Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Campus Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boca Raton council adopts downtown campus agreement, sends 99‑year lease to March 10 referendum
Summary
After hours of presentations and public comment, the Boca Raton City Council adopted Ordinance 57-69 by a 4–1 vote, approving a master partnership agreement, a development management agreement and a 99‑year ground lease framework with Terra Frisbie; the package now goes to voters March 10. Supporters cited parks and civic improvements; opponents warned of traffic, valuation and long lease risks.
The Boca Raton City Council voted 4–1 on Jan. 20 to adopt Ordinance 57‑69, advancing a package of agreements for the downtown government campus redevelopment to a March 10 referendum.
Mayor Singer and four council members voted to adopt the master partnership agreement (MPA), a permissive development management and construction agreement, and the 99‑year ground lease framework with Boca Raton City Center LLC, the entity tied to the Terra Frisbie proposal. Council member Thompson cast the lone dissent, saying the deal placed too much long‑term risk on the city.
The agreements do not authorize construction. City Attorney Koehler told the council the MPA and lease are contingent on an affirmative majority vote of residents and that no lease commencement, possession, or vertical construction may occur until the partner satisfies the conditions in the agreements, obtains all required financing and secure building permits. Koehler said the documents preserve city and CRA oversight and include enforcement tools up to termination if the private partner fails to perform.
City staff and consultants presented the project as a mixed‑use, transit‑oriented district east of Northwest 2nd Avenue with a planned civic area to the west. Deputy City Manager Andy Lukasic and PFM consultant Kevin Plensler laid out the design principles — pedestrian corridors, protected bike lanes, and a reimagined Memorial Park — and updated fiscal assumptions. Plensler said PFM’s revised analysis includes percentage rent, construction rent and other operating revenues; staff and PFM cited a 99‑year net present value of operating revenues and indirect fiscal benefits that, they said, exceed the independent appraised value of the land.
CFO Jim Zervis told the council the most recent independent appraisal placed fee‑simple value of the property at $99,000,000; staff contrasted that to the PFM figures and said the cumulative revenue stream and retained land ownership at lease end added to the public value. Staff also explained mechanisms to monetize a portion of early revenues (PFM offered illustrative bonding capacity of roughly $107–127 million under different scenarios) to help fund public improvements such as a new city hall, community center and park work on the west side of the campus.
The agreements include several protections negotiated since January: an increase in the minimum post‑construction rent escalator during the construction period, a narrowed one‑time recalibration standard for the gross‑revenue hurdle (limited to extraordinary financial impairment with a reciprocal city right to recapture revenue), a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (PILOT) protection to mitigate state ad valorem changes, and embedded traffic analysis methodology and mitigation obligations (including mitigation fees capped at up to $4,000,000 and a developer contribution staff cited at $7.8 million).
Public comment filled much of the meeting. Supporters — including veterans’ groups and civic activists who said they had been consulted on a redesigned Memorial Park — praised the project’s park and civic improvements, workforce housing units (ten percent of rental units, roughly 77 workforce units at a maximum of 120% of area median income), and economic benefits. “We get badly needed workforce housing with 77 new units,” resident George Harper said, urging a yes vote.
Opponents raised points about traffic, valuation, the fairness of a 99‑year lease, and long‑term public risk. Several speakers from the Save Boca coalition and other residents said they worried the city was effectively giving up public land for too long and questioned whether the project’s financial projections and appraisal comparisons were reliable. “We’re giving up this land for 99 years,” resident Joe Majes said. Others asked why mailers and advocacy had been circulating and sought greater transparency on developer financials and campaign funding.
Council discussion reflected those divisions. Proponents emphasized the fiscal diversification, multiple revenue streams (ground rent, percentage rent, transfer fees, participation rent and operating revenues) and the opportunity to pay for public improvements without depleting reserves. Opponents focused on shifting project risk to the city (public financing and monetization timing), traffic impacts, building heights and whether the workforce housing and civic improvements would be fully secured in a timely way.
Clerk Sittins recorded the roll call on the ordinance adoption: Deputy Mayor Nacklis, Council members Drucker, Wigter and Mayor Singer voted yes; Council member Thompson voted no. The ordinance passed 4–1. The measures adopted by the council will appear on the March 10 ballot; a voter majority is required to validate the transactions and allow any lease or construction steps to proceed.
Next steps: staff said council will consider comprehensive plan amendments and land‑development regulations in February, and site plans and regulatory approvals would follow any affirmative referendum. If voters reject the proposal, council members said they would reassess options for civic facilities and park investments without proceeding under this P3.
