Again, good evening or good afternoon everyone and welcome. I'd like to call the city of Homestead special call council meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, January 6th, 2026,
and it is now 5:21 p.m. We have a roll call, please. Madam clerk. >> Councilman Ron here. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> here. >> Councilman Calibal here. >> Councilman Fletcher >> here. Councilwoman Abulu >> here. >> Vice Mayor Bailey here.
>> Mayor Losner >> here. >> All right. We have for discussion item tab one, agenda item 3A, car number 4877. For discussion purposes, a purchase offer for the city of Homestead
mitigation property. Mr. Manager, uh you or the attorney going to lead off on this this presentation or conversation? Let me quickly thank mayor and council. This is our first meeting of the year.
Uh thank you all for the opportunity to serve and for the rest of the staff. Thank you and congratulations for a successful 2025. Uh the item before you tonight is a letter of intent that we received from Blue Nest Development LLC. I believe Mr.
Jason Baz is in the audience. I saw him walking. Uh was signed by him. Uh he proposes a purchase price of $50 million payable in cash at closing with an inspection and due diligence period of 9 months for a certain city property
located uh on the east side of the city uh comprising approximately 530 acres which is inclusive of an area that had previously been granted a uh right of refusal to VSGS. Uh this is a property
that is commonly called the mitigation property. With that, I'm asking uh Mr. City attorney to provide additional comments. Uh in view of the special nature of the property and what needs to be done. >> So I I believe as most of you are aware
the the property is encumbered at least large portions of it by conservation easements. And so it's you know one of the complicating factors. We haven't had direct conversations with the proposer, but those would ultimately need to be
removed to proceed with any development on the property. At this point, I think what staff is looking for is direction as to whether there's interest in disposing of the property. If there is, is is there due diligence that you would
like staff to do so that you can make an informed decision about the proposal? And then from there um we can discuss process because you know one of the an additional complicating factor to the proposal is for a portion not all but a
portion of the property um the VSGS group who's constructing the soccer stadium has uh has paid for a a right to match that that and that right lasts for 10 years. So at this point, I think what the manager and myself would be looking
for is direction as to what information you need in order to make an informed decision and how would you like us to proceed if you would like us to proceed in doing due diligence? What would you like to see from staff? >> Thank you, council. Any initial
questions or comments? Okay. Okay, well, I'll kick off. And, you know, I've I was I've been aware of of this group looking at this and doing some analysis for at least 18 months at least. Um,
interesting concept. Obviously, it's a it's a lot of money. This is, you know, in in light of what I think is the public perception of the financial wherewithal of this group to ultimately have a closing. I don't think it's
something that that we should ignore. probably a fiduciary obligation. But my thought kind of went along the lines of the council directing the manager and anyone else who he felt needed to to
work with him uh from among staff and and our our legal team was to determine um what what path the proposer uh has identified, where they are in identifying that path and and what the
mechanism for the the removal of of those impediments would be and what a potential time frame would be. um even go going so far as um you know
talking about some cost perhaps even some accommodation with with VSGS and then coming back to us after individual briefings for a more encompassing public conversation as to
whether or not this would go forward and then at that point talk about you know some some cost recovery Y um you know some determination on our part from our own professionals as to what the value might be if you know the
mitigation is accomplished. uh th those kinds of things to uh to to even, you know, to determine if if this is this is a lift that or road we want to uh to go down just to get some
some more encompassing information to to give us a better idea about making a decision as to whether or not we we would go forward. There are an awful lot of moving parts and uh and layers to this uh a potential transaction.
Council Counciloman Avala. >> Thank you, Mayor. I agree with um getting an appraisal. I think it's um it's our responsibility to do so. That way we can make sure that we are um you know in fact
um releasing the property um under the right circumstances. On the face of it, I mean $50 million. Thank you for the opportunity to consider this uh this transaction. The accompanying um information with the LOI is that they're
seeking u a light industrial with zero residential planned at this time. So that is that as well is is uh um good to hear that that's part of the the vision of the development. I would like to see us get into negotiations
with or at least discussions and negotiations while we simultaneously go forward with an appraisal. I don't see why we can't do both at the same time. That way we are um taking advantage of the opportunity being presented.
And as you mentioned, it's been a couple months since this has kind of been the idea has been thrown around. So, I'm sure word has gotten around. If there's been any other interest, we would have probably heard, but I haven't seen anything come in through the city manager's office that can be confirmed.
Has there any other interest being presented at this time? >> Not that I'm aware of. Not yet. >> Let me let me ask though to the attorneys in that regard. And yeah, not to get ahead of ourselves,
but are we not under a legal obligation to advertise the property generally before accepting? >> Okay. So, >> the the second step of this, if you were interested, would be to define the
process that you want to go down. Historically, the properties that the city has been approached about have been have resided within the CRA boundaries. Within the CRA boundaries, there are specific statutory requirements for the disposition of property where there has
to be a public notice issued for 30 days soliciting any and all offers. And we have dubtailed that. We've done it as a straight notice minimalist for statutory compliance. And we've also done that in conjunction with a full-blown RFP where
we've had a better idea of the type of development that we wanted to see on a particular property. So you have multiple avenues against you with respect to consulting with the proposer. Now there's nothing that would prevent you from speaking with him now. However,
if when we get to the process discussion, you were to issue a solicitation. That window would close for the duration of the public solicitation until those things were open. It would be treated as a normal RFP and that would be closed until the manager were to make a recommendation to
you at a public meeting. Thank you. And I think my my first reaction to I at this point I think my thought process is is that an appraisal on this property right now
would be very difficult without having a very deep understanding of what it takes with respect to several different agencies that have that hold the cards. on the restrictions
what it would take to release those. So that's kind of where my thought process is is to have to the extent that the proposer would reveal their due diligence if you will and and to give us an idea of what would be ne what actions
would be necessary to release the restrictions. you can't really do an appraisal. And quite frankly, I'm I'm not I'm not interested in in sitting back anymore and spending a lot of city
money for other people's proposals. I think that implicit in this and our next discussion is going to be along the lines of some potential cost deposit. The attorneys are going to spend a lot of time with this. the appraisal could be tens and tens of thousands of
dollars. This is a very specialized specialized situation. >> Mhm. >> So, you're referring to doing a a an appraisal based on um unmititigated or or reversing the mitigations. And I I was considering like an ASIS appraisal
or that's what >> I Matt I think that it would pretty be be pretty safe to say that in its ASIS condition the appraisal is an easy zero maybe even a negative. There's not a lot
of utility with the conservation easements on it at present. So, I think that you would see, you know, the offer that letter they're getting, I'm sure, is predicated on the assumption that, and it is because they won't close until they're allowed to build on the property, that those restrictions will
have been removed. Now, let's let's just say, for example, in lay terms, ready, let's just use these numbers that ready to go industrial property is a million dollar an acre. But if you have to spend
a half a million dollars an acre to have it unmitigated, then it's only worth a half a million to us. >> Right. But what I'm I'm sorry that I'm not explaining myself correctly, but in in reference to how the appraiser approaches their valuation. I'm I'm not
trying to add layers of reviewing what we would want it to be and add value of it being an industrial park or a commercial park but versus just as its land value and then we add in we factor in the cost for
mitigation which we can we can calculate separately which is in in the industry would be understood to be a certain cost per acre to unmitigated property. So we can calculate the mitigation cost but understanding the value of the land in its location
undeveloped is what I meant not as is. So is that not what we want to know is what is the value of our land undeveloped and then we can calculate the mitigation costs to know what that would be worth to us
if we were to develop it ourselves. As of now I don't believe that there has been any interest from the city. in all the years I haven't heard of us consider putting this out for RFP but developing it. It's been sitting there. There was one um one person that came to me
referencing wanting to put a passive park u you know RV style park there. There was zero interest for that. This is a hot offer and so I would like to know what this land at its size and location
would be valued at undeveloped understanding that there's mitigation costs and I'm pretty sure it's going to be way under $50 million. And then I would also like to um make sure that if we go into those
negotiations that we're making that decision based on having evaluation. But we didn't go through an RFP process for the VSSGS. We didn't go through all of that. and we we can recognize when there's a good deal and when there's a an opportunity at present before us and and be able to
make a decision and proceed uh without having the burden of processes which were not legally obligated to do an RFP. Um but we don't necessarily have to spend 60 days evaluating what the worth of the land is. We can negotiate, we can
study the value, and we can come to a determination within the next 30 to 60 days is what I believe. Okay. So, maybe you weren't paying attention when I said that I have personal knowledge that it has taken them at least 18 months to
determine what a path may be to demitigate it. And implicit in that is knowing what the cost of demitigation is. And then presumably that $53 million that's thrown against
the wall plus the demitigation cost would be fair market value for what their use is. So let me make this analogy. A family that we all know didn't go out and sell their agricultural property north of BJ's for
agricultural use. Sander's sale price was valued at the ultimate use that needed a lot of layers of of approval. So, we kind of have to, you
know, I'm I'm not really following your thought process on negotiating now. I think any negotiation is very very premature that we need to have an understanding of what either spend a lot of our own money
to reinvent the wheel for what the proposer has already determined or hope that the proposing group will sit down in good faith with our team and be open about their path to
demitigation. And then, you know, at that point, you know, maybe we we need to have we have to have an appraisal at some point or some some idea of what light industrial property is worth per acre and then back out what their anticipated costs are.
But for us to go retain our own council and sort through and work with these agencies would take months and months and months and months. I I'm not trying to go back and forth here, but what I guess what's valuable to me is assuming the land was not
mitigated. I would like to know what the value of the property would be and then make a decision on that. And you were saying per acre it was estimated how much? >> I didn't I think with the mitigation in place it may very well be a negative negative.
>> If it was not my hypothetical, right? >> Okay. a hypothetical of a million dollars an acre is, you know, and I think, you know, we've got to nail down the numbers because there's a 100 acre fill pit that you've got to back out of
of that number, which by the way, I think under our fill agreement, we are not legally able to convey the fill pit, which as far as I can tell is included in the proposal. So there are a lot of a
lot of bumps in the road to even understand what we're really talking about potentially conveying here. Um but you know it was a hypothetical let's say a a million bucks for ready to go an acre for commercial
or for light industrial property. So, you know what's that? Four. So, a million dollar an acre is $400 million. Let's say it's 400 acres. Okay. And they're offering us 53. So, implicit in
that is what they're saying. It's maybe $350 million to demitigate. I need need some credible information that that 53 is a good and fair number. >> Right. And what you're what you're
saying, it could take us it could take us, you know, if we had the right team in place, it could take us 18 months to figure it out, just like it took them. >> It could. And and the the legal talent
with that knowhow, their practice in that area are very limited in South Florida. Right. >> They they've retained the best, right? you know, we're going to have a hard time finding our own independent folks that don't have conflicts,
>> right? So, I I don't foresee us hiring our own team to do that kind of work. So, we either have to decide to agree to sell without the appraisal or you were saying to ask them for a deposit,
>> but then we want them to also give us their >> And I think that that's Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I view this as a right now as a twlevel process. We authorize the manager to take a team
and sit down and get more information, including their path to to demitigation. And if the manager and our and his team feels that this is a credible path
forward and a a financially viable group, we come back and then we have the discussions as to appraisal um what our obligations would be to work
with these agencies and who's going to pay for what. I think that that an appraisal and a cost deposit are future discussions that that we all we have is a two-page letter that was
thrown out on the eve of uh a significant event um you know making making this proposal. We we we we barely have crumbs in front of us and I think that we we can't start talking about
negotiating without more information in hand. >> Okay, I'll rest there. I I really don't want the offer to get cold. It's $50 million for a land that we can do absolutely zero with and that would take us a huge amount of time, effort, and
capital to uh even start to to develop. So, for the proposer that's um you know, listening, please stay at the table and hopefully we'll be able to negotiate soon, but I'll rest there for now. Thank you. >> One one final thought. It doesn't matter
what covenants we enter into or they give us their firstborn. If we give it commercial zoning, it allows live local to be installed on that property. >> That's that's a big Councilman Fletcher.
>> Yes. Thank you. And being that this sits inside of District 2, um again, I appreciate the offer of $50 million. It's a lot of money, but uh I think there's a lot to be learned in this process as of yet. I've had some brief discussions with the applicant. I don't
have an idea of exactly what they want to do long term and ultimately that's going to have to come back to us unless it is live local type things. Uh so I think it's incumbent upon us to to get more into the details, let you all provide that information to the city
staff and that will come back to us. because I need to get some feedback from the citizens inside of district 2 as well and along with the neighboring areas to include Oasis and Waterstone and the villages. You know, any impacts
there are going to impact everybody. Uh I think that uh we need to get some some further details. Um talking with the staff, they don't have the expertise to do this type of in-house this type of work inhouse and I think we're going to end up having to hire a consultant here
or there. Um, all that costs money. The appraisal costs money. Um, again, you you you threw it out there that maybe the applicant's willing to to possibly give us some a deposit to help with some of those cost recovery affect aspects. I
don't know. I haven't spoke to the applicant about that. Uh I think it's something that needs to be discussed and I believe that uh through the the manager and his staff that they can come to that agreement down the road.
But I believe that they need to provide a little more detail to the staff so we have more information. And with that I would be willing to to move this forward but also have the manager work with them to see exactly where they want to go. So we we go both
directions. we have some decisions being made on on what possibly can go there long term as well as we're performing the due diligence that we need to do to find out what's what the properties actually work. So, I'm willing to do that and I don't think it handcuffs us
either way. I'm open to thoughts from other council members. >> Thank you, Gis. >> Yes, Vice Mayor Bailey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, obviously a lot of moving pieces. $50 million is a great opportunity. Um I had obviously many
questions during uh during the briefings and now I have even more but um so just a couple questions to understand especially the I believe it's 20% that VSSGS has
an offer has first refusal. >> They have it's 160 acres. >> Okay. So, of that 160 acres, for example, that first app that first opportunity for refusal would be based on a
regular appraisal or could that be based on what we're being offered? >> No, it's they have a right to match an offer. You have no obligation to accept an offer. >> Okay. >> So, if the city were to decide that they wanted to accept something, then the
offer would be presented to VSGs. And we haven't talked about, you know, process and what that would look like yet. We'll get there if it's something that you want to proceed with. But VSSGS has a right to match the price for the 160 acres. That's what they paid for in their agreement.
>> Right. But matching the price of what? A >> no, a written offer. Not an appra. This is not an appraisal. This would be based on a written offer. Okay. >> That you have an interest in accepting. >> Okay. So, with all the mitigation issues, if we were to move forward now
with allowing staff to have these negotiations, um, conversations, wouldn't it be on Blue Nest to figure out what the mitigation pieces are? And once that happens and property is sold,
it's no longer on us. My my understanding of the letter of interest is that they will handle all of that. They have laid out a 270day timeline. That's their anticipated timeline >> that they believe. But apparently they've been working on this for 18
months apparently already. So they must have they must be fairly confident in their path forward. >> So that's what I was thinking is then how can we not have the negotiations? How would they be able to go forth with finding out what that means for them if
we aren't going through with any type of negotiation or conversation? Right. They wouldn't be able to have that fully appraised if we're not working with them. Correct. >> Well, they're I'm sure valuing the property based on the removal of the easements and the cost of the removal of
easements. And that's I'm sure how they arrived at their number. >> Okay. So without having conversations with us, it wouldn't be in their best interest to go through any more. >> No, I presume that they've done their due diligence if they're willing to proceed under this. >> I don't want to speak for the applicant.
He's here. >> Sure. >> But I presume that he's his group is comfortable that they've done the due diligence they need to to present the offer. >> Yeah. No, that was my those were those were the questions I was trying to come up with is what would be the negative for the city to continue the um the
conversations and Well, I think one of the one of the points that you the virtues of having the conversation is you'll learn more about the actual development plan for the property, which is not as flushed out in the letter of interest as we've had with some previous proposals where
they tell you exactly what they would like and that may inform your decision as well, >> right? So, you know, there's no harm in having that conversation to the extent that the proposer is willing to >> have a dialogue and share the information >> and that would have to come back to us for approval. Correct.
>> There there are many things that would need to come back to you for approval before we got to a finish line at this point. >> Okay. I'll rest for now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> Yes, sure. Let us hear from Councilman Roth, then back to Councilwoman Aval.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Um, it's exciting. Uh, we have useless dirt out there that we own and, um, I agree with a lot of the things I heard here today. Uh, but I do think a lot of the onus will be on the developer to to pay for a majority
of the expenses. We did not go out and ask for any proposal on this property. It came freely from the public. And I think that any due diligence requirements should be profered by the
developer. Um it's $50 million for the purchase or the sale of that property, but you got to also consider the tax value that comes with that purchase. And as it sits there today, it doesn't
generate a dollar for us. In fact, it cost us money to maintain it. So, um, I'm all forward letting the pros go after this and and do the best they can to bring back a a the information that we may require up here and
to bring back a deal that all of us will win on. I think the public will win on this deal. Um, I think if we can protect that residential component from not being a part of it, um, that may be something to consider, too. But I think,
um, for somebody to have the vision to undo stuff that we can't undo. We as a city could not undo the mitigation there. Um, and most of us don't even know what that really means, but
the mitigations were were put there in order for us to build the Homestead Miami Speedway. And the only way to really unmitigate is to purchase land again as a reserve to mitigate for this land. So, there's going to be a huge
expense in that. And it's I don't know what that number is going to be. I mean, it's probably astronomical, but um I think it's worth digging into and finding out and and and bringing back the information for us and for them as well to make sure that they truly want to go through with a project
like this. Those are my words. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman Roth. Counciloman Aala. >> Thank you, Mayor. And to Councilman Fletcher's point, my my goal at the end of this is to have plans, renderings, a clear understanding of what the development is going to be before we
sign any um transfers. So, uh this would be part of the process. Yeah. So, thank you very much for clarifying that. And um as of right now, what direction do we have to give? Mayor >> my to your question my my line of
thinking is just authorize the manager to go out and get additional basic information and what I mean when I say that is what's your mitigation path forward
um where where are you in the process um can you provide us with documentation from agent agencies. You know, you have, hey, South Florida Water Management, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Army Corps of Engineers. there are three or four different state and federal agencies that all have to be at the table approving this uh
not the transaction but the demitigation of of of this parcel. So I think it's important it's important for us to know where they are. Um I don't think
they use the related group analogy. I don't know that we want to sit for another two years and have nothing happen. And you know and again we talk about the sports performance hub project has a right of first refusal on
160 acres. We could carve that 160 acres out. We could say to this proposer, we're dealing in good faith with our new partner that's committed to put 270 $300 million into the city that you can't
have their 160 acres, but and and we're not obligated to put any of that under contract. I think the attorney and the manager both said that we're not obligated to do anything that there we're I I'm not going to sit
here and put the future expansion and and our good faith and our good great working relationship with the sports hub people at risk in any manner whatsoever. And and let me just throw this out there and you can come unglued now or later.
When we first started dealing with Sports Performance Hub and they proposed the right of first refusal, Mr. Bass confirmed to me which attorney, the sports performance hub folks's attorney should contact about where are
you in this situation? Maybe we can work together, etc. The Blue Nest attorney never responded. They sat sat silently on their hands and then came in at the last minute with a
letter throwing stuff against the wall saying, "Hey, don't do this. We'll give you all this multi-millions of of dollars." So, was it a direction to the attorney? Was it not dealing in good faith? I don't
know what it was. I I just don't know. You know, I see a lot of smirking and laughing going out there in the audience that maybe he thinks he's bought the election and no matter what I say or do, this is going to go forward. And I suspect that's probably what it is. And
uh you know, Mr. Gassant back there has a really good track record of getting really bad approvals in the Redlands for development. So, you know, certainly, you know, I've got my suspicions about that and uh you can laugh and smirk too,
Mr. on it all the way to the bank. But it's our property and I represent the people who own it and it's the 100,000 residents of the city of Homestead, not foreign investors, not people who are saying like commercial, but whose
real business in this country is low-end affordable and subsidized housing. And that's the last thing anybody in this community, I think, really wants out there. So, so just some background that I I don't know that there's been a lot
of good faith and that's why I don't want to frame this next this direction as a discussion or I'm sorry as due diligence or negotiation. This is just getting basic information.
>> Okay, that Thank you, mayor, if I I may. Um I'm I'm okay with that. We have a council meeting in two weeks. Hopefully, we'll have more details by then. Um but just for for clarification, if >> if we um if we do decide to go into
negotiations, we would present um Blue Nest, not Blue Nest, uh VSGs with the opportunity to execute their first right of of refusal on their 20% of those acres. >> Well, it's not 20%. It's on an identified piece of property for which
they have paid a nominal $20,000 to have that right of first refusal. At that time they would decide if they want to execute their first right of refusal. That's >> no we have to have a as I see it they have nothing to act on until we have a
fully vetted final contract in front of us to accept or reject. That could be months and months into the future. But as I said, we don't have to include that 160 acres in the contract. We have the
ability to go to this proposer and say, you know what, BSGS has dealt in good faith. We're not going to put their 160 acres in play. If you want the other 340, we'll negotiate with you on that. That's
a that's a discussion we're going to have to have up here later. So, is it the direction then to the manager to uh to go out and try to get some basic information and brief each of us and uh and then come back.
>> The proposer is here. I'd like to see if there's any comments or additional information. There were questions that were asked. Thank you. Pedri tonight with officers at 701 Avenue on behalf of Brooklyn development. Um I'm not going to address some of the comments that the the mayor
made earlier. I don't think that they're particularly relevant for what we're trying to discuss today with respect to this. >> It absolutely goes to the good faith, credibility, and honesty of you and your clients. >> Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to to bat that away for a second. We can address
those head on. The idea that this developer doesn't have the ability to move forward with this project and get this done when every single property that they have put under contract, they have closed on and have moved forward with. This developer is a large entity that has a conglomerate that builds
light industry and that builds residential homes for sale homes. that this idea that they're building subsidized or problematic housing or are doing things in bad faith when they had substantial folks in support of their projects throughout the county I think
is out of turn and out of line but with respect to this proposal that is here before you with respect to the letter of intent that we provided the idea is that this developer is going to take on all the risks so if we're not able to mitigate it if we're not able to get the department of interior if we're not able to get the US Army Corps of Engineers or
the EPA or Durham or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, then we are at risk, not the city. So all of this stuff about us sitting down and providing more information. The issue is that we would have to go through the process. We are saying we're going to give you this money. We're
going to give you this deposit. We're going to move forward with this project and we're going to say that we will have everything ready by the time of the 270 days or else we're out of our deposit. We are taking the full risk. The city has no risks. If we don't do it, we don't do it. With respect to the right
of first refusal, that entity already has that right. They will see because there's already a letter of a letter of interest that is in front of you that sews the amount that we are paying for the amount for the for the land. They can say, you know what, we're going to match it. Or they'll say, you know what, we don't want to deal with the headache. We don't want to deal with what we know
is a headache because we've already looked at this. We know what the process is going to take. And the idea that we're going to sit down with the city and say, hey, this is exactly how we're going to do everything. go and tell everybody else that this is how we've decided we're going to address these conservation easements just doesn't make
at least under my humble opinion doesn't make sense for any proposal to do. Now what we would do is we would take that risk. We would say we're going to move forward. We'll negotiate with the city and if we don't do it we're the ones that are out of gas. We're the ones who put the money on the line. The city
doesn't lose anything and there's the opportunity for the city to make some money. So, I I wasn't going to say anything, but once the mayor made made a decision to and look, I' I've always had a lot of respect for the mayor. I don't know where any of the stuff is coming from. Um I don't know why any of that stuff was brought up. Uh but I wanted to make sure that we could address those
issues on the record because this applicant has said that they're going to come in here. They're going to address these issues and they're taking the risk themselves. >> Mr. Gasant, if your client cannot come sit down with my city manager and my attorney and even talk generally about
their path forward, I have no interest in any further discussion and will not support anything. And I think the $50 million that's offered is a joke. I, you know, I've had meetings with your
clients, I think before you were even in the picture, as my mayor had. and uh you may be 50% off on what it's worth to the to the city. So to say that we're going to go negotiate blindly, we may have
done that 15 years ago, but we don't do that here anymore. Now, I understand that you've probably got a a uh a male malleable council that you're going to get your four votes tonight, but
I didn't get here without going down swinging and and we'll continue to do that. If you do not have the good faith and character and integrity to even agree to sit down with our staff and our team to talk about how you're going to do it
at the get-go, I have no trust. >> Yeah. So, so to that point, man, I'm just going to address that one point. >> No trust. >> Mr. Gazan, if I can interject, I have a a question, ma'am. >> Sure. the I don't I don't understand where the the strong concern is and I
haven't heard yet that they're saying no, we won't. I haven't heard that they're objecting to >> I did >> it says it here that the inspection period begins at the effective date and it says here that they're asking for the seller
to provide our documents. Why would the buyer not provide additional documents? Why can't you give us a, you know, a look into what the challenges are? Convince us why this is such a huge undertaking and why only
Blue Nest can do it? Why why would why can't you? >> So, I think I think some of the initial concerns would be we would be happy to do it once we're in negotiations. It's another thing to say, give us all your cards on the table before we even go into negotiations as to how we're going to address these issues. Those are
two very different things. So, if the mayor is saying, "Hey, sit down negotiation with us. Show us this." It's still negotiations. So, you have a very competent city manager. If the city manager during negotiation says, "These guys don't know what they're doing. They don't have a path. They don't have an opportunity to get this done. I think we
should suspend negotiations." Their city manager can do that. There's nothing stopping him from doing that. What we're saying is we would want to get into negotiations, know that we have a path forward, know that we have a path forward with the city to get this done. And then we're happy to have those discussions with the manager, with the staff, and get everybody on the same
page. But to do this saying, hey, we're just going to tell you everything that we have done, tell you all the interest that we put in. The mayor has his perspective. I disagree with it. I'll leave it at that. But I think it would be appropriate, and it's mostly, this is pretty standard, you would have those discussions with property owners after
you're under negotiations. You're talking about the property. You're talking about the contract. We know that we're in discussions. We know that we're trying to move this forward. And you know what? It's fair for the manager to sit down and say, "You know what? I want to know what you guys are doing. I want to know how you guys want to get there." And we can talk that through and tell them this is generally what we are
willing to do to get this done. We have the faith. We have the commitment and we know we have the ability to get this done. Councilman, if if I might, let me maybe clarify or say in a different manner. In order for us to analyze whether
the money that's being offered is fair, we need to know before we sign a contract for 50, 53, whatever it is. There's a lot of other numbers floating around. We need to know what the path forward is. either through the work
probably the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Blue Nest has already expended on attorneys and other professionals that our staff could be privy to and it not become a public record. And there are means to do that.
Or we are going to have to expend potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine for our own whether or not the offered price is fair based upon the cost of mitigation.
and based solely based upon the failure to even to respond to multiple attempts at contacting by our sports performance hub people.
I don't have any faith in the integrity and good faith of these proposers based upon their course of dealing by failing to respond and then coming to council and slinging something against the wall
literally as we were walking in here to approve the sports hub contract when their correspondence was an attempt to derail that. So, you know, you come here with a lot of bad check marks, Mr. Gassan. Your client does. >> So, so M Mr. Mayor, you know, with all
due respect, I want to say that I have received none of this correspondence that the mayor is referencing. Um, I would assure you that to the extent that there were any correspondence that I would jump on it immediately. That's how we operate. I can tell you that I'm here now and I'm telling you that we will
engage in those discussions because it doesn't make sense for us to give you this letter of interest, give you this offer, tell you that we have 270 days to go through the process. Understand that even if we leave here tonight with negotiations, we have to negotiate. But what why should we
go spend a lot of money maybe trying to buy a pig and a poke as I used to say as I'm showing my age to determine on our own when work's already been done to determine whether the offered price is
fair and balanced. Yeah, we we have our own due I guess the fact of the matter is we have our own due diligence to do before a deal is approved at any amount of money and
they're asking us to sign a deal to lock in a purchase price without the opportunity for due diligence on our part. >> I have an addition Oh, sorry, Vice Mayor. Let's get back to the vice mayor and then back to you
>> again. So many moving parts. The only way that we're going to go forth if there are discussions that are going to be had. We have a very capable city manager. Are youable to leaving that 50 million off until some
discussions are had? I think that is the piece the only piece that is is tough for us. Obviously 50 million sounds great, but without being able to see um any piece of whatever this appraisal might look like, can we leave that 50
million to be discussed once >> Look, I I I think it is a negotiation to say whenever somebody offers a letter of interest, there's always a feedback, >> right? The 50 million is not set. >> Now, I would tell you the 50 million is what we believe is going to be
appropriate, but we're going to have a discussion about it. Can we move it to allow them to have these discussions? Obviously, the letter was sent sometime in December. So, whatever time they didn't respond if that was the case, you know, let's we can chalk it up to New Year's. But
despite who it is or what, I think it's incumbent on us that we allow the city manager to have these discussions and then make a more educated vote. >> I'll second her motion with a comment to Mr. Gasant. and your conditions to close
in your LOI. It says there shall be no pending existing prohibitions, restrictive covenants, moratoriums, including city of Homestead moratorium or restrictions on the property existing on that date of closing. That's right. >> But I want to make sure that we understand that our intention is to make sure that there's no residential, at
least as of right now, no residential uh intended. So that I would assume that that would be some kind of restriction or covenant or something very very codified to eliminate residential potential there. So >> let in that regard if I might Mr. Pearl
wasn't one of the last couple of of amendments to the live local that a live local project can proceed irrespective of any covenants that were issued in connection with the underlying
land use that is now being relied upon to do a live local. >> I will have I thought so >> I will have to get back to you. I I can't answer that question today. I my fear is is once it has a non-residentidential designation it is open for live local
>> def definitely mayor that is a major concern for for me as well and I would want to hear back from our city u attorneys u on that before any negotiations for sure. Well, sure. And and look, if we can just get back, I
hope let's just have whatever basicformational discussion the proposer is willing to have with our staff and our staff is going to have to come back to us and we'll make a decision as to whether or not to proceed. I I guess you know the the
technical term of negotiation versus discussion to me it's like we're still we're negotiating you know the documents uh processes uh intentions and you know the dollar amount at the end of the day is going to come back to us and the site plans and approvals renderings so call
it a discussion call it a negotiation I think at the end of the day we're all trying to get more information and come to a >> look we would just be asking that the council would you know have negotiations with the proposer so that we can move forward work with this um and see if we can enter into an agreement that that's really what we're looking for and we're
excited about the opportunity to speak to manager and see what the opportunities are. >> Okay. So where I think what you >> do you want to restate your motion and what your intent is vice mayor
>> is the bottom line not to allow a city manager and blue nest to discuss >> this proposal get more information >> more information >> that's your motion and your second will stand
>> I I just want to make sure I'm not clear I'm honestly not clear is it to negotiate while getting more information about this deal to be able to come to a potential agreement to authorize the city manager to do that. >> So I don't believe that there is enough
information for a formal negotiation and again you can use different definitions of different terms. You need to sit down with the city manager, explain a little more, give us some more information, but that that discussion
starts a negotiation or a discussion. And it's the same thing. We're not agreeing to any purchase prices or anything until a discussion is started. Correct. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> So, so you call it a negotiation, we call it a discussion. What's the legal
definition? >> Big difference. I'm sorry. >> Matt can educate us on that. Thank you. >> So, what I hear is a concern for really fact gathering at this point in the discussion. If you were you're not you I
don't hear a consensus to be committal to direct staff to execute the LOI to commence like a negotiation based on these terms. I I heard a few things that you wanted more information about. There'll be some things that I understand will probably be considered
proprietary and not want to be shared to the extent that the proposer will discuss their plan for remediation of the mitigation conservation easements. Perhaps some more detail on the development plan itself because I hear concerns about
certain types of development that are undesirable. Any information that could be provided to staff about that would probably be useful. And I think when you have some more of that information and that it shouldn't take that long, that
conversation, then the manager can come back to you with the information that he has gathered and you can decide if you want to invest money in your own independent appraisals or experts to verify and do your own due diligence based on the results of these
conversations. But I don't think that these these initial discussions should take you know it's not like you're talking the se the months and months that you're talking about if you were to engage those consultants now before starting that conversation. >> The staff's recommendation here says
whether to direct staff to proceed with due diligence regarding the non-binding letter. So proceed with the due diligence and non-binding letter. I think that is clear enough. Thank you.
>> Agreed. Mayor, I mean, do you think that can get resolved by council meeting so we can determine by council meeting if we can enter into negotiations? >> I I'm hopeful. >> That's up to everyone, >> Mr. Mayor. To their schedule, Council Fletcher.
>> So, you know, again, I'm I'm happy to have the discussion or whatever you want to call it. Um, I still have some concerns for the residents of Homestead and I think, you know, long term, I think the overall
look ahead for what this project could be, again, we don't know all the details. We don't know what's ultimately going to go there. That's going to have to come back for us at some point for approval. Whether it be light industrial and warehouses or or something else, it's
going to have to come back to us at some point for approval. this doesn't bind us to that. I don't I don't believe. But I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we understand what it is so we can go educate our community as well because I need the feedback from my residents. I
think we all do. And uh ultimately they're going to be the ones that tell us whether they want it or not. And I don't want to give that control away to anybody. That's that's up to us. So thank you. >> And real quick and one one other thing.
I I believe that this letter of intent intends to include the fill pit, that surface area based on the acreage. If if that is the case,
then we're going to have to have some advice as to what would be you what other party has to come to the table to accomplish that. not not we're not selling you the fill but I guess that would be the surface area of the
pit which goes to density and all those kinds of things I'm not under any delusions that this is not really intended to be residential but uh okay so is there anyone online
wishing to speak to this all right anyone else here. Councilman, sorry. >> Turn on your mic. >> No, no, no. >> Oh, you're good. You're good. Okay. All right. So, we have a motion to go further with some preliminary
discussions and factf finding, directing the manager and his team to do that. So, are there is anyone in opposition to that direction? So then conversely we have a unanimous
direction by council to authorize the manager to do that. Next item tab two Mr. Pearl. Yes, Mr. Tab two is the first reading of an
ordinance of the city council of the city of Homestead, Florida, amending its declaration of the city's intent to participate in the Florida Retirement System for general employees effective on or about April 1, 2026, providing that all general employees hired by the city on or after the effective date of the city's participation in the Florida
Retirement System shall become compulsory members of the Florida Retirement System, providing that all general employees who are participating in another city retirement plan on the effective date of the city's particip ipation in the Florida retirement system shall have the right to elect to continue participating in such plan or
become members of the Florida retirement system. Authorizing the city manager to enter into agreements with the Florida Division of Retirement to accomplish the intent of the ordinance. Providing for withholding compensation, Social Security contributions from employees pay. Providing for payment of required Florida Retirement System contributions
and assessments, providing for the establishment, maintenance, and submission of such records as may be required for participation in the Florida Retirement System. designating the city manager as the custodian and withholding and reporting agent providing that the city adopts by contract the terms related to the
participation the system providing that the city's decision to participate in the Florida retirement system shall be irrevocable providing that city clerk shall furnish certified notice providing for severability providing for conflicts and providing for an effective date and to the extent that the council has any questions uh my partner Milton Collins
is here to answer those >> thank you any questions from council on Vice Mayor Bailey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, obviously any opportunity to do better for our city employees. I know there was some conversation in our briefing that
you were considering striking general from general employees. >> So, >> and I just see in section three that that is still there. Yeah, it was a comment that was made subsequent to the agenda being prepared and uh the labor
attorney is here to provide further clarifications. >> Good evening uh vice mayor, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Yes. Uh there was some preliminary discussion about modifying this ordinance, but the general employees um terminology will
remain. And just to let everyone know, general employees is all nonsworn employees. So sworn, >> fulltime, part-time, >> yes, >> seasonal, >> no temp, no seasonal, >> but all regular um employees.
>> Thank you for that clarification. That's all. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Any further any further questions? Do we have a motion? >> All right. It's been moved by Councilman Cannibal. Did you have a question or or a second by uh Mr. Fletcher? Okay. A
second by the vice mayor. Okay. >> Anyone in the audience or on the line wishing to speak on this matter? Okay. I'll close the public hearing and I think we need a roll call on this one. >> Councilman Fletcher, >> yes. >> Councilman Cannibal,
>> yes. >> Councilman Ross, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Abula, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey, >> yes. >> Mayor Losner, >> yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, sir. Okay,
Mr. Furl, tap three. Now, James is going to You got to do your quasi judicial dance. Just give me one moment. So, mayor, tab number three, tab number four, and tab number five all
deal with the same proposed development for the palace. This is Helen Holmes. You may recall uh we started a quazi judicial hearing on these items and then we deferred it from the November council meeting. Yes. Um so this will be a
continuation of that hearing. Um, so before we get started at this time, I'd ask anyone in the audience who's wishing to speak on this item to please raise their hand to be sworn by the clerk. >> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? So help me
God. >> Thank you. You may be seated. >> So mayor, I can read each one of these titles into the record and then we can proceed with having a >> So tab >> consolidated discussion. Yes. >> Right. Tab three is a resolution of the city of Homestead, Florida approving an amendment to previously approved site
plan as requested by Helen Holmes of South Dade for the development of 240 bed skilled nursing assisted living facility on approximately uh 5.6 acre parcel of land located at 3100 Campbell Drive legally described in exhibit A and providing for an effective date. Uh tab
four is a corresponding uh variance application. It's a resolution of the city of Homestead, Florida granting a variance request as requested by Helen Holmes South Dade from the city code of ordinances section 30-1 definitions to allow roof parapit height range between
6' 3 in to 11 ft 10 in where 5T is required and where and varying from city code section 30-433 subsection B8C off streetet parking area requirements in all districts to permit a total of 145 parking spaces where 427
7 parking spaces are required for the development of a 240 unit assisted um 240 bed assisted living facility on approximately 5.6 acre parcel of land located at 3100 Campbell Drive as we described in exhibit A fighting for
effective date. And finally, tab five is a special exception request. This is a resolution of the city of Homestead, Florida approving a special exception as requested by Helen Holmes South Dade for the development of a 240 bed skilled nursing assisted living facility on approximately 5.6 acre parcel located at
3100 Campbell Drive legally described in exhibit A and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. Vasquez, >> Mr. Mayor and Council Jav Vasquez, law offices at 600 Bickl Avenue here on
behalf of Helen Holmes of South A LLC, better known as the palace. As you guys know, um this application was deferred on November 19th. Um just real quickly, as a courtesy to those that are here as part of our team, Mr. Alon VanDavid from the ownership group
is here with me tonight. Uh Mr. Gabriel Salazar, our architect, Mr. Mr. Gilman Rodriguez, our project manager, my associate, Janelli Perez, and Mr. Richard Garcia, our traffic consultant, is they are all here with me to answer any questions that this council may have.
I made a full presentation on November 19th. So, I'm going to just try to just dive as needed into that part of the presentation. I'd like to concentrate on what has happened since this application was deferred. And uh the deferral has allowed the traffic consultants to
exchange and finalize their comments uh relating to traffic. I have submitted to uh Miss Storch the signed and sealed documents from our side. The deferral has also allowed the owner to provide and clarify information
relating to parking and staffing. on on the uh quick refresher and again I'm not going to dive very deep into last time but you all know what we're doing here. The northern partial is improved with a 201 bed uh assisted
living facility which was built in 2016 and the approvals tonight will allow for the palace uh as a for the palace for its proposed expansion consisting of a 240 bed skilled nursing center on the southern parcel. We have three requests
before you tonight. As has been said before and clarified by your attorney, we're doing one presentation and then I guess this council can take separate votes. Very important to the conversation is the fact that the two tracks are being
treated as one one parcel for development purposes. Uh we have submitted for the record as well the original uh covenant in lie which allows that separation line if you will between the two parcels to disappear so that this can be treated as one fluent uh
parcel for for design and development purposes and and circulation of driveways etc. And lastly, all three applications come before you with recommendation of approval from your professional planning staff subject to certain conditions, all of which we are in agreement with. Now,
let's touch for a minute on the things that we've been able to accomplish since the deferral. Uh the owner's traffic consultant, Mr. Richard Garcia, who's here tonight, completed and submitted the traffic study, which was reviewed by the city's consultant, Bowman Engineering, who is also
represented here by Mr. John Kim. The consultants exchanged uh comments and on December 22nd, Bowman issued its final review and determined that quote, "The applicant has sufficiently addressed the remaining review comments." And I
believe that special attention should be given to the Bowman letter dated December 19th, where particular attention was given to the possibility of a right turn deceleration lane. And I know that's been the subject of significant conversation. Bowman specifically confirmed and stated that
based on his review of the available rightway, only 80 feet of what the 185 ft that would be required would be available, which is uh significantly substandard and not recommended.
Um, we specifically reached out to the the Celeste uh development owners to see if they could assist with right away. They specifically told us verbally and in writing that that they could not do that. Uh Mr. Kim also reviewed and addressed
the mitigation factors memorandum that we prepared that talked about um things like the existing larger driveway radius return. And he stated, "We agree that given the right-of-way constraints, providing a larger radius return does
mitigate the absence of an exclusive right turn lane." And I can dive deeper into that mitigation u uh memo, but I'd like to hold off on that if needed with council conversation. As it relates to parking,
as you know, we've been forced to request a variance from the required off- streetet parking spaces because your code does not include standards for se senior living facilities. Under your code, parking is calculated at one per one space per 300, resulting in a
requirement of 427 spaces, which is absolutely unreasonable when applied to senior living. In lie of the standard, the proposed development will provide parking in accordance with the city's 1990 code, which did have parking standards for
senior living as well as Miami date county requirements for nursing homes. The required parking per year 1990 code is 130 spaces. We are providing 150 for this phase.
The required parking if you were to look at the county standards is 145 spaces and like I said we are providing 150. And then notwithstanding the fact that we are complying with both your 90 code and the county requirements, the
palace will also be implementing a valet program to be used during special events. We appreciate Mr. Roth bringing this to to the light so that we can in fact make sure that when there are special events, there are no issues with parking. In the revised letter of intents uh
subsequent to the deferral, we did also provide specific detail as to uh staffing and the uh staggered uh types of staffing that we have. I I'll leave that for conversation with council if needed. And again, for the sake of this presentation, I would like and for the
sake of your agenda, I'd like not to be longer than necessary. In the presentation November, we uh I'd like to remind the council of the PowerPoint presentation um where we looked at the community events
that are sponsored and hosted by the palace. And I am only bringing that up because of their corporate citizen citizenry that they offer as a as a uh first class corporate citizen of Homestead. And lastly, as far as we know and based on last time we met in
November, we are not aware of any objectives for this project. It comes before you with a recommendation of approval. We are in acceptance with all the conditions of the approval and we would respectfully request your approval accordingly. And again, our entire team is here for any questions you may have.
Thank you, >> council. Any questions, comments? Vice Mayor Bailey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you again for your brief presentation. It feels like last year that we had that really late night discussing parking and everything. Um, I think that was a big
miscommunication that that second parking lot was going to be taken out. I think my only concern that came up during the briefings was I know that the traffic study was was done and one piece with the turning lane was off by 01. Um,
but regardless, I wanted to hear from the palace themselves regarding getting any of their residents over to the hospital. Is there something that you would like us to request of the county to make that straight shot
easier? I know that there's a a break in the median there now. Um, but would a right or left turning lane help in that sense at all? >> Before I answer your question, I want to just clarify something you said at the beginning. the um the 1% issue had to do
with and and you can ask your traffic consultant on this as well, but you there's something called a dimminimous impact review. And in with this with these reviews, the impact of the proposed development is looked at and if
all the roads have a less than a 1% impact, it can be considered it would be deemed dimminimous and a traffic study would not even be required. The only reason a traffic study was required on this one is because two of the seven roads that were reviewed resulted in a
0.09%. That means 9100th of a point of a percentage that put us over that 1%. So it was almost like a a statement that we were that was being made that that this is a dimminimous impact development. Um, I'd like to ask my client your question
because I'm not aware of issues having to do with um transporting patients to the hospital and I'd like to address that because I think it's a very important issue. Give me one sec. Vice Mayor, um, my client is very
comfortable with a our record of nine years transporting patients and nine out of 10 times it's by ambulance, which obviously eliminates that concern. So, I think we're good as far as having to make any special requests to the county. >> That's all I had. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you.
Anyone else to my left? To my right. Councilman Roth. Councilwoman, >> thank you, mayor. Thank you for taking my calls and my questions and for um um also providing the extra detail on the landscaping buffer between Oasis and uh
the property line. That was important um to me as well. And uh you know given the circumstances and for the low impact of this uh facility I'm I I think what has been presented is is acceptable at this time but if there's anything additional
from my colleagues I'd be happy to listen. Thank you. >> Thank you. the one thing you mentioned and I think you know just maybe to clarify >> you I know that you made contact with the adjoining property owner the midtown
Celeste >> and it's not that the right of way is not there the issue was the location of their driveways with respect I don't I don't want to leave the
inference hanging out there that they did not dedicate rightway or sufficient rightway out on Campbell. It's the configuration of their driveways. It was the issue. Correct. When I spoke to Mr. Aras this, you know, the way I stated it was we don't have enough rightway. We
have 80 ft. 180 ft are required. The city has asked us to at least reach out to see if it can be accommodated. We didn't dive any deeper than that. He went to his client and got back to me. So, the answer was no. >> Okay. Because in talking with staff, it's been my understanding that Yep. I
know Lynn, it wasn't with respect to depth to to accommodate a lane. It was with respect to their configuration, their development configuration. So I I don't want anybody to leave with the idea that they got by without making the appropriate
dedication for that project. >> Thank you, mayor, for clarifying. >> Okay. So, Mr. White. Uh, can you give us some advice as to which order these need to go in? >> Sure, Mayor. Uh, uh, if we if we could start with tab five, which is the special exception as the first item for
consideration, followed by the site plan and the variance. >> Okay. >> All right. So, tab five has been moved by uh, Councilman Fletcher, second by the vice mayor. But before we go there, let's open the public hearing on all
three items. Is there anyone online? Anyone in the audience um wishing to speak to any of of these items? Um okay. So, I'll close the public hearing
and we have a motion and a second on tab five, which is the special exception. So, let's have a roll call vote on that. >> Councilman R. >> Yes. Councilman Fletcher, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Avula, Councilman Cannibal,
>> Vice Mayor Bailey, Mayor Losner, >> yes. >> The motion carries >> and we need a motion now on tab three. >> I'm sorry. Tab four, the varian. >> Tab four, I'm sorry. Tab for the um variance request. >> Moved by Vice Mayor Bailey, seconded by
Councilman Cannibal. >> Roll call, please. >> Councilwoman Aimo. Yes. >> Counciloman McConssky. >> Yes. >> Councilman Roth. >> Yes. >> Councilman Calibal. >> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey. Mayor Losman. >> Yes. >> The motion carries.
>> And finally, tab three. Do we have a motion? >> Move. Moved by Council Ros, second by Councilman Fletcher. Roll call on tab three, please. >> Councilman Ross. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Avulo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Cannibal? >> Yes. >> Councilman Fletcher? >> Yes.
>> Councilwoman Ksky? >> Yes. Vice Mayor Bailey. Yes. >> Mayor Losner. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> All right. >> Thank you all. Just like to say thank you. >> Thank you everyone. Happy New Year and on behalf of the Palace Group again.
Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful evening. >> Thank you. We look forward to it. >> Happy New Year. >> Thank you. Okay. That takes us to tab six. Mr. Pearl. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Tab six is a resolution of the city council of the city of
Homestead, Florida, awarding RFP 202515 janitorial services for group one to United States Service Industries Inc. USSI DBA Group and Yulan as primary and Miami janitorial Supplies Inc. as secondary for groups 2, four, five, and
six to SFM Janitorial Services LLC, United States Service Industries Inc., USSI, DBA Group and Yulan and Miami Janitorial Supplies Inc. and for group three to United States Services United States Services Industries Inc. USSI
DBA's group in Yulan and Miami janitorial services authorizing the city manager to negotiate and enter into an agreement and necessary documents with each vendor for the project providing for implementation and providing for an effective date. >> Second,
>> no hesitation there. Okay, it has been moved and seconded. Is there anyone who wishes to make public comment? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a roll call vote on tap six. >> Councilwoman Agula, >> yes. >> Councilman Roth, >> yes. >> Councilman Fletcher,
>> yes. >> Councilman Cibal, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ksky, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Bailey, >> yes. >> Mayor Losner, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> And tab seven. Tab seven is a resolution of the city council of the city of Homestead, Florida, formally adopting the city of Homestead, America 250, uh,
logo authorizing and regulating the use, print, publication, and variation of logo, providing for a sunset of authorization on December 31st, 2026, providing for implementation, and providing for an effective date. >> Questions or comments on this item? >> Vice Mayor,
>> thank you, mayor. Um, I mean this is the year so we might as well go big, right? So I know there was some discussion on what to use it on. I say use it on everything and then we sunset December 31st and call it another 250. >> Thank you.
>> Agreed. >> Agree with me. >> Okay. And you state that in the form of a motion >> and I'll be happy to second that since this whole logo was my uh my idea. Thank you staff. Okay. Any any further
from Yes. >> I think in the briefing a very important and critical suggestion was made by Councilman Roth. Uh thinking think true. I realize there is more to it. He had recommended to
monetize the water tower especially the one close to the speedway and this year more importantly is the uh the speedway championship. So we council with your permission the administration will be coming back at some point with an item perhaps
sponsored by council Roth to monetize the water tower for perhaps uh additional uh uh maybe branding or perhaps some vendors may want to put up something perhaps even the speedway. >> Very good.
>> Thank you Councilman Fletcher. I know just just to go back a second, we did have some discussion about some additional artwork that we were going to place on the water towers and I know we we didn't like the first draft that came out. Are we still looking at doing that on the other water towers?
Remember the first draft, >> the fill-in artwork between the logos, >> correct? >> That's correct. You want to fill it in. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. So, you're correct. Um, Councilman Fletcher, we presented to council three
variations. Um, we had deferred it to a workshop setting. Uh, but a final decision has not been made. If it's the direction, happy to re-engage with a workshop and for us to present the entire AIP plan which was um a part of
uh that discussion and then have council make a decision. I think we definitely need to revisit it. And I would just make a recommendation that the artwork not be stretched and put around just so we can get a clear idea. Obviously, the artist
is going to know how to wrap it. But if we can see a more realistic view of what the artwork would actually be, I think that's one thing that at least threw me off is it was just stretched and skewed awkwardly uh when you were trying to give us a visual of what it would look
around the the tower. >> So for clarity that the submissions are um done to scale that it is not out of scale with the actual water tower. Okay. I think the artists had submitted their work and then staff tried to give a more
accurate vision of what it would look like wrapped, but it just it didn't uh >> I thought it looked off. >> Okay. So, we'll present that feedback and then in the um subsequent workshop we'll have a secondary submission from the respondents and then we'll take it
from there. >> Now, again um Mr. Mayor and Council, I still think while having this conversation, this is NASCAR 26. Let's carve out this period. Perhaps to
factor in speedway, perhaps to monetize the one by the speedway just for this year alone. >> We do. >> And and now that we know from approval to unveiling, murals can be done quickly.
>> Surprisingly. No, >> we don't have a date for that yet. Right. >> The CRA director, do you have a date for the unveiling of the mural at Crow Marketplace? We will be meeting on the 13th to set
that date. The artist had an accident at home and has damaged his hand. So, he's paused briefly on this. Also doing a little bit of traveling, but we will be planning the formal unveiling as soon as that's complete for all of you to come uh and participate. If you have seen it,
it is nearly complete. Uh, and we're very pleased at at the work that he's been doing with that. >> You think you have a date by the next CRA board meeting which is on the 21st of January? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks,
>> council. Anything further? >> I have moved to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you all.