CRA approves participation in downtown campus redevelopment 4-1 amid public accusations over city attorney

The Boca Raton Community Redevelopment Agency voted 4-1 on Jan. 20 to adopt Resolution No. 202601, authorizing the agency to participate in the downtown campus redevelopment and to sign related transaction documents that would enable potential tax increment financing and public improvements, the city attorney said.

City Attorney Mr. Kaylor told the board the CRA would not be selling or transferring land it does not own and that the agency’s role is limited to potential funding and participation in eligible public improvements. “This resolution authorizes the CRA to sign those transaction documents,” he said, adding that the resolution’s effectiveness is contingent on voter approval at the March referendum.

At the public hearing, John Pearlman of Save Boca, Inc. urged the chair not to sign any agreement before the March vote and alleged that an email and buried contract language suggested the city attorney and the developer had worked closely on ballot language and contract terms. Pearlman said an email address, john@saveboca.org, was used by the political committee Save Boca, Inc., and identified himself as that organization’s president and chairman.

“Prior to the last council meeting, the city lawyer changed, made an extraordinary change to the contract, which was buried within the 400 page document,” Pearlman said, and he warned the change could allow “the contract [to be] still binding and effective” if the referendum failed. He argued that signing the agreement before voters decide could expose the city to litigation.

Chair Mr. Wigder and several commissioners pushed back on those allegations and defended the process and the city attorney. Wigder said he had worked with Mr. Kaylor for years and that the attorney “has nothing but the best interests of the city at heart.” Commissioner Drucker and other board members called the accusations misleading and urged speakers to be specific when leveling claims.

Another public commenter, Richard Warner, criticized the project’s handling and called the vote-timing “corrupt,” repeating concerns that the board should not approve actions prior to the March referendum.

After discussion, the board moved to adopt the resolution. In a roll call, Vice Chair Thompson voted no; Commissioners Drucker, Singer, Nacklis and Victor voted yes. The motion passed 4-1. The resolution allows CRA participation in the redevelopment process but makes clear the agency’s obligations are subject to conditions, including voter approval.

No additional binding agreements were reported as executed at the meeting. The resolution’s effectiveness remains contingent on the March vote and on any conditions identified in the transaction documents, the city attorney said.