Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Yes, I will. Heat. Heat. What do you think? Heat. Heat. Thank you. Heat. Heat.
That's what I Heat. Heat. Got to be unfort. again. Heat. Heat. You don't have it on the network stuck on the screen. Heat. Heat.
Good morning. I can't say what else. That's the worst case. Yeah. All right. He was came up with this.
just Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Good evening. and welcome to the city of Sweetwater uh workshop 500 Southwest 109 Avenue. Madame Clerk, uh just for the record, give us a roll call. >> Great. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance.
Invocation. >> All right. Excuse me. We'll do invocation first. Sorry about that. In Jesus name I pray. Dear heavenly father, thank you for granting us the gift of life, the gift of friendship, most importantly the gift of family. Thank you for allowing us to do God's
work in public service here in the city of Sweetwater. Please continue to bless the greatest military in the world, our first responders, our city staff, and our elected officials. Please bestow wisdom upon our elected officials to make the proper decisions for the betterment of our city. In Jesus name I
will always pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. Please be seated. >> Mr. Attorney, point of order. Do you need me to read the notice to the public? >> Yes. Notice >> I would like to say one thing. Look though, this is a public meeting or what we call a workshop. So, no decisions can
be made tonight. All you're doing is taking in information. But yes, you do need to read the notice. >> Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Notice of the public sunshine meeting between city commissioners. All interested parties, please take notice that a public meeting of two or more city commissioners to discuss the
master development agreement with CR EI development company LLC for a mixeduse development project known as Flaggler Center in the newly created Flag Flagler Center District land use category for the property bounded on the north by Northwest 7th Street, on
the south by West Flagler Street, on the east by 110th Northwest 110th Avenue and on the west by Northwest 114th Avenue. Please take place will take place on Thursday, April 2nd, 2020 66 p.m. in the city hall chambers located at 500
Southwest 109 Avenue, Sweetwater, Florida, 33174. Do you need me to keep reading or is that fine for the uh >> Excellent. Excellent. Good evening everyone. Um Mr. Mayor, would you like to give the applicant the floor first?
>> Absolutely. >> Excellent. Uh good evening sir. We know your face and your name but for the record please state it again and again. And please note I'm sorry to interrupt. Uh please note uh Commissioner >> Mi Mr. President
>> Mr. Mayor attorney want to say something. >> Go ahead sir. Good afternoon. Caesar mystery special counsel on this project for the city of Sweetwater. Uh mayor and mayor, commissioners, uh just wanted to let you know that we have been diligently working on this project. Uh
there's been a lot of negotiations, a lot of meetings, a lot of changes. Um so we wanted to make sure that you got the input input that you deserve, you have the information that uh of what's going on. And obviously uh this was called so that we have the input from you as well.
And any questions that you have are answered tonight. Uh there have been changes uh as recently as the last hour. So this is an everchanging thing. We wanted to have a hopefully full agreement for you today so that you
could uh talk about that and and and uh analyze that but unfortunately due to all the changes that we've had recently that wasn't possible. So we just want you to know that the background and uh we'll hear from the applicant at this time. >> All right. Thank you sir. Please say
your name for the record. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Commissioners Alejandra Adios, offices at 701 Bickl Avenue. I'm joined this afternoon by my colleagues Miriam Soler Ramos and Joy Vasquez, as well as project team members, who I'm sure will arrive soon, Maria Levano Cruz and Jose Gonzalez.
We're also joined by representatives of Cray Holding, including Danispino, as well as the project principal and property owner, Raul Rodriguez. I'm happy to be back before you on the heels of the recent red development entitlements for this project related to Flaggler Center District. I have a brief
presentation. I don't know if we can pull that up on the screen. There we go. >> Of the presentation? No. Of some of the exhibits that I reference here. Yes. So, the big ticket items, I will be providing some handouts. >> Mr. President, it's your wish to make a
copy of it and I have it done and be delivered to each one of you while we're waiting for the presentation to go through. >> I definitely like a a a copy. We don't need to stop the meeting. >> No, no, no. As he proceeds, if he has a hard one hard copy, we could ask for copies. >> No. And you'll see I have plenty of the
real relevant documents. I will be handing them out so you can see especially the ones of the updated changes. >> Yeah, I'm I'm an old school visual guy. I like having stuff in my hands. Um but uh is anybody else uh wants want a copy in their hands or >> I want a copy in my hand.
>> Two. >> Yeah. >> Three. >> We'd definitely like a copy if that's possible. >> Do you have a copy? >> I don't have a copy. No. I can email it to whoever can make a copy. But >> could you please help us on this matter?
>> Sorry to make that difficult for you. We're just uh visual learners here. All right, but please continue. We'll uh we'll figure that out. >> I can send it to Carmen. I have Carmen. >> You want to send it down to the mayor's office to
>> I'll give you the key. Okay. >> I'm sorry to make this difficult, folks. And Mr. President, Mr. May, I was asked by one of the commissioners because we we had gotten a a
>> a part of a a presentation and so on, but this has been basically almost outdated based on negotiations back and forth and so on. So, I don't think it was fair to make a copy of this if it wasn't proper waiting for what they had to present. So, this is why I said if
you want a copy, we'll find a way to make it happen. >> Yeah. I mean, we like I said, >> but I couldn't turn this in because it would not be fair to them. >> I understand. We I I can't speak on behalf of the commissioners. Um, if anybody
>> uh I haven't seen anything. We've just done talking. >> It's been constantly moving. >> Yeah. So, I so I just want to have something in my hand so I know what it is I'm looking at >> so I can make an informed decision. And of course, this thing's going to evolve. >> But, uh, as it evolves, I'd like to see the evolution and have hard copies.
>> So, Commissioner, if you indulge me because I'm having some issues with sending the presentation. >> You're going to see it's very brief. There's two items there that are actually new from the prior presentation. It's seven slides in total. And the two key documents, I have those printed out. So, in the sense of
having a full presentation, a lot of it is just reminder elements, but the real exhibits I have ready for you and I'll hand them out right now. >> I I trust I trust your judge. >> I'm just waiting for the right timing to do it. >> I trust your judgment. Go ahead. Go ahead and and uh if we have any questions, we'll just ask,
but I'm my Okay. >> So, with respect to the approvals um that were acquired in February, these approvals provided the significant foundational framework and vested
development program for the project. It included the creation of Flaggler Center District land use category, a future land use map amendment to designate the property into this new land use category, the creation of the Flaggler Center District zoning district, and the
resoning of the property to reclassify it as Flaggler Center District. Now, before discussing the updates related to the master development agreement, I believe it's imperative to highlight the economic impact and revenue that this master plan mixeduse development and these entitlements will
represent to the city. >> At a projected cost of $4.5 billion, the proposed project development program encompasses 6,000 residential units, 2.2 2 million square ft of retail, office and institutional space, a 250 key hotel
and 1,200 person convention center and a private school with 1,800 student stations. This will serve to generate over two 28.7 million I I'll pause. >> I'm sorry, Alex.
>> Do we have disco lights going here or what's going on? >> Pick this one out. Commissioner Yan is requesting to turn off some lights so she can see. Okay. >> There. Leave it there. Go ahead, >> Alex. I'm so sorry for for what we're doing to you. Um,
>> so with that development program that I just mentioned, um, this will serve to generate over 28.7 million in annual city revenue upon full buildout of the project, over 15,000 new residents that will drive city revenue through consumer spending and taxes, over 5,700 permanent
jobs, and over 1.43 billion in city revenue over a 50-year span. Now, of note and inherent as part of that resoning process, the applicant has pro-offered several documents that will serve to ensure uniformity and cohesiveness throughout the mixeduse
community. One of these key documents is the draft of the master development agreement which came before you on first reading on February 13th. This master development agreement reflects the basic requirements delineated in Florida statutes and is a legally binding contract between the city and the
developer governing elements such as the phase construction scope improvements and responsibilities of this large-scale project. Maximum density, intensity, heights, and setbacks will also be governed by the Flaggler Center zoning regulations and the urban design
regulations. On-site and off-site roadway and infrastructure improvements are also delineated. Now, since first reading, we've worked with administration and your professional staff and have made significant progress on a number of items related to key details, processes,
and responsibilities. As I'm sure you've all been made aware, um the first time that we were before you, there was a number of elements that we needed to discuss, impact fees, credits, infrastructure improvements, etc. I'm happy to report that many of those items have been discussed and resolved and
baked into what is the new iteration of the master development agreement. Um, the developer has also agreed to a number of items, including to support the city in its efforts to create a community redevelopment agency. The developer has also agreed to make 100,000 square feet of institutional or
office space available to the city for purchase or lease under terms negotiated in the future. Um, the city will have five years to execute this option for a potential municipal city hall. And I'll show you the location of that with what I hand out.
The developer has also agreed to the buildout of the rightway improvements to 112th Avenue south of Flaggler and the bridge connecting southwest southwest 8th Street in coordination with the city and based on available rightway with for
the improvement. And lastly, the applicant has offered between two to seven acres of contiguous parkland with no less than two acres being provided. Now, based on these conversations and these advances, we've updated the conceptual master plan to reflect the
aforementioned and incorporate the certain configuration updates. So as you'll see on the screen and on the handout there has been some significant changes to the configuration of this. The south village remains the same with respect to the multifamily
programming. But now with if you see F and H and I through K that now becomes almost the heart and center the bookends of the project. Uh the inspiration for this, I don't know if any of you have been to the Plaza and Coral Gables. It's a significant mixeduse product type that
encompasses uses including hotel, convention space, um restaurant, retail, commercial, office. That is the goal here is almost to create two of those facing each other with a main prominade as you can see
there. Um that is the location where the 100,000 square feet is being set aside for a potential new municipal city hall. Um the linear park is also a new consideration there. As as we mentioned earlier, there's been discussions with
respect to that park and the acreage. Um that linear park draws inspiration from a number of the finest parks in the world including Valencia, Spain, Madrid and Paris, France. all encompassing a linear aspect that then you can activate with the
residential and the retail fronting on what is going to be a significant uh community park. This is a uh finer detail rendering of this updated development program. You'll see there the linear park and the bookended u major mixeduse
component located there towards the east of the project. Now, throughout this process, I know you've heard me speak a lot. I think this is hearing number five or six in the process. Um, and I believe the intent of this workshop was actually to
be able to speak uh to you and to hear your thoughts related to this project and um any questions related to the proposals that we've put forward. So, I think we've made significant progress. Um, there's a handful of items that are left in order to complete this master
development agreement, but at the end of the day, I would love to turn it over to you and we're at your disposal to answer any questions you may have at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. Uh, Mr. Mayor, would you like the floor?
>> Thank you, Mr. President. And Alex is uh correct. We've had many meetings as Caesar also brought in and stated it in the beginning. And this is a result that uh I believe we got uh last right
Monday. This last Monday and it was a work of yeah working through the weekend and and so on and combined efforts to try to get us uh more park space and to deal with many of the aspects that individually
you guys have basically asked and and wanted us to look at. Now, as far as everything else that we have going, I want to bring up uh Bedra Vera and I'm sorry and Scott up here a second to the
podium. And I want to be real clear, this is an outstanding project. We're all in favor of making sure that this becomes a reality. But unfortunately there's some details that we have to really understand and we had a meeting as
Caesar our attorney on this matter came up and said earlier uh we were meeting we were looking at this until just a little bit before coming up here to determine what it could be and we still have some differences but we're a lot closer than we were when this is all
started. So it's not that efforts have not been done on both sides. they have but we still have some key elements when it comes to the park when it comes to how and who is going to if we have to purchase it do we have to pay interest
on it all the things to have when also we look at the same time and we have the ability of green space and we need to obtain that too so this is where the work is being done and I understand
that there's both sides to this and you hear and I think that we all want the very best for the city but at the same time by law we have to go through certain diameters of and parameters
to make sure that we get to what is expected of us to negotiate and deal with within the law. So with that Caesar you want to take it from here. I think one of the one of the the major issues and the reason that that Scott is
up at the podium is when you look at this um it it is a a great project but we need to understand the the financial aspects of it. So Scott if you could please I know here we have something that says annual revenue 28.7 million.
>> I mean there's there's no doubt that there will be a financial benefit to the city project. Scott Mendlesburg finance director Sweetwater. Sorry about that. There's no doubt there'll be a a tremendous benefit to the city when this project is finished uh from property tax
revenues and all types of other revenues that the city will expect to get. Um but that's upon completion and that's if everything goes smoothly. It could take 10 years, it could take 20 years, it could take 30 years, but ultimately it's going to be a great benefit. Uh what
we're trying to do is make sure that we can secure the public benefits of park space and the roadway completion of the network so that the future residents can enjoy that and we're getting there. Um we have differences of opinion on how to
get there and but we know where we want to go. We have the same destination and uh we're wearing the same outfit tonight, me and Raul to prove that you know what, great minds think alike. So, we're going to get there. We're not there yet, but it's not like this is a
very small, uncomplicated project. There are a lot of details, and it's better to get the details right up front and do it correctly and take the time. And we're not going to hold him up. That's the one thing we I I think we've agreed that he has some things he wants to do immediately that don't require the
master development agreement, and we're fine with that. But at the point we're going to get the 6,000 residential units on Flaggler Street, we need to make sure we have the amenities that are needed for that future population and that we secure the future of the city without
risking if this doesn't project doesn't pan out exactly as we planned that we don't risk the city's financial future by trying to get something that we can't afford. But I think we're going to get there. I think >> inch by inch, day by day, we will get there. We're just not there yet. But
we're making progress. >> Thank you, sir. >> Through the chair, >> Commissioner M. >> We have one piece of paper in front of us here. >> 7 billion. I don't know what the billion dollar project is. We have one piece of
paper here. I'm not sure what we're doing here. >> Okay. >> I'm a little confused by one piece of paper. >> We have one piece of paper that was given to us by our own staff. And this I thought the presentation I said it earlier I don't know if you heard
>> this was something that presented to us but there's been changes after that >> and we asked and that's just why we're trying to get a copy made so you have something in front of you and I heard that they have an email. So internally like Scott mentions amenities. What are
the amenities? I I don't know what the amenities are and and I don't know like again we have we're you're asking us to make a decision. We have one piece of paper in front of us. I want to make an informed decision for our community.
Like what are we entitled to here? What are the amenities? What does all that mean? I would like to point out that as part of an application submitt all of this has been submitted to the city as part of a submitt all of it. There's a
Dropbox link that's been provided. It's the application form. Um, there was four hearings. >> I I I understand all that. I >> those documents were all related to this. >> I haven't seen any of that and and >> you know what I'm saying? It's it's a little it's a little peculiar that we're
all here talking about things and we have one piece of paper in front of us. >> All right. I mean, go ahead. >> Well, just keep asking questions. >> No, and I will say I mean we've we've provided it to the city. It's not, you know, we we're not the copy machine. We've provided it. It's in your files.
Um, and as a process of the public hearings, it's, >> if I may, um, that package was given to you guys last time before the first reading. And the issue is it wasn't updated this time and there wasn't a new
version of the development agreement because we don't have anything that's changed significance. It's changed significantly, but we don't have an agreement. So that's why you do not have a new draft of that document. But all the other documents that he's referring to in the application and the the four
items that were already passed were part of the agenda the last time that you received late. >> Yeah. >> So today's purpose is is not for you to vote. We we'll make that clear again. It's for you to gather whatever information additional information and
if there's a need for further workshops or something that's your prerogative and and and the mayor's. But today is kind of to fill in whatever blanks you have from the documents that were given to you the last time. >> And to add to that,
this right here that was presented to us, I just stated earlier was done last weekend. Uh and I really thank Ro because we we were trying to work things out to see about the park and that's where we got the actual
uh development of the linear park and things like that. Uh but unfortunately when I said do I make copies and you know give them this I said no we have presentations and and so on. So, I didn't want to give you something that's still a moving document that you might look at and say, "What about this?" And
it's not it's or this was just turned into us an hour ago, you know, talking about new changes about the actual properties and so on. So, it's constantly moving and I know
there's nothing worse than not having a document in front of you to go by. That's why I asked, could you please forward that so we can make copies of this presentation and bring it so we could give you a copy? The president of the commission asked for it. >> And I and I get that. I just when I hear things like amenities, you know, I I
have a lot of faith in in Scott and when he says we want to make sure the city gets whatever the amenities are, like what does that even mean? What is that? >> We're hold on a second. Let me let me preface this by saying that everybody will go
through the chair. We're going to have a healthy dialogue. I understand the frustrations of my colleague. I appreciate your gumption, Scott, and I appreciate how dedicated you are to the project. Um, but I want I
want everybody I want to maintain order. All right. So, uh, Scott, you you have the floor. Go ahead. Um, we're working right now to figure out how to get the city the parkland that we would like. He came back with a new design. We all loved it. We believe
the linear park from 110th Avenue to 114th Avenue is great. It'll be providing a good gathering space for the people who are living in there and outside the pedestals and maybe some music and some cafes and things like that. So, it's a really well-used
amenity. We just need to figure out okay how do we have financially accomplished this and what are the steps at which the city takes control of a piece of land when he has to give that up is it around platting how much money will be paid how
many appraisals will we do we need to follow our code we can't just say I'm going to pay you X because that's the deal we cut our code says we need to do appraisals we need to bring that to you for your approval if the appraisal coming in at one amount and we can't
agree and we haven't don't have an agreement before, that's going to be a problem. So, we're trying to think of all the things that could come up that could impact this and make sure that we don't commit to something that we can't afford, but that we get something that we need and we figure out a plan to get
there. We all want to get there. We're just trying to figure out how to do that. And I think if we give enough time and we have enough options, we can do that because this is not a zero- sum game. Everybody should win. There's no, it's not procurement where one team wins and the other team goes home. This is
the developer should have a very good development that makes him proud and the money he deserves. The people who live there should have a nice place to live at a reasonable price with the amenities that they need, public spaces and driveways and roadways included. And the
city should be able to make sure that it has the resources to pay for the ability to police the new population that will be there that will be substantially larger than we have now. It's a win-win game for everybody if we do it right.
>> Thank you. >> Um Scott, if I can ask you a question and and and just bear with me. I've never never participated in anything like this, so the learning curve is is pretty high. When you say park, do they donate
parkland? Do we have to buy parkland? How does that work? When you say >> it's got to be an exchange of value because the parkland does have value. They are required to have a certain amount of parkland or to make a monetary contribution in lie of that. And that's what we're working through is we can't
get the amount of parkland they would be required by the code to give. So how much can we get and how do we pay for that? How much money is each acre worth and how do we determine that? Those are the fine details that make the deal work because >> what is what is the required amount of
land that they are is there a required amount of land that they have to get >> anywhere from 16 to 22. We have a little bit of a disagreement about that calculation. >> I'm sorry. 16 to 22 >> is that percentage >> acres >> 16 to >> based on the increased population
>> coming to that development >> of the 104 acres they have to give 16 to 22 acres >> to maintain the level of service standard that we would have in the CDMP through concurrency yes >> okay let's go back again h how did we get to
and look I'm not afraid to say it this is totally new for How did we get to 16 to 22 acres? >> It's a formula based on the number of people and the amount of area per person that you need to have set aside as park open space.
>> So 15,000 given the numbers. >> Understood. And >> that's a lot of acres. >> I think that's ridiculous. >> Thank you, Georgie. Commissioner, if I if I may.
>> You have the floor, sir. >> Thank you. The city's comp plan has adopted a level of service which is set in your code and it's 1.45 acres per thousand residents. So that's how they come up with the number >> 1.45
>> 1.45 >> times 10,000 residents. You'll see there that the estimate of the increase in population is 15,000 and something. >> Is is that what this document is?
>> That's correct. >> Through the chair, >> you have it. >> But we have we have taken into consideration I apologize. We have taken into consideration that this is an urban setting that this is uh a little different. Um, and that's why we've been trying to negotiate and we haven't been,
the city has not been a stickler or said it has to be 16 acres or it has to be all the conversations that that have been had are significantly lower than that. But that is what the code provides for. either give us the land to make up
for the level of service impact or make a monetary contribution or there's actually a third prong which says uh re redo the development so that there is no change in the level of service. That's why you hear conversations that
are they're smaller amounts than what you're asking. >> You have the floor. You don't have to ask for it again. >> Can you can you run us through your document? Can you explain what you have here? Do do you have one of these to follow along? >> They have Are you good?
>> They they understand. >> Okay. Hera uh planning zoning official. What you have before you is I split up um the property um the two things you have impact fees and concurrency uh
fees. Uh on your left hand side you could see that the Flagler Center impact fees uh the overall development there it's going to reach 6,000 units. Uh right right now currently this we have
675 completed units which is the little ABER one two and three. That leaves us with 5,326 units thousand units. Uh we also have they also the development is also uh putting
in some retail space and commercial which that comes out to about 400 44,000 uh square feet. The office space including a hospital is is a million697.
Institutional is 318 3,00 318 318,000 and the industrial which is the industrial is basically a self-s storage facilities is 136,000. What you see on the on the on the bottom
is the land the type of land use and do under our um impact fees what the cost is for transportation, parks and general government for each one of those uh types and all the way in the bottom it'll tell
you what the total number of impact fees are required for this project. On the on the right hand side you have the concurrency of Flaggler Center and as Caesar just said you are 1.45 acres
per thousand as per our comprehensive master plan. Again, we took the 5,325 units and we used the uh 220 census which was three persons per unit gives
us a total of 15975 persons population for that development once it's completed. What that population then is divided by a thousand times 1.45 which gives you
23.16 acres. Then that on the bottom is the monetary and that monetary is taken from our code also. Uh we used Miami Day County standard which is 269,750
which is referenced in our code times 23.6 acres and the total contribution would be 6,247,410. That's would be for no parks at all. >> I have a question George.
Um, in this document where it says park required acres, it says 2316. Is that accurate? >> So you're saying So you're saying out of >> the 100 acres, the developer would have to
give 23 acres to the city. >> Correct. >> So, and I understand that's the way the code is written. I just think that that's uh what's the word I'm looking for? um like robbery. I think it's it's like theft. >> That's the code and that's why we're having conversations.
>> You didn't write it, so don't worry about it. Um so before you continue, point of order, Mr. Attorney, uh for a an amendment to that code, it doesn't need to go to referendum, correct?
>> An amendment to the to the land development code. >> Correct. No, >> no, it does not need to go to referendum. It does need to go to the planning and zoning board at some point. >> Thank you. Thank you. continue that that is this is an amendment to the comprehensive master plan. It's not an amendment to the land development code.
>> It's in the land development code also, but we need to amend the comprehensive master plan. >> No, no, I I understand. >> Would you like to change that 1.45? >> I I'm just looking at this number at 23 acres. Is anybody else agreeing with me saying we got to we're going to take 23
acres? >> That's 20%. >> That's That's a lot, >> but we'll figure it out. That's what to the members in the audience. The reason why my colleague was so frustrated and I'm frustrated because we don't know. We
haven't been presented anything. We don't know anything. All we know is conversations have been had. Uh first reading was was kind of brief and uh and we're waiting. We This is an amazing project. I've known of this project for
um since the day after Veterans Day basically uh whatever year that was last year and we're definitely looking forward to it. But when you see us frustrated, this is where I'm frustrated. So when
did we decide to buy a park? >> We have it. >> That's not what we're talking about. We're buying land and >> that's part of the negotiations to us. >> Right. Right. So part normally what what the developer does is donates the park.
If they don't want to donate the park, they could go ahead and provide us provide the monetary contribution. >> No, I get that. Maybe maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly. >> We were not aware of that and the conversation came up and
I'm a little confused as to a purchase of a park like how did we get there? >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Thank you. This was just presented to us on Monday. We started to ask for clarifications of this. They went on
when did we get the clarifications? >> Monday. >> Monday. It was presented to us when Friday. >> Everything was presented on Monday. This is ongoing this situation because when we stated that we did not feel that we needed to
buy a park and actually let's put it straight up. It was not even the the issue to buy. It was to lease a park for x amount of years. Not even be able to buy. And that's what I
said we do not lease. We try to purchase. And that's what my commission is probably going to want. So that it went back to the drawing table and that's why I thanked and his team for coming up with this thing and we got it on Monday when I saw
the page which is toward the end and saw that we had to pay a balloon payment for every piece of land after seeing the beautiful park which by the way I was amazed with what I saw. saw
the seven acres. I thought it was beautiful and it only added and by the way this is a presentation that they just did. They did the copies. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And uh >> thank you Norman. >> So when this happened,
we looked and I asked when the clarification came and I started to say but I didn't meet with them. they they were meeting with uh their team and when I asked in the evening on Monday, what
does this mean that we got on the first year $420,000 being paid? Is that going to the purchase of the land of the park? And then when it was explained to me it was that
we are they finally decided to sell but in selling they had to uh do it in a delay basis because we didn't have the money up front just to pay for the seven acres. So this is the instrument that they thought was presentable to us with
a balloon payment that comes out on this sheet. Do we have a copy of this? No, >> this was never provided to you guys. >> How how many years was the balloon? >> The balloon starts on the six. I'm sorry.
On the 10th year. Is that correct? Do you guys want to explain what you offered us? Please >> state your name for the record, sir, and welcome. >> Ra Rodriguez, property address 11239
Northwest Warf Terrace. I'm the owner of Cray, the property located on 112th Avenue in Flagger Street, consisting of 104 acres. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Questions, I guess. I don't know how how you have to guide me through this process. I don't know how this works.
I'm sorry. I'm a little bit nervous. Um, and you're going to see me a little bit jittery. Not because I'm nervous or afraid. It's because I'm a little bit angry. So, just bear with me. Okay. >> So, the the question is uh on the balloon payment that the mayor
referenced. My question was how many years was how what is the structure of that supposed loan? >> Okay. So the way that the original structure was the city told me that they don't have money to purchase the land. So I told them my first original thought
was let's lease it benefit to the city because since you don't have the money you lease it and at the end of the lease I would dedicate it to the city it'll be yours. They didn't want a lease. I was like okay um let me think of another idea. Then I prepared this idea which is
the idea that the mayor is uh representing which is the seven acres. I told him look you don't have the money to pay for the land. You do not. So what we'll do is from a legal standpoint we'll purchase you guys will purchase an acre a year. So you
don't have that balloon that huge payment upfront of buying all seven acres. You purchase we'll negotiate on the price. will lock in that price now and all you have to do is buy an acre a year for seven years. In addition to
that, it would be interest only. That way, you can afford the rate and I would sell seller finance it for you at whatever the rate was. I think we set it at 5.9 or 6%. That way, you have 10 years
of just paying interest. It's your land. you own it, but it's interest only at the end. Oh, by the way, and advertised over 50 years. It's a 50-year amortization. >> So, 40 after the first 10,
>> correct? So, then at year, but it's a balloon payment. And on year 10 through all the other sources that I was going to help the city produce through uh bonds, through dividend bonds, through revenue bonds, through grants,
through the CRA that they want to develop, you can at the end of the 10 years purchase the land because you have it. And why? This doesn't cost the city one penny because the project itself funds the acquisition of the land with
time each year. So as of right now, let's say today you want to purchase the first acre. The revenue that's being generated from low abnor 2 and lower four, lower two and lower three can pay for the financing of the first acre. Next year we start building four, five and six, god willing, depending on how
everything goes, you can purchase another acre and an acre and an acre and an acre. I do have the presentation and I'll be more than willing to share it with you guys. Um, if you want, I can print it out. I have it right here. Uh, I I only have I'm sorry. >> That's fine. Let me let me just stop
you, by the way. So, thank you for that. Um, and if you if you don't mind, just hang out there for a second. Mr. Mayor, >> do we have an interest to buy park? Is this park park land? >> Well, >> green space.
>> We have to have green space. And if you guys believe that we do not need green space, but I think green space is important. And from what I got from all of you, each one of you said you wanted parks and you wanted to make sure that that park was represented. I followed the lead that you guys gave me and
that's what I've negotiated on. Now, Raul has done his part and he's absolutely correct. I did say that leasing is something that this city might not have the taste for. we would prefer to buy but within the time span
that we need and the part that is missing and I want Scott could you come up here please if you don't mind >> step away >> if I could Mr. President, >> you have it. >> The idea of purchasing the parkland was
not something that was brought forth by the city. So you understand that the city was in a position that we need to have parks. We don't want a cement jungle out there is is the directive that we had. First, it was
no option to get parks other than some two acres uh in in the whole project. Then it became we will lease the the property to you. That didn't go too far
because the mayor expressed the desire that we don't like to lease. We'd like to buy. And then the proposal was what Mr. Rodriguez just said, "We'll go ahead and sell you and these this is the option. I will sell or finance. You pay
the the the interest, which is $428,000 per year on and then it adds up. Um, and that's where the heartbreak kind of happened. Um because there's a credit
that would be due that they owe the city on the park on the park and concurrency and impact which is about $10.5 million. They wanted to use that or towards the end once all of the property is purchased to
develop the park. The city countered on that and said, "Well, we'd like to use those $10.5 million at the beginning to pay for the interest that you're asking us for." So,
we will consider the one acre per year. We will consider the seller financing. We will consider advertised over 50 years. We'll consider the interest payments. But instead of having to write a check, which was the advice of of your
finance director, we would like that to come from the credit so that we don't have to write a check. So that's where the negotiations kind of fell apart. >> We met again this morning. There was no agreement reached this morning. And then now there has been a
new offer made which is also purchase but this changed because I believe now it's we will give you two acres. you have to give us a credit for the value of two acres and then we have to talk about valuation and things like that. So the answer to your question of how do we
end up offering to buy it's because there has been no other option at this point offered other than you can buy. >> Thank you for that explanation. >> One little piece to add that you asked for, Mr. President, and I didn't quite
answer. You said that it's a lot of land and I agree because it's very expensive land in the middle of day county and whether it's 16.5 acres or 23 point acres we always try to work with a developer to
just get at least a couple of acres so we have a park in the middle and that's where everything came into play and who's going to pay how is it going to be leased it's going to be purchased and so on. So it's not that we weren't considerate because we were
more than considerate based on exactly the way you were actually talking about it and where the the whole thing came apart and like I said I said it earlier there's been a new proposal uh we just started looking at it but it was time to come up to the meeting now
the idea is here that whatever project as whether the land is whether I was very appreciative when I saw that they were looking at a linear park of 7 acres because I think that that's what the whole idea was to have that green space
and to have that ability to have a beautiful project which you saw in the paper that they just handed out. Now 7 acres we had the option to be able to buy one acre, two acre, three acres depending as
to how far we wanted to go. And in in turn, we will use the money that we're giving some of the credit to to then upset that. And no money will come out because the way this is proposed, we have $420,000
the first year and then it goes to 840 and so on and so on. This is like he said and I respect what he's saying. You know, this is money that is to lock up the land and so on, but it's coming out of our coffers.
It's money that we're paying for land and to lock it up, but it comes out of the Avalor money to pay for this. And so what Scott is going to present is I had a counter back and say, "Gentlemen, I understand everything you're saying and
in order for us to move forward just like Caesar Express, let's find a way first to save the value because one thing is the value and that's why the interest payment is asked for to hold the land like if we own it and start
paying interest only payments not against the balloon interest only payments to hold that purchase and hold the price that we had that we still got to get a um appraisal because we have to by our code because
we just can't go to something somebody says. Once we get that appraisal, then we go ahead and then move forward with the credits that we have to wash that out because it's supposed to be internal. That was a counter offer we
had today. We had a meeting to discuss that back and forth and discuss our positioning on it and then we just got this counter offer back now. So, this is where we're at. It's not that we're trying to say uh it's bad, good, or
indifferent. We're saying exactly what is being negotiated. Could you explain? >> Well, before you before you explain, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, that is the best explanation that that is the most informed I have been in the last year and a half when it comes
to this project. So, thank you, Caesar. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I don't know if you'll agree. I finally got some information. So, uh, that's what I'm looking for. That's what my colleagues are looking for. Um, and when when Mr. Mayor, when
you said, "Well, that's what you asked for about the parks." Well, I don't know that because I don't speak to I can't speak to >> This is what this meeting was for. >> So, that's exactly why I called um for this workshop because I want everybody to make an informed decision. So, I appreciate it. Uh you wanted to
give Scott the microphone, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, I wanted to do that, but before I did, um the packages that you guys have received before is basically what we received, the ones that were passed through to you. The only difference is
this that was given to us and this is an ongoing project. It's you know so I didn't want to bring something but I'm more than happy to make copies of this and give it to you but I thought the presentation which by the way now you have a copy of what they put together
before you to answer what you asked in the beginning of the meeting. >> Yeah I would have preferred uh more documentation >> as we would have too. Yeah, I would have preferred uh what we had in first reading because I have a lot of questions. Uh I'll give you an example.
Um in first reading, I didn't see um an alcohol variance because I know there's restaurants and there's a school and per law you can't you can't sell alcohol unless you provide a variance. Well, that's not in the master agreement. >> So why wasn't that in the first
agreement? We don't want >> the the idea was to work on a noise and alcohol ordinance after the master development agreement. That that was the the idea. And one more thing just for what it's worth.
I too believe that the code is not meant for this type of situation. When we were talking about the 1.45 four or five acres. Um I think that it never took into account a smaller or an area of of of land being so dense and also I don't
believe that the monetary contribution reflect accurately reflects the value that it should at this point either. So I think there should be some changes >> about the monetary >> it's about $260,000 per acre. >> $160,000 for something that is worth in
today's world. What what are we talking about monary >> the monetary the monetary payment that you have to make >> if you don't >> for the concurrency >> this number >> so if you don't do parks you have to pay >> you have to pay 6.2 million right
>> correct okay um to clear that up for you >> got it just a head nod or no yes or no uh are you willing to pay $6.2 $2 million. Yeah, that was quick. >> Yeah. I >> And to to in respect to to Mr. Rodriguez, he stated from the beginning,
>> you just give us the money and, you know, we deal with it. But that the idea here is to try to work together so we could have a park and make his project. It's going to be a beautiful project, but make it even better and both sides could balance and we do the job that we have to do. >> Now, this is an important conversation.
Hold before you. Um, you asked for the chair and I skipped you completely. Do you want to talk? Do you want to say anything? No, I I wanted to Yeah, >> sure. Go ahead. >> Um Scott, what will be the cost if if we let's say we we agree with this project right now?
So, what we got here? What will be the cost for the city and what will be the cost for us as a as a as a city, you know, to pay the land? And >> we don't know yet. We have to get an appraisal, >> right? But let's say >> we we would like to and we know we had a
counter. >> We would like to cap it, no more than but at the appraised value, the average of the appraised values because that's what the code requires and that's what frankly good government is. You go by the independent experts and you pay them what they say it's worth, not well we
really like this guy or we really don't like this guy. So you you leave it to the experts and give us an appraisal. It could be anywhere from $3 million to 4 million to 5 million to 6 million to 7 million depending upon the instructions that are given the appraiser highest and
best used at what date and then we would like to be able to use the credit that we have to purchase as much land as we can. The idea is to use the money that's being developed from this project from the impact fees on this project. If we
don't get the money for this project, for this project, if we don't get any land, then we have to spend it somewhere else, but we're going to have 16,000 residents there without a park. So, we want to give them a park. We want to make sure we do it in a responsible manner without bankrupting the city.
>> That's that's the point that I'm wanting to get. And so we're trying to say we'll use we'll commit to a purchase amount of a certain amount that we know we can afford and we'll take an option on the additional acres with hopefully not causing too much development
uh upheaval because any options obviously make their project in flux if we don't exercise those options. They don't want to get stuck with an anchor here or there at the end of the linear park despite the fact that we want a Shake Shack there. We're not going to get one. Um, and so
>> why not why not seek >> it's not really compatible with that development. May maybe there'll be a tenant who's a Shake Shack, but we're not going to have an out parcel with a drive-thru. Um, so, you know, we want to make this work for everybody. We don't want to end up with something that's that's not a pleasant experience for the
people that live there and might visit there. We all want to get to the same place and as Commissioner Moss used to say, we all want to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Um, I think we can get there. We're just not there yet. But we've got we've made significant progress, but it's a huge project. It's
a complicated project. We want to make sure we, as the mayor always says, you know, dot the eyes and cross the tees so that at the end when none of us are here 10 years from now, >> 10 years, I'm I'm not saying all of you,
but me and you know, I'm I'm going to tell you 10 years from now, I'm hoping to be alive, but I'm pretty sure I ain't going to be here. >> Wow. >> I'll be 70 plus. I'm not going to do 50 years of public service. I've already done that. >> Oh, now I know what you're saying. Okay. I thought you were killing all of us. >> No, no, no. I intend to take care of you guys like
that. >> You want to do this right so that your successors aren't looking at you and blaming you and saying, "God, we got screwed because we didn't pay attention." And the only way to do that is to sit down and go over the fine details. We're a long way from that, but we've made a lot of progress. And I
think we can still do it without holding him up and with giving the city certainty so that you're not risking your uh future property taxes and on adorum and he's not risking his development opportunity and the money that he would like to make that is his right to make that we all want to make
if we had this opportunity. But we want to make sure the city makes sure that the future residents have parkland because it's not based on how many acres he has, it's how many people you want to shove in there. make it single family homes, the parkland demand will go way,
way down because you'll have far fewer people. But if you're going to put 15,000 people in there, you need a place for them to walk around and have recreational opportunity because otherwise if we don't have a park here and he gives us all that money, I got to
buy a park somewhere else. >> Got it. >> I really like to put the park where the people are >> and I think he wants to, too. Everybody has the best of intentions. >> Thank you. Uh, one second, Scott.
You said a key phrase there. You said we wanted to cap it. >> I don't want the city to risk committing to buying seven acres >> at an unlimited amount of appraisal 10 years from now and say, "Oh, hey, you need you owe the you owe them $60 million."
>> I understand. So, do you have a cap figure? >> Yes, I do. >> And what is that number? >> Well, we were at 7 million. I'm allowed six, but I'm taking seven. That's where we were before. We have a difference of opinion about how much the land is worth, and that's why you hire an independent expert.
>> So, here's here's my question. So, anybody who deals in real estate is going to go ahead and do an appraisal, right? Are we are we doing the appraisal based on the current zoning? Are we doing the appraisal based on after zoning? Are we doing the appraisal based
on uh HB 102? >> SB 102 is one of their proposals. We can't say that you can't consider state law when we instruct the appraiser to ignore state law. We can tell them ignore the current zoning that was a
gift to the developer but pay attention to SB 102 and use this date of valuation and that's where we're in the negotiations because obviously that makes a difference about how much the property is worth. >> Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions? >> Mr. President, >> I do.
>> Hold on one second please. Go ahead, Commissioner. Um Scott, we're when you say um you use some word, but we're we're owed and my language may be wrong. Impact fees is 34 million.
>> The total comp uh calculated amount due to the city would be that. Yes. >> Okay. Can we is it possible to offset the cost of parks? I I would like a park. I would like for us to have a significant sized park there so that the children that are going to live in this
amazing community have a place to play. So parks is is very high to me. It's very important to me as I as I believe it's probably important to you. Um can they do a prepay so that the interest of that prepaid covers our cost
to to buy this this land? >> We can do all kinds of things. We can negotiate whatever we want. What I'm trying to keep is from the city to have to write a check in the beginning. Three or four years from now after we bought a couple acres, we might say, "Wow, we've
gotten into quite a good place and we got a grant from the state of Florida or this foundation. We have our CRA created." There's all types of opportunities, but we can lock down a certain amount now, have the options in the future, and then the city doesn't have to say, "I'm guaranteeing I'm going
to buy this for this price. We can only spend the money that we have coming in, which is this credit. And if we can reach a deal, the city can acquire the property without putting money out of pocket in the beginning. Eventually, if you want to get all seven acres, you're probably going to have to come up with
some money, but we don't have to cross that bridge yet. And we don't have to commit ourselves to buying something that we might not be able to afford. We know we can afford a couple acres for a few years. A few years out, give us the time. We'll figure out a way to buy
more, but we're not going to also make the city locked in to where if all of a sudden the state legislature decide, hey, you know, property taxes aren't just bad for homeowners, they're bad for businesses, too. Well, that would have a little bit of a different impact on us. So, we don't want to commit to something
that we can't afford, but we would like to get something that we can afford out of the credits that we're going to offer. >> I I I did um Mr. Rodriguez, can can you >> elaborate >> on your financing piece?
>> Do I have to state my name again? >> No, I I think you're I think we all know who's >> Can I approach uh the council? >> You can do whatever you want, man. >> Okay. Th this was our last uh bit of negotiations to go straight to the point
between the city and ourselves. Uh I will give credit to the city. They're trying really hard to meet us somewhere in the middle. This is the last proposal. This is not what's been agreed upon, but this is the last proposal. And if I'm incorrect,
just more than willing jump in and but this is the last as of 555 pretty much give or take. >> All right. If it's wrong, by all means. This is something that we were we were going back and forth. The basically the
way that they're trying to get at is two acres by using our impact fees, right? Our total impact fees plus our concurrency which is equaling on a round number $11 million. Are we all on the same page there? So basically for the
whole project that I'm building, I owe the city $11 million for parks. Are we good so far with that? Round number, guys. I'm going to say round numbers. I'm not going to the penny. I >> uh hold what you got real quick.
>> So is the 11 million that that's not that means you're going to build parks. You're going to do parks. I want to make sure I'm I'm tracking with you. >> No, that's not what that means. >> So you pay imp as a developer, you pay impact fees.
>> Understood. >> In that impact fee bucket, there's line items for police, for parks, etc., etc., etc. In the line item for parks, the whole development needs to pay the city
$11 million for parks. Just that one line item. It's that's why Scott said 34 million. Correct. Give or take. >> No, that's the total number. >> Yeah. >> Correct. Correct. So from that 34 that he mentioned, 11 million go to park. Now
that doesn't mean I pay that money upfront, right? That means that I pay it for each structure that I build. So that $11 million will be paid out through the course of the life of the project. So if I build the project in five years,
you'll re receive in total $11 million in five years. If it takes me 15 years to build the project, you will receive $11 million within those 15 years. Are we good so far with that? Okay. So the proposal is two acres that the city
wants me to sell them for that in impact fee credit. Right? So basically saying, "Hey Raul, don't pay us that that impact fee. >> We take a credit. >> Give us two >> but give us the two acres." >> Right? Now the issue with that and
that's where the debate is back and forth saying well your code says that you need to do an appraisal and I have to do an appraisal because I have a fiduciary responsibility. So there the negoti this is all negotiation. If I'm saying something wrong he's the attorney and I have all the attorneys here right?
They're going to get to appraisals. I'm going to get to appraisals. the one constant which means across the board for all four appraisals which I think we're all in agreeance is going to be based there's several ways to do an appraisal right so this one appraisal will
basically be done using the SB 102 why are you familiar with SB 102 yes >> go ahead and just speak about it >> okay SB 102 is a state statute that basically allows developers to build affordable housing without having to go through the city or through the county
So I by right have the opportunity to build affordable housing and workforce housing in that project. Yes. So that's the denominating factor because I would say I want an appraisal based on the highest and best use, right? Because I'm the developer obviously and I now have my bucket of rights and I want to do
that. That has me here. Yes. So far the city defending the city says, "Well, no. It's because of us that you have that. It should be based on land value, strictly land value only." Well, that's not fair either because that's not the case. You'll never find seven acres or two acres for that matter to purchase
anywhere in the city. So, I think we're coming into an a a an average of saying, okay, what's the denominating factor, okay, across the board, the city acknowledges and I acknowledge that SB 102 is that middle ground. Does that make sense between the different types of appraisals that you can do? If I'm
not explaining myself properly, I'm I'm not an attorney. I don't do this at all. Just let me know. Okay. Um, so you're there. you're stuck on that SB 102. That gives us a denominating factor for all four appraisals are going to be done. All those four appraisals because the city's going to have their
appraisers and I'm going to have my appraisers and the prices are going to be different even though we use SB 102, right? And that's when we sit down and we negotiate again the price and we find that common denominator. I'm humbly worried for the city that if we use that denominator, the city's
going to end up paying more. Right? I could be wrong, but that's why by doing that, we set a minimum, right? And that's where the argument is back and forth with Scott between him and I. I'm saying, "Well, the base price should be seven or the" and he's like, "No, it should be five or six or we're going
back and forth." My justification to that pricing, and if I'm talking too much, just stop me. It's okay. Uh, is hold on. you wanting to buy that land using impact fees, even though it's $11 million. Let's say,
let's say for round numbers, for for me to benefit me, it's $14 million. For two acres, that's 7 million an acre, right? So far so good. But from an impact fee standpoint, you're not I'm not having to pay that money up front. That's over the course of the life of the project. So
the valuation of that dollar as each year goes by goes down. Does that make sense? So that basically means that in let's say an average of 10 years that $7 million that I technically paid for or you paid for, you really didn't pay 7
million. You paid four or three. Why? Because of the valuation of the dollar goes down. As each year goes up, the value of the property goes up. Yes. So far so good. Hope I'm not losing anybody. We're good, right? >> So that's the negotiation. This is all
about negotiation, right? We're getting am I so far? I think they're going back and forth. >> I don't want to set a minimum. I want to set a max. >> So, and and he's right. He doesn't want to set a minimum, but I I don't I I want a minimum as
well, but our minimums is what's off, right? He wants to put it at 2 million. I'm like, "No, the minimum is going to be six or seven because that's what the land value is worth now." Yes. So, that's all the fighting back and forth, but that's for two acres. And you want it in regards to the tax
credit, right? The impact fee credit. Now, what happens if the impact fee credit is not enough based on the appraisal. So, if the appraisal comes in, those two lands are worth I'm $20 million or 17 or $15 million. Then the
city's going to have to come up with that difference. That's where the negotiation happens, right? Okay. Well, you're giving me $11 million in credit, but the property is worth 14. So, where's the other $3 million going to come from? Then we're going to go back and negotiate back and forth and back and forth. So far so good. >> Yes, sir.
>> So, we're just waiting on I guess what the next steps are. I was not in that meeting this morning. I apologize. So, that's two acres. Are we any question? I'm going to try to break this up in bits to see if if I can get everybody on board. That's the two
acres. Are we good so far with that? Any questions on the two acres? >> QSK, bro. All right. So then the next thing is the next five acres because they want seven acres because everybody sees that beautiful project there that
we did to accommodate the city. So no one can ever say from the very get-go that I wanted a concrete jungle, right? And you've all seen it. It's a beautiful project. You all saw it, right? You have it there in front of you. >> It's all right. >> It's okay. So in those seven acres, the remaining
five acres, that's where we're negotiating now. And this is something that we've been doing between the city and and us right in the past 48 hours give or take. Yeah. >> Okay. So those five acres that are pending what I'm gathering here is
basically saying hey let's secure the two acres now give us an option to buy those five acres in the future. And what we'll do is in the future according to this and this is the back and forth again that we're doing is and the you're you're securing our two acres now based
on the appraisal today right the other five will whenever it is that we decide to pull the trigger on those five is when we'll do another appraisal on those five right and based on the appraisal those five two and two is we'll enter negotiation and find a price for those five there whenever it is within a
fiveyear window right that's what we're negotiating within a fiveyear that I'm giving the city the opportunity to purch purchase it if they want it. So, I'm basically holding land for 5 years with the hopes and aspirations, and trust me when I tell you, I really
want the city to buy it. There is no one here, no one, and I'll say it again, no one that wants this project to happen this way more than I do. And if there is, come up here and challenge me on it happily. So, I want the city to buy. I want this
park to get built. My issues with this is if you use those impact fees now and you secure them, then what the heck are you going to use to develop the property, the park, because what you have there is land. There's nothing there. You have to demuck, you have to put more fill, you have to put sod, you
have to put whatever it is you're going to do, playgrounds, etc., etc., etc., etc. And that's basically what that impact fees are supposed to be used for, right? That was my idea. But we're here now and we're here. We're almost here. I I really feel according to what my team
is saying that we have an opportunity. So those five acres in the future within five years, you'll have the opportunity to come back here. We'll go an appraisal. We'll go back to negotiation back and forth and close the deal there. Then the last item, number three. I
don't think I've skipped anything here. If I have team, please let me know. All right. Number three. Are we good? Sorry. Are we good with the concept of those five acres? >> I have all the time. I'm I love talking about this. We're good. Okay. Item number three.
Item number three are the little nuances, right? Basically, well, I would like with the city to work together as a team to come up with a beautiful design, a beautiful plan to build the park, but at the end of the day, I would like to develop it. I want to build it. It's
purely because of the love that I have for the park, for this project, and honestly for the city because I know I can do it better, faster, and cheaper. Again, I'll challenge anybody on it. That's the little nuance. They're like, "No, we don't want to do that. We'll do
this." So, that's one of the things we're arguing back and forth with. and then what can be done on the property. If we're doing the park as as George mentioned and Scott, there's 15,000 people on that site. So, we have to make sure that we control a lot of the things that are going on there. I
don't want a festival every single weekend and noise until 2:00 in the morning every single day because of the park, right? There should be a that park should be held to a standard above anything else in the city. Why? Because it will be the central park of the city.
So, as a team, we decide what can be done and what will not be done. Good so far. Let me stop you real quick. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, in the in the MSA,
have you guys received any density bonuses? >> So, that's a no. >> I would not have the answer to that. >> Okay. And and would it benefit you as a developer to have density bonuses?
>> I'm sorry. Say that again. I apologize. >> Would it benefit your project to have density bonuses? >> We if I could. >> We Yes. A whole new district >> that has created a district specific to our development program. So, >> and you have the matrix attached to it
also. And then you have a maximum of 105 units per acre. >> I hear you. But but it doesn't answer my question. My question was if we increase your density, does it benefit your development? >> We're going to answer my first question
and then you'll understand why. I'm going to land the plane right now. Right now we're looking at the runway. >> If this project was not limited based on the traffic counts that we have and the traffic matrix, then of course the obvious answer would say yes. But again, as this project started from the very
get-go from traffic counts, I think that in working with the city and even in the zoning categories that we created, we have the appropriate density locked in and vested for this project. >> And the reason why I mentioned this, and I'm sorry that I'm interrupting, it's just there's a lot going on. There's a lot of information. This is the first
time we're able to really exchange and communicate. I've said from the beginning of this project that I expect concessions I expect the city to give the developer concessions.
Um, this is not a normal developer. This is somebody who has been in this city for many, many, many years. It's not like just building stuff. Um, and I won't get into to that, but I I've said
it. I expect concessions. So, my first question, Mr. Mayor, have we given any concessions in any negotiation? What do you mean by concession, Mr. President? >> I'll give you an example. Um, if we do um so when when I talk about density and
they said if we go ahead and increase density, it benefits the developer, right? It also gives the developer more ability to make money and then you can go ahead and pencil a deal for parkland. >> Okay. on the concession for density when
it was brought to us and it was already discussed is this 6,000 units. The matrix that comes along with this was open-ended because if you take out the hospital or you take out these several other things, it could be
replaced with living facilities, >> right? So then that's is where we brought to you the cap of the 10,500 units max according to the whole projects so it could switch out. That is a concession that we worked with that is
more than what they put on the paper. But the matrix was showing a lot more that could be done. And so we wanted to make sure based on exactly what the lawyer had just explained and so on that we would get at least a density that
could be tolerable and it comes out to then 105 I believe is it 105 units per acre. So, that's a pretty decent uh consensus if I were to look at it because we want this project built and
when we know the cost of construction has gone up quite a bit and so on, we do not want to make it a concrete jungle and I know that the developer doesn't want to make it a concrete jungle. So, there it's a good uh I think explanation
and consensus to your your question, Mr. President. >> Thank you. Um, >> to the chair, >> Commissioner Seldius. >> Yes, we're talking about the park. What What do we think to do on that park? What do we Is it a line park? Cuz I see here like a little thing here that
with trees and stuff. That's it, right? >> Can you I I don't know what you're looking at. I'm sorry. >> No, I'm looking at this right here. >> Yeah. Okay. What is it exactly? >> And it's the L >> L. >> That's the park. What is it going to be in the park? Is that going to be a baseball field or soccer field? Sure, that's something that would be discussed
between the city and and the developer and the council. Obviously, in my recommendation, whenever it's time to build the park, I would like to sit down with each of the council members and say, "Hey, what would you like to have in a park?" >> Okay. But, but go ahead. So just to
finish that point, as part of our negotiations, we have referenced that when the time is ready to develop the project, we will have a park improvement agreement where both the developer and the city will then talk about the programming of the park. That is at the time that the development will be ready. >> Mr. Commissioner.
>> Yes, sir. Also to Mr. President, >> you have it. >> Also, as uh the developer and the attorney said when the time comes, but this is a moment as a workshop for us to hear in front of everybody. If
you have something that you want to discuss now or state now or put in the record that you want to see, this is also what this meeting is about. >> No, the mayor. Well, basically what I'm looking here because I'm looking at the park here. It's just like a lenient park. >> Correct. >> It's, you know, and and you know, we're
talking about parks, but it's just a walk through park. I mean, >> it's called again like the develop >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. as the developers have put down. We're going to be looking at that in the future to see because even had an
option to have an amp theater in one side and who knows a little water park on the other side, whatever. But that also we're looking at developing a park somewhere between 8, nine or 10 years when this project is to the point that
the buildings are not being built. Got >> and that's when we're going to be looking at a park. Am I >> right? So to to answer the question, it's called a pass what they call a passive park. Passive park is basically shade area with large developed trees
and shrubbery with walk paths, maybe a a kids playground area, some vitors and benches around. That's basically your standard v uh passive park. And you saw some of the images that Alex put on there in regards to that's very popular in Europe because of land. So they'll do
lineal parks and that actually happened during the areas where they had canals and the canals will be empty and they develop these long lineal parks that people can run for long distances if you're familiar. I think you're pretty familiar in Spain. Correct. It's it's a it's a it's a very European concept but because of the design remember this
project has gone through multiple designs. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Okay. Now, that's not being said that in the future, it's a linear park, but it's wide enough that if for whatever reason the council and the administration wants to put
tennis courts and other items, they can. >> Right. There there is that possibility. But with those possibilities comes a financial responsibility as well, right? So, it all depends on what the city wants to spend or can generate via bonds or additional revenue from the city. >> Mr. Mayor, you want a word?
>> Yeah. You know, we all want I think everybody in this whole room here wants to see the very best thing, but we all have a task to do. The developer is going to try to develop and build a park, not a park, a
whole development. And in in end this whole process like he said and I totally agree that the very best is what not only he wants as the president said it's not just any developer a person that has been part of Sweet Water for a very long
time but our goal is also as has been said before to find solutions and to deal within the code to try to find the very best that we can and within everything that has been brought to us so far and again this was delivered
maybe an hour and something just before this meeting and we're going to go over it and go more in depth in it. But you know just like when we do the credits that are given those credits are being given to them now
and when we're looking for the value for the park and I think we're coming into conclusion as as uh uh Ro said Mr. Rodriguez is to try to find a way to work this together. But we also need to set the value now because one thing is
the value of the of the park now and the commission president asked a question is it this way with this or with that or which way is this value going to that's part of what we need to negotiate. Second that needs to be done now because it's not the same the value of the land
right now than the value of the land 9 to 10 years from now. it's going to be a lot more. So, our goal here is not only to find a middle ground, as I I thank uh Sir Rodriguez for stating that that we're trying to get to the middle
ground, but also to fight for the citizens as to what they want and what we swear to do and that's what we're trying to do here. This is why it takes a little longer and Mr. President, as far as all the paperwork and everything, it's kind of hard to keep it up to date
when it's constantly changing. But I promise you, as we continue to go forward, you will get every single piece of paper that we get. I'll make copies and send it to you guys and then we'll have to explain it to you and back and forth as the developer will. >> I'll take a hard copy, please.
>> Okay, I hear you. So, this is the part that this meeting was created. So you guys could ask for the things that you you need to because of sunshine. We can't do it, you know, one
with the other and stuff. This is to hear what you want because we're trying to negotiate the very basic things that some of you have told me that you want to see, but we need to hear from you as to what you want. As far as the
agreement is concerned, we're pretty much getting there. We're just differences of actually how we're going to pay and stuff, but I don't think we're still trying to figure out how we do this that it doesn't come the money
out of our coffers to pay for interest that will not go to a principal amount and not come out of the car to see how we can balance that. And that's where we're at. We're trying to figure out with the credits that we're giving and
what we're doing. And like Mr. Rodriguez said, we're very close and we're getting there, but we need to figure out what I also would like to hear from you guys is really what you want to see. And you were mentioning the park, and I know that's very special
with you, Commissioner Diaz, as it is with everybody up here. >> But the developer has stated something that I think is going to be beautiful. is a linear park European style or whatever you want, whatever way you want to say it. It's a linear park with a
passive park with the trees, the walkway. And by the way, I think it'll also help the neighbors adjacent to this area. I know that uh one of the commissioners lives very close to there and so on. whether it's, you know,
playgrounds too on there or whatever it is, that's something that we can negotiate down the road. But the value of this, how we acquire it, how do we do this, so when it's ready and it goes before you
for a vote, it's a discussion that we're trying to fine-tune and get to that point. >> Uh, did I miss >> Yep. >> anything? I got no I got something. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Caesar, based on what you just got, you just got this uh document
just now. Yes. Correct. >> Based on what you see here now, how how everything looks, does it look good? Does it because I we just got this now. >> Honestly, I think something that we need to have like another um Shay meeting. >> Yeah. What what what I would suggest and
and respectfully would be is there an appetite >> Yes. for this last offer. >> Um, so that we can have some direction and ask continue this one because we seem to be talking about >> the prior offer and this offer.
>> I think we need to identify which one >> we just got this document right now. >> So, you know, you just got it too, correct? >> Correct. >> So, you know, I think we we can do another, Mr. President, if we can do another shape meeting uh based on what we just got now. Oh, we have to,
>> you know, and then talk about it because we just got this now >> and you just got another proposal or another document >> a few minutes ago like an hour ago like you said. >> In your hand. >> So, you know, I would just >> just to give you an example, Commissioner, if you don't if you allow
me. >> Go ahead. >> When we were looking and it was going back and forth and by the way, I I did like Scott mentioning that you guys are dressed alike and everything else. I I I thought that that was a a good plus there. It's done on purpose. >> On purpose. There you go. >> Unity.
>> So, uh, with that said and done, first is what we looked at said here on, uh, on the first item number one, the second dot, just off the top of my head, it it I was reading it and it says to park to value at the greater of the average of
the appraisals, no less than >> 6 million. >> 6,000. >> 6 million. >> No less >> 6 million. >> 6 million. >> 6 million. >> 6 million. I'm sorry. No less than 6 million. So I would look back and I say guys, it's not no less is no more than 6
million. >> Okay, the negotiation just to give you an example. And that's something that we go back and forth and discuss. And you know what? That's what the the negotiations are about. So I just used an example as I looked at it. I know he went through the whole thing
>> and he was asking for questions and I respect that. But as I I take another look and glance That all depends on how we get the appraisal and we're going back and forth on that. But we have to do it to our code. >> Exactly. >> And he he has to do it too >> and we got to make sure that it's
appropriate. So later on there is no question why didn't you pay attention to this? Why didn't you do this? >> Look, I I I don't want to rush on this like we all here are new on this. This is the first time the city I think the history of the city of Sweetwater that
has a big project like this and there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of movement parts here. You're talking about parts, you're talking about um uh streets, we we're talking about how many people are going to be there. You know, it's it's a
lot of information for me. So, you know, like I said, we just got this this paper right now and and I think we should just leave it up to you guys to look at it, study it, see what we got, and then we also going to look at it and see what we
are, you know, talk to them and see what uh where they at because that's a lot of information that we just got. >> So, let me uh Are you >> Yeah, I'm I'm done. Go ahead. Uh Commissioner Ray, I'm I'm gonna give you the floor now. I just want to say something. Um,
I understand how you feel and I understand how frustrated you are. I am just as frustrated because I like having data. I like having papers. I like having information. But, um, now we're at second reading on
Monday. Um, Ro, I don't know if if if um, >> sorry, sorry. I don't know if this benefits you and if you don't want to answer this question then don't. >> Uh year to date,
how much have you spent on this project? >> $123 million. >> So now let's just analyze that real quick. It's $123 million and they're still not done with demolition. We have second reading on Monday.
At any moment, at any moment, we can reconvene after passing second reading and we can amend something. Hold on. If we continue to delay this, this is my fear.
My fear is he has a fiduciary obligation. Obviously, we have a legal obligation and an oath. We have to have a symbiotic relationship with the developer. Now, I've had private conversations with the developer
and his team. And there are a lot of things that we do not agree on. There are things that I refuse to concede. And obviously, he doesn't like that. But our job is to fight for the city. But if we don't pass this in second
reading on Monday, we're gonna end up costing him more money. And now his financial instrument is going to be it's going to be kind of difficult because ultimately a $4.5 billion
development has to be done in phases. So this is why I've been pushing for this workshop. And by the way, the mayor's already asked three times, what are you guys asking for? I haven't gotten to that part yet. I'm gonna Everybody knows what I'm gonna ask for. There's not It's not a secret here what I'm gonna ask
for. >> Um, but I I I just wanted to to plant that seed in you. >> Um, because I am for moving this thing forward on Monday in second reading and passing it. We can always amend it later
on. Again, I will I will do whatever the the majority of the will of the commission is. I'm just telling you where I am. I just wanted to make that statement. But I do want to give Commissioner Ray the floor if that's okay with you. Commissioner, >> may I may I answer that real quick? >> Give me one second. Let me He's been waiting patiently. Commissioner Ray, you have the floor.
>> So, real quickly, I wanted to touch base on this report that's here that it's the counter offer uh the first two year first two acres and then five years. >> To be honest, I don't I don't think it would be smart to wait the five years. I
think that would be crazy in one way to wait to the fourth year or third year cuz it could ultimately cost a city way more than $6 million per acre. So, I'm not saying a lock in a price or anything. I I kind of I agree
with you. You know, it's not something I'm not trying to hinder this project um past Monday. I wholeheartedly want him to get started as quickly as possible. I do want to see already things going on and being built there and, you know, getting out there. I don't I'm not
trying to hinder anything, but I'm I'm seeing that this is the only thing that's hindering something for Monday, a park. Is that >> is that the only thing that's hindering? >> May I? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for being here. >> Thank you. >> I caution you that once this passes to
get another meeting and to do I think that we need to do a process. The only reason why this is on Monday is because we had to state a date to put it on. Am I correct, Mr. Attorney? And we put it there. But we haven't even gone into the transportation and detailed all that
yet, which is a big amount. You just said it yourself. You have many disagreements. And those disagreements we need to hamper out and make sure before this project goes. I con I would love to hurry this as much
as I can but our fidiciary duty does not allow us just to skip things to make it a back meeting further down the road. We have to work out the majority of the things that we need to do ahead to make
sure that this agreement I want. One of the reasons that I make sure and when I was talking in negotiations with the developer, Mr. Rodriguez, one of the things that's not being held up is the other three buildings to be
built. We said, "Go ahead. will work with you to make sure those buildings get built. But we need to make sure that this agreement overall is at least to the point that it needs to be. And as to the question of the park and the land in the future, whether it's three years,
four years to go ahead and purchase, we got to make sure that we lock in the rate now just like when we did, the benefits are locked in already ahead of time. It's only fair. So that's the balance that we need to get forward.
Now, I will tell this commission, I don't see this going forward because we're still not anywhere close to coming up. We still have to draw a full agreement to present for you to be able to vote on. And that's not even done yet. And that's nothing that's something that these attorney will tell you right
now, it doesn't happen overnight, but we need to get these and we're very close to finishing these things, but we need to get that done properly and we need to work out the details. So, I want to I want to let you know that because we all want to see this thing getting done, but
this is not as we agreed this is not something that's going to be done within three four years total. No, this is a longterm program. So, the most important thing, and if I'm wrong, when you asked me for the other three buildings to be built, we said
we'll work with you to move as fast as we could on those. >> You cannot get a permit if this gets delayed, >> right? >> I'm sorry. I cannot move forward with the three buildings if we don't have an agreement. I cannot pull a permit. >> Right. >> So, let let me say this.
>> Let me say this, Mr. Mayor. >> So, if if I Oh, sorry. >> Let me say this, Mr. Mayor. So, by the way, what you're saying is 100% accurate, but here's where um here's where I think we can reach an
accord. and and both attorneys, our special counsel and our city attorney. In the master development agreement, we are excluding certain variables on purpose to be spoken about at a later date.
Correct. Variance, decibel, right? >> Variance, >> are alcohol variants, >> different items. Yes. >> Municipal offices, >> right? >> So follow me for a second. So where you
have reached an accord as the CEO of the city and the strong mayor where we have reached an accord binding that document where we have reached an an accord and excluding where we're having discord for a future date
would that not be legally sufficient? My issue is Florida statute 163 has certain things that have to go in there. Some of them relate to park impact fees, uh, concurrency, things of that nature.
If we don't have agreements on that, I think that we're we may run a file of the statute. So, that that that's my answer. Um, we also >> we're not far from it. >> We we also set the Monday hearing with
the hope that we would have everything finalized in time for that. But the agreement was if we do not have everything ready, which now we don't, we would postpone Monday. >> I understand what you're saying and I and I'll give you the floor, but here's
here's what I'm saying. At the beginning of this meeting, I asked the developer, "Are you willing to pay the $11 million for the park?" He goes, "Yeah." So, we put in the master development agreement per code. That's what he has to that's what he has to pay. Later on, we can go ahead and amend that. We're not we're
not violating anything. We're doing it. We're writing the master development agreement exactly how the code is written. Is that legally sufficient >> regarding the impact fees and regarding who's going to There's an issue regarding transportation. Some of our folks on
this side believe that we haven't addressed it yet. I think you'll hear from the developer that it has been addressed and it's being taken care of. But that's what I'm saying. We have we still have little disagreements. >> Let's hear them. >> What are they >> on the transportation? Yes, please.
Because I thought it was taken care of. >> Scott, you want to come up? >> Basically doing everything you guys want. The transportation is uh there are a number of projects that are committed to in the traffic study that have to be done and we are not
completely sure whose responsibility doing everything is and how that will shake out in terms of what developer credits for what roadways are eligible. I had a meeting with Miami date county today and I asked them how they would treat this um and what they would do and
their answer their answers were um different than what we had been expecting >> which were >> um that some things are eligible and some things aren't and they told us what they believe is eligible and they told us what they believe is not eligible and that's something we need to discuss with the developer and we need to discuss
with the mayor and we need to discuss with our traffic engineer and our city engineer. So, thank you for that. Scott, um, did you want to say something, Alex? >> By the way, before you speak, does any commissioner wish to make a comment?
>> Yeah. Scott, um, how long how long does it take to do a study? >> There's not a study that needs to be done. There have been numerous studies that have already been done. >> So, it's already done. >> The traffic studies require certain
transportation improvements to be built. that the developer submitted and he can speak to that. Um it's the same traffic person that we've been reviewing and the county's been reviewing the comments and we're trying to work through whose responsibility and what is the timing for doing this because we don't want to
get to an area where we're having certificate of occupancies issued and we don't have roadways completed. >> Gotcha. Who's >> Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. >> Who's going to put >> Who's Thank you. Who's going to pay for this intersection? who's not going to pay for
this intersection, who's going to do this part, who's not going to do it. That's something that we have to hash out and it's got to be clear. And I don't think we're far from that. We just want to be clear as to what is going to take place. >> Is the developer obligated to pay for any intersection? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> And we want to make sure that because it says it on the document that the city is responsible. So, we want to clear that out and we haven't had the time based on just going back and forth on some of these other things to get to that item. So hopefully that answer your question. >> No, it does. And and by the way, this is
an excellent exercise because I'm getting a lot of information, a lot of questions that I needed answered. Alex, you have the the floor. Go ahead. >> Yeah, and just to build on what Scott said, you know, the the traffic impact study has been completed, reviewed by
the city. We've received commentary and I think since the first hearing that we've had, we've represented here that we would be undertaking significant infrastructure improvements. What you have there is a detailed chart that has been provided to the city throughout
this um endeavor related to not only where the improvement is going to happen, but as you can see here, the responsible party and the timeline. One is in verbal form and the other is in a timeline chart that cannot get any more
detail with respect to where we're at in the process and when we these improvements would be undertaken. Again, there's $34 million of improvements that are being proposed here by the applicant of work being done on-site and off-site. And this is the specific the specific
chart mapping out exactly when those infrastructure improvements will occur. >> 43 million. Okay. That's all >> my dyslexia. >> Just 43. >> Yeah. What I mean? >> So, um I'm gonna I'm gonna change um
the topic from the park. Look, I think parks are great, >> but parks are not my priority. Police will and always be my priority. The safety and security of our residents. We have a dilapidated station. We have a
dilapidated city hall. It's 50 over 50 years old. Um, that is not your problem. That is our problem to contend with. I I would be more inclined to entertain a conversation of seller financing for the
the development of a police station, for the development of a city hall. Um, and and my list of priorities is police station before city hall. My colleagues may have others, but that's why there's seven of us. Um,
so you guys said something very interesting and I I suspect you won't be answering this question, but it it has to do with seller financing. Would that be to you, Alex, or would that be to So, okay. The developer. So,
when you mentioned um the seller financing the 10-year interest only and then 40-year interest in principal, did you say at 6%. >> Yes, sir.
>> Yes, sir. So, so um I'm trying to see I think I think crime is at 6.75 now. >> Can while you look for that, can I make a comment? >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. So, comment a couple things that
were mentioned here that I was hopefully having this opportunity to speak and again, thank you for the opportunity to speak >> in regards to transportation. This is new to me. First time I hear that comment, I'm putting in $43 million out of my pocket to improve the city's
infrastructure. And as our attorney said, Alex, it's an word document and it's in Excel with a timeline. Every time I meet a certain threshold, I have to build X. It's there, clear as can be.
So, what issue there is I I do not know. um news to me and I think news to my team. That's in regards to transportation. I'm not asking the city to help me pay for the transportation. I have to produce $43 million of infrastructure work for the city.
It's number one. Another comment was made about no but we have to pay money out of our coffers. At no point in time, no point in time does the city have to come out of pocket outside of the funds generated by this project.
The first year alone, this project is generating close to $1.6 million in benefit to the city. So, if you would finance, according to the first deal, you're paying the 420 and you're making 1.2.
and every year after that as each project gets built and that's why I'm humbly requesting to please hear us out on Monday because without that I cannot pull my permit to build four five and six to generate
more revenue for the city. It's what you guys have there right now is 100 acres of raw land. Let me make you guys look good. That's all I'm trying to do. Let me build this project. As you mentioned, as you can see, I'm not asking for any
concessions. The opposite. I'm giving you guys more and more and more. You see the project I'm building. You see what I'm trying to do for the community. Let me make you guys look good.
>> As you could see, each year, as every year goes by, the project generates more and more and more revenue for the city. The more I build, the more revenue it builds for the city. Not just in uh adalorum or taxes on occupational
licenses, sales tax, penny tax, hotel tax. All that goes to you guys. All I'm asking is give me the opportunity to build. >> I have a question. Um and I'm a bit confused. When I look at this document,
>> Yes, sir. And I look at the first line in the document. It says uh Northwest 127 Avenue and Northwest 6th Street. >> Why would you be improving that? >> I have to improve everything. >> But that's >> because it's called traffic, right?
Traffic flows. So you have to look for points in which you get exit out of an area. Guys, I'm not the traffic engineer. So if I'm saying something completely wrong, I apologize. But the way that it works is basically R you generate this much PM traffic and this
much AM traffic. Where are we dispersing that traffic to at what times, right? So, and it's based by traffic count. So, as I build more, that traffic count increases A.M. and PM. So, as each AM PM traffic count increases,
you have to designate that traffic count to a specific area of exit. Does that make sense the way I'm explaining it? >> Yeah, it is. So everywhere you go, you have to find that pinpoint. That's why I'm creating a new avenue, which is
110th Avenue for the city. I'm giving up that land for the city. I'm cross I'm doing cross avenues on the park that never existed before for the city. I'm expanding 112th Avenue to five lanes for the city. >> How much Sorry to interrupt you. With
all this >> Yes. >> How much is this? You said 43. >> $43 million. on the 43 million. >> So here's >> it could be more. >> It could be more as the years progress. That's based on today's value. Yes. Correct.
>> So um uh respectfully, Mr. Mayor, may I call upon the finance director? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Mr. Scott, can you please come up? >> Uh Commissioner. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, Commissioner Yano has the Civil Air
Patrol kids every Thursday. Yeah, definitely. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, so Scott, while the developer was speaking, I I've I've known you now for two years. You you speak with with your
face. Uh, you had some body language issues. Do you have anything to say or in >> Well, he said no money out of your own coffers that doesn't come from this project. >> Go ahead. this project will develop and the money will come in from various sources. But if we're going to write those checks now
in his schedule, it's coming out of your coffers. >> Write what checks. I'm not understanding >> for the lease payments and the interest payments on the two acres of land or the seven. >> You're still talking about the park. Got it. >> Right. >> That's where we were on that. And he
said no money out of your own coffers. Well, that's where that money would come from. There's no other way. >> I have a question. When it comes to the uh park impact fee of $11 million, the
developer pays that upfront or once the the entire >> permits >> and we've locked in that rate. So, he's not going to pay it. If the rates went up 10 years from now, his rates are locked in now. So, those dollars that are less valuable
10 years from now are less valuable to us and less valuable to him. So works on both sides, >> right? But so when does a city receive those park impact fees of $1 million? It's obvious it's throughout the course of the development, >> right? It all depends upon the schedule
of development and there's also the credits that are involved because we have the existing use of the mobile home park and the 900 and so units and we have the affordable housing credits. >> Got it. Here's my next question. Uh how much do we have in park impact uh fees right now? I think we have about $4
million between impact and concurrency. >> So we have in know in the fund right now. >> Yes. >> So we have $4 million. >> Okay. That solves that solves an issue. We got we got money for that unless the mayor was going to dedicate that money
to a different park or whatnot. Um see this is feasible because we we can go ahead and seek appropriations from our congressman. The mayor has a phenomenal relationship with our congressman in Washington. They roll out the red carpet when he goes
over there um from our state state appropriations. Uh I don't know how it's going to work out with the county. That's something we're going to that's something we're going to have to work out. Um but there's there's ways to appropriate money. There's also uh grant funding and
matching grants when it comes to parks. So when I hear how far away we are on a deal, >> we're not >> said we're far away. We're getting >> No, I I understand. But I I see the the neural linguistics of the developer and
how frustrated he is and and I'm hearing $123 million. I mean, I got my wallet here. Um I got like I got a tenor that I can help you out with, >> but um you know, I know you'll take it, >> Mr. President.
>> Hold on. Let me finish my thought process. Thank you. >> Um, yeah, we're not that far away and and and what I'm hearing about the >> problem is if you want a deal on Monday, you can't just say, "I'm going to be able to amend that later on." A deal is
a deal and the only way you change it after you execute it is both parties agree. >> Well, what >> you want to get to a point where we don't have to agree. >> Well, well, hold on. >> No, that's not once we have the agreement, we're done. But the part that you're not understanding me saying so is
>> the developer willing to go ahead and pay the $11 million. >> Is he? >> Yes. He said he's willing. As a matter of fact, >> he doesn't even have to pay. He doesn't even have to build park space. >> Right. But the problem give us the 11. >> Hold on. Let me finish.
>> I I got ADD. So if I if you start talking, I'm done. I'm going to say turtles. We don't want that to happen. So, if the developer is willing to pay the $11 million concurrency uh impact fee and say, "You know what? I'm not going to build a park. I'm going
to pay what your code says is $11 million happily over the lifespan of the development." We lock that language in. Deal's done because later on his intent is to build the Central Park or the Lou
in France anyway. >> Not without being paid for it. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm trying to say it differently. Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly. In the land code, based on his development, he has to pay
$11 million for part impact fees. The developer has stated, I am willing to pay the 11 million here over the course of the build. That is the language that I want in the master development agreement. Later on,
we can go ahead and amend, structure a deal, seller financing, balloon payment, whatever we want to do later on, but we get that deal done instead of delaying. >> If you don't lock in those values now, respectfully, Commissioner, you'll never be able to afford that park. And the city will take the 11 million, put it in
the bank, and then figure out how to buy parkland on the other side of Flaggler Street because we can't afford it north of Flaggler Street. We want to build a park there for those people. It's his money. We want to use his money for his park, >> right? Well, you that's not an accurate statement. You want to use his money for
his park. No, you want to use his money for our park >> for the park in his development. >> So, I'm gonna say this and I'm going to give you the floor in a second, Mr. Mayor, but I wanted to finish my thought process. If I was the developer, I wouldn't go through all this and I'd HB 102 the entire thing and make my money.
But I'm not the developer. That's just me. So, the developer can as of right go ahead HP 102. He doesn't have to come to us. He doesn't by law. He doesn't even have to say hi. >> And he can go ahead and build whatever he wants to build.
>> Not everything. Not everything. >> Sure. But you understand what I'm saying, right? >> No. I think he's got a better deal now. I think that the Flaggler City zoning that he got is a better deal than SP 102. And I think we're going to give him a development agreement that'll make him happy and make the city work. We just need time to
>> Can you explain that, please? >> Exactly. >> And he has rights to build institutional and other things that are not in SP 102. >> Sure. And we want him to do what is the best for the city, what is best for him economically. We want to give him flexibility, but we all want to get to
the end of have a nice park in that development. The city may have to contribute some money at some point because there isn't enough park impact fee money to get what we want, but we want to make sure if that's the case, we have a price locked in, we have a mechanism to do it, and that we're not
asking 5 years from now how much to buy the park. Those things need to be done up front. You have one chance to do it right. If you don't get what you want in the agreement, you're not going to get a second bite at that apple without them agreeing to it. And if they won't agree to it in the first place, they're
probably not going to be agreeing to it in the second place. Right. Well, if we don't go ahead and move this thing forward on Monday, uh that's going to be delayed. Now, as far as leverage is concerned, um that may we may want to have a
conversation with the developer and and lock that in now or we can have language in the agreement. >> Well, that's what we're doing, Mr. President. That's why we need to negotiate. May I >> go ahead. You have the floor. Go ahead. You wait. >> Okay. You know, I hear you and I
understand. And I want to be real clear. What Scott said is 100%. We have negotiated and we have given them all kinds of credits. We have given them how many credits have we given them in total. >> What are the credits given by the way?
Let me hear. >> We haven't awarded any credits yet. >> No potential to give it to us. >> Yeah. No, the the credits are awarded pertuent to the de development agreement. They can get 11. They can't get any more credits than we have. You know, we're looking at the 11 and a half. We're looking at about $30 million
worth of credits out of the 34 that are on the table. >> So >> that we'd only get four in cash. >> So when you're saying that we're not stepping up to the plate, we're more than stepping up to the plate. If you mind, >> when did I say you didn't? >> No, that we might be short and not
giving enough that he might turn it into a 102 because it's not moving fast enough and so on. But we could only go at the speed that we could Okay, then I apologize. I did not get get it correct. So, at the end of the day, we have to go by what the law says. And we we have
moved faster. By the way, a project like this, and you could ask anybody sitting there. And the county would take about two years. And we're on our third, I believe, fourth month, if that, and we're close to having a deal. >> Well, there's a lot of bureaucracy in the county.
>> Okay. Yeah. And then some. >> And we're a lot more lenient. Yes, you are. And a lot faster. You're right. But the issue that I have here is that we want to make sure we cross and I am sorry maybe I could be wrong at the end of the day. It's your decision. I want
to make sure that I don't want to hear again. You didn't get all the documents. You didn't get anything and you feel awkward. We're trying to get the stuff as we get it. We're trying to get it to you and we'll continue to do so. But I have I have to go with the advice of the
attorneys that we have to make sure that we give everything and we cross the tees and dot the eyes so we later on didn't miss something or they say hey or I don't want to hear you didn't tell us this mayor or this didn't come up mayor
why didn't it happen so this is why the rushing I don't see it as good this is why this meeting is important to bring out all the things I want to see this project as much as he wants to see it. Trust me on that. I want it to improve
our city in every way possible, but I want to make sure it's done right. And I'm going to make sure when with all due respect they say that this, and I'll repeat it again, it comes out of our coffers. We have to put it in at the end of the year for the money. Whether the
money is we're saying from these particular buildings, we're getting some money already and it might be enough to cover that. But what I'm saying is it's coming out that we're making a payment of interest only on this park
and to hold a amount that today cost X amount tomorrow it will cost a lot more and so on based on the development. Now I want to make sure that we're all clear because when you make that decision you know what you're making and what'll
happen. Now, do I know that he's going to present the best possible project in the world? I totally agree that I think it's going to be better. Do I believe it's better than 102? I agree. This is why we made the sanctions. We move fast on the zoning and we didn't I stand
corrected on one thing. I understood. And could you come up here uh a second, Vera? When I agreed to move forward and help him get the permitting and move forward on his building or at least to present it and do everything because it's taking
some time. We agreed so he wouldn't be slowed down on his benefit. >> Correct. On the three uh buildings for the Little Abner area. So on the north village because I thought that we were doing to help him and to move forward
>> where he's supposed to submit a site plan for approval and everything. It has to go through a site plan approval. It has to go through permitting and all that >> and could he submit that program that plan? What else? >> To submit the site plan approval. >> Now does we can't give him the plan
until this is approved. We need to what we need is once the site plan is approved and he still has to plat the property. Once the site plan is approved then he goes through the building permit. I don't know how long it's going to take.
I don't know if he's going to build the three buildings at once or he's going to build one building a piece. It's up to him. As far as I I couldn't speak as to can we give can we give issue him the building permit right now? I don't know. I couldn't I couldn't
answer that one. >> Okay. >> I would have to come back to you on that. >> Can Can we be answered, please? >> Do you have the floor, Alex? >> Does anybody need a break or anything? >> We're good. >> You want to serve bourbon later on? All right. >> We're good. We're good. >> I think the one issue that we're facing
with respect to the permit is that while the zoning is in place, the urban design regulations are an exhibit to the master development agreement. So the zoning mentioned these broad ranging elements related to setbacks and the parking and all of those elements. Those are baked
into the master development component. So right now that permit couldn't be granted because you don't have the urban regulations in place. >> That uh and by the way, Mr. Mayor, I uh I uh >> Go ahead, finish. You got you got some
on your mind. Go ahead. We're trying we're trying to move fast to try to help them as much as possible and making sure that everything that what we do and you vote on because I don't want again to hear from this commission because that is failure on my part that you did not
get the information. you did not get the proper things and and if you try to move this faster than what we could give you the information that it's needed and he's right this was given to us in the beginning
>> with uh with what they're paying and so on but the issue was that we were trying to get a bridge winding to make sure it's proper enough to be able to go in more directions and so on and try try to
get the funding and so on to back that up to help and to try to get the properties that might be in the hindrance to in line with FIU and to see because the only ones that could pay that comes out of the city and
so on. So we're trying to work all together to get the w the width that is needed to do that. >> Turn up. You said the only ones that can pay for >> the only one that could ask for imminent domain. >> Yes. Yes. And I'm sorry I I'm going a little faster than but
>> the imminent domain has to be done by the city >> and we needed to first get a survey to even know what we were dealing with on 112 and we just got the survey a week or so ago. I >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> This is the first I hear of eminent domain.
>> No, I stated it here several times. This is the first >> I stated in here in public in the past when we're saying that we might have to look at properties and to determine for how we're going to build that and see the widening of the road and so on depending on the the amount of lanes.
>> Have you heard any of the >> I don't remember hearing it, but I would assume it's going to it's going to probably be a thing because the road's just not wide enough. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And that doesn't mean that that's not what's going to happen. And it doesn't mean
>> but I I want to be real clear >> as to that point because if I tell you guys, hey, we're good and we're >> I'm telling you that as like you said the negotiator and try to move forward now. That's all I'm trying to do >> through the chair.
>> Um you want me to give role for the floor or you want to have it? >> No, no, he he can I can ask the question. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Can I speak? >> Yes. Uh, I'm going to try to bring everything back right real quick as much as possible.
And again, as you can see, I'm not the best public speaker, but I'm trying my best here. >> Let me interrupt you for a second. And I'm so sorry. Um, how about we take a 10-minute break? Everybody's going to gather their
thoughts. I'm going to use the potty. Um, we can go relax, gather yourself. All right. Uh, commissioners, you agree with a 10-minute break, 10 15 minute break. You >> good? >> You good? Mr. Mayor, you good with that? >> Commissioner, I I have to be out of here
by 9:10, the latest. >> All right, then. >> The break, man. Forget the break, bro. >> I tried. >> I I I apologize. You're good, man. I'm sorry. >> Uh, bringing everybody back in here. This is
the latest negotiation that you guys have there in front of you that we're doing back and forth. In this negotiation, there's no money coming out of the city's pocket in this one particular right here. Zero. Just want to clarify that.
>> An hour ago. >> I'm sorry. >> We just got that an hour and a half ago. >> I I understand. I'm just I'm trying to bring everybody in together based on the conversations that the administration's been doing with the development team. >> There's no money because impact fees are
being used here. Now, the only issue here, not issue, the thing is that there will be appraisals, but those can be put in and we can still close on April 6. Right? Does everybody understand that? >> Yes. >> Right. Because that's just part of the
term. It's basically what they call a term sheet. this is what you're doing. This is how you're going to get it. And this is what we're going to get in return. It's a term sheet. That gives us the opportunity to close April 6. I'm saying closing from a real estate standpoint, but to be able to get an
approval for April 6 so I can proceed with the construction >> of four. >> Four. So we are building four, five, and six together. >> Right. >> Same year. >> Oh, we will start building them the same year. They will not be completed the same year, >> obviously. So you build one and then you
have a tier off of six months and then the next off six months. So within one year all three should be >> and then you're using and I'm sorry to interrupt you and then you're using once built another appraisal to generate another financial instrument to >> refinance. Yes. Okay.
>> Yes. Without that the project doesn't right. >> Hence my urgency to do this. So again, this is something I would say and my team was the one there this morning with them. I would say about 80%
give or take. You guys tell me 80% is fair. A fair number. 80% on this. >> Yeah. Negotiate it. Yes or no? After today. After today, we don't know.
Uh so um hopefully be by the end of the day it'll be at 80%. because we need to proceed to April 6. I'm humbly requesting that. >> Can you explain how uh in this document
the city is not coming out of pocket in >> out of pocket for what the park? >> Yes, this is all about the park. This document, this one document is all about the park. So basically it's two acres. Remember how we had three points, one, two, and three. And I broke it down to two acres, five acres, and operational.
Right? The first two acres we they we are negotiating for it to be bought through impact fees. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, if if I'm not explaining myself correctly, please tell me. I'll do better. >> So, you're not coming out of pocket. I
am basically saying as a developer, look, I'm going to use my impact fee and concurrencies to buy those two acres up front. They're locking those two acres today based on the negotiation of the appraisals for two acres, right?
>> Mhm. >> Then within 5 years, we will renegotiate the next five acres based on the appraisals that we do then. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's that's this at any time
this can get amended because you have a five-year window. >> Right. >> Right. Just like any contract, there can be amendments as long as the two parties agree to it. And that I think this is until I walked in this morning uh this evening here, I
thought this was the only pressing item. The other pressing item that I just heard from the from the mayor saying about transportation, guys, in regards to transportation, I I can't get any clearer than that. In regards to the bridge, I'm being held accountable for the bridge. I have no Palm Bay based on
what I have to build, right? I am not the city. I have no right to eminent domain. I have no none of that right. So we when the time comes that we meet the AM and PM traffic count that we have to build 112 whenever that is,
we will build it. If eventually you guys eminent domain and do whatever it is that you got to do and you want to amplify and do whatever it is you got to do, hey, that that's not I'm just I'm just a worker, man. I'm just coming in here and doing my job. Right. Now, on top of that,
in regards to roadway impact fees, if you guys remember, do you guys remember how much I said that I would be generating for the city, coming out of pocket for the city in regards to infrastructure? You guys remember the number? What did I say? >> $43 million. >> $43 million. In regards to the chart, my
impact fees for the city is $10 million. So, I'm paying more than I'm what's supposed to be paying in regards to impact fees. Is that a correct statement? So, I can't be any more committed to the city. I'm sorry.
Now, that being said, >> the mayor also said another comment in regards to there's no way that I'm going to allow that $6 million. >> Allow what? 6 million >> as the minimum payment for the acreage for the two acres as a valuation. Right.
We'll do the appraisals and everything else. >> Sure. >> I'm not an appraisal, but I know a little bit. >> I offered it at 7 million. That's $49 million an acre. That was my thing. And then to appease the city, I'm bringing
it down to six. >> You said 49 million an acre or >> No, in total over the seven. So, seven an acre. >> Right now, based on research and using the tools that I have and the sources,
each acre will run between 7 to $8.5 million today as is using SB 102. So, there's different valuation systems that you can use, right? Comparable sales approach, SB102, reconciled value.
On comparable sales, it's coming out to 49 to 59 million for the seven acres. SP 102, 44 to 55 million. Reconciled value, 49 to 55. So, I am literally at or below fair market value.
Again, doing what I can for this city. In regards to the revenues, yes, it's coming out of the coffers, but being produced by this project >> that otherwise the city would never have. >> Thank you. >> Let me let me ask you that. Did anybody
have any questions before I >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> So, real quickly, what's I heard you say the uh per acre is $6 million. What's the interest on that? >> There's no interest. That's the beautiful thing about this last deal that we're trying to negotiate.
>> Okay. No interest. >> There is no interest. That was that was the original proposal. And again, me trying to appease the city said, you know what, to appease the city and say, you know what, you don't want to buy the land even though my offer is my offer
will work. What is it that you want? You want to use the impact fees? Use the impact fees. We'll use the impact fees based on the evaluation of an appraisal. >> Now, it doesn't have to be off of this, right? Like let's say I don't want to use this formula of the two years and
then five years. I want to go straight off of seven for six. >> The the negotiation right now that we have is with the administration. >> Correct. >> And I'm honoring that. I guess I don't know I'm using the correct terms and I'll honor it. I don't have a problem.
There's pros and cons to both. There's pros and cons to both, right? And that's everybody has the right to their opinion. That's the beautiful thing about this country, man. That's >> right. >> You have the right to speak up. You have the right to say what what you what you feel. >> I have a feeling. He has a feeling.
Scott has a feeling. My admin has a feeling. We have our own values, but we're trying to work together to get it. And that's what this one document is. Right. I'm willing to work with the city to do the right thing. Um,
>> now that I'm finish >> Can I now I'm sorry. Can I finish? >> The purpose of this is to get to April 6, which is Monday. This should be the only pressing item. There should be no
other pressing item to discuss because I've done everything the city wanted. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Thank you. And I thank you uh sir Rodriguez for actually coming up and
coming back with this for tonight. Again, it was uh last minute I stated this from the beginning, but at least it's something that we could work off of. But now when we analyze this and I appre he's right, we all have a different opinion.
Like when I said no more, in other words, no more than $6 million, it says here no less than $6 million. So it could go up more when we say the two acres, but then when we're going to look
at the other acres, they're going to be at a higher value and we want to lock them in now. >> So at this value. So, he's right and we're working back and forth to try to find solutions to this because when we first looked at this, it wasn't even a
purchase. It was a lease of land, >> correct? >> To be used at we've come a long ways discussing and trying to get it because it was not possible. But knowing the way the city is developing and the way it
does is looking to try to find that land. So it is a city property land. So we even discussed and I appreciate it because he even came up with the idea of saying you could buy two acres, you could buy four, you could buy three and
as you go on you buy and so on. My headache with what it was was the non-interest payment. They came back now and brought this to the table to show that it is not non-interest. But we still have the part about the valuation
and locking in for the future years. You asked a question as to how much money is in the coffer for parks. Okay. We have $4 million. >> We even asked in part of the negotiations. We're willing to purchase
using that money, putting it together with other monies based on what you were saying, Commissioner. and we were respecting an opinion back and forth and we were told let's look at this deal and we'll see what we could do but right
now this is a deal before us. So I would like to ask if that's the case if we could buy more property up front and lock in so we have something locked in and moving on. But the idea is
to try to use that leverage that we have in the impact fees and so on to pay and not have a comm something coming out to pay for this besides buying the land to pay interest only on
the land. And that was my main concern. Now we have a different situation before us was just off the cup. My issue is locking it in so we could get the rest of them whether it's five years or whatever. And he's and I know he's going
to say it's hard because the value of money and so on. So we got to try to find a solution. This is one deal, but I got to sit down and make sure because he's saying that's the only thing left. This was the most contentious
of the issues that were left. >> I have to >> Are we already done with transportation then? >> As far as I'm concerned, I need to check with them and make sure everything's done. So, I can't say right now off the top, off the cuff, it is totally done. I think it's pretty much handled, but I need to double check everything based on
what we have. That's what you expect me to do. >> Yeah. >> Am I correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I have a finish. So, I just want to make sure that we're continuing to try to find the solutions. We've come a long way as have been stated from the
beginning of this. The only issue is the paperwork that has been given to you guys and so on. What are you going to vote on without having the paperwork with you on Monday? >> Well, we should have had that paperwork here today. >> What paperwork? >> We should have had everything here today.
>> No, because we have to have the agreement. >> No, no, no. We have we have the original agreement which is first reading and and and you know that I deal with contracts every day. We have the original agreement. This is an amendment to the agreement. You guys hash out. You're the negotiator and then you come to us and then we
decide yay or nay. Now >> um here's here are a few points of contention. >> I'm I'm listening to this. The greater majority of this conversation has been about a park and I want to make it abundantly clear. I don't care about a park right now. I could care less about a park. It's not on my list of
priorities. Would I like a park? Absolutely. Do I think as the city grows, does it need to have park space? Absolutely. I'm not really going to consider that as a park. It's it's a it's a walkway. A park is what we have in Ronelli and and you know, grandiose things, but
unfortunately, we don't have the land for that. My list of priorities are police and then city hall and then a community center. And now if we're talking about money coming in, money coming out, here's the way that I look at it.
With Lil Abner 45, five, and six being developed in all in one year, and that's this year, 2026. Is that accurate? Just a quick headnot. 27. >> 27. >> 27, which means we won't receive
>> those monies till 28. >> We'll receive Sorry. Go ahead. Send them to the send them to the mic if you want. >> If I'm not mistaken, as we pull permits, you'll receive permit fees. >> Permit fees. >> You'll receive impact fees. >> Currency. >> Exactly.
>> Right. And then adorms are later on. So, so actually it's net positive. So, as we go ahead and and how much of the project is going to be affordable housing, workforce housing,
40% of the units are affordable, 60% are workforce housing. And based on those numbers, you're not going to be giving exact um what are we what is the city receiving in advorum? Knowing you, you probably have those exact numbers. >> Give me one second
>> because I think based on that, we'll be able to make more informed decisions. >> So if you give me one second, please. because I do know that workforce housing um numbers are different than mixed use
as far as revenues are concerned. >> While he's figuring that out, >> yes, Mr. Mayor, >> as to answer your question about we were negotiating >> we were negotiating to try to figure out and and I thank uh Mr. Rodriguez because
we were looking into a city hall possible police uh station, but city hall at least to have he already agreed to we could purchase a 100,000 up to a 100,000 square feet
and the area of the the one that he stated that looks like LS which is the building. >> So that's two acres FNH. >> No, no, no. I'm talking about within the building. He's got an option available for a
100,000 square feet >> to put in so we could actually purchase a city hall for the future which I thank them for for doing that. That was part of what he came up with and and moving forward. To answer your question about
city hall because I want to make sure you got that. So I'm was giving you a little time. >> No. Um, to answer your question, on those three buildings, the city will receive $712,000 annually on those three buildings alone. >> So,
cumulative or individual? >> No, cumulative. And I'm not adding the parking garage on there. So, there's an additional fee to that. I don't know that I I can't calculate that right now of >> the parking garage of of each building. >> No, there will be one centralized parking garage. >> It's in the middle. >> And is that park are you charging
parking for that parking garage? Is it revenue generating? >> It is. uh revenue generator, >> right? And then is that is that parking garage a standalone building? >> Yes, it is. >> So, >> it is going to have its own folio number. Yes. >> So, then it doesn't uh you don't get the
credit for workforce housing. >> No, I do not. >> So, now that's going to be different. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, now looking at those numbers, we're going to be generating we're talking about we're talking about money again. We're talking about the park. Um,
>> of those three buildings alone, if you include the parking garage, you're probably close to 900,000, >> if not a little bit more take. >> All right. >> Again, that's not including, and please, when you see a project of this magnitude, it's not just the tax base,
it's the revenue generated by the people living in it as well. >> So, let's hear that. Tell me about that. So g give me give me numbers on what is the city going to make for ad valvelorums franchise fees you know all the bells and whistles you're going to
have that number do you have that number >> yes sir I do >> okay >> so on sales tax city revenue analysis right on sales tax alone and hospitality revenue the city's going to be making close to $5 million a year >> hold on one second just a just a head
nod from the audience is the city currently receiving any profit sharing from sales tax. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what he's saying is accurate. >> We get sales tax. >> Got it. What is he what he's saying is accurate? Correct.
>> 5 million a year extra in sales tax. >> Yes, sir. >> No, >> it's inaccurate. >> Please come up to the mic. >> Let's hear. >> Scott Mendlesburg. Finally. You don't have to say your name again, but I really appreciate it.
>> Go ahead. >> We will not get an extra $5 million a year in sales taxes. >> Okay. Why not? >> Because we the sales tax is based on population and sales gen re revenue generated and it's not going to go up to $5 million a year
>> for those. Okay. You're talking about the three buildings. >> No, he just said the entire people that are there are franchise fees. There are all kinds of inciliary revenues, but $5 million in sales tax, no >> on the entire project, >> no. >> Including >> no
>> hotel, restaurant, retail, no. >> Doesn't matter. >> Got it. Thank you, Scott. Go ahead, Ro. Uh, what is your counter to that, Ro? >> So, based on that sales tax revenue, 7% combined, right? You have your retail sales that's going to be generating 528
uh million. So, it's $37 million a year on retail. On hotel revenue, it's $1 million a year. On convention spending, it's $2.1 million a year. And on restaurant and dining is $6.65 million. Total sales tax generated is $46 million a year. The city receives a portion of
that. City portion flows through the half cent program. City shares is $4.99 million. It's on I'll go more into the into the slides. So out of the $46 million that is generated from this project annually as a whole, Florida collects and distributes to the
counties. The county shares with the cities. Sweetwater share is a percentage of Miami Day's population. The increase of 15,000 new residents grown in the city of Sweetwater population when it's the project's complete will be generating $4.99 million. >> It's it's it's a formula.
>> Here's my question. Um you said hotel. That's not referring to the hotel bed tax. >> No. Uh, it's 250 key bed. It's the $200 ADR at 80% occupancy. >> And what what are the funds that we're
not receiving currently? >> I'm sorry. >> So, you you and I had a conversation yesterday, day before yesterday. I don't even remember what it was. um >> of other funds >> where you said there was there was funds that the county had that that were u
that Sweetwater was entitled to those funds. We just had to uh fight for them. >> That's those are all those uh it's the revenue tax. It's the sale tax and hospitality you have to fight for. That's that's not on me. I don't I don't know how that works.
>> No, I I I understand. So what what were you supposed to pay for traffic impact fees? >> 10 million. >> And you went to >> 43 million. >> 43 million. So So here's here's my question, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the
fact that you're that you're fighting for the best deal in the city. That's your job. I get it. I get the fact that you want to go ahead and lock in a land price because you want to, you know, do what's best for the city. But it is is it accurate what he's
saying >> and please don't get offended when I say is it accurate because >> that's fine. I welcome it. >> I have I have to be >> um I have to be the finder of fact, right? And I and and I don't know but we don't we have no idea. So if if you're
supposed to pay 10 million and you pay you're paying 43 million you're you're overpaying $33 million in traffic impact. >> Is that accurate, Mr. Mores? I can't tell you that because they have a they could move around. They might not
have a hotel. >> They might not have a hospital. >> No traffic impact. >> No, I was going back to your original question. Correct. >> Okay. Depending what is developed there because it could be there's nothing set in stone, >> right? >> Okay. So, depending on that, that's
where the taxation will take place. I'm not an expert in tax nor I portray one in this uh portion but that's why you asked the finance director for that question and I think it's really unfair on the fly to try to get it all together but these are questions are that
important that we need to bring to you before you make your final decision and these are questions that there's no doubt that there will be revenue coming out of it but we're also putting up revenue >> what revenue are we putting up Okay,
because at the end of the day, we have to buy whatever properties we're going to get. There is no donation of properties. >> Well, we >> and that's going we're going back to the park. So, we'll stay kind of out of it. But there is a good part on this city is the reason why I'm saying this to help
and give back in every way we can to make a project like this a reality. What we do and not do, all I wanted to make sure is it's clear and those numbers are not just stated here. So when you make your decision, it's straight to the fact just like agreeing
to this and making sure it's important to the commissioner that we lock in those property along to everybody to see what we what we could do. I want to make sure we could do that. Now I thank him because we've come a long way from where
it started and I want to make sure that it's done. There is no ill feeling I think either way because I'm doing my job for what the city's required of me to do and he's doing his job and I really want this to
be a total success but we got to make sure we cross the tees and that and you're going through that Mr. President. That's why I even mentioned the part about the city hall because that's important to some of the people that are up here. >> Absolutely. and that city hall was
something um that wasn't was and wasn't and so on. But thank God through our conversation he came back and said we got 100 square feet that you could purchase. Now what that purchase going to be, how that's going to be developed, how we're going to do that.
>> So we don't know that's a standalone or >> No, it's part of a building that he has is >> I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. Sorry for interrupting. >> No, it's okay. If it's part of a building, that's what I understood, that's already being erected up and it's
100. >> So the 100,000 square feet is purchase or lease, whatever is convenient for the city and we negotiate on it and it's part of a structure and we would together build it, >> but it would be part it's basically a
office building condo. >> Yeah. And and and I'll give you the microphone back, Mr. Mayor. Um, I don't like a lease option. >> I do like a lease option to buy. >> That's what it is. >> And
I I believe if if we truly work towards having a symbiotic relationship and our relationships in in politics and lobbying, we can go ahead and get appropriations either from Tallahassee through our speaker of the house or in his district.
um you know the governor or the future governor whomever that may be I have my personal preference or or DC and and then however that works out we'll be able to generate money I know we will um
but I I want to I want to focus on what the hurdles are in approving this agreement on Monday. So I I'd like to hear Go ahead. >> My comment in regards to to what you
were mentioning there. This can be handled afterwards with without a problem. Um I don't understand the back and forth. This is an ongoing negotiation. This is an agreement to agree. Correct. Uh Alex, an
agreement. >> It's an option, right? That is discussed. The park will not get built. It's not even going to get touched for at least five years. Minimum five years.
I want everybody to understand that the park will not get built for at least 5 years. You cannot have a lineal park where you have skyscrapers being built all around it literally in 360 degrees. >> It is a huge liability for us.
It is a huge liability for for you and for me to be building a park while we're having skyscrapers built all the way around it. It just it doesn't make any sense. >> So, you at least have to finish the buildings around it first, at least to a
certain degree, and then activate the park. And activating the park means you got to build the park, right? So, you guys have to come up with a way of coming up funds to build the park. And we're not talking about a million dollars, right? So it is that the park
will not be finished or activated for at least seven plus years. >> So this is not in my opinion, it's important, but it's not the number. I know it's important to lock in now or whatever it is that you guys want to talk about, but it's not the priority.
The priority is to build the project to be able to have the park. >> So I'm I'm going to interrupt you for a second. >> Yes, sir. Sorry. >> Um No, you don't have to apologize. I want to know what the hurdles are on the part of the city and on the part of the of the developer. The hurdles that we
need to overcome in order to achieve Monday's second reading. What are those hurdles? We need to make sure that every part okay in the agreement if we go ahead and do this agreement and you guys decide to
vote on it the way it is right now that's vague on some areas that we need to clarify and we not and we need to make sure of every part of it. If you want to go ahead and vote on it without
it takes two to agree to reopen. We might agree to reopen, might not agree to reopen. So, I don't want to put anybody on that kind of spot. I prefer seeing that we finish and we might be a
week away and just to finish and double check everything, but to sit up here in public record and in front of our city and say that we have everything or what do we have? I don't know for sure because we
got to comb this just like in your company. You don't know every little thing that's going on. >> Oh yes, I do. Well, you might think you do, but there might things you have to double check to make sure you do. So, that is what I'm trying to do because if
I tell you that this is 100% correct, >> I can't tell you that. I'll be lying to you. So, all I want to make sure and won't have an agreement. I understand. But I don't see that urgency to have it quite on Monday. I prefer waiting a
little bit to have it within a couple of weeks, maybe a special meeting on it so you could have all the discussion on everything and we'll work out everything and you'll have everything in writing, not only from us. >> I hear you. >> But from the developer >> have a question.
>> You asked me the question and that's the best way I think I can. >> So So I have a question for you. I I I drop contracts on a weekly basis and and some contracts that I drop uh are amended quite often. Um and some
contracts have certain timeline thresholds where both parties have to come back to the table and uh renegotiate to amend. So my question Mr. special counsel what I just mentioned on
the master development agreement having triggers timeline triggers uh to renegotiate forcing both parties to the table would that be legally sufficient if you you're saying that we would agree
to come back to renegotiate at a time certain >> that would be legally sufficient However, your question a minute ago to the mayor was, "What is the obstacle?" And he answered, "We don't know because
we haven't thoroughly gone through the agreement." >> My issue, >> amendment, >> the agreement, no, it >> this amendment, >> the whole agreement, >> the the agreement. >> Forgive me for interrupting. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. >> You guys have gone through the whole
agreement because it was in first reading, >> correct? You're just waiting to look at these this amendment because this amendment was presented to you an hour ago. >> No, there was changes that had been talked about to the original agreement which were have not been finalized. This
is one of those changes. >> Okay. >> Let me hear those changes. >> I want a list of what they are. >> There's only like two or three things >> which are what? >> I have to look for it. Give me one second. >> Okay. Um, so listen, while you're doing
that, we're going to take a break. >> I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> When it comes to when it comes to the 100,000 square ft, do we have a price on that or still? >> Yes, that you have a what we are doing is that we were reserving you space of
100,000 ft within the next 5 years. So you guys decide what it is that you guys want to do depending on the buildings that we're going to build. >> Do we have Do you have a price on per square foot? >> I do not. I do not. That's just that's that's too early. I >> Yeah. No, no, no. It's fine. It's just not write it down. Can I It's impossible
through the chair when you're done. >> Commissioner must go ahead. >> I'm gonna I'm going to say some foolishness here, >> Mr. President. I think you should probably stand up and go stand behind Raul because it's clear that you're on his team. That's the way I feel. There's
no doubt in my mind your project is beyond amazing for our community. The feeling that I get is our team on the city needs a little bit more time. You He's got a team of How many I'm sorry. Can I ask you how many attorneys are on your on your team? We have what
working on our side? One. It takes time for these guys to read what four people put together. How much time do you need? >> I just want to go over with them with their their team. Hash out everything. Just go from part A all the way through
Z. >> What? What? How much? How much time do you need? >> How much was I'm not sure. Maybe a week. Maybe two weeks. And then just put it all together and bring it before you. >> What happens to you in two weeks with two more weeks? >> I've been here in two weeks for six
months. >> I It's like a Miami date county thing forever, right? What happens to you? >> Can't pull a permit. Can't move. >> I get that. But is >> you can't get that. >> Does it cost you a million dollars? What happens to you in two weeks? I'm paying $8 million a month in interest. Do the math.
>> I hope that answers your question. >> I I can I get it's $4 million. I get it. But we have one chance to get this done right. >> Exactly. >> You have one chance to get it right, which is the offer that I produced. Like I I I now you see this is what I'm
trying to get at. I come up here, I continue to do whatever the city wants, but there's a breaking point where I say, "Yeah, no. >> I I I get it, >> right? I've sat down with all of you. I've shown you what I tried to do. I'm
trying to do the best for the city. >> I get it, but we're not negotiating with you." >> Okay. So, let's do something. Let's do something. Let's do I apologize. I You're fine. I'm not doing this correctly. I'm not doing it on purpose. >> No, you're good. You're good. >> What about if I present if I can't get an agreements with him by tomorrow? I
present a what's it called? >> A term sheet to the city commission. You guys want to be involved in the process? Here's your term sheet. Approve it. Yes or no? Is that Can I Can you do that? Is that Is that legal? Anybody? >> No.
>> I produce a ter Oh, it's not. >> No, no, it's not. I'm not saying it's not you. Uh before you before you say anything, um >> Oh, he still he still had the mic. >> Yeah. >> Are you good with two weeks? A week? Can you get this done in a week,
>> guys? A lot of things have been said here tonight. And I'm not saying that they're incorrect or correct. I we need be you guys are com you guys were complaining that you haven't gotten documentation on
everything and I agree with you but we get the documentation that's me we got a bulk of it but it started out and they didn't want to go there but it it it really started out all the way negative you're not going to get basically and he's come a long way and we're working
together all I want to make sure as you said Mr. President, I appreciate it as a CEO of the city negotiating the things and I appreciate Commissioner Martinez is just making sure that everything that
is said here is there and that when you guys vote I tell you everything that we have discussed is here and that's all I'm asking for and if it's taken this long we have fasttracked everything we
could possibly everything but there is negotiations we have to talk and we got to get from a lease only maybe to where we got now is purchasing and how we purchase it. So
in a little time we have done I think an incredible job in finding the very best we can for city and I even thank him publicly because it's not easy. He doesn't have to need to do the stuff that he did. Okay? He didn't need to pay
people what he paid him to leave. He didn't do that. Look at other places or complain because they didn't do any of that. There's a lot of things that have been done that are very positive. But I cannot sit here and my best way of stating being the person in charge of
this and the administration is to not have everything completely. It might be after we review everything and we look at this agreement and everything's fine. Or it might be something new that we could probably come together and get it done. It could
be as simple as getting the interest rates and making sure that everything's locked up. So when we move forward, I feel really good in doing it because we've come a long way. But that's why I need a little more time. And I wish it was perfect right now, but
due to some, we thought it was going to be, but then it wasn't, and now it is. But there's still a couple of little things here, and they're not much. It's just a matter of understanding and getting it together. That's why I need that time. >> I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to
ask my colleagues in the commission to go ahead and unanimously approve a break. If you guys don't want to prove a brick, uh, I'm gonna take one before I say something really stupid >> and insanely disrespectful
to what you just did to me. >> And you and I have to you and I have a slight conversation about that. >> Okay. >> And uh, so everybody okay with a with a 15-minute break? >> Good with a 15-minute break. Mr. May, let's take a 15-minute break.
>> I guess he told us he had to leave. So >> that's up on your part. Yeah, it's not up. >> I'm not going outside. We need to discuss that. Hello. Heat. Sorry. Heat.
Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Hello. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat.
Heat. Heat. Madame clerk, you ready? Uh, it's Ralph. Uh, >> all right. CE, are you ready? >> Mr. Mayor, you ready? >> Yes, sir. I am. >> Commissioners ready? >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Let's uh let's resume uh the meeting. I I am going to make a brief statement and uh give everyone obviously an opportunity. Um so my statement is to Commissioner Mi
if I have done something to make you believe that I am standing behind the developer then uh I have not portrayed my position sufficiently.
Um, I thought you had more respect for me. What I will not do while I'm here in whatever capacity, I will not allow this dis to turn into the debacles of the city of Miami. I will
not allow myself to get into an exchange uh where we can have private conversations like gentlemen. But if that's how you feel about me, then you said it and you know that we'll deal with that at a later date. Um, what I
am appreciative listening to the developer is the fact that as far as traffic impact, you're talking about 43 million when he's only supposed to be paying 10. That's huge. I mean, we're talking about
major money. So when I talk about when I talk about concessions now we don't have to give them he's giving he's giving us concessions as I've stated it is the job of the mayor to negotiate the very best deal
for the city. If you can go ahead and you can convince the developer and his team to lock in a price now and if you can get that land for free. I'm not going to vote no on that. I'm going to vote yes. That's the problem of the
developer, how he wants to see that build. And as I stated before, we have the leverage. We do because he he has a timeline. He says he spent so far
23 million and he hasn't even broke ground. He hasn't even demoed. So I'm going to make that statement. If anybody want to say anything else, >> go ahead, commissioner. >> Yes, sir. Um,
yeah, going back. Tomorrow, the city is now open tomorrow. Correct. Okay. So, Monday we have this meeting. I am I'm going to tell you right now, I am not ready to vote on Monday for this item. I would like to
see if we can uh refer this onto another meeting. I also, mayor, would like to do another meeting just like it, another meeting like this before we do the proper uh decision. Um,
this is good. You know, we get a lot of feedback back and forth. I mean, you've been in the ne negotiation all the time. We never been in the negotiation before. Um, this is good feedback for me. Um, but you know, I think it's already 9:00.
Everybody wants to go home. There's nothing we're going to do here now. I think like I said before, I'm not ready for Monday. If they can ref, you know, refer this. It will be great for Monday because I am not ready. I don't know my other colleagues if they're ready or not. I know we're coming a long way
based on your statement, mayor, and based on what they, you know, the development are saying. It's a good feedback for myself and my colleagues here. What the information that I got today, it was a lot more than we had
before. Um, we just got a document today. You just got it like an hour before we had the meeting. Um, you know, there's no way on Monday we can make a decision based on that. Tomorrow it's Friday. It's Good Friday. The city is
not going to work. So that's going to regardless. I think next week if you guys can meet and come back to us and give us a feedback, good or bad, but at least we get something going on.
That's my my two cents on this. Um, you know, if anybody wants to say anything, but I'm I'm not ready for Monday. Thank you. >> Do you want me to answer, >> Mr. Mayor? >> Thank you. I appreciate what you said and I appreciate what each and every one of
you said. I appreciate what the developer and his team have said. This is democracy. Yep. >> This is the way things are done. I think this is being done in a record time for a development of 105
acres. Guys, this development will change the face of Sweetwater forever. And I know that everybody wants to get it done as fast as possible. And we've come a long way
and that's come because of both parties willing to try to get to that center point. But we need to make sure because once you're trusting me to do the very best we can, you're trusting me to come up
with the questions and the excuse me, the answers to those questions and make sure of them. I don't think we're far away. We just got to make sure we cross the te's and dot the eyes. And this is where I need a little more time. And by the way, it was agreed to us, all of us,
saying by law we had to state the second hearing for Monday, but if we weren't ready, we could push it back. And both sides agreed to that. If I'm wrong in saying that, please tell me right now. Okay? So, it's nothing that we didn't do
just in case. And look, they have a right to negotiate hard and they have the right to ask for everything they want to do. We live in the best country in the world and that's the truth. But we also have not only the right, but we have the law that we got to go by.
So once again, I think we've come a long way. I just need to wrap it up with them. I'm willing to meet with them at any time and get ready. And I said, I think by the time we're done, within a week, maybe two with the latest, we
should have this wrapped up and brought back to this commission and we could call us a date the I'm willing to do the same and try to get that done so we don't defer things too long. But I guess unless I'm missing out on it, is that
what you recommended me to do? >> Yes. If I may. >> Yeah. Just I'm not suggesting that we defer the matter or not defer the matter. That's not my role. I will defer to Mr. Mestre on that matter and I will back whatever Mr. Mestre says because
that is his role. My only question here is with regard to what you can do tonight and with regard to how the matter can be deferred to a future date >> to be in the meeting >> on the Mon on Monday. No, mayor is exactly right. So, in order to first
off, you can't make any real decisions tonight. >> But Monday, if you are going to defer it, the way to do it is to defer it on Monday to a date certain in the future. Even if you just pick a two weeks in the future or a week in the future and you're not ready, you convene that date
and you keep deferring it. That way, you don't have to advertise again. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that, Mr. Um, and for the issue is I'll get together with them on Monday and figure out that date that I think we could be comfortable with. And I is that
okay with you guys? >> Discussion tonight. A lot of information has been shared. So I think it's prudent to go through what has been resolved and then what are the open matters so that when we come back before you you can pinpoint those matters and say those things that were left open that's what
we're discussing. Again we also invite anybody who has suggestions or other questions to ask more but I think that's the most efficient way to do it. So to special counsel Mestre, I think, you know, we have agreed to support the CRA. We have agreed to incorporate the
provision related to the 100,000 square feet of industrial office use. Um, we have now agreed to the infrastructure improvements south of 112, including the bridge with the available width of the ride ofway once that's ready for us. Um and then clearly the open items relate
to the park and then whatever touch-up items are needed with respect to the traffic elements which from my understanding are just making sure that everything is in line with the timelines that are being proposed. Is there anything else that you can think of that
needs to be addressed other than those two big points? >> No, I think that covers it. So, um, obviously I'm going to respect the will of the commission. I want everybody to understand my intent
when it comes to the park. If the park is the only point of contention that I'm hearing, is that accurate? >> I understand. Okay. >> So, um, >> I'm sorry. Did you get that? >> Yes. So, we heard. >> All right.
>> Okay. Does any other commissioner have uh any other comments? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor, please before when you do a meeting with them, >> can you schedule another u meeting like this? >> A workshop meeting before it comes to
>> if the if the commission wants that. Yes, I'll schedule it. >> I would ask. >> Uh sir, >> absolutely. Okay, we will schedule a meeting before we uh we'll set a meeting, a workshop meeting >> before we have the
the the last the second hearing. >> Yes. >> Meeting. >> Okay. I think with all respect, if the commission wants this, I prefer to be uh isolated on a on a date that's not a regular meeting. Is that okay with you guys? >> It's fine by me. Anybody else?
>> Yeah, it's fine with me. Yes, sir. So what so would you um would giving you um two weeks to meet with the developer and his team be sufficient to then go ahead and call for a workshop?
>> I'll call for the workshop as fast as possible. >> All right. Great. >> And I think if possible a suggestion >> Yes, sir. um is if we can have the workshop possibly the day of the hearing or the day before the hearing so that everything is fresh, right? And it'll be
the most efficient way. That way you don't have to hear the presentation twice if from one presentation to the next you have some other things. Again, the second reading is a public forum where we can do the same things but you have the voting power. But I just think from an efficiency standpoint, let's not
let too much time lag between workshop and second reading. Maybe do it the day before, the day of. That way it's a robust conversation that can continue on into the reading and it's fresh for everybody. >> Mr. Mayor, are you okay with that? >> I have no problem with that. >> Colleagues, uh, you okay with that?
>> At least you could vet it out and have a back and forth in case and and once again, I'll try to get you. Here we go. We're we're trying to hurry something, >> but we need to get we we need to get you the documents, too, so you could review
them so then you could ask the question. And Commissioner Mart, I apologize that we didn't get every document on there, but I was also trying to be fair to the developer because I didn't know actually at the end of the day getting this last minute and stuff as to what they wanted
to present or not because they said that this was just something so we could go over and it was done very nicely and everything else. But I will make sure that we put enough documents together and I'll instruct my staff already to start putting everything together and
the final viewpoints or stuff that we have will start getting hashed out. But the most important thing is to pick a date because Monday you have to state, am I correct, M uh Ventura? Is to go ahead and state a date certain so that way we'll fall in comply with the law
and we're good to go. And if we don't need to to save some time, we could try to hash this stuff faster. We could do it before two weeks, we'll tell you too. >> Okay. >> So really, so really by the time you meet with the developer and his team and
you guys hash out those things, um really the workshop is just for me to be informed >> or you might want to add some other things. I'll be honest with you, from what I've heard thus far,
um, the city's winning. It's my opinion. I believe the city's winning. So, whatever you negotiate at this point is like a cherry on top. If you're able to get land for free and you can convince them, I mean, that's a huge victory. >> I
I don't think it's >> We've been We've been We've been trying to balance it all based on the discussion you've been hearing all night long. We've been going from it's just been a lot of process. I think the most
important thing that we need to do is final the last touches as both counselors were going at right now and then just getting the agreement and going from A to Z. It's about 40 pages of everything >> with exhibits and all that information.
Correct. >> And everything. So then at that point we'll give you I guess the agreement ahead of time. You could look at it. If there's something at that point that you want to add, maybe it could be then in the workshop before add it
to them agreeing up here. And then at that point, once that is done, if they agree to add it and we agree to move forward, then we rewrite whatever is going to be part of that. Is that the proper way to do? And then that will be
the rest the ordinance finalized and you guys get to pick it. I understand why you're asking for a workshop because in case you guys want to decide on something new or different uh to add into it and they accept it on the fly. Okay. By the way,
this happens all the time in other governments. There's things commissioners come with the last minute and say I would like to add this or this community thing or this. Could that be done? And if the developer says, "I'll agree to it." It's done. I've done that
many times in the past and the professionals on this team have also done it too as our team. So, I understand why he's asking for the workshop. I think it will be the best solution in the interest of time. But we
have to scrub everything and give you so you ahead of time have time to digest everything. Even though you have it, like you said, as part of the agreement, I mean, part of the first reading, but we want to make sure everything that we
>> Yeah, your amendments are fine. And I just want to I I want to make sure you guys are excluding the alcohol and the the decibel levels from the master agreement. >> Now that we have extra time, we may we may add it. >> We might add it. >> Okay. >> We may add it.
>> Let me give you a caveat. And where I said at the beginning of this that I have disagreements with the developer. I have no problem approving an alcohol variance for the school, but
I wanted to come with times. I know the developer at one point was asking for 5 a.m. alcohol use. I I do not agree with that um for safety and security purpose. I don't want that. So, if you're going to negotiate that, I
would personally not want alcohol being sold until 5:00 a.m. in that district. Um, whatever times you guys come up with, just, you know, >> have you thought about the noise ordinance since you're giving us input?
I would appreciate if you've thought about that. >> So, here here's what I say about noise. I understand the developer wants to have uh bars and restaurants and maybe clubs or comedy clubs. I understand that when the doors are closed inside the business, there's going to be a level of
decibel. I have no problem with that. We we used to deal with that all the time with Lakawatcha. What I don't want is the residents on Northwest 7th Street and 104 A or the surrounding areas specifically where the Miami Christian property used to be just
east of of 110 A. I don't want them complaining of noise and then we're stuck because we gave them approval for noise. So, I I want the noise to be reasonable. I'm not looking for an ultra fest scenario. U I know that they're going to ask for special permitting for
um special event permitting that goes through your office. >> That's understandable. But it has to be something reasonable. something where if later on and I and I don't know if if this is even feasible we're at night
time because sound travels more at night time if we can go ahead and figure out what decibel levels they want now and if we're you know the house is on 114 A we're going to be able to get a gauge
you also have the environmental uh aspect of it because the buildings do display sound uh and and architecture has a way of displacing sound with water features and whatnot. I just don't want to hear the complaints about sound and and music. Uh
I definitely don't want, you know, the place open till 5:00 in the morning. I don't know how my how my colleagues feel about that. Um so you want the place open till 5:00 in the morning. >> No, no, I'm agree with you, >> Mr. President. It's understandable what
you've said and this is a reason why we wanted to deal with this separate. Exactly what you said because it at the the first part of it and Vera, if you have a minute, please come up. At the first part of it, it was
basically an open permit type situation. So the way I told them if you need to do an event that's open uh like the air like when we do Valerfest or something like that uh we could try to do it on a
>> case by case basis. >> Exactly. And so if they needed to bring that down fast we will be able to do it. But when you're talking about possibility changing the whole sound ordinance in the city of Sweetwater that's where Am I correct sir?
>> Yes. Um the sound ordinance. Yeah, the sound ordinance and the liquor were two submitts that were done to us previously. It was going to go on a separate uh ordinance. Um when once I I
I received it uh I looked at the uses uh especially on the on the sound and what was happening is that our code currently is a lot of it is dealing with
commercial sound. So I revamped the whole code to read for both commercial and residential areas. commercials and residential areas. So, uh, Caesar, our attorney, he has a copy
of it. Nobody else between him and I are the ones that have only seen the that uh vision >> because we we weren't ready yet >> and I'm sorry to chair and and that's coming to us >> that will be apparently it looks like it
will be coming together with the master development agreement once once it comes >> the interest of time for the development is something important for them because I understand what they're trying to accomplish. This is one of the reason I'm so supportive. Uh if you look at
Dorado's uh what is it the city >> city place it's very well contained as you said Mr. President within the actual businesses but then when you have an amphitheater out there and they could have a concert at 2 in the morning
it will echo probably and in fact I think they've changed their outdoor laws as to sound and everything in the city. Uh that is part of what I asked them to double check and see who's got what for that kind of situ. We have it in in the commercial district which we really
haven't I think address which is >> we got to do it. >> Yeah. You know and so on. So let us look at it. Let us tone it up. I haven't seen it. It's got to be brought to me so I could view it. So then I could send to you and you both you look
at it. And that's part of just trying to get it done before uh we you know that same day it could be probably presented with it. >> And I'll just give you a it's a not a significant document. It really is two pages of text changes.
>> So it's something that based on your concerns tonight and I'm sure as this conversation evolves. It's not a significant lift to tweak it or update it in any way that the city wants. But and that's that's why we treated it almost as a separate ordinance because we knew that it was so specific to those
uses and the locations that it was kind of a standalone ordinance on its own. >> Yeah. I uh I I'm a no-go for launch for businesses open till 5:00 in the morning. >> Okay. >> Um I I don't want alcohol sales past a certain time. We've had bad experiences
in the city of Sweetwater when it comes to that. um where our police officers are constantly responding to um establishments selling alcoholic beverages past a certain hour. >> Bars and nightclubs and >> bars, nightclubs, you know,
realistically in Miami Day County, restaurants aren't really open till, you know, past midnight. You can order, you know, once you have once you're there, you can stay till 1:00 in the morning, but that's a restaurant. You know, bars, nightclubs, comedy clubs, whatever, you
know, he wants to do. I think our code currently says 3:00 a.m. if I'm not mistaken. >> Correct. >> Is that accurate? >> Yeah. >> 2 a.m. >> 2 a.m. 2 a.m. >> 2 a.m. >> 2 a.m. Sorry. >> I think 2 a.m. is more than reasonable. >> And then you could you could ask for an
extension from the commission if they would like to to go further >> an internal business that is in a commercial area or so on that would that's where be coming to you and then you could agree or not. >> I would personally I would rather go with the 2 a.m. I know the developer is
not happy with that, but this is just my personal feeling. Once that establishment is built, once those restaurants or establishments are operating, uh we can go ahead and seek counsel from our police department to figure out what kind of calls for
service and quality of life issues we're having and then later on if we don't see any issues, then we can consider extending it till three. That's just my personal feeling. I've had dialogue with the developer and and I'm not willing to
move on those things. Um, but if that's going to be in the master development agreement, >> great. I think at this point >> I think it'll come with the master development agreement, but it still should be a standalone order. We believe it's important enough to be codified. >> I agree >> in your code. It's it's just important
for the developer as they plan out what they're doing and prospective uh tenants. Is that proper to say? And what's going to happen? And it will make a big difference for them to uh it might expedite even moving faster some of the
other areas based on what might come out of it if I believe that's the discussion we had before. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, >> uh one more thing. >> You want to close it out, George? Go ahead. >> Yeah. regarding something the mayor asked me earlier regarding the plans and
everything for the three little adners the future ones like I said they could submit their plans they could submit their site plan approvals and through that process it could be reviewed and it's going to take them easily easily
over six six months seven months to be able to get a permit so we have time to develop a good de master development agreement And so the rush as far as development, you
still you still got to go to review. You still got to plat the property. We're far away from that. But all in all, I heard the wishes of this commission based on what we're getting and we'll do everything. We'll continue to do
everything. And when you said before that the city is kind of won. No, I the way I agree, I think we're almost at the point where everybody wins and that's what I and you guys asked for to be done and that's
what we're doing and I think that's what's going to end up uh at the end of the day and hopefully um this will all go forward properly and we'll continue to have the greatness of our city just looking better and better and that's it.
So as far as timeline is concerned, I will touch base for Monday and see uh and we'll start scheduling. It might take us a day maybe two >> to actually give a date and we'll try to get that date as soon as possible. But I
want to make sure you get all the documents and enough time for you to review those documents and make sure that what you see is what we're proposing. If you want to including the noise ordinance. It's separate from
one to the other, but at least you have something that'll ride with it. And is that correct? >> Correct. >> I >> first hearing we would have to Oh, no. I would have to advertise that
>> separately. >> Separately. Yes. >> Because that's an ordinance and it's got a first reading. How many days we need to advertise? >> 10. Now the caveat with the alcohol and and noise issue is that the document has
been submitted and has been in review for quite some time. Um it is a matter of just actually bringing it before you guys on first reading, getting your commentary back if we need to make any changes but starting that process. So I think that unlike the master development agreement which has a much more
complicated element to it, that ordinance, you know, is pretty straightforward and based on your commentary, we can always adapt and move and edit the language. >> Yeah. I mean, right now the way the ordinance is written when it comes to restaurants and noise and times, that's already that's already there.
>> Uh we can always amend it later on after dialogue. Um Mr. Mayor, you have any closing uh statements, sir? I uh I thank you all for the uh participating in this workshop. I I think that like you said, Mr. Counselor,
it's a lot of information has exchanged hands. A lot of things have been vetted out. Um I'm sure more things have come up, but hopefully all the big issues and the things I'll be put already to to finalize this agreement and and I think
both sides are one. So I don't have it. Do you have anything else? >> Uh, >> any colleagues have any uh closing statements? >> Anything else? >> Okay. >> Any colleagues have closing statement? Commissioners? >> No. >> I have one, >> Alex. >> I have more of a another suggestion, right, based on this spirit of
cooperation that we're dealing on and the timeline. Um, you'll see me on Monday coming here to defer. At that time, the master development agreement will need to be deferred to a date certain. So, I think we've mentioned two weeks. Um, how about if we do the workshop April 20th? It's a Monday. and
then schedule that second reading to April 21st, the Tuesday. >> You have until Monday to think about it, but I just wanted to put it out there because >> I think that I mean I think that's really at the mayor's purview with the mayor and the mayor's staff. I'm going to let the mayor make that. At least
that's where my decision is. >> No, you're absolutely right, Mayor. I >> I would like to listen, I want to move this thing forward. >> Yes. >> If it's up to me, I'm approving this on Monday as is because everything else can be amended. I understand the the appetite of my colleagues on the
commission uh and I'll respect it because I know how these things work. There's there's nothing wrong with it. But if you don't feel comfortable with it, fine. It's not my money. It's his money. Um it's our job to be the stewards of the city. And I got I have a I have absolutely no problem with that.
So my vote is to give the mayor his purview. I think two weeks from what the mayor has said is more than sufficient time. Um, Mr. Mayor, two weeks is that sufficient time. Do you want to do you want to just
get with them and not vocalize a date? >> Certainly not if because honestly I think we're there. It's just a matter >> I I don't want it to go further if we could get it done. Like you said, there was a lot of good arguments both sides.
It's just I want to make sure that like right now we're we were thinking to get the ordinance I'm sorry the sound u ordinance on but now we have to go through a timeline period. Now we could hear both things in at the same time but
we have to give it we would have to sit down Monday and figure out already the date so we could state it in the evening in the meeting >> right >> and then we'll give it to you guys at that point to state the date >> and one thing if I might um Carmen
pointed something out the legal requirement which is what I was answering is 10 days between >> uh meetings >> Carmen pointed out that the Herald is going to need two extra days. >> So, it's really 12 days in order to get
the the the ad in the paper. >> See, this is the reason what you said what you said. We're trying to move fast as possible, but then certain things takes time to do by law. So, uh
>> we'll look we'll get together Monday. We'll come up with something for you guys at the end of the day. We're we're gonna work it together and figure this out. And uh at that point, >> once again, thank you for >> the commissioners uh agree to convene and adjourn the meeting. >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. >> Meeting adjourned.