Boca Raton officials preview downtown redevelopment P3, debate clause tied to March 10 referendum

City staff on Monday previewed the city’s planned public–private redevelopment of the downtown government campus and answered council and public questions about the master partnership agreement, a 99-year ground lease and the ballot schedule for a March 10 referendum.

Deputy City Manager Andy Lukasick summarized the conceptual master plan prepared by the city’s selected partner, Terra Frisbee, describing a transit-oriented, pedestrian-scaled district adjacent to the Brightline station that would include mixed uses: staff cited 947 total residential units (765 rental units including 77 workforce units, and about 182 condominium units), roughly 120,000 square feet of office, about 79,000 square feet of retail including grocery space, a roughly 180‑room hotel and roughly 2,000 parking spaces. Lukasick said the plan emphasizes plazas, activated open space and connections from Palmetto Avenue to the rail station.

“If approved by the council and ratified by voters, the transaction will be governed by a master partnership agreement and associated leases and development-management documents,” Lukasick said, describing the agreements staff expects council to introduce and discuss in meetings next week and later this month.

Leanne Course, an executive vice president with CBRE who appeared with staff, described the project as a public‑private partnership (P3) intended to deliver civic facilities such as a community center, police and fire substation and a renovated City Hall footprint while repurposing underperforming private assets. Course said independent analyses by CBRE and the city’s financial adviser, PFM, project long‑term revenue streams over a 99‑year lease term; the slide deck shown to council quoted nondiscounted revenue projections in the low billions and present‑value estimates in the low hundreds of millions. Course said the developer will make a one‑time mobility contribution of $7,800,000 and handle East‑side infrastructure and maintenance obligations for the private development areas.

City attorney Josh Kaert gave a legal overview, calling the MPA the umbrella agreement that would govern sequencing if the council approves the transaction (staff said the council will introduce the ordinance the next day, and consider action Jan. 20). Kaert said the MPA and related documents do not themselves authorize vertical construction; the agreements require full financing, shovel‑ready permits and regulatory approvals before any lease commencement or construction. He also described standard contractual protections for the city, including indemnity, audit and public‑records obligations and termination remedies if milestones are not met.

A focal point of public comment and council questioning was an MPA provision quoted by multiple speakers that says, in part, "the failure of the referendum to occur shall not be deemed a rejection and shall have no effect on the effectiveness of this agreement." A member of the public reading the clause urged council to adopt neutral language that would condition the agreement on a referendum or terminate the agreement if a referendum does not occur.

John Perlman, a resident who spoke twice during the meeting, told the council he was concerned the provision could leave some contractual obligations in force even if voters do not act and accused city counsel of drafting ballot language in coordination with the developer. "This contract should not have any effect in the absence of a referendum," Perlman said.

Kaert replied that the clause was drafted to prevent situations where a court or procedural challenge could wipe out the vote (for example, a force‑majeure or legal order) and that staff could propose clarified language affirming the city’s and the partner’s commitment to hold the referendum. He emphasized that the public‑facilities estimate shown in the agreement is a preliminary cap and repeatedly said the agreement includes language making clear that any city expenditures are subject to future appropriation and are not a contractual obligation to spend that amount.

Council members pressed staff on financial modeling differences shown in PFM’s materials. Staff and a financial representative pointed to alternate rent models (a percentage‑rent model versus a fair‑market‑rent model) as the reason the net present value numbers differ and said PFM refined modeling to one scenario with multiple rent options.

Several members of the public urged the council not to sign any final contract before the March 10 vote and circulated a form email and petition to that effect; others asked that staff post searchable, consolidated documents. City staff and the mayor said their intent in finalizing deal terms before the referendum is to make the terms available to voters so people can evaluate what would be approved by the ballot question.

No ordinance vote occurred in the workshop; staff said the council would introduce the ordinance at the meeting the next day and that council would consider action on Jan. 20. The referendum date shown in staff materials is March 10, pending council action.

The council directed city counsel to circulate revised referendum language for review and said staff would post updated documents on the project webpage. The workshop adjourned at 3:15 p.m.