Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lease Trustbridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boca Raton council postpones long-term hospice-lease vote after residents and council question $1-a-year terms and protections
Summary
Council postponed an ordinance that would extend and potentially add renewal terms to a long-running $1-per-year lease for the hospice facility now operated by TrustBridge, after members and public commenters flagged concerns about executive pay, service quality and whether the $1,000,000 capital-investment condition is adequate.
Mayor Thompson and the City Council postponed consideration of Ordinance 57-86, which would amend and extend a lease for approximately 5.12 acres at 1531 West Palmetto Park Road used by the hospice provider TrustBridge (successor to Hospice by the Sea).
Deputy Director of Development Services Ms. Sita told the council the proposed ordinance would extend the lease to June 12, 2044, allow up to four additional 10-year renewal periods and require the lessee to document $1,000,000 in capital improvements between June 12, 2024, and June 11, 2044 before the city could approve an additional extension. She said TrustBridge has already invested about $13 million in the facility and that under the code a leasehold longer than five years is treated as a sale of city property for review purposes.
Steve Matheson, an attorney for the hospice, described its 40-plus years of community service and said, "We want to make sure that this facility ... will be here for a very long time to come," asking the council to approve the change so donors’ expectations and permit timelines can be met.
Councilmember Perlman pushed back on extending the city's commitment without more detail. He cited the original 1984 deed terms and said the property was appraised at roughly $7.5 million in 2025. Perlman also referenced media reporting and alleged federal billing issues when he argued the council should scrutinize whether the public is receiving adequate value from the lease while executives at the provider have received large compensation packages. Matheson responded that leadership had changed and urged reliance on verified facts.
Residents at the public hearing expressed mixed views. Pam Paschke questioned whether a $1,000,000 fixed requirement over many years is sufficient given inflation. Brianna Hackquist called the arrangement “almost like a land giveaway,” and Judy Morrow raised concerns about reviews and quality of care at the facility.
Councilmembers debated options, including inserting a city termination clause into renewal terms, asking for a higher or better‑defined investment obligation, or deferring action. Mayor Thompson moved — and the council seconded and agreed — to postpone the ordinance until staff and the applicant can renegotiate terms and re-notice the item when ready. The council did not adopt the extension and directed staff to return with recommended revisions and any clarifying documents.
What happens next: The council postponed the matter to allow staff time to work with the applicant to clarify investment commitments, consider reinstating the city's termination right on renewals, and give the public another opportunity for comment when the item is re-noticed.
