Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on buying One Main Street/Paradise Park; owners offer site‑plan work
Summary
Owners of the One Main Street parcels told Tequesta council they would accept the village appraisal of $8.45 million; council members disagreed on fiscal prudence and parking constraints and agreed to seek a short site‑plan/parking analysis before deciding whether to pursue a referendum or purchase.
Property owners of the One Main Street parcels told the Village of Tequesta council on Sept. 29 they are willing to negotiate and that prior appraisal figures had been discussed. Tom Frankle, who identified himself as the property owner, said the owners had previously entertained offers and would "entertain a fair price" and that the village appraisal returned $8.45 million after earlier owner estimates of $9.8 million.
Council members debated whether to put a bond referendum on the ballot to acquire the property for a park. Several councilors said they were sympathetic to preserving space for a park but expressed concern that the village would have to provide or subsidize significant parking for adjacent private parcels and that taking the land off the tax rolls would have fiscal consequences. One council member said the village likely could not afford acquisition at the appraised price without a clearer plan for parking and long‑term maintenance.
Owners offered to fund or help pay for a targeted site‑plan/parking analysis to determine the worst‑case parking obligation for existing adjacent buildings and how much acreage would remain for a village park. Councilors agreed to place the matter on the next council meeting agenda and to evaluate a short site‑plan assessment before moving forward with a ballot question or purchase decision. No purchase authorization or referendum language was adopted.
Tom Frankle said, "We are open. We've been trying to, you know, figure out what to do with this property," and indicated flexibility on price and lease terms while asking the village to consider financing and parking realities. Residents who spoke in favor said the parcel would add much‑needed park space and support downtown businesses, but several councilors countered that removing a revenue‑producing, mixed‑use parcel from the tax rolls without a firm plan presented fiscal and logistical risks.
The immediate outcome: council did not authorize a purchase or a bond; it asked staff to place the item on the next council agenda with the expectation that a short site‑plan/parking study would be completed and reviewed in time for a formal vote at a subsequent meeting.
