drive every day. And for me, the the deceleration lane and the exit right hand only are virtually non-negotiable. They they need to happen and and we'll have to rewrite the resolution in in
light of the the results of the study and a review of whether or not the rightway is available. And if it's not, we've got a whole lot of other questions to be answered as to whether or not why Midtown Homestead did not dedicate uh
that. >> So, and and I would find that inconceivable. So, that's that's where I would be. We, you know. All right. So, do we have any uh let's take public comment on the deferral.
>> May I make a request? >> Sure. Um, may we respectfully request that the deferral be to the December meeting, not January. We think we'll have the counts by then. >> Well, obvious obviously that's contingent upon the receipt and review of the traffic study. >> Of course.
>> Does that >> Yeah. >> So, what's the date of that meeting? About a month from now, right? >> December 17th. December. >> If they're ready, we'll set it. If not, >> right? And if not, >> that's fine. No, no problem here. So,
it's you accept that to the maker of the motion for the for dece for the regular December meeting >> 17th. Okay. Very good. All right. I think you did you second it. You sec Did you second it? You seconded it. So, you're okay with December. >> All right. So, we don't have any other
public comment. So, we need a roll call vote on the deferral of each of these items to the December 17th meeting. >> Councilwoman Ailu. Yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky. >> Councilman Roth.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. >> Councilman Cannibal. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey. >> Yes. >> Mayor Losner. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> The December possibility. >> The December possibility.
>> Okay. Mr. White. I think that too. >> Yes. Moving on. These two tabs 10 11 and >> 10 11 and 12 deal with the >> joint discussion. Yes. >> Yes. How we've done the previous two tab 10
11 and 12 deal with the same uh property and a proposed development. Uh there's uh tab 10 is a site plan. Uh 11 is a corresponding tenative plat and 12 is special exception. I can introduce each one collective conversation public hearing. Take a vote separately.
>> Sure. So tab 10 is a resolution car number 4824 is a resolution of the city of Homestead Florida granting site plan approval as requested by Kingston 328 LLC for the development of two freestanding 2500 square ft retail restaurant buildings 10,000t retail
building a gas station consisting of a 45,000t convenience store six gas pumps and ancillary car wash on an approximately 4.102 102 acre parcel of land generally located at 888 Southeast 28 Avenue as legally described in
exhibit A and providing for an effective date. Tab 11 part number 48.25 25 is a resolution of city Homestead Florida granting intent to plat approval as requested by Kingston for the development of two freestanding 2500T retail restaurant building 10,000 foot retail building gas station consisting
of 4500T convenience store with six gas pumps and ancillary car wash on an approximately 4.01 01 acre parcel of land located at 88 Southeast 28th Avenue described in exhibit A providing for an effective date. And finally, tab 12 part
number 4826 is corresponding special exception. Uh this is a resolution of the city of Homestead, Florida approving a special exception as requested by Kingston for the development of two freestanding 2500 ft² retail and restaurant building, 10,000 foot retail building, gas station consisting of
4,500T convenience store, six gas pumps, ancillary car wash on an approximately 4.01 2 acre parcel of land gen located at 888 Southeast 28th Avenue as L describing exhibit A and providing for an effective date. >> Very good. Before we take this up, let's
move to extend the meeting from 8:30 to 9:30. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? There. No objection. We'll let Mr. Vasquez make his presentation on this. >> Thank you once again. Council members.
>> Once again, my name is Jav Vasquez at the Gunster Law Firm. I'm with U Gunster at 600 Bickl Avenue and I'm here tonight on behalf of Kingston 328 LLC. I have a small team with me on this one as well. From the ownership group, I have Mr.
Richard Sanchez and Aurelia Rodriguez. Our architect Carlos Cardoso who you're going to hear from um is with DTI. Andre Martinez from Hadoni is our civil re uh our our civil engineer. Uh my assistant
Janelli Perez and as I mentioned earlier, Nicole Corella who's shadowing and learning. The subject property is that 4.1 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of 328th Street and 152 Avenue
um North Canal Drive and Kingman Road. Kingston 328 is proposing a small neighborhood center consisting of three buildings. U Mr. Cardoso will go into the details as to the size of the buildings and a gas station with a convenience store.
the the request before you tonight necessary for the proposed development also it's also consists of three requests in this case it's a site plan approval special exception and tenative plot approval
as with the prior application I will be presenting our application as one although the three requests are listed are listed as three separate agenda items and also as with our previous application the three applications come before with a recommendation of approval from
your professional planning staff with a condition all of which we are in agreement with. Let me take a little deeper deeper dive with regards to the requests. First, a special exception.
It's a technical requirement triggered uh a technical requirement triggers the special exception request being that the proposed gas station is not specifically named in the list of allowed uses in the villages of Homestead master plan. Staff's recommendation is approval
subject to a list of conditions which with which once again we agree with and there's three notable conditions that I want to highlight from staff's list of conditions. And some of them are standard conditions. One is that the gas station gas prices and the
advertisements for that shall be posted on monument signs no taller than 5 ft. Services. This this one's kind of interesting. I kind of like it. Services such as ice or propane tanks, ATMs, mailboxes, and those that are typical to
being on the sidewalk of a convenience store will be allowed to be accessed from the exterior of the convenience store, but shall be housed within the envelope of the building. No exterior services such as ice, dispensing, propane, ATMs, or mailbox will be
allowed to be placed on the sidewalk, which I think is pretty cool. And the other notable condition which is um good to good to mention is that the hours of operation for the car wash will be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Site plan approval as we did with the U last application. I'd like to call Mr. Carlos Cardoso, our architect, to give you a quick run through on the presentation. So, mayor, if I if I could interject,
we are I I just found out that the plans have changed and been modified. And so, as originally advertised for each one of these items, it indicates that there is um it's two freestanding 2500 square
foot retail restaurant buildings. And that's not the case. It's been now changed to one of those buildings is 2400 square ft and then the secondary building is 3,800 square ft. So this item is going to have to be reverted and
reheard and the agenda materials and the corresponding plans are going to have to be updated and included for your consideration. >> So this none of these >> you can't take action on this tonight. >> Okay. Improper advert well not improper but not consistent with what's before
us. Move motion to defer by Councilman Ross, seconded by Councilwoman Avala. >> Do we have a do defer all three items to all three date certain in December or >> if they're ready? Yeah, let's notice
let's do it to December and they'll they can be ready or not. >> Mr. Mayor, >> is there enough time to advertise? >> Does that give us enough time to readvertise? Okay, >> so that'll come back the same day. >> Uh Mr. Mayor on council. >> Absolutely. >> Mayor on council. Um, as a city manager, I'm a little disappointed from what I'm hearing
tonight and uh, I've never seen this happen before. It's my request out of respect to council and mayor that this item be deferred indefinitely until I'm satisfied that the materials that are being provided to city administration
are consistent with what we advertising. I don't think and I'm not in a position to move forward in December unless I see consistency in material submissions and properly reviewed by the city land use attorney, Mr. James White. I'm not going
to be comfortable coming back here in December. >> I appreciate that and I just want to state for the record. I've known the city manager for a long time that there's been no funny business here. I was about to ask kind of like where did we slip through the cracks because we did start with the 2500 foot buildings.
There were revised plans submitted and how the original plans were advertised and not the revised plans I don't know but I want to make sure Mr. manager that you understand that you know we're we're also a little bit surprised and I don't
I hope that this is not triggering anger in any way that is based on any intention on that's all I wanted to make sure you understood because we did submit revised plans and it was I think we had the right to believe that they were advertising the correct set set of
plans and somehow that didn't happen and you know things happen and I'm going to take it as such but Um I'm also at a loss and not understanding what may have happened may have happened. >> Thank you.
>> till released by the city manager's office and you know if you could deter look the advertising is nowhere near exp as expensive as the attorney and other professionals spent their time to come here tonight. But if the mistake was on us, we
certainly need to bear the cost of the readvertising. >> I would love to understand what happened because I'm not >> we all >> you've been doing this for a long time and I've been doing this for a long time and I've never >> been in this situation before and it's obviously I understand why there's no option. I would have I would hate to
lose a December opportunity, but if the manager is not happy with that, we'll we'll respect that. >> I've never seen it either. I I can explain what happened is that there there was the site is very tight. So the drive-thru we worked around it many
times. There were many iterations of the site plan. So this was the final version and the application was never corrected to reflect what is the final version. So we advertise based on the application that came with these areas
and was never amended. >> Councilman Fletcher, this is your district. >> Yes. And uh thank you. I uh I was kind of looking forward to defer this item anyway because again and I don't believe it to be a fault of the attorney. He's he's taking ownership of it, but it's I
wasn't notified of this until yesterday in my own district that somebody wanted to build a nice little gas station on the corner in my district. So, it was uh kind of uh befuddling, similar to what Councilwoman Avala had to deal with. Uh
I don't quite get it. Uh but this will allow for some things to fall in line and and allow further clarification as the future product that's going to go on this property. >> So, Mr. Manager, is there any possibility that you will reconsider the indefinite nature of the deferral?
>> I have a lot of in-house review to do. You've known me for long. >> Sorry. >> You've known me for a long time. I'm totally embarrassed. >> So, I want to fix this. >> Well, certainly obviously, as you just heard,
>> this was not intended to be cause embarrassment to anybody. >> I apologize for this whole >> council. >> Thank you, mayor. Also, you know, one of my concerns was that we were walked on with a corrected um um
memorandum which clearly states in the corrected one that a gas station is not specified as an allowable use. Whereas in the briefing I was advised, you know, according to the memorandum, tentative plat approvals and I don't see a mention
of um >> the special exception >> and perhaps I overlooked it because of how brief the time frame being briefed and the application is, but that is something that I also would like to have an opportunity to review and make sure
that that's what the residents of Keysgate specifically would like to have. Now, I would like to also say that with the renderings that I've seen, quite beautiful for a gas station and retail. So, for what that's worth, I
look forward to it coming back. But with that with those opportunities, >> the special exception has been a a main stay of our application since day one, >> right? But it wasn't it wasn't the highlight of what we were looking at in terms of what I was briefed on. So, it was kind of new to me that oh, a gas station isn't allowed and so we be
adding it as a use. So, >> but what but I think just I'm sorry just to clarify gas stations as an ancillary use to a convenience store have always required a separate approval and and those have come before us but I think
the distinction here >> is that gas stations are not specifically permitted under the DRRi is that correct >> the just for everyone's clarification in the DRRI there are broad category ories,
right? And this is commercial but neighborhood commercial, but there's no definition of neighborhood commercial and there's not a list of permitted uses that fall under neighborhood commercial. So that's what I think
is was explaining in her memorandum. But similar to how we always treat convenience stores and gas stations in abundance of caution, we're just going to apply what we do in other business districts
and handle this the same way to accompany a site plan. and you would need a special exception approval for the convenience store with gas bonds. >> Thank you for that clarification. I do appreciate it >> and um you know we certainly hope to fix
this thing and at the same time I feel better that it's going to allow us to work with the commissioner of the district as well as with the rest of the council portion. >> Thank you, Mr. V. All right, so I think we need a roll call vote on the motion to defer. Councilwoman Konssky, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Avula, >> yes. >> Councilman Roth, >> yes. >> Councilman Fletcher, >> yes. >> Councilman Cannibal, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey, >> yes. >> Mayor Lawson, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> All right. Back back to an easier one.
Tab 13. >> Yes, Mr. Tab 13 is the first reading of an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida, amending the city code of ordinances by amending chapter 23, signs and advertising, article 3, signs division 3 regulations section 23-87, mural approval process to update and
further clarify the review and approval standards and procedures for murals providing for conflicts providing for severability and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, mayor. Would this be an
opportunity to bring Yes. Okay. Um, so as many of you have heard before, I am very interested in rolling out this Maui mural project. Um, I'm not one to jump quickly into things, but I I have joked
about it. I've talked about it, and I feel like it maybe was a good idea back in the day. Um there are so many so many little corridors that are leading to Maui. We've got obviously LNER Park, the Siberium. Um, I think there is a very
interesting opportunity for you to consider as one of the maybe first overlay ideas uh to include some commercial buildings in this language would be um the back part of Paramount
Dance. Um the bathrooms of Lzner Park. Uh our our new city mural right will be facing that direction. So, just as a kind of entrance way to the back end of the park and then eventually I'm
comfortable with waiting on that piece unless there is not an opportunity to do it again. Um, I would love to consider as well, um, anywhere right a block over from the historic piece of Chrome Avenue west down Maui from that block west to
187th Avenue >> to fall under the category of the larger >> mural >> allowances. Yes, we have La Patrona Bakery who has submitted something to um to the city. I I really I understand the
hesitations. I remember countless uh conversations at the very beginning and I was still learning things. Um but I really do think that the businesses that are currently there are going to do something that's going to help their area. Right. We have Diaz
Supermarket which I am saying already has a mural on their wall because it's their signage that includes a lot of u pictures of fruits and vegetables. Uh, so I see them doing something like that. We have Lewis Electric, we have Lester's Plumbing, we have ABC distributors who
have known have been known to do great things in the communities where they are. Um, Kicks Youth for Christ, which was the first mural that I had approved back when the old signage was um, the very little 20%.
So, I just wanted to put that out there again for discussion and see if you as well shared that vision or if there were any questions. >> Let let me ask in that Let me ask the attorneys cuz I'm not that familiar with it. Is there a provision in the
ordinance now that would allow a privately owned property to have a variance or an exception from that size limitation? We currently don't have one in place now. It's just the maximum of the square
footage or 20% which is ever less >> that that may be the better path to provide the opportunity for private property other than your court you know corridor unless you wanted to find the corridor
and limit it to that or did you want to give maybe all businesses the opportunity? I think maybe the safer route to go right now would be to consider an overlay in this specific area. I think that's what most cities have done is
there's an arts type district, right? So to really um focus that first on our downtown and um that Maui corridor, I think that might be the smartest first move. Obviously, I would personally love to see art everywhere, but I think that's opening um some boxes that we
might not be able to uh to control right now. Um but as the opportunity arises in different um you know, who knows with any of these mixed development >> so we could call out specific privately owned businesses or a corridor. You for example, you mentioned u the back wall
of Paramount Dance Studio. You know, I've I've always had an idea that that north north facing wall of Jacobson's would be a neat spot for a mural, you know. So, if we're going to call out
those businesses, >> so the north side of Jacobson would face our mural, >> which would face our mural with line >> with the way they have their sign already, it looks muralish, >> definitely. So that would that would be included in this this overlay type uh type corridor. It would include
Jacobson's. We could include the side the back of Jacobson's the new throwback tattoo and collectibles business that's opening. Saka doesn't have any back wall. >> But do we really want murals on the fronts of buildings facing Chrome
Avenue? >> Definitely not. >> That's the rabbit hole we need. >> No, 100%. It it needs to be that corridor would be the the right. Correct. >> And maybe we don't want to do side right now. Maybe we don't want that >> um compet not competition but maybe we
don't want that um other mural facing ours. That's something we can think of. I didn't >> I didn't think of that. >> You know, you only see our our future mural going north. You'd see Jacobson's going south. South.
>> Of course, they would have to want it, but you know, we're opening that door. >> Sure. >> Can I get a clarification? Is it west one block west of Chrome and then the Maui or are we also talking about the east side of Chrome? >> So, from previous conversations, it was
to protect the historic piece. So, it would be west. >> Okay. I think I recall motioning that three times on the last conversation. So, if you're making a motion this time, I'll second it. >> I'm I'm sorry. You need a motion. I just clarification.
>> You need a motion or is it just direction to bring >> a workshop? >> So, in order for me to draft this, right, I I just need to have two questions. First is I need to pin down we need to pin
down the exact location that we are going to allow murals um to exceed what's currently already the standard in the code. Right? So we're going to carve out an exception for an area that would allow you to exceed what's in the code. So my first
question is we'll establish what those parameters are. Second question is, is there an upper limit or a maximum or certainly that's something that staff can look at based on other mural programs and come
back with a with a suggestion, but I would put some limitation on what what would be reasonable with other jurisdictions may have done with similar mural programs. limitation as far as what
>> like >> size >> like put a ceiling on the size of how big the mural can be or like what what the >> what the parameters of how like because right now right we have a size or we say 20% of the wall which is ever less.
We're going to carve out an exception for an area that can exceed that. But do you want a ceiling like do you want a maximum of how big this area can have a mural? So, for the purposes of this type of corridor, no, I think an entire wall is
what is going to give that wow. And I'm throwing it out there for everyone to consider and get a visual on. But no, I would I would think that for this specific reason, >> um just like we wanted ours to go the entire length of the building,
>> we could I mean, it's simple. Well, we could just we could say um may exceed the square footage and wall percentage currently, right? I can draft it that way. >> These defined
>> So, I just we were talking around. I just need a little clarification on what the area definition of of what we're looking at. So if >> Maui drive on either side of Maui drive >> from Chrome
west, >> we want to include the building the previous 48 the side of that building which you would see coming >> you don't like. >> Yeah. Better than the plywood. I am okay with starting
one building west of 48 or whatever >> that's all well with the exception of the uh >> the MAC building that's all publicly owned all the way down to the side area. These are opportunities for businesses
to do something um to add to this this corridor >> or we don't have to you don't have to exactly pinpoint it tonight. We have some idea. We can work with staff and come back with some recommendations for you for you all to consider that. Okay.
>> Yes. And then to consider the north and the west side starting at Jacobson's and including the back ends of those businesses going to Lzner Park including the LNER Park bathrooms which
>> entire the rear of that entire block >> those will face Loster Park in our future parking lot that came with the 204 bill. So that's what we we can do. We can take what you've discussed tonight. We can talk with staff and fine-tune it
>> and then and then bring it back for a second reading and then you all can modify it at that point even further if you need to. >> May I second it? >> I think it's just some direction to Mr. Mayor.
>> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. Council's pleasure. >> I would just like to offer that, you know, we're we're narrowing our scope. Why don't we widen it a little bit so we don't have to revisit this every six months. Let's take it to Sixth Avenue on the west side.
There's not a whole lot of impacts there really business-wise. Let's just take a look at it, expand it. That way we're not having to come back and rehash this out. >> Thoughts only. >> But thank you. >> You can't have too much of a good day. May I >> I just have a question there.
>> Yes. >> Um James, when between now and then, can you just make sure you do some briefings on reminding uh us what the criteria, the allowables, the mechanisms for changing and counseling in the future? I remember we had those discussions then,
but I don't remember exacts. And we also have new counsel, so we'll have to do some briefings before that. Thank you. All right. So, I think you all have what you need. >> Moving on to Cap. >> Wait, no, we still we didn't take a vote.
>> Yeah, I need a I need a >> We have direction for second reading, but not a we >> Okay, so we're going to pass this on first reading with direction for Okay, >> we did not take a vote yet. So, if I could have that >> move first reading of the existing and we've given them instructions for second reading. >> Thank you.
>> Counciloman Aava seconds. Is there any public comment? I didn't think so. Roll call. >> Councilman Roth. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Agria. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky. >> Yes. >> Councilman Cibal? >> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey?
>> Yes. >> Mayor Lawson? >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Moving on to tab 14. >> Tab 14 is the first reading of an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida, amending the budgets for each of the several funds and departments of the city for the fiscal year beginning
October 1, 2025. and ending September 30th, 2026 by increasing the total budgeted revenues and expenditures by $23,22,895 providing for repealer severability and an effective date. >> Thank you. Does anyone need an
additional staff report? For those few folks watching, we're not conjuring up new money. We're just uh rolling over unal unspent but budgeted money from the prior uh budget year. Moved by Councilman Fletcher,
>> second by Councilwoman Ava. Is there any public discussion? Close the public hearing. Roll call. Madam clerk. >> Councilman Cannibal. >> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. >> Councilman Roth. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky. Councilwoman Abul.
Vice Mayor Bailey. Yes. >> Mayor Losman. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Tab 15, please. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Have 15 is the first reading of an ordinance of the city of home state of Florida amending the budgets for each of the several departments within the general fund with an overall net zero effect on the total
budget of the general fund of the city for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024 ending 30 September 30th, 2025 providing for repealer separability and an effective date. >> Thank you councel. Moved by council Fletcher. Second by
councilman cannibal. Any further discussion from council hearing? None. Any public commentary on this item? I'll close the public hearing and ask for a roll call vote on tab 15. >> Councilwoman Aland, >> yes. >> Councilman Cannibal, >> yes.
>> Councilman Roth, >> yes. >> Councilman Fletcher, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky. >> Vice Mayor Bailey, >> yes. >> Mayor Losner, >> yes. >> The motion carried. >> All right. Tab 16, Mr. Pearl. >> Yes. Tab 16 is a resolution of the city council of the city of Homestead,
Florida approving a purchase sale agreement and authorizing the issuance of a note in amount not to exceed $1,666,812 to secure a loan for the purchase of a property from the sellers of the property located at 406 Washington Avenue. Providing for a covenant to budget and appropriate nonadalorum
revenues for the payment of a loan. providing for the security of the note, approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of the loan agreement and note with such other documents as may be necessary in connection with the loan, providing for severability, providing for appealer, and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Manager, is Mr. Beck
the lead on this? Can bring us up to date on where we are on this transaction? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. >> Good evening, council. Uh, as the attorney has stated, the uh, item before you is to proceed with the purchase
offer 4406 Washington. Um, the agreement in the contract would stipulate a million dollar initial payment to be made. Uh, as you'll see in the agenda item for the CRA today, there is the um, proposition for that down payment to be
funded through the CRA. the additional uh payments that would be required would be funded through this debt service that the city would be issuing. Uh we as a part of the process have engaged a consultant to do a phase one uh environmental site assessment which as
you all saw had a delay in being delivered but was delivered to uh today uh for our receipt. Um and that is the the general summary of where we're at. So certainly glad to answer any questions that you have or further discussion.
>> Oh, thank you. Let me open it up to questions or comments from council. >> Would like to kick it off. Councilwoman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um for staff, are we still currently in our due diligence period of the contract? >> Yes, we are. The due diligence period
was 60 days commencing on October 1st. So, it will conclude at the end of this month. Okay. And um I know that we just got the report thousand pages practically. >> We did. >> Um did we did we receive any reports um from the seller with regards to
environmental that we could have reviewed? >> There are none that I am aware of and I do understand that that was requested. I'm not sure that they were available or that they were attained. So no prior reports were received. >> Okay.
um you know given considering the purchase price considering the the different valuations um and I mean the delta in this case where we were looking at and considering the the value
of the control factor so about $2.2 2 million um compared to land value versus um purchase price. And um because we're we're not going to operate the property in its current condition. We're not
going to um if we were to sell the property, we would have to mitigate. We don't we don't know what the liability and the cleanup costs would be. And uh I think
it would be irresponsible of us to proceed uh with this purchase agreement. Uh so I would be moving to terminate this contract immediately uh under the due diligence period that
is um allowed for within the contract terms. And um I I just don't see how we could feasibly be able to identify and get any additional information we would need within the due diligence. And even just considering an extension to that
wouldn't be uh feasible compared to what the asking price is or the the contract price is compared to the valuations that we have. Um to be able to know that we could mitigate and any contamination etc. And I do I do see
that there's emails uh from the um from the the environmental company. Is that the same company that we just got the report from? >> Yes, Councilwoman. That is those were some of their early findings that they had conveyed in those emails that were part of what was included in the overall report received today.
>> Okay. So, with that, that is my motion and I'll rest there. Thank you. >> Do we have a second to the councilwoman's motion to terminate immediately? >> Second. and seconded by Councilman Roth. So, I'd be happy to entertain some questions or comments from council and I
know the property owners are in attendance and would offer them the opportunity to respond to any commentary or questions uh following the initial council discussion. Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. One question, Mr. Mayor, and uh this is to the city attorneys. Isn't
there a a clause in the current contract that we can extend the due diligence if needed >> for to complete um of the environmental assessments for the purposes of completing environmental assessments?
>> So we could if we wanted to extend I'd like I mean with I'd like the ascent of the I want I would not want that to be as a source of contention with the seller. Sure. So with the seller's consent, we could do that. >> Understood. Thank you. That's that's all. You got it in.
>> Yeah. >> Uh, Vice Mayor Bele. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we've had hesitation up here before of us acting as landlords or purchasing big dollar amounts. I was a yes the first time because it is such a unique corner.
Um, not to mention the opportunity of having some of the current employees continuing it. Um, those were all selling points for me. Um, and made it an easy yes. Of course, it's concerning to want to know what is the state. So,
that was my first question is why can't we extend it a little more? Um, I think that that is only fair to understand exactly what we're getting into. I think we owe it to um to our residents to know what the purchase is potentially going
to end up costing us. Um, so I would I would also be very interested to know if we are able to push that date forward or backwards um to give us a little more time to be able to not only get phase one, but we we need to see the real
information comes. So that's all I have for now. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, any other comments or questions from council at this point? And I'd offer the opportunity for the uh potential sellers, the contract sellers to uh to come forward and uh make any
comments they would wish to make this evening. Hi, welcome. >> Hi, good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jennifer Wman. I'm the listing agent. I'm with Avanti Way
Commercial at 8400 Northwest 33rd Street in Dural. Um, we did have a letter of intent that was offered. I know you guys know the history. We listed it in March of this year. We received a letter of
intent for 2.6. We turned it down. We got another um letter of intent for the full asking price. we were going to contract and because of the history that the sellers have, they've been in the
property more than 22 years. They've raised their children here. They presented it to the city because of where it's located and because of the city's strategic plan. So based on that, we went into contract. We did allow for
an additional 60 days I believe it is or an extension beyond the 60 days for this the second phase of the environmental impact report because we know that those do take time. Um the sellers here again
their ties to the community are are strong. They really like the strategic plan. They were a part of the strategic plan in that whole process. So that is why it was presented to the city. The pricing for these types of properties is
very high. They're in high demand, especially with private equity firms because they are difficult to come by. They're triple net leases. They did want the owner to stay. The owner was not going to stay unless it was with the city for this deal. I'm sorry, I'm
losing my voice. um unless it was for working with the city and it was to keep his employees who have also been there for decades. Um so that was why it was presented to the city and we backed out of the previous
contract. >> Thank you. >> Um good evening. Good evening, mayor, council members. Um, I came here right out by when I left the army. Um, in 1983 I went to work for my
father-in-law right there in that 1983. I worked there for six years and then uh God called me to law enforcement and a lot of you know I ended up with a 27year career as a DEA agent here in Miami um working undercover for half of it
and then having a half of a career getting ready to retire training cops and having time on my hands and we were given the opportunity to go back into that store in 2001 um and we're given the blessing of being able to actually purchase
property. Um, and my wife's been doing a great job running it. We were told this week that we are the number one retail and wholesale purchaser and distributor of Goodyear tire rubbers for a singles unit location in the entire
country. So, we've been working hard and we've doing it for 25 years now. Um, my kids grew up here. My son was born on Holmes Air Force Base. Um, he used to attend all the Veterans
Day sprays. Thank you for those Veteran Day parades. My family loves them. I love him. He used to take my son there when he was three, right outside of the store. He went to West Point like his dad. He's a grew up here in Homestead and he's a
he's a hero. won a bronze star and purple heart five forged in Iraq and he's 100% disabled military veteran and we decided Michelle and I started praying about it what do I do what do we do I've done had a full career with DEA
um we've been doing this for 25 years some people say I look young but I'm almost 68 how long do I do this cuz I'm in that store six days a week come Saturday see me I'm there I reached out to somebody I know my wife guys.
We're there every day. We run it. Um, and we know it's getting close to time. And so, we're reaching out to God. We're praying and say, "Lord, what do you want us to do?" And I think we felt like we need to test the market and see what
we're worth. And we were surprised. I I actually didn't think um we'd even consider selling or moving or whatever. And then uh some offers came rolling in that were a little bit more than I
thought. And uh so we had to make a decision. Do we take this offer and go to closing in 45 days or do we present to the city? Because my wife went to some of the sharet meetings
and we have that final sharet book. And I love it. And I love the ideas of what Homestead could be. We hope and pray. But if you turn to page 24, there's no tire center on that corner anymore. So I don't think it's in the plans of
the city. And that's what a good old criminal investigator like me, sir, calls a clue. And it might be time to plan. And at West Point, they taught us a sixp principle, which means you better start planning.
And so we started planning and we tested the waters and uh when that offer came to us in a contract form with money is getting ready to be put down, we said we got to make decision. So we went and we let people
know in the city that this is going on and it's probably going to happen and if the city wants to do something for itself, for the betterment of the city, if they want that location, talk to us. We'll work with you. because that's what we hope for for the city.
But either way, one of these days we're going to be gone. Um, I can't do this forever. I got great people working over there. Most of them been with me for well over 15 years. Um, and I have a plan for them to give them
a company for nothing. And I hope that happens. Um, but that's why and that's the reason we're here is not because of some undercover deal or some backhanded practices. I think my integrity and
integrity my family would stand up to that above anything. Just 3 years ago, I was up here having Kevin Pson day proclaimed as a homestead day. And then the next week, Cutler Bay or Palmetto Bay did the same thing. That's not cuz we're bad people.
So, I love this city. I love everything you people do. I know you're not doing it for the pay. It's hard being up here at night late at night. And again, I thank you for the Veterans Day events you put on. They warm our heart. Um, and we hope we can work something out with
the city. We're holding out for it. Um, but if not, God's good and we'll move on. Um, but our intentions are good >> and I want y'all to know that. >> Thank you.
So I I think to the vice mayor's question and you know certainly the attorneys would need an answer that that if this transaction survives the motion that's on the table tonight. The next
question then becomes whether or not um you and your wife are willing to extend the due diligence period for us to take the next step in the environmental
review or whatever reviews need to be well environmental only with respect to the property. >> Yeah. Of well of course I mean we agreed to that in going into it. I know uh environmental studies don't happen overnight. We've had them done before. I don't have the copies of them. I give them to you. They were from another
company that wanted to buy us out years ago. Um, we passed everything. We pass our durspections every year. We operate properly. I don't think there's a problem there, but you I don't know. I don't know what's underground. Um, and you would only be prudent to have that
done. >> Mhm. >> Totally reasonable. So, um, we're in no rush to anything. We're doing just fine. Um, we're over there making a living, supporting our family, and um, taking care of our employees. And that's what
we intend to keep doing. I'd already dedicated to being here for another two years regardless. Um, probably three. Um, cuz I've got folks that work for me to take care of and make some plans for them. So, that worked out good for us.
Um, I just couldn't see leaving in the middle of the night and saying, "Hey folks, I'm out of here." I don't think I could live with myself. But, uh, no problem for us. Whatever it takes. We hope we make a deal. Um, but God God will lead us through
whatever it is we have to do. Okay. >> Appreciate that, council. Does anyone have any questions for the owner or his representative over here? Okay. Do we have any public comment on the motion that's on the table to
terminate? >> We have one online for me. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Orta. >> Mr. Mayor, I I do have Yes. I I just have um a couple of questions. I mean, I'm kind of glad that we have the actual owner there. Um, I actually did my due
diligence and I requested the appraisal and I received appraisal which is plural, not stimular. And I was reviewing the actual appraisals aside from the part that the comps are very distant and the various that we're using
to appraise this property. My question to the owner is this. If you want the city of Homestead to consider buying your your property, why is there two appraisals?
One that came back for 460,000 and then the other one that came back for 2.8 million and why is the city leveraging the most expensive one to to purchase this property?
>> Mr. Order, I'm going to let someone from our staff uh answer that to but briefly to my understanding two appraisals were done. Um one was the property
as a vacant piece of of land and the other was the property including the land and the building as it exists today. And I don't believe that the lower number that you threw out is an
accurate number. Mr. Beck, do you have those numbers in hand? >> I I do and I can clarify or add some elaboration on that when the first appraisal was received and was as was stated simply for the land value. Uh and it had stated in there it was with the
assumption that it was a site ready for redevelopment. Our ass to the appraisal firm was, you know, what is this? The the the property that is on the market is a property that has land. It has site improvements. It has building
improvements to it. And therefore, what they have provided was really not something that would be uh adequate for comparative on the open market. That is what necessitated the uh second appraisal. The only reason it was done uh with a different entity was that the
firm that had prepared the initial appraisal who we had the conversations with asking where is the rest of this uh they were not able to uh do it within a timely time frame. So that is why we had a second one which then uh as it is
further elaborates is the land the building and the site improvements. And do you know off hand the the numbers that were ascribed to each of the appraisals? >> I believe the land value was uh as it was stated it was in the $400,000 range
and the um appraisal that was delivered with the um >> asis >> asis was around 2.8 million. >> Okay. And it may be here in our package. I just you know not gonna fumble through the notebook at at this point.
>> Uh so Mr. Orta, is that the clarification you were looking for? >> Yes. Yes. And then my my my followup question to to that is the um was the appraised value based on an
operating actual business after his purchase and does the city have actual plans for the actual building to continue operating then? No, there was no uh as far as I'm aware in the second appraisal, there was no factoring in of
the uh sale of a business. That was not a part of that number. And Mr. Georgia, I think the second part of your question is is built into the contract is that the business currently in operation at that
location will become a tenant of the city for up to 3 years, a definite 2-year period with the opportunity to be there for a third year with the payment of rent, taxes, insurance, and all of
the maintenance that would normally go along with a a commercial lease that would give the the city time to evolve, the city time to figure out what would be a good fit for that location. So, we would not be faced with a shuttered
building. At least that's not the intent of the contract. >> All right. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Order. Does that include your question uh conclude your questions? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Orda. Is there anyone else online?
>> Mr. Mayor. >> Okay, let Councilman Roth first and then Councilman Fletcher. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. So, obviously, I've opposed this transaction from the beginning. I still think it's a uh a bad decision for us to purchase 16,000
square ft of land and a building for $2.8 million. when we just sold 2.4 acres with a larger building on a
better location on US1 for $2.4 million. It just doesn't add up and compute. If we converted the contract price for the Goodyear property
and compared it to the sales price of the US1 property, our property would have been worth about $8 million, but we sold it for 2.4 million. By extending the due diligence period to
discover the contaminations on the property is really doing a disservice to the owners of the property where I don't think that any of us up
here would want to face the remediation costs to level the building and clean up the contamination. I think if you look at the Flaggler property, that's about 42,000 square ft.
And maybe staff can remind us of what that mitigation cost is to clean up the environmental damage that does not have a auto mechanic shop on it. Uh the estimates were over a million dollars to
remediate that property. So again, I think we're doing a disservice to the owners of the property by extending this out for another 60 days just to come back and let them know we're sorry, we cannot purchase this
property based on the amount of money it's going to take us to clean up the property. If they sell it to an operator, they may not have to go through those processes because nothing really changes on the property. For us to land bank 16,000
square ft for the future is, I think, fiscally and financially irresponsible. And the Cherret wasn't about the city purchasing properties and redeveloping.
The sharet was set up to provide zoning opportunities for private individuals to come in and develop the city as we see it today. So, I think deferring this
really just does a disservice to the sellers. If they're getting offers at 2.6 six and more or less. I think they deserve the opportunity to sell their property to a higher bidder
and we can use those monies for other projects that are more necessary and more needed in the city. I don't think it's easy to tell the taxpayers, hey, we're going to pay, you know, four times the amount of money for properties to acquire them when we sold ours for much
less than what we're paying for this property. And I'll rest with that. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh just for clarification, uh I think everybody knows I've always been a opponent of us being landlords,
but I go back to to the Cherrett. Again, I believe it it wasn't the intent of the shet for us to be purchasing property and becoming land owners. But let let's look at this from a numbers standpoint. $2.8 million
rent back for 3 years. That's almost $300,000 in numbers. >> Well, it's 2.6. It's not 2.8. >> Okay. 2.6 six minus $300,000 in round numbers back into our coffers, plus taxes, plus people getting employee
benefits and things of that nature. We bought a piece of property on Chrome Avenue that sits empty to this day on the corner of Ed or the Edison building. Empty. We've done nothing with it. We bought that six years ago,
>> four years ago. >> We're the end of Mr. a straw as tenure a couple years ago. >> Okay, here or there. That property we paid a extreme premium on and yet we've done nothing with it. Here we're going to have a piece of property potentially
that's going to pay us back. And again, I'm not the the proponent for being landlords, but if you look at the overall plan that we spent months on with the Cherret people
to reimage Washington and Chrome Avenue, which again, I I'll state this for the record. I have not been a fan of the downtown redevelopment for the past 30 years. We've done absolutely nothing but spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is an opportunity for us to get a little money back, provide for that future of reinvisioning and putting that carousel right on that corner that I remember. And again, I think it's a pie in the sky, throw up and shoot a shotgun
at it idea for that whole development downtown, but this is a way we can get some of our money back. I propose that we extend. I guess we got to vote on the other one first. Got on We'll have to vote on the
motion to terminate. >> Let Let me Let me >> We'll have a mot to extend. >> Let me interject in this debate. >> So, you're proposing that we spend $2.8 million today to recover $300,000 over a period of 3 years. That's what your proposal is. You
>> still own the property. You have the opportunity. >> No, we own the contamination. We own the remediation. >> You don't know that it's contaminated yet completely. >> We don't know. >> We don't know. We know there's something. >> So, you're willing to purchase something for $2.8 million, not knowing what it's going to cost you to clean it up in the future. >> Did we not say extend the period of time
for 60 days for the environmentals to be done, Mr. Roth? That's all >> I I I agree with you. >> In 60 days, you you could be exactly right and say we're doing a disservice to him. >> Or we can find something out that's that's different. >> I'm just saying there's an opportunity
here for us. We've done it for other properties in the past. I'm ready to throw something into the wind. We haven't done anything in six years really for downtown. Nothing. >> We haven't. >> Put a mural in. >> How about Lozner Park
business-wise? >> Well, we we had the opportunity to fill the Edison building. This council decided not to do that. >> Uh I don't believe the uh opportunity was there for us. >> It was absolutely there. I recall they withdrew and it was a really crappy proposal anyway.
>> Look here or there. We're going to have agreements to disagree and that's what we're up here for. >> I just >> I'm just throwing out my perspective. If you all want to listen to it, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine. This is my perspective. Mr. Roth, you're a real estate agent. I'm not. You know the
value of land better than I do, but I'm just looking at what's on paper and what we could look at long term. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. >> Yes, Mr. F. >> There was back and forth. I just wanted to clarify the terms of the current arrangement in the lease back.
>> Yeah, I that was something I was going to interject. >> So, I just want to interject because there was some back and forth there. So, the lease back, the way that the contract is provided is the first two years they're getting a $10 a year. They had they will pay $8,000 a month if they exercise the option to extend for a
third year. The first two years are the it's part it's built into the sales price. So it's $10 a year for those first two years and then they will pay rent at $8,000 a month if they extend. >> Okay. With that information that's different than what I thought. I'm
retracting what I I said earlier. >> Can you Thank you. >> Can you repeat it one more time? So the the condition is that the they would enter into a triple net lease back from to the to the seller for a term of
24 months at a rent of $10 per year. The lease and that lease agreement may provide for an option for the seller to extend the lease agreement for one additional year at a rent at a monthly rent of $8,000. So those first two years there's no income to the city. the third
year if the if the option is exercised, the city would achieve $96,000 in in rent. So, I just want everybody to understand what the terms are. But but we also need to understand, Councilman Fletcher, that the reduced sales price,
>> a couple hundred,000 below the appraised value reflects kind of that that rent in in in advance plus taxes plus maintenance plus plus insurance and all the things you said about jobs
continuing. >> I just want to make it clear that that's what the term was and To the extent that the the opposition is interested, I think it would be important to note also that we're not making the entire payment of the
purchase price upfront that it's over a period of well the closing and then two years which was the purp which is the purpose of the resolution that is on the agenda tonight to authorize the issuance of that debt of nonborn revenue. Um the
companion item as the CRA director articulated at the beginning of the discussion, there's a companion item on the CRA agenda subsequent to this meeting that allocates a million dollars of CRA funds for the million dollars
that would be due upon closing with the city absorbing the debt payments on the first and second anniversary of the closing date. I'd like to add from my professional perspective that some of the narrative
that's being spun here tonight is somewhere between very misleading and outright dishonest. You cannot compare the piece of property we sold at the city hall site to this piece of property. They didn't pay us for a
building. That purchase price reflected that they needed to tear down the building. We weren't selling a building. That's that is is a demolition building. You know, for 6 years, I've really been astounded by commentary from those who
are supposed to be real estate agents that really don't seem to know the basic fundamentals of of real estate. It's about location, location, location. If you don't want to do business with these people, just say it.
>> It's not about not doing business. the seller and I have been accused of corruption by a member. You have not. >> I didn't bring it up. I didn't mention it. >> You all I'm saying is >> and and you've got legitimacy because you've been opposed to this from day one.
>> Correct. So, let me keep going then. The fact that we never saw the first appraisal, never even given to us. Had to come from somebody in the public to search that out. says something to me that is fishy. Then
then >> let's let the manager explain that or Mr. Beck clarify that. >> Hold on. And then the second appraisal actually is not an appraisal. It's an opinion of value. And you can't get that type of an appraisal in 3 weeks less.
And this one came in like a day after the other one came. So, unless you can show me that that appraisal was ordered 3 weeks prior to you receiving it, there's some illegitimate numbers in that appraisal as well because it does on I think it's page three of the thing.
I don't have it with me, but it does say this is an opinion of value and then an appraisal firm or an whoever did it did it. You can't get those kinds of appraisals without going and searching out the numbers, the documents, and all those different things and using comps that
are, you know, miles and miles away from this area. It just doesn't make sense. If the council wants to vote to extend it, so be it. I just think we're doing a disservice because when the truth comes out about the environmentals on that property that have been there, that
property has been ex operating as a tire store, auto mechanic store for nearly 50 years. There's going to be contamination there and we're going to be responsible for cleaning that mess up. So, I'm just look, they can go whatever way. It it won't affect me in
any way. I'm just fighting for what I think is the best situation for the citizens of the city. I don't think purchasing a building of six a land building land and building 16,000 ft and 7,000 square ft of building is worth 2 8
million with a concession of 200,000 and receiving no rent for 2 years and maybe getting some rent in the third year. It just doesn't make any sense. I'll rest. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. And in hindsight, the purchase of 204 that I think was
unanimous makes absolutely no sense to me in retrospect. Certainly when there was no disclosure that the realtor was an employee of the city of Homestead and that the Kais company with which you are affiliated
received a large commission. So if we want to start doing that, but it seems to me, Mr. manager that you have staff that are leaking things to certain members of council or having inappropriate discussions without going
through you. I mean, I'm, you know, I'm hearing things for the first time tonight about the timing of the appraisals and they came from different places and there's no way it would have been done in in one day. and and I'm not let me look around the room. I don't
think the person I'm thinking of is is in the room, but uh I think there's some serious protocol violations here that uh information has landed in the hands of some members and not in the members of others that came from within this
building. >> Mr. Mayor, I am not aware of any communication from staff to elected officials as described. May I? >> Yes. >> All right. Before this goes any further,
remember sometimes during briefings questions can be asked. So, I don't think we need to accuse staff of that. I know that there have been public records requests. I've heard of I've heard a lot of things. I think the bottom line is um
discussing whether we want to be landlords. As I mentioned before, I think it's exciting, especially when I feel like now we have the programs and the staff in place to make some of these things happen. Um, to say that nothing's happened with that building. Um,
Councilman Fletcher, we have some beautiful window decals in there now. So, now someone's coming. Now, someone will be coming. Um, let's stay optimistic. Let's consider waiting to
see what this phase in one this phase one and two says. Just the only reason I'm saying that is because we've got it sounds like it's half half, right? No one wants to make a purchase wi which is not going to be
beneficial to the city. So if we can come to terms and say that we just want to extend it for however long it takes to get that second phase, then we call that vote. That would be my suggestion. >> Let's let's deal with the motion at hand. And if you make the motion to
extend, I'll be happy to second it if if we get to that point. But just for clarification, if you look at the dates on the appraisals, right, this one says that the the the valuation of the property on July 24th, 2025 was $460,000.
7 days later, we get an estimate of value on August the 1st. So, you can't the these types of appraisals are very complicated to complete and you can't do that within 7 days to come up with a 2.6
2.5 2.4 million difference between appraisal one and appraisal 2. That building at 7,000 square ft would have to be valued at, I'm just doing quick math in my head, $400 a square foot.
That doesn't just doesn't make any sense to me. So anyways, call your vote. >> Okay. So >> here I have another comment. Thank you. So um the reality is is that the valuations, okay, additional information
came in since we voted to go into negotiations. Uh aside from that, the comparables that were used uh for the first appraisal were vacant land. Okay, that we did not see but was still information that should have been
presented for us to evaluate because to us that's what it's worth. It's the land value and location. Now the second appraisal that came in at 2.8 mil those comparables are Miami Gardens, Pinerest, Miami and Southwest 40th Street in Miami
is that Bird Road Southwest 70th Street with no adjustments made for location or extra features. And these again are comparables for Goodyear, Midas, Goodyear, Goodyear, Auto Service, Auto Service. This is not land with a
building sold without valuation for the business being transferred. Now, in the other comparables that we have for the Pizza Hut nearby on US1, that's you know, modestly at 1 point what 1.7. So
the the the due diligence period period allows us to consider the cost of the acquisition, the cost of potential mitigation for contamination, which if there's no contamination, which I cannot imagine for for a building that's been
there since 1965, some those are the numbers. I believe that in addition to overpaying because I don't agree with the second with the second appraisal given the deeper review that we were given during due diligence
that that supports us purchasing this property for 2.6 six taking on the risks of future mitigation whether whether the evalu whether the environmental for phase two comes back with a net with zero but then when we go to sell it
later there's going to be an additional environmental report. This is not the last and only environmental that we're going to be stuck with even if we do this this extension. So, we are committing ourselves to marrying the property
and I'm I'm talking about a scenario where it comes back with no contamination on the environmental. You're the risk is too high. It's unnecessary and we're wasting our time. And I suggest that we walk away from it
now and eliminate uh uh burying ourselves in other uh contract uh issues if we were to proceed. >> Miss Wall, I I just wanted I understand all the confusion.
>> Excuse me, mayor. For for protocol and in process, is she a registered lobbyist for this applicant or for this deal? because technically she couldn't be she can't speak on behalf of the owner. >> I do not have
>> No, I'm sorry. Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion that's been seconded on the floor to terminate the contract effective immediately. So, let's have a roll call vote. Madam clerk. >> Councilman Ross.
>> Yes. >> Councilwoman Abula? >> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher? >> No. >> Councilman Cannibal? Councilwoman Ksky, Council uh Vice Mayor Bailey, Mayor Losner.
>> No. >> Okay. So, the motion fails. >> Council, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Bailey, would you like to make a motion to extend? >> All due respect to everyone, I would like to make a motion. Yes. >> Make your motion then I'll see where it
goes. >> My motion for me and then I'll make it. >> No, no, I may need to clarify the extension of due diligence. Would that be the proper motion? >> So, I just want to clarify because we've talked about a number of things. Um, there is in the contract sort of this
predisposed agreement to extend for the until a phase two can be completed. Is there but that it's limited that extension is limited in scope. So is there anything else as you're have hearing a lot that needs to be examined
if we extend due diligence to make to satisfy what everybody will want to know? I don't want it I I just want to be clear and I don't want to get into a dispute with the seller over why we're extending it if it's just limited to
that single purpose of getting a phase two. So if if there's more information and we want to extend due diligence more on as we would under in the same terms of the original 60 days where you can walk away for any reason, I'd like to know that so that we can address that
with the seller. >> Can I clarify? So the challenge here is that if you only extend for the ability to get your environmental two, once you get it, you're stuck with it. You're required to close. So, your extension has to mirror the due diligence period that currently exists. So, that it
encompasses your ability to walk away should you uh have consultants tell you what the contamin the mitigation of the contamination costs are or if you continue to to evaluate value versus risk versus everything. So, the current due diligence period is what protects
the city under the current contract. If you're extending only for environmental phase two, you're limiting yourself to that and that only. >> That's not what I got from from today. So why would we have a
evaluation of environmental studies if it's not going to mean that we can walk away from it if we don't believe that that then will be a good deal for us? >> I just want you clarify I want you clarify the scope of what we're looking for. during an extended due diligence
because it's been thrown around, but the contract provision provides for a seller acknowledgement that we get to complete our environmental. It does not speak to anything else with respect to that. So, are we extending the due dilig are we requesting of the seller an extension of
the due diligence period where we can look at anything or just are we limiting the scope to environmental to completion environmental and a set amount of time to evaluate that? So I just I want the seller to be clear on what we're asking
for and for everybody on the deis to be clear as to what their expectation should be during any 30 60 90 whatever the extension. So I just >> any direction you could give me would be great.
>> To that end let me ask m Mr. Beck have we have we had a typical inspection report done? you know, do we do we know the viability of of the roof, for example? Has there been the 30 and 40year certifications?
>> There has at this point only been the environmental phase one. We have not proceeded to any point in which we have had any further inspections done on the structure itself, its condition. So then I'm I'm going to need to be able
to get some ascent from the seller tonight that these are probably other issues we need to be able to look at. And I would think maybe we could we could bifurcate
the inspection period that for environmental and reasonable time to review and assess would be the longer extension with a shorter extension with respect to
those kind of structural and compliance issues. Unless you just wanted to give us a blanket extension on on all of those. I mean, today's what? Today's the 19th. We're not going to get anything done between now and the expiration well the expiration of the
current due diligence. >> So, Mr. back. What your thoughts on anything else we would need to take a look at? >> If if the council wants to proceed with looking at all aspects to, as the
attorney stated, best satisfy or answer any questions, there would be the phase two, which as I understand, there is that period of mobilization that would be required after we're we're pursuing with the contract. So there's a a period of time that would be required for that. We can certainly proceed with having
some type of an inspection on the building. Uh that was not something that was done previously because the longer term plans or that that would go away. Uh we have shared within the briefings the discussion on the appraisals and where those came from. If this is
something that the council's concerned about, it may make more sense then to have a third appraisal done on that property so council can can have more confidence in that if that's the question. Um, those would be the couple things that would come to my mind. I
would defer to the attorney if there are other items that you believe would need to be included in that. >> Yeah, I'm you made the suggestion of the appraisal because there's been a lot of back and forth on that. That's something >> that was going to be something that I wanted to ask. So if the seller is
immunable, what I would suggest is instead of >> blanket extension, >> do just do a blanket extension to due diligence for and I I can have to defer to staff as to how long based on the conversations you've had >> with the consultants on how long it
takes to to get >> Let me look over to the seller and you can just nod. Would a blanket extension through the end of February for due diligence be acceptable? And if not, I need an alternate date. The maker, the potential maker of the
motion is going to need an end date. Is that a yes? >> Yes. >> Just remember the holidays. It's not going to be easy to be able to get an appraisal >> between next Thursday and New Year's. >> We want to be fair to
>> the the one concern with that and certainly not to extend this beyond a time that council wants as we were um engaging the initial consultant on the phase one. The the ask was if this goes to a phase two, what does that process and timeline look like? And this is
something that this is a little bit out of my wheelhouse. uh they have let us know you need to plan multiple weeks or potentially up to a couple of months. Uh again that is less because of the actual testing but there is a period of the contractual work and the um mobilizing
and things that have to occur and then there's also the repair work of any you know samples that are taken and things like that. So I I think we have to have an absolute minimum of 60 days if council wants to to thoroughly do this >> and then be mindful that there is a holiday in here that that could
>> so 60 days now would take us to the end of >> January and with the holidays in there if the seller's amendable to that I would think it would need to be through the end of February the balls in the seller's
report. While they're while they're thinking about that, you're saying phase two. What would trigger a phase three? >> I'm not aware that there is a phase three. >> I'm going to look to
>> That's called bailout. No question. >> So, Mr. Mayor and Council, usually you do a phase one to do historical data analysis. you come back with phase two if there's a recommendation for followup of invasive
testing. So, they're going to need to come in, have a recognizing survey, pull permits cuz you're going to be digging. State law requires you to pull permits and call sunshine before you can dig. So they're going to pull permits.
They're going to do sampling. They're going to take them to the lab. They're going to do analysis. Then they're going to come back and write reports. I don't know whether 60 days is going to do it with holidays in December to do all that. If we didn't have a
holiday in December, you can get it done in 60 days because it's not a big site and the complexity is not there. >> February 27th appears to be a Friday. >> What date? >> February. February 27th is a Friday
and the seller has seemed to indicate a thumbs up through the end of February. >> May I ask a clarifying question? How much did we spend on environmental one phase one? >> Uh I believe it was around $2,400.
>> Do we have an estimate for phase two? >> Um they will give us the estimate. No, I don't believe we have the the full estimate right now. Um, they determined that based on the findings of phase one in our initial discussions, it is my
recollection that we could anticipate that's in I don't even want to say that number. It is it is substantially more than that. Um, I want to say 10 to 15,000 could be a number range. >> Thank you. And how much did we spend on
appraisal one? Appraisal one I would say was around the $2,000 number um 2500 and I believe the second appraisal was around the same amount >> and the um future discussion item for
CRA. Uh where are you pulling from the budget for the $1 million? So the CRA board had approved $9 I believe $86,000 in a land acquisition fund for the upcoming year. Uh that would be the bulk of it and the CRA
would would need to do a transfer of other internal funds for the the balance. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying those questions. So the right now the consideration is that there would be an extension through February 27th for a blanket due diligence
um with a third appraisal. Is that what you were considering as mayor? And >> I think the vice mayor had made inquiry about that. I don't know if she incorporated it but >> I haven't I don't think I've said a full
sentence yet. So but that is part of the Yeah. Anything else? So, I would like to make a motion that we extend the due diligence with the blanket um including though the phase 2
and another appraisal >> through February 27th. >> through February 27th. >> Okay. Couple of mechanical things to work through. Hear your motion. We can proceed. the the seller has indicated in the room
that we have a thumbs up, but because we're not going to I'm not going to have an opportunity to be before you again before the end of the due diligence period, I'm going to need authorization for the manager to execute an extension for of the contract for the an amendment
to the contract extending the due diligence period to the specified date. Um direction to do those two things which is I think implicit in your motion. Um and direction as to what would what should
happen if between now and the end of the month the seller should have a change of heart and not execute the extension to due diligence because staff's not going to have the opportunity to ask you again. So I need those questions
answered so we know how to proceed from here. >> Vice Mayor if I may. Thank you. And and that was going to be my next question after the motion for discussion is that when you are introducing a change to a contract, you have to simultaneously
provide the termination of the current contract with an addendum. So it's either they approve the addendum or they terminate. So you can't just submit the addendum. If they never sign the addendum, you're still bound to the existing contract timelines,
>> which is why I was >> looking for direction. If for some re if for any reason >> seller is not willing to execute the extension, what is it that you would like staff to do? >> I would think built into that that would be then.
>> Okay. >> So, >> in addition to the dates authorizing the manager >> February 27th, >> right, >> the extension February 27th not executed by the end of the due diligence due diligence that will termination
>> to conduct a phase two and a third audit. >> Okay. >> So, let's take that motion and then I have um followup questions on the items that are on the agenda this evening because given the extension, you don't have to do that tonight. we can do that
at some point over the next couple months after you've had the information provided to you and you can decide if you want to move forward. Um, so I would ask for at that point a deferral on this as well as the CRA item until the
information can come back before you in a in a whole package and we can do this again. >> And I have another question regarding the due diligence extension. Are we going to be in what happens if we're in a situation when just like today fa phase one lands in our lap with five minutes before the meeting. So now we
get phase two in our lap. Where's the extra time to understand? It's a thousandpage document just on phase one that's not including drilling permits uh review. So >> what we need to have enough time to
analyze, review, consult, and get quotes on what it costs. If the if the seller is amanable, we can amend it to be, you know, February 27th, but with a minimum time would be the outside as long as you
received it what two weeks before and we can ex that it would automatically extend for every day that within that two weeks that you have not received the the phase the environmental or the information
that you require. So you can we can build in a function where you can have a minimum require review period >> as part of that extension if those sellers. So if you got it on the 20 if you got it on the 23rd >> that we can we can build in a provision
that would automatically extend it so you have a minimum of let's say two weeks for review if I I mean whatever staff thinks they need in terms of timing to review. I can build something into that >> that I can build a mechanism into that. I don't know.
>> That would also mean we have to have a special call on the 27th of February if we're going to take it all the way to the final day. So, we need to get it prior to that so we can schedule a meeting. >> I I understand, but I can't control when >> we're going to get >> But two weeks is not going to be enough. If it's
>> depending on timing on when we receive that appraisal. I mean, if you're going to dip into March as well, then >> again, you tell me what you think is a reasonable review time from when we have it and I can work backwards and try to build something in >> and we consider if it's received on
February 27th that it would go to a special call the day of our cow, >> which would be two weeks. >> That that's assuming that two weeks is enough time. We would need two weeks to be able to look over everything. Say it came in on the 27th that we would move
it to our next scheduled meeting as a special call. >> My only um concern with that is this is not in the typical wheelhouse of staff. So they are going to have to get outside consultants. And so whether or not they're, you know, can staff put it on
the agenda within the two weeks, yes. But reviewing, analyzing, and determining the cost for mitigation and making sure they digest, evaluate, and brief us to a point where there's confidence in what's being sold to us. I think they're
going to need they're going to need more time, especially if they're also preparing for cow and and normal agenda items. I think it should be a standalone special call. And but like what what Matt is saying is that there's an automatic trigger to
give you that extra time once you have the appraisal. And if it were to run over the 27th, the February 27th that that protects us, it automatically extends the due diligence period to include the needed time for review. Now
what we debate now is how long does a consultant need to review? I would think I would think two weeks might be too short. three weeks is safe. And I'm just trying to go back to my recollection of working on commercial um contracts. Phase two does say take significant
amount of time to get in the reports and get them done. And then what typically is considered underwriting when you have a lender to review. That can be at least two weeks. And then you have to look at what is the result. What does that mean? And so I would say at least three weeks
as an automatic extension upon receiving the report. >> But I just say I think our clear message to staff tonight is don't doawle. There is no reason good reason
for the phase one to not have been delivered >> and I know that was apparently a procurement issue. Let's get beyond that. >> Maybe so mayor. I mean, the reality is, like you said, phase one took the entire 60 days to get or no, sorry, I take that
back. The majority of it. Um, and with phase two, you have the holidays, and this is a niche. This is a niche uh industry. There are not many commercial appraisers. That's why I'm also surprised you got it within a week. Um,
but let's just be realistic is all I'm saying. So, I look forward to seeing the extra uh appraisal. I look forward to seeing phase two. I will try to remain optimistic, but I I I can imagine, you know, other other other purposes for the funds, the CRA funds and the benefits
that could be made to the CRA area as a whole versus dumping a million dollars into one property uh given the circumstances that we're we're seeing here tonight. And that's looking at the facts on the agenda the way that it is right now as it is right now. But thank you, mayor.
>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, Councilman Fletcher. Motion to extend to 10:30. >> I'll second that. All in favor? >> No. >> And just just for clarification, please
don't accept my uh my actions tonight. I'm a little tired and cranky. I've been sick for a week. I'm not being accus accus accusatory in any fashion. I want us to do the right thing here. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you. So,
um, did the motion to extend a 10:30 pass? I think it did with a couple with a nay or two down here. All right. Okay. So, Councilwoman, Vice Mayor Bailey has
moved to extend the due diligence period on the terms as discussed with us by council. The only did we land on how much time for review that I should build in was it two weeks or three weeks? I I
>> say three weeks. >> Three weeks. >> Again, the lynch pin here is is that when the addendum is presented and not executed by the seller, >> then game over. >> Then we have d staff has directions to what to do from there.
>> I just as an aside, I don't know why we did a land only appraisal. Thank >> so mayor and council >> I would also would want for stipulation to be made that if any findings adverse
findings are made from phase two we draw the line there we do not consider going to a phase three which is mitigation and implementation >> yeah please incorporate that >> you just draw the line and stop >> no no more
okay so I will take this motion >> to go I'll work with the seller >> the draft >> to to execute the extension of due diligence. >> We'll take a vote on that and then subsequent to that >> if it's the local council I'll take a
vote on the deferral of the underlying agenda item on the issuance of the debt and we will revisit that when you have the complete information. >> All right. >> So okay >> I think Mr. Ryz did you want to speak on the pending motion? Come on down.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Brandy Ramirez, 2231 Southeast First Street. Um, I just want to remind council tonight that you guys said you would support the police department. There's going to be an east east side
police department. Those funds should be towards that. I want to ask tonight specifically Councilman Cannibal and Councilman Fletcher vote to not move this forward. This is ridiculous. It's an embarrassment right
now that is being discussed. You have an amazing strategic plan. You have a team that's working super hard. I'm glad that he mentioned about don't let it go to phase three. They're hard working. They're getting the strategic plan of the city forward. CRA funds should not
be used for this at all. Each one of you know that our residents are watching. We will make sure that this specific item is put out there to all the community on how it's going to be voted today by each individual.
It's nothing personal against the owner, but us as residents, we know what's best for this city and what should be happening for this city. And a lot of you voted got voted in to support the police department, the staff.
This is ridiculous that it's even being discussed. Thank you for fighting for what's right. I hope the rest of you do what's right. Vice Mayor, come on. This shouldn't be discussed. You guys need to do what's right. So that's all I ask. And I'll make sure that the community is
fully aware of their votes. And I ask you, Fletcher, do the right thing. You caught it right away. You called the back. We know you I know you're going to vote for what's right today. >> Any further comment? Is there anyone online?
>> All right, we'll close the public hearing and have a roll call vote on the motion to extend. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> yes. >> Councilman Cannibal, >> yes. Councilman Roth.
>> Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Avula. Council uh Vice Mayor Bailey. >> Yes. >> Mayor Lawson. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you all. All right. So, now we need to deal with the actual car item
4829. >> Correct. >> So, we need a motion to defer. >> Yeah. >> Uh I guess in >> I'm not putting I'm not putting any date certain on this because it will be presented. We'll bring these back when we have >> moved by the vice mayor. I'll second it. Any discussion?
I'm the former vice mayor. I'm sorry. It takes a while after two years. It's muscle. It's muscle memory. No, no, no. This is a motion to defer the car item authorizing the uh expenditure, >> the issuance of the debt,
>> right? An indefinite deferral. Any public comment? Any further comment from council? Yes. Just to clarify, >> madame vice mayor, >> just to clarify, I was a yes vote pre before elections and the reason for it is because I believe that we have things
in place to be able to help this vision of our sharetses come to life. That is 100% the reason that I am for this. So, I'm sorry that you didn't reach out earlier to have a conversation with me because I would have explained it. I have never ever voted in any other way
than me feeling like this is the right thing. Is it a lot of money? Definitely. Do we need to do more diligence? Definitely. And that is that is why my yes was. So, that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I'm sorry. CRA funds can't be used
for a police station on the east side. This is CRA property, CRA area. So, that's just another case I wanted to clarify. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Vice Mayor. Okay. So, we have, um, I think we're looking for Do
we have a second on the motion to defer tab 16? No. >> Yeah, >> we do have a second. So, let's have a roll call vote on tap on the motion to defer tab 16. Councilwoman Avula, Councilman Roth,
>> Councilman Cannibal, >> yes. >> Councilman Fletcher, yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> Vice Mayor Bailey, >> yes. >> Mayor Lawson, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> All right, moving on to tab 17. Mr. Pearl.
>> Oh, we did tab 17. Let's not pick at that scab again. Tab 18. >> Yes, ma'am. Tab 18 is a resolution of the city council of the city of Homestead, Florida, approving the ranking of the evaluation committee of proposers to RFQ 20259 professional
architectural and engineering services continuing contracts authorizing the city manager to negotiate an inter agreements with the top 69 top ranked firms. Such agreement shall be subject to the approval as to form and legal sufficiency of the city attorney, providing for implementation, providing for an effective date.
>> Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from councel on this item? All right. Um, do we have a motion?