Aug 29, 2022 Special City Commission Meeting

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I LIKE TO CALL THIS A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CITY OF PARKLAND ON MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2022 AT 6 PM 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, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> ROLL CALL.

>> COMMISSIONER ISROW >> HERE

>> VICE MAYOR CUTLER >> CARE

>> MAYOR WALKER >> HERE IS COMMISSIONER MAYERSOHN. SECURE

>> COMMISSIONER BRIER >> HERE.

[5.A. Property Appraisal Discussion]

>> SO I AM GOING TO DO THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL DISCUSSION FIRST AND THEN WE WILL OPEN IT TO PUBLIC COMMENTS, IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE ?.

>> YES MAYOR, THIS EVENING I HAVE JONATHAN WHITNIS HERE WITH AUCAMP, DELLENBACK AND WHITNEY HE CONDUCTED OUR SECOND APPRAISAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS PARCEL.

SO I WILL HAVE HIM COME UP AND GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. JONATHAN?

>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? SORRY. OKAY, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, JONATHAN WHITNEY. PRINCIPAL PARTNER WITH FIRM AUCAMP, DELLENBACK AND WHITNEY BOCA RATON. MY PARTNER WITH I HAVE 15 APPRAISERS AND STAFF WORK EXCLUSIVELY IN THE SOUTH FLORIDA MARKET.

WE HAVE BEEN AROUND ABOUT 30 YEARS. I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY RAISING ABOUT 20. I LIVED ALL MY 45 YEARS IN SOUTH FLORIDA.

A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS PROFESSIONALLY. I AM AN EXPERT FOR THE PALM BEACH PROPERTY APPRAISER. I SIT ON THE CITY OF BOCA RATON LANDING AND ZONING BOARD.

AND ALSO I HAVE APPRAISED NUMEROUS GOLF COURSES IN THIS AREA.

I PROVIDED WHAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY. THERE'S ALSO OTHER REQUESTS AND EVALUATIONS THAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA. SO, I DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A PRESENTATION FOR YOU. BASED ON SOME TIME LIMITATIONS. I DO HAVE MY APPRAISAL AND I AM OPEN TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THAT. OR ANY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS.

>> ANYONE?

>> COMMISSIONER BRIER, COMMISSIONER ISROW?

>> SURE, YOU MENTIONED THE IDEA OF THE CLEAN ENVIRONMENTAL THINGS AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE SOME SURPRISE THAT THIS WOULDN'T REQUIRE REMEDIATION. IS THERE ANYTHING AND GIVE SOME ESTIMATE FOR WHAT IT COULD COST PLUS OR MINUS FOR THE REMEDIATION.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU RECEIVED ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN SOLD THAT HAVE RAISED THAT FIGURE BY A GREAT DEAL?

>> YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'VE SEEN IT STARTED ABOUT 10,000 PER ACRE. AS MENTIONED MY REPORT IS UNUSUAL TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT QU?BEC WITHOUT ANYTHING ON A FORMAL COURSE BUT NOT PROFESSIONAL IN THE AREA I JUST HAVE NOT SEEN THAT YET. SO TYPICALLY, HERBICIDES AND THERE ARE ARSENIC LEVELS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED, REMOVED, SO TO START AT 10,000 PER ACRE AND CAN VASTLY EXCEED THAT, DOUBLE THAT. IT IS UNKNOWN.

>> AND I GET THE AS IS APPRAISAL FIGURE BUT IN TERMS OF HYPOTHETICAL APPRAISAL FIGURES I JUST WANTED TO WALK THERE THE NORTH AND YOU HAVE AS A HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE BASED ON 67 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THE NORTHERN 67 LIKE THIS AND NEVER, YES.

>> THE CENTRAL ORBITAL PIECE THE ESTIMATE ESTIMATED APPRAISAL OR HYPOTHETICAL APPRAISAL IS BASED ON 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE?

>> NOT THAT PRECISELY BUT USING A TYPICAL SAR WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT RATIO A LOT OF SUBURBAN SITES ARE BUILT AROUND 15 PERCENT OF A. AS YOU SEE IN MY COMPS IF YOU LOOK AT THEM TO BETWEEN 10 AND 20 PERCENT. SO I CHOSE 15 AS BEING REASONABLE.

IF YOU TO TAKE THE SIZE OF THE COMMERCIAL SITE MULTIPLIED TIMES WE WENT FIVE YOU COME UP AROUND 200,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> IS THAT AN INTERVAL CALCULATION IN YOUR EVALUATION FOR THE PROPERTY?

>> IT IS A CONSIDERATION AS I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT WHAT I WROTE ABOUT IT TO TALK OF REASONABLENESS THAT THE VALUE THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT'S WAS IT 19.5 MILLION?

[00:05:06]

>> AND THAT IS THE SAME METHODOLOGY OF CALCULATING $5 MILLION FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE FOR THE SOUTHERN PARCEL FOR THE LAST PARCEL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES. BRADLEY S IS THE SAME METHODOLOGY.CORRECT.

>> 15 PERCENT FAR AND IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THAT SIZE I THINK IT'S LIKE 9.3 ACRES. THE SOUTHERN PORTION.

>> IS MY OPINION IT WOULD BE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL USE THOUGH I HAVE SEEN SOME PROPOSALS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I THINK A HIGHER VALUE IS FOR COMMERCIAL.

NOW IT MIGHT BE FOR INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL OR LOW INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL.

LIKE A SCHOOL, PERHAPS. THAT MIGHT BE AN IDEAL CANDIDATE FOR THAT SITE.I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE VALUATION, IF I MAY THAT YOU MENTIONED AT 2000 SQUARE FEET AS MY CHECK REASONABLENESS, THE VALUE WULD CHANGE IF YOU REDUCE IT OR SPECIFY THERE BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET THE ONLY PERMITTED ON THAT SITE.

>> THAT WOULD BE MY NEXT QUESTION BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING WHEN THEY HAD THE INITIAL APPRAISAL IF THERE IS TO BE COMMERCIAL ON THIS SITE AND IF IT IS GOING TO BE CURATED OR CURTAILED IN TERMS OF SIZE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT HOW WILL THAT IMPACT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? SO, I MEAN, DOES THE PROPERTY VALUE GO DOWN BY 25 PERCENT IF IT'S 25 PERCENT LESS COMMERCIAL OR IS THERE SOME VARYING FACTO ?

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

>> ALL MY QUESTIONS ARE GREAT.

>> NOTE THAT IS GREAT BECAUSE IF YOU RESTRICT IT THAT'S IT CONDITION I HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO A 100,000 SQUARE FEET THEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE RESTRICTING IT TO.

JUST TALKING ABOUT JUNIOR ANCHORS? I WILL TALK ABOUT IN LINE SPACE AND RESTAURANT SPACE? BECAUSE THERE'S A HIGHER VALUE FOR RESTAURANT AND LINE SPACE THERE IS FOR JUNIOR.

>> NO, CONTINUE, SORRY. MY EVALUATION AT $100 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING ASSUMES THE SPACE WILL BE A JUNIOR ANCHOR AND THE OTHER HALF WOULD BE IN LINE RESTAURANT SPACE.

>> JUNIOR ANCHOR BEING A GROCERY STORE OR SOMETHING OF THAT?

>> SURE, SOME SORT OF SPECIALTY GROCER ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> AND YOU SAID THERE IS A HIGHER VALUATION ON SQUARE FOOTAGE ON COST PER SQUARE FOOT BEFORE WERE A RESTAURANT AND NOT JUNIOR ANCHOR?

>> TO BE LIMITED TO JUST AND LINE AND RETAIL AND NO JUNIOR BOXES THEN YOU COULD REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OVERALL TO SAY 100 OR 150,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN IT'S JUST MATH TIMES $50 PER SQUARE FOOT, YOU KNOW, DIVIDED SAY FIVE PERCENT AND THEN TAKE 15 PERCENT OF THAT.

AND YOU PROBABLY COME IN LESS THAN $100 SQUARE FOOT.

>> THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.

>> TURNED OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE.

>> ANYONE ELSE? PKEN? JORDAN? YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME, MY PLEASURE.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO NOW. GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO PPUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE WILL START WITH.

[5.B. Ordinance 2022-012: Approving a Purchase and Sale agreement with the North Springs Improvement District (First Reading)]

>> MAYOR, DOING TO READ THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE FIRST AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT?

>> NO, YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.

>> ITEM 5B APPROVING THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR SHARING. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA APPROVING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH SPRINGS. THE DISTRICT ON THE CITY'S PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON HERON BAY GOLF COURSE SITE WEST OF NOB HILL BOULEVARD AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 1 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE AGREEMENT WITH NSID FOR THE PURCHASE AMOUNT OF $25,410,000 PROVIDED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION, COMPLEX SEVERABILITY AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> GAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE?

>> I HAVE ONE CLICK.SOME PEOPLE CAME IN LATE SO IF ANYONE NEEDS TO SIGN IN.

[00:10:04]

>> YOU DON'T NEED TO SIGN IN. I HAVE ONE QUICK EMAIL AND THAT PATRICK KLEIN.

THIS IS FROM REDMOND 8011 FALLS LANE PARKLAND. TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS CITY PURCHASING THE GOLF COURSE. THAT'S IT.

>> THERE YOU GO. AND ANDY, GO AHEAD. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> ANDREW KLEIN 10383 EMERSON STREET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC. OF COURSE, THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND SERVICE TO THE CITY. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK AND THIS IN PARTICULAR IS A BIG ISSUE. WE KNOW WE HAVE A GREAT CITY HERE AND PARKLAND. WE HAVE GREAT FIELDS, GREAT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE CITY.

BUT WHEN WE STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE ARE MISSING, WHAT IS THAT? WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY CENTER. WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO GATHER IN A SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT OUTSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITIES, OUTSIDE OF THE VERY LIMITED RESTAURANTS AND CAF?S WE CURRENTLY HAVE. THERE'S NOWHERE TO REALLY GET DINNER AND WALK AND SHOP AND SOCIALIZE ALL AT ONE TIME. IF YOU WANT YOU CAN GO IN YOUR CAR AND GO FROM PLACE TO PLACE THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE A PARK OR PROMENADE AND WE JUST WENT TO THIS PANDEMIC WHERE EVERYONE WAS ON ZOOM AND FACEBOOK AND I WOULD COME OUT OF THAT WE SEE REALLY THE FULLY VALUE OF PERSONAL INTERACTION AND WE HAVE MORE OF THAT THAT IS NEEDED ON AN ONGOING BASIS THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO HAVE REALLY SINCERE THOUGHT AND MOVEMENT TOWARDS SMART DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AN SOMETHING IS REALLY GOING TO IMPROVE THE CITY.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS CLASSY AND UNSKILLED IT WILL ENHANCE PARKLAND MEDICALLY.

WE DON'T NEED MORE HOUSES, WE HAVE PLENTY OF HOUSES. IF YOU WANT TO REPORT ON THIS, IF THE CITY IS GOING TO ABORT DATABASES OF WHICH CAN DO SOMETHING RIGHT WITH THIS PROPERTY AND FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AND NOT SIMPLY ADD MORE RESIDENTIAL.

YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF RHETORIC OTHER ABOUT THE MALL OF AMERICA BEING BUILT IN BACKROOM DEALS AND THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH NONSENSE. AT THE END OF THE DAY APPRAISALS COME BACK THEY SUPPORT THE PURCHASE OF IT BUT I WOULD SAY MY MAIN POINT IS ONLY GO FORWARD FOR WHEN YOU DO THE RIGHT THING WITH IT. THE CITY HAS ALREADY GETTING ABOUT 150 ACRES OF GREEN SPACE SO FOLKS SAY WE SHOULD MAKE IT INTO PARK WE ARE ALREADY GETTING A HUGE PERK OUT OF THIS. WE ARE OBVIOUSLY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. THIS IS A GREAT LOCATION FOR SOME SMART DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S ONLY BEEN ROADWAY WITH ACCESS TO THE SUNRISE EXPRESSWAY.

WITH ALREADY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS UNFORTUNATELY OUTSIDE THE CITY BOUNDARIES WHICH DOES NOT BENEFIT US ON A TAX BASIS. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN BUILD US A SMART COMMERCIAL HELP OFFSET FUTURE INCREASES IN OUR TAXES TO THE RESIDENCE AND HOMEOWNERS HERE. AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME OBVIOUSLY BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. I THINK ALL OF YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY I WAS YOUR PRESIDENT OF PARKLAND GOLF COUNTRY CLUB HAS SERVED AS THE CHAIRMAN OF BROWARD HEALTH AND I WAS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. I'VE BEEN INTRICATELY INVOLVED IN THE CITY. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION. SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED, ROADS ARE GETTING SOMEWHAT OVERCROWDED AND IF WE CAN PUT SOME SMART DEVELOPMENT IN A GOOD PLACE IN PARKLAND AND MAKES TREMENDOUS SENSE. SO, I WOULD SAY THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP OF THE CITY COMMISSION IS A ONCE IN A GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND GO FORTH WITH SOME SMART DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANKS ANDY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? I SEE SOMEONE COMING DOWN. YES.

>> ANYWAY, >> NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MARK 12577 NORTH 60TH PLACE CORAL SPRINGS. WHAT CAN I SAY? PRESIDENT OF HERON BAY. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS NO MATTER HOW THIS COMES OUT I THINK WE HAVE ALL LEARNED A LOT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL SPENT MONEY, WE'VE ALL DONE A DEEP DIVE, I GUESS WE HAVE THREE APPRAISALS NOW I DON'T KNOW IF THIS CAME OUT BETTER THAN THE OTHER TWO BUT I THINK WE'VE ALL DONE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DONE OUR RESEARCH.

WE HAVE SET DOWN WITH KEN, TALK TO BOB, TALK TO THE GUYS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY I THINK THE PLACE THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT IN PHILOSOPHY WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS BETTER CONTROL IF THEY BUY THIS THING OR NOT OR WE GO, AS BOB AND KEN HAVE SAID, WE GO DOWN A TRADITIONAL

[00:15:07]

SO, THAT'S JUST MY MESSAGE AND YOU GUYS HAVE THE COOPERATION OF HERON BAY.

THE BOARD, THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE TERMS WE WORKED ON. IF YOU GUYS GO FORWARD TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT TO THE RESIDENCE AND WILL SEE IF THE RESIDENCE WILL SUPPORT THE TERMS, TOO. IF WE DON'T GO THIS ROUTE I THINK WE STILL MAY ON AND OFF WITH 12 OTHERS IF WE CAN HOLD NSID'S FEET TO THE FIRE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN'T BECAUSE I KNOW SEVERAL OF US HERE WHO HAD DEALINGS WITH NSID THEY WILL SAY ONE THING BUT THEY WILL PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING. I AM REALLY WORRIED IF YOU GUYS DON'T PASS THIS TONIGHT THAT ONCE AGAIN WE WILL HAVE A FLIP-FLOP AND WE WILL END UP, YOU KNOW, IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER I WILL MENTION THEIR NAMES.

AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SPEND THEIR MONEY. FOR ALL OF US I THINK THIS IS THE EASIEST ROUTE TO BUY THE PROPERTY IT'S THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ROUTE FOR EVERYBODY.

IT'S THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ROUTE I THINK FOR THE CITY OTHER THAN PUTTING THE MONEY UP FRONT.

I THINK IT'S A BETTER ROUTE FOR THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE WE CAN YOU KNOW, BEGIN DEGREE BEFORE THE PROPERTY IS SOLD RATHER THAN HAVING THE PROPERTY SOLD AND DOING BATTLE WITH PLANNING AND ZONING AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. SO, THAT'S IT GUYS, BUT THANK YOU.

>> THANKS, MARK. ANYONE ELSE? COME ON UP.

>> GOOD EVENING, GLEN COOPER AM A RESIDENT OF HERON BAY 8106 NORTH 111TH TERRACE.

I THINK THAT HAVING THIS IN HIS VIEW, THE COMMISSIONERS, ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND NOT JUST HERON BAY BUT ALL ALONG NOT FEEL ARE ALL IMPACTED, AS WELL.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS REPRESENT STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE THE RESIDENCE AND SO THEY COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO ENGAGE WITH THE RESIDENCE AND TALK WITH THE RESIDENTS TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF US THE RESIDENCE.

WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THINGS WILL GO IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT I KNOW BECAUSE IT WOULD TEAR OVER 10 YEARS AND HAVE SEEN HOW OUR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTS US.

SO SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WHICH IMPACTS OUR SCHOOLS WHICH IMPACTS THE QUALITY OF THE RETAIL WHICH IMPACTS WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A DESTINATION OR WHETHE IT'S GOING TO BE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE DEVELOPER ARE THERE SHAREHOLDERS AND IT IS MONEY. YOU GUYS, YOU ALL, ARE HERE TO REPRESENT US AND SO I WOULD AND I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY IS THE SAME WAY THAT WE WANT TO HAVE CONTROL OVER WHERE THIS GOES BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT THING NOT JUST FOR HERON BAY BUT FOR THE WHOLE CITY OF PARKLAND. I KNOW YOU WILL MAKE THAT DECISION AND KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY SO WE CAN TAKE OUR TIME, STEP BACK, THINK ABOUT WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE AND ENGAGE WITH US. AND THEN FIND A GREAT DEVELOPER AND PARTNER WITH THEM BECOME A PARTNER WITH THE DEVELOPER BUT IF WE LET IT GO NOW I'M JUST AFRAID IN MY EXPERIENCE DOWN HERE IT CAN REALLY GO SOUTH. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS, GLENN.

>> ANYONE ELSE? COME ON DOWN, STEVE.

>> HI, STEVE LOYOLA 5710 NORTH 63RD PLACE, PARKLAND. LOOKS LIKE I'M GOING TO BE DISAGREE WITH A FEW OF MY GOOD FRIENDS HERE. REALLY, THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY TO YOU GUYS IS THIS. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS IN ONE WAY SHAPE OR FORM FOR WELL OVER 30 YEARS I AM A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR WITH

[00:20:05]

IT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN AN EFFICIENT WAY IN A SMART WAY AND WELL DESIGNED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT. THAT 70 ACRES IS A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.

AND CERTAINLY I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF PARKLAND COULD USE SOME NEW RESTAURANTS AND SOME NEW RETAIL. I THINK IT COULD BE DONE IN A GOOD AND SMART WAY.

WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND WHAT IS REALLY CONFUSING TO ME, THOUGH, IS WHY OUR CITY WOULD IT TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEMS OVER FOR THEM. NSID DECIDED TO OPEN UP THEIR CHECKBOOK AND PAY THE DEVELOPER, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, WHO I HAPPEN TO KNOW AND HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH THEM. THEY DECIDED TO OPEN THE CHECKBOOK AND PAY THEM WHATEVER THE AMOUNT WAS I THINK $25 MILLION.

WITH THAT OWNERSHIP COMES RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATIONS. AND THOSE OBLIGATIONS ARE THEIRS RIGHT NOW. I HEARD THE GENTLEMAN TALK ABOUT PHASE 1. WELL, YOU HAVE NOT DONE A PHASE 2. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH PHASE 2. IF YOU JUST GOING TO STEP IN AND BUY THE PROPERTY WITHOUTDOING A PHASE TO AN UNDERSTANDING WHAT COMES WITH THAT THEN I JUST THINK IT'S A HORRIBLE IDEA. THEY OWN IT, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAXES ON IT, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE ON IT WHAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE IF SOMEONE GETS EVEN BUYING ALLIGATOR ON IT AND THEIR LIABILITY INSURANCE HAS TO PAY THEM. WE AS A CITY OR US AS A CITY YOU HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. YOU CANPASS DESIGN, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS , YOU CAN PASS THE SIGNAGE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. JUST, THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF THINGS AS A CITY YOU CAN DO TO CONTROL WHAT GOES ON THAT PROPERTY. AND I DON'T KNOW OF ANY DEVELOPER THAT WILL COME IN AND BUY IT WITHOUT DOING THEIR PROPER DUE DILIGENCE.

SO, I THINK IT'S A MISTAKE FOR YOU GUYS TO SPEND TAXPAYER MONEY TO TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S, YOU KNOW, CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. AND, YET, IF I HAD ANOTHER MINUTE I WOULD GIVE YOU MORE MY DISSERTATION ON A RETAIL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING, MATT PARIS 12095 WATERMARK WAY. I WANT TO EXPOUND ON WHAT STEVE WAS SAYING, AS WELL, WITHOUT THE SECOND EVALUATION APPRAISAL AND WE KNOW, LIKE WE FOUND THE ARSENIC RIGHT? I USED TO BE A CONTROLLER AT INTERNATIONAL AND WE HAD ARSENIC AND BECAME A SUPERFUND AND WE SPENT $90 MILLION READING THAT.

I FEEL THERE'S A LOT OF COSTS THERE THAT ARE UNKNOWN AND WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THOSE COSTS LONG-TERM? AND ALSO THE DEPLETION FOR UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, RIGHT? WE HAVE GOT 25 MILLION COMING OUT. PUT US BACK A COUPLE YEARS IN TERMS OF GAINS IN A TAXREVENUE , RIGHT? I THINK IT'S ABOUT 2 MILLION OR SO IN THE LAST YEAR. SO THAT BRINGS US TO A QUESTION OF LIKE IS THERE NO BETTER USE FOR $25 MILLION FOR THE COMMUNITY? I UNDERSTAND THE PARENT BAY RESIDENTS WANT TO MAKE SURE THEIR VALUES ARE PROTECTED BUT THE REST OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT $25 MILLION USED FOR MANY IMPROVEMENTS IN PARKS THAT MANY OF WHICH ARE IN DISREPAIR BUT LIKE PINE TRAILS KINDA FIND A PIPE HERE AND THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE AT WHAT POINT DO YOU LET GO OF THIS PROPERTY? RIGHT? I KNOW RIGHT NOW THE MARKET IS WHITE-HOT.IF YOU FOLLOW ANY SORT OF FINANCIAL NEWS INTEREST RATES COOL OF ALL THE INFLATION RATE OR AT LEAST TRY TO. SO LIKE, IF THE PROPERTY DOESN'T SELL AT SOME POINT FOR 25 AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT YOUR LOSSES? I WILL POINT TO SAY, OKAY, WE ARE DONE WITH THIS YOU TAKE A $5 MILLIONLOSS , TINGLING? WITH THAT, WHO IS GOING TO FOOT THE BILL, IT'S THE TAXPAYER AND AS, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK SPENDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR SUCH A LIMITED, LIKE, USE FOR THE COMMUNITY THERE IS JUST A NEED TO LIKE STEVE SAID WE HAVE THE SPORTS SECTION REVIEWED SIGNS

[00:25:03]

I THINK THERE IS A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS IN VALUATION THAT COULD GO EXTREMELY ALL RIGHT OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.THOSE COSTS WILL ADD UP.HE ANNUAL I THINK IS FAIRLY HIGH A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND BUCKS. THAT WILL END UP FALLING ON THE TAXPAYERS.

I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND BY THE GOLF COURSE WE COULD HAVE BOUGHT A FEW YEARS AGO FOR THREE OR $7 MILLION, WHATEVER IT WAS.

>> THANK YOU, MATT. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? DAVE? GOOD EVENING

>> GOOD EVENING, DAVID AUSTIN 74TH DRIVE PARKLAND, FLORIDA. I WAS NOT PLANNING ON SPEAKING TONIGHT. BUT I'M LISTENING TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I AM HEARING FROM THE AUDIENCE AND I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND INVOLVED IN THE CITY PROBABLY FOR THE PAST 24 OR 25 YEARS. I'VE ALSO BEEN AROUND IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS A CITY PLANNER FOR 30 YEARS. I THINK WE HEARD TONIGHT SOMEONE MADE A COMMENT IT WAS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY. WELL, THAT'S IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY. IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND 97 WHEN THE CITY WAS WAITING WITH THE PROPERTIES AT THE TIME I THINK THE FOREFATHERS OF OUR CITY DID AN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC WAS A LIFETIME DEAL TO CREATE HEARING DAY. THE CRITICAL COURSE COMMUNITY DIMINISHED DENSITY, DIMINISHED TRAFFIC. AND THEN LATER WHEN THE CORAL RIDGE CAME IN WITH THE SECOND PORTION CORAL RIDGE REDUCED THE DENSITY.

FOR THE SECOND PORTION THAT CAME IN IN FAVOR OF THIS FANTASTIC GOLFCOURSE COMMUNITY . IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH HERON BAY IT IS GORGEOUS.

THE CITY WAS BUILT ON RIGID GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AND THE RESULT HAS BEEN FANTASTIC. WE HAVE SOME COMMUNITIES HERE, YOU KNOW, OUR OLD CITY MANAGER USED TO SAY LOW DENSITY WORKS. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SMART GROWTH.

SO, MY CONCERN IS THE THINGS I'VE SEEN AT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE THINGS I'VE SEEN PUBLICIZED IN THE PAPERS AND THEY ARE NOT PIE IN THE SKY CARBON PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE SO FAR BEYOND ANYTHING THAT I WOULD REMOTELY SEE AS EVEN CLOSE TO APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY. NOW, THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES HERE AND HERON BAY YOU KNOW SMALL-SCALE SHOPPING CENTER OF COURSE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THAT BUT THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT I HAVE SEEN JUST YOU BANDIED ABOUT AS YOU MIGHT DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THIS ARE RIDICULOUS. OUR INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT HANDLE IT AND FOR TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO BE SOME SMALL-SCALE STUFF I THINK IT'S A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE DO A DEAL THAT THE CITY MADE WITH CORAL RIDGE PROPERTIES TO WELL IT WAS ONLY A GOLF COURSE FOR 30 YEARS AND NOW ALL THE SUDDEN WE ARE TO TALK ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE FEET.

AND HOPEFULLY I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING I HOPE WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, STICK TO YOUR GUNS, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK MAKES PARKLAND A GREAT AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD MAYBE THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY A QUALITY THAT DOES NOT DETRACTBUT ENHANCES. I THINK IS A LOT SMALLER SCALE THAN WHAT I HAVE SEEN .

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, SEEN THAT THERE IS NO ONE ELSE I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. IF I CAN SAY A FEW THINGS TO START. AS I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING I HAVE TO THINK STAFF, THINK THIS COMMISSION.E ALL PUT IN A LOT OF HOURS, A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF MEETINGS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I BELIEVE STAFF HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB IN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST AND MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MAKING THE BEST DECISIONPOSSIBLE . TO ADDRESS, A LOT OF PEOPLE BRING UP A LOT OF GREAT POINTS.

YOU KNOW, WHY DOES THE CITY WANT TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY?

[00:30:01]

SO OUT OF THE 210 ACRE GOLF COURSE 150 ACRES OF THAT WAS THE INTENDED PURCHASE BY NSID.

WCI, NOT WCI, CLOSE LINK, DID NOT WANT TO BREAK IT UP AND SELL THE PIECES.

THEY WANTED TO GET RID OF THE WHOLE THING. IT WAS NSID'S INTENTION AT THAT POINT TO TAKE WHATEVER MONEY THEY RECOUP FROM SELLING WHICH WE CAN ALL AGREE THE VALUABLE PORTION OF LAND IN THE FRONT OF PARKLAND. SO THEIR INTENTION WAS TO SELL THAT LAND, TO RECOUP THE MONEY THEY SPENT, THE $32 MILLION THAT THEY SPENT TO BUY THE LAND. NOW THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE A PARK SO THERE WILL STILL BE FUNDS THEY WILL BE LOOKING TO ASSESS THEIR 70,000 CUSTOMERS WHICH INCLUDE HALF OF PARKLAND AND HALF OF CORAL SPRINGS. TO ENSURE THAT THE SPARK THAT THEY ARE CREATING IS WHAT WE PARKLAND RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SO WITH THAT EXTRA MONEY THEY WENT OUT TO AN RFP SO THEY COULD FIND DEVELOPERS TO BRING IDEAS TO SEE WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE. THAT PROCESS KIND OF GOT A LITTLE SIDETRACKED, KIND OF GOT A LITTLE OFF THE RAILS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS BUT IT WAS BUMPY.

AND THAT IS WHEN, AS A COMMISSION, WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO GET INVOLVED TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO TO ENSURE OUR FUTURE IS WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE.YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT SMALL TOWN FEEL AND ALL THE STUFF. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NOT COMMERCIAL IT JUST MEANS THERE IS SMART COMMERCIAL. WITH THIS 1000, 150, 200,000 WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, WE ARE NOT SURE. WE DO NOT HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING WE DO NOT HAVE CODES FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAND. I THINK, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE TELL ME WE SHOULD HAVE ALL RESIDENTIAL ON THE GOLF COURSE. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT FROM ANYONE. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND 70 PERCENT IS IN THE PARKLAND, 30 PERCENT IS IN CORAL SPRINGS. WHEN WE MET WITH CORAL SPRINGS WE TALKED ABOUT DOING A PROJECT WHERE WE COULD WORK TOGETHER. TWO CITIES WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS BOTH CITIES. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, AGAIN, WE ALL AGREED COMMERCIAL SOME SMALL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ELEMENT IS WHAT PARKLAND NEEDS. IT NEEDS IT BECAUSE WE COULD USE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES AND WE ABSOLUTELY NEED THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE GOING FORWARD.

BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO PAY HIGHER TAXES. I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO PAY HIGHER TAXES. IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GENERATE REVENUE AND PROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE OUR RESIDENTS WANT THAT'S A WIN-WIN.

INSTEAD OF LETTING NSID OR WHOEVER THEIR CHOSEN DEVELOPER IS TO TAKE HOLD OF THE PROCESS AND COME TO US AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.

AND WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER SAYING I DON'T WANT THIS, I DON'T WANT THAT AND YOU'RE GOING BACK TO THE DEVELOPER AND MAYBE IS GOOD AND IT IS NOT, WHATEVER IT IS.

INSTEAD, WHY IS BUYING IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE YOUR TIME, USE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, TALK TO OUR RESIDENTS, TALK TO CORAL SPRINGS AND COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. AND THAT IS HOW MUCH RESIDENTIAL, HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL, WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL 2 WE NOW HAVE 100 PERCENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DICTATE WHAT WE WANT AND THEN IT IS FOR US TO FIND THE DEVELOPER WHO CAN HELP US WITH THAT. AND THEN THE DEVELOPER COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, I SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, I SEE YOUR CODE, I SEE YOUR VISION, THIS IS WHAT I CAN GIVE YOU AND THIS IS HOW MUCH I WILL PAY YOU TO GIVE YOU THAT.

[00:35:04]

WHETHER WE ARE PAID 10 MILLION, 12, 11 MILLION, A MILLION WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS THERE IS A NUMBER THAT DEVELOPER WILL PAY TO BUILD 40 HOMES, 50 HOME , 60 HOMES.

IT WAS HER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, OR COMMISSION APPEAR AND DECIDE EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE.HAT LEAVES US WITH ABOUT 33 ACRES, I GUESS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT, NANCY? FOR THE CENTER PORTION THAT WE ALL AGREE WHEN I SAY ALL OF HERE IN THE COMMISSION AND I HEARD IT FROM NUMEROUS RESIDENTS SOME TYPE OF TOWN CENTER COMMUNITY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. SOME RESTAURANTS, SHOPPING, A PLACE WHERE OUR RESIDENTS CAN GET TOGETHER THERE IS TO BE SOME SORT OF PARK WHATEVER IT ENDS UP LOOKING LIKE WE GET TO DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE. BEFORE WE GO OUT TO THE DEVELOPER AND SAY, HERE IS AN RFP PROCESS, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH.

WE HAVE COME UP WITH 33 ACRES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF PARK ELEMENT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS TO GET TOGETHER, WE WANTRESTAURANTS , WE WANT SOME SHOPPING.

THIS IS WHAT WE WANT YOU TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THAT. YOU COME TO US AND MEET THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT TO YOU. AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND.E ALWAYS TALK ABOUT PLANNING. WE HAVE NOT DONE PLANNING.

WE HAVE NOT DONE. PLANNING IN PARKLAND FOR SOME TIME.

YOU GET THE WEDGE LET'S BUILD HOMES. DEVELOPERS COME TO US AND TELL US THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU AND WE TRY TO SHUFFLE AROUND WITH THAT. WE ARE DOING UPSET THIS TIME. WE ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH THE RESIDENTS , ENGAGE WITH HER PLANNING AND ZONING, ENGAGE WITH OUR STAFF WITH DEVELOPERS AND COME UP WITH THE PLAN THAT WORKS FOR US. SO THAT WE CAN FIND THAT.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. AND THAT TO ME IS WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND THE BEST PART FOR ALL OF US AS RESIDENTS IS THAT WE ARE NOW DICTATING WHAT WE WANT.

ARE THERE RISKS? OF COURSE THERE ARE RISKS. BUT THERE ARE RISKS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THIS IS THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME TOWN CENTER. IF WE DON'T TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY THIS COULD VERY LIKELY TURN INTO ALL RESIDENTIAL. HOW MANY? I DON'T WANT TO SCARE TACTICS MAYBE IT IS 50 MAYBE IT'S ONLY 100 WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.

UT AGAIN, WE HAVE 30 PERCENT OF THIS IN CORAL SPRINGS. CORAL SPRINGS WILL HAVE TO GO OUT AND DO THEIR OWN THING. BECAUSE THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO WORK TOGETHER.

AND WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK TO GENERATE AS MUCH REVENUE AS POSSIBLE. THAT AFFECTS OUR SCHOOLS, THAT AFFECTS OUR TRAFFIC, AND YET WE GET NONE OF THE BENEFITS. WE DON'T GET IMPACT FEES, WE DON'TGET TAXES , WE DON'T GET ANY OF THAT. AGAIN, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A BIT UNORTHODOX.

CITIES DON'T ALWAYS GO AT IT THIS WAY BUT WE HAVE TOO MANY TIMES I HAVE HEARD US ON THE COMMISSION APPEAR I WISH WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS. MATT SAID OR SOMEBODY ABOUT BUYING THE GOLF COURSE SOONER. I WISH WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

WHETHER WE THOUGHT ABOUTIT, HERON BAY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT , WHATEVER, NOBODY DID BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN PLANNING AND ACTIVELY LOOKING THROUGH STUFF. BUT WE BEEN DOING THAT AS A COMMISSION I KNOW COMMISSIONER BRIER HAS BEEN A HUGE PROPONENT OF TRYING TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITY TO BUY ANY VACANT LAND FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THOSE THINGS.

THAT'S THINKING FORWARD.THIS PROCESS CAME ON A LITTLE FASTER THAN I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE

[00:40:04]

WE HAVE TO PLAY THAT HAND. AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, TO ME, OUR APPRAISALS, OUR MARKET ANALYSIS EVERYTHING HAS SHOWN WE CAN RECOUP OUR MONEY. SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT I THINK IT WAS MATT WHEN DO WE CUT OUR LOSSES? AGAIN, ONLY IT ALLOWS US TO DETERMINE THAT TOTALLY INTO FULLY.WE DON'T HAVE TO SELL IT FOR UNDER.

AND COMMISSIONER ISROW SAID NUMEROUS TIMES WHICH IS A GREAT POINT THE CITY HAS ASKED WE ARE DOING A BRANDY, WE HAVE DONE SURVEYS, WE REACHED OUT TO RESIDENTS WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE HERON BAY, WE HEARD FROM THE PARKLAND HOA PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WHO ALSO SUPPORTS THIS WHO HAVE SPOKEN TO THE RESIDENTS. THE RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE AMENITIES. THIS GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS. AND MAYBE WE'D SELL FOR 29 AND WE LOSE QUOTE" LOSE FINALLY DOLLARS IN THE LAND SALE. BUT IF WE DO THIS SMART AND DO THIS RIGHT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT BACK IN TAX REVENUE. ONE THING THAT IS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IS IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TAX REVENUE. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TAX REVENUE.

HOW MUCH? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FINALIZE EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE, FROM A FUTURE LOOKING PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHAT THIS DECISION IS. THIS DECISION IS WHO IS GOING TO DICTATE OUR FUTURE? IS IT GOING TO BE A DEVELOPER, THE NSID, OR ARE COMMISSION RIGHT HERE? THAT IS WHAT TONIGHT IS ALL ABOUT. AND WHATEVER HAPPENS TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. BUT, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, FROM WHERE I SIT WE CAN'T GO BACK, WE CAN'T GO BACK AND SAY WE SHOULD HAVE.

BUT WE CAN CHANGE GEARS IF WE OWN IT. WE CAN SELL IT, WE CAN SELL IT AT A LOSS, WE CAN DO RESIDENTIAL, WE DO ALL COMMERCIAL, WE CAN DO ALL RESIDENTIAL, WE CAN DO ALL WE WANT BECAUSE WE OWN IT. IF WE DON'T BUY IT WE CANNOT GO BACK AND SAY WE SHOULD HAVE. THAT TO ME, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING.

IT'S TOUGH TO SIT BACK HERE AND SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND DO SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR RESIDENTS, FOR OUR FUTURE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HERON BAY.

OF COURSE, THIS DIRECTLY IMPACTS HERON BAY BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT HERON BAY.

THIS AFFECTS EVERY RESIDENT IN PARKLAND. EVERY RESIDENT IN PARKLAND BECAUSE EVERY RESIDENT, WHETHER IT'S AMENITIES YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, TAX REVENUE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THIS HAS AN IMPACT ON YOUR DAILY LIVES.

SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT IF ANYBODY HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY OR ANYBODY WANTS TO BRING A MOTION FOR ANYTHING, QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BRIER. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. I COULD ARGUE EITHER SIDE OF THIS DECISION WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, NEEDING ANY PREPARATION BECAUSE EVERY POINT THAT HAS BEEN RAISED ON THIS DAY FOR BOTH PRO AND CON EVERY EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS AND EVEN CONVERSATIONS WITH MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT AND THE STATEMENTS THA WERE MADE , ARE ABSOLUTELY TRUE, ARE ACTUALLY TRUE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

IF THIS WHEN I TOOK ISSUE WE WOULD HAVE MADE IT GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THE REASON FOR THE BELABORING BACK-AND-FORTH IS THAT NEITHER WHATEVER EVIL ON TONIGHT HOWEVER WE VOTE IT'S NOT A GOOD VOTE. IT'S THE BEST OPTION WE HAVE.

WE ARE NOT IN A GOOD POSITION RIGHT NOW.I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK, MATT, ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY LONG AGO.

WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THIS PROPERTY OR AT LEAST BUT IT'S HINDSIGHT.

THE CITY MAY HAVE LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID JUST LIKE WERE LOOKING AT $25 MILLION THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, THAT'S A RISK, IT WAS SAID THAT ABOUT FIVE OR 10 DOLLARS THE PUBLIC COULD HAVE BOUGHT IT THEN BUT THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUE.THERE IS NO GREAT OPTION TONIGHT.

[00:45:01]

WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURATE WE CAN CURATE WHO ARE PARTNERS IN THIS PROCESS THAT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER. THE QUICK CURATE WHAT GOES THERE.

MORE INFORMALLY I THINK WE CAN CURATE WHAT DOESN'T GO THERE. IN THE GREATER FASHION IF IT WAS JUST COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THOSE JUST COMING IN THE NORMAL COURSE. AS I MENTIONED IN OUR LAST MEETING I HAVE HEARD ALL THE TIME THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE RIGHTS, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, YOU CAN ONLY INHIBIT THE RIGHTS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE AND IS ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE. ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE IS IF IT GETS IN THE WRONG PLANS WITH THE WRONG PROPOSAL AND I DON'T BELIEVE PLANNING AND ZONING WOULD ALLOW AMENABLE TO GO YOUR THOSE SCARE TACTICS ARE NOT TRUE.

BUT COULD IT GO TO A DEVELOPER THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PART WITH THAT WE DON'T THINK WOULD BE A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN? WE ARE DOING WITH THAT IN CERTAIN AREAS OF PARKLAND WE ARE DEALING WITH POOR CORPORATE CITIZEN VIS-?-VIS DEVELOPERS. EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT IS FINE IT COULD WIND UP BEING A MESS. THAT IS WHAT THE CONCERN IS. MY GOAL IN SUPPORTING THE CITY BUYING IT IS NOT AN EASY ONE. THIS IS A COIN FLIP WITH AN INCREMENTAL, I BELIEVE, ADVANTAGE IN SAYING YES. THAT INCREMENTAL ADVANTAGE IS BEGIN TO DICTATE TO A GREATER LEVEL AND ALL THE POINTS THAT COMMISSIONER MAYERSOHN SAID WELL WE'VE GOT THE CONTROLS ANYWAY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE'LL GET TO DICTATE TO A NOMINALLY HIGHER LEVEL WHAT GOES ON THAT PROPERTY AND WHO WE PARTNER WITH TO BUILD IT. AND FOR THAT REASON I SUPPORTED THEY DON'T DO IT EASILY AND I DON'T DO IT WITHOUT A HEAVY HEART WITH THE DECISION IS I WILL NOT SEE BECAUSE I LIVE AND BREATHE THIS STUFF AND I LOVE PARKLAND AND I DON'T THINK THE RIGHT OUTCOME IS BEEN ACHIEVED HERE. I THINK THE RIGHT OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IF WE WERE NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS AND IT WOULD HAVE GONE THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE GONE OR IF WE HAD INTERVENED FAR EARLIER. BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW AND THAT'S IT. SO THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF A NO-BRAINER.

I THINK ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS IN GETTING US ALL FEEDBACK ON BOTH SIDES. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL RIGHTS. YES, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOME COMMERCIAL THERE BUT YES PARKLAND WAS DESIGNED WHERE WE MINIMIZE OUR COMMERCIAL AND WE MAXIMIZE OUR PARK LIKE SETTING IN OUR COUNTRY ELEGANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

I AGREE WITH ALL THOSE THINGS. I ALSO AGREED THAT WE HAVE GOT WE HAVE GOT WAYS TO HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES ON DEVELOPERS BUT ON THE FLIPSIDE I HAVE SEEN THAT FAR TOO MANY TIMES DEVELOPERS TEND TO GET THEIR WAY IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT'S NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS AT TIMES AND WAIT UNTIL THE SILLY ISSUES LIKE DRIVEWAY EXPANSION NOW BECAUSE WE LOVE DEVELOPERS COME IN AND PUT TINY DRIVEWAYS AND BIG HOUSES ON THE LITTLE LOTS.

THOSE KIND OF ISSUES PLAGUING US AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORNS, TAKE RISKS, ALTHOUGH I CHAMPIONED TO MITIGATE THE RISKS WITH AN ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE WITH TRYING TO MAKE THE DEVELOPERS INTRODUCE SOME SORT OF JOINT VENTURE OR PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM AND I THINK I WILL TRY TO CONTINUE TO BE THE GOAL. MAKING A DECISION OR NOT WHETHER WE MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING THE PROJECT WE ARE NOT MAKING THE DECISION WITH WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PROPERTY, WILL GOES ON THE PROPERTY, WHO WE PARTNER WITH TO BUILD THE PROPERTY , THE ONLY DECISION WE ARE MAKING TONIGHT IS TO GO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH.

I ALSO TOOK VERY SERIOUSLY WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR LAST MEETING THE COMMENTS FROM OUR APPRAISER AND I THINK STEVE MENTIONED AS WELL IS THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS.

THIS IS A GOLF COURSE, GOLF COURSES ARE INHERENTLY RIPE WITH ARSENIC AND OTHER PESTICIDES AND OTHER CHEMICALS THAT COULD AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR IMPACT THE LIABILITY FOR THE CLEANUP OF THE PROPERTY. HAVE GOT ASSURANCES AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT FURTHER TONIGHT THAT IF WE ARE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NEXT STEP WE HAVE GOTTEN INSURANCE THROUGH OUR CITY MANAGER FROM THE FOLKS THAT DID OUR PHASE 1 THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH PHASE 2 WITHIN THE 60 DAY PERIOD. I LOOKED AT YOUR COMMENTS THAT COULD COST $10,000 MORE AN ACRE TO REMEDIATE BUT FOR 65 ACRES THAT'S A BIG PILL TO SWALLOW.

SO, I AGREE. I THINK ANTHONY CAN GUIDE US IF WE GO DOWN THAT PATH AND DO A PHASE 2 WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING WE BOW GRACEFULLY WITHIN THE 60 DAYS AND NO HARM NO FOUL AND WE MOVE ON. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THOSE MEASURES AND I THINK WE SHOULD

[00:50:01]

THE VALUATIONS ARE BOTH PROMISING AND CONCERNING, RIGHT? WE HAVE NSID'S EVALUATION ON BOTH SIDES THAT SHOWS IT LOWER THE WAR BY THE PROPERTY FOR BECAUSE CANDIDLY THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW BEING SOLD AT A MANUFACTURED HYDRATE.

IT'S A MANUFACTURED PROCESS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A BIT OUT AND THE ONLY MARKET ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN OTHER THAN OUR EXPERT HAS BEEN DONE BECAUSE WE HAD DEVELOPERS SAY THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO PACK INTO THE PROPERTY AND HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO PAY FOR IT.

THAT'S NOT A TRUE VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEIR WAY AND DO NOT WANT TO BUILD EVERYTHING THEY WANTED TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY. BUT I AM COMFORTED BY THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT ON BOTH APPRAISALS, AT LEAST, SOME MEASURE OF THE ABILITY TO SEE THAT WE HAVE GOT BESIDE AS I SAID I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DOLLAR ON THIS PROJECT BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE TAXPAYERS DOLLAR EITHER. MY GOAL IS TO STEER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, MY GOAL IS TO PARTNER WITH THE RIGHT DEVELOPER IN THE SEE THIS BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL OF PARKLAND NOT JUST HERON BAY. AVOID THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE BOAT IS I WANT THE RESIDENTS TO KNOW THERE'S NO DOOMSDAY TOMORROW.

WHEN YOU WAKE UP TOMORROW PARKLAND WILL STILL BE PARKLAND WHEN WE BUY THE PREMIER NOW WITH THE NSID AND SELLS IT TO SOMEONE ELSE OR NOT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO OUR JOB AND IF IT MEANS WERE NOT BUYING THE PROPERTY AND WE WILL HOLD THE DEVELOPERS FEET TO THE FIRE AND HAVE THEM IMMEDIATE VERY HIGH STANDARDS THAT ARE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THIS COMMISSION IN OUR CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERING AND PLANNER WILL DEVELOP THAT'S FINE. IF IT MEANS WE HAVE THE DRIVER IN THAT AND WERE GOING TO BE CURATING AND PROPOSING WHAT GOES ON THAT PROPERTY AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY THAT IS FINE TOO. EITHER WAY THE WORLD WILL CONTINUE SPINNING TOMORROW.

I JUST WANT TO LET THE RESIDENTS KNOW BECAUSE I THINK WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE APPRAISAL BUT THE NUMBERS DID NOT COME OUT AND MAYBE IF YOU WANTED TO COME BACK FOR A MINUTE JUST SO THE RESIDENTS ARE CLEAR THE APPRAISAL CAME BACK THE SECOND APPRAISAL WHICH WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST APPRAISAL WHICH HAD 19 FIVE AND NANCY WHAT WAS IT 30 OR $30 MILLION ON A HYPOTHETICAL BEST CASE BEST USE SCENARIO.

>> APPRAISAL NUMBER ONE WAS 30.6 MILLION AND APPRAISAL NUMBER TWO WAS 34.85 MILLION.

>> THAT WAS IN COMPARISON TO THE AS IS VALUES WHICH WERE 19 AND A HALF AND $13 MILLION.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY TO THE HERON BAY BOARD WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITHTHE HERON BAY BOARD .

THESE GUYS HAVE A LOT OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS ALL THE FOLKS INVOLVED IN ALL THE PEOPLE GUYS AND GALS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TOO. THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION FOR THEM IT'S NOT EASY TO ENTERTAIN GETTING INTO THE STEEL AND WAVING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND ASSIGNING OVER EASEMENTS WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND ALL THAT. SO, I GET IT. TRY TO DO THE SAME THING WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHICH IS JETTISON THE RIGHT DIRECTION, TRY TO MANAGE A BAD SITUATION AND MAKE IT THE BEST OUTCOME WE CAN. I THINK WE CAN GET THERE AS LONG AS WE WORK TOGETHER AS LONG AS IT IS WITH US ON THE PROPERTY OR NOT I THINK WE CAN GET THERE WE JUST NEED TO WORK TOGETHER. WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR CUTLER, YOU SEEMLIKE YOU HAD SOMETHING BEFORE?

>> YES , THANK YOU. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK BOTH THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER BRIER FOR THEIR ELOQUENCE. AND MANY OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE SAID I AGREE WITH.

THIS IS A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. AND I KNOW THAT ALL OF US HAVE LOST SLEEP OVER IT AND THAT MANY OF YOU ON THE AUDIENCE LOST SLEEP OVER IT.

I ALSO WANT TO THINK BOTH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS INTO THE STAFF AND OUR RESIDENTS FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK AND THEIR EMAILS, THEIR PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH ME, UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION. BUT, I THINK IT'S A DECISION WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS WORK CONTROL AS THE MAIN FACTOR IN ALL OF THIS.

WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS IS IS 13 MILLION OR 90 MILLION OR 25 MILLION DOLLARS THE MAYOR HAS ELOQUENTLY INDICATED IT IS HIS POSITION THAT PURCHASING THE LAND WILL GIVE US THE KIND OF CONTROL THAT WE NEED. BUT I LOOK AT IT A DIFFERENT WAY. AND I THINK IT'S A PRODUCT OF THE METHODOLOGY OF CONTROL AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL CONTROL THROUGH OWNERSHIP THAT IS WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE THE LEVERAGE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.

[00:55:01]

AND IN THE LAND USE AROUND IF THEY WANT TO COME WITH US WAS ANY KIND OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT ALL IT BETTER DAMN WELL FOR WHAT WE WANT OR IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

BECAUSE WE CAN VERY SIMPLY SAY NO THAT IS THE POWER WE HAVE. IT IS WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND $25 MILLION IN ORDER TO HAVE CONTROL. WE GET TO SAY NO TO THAT.

I WILL AGREE WITH THE MAYOR. THAT IN ALL OF OUR PLANNING SESSIONS NANCY HAS TALKED VERY ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE NEED SOME POINT TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES IN OUR CITY FOR PURPOSES OF MITIGATING THE POTENTIAL FOR HAVING TO RAISE MILLAGE RATES. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE SAME STANDARDS OF SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITY. BUT MY DILEMMA AND THE THING I'M LOSING SLEEP OVER IS THIS IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO SPEND $25 MILLION, WHICH IS HALF THE CITY'S BUDGET, ON SOMETHING AT A TIME WHERE I'M SEEING THE REAL ESTATE MARKET HAS REACHED ITS PEAK, THE DEFENDANT IS LOOKING AT RAISING INTEREST RATES. THAT WE ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO GO INTO ADAPTER THE SITUATION GOT TO PROPERTY APPRAISALS THAT AND IS PROPERTY BOTH OF WHICH INDICATE THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND IS MARKEDLY LESS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING TO BUY IT. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE A MYRIAD OF OTHER FINANCIAL FACTORS THAT WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO YET. SOMEONE BROUGHT UP OF THE CONCEPT OF WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO A PHASE? IF WE DO A PHASE 2 AND THE GUYS GOING ON TESTING WE DIDN'T INDICATE IS THAT YES IT WASN'T A GOLF COURSE FOR MANY YEARS BUT ALSO FOR THAT IT WASN'T ACTIVISM WHERE PEOPLE WERE USING PESTICIDES AND OTHER CHEMICALS TO GROW THEIR GROVES OUT THERE. SO WHEN THEY DO A LAND ANALYSIS ON THIS WITH THE PHASE 2 THEY IN MY MIND THERE'S A VERY STRONG POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE DEFINITELY GOING TO NEED TO BE SOME SORT OF REMEDIATION OUT THERE.

WITH THE VALUE OF THAT REMEDIATION IS, I DON'T KNOW. NONE OF US KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL FINANCIAL REST.

WE HAVE FINANCIAL RISKS ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU SPENT $25.4 MILLION ON THIS PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE MARKET TANKS TOMORROW AND WE CAN'T FIND A DEVELOPER TO BUY IT FOR 15 OR $20 MILLION WE JUST LOST $10 MILLION ON THAT, WE ARE TO REMEDIATE FOR WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT AND THEN THERE IS PLUS PLUS PLUS PLUS PLUS VERSUS WE SIT BACK AS A COMMISSION AND WE DO WHEN OUR JOB IS.

AND, IT'S A HARD JOB. WHEN DEVELOPERS COME TO US AND HAVE A PROJECT AND WE DON'T LIKE WHAT THE PROJECT IS IT IS OUR JOB TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, NO.

IN THIS CASE, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD US THAT THE HIGHEST POWER FROM THE LEGISLATIVE STANDPOINT WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO ANY COMMERCIAL USE, BECAUSE WE CAN SIMPLY SAY NO. THAT'S PRETTY BIG POWER. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OTHER ISSUE IN THE ROOM AND THAT IS THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF IT. WE DON'T WANT TO PUT MORE RESIDENCES IN THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR SCHOOLS.

WELL, GUESS WHAT? THE PROBLEM IS BIGGER THAN WHAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

IT'S A PROBLEM I DON'T YOU THE ANSWER TO. RIGHT NOW, WE HAD A WORKSHOP AT THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER ATTENDED WITH THE CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS AND EVERYBODY WAS KUMBAYA. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT PROJECT AND WERE HAPPY TO BUY IT.

THERE WAS NOTHING IN WRITING, THERE HAS BEEN NO COMMISSION MEETING IN CORAL SPRINGS THE WHERE THEY SAY AND WHATEVER YOU DO WE WILL STAMP. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING ON PAPER TO SAY THAT DEAL WILL EVER GET DONE BY CORAL SPRINGS. WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THIS COMING SCHOOL YEAR RIGHT AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS THE SCHOOL BOARD IS CONCERNED TALKING ABOUT BOUNDARY ISSUES. THOSE BOUNDARY ISSUES FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE CITY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME YOU MIGHT REMEMBER WHAT THOSE BOUNDARY ISSUES WERE LIKE WITH OUR SCHOOLS. WE WERE IN A KNOCKDOWN DRAG OUT FIGHT WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES ABOUT WHERE OUR KIDS WERE GOING TO GO TO SCHOOL.

NOW, PERSONALLY I WOULD PREFER THAT THE CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN A PARKLAND GO TO THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN A PARKLAND. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS A LARGE CORRIDOR OF LAND THAT STRETCHES ON THE SCHOOL BOARD BOUNDARY ALL THE WAY INTO THE CORAL SPRINGS AREA RIGHT OF THE

[01:00:03]

THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE UPON BETWEEN CORAL SPRINGS AND PARKLAND.

YOU TALK ABOUT RESIDENCES THEY CAN BUILD MORE RESIDENTS ON WHATEVER ACREAGE CORAL SPRINGS PURCHASE FROM US MAYBE THEY MITIGATE THE $25 MILLION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND TO BUY THE LAND BY KNOCKING IT DOWN BY $7 BILLION OR WHATEVER THE VALUE OF THE WILLING TO PAY WHAT SHE HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO GET AT THE END OF THE DAY I BELIEVE THE BETTER COURSE, THE BETTER METHODOLOGY FOR US, IS TO ALLOW US TO USE OUR LEGISLATIVE POWER AND MOVE FORWARD WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO THEY COME TO US AND WE GET TO DECIDE.

THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT WE WANT TO BUILD, NO OR NOT GIVING YOU ANY COMMERCIAL BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT. THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE WE CAN STILL GET TOGETHER WITH OUR COMMUNITY, WE CAN STIL GET TOGETHER WITH OUR RESIDENTS, WE CAN STILL HAVE CHARADES WHERE WE CAN SAY THIS IS WHAT WE LOOK GOOD THERE IS NO ELECTOR THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IF THE DEVELOPER COULD BUILD WE WOULD GET BEHIND THAT. WE CAN DO THAT WHEN THE DEVELOPER COMES WE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THIS IS WHAT WE COULD GO FORWARD WITH WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND THE $25 MILLION, I AM NOT DONE. WE WOULD NOT JUST ON THE $25 MILLION AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT IN THIS POTENTIAL MARKET.

WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY, WE HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE ABILITY AS A COMMISSION TO DO THIS RIGHT.

AND SO, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A REST ON BOTH SIDES. I THINK THAT THE RISK IS BETTER SERVED WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND OUR ABILITY TO SAY, LOOK, IF WE PUT RESIDENCES THERE WE ARE GOING TO BRING FAMILIES AND BUT GUESS WHAT, THEY WILL HAVE TO BUILD THOSE RESIDENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARKLAND'S CODES. IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR PLANNING AND ZONING IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR COMMISSION WHICH AFTER THIS BATTLE I CAN GUARANTEE YOU IS GOING TO BE RIGHT OR IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

VERSUS SPENDING $25 MILLION AND HOPING ON A WING AND A PRAYER THAT WE CAN FIND A DEVELOPER THAT'S WILLING TO BUILD IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND SPEND THE KIND OF MONEY THAT WE WANT TO GET OUT OF THIS. SO, I LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

>> IF I COULD JUST, SO OUR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE CAN STOP COMMERCIAL 100 PERCENT. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN THAT.

BUT WE CANNOT 100 PERCENT STOCK RESIDENTS. SO, IF WE DECIDE TO NOT BUY IT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING TO A DEVELOPER, WE KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING COMMERCIAL THROUGH BECAUSE THE PARKLAND HAS ALREADY SHOWN HESITANCY FOR COMMERCIAL SO THEY ARE GOING TO LEAN TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL AND THAT WE CANNOT STOP.

SO WE ARE BY US NOT BUYING IT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, WE DON'T WANT COMMERCIAL, WE WILL DEAL WITH HOW MANY RESIDENTS COME WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES. BECAUSE I THINK EVERY SINGLE APPRAISAL AND MARKET ANALYSIS SHOWS A DEVELOPER MAKES MORE MONEY BUILDING HOMES.

SO, IT'S MORE APPETIZING FOR DEVELOPER TO WANT TO BUY ED TO JUST BUILD HOMES.

THEY WILL SAY I DON'T EVEN WANT TO DEAL WITH PARKLAND BECAUSE I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT COMMERCIAL THAT'S GOING TO BE TOO MUCH TROUBLE FOR ME TO HAVE TO GO WITH JUST WANT TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL. AND, I'M GOING TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

AND NOW HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE WHERE OUR SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED WHICH WE ALL SAY EVEN THE SCHOOL BOARD SAYS. WE ARE NOW ADDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE HOUSING MARKET WHICH WILL HAVE TRAFFIC AND THEN CORAL SPRINGS WILL SAY, OKAY, WELL NOW I'M GOING TO DO EVEN MORE RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE I CAN'T BUILD ANY COMMERCIAL THERE SO I'M GOING TO BUILD AS

[01:05:04]

WE CAN ABSOLUTELY STOP RESIDENTIAL. WE CAN DECIDE TO NOT BUILD ANY RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE ALL AGREED THE 60 UNITS ON THE NORTH ALLOWS US A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO RECOUP SOME OF THOSE MONIES. MAYBE AS MUCH AS HALF.

SO NOW WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE COMMERCIAL IS. WE ALREADY CAN GET HALF.

WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING. AND RECOUP THAT MONEY BACK. US NOT BUYING THIS LAND TELLS THE DEVELOPER RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW GO AHEAD AND BUILD RESIDENTS.

DON'T EVEN BOTHER COMING FOR COMMERCIAL BECAUSE WE CAN SAY NUMBER NO.

SO THEY CAN BUILD 300, 100, WHATEVER.

>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT? SURE.

>> LET ME MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. AGAIN, I READ THE MINUTES I AM NOT 100 PERCENT ON THE LAW BUT I KNOW THAT IN 2002 WHEN THE NORTH PART OF HERON BAY WAS ANNEXED AND HERE THEY KEPT THE NUMBER OF HOMES. THEY KEPT THE NUMBER OF HOMES.

THE AMOUNT OF HOMES THEY CAN BUILD ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THREE UNITS OR LESS. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.

THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL LEGAL ANALYSIS OF IT. BUT, THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE BUILT ON THAT LAND THAT IT CAME AS A GOLF COURSE THAT THE INTENT WAS FOR IT TO ALWAYS BE A GOLF COURSE THAT IS SET UP AS A AGRICULTURAL ZONE FOR THAT PURPOSE. GOLF COURSE.

>> MAKE SURE YOU ARE CLEAR AND SPEAKING THAT IT IS PARKLAND. THE PARKLAND AREA.

>> YEAH, I AM TALKING ABOUT THAT.

>> BUT THERE IS LAND IN CORAL SPRINGS.

>> AND YOU KNOW WHAT? WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT CORAL SPRINGS WITH WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR LANDS WE NEVE COULD. EVEN IF WE BUY THE LAND UNLESS THEY ARE WILLING TO CUT A DEAL WITH US WHICH THEY HAVE NOT PUT IN WRITING, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT HAD MEETINGS ON, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A FEAR ON THIS DAY IS TO USE A DECISION-MAKING FACTOR OTHER THAN HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND IT SOUNDED LIKE YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> IT WASN'T A CONVERSATION IT WAS A WORKSHOP WHERE ALL THEIR COMMISSION HAD AGREED THAT THE COMMERCIAL SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN A CONVERSATION, LET'S NOT MAKE IT.

MAYBE IF I GO TO A WORKSHOP AND I SOMEONE ELSE AND I TELL YOU THIS IS WHAT I AM GOING TO DO THAT MEANS A LOT MORE THAN.

>> I TELL YOU WHEN WE GO TO WORK OVER THE BOUNDARY ISSUES OVER THE SCHOOL STUFF ALL THAT STUFF WILL GO OUT THE WINDOW, GUARANTEE YOU . BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE.

>> BOUNDARY ISSUES COMING REGARDLESS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING OUR ENERGY.

>> TO SAY OUR ENERGY, SAVE OUR ENERGY, AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I WANT TO BUY IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL THERE. THAT'S WHY TALK ABOUT CONTROL.

I DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL THERE.

>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO RECOUP THE $25 MILLION EUROS SPENT OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY IF YOU DON'T PUT SOMETHING IN THERE? YOU'RE GOING TO MY RESIDENCES IN THERE.

>> YOU CAN ABOUT 50 OR 60 YOU'RE GOING TO PUT HALF THE MONEY OUTLAY ON THE 50 OR 60 UNITS. SO THEN WE WOULD GET 7 MILLION FROM CORAL SPRINGS SO THAT'S 19 MILLION. WE PUT UP 25 MILLION. SO THAT'S $6 MILLION.

THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAME IN AT, WENT TO THE COMMERCIAL AND THE APPRAISAL DID YOU BREAK THE CENTER PORTION IT WAS 19 MILLION? OKAY SO, THAT'S A $13 MILLION SURPLUS. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT NECESSARILY MAKING MONEY BUT THATGIVES YOU A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM , A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM. I MEAN, YOU COULD BE WRONG BY HALF. AND STILL BREAKEVEN. YOU COULD BE WRONG BY 50 PERCENT AND STILL BREAKEVEN. BUT IF WE DON'T BUY IT TONIGHT WE ARE TELLING A DEVELOPER JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD RESIDENTIAL YOU WILL MAKE MORE MONEY ANYWAY.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TELLING THEM. I'M WILLING TO FIGHT WITH THEM.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FIGHT WITH THEM THAT'S FINE.

>> UNWILLING TO FIGHT WITH WHOEVER YOU ARE LIMITED IN THE TOOLS WE HAVE.

HE SAID WE GO BACK TO OUR WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR TOOLS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.

[01:10:01]

ANYONE THAT COMES WITH COMMERCIAL WE CAN SAY NO, NO, NO, NO I DON'T WANT I DON'T NEED TO GIVE A REASON. BUT WE CANNOT DO THAT WITH RESIDENTIAL.

OUR LEGISLATIVE POWERS ARE LIMITED. IT'S NOT FULL CONTROL.

SO AGAIN, I MEAN, TO ME IT'S VERY SIMPLE. WE EITHER WANT TO CONTROL AND BUILD COMMERCIAL WHICH WE ALL SAID WE WANTED OR JUST GO AHEAD AND HAVE HOMES GO THERE.

I MEAN, TO ME THAT IS WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO. AND THEN WERE GOING TO BE LOOKING BACK 10 YEARS FROM NOW WE SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT, WE SHOULD HAVE COMMERCIAL BY THE WAY YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP TWO OR THREE POINTS WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS YOUR SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED BUT WERE STILL FIGHTING WITH CORAL SPRINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE BUILDING 2000 UNITS THAT ARE ZONED MSD AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THEIR PARCELS.

ON THE CORNER I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES ON THAT BUT ON THE SAMPLE AND UNIVERSITY I MENTIONED NEXT 10 OR 12 ACRES, MAYBE. AND THEY'RE PUTTING 800 UNITS.

THEY HAVE NINE ACRES AND EIGHT. THEY HAVE 17 ACRES. HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU THINK THEY WILL PUT THERE? A LOT. AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING. THOSE UNITS THAT GO THERE GO TO WEST GLADES, HERON HEIGHTS, MSD, GO EVERYWHERE. AND THE DEVELOPER MAKES MORE MONEY.

THAT TO ME, IS THE KICKER. BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR DEVELOPERS MAKE LESS MONEY AND COMMERCIAL.

STEVE WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WELL HE PROBABLY WILL. NOW HE WILL AGREE PRIVATELY BUT HE WON'T AGREE HERE OR ON FACEBOOK. BUT THEY NEED MORE MONEY FOR RESIDENTIAL IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND. BECAUSE WE RIGHT NOW HAVE THE CITY THAT CONFLICTS 4000 SQUARE-FOOT HOMES WERE 500 SQUARE-FOOT HOMES.

YOU CAN SELL THOSE FOR 1.2 EVEN IN A DOWN MARKET. YEAH, THINGS ARE GOING DOWN THEY ARE RAISING RATES AND ALL THAT STUFF HOUSING MARKET IS COOLING OFF BUT PARKLAND IS STILL ONE OF THE MOST DESIRABLE THIS IS TO LIVE AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING GOOD FINANCIALLY. AND OUR CITY MANAGER WHO HAS BEEN AT THE STEWARD OF AMAZING FINANCIAL LEADERSHIP FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS IS TELLING US WE NEED OTHER AVENUES OF REVENUE.

AND NOT ONLY WILL BE ADDED TO THE SCHOOLS BUT WE ARE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES IN A PROBLEM OF REVENUE.BECAUSE THE 200 HOMES THOSE IMPACT FEES ARE NOT GOING TO HELP VERY MUCH.

THE 600 HOMES AT PARKLAND BAY THE REASON WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INCREASE OUR PARKS, GO BACK TO MATT, OUR PARKS ARE TOP-NOTCH. THEY WENT THROUGH A PERIOD WHERE THE MAINTENANCE WAS A LITTLE UNDER WE ADDED TERRA MARK IS ESSENTIALLY A RENTED PARK.

I TRAILS IS GOING TO THE SAME TRANSFORMATION. OUR PARKS HAVE REALLY COME A LONG WAY. AND THAT IS ON THE BACKS OF IMPACT FEES FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE WEDGE. IT'S NOT FROM OUR TAX REVENUE BASE.

WE ARE BUILT OUT. SO IF WE WANT TO KEEP UP THIS LEVEL OF SERVICE, I AM SORRY, PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT DOLLARS AND CENTS, YES, I WANT TO KEEP MY LEVEL OF SERVICE AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS DESERVE IT. NOT ONLY DO THEY DESERVE IT AND WANT TO DEMAND IT. AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT IS FINDING OTHER AVENUES OF REVENUE BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO BE THE MAYOR WHO HAS TO RAISE TAXES.

AND THIS PURCHASE GIVES US EXACTLY THE CONTROL THAT WE NEED AND WE DESIRE.

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STOP RESIDENTIAL IS TO PURCHASE IT AND BEGIN TO DICTATE 100 PERCENT. IF WE DECIDE LATER WE WANT TO CHANGE GEARS, SO BE IT, WE CAN DO IT THAT BECAUSE WE OWN IT. BUT WE CAN NEVER GO BACK AND SAY COULD'VE, SHOULD'VE, WOULD'VE. WE TALKED ABOUT SHOULD'VE BOUGHT HERON BAY BACK THEN.

COMMISSIONER BRIER MADE A GREAT POINT. WE PROBABLY SAID WELL, IT'S TOO MUCH. THAT WAS 10 TO 15 YEARS AGO. $5 MILLION WAS $25 MILLION WHAT IT IS TODAY. SO YEAH, IT'S A LOT. BUT, IS IT WORTH IT IN THE END? GUESS WHAT, WE WON'T EVER REALLY KNOW THE ANSWER BUT WE CAN NEVER GO BACKWARDS.

WHEN WE ADDED WHATEVER THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL THERE IS AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL BASE, WE CAN'T GO BACK. WE ARE STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH

[01:15:03]

WE CAN TAKE OUR TIME, DO A BRD WHATEVER WANT TO DO AS FAR AS WHATEVER THAT COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND WE DO THE REST. WE WORK WITH CORAL SPRINGS, YEAH, SURE WE HAVE NOTHING IN WRITING BUT LISTEN SOMETIMES AND PUT FAITH IN PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY TELL YOU IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND I HAVE GOTTEN PUBLICLY THOSE GUARANTEES FROM THAT COMMISSION AND THE CITY MANAGER AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME IN PUBLIC AND I'M GOING TO HOLD THEIRFEET TO THE FIRE AND GUESS WHAT , THEY WANT REVENUE ANYWAY.

>> THE OTHER THING IS NOT ADDRESSED IS THE FACT THAT HERON BAY IS STILL LOOKING FOR HALF $1 MILLION. FROM THE VERY FIRST CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH THEM WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ASPECT OF THEM WANTING TO GET MONEY FOR THEIR EASEMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY THAT THEY HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL.

AND THEY WILL FOOT THE BILL BECAUSE IF YOU BUY THE PROPERTY AND THEN TRY TO SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECOUP THEIR MONEY SOMEHOW EITHER LESSON THEY PAY TO THE CITY OR SOMETHING BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A FACTOR IN THAT. THAT IS ONE THING.

THE OTHER THING IS AND THE OTHER THING WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT IS IN THE RISK SIDE OF THIS, NOTHING IS GOING TO BE DONE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. NOTHING, WHETHER WE BUY IT OR WHETHER NSID GIVES IT TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER AND WANT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING, NOTHING WILL BE DONE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ONE, YOU FIVE YEARS OF COMPANY DON'T PREVENT ANYTHING FROM BEING BUILT THERE. YOU HAVE GOT THAT, OKAY.

NUMBER TWO, HERON BAY, IF WE DECIDED KNOW TONIGHT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TURN AROUND AND GO OUR EASEMENTS ARE $10 MILLION. IF AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A LOT MORE OUT OF THAT DEAL THAN JUST THE MONEY YOU ARE TRYING TO GET FROM THE CITY.

AND THE THIRD THING IS THAT IF, AGAIN, IF NSID GIVES IT TO A DEVELOPER IS A LONG PROCESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITH THE LAND USE AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF, WITH ZONING, AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT WILL TAKE US DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE REALLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR MARKET, REALLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH INTEREST RATES AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS.

OTHERWISE, WE ARE HOLDING A PIECE OF LAND AND SPENDING $25.4 MILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS AT FACE 2 AND THE POTENTIAL FOR WHATEVER ELSE THAT MIGHT CAUSE US TO HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON. THERE IS A PLUS PLUS PLUS FACTOR OF THIS AND HOLDING OF MONEY DOWN THE ROAD.

>> THE FACE 2 WE HAVE TO DO THE FACE? WE HAVE 60 DAYS IF FAITH 2 COMES BACK WHERE TO SHUT DOWN BECAUSE THE PHASE TWO COMES BACK AND WE SHUT IT DOWN.

BY US BUYING IT NOW DOESN'T TELL US WE CAN'T. IF WE DO A PHASE TWO IS THE COST OF $100,000 PER ACRE TO CLEAN IT UP, OKAY NSID YOU CAN TAKE THIS LAND WE DON'T WANT IT. WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.

WE HAVE 60 DAYS. THE CONTRACT IS NOT A DISCUSSION POINT AT THIS JUNCTURE BECAUSE OF PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO BACK OUT OF THE DEAL AT IF PHASE TWO IS NOT AN ISSUE. AS FAR AS HERON BAY LOOKING FOR DOLLARS FOR THE EASEMENT AND THE COVENANT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ONE A PERCENT. HOWEVER, HERON BAY IS BEING A PARTNER IN REDUCING THE COVENANT SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG FASTER, GIVING UP EASEMENTS THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE UP, SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG FASTER. AND TO ME, $500,000 IN A 20 FAMILY DOLLAR PROJECT MONEY WE CERTAINLY CAN RECOUP FROM A DEVELOPER EVEN THOUGH CAN STILL GO IN OUR COFFERS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY IT, IS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY TO HAVE THE CERTAINTY OF WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY GO THERE. AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT WE MAKE MONEY, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE JORDAN WILL SAY IT BECAUSE HE SAID IT 100 TIMES AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. IF WE DON'T MAKE ALL OF OUR MONEY BACK WHICH COMMISSIONER BRIER HAS ALSO SAID IF WERE NOT ABOUT MAKING MONEY WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE MONEY

[01:20:02]

>> I WANT ANTHONY TO CLARIFY BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE HERON BAY TERM SHEET IS THAT THE $500,000 ONLY KICKS IN IF AND WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO EXTRACT THAT AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FROM A DEVELOPER ON THEIR BEHALF. ESSENTIALLY SOME SORT OF PROFIT SHARING. IS THAT CORRECT, ANTHONY?

>> IS SUPPOSED TO BE PAID TO THE HERON BAY HOA UPON THE DEVELOPER PURCHASING THE PROPERTY OR PORTION THEREOF OF THE CITY.

>> IF THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT INCLUDES THAT $500,000 IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THEY DON'T GET I ?

>> WELL, I THINK IS SILENT ON THAT POINT SO I DON'T WHAT THE HOA EXPECTATION IS IN THAT REGARD.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> THE WAY IT'S. I THINK IT SUPPORTS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING AND MARKET CAN COME UP AND TEST IS THE $500,000 IS NOT THE TAX ON THE TAX THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS, TOO. IF THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO PAY FOR THE LAND WHICH INCLUDES THE EASEMENTS AND WAIVER OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PRESUMABLY AND IT'S A BIG IF MORE THAN WHAT WE ARE PAYING FOR THE LAND THEY ARE GOING TO SHARE IN THAT PORTION TO THE EXTENT WE GET A DEVELOPER TO PONY UP $500,000 PAY THEM DIRECTLY FOR THE EASEMENTS AND THE WAIVER OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.I HEAR IT'S POTENTIALLY LESS MONEY COMING OUT OF THE POCKET BUT I'M CONFIDENT IN OUR MAYOR JUST AS HE DID WITH A GREATER ACRES EVEN I WAS NOT IN FAVOROF THE PROJECT THEY WERE ASKING FOR MY DOGS AT THE LAST SECOND .

I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE WE CAN DEAL WITH. I SURE YOU ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE CHAMPIONING THE IDEA OF AN ASSIGNMENT.

IT ALLEVIATES YOU CAN MAKE AN ASSIGNMENT THAT IS CONTINGENT UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, RIGHT? YOU CAN BUILD MORE THAN NEXT THERE OR WHAT AND WHY THERE IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. I THINK THERE'S MORE HOOPS TO GO THROUGH ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE BUT THERE'S HOOPS TO GO THERE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO COME IN AND BUILD RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL. BUT I DO AGREE AND AGAIN EVERYTHING YOU SAID AS I SAID BEFORE IS 1000 PERCENT ACCURATE WE ARE AT A 51 OR 50.01 VERSUS 49.99 IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE BETTER OFF DOING AND I JUST THINK THAT WE EDGED OUT IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD TAKING CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY. WE ARE NOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS WERE NOT IN THE REAL ESTATE SPECULATION BUSINESS I SAID THAT ALL ALONG WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS WE BASELINE ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES IMMEDIATELY IN TERMS OF EITHER PARTNERING WITH THE DEVELOPERS EITHER THEY ASSUME THE RISK FOR ASSIGNING IT TO A DEVELOPER SO STUDENT IN THE RIGHT HANDS AND IS SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH PRACTICALLY LOOKING FORWARD. EVERYTHING BOTH OF YOU SAID IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE AND JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT AND SHE MOVES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER OR ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER. FOR ME, IT WAS IN FAVOR OF HAVING TOTAL CONTROL.YOU AND I MAYOR DO NOT DISAGREE OR AGREE ON WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE SIGNED THE CONTRACT IF WE SIGN THE CONTRACT AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DECIDE TO ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OR SIGN A PORTION OF THE PROJECT OVER TO DEVELOPER BUT WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES WE CAN ENTER INTO THIS CONTRACT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED ANY TO LANGUAGE BUT WE CAN ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT AND WE CAN ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE DEVELOPER BEFORE EVEN CLOSE AND PUT OUT THE MONEY.

>> THE ONLY REASON I'M OPPOSED TO SOME ASSIGNMENT, I THINK IT'S A GREAT TOOL TO HAVE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MORE SO THE COMMERCIAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT BEFORE YOU PASS IT OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WITH THE NORTH PORTION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL THAT'S THE ONLY TO BE THE ASSIGNMENT MAKE SENSE JUST FEELING UNFORTUNATELY WERE NOT QUITE THERE YET OF WHAT WE WANT WITH A BRD.

>> I THINK ALL THOSE ISSUES IN TERMS OF OPTIONS CAN BE RESOLVED INCLUDING THE NEXT 60 DAYS IF WE GO FORWARD TONIGHT.

>> MAYBE THOSE COULD BE WORKED OUT.

>> YES, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT NOT THAT I WANT ANYONE TO SKIN A CAT.

>> LET ME LET COMMISSIONER ISROW GO. BECAUSE I STOLE THE TIME.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, TO REITERATE WHAT ALL THE GENTLEMAN I SAID SO FAR.

THIS IS IN A SEXUAL EXCEPTIONAL MOMENT IN PARKLAND HISTORY. I WORKING APPRECIATE BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE THAT MOST PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT GOVERNMENT. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW IT NEVER DOES WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SPENDING MONEY IMPROPERLY OR

[01:25:02]

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF POINTS BECAUSE I THINK WHAT'S BIG AS A FINANCIAL RISK.S A CITY WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE OUR FINANCES IN A FIDUCIARY MANNER I THINK THE MAYOR SAID WELL. THANKS TO OUR CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY STAFF WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS AGAIN AN INCREDIBLE FEAT. I THINK THE QUESTION EVERYONE SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES IS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A RESERVE FUND? WE TALK ABOUT WE HAVE $24 MILLION IN RESERVES WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND OR WASTED, WHAT IS IT FOR? IF THERE'S A HURRICANE YOU MAY NEED FOR RELIEF FOR REPAIRS OF DAMAGE. BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS THERE'S NO REAL DEFINITION FOR WHAT IT IS FOR. IT'S FOR WHAT WE THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY WAS GOING TO GET US THE BEST RETURN FOR THE USE OF THE MONEY.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT WHILE PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT TAXES THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO PAY TAXES ESPECIALLY IN A CITY LIKE PARKLAND.

WE JUST HAD A BUDGET WORKSHOP AND WE SHOWED A GRAPH THAT WE ARE IN THE LOWEST TIER OF MILLAGE RATE IN BROWARD COUNTY. THAT'S NOT EVEN THIS YEAR HAVE KEPT THE MILLAGE RATE THIS WILL BE THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW AND THAT'S AN INCREDIBLE THING, RIGHT? BUT AT SOME POINT PEOPLE CANNOT HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. WE CAN ON THE ONE HAND SAY I DON'T WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES BUT I ALSO WANT TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE THE FACILITIES AND THE PARKS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT I ENJOY ABOUT LIVING IN PARKLAND.

IT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC. I PERSONALLY THINK THERE'S A PRIVILEGE TO PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT OF TAXES TO GET WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOUR HOME. AND THAT HOME IS FOR ALL OF US.

WE TALK ABOUT HERON BAY, WE TALK ABOUT ISSUES OF WHETHER THAT'S A CITY ISSUE, AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS A PARKLAND ISSUE. YES, IT AFFECTS HERON BAY MUCH MORE UNIQUELY BECAUSE OF ITS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY EVERYONE HAS A SAY IN THIS BECAUSE IT'S OUR CITY. SO HERE IS WHERE I COME DOWN ON THAT. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO SPEND THE $25 MILLION AS WE WOULD IN A HURRICANE RELIEF SITUATION WERE NOT EXPECTING TO RECOUP ANY OF IT.

WE ARE HOPING TO SPEND $25 MILLION WITH ONE OF THE EXPECTATION OF RECOUPING SOME IF NOT ALL OF THE MONEY AND POTENTIALLY MAKING MORE BUT NUMBER TWO TO PROTECTING THE CHARM, THE ENVIRONMENT, THE FEEL OF THE CITY THAT EVERYONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF A BINDING OR NONBINDING EVERYONE CARES ABOUT PARKLAND IN THE SAME REASON AND THEY HAVE THE SAME AFFINITY FOR WHY IT IS A SPECIAL PLACE.

SO, TO TALK ABOUT TAXES WE HAVE SEEN IN OUR PRESENTATION OF THE WORKSHOP THAT OVER THE NEXT 3 TO 5 YEARS WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO INCREASE OUR MILLAGE RATE BECAUSE THE CITY IS BUILDING OUT TO CAPACITY YOU HAVE HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES IN A BEDROOM CITY AND IS OTHERWISE LIMITED COMMERCIAL VIEW CONTACTS. SO IT'S AN INEVITABILITY.

NOW, IF WE WERE TO RAISE THE TAXES YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMPLAINING SAYING, WHY ARE YOU RAISING MY TAXES? I AGAIN WANT TO TAKE THE POSITION BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOGICALLY FOLLOW IT THROUGH THAT YOU HAVE TO EXPECT YOUR TAXES TO GO UP IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE THING YOU SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT AND RESOURCES AND IS NOT JUSTICE BUT PEOPLE IN THE PAST TO BUILD AND CURATE AND PROTECT.

AS PART OF THE GAME IS THE INVESTMENT. BUT THE 25 MILLION SHOULD NOT BE LOOKED AT AS A TAX SAY WERE SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ON THIS.

YES, IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY FORWARDED SPENDING IT IN THE SENSE THAT MOST PEOPLE ATTRIBUTE TO SPENDING MONEY. WE ARE INVESTING IT IN THE INVESTMENT COMES WITH RISK JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INVESTMENT. I THINK ALL THE APPRAISALS WE HAVE DONE SO FAR WOULD GIVE ME ENOUGH OF A COMFORT LEVEL TO SAY ONE, WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO RECOUP AT A MINIMUM HALF, AT A MINIMUM. BUT THAT'S NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIFT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN AND OF ITSELF MULTIPLIES THE VALUE OF THE AS IS PROPERTY IS NOW YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT SAY WELL PREVIOUSLY I CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR FIVE YEARS OTHER THAN MAINTAIN A GOLF COURSE

[01:30:03]

A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IS I HEARD YOU SAYING A LOT OF WELL AS A DEVELOPER COME HERE WECAN SAY NO . THEY WANT THIS WE CAN SAY NO. YOU ARE RIGHT BUT WE CAN'T SAY IS YES, HERE IS WHAT WE WANT. MY CONCERN IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO WAIT YOU SAID THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME POTENTIALLY OF A DEVELOPER IF NSID SELLS IT TO THEM.

YOU ARE RIGHT IT WILL TAKE TIME TO GET THERE LAND USE IN ORDER WILL TAKE TIME FOR THEM TO GET A PROJECT THAT'S FINANCIALLY SOUND IN PERPETUITY CAN ACTUALLY EXIST.

BY THE TIME THEY GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW YOU'RE TALKING MAYBE 3 TO 5 YEARS OUT AND THAT'S MAYBE ASSUMING THAT WHATEVER THEY'RE PROPOSING TO THE CITY ASSUMING WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT WE KEEP SAYING NO YOU ARE DRAWING A TIMEOUT FURTHER AND FURTHER. I THINK IF WE TAKE CONTROL WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CUT THAT TIME AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT WE MAKE A DECISION EARLY ON IF WE SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL THAT THE COMMERCIALS NOT GOING TO WORK OUT WE SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE TOOK OUR SHOP WE GAVE IT OUR BEST BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT RESIDENTIAL IS PROBABLY WHAT IS GOING TO END UP BEING THERE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT FOUND A PARTNER OR DEVELOPER THAT'S GIVING US EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR FOR THAT REASON WE ARE CUTTING OUR COSTS AND RECOUP THE FUNDS. AT LEAST IN THAT SITUATION WE HAVE NOW BEEN ABLE TO ONE, SAY WE DID OUR JOBS WHICH WE ARE ALREADY DOING OUR JOBS NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WITH REVOLT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BUT AT LEAST WE TOOK THE EFFORT OF SAYING SOMETHING THAT RATHER THAN SITTING BACK AND HOPING AND LOSING THE LAND USE AND THE CODE WHICH AGAIN GIVES US A LOT OF OPTIONS, I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THOSE OPTIONS ARE LIMITED WHEN HIS OWNERSHIP OF IT YOU EXPAND THOSE OPTIONS AND NOW IT BECOMES A LOT OF WHAT WE WANT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE DON'T WANT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE OF THE THINGS BECAUSE REALLY, REALLY THE SAID WHY WOULD WE TAKE OVER NSID'S PROBLEM? I DON'T THINK IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT THIS. NSID'S PROBLEM IS OUR PROBLEM. NSID WHETHER THE SELLER TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER OR NOT THEY ARE EITHER GOING TO ESPECIALLY ASSESS THEIR CUSTOMERS A.K.A.

US WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO SELLER. THEY ARE GOING TO RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BUT IT WILL BE AT OUR EXPENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CARE WHETHER PARKLAND LIKES THE PLAN OF THE DEVELOPERS AND IN FACT THAT'S WHY WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE THAT EXACT CONCERN. I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY WERE TAKING OVER NSID'S PROBLEM WE ARE AS WERE TAKING CONTROL OF OUR PROBLEM.

NSID HAPPENS TO BE A KEY PLAYER IN IT BUT IT'S OUR PROBLEM AT THE END OF THE DAY.

THE LEAD IS WITHIN OUR BOUNDARIES. SOMEONE ELSE SAID AT THERE'S NO BETTER USE FOR 24 MILLION? I WOULD ARGUE THERE ARE MANY GREAT USES FOR 25 MILLION.

WHAT WOULD EITHER WAY COULD YOU GET THAT MONEY BACK OR PORTION OF THAT MONEY? WOULD HAVE TO SPEND WASTEFULLY CONSIDER WE HAVE SET HERE NOW ON THIS DAY IS THREE TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST HOW MANY EVER MONTHS WORKING THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, EVERY SINGLE RISK, EVERY SINGLE POTENTIAL WHAT IF AND I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE'VE DONE A PRETTY DAMN GOOD JOB I'LL BE AT KNOWING THERE ARE STILL SOME UNKNOWNS AND SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED. THAT IS WHAT AGAIN I THINK THE 60 DAY INVESTIGATIVE POLICE IS

[01:35:07]

SPENDING MONEY FOR THE LIMITED USE FOR THE MONEY THERE ARE SOME TAXES THAT ARE WORTH IT.

I WANT EVERYONE TO ASK WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO SUPPORT WITH YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY? YOU HAVE A CHOICE, YOU CHOSE TO LIVE IN PARKLAND AND COMING TO THE CHOICE YOU AGREE THAT WHEN YOU LIVE HERE YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE TAXES THAT ARE REQUIRED OF YOU.

NOW, AT SOME POINT PEOPLE SAY I DON'T LIKE TO PAY THESE TAXES WHILE THEY HAVE TO ASK WHY? IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK YOU'RE GETTING A FOUR WHAT YOUR PAIN TO NOTHING THE CITY IS WARRANTED OR JUSTIFIED? YOU NOT BELIEVE THAT THE HOME VALUES THAT ARE BE PRESERVED BY THE ACTION OF THIS COMMITTEE AND BY THE CITY STAFF ARE SOUND ENOUGH TO PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT?ALL YOUR DECISIONS, IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.

BUT WHAT I WOULD ARGUE IS THE REASON WE PAY THE TAXES WE PAY IN PARKLAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE SOME OF THE LOWEST RELATIVE MILLAGE RATE IN THE COUNTY IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT THE PLACE THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE DON'T TAKE ACTION THE TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDED TO THE CITY BECAUSE WE BUILT SOMETHING THIS WOULD INCREASE THE VALUE TO YOU BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, IT'S THE OPPOSITE WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH MORE COMMERCIAL, TO ESTABLISH A WAY TO GENERATE ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO NOT RAISE THE MILLAGE RATE QUASI-THE DEBATE IS WILL BE REQUIRED IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF REVENUE. SO, I THINK TAXES IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT BUT PEOPLE NEED TO BE THINKING FROM THE BIGGER PICTURE AS OPPOSED TO HOW MUCH IS MY TEXT GOING TO GO UP SHARE, NEXT YEAR FOR THE YEAR AFTER THAT ESCAPE BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THE TAXES WILL GO UP, IT'S INEVITABLE. I WISH IT WASN'T, I HATE IT, I PAY THEM MYSELF BUT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE TAX MONEY AND WHY? WHAT IS THE WHY YOU ARE RAISING THE TAXES? IS IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GET NO LIGHTS AT QUICKLY TENNIS COURTS? SURE, MAYBE, THAT'S NICE. LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PART OF THE CITY THAT ARE ALREADY GREAT THEY ARE JUST EXPANDING UPON. 65 ACRES CAN ALTER THE MAKEUP OF THE CITY. IT'S NOT WHETHER IT JUST ENHANCES IT OR NOT IT CAN DEVALUE IT ANYWAY. I THINK THIS ALSO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT IS HOW DOES IT GO IN THE OTHER DIRECTION? I THINK THE LAST COUPLE THINGS I'LL GET INTO IS ABOUT CORAL SPRINGS. I HEARD WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT CORAL SPRINGS DOES BUT TECHNICALLY AS AN OWNER OF THE LAND, WE WOULD.

WE CAN NEGOTIATE, WE CAN COME INTO OUR OWN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WE CAN TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE MUST HAVES WERE WILLING TO BE NEGOTIATED BUT TO SOME DEGREE WE HAVE THAT ABILITY. IF WE DON'T BUY IT I WOULD ARGUE WE HAVE ZERO CONTROL, RISKY THE DEVELOPER WILL GO TO THEM AND SAY HEY, EXACTLY WHAT THE BEAR SAID SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THE LAND LET'S BUILD UP A 10 STORY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. IF THEY DO THAT, WE CANNOT STOP THEM.

BUT AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND WE CAN SAY WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU AND SELL YOU THIS PORTION BUT WE NEED SOME CONCESSIONS FROM YOU AND FROM WHAT THE WORKSHOP SOUNDS LIKE I THINK THAT'S DIRECTION THEY ARE LOOKING TO GO, AS WELL. THE BOUNDARY ISSUES, I AGREE WE ARE GOING TO GO TO WORK ON THAT. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT ON WHAT MAKES PARKLAND PARKLAND IS THE EDUCATION. THAT'S WHY WE MOVED HER FAMILY HERE AND THAT'S WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR FAMILIES HERE. BUT AGAIN, THE SCHOOL BOARD HOLDS THE POWER, NOT US.E WILL ADVOCATE, SUBMIT OUR PROPOSALS, WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ARE RELYING ON ANOTHER BODY TO MAKE A VOTE WE HOPE IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST WHEREAS HERE WE ARE THAT BODY. AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. SO, I HOPE, AGAIN, THAT EVERYONE CAN APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND THOUGHT THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS AND RESPECT THE FACT THAT WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES I COULD NOT BE ANY PROUDER FOR THE WORK THAT THE CITY HAS DONE OR TO CALL MYSELF A PARKLAND RESIDENT BECAUSE WHETHER YOU THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN SPECULATING OR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE END OF THE DAY DOES NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING WHAT ALL OF US HAVE COME TO KNOW AND LOVE THAT INCLUDES BUYING A PIECE OF LAND FOR IT INCLUDES NONBINDING PIECE OF LAND WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE WE ALL HERE FOR THE RIGHT REASON AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK IT MATTERS.

I AM FOR BUYING IT. I AGREE THAT IF WE SIGN THIS CONTRACT AND SOMETHING COMES UP WITHIN THE 60 DAY PERIOD WHETHER WE ARE NOT ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THE ACTUAL HOA ELECTION OR VOTE TO LIFT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH THE WAY PHASE 2 SHOWS UP AND IS MATERIALLY

[01:40:04]

THAT WOULD BE MY DREAM AND THAT REASON I WOULD BOAST IN FAVOR FOR THE VOTE TONIGHT.

>> MAN, CAN I ASK NANCY ONE QUESTION? I AM CLEARING IT WILL MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON IT. NANCY, WE SPOKE WITH THE COMPANY THAT DID THE INITIAL PHASE 1 APPRAISAL, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> IF WE GET THE GO-AHEAD THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH THE PHASE 2 WITHIN THE 60 DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD? TO HAVE AN ESTIMATE FROM THEM ON THE PHASE 2 WOULD CAUSE ANY REMEDIATION OR ANYTHING?ASK PHASE 2 IS 9500.

>> 9500. GOOD.

>> I LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO, WERE BUILDING A NEW PARK, 36 ACRES. WE SPENT $6 MILLION TO PURCHASE THE LAND.

7.1.OKAY, EVEN BETTER. $29 TO BUILD OUT THE PARK $20 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF $27 MILLION. NOT EVERY RESIDENT USES THE PARK.

BUT WERE SPENDING $27 MILLION TO BUILD A NEW PARK. THAT NOT EVERY RESIDENT USES.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT OF SPENDING $25 MILLION TO BUILD AN AMENITY THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR IS IT SCARY BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT WHAT PARKLAND IS USED TO. PARKLAND IS HESITANT TO HAVE COMMERCIAL BUT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND LESS THAN WE ARE SPENDING ON THE PARK THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT USE AND RECOUP ALL OF OUR MONEY AND THEN SOME GENERATE TAX REVENUE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RAISE TAXES AND IS STILL BUILT IN THE AREA WHERE OUR RESIDENTS CAN COME AND ENJOY.

PROBABLY MORE THAN USE A PARK. THAT TO ME IS AT THE CRUX OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION.

WE KEEP SAYING TIME AND TIME AGAIN PARKLAND IS HOME IT IS A SMALL TOWN SO WE ARE NERVOUS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT PARKLAND IS BY ADDING SOME COMMERCIAL BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO ADD THIS COMMERCIAL AND CHANGE OUR IDENTITY. WE CAN ENHANCE OUR IDENTITY WITH THIS PURCHASE OF THIS COMMERCIAL OF THIS LAND AND BUILD A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT THE RESIDENTS CAN ENJOY. IN BUILDING AND BUILD IT, RECOUP OUR MONEY, GENERATE A TAX BASE WHEREAS A PARK WE ARE SPENDING $27 MILLION AND THE MONEY IS GONE.

WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE PARK, EVERY 10 YEARS WE HAVE TO REDO ALL THE FIELDS, THE MAINTENANCE COST ON A PARK ARE EXTRAORDINARY. ONCE WE SELL THIS LAND THERE ARE NO MAINTENANCE COSTS. THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR ALL OF THAT.

WE ARE GETTING, ESSENTIALLY, A PIECE OF PARKLAND THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN WITH THE MINIMAL INVESTMENT. AND YET, I THINK EVERY YEAR, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR WILL PROBABLY SPEND FIVE OR $6 MILLION TO REDO THE FIELDS, RIGHT? TERRA MARK PARK WE SPENT FOUR OR FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN TERRA MARK FOR THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. SO TALK ABOUT $10 MILLION AND UPKEEP IN PARKS THAT WE ARE USING TAXPAYER MONEY WHEN HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY IT'S PROBABLY A FAR GREATER NUMBER

[01:45:05]

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO INVEST $25 MILLION TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A PARK.

IF WE HAVE AN AREA THAT THE RESIDENTS CAN USE THAT THEY CAN ENJOY YOU COULD ARGUE WE SHOULD DO IT FOR NOTHING. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN WANT TO RECOUP OUR MONEY BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO USE IT. EVEN IF WE DON'T GET OUR MONEY BACK IT'S THE SAME INVESTMENT AS A PARK. IT'S NO DIFFERENT. WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOT LOWER PROPERTY VALUES BUT INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE WE WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR MILLAGE RATE DOWN. WE WILL NOT HAVE THE LOWEST REVENUE IN THE COUNTY.

ACTUALLY, IT WAS PROBABLY MORE THAN JUST BROWARD COUNTY BUT OUR REVENUE INCREASE WAS LESS THAN BROWARD AND PALM BEACH COUNTY BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS ARE HOMESTEADED.

WE CAN KEEP EVERYTHING THAT IS PARKLAND POSITIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY BY PURCHASING THE LAND. WE LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY BY NOT BUYING IT.

AND I CERTAINLY WON'T ARGUE DO NOT AS THE DEVELOPER TO GIVE US THE MONEY WEPUT OUT FOR IT .

AND I INTEND TO GET AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN BACK BUT I WANT TO SEE A SUCCESSFUL PLACE WHERE OUR RESIDENTS CAN COME, WE EACH OTHER, GET ICE CREAM, RUN AROUND IN THE PARK AND MINGLE.

AND YES, MAYBE CATCH SOME LIVE MUSIC, JUST KIDDING. BUT TO ME, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO A PARK WE CAN JUST DO THIS FOR NOTHING AND THE RESIDENTS WITH BECAUSE WE WILL BE GIVING THEM WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. AGAIN, GO BACK TO THE BRANDING PROJECT WE HAVE DONE. THE SURVEY DID WITH 11 OR 1200 PEOPLE.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN I HEARD I LOVE PARKLAND BUT I WISH THERE WAS MORE TO DO.

I LOVE PARKLAND BUT WE NEED SOMETHING. THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO IT AS A COMMISSION. THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. I KNOW YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, COMMISSIONER MAYERSOHN.

>> I WILL TRY TO BE I DON'T KNOW, BRIEF. FIRST OF ALL, EVERYBODY HERE HAS MADE EXCELLENT POINTS. THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE COME HERE MADE EXCELLENT POINTS, THE EMAILS WE HAVE RECEIVED. WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME OBVIOUSLY ALL OF US REVIEWING DOCUMENTS, TALKING TO RESIDENTS COMING HAVING ROBUST CONVERSATIONS AND WORKSHOPS.

AS A MATTER OF TRANSPARENCY I PERSONALLY HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CITY MANAGERS OUTSIDE OUR JURISDICTION AS WELL AS LAND-USE ATTORNEYS BESIDES OUR OWN. SO, I HAVE HAD THOSE PCONVERSATIONS.

I WANT TO THANK STAFF, NANCY, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF CAN ANTHONY OUR ATTORNEY AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE WORK ON THIS ISSUE. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DAIS FOR THE OPEN AND ROBUST AND PUBLIC DIALOGUE WE HAVE HAD SOMETIMES IT IS NOT EASY. TO THE RESIDENTS, IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS THIS COMMISSION AND I SAID AND I FEEL CONFIDENT IN SAYING IT BUT THIS COMMISSION WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT, HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND WETHERS ON THIS ISSUE OR ANYTHING ELSE. AS A 26 YEAR RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND NOT ONLY HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS BUT I BELIEVE I AM THE ONLY COMMISSIONER WHO SERVED IN OUR PLANNING AND ZONING ADVISORY BOARD AND THAT WAS FOR FIVE YEARS. IN THAT TIME, PLANNING AND ZONING WE HAD NUMEROUS DEVELOPERS COME BEFORE US AND WANTING SOMETHING FOR THE CITY TO DEVELOP.

WE HAVE HAD WCI COMING TO TALK ABOUT THE CHINESE DRYWALL ISSUE BEHELD HER FEET TO THE FIRE TO MITIGATE THE RESIDENTS TO MAKE THEM WHOLE. WE HAD PARKLAND RESERVE THAT

[01:50:04]

SEE DEVELOPERS COMING WITH STAMPS AND BY THE END OF THE TIME THEY CHANGED IT TO ANOTHER STANCE. I THINK WERE IN THE STRONGEST POSITION TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFIT FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL OUR RESIDENTS. I BELIEVE IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT WE WOULD HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBORING CITY.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE CORAL SPRINGS IS AT THIS POINT I'VE HAD AGAIN CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OF THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND RIGHT NOW THEY ARE ON A WAIT AND SEE RESPONSE AS THEIR WORSHIP WAS THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.NE THING I DO KNOW IS AT LEAST WE WORKED AS A COMMISSION OR I WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH COCONUT CREEK TO REDUCE A SURCHARGE FOR THE TERM OUR SERVICE AREA. WHAT MAKES THIS UNIQUE AND I BELIEVE NO OTHER CITY NOT ONLY THE COUNTY LEVEL IN THE STATE WAS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH A REDUCTION.

WHY? BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CITIES OF COCONUT CREEK AND THEIR COMMISSION IN THEIR CITY MANAGER MARY AT THE TIME CONTINUING TO WORK TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. IN MY OPINION THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT BUSINESS. TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE THIS CURRENTLY AND MAYBE IN THE FUTURE BUT CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AS I STATED BEFORE I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A VISION FOR THIS PROPERTY AND IN ORDER TO BE ADDRESSED ANY BRD FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WERE NOT ADDRESSED. WE CAN SPECULATE ALL WE WANT BUT AGAIN WE DON'T KNOW NOT ONLY WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE SOME OF WHICH MAY NOT BE EVEN FINANCIALLY RELATED. SO, MY GOAL HERE IS NOT TO PERSUADE ANY OF YOU TO SHIFT YOUR POSITIONS TONIGHT AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE ARE TAKING CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THERE ARE NUMEROUS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACTORS SOME OF WHICH I'VE MENTIONED IN SOME OF WHICH, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T. BUT AGAIN, IT'S MY DESIRE NOT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.

THE ONE THING I WANT TO ADDRESS AND I GUESS THE $25 MILLION WE ARE GOING TO USE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS MADE PARKLAND GREAT IS OUR SCHOOLS. OUR A RATED SCHOOLS.

THE ODYSSEY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A BOUNDARY CONCERN.

WHAT THAT WE DISCUSSED AND WE HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS. THE SCHOOL BOARD CURRENTLY OWNS WHAT IS IT 25, 24, 30 ACRES OF BY NOBHILL AND HILLSBOROUGH. WHAT PROHIBITS US FROM BUYING IT? WHAT PROHIBITS US BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG ISSUE HERE, WHAT PROHIBITS US FROM BUYING IT? I JUST WROTE A $25 MILLION FIGURE NOTHING PROHIBITED US FROM MAKING A DEAL WITH THEM FOR THEM TO SURPLUS THAT PROPERTY TO WORK WITH THEM ON A LEASE AGREEMENT WHERE EVEN TO THE POINT OF NO COST. THEY COULD LEASE IT TO US FOR A DOLLAR, WE COULD WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER, BUILD A SCHOOL AND WE HAVE IT AND THE DISTRICT LEASES IT BACK AT THE COST OF WHATEVER IT IS TO PAY FOR THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.

[01:55:03]

>> CAN ADDRESS THAT POINT. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID EARLY ON IN MY TENURE HERE WAS NANCY REACHED OUT ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETINGS WE TALKED ABOUT LOOKING AT THE AVAILABLE PARCELS OF LAND INCLUDING THE TWO SCHOOL BOARD PIECES AND TRYING TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AVAILABILITY FOR THE CITY TO TAKE CONTROL OF THOSE PIECES SO WE CAN CONTROL THEIR DESTINY. IS MY UNDERSTANDING NANCY COULD SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY BUT WE REACHED OUT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT BOTH PARCELS AND WAS TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO SURPLUS THE LAND OR ENTERTAINMENT. NOW, WERE IN A PERMISSION WERE IN POSITION NOW AND FOR THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MONTHS WITH THE MAKEUP OF THE SCHOOL BOARD IN BROWARD COUNTY COULD BE FAR DIFFERENT AND ALREADY HAS FOUR DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS BACK THEN. SO THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE COULDN'T HAVE THOSE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. BUT I DON'T VIEW IT AS AN EITHER/OR I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA BUT I THINK BOTH CAN BE DONE.

>> SO WE DON'T WANT TO BUY THIS LAND WE WANT TO BUY OTHER LAND? SO WE DON'T WANT TO BUY THIS ONE WE WANT TO BUILD, BUY ANOTHER ONE AND BUILD THE SCHOOL AND WE DON'T GET ANY TAX REVENUE.

>> AGAIN, ACCORDING TO JORDAN THE TAX REVENUE WAS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF WE MAY BE ABLE TO EITHER BUY THE LAND OR WORK WITH THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL COST US ANY MONEY. I MEAN, THEY ARE GOING TO THEY LEASED THE LAND BACK AND THEY PAY THE DEBT SERVICE.

>> RIGHT, LOWER TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY BUYING ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND.

>> MIGHT NOT BE POTENTIALLY THERE MIGHT BE NO COST WITH THAT.

>> TO ME THAT'S GETTING OFF TOPIC.

>> IT'S NOT GETTING OFF-TOPIC BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS AS YOU MENTIONED IF WE DON'T BUY IT WAS AN ISSUE OF AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENT HOUSING THAT COULD REPLACE IT.

THAT GENERATE TAX REVENUE. IT MAY NOT GENERATE AS MUCH AS COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE BUT THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL IS A LOT HIGHER THAN COMMERCIAL.

P >> YOU ARE INSINUATING.

>> I AM NOT INSINUATING ANYTHING. I AM SAYING THERE'S POTENTIAL OUT THERE. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE INDUSTRY THE STAFF THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROVIDE ALL THE PROPERTY AND HAVE A WORKSHOP ON WHAT THEY WANT TO SURPLUS.

THIS IS AN IDEA WE KNOW THERE IS A BOUNDARY ISSUE ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOARD KNOWS THERE'S A BOUNDARY ISSUE, THIS MAY BE A WAY TO MITIGATE THAT. WHICH AGAIN, HELPS US IN THE SENSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> WELL, TO BUILD A SCHOOL THERE IS EMPTY SEATS IN CORAL SPRINGS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THERE IS EMPTY SEATS IN CORAL SPRINGS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE ZONE TO SCHOOL THEY GO TO MSD R CLOSER TO SOME OF THOSE SCHOOLS WITH EMPTY SEATS.

SO YOU CAN VERY EASILY JUST REDISTRICT AND WILL THE KIDS TO SCHOOLS THAT THAT WAS CLOSER TO THAT ARE UNDER ENROLLED.O ME,

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> TO SAY THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> I WILL TELL YOU WHY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. BECAUSE IN TWO YEARS WAS CURRENTLY ON THAT 1200 BUILDING IS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS AS SPACE, AS CAPACITY.

THAT IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE REMOVED SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS REQUIREMENT FOR CAPACITY IS 10 PERCENT EITHER ABOVE PERMANENT CAPACITY OR 100 PERCENT OF GROSS.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY 3406 AND HAVE 3500 KIDS SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE AND TAKE.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT CAPACITY NECESSARILY IN CORAL SPRINGS OR CORAL GLADES AND I WAS BEING PUSHED OUT TO TERRA VILLA. THE ONLY CAPACITY WE KNOW THAT THAT 51 PERCENT IS CORAL SPRINGS MIDDLE. THE SCOPE OF THE TURNAROUND, I DON'T KNOW, THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND SAY YOU KNOW WHAT BROKEN OR REPURPOSED CORAL SPRINGS MIDDLE.

THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING.

>> THE SCHOOL BOUNDARY ISSUE IS AN ISSUE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. I WOULD CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AFTER THIS DISCUSSION THE POTENTIAL OF MIND THAT LAND BUT ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU JUST SAID WE COULD DO PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP WHERE WE DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY. AND GET A LEASE FOR A DOLLAR.

SO WE CAN BUY THE LAND AFTER WE BUY THIS ONE. ONE, AGAIN, HAS NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

>> IT DOES IN THE SENSE OF WHERE YOU PICK AND CHOOSE. I DON'T KNOW WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET IT FOR FREE.

>> WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET BOTH FOR FLIGHT.

>> WE MIGHT BUT THAT'S WHY I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE IN THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT BUSINESS AND TO MAKE THIS IS WHAT THIS PROJECT IS. IT'S A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT.

>> WE ARE BUILDING A BRAND-NEW PARK RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S NOT REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. THIS INVESTMENT FOR THE

RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND. >> DOES THE SAME THING THAT A

[02:00:04]

>> OKAY, I WILL BRING BACK WHEN WE WENT TO CHANGE FROM, CAN PROBABLY REMEMBER SAYS, WHEN WE CHANGE FROM PARKLAND POLICE TO BSO THIS COMMISSION CHAMBERS WAS PACKED AND UNTIL MIDNIGHT PEOPLE HERE VOICING THEIR OPINION POSITIVELY AND WERE FOR OR AGAINST MAKING THAT CHANGE.

I DON'T SEE 25 MILLION PEOPLE HERE. I'VE GOT EMAILS, MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN FROM THE HERON BAY RESIDENCE, THEY HAVE BEEN PEOPLE THAT ARE OUTSIDE HERON BAY ARE NOT FOR IT. WHEN YOU SAY LISTENING TO THE RESIDENCE I KNOW ON THE PRESIDENT'S HOA EMAIL THERE WERE A LOT OF HOA PRESIDENTS THAT DID NOT SIGN THAT.

>> BUT THERE WERE A LOT WE DID.

>> THERE WERE EIGHT AND WE HAVE HOW MANY?

>> 13.

>> HOW MANY COMMUNITIES DO WE HAVE?

>> SO THAT'S EIGHT COMMUNITIES. WHICH IS A LARGE REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY.

MAYBE THEY ALL DID NOT SIGN IT BUT IT'S A LARGE REVISITATION OF THE CITY.

TO SAY PEOPLE OUTSIDE HERON BAY DON'T WANT IT I KNOW PARKLAND AISLES WANTED.

>> ALL OF PARKLAND AISLES? DID THEY TAKE A VOTE? I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> DID THE RESIDENTS TAKE ABOUT TO SAY THEY WANT US TO SPEND $27 MILLION TO BUILD A PARK?

>> I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT. DID WE TAKE A VOTE TO SPEND 20 79 DOLLARS TO BUILD A PARK THAT MOST PEOPLE WON'T USE?

>> WE TOOK A PARK THAT WAS A VACANT LAND IN UNINCORPORATED BROWARD SO LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT IT WAS IN UNINCORPORATED BROWARD. THE POTENTIAL OF THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME THING THAT WAS IT IN.

>> THIS IS A POTENTIALLY HAVING HERON BAY OF BUILDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

>> NO, WE DON'T HAVE HERON BAY BECAUSE THE ZONING WE CONTROL.

>> ONLY IN A PARKLAND YOU CAN CONTROL IT.

>> THIS MAY BE A GOOD TIME BECAUSE I WANTED TO DO IT BEFORE BUT CAN WE GET ANTHONY TO WALK THERE BRIEFLY THE ZONING AND WHAT RESTRICTIONS AND WHAT CONTROLS WE HAVE NOW VERSUS.

>> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT SAID ABOUT LAND USE AND ZONING SO I WANT TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE AND I SPOKE WITH ALL OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY AT LENGTH IN AD NAUSEA I KNOW SOME OF THIS WILL SOUND REPETITIVE WITH RESPECT TO LAND USE YOUR HIGHEST LEVEL OF DISCRETION ON THE PYRAMID AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THEY POTENTIALLY PURCHASING THAT IS IN A PARKLAND. NOT IN CORAL SPRINGS.

IT IS CURRENTLY OUR THREE LAND USE WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.IT IS GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKLAND THEY WILL NEED WHOEVER OWNS IT WILL NEED A LAND USE AMENDMENT TO EFFECTUATE THAT.

THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU AND BY THE WAY THE COUNTY WILL ALSO HAVE A SAY IN THE LAND USE IN THE PROCESS. WITH RESPECT TO ZONING THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN PARKLAND IS ZONED A1 IS AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING USE SO IT'S NOT THAT SOMEONE CAN JUST GO AUTOMATICALLY BILLED 100 HOMES ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE REZONED BASED ON THE LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL'S WERE TALK ABOUT HERE TODAY BECAUSE I THINK THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL THAT ALLOWED IS ACCESSORY USED TO AGRICULTURAL LIKE AN OUTBUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT WILL NEED TO BE REZONED IT WILL LEAD TO COME BEFORE YOU FOR REZONING APPLICATION AND BY THE WAY THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING FIRST FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND FOR REZONING CONSIDERATION THE 12 FACTORS AND LAID OUT IN YOUR CODE AND SECTION 50 ? 30 WILL COME INTO PLAY.

AND NOT TO DOCUMENT THAT THEY MEET THEM IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, IS THERE APPROPRIATE ACCESS, WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST WORKSHOP THE ISSUE THE REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE HAVE THEY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THAT?HAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU JUST ANOTHER NOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AND CORAL SPRINGS, WHOEVER OWNS IT WEATHERS THE CITY OR PRIVATE DEVELOPER THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CORAL SPRINGS ZONING REGULATIONS.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS, ANTHONY?

>> MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED G C LIKE GOLF COURSE ZONING AND CORAL SPRINGS LECTER CERTAIN COMMERCIAL THAT MAY BE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL INCEPTION.

>> BUT WE WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OTHER THAN GARNERING SUPPORT FROM CORAL SPRINGS WE WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT WAS ON THAT PROPERTY?

>> IF YOU OWN THE PROPERTY IN CORAL SPRINGS YOU CAN DETERMINE WHO YOU SOLD THE TUBE ULTIMATELY IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO CORAL SPRINGS ZONING REGULATIONS.

>> RIGHT, JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR FOR THE RESIDENTS OUR PROPERTY MAY BE ZONED R3 WITH THE MAXIMUM THREE UNITS PER DENSITY ASSUMING THEY GET PAST ALL THE OTHER ZONING

[02:05:03]

>> FOR CLARIFICATION, FORGIVE ME I'M NOT A LAND USE EXPERT. THE LAND-USE AND CORAL SPRINGS IS I BELIEVE R3 THE LAND-USE, THIS ZONING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FOR WAS THE COMPONENT OF IT IS R3 AND CORAL SPRINGS.

>> TO YOUR POINT, IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS WITHIN CORAL SPRINGS.

>> I HEAR VICE MAYOR CUTLER'S CONCERN ABOUT CORAL SPRINGS'S COMMITMENT OR LACK THEREOF BECAUSE I HEARD THE SAME WORKSHOP AND I HAD SOME PROS AND CONS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING. THE PRO- WAS THAT THEY ALL SEEMED THE CURRENT COMMISSION AND THIS COULD BE DIFFERENT COMMISSION THIS COULD BE DIFFERENT COMMISSION BY THE TIME WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS. E HAVE SOME POTENTIAL FUTURE COMMISSIONERS IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT SO HOLD ON. THEIR CURRENT COMMISSION AT LEAST SEEMED SOMEWHAT RECEPTIVE BUT SEEMS RECEPTIVE TO PARTNERING WITH US. BUT WE ARE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE BUY THE LAND TONIGHT OR AS WE GO FORWARD WE ARE NOT YET MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE SELL THE PORTION OF THE CORAL SPRINGS LAND TO CORAL SPRINGS YET.

THAT DETERMINATION FOR ME WOULD BE PREDICATED UPON ONE THING AND IS CORAL SPRINGS VISION FOR WHAT GOES ON THE PROPERTY OR BETTER YET WHAT DOESN'T GO ON THE PROPERTY IN LINE WITH PARKLAND'S VISION? THE DECISION FOR A LATER DAY AND FOR MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A 41 VOTE. ANTHONY, IF WE WERE TO SELL A PORTION OF THE SLAIN LEADER TO CORAL SPRINGS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, AS WELL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE AT THE REALITY IS JUST THIS THE ONLY WAY WE TALK ABOUT MOVING THAT INCH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT WHICH IS THE BETTER ARGUMENT FOR WHICH IS THE BETTER SIDE OF TOO BAD SIDES THE ONLY WAY WE CONTROL OR HAVE ANY CONTROL OR SAY OTHER THAN PRETTY PLEASE DON'T DO THIS IN WHAT GOES ON THE CORAL SPRINGS PARCEL IS IF WE ARE THE ARBITERS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE SELL THE LAND TO CORAL SPRINGS.

THE REALITY IS WE MAY NOT NEED TO SELL THE LANDS TO CORAL SPRINGS THEY MAY NOT NEED TO PUT OUT A DIME FOR THE LAND WE MAY BE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE ON THE FINANCIAL RISKS WILL FROM US AND FROM THEM PUT TOGETHER A PROJECT THAT GOES THERE BUT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN CURATE WHAT GOES ON THE CORAL SPRINGS SIDE IS THROUGH THIS FASHION IN THE LEGAL SENSE BECAUSE WE WAS TO BE SUBJECT TO THEIR ZONING AND THEIR LAND-USE BUT WE WOULD OWN THE LAND SO WE DECIDE NOT TO PUT SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T GO THERE.

TO ME, THAT PEACE IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY HE PUSHES IT UP THAT INCH.

>> IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN .01 IN MY OPINION.

>> TOUCHE.

>> COLOR, CAN WE TAKE A BATHROOM OR RESTROOM BREAK?

>> BEFORE WE DO THAT.

>> I LOVE IT!

>> YOU HAVE JUST BECOME HISTORY. I THOUGHT BEFORE WE DO THAT I FIGURE THIS IS A GOOD TIME I RESPECT EVERYONE HEARS OPINION AND ALL ENTITLED TO IT AND I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO CONVINCE SOMEONE WHO OTHERWISE SOLIDIFIED THEIR OPINION BUT I THINK BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION IF WE COULD AT LEAST UNDERSTAND I KNOW COMMISSIONER MAYERSOHN YOU SAID YOUR POSITION IS THERE ANYTHING VICE MAYOR YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OR SHARE MORE ABOUT BEFORE A VOTE BECAUSE OTHERWISE NO DISRESPECT I KNOW EVERYONE HERE HAS THINGS TO DO AND I WOULD LIKE TO WE HAVE HAD A VERY ROBUST DEBATE BUT DON'T WANT TO KEEP GOING IN CIRCLES IF THE CLAY IS ALREADY DRIED SO TO SPEAK. MAYBE PERHAPS WE CAN ALWAYS GET A SENSE IS THERE STILL WORTH MORE DISCUSSION OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE.

? > FIRST, I WANT TO ALLOW ANTHONY TO FINISH HIS DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS IF HE WASN'T DONE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BOB MIGHT HAVE HAD MORE TO SAY I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FINISHED OR NOT.

>> I THINK ONE OF CLARIFICATION IT LOOKS LIKE THE WEST PARCEL AND CORAL SPRINGS IS A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE EAST PARCEL HAS A COMMERCIAL LAND USE.

NEVERTHELESS, THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND CORAL SPRINGS WILL DICTATE AND PLAY PART IN THE ULTIMATE PROCESS.OF CORAL SPRINGS AND JUST THE LAST POINT.

>> I WANT TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT TONIGHT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS HOW THAT ALL WORKS BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE DEALING WITH A SUPER

[02:10:07]

>> SURE, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY OF THIS NATURE THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO BE EFFECTIVE. TONIGHT IS THE FIRST READING.

THERE WOULD BE A SECOND READING IF THIS WAS FORWARDED TONIGHT. NOT TO MAKE MATTERS WORK OBLIGATED BUT THEORETICALLY YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN MOVE IT FORWARD ON FIRST READING TONIGHT WITH THREE VOTES AND ULTIMATELY THE FINAL READING BECAUSE YOU CAN ADOPTED TONIGHT WOULD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE TONIGHT EVEN IF YOU APPROVED IT TONIGHT IS WAITING THE FOURTH FIFTH VOTE AT THE SECOND READING. UNDER THE STATE LAW, YOU DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE A VOTE ON FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES I THINK MOST CITIES TRADITIONALLY DO AND YOU TRADITIONALLY DO BUT NEVERTHELESS MADE 1/4 FIFTH VOTE TO BE APPROVED ULTIMATELY ON THE SECOND READING.

>> IF WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE SECOND READING THAT WE ALSO MAKE A DETERMINATION TONIGHT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE GET THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PHASE 2 BECAUSE OF THE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SECOND READING THAT WOULD OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS AS I UNDERSTAND IT SHOULD GIVE US ANOTHER 15 DAYS ON TOP OF THE 60 DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD.

>> IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE THE 60 DAYS I WOULD RATHER NOT SPEND ANY MONEY ON A PHASE 2 UNLESS WE ARE EFFECTUATING THE CONTRACT.

>> MY CONCERN IS THAT WE NEED SOME KIND OF BACKSTOP IF WE CANNOT GET THE PHASE 2 DONE.

>> I WANT TO MIRROR THAT CONCERN PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE $9500 SEEMS LIKE TO ME ON THE PHASE TWO ON THE AMOUNT OF LAND WE ARE DEALING WITH. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR THAT THAT'S REALLY PRICE.

>> THAT IS THE PRICE I RECEIVED.

>> I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD YOU DO A SURVEY AND HAVE THE SURVEY COMPLETED SO I KNOW NANCY, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL COST.

>> IS A LARGER COST THAT COST TO THE SURVEY IS COMING IN AT 56,000.

>> EVEN THOUGH I'M WILLING TO SPEND 25.4 MILLION TO BUY 65 ACRES OF LAND.

>> FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE.

>> TO ME, IF WE DON'T WANT IT I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF DOING A PHASE 2 OR ASURVEYOR ANYTHING BECAUSE OF IT COMES BACK .

>> AND FIND IF THE SHOVEL DOES NOT TOUCH THE DIRT BUT WE LISTENED TO GET THE FOLKS THE ABILITY TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING WITHOUT ANY CONCERN THAT THERE ABLE TO MEET THAT 45 DAY WINDOW. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. I DON'T WANT TO GET DOWN THAT PATH AND ACTUALLY SIGN THE CONTRACT WOULD THEN TELL THEM THE START THEY CAN START FOR A WEEK OR TWO I CAN GET THE FOLKS ON THE GROUND, ETC.

>> I'M TOTALLY WITH YOU ON THAT I WOULD NEED TO SPEND IF WE DID THE SURVEY YOU TALK ABOUT $65,000 AND I MIGHT NOT GET THERE.

>> WILL IT TAKE US MORE THAN 60 DAYS TO GET THE SURVEY? IS THE TIME REALLY AN ISSUE IF WE ONLY STARTED AFTER WERE IN THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD?

>> I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME BUT SHOULD BE FINE, 60 DAYS.

>> THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE PUT 60 DAYS, RIGHT? ANTHONY, I WOULD ASSUME.

>> I'M NOT A LICENSED SURVEY OR MAPPER I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES BUT I WAS A YOU HAVE PROBABLY ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOU HIT THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND THAT I WOULD PRESUME THAT NSID HAS THAT THEIR OWN APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES THAT'S WHEN THE 60 DAY INVESTIGATION PERIOD BEGINS.

>> SO WE MAY HAVE MORE TIME TO ANTHONY! .

POINT >> IN MAINE NOT BE 60 DAYS FROM THE DAY.

>> IT WAS 60 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> SO WE WILL GET AN EXTRA WEEK OR TWO BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A MEETING AND I WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

>> I WOULD SAY OF THE COMFORTABLE THAT BOTH OF THESE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN OUR DUE DILIGENCE STAGE.

>> IF EITHER OF THEM AND TO YOUR POINT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE REMEDIATION WITH EITHER OF THEM YIELD AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT ALLOWS US TO TERMINATE DURING THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER AND GET OUT OF THE CONTRACT WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.

>> AND I WANT TO SAY IT WAS THE LAST MEETING WILL BE GREAT IT BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE THIS DAYS IF WE DON'T BUY THE LAND TONIGHT, TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, 60 DAYS FROM THEM I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE. TO HOLD THE LINE. WE HAVE TO EMPOWER OUR STAFF,

[02:15:04]

>> WHAT TO SAY WE WILL HAVE WHOEVER'S BACKS AND DO WHATEVER YOU WON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE WANT TO SIT BACK AND WAIT TO SEE WHAT GETS PRESENTED TO US.

>> I HEAR YOU BUT I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN OUR STAFF, AND OUR NEW CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNER AND IN OUR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AS THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE THAT NEVER COMES TO THIS COMMISSION BEFORE IT'S CLEANED UP AND ALL THOSE THINGS.

>> IF YOU'RE FEELING WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT SO I GUESS WE'LL GO BACK TO JORDAN FOR GET TO JORDAN'S QUESTION TO YOU CAN CAN, I RESPECT EVERYONE'S OPINION AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. CLEARLY, I AM IN FAVOR OF PURCHASING THE LAND.

>> WAY, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

>> AND TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY CONVINCE YOU, YES I DO, TRUTHFULLY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE, LOOK, YOU TO ME YOU ARE STILL WEIGHING STUFF WHICH IS GREAT AND I LOVE THAT ABOUT YOU THAT YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT PARKLAND AND OBVIOUSLY THIS TOPIC.

YOU HAVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. AGAIN, IT'S A HARD DECISION SO TO JORDAN'S POINT IS THERE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO BE SWAYED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER IT IS FOR, HOPEFULLY, OR AGAINST.

REALLY, LOOK, AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE YOU MADE THE BEST DECISION POSSIBLE. IF THIS INFORMATION YOU FEEL YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT EITHER WE CAN GET YOU, STAFF CAN GET YOU, ANTHONY WHATEVER, WE HAVE TO GET IT OUT ON THE TABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET TO THE FINISH LINE.

>> I HEAR YOU, I HEAR YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE BUT I WOULD LIKE THE STAFF, NANCY, TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE DIALOGUE WITH CORAL SPRINGS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE ON BOARD WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE FORMER COMMITMENT RELATIVE TO WHAT YOUR VISION IS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, WE NEVER REALLY TALKED ABOUT WHAT GOES THERE. WE'VE DONE A LOT IN TERMS OF APPRAISALS OF THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF IT BUT WE HAD NEVER REALLY DELVED INTO THE ISSUES OF WHAT REALLY WE ARE GOING TO PUT THERE.

AND SO, THE APPRAISAL VALUES THE GUESSTIMATES THAT ARE BASICALLY MAKING UP THE APPRAISAL ARE BASED UPON SORT OF THIS BEST USAGE IDEA BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?I MEAN, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. WE HAVE NOT EXPLORED THAT AT ALL. NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD WITH THE VISION OTHER THAN WE WANT TO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL BUT WE WANT TO CONTROL IT AND I WANT TO MAINTAIN LOW NUMBER OF DENSITY IN TERMS OF RESIDENCES WE REALLY WANT TO CONTROL IT BUT WE HAVE NOT REALLY FOUND WHAT THAT IS. AND SO, YOU ARE ASKING US TO VOTE ON A $25 MILLION USAGE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON SOMETHING I KNOW WHAT THE PARK IS GOING TO BE LIKE.

WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PARK. WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PFIELDS AND WE NEED THE FIELDS ALL THOSE THINGS YOU TALKED ABOUT I KNOW THAT PARK IS GOING TO BE USED. I HAVE NO IDEA IF YOU BRING IN LIKE A MOM-AND-POP SHOP OVER AT THIS COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT YOU GOING TO BUILD IF IT ISN'T SURVIVED, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT IT'S IN THIS PROCESS THAT WE DANCE AROUND AND UNDERSTAND, LISTEN, I TRULY APPRECIATE WHATEVER IS SET UP HERE. AND I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS NEVER HAD A LOT OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS OVER GOING BACK AND FORTH ON WHAT THOSE OPINIONS ARE.

[02:20:01]

A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF CORAL SPRINGS WOULD HELP ME A LITTLE BIT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE, I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ON WHAT WAS DONE OUT THERE RELATIVE TO ANY KINDS OF PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES OR OTHERWISE ON THE GOLF COURSE IS A QUESTION THAT CAN BE ANSWERE , DOES IT SUGGEST TO US MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT WERE DEALING WITH AN ARSENIC ISSUE OR NOT? I KNOW TYPICALLY AND GOLF PCOURSE SITUATIONS SHOULD THE APPRAISERS KNOW THIS IS A SUBJECT AND AN ISSUE IN A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN FOUND. DO WE HAVE ANY, NOBODY HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT, NOBODY HAS DONE ANY HISTORY ON THAT, NOBODY HAS LOOKED INTO THAT SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

I KNOW THEY FOUND DRUMS OF STUFF OUT THERE.

>> NO, AGAIN, PHASE 2 I TOTALLY HEAR YOUR CONCERNS AND HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS UNTIL WE DO PHASE 2.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF BECAUSE IT'S A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THERE IS WATER ISSUES INVOLVED, TOO. THIS WATER RUNNING THROUGH THEIR I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PART OF THE TESTING PROCESS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY, I AM SURE THERE IS EXTRA DUTY PHASE 2 THAT WE COULD ASK FOR THEM TO DO MORE. I'M SURE THERE'S AN OPTION DO MORE IN PHASE 2.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE THE 60 DAYS TO DO.

>> LISTEN, YOU ALL MADE GOOD POINTS. YOU ALL MADE REALLY GOOD POINTS. I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA INFORMATION MIGHT HELP ME GET TO AND TO SIMIANS POINT IS ONE OF THOSE BALANCING THINGS. I LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE DONE HISTORICALLY THROUGHOUT OUR TIME IS THE CITY AND HOW IT DEALT WITH DEVELOPERS AND HOW WE HAVE LEVERAGED THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM BY BEING IN THE POSITION OF HAVING THEM COME TO US AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO, CAN I DO IT, AND WE GET TO SAY YES YOU CAN, IF YOU DO THEFOLLOWING . AND THAT IS WHERE I AM STRUGGLING.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT PUTS US MORE IN THE POWER SEAT AND THE OTHER WAY.

BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO A DEVELOPER YOU BUY THIS LAND AND YOU GO TO A DEVELOPER AND YOU SAY I WANT TO DO A, B, C, D THEY WILL SAY YEAH, BUT IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET MY MONEY BACK ON INVESTMENT YOU WANT ME TO MAKE YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO DO C, D, E.

AND THAT TO ME THAT SHIFTS THE LEVERAGE AND CREATES A CONTROL PROBLEM I AM NOT CLEAR WE WILL BE ABLE.

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR STRUGGLE WITH THAT PART. TO ME, IT COMES BACK TO NSID HAS PROVEN BY DOING TO RFPS THAT THERE IS A MARKET FOR THIS PROPERTY.

OUR APPRAISALS HAVE INDICATED, OUR MARKET ANALYSIS, OUR ESTEEMED DEVELOPMENT EXPERT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THAT IS MY PROPERTY. SO WE ARE HOLDING ON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. BY US OWNING IT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT WE DICTATE TO A DEVELOPER.

I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF WE HOWEVER WE END UP GOING INTO THE PROCESS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME, WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE FIGHTING TO BE CHOSEN. TO ANTHONY, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE SOME LEEWAY WE HAVE IN OUR CODE AS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO AN RFP, NOT DO AN RFP, TO TAKE ON SOLICITED BIDS SO WE HAVE FLEXIBLY IN OUR PROCESS. IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE TO SELL TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, WE HAVE TO SELL TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, WE HAVE LOTS OF FLEXIBILITY WHICH YOU KNOW, MEDIA DEVELOPER COMES IN AND HAS A FANTASTIC PLAN WITH FIVE ACRES, 10 ACRES OF GREEN SPACE. SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, CONSERVATION AREA THAT PEOPLE CAN GO AND WALK AROUND. AND THEY ARE CHEAPER AND THEY ONLY OFFER 29.

[02:25:05]

I THINK WE'RE JUST GETTING SO HUNG UP ON SCENE COMMERCIAL THAT EVERYBODY IS GETTING SCARED THAT WE KEEP, IT'S, YOU KNOW, ME TALK ABOUT VISION, WHAT IS THE VISION? YOU KNOW, I LOVE DIVISIONS OF WHAT IT WILL ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE MY VISION IS THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO GO AND ENJOY ONE ANOTHER. THAT TO ME, IS EVEN MORE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT STUFF TO TALK ABOUT THE TAX REVENUE EVEN MORE THAN THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN GO. WE ARE SO GOOD AT BRINGING OUR RESIDENTS TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, I TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING WHETHER IT'S THEFARMERS MARKET , THE EATS AND BEATS, THIS GIVES US ANOTHER TOOL, ANOTHER AVENUE TO CREATE SOMETHING FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO ENJOY. LOOK, I KNEW PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SAY IT, IT'S A BIG CHANGE BUT IT GIVES US ANOTHER TOOL. ANOTHER AVENUE FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO ENJOY SOMETHING. WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT AS A MONEYMAKER, WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK ATIT AS COMMERCIAL. LET'S NOT BE FEARFUL OF THE WORD COMMERCIAL.

LET'S LOOK AT THIS FOR WHAT IT IS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PROVIDE MORE AMENITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

>> DEAR, CAN I SAY ONE THING?

>> JUST ONE.

>> SO, VICE MAYOR, I'VE BEEN PERCEIVED AS THE BULLY IN THIS PROCESS BUT I THINK IT'S FOR GOOD REASON. WHILE IN FAVOR OF IT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF A BAD DEAL ABOUT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY GETTING ITSELF INTO A BEAR TRAP. SO I APPRECIATE AND RESPECT EVERYONE I TALKED TO HAS REACHED OUT TO ME AND TALKED ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS IS IT EVERYTHING YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE TWO GENTLEMEN WHO ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT EVERYTHING THEY SAID HAS BEEN DEAD ON POINT. I WILL ALSO SAY THIS, I STRUGGLED TO WITH THE 25 MILLION DOLLARS IS A BIG FIGURE THAT'S WHY I'M PUSHING THIS ASSIGNMENT ISSUE.

PERHAPS THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION HERE. IF WE ARE ABLE TO ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE CONTRACT YOU TALK ABOUT VISION I WILL GET BACK FOR A MINUTE AND ALL THE PROPOSALS THAT I'VE SEEN THAT HAVE BEEN EMBRACED BY OUR CITY PLANNER OR CITY MANAGER THE RESIDENCE THE HERON BAY HOA AND ALL THE PROS PROPOSALS I SEEN THE ONE COMMON IS ON THE NORTHEAST THE DOG AT LAKE PIECE IS THAT WE PUT SOME RESIDENTIAL THERE.

THAT'S BEEN THE ONE CONSTANT BECAUSE THATPRESERVES HOMES FROM BACKING UP TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY . IT IS WITHIN HERON BAY SO GIVES THAT ACCESS THROUGH HERON BAY TO THAT PARCEL AND YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT'S 50 OR 60 NUMBER OF HOMES.

YOU TALK ABOUT A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF HOMES ON THAT PARCEL SO IT'S NOT GOING TO GREATLY IMPACT ADVERSELY THE SCHOOLS AND TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF IT IS AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IF IT IS THE NUMBER WHICH IS DAUNTING 25.4 MILLION AND WE BEEN TOLD BY OUR APPRAISERS THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL TO RECOUP HALF OF THAT WERE MORE FROM JUST THAT RESIDENTIAL PIECE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT BETWEEN NOW AND WHENEVER WE VOTE NEXT ABOUT TRYING TO OFFSET THAT EXPOSURE OR LIABILITY WITH THAT PIECE? BECAUSE HERE IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE CORAL SPRINGS THING YOU SAID, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANY GREATER CLARITY AND YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW AND WHAT CORAL SPRINGS IS GOING TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING. THE CORAL SPRINGS IS GOING TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE SAID WHICH IS THE CITY MANAGER IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IDEA WE WANT TO PARTNER WITH PARKLAND WILL WORK ON CULTIVATING WHAT GOES THERE WE HAVE THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION BUT THERE WILL BE NO VOTE SAYING WHERE TO PUT UP $70 TOMORROW TO BUY THE PARCEL WITH YOU AND WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE SOME SAY IN DICTATING THE CORAL SPRINGS WHAT GOES ON IN CORAL SPRINGS.

YOU WILL NEVER GET THAT ASSURANCE PROBABLY EVER INITIALLY NOT GOING TO GET IT BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING. THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOME OTHER WAY TO SKIN THIS CAT WHERE WE OFFSET HALF OR SOME SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE

[02:30:04]

THE RESIDENCE WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF AND WHEN I TALKED A HUGE IMPACT FOR TALK ABOUT A HUGE FINANCIAL RECRUITMENT OF A VERY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HALF OR MORE OF THE $25 MILLIO .

>> ANTHONY, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH LEONA, CORAL SPRINGS ON I , FOR NSID OWNS IT, IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY FOR A LAND-USE PLAN AMENDMENT BUT HAS TO GO TO THE COUNTY?

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE 65 ACRES WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE THAT IS CORRECT IT WOULD NEED A LAND-USE AMENDMENT IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.THE ONLY EXCEPTION I DON'T HAVE CORAL SPRINGS OR IF SOMEONE HERE WITH NO IS A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR A SMALL AMOUNT I THINK IT'S LIKE 10 ACRES OR LESS OF COMMERCIAL AND HAS SOME LIMITATIONS ON WHAT IS ABLE TO USE IS CALLED FLEX ZONING. WE HAVE NOT ADOPTED THAT HERE GET SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT CORAL SPRINGS IF THEY HAVE THE OPTION AVAILABLE BUT ASIDE FROM THAT WHICH IS PROBABLY MUCH LESS COMMERCIAL IMPACT OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YES, IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE CITY FOR A LAND-USE AMENDMENT APPROVAL AND THE COUNTY FOR THEIR APPROVAL.

>> I AM NOTICING THE COUNTY WOULD OR WOULD NOT IDON'T KNOW WHAT THE COUNTY COULD DENY IT , THEY COULD APPROVE IT, THEY CAN MAKE CONTINGENCIES ON AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> YET THEY CAN DENY IT OR APPROVE IT OR APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

>> ANTHONY, ANYTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR CLEARLY WHICH THAT WOULD PRECLUDE US FROM SIGNING A PORTION OF THIS CONTRACT TO 1/3 PARTY? OTHER ADDITIONAL CAVEATS THAT THEY NEED INSURANCE BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PRECLUD US FROM DOING THAT?

>> IT IS ASSIGNABLE AND IS ASSIGNABLE TO THE EXTENT TO NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES NSID CAN AS IT'S NOT THAT IS MODIFYING LIKE A REASONABLE INSURANCE TO COVER LIABILITY ISSUES WITH RESPECT OF THEIR INSPECTORS GOING ON. THE CONTRACT IS ASSIGNABLE SO WE MAY WANT SOME CLARITY IF THAT SIGNIFICANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY'RE ALL OR IN PART IF THAT'S WHAT HE DESIRES.

>> THE RESIDENTIAL THE PROPOSALS WE SAW WERE LIKE 50 OR 60 HOMES.

AGAIN, THE ISSUE WITH THE ASSIGNMENT I WOULD RATHER TALK, I WOULD RATHER GET AN UNSOLICITED BID AS OPPOSED TO ASSIGNING IT BECAUSE IT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO EVALUATE, TO EVALUATE THE BID, YOU KNOW, AND MOVE FORWARD IN THAT REGARDS.

>> MY POINT IN BRINGING UP AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU IS I'M TRYING TO PRESERVE THE VICTORY HERE BECAUSE OF YOU THE GOAL IN ALL OF THIS AS PRESERVING OR AVOIDING WHAT COULD GO ON THAT CENTER AND SELF PARCEL IN THE CITY'S RATIONALE AND HAVING THIS DISCUSSION INTO YOUR RATIONALE IS SO THAT WE CAN CURATE AND CULTIVATE WHAT GOES ON THE CENTER PORTION WHETHER IT'S SOME COMMERCIAL OR GREEN SPACE PLUS COMMERCIAL AND WE CAN TAKE CONTROL OVER AS YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT WHAT GOES ON THE CORAL SPRINGS SIDE.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NONE. IF THE DOLLAR FIGURE WHICH IS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT SCARES ME IF THE DOLLAR FIGURE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN, THE LIABILITY AND THE RISK IN THE MARKET CHANGING OF THE 25 MILLION, IF WE ARE ABLE TO RIGHT NOW RECOUP IT WITH A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE WE WILL BRING OVER THE NEXT NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAN GO THERE. TO ME THAT GIVES US THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

I'D RATHER THAT THAN A NO TONIGHT. I'D RATHER THAT THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT WILL BEFORE. TO ME, THATWOULD OFFSET AT LEAST HALF OF THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR THE CITY .IT WOULD GIVE A CAP ON HOW MANY UNITS COULD ULTIMATELY GO

[02:35:03]

>> OKAY, I LIKE THAT IDEA BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS NOW.

IN OTHER WORDS, CAN WE COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES YOU THINK WE COULD PUT ON THAT PARCEL OR THAT SHOULD GO ON THE PARCEL? IN THE COROLLARY QUESTION TO THAT IS A ALSO LOOKED AT THE NUMBER NOW FOR GOING TO PUSH FORWARD ON PHASE 2 AND WHENEVER WHEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY IT'S GOING TO BE $10,000 PER ACRE OR $100,000 PER ACRE AND WHAT NUMBER DO WE PULL THE PLUG?

>> I HEAR YOU 1000 PERCENT ON THAT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT NOW BECAUSE IF I SAY YES TO THIS AND WE GO DOWN THE ROAD AND WE GET TO THAT DAY I DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT NOW THAT WELL WE SPENT $25 MILLION SO WE HAVE TO SPEND THIS MUCH MORE TO DO IT RIGHT.

>> WE DON'T SPEND THE MONEY UNTIL JUST APPROVING THE CONTRACT WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH PHASE 2. THE MONEY IS NOT SPENT UNTIL.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> NOBODIES DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON PHASE 2.

>> MY POINT IS, IF I SAY YES TONIGHT AND WE DO PHASE 2 AND THEY COME BACK AND THEY SAY, YEAH, YOU NEED TO MITIGATE IT'S GOING TO COST YOU 10 GRAND PER ACRE TO DO THAT OR THEY SAY YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO MITIGATE AND WE THINK IS GOING TO COST A HECK OF A LOT MORE I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS NOW SO I KNOW.

>> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT MY VIEWPOINT IS. NUMBER ONE, ON THE FIRST ISSUE THERE WERE 22 POINT WHATEVER X ACRES ON THE NORTH PARCEL. RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED ASSUMING THEY GET PAST ALL THE OTHER ISSUES AND PERMUTATIONS AND THEY NEED COUNTY APPROVAL, TOO.

IF WE ALLOW RESIDENTIAL THE PROPERTY YOU'RE TALKING A MOST THREE UNITS YEAR.

SO WE CAN DETERMINE TONIGHT OR SOME OTHER NIGHT WITH THE CAMPUS.

TO ME, AND CERTAINLY NO MORE THAN THAT AND PROBABLY LESS. AND THEN WE SOLICIT TO THE SAME DEVELOPERS WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE CONVERSATION WITH AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT WAS TO START ABOUT COMING TO THE TABLE ABOUT BEING THE ASSIGNEE OF THAT PORTION OF THE CONTRACT.

PHASE 2 AND A CERTAIN FOLKS LISTEN AT HOME MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.

I VIEWED AS NO DIFFERENT IF YOU HAVE AN INSPECTION ON A HOME. COME UP WITH ISSUES DURING THE INSPECTION PERIOD WITH A HOME IS THE AC REPLACED OR ROOF REPLACED OR ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A PHASE 1 AND ASSURANCE BY NSID TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY IS CLEAN, SO TO SPEAK, AND ARE USING IT FOR STORMWATER MITIGATION IF A PHASE 2 COMES BACK AND REQUIRES ANY REMEDIATION OR ANY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH REGARDS TO ADDITIONAL EXPENSES WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE IN ADDITION TO OVERPAYING FOR THE PROPERTY MY VIEW IS THAT COMES OFF THE CONTRACT. THAT'S NOT ADDED TO IT.

>> BUT THAT'S NOT IN THE CONTRACT, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

>> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BACK OUT. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BACKUP IT'S A NEGOTIATION POSITION. NO DIFFERENT THAN AN INSPECTION ON A HOME.

IF YOU GO BY HOME RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE AN INSPECTION PERIOD YOU DON'T HAVE A PROVISION SAYING IF ANYTHING COMES UP YOU PAY FOR IT, SELLER, THE POSITION TO SAY I'MWALKING FROM THE DEAL.

GUESS WHAT, THE NEXT GUY THAT COMES TO THE TABLE FOR THE DEALS GO AT THE SAME THING BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY ABOUT MY PHASE 2 . SO IN MY VIEWPOINT IF IT COMES BACK AND ESSAYS IT'S 10,000 ACRE TO REMEDIATE THE LAND SO TO COST AN ADDITIONAL $656,000 TO REMEDIATE THE LAND AND THAT'S A NEGOTIATION POINT EITHER WALK AWAY VISITING OR WE GET THE LAND REVIEWED.

>> ANTHONY, IS THAT WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS. ASKED HIM TO MAKE SURE WERE CLEAR ON THE TIMING WE DO HAVE THE INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION PERIOD IT'S 60 DAYS FROM THE INFECTIVE DATE IS WHEN BOTH PARTIES EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. IF YOU DON'T TERMINATE THE CONTRACT PRIOR TO THAT 60 DAYS YOU WILL FORFEIT YOUR DEPOSIT IF YOU TERMINATE IT THEREAFTER PRIOR TO CLOSING. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR AND JUST MAKE SURE YOUR CALCULUS THEY BUILT A LITTLE TIME THEY CONSIDERING TERMINATION TO GO BACK TO COMMISSION MEETING TO DO SO IS YOUR TAKE A FORMAL ACTION AS A COMMISSION AT THAT POINT NEITHER NANCY OR MYSELF OR STAFF WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO JUST TERMINATE IT BY THEMSELVES.

>> IT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, ANTHONY. LET ME ASK IS THERE A WAY TO BUILD OUR CONTRACT SOMETHING ALONG BECAUSE THAT TIME IS OF CONCERN.IS THERE SOMETHING

[02:40:03]

NOW I AGREED >> I. THE TIMELINE IS A CONCERN. THE SECOND OPTION IS WE CAN DETERMINE RIGHT NOW THAT IF WE SIGN THE CONTRACT THE FIRST READING IS ONLY CAN DO SO MUCH WE HAD TO GO TO THE SECOND READING ASSIGNMENT BUT IF WE SIGNED AND EMPOWER OUR FOLKS TO IMMEDIATELY START THE PHASE 2 THE NEXT DAY IF ANY THING COMES UP FOR ANY COST OF REMEDIATION IS EITHER DEDUCTED FROM THE CONTRACT OR WE TERMINATE.

>> I AM GOOD WITH THAT.

>> I THINK ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT, NOT SUGGESTING

>> SORRY TO ALL THAT KEPT PEOPLE OUT THERE, NOT A GOOD ANALOGY.

BUCKS WERE NOT IN THE SKIN ANY CATS BUT THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION DOES MOVE FORWARD AND WE VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT MEETING. WE COULD PUT ON THE AGENDA THAT WILL CONTEMPLATE THIS ISSUE THAT WE WILL TAKE ACTION AND THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE NOTICE AND PUT ON THE AGENDA EVERYTHING IN THE PROPER MANNER AND WE CAN OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU COULD GIVE THAT DIRECTION AT THAT TIME IF THAT SOMETHING YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO. WE CAN DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT PHASE 2 COMES BACK?BUCKS AND JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE HERE LIKE IF THE PHASE JOE COMES BACK AND REQUIRES MORE THAN X EXPENDITURE THE CITY MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT. SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

WE CAN BUILD ON.

>> SO WE WOULD NOT NEED ANOTHER MEETING THAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION?

>> DEPENDING ON HOW WE WRITE UP THAT IS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING YOU GUYS GET INTO?

>> I WOULD DIFFER PERSONALLY TO GO BACK TO NSID AS OPPOSED TO TERMINATING THE CONTRACT I WOULD PREFER TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE.

>> WHAT IF WE INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT IS SOMEWHAT PROVISION. WAIT, HEAR ME OUT.

WE HAVE INCLUDED SOME PROVISION BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SIGNING IN TONIGHT WE ARE ONLY GOING THROUGH FIRST READING THAT WE GO BACK TO NSID AND SAY, LISTEN, WITHIN THE SAME FEATURE WE WILL GO TO PHASE 2 AND PHASE 2 INSPECT ANYTHING THAT THE SOMETHING ON THE GROUND EASILY REMEDIATED AND THERE IS A COST OF YOU THAT THE DOLLAR WE GET AN AUTOMATIC X AMOUNT OF EXTENSION ON THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD TO EITHER WORK IT OUT WITH YOU OR TERMINATE THE CONTRACT WITH NO PENALTY.

>> OKAY.

>> ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT OPPOSITE THERE ARE TWO PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT THEY WOULD BOTH

NEED TO AGREE ON THAT. >> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> IT'S AN IDEA.

>> LET ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> TELLS ME THAT ONE MORE TIME.

>> MY IDEA IS THIS, LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY AND I WANT TO BE GENTLE ABOUT SAYING IT.

I FEEL LIKE WERE OVERPAID FOR THIS LAND.

>> AGREED.

>> I ALSO FEEL THAT IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS WITH A RELATIVELY TIGHT WINDOW OF TIME BECAUSE IT'S EVEN LESS OF THE DEVELOPERS I THINK THEY HAVE A 100 DUE DILIGENCE WERE GIVEN A 60 DAY DUE DILIGENCE OR INVESTIGATION BACK OVER GIVEN A TIGHT WINDOW OF TIME THAT MY PROPOSAL IS THIS. WE APPROVED AND WE TELL THE FOLKS ON THE PHASE 2 BE READY TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING THE FOLLOWING DAY AND WILL MAKE THE EXPENSE THE NEXT DAY AFTER WE SIGN THE CONTRACT IF WITHIN THAT 60 DAY PERIOD AND HAVE GOT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET IT DONE WITHIN LESS THAN 45 DAYS OF THAT IF WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME A PHASE 2 COMES BACK AND SHOWS ANY ISSUE WITH THE PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES EVEN A DOLLARS WORTH OF REMEDIATION WE AUTOMATICALLY GET AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EITHER WORK THE ISSUE OUT WITH NSID FOR EXERCISE OUR TERMINATION PROVISION UNDER THE CONTRACT AND GET OUR DEPOSIT BACK.

>> SO WE CAN ALREADY TERMINATE.

>> WE CAN TERMINATE BUT YOU ANTHONY! BECAUSE I HEARD TWO POINTS WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO IT IN YOUR POINT WAS LIKE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO TERMINATE WHAT IF WEWANT TO TRY TO WORK IT OUT WITH NSID ? I AM TRYING TO SKIN BOTH CATS AND SAY FINE, NSID WE MAY NOT TERMINATE BUT WE ARE GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND FIGURE IT OUT. IF WE CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, WE WALKED.

[02:45:03]

ALL ABOUT THAT, TOO. >> I AM AT THE POINT THAT IF OUR PHASE 2 CANNOT BE DONE WITHIN THE 45 DAYS LIKE THEY COME BACK TO US AND SAY I KNOW WHAT SHE SAID. RIGHT, STUFF HAPPENS, THE PUT IT ON THE SCHEDULE, IT RAINED OO MUCH, WHATEVER. IF THEY CAN'T GET IT DONE AND I THINK WE TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. THAT'S GOTTA BE A PART OF IT.

>> YOU SAY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT IF WE HAVE NOT DONE OUR PHASE 2 I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THE SELLER WOULD GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING TO JUST TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.

>> I AM NOT FORFEITING OUR DEPOSIT BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO THIS AND 60 DAYS AS THEY DECIDE TO GIVE US LESS TIME THAN WE AGREED TO AND WE AGREED TO THE LAST TIME.

>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU AT ALL OTHER THAN SAYING WHY CAN'T WE JUST GO BACK AND SAY WE DIDN'T FINISH OUR PHASE 2 WE DOTHE 30 DAYS , THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING I'M NOT SAYING PARTIALLY TERMINATE.

>> I AM SAYING IS WHAT IS NOT WRITING IS WHAT NSID IS GOING TO HOLD US TO.

>> I'M HERE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> AS SURE AS WE ARE SITTING HERE WE KNOW WHAT NSID IS GOING TO DO, OKAY, IF IT'S IN THAT WRITING THAT THEY HAVE $250,000 SITTING IN HER POCKET DATE 61.

>> WE ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT ADDING SOMETHING TO THE CONTRACT SO MY POINT IS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE ADDED.

>> MY HOPE, KEN, IS THIS IS A NEW WRINKLE WE CAN RAISE WITH NSID AND I HOPE THEY WILL BE REASONABLE AND MODIFY THE CONTRACT TO GIVE US THAT PROTECTION.

TO RICHES POINT, IF THEY WERE TO SAY NOW IF WITH ALL DUE DILIGENCE IN GOOD FAITH AND EXPEDIENCY YOU ARE IN YOUR FOLKS TO THE GROUND IF YOU'RE PHASE 2 CANNOT BE DONE WITHIN THE 60 DAYS WE WILL GIVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL X PERIOD OF TIME TO GET DONE WITHOUT THE THREAT OF US TERMINATING IT MY HOPE IS THEY WOULD AGREE TO THAT LANGUAGE BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> IF THEY DON'T AGREE TO IT?

>> THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING. JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING AND I WILL TELL YOU FOR MYSELF I WOULD NOT GO FORWARD AFTER THAT. IF WE DON'T GET THE PHASE 2 BACK IN TIME I'M HAPPY TO AUTOMATIC LANGUAGE OF A CONDITION THAT TERMINATES THE CONTRACT. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS TOO BIG OF AN UNKNOWN TO LEAVE OPEN NOT NECESSARILY JUST FROM A MONETARY STANDPOINT.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT ANYONE IS SAYING I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IF WE DON'T GET THE PHASE 2 BACK IN TIME AND IF NSID IS WILLING TO GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME WE WOULD ALLOW THAT TIME.

>> I FEEL LIKE I'M DOING ONE OF THOSE LIVE VIA SATELLITE I GOT A TEXT FROM ROD COL?N IS CLEARLY LISTENING IS IN THE CONTRACT IS AS IS. IN PHASE 2 COMES BACK.

THERE WILL NOT BE DISCOUNT YOU CAN JUST TERMINATE. IF THAT'S HER POSITION, THAT'S THEIR POSITION BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WAS TO HAVE THE ABILITY FROM A CONTRACTUAL STANDPOINT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO AGREE TO THE CHANGE THAT WE EITHER WANT TO START THE PHASE 2 ASSUMING REVOKED TONIGHT AND KNOW THAT WE ARE HITTING THAT TIME WINDOW AT A $9600 INVESTMENT OF A $25 MILLION INVESTMENT WHICH I THINK IS APPROPRIATE OR WE JUST VOTED DOWN. BUT I THINK WE HAVE COME THIS FA TO GIVE IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO PHASE 2. AND NANCY SEEMS CONFIDENT. SORRY.

WELL, THE SURVEY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS WE HAVE THE TIME WITHIN THE PHASE 2 WITH THEM WERE CONCERNED ABOUT OR WITHIN THE 60 DAYS WHENEVER CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME AFTER THE PHASE 2 TO INITIATE OF THE MEETING AND GIVE PROPER NOTICE IN ORDER TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.

>> NANCY, DO WE KNOW HOW LONG THE SURVEY TAKES?

>> I DON'T HAVE THE TIME LIMIT ON THE SURVEY I DON'T BELIEVE IT BE A PROBLEM TO DO IT IN 60 DAYS BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT IN WRITING. I DO HAVE THE PHASE 2 DOCUMENTED IN WRITING THAT THEY COULD COMPLETE IT AND AS YOU KNOW I'M ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE GIVE ME A TIMEFRAME OF 30 TO 45 DAYS SO I'M GIVING YOU 45 DAYS USING THE HIGHEST OF THAT TIMEFRAME.

>> SO ANTHONY, ME CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE. I THINK FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING WE ARE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT AND AGAIN IRRELEVANT TO AS LONG AS IT GETS A MAJORITY VOTE WE MOVING ON TO THE SECOND READING, CORRECT?FORFEITING THE SUPER MAJORITY TO MOVE TO SECOND READING ?

>> TONIGHT AND TECHNICALLY ONLY NEEDS THREE.

>> RIGHT, SAID AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR FIXED VOTE FOR THE ORDINANCE TO BE EFFECTIVE.

[02:50:16]

>> SO PEOPLE 322 29 MOVES FORWARD WEATHER INVOLVES 4-1 OR 3-2.

>> HE AT LEAST A MAJORITY VOTE TO GET TO THE SECOND MEETING AND SECOND READING YOU NEED FOR FIXED VOTE TO EFFECTUATE ORDINANCE.

>> IN MY OPINION, I FORGOT TO GET THE 4-1 TO ME I FEEL LIKE I'M NOTHING YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR MIND IN THE NEXT VOTING TO ACTUALLY EFFECTUATE IT BUT TO ME, THERE TONIGHT.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRACT.

>> I THINK YOU ARE THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> TO SAY WERE HEADING LANGUAGE, LOOK, HERE ARE OUR OPTIONS IN 60 DAYS IF WE DON'T GET TO PHASE 2, WE TERMINATE. WE CAN GO BACK TO NSID AND SAY CAN YOU GIVE US MORE TIME? NO, YOU CAN'T? THEN WE TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. IF PHASE 2 COMES BACK AND SAYS IT WILL COST 1 MILLION OR WHATEVER IT SAYS WE CAN STILL GO BACK TO NSID AND SAY, WE DON'T NEED IT IN THE CONTRACT WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO PAY IT AND HE SAYS BUZZ OFF, WE TERMINATE, NO HARM NO FOUL. AS LONG AS IT'S DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS WE DON'T NEED AND THE CONTRACT TO GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE .

>> ONE MORE QUICK POINT THE CONTRACT REQUIRES WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHICH IS ONCE WE SIGN IT NSID HAS TO DELIVER TO US THEIR EXISTING SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. THEY DID NOT BUY THE PROPERTY THAT LONG AGO.

COULD THERE BE SOMETHING THAT WAS MISSED BY THE SURVEYOR, MAYBE.

MAYBE SOMETHING CHANGED IN THE INTERIM. I DON'T IMAGINE THAT TOO MUCH.

CHANGED BUT AT LEAST THAT SURVEY WILL GIVE US SOME ABILITY REGARDLESS OF THE 45 DAY PERIOD TO ASSESS THAT AND IF ANYTHING RAISES THE CONCERN THAT ALREADY IS ENOUGH I THINK FOR US TO HAVE A FRUITFUL CONVERSATION WITHOUT WORRIED ABOUT THE TIME RELAXING.

>> HAVE THEY GIVEN US THEIR SURVEY ALREADY, NANCY? NANCY, HAVE THEY GIVEN US THEIR SURVEY?

>>YES, GIVE IT TO ANTHONY WHO THEN FORWARDED ON HIS AND . YEAH YES, OUR INITIAL PRICE CAME IN AT 86,000.

>> TO YOUR POINT JORDAN, THEY ARE NOTSTARTING FROM THE GROUND LEVEL .

SO WE NEED TO PIN DOWN TIMELINE. THAT'S THE ONE ANSWER THAT'S NOT HERE TONIGHT. WELL, BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING WE SHOULD PIN DOWN THAT IF WE ARE TO VOTE ON THE CONTRACT AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT THE SURVEY CAN GET THE SURVEYOR GET THE SURVEY DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS. NOT JUST WITHIN THE 60 DAYS ENOUGH TIME IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WE CAN COME BACK AND VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE MOVE FORWARD. X THE SURVEY IS GOING TO BE, IN MY OPINION, IRRELEVANT. PHASE 2 WILL BE THE ONE THAT WE HAVE ISSUE WITH BECAUSE PHASE 2 IS ONE CAN COME BACK WITH US HAVING TO SPEND MORE MONEY. WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO NSID AND IF HE TELLS US BUZZ OFF WE ARE TERMINATING THE CONTRACT.

>> THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT THAT DEALS WITH THIS THERE IS A PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS AND IMPERMISSIBLE EXCEPTIONS. SOMETHING COMES OUT OF THE TITLE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS FORESEEN OR EVEN ON THE CURRENT TITLE WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE AN OBJECTION AND THAT GIVES NSID THE OPTION WHETHER THEY WANT TO CURE IT.

IF A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS TO ATTEMPT TO CURE IT BUT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME AND TRY TO FIND HERE IS THAT 60 DAYS DOES NOT SEEM TO EXTEND OUR INVESTIGATIVE PERIOD IS MORE FOR THE SELLER TO CURE IT WHICH MY CONCERN WOULD BE WERE KIND OF IN LIMBO.

>> WHAT THEY SAY WE WANT TO CURE IT IS BEYOND THE 60 DAYS AND WE CAN GET OUR DEPOSIT BACK?

>> I THINK WE SHOULD WITH YOU EARLIER THE TITLE WORK THAT WAS DONE UP TO THIS POINT NOTHING CAME BACK THAT WE WERE NOT INTO SPITTING BUT THE SURVEY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT SHOW UP IN THE TITLE IN A TELL YOU THE SURVEYOR I SHOULD GO AT THE END OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SOME OF THOSE EASEMENTS MAY NOT APPLY TO OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY OR SOME OF THEM MAY AND THAT'S WHEN YOU DETERMINE THAT WITH THE SURVEYOR ULTIMATELY DETERMINES. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT POPPED UP WE ADDRESS THAT.

[02:55:01]

>> IF THAT'S ABLE TO FULLY DELIVER VISION AND IF THEY EXERCISE THEIR 60 DAY CURE PERIOD THAT EXTENDS OUR TERMINATION RIGHT WITHOUT A FORFEITURE OF THE DEPOSIT.

>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THAT IS THAT FOR A TITLE ISSUE OR IS A FRIEND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE? FOR TITLE YOU WANT EXTENSION FOR TITLE?

>> NO, WHAT I'M SAYING IT'S KIND OF ILLUSORY THEY HAVE 60 DAYS TO RESPOND ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO CURE IT. WE'LL HAVE THE LUXURY TO HER 60 DAYS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY TO WAIT UNTIL 60 DAYS OVER.

>> IF THEY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT FREEWAYS WITHIN THE 60 DAY INVESTIGATION PERIOD A TITLE OR ISSUE AFTER WE GET THE SURVEY AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO TRY TO CURE IT WHICH GIVES THEM ANOTHER 60 DAYS IN OUR INVESTIGATION PERIOD IS EXTENDED BY LIST THEM OUT PLUS TIME TO RESPOND AND TERMINATE AND GET OUR DEPOSIT BACK.

IT CAN'T BE RJ-45 WHEN ALWAYS AN ISSUE WITH THE SURVEY THEY SAY OKAY GIVEN 60 DAYS TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER TO CURE IT OR NOT IN THE QU?BEC 20 DAYS LATER WHICH WERE NOW OUT OF HER 60 DAY INVESTIGATION WITH AND STAYED OVERNIGHT TO CURATE WERE NOT GONNA GIVE YOU YOUR $250,000.

>> WE DONE A LOT OF LEGWORK SINCE THE TIME PERIOD THAT YOU INDICATED YOU WERE INTERESTED IN THIS AND WHAT MY REAL ESTATE PARTNER HAS SHARED WITH ME WE HAVE REVIEWED THE TITLE WE HAVE A TITLE COMMITMENT AND IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED PRIOR TO CLOSING BUT WE HAVE A TITLE COMMITMENT FROM FIRST AMERICAN THAT WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OR SO.

THAT IDENTIFIES THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND I PROVIDED YOU ALL WITH THE REPORT FROM THE COCHAIR OF OUR REAL ESTATE PRACTICE. I THINK EARLIER TODAY THAT ADDRESSES WHAT THEY CALL EXCEPTIONS THE TITLE COMMITMENT.

MOST OF THEM ARE REALLY ABOUT, HEY, THE SURVEYOR GOING OUT AND DETERMINING THIS EASEMENT THAT POPPED UP IS REALLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN YOU DO THE SURVEY AND NOT NECESSARILY AN ITEM THAT POPPED UP THAT WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE CLARIFICATION.

>> I'M GOING TO FINISH OFF THE POINT. THERE IS LANGUAGE HERE THAT CONTEMPLATES THIS BUT I STILL DON'T THINK IT LEAVES OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

IF THE SELLER CURES OR SATISFIES THE OBJECTION OR PLACE TO PROVIDE PRIOR TO OR ON THE CLOSING DATE THIS AGREEMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN EFFECT. THE SELLER DOES NOT CURE OR SATISFY THE OBJECTION WERE THEY TO PROVIDE AT THE CLOSING DATE PURCHASER MAY.

NOTICE TO SELLER AT OR PRIOR TO CLOSING DATE EITHER TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE PROMPTLY RETURNED TO PURCHASER OR WAIVE THE OBJECTION AND PROCEED TO CLOSING IN WHICH EVENT ANY ADDITIONAL WILL CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT EXCEPTION.

THERE'S SOMETHING IN HERE THAT CONTEMPLATES AS BEING ABLE TO GET OUR DEPOSIT BACK IF THE CURE IS NOT CURED BUT IT STILL LEAVES OPEN THIS TIMING ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAD TO GIVE NOTICE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE STARTS THEIR 10 DAY NOTICE. WHAT I THINK MAY HAPPEN HERE IS YOU CAN STILL GET YOUR DEPOSIT BACK AS YOU GO PAST THE 60 DAY PERIOD BUT YOU ARE NOW LOCKED IN ESSENTIALLY ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU GROUNDS TO TERMINATE DURING THE 60 DAY PERIOD. IF THERE'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN TITLE YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION WITH YOU HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT TITLE ISSUE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE CURED YOUR ESSENTIALLY ASKING TO PUT ASIDE THE OTHER ISSUES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONTRACT.

>> ALTHOUGH IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED WE HAVE A 60 DAY WINDOW RIGHT NOW FOR THOSE OTHER ISSUES AFTER THE 60 DAYS IT WILL TERMINATE THEREAFTER WE CAN KEEP OUR DEPOSIT.AGAIN, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT NSID IS GOING TO DO.

>> I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BECAUSE WHAT THE TITLE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

I THINK THE PHASE 2 FISCAL MEASURE OF A STICKING POINT OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT AND WHAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE.

>> BLEND WITH THE CONTRACT TO GIVE THEM, HERE'S MY CONCERN BECAUSE NOW THERE'S CONFLICTING PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT. IT SAYS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO 60 DAYS TO CURE IT.

IF WE WANT TO EXERCISE OUR TERMINATION WITHIN THEIR CURE PERIOD DOES THAT TO FEED IT?

>> WELL, NO WEEKEND STILL EXERCISE OUR TERMINATE WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD.

>> I WANT ANTHONY TO BE SURE THAT BUNS UP. IF THAT'S THE CASE IF THEY DECIDED THERE IN THIS RESPONSE THEY HAVE ANOTHER 45 DAYS TO RESPOND AS WE ARRIVE SO 45 AND HAVE EXERCISED THEIR 60 DAYS BUT WILL NOT GOT A RESPONSE BEFORE THE DEADLINE WE ARE

[03:00:02]

>> TALKING ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS THERE ARE ISSUES OF THEIR THAT CAN BE CLARIFIED BY I GUESS NSID THINGS LIKE THERE IS A NOTICE OF LIEN FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED IF THIS IS PAID AND IF IT CAN BE RELEASED IF THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY PURCHASES IT.

DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE LIENS THAT WILL BE ASSUMING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO PAY IF WE BECOME THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IF NSID DOES NOT WAIVE THE LIEN?

>> USUALLY DO THAT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND MAKE SURE IT'S PAID.MAKE SURE THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT SPEAKS TO ANY LIABILITIES ACCRUING PRIOR TO CLOSING BEING NSID'S RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREAFTER BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY SO THIS SHOULD STILL BE A VALID OUTSTANDING DEBT WITH THE LIABILITY ON THEIR SIDE THAT WOULD BE PRORATED AND ADDRESSED AT CLOSING THIS WILL NOW BE EFFECTUATED.

TO BE RESPONSIBLE IS SOMETHING THAT ACCRUED ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING.

>> WILL NEED A 3-2 VOTE TONIGH , RIGHT?

>> BEFORE THE ARENA DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF RESIDENCES THAT GO ON THAT PROPERTY IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT NOW?

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND BEFORE YOU START THIS DISCUSSION I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO BUT AT SOME POINT A DEVELOPER MAY COME BEFORE YOU WITH THE REZONING APPLICATION REQUESTING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND HAVING TO PROVIDE BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE MET ALL THESE CONDITIONS.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND BEFORE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT ON HEY, I THINK X AMOUNT OF UNITS IS COMPATIBLE AND MAKES SENSE IN THE COMMUNITY OR HEY, THIS AMOUNT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW AND THOSE STATEMENTS COULD BE USED LATER ON.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR WERE TALKING ABOUT 22 ACRES OR SO PLUS I GUESSED 22 POINT SOMETHING. RIGHT? AND ITS THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

SO 3?22, RIGHT?

>> I THINK YOU ANTHONY! DO WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT?

>> IF I SAID TO YOU I ONLY WANT TO HAVE 40 HOMES BUT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY OR 30 HOMES PUT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> WHEN YOU WANT TO SEE A PROPOSAL FOR A DEVELOPER TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE AND B HOW MUCH THEIR POTENTIAL TO BUY THE LAND WOULD BE? I MEAN THAT'S.

>> THE REASON I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THIS GOES BACK TO THEIR TALK ABOUT THIS GIVES ME SOME COMFORT IN THE CONTRACT THAT IS IF WE KNOW THE PEOPLE RESIDENCES THERE, YOU KNOW YOU CAN RECOUP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, THE APPRAISERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE HOMES ON THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SOMEWHERE I GUESS IN THE 900 THROUGH $1.4 MILLION RANGE SO YOU CALCULATED A NUMBER THAT GIVES YOU COMFORT ON YOUR $25 MILLION PURCHASE IF YOU PUT X NUMBER OF HOMES ON THERE.

>> I DON'T IF YOU CAN DEFINITELY SAY LET'S JUST USE NUMBER 30 FOR INSTANCE I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE THOSE NUMBERS PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE MOBILIZATION COSTS, INFRASTRUCTURE COST, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD NECESSARILY SAY, YOU KNOW, 60 HOMES DIVIDED BY 20 MILLION WHATEVER THE NUMBERS ARE IS 1 MILLION. WELL, IF IT WERE 30 HOMES IT WILL STILL BE 1 MILLION, I DON'T THINK, THAT WOULDN'T PLAY OUT BECAUSE AGAIN YOU TO SEPARATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SMALLER HOMES. MY WHOLE THING IS IT'S THREE UNITS PER ACRE, IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN THAT. I WOULD BE FINE SEEING THE DEVELOPER SUBMIT A PLAN AND WHAT THE PLAN LOOKS LIKE WE WOULD AT THAT POINT VOTE ON IT.

>> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU TALKED ABOUT, MULTIPLE TIMES TONIGHT AND OTHER NIGHTS THAT IS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WE CONTROL THE DESTINY OF WHAT IS GOING TO GO THERE.

AND NOW WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS BEFORE WE DECIDE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

>> THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION.

>> DOES THE SAME THING IF I WERE TO KEEP MY CONTROL IN A LAND USE AND ZONING I GET TO DO THE SAME THING. YOU'LL SPEND $25 MILLION FOR IT.

>> KEN, ONLY IN RESIDENTIAL. ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL. YOU CANNOT CONTROL COMMERCIAL.

[03:05:07]

>> WHAT YOU MEAN YOU CANNOT CONTROL COMMERCIAL?

>> SO YOU WOULD HAVE ALL RESIDENTIAL AT SOME POINT, YOU CANNOT SAY IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT IF IT'S ALL WITHIN THE THING, YOU KNOW, IF IT FITS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S THE RIGHT AMOUNT YOU CAN'T SAY WELL KNOW I DON'T WANT 100 I ONLY WANT 50.

>> WHAT YOU SAID IS ONCE WE OWN THIS WE GET TO CONTROL IT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I WANT TO CONTROL IT NOW. I WANT HERE ON THIS DAYS WHAT THE CONTROL SOUNDS LIKE BECAUSE MY IDEA MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR IDEA ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENCES THERE AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO WAIT FOR A DEVELOPER TO SAY I WANT TO PUT 60 UNITS OF THEIR THAT IS GOING TO LEAD US IN THE SAME POSTURE AS BEFORE VERSUS WE MAKE A DECISION WE ONLY WANT TO SEE 30 HOMES THERE.

>> IT'S LIKE SAYING WITH THE COMMERCIAL LET'S GO BACK TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I KEEP TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE NEVER TOLD ANYBODY A SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOT.

BECAUSE I WANT TO SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PARK, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS AND LET THE DEVELOPER CREATE SOMETHING WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS.

I DON'T WANT TO MICROMANAGE THIS PROCESS SO THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T SUCCEED.

THE DEVELOPER HAS TO SUCCEED.

>> I AM NOT MICROMANAGING THE PROCESS WHAT I'M DOING IS MAINTAINING.

>> I WANT TO MICROMANAGE THE PROCESS, I WILL JUST SAY THAT, THAT'S MY POINT FOR VOTING ES.

>> I'M TALK ABOUT MAINTAINING THIS AREA IN THIS AREA THAT'S WILL BE HISTORICALLY TRYING TO DO. I WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE LOW DENSITY.

I WANT A COMMITMENT, AGAIN, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ME TO JOIN YOUR SIDE AND BE PART OF THIS CONTRACT AND YOU TELLING ME THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF OWNING THIS PROPERTY IS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR WHAT WE WANT TO PUT THERE AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO PUT THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

>> I CANNOT GO BACK TO THE COMMERCIAL, KEN. 60 UNITS, 50 UNITS, 40 UNITS TO ME THAT IS INCONSEQUENTIAL. YOU ASKED ME TO TELL YOU WHAT MY VISION WAS AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT TO ME WHETHER IT'S 40 HOMES OR 50 HOMES IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE SCHOOLS, IT DOESN'T IMPACTED TRAFFIC. IT'S 10 HOMES.

>> YOU'RE SAYING IS 60 HOMES VERSUS 30 HOMESDOES NOT HAVE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS .

>> IT ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON HOW MUCH YOU WILL RECOUP. IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT MONEY YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH YOU COULD POTENTIALLY RECOUP.

>> IF PUTTING 30 HOMES THAT IS GOING TO BUY A DEVELOPER 30 OR $25 MILLION AND THE FEE IS 15.

WE DID HAVE OUR MONEY BACK.

>> YOU ARE NOT GETTING 15 MILLION FOR 30 HOMES. I BELIEVE A DEVELOPER WITH 52 -50 HOMES WITH PUT A NUMBER ABOUT $12 MILLION. THAT WAS FOR ABOUT 5252 HOMES.

>> KEN, I THINK I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT WE LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 60 HOMES AND 30 HOMES WHETHER IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL OR NOT IS NOT EVEN GOING TO BE A DECIDING FACTOR IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET RESIDENTIAL WITH R3 AND BUILD AS MANY HOMES AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO.

I AGREE WITH YOU WOULD LIKE TAKE A POSITION LET'S CAP IT AT THIS NUMBER AND READY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BUT BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD AT A FUTURE DATE WAS RIGHT NOW IF WE DON'T VOTE FOR THAT NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE DICTATED BY OUR ZONING NOT BY US.

>> MY ONLY POINT IN THROWING OUT THE IDEA WAS BECAUSE WE HAVE MEMBERS OF OUR DEISTS WHO EXPRESSED CONCERNS OVER THE DOLLAR FIGURE WITH THE TOTAL PURCHASE.I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME SORT OF RESIDENTIAL ON THE DOG LAKE BEFORE GOING TO RECOUP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT $25 BY SELLING THAT DOG LAKE TO DEVELOPER, HEAR ME OUT.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT KEN IS SAYING.

>> ALSO, IF WERE GOING TO BUY IT AND ASSIGN IT TO A DEVELOPER I WANT TO DO WITH THE WHOLE INTENT OF THIS PROCESS I WANT TO CONTROL, I WANT TO CURATE WHAT GOES THERE.

IF IT'S JUST HEY, WHATEVER ZONING IS THAT HAVE ADDED ANYWAY WE DON'T NEED TO BUY IT.

>> AND SAY WHATEVER ZONING IS BUT YOU HAVE TO OUR ZONING IS R3.

>> THE ZONING IS A1 THE LAND USES R3.

[03:10:05]

>> ON ALL OF THE PARKLAND AVAILABLE GOLF COURSE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. THE LAND USES R3 ON ALL OFTHE GOLF COURSE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKLAND .

>> SO IF YOU WANT TO SAY 30 TONIGHT.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS BECAUSE TO ME IT IS A MEASURE OF AN DOLLARS.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO KEN.

>> I DON'T WANT TO DEFAULT TO HAVE THE MASS ZONING ALLOWS.

>> I DIDN'T SAY WHATEVER, ANTHONY, ADVICE AS WE SHOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING ANY NUMBER.

I WAS IT'S THREE UNITS PER ACRE SO AT THE MOST IT COULD BE 66 UNITS.

I'M NOT SAYING I WANT 66 UNITS.

>> WHEN WE ALYSSA BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING FROM THE DEVELOPERS WE STARTED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH WHY DO WE ELICIT FROM THEM SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL ON VINELAND.

JUST FIND IT BY IT. BUYING THE LAND WITHOUT ANY ASSURANCES OF ANY ENTITLEMENTS, BUYING AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE LAND WHICH MEANS THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR WHOLE PROCESS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BUYING THE LAND WITH SOME SORT OF CAP ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS GO THERE AND WE CAN DO IT AS A CHECK PHASE APPROACH.

>> THEY CAN'T GIVE A NUMBER LIST IS A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF HOMES.

>> THE DEVELOPER CAME TO YOU TOMORROW IS IN A, RICH, I WOULD NOT PAY $12 MILLION IF I COULD PAY 30 HOMES WHETHER THEY 30 BACK ANY HOMES IN THIS AREA NEGATIVELY WITHSTAND IT.

I WILL PAY YOU $10 MILLION FOR 30 HOMES ON THAT 22 ACRES. IF THEY SAID THAT WE HAD THE OPTION TO SAY WE CAN OFFSET $10 MILLION OF OUR LIABILITY FOR THIS 25 NINE DOLLARS AND KEPT IT TO 30 HOMES.

>> EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO KEN. WITHOUT SEE WHAT THE PLAN WAS.

>> I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TILL LATER TO GET THE PLAN I'M SAYING LET'S HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS NOW BECAUSE WE MAY BE ABLE TO ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE CONTRACT OVER AND OFFSET THAT LIABILITY. IF THIS COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING THIS PAST, RICH, NOT PAST BECAUSE IF I'M HEARING IS A $25 MILLION AND WERE TAKING ALL THE RISK AND RESPONSIBLY WE HAVE TO KNOWS.

>> AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL AS WE CONSULT THE RESIDENTIAL RIGHT AWAY.

WITH THE RESELLER RIGHT AWAY, WHATEVER.

>> THE BENEFIT ASSIGNING OR SELLING IT IS WE CAN CAP IT.

>> WE CAN ASSIGN IT BECAUSE WE CAN CAP ANYWAY. YOU'RE STUCK ON THE ASSIGNMENT SO, YES, LET'S JUST ASSIGN IT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA, THANK YOU.

MY POINT IS WE CAN KNOW WHAT IS UNTIL WE SEE SOMETHING FROM THE DEVELOPER.

>> BUT WE CAN ELICIT THOSE PROPOSALS.

>> OF COURSE WE CAN AND THEY HAVE ALREADY GIVEN ONE THEY ALREADY HAVE GIVEN A PROPOSAL WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN ONE AS FAR AS HOW MANY HOMES. IF YOU WANT TO BE LESS HOMES WE CAN MAKE IT LESS HOMES. I AM FINE WITH THAT WHEN I SAY IS INCONSEQUENTIAL WHETHER THE 60 OR 30 HOMES IT'S IRRELEVANT TO ME WHATEVER THE DOLLAR VALUE IS TO YOUR POINT IF IT'S 30 HOMES THAT ARE $3 MILLION WHAT, THIS PIECE IS NOT THE PIECE THAT WILL CHANGE PARKLAND.

THE NORTH DOGLEG IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO CHANGE, HINDER PARKLAND.

THE FEAR WE HAVE IS THIS COMMERCIAL PORTION SO WHAT HAPPENS ON THE DOG LEG AGAIN, ONLY SINCE INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE 30, 40, 50, 52, 48 IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. WAS GOING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IS THE COMMERCIAL PORTION.

>> IRONICALLY THAT'S THE QUESTION WE HAVE THE MOST CONTROL OVER.

>> IF WE DON'T OWN IT WE CAN ONLY SAY NO. IF WE WANTED WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN SAY YES, SIR WHATEVER WE WANT.

>> IF I CANNOT GET A COMMITMENT ON NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW.

RICH, YOU ARGUE WITH ME ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT.

>> WHAT IS YOUR COMMITMENT?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SEE MORE THAN 30 OR 40 HOMES ON THE PROPERTY.

>> REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH IS REIMBURSED?

>> WHATEVER AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT SATISFIES YOU GUYS THAT THIS IS A GOOD DEAL.

>> AGAIN, 30 TO 40 HOMES I'M FINE WITH THAT BUT YOU MAY ONLY GET A MILLION AND THEN WHY NOT 50 AND YOU TOTALLY IN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ENTERTAINED ALTHOUGH IT IS EASY DON'T WANT TO LOCK MYSELF IN TODAY TO ANY PARTICULAR NUMBER, THAT'S ALL. OUR ATTORNEY SAID I DON'T RECOMMEND YOU LOCK IN YOURSELF INTO A NUMBER. I'M NOT SAYING I WANT A TON OF

[03:15:05]

>> HERE ISMY PROBLEM I WILL. AND THE DEVELOPER COMES AND SAYS I WANT TO PUT 52 OR 55 HOMES THERE HE SAY HOW MUCH ARE YOU GOING TO BE ME AND THEY SAY $18 MILLION AND YOU GO YEAH, LET'S GO. AND NOW YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE DONE AND THEN WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED BY HAVING A LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.

>> BUT KEN, YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OVER THE COMMERCIAL.

>> YOUR WHOLE POINT WAS WITH OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL.

>> WITH OWNERSHIP YOU DO BUT NOT ONLY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.

>> I WON'T GO OVER 40 HOMES THERE. GIVE ME A NUMBER.

>> A COUPLE POINTS ONE, I ALREADY MADE THE STATEMENT BEFORE JUST TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN CASE YOUR FUTURE DEVELOPERS THAT COME BEFORE YOU THERE GOING TO BE USING THIS MEETING BUT POINT NUMBER TWO IS UNLESS THE CITY IS GOING TO BUY IT INTO YOUR OWN ENTITLEMENTS YOU CAN SELL IT TO THE DEVELOPER AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS FROM A LAND USE AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO FILE THOSE APPLICATIONS BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING AND COME BEFORE YOU AND POTENTIAL QUASIJUDICIAL CAPACITY AND DELIVER THOSE CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE YOU VOTE THERE'S A CONCEPT CALLED CONTRACT ZONING WHERE YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER SAYING I WANT TO GIVE YOU X AMOUNT OF HOMES WHEN YOU COME TO ME TOVOTE . SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

NOW, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY VOLUNTARILY AGREE I GUESS WERE NOT GOING TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR ABOVE X AMOUNT THAT COULD HAPPEN.

>> I THINK I MADE MY POINT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER SO ANY DEVELOPER THAT IS LISTENING WILL KNOW THAT.

>> SO ANTHONY, THE QUESTION BECAUSE THEY HEAR THE MAYOR TALK ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WILL BE TO SAY NO. SO I GO BACK TO WAWA OR I GO BACK TO NOT REALLY COMMERCIAL BUT ALLEGRO, WHERE WE HAD THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM IN A DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY CAME TO US AND THEY SAID, LOOK, WE RECOGNIZE IS GOING TO BE. SO WE ARE GOING TO SPEND $450,000 FOR A RESCUE.

WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON WITH WHERE THE SITE PLAN WAS ETC., ETC. THERE WERE NEGOTIATIONS THE WELL WILL BE JUST WAWA ITSELF BUT EVEN BJ'S WERE YOU THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE THE GAS STATION. WE WANTED TO.

INGRESS, EGRESS. THE PROPANE TANKS. THOSE ARE THINGS WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE. WE COULD GO TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION WHATEVER WE COULD HAVE DENIED THEM AND LIKE I SAID EXCLUSIVE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS ALLOWED AND WHAT WAS NOT ALLOWED. MY POINT IS IS THAT NOTHING PRECLUDES US FROM GOING TO THE DEVELOPER FOR COMMERCIAL PEACE AND SAY HERE IS WHAT OUR VISION IS WHAT YOU GUYS THINK? AND HAVING THAT CONVERSATION WHERE EVENTUALLY THEY COME BACK TO US AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER WITH YOU AND HERE IS WHAT WE ARE THINKING OF DOING. THERE'S NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES US FROM DOING THAT.

>> IN MY EXPERIENCE THE DEVELOPER KNOWS THEY NEED THE LAND USE CHANGE MANY TIMES IT WILL COME TO THE CITY TO SPEAK WITH COMMISSIONERS OR STAFFAND SAY , YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE CITY LOOKING FOR? YOU CAN DISCUSS THE IMPACTS THAT THAT POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL COST TO COMMITTEE AND THINGS THEY COULD DO TO POTENTIALLY MITIGATE.

>> AGAIN, TO MY POINT, OR THEY CAN LISTEN TO OUR MEETINGS AND SAY I DON'T WANT TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL JUST GO WITH RESIDENTIAL AND TRY TO GET AS MUCH AS I CAN AND THAT WE CANNOT SAY NO TO. AND THAT'S MY POINT. MY ONLY POINT.

WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DO COMMERCIAL.

>> SOMEONE ELSE OWNS THE PROPERTY CAN YOU FORCE THEM TO BUILD COMMERCIAL? NO.

>> EXACTLY SO IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM DO SOMETHING YOU CAN ONLY TAKE AWAY SOMETHING THAT'S LESS CONTROL THAN SAYING WEOWN IT , THIS IS WHAT WE WANT, SOMEBODY GIVE US A PROPOSAL, HERE IS OUR OUTSIDE PARAMETERS WEATHER IS HOW MANY HOMES WE PUT ON THE DOGLEG.

AGAIN, WHEN I LOOK AT THE DOGLEG I'M GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE THEY GOING TO GIVE US? IT IS 40 OR 45 OR 46 OR 52 OR 30.

[03:20:02]

>> LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE THE DOGLEG WE ARE GOING TONIGHT AND THE LAST MEETING RESIDENTIAL IS THE MOST VALUABLE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THE DOGLEG IS MOST VALUABLE PIECE IN ALL THIS PROPERTY. OUT OF THE 65 ACRES THE 22 ACRE DOGLEG IS THE MOST VALUABLE PIECE, WHY? BECAUSE PER ACRE IS GOING TO YIELD US THE MOST TO SELL IT.

AND SO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE ARE NOT IN THIS IS TO THE POINT I SAID EARLIER FOR NOT CONCERNED WITH PUTTING RESIDENTIAL WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS ON THE DOGLEG THEN LET'S FLIP IT SO TO SPEAK, SIGN IT, RECOUP PROBABLY PER ACRE THE MAJORITY OF HER MONEY BACK AND PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS AND CONTROL OVER THE REMAINING TWO PARCELS.

>> TO MY POINT ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT THIS IS WHERE, TO ME, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE DECIDED WHAT WE WANT AS OPPOSED TO DOING AN ASSIGNMENT MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VENT THE PROCESS, HOW MANY HOMES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, AND HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE WE SELL IT. BECAUSE CLEARLY KEN AS A PHYSICIAN.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST THAT POSITION BECAUSE AGAIN, TO ME, IF YOU HOMES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS NOT. YOU WILL PROBABLY HAVE 75 DAYS BETWEEN TODAY AND WHEN THE CONTRACT CLOSES OR WHEN WE CAN TERMINATE YOU WILL HAVE AROUND 75 DAYS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT THE DOGLEG.

>> THAT DOES NOT GIVE US TIME TO GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING. YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING THE WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS.

>> NO, NO, NO JUST THE OPPOSITE. WE ARE GIVING GREATER CONTROLS BECAUSE WERE SAYING WE WILL ASSIGN YOU THE CONTRACT BUT TO ANTHONY! YOU WILL NOT COME BEFORE US FOR APPROVAL BY PLANNING AND ZONING WHICH IS STILL SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS BY THE ENGINEER BUT YOU WILL NOT COME BEFORE US FOR MORE THAN X UNITS.

>> I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE THE ASSIGNMENT IT'S OKAY DO THE ASSIGNMENT.

>> RICH, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NO DEAL AND THE DEAL FOR THE TWO PARCELS WE CARE ABOUT.

>> KEN IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT HE JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY HOMES WILL BE THERE. AGAIN, WITH REASSIGNMENT OR SELL IT THE NEXT DAY AT THIS POINT NOW WE JUST WANT TO DEATH, I AM FINE, ASSIGNMENT.

>> NO, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT YOU'RE NOT APPRECIATING THE NUANCE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A TOTAL LOSS OR PARTIAL VICTORY.

>> I SAID I AM FINE ASSIGNING IT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I CAN SIGN IT.

I AM FINE, ASSIGNMENT. WE JUST HAVE TO NO MORE THAN 30 HOMES.

WE WILL SIGN FOR 30 HOMES. BUT THAT'S WHAT KEN SAID. THAT'S WHY THE ASSIGNMENT BUT AGAIN, IT'S FINE, ASSIGNMENT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO PUSH YOU FOR A NUMBER. I HEARD WHAT ANTHONY SAID BUT YOU ALL HEARD WHAT I SAID. I WILL NOT PUSH FOR A NUMBER.

>> OKAY SO, ALL RIGHT SO, WE LEFT OFF WITH KEN SAYING HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE US SAY A NUMBER BUT EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE HE STANDS. WHICH IS FINE.

BELIEVE ME, I AM NOT SAYING I DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID I JUST, YOU KNOW,.

>> I GOT IT, WE ARE GOOD.

>> SO, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK TO POTENTIALLY ASSIGN THE DOGLEG TO THE DEVELOPER.

>> I WOULD LOOK TO ELICIT BIDS ON THE DOGLEG.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> DO WE WANT TO WAIT FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

>> I DID SAY, I AM SORRY.

>> SMOKING UNTIL YOU GOT THEM.

>> DON'T WORRY WE WERE NOT ALL WAITING FOR YOU, NANCY.

>> IF IT MAKES A BETTER SHE IS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE SNACKS.

>> THEN YOU ARE FORGIVEN.

>> SO, I WANT TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION HERE I SPOKE TO ROB AGAIN DURING THE BREAK HE WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT NSID WOULD NOT ALLOW A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT UNLESS THE ENTIRETY

[03:25:01]

>> WELL, CORRECT ME, YOU CAN ASSIGN YOU CAN'T ASSIGN THE CONTRACT UNTIL AFTER YOUHAVE CLOSED ON IT .

>> IS IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU CLOSE PRIOR TO IT.

>> YOU ARE SUGGESTING TO ME THAT YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGNED PART OF THE CONTRACT WHILE WE ARE WAITING TO CLOSE ON IT?

>> THE SUGGESTION THAT I MAKE WAS A CREATIVE SOLUTION BECAUSE I GOT THE CLEAR IMPRESSION THAT WE HAVE TO NO VOTES BECAUSE IN PART AND THERE'S A MYRIAD OF REASONS BUT IN PART THE DOLLAR FIGURE IS $25 MILLION AND THAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK. MY ONLY POINT IS LET'S GIVE IT THOUGHT OVER LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY NOT BE ALL BUT THE SENTIMENT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THERE IS NOT A LOT OF OBJECTION TO PUTTING SOME RESIDENTIAL ON THE DOGLEG IN THE DOGLEG PER ACRE IS THE MOST VALUABLE PIECE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT RESIDENTIAL IT INCREASES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY OUR APPRAISERS.

SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION I'M PUTTING SOME RESIDENTIAL ON THE DOGLEG WITH THE LEAST ENTERTAIN SPLITTING IT UP, RIGHT? WITH THE CITY WOULD SELL OFF WHETHER WE CLOSE ON IT AND THEN SELL WE HAVE A CONTRACT BECAUSE AN INSULT OR WE ASSIGN DOES NOT MATTER BUT THE CITY WOULD SELL OFF THE DOGLEG FOR SOME SORT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE BENEFIT BEING THAT WE ARE IN A GREATER POSITION CONTRACTUALLY TO DICTATE WHAT GOES THERE BEYOND OUR ZONING AND LAND USE. AND ALSO PRESERVES FOR ME SOLVING THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE THAT WE HAVE IN THE PROBLEM I SEE WE HAVE LIKE THE MAYOR SAID IS WITH THE OTHER TWO PARCELS.

THE OTHER TWO PARCELS ARE THE BIG PROBLEM. IF THAT MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIXING THOSE PROBLEMS AND TAKING FULL CONTROL OF THOSE PROBLEMS WERE GETTING A THREE-INTO BELIEVING WE DON'T DO ANYTHING I WOULD RATHER SEE THE FORMER.

>> I AM FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T WANT TO ASSIGN THE COMMERCIAL.

>> AGREED AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT AND I GET ROD'S POINT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO JUST SELLING THE MOST VALUABLE PIECE TO 1/3 PARTY AND NOT CLOSING. THE SOFTWARE AND THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION. MY INTENTION WAS IF WE CAN SHARE IF WE CAN PUSH OFF THE RISK SOME OF THE RISKS ON A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION HALF OR MORE OF THE TOTAL $25 MILLION WITHSTOOD A VICTORY ON THE OTHER TWO PARCELS WHICH ARE THE MORE PROBLEMATIC ONES I THINK IT'S A WIN-WIN.

>> SO, SHOULD WE VOTE IF WE ARE PTO VOTE AND PASS IT WE WOULD ASK NANCY THEN TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY DEVELOPERS MAYBE THERE'S SOME LISTENING WERE ARE HERE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE NORTH PORTION WHAT TO YOUR POINT BEFORE GIVE US A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.

ONE WITH 30, 40 HOMES, 16 HOMES, WHATEVER GIVE US SOME SORT OF ACTION WITH WHAT THAT WOULD BE AND THEIR COST AND THE WEEK AWAY THAT.

>> TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, WILL NOT BE SUBVERTING OUR NORMAL PROCESSES OR ANYTHING ELSE THE CYCLIST WAS STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AND WORK WITH OUR ENGINEERING IN OUR CITY PLANNER. THIS WILL NOT SKIP THE PROCESS IT WOULD JUST BE A CONTROL FACTOR .

>> FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AN ASSIGNMENT THAT IS CONTINGENT UPON CLOSING OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTY? IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T.

>> IT WILL BE A DOUBLE CLOSING, SIMULTANEOUS CLOSING.

>> BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER ISROW MENTIONED MR. CLONE SAID WE WOULD HAVE FOR SOME LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH A PIECE WE WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE ON ALL OF IT AND HAVE THAT ADDRESSED.

>> BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE, ANTHONY, AFTER SO I GUESS MY CONCERN WITH THAT POINT IS SAY WE VOTE TONIGHT AND WE GET 4-1 AND WE GO WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WERE GOING TO ASSIGN WHATEVER THAT WE GO BACK AND WE VOTE AND IT GOES THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE TO

[03:30:03]

>> YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CONTRACT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING THIS IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASSIGN A PORTION OF IT YOU PROBABLY NEED SOME IT SAYS IS ASSIGNABLE BUT IT IS AN EXQUISITELY SAY A PORTION OF IT IS ASSIGNABLE SO WE NEED TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION AN AGREEMENT FROM NSID.

>> AND WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ATTEND HIS INTENT TO PURCHASE IT ALL AND THEN ASSIGN A PORTION.

>> THAT'S LIKE LESS THAN ONE SENTENCE TO EFFECTUATE THAT. IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TO PRIOR TO THE SECOND READING.

>> ANTHONY, IF WE GO BACK TO NSID IF WE ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE CONTRACT MAYBE WE GET AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS ON THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD. AS WE ARE NOW BRINGING THAT INTO IT. IF NSID WILL BITE ON THAT BUT THEY SHOULD GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME IS WILLING TO GIVE THE TWO DEVELOPERS WHO ARE THE BACKUP CONTRACTORS 100 DAYS OF DUE DILIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION PERIOD IN THE STILL WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT.

>> THEY COULD CURE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IF THEYJUST PAID 100 DAYS , PERIOD.

DOCTOR RUSH THE PER SURVEY STUFF WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO RUSH THE PHASE 2 STUFF.

>> THE INTERMEDIATE 90 DAYS IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THEM AND GET IT FOR MY UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPER CONTRACTS ARE GETTING 100 DAYS FOR THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND MAYBE WE DON'T NEED ANY CONDITIONS BUT MAYBE WE CAN SAY NOW IT'S 90 DAYS WHICH GIVES US THE COMFORT AND

DOING THE PHASE 2. >> AND WHAT ARE YOUR BACK CHANNELS, COMMISSIONER?

>> I'M TRYING BUT I'M NOT GETTING ANYTHING.

>> THE LINE IS DEAD.

>> IN THE ASSIGNABILITY, LET'S SAY WE ASSIGN IT TO DEVELOPER X THEN DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE COST THAT WE ARE ASSIGNING IT TO DEVELOPER X?

>> THE COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ASSIGNMENT.

>> WOULD THAT BE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE WERENO ?

>> IT MAY BE, ONE COULD INTERPRET IT TO REQUIRE THAT.

>> BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DONE BEFORE?

>> I AM SORRY, MAYOR, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU JUST A FLIPPANT ANSWER WANT TO RESEARCH THAT AND COME BACK TO YOU.

>> SO WE WOULD SIGN THE CONTRACT AND WORK ON THE ASSIGNMENT WITHIN THAT 60 DAY WINDOW, CORRECT ANTHONY?

>> WE COULD PRESUMING THAT NSID AGREED TO THE PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OR ASSIGNING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WE COULD WORK ON THAT.

>> WE COULD WORK ON THE ASSIGNMENT WITHINTHE NEXT WEEK AND AND A HALF , YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> WE COULD WORK ON IT IN THE INTERIM.

>> SO, WE ARE ASKING NSID TO ALLOW US TO ASSIGN A PORTION.

>> THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO DO IT WE CAN DO AN ASSIGNMENT IN PORTION NSID SAID WE DON'T CARE AS LONG AS THEY CLOSE ON THE REST. I DON'T THINK THAT LANGUAGE WILL BE A PROBLEM. THE OTHER WAYS WE COULD HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE DEVELOPER ALREADY LINED UP THIS IS ACTUALLY CLOSE YOU'RE GOING TO SIMULTANEOUSLY CLOSE TO THAT 22 ACRES. JUST AS COST BUT MIGHT BE THE SAME THING IT MIGHT BE EASY ENOUGH TO SQUARE OFF. MY ONLY POINT IF WERE GOING TO DO THAT NSID HAS ALREADY SAID THEY WILL GET THE DEVELOPERS ON THE BACK OF CONTRACT 100 DAYS TO PERFORM THEIR INVESTIGATION PERIOD,THEIR DUE DILIGENCE , SO WE SHOULD ASK THAT IF WERE GOING TO ASSIGN WORSE WE SHOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF A 90 DAY OR 100.

>> MY ONLY CONCERN AND I DON'T DISAGREE, WE SHOULD ASK FOR THAT BEFORE.

>> AGREED. BUT WE ARE HERE NOW AND I THINK NSID SHOULD FEEL IF WE CAN GET THE VOTES WEHAVE NO COMMITMENT .

>> I IMAGINE WE COULD GET 4-1 WILL PROBABLY HAVE MORE LEEWAY WITH NSID.

>> THAT IS MY POINT NSID IF THEY THINK IT'SA WORK IN PROGRESS AFTER THIS MEETING .

THEY SAY WILL NOW BETWEEN NOW THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL GIVE YOU THE 100 DAY DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING THAT WOULD SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS.

>> SO, I'M JUST ASKING IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ME TO PROM?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. THE MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS TO PASS THE FIRST READING WITH THE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GET CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO HOW

[03:35:05]

>> THE PHASE 2 WE CAN GET THE PAST.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GETTINGTHE RESULTS OF TALK ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE .

>> WE DON'T NEED A MEETING FOR THAT.

>> HAS NOTHING TO HAVE A MEETING THIS WILL DETERMINE WHICH MEETING THAT AGENDA ITEM WILL GO. IF NOT, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO GET ON EARLIER READING TO GET THE BALL MOVING.

>> WE DON'T HAVE TO SET THE NEXT MEETING TODAY, RIGHT ANTHONY?

>> NO.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GET THE MANAGER DIRECTION TO GET ASSIGN TIME CERTAIN THE ACTUAL TITLE WORK, THE SURVEY AND ON THE PHASE 2 AND ALSO TO AGAIN TALK IN PARALLEL WORK WITH ANY DEVELOPER WHO ARE LISTENING WERE ALREADY IN THE CONVERSATION TO START GETTING A FEEL FOR I THINK AS WE PUT IT OUT THREE DIFFERENT PHASES FOR THREE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL CONCEPTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF THE DOGLIKE SO WE CAN SEE WITH THE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE FROM DIFFERENT RANGES AND USE THAT INFORMATION TO IF AND WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT STAGE TO USE THAT AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS TO VOTE ON THE SECOND READING.

>> I WOULD ONLY ASK THAT YOU AMEND THAT OR I WILL AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE REQUEST THAT ANTHONY GO BACK TO NSID ON THE TWO PROBLEMS WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THE CONTRACT PARTIALLY ASSIGNABLE AND WITH THE CLARITY THAT NSID WANTS AND ALSO PROVIDING US A LONGER INVESTIATION PERIOD SO WE DON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES WITH REGARDS TO THE PHASE 2, THE SURVEY AND THE ASSIGNABILITY TO EITHER 90 DAY OR 100 DAY INVESTIGATION PERIOD.

>> THAT IS A MOTION FOR THE DIRECTION TO STAFF IN THE CITY ATTORNEY ARE YOU GOING TO A SEPARATE CLEANED MOTION?

>> THAT WAS THE MOTION TO APPROVE FRUSTRATED SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS.

>> IS THE SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS MEETING OF THOSE CONDITIONS DON'T COME THROUGH THAT?

>> YOU CAN'T REALLY VOTE ON A FRUSTRATING WHEN YOU'RE STILL ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE PUT IN WHAT THEY WERE DOING NOW IS VOTING TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEGOTIATION AND PROCESS AND IF WE GET TO THE SECOND READING AND DOESN'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE.

>> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS.

>> WERE NOT WILLING ON THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

>> WE ARE VOTING ON IT WITH THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS NOW WITH THE CHANGES.

>> WITH THE DIRECTION, EXACTLY. IF YOU GET TO A SECOND READING AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE WE WILL HAVE ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE XISTING LANGUAGE OR NOT.

>> WHAT I WANT TO PREVENT AND CLARITY FOR THE RECORD IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE A FIRST READING WE DID A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND THEN THOSE CONDITIONS DID NOT GET EFFECTUATED IN THE SECOND READING AND YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD NEVERTHELESS ON SECOND READING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FIRST READING WASN'T.

>> I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE A CONDITIONAL I WAS JUST GIVING DIRECTION.

>> THIS WAS SUGGESTING SEPARATE VOTES ON THAT BECAUSE YOU DO NEED TO VOTE ON THE CONTRACT.

THE CITY CODE REQUIRES THAT THE ORDINANCE INCLUDE ALL THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TO GO BEFORE YOU. SORRY TO BETECHNICAL.

>> LAWYERS .

>> WAY TOO MANY OF THEM HERE. MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR FIRST READING TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP OF THE PROCESS.

>> THAT'S TWO MOTIONS.

>> MY SUGGESTION IS THAT BEFORE WE GET TO THE VOTE FOR THE ORDINANCE WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE DIRECTION.

>> BUT WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THE DIRECTION DO WE ANTHONY?

>> YOU CAN, EARLIER ASKED FOR AND I KNOW NANCY HEARD WHAT YOU ASKED FOR.

>> I DO KNOW THE CLARITY BECAUSE I DID JUST HEAR I HEARD THE PARTIAL REASSIGNMENT THAT I ALSO HEARD A LONGER PERIOD. SO THAT'S NOW CHANGING.

>> THE DIRECTION POINT I HAVE AND KEN MAY HAVE OTHERS BECAUSE OF CORAL SPRINGS WHATEVER POINTS HE HAS THE OTHER POINTS I UNDERSTAND OR TO CONFIRM WITH OUR FOLKS BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING INTERNALLY THE TIMING OF THE SERVING PHASE INTO THIS THE FIRST ITEM THAT SHOULD BE EASY ENOUGH. THE SECOND ITEM IS TO GO BACK TO NSID AND NEGOTIATE INTO THE CONTRACT SUMMER. IT ALLOWS FOR A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONTRACT SUBJECT TO THE WHOLE CONTRACT CLOSING. THE THIRD ISSUES TO GO BACK TO

[03:40:05]

>> YOU CLEAR, ANTHONY?

>> YES.

>> NANCY, YOU CLEAR?

>> SURE.

>> KEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I JUST HOPE MAYBE TO REACH OUT TO CORAL SPRINGS AGAIN TO GET A BETTER SENSE FROM THEM, THANK YOU.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE FOR FIRST READ.

>> SECOND.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ISROW AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRIER. ROLL CALL. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC?

>> COMMISSIONER BRIER >> YES

>> COMMISSIONER MAYERSOHN >> NO

>> COMMISSIONER ISROW >> YES

>> VICE MAYOR CUTLER >> NO

P >> MAYOR WALKER

>> YES. PLEASE SHOW IT PASSES 3-2 ON FIRST READING.

MOTION TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.