Palm Beach Gardens council approves technical amendment for Plant Drive athletic facility but denies timing extension

The Palm Beach Gardens City Council on June 11 approved a narrow amendment to Section 14 of Exhibit B of the public‑private partnership agreement with the Palm Beach North Athletic Foundation (PBNAF) while declining to grant the foundation a requested extension of time to meet financing and construction milestones for an indoor recreational facility at Plant Drive Park.

City Attorney Max Lohman told the council the amendment “has to do with the carrying term of the required surety post construction” and that the only question before the council that evening was whether to grant “the request for a 90 day extension of time to the financial and construction milestones.”

The council vote approved only the revision to Section 14 — language tied to post‑construction surety — and did not extend the schedule for the foundation’s financing or construction deadlines. Mayor Maria Tinsley recused herself from participating in the item and passed the gavel after disclosing a potential conflict related to her husband’s employment and buy‑out payments from a firm that had performed survey and site work for the project.

Why it matters: Residents of Plant Drive and surrounding neighborhoods spoke for nearly an hour during public comment and urged council members not to give another extension to PBNAF. Speakers said the group has received prior extensions on an earlier site and that the city should enforce contract deadlines rather than repeatedly amending schedules. PBNAF representatives said the foundation has secured a term sheet and additional pledged funds but needs more time to close financing and proceed to construction.

What PBNAF told the council Jason McCarty, identified in the record as a member of the PBNAF board and a Palm Beach Gardens resident, told council members the project team had spent about $2,600,000 on land‑use design, building design, preconstruction services, consultants and legal fees and had authorized $18,000,000 in construction contracts. He said the foundation had procured about $534,000 in materials to mitigate long lead times and that building permits had been obtained and “are sitting waiting to go.”

Investment banker John Bolzano of Ziegler presented financing terms in outline. He said the team had secured a tax‑exempt bank term sheet for a $29,000,000 credit facility with a quoted rate of 5.59% (a taxable equivalent of 7.03%). Bolzano described the tax‑exempt route as the preferred financing path for nonprofits and said the foundation had started the conduit issuer process with the Florida Local Government Finance Commission.

What residents said Dozens of residents, including multiple speakers from the Plant Drive neighborhood, urged the council not to extend the deadlines. Heather Deichman Levy, who said she lives on Gardens East Drive, told council members the Burns Road Community Center succeeded because the city surveyed residents before funding and “that should be standard practice. Check with the public before making big changes to public spaces.” She asked the council to “stick to that contract that was signed.”

Helen Brown, who lives on Plant Drive, told the council she opposed another extension, citing PBNAF’s record of missed milestones at a prior North County site and the council’s prior terminations. “Are we really going to reward poor planning and broken promises with more time and the community’s trust?” she asked.

Concerns raised by other speakers included late‑stage financing, the timing of PBNAF’s application to a conduit issuer, the absence of audited financial statements that were due under the agreement, the project’s commercial scale in a residential area, and the potential public‑safety and environmental risks of development at the site.

Council deliberations and motion Council members pressed the applicants on timing and whether a taxable conventional loan could bridge the schedule until the tax‑exempt conduit closing. PBNAF representatives said doing so would increase project cost and add complexity; they also said they had waited to market financing until site plan approvals and construction budgets were sufficiently defined.

City Attorney Lohman presented a narrowly framed motion to approve only the amendment to Section 14 (post‑construction surety language) of Exhibit B and not to grant the requested time extension. The motion carried; the clerk announced that Resolution 52‑2025 was approved “as it relates to the amendment to the agreement for section 14 of x exhibit b, and not as it relates to the time extension.”

What the council did not decide The council did not vote to extend the foundation’s financing or construction milestones. The transcript and the motion record the council’s approval of the Section 14 amendment only; the financing term sheet, donor pledges and closing timeline remain the responsibility of PBNAF and its lenders and are not altered by the amendment the council approved.

Next steps PBNAF leaders said they remained committed to advancing the project and that they have ongoing work with lenders, material suppliers and contractors. Council members said they would expect the foundation to meet its remaining obligations on the original schedule or to return to the council with verified evidence of financing if the foundation seeks any further modification.

Votes at a glance related to the item The council approved the narrow amendment to Section 14 of Exhibit B of the PBNAF public‑private partnership agreement; the time extension request was not approved. Mayor Maria Tinsley recused herself from the item.

Ending note The item surfaced long‑running tensions over public land use, deadlines in public‑private agreements and how the council balances community objections with outside fundraising and nonprofit financing timelines. PBNAF said it had secured key financing documents and pledged support; residents pressed for enforcement of contract deadlines and more direct public engagement before major changes to neighborhood parks.