT.

THE BOND DOCUMENTS ARE QUITE EXTENSIVE THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THAT. SO I REVIEWED IT.BUT THERE'S ALSO THE ABILITY TO PREPAY THOSE FUNDS, AS I UNDERSTAND

IT. >> OKAY.

(INDISCERNIBLE) LOOKS LIKE THERE IS AN ABILITY TO REPAY

IT. >> MR. MAYOR, AFTER TWO AND HALF HOURS, BY 63-YEAR-OLD BLADDER IS REQUESTING A FIVE MINUTE RECESS!

[LAUGHTER] >> BY ALL MEANS!

>> THIS IS A MAXWELL COMMERCIAL BREAK!

[LAUGHTER] >> YOU WANT TO T

>> THIS GOES BACK TO THE WE TOO EVALUATION 1150 PER SQUARE FOOT MULTIPLE LIKE THAT BY THE THE A

USAGE? >> ?TRANSLATES. IF IT DOES WHAT WERE ASKING FOR

IS IMPOSSIBLE. >> IS ABOUT THE SAME THING? >> I DON'T THINK SO.

I DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T GIVE DETAILS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IN OTHER WORDS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SITE OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A COMMERCIAL THE I WANT TO KNOW THE FOOTPRINT. THEN WE WILL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON THAT.

I'M GOING TO PLAY INTO CONSIDERATION NOT JUST THE BUILDING, PARKING AND ALL THE I.

YOU KNOW IT'S NOT TRUE TO DO THE VALUATION BASED ON IT. >> THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY HAVE COMPS. NOBODY WANTS TO NOW AND BUY PARKING AREA. THAT HAS A VALUE. COMMIT 33 ACRES AND HAS 500,000 OF COMMERCIAL WITH THE PARKING AREA. THERE COMPS FOR REASON.

I WANT TO GET >> THAT'S WHY I'M ISN'T GONNA NECESSARILY BECAUSE YOU FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION. WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS PROBABLY A BETTER SITUATION BY ANALYSIS TOLD US? WE'RE BASICALLY NOT TAKING ANY TALK ABOUT.

[02:45:03]

>> LET HIM SPEAK. HE SAID IT'S NOT APPRAISAL. THIS IS NOT LAND.

>>. [INAUDIBLE] NO DEFINE PLAN OR PROGRAM OR

[03:02:59]

>> I HAVE ANOTHER BROAD MESSAGE ON THAT. THERE GIVING

[03:03:03]

[03:03:08]

WAY TO DO THAT IS THE SURVEY. >> WHY CAN WE PUT IN THE CONTRACT A PROVISION WHICH SAYS MS ID WILL GRANT AN ACRE OF

LAND SUBJECT TO DETERMINATION? >> I AGREE!

>> BASED ON THE SURVEY AND IT DOESN'T INTERFERE.

>> IS THE SAME WAY AS A STRUCTURE.

>> SAME THING AS THE BRIDGE? WE HAVE A COMMITMENT.

>> BASED ON THAT IT WOULD MAKE OUR CONTRACT DIFFERENT THAN

EAST COAST AND OR TOLL BRUSH. >> I DON'T CARE THAT OUR CONTRACT IS DIFFERENT OUR CONTRACT SHOULD BE BETTER. WE ARE A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. LET ME CHIME IN. WE WERE NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS. WE WERE OUTSIDE THE PROCESS AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AGAIN, I SPOKE WITH ANTHONY ON THIS AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS BUT FOR US, IF WE HAD AN RFP PROCESS WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN TO REMOVE AND THEN CONTINUE AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE WITH WHOEVER THEY WANT TO. THEY COULD TURN AROUND AT YOUR MEETING AND I UNDERSTAND THEY WANT TO LEVERAGE BACKUP BUT THEY COULD GO TO THEIR MEETING AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE ARE DETERMINING THE RFP PROCESS AND WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE CITY OF PARKLAND AND WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DON'T WANT TO -

>> IN CASE THIS DOESN'T GO THROUGH THEY WANT A BACKUP.

THEY COULD STILL DO THAT AND ROLL IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE

[03:05:02]

WANT. >> THAT'S WHY WERE GOING THROUGH THE SIGNED CONTRACTS AND IF WE HAVE A SIGNED

CONTRACT WE HAVE A CONTRACT. >> I DON'T THINK OUR CONTRACT HAS TO MIRROR - BECAUSE WE ARE OUT OF THE RFP PROCESS.

>> IT DOESN'T MIRROR IT ALREADY. OUR CONTRACT IS

ALREADY DIFFERENT. >> IT HAS TO MIRROR.

>> IT'S THE REDLINES. WE ASKED FOR THESE THINGS BEFORE AND WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS IS THE PROCESS. IN FACT, ROGER

SAID IT AGAIN. >> I APPRECIATE THE WHY IT ISN'T IN THERE NOW BUT IF WE ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT LOCATION, PLACEMENT, DOES IT INTERFERE? THERE COULD BE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SOLVE BOTH PROBLEMS. EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION. MY NEXT IS, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE HOA. WE NEED TO WORK ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THAT TERM SHEET AND IF THE HOA HAS A DEAL OR NOT WE WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM.

WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE PROPERTY AND I THINK WE DO WITHIN A 60 DAY WINDOW WHICH MAKES SENSE. AND AS ALREADY DISCUSSED WE WOULD WANT SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT IF WE WERE TO PURCHASE THE LAND, A LAWSUIT, THAT WE WILL NOT BECOME A PARTY TO OR BUYING OUR WAY INTO A LAWSUIT. WE NEED SOME SORT OF WRITTEN STIPULATION OR WHATEVER IT IS WITH THE PLAINTIFFS IN THAT ACTION THAT SAYS IF WE PURCHASE THE LAND WITH RESPECT TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND, THE CITY OF PARKLAND, GOES AWAY IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT US BEING LIABLE WHATSOEVER. NEXT WE COULD ASK SOMETHING MORE OFFICIAL. SELECT AN EMAIL FROM AN ATTORNEY. I'M AN ATTORNEY AND I WILL SAY MY CLIENT WILL DISMISS YOUR MY CLAIMS AGAINST YOU IS DIFFERENT THAN A DISMISSAL.

>> OKAY. WHATEVER. OKAY. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

>> WE NEED SOME SORT OF STIPULATION. AND THEN I THINK WE SHOULD START THE PROCESS OF PLANNING FOR OUR NEXT P&Z FOLKS, BECAUSE WHETHER WE DO IT NOW OR START THE PROCESS NOW, WE SHOULD WORK ON THAT IN FULL FORCE. I HAS I UNDERSTAND WE INTO FULLY ENGAGED THE CONSULTANT AND WE CAN CAN REALLY ENGAGE THAT CONSULTANT AND START GIVING THEM DIRECTIVE TO START WORKING ON THAT PROCESS. IF WE BUY THE PROPERTY OR NOT, WE NEED TO DO THIS.

>> OKAY, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I DON'T. I THINK SIMEON COVERED ALL OF MINE.

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS. A COUPLE OF THESE LOOK LIKE SOMETHING I WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEIR ATTORNEY ON GOOD I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. ON THE ASSIGNMENT LANGUAGE, IS THAT TO HAVE THEM CLEARLY IDENTIFY IF THE CITY WERE TO ASSIGN IT TO A NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, WHAT WITH THOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS BE THAT THEY COULD MODIFY IN THE ASSIGNMENT? RIGHT NOW IT SAYS INSURANCE.

>> I THINK IT IS VERY FAIR. IF WE HAVE IT ASSIGNED TO A NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR THERE WILL BE STIPULATIONS ON WHAT THEY WOULD NEED FOR EXAMPLE INSURANCE. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. IT WILL BE FREELY ASSIGNABLE AND SUBJECT TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IF THEY CAN ENUMERATE THEM THEN LET'S

ENUMERATE THEM. >> OKAY. THEN, WE ARE ASKING AND SID TO COMMIT LANGUAGE IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ONE ACRE? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DESCRIBE EXACTLY. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE 4.157 ACRES WE WILL BE GETTING BUT IT

PIS ONE ACRE. >> WE ARE CONTEMPLATING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HOA SAYING GIVE THEM AN ACRE OF LAND AND NOW THEY SAY IT'S CONTINGENT, THAT IS FINE.

AND NSID HAS TOLD US TONIGHT THAT WE CAN GIVE THE ONE ACRE OF LAND BUT IS SUBJECT TO A FULL SURVEY AND DETERMINING WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE ACRE IS SO THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE WITH THEIR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR STORMWATER RETENTION. I THANK YOU CAN SOLVE BOTH OF THOSE PROBLEMS PUTTING IN WHICH IN THERE SAYING NSID WILL GRANT AFTER A SURVEY IS DONE AND AS LONG AS THE LOCATION IS DETERMINED WON'T IMPEDE WITH THEIR STORMWATER RETENTION, AND ACRE

OF LAND. >> I WANT TO CLARIFY AND I'M NOT SURE I GOT EXACTLY FROM YOUR EMAIL MEETING THAT WE ARE

[03:10:03]

OR ANYONE ACRE SOMEWHERE? >> CORRECT, HIGH TRAILS IN.

>> IT IS AND WHAT THAT EXCLUDED LAND?

>> WHAT I GOT IS NOT DEFINED AS TO HER THAT ACRE IS. ALL I KNOW IS THAT NSID IS AGREEABLE TO TAKING THE LEAD GIVING ONE

ACRE SUBJECT TO A SURVEY. >> RIGHT. MY CONCERN IS ARE WE CARVING IT OUT OF THE 4.1? THE MAYOR IS SAYING YES.

>> WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT. >> WE COULD EASILY SAY, OUT OF THE EXCLUDED 4.1 ACRES, NSID WILL GRANT US AN ACRE ON TRAILS AND SUBJECT TO DETERMINING WHERE THAT IS DEPENDING ON SURVEY AND STORMWATER RETENTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. DOES HERON BAY HAVE AN AREA THEY WANT?

>> HERON BAY WANTS AN ACRE OF LAND AT THE END OF TRAILS AND SO THEY CAN MOBILIZE ALL OF THEIR SERVICE PROVIDER SO IT'S NOT COMING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. RIGHT NOW THEY DO THAT THERE AND THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THAT ABILITY AND THAT WOULD TAKE THEM OFF THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY WELL TUCKED IN THERE SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WANT ONE ACRE THEY DON'T CARE WHERE THE FOUR ACRES IS, AS LONG AS IT IS ACCESSIBLE BUT THEY WANTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THAT MAKES IT EVEN EASIER.

YOUR GOING TO GIVE US ONE OUT OF FOUR ACRES DEPENDING ON THE SURVEY AND STORM WATER RETENTION.

>> THE ONLY OTHER POINT THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS ON THE CORAL SPRINGS PARCEL, APPARENTLY NSID IS DOING THAT CARVEOUT?

>> THEY'VE ALREADY STIPULATED IS THAT IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO A FINAL DESIGN? I THOUGHT WE HAD

PUT THAT IN THERE. >> THE LANGUAGE I WOULD READ IS A PARTY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED A PORTION OF THE WOODED LAND COULD BE MADE AS A PARKING LOT IN THE FUTURE. THE SELLER AGREES TO NOT CONSTRUCT A PARK ATPARKING LOT UNTIL THE PURCHASER HAS DETERMINED THEIR SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY OR 24 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

>> SHOULD IT SAY SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD WORK INCONGRUENT?

>> YOU ARE THE ATTORNEY. >> THE WORRY IS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PARKING AREA THERE, IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE RIGHT SPOT AND THEY DON'T CARE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT EXACTLY WHERE IT IS BUT THE PARTY SHOULD WORK IN GOOD FAITH GATHERED TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> BUT,BUT IS THAT NOT WHAT IT

SAYS? >> IT DOES NOT SAY GOOD FAITH.

I THINK THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS REQUIRING BUT KEEP IN MIND IT DOES HAVE A 24 MONTH TIME PERIOD. IT MAY

TAKE LONGER THAN THAT. >> THEY ALSO NEED THE PARKING LOT? THE PRESERVE WILL BE READY?

>> I AM SPEAKING THAT OUT LOUD. THEY ARE GOING TO NEED THE PARKING LOT AND AT SOME POINT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO

DEVELOP A PARKING LOT. >> IF WE DRAG OUR HEELS AND WEWORK WITH THEM TO DETERMINE WHERE THE PARKING LOT SHOULD BE. WHAT'S MY CONCERN IS WE ARE CARVING OUT THE AREA WE ARE

NOT PURCHASING? >> NUMBER THAT AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY CARVED OUT IS NOT SET IN STONE. THEY ARE WILLING TO ALLOW A DEVELOPER IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH A PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPER TO SAY OKAY, LET'S DO THIS WITH THE

PARKING LOT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS IS A GIVE ON THEIR PART. WE JUST NEED A REASONABLE SPOT IN THE

PARKING LOT TO GET THROUGH. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT MY POINT IS, WHAT WE ARE BUYING IS WE ARE NOT BUYING THE WHOLE

PARCEL? >> CORRECT.

>> WERE ONLY BUYING WHAT IS CARVED OUT? I GO BACK TO ANTHONY AND I SAY ARE THEY GOING TO TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT'S NOT YOUR LAND THAT'S OUR LAND AND NOW WE ONE ANOTHER?

>> WE HAVE THE STIPULATION IN THEIR THAT'S WHY WE PUT IN

THERE. >> THE NOT THE WHOLE PARCEL

IT'S JUST WHAT WE ARE BUYING. >> ARE YOU WILLING TO UTILIZE

WHERE THE PARKING LOT GOES? >> NUMBER THIS IS CORAL SPRINGS CONCERN. THEY WANTED THAT WHOLE PARCEL. THEY WANTED TO CARVEOUT, HAVE THE ABILITY FROM A DEVELOPER TO CARVE OUT, LET'S JUST SAY AN ACRE. CARVE OUT WHERE EVER THEY SAW FIT IN AGREEMENT WITH NSID TO ACCESS IT.

>> THAT IS WHAT THE CLAUSE SAYS.

>> WE ARE NOT PURCHASING ALL OF THAT LAND.

>> CORRECT. >> SO WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE SELLER, NSID WILL NOT CONSTRUCT THE PARKING LOT UNTIL THE SITE

[03:15:06]

THE SPIRIT IS THAT THEY WON'T DO THAT SO THAT THE PARTIES COULD COORDINATE AND AGAIN PREFERRED LANGUAGE I WOULD WANT MORE LANGUAGE IN THERE TO THAT EFFECT.

>> OKAY. DURING THAT 24 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME.

>> DID WE TRY TO DO THAT AND THEY SAID NO?

>> THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT CAME BACK TO ME ON THAT.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE A REDLINE. >> AGAIN - I READ YOU THE CONTEXT TO WHICH I GOT THE EMAIL TODAY FROM THE ATTORNEY THAT IF YOU ARE ASKING THAT WE NEED TO REQUEST MORE THAN THAT'S WHAT I WILL DO. I'M JUST TRYING TO PIN DOWN WHAT

I'M ASKING FOR. >> MY POINT IS THAT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WHOLE PURCHASE OF THE LAND.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. IN THAT AREA AGAIN THEY COULD SAY HEY, NOW AGAIN KNOWING NSID THEY PLAYED THE BAIT AND SWITCH. YOU PROMISED THE LAND WE DIDN'T GET IT IRREGARDLESS THEY COULD TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU PURCHASED, THAT'S NOT YOUR LAND IS OUR LAND.

>> ULTIMATELY, THE LAND THAT WE PURCHASE IS GOING TO BE DICTATED BY THE FINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROBABLY BACKED UP BY A SURVEY THAT ARE IN THE EXECUTED AGREEMENT.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, BOB, IS OUTSIDE THE LAND WE ARE PURCHASING BUT ADJACENT TO IT ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS THEY PLAN TO PUT A PARKING LOT FOR THE PASSIVE PARK AND MEMORIAL.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS, WE WON'T PUT THAT PARKING LOT IN ANY PARTICULAR AREA ON THE LAND THAT WE OWN THAT YOU ARE NOT BUYING IT UNTIL WE SIT DOWN TO FIGURE OUT WITHIN 24 MONTHS WHERE IT SHOULD GO. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT INTO A COMMERCIAL AREA AND YOU NEED THE PARKING LOT TO BE 50 YARDS OVER WE WILL WORK WITH YOU AND PUT IT 50 YARDS OVER. IF YOUR DEVELOPER SAID IT SHOULD BE 50 YARDS THE OTHER WAY WE WILL PUT IT THERE. AS LONG AS WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THEIR SAYS IN GOOD FAITH. X AND MAYBE THAT WE COULD UTILIZE THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE FOR DUAL USES.

>> OBVIOUSLY WE CAN UTILIZE IT BECAUSE IT WILL BE PUBLIC

PARKING. >> I THINK CORAL SPRINGS, BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR JURISDICTION, THEIR RESPONSE WAS THEY WANTED ALL OF THAT LAND.

>> NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. >> NO HEAR ME OUT, THEY WANTED ALL THAT LAND AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO PUT THE PARKING LOT.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE LANGUAGE.

>> LEE OR CORAL SPRINGS IS NOT PURCHASING THAT LAND. NSID

OWNS THAT LAND. >> RIGHTHT AND ORAL SPRINGS

UNDERSTANDS THAT. >> I THINK WITH CORAL SPRINGS THEY WERE WORRIED WHERE NSID WANTED TO WITH THEIR PARKING LOT. CORAL SPRINGS WANTED TO SAY WHERE NSID WITH THEIR PARKING LOT FOR THE PRESERVE AND PASSIVE PARKING LOT AND MEMORIAL. NOT THAT CORAL SPRINGS WANTED LAND TO BUILD THEIR OWN PARKING LOT.

>> NO, WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS LET'S SAY THEY WANT TO BUILD IN THE MIDDLE THEY COULD DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THEIR LAND AND IT WOULD THEN BE RESERVED FOR NSID'S PARKING LO. THIS WAY OR NOT BUYING THAT. WERE JUST BUYING THIS VALUE. I'M SAYING IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

>> WE NEED TO SEE A MAP. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WANT THE PARKING LOT TO GO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE AREA.

>> IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN THE PARKING LOT. THERE IS A ROAD THAT GOES UP THE INSIDE OF IT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD TO A PARKING LOT. THAT ROAD IS WHAT IT IS. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE

ACCESS TO - >> THE WHOLE ENTRANCE WILL CHANGE TO WHERE THE CLUBHOUSE IS.

>> CORRECT. WHERE THAT PARKING LOT GOES WILL BE WORKED WITH IN CONJUNCTION WITH SAID DEVELOPER AND CORAL SPRINGS UNDERSTANDS THAT AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT AND THEY'RE NOT

BUYING ALL THAT LAND. CLEAR. >> TO ME IT IS NOT CLEAR.

>> CORAL SPRINGS IS CLEAR. IF WE NEED TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO MAKE BOB MORE CLEAR, YOU JUST HAVE TO LET HIM

- >> NANCY, HAVE YOU SHOWN THIS TO CORAL SPRINGS, THE LANGUAGE?

>> CORAL SPRINGS MET WITH NSID AND WERE OKAY WITH IT. X YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND IT AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT?

>> SUBJECT TO YOUR COMMISSION'S APPROVAL. THIS IS NOT THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. [LAUGHTER]

>> YES. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING SUBJECT TO WHAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE OF THE WORKSHOP -IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. THEY

[03:20:03]

AND WORK WITH NSID. >> SO CORAL SPRINGS, PARKLAND OR NSID DOES NOT OWN THE AREA THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS.

NSID SAYS WILL NOT AREA WERE PUTTING THE PARKING LOT HERE.

>> NUMBER THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN THERE AND IF WE WANT TO SPRUCE UP THE LANGUAGE SO BE IT.

>> ONE THING THAT COULD BE HELPFUL. IN THE CONTRACT RIGHT NOW IT ATTACHES AS EXHIBITS, THE EXCLUDED PARCELS BUT THEY ARE IN A VACUUM, THEY ARE INDIVIDUALIZED. SO WE HAVE THE LAND WE ARE PURCHASING OR THE LAND THAT WE ARE KEEPING CIRCULATED THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. WE PROBABLY HAVE THAT ALREADY CREATED. OR MAKE IT EASIER.

>> AS FAR AS THAT PART, THAT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR AS FAR AS WHAT IS FOR SALE AND WHAT THEY ARE BUYING. THE ONLY SNAFU IS, WE ARE PUTTING LANGUAGE IF WE NEED TO SPRUCE UP THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE BOB FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE I GET IT WE JUST HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE IF ANTHONY COULD

COME UP WITH THAT. >> I AGREE BUT THE VISUAL MAY ALSO SAY LOOK, YOU ARE BUYING ALL THIS LAND HERE, THERE IS A SLIVER OF LAND WHERE NSID CAN PUT A ROAD AND PARKING LOT AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH US TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT SLIVER

GOES. >> AND THAT'S THE CLAUSE. IF WE HAVE TO SPRUCE THE CLAUSE UP TO MAKE BOB FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE SO BE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LANGUAGE IS BUT IT SOUNDS CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH US. I

DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT. >> AS I SAID, THIS IS CORAL SPRINGS CONCERN. CORAL SPRINGS IS OKAY WITH IT. I MEAN, WHO AM I TO -ÁCUSTOMÁ WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING FROM CORAL SPRINGS.

THEY WANTED THAT LANGUAGE PUT IN THERE AND PUT THAT LANGUAGE, IF WE WANT TO PUT THE WORDS IN GOOD FAITH TO MAKE IT BETTER SOVIET. WHATEVER, ANTHONY. CRACKS WE DID HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THEIR ABOUT WORKING WITH THE PURCHASER AND THE SUBSEQUENT OR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF THE PURCHASER AND THE LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU IS WHAT WE GOT BACK. I CAN CLARIFY ANOTHER SENTENCE OR REQUEST ANOTHER SENTENCE OF TWO THAT.

THE PARTIES AND HOW THEY ARE IDENTIFIED WILL BE RIGHT. WE WILL WORK DURING THAT 24 MONTH PERIOD IN COOPERATION IN GOOD FAITH TO DETERMINE THE FINAL LOCATION OF THE PARKING.

>> MAYBE YOU COULD ADD IN THERE THE PARTY AND THE CITY OF

CORAL SPRINGS? >> YES. THE WAY I HAVE IT IS THE SUCCESSOR OR INTEREST OF PURCHASER.

>> DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT SOLID WASTE IN THERE?

>> NO BUT THEY ARE GOING TO RAISE THE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE.

[LAUGHTER] >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE DONE BUT THERE IS ONE MORE ITEM I WANT TO BRING UP.

>> YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE GOOD. >> I WAS LYING. THE LAST ITEM ON THE HOA TERM SHEET IS SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED BUT WE DIDN'T TURN THE PAGE ON IT. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT OR CREATE AN EXISTING COVENANTS. WE HAVE TO GET NSID TO AGREE IN THE CONTRACT OR GET THE HOA TO DROP THAT REQUIREMENT. ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> YOU MENTIONED THAT, I THINK.

>> IN TERMS OF ACTION ITEMS, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE.

>> I THINK THIS WAS KEN'S IDEA?

>> THAT WAS MY IDEA. >> THAT AND THE ONE ACRE JUMPED OUT AT ME ON THE TERM SHEET.

>> I DID. >> COUNCIL MEMBER: THE HOA A PRESIDENT AND HE UNDERSTANDS WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

THAT IS AN ASK. IT DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL BE ON THE TERM SHEET. CRACKS BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME WE NEGOTIATE OF THOSE

HAS TO GIVE. CRACKS RIGHT. >>

. >> WHAT AM I DOING WITH THE COVENANT? IN RESPECTS OF THE PROPERTY?

>> WE ARE TOLD WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AND WE WON'T BE GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY. WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH HERON BAY TO - WTTW.COM/COMMENTS YOU, OR WHATEVER, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T GO BACK TO NSID AND TRY AGAIN.

[03:25:01]

>> I THINK WE CAN GO TO THE CONTRACTUAL ITEMS.

>> THE APPRAISAL, THE BRIDGE, THE CONTRACT STUFF WE HAVE, THE ASSIGNMENT, THE HOA AND THEN THE STAFFS DIRECTIN TO GET THE BRD STUFF STARTED AND IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO START DISCUSSING WITH DEVELOPRS SO BE IT. CRACKS ONE THING I KNOW IS THAT WE COULD DO THE PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL AFTER WE DO THE CONTRACT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WOULD HAVE TIME FOR THEM TO COMPLETE THAT BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO WAIT TO WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE EXPENSIVE AND WE MIGHT NOT GET THE FULL VOTES PFOR THE CONTRACT. > REGARDLESS, I ONLY HAVE A WEEK BEFORE WE MAKE THAT DECISION.

>> WERE NOT GETTING TO PHASE II?

>> NO, WE ASKED TO MAKE SURE WE CAN GET IT WITHIN THE 60

DAYS. >> I AM ASSUMING THAT WE CAN BUT IT'S A BIG ASSUMPTION. IT'S NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL. BUT IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BASED ON THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL GO THERE. CRACKS BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT MONDAY AND WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH THEY WOULD NEED WHEN

WE SAY, GO? >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE ARE TWO READINGS OF THE ORDINANCE. NEXT MONDAY WOULD BE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE TWO WEEKS AFTER, GIVE OR

TAKE? >> RIGHT. CRACKS SO, CAN OR VICE MAYOR, ARE THERE ANY ACTION ITEMS?

>> I THINK THEY COVERED ALL THOSE. ANYTHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO SEE IN THE PROCESS GET CLARIFIED AND SPECIFICALLY RELATIVE TO THE LANGUAGE TO THE AGREEMENT WITHIN NSID, I THINK

THAT'S IMPORTANT. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I AM GOOD. >> COMMISSIONER ISRAEL?

>> I AM HUNGRY. [LAUGHTER] >> MOTION TO ADJOURN .[LAUGHTER] CRA

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.