Residents press council on '1 Boca' deal, raise finance, transparency and park‑preservation concerns

Boca Raton — Public comment at the Nov. 17 council workshop focused heavily on fiscal transparency, the developer’s ties and whether the project’s park claims and financial benefits are accurate.

John Perlman, a downtown resident, said the project rests on a transit‑oriented narrative tied to Brightline and urged rejection. “You set the city on a course toward the future of this city centered around this failing company,” Perlman said, asserting Brightline faces heavy debt and litigation. He asked why city staff time and resources were being spent on the plan if voters will likely reject it at referendum.

Several other speakers echoed calls for caution. Mike Leibelson said he supports the Save Boca petition that would require voter approval for sale or long‑term leases of public land and urged the council to “scrap” the Terra Frisbie deal, calling CBRE’s incentives and the projected public spending worrisome. Leibelson said he believes the capital improvement plan includes $80 million for a government‑campus allocation and said the public needs more detail on how that money is committed.

Judy Morrow asked for the appraisal to be released and said police presence downtown should not be weakened; she also urged the city to share the Recreation Master Plan. Other commenters questioned sign posting for related hearings and asked for assurances that downtown park parking would remain available.

Council members and staff responded point by point. Mayor and staff clarified that employee time is salaried and not billed per project and that items in the five‑year CIP do not automatically commit spending in future years beyond the adopted budget. CBRE’s Mike Machey explained the 1% transfer fee would apply only to buildings on city‑leased land and gave an illustrative example of how the fee would apply to an apartment building sale. He also said CBRE’s projection work has been reviewed by PFM, the city’s independent financial advisor, and that detailed year‑by‑year cash‑flow tables exist for years 1–99.

Council members asked follow‑up questions about the discount rate, sensitivity analysis and how CRA (tax‑increment) revenues would behave when the CRA expires in 2043. Council member Wigdner asked staff to provide scenario detail — annual rents, escalation rates and sensitivity to different discount rates — rather than only a 99‑year net present value.

No formal actions were taken. Staff and CBRE agreed to provide the appraisal, the detailed financial tables and answers to written questions before future council meetings, and the council scheduled additional briefings leading into the Dec. 2 and Jan. meetings.