[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] >> I LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2024. THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> CALL THE ROLL CALL PLEASE. [5. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA] >> CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GAINES? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON ? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? PRESENT. >> NEXT WE HAVE ADDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. >> MADAM MAYOR, THERE'S AN ITEM WE BEEN WORKING INTERNALLY AS STAFF FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING WHERE WE REQUESTED THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS. WE HAVE BEFORE US A DRAFT LETTER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER AS THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 7 EE. >> IS THERE A MOTION WITH THAT CHANGE? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. OMISSION OR BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER [4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] GAINES? YES. AND CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON? YES MA'AM. >> AND I THINK I SKIPPED OVER THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 14 MEETING. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. [6. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject on this agenda may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Chairperson, as this section of the Agenda is limited to fifteen minutes. The FPRA Board will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Chairperson, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.] >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON? COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON, OMISSION OR BRODERICK, CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON? YES MA'AM. >> NEXT WE MOVE ON TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. >> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL RECEIVE A THREE SECOND WARNING. >> I GET TO SEE YOU THOUGH. IN THE GROCERY STORE, TOO. >> 205 N. 2ND ST. IN FORT PIERCE. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS TWO AREAS ON THE AGENDA . THE FIRST ONE IS THE EXPENDITURE OF $51,266.40 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 12 CAMERAS IN KEY AREAS THROUGHOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INPUT TWO THINGS. I NOTICED THAT DOWNTOWN AND THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF SECOND STREET AND INDIAN RIVER DR. WE HAVE NUMEROUS LIGHTS OUT AND WE RECENTLY HAD A THEFT TO ONE OF THE BUSINESSES. THERE WAS A CAMERA THERE BUT IT WAS A BUSINESS OWNED CAMERA. I THINK BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COME DOWNTOWN TO USE THE RESTAURANTS AND THE BARS AND THE SHOPS AND SO ON, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO ALSO LOOK AT SOME CAMERAS FOR DOWNTOWN. THERE IS MORE OF AN INCENTIVE DOWN THERE BECAUSE OF THE BUSINESSES AND SO ON THAT I THINK WOULD HELP A LOT FOR THE PUBLIC TO FEEL MORE SAFE IF WE HAD SOME CAMERAS DOWNTOWN , AS WELL. THE OTHER ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS ITEMS B AND C , 8 B AND C. THE AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT. I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT GOING TO GET ANSWERS TONIGHT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO READ OFF THE QUESTIONS. DID AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT EVER RESPOND TO THE WTAE A REVIEW AND THEIR LACK OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE FPRA TO RECEIVE NEGOTIATIONS TO PROVIDE RELEVANT DATA AND OR ANSWERS TO THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES THEY CAME UP WITH? AND WHY DID THE CITY CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM? HAS AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED ANY DATA WITH THE MARRIOTT HOTEL GROUP TO BE DEVELOPED AS THE KINGS LANDING MARRIOTT HOTEL? THE FINANCIALS AND FINANCING FROM INVESTORS? HAS AUDUBON PROVIDED AS TO WHERE THE DEPOSIT MONIES ARE FOR THE CONDO RESERVATIONS AND THE ENTIRE HOME PURCHASE MONIES WELL OVER $1.5 MILLION FROM PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND HOW IS IT BEING INSURED THAT THEY GET THAT RETURN? HAS AUDUBON PAID ITS 2023 PROPERTY TAXES IN EXCESS OF $134,000? IN THE AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT POST LOAD LOSS, THEY STATED THAT HE DID THAT DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER FROM WHAT WE COULD SEE, HE ONLY PURCHASED ONE UNIT AND LOST IT IN FORECLOSURE YEARS LATER. IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE -- WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN FINDING IF THEY ARE IN DEFAULT WITH ANYONE ELSE? [00:05:05] >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> 1111 FERNANDINA ST. >> 1111 FERNANDINA ST. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR , COMMISSIONERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE DAIS. IT IS DECISION TIME. I WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS IN MY CAREER. I FIND MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN BRASH, EGOCENTRIC OH, AND WILLING TO CUT OUT YOUR HEART FOR A NICKEL. DALE MADISON HAS BEEN A GENTLEMAN. THERE'S BEEN ROADBLOCK AFTER ROADBLOCK THROWN AT HIM. MANY DELAYS WERE CAUSED BY PROMISES MADE BY THE CITY. AS THE PROMISES WERE BROKEN AND HE COULD NOT START DEVELOPMENT WITH INFLATION, PRICE OF MATERIALS, PRICE OF LABOR, EVERYTHING HAS GONE UP. THINGS HAVE CHANGED. BUT HE HAS STAYED THE COURSE. HE HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY THROUGH ALL OF THIS, HE STILL SUPPORTS MAIN STREET, HE SUPPORTS SUNRISE THEATER, HE'S BEEN A GOOD CITIZEN. THE CITY IS DEVELOPING A REPUTATION FOR BROKEN PROMISES. THEY ASK EVERYBODY TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, YET THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THE RULES. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CLEAR TITLE FOR THE PROPERTY FOR THE BRIGHT LINE STATION. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY WENT AHEAD WITH FISHERMAN'S WHARF KNOWING THAT THEY DIDN'T OWN ALL OF THAT PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO GET A BAD REPUTATION. DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO COME IN TO OUR COMMUNITY AND GIVE US A QUALITY PRODUCT. IN THE 25 YEARS I'VE BEEN IN THIS CITY, THE BIGGEST QUESTION WAS WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET A HOTEL? DALE IS TRYING TO PROVIDE US A HOTEL. I AM JUST ASKING THE COMMISSION, MAKE SURE ALL THE AGREEMENTS ARE IN PLACE WITH MARRIOTT AS PROMISED, BUT GIVE THEM TIME TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. A LITTLE MORE TIME IS NOT GOING TO HURT AFTER ALL THE DELAYS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. SO PLEASE CONSIDER IT STRONGLY. THIS IS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR COMMUNITY IF IT EVER GETS COMPLETED. SO, THINK HARD ON THIS ONE. IT'S A BIG STEP FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING. -- 840 THINK CREEK 840 THINK CREEK DR. 840 THINK CREEK DR. JONES. CAN'T ESCAPE THAT NAME. 840 840 BEAR CREEK DR. I ACTUALLY WAS NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING TONIGHT BUT FROM THE LAST COMMENT I SAID, YOU KNOW I DO WANT TO SEE SOMETHING. AND I JUST PERSONALLY THINK ALL THE BLAME SHOULD BE LAID AT THE FEET OF THE CITY. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS HERE IN FORT PIERCE AND ALSO IN PORT ST. LUCIE AND I THINK ONE OF THE COMMON DENOMINATORS OF ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT GOT COMPLETED WAS FINANCING THAT WAS IN PLACE. I'VE HEARD THE COMMISSIONER OVER HERE. HE HAS SAID THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT IF THE FINANCING IS NOT THERE, NOTHING IS GOING TO MOVE. NOTHING IS TAKING PLACE. THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN LACKING IN THIS PROJECT. FINANCING HAS NOT BEEN IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME. WE COULD MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT INFLATION AND FINANCING AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP ANY OF THE OTHER PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED. THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED IN FORT PIERCE AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY. NONE OF THEM STOPPED DURING THE PANDEMIC OR ANY OTHER TIME. FINANCING WAS THE KEY TO THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE SUCCESSFUL AND THE ONES THAT'S NOT, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE FINANCE. LISTEN. I'M ROOTING FOR THIS DEVELOPER AND I KNOW YOU ARE. EVERYBODY WANTS THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO TAKE LACE. BUT IF THE FINANCING IS NOT THERE, IT'S JUST NOT THERE. AND IF IT'S NOT THERE, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND CUT TIES. I THINK THE DEVELOPER HAS HAD AMPLE TIME TO PROVE HE HAS THE FINANCING AND THE ABILITY TO MOVE ON THIS PROJECT, BUT IT'S BEEN EXCUSES. THE LAST TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CITY-- I'VE NEVER SEEN SO MANY EXCUSES ABOUT WHY FINANCING IS NOT IN PLACE. IF IT'S TONIGHT AND IF IT STILL WAS NOT IN PLACE, THEN I JUST WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO CUT TIES AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT --. I SHARED AN ARTICLE ON FACEBOOK. AFTER SIX [00:10:03] YEARS OF DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPER GUESS WHAT THEY DID? THEY CUT TIES. I THINK IT'S CALLED THE THREE CORNERS, IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SIX YEARS AND THEY FINALLY CUT TIES WITH THE DEVELOPER AND DECIDED TO MOVE ON AND START THE BIDDING PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN. IT MAY BE TIME FOR US TO DO THE SAME THING AND IT MAY NOT BE. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE FINANCING IS AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRSS THE BOARD PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE ARE CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND WILL MOVE ON. PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MARIO WILCOX. 5227 OAKLAND LAKE 5227 OAKLAND LAKE CIR., FORT PIERCE, FL . 43951. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, MEMBERS OF THE DAIS, I BID YOU GOOD EVENING TODAY. THE REASON WHY I'M COMING UP HERE TO SPEAK , I DO UNDERSTAND FINANCES. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT CAME UP HERE, TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT. AND HE WAS RIGHT. AS FAR AS EXCUSES. IT'S TIMEOUT FOR MAKING EXCUSES ON WHY CERTAIN THINGS CANNOT BE DONE IT'S TIMEOUT FOR MAKING EXCUSES ARE NOT EVEN HAVING ANSWERS TO WHY WE HAVE THESE FRIVOLOUS DEATHS THAT'S OCCURRING. IT'S TIME TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES ON WHY WE CAN'T DO DRUG BUST AT THESE BUSINESSES THAT'S NOT OVER HERE IN THE DISTRICT. IN MY COMMUNITY WHERE THEY ARE LITERALLY SELLING DRUGS OUT OF THE STORES, IT'S TIMEOUT. IT'S TIMEOUT TO NOT HAVE ANSWERS AND MAKING EXCUSES ON HOW THESE DRUGS HAVE NOW INFILTRATED THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUSES. ARE YOU SCHOOL BOARD DIRECTORS? NO. BUT YOU ARE LEADERS OF THIS CITY AND YOU HAVE SCHOOLS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION. THIS IS IMPACTING OUR KIDS. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT UPBRINGING AND RAISING OUR KIDS AND GETTING THEM INTO CAREERS AND OFF TO SUCCESS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED -- HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE RESEARCH ON TEST SCORES FOR THESE KIDS FOR WHAT THEY HAVE TO PASS? IF THEY ARE IN AN AREA OF HIGH CRIME AND HEAR NOTHING BUT BULLETS HOW CAN THEY FOCUS ON THEIR STUDIES? THEY CAN'T. THEY ARE GOING TO SCORE LOWER THAN THEIR PEERS. SO WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. NOT EXCUSES. AND YOU KNOW, FINANCES , WE HAVE TO QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THAT. THERE'S FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR TO ERADICATE THESE THINGS. THERE'S RESOURCES OUT HERE . COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I AM A FAN, I EAT, BREATHE, SLEEP THAT. LET'S START LOOKING INTO THAT. LET'S START SEEING THOSE AREAS THAT SHOULD BE ON THE PLAN. ARE THEY ON THE PLAN? IF NOT, PUT THEM ON THE PLAN. I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME FUNDING IN THOSE AREAS THEN NON-AT ALL. IT'S A START. BUT DAILY , THERE HAS BEEN SHOOTINGS . I REPORTED , IT'S MORE THAN WHAT OFFICERS HAVE THE MANPOWER TO RESPOND TO. THEY ARE NOT EQUIPPED. WE BARELY CAN RETAIN THEM . THANK YOU MA'AM. WE CAN BARELY RETAIN THEM BUT WE HAVE TO COME UP AND DO BETTER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE ? >> I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING. RICK REED 2625 US 1. I WATCHED YESTERDAY . I WASN'T ABLE TO COME YESTERDAY. SOME OF US HAVE OTHER OBLIGATIONS . I USED TO COME IN HERE AND WATCH Y'ALL. I WATCHED THE LOVE FEST, Y'ALL TELLING EACH OTHER HOW GREAT Y'ALL ARE. IT'S LIKE ROME IS BURNING AND-- IT'S AMAZING TO ME HOW Y'ALL CONDUCT YOURSELVES. CAN WE EVER HAVE A VICTORY ON SOMETHING? THIS KINGS LANDING HAS BEEN GOING ON BACK AND FORTH. NO ANSWERS. NO ANSWERS. I HEARD COMMISSIONER BRODERICK THE OTHER DAY SAY , ONE OF THE FEW [00:15:04] INTELLIGENT THINGS I'VE HEARD COME OUT OF HERE IN A WHILE. MAYBE SOME THINGS ARE SO COMPLICATED THAT YOU NEED TO HIRE SOMEONE THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN YOU ARE PUTTING TOGETHER A LARGE THING IT'S OVER Y'ALL'S HEAD . YOU DIDN'T DO PROPER DUE DILIGENCE WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS AND HERE WE ARE. I'VE DEVELOPED IN THIS TOWN. I'M A BUSINESSMAN. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. IT'S HARD TO MAKE A LIVING IN THIS TOWN. I'VE BEEN BLESSED BUT MOST ARE NOT. IT'S HARD TO DONE-- WE HAVE FEW VICTORIES. OF THE KILLINGS ARE UNBELIEVABLE. NEVER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COME FORWARD. WE NEVER HEAR FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Y'ALL KEEP HER HEAD . THE PRESS PUT THE MICROPHONE IN OUR MAYOR'S FACE AND SHE TURNS AROUND AND ASKS THEM, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? THE PRESS IS SUPPOSED TO RUN THE CITY? IT'S JUST LIKE FLOWING OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. BLOOD RUNS THROUGH THE STATE STREETS AND OUR KIDS ARE KILLING ONE ANOTHER AND YOU ALL SET UP HERE, YESTERDAY WHEN I WATCHED THAT IT WAS A CIRCLE JERK . I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THIS TOWN. YOU WERE SITTING UP HERE LIKE YOU WERE ON SOME KIND OF DRUGS. COME ON, Y'ALL. RUN THE CITY. DO SOMETHING RIGHT. FISHERMAN'S WHARF. RIGHT LINE. KINGS LANDING. SAVING PEOPLE'S LIVES. WHAT ARE Y'ALL DOING? Y'ALL OWE US MORE THAN THIS. Y'ALL OWE US MORE. WE ARE KILLING ONE ANOTHER IN THIS TOWN. YOU CAN'T SHOP AT PUBLIX WITHOUT TAKING YOUR LIFE IN YOUR OWN HAND AND THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF MISTER JENKINS, THE FOUNDER OF PUBLIX. AND YOU ALL JUST SIT THERE. AND THEN YESTERDAY, I LOVE YOU, YOU LOVE ME, WE ARE ALL GOOD. WHILE THE CITY IS BURNING. WATCH IT. DO YOUR JOB, OLD LADY. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? SHALL WE MOVE ON? [7. CONSENT AGENDA] >> WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO PULL? >> MADAM CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO PULL A FEW. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL A, I WANT TO PULL C, AND MISTER MIMMS WHAT WAS THAT LETTER, E? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE REST OF THEM? >> I MAKE A MOTION FOR CONSENT AGENDA B AND D. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER [a. Approval of expenditure of $51,266.40 for the purchase of twelve (12) overt cameras in key areas throughout the redevelopment area.] GAINES? YES. COMMISSIONER SEE JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. CHAIR HUDSON? >> YES MA'AM. >> APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE OF $51,266.40 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 12 OVER CAMERAS IN KEY AREAS THROUGHOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. >> MADAM CHAIR, I PULLED A , AGAIN A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T READ THE CONSENT AGENDA. THIS HERE, ITEM A , IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PUTTING CAMERAS UP TO TRY TO STOP SOME OF THE CRIME AND GIVE THE POLICE SOMETHING ELSE TO USE , TO LOOK FOR OR USE IN THE DETERRENCE OF CRIME IN OUR CITY. WE ARE DOING SOMETHING. HOWEVER, I AM TOUCHED BY THE RESIDENT THAT CAME UP BECAUSE AS SHE WAS TALKING, I WAS TRYING TO PICTURE IN MY MIND WHEN I DO DRIVE DOWNTOWN , DID I SEE ANY CAMERAS? I'M SITTING HERE TRYING TO PICTURE IN MY MIND DID I SEE ANY CAMERAS DOWNTOWN? I AM FOR THIS EXPENDITURE BECAUSE ANY HELP WE CAN GET IN THIS AREA WITH CAMERAS THAT GIVE US MORE INFORMATION TO HELP SOLVE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS IN OUR CITY, I AM FOR. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE IF SOME TYPE OF FUNDING OR CAMERAS CAN BE PUT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA JUST-- IF IT'S MORE THAN JUST A DETERRENT, IF SOMEONE SEES A CAMERA IT WILL BE DOWNTOWN. WITH THAT IT WAS MORE OF, I WANTED TO BRING IT UP TO THE ATTENTION AND I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES? YES MA'AM. [c. Approval to award the Avenue D and Means Court Parking Lot construction contract to the low bidder, Close Construction Services, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $385,610.50. ] [00:20:04] COMMISSIONER SEE JOHNSON? COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON. >> NEXT WOULD BE ITEM C TO AWARD THE AVENUE D CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $385,610.50. >> MADAM CHAIR, I PULLED THIS AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE I HAVE HAD SOME COMMUNICATIONS WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO STAYED TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT , IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME TYPE OF BARRIER? YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE IS TO STOP THE NOISE OR IF THERE'S A LINE OF CARS THAT ARE TRYING TO EXIT BACK ONTO AVENUE D . I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE GOING TO EXIT ONTO THE COURT BUT THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT COMING INTO THEIR PROPERTY, THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF BARRIER OR IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME TYPE OF BARRIER BETWEEN THIS PARKING LOT AND THEIR HOMES. ONE OF THE RESIDENTS , RIGHT WHERE THE BACK OF THEIR PARKING LOT WOULD BE WOULD BE THE BACK DOOR OR SIDE DOOR WHERE THEY HAVE A SITTING AREA AND THEY SIT OUT WITH THE KIDS. SHE CALLED AND ASKED ME TO SEE IF SHE COULD MAKE IT. SHE THOUGHT IT WAS ON THE AGENDA YESTERDAY MORNING AND COULD NOT MAKE IT TONIGHT SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF ANYONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY TYPE OF PROTECTION FOR THE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH. SHE IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A ROOMING HOUSE OR A TENANT HOUSE TO THE EAST OF THIS AREA AND CARS FROM THERE ARE ALREADY PART ON THE UNDEVELOPED LAND NOW. ARE THOSE TENANTS OR CARS GOING TO BE TOWED OR MOVED WHEN THE PARKING LOT COMES? I'M JUST TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION. THEY DON'T MIND THE PARKING LOT. AFTER I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHY THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT BUT THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BARRIERS AND IF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA PARKING AFTER A CERTAIN TIME, WILL THEIR CARS BE TOWED OR REMOVED? >> MISTER MIMMS? >> AS FAR AS THE BARRIER TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS A LANDSCAPED COMBINATION OF HEDGES AND ALSO TREES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PARKING AREA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTENSIFY THAT BARRIER WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. ARE YOU SPEAKING MORE LIKE A RIGID WALL? >> MISTER MANAGER, I DON'T KNOW IF-- I'M TRYING NOT TO MESS UP THE AREA BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE TRYING TO BEAUTIFY THE AREA FOR HER COMFORT HER CONCERN WAS SHE HAS A THREE-YEAR-OD AND THE THREE-YEAR-OLD PLAYS IN THE BACKYARD. SHE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF BARRIER THEY HAVE TO PREVENT EXHAUST OR THE LOSS OF A CAR COMING THROUGH THAT PARKING LOT AND GOING INTO HER BACKYARD. SHE JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF BARRIERS. SHE IS NOT AGAINST THE PARKING LOT ITSELF BECAUSE SHE UNDERSTANDS WHY WE NEED IT. WHEN SHE READ THIS STUFF SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN IDEA OF THE BARRIER SO I CAN HAVE HER CONTACT YOUR OFFICE AND YOU GUYS CAN DISCUSS IT. I TOLD HER I WOULD BRING UP THE CONCERNS OF HER AND THEN CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE THERE. A BOARDINGHOUSE OR A TENANT TO THE EAST, THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY DO PARK THERE AT NIGHT AND THEY WERE WONDERING IF ONCE THE CITY GOES IN AND MAKES IT A PARKING LOT, WILL THEY BE SUBJECT TO THEIR CARS OR VEHICLES BEING TOWED ? BECAUSE MOST OF THE PARKING LOTS CLOSE AT A CERTAIN TIME. THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO ME AND TO THE BOARD AND THE CITY MANAGER TO ADDRESS. IF YOU WANT ME TO I CAN DIRECT EVERYBODY TO YOUR OFFICE. I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD BRING IT UP TONIGHT. >> TO FOLLOW UP, THERE IS A CURB BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT PAVERS , THE LANDSCAPED AREA AND THEN THE PROPERTY LINE SO THERE'S A GOOD 10, 15, 20' BASED UPON THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF MEASUREMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE UTILIZATION OF THE PARKING LOT WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT. WE ESTABLISH EACH OF OUR PUBLIC UTILIZATION AREAS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. BASED UPON [00:25:05] THE NEED OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S HOW WE WOULD DETERMINE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHETHER IT'S OVERNIGHT, WHAT TYPE OF UTILIZATION. SO UPON IT BEING CONSTRUCTED WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THAT FURTHER CONVERSATION BASED UPON THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> DO YOU KNOW IF EGRESS WOULD BE OFF OF D ? >> BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING IT'S OFF OF AVENUE D. >> SHE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CARS, IF IT'S A BIG EVENT AND THE CAR IS BACK UP TRYING TO GET OUT THAT'S WHERE IT CAME UP. I ASKED ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION-- >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. HAVE WE SEEN DESIGN OF THIS ACTUAL PARKING LOT? AND BASED ON THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU SHARED, I THOUGHT WE LOOKED AT DESIGN OF THIS BEFORE. >> WE HAD A CONCEPTUAL AND THEN HAD TO GO INTO THE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN. UPON THAT IT WAS BID AND WE HAD A HARD, TRUE VALUES ASSOCIATED AND THEREFORE WE ARE COMING TO YOU TWO OF AWARD THIS CONTRACT. >> REMIND ME THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT. WILL IT BE STORMWATER OR -- IT WON'T BE A RETENTION POND, WILL IT? >> NO RETENTION POND. >> I'M SURE WILL BE A CONVERT CONCENTRATION OF CONNECTIVITY TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM . >> WILL PARKING SPOTS HAVE ACTUAL BUMP STOPS THAT PEOPLE WOULD PULL INTO AND PULL UP TO A STOP? >> YES, SIR. WE WILL HAVE A CURB. THAT'S THE CONCLUSION. >> YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> MADAM CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE-- AGENDA C. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON? YES. >> CONSENT 7E IS THE NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH LINCOLN PARK YOUNG PROFESSIONALS. >> MADAM CHAIR, AGAIN, THIS HAS COME BEFORE ME AND I VOTED IN OPPOSITION JUST BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHOLE, HOW THE CONTRACT ENDED AND WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE AND WHAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. I WANTED TO BRING IT UP AGAIN THAT I STILL HAVE MUCH CONCERNS. HOW THIS CONTRACT CAME ABOUT AND HOW IT ENDED. I WANTED TO AGAIN PUT IT TO THE VOTE SO I COULD BE ON RECORD AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER COUPLE OF VOTES THAT I'VE HAD BASED ON THIS CONTRACT. >> YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION? IS THERE SOMEONE-- >> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM-- >> E. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MISTER C JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES? NO MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON? YES [a. Resolution FPRA 24-01 approving a Community Aesthetic Feature Agreement between the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency and Florida Department of Transportation to place local identification markers (gateway signs) in rights-of-way.] MA'AM. >> THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WE MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. FPRA RESOLUTION THAT THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , A SPECIAL DISTRICT OF FPRA AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR ORDERED DOESN'T NEED TO EXECUTE A FEATURE WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL IDENTIFICATION MARKERS ON FDOT MEDIANS AND IN A QUARTER -- ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? >> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON? YES. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER HUDSON? YES MA'AM. >> A SECOND AMENDMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KING'S LANDING. >> ALL RIGHT. MISS HEDGES? >> YES MA'AM, MADAM CHAIR AND [b. Consideration of Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement for Development of King's Landing.] BOARD MEMBERS. WHAT WE HAVE AN ITEM 8 B IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KING'S LANDING. WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED [00:30:03] FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION INCLUDES THE EXTENSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINES UNDER PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE . I BELIEVE THAT WAS PLACED BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY SO IT INCLUDES THOSE EXTENDED DATES RELATED TO APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS OR DC PR APPROVALS, COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION. THERE IS EXHIBIT A RELATED TO THE BREAKDOWN OF THE TIME FRAMES. THIS ALSO INCLUDES A CLAIM BY AUDUBON FOR $1.1 MILLION IN DEBRIS REMOVAL PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 27. THE FPRA AND CITY STAFF HAVE INDICATED WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT $1.1 MILLION AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON FOR $170,000 WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO AUDUBON. HOW THEY HAVE DRAFTED THIS IS THAT THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN AUDUBON AND THE CITY AND THE FPRA RELATED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR $1.1 MILLION FOR THE DEBRIS REMOVAL. THE AMENDMENT GOES ON TO INCLUDE CONDITIONAL RELEASE OF THAT CLAIM FOR THE $1.1 MILLION STRUCTURED , BASED ON THRESHOLDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE DPCR AND BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE HOTEL, RELEASE OF DIFFERENT REVERTER'S AND THE APPROVAL OF PERMITS UNDER PHASE 2, WHEREBY THAT CLAIM, AGAIN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH, WOULD BE RELEASED , FORGOING THE ABILITY TO CLAIM IT LATER. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THAT AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN CREATED . ESSENTIALLY IT IS YOUR DECISION WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THAT AMENDMENT, OR NOT ENTER THAT AMENDMENT OR YOU WOULD LIKE DIFFERENT TERMS INCLUDED AND FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATION TO OCCUR. IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY THAT MAY EXIST. THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS HIS LEGAL COUNSEL IS HERE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> BOARD MEMBERS? >> WHERE DO WE START? WOULD YOU LIKE TO START, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> NOT PARTICULARLY BUT I WILL TACKLE IT. I SPENT A GOOD PART OF THE DAY TODAY GOING OVER THE ENTIRE KING'S LANDING SCENARIO. AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, THERE WAS QUITE A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY TODAY CONCERNING THIS AND CANDIDLY, WHY ALL OF THIS IS COMING IN IN THE 11TH HOUR, 59TH MINUTE AND 59 TO 2ND, I FIND TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBING, HONESTLY. I DON'T KNOW WHY FRANK DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS CANNOT TAKE PLACE AND WHY THIS NEEDS TO COME DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE THE BULLDOZER IS PARKED AT THE FRONT DOOR. I FIND THAT VERY TROUBLING. HAVING SET THAT TONE IN PLACE, I HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY ATTORNEY HEDGES TODAY RELATIVE TO FORTHCOMING DOCUMENTS. I'LL TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS BRIEFLY. THIS DEBRIS REMOVAL SITUATION CANDIDLY, GUYS, THAT BUILDING IS NONSENSE -- THAT BILLING IS NONSENSE. YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, LET'S CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS. A COMPILATION INVOICE FOR $1 MILLION. SIMPLY, THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND CANDIDLY, IT'S INSULTING THAT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE ON THE BASIS TO PAY THAT MONEY ON AN INVOICE THAT HAD FIVE LINE ITEMS ON IT. BUT I DIGRESS. I WANT TO PUT THAT ISSUE ASIDE FOR A MOMENT. ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING PIECES IN TODAY'S MULTIPLE EMAILS THAT CAME FORWARD WAS A LETTER FROM -- REALTY SERVICES. FOR ALL OF THE FOLKS NOT IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY , HARBERT IS A WELL-KNOWN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER, MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FIRM . AT LEAST THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST AND MAYBE NATIONWIDE THEY ARE, AND THIS CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. [00:35:04] THIS LETTER IS WHOLESALE DIFFERENT FROM THE FINANCING MECHANISM LETTER THAT WAS SENT PREVIOUSLY. THERE IS ONE SENTENCE HERE THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION AND CANDIDLY I PUT ASIDE THE REST OF MY AFTERNOON WORKED TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER. IT SAYS DEAR MAYOR HUDSON AND MEMBERS OF CITY COMMISSION, THIS LETTER IS WRITTEN TO EXPRESS SUPPORT OF THE KING'S LANDING PROJECT. I AM INTERESTED IN INTENT TO BE THE LEAD DEVELOPER AND TO ARRANGE FUNDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A LOT OF ACTION PACKED INTO ONE SENTENCE. WITH NOT A LOT OF DETAIL. AND I'M SURE THE AUDUBON SIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT MY TAKEAWAYS ARE AS BEING IN THIS INDUSTRY, NOT IN THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY THAT THEY ARE IN, BUT THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY , I DECIDED TO CONTACT THEM . I HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SIGNER OF THIS LEVEL -- OF THIS LETTER LOCATED UP IN JACKSONVILLE. HIS CAREER IS VERY SIMILAR TO MINE. WE ARE ONE YEAR APART IN AGE AND HE USED TO DO TRANSACTIONS ON THE BACK OF NAPKINS LIKE WE USED TO DO DURING THE DAY AND OF COURSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANY MORE. WE HAD A VERY CANDID CHAT AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT SOME OF THE TAKEAWAYS WERE FROM THAT CHAT. THE KEY COMPONENT TO THIS SENTENCE IS THAT HARBERT IS LOOKING TO BECOME THE LEAD DEVELOPER . LOOKING TO PUT AUDUBON IN SECOND POSITION . HARBERT HAS THE FUNDING CAPABILITY. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THEY HAVE THE EXECUTION PROWESS TO EXECUTE ON THIS TRANSACTION, AND IN OTHER WORDS , THEY HAVE ALL THE COMPONENTS TO MAKE THIS DEAL WORK, IN THEORY. NOW. THE OPTION PRESENTED TO US TODAY IS, WE ACCEPT A TIMELINE SCHEDULE REIMBURSEMENT OF NONSENSICAL INVOICING WHICH CANDIDLY I DO NOT SUPPORT. I WILL SAY IT RIGHT UP FRONT. THEN ENTER INTO LITIGATION. I DON'T NEED TO HEAR ANY THREATS OF LITIGATION. WE ARE ALL ADULTS IN THE ROOM. WE'RE IN OUR CORNER, YOU ARE IN OUR CORNER-- YOU ARE IN YOUR CORNER, HAVE AT IT IF THAT'S THE END RESULT. I'M PREPARED FOR THAT, I'VE REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS AND I FEEL WE HAVE THE HIGH GROUND IN THIS ARGUMENT. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THERE'S NO PREVAILING PARTY CLAWS ON LEGAL FEES IN THIS AGREEMENT? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO BUT LET ME REVIEW AGAIN. NO PREVAILING PARTY CLAWS MEETING THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WHICH ARE GOING TO BE COSTLY. I'M GOING TO ESTIMATE SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF $200,000 OVER A TERM OF 3 TO 5 YEARS. THAT'S ON THEM. THE CITY IS GOING TO BE FACED WITH THE SAME BURDEN. BUT, I PERSONALLY HAVE MADE THE DECISION THAT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE SCENARIO THAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD. IT'S UNTENABLE, THERE'S NO FINANCING COMMITMENT, THERE'S NO HOTEL COMMITMENT, I SIMPLY CAN'T CONTINUE THAT BURDEN. UNTIL THIS CAME IN. SO IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH MISTER WARE, I ASKED HIM TO DEFINE THIS FOR ME. WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN? HIS INDICATION TO ME WAS THAT THEY ARE INSUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATION, DISCUSSION, NEGOTIATIONS TO HAVE HARBERT COME IN AND TAKE A MORE THAN 50% POSITION IN THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. SO WHAT TYPE OF TIMELINES ARE YOU LOOKING AT TO SOLIDIFY A POTENTIAL AGREEMENT? I SAID. 30 - 45 DAYS. PUT THAT ASIDE FOR A SECOND. THAT MEANS THAT THE TWO PARTIES NEED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THEM TAKING A MAJORITY STAKE, AUDUBON TAKING A SECONDARY POSITION , AND THEM TAKING THE LEAD ON DEVELOPING THE PROJECT. FINANCING IS A NON-ISSUE. THE HOTEL IS A NON-ISSUE. THEY HAVE RELATIONSHIPS THAT TRANSCEND SIMPLE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THE OPTION, AS I LOOK AT IT, IS THAT WE ATTEMPT TO COBBLE TOGETHER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, AUDUBON, AND HARBERT TO MOVE THIS AGENDA FORWARD TO ATTEMPT TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION, OR WE TAKE THE GLOVES OFF AND WE PREPARED TO [00:40:04] LITIGATE FOR LONGER THAN MY TERM IS GOING TO BE IN OFFICE AND THAT'S ANOTHER TWO AND 130 YEARS. THIS WILL GO ON FOR YEARS AND BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. SO . THEIR POSITION, HARBERT, IS THAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION SWINGS ON THE VOTE HERE TONIGHT AND WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS. I TOLD THEM, SPEAKING FOR ME PERSONALLY AS ONE VOTE ON THIS COMMISSION, THAT THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME. THE AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED IS NOT WORKABLE AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT AUDUBON BEING THE UNDERLYING RESPONSIBLE PARTY TO ANY FURTHER AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. OUR SECOND CONVERSATION CAME AROUND TO A DIFFERENT CONCEPT AS I WAS SITTING IN MY OFFICE THINKING ABOUT THIS. LET ME LAY IT OUT TO YOU. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN THIS GENTLEMAN ON THE PHONE AND CITY ATTORNEY HEDGES. I DO NOT WANT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE WHIMS OF AUDUBON'S ABILITY TO EXECUTE OR NOT EXECUTE. IF YOU FLIP THE SCENARIO AROUND TO SAY THAT OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENTER INTO YOUR AGREEMENT AS IT EXISTS WITHOUT A DEFAULT PROVISION, MULTIPLE DEFAULT PROVISIONS OUTSIDE OF THESE ARBITRARY DATES, HARBERT REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THE DATES CONTAINED IN THEIR PROPOSED AMENDMENT, PUT THE MONEY ISSUES ASIDE, ARE WHAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY AND GET THIS PROJECT EXECUTED UPON. THERE'S TWO ACTION DATES IF WE WERE TO AGREE TO ALLOW HARBERT TO COME INTO THIS TRANSACTION. IS CURRENTLY THIS IS A BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FPRA, WHATEVER ENTITY IS EXECUTING DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND AUDUBON. HARBERT NOW BECOMES A THIRD COMPONENT TO THIS . ANY AGREEMENT ENTERED AND WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY ASSIGNED OR MODIFIED TO BRING THEM IN . THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME, AS WELL. SO MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT WE REVERSE THE SCENARIO AND SAY WELL, IF WE WERE INCLINED TO GIVE YOU THE 45 DAYS TO SEE IF YOU CAN ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH AUDUBON, SUBJECT TO THE CITY EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? IF THEY DON'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO DEAL. WE ARE IN THE EXACT SAME POSITION THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW. THEY REQUESTED A 90 DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD WHICH IS NORMAL. SO THIS IS A 135 DAY POTENTIAL MOVE TO GET TO WHERE WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IN 3 TO 5 YEARS OF BRINGING IN A QUALIFIED, FUNDED DEVELOPER TO TAKE ON THIS PROJECT WITH THE HOTEL IN TOW . SO THERE'S TWO ACTION DATES AS FAR AS THE AGREEMENT IS CONCERNED, THAT HARBERT SUGGESTED FROM A REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE. YES, WE WOULD BE INCLINED TO GIVE THAT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO ALL THE LAWYERS INVOLVED IN THIS, NO OFFENSE MS. HEDGES. FROM A REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE THOUGH, WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, IS A WORKABLE SCENARIO. 45 DAYS TO MEET THE AGREEMENT WITH AUDUBON AND IF WE DON'T WE ARE RIGHT BACK HERE. IF THEY COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE 90 DAYS DUE DILIGENCE. IF THE DUE DILIGENCE IS ACCEPTABLE, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD FULL STEAM AHEAD. IF IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THEY NOTIFY US WHENEVER THEY MAKE THE DECISION AND THAT 90 DAY PERIOD. BUT THAT' THE MAXIMUM TIMELINE. IF THEY COME TO CONCLUSIONS AT 65 DAYS OR 70 DAYS AND SAY FINE WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED. POTENTIALLY, AND I STRESS POTENTIALLY, THIS IS A GAME CHANGER. THESE GUYS ARE THE REAL DEAL. AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT I HAD A REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL THIS BACK FROM THE BRINK OF DISASTER . IT'S A DISASTER FOR [00:45:01] THE DEVELOPER, IT'S A DISASTER FOR THE CITY, IT'S A DISASTER FOR THE CITY COMMISSION. AND WE'RE GOING TO SIT AND WATCH THAT LAND GROW GRASS FOR 3 TO 5 YEARS. THAT'S HOW LONG LITIGATION IS GOING TO TAKE. LET'S FACE IT. $250,000 LATER SOME SETTLEMENT IS GOING TO BE AGREED TO AND WHAT THAT SETTLEMENT IS GOING TO BE COULD BE ANOTHER DEVELOPER IS BROUGHT IN. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS NOW IF WE CAN GET ALL THE PARTIES ON BOARD TO AGREE TO IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THERE IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION THERE , WITH A QUALIFIED PARTICIPANT, AND THEY HAVE INDICATED TO ME THAT THEY ARE NORTH OF 50% OWNERS. SO THEY ARE THE DECISION-MAKERS. NOT AUDUBON. AUDUBON HAS TAKEN A SECONDARY POSITION. JOINT DEVELOPER, SECONDARY OWNERSHIP . THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND THEY MAY BE ABLE TO REPRESENT SOMETHING DIFFERENT BUT THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE LAZY AND-- THEY WERE LENGTHY AND DETAILS. BUT WHEN WE TWISTED IT BACK AROUND TO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE BURDENED SIDE OF THIS TRANSACTION, THEY NEED TO PERFORM. NOT US. AND IF THEY DON'T, WE ARE RIGHT BACK HERE AGAIN. EXACT SAME SPOT. THAT'S WHAT TRANSPIRED. I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT. AS I SAID, I CAME INTO THIS MEETING , OR AS OF LAST NIGHT OR THIS MORNING UP TO 1:00 O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON I SAID THERE'S NO WAY I AM ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. MY VOTE IS A NO. I HAVE NOW HAD A COMPLETE CHANGE OF HEART TO SAY IF THIS IS WORKABLE. AND BY THE WAY, TALKING OF TIMELINES, THE 45 DAYS THEY ARE LOOKING TO COMPILE THEIR AGREEMENT RUNS SIMULTANEOUS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DRAFT THIS. WE ARE NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO TAKE TWO WEEKS TO DRAFT THIS. NO. THEY NEED TO GET TO WORK AND GET THEIR AGREEMENT MEMORIALIZED, AND THEN WE COME IN SECONDARILY TO MEMORIALIZE THAT, AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY IT'S A 45 DAY AND TIRE ALLOTMENT OF TIME. NOT ONE DEMARCATION MAHERE SAYING WE WIL GET TO THAT AFTER WE TAKE 30 DAYS TO DRAFT THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I KNOW THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME DRAWING THIS OUT. IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THAT INFORMATION COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE GUY THAT EXECUTED THIS LETTER. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK , THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS IS A SITUATION IN THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS LETTER. WE GOT THIS LETTER TODAY AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING. TODAY. SO DURING YOUR CONVERSATION, I RESEARCHED THE COMPANY SO I AM 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU WITH WHAT THIS COMPANY REPRESENTS. MY QUESTION IS , IF THERE WERE TALKS OR HAD THE LETTER SAID, SUBSTANTIAL TALKS, WHY DID WE JUST GET A LETTER TODAY? WHY DIDN'T I GET A LETTER LAST WEEK? WHY DIDN'T I GET A LETTER AFTER THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE TOLD THIS DEVELOPER WHAT WE WANTED AFTER THEY HAD PARADED THE MARRIOTT UP HERE? WHY DID THEY GO THAT NIGHT AND CALL THESE PEOPLE AND SAY WE NEED HELP? OR WHY DID I NOT GET A LETTER LAST FRIDAY OR EVEN MONDAY? I GOT A LETTER TODAY. SO DURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS I DIDN'T SPEAK TO THESE PEOPLE, BUT DURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS, DID THAT COME UP ? WHY A LETTER TODAY AND NOT BEFORE TODAY? HOW LONG HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS BEEN GOING ON? >> THEY INDICATED TO ME THAT THE FRAMEWORK OF A POTENTIAL DEAL WAS NOT REACHED UNTIL RECENTLY AND THAT THESE DISCUSSIONS ONLY STARTED RECENTLY. THE ESSENCE OF IT WAS THAT THEY WERE BROUGHT IN AS A FUNDING MECHANISM ORIGINALLY, AND PERSONALLY, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME THIS, THIS BODY PUSHED BACK HARD . SAYING IT'S IRRELEVANT TO US. YOU HAVEN'T MET ANYTHING. THEY WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND I'M GOING TO CALL THEM OUT AND THEY CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES BUT MY SPECULATION IS THAT THEY WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND SAID GUESS WHAT? WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE THIS DEAL AND JUMP INTO THE DEEP END OF THE LITIGATION POOL. WE NEED A DIFFERENT SOLUTION AND I BELIEVE THAT IS THE GENESIS OF THIS. >> I THINK YOU THAT COMMISSIONER BUT I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I WALKED IN TODAY AFTER READING THAT LAST [00:50:06] AMENDMENT THAT WAS SENT TO US AND I ALMOST LAUGHED AT IT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I WALKED IN AS AN ABSOLUTELY NOT . THAT WAS MY VOTE . >> I WAS UNTIL 1:00 O'CLOCK TODAY. >> I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID BUT I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, GETTING A LETTER TODAY, THE DAY OF A HEARING DOES NOT CHANGE THE WAY THAT I FEEL. SO, I'M GLAD YOU SAID THEY WERE INTO IT WITH DISCUSSIONS, BUT ME PERSONALLY AND FROM MY SEAT, THIS IS A LETTER I SHOULD OF GOTTEN TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS IS A LETTER THAT IT COULD HAVE SAID, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, WE ARE IN NEGOTIATIONS, WE ARE IN TALKS, WE ARE IN SOMETHING. IT COULD SAY COMMISSIONERS HOLD ON. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO AUDUBON AND WE ARE IN TALKS. THAT WOULD HAVE SHOWED ME SOMETHING . >> I THINK MS. HEDGES WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING AND I THINK I KNOW WHICH IS GOING TO SHARE. >> I HEARD FROM HIM BEFORE. >> THE MO YOU THAT YOU RECEIVED ON MAY 16 WAS FROM THE SAME COMPANY AND AUDUBON SO THAT MOU WAS WITH THE SAME COMPANY. >> I REMEMBER THAT, BUT THIS LETTER TODAY THAT WE ARE USING TO TRY TO CARVE OUT-- I READ THE MOU BUT TRYING TO CARVE OUT A WAY , THEY COULD'VE SENT THE SAME LETTER THEN. THEY COULD HAVE FOLLOWED IT UP A COUPLE DAYS AFTERWARD SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DECIDED TO DO. BUT TODAY -- THIS IS HOW I FEEL RIGHT NOW. WE GOT A LETTER TODAY AT 10:00 O'CLOCK. THE LAST TIME THEY CAME BEFORE ME THEY BROUGHT IN A GUY FROM MARRIOTT AND SAT HERE AND TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT WE HAD NOT HEARD FROM THEM UNTIL THE LAST DAY WHEN THEY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO VOTE NO EVENT. NOW TODAY LIKE YOU SAID, WE FELT , WE BETTER GO DO SOMETHING. NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID BUT NOW I GET THIS LETTER TODAY. SO NOW YOU ARE SAYING 45 DAYS, 90 DAYS, AT 1:33 THEY BUILD . >> VERY POSSIBLE. >> VERSUS FIVE YEARS. >> SO I AM NOT PERSUADED. I'VE BEEN ON RECORD TO SAY THAT AND I WILL SET BACK AND THAT MY COLLEAGUES. >> COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON? >> I WILL START RIGHT AT THE TOP. NO. I STATED AT THE LAST MEETING 30 DAYS AGO THAT I NEEDED TO SEE SOME DOCUMENTATION ABOUT FINANCES. I ASKED ABOUT THE CAPABILITY TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT. AND I HAVE HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH STAFF SINCE THEN. I MEET WITH STAFF ON WEDNESDAYS. CRICKETS THE FIRST WEDNESDAY, AFTER THAT, NOTHING CAME IN. THE OTHER DAY WEDNESDAY, THE MEMORANDUM SOMEWHAT STARTED FLOWING BACK AND FORTH AND I SAID WHERE ARE THE FINANCES? I HAVE NOT SEEN THE CAPABILITY OR ANY TYPE OF AWARD OR SOME TYPE OF LETTER FROM A FINANCE INSTITUTION SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO IN AND HAVE THE BONDING CAPACITY TO DO THIS BLANK BLANK BLANK PROJECT WHATEVER THE COST IT MAY BE. SO AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, I DIDN'T RECEIVE THAT AND WHAT I ASKED FOR SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN. HOW IS THIS PROJECT GOING TO BE FINANCED? SO NOW THIS MOU FROM THIS COMPANY, AND I'M GLAD YOU SPOKE TO THEM, MY QUESTION IS , THEY WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD POSITION ON THIS. WE HAVE A DEAL WITH AUDUBON. WOULD THEY BE AHEAD OF THEM AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT INSTEAD OF AUDUBON? WE DIDN'T ENTER INTO A DEAL WITH THIS COMPANY. SO THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR ME BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AND I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT AUDUBON HAS THE LEAD ON THIS AND NOW SOME COMPANY MAY COME IN AND SAY WE MAY NOT WANT TO DO THIS DEAL. THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE. THE SECOND QUESTION, I ALSO SAT HERE AND HEARD FROM MARRIOTT AND LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT THE GUY WAS TALKING TO FRANCHISE -- FRANCHISEE OWNERS. THE PEOPLE THAT BUILD THESE HOTELS AND HAVE THE MONEY. AND THAT HE WAS PUTTING AUDUBON TOGETHER WITH SOMEONE THAT WOULD BUILD THESE HOTELS AND THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. IS THIS THE COMPANY HE'S PUTTING THEM TOGETHER WITH? >> THAT I DO NOT KNOW. THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO-- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE GOT HERE LAST TIME. >> AGREE. >> MARRIOTT SAID AND THAT GUY SAID, MY THING IS TO PUT AUDUBON TOGETHER WITH A [00:55:03] FRANCHISE BUILDER FOR THIS HOTEL AND INTRODUCE HIM. THEY WOULD DO THE DANCE TOGETHER, THEY WOULD FIGURE OUT IF THEY WANTED TO PLAY NICE TOGETHER, THEY WOULD ENTER INTO THAT AGREEMENT AND MARRIAGE TOGETHER, AND COME FORTH AS AN ENTITY. >> YOU NOTICE THAT THE MARRIOTT COMPONENT OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS WAS SPECIFICALLY DELETED FROM THIS AGREEMENT . IT'S NOT THERE. >> AGAIN, RAISES QUESTIONS. I KNOW WHAT WE AGREED ON 30 DAYS AGO THAT WE NEEDED TO SEE AND YET WE'VE GOT NOTHING, HEARD NOTHING FROM THEM AT THIS POINT, SO NOW I HAVE TO SIT AND MAYBE ACCEPT THAT I'M NOT CHALLENGING THE COMPANY AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE MARRIOTT. I DON'T KNOW THEM, I DIDN'T TALK TO THEM BECAUSE I WAS ALSO FRUSTRATED TO GET THIS AT 1:00 O'CLOCK TODAY AND LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION AND BEGIN TO PROCESS THIS AND I AM LIKE, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES UP UNTIL THIS THAT WE GOT NOTHING IN BACK AND FORTH. AND THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THIS AGREEMENT. WE SAT HERE AND WE APPROVED WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, FOR REMOVAL OF STUFF . WE GAVE THEM THAT, VOTED ON $170,000, HUNDRED AND $80,000, WHATEVER IT WAS. THEN WHEN THIS STARTED TO COME AROUND AND SAY THAT THERE IS A BILL OUT THERE, THAT'S NOT AN INVOICE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS THAT THEY GAVE US HERE BUT SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS ON THAT DOCUMENT AS TO WHAT CERTAIN LINE ITEMS ARE AND HOW THEY CALCULATE. BECAUSE TO ME, IF YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE SOMETHING YOU DIG IT OUT OF THE GROUND AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE AND TRANSPORT IT IF YOU TOOK IT TO A DUMPSITE. IS THERE A RECEIPT FOR THAT? HOW MANY TRUCKLOADS, THAT IS AN INVOICE WITH SERVICES I CAN FOLLOW AND UNDERSTAND TO GET TO WHATEVER AMOUNT OF MONEY IT MAY BE TO EVEN CONSIDER IT. THAT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. >> CORRECT. >> MY ANSWER IS STILL NO. I CANNOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SIT HERE AND CLAIM I REPRESENT THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE WITH THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. I MEAN, THE DISRESPECT TO NOT GET THE STUFF UNTIL THE FINAL HOUR IS DISRESPECTFUL. >> YOU SAID VERY ELOQUENTLY AND I AGREE WITH YOU, MY COMMENTS THAT STARTED THIS ON THE 1.1 THAT STARTED THIS ON THE $1.1 MILLION ASK, OR DISAGREEMENT IS, YOU ARE RIGHT. IT'S INSULTING. TO HAVE A DOCUMENT GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD OR ANY RECORD THAT TALKS ABOUT PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND ASKING THIS CITY AND THE TAXPAYERS TO FUND PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICE , ANY PROJECT , PRECONSTRUCTION IS SMALL. IT'S LIKE 0.5%. MAYBE 1% ON AN ELABORATE OPPORTUNITY. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE CONCRETE OUT OF A HOLE IN THE GROUND. THERE'S NO REASON TO TALK ABOUT PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES. THIS IS $3000. NOT $300,000. SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT COMES FROM. I DIDN'T HAVE A TRASHCAN BECAUSE I ONLY USE PAPER BUT I WOULD HAVE THROWN IT IN THE TRASHCAN AND STARTED OVER AGAIN. BUT HERE'S WHAT THE BIGGER PICTURE IS. THE AMENDMENT TALKS ABOUT THAT INFORMATION . AFTER CERTAIN MILESTONES WE ARE GOING TO PULL THAT BACK OUT OF IT WHICH IS ALREADY A FAKE NUMBER. WE ARE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE ARE. SOME PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM AND WATCHING THIS MEETING ARE DISTRACTED BY THE $1 MILLION TICKET OVER HERE WHILE THERE'S $182 MILLION CONVERSATION GOING ON WITH AGREEMENTS. THAT'S OBNOXIOUS. AND IT'S SAD. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE COULD BE GOING VERTICAL, WE COULD HAVE PERMITTING DEPARTMENTS IN THEIR CHAIRS DOING THEIR JOB FOR PHASE 2 WHILE WE ARGUE ABOUT A DOLLAR. LET'S ARGUE ABOUT THE DOLLAR SOME OTHER DAY, SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITY . YOU KNOW HOW IT GOES COMMISSIONER. YOU GO TO THAT COURTHOUSE OFTEN ENOUGH . SO [01:00:06] BUILD THE BUILDINGS. MOVE FORWARD. MAKE IT HAPPEN. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK I AM SO GLAD THAT YOU'VE SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH US BECAUSE I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THE-- OKAY. I'M AT THE POINT, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION, WE'RE OING TO BREATHE FOR A SECOND. DIDN'T GET ENOUGH INFORMATION, NOW WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION. CAN I CARRY IT FORWARD ONE MORE TIME? I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT LAST TIME WITH THE ONE MORE TIME. WE GET AN AGENDA PACKET WITH AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENTS THAT IS JUST NOT PALATABLE. IT IS NOT. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THAT'S THE WAY THIS IS. IF THERE'S A HAIL MARY SAVING PLAY RIGHT HERE , FOR A 45 DAY TERM, DO WE GO FOR IT OR DO WE NOT? THAT'S THE QUESTION. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YOU WERE ON THE PHONE, AND YOU ARE IN THIS BUSINESS. YOU BASICALLY HAVE NOT MET THIS PERSON EXCEPT FOR ON THE PHONE. FROM YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE SOME DEGREE OF FAITH OR SOME DEGREE OF CONVICTION THAT THIS -- OR ELSE HE WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT IT UP WITH US. >> CORRECT. I THINK YOU ALL KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH, I'M A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD GUY AND THE QUESTIONS WERE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I TOLD HIM RIGHT AT THE OUTSET, I AM A NO VOTE. INFORM ME AS TO WHAT YOU ARE UP TO BECAUSE YOUR LETTER IS SENT ON DETAILS AS IN, NONE. DURING THE SUNRISE THEATER BOARD MEETING I LITERALLY WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM AND TOOK THE CALL. IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION WAS ALL REAL ESTATE, ALL TIMELINES, ALL NUANCES, ALL IMMERSED IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LINGO AND PHRASEOLOGY TO SAY OKAY. GIVE ME THE X'S AND O'S. WHERE DO WE STAND? I DO IT ALL DAY LONG AND IT'S ALL I'VE EVER DONE. SO TO ME THE ENGINEERS UP HERE AND THE LAWYERS UP HERE, THEY UNDERSTAND THE STUFF. I UNDERSTOOD INSTANTLY WHAT HIS NEEDS WERE, WHAT HIS END DESIRE WAS, AND THE TWO OPEN ENDED DATES AND THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO. IN MY MIND, THAT AGREEMENT THEY PRESENTED WITH US SHOULD BE PUT THROUGH THE SHREDDER. IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT. IF THAT AGREEMENT CAN BE FIXED IN SOME CAPACITY , AND WHAT THEY STATED TO ME IS THE RELATIVE INFORMATION IN THAT AMENDMENT TO THEM , IS THE TIMELINES. KEEP THAT IN MIND. THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT $1 MILLION AND NONSENSICAL INVOICING AND ALL THAT, THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT CANDIDLY, THEY MIGHT AS WELL PUT IT THROUGH THE PAPER SHREDDER. IT'S A RELEVANT. WE CAN LITIGATE ABOUT IT ALL DAY LONG. THIS THING NEEDS AN AUDIT TRAIL FIRST OFF, AND SECONDARILY IF YOU BRING THAT TO COURT IT'S WORTHLESS. HOWEVER, THE CONVERSATION WAS QUITE CANDID AND TO THE POINT SO I SAID I THINK YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IN THAT THE COMMISSION IS DONE WITH THIS NONSENSE. AND, CONVINCE ME -- AND HE WAS VERY ELOQUENT ABOUT IT AND MEET HIS POINTS TO SAY LOOK. WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN DOING THIS DEAL WITH THE CITY. WE WILL BE THE LEAD DEVELOPER. WE WILL BE THE ONES IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. WE WILL BE THE ONES ON SITE. WE WILL BE THE ONES DOING ALL OF THAT IF WE CAN MAKE AN AGREEMENT IN 45 DAYS TO ENTER INTO A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, AND THAT OUR DUE DILIGENCE WHICH WE HAVE COMMENCED FROM A 30,000 FOOT LEVEL, IS SATISFACTORY TO US. I SAID I CAN'T ASK THEM FOR MORE THAN THAT. THEY ARE GOING TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. I SET I UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY. I KNOW WHAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE TO DO THAT TRANSACTION. MY PRIMARY TAKE AWAY WAS FUNDING MECHANISMS IN PLACE. HOTEL IN PLACE. EXECUTION CAPABILITY IN PLACE. CHECK CHECK CHECK. IT CHECKS ALL OF THOSE BOXES. IN MY MIND WE ARE RISKING UP TO MAXIMUM 135 DAYS STARTING TODAY, IN THEORY, TO SAVE 3 TO 5 YEARS. HUNDRED AND 35 DAYS POTENTIALLY? IF I AM WRONG I'LL [01:05:08] BE THE FIRST ONE TO RAISE MY HAND. 135 DAYS VERSUS FIVE YEARS AT THREE YEARS OR WHATEVER, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL FEES COMBINED AND STARTING THIS PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN , I THOUGHT, TO ME, WAS A REASONABLE BET AT THE ROULETTE WHEEL. AND I AM HEDGING. I TOOK THE CONFIDENCE AWAY FROM A REAL ESTATE PERSON THAT WE WANT TO EXECUTE THIS TRANSACTION. AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION BEFORE WHERE WE HAVE STEPPED IN TO DO TRANSACTIONS WITH A THIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK, WE SAW WHAT THE END PRODUCT WOULD BE AND WE WORKED HARD TO GET TO THAT POINT AND WERE SUCCESSFUL WITH IT. THAT WAS MY SENSE. OR ELSE AS I STATED, I WAS AN ABSOLUTE NO. >> TO ADD TO THAT DOING QUICK MATH, 135 DAYS TIMES, IF WE WERE TO JUST SAY $300,000 IN LEGAL FEES BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYERS AT SOME POINT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT $2000 A DAY FOR THE NEXT 135 DAYS THAT COME UP TO THAT EXPENSE. WE ARE NOT SPENDING THAT RIGHT THIS SECOND. WE ARE STANDING STILL. AND IF WE GO INTO 3 TO 5 YEARS OF VACANT PROPERTY , CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, STAFF TIME, LEGAL TIME, WHO KNOWS IF WE GET A PERMIT TIME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ELSE. HOPEFULLY PROPERTY TAXES COME IN AND HOPEFULLY NOT. WHERE DOES IT STOP OVER A 3 TO 5 YEAR PERIOD? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 135 DAYS OF POTENTIAL MAKING SENSE OUT OF NONSENSE. POTENTIALLY. THAT'S MY QUICK MATH. >> MADAM MAYOR, SO THAT I'M CLEAR AS WELL, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THIS GROUP , THERE'S THE HOTEL SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPENT WHICH IS ONE PHASE AND THEN SOME OTHER PHASES TO THIS. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, IF THEY WERE GOING TO COME IN THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE ON EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE SO-CALLED CONDOMINIUMS AND RETAIL SPACE, ALL OF THAT? >> YEP THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. >> DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE MOU? >> I DIDN'T READ THAT . AND THAT'S WHY-- >> THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT OUT IN THE 45 DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD AND BY THE WAY I TOLD HIM WE WOULD WANT PROGRESS UPDATES AND DOCUMENTATION UPON CONCLUSION. >> THAT POPPED INTO MY MIND AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. I DID NOT SEE THAT SPECIFICALLY BUT THERE'S A WHOLE REALM OF PROJECTS AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE FROM THE AUDIENCE, AND MAKE DEPOSITS ON STUFF RIGHT? SO THAT IS A CONCERN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS ADDRESSED AND I THINK THE OTHER THING , LET ME NOT SAY THAT. OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON I DID KNOCK IT INTO THE DISCUSSION OF DEPOSITS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THAT'S GOING TO COME OUT IN THE DUE DILIGENCE PROJECT AND IF NOT IT WILL BE REPRESENTED TO THEM BY NOW. THAT'S PRETTY FOOLISH ON PART OF AUDUBON BECAUSE THAT IS A MAJOR CONTINGENT LIABILITY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TOUCHED ON THE FACT THAT WE ARE SITTING HERE DEBATING $1 MILLION IN MITIGATION COSTS WHICH BY THE WAY, THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO WALK AWAY. THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM WAS THERE. THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT DID NOT COME UP. THE AMOUNT OF MONIES THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IS DWARFED BY THE DEPOSITS ISSUE. SO IF THEY HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THAT TO THESE POTENTIAL PARTNERS, SHAME ON THEM. >> WHICH, AGAIN, COULD TRIGGER THIS COMPANY TO SAY NO, SORRY. SO AGAIN WE WOULD BE BACK HERE IF THAT WAS STILL IN LEGAL PERIL . SO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO THINK ABOUT IS, WHAT DID YOU SAY 135? MAXIMUM, OR WE SAY WE CUT TONIGHT AND THEN WE WAIT HUNDRED AND 35 AND WE COULD STILL BE THERE. >> THE FIRST TRIGGER DATE, IF THEY DON'T COME TO A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WHICH, I HOPE YOU WERE CANDID AS TO THE CONTINGENT LIABILITIES THEY ARE FACING ON DEPOSITS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BUT IF THERE'S NO AGREEMENT IN 45 DAYS WE ARE RIGHT BACK HERE BECAUSE OF THIS DOESN'T WORK OUT TONIGHT, EVERYBODY IS PREPARING FOR LITIGATION STARTING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. >> MISS HEDGES? YOU'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ALREADY ABOUT THIS CONCEPT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO HELP US OUT? >> TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD, AS IT [01:10:05] RELATES TO THE MOU THERE IS DISCUSSION OF THIS BEING A JOINT VENTURE WITH A BREAKDOWN OF 55% INTEREST TO A 45% INTEREST. I ALSO HEARD A QUESTION RELATED TO THE ABILITY TO ASSIGN THE CONTRACT. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT DOES SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FINANCING OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, SO THAT DOES EXIST IN THE CONTRACT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> IN TERMS OF HAVING ANOTHER PLAYER IN HERE WHO IS THE MAJORITY PARTY ? >> YES MA'AM. >> I GUESS THERE IS A RISK FACTOR ARE HERE AND I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANYBODY IN THIS SITUATION EXCEPT FOR THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE AND COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON JUST DID A REMARKABLE ANALYSIS QUICKLY AS TO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY AT RISK WITH TAXES AND COSTS AND STAFF TIME. 45 DAYS TO SEE IF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS REACHED, AND US IN THE PROCESS OF BEING NOTIFIED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY OF THAT, I THINK IS WORTH THE TIME INVESTMENT, VERSUS THE ALTERNATIVE. I'M GOING TO MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT CONCERNED ABOUT LITIGATION IN ANY CAPACITY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE HIGH GROUND SO IF THAT'S THE ROUTE WE ARE GOING TO GO, FINE. I SUPPORT IT. BUT IF THERE IS A WORKABLE SCENARIO TO FINDING AN EXIT STRATEGY WHERE EVERYBODY COMES OUT OF THIS THING, ESPECIALLY THE CITIZENS AS I AM FIGHTING HERE TONIGHT AS A SUGGESTION TO TRY THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO ADVOCATE. AND WHEN I'M WRONG I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE THIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT I HAVE. BUT I HAVE THIS CONFIDENCE THAT WE HAVE A COMPANY HERE THAT CAN EXECUTE AND HAS THE CAPABILITY. FINANCING. THEY HAVE A HOTEL. THESE GUYS ARE HITTERS. TO WAIT 3 TO 5 YEARS TO BRING IN A COMPANY LIKE THIS TO DO THIS DEAL , IF THAT'S THE ROUTE WE NEED TO GO, SO BE IT. IF WE HAVE TO INVEST A LITTLE TIME TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK AROUND THAT, I AM ADVOCATING THAT BUT I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG AT THE END OF THE DAY AND I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY AND WHAT THEIR REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE FLUFF AND THE NONSENSE. I WANT TO HEAR THE BASELINE REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT DEPOSITS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE. IT'S TIME FOR THE HARD QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED. NO MORE PLATITUDES AND NICETIES. WE NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AND IF WE HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY THAT'S WORKABLE AS I AM ADVOCATING FOR, FOR 45 DAYS OF MY TIME ON THIS PLANET, TO BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW NO HARM NO FOUL. ALL OF THIS HAS COST US UNFORTUNATELY MISS HEDGES TIME TO WORK ON THE DRAFTING OF THIS. AND NO MORE NONSENSE DRAFT. LET'S GET REAL COMING OUT OF THE GATE. I HAVE READ THE DRAFT THAT COME IN AND I AM ANGRY ABOUT IT. STOP NEGOTIATIONS. LET'S GET REAL AND TRY TO GET SOMETHING DONE. I'LL BE QUIET NOW BEFORE I REALLY GET WARPED . >> ARE WE READY TO HEAR ? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, SIR? >> GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MANAGER , GENERAL COUNSEL HEDGES. >> WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECKON ? >> I AM JONES FOSTER AND I'M HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUE , A RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE AND MY CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE, DALE MADISON. WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT A LETTER FROM HARBERT WOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BEFORE TODAY AND I REQUESTED THAT PREVIOUSLY. WE DID DELIVER THE MOU BACK ON THE 16TH WHICH WAS TWO DAYS AFTER YOU MADE THAT REQUEST ON THE 14TH. THE MOU CONFIDES , IN SOME DETAIL, THE WAY THAT HARBERT LOOKED TO SUPPLY FUNDING FOR THE HOTEL AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. WE ASSUMED THAT WE HAD MET THE REQUEST AT THAT POINT . IT BECAME CLEAR LAST WEEK FROM QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL THAT MORE INFORMATION WAS DESIRED WHICH LED TO THE REQUEST THAT HARBERT FURNISH THE LETTER. HARBERT, TO YOUR POINT MISTER BRODERICK, [01:15:05] I'M GOING TO CONFINE MY REMARKS TO YOUR LOGIC I THINK YOUR LOGIC IS DEAD ON IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE DEFERRED TIMETABLES. HARBERT, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IS THE REAL DEAL AND YOU USED THE PHRASE THE PROWESS TO EXECUTE. I THINK THEY HAVE THE PROWESS TO EXECUTE. THEY HAVE A BACK-OFFICE CAPABILITY TO HANDLE A VERY, VERY LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SPEAKING OF. MY CLIENT IS OPEN TO THE 45 DAY WINDOW THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED. I'VE CONFERRED WITH HIM AND HE HAS INDICATED THAT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT HARBERT WAS DISCOVERED IN PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE OF COURTING MARRIOTT AND FRANCHISEES. SO HARBERT WAS DISCOVERED AS MY CLIENT AND DEBORD TO MEET YOUR DESIRES TO HAVE A BRAND HOTEL . I BELIEVE HARBERT HAS BEEN APPRISED OF ALL THE LIABILITIES. HAVE THEY BEEN GIVEN THE NAMES OF EVERY POTENTIAL DEPOSITOR? I DO NOT KNOW. I HAVE NOT DIRECTLY HANDLED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS BUT IT IS MY SENSE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED A FULL EXPOSÉ ON THE DEPTH OF THE COMMITMENT THAT MY CLIENT IS COMMITTED TO AUDUBON. JUST TO BE CLEAR , THERE IS MOMENTUM HERE. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION AND I'M CHOOSING NOT TO GO BACKWARD AND TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE FRUSTRATING PEOPLE TONIGHT ON PURPOSE. WE'VE GOT PERHAPS THE LEADING HOTEL BRAND , MARRIOTT WHO CAME HERE AND PRESENTED PRETTY IMPRESSIVE GRAPHICS, TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A VERY IMPRESSIVE WATERFRONT. YOU'VE GOT ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCHISEES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY MARRIOTT. MARRIOTT NEEDS A FRANCHISEE. WE'VE GOT DISCUSSIONS WITH, AS I UNDERSTAND, TWO AT THE MOMENT. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE FALL APART, NOT RECENTLY BUT IN THE PAST WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED TO PART OF THE PROBLEM. AND YOU HAVE A MASSIVE FUNDER. THE MOU LAYS OUT A COMMITMENT OF OVER $100 MILLION. IF YOU LOOK ONLINE IS OBVIOUSLY MISTER BRODERICK HAS DONE I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS THE CAPACITY IN THE BILLIONS AND A DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE RECORD OF MASSIVE PROJECTS. TO THE POINT BY MISS HEDGES, I WAS NOT AWARE THEY WERE GOING TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS THE LEAD DEVELOPER. THAT WASN'T SOMETHING I HAD HEARD BUT I DID HEAR THEY WOULD HAVE A 55% CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE ENTITY THAT WILL BE CREATED TO RUN THE PROJECT. IT IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS A JOINT VENTURE. SO THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY IN CONTROL. AUTOBAHN WOULD HAVE THE LEAD ROLE ON LEASING MARKETING AND SALES AND HARBERT WOULD HAVE THE LEAD ROLE ON OVERSEEING CONSTRUCTION AND SPENDING THE MONEY WHICH APPARENTLY THEY ARE VERY ADEPT AT. I THINK FRANKLY THOSE ARE ALL GOOD THINGS FOR YOU AND THEY ARE A PRODUCT OF ALL THE EFFORTS THAT MY CLIENT HAS ENGAGED IN. I AM VERY AWARE OF YOUR FRUSTRATIONS. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, THIS MAN'S HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. HE HAS ARRANGED MASSIVE FUNDING, AND HE IS ENDEAVORING TO CREATE A STAR QUALITY HOTEL THAT WILL PUT YOU ON THE MAP . YOU NEED TO APPRECIATE, THERE ISN'T A LOT OF HOTEL DATA FOR THIS MARKET. THERE'S NO DATA SET THAT CAN TELL YOU WHAT ROOM RATE RENTALS ARE IN FORT PIERCE FOR A LUXURY BRAND OR A LIFESTYLE HOTEL. THERE'S NOT. SO YOU HAVE THIS GAP ALONG THE EAST COAST WHICH IS RATHER STARTLING BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A WATERFRONT THAT IS EQUIVALENT IF NOT BETTER THAN STEWART AND OTHERS. YOU'VE GOT AN INLET HERE AND A REPUTATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY FISHING. SO YOU DESERVE A RESORT HOTEL AND YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY HAS THAT NOT HAPPENED BEFORE? MISTER MADISON HAS PUT HIS HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS. HE HAS A LOT OF MONEY INVESTED IN THIS AND IS COMMITTED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. HARBERT FORTUNATELY IS THERE TO HELP BRING THE CAPITAL SO HE CAN GET TO MARKET. TO BE CLEAR, THE VETTING PROCESS IS NOT REMOVED FROM THE PROCESS. MARRIOTT STILL WILL BE VETTING THE ENTIRE THING. SO IF THAT WAS TAKEN OUT THAT WAS NOT ON PURPOSE. I AM PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. I DON'T WANT TO ANTAGONIZE ANYBODY. I AM WANTING TO TRY TO HELP MAKE THIS A WIN-WIN FOR MARRIOTT, 44 YEARS, FOR YOUR COMMISSION . I WANTED TO SEE [01:20:07] THE VICTORY. I WANT TO SAY IN 10 YEARS WHEN I'M IN MY LATE 70S, I HELPED MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I THINK YOU'VE GOT A WATERFRONT THAT CRIES OUT FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY HOTEL AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH KYLE WHO IS VERY MOTIVATED FOR MARRIOTT. YOU HAVE TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE TO FALL IN PLACE FOR EVERYTHING TO GET STARTED. YOUR APPROVAL IS PART OF THAT. I REGRET THAT WE ARE HAVING TO SEEK THIS AMENDMENT, BUT WE ARE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO BACKWARD. I'M HAPPY TO BUT I REALLY DON'T WANT TO TONIGHT. I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S EFFORTS. I REALLY RESPECT YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, SIR, AND YOUR ACUMEN. I CAN TELL YOU PUT A LOT OF LOGIC INTO THIS. SO I'M HAPPY AS THE SPOKESMAN FOR AUDUBON TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS? DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I DO. I BROUGHT UP CONTINGENT LIABILITIES, YOU BROUGHT UP CONTINGENT LIABILITIES. HAS THE -- BEEN EXPOSED TO THEM IN DETAIL? THERE'S A CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF NORTH OF $5 MILLION. WE KNOW THAT. IS HARBERT AWARE OF THIS CONTINGENT LIABILITY? >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, SIR. >> ARE THEY ALSO AWARE OF THIS DEBATE OR SOON TO BE FIGHT RELATIVE TO MITIGATION COSTS OF THE DEBRIS? >> THEY ARE AWARE OF THE DEBRIS ISSUE. THEY ARE AWARE OF OUR VIEW THAT THERE IS A CONTRACT PROVISION THAT IS IN PLAY. WE HAVE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME GOING THROUGH THAT. OUR GOAL IS TO FOCUS ON GETTING THIS OUT OF THE GROUND BUT THEY ARE AWARE OF THAT. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON 'S COMMENT IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT. WE ARE WALKING OVER $100 BILLS TO PICK UP PENNIES. AND IF THIS DEAL IS GOING TO GO SOUTH, BECAUSE OF A $900,000 CLAIM WHICH CANDIDLY I THINK IS-- YOU KNOW MY OPINION ON IT, THE LOSS OF THIS TRANSACTION BECAUSE OF THAT IS FOOLISH. AND OF THIS POTENTIAL JOINT VENTURE WOULD GO AWAY BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT THE DISPOSITION OF THAT IS AN HAVE TO SPEND TIME DOING AUDITS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE ON INVOICING THAT REFLECTS NO DETAIL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE WEEKS IF NOT MONTHS TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THAT WHICH WOULD DEEP SIX THIS ENTIRE POTENTIAL JOINT VENTURE AND WE ARE JUST GOING TO END UP GOING TO LITIGATION. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SOLUTION IS. I'M LOOKING FOR YOU FOLKS TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. THE SOLUTION YOU PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND SIMPLY PUT, WE ARE GOING TO NEED SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BETTER ON THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT FROM YOUR POTENTIAL JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THEY ARE SUGGESTION, AND THEY DID NOT SEE THIS TO ME BUT I'M INTERPRETING FROM DISCUSSIONS WE HAD CANDIDLY, YOU GUYS HAVE TO CLEAN THAT UP. MEETING ALL OF US COLLECTIVELY. AND THE CLEANUP OF THAT IS NOT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WRITING A CHECK FOR BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED HERE. I STARTED ASKING ABOUT THIS INVOICING MONTHS AGO. THERE'S NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND TV INTERVIEWS SAYING WELL THE CITY OWES $1.7 MILLION BUT IT STILL IS NOT RATIONALIZED IN THE INVOICING AND IT MAKES ME UPSET THAT THAT TYPE OF REPRESENTATION IS BEING CIRCULATED IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN IT IS SIMPLY UNFOUNDED EVEN BY THE DOCUMENTATION THAT COMES IN NOW. HAVING SAID THAT, IT SEEMS TO BE A SECONDARY ISSUE TO YOUR JOINT VENTURE PARTNER AND AGAIN, COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON 'S POINT ON THIS IS THE SALIENT POINT. THIS IS A MINOR ISSUE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS. YOU GUYS NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO FIX THAT. NOT US. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO FIX IT. I AM OPEN TO ANY REASONABLE SUGGESTION BUT COMING UP WITH FANTASYLAND NUMBERS FOR THE MEDIA, A PRESENTATION THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, IS NOT THE SOLUTION. IT IS TIME TO GET REAL HERE. THE TIME IS SHORT, AS YOU CAN TELL, AND TEMPERS ARE SHORT. WE NEED THESE THINGS FIXED. I'M DONE. I'LL STEP ASIDE. I APOLOGIZE TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS BUT -- >> NO NEED. >> I HAVE HELD MY THUNDER ON THE REAL ESTATE END OF THIS FOR MONTHS. THE TIME IS NOW RELATIVE. YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO LAY OUT THIS PATTERN -- I'LL JUST STOP THERE. >> COMMISSIONER, SHORT FOR ME IS, I'M DONE TONIGHT. YOU ARE [01:25:01] LOOKING AT 4 TO 5 DAYS. >> IT'S 6:30. I WANT TO BE DONE BY 7:00. LAID OUT YOUR ARGUMENT IS DO WE WAIT 45 DAYS ON THIS OR DO WE MOVE FROM THERE? LIKE I SAID I AM ALREADY SHORT. THERE ARE TOO MANY MISSES . THE CITIZENS HERE ARE, I'M CONCERNED WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, SIR. WHATEVER WAY IT IS WE'VE SIGNED UP FOR FORT PIERCE NO MATTER HOW THIS GOES, NO MATTER IF IT'S TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW 45 DAYS WE ARE ALL TIED TO WHATEVER DECISION IS GOING TO BE MADE AS A BOARD. WE WILL GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED . THE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR ME , YOU HAVE TWO FRANCHISEES YOU ARE TALKING TO TO BE THE MARRIOTT PART OF THIS DEAL . >> TO YOUR QUESTIONS, THEY WOULD BE THE ENTITY THAT OBTAINS THE LICENSE, THE FRANCHISOR RIGHT. >> AND YOU ARE IN DUE DILIGENCE WITH THEM NOW? >> WE ARE. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THREE. >> BUT YOU HAVE TWO NOW LEFT THAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH TO GET TO THAT POINT. IS YOU CANNOT HANG A MARRIOTT FLAG UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO DO SO. >> YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. I WILL SAY TO THE QUESTION BEHIND YOUR QUESTION, I THINK THE HARBERT CAPACITY, I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR SURE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT MY REALM, BUT I THINK THE HARBERT CAPACITY IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL. >> RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION TO CONSIDER IS, THEY, TOO, ARE DOING DUE DILIGENCE ON IF THEY ARE GOING TO HANG THE FLAG. HARBERT IS CREDIBLE BUT THERE'S ALSO THE 45% IN THIS PIECE THAT REMAINS IF I'M DOING MY MATH RIGHT. AND THAT'S AUDUBON. MY QUESTION, THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE WITH MARRIOTT. THEY WERE DOING DUE DILIGENCE WITH AUDUBON AND BASICALLY CHECKING EACH OTHER OUT, RIGHT? IS THERE A POSSIBILITY ? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ALIGN AND MAKE SURE THEIR VALUES AND EVERYTHING ARE LINED UP WITH AUDUBON IN THE FRANCHISE OWNERS. AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION? >> YOU ARE. I WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT PRETTY CLEAR THAT IS HELPFUL TO ME. MARRIOTT HAS LINED UP A BACKUP FRANCHISEE IF NUMBER ONE DOES NOT GO FORWARD. THEY'VE BOTH BEEN APPROVED BY MARRIOTT. SO IT'S AN INTERESTING DANCE THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WANT TO BE A FRANCHISEE, MARRIOTT HAS TO APPROVE THEM. THEY DO NOT APPROVE A LOT. THEY HAVE HIGH STANDARDS WHICH IS TO YOUR BENEFIT BUT AS I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE ONE THAT IS VERY MOTIVATED IF FRANCHISEE NUMBER ONE , OUR NUMBER ONE DOES NOT COME THROUGH. WE ARE PRETTY HOPEFUL THAT NUMBER ONE IS GOING TO WORK OUT BUT WE HAVE MARRIOTT IN OUR CORNER PUSHING FRANCHISE 2. >> GOT IT. SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, IN WHAT PHASE OF THAT , I DON'T KNOW THERE ARE DAYS OR WEEKS YOU CAN QUANTIFY, WHERE ARE YOU WITH THAT, AND WHEN DOES THAT PROCESS CONCLUDE SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THIS PERSON WILL MAKE A DECISION ON YES I'M GOING TO DANCE WITH AUDUBON OR NO I'M NOT? >> WELL I UNDERSTAND THAT FRANCHISEE A HAS FLOWN TO MANHATTAN, SPENT DAYS WITH MARRIOTT GOING THROUGH WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR THE COMMITMENT. THIS IS NOT MY REALM , BUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE MAKING SOME INCENTIVE DELIVERIES TO THE FRANCHISEE BECAUSE MARRIOTT WANTS TO CREATE A JEWEL. THERE IS A BARGAIN GOING ON. I AM AWARE OF THIS FRANCHISEE AND THE SUCCESSES THAT ARE PRETTY MEANINGFUL. IF A DOES NOT WORK OUT, I UNDERSTAND B IS IN THE WINGS WITH MARRIOTT SAYING THEY ARE QUEUED UP AND VERY MOTIVATED TO TAP THIS MARKET. I AM NOT FRANKLY ABLE TO GET MORE SPECIFIC WITH YOU BUT I UNDERSTAND THE INCENTIVES THAT MARRIOTT IS DANGLING . AND THEN [01:30:02] THE VETTING QUARTER QUALITY -- THE VETTING FOR QUALITY I THINK HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. >> MADAM MAYOR? THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK AND VISITING WITH US. YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT WE ARE READY FOR A PATH FORWARD, NOT A PATH BACKWARD. SO, WERE YOU PART OF THE ITERATION PROCESS OF GETTING INTO THE VERBIAGE THAT IS THERE? >> I WAS TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND MY CLIENT. MS. HEDGES. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT. SO AS FAR AS THE AGREEMENT OR THE AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENTS AND THE CLAUSES THAT ARE WITHIN, THERE'S A LOT OF HEARTBURN UP HERE ABOUT THE PEANUT BILL. I'M JUST GOING TO CALL IT THAT. THE PEANUT INVOICE . BECAUSE IF YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE BUDGET , IT DOESN'T MEAN MUCH AT ALL. IF YOU LOOK AT IT INDIVIDUALLY AND AT A SIGULAR WITH BLINDERS ON IT MEANS A LOT TO THE PROJECT, AND IT MEANS A LOT TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE WITH THAT PORTION OF IT BECAUSE , THE REASON I AM STANDING AMONGST YOU, I AM ALSO SPEAKING TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS , IS THAT WHAT COULD BE DONE IF WE WERE TO FORGO THIS HAIL MARY THAT I CALLED EARLIER , IS A GREAT IMPACT TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IF WE WERE TO STOP DEAD RIGHT NOW. IF WE WERE TO STOP AND THERE WAS A NO VOTE ACROSS THE BOARD. HERE'S MY FEAR, AND I'M GOING TO PUT ON A SINGULAR ISSUE BECAUSE THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION SITE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CITY THAT HAS SILK FENCE AROUND IT THAT IS FALLING APART, THAT HAS DIRT ON THE SITE NEXT TO A BODY OF WATER CALLED THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. THE MOST DIVERSE ESTUARY IN THE NATION IF NOT THE WORLD. AND THAT IS AMONGST ALL THE READING AND ALL THE ARTICLES. SO NOW WE HAVE -- AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HOTEL BUILT IN 1895, THERE ARE DIRT PILES WITH FAILING SENSES, AND IT JUST HURTS. BECAUSE I LIVE IN THAT INDUSTRY. I WORK IN THAT INDUSTRY EVERY DAY. I CONGRATULATE MY PEERS THAT WORK IN THE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY QUITE OFTEN. I MAKE FUN OF MY PEERS WHEN THEY DO BAD THINGS IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. I'M NOT MAKING FUN OF ANYONE HERE TODAY , BUT I TEASED THEM TO SAY WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB AND I'M TALKING ABOUT MY FRIENDS IN THE INDUSTRY. NOT WHEN I GET INTO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS. I'M BEING REAL RIGHT NOW. WHEN WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB EVERY DAY , IT'S NOT WITH A CITY COMMISSION HAT ON. IT'S BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS SITTING ON A COASTLINE TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PARTNERS HAVE SPENT ON THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PEANUT AGAIN, $1 MILLION? OH MY GOODNESS. THE POTENTIAL LONG-TERM IMPACTS COULD BE EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONTRACT POINT, I UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENTS, I UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENTS I WAS [01:35:09] RAISED WITH A FAMILY THAT'S A GO OUT AND ENJOY THE SUNSHINE IN YOUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND BY THE WAY WE ARE IN CONSTRUCTION. SWING A HAMMER, DO YOUR THING, MAKE A LIVING, DO IT GOOD, ABIDE BY A CONTRACT. MY TAGLINE'S SERVICE, BEYOND THE CONTRACT. I DON'T FEEL THAT YET. AND IF HE DIDN'T SMACK ME OVER THE HEAD ONE TIME HE SMACKED ME OVER THE HEAD 100 TIMES AND SAID DON'T EVER LET THAT LEAVE YOUR SLEEVES. SERVICE BEYOND THE CONTRACT. THAT'S WHERE I AM AT. SERVICE BEYOND THE CONTRACT. TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.I'M THERE. I'M HERE I'VE GOT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE NINTH INNING HOME RUN TO WIN THE GAME WITH TWO OUTS. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AND I'M READY FOR THAT GAME-WINNING HOMERUN SO HERE WE ARE. THANK YOU. >> THE TIMELINE WAS SOMETHING HE SAID WE ARE WELL AWARE OF AND COMMITTED TO . >> I ASKED IF HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENT AND HE SAID THE UNDERPINNINGS ARE THERE. THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRANSACTION WERE KEYED INTO THE TIMELINE OR THE REVISED TIMELINE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AS PROVIDED BY AUDUBON AND LEGAL COUNSEL. THE TIMELINE TO ME WAS A SECONDARY DISCUSSION AND I SAID I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THAT IF THESE ADDITIONAL ISSUES CAN BE DEALT WITH UPFRONT. THEY ARE AWARE OF THE TIMELINE, THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TIMELINE. THAT'S WHEN WE RAN INTO THE TIMELINE OF SAYING THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? DON'T PUT THE BURDEN ON US. YOU GUYS HAVE TO ACCEPT THE BURDEN TO MAKE THINGS WORK. WE ARE JUST GOING TO BE THE BENEFICIARIES OF YOUR NOTIFICATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO I SAID FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IF THAT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED TO SEE IF THE JOINT VENTURE SCENARIO CAN BE WORKED OUT, I WAS NOT GOING TO SIT THERE AND DEBATE THE MINUTIA OF THAT. >> I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THIS GROUP THINKS-- FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY TIED TO IT. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU THINK THE TIMELINES ARE REALISTIC? >> NO PROBLEM WITH TIMELINES. >> I HAD ISSUES WITH THE TIMELINE BECAUSE I THINK THE DELIVERY AS I READ THEM, CORRECT ME, WAS IT 28? >> THE DELIVERABLES-- >> 28, 29 IS WHAT I THOUGHT THAT I READ. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON WILL SPEAK VOLUMES TO THIS BUT REALISTICALLY I THINK THE TIMELINES WERE GENEROUS , BUT YOU ARE ALSO NOW STARTING FROM SCRATCH WITH TIMELINES FOR THE NEW JOINT DENTURE PARTNER. THE TIME THAT HAS BEEN ERODED THROUGH WHATEVER COST IS NOT RELEVANT. THE TIME HAS BEEN ERODED AND WE ARE NOW PAYING THE PRICE OF THAT COLLECTIVELY IN THAT THEY NEED A NEW START. THEY NEED A FRESH START LINE TO COME FROM AND WE CAN'T PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE NEW JOINT VENTURE PARTNER WHO IS THE MAJORITY PARTNER TO SAY WELL, THE PARTNER, THE CITY, WHOEVER IS CULPABLE FOR THIS, YOU NEED TO TAKE THE BURDEN FOR THAT. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO SAY THANKS BUT NO THANKS. ANY DEVELOPER THREE YEARS FROM NOW WILL SAY WELL WE NEED 36 MONTHS. THIS IS A RINSE WASH REPEAT. THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. >> DO YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THE TIMELINE? >> I DO NOT. I WILL GIVE YOU A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE WORKING WITH A GROUP THAT DEALS WITH AN EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT, CHARTER SCHOOL AND I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT THE DESIGN PROGRAMMING FOR WHAT IS IN THIS SPREADSHEET . SORRY, THIS CHART IS DEAD ON BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT TAKES THAT LONG FOR 30, 40, 50,000 FT.÷. YOU GET THROUGH THE PARAMETERS, THE OPTIONS, THE APPROVAL PROCESS, PROCUREMENT, SUBCONTRACTS, AND THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT IF WE ARE IN THIS SEAT OF JUNE 2024 WHICH WE ARE AT, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER AVENUE WHICH HAPPENS DOWN THE STREET AT A COURTHOUSE, THEN WE AREN'T EVEN GOING TO START THIS PROCESS UNTIL THE END OF THIS TIMELINE HERE . SO WE DON'T EVEN BEGIN, WE DON'T EVEN RESET THE CLOCK UNTIL THE END OF WHAT IS SHOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER RIGHT NOW. NOT IN MY [01:40:01] LIFETIME. >> I WILL ASK YOU , TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THIS TIMELINE WAS OFFERED BY AUDUBON? IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND. THE TIMELINE IN EXHIBIT A? >> IN THE AMENDMENT. >> YES MA'AM. >> DO YOU KNOW IF AUDUBON HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISTER WARE ABOUT THAT TIMELINE? >> HE IS AWARE OF IT, MAYOR. >> MY CLIENT IS WHISPERING TO ME THAT HE IS AWARE OF IT. I WILL SAY THAT AS I RECALL, THE DISCUSSION FROM MARRIOTT , IT TAKES ROUGHLY 24 MONTHS TO ERECT A HOTEL. SO TO MISTER JOHNSON'S CONCERN, THAT IS BAKED INTO WHOEVER IS DEVELOPING THIS. A HOTEL OF THAT STATURE, IT WILL TAKE A VERY LONG TIME TO BE DESIGNED AND APPROVED AND BUILT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THIS GENTLEMAN? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. SO IT'S BACK TO US. MISS HEDGES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US THAT MAY HELP IN THE DISCUSSION? >> SURE, MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF HARD NO 'S , I'VE HEARD SOME DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS, IS WHAT I AM HEARING. SO I THINK WE WOULD NEED A DIRECTIVE MOVING FORWARD WHETHER IT'S YES, WHICH I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY TO THE AMENDMENT THAT IS PROPOSED, WHETHER IT IS A NO, OR GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE WITH , THESE ARE THE VERY SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WE WANT. WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING IS RELATED TO THE $1.1 MILLION. WE WANT THAT TO GO AWAY. YOU WANT THERE TO BE CLEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR TIME FRAMES OF BREACHING , IF THE DEAL WITH HARBERT DOES NOT GO FORWARD, THAT THOSE ARE DEFAULTS. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M HEARING. IT WOULD BE A MOTION ON THE BOARD AS TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO PROCEEDING FORWARD AND I CAN ASK FOR ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THAT MOTION IF I NEED IT . BUT IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. >> MADAM CHAIR? BASED ON THAT NOW, I ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR BECAUSE WHAT I'VE BEEN OVERHEARING AND THINKING ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN, WHAT YOU CALL IT, THE HOME RUN IN THE NINTH INNING WAS TO GIVE THIS GROP 45 DAYS TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT TO SHOW US THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT TOGETHER. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. 145 DAYS WAS TURNED INTO 135 AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT , IF THEY GOT AN AGREEMENT, THEN THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADDED WOULD GO FORWARD. NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT US TO GIVE OTHERS THE 1.1 OR WHATEVER AND ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT YOU JUST SAID. I'M TRYING TO-- I'M CONFUSED HERE NOW SO ARE WE ATTACKING THE AMENDMENT? IF WE ARE ATTACKING THE AMENDMENT, THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN I AM HEARING . LET'S TRY TO HIT THE HOME RUN WITH 45 DAYS. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO BE ASKED AND WHAT ARE WE REALLY ASKING? IF IT'S A GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT AND CHANGE PARTS OF THE AMENDMENT, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET US ANYWHERE. SO AGAIN, I SAID ON THE RECORD MY VOTE WOULD BE NO. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT NOW, CAN THEY GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIKE, I GUESS COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAID, A 45 DAY PERIOD , AN ADDITIONAL 45 DAY PERIOD TO COME BACK TO SHOW US THAT THIS AGREEMENT WITH HARBERT IF I PRONOUNCED IT WRONG I APOLOGIZE, IS GOING TO COME TO FRUITION. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GO WITH? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS AS NONLEGAL AND AS SIMPLE AS [01:45:03] HUMANLY POSSIBLE AND IF I COULD DRAW IT ON THE BACK OF A NAPKIN AND EVERYONE SIGN IT I WOULD. >> BACK TO THE OLD WAY. THESE EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH AGAIN, GUYS, I WON'T GO DOWN THAT PATH. THE BILLABLE HOURS ARE JUST RIDICULOUS. IT IS JUST FOOLISHNESS. BUT FROM AN AGREEMENT PERSPECTIVE, MY THOUGHT IS THAT -- FIRST OFF, THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE MUCH DISAGREEMENT. THERE IS CONCERN AND DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE TIMELINES. COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON IS THE ON COMMISSION EXPERT WITH THIS AND I PUT TREMENDOUS STUCK IN HIS OPINION AND HE IS SAYING THIS IS DIALED IN. I AM CONCEDING THAT POINT IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THAT GROUP. THE DOLLARS AND CENTS? FORGET ABOUT IT. I AM NOT CONCEDING A PENNY. AND HAVING SAID THAT, WE GIVE 45 DAYS TO AUDUBON AND HARBERT TO SEE IF THEY CAN COBBLE TOGETHER A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT ACCEPTABLE TO THEM, SUBJECT TO THIS BODY AND THE CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING THE TIMELINE SCHEDULE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND A RESOLUTION ON THIS MILLION-DOLLAR CLAIM . THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY BECAUSE OF IT ALL DOES NOT COME TOGETHER AT THE END OF THOSE 45 DAYS, THIS GOES POUF LIKE IT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN. IN MY DISCUSSIONS I SAID, WILL WE MAKE IT A CONTINGENCY THAT THE TIMELINES ARE RATIFIED AT A TIME IN THE FUTURE TO MATCH UP WITH SOME TIME IN THAT 45 DAY PERIOD ? AND THEY SAID YES, AS LONG AS THERE'S A CONTINGENCY INDICATING THAT THOSE TIMELINES ARE GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE AT SOME POINT IF THE REST OF THIS MESS IS CLEANED UP, WE ARE GOOD. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? >> THAT MAKES SENSE AND I AM LOOKING AT MADAM ATTORNEY. HE ALMOST STATED HIS MOTION OR, A MOTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK HIM TO RESTATE HIS MOTION OR ATTEMPT TO RESTATE HIS MOTION BASED ON THE THREE POINTS THAT HE SAID THERE. BEFORE YOU DO THAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WITH MADAM ATTORNEY , IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO OR THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO DO? >> MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING FROM COMMISSIONER BRODERICK IS ESSENTIALLY TO BASICALLY PAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR 45 DAYS AND HAVE HARBERT AND AUDUBON NEGOTIATE THEIR DEAL TO INCLUDE TERMS IN THEIR DEAL, THAT THEIR DEAL IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH THE EXTENDED TIME FRAMES . AND IF THAT DOES NOT OCCUR BY THE COMMISSION THEN BASICALLY THEIR DEAL GOES AWAY. >> AND ONE OTHER PROVISION , CITY ATTORNEY HEDGES IS THAT IF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS AGREED TO, IF THERE IS RESOLUTION ON THE MILLION DOLLARS -- >> THE DEBRIS CLAIM. >> I HAVE A BETTER TERM BUT I CAN'T SAY IT HERE. I GUESS I COULD BUT I WOULD GET HIT WITH THE GAVEL. BUT THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THAT IS SIMPLY THAT THE 45 DAY PERIOD TO CONFIRM A JOINT VENTURE, AND NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS DURING THAT 45 DAYS. IF THAT FALLS APART ON DAY 20 I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE OF THE GETS SHORT-CIRCUITED THEN , IS IT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WANT NOTIFICATION? NOT JUST KILLING TIME HERE. THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT IS THAT IF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS REACHED, THE TIMELINES WE ARE PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH, THE MILLION DOLLARS ISSUE IS RESOLVED, THEY ALSO GET A DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD BECAUSE THAT IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. IN SOME FASHION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INCORPORATED TO SAY IF THIS, THIS, AND THIS HAPPENS THEY GET THE 90 DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD TO DO THE WORK THEY NEED TO DO. NORMAL TIMELINES. I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SIDE OF THIS. I WAS EXPECTING A LONGER DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD, CANDIDLY AND I SAID NO. IT DOES NOT RUN SIMULTANEOUS WITH NEGOTIATIONS OF 45 DAYS . IN THEORY WE WOULD GIVE YOU 90 DAYS AT THE TERMINATION OF THAT WHEN AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED AND THEN THE CLOCK STARTS TICKING. IF IT'S DAY 20? FINE. DAY 45? FINE. YOU GET 90 DAYS FROM THAT POINT. I WAS EXPECTING A BIGGER ASK AND IT DID NOT COME. IS THAT STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY? THAT IS PRETTY BRIEF ON A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT >> DID YOU SAY THERE THAT THE [01:50:02] MINUTE IT IS A NO WE NEED TO KNOW? I WOULD THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. >> CORRECT. NO MORE USING TIMELINES BECAUSE WE ARE PUTTING THEM OUT THERE. IF HARBERT SAYS THEY CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT I WANT TO BE NOTIFIED.'S BODY WANTS TO BE NOTIFIED. IF AUDUBON CANNOT, WE WANT TO BE NOTIFIED. WERE NOT JUST GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DARK. >> THE INVERSE IS TRUE. IF THEY REACH AN AGREEMENT LET'S HAVE A MEETING ONE MONTH FROM TODAY WHICH IS OUR NORMALLY SCHEDULED MEETING AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE WORK. >> COMPLETELY AGREE. >> WE STILL HAVE TO DECIDE ON AN AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT. >> AND IT SHIFTS THE BURDEN OFF OF US AND ON TO THEM, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, TO EXECUTE. AND IF THEY CAN'T WE ARE IN THE SAME POSITION WE ARE AT RIGHT NOW MOVING ONTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS DEFAULT AND REVERSION CLAUSES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE. >> I HEAR THAT, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK , BUT THIS IS MY CONCERN. I'M IN AN ACTIVE CONTRACT RIGHT NOW. I'M IN AN ACTIVE CONTRACT WITH DATES THAT ARE COMING UP THAT COULD TRIGGER A DEFAULT , THAT COULD TRIGGER US RIGHT BACK HERE WITH THE SAME DISCUSSIONS. I AM NOT HEARING ANYTHING SO DOES THE 45 DAYS -- THE CONTRACT? WE'RE LEAVING STUFF OPEN-ENDED. STOP ME IF-- I HAVE A CONTRACT-- >> I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. >> THE DATES OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT. >> MADAM MAYOR, SORRY, CHAIR. NO. THE CONTRACT IS STILL GOING TO BE IN PLACE. WE WOULD STILL BE PROCEEDING. THERE IS A TRIGGER DATE COMING UP ON JUNE 16 RELATED TO PHASE 2 COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION. I THINK WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT CONSTRUCTION IS NOT GOING TO BE COMMENCED. SO THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT FOR THAT TRIGGERING DATE WOULD ALSO BE SENT OUT. IF THE MAJORITY VOTE IS FOR THIS 45 DAYS IT WOULD BE TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS THE SECOND AMENDMENT AT THAT POINT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM WITH MISTER HAWKINS THAT HE AND HIS CLIENT ARE ACCEPTING OF THIS AND BELIEVE IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE OF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY BELIEVE CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN WE WOULD BE WASTING TIME DELAYING THE INEVITABLE. >> MADAM CHAIR BEFORE HE COMES BACK UP, GUYS, WE CAN'T POINT OUR FINGERS AT AUDUBON AND ASK THEM TO DO EVERYTHING. WE HAVE AN OPEN CONTRACT AND WHILE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE SEND A LETTER TALKING ABOUT, BY THE WAY WITHIN THESE 45 DAYS YOU MISSED A DATE ON THIS CONTRACT AND HERE'S A LETTER FOR DEFAULT. THAT'S NOT HOW YOU DO CONTRACT LAW OR HOW YOU DO DEALS. YOU JUST DON'T DO IT THAT WAY. SO I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS STUFF, I UNDERSTAND YOU COMING IN WITH THIS LETTER BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE HERE BECAUSE AS SOON AS THEY DEFAULT, THAT WE KNOW IT'S COMING UP AND WE SEND A LETTER WE ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK IN HERE DEALING WITH THAT DEFAULT WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO OUT NEGOTIATE FOR FINANCING AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. IF THE BOARD OR WE DECIDE TO GIVE THEM 45 DAYS OR DO WHATEVER, WE NEED TO STOP THIS CONTRACT AND SEE IF THIS 45 DAYS AS COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK HAVE SAID, THAT LEAD US OUT OF THE COURTROOM AND PUT US WAY BACK DOWN AND START OVER. W NEED TO SAY THIS IS THE HAIL MARY. I'M GOING TO USE WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID, AND HE USED IT BECAUSE I'M A BASEBALL PLAYER, I'M UP TO BAT. 3 - 2 THE BASES ARE LOADED. I NEED TO GET A HIT TO WIN THE GAME. TIED GAME, I NEED TO GET A HIT . YOU CAN'T PUT ME IN THAT SITUATION. YOU CAN'T PUT ME IN THAT SITUATION AND I HIT THE BALL AND GET A HIT AND BY THE WAY WE CHANGED THE RULES. THERE'S AN EXTRA INNING. IF WHAT I AM HEARING, NOT SAYING I AM AGREEING WITH IT, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO THROW THIS, I'VE HEARD HAIL MARY, I'VE HEARD HOME RUN, I'VE HEARD LAST DITCH EFFORT FROM EVERYONE UP HERE, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT THEN WE NEED TO DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH AND SAY OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS 45 DAYS. HOWEVER, [01:55:03] WERE GOING TO ALSO END OF THOSE 45 DAYS, WE NEED TO TOTAL THIS CONTRACT BECAUSE IF THEY COME BACK IN 45 DAYS AND EVERYTHING IS A GO, THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE REVAMPED ANYWAY. BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE ALL THIS NEW STUFF BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT, IS IF THE FUNDRAISING THAT WE VOTE FOR, A 45 DAY EXTENSION , I THINK IT COMES UP FOR 45 DAYS, WE'RE GOING TO SEND A LETTER TO THEM SAYING THEY ARE IN DEFAULT. >> MISS HEDGES? >> MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS THEY ARE ALREADY IN DEFAULT SERVE. THEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THEIR DEFAULTS. I DON'T AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO TOLD THE PERIOD . THIS IS ESSENTIALLY TO THEIR BENEFIT BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE ON TONIGHT. IF WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS PROPOSING IS VOTED ON AND THAT'S WHAT GOES FORWARD, THEY ARE BASICALLY JUST , WE ARE RE-ADDRESSING THIS IN THE NEXT 45 DAYS OR SOONER IF A DECISION IS MADE WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD. BUT THE CONTRACT STILL EXIST. WE DIDN'T TOLL THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RELATED TO THE CURE ON THE FIRST DEFAULT THAT HE IS CURRENTLY UNDER. WE GAVE HIM AN EXTENSION. AND IT HAPPENS TO A BUT ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE SECOND DEFAULT THAT IS ABOUT TO OCCUR. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE TO TOLL THE ENTIRE CONTRACT TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IS BEING DONE CURRENTLY. THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO FOLLOW THE TERMS THAT EXIST UNDER THE CONTRACT BECAUSE WE ARE BASICALLY STILL NEGOTIATING AN EXTENSION. WE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY SORT OF REVERTER OR LITIGATION WITHOUT A VOTE FROM BOTH BODIES THAT EXIST. SO THE TOLLING WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A VOTE THAT HAS TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. >> IF I CAN RESTATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THE CONTRACT IS STILL IN PLACE. IF WE HAVE A 45 DAY SITUATION WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE THIS DEAL? WHAT IS IN PLACE IS STILL IN PLACE NO MATTER WHAT-- YES . I UNDERSTAND THAT . ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT? >> MAY I ASK , THE PART OF THIS THAT GIVES ME PAUSE, I THINK LEGALLY COMMISSIONER GAINES IS CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERFORMANCE OF AUDUBON IS REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE OVER THE NEXT 45 DAYS AND I THINK THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE QUESTION THAT MISTER GAINES IS GOING TO. YES, IT'S TRUE THAT THE CITY HAS ASSERTED THAT THERE IS A BREACH. I HAVE OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TONIGHT THAT EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A TOLLING SO THAT THERE'S NO TECHNICAL DEFAULT THAT ARISES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERFORMANCE IS EXPECTED FROM THE CITY UNDER THE CONTRACT IN PLACE OVER THE NEXT 45 DAYS. I DON'T HAVE A GRASP ON THAT. TO THE QUESTION THAT MISS HEDGES ASKED FIVE MINUTES AGO, I BELIEVE THE 45 DAYS WILL GIVE US TIME TO BRING THIS TOGETHER AND THAT HARBERT WILL BE AN EXCELLENT JOINT VENTURE PARTNER. I BELIEVE AUDUBON AND HARBERT ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY TO ACHIEVING THAT. I THINK THE TOLLING IDEA FROM COMMISSIONER GAINES IS A WISE ONE. THAT MEANS ALL DEADLINES WOULD BE TOLD FOR THE NEXT 45 DAYS. >> THE ONE THING DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DECIDE TONIGHT GOING FORWARD, THE ONE THING WE DO NOT APPRECIATE AND DON'T WANT IS LAST-MINUTE, ANY MORE. WE DON'T WANT THAT ANY MORE. AND WE ALSO-- I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE IF THIS CURRENT PARTNER DID NOT NEED FINANCING. WE WOULDN'T BE HERE . I THINK THAT'S WHAT -- WE ARE ALL TRYING UP HERE TO PROTECT OUR TAXPAYERS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THAT'S WHAT I FEEL LIKE AT THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT MISTER WARE, THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT, IF IT SAVES STEEL THAT PROTECTS THE-- SAVES THIS DEAL THAT PROTECTS THE TAXPAYER AND IF IT DOESN'T, WE HAVE TO GO TO PLAN B. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS GENTLEMAN? IF NOT I THINK WE ARE READY TO-- LET'S BRING IT [02:00:02] BACK AND MISTER BRODERICK WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE , TRY TO MAKE A MOTION HERE? >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TIMEFRAME REAL QUICK. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE GOOD WITH IT BUT GO AHEAD. >> I THINK WE ARE SOMEWHAT GOOD WITH IT BUT I THINK WE HAVE THE OPTION-- WILL LET ME ASK. DO WE HAVE THE OPTION TO TOLL , AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED? >> MADAM CHAIR , YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT IN YOUR VOTE. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND DOING THAT. YOU ARE THEN GOING TO-- IF YOU TOLD US ON TRACK FOR 45 DAYS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE NEW TIME FRAMES WITHIN EACH ONE OF THESE DEVELOPMENT PHASES AND EACH TRIGGERING DATE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTRACT. WE ARE NEGOTIATING A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME TO THIS AMENDMENT. TO TOLL THIS CONTRACT FOR 45 DAYS WHICH TECHNICALLY RIGHT NOW HE IS PASS PAST THE JUNE 4 DEADLINE RELATED TO THE EXTENSION THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CURED BY JUNE 4. WE DID NOT TOLD THAT BETWEEN JUNE 4 AND JUNE 11. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A TRIGGERING DATE OF JUNE 16 OF 2024 FOR HIM TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION. I BELIEVE THIS CONTRACT REMAINS IN PLACE WITH THE DATES THAT EXIST AND THEY ARE STILL UNDER THE CONTRACT UNTIL IT IS TERMINATED OR UNTIL IT IS AMENDED. IF YOU ARE ASKING TO TOLL IT, IT WILL ESSENTIALLY BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DATES THAT EXIST CURRENTLY. I DO NOT THINK IT'S LEGALLY NECESSARY. WE ARE GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF ATTEMPTING TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING THE ABILITY TO AMEND THIS, INSTEAD OF IT BEING TERMINATED. THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT I AM HEARING TONIGHT. IT IS TERMINATED OR WE GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL TIME TO TRY AND GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW. SO I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT TO GIVE THEM THE TOLLING PERIOD BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL CHOOSE TO DO , THAT COULD BE DONE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. HERE'S MY NEXT QUESTION. I KIND OF HAVE THE SAME TAKE BUT THERE IS NO LEGAL HAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I DO. MY QUESTION IS , ARE THERE ANY OTHER TRIP HAZARDS FOR ME FOR US IN THIS CONTRACT, IF WE SAY WE ARE GOING TO TOLL, IF THAT COMES UP AND THAT IS PART OF THIS CONVERSATION, IS THERE SOME PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT IS GOING TO MAKE THE TRIP AND THEN WE GET SOMEONE SHAKING A FINGER AT US? I KNOW YOU OFFERED THE TWO SUGGESTIONS BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE DEEPER PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT. >> YES, SIR. TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A CLEAR ANSWER TO THAT I WOULD NEED TO DO AN ANALYSIS ON THIS CONTRACT RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. IT WAS NOT RESENTED UNTIL RIGHT NOW, YES SIR. SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TELLING YOU YOU WILL BE 100% OKAY UNDER THE OTHER TERMS . THE BIG CONCERN IS RELATED TO THE DATES THAT EXIST. OBVIOUSLY ANY DEADLINES WOULD BE PUSHED FOR 45 DAYS RELATED TO THAT. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REDUCED TO SOME SORT OF WRITING TO EFFECTUATE THAT. THERE MAY BE TRIP HAZARDS THAT EXIST ELSEWHERE IN THE CONTRACT AND I AM NOT COMFORTABLE SPEAKING ON THAT OFF-THE-CUFF CURRENTLY. >> SO COMMISSIONER YOU MAY HAVE TO WAY IN. YOU JUST MENTIONED MOVING OF THE DATES. SO IF WE TOLD IT RIGHT NOW, HE IS PENDING DEFAULT BASED ON THE TIMELINE AND THE CURRENT CONTRACT. IF WE TOLLED THAT ARE BASICALLY SAY WE ARE GOING TO STOP THIS AND PUT IT AS 45 DAYS TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK WITH AN AMENDED AND AGREEMENT, YOU JUST SAID IF WE DO THAT AND WE DON'T EXECUTE ON WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT, THAT WILL MOVE SOME DATES AND TIMELINES ET CETERA. SO MY QUESTION IS WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROACHED WITH WHAT WILL BE THE NEW TIMELINE, I GUESS, BASED ON A DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT. RIGHT ? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN MAY BE AFFECTED AS WELL? OR AM I OFF-BASE? >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON WAS ASKING WHETHER GIVING A 45 DAY TOLL PERIOD WOULD AFFECT ANY OTHER TERMS WITHIN THE AGREEMENT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER AS WE SIT HERE CURRENTLY IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY [02:05:02] THAT 45 DAY PERIOD. MOST DEFINITELY WHAT WILL BE AFFECTED IS THE TIMELINES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST UNDER THE AMENDED RESTATED AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT . TO GIVE THAT FULL ANSWER I WOULD NEED TO READ THROUGH THIS WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING AS IT WAS JUST PRESENTED. >> GOT IT. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE STARTED ONE WAY AND WE ARE BACK OVER HERE. SOME HARD NOSES AND A POSSIBILITY BASED ON A 45 DAY TOLL BUT THERE MAY BE A COG IN THE WHEEL IF THE CONTRACT IS NOT TOLD-- TOLLED. >> THERE'S ALREADY A VIOLATION. THE DEFAULT JUST CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I AM NOT WILLING TO TAKE MY FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR AS FAR AS THE DEFAULT IS CONCERNED. THE BURDEN IS ON THEM. >> LET'S GO BACK TO, MADAM MAYOR, SORRY. I REITERATE, THERE'S ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM THAT DEALS WITH THE WHAT IF'S OF ANY DEFAULT OF A CONTRACT AND THAT IS NEXT ON THE AGENDA WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THAT. WE CAN SEND A LOVE LETTER, I CALL THEM THAT, THAT SAYS BY THE WAY DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU MISSED A DATE LIKES LIKE IF I HAVE A CALENDAR APPOINTMENT. DID YOU KNOW YOU MISSED THE MEETING YESTERDAY? THAT IS THE LETTER THAT GETS SENT OUT. THE CITY SIGNED IT, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THERE'S A DATE. IT'S A DATE. IT'S A LETTER THAT SAYS DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU MISSED IT? NO ONE ACTED ON IT. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST MEETING. WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MOTION TO ACT UPON THOSE DEFAULTS. WE JUST SAID BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW? >> I THINK THERE'S A HAPPY MEDIUM THAT YOU DON'T TOLL THE CONTRACT BUT YOU DON'T INITIATE THE REVERTER. YOU HOLD ON THAT UNTIL THE 45 DAY EXPIRATION OF WHATEVER NOTIFICATION TIMELINE . WE DON'T HAVE TO INITIATE THE REVERTER UNTIL WE ARE NOTIFIED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND IF IT'S A POSITIVE THING, ONCE WE INITIATE IT WE ARE IN LITIGATION. THERE'S DEFAULT DATES THAT ARE GOING TO COME ALONG AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE YOU JUST CONTINUE WITH THAT AND DON'T -- WE CAN INITIATE THE REVERTER ACTIVITY AT ANY POINT IN TIME WE WANT TO. >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN AMENDMENT . >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YOU CAN JUST HOLD ON THAT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I THINK WE ARE READY TO MAKE A DECISION. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES IS ABOUT TO WRAP UP SOME PAPER AND THROW IT AT ME. >> THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE AND I'M GOING TO USE-- I'M GOING TO COPY OFF OF YOU BECAUSE I GET SAYING LOVE LETTERS WHEN I'M MISSED SOMETHING. BUT WHEN WE ARE TELLING A CORPORATION TO HAVE A MEETING WITH MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND WE ARE SITTING HERE TONIGHT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, AND WE KNOW THE 16TH IS COMING , AND WE SIT HERE AND LET IT COME AND WE SEND THIS LOVE LETTER, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EFFECT THAT LOVE LETTER HAS ON COMPANY A, COMPANY B , THIS OTHER COMPANY, THEY ARE JUST DOING IT BECAUSE NOW SOMEONE ELSE IS READING THAT LOVE LETTER LOOKING AT US LIKE OKAY WHAT WHAT IS THE CITY REALLY GOING TO DO? ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO GET US THIS AND THEY COME BACK IN AND THEY CHANGE THE FACTS? WE REALLY DON'T LIKE THIS AMENDMENT. OR ARE WE GOING TO STATE THAT IF WE KEEP THE CONTRACT WE ARE NOT SENDING OUT ANY DEFAULT LETTERS BUT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IF WE DON'T SEND OUT DEFAULT LETTERS, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IN THE CONTRACT. THIS IS MORE COMPLEX THAN YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT IT OR MAYBE I'M LOOKING AT IT. BECAUSE BY TRADE I AM A LITIGATOR. THAT'S HOW I SEE THIS. SO YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU CAN'T SAY GO GET ME A DEAL AND THEN THREE DAYS LATER WHAT'S THE DAY? THE DATE IS THE 11TH? FIVE DAYS LATER BY THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR THE OTHER NIGHT. HERE'S YOUR HAPPY NOTE THAT YOU ARE IN DEFAULT AGAIN. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. IT DON'T MAKE US LOOK GOOD. IF WE RELY ON MADAM ATTORNEY AND SHE SAYS THAT'S HOW SHE FEELS, AND HOW THE CONTRACT SHOULD GO , THAT'S HER. I DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. [02:10:01] I GO ON RECORD SAYING I DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. I COULD BE WRONG, SHE COULD BE RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT SENDING OUT LETTERS FROM US WHEN WE ARE ASKING SOMEONE TO NEGOTIATE AND GET FINANCING AND GET EVERYTHING ELSE COULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT. MAY BE HARBERT KNOWS THEY WILL BE IN DEFAULT AND THEY ARE SPECULATING. I DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE OUR LOVE LETTER COMES BACK TO BITE US IN THE YOU KNOW WHAT BECAUSE WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE DEFAULT AND WE SEND IT. IF WERE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING FOR 45 DAYS, IT'S JUST 45 DAYS. 45 DAYS, SO THAT WILL BE STARTING JUNE 16-- AUGUST 1. >> THERE YOU GO. I'M A COMMISSIONER TONIGHT . I AM NOT CITY ATTORNEY. SO I'M GOING TO RELY ON-- I'M GOING TO RELY ON THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. MADAM ATTORNEY, I'M NOT PUTTING THIS ON YOUR DESK . BUT ME PERSONALLY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT IF WE WANT TO KEEP OUR FOOT ON THEM AND GO, I SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T SEND NO LOVE LETTERS IN THESE 45 DAYS. WE DON'T SEND NO LOVE LETTERS IN THESE 45 DAYS UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT'S WHAT. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TOLL IT, DON'T SEND LOVE LETTERS. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING. >> I'M TRYING TO GET A WINDOW INTO YOUR WORLD. I'M NOT CERTAIN , A CONTRACT IS A TWO-WAY STREET. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM DEFAULT NOTICES BASED ON DATES. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THE CONTRACT SAYS YOU KNOW WE ARE GOING TO SEND YOU A LETTER EVERY TIME YOU DID NOT MEET A DATE IS THAT IN THE CONTRACT THAT WE ARE TO NOTIFY THEM OF DATES? >> IF WE ARE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEFAULT WE DO HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM OF DEFAULT AND PROVIDE THEM 30 DAYS TO CURE. >> KEY PHRASE CAN YOU SAY THAT PART AGAIN? IF WE ARE TO-- >> CORRECT. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DEFAULT. IF WE CHOOSE TO DEFAULT WE CAN DO SO. >> THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE TWO-WAY STREET. THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE DATE IS AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY LETTERS IN RETURN SAYING WILL YOU PLEASE EXTEND MY DAY BECAUSE I HAVE A PROBLEM. THEN WE CAN PUBLICLY NOTICE THE MEETING AND HAVE A VOTE AND DECIDE ON THAT REQUEST. >> THEY ARE KIND OF PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER . I'M TIRED OF BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE SO EXCUSE ME. DON'T SEND ME THE EMAILS HORSE LOVERS, I DID NOT MEAN THAT. I LOVE HORSES OKAY? DO NOT SEND ME THOSE EMAILS. HOWEVER I WILL PUT IT OUT THERE SO MAKE YOUR MOTION, LET'S VOTE AND WE WILL SEE HOW WE GO FROM THERE. >> YOU READY? YOU HAVE ONE MORE THING TO SAY OR NO? BE CAREFUL . >> TO THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MADE, IF YOU ELECTED NOT TO DECLARE A DEFAULT AND THE LOVE LETTER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELIVERED, WHEN THE LOVE LETTER IS DELIVERED WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT AND RESPOND TO IT AND COMMISSIONER GAINS -- COMMISSIONER GAINES IS CORRECT . THAT'S THE OBSERVATION I WAS GOING TO MAKE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? >> I THINK HE'S GOT A HEADACHE. >> I DO. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AS A COMMISSIONER AND AS AN ATTORNEY. YOU'VE RAISED A VERY INTERESTING SPECTER THAT I'M GOING TO INCORPORATE INTO MY ATTEMPT AT EMOTION . I AM WAVING THE FLAG OF HELP HERE. MY MOTION IS THAT WE GRANT A 45 DAY EXTENSION WITHOUT TOLLING [02:15:04] THE CONTRACT , WITHOUT SENDING A NOTIFICATION OF DEFAULT, , WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE REVERTER PROVISION , AND IN THAT 45 DAY TIMELINE, DETERMINATIONS WILL BE MADE BY AUDUBON AND HARBERT REALTY SERVICES IF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED OR NOT . UPON CONCLUSION OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, SUCCESSFUL OR UNSUCCESSFUL, WITHIN THAT 45 DAY TIMELINE, THIS BODY WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE RESULTS . DID THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN ON THE DEFAULT PROVISION NOT ISSUING A LETTER OF DEFAULT? AND NOT ISSUING THE REVERTER BUT LETTING THE CONTRACT TERMS CONTINUE TO RUN ? THAT'S MY MOTION. >> AT THE VERY BEGINNING YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY, AND I'M NOT SURE I COULD GO ALONG WITH IT, WE ARE IN THE CONTRACT. IS THERE A REASON TO EXTEND IT? ALL WE ARE DOING IS SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO MEET IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND THIS BODY FOR 45 DAYS? >> CORRECT, THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION. IT'S 45 DAYS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED. DOES THAT CLEAN IT UP FOR YOU? >> THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT WE ARE CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION FOR 45 DAYS. >> THAT IS MY INTENT. THE TRIGGERS IN THAT ARE IF 20 DAYS FROM NOW THEY REACH AN AGREEMENT WE WANT TO KNOW. 20 DAYS THEY SAY WE CANNOT REACH AN AGREEMENT AND WE ARE NEVER GOING TO SPEAK AGAIN, WE NEED TO KNOW. NOT JUST LETTING TIMELINES RUN SO THEY CAN FIND OPTION B. THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THIS ENTITY. >> FOR DISCUSSION MADAM, I WOULD OFFER , IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED CORRECT? WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT-- I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE THAT MUCH LEEWAY. I WANT A WEEKLY CHECK-IN OVER THE NEXT 45 DAYS. >> EVEN BETTER. >> EVERY FRIDAY A STATUS UPDATE AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. EVERY WEEK BY FRIDAY WE SHOULD KNOW, AND I EXPECT TO HEAR FROM MY ATTORNEY FRIDAY AFTERNOON OR SATURDAY AS TO WHAT THEY HEARD, IF NOT ANYTHING. >> I WOULD AMEND MY MOTION TO REFLECT A WEEKLY UPDATE REPORT. >> IS THAT DOABLE? >> IT'S DOABLE, YES MA'AM. >> I AM HOLDING MY SECOND . I AM STILL SECONDING THE MOTION. I DIDN'T PULL IT BACK. >> ARE WE CLEAR WHAT THE MOTION IS? >> I THINK I AM CLEAR. >> WILL YOU TRY TO RESTATE IT? THE MOTION WAS TO GRANT A 45 DAY EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITHOUT TOLLING OR FUTURE NOTICES OF DEFAULT AND WITHOUT TRIGGERING ANY REVERTER CLAUSES TO ALLOW THE DETERMINATION OF AUDUBON AND HARBERT REALTY SERVICES CAN REACH A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT. THE CITY IS TO BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON ANY AGREEMENT AND TO PROVIDE WEEKLY UP DATES BY FRIDAY DURING THIS TIME FRAME. >> WE TAKE THE WORD EXTENSION OUT? >> I THINK THE CLARIFICATION WAS IT IS 45 DAYS TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. NOT A 45 DAY EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT , WAS THE MOTION AND THE CLARIFICATION THAT I HEARD. >> MY SECOND STILL STANDS. >> THE NEXT PHRASE WAS NOTIFICATION BY-- READ THAT PART AGAIN? >> THE CITY IS TO BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON ANY AGREEMENT EITHER WAY. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. AUDUBON AND HARBERT, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ALSO PROVIDE WEEKLY CHECK-IN'S BY FRIDAY DURING THIS 45 DAY PERIOD. >> JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. ONE IS THAT I BELIEVE OUR ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WHAT THE MOTION STATES AND WITHOUT US TRIGGERING THE REVERTER, THE PARTICIPANTS ARE GOING TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS OUR INTEREST TO SEE SOMETHING SOLIDIFIED BETWEEN PARTIES. I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. SECONDLY IS THAT WITHIN THAT TIMELINE, THIS MILLION-DOLLAR MESS NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP AND I AM SHIFTING THE BURDEN OVER TO AUDUBON TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. I'M [02:20:02] NOT GOING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. BECAUSE OF THIS COMES BACK IN 45 DAYS AND WE HAVE A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HAS SAID SEVERAL TIMES, WE ARE GOING TO LITERALLY BE TRIPPING OVER NICKELS AND DIMES COMPARED TO THE VALUATION OF THIS TRANSACTION, SO FIX IT. THAT IS MY DISCUSSION POINT ON THIS. THIS IS A SIMPLE REAL ESTATE ISSUE. FIX IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EMBROILED IN LEGALESE AND LAYERS OF DOCUMENTS AND INVOICING. IT CAN BE FIXED. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. IS THERE A REASON TO TALK ABOUT THE END OF THE 45 DAYS AND HAVING A MEETING? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GOING TO LAND ON ANY TIME FRAME WHERE WE HAVE A MEETING. >> WHATEVER THE NEXT MEETING, THE FIRST MEETING WE CAN HAVE, WE CAN MEET AFTER THAT 45 DAYS. >> REGULARLY SCHEDULED OR SPECIAL? >> REGULARLY SCHEDULED. >> I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON THE SCHEDULE. >> FPRA , AND WHAT DAY WOULD THAT BE? >> IN AUGUST. >> I JUST DID A CALENDAR CALCULATOR AND IT'S JULY 26 , FROM TODAY, IS 45. >> AUGUST 14 . >> WHY DOES THAT DATE SOUND FAMILIAR? >> IT'S ON A TUESDAY . >> OKAY. YES SIR? >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE MEETING IN JULY? THE AUGUST DATE IS A CONFLICT BUT THE 26TH IS WORKABLE . >> AUGUST 13 IS THE NEXT MEETING DATE OF THE FPRA. THAT WOULD WORK, PARDON ME. THAT DATE IS FINE. >> OKAY. GENTLEMEN, ARE WE READY TO VOTE? >> I THINK SO. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES? YES -- NO , MA'AM. YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? YES [c. Resolution FPRA 24-02 Authorizing and Directing to Proceed with the Reverter to Retake the King's Landing Property, to Include Authorization for Litigation. ] MA'AM. TANNER HUDSON? YES MA'AM. >> WE ARE BASICALLY EXTENDING THIS CONVERSATION AND BOTH ITEMS -- WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. AND AMENDED AGREEMENT WILL ALSO BE CONTAINED AT THE NEXT MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? >> SO THAT IS A POSTPONEMENT? CAN WE HAVE THAT TRACK WITH ITEM 8 B? >> MADAM, I MAKE A MOTION THAT ITEM 8 C IS TRACKED WITH ITEM 8 B. >> SECOND. >> DOES THAT DO IT? OKAY. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? YES. CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON? >> YES MA'AM. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS STAFF COMMENT. >> MISTER MIMMS? >> NO COMMENTS. NONE OF YOUR [10. BOARD COMMENTS] STAFF, EITHER? OKAY. >> BOARD COMMENTS? >> BOARD MEMBERS ANY COMMENTS? >> I'LL GO . BOARD MEMBERS AND PUBLIC , YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, YOU'VE HEARD ALL WEEK ABOUT THE SHOOTINGS IN FORT PIERCE . YOU'VE HEARD ME RANTING AND RAVING ABOUT THE NEGATIVITY THAT COMES TO FORT PIERCE DURING THIS TIME THAT IT'S NEVER ANYTHING POSITIVE WHEN WE ARE DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE. TONIGHT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CAMERAS THAT WE ARE PUTTING UP BUT I JUST WANT TO MENTION A FEW THINGS. I AM ASKING EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD IF THEY COULD, TO TRY TO MEET WITH ORGANIZATIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME AND THAT ARE WILLING TO HELP . THE ORGANIZATION THAT I SPOKE WITH ABOUT THE LAST MEETING, CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT DID THE SKIT DEALING WITH THE SHOOTINGS IN FORT PIERCE, THAT GROUP IS CALLED BLOCK BUILDERS COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP. I HAVE PASSED ON THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY MANAGER. THEY WANT TO PUT ON AND WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT. THE REASON I BRING UP THAT GROUP IS BECAUSE THERE SKIT DOES NOT BLAME THE POLICE, IT DOES NOT POINT THE [02:25:06] FINGER AT US, IT TALKS ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON IN MY COMMUNITY THAT'S DEALING WITH THESE SHOOTINGS, EVERYTHING. I ASK IF YOU GET A CALL FROM THEM, MEET WITH THEM, TALK TO THEM AND LISTEN TO THEM. THERE ARE SOME OTHER GROUPS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME. ONE GENTLEMAN TRIED TO GET HERE ALL THE WAY FROM PALM BEACH BUT GOT CAUGHT UP IN TRAFFIC AND HE MISSED COMMENT, HE MISSED PUBLIC COMMENTS BUT HE IS IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT AND HE IS WILLING AND IS PUTTING TOGETHER SOME STUFF WHERE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WHO GREW UP IN THE COMMUNITY , IS ABOUT TO START BEING MORE VISIBLE AND TAKING CHARGES. AND, STARTING WITH SOME RALLIES BUT TALKING ABOUT IDEAS THAT THEY MAY HAVE THAT I AM ALSO ASKING, IF YOU GET AN EMAIL OR A CALL FROM ONE OF THESE GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS, TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO TAKE US WORKING WITH THESE GROUPS AND THESE INDIVIDUALS -- HE DROVE ALL THE WAY UP FROM WEST PALM BEACH TO BE HERE AND HE MISSED PUBLIC COMMENTS BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT IN TRAFFIC IN THE RAIN. HOWEVER, HE IS VERY EMOTIONAL AND CONCERNED BECAUSE HE IS TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THE NEWS IN PALM BEACH ABOUT HIS CITY THAT HE GREW UP IN. THERE ARE SOME OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OUT HERE, NOT GOING TO CALL ALL OF Y'ALL OUT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TALKING ABOUT ME, BUT WE HAVE SOME FRATERNITY BROTHERS. I KNOW OMEGA PSI PHI AND ALPHA'S ALPHA PHI ALPHA ARE WILLING TO HELP . I'M REACHING OUT TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO START, IN OUR COMMUNITY, WITH PEOPLE THAT LOOK LIKE MYSELF AND THESE GENTLEMEN WHO GREW UP IN THE COMMUNITY. I UNDERSTAND THE MENTALITY OF THE KIDS. SO WHEN THESE GROUPS REACH OUT TO YOU ON EMAIL OR ASK THE CITY FOR ANY TYPE OF HELP, A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT ASKING FOR MONETARY HELP. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOME HELP FROM THE CITY, OR TO GIVE YOU THEIR EARS AND LISTEN TO SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT YOU MIGHT LIKE AND YOU MIGHT SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN GO ALONG WITH THAT, AND GO. FOR THE PAST TWO DAYS, AND THE REASON I AM SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, FOR THE PAST TWO DAYS MY COMMISSIONER AND CITY MANAGER KNOWS THAT I HAVE BEEN VERY UPSET , BECAUSE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LITTLE LEAGUE THAT I WAS IN, THAT I AM A PART OF, WE HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 20+ YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN GRANTED ALL-STAR GAMES FROM JUNE 10 YESTERDAY TO JULY -- JUNE 27. WE HAVE PARENTS AND KIDS THAT WERE COMING TO FORT PIERCE, PARENTS AND KIDS PURCHASING GAS AND GATORADE, SNACKS, COME INTO FORT PIERCE TO SEE HOW BEAUTIFUL IT WAS AND TO ENJOY THE TOURNAMENT. AND WITH THE LAST SHOOTING AND THE NEWS PORTRAYING FORT PIERCE AS THIS GANG FILLED PLACE, PRESSURE WAS PUT ON THE DIRECTOR TO MOVE THE TOURNAMENT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THERE EVER BEING A SITUATION AT ONE OF OUR BALLGAMES. THEY CAN'T FIND ONE BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN ONE. SO WE LOST THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOWCASE TO THE WORLD, BASED ON A SITUATION THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE. THERE WAS ANOTHER INTERNAL ALTERCATION WHERE SOME IDIOT WANTS TO PULL OUT A GUN INSTEAD OF JUST TALKING. THE FAMILY GET MAD AT ME, I DON'T REALLY CARE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. SO I BROUGHT THEM UP TONIGHT, I WAS GOING TO SAY A LOT MORE BUT I SEE THE SIDE I AND I THINK I NEED TO LEAVE THAT ALONE RIGHT NOW AND DEAL WITH THAT ANOTHER TIME. HOWEVER, I AM JUST SAYING TO THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE ORGANIZATIONS INSIDE OF OUR CITY WHO ARE WILLING TO HELP US, NOT BLAME THE FINGER AT US, BUT WHO WANT TO HELP US TAKE BACK AND MAKE OUR CITY WHAT WE GREW UP IN . I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU GET AN EMAIL FROM THEM OR IF YOU GET A PHONE CALL FROM THEM ASKING TO MEET , GIVE THEM THE 15 OR 20 MINUTES AND LET THEM EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. BECAUSE YOU MIGHT SAY OKAY, WE CAN BUILD ON THAT. [02:30:03] AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE THE GRASSROOTS GROUPS THAT ARE WILLING TO BE ON STREET CORNERS AND WILLING TO DO THESE PRODUCT PROJECTS, AND TELL THE YOUNG KIDS THERE'S A BETTER WAY. THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP US. SO LET'S NOT TURN OUR BACK. THE POLICE CAN'T SOLVE ALL OF THIS. YOU HEARD MISTER WILCOX SAY TONIGHT, SOME OF THE STUFF HE SAID I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE GOT IT FROM. THE UNDERREPORTING OF SHOOTINGS , EVERYBODY KNOW THAT BECAUSE EVERY SHOOTING THAT HAPPENS IN FORT PIERCE YOU KNOW IT'S REPORTED. SOMEONE COULD BE SHOOTING AT A TURKEY AND THEY ARE GOING TO CALL IT A SHOOTING SO I DON'T GET THAT. BUT, LET'S START REACHING OUT AND TO THE GENTLEMAN SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE THAT STAYED HERE TO LISTEN TO ALL OF THAT ABOUT KING'S LANDING AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. I'M READY TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS, AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED YOU TO HELP ME AND HELP MY COMMISSION MAKE FORT PEARSON KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND I THINK YOU FOR THAT MADAM CHAIR. >> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT AND I WANT TO HELP, TOO. I'VE BEEN APPROACHED AND I WANT TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION. ONE OF THE THINGS I FEEL LIKE IT'S HAPPENING NOW IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS SAYING. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WANTS TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION AND THAT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE HAD THE COMMUNITY SAYING WE ARE PART OF THIS PROBLEM AND WE HAVE TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. OUR OWN PEOPLE IN OUR OWN CITY. I WANT TO BE PART OF IT, TOO. SO GOOD JOB AND LET MISTER COX KNOW WHO WOULD LIKE TO -- AND I WILL MAKE TIME. ANY BOARD MEMBERS? >> A COUPLE THINGS. BOARD COMMENTS, FPRA, COMMISSIONER GAINES I APPRECIATE THE PASSION AND THE UNDERSTANDING. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF MEETINGS GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE REACHING OUT WITH SOLUTIONS SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD. I KNOW THAT ALL OF US MAINTAIN OFFICE HOURS HERE IN THE CITY SO OUR DOORS ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO MEET WITH ANYBODY ABOUT THESE ISSUES. I EVEN HAVE EVENING HOURS THAT I WILL MEET OFF-SITE TO LISTEN TO THESE IDEAS AND I THINK YOU ARE SPOT ON THERE. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT , AS WE GRASP AND UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE CRA IN THAT AREA I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN BEGIN TO USE IT TO MAXIMIZE SOME OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE STUFF WE'VE APPROVED TONIGHT. CAMERAS WILL CERTAINLY HELP BUT I GUESS, THE PLEA GOES OUT . I AM DISTURBED ABOUT THAT DESK COUPLE PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ARE TALKING 16-YEAR-OLDS. I HAD JUST COME THROUGH THAT AREA ON THE WAY TO A CHURCH EVENT THAT NIGHT AND IT WAS RAINING. SEEMS LIKE A RAINY SUNDAY AFTERNOON AND LO AND BEHOLD I AM SOMEPLACE ELSE AND SOMETHING HAPPENS LATER THAT EVENING RIGHT? AS A RESULT OF-- DON'T KNOW. ALTERCATION, WHATEVER. MY CONCERN, AND I HAVE ASKED MISTER MIMMS TO DO THIS AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT NOT ONLY YOU DO THAT BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE CHIEF AS WELL, TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE ARE HAVING. YES WE DO HAVE INCIDENTS WITH PEOPLE EXCHANGING GUNFIRE IN PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN HIT I GUNFIRE . BUT WHAT ALSO HAPPENS IS, WHEN THEY ARE IN THE HOSPITAL THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AND THEY DON'T WANT TO PRESS ANY CHARGES OR NO COMMENT, NO NOTHING. I THINK SOMETIMES THAT FALLS IN AN AREA THAT UNFORTUNATELY IS HARD TO QUANTIFY, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I THINK THE OTHER THING IS THAT AND THE GENTLEMAN ALLUDED TO THIS, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE GUNFIRE IS BEING EXCHANGED AND IT HAPPENS SO FAST THAT THE COMMUNITY IS, TIES WHEN WE HEAR THE GUNSHOTS. AND IT IS NOT REPORTED BECAUSE BY THE TIME OFFICERS GET TO THE AREA AND WHEREVER THEY ARE GOING, IT'S OVER . I THINK THAT OUR EFFORTS TO CONTINUE TO ADD THESE SAFETY PARAMETERS TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE TONIGHT, AND THEN I THINK W'VE GOT TO STRATEGICALLY LOOK AT , THERE IS SOMETHING OUT HERE IN THIS ATMOSPHERE RIGHT NOW THAT'S TRIGGERING THIS. I WANT TO HEAR [02:35:01] FROM THOSE GROUPS ABOUT WHAT THAT IS AND I'M GETTING SOME CLUES AS TO WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW THAT FORT PIERCE IS THAT COMMUNITY THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE SOMEWHAT RELATED BECAUSE OF FAMILIES. THERE'S A LOT OF FAMILIES TIED TOGETHER IN THE CITY. >> EVERYBODY KNOW THAT. LAUGHTER ] AND SOMEBODY KNOWS, BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THERE IS ALSO A TOUGHER SIDE OF THIS AND THAT'S THE PROSECUTION. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE CLEARLY DOCUMENTED INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED VIOLENCE AGAINST A PERSON AND ACTUALLY MURDERED A PERSON BUT THE CONNECTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO SAW THAT, THAT WERE THERE THAT DAY, WILL NOT COME UP . AND IT MAKES IT HARD FOR THE STATE PROSECUTOR TO DO THEIR JOB OF PUTTING THAT PERSON, TAKING THAT PERSON OFF THE STREET IF NO ONE IS WILLING TO STEP UP AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU IN MY CONVERSATION, THAT IS A REAL CHALLENGE BECAUSE THAT PERSON, THAT WITNESS THAT NEEDS TO TELL THEIR STORY AND BE WILLING TO SIT IN A COURTROOM BEFORE THE JURY OF THEIR PEERS AND SAY-- AND TESTIFY TO THAT. THAT IS THE TOUGH CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, AND THAT'S TOUGH. >> ONE OF THE THINGS, I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE THIS GROUP BLOCK BUILDING , THEY TALK ABOUT THAT . LIKE I SAID REAL QUICK, THEY HAD A SCENE WHERE THE FATHER PUSHED ON THE SUN TO CARRY ON THE LEGACY OF DOING WHATEVER HE WAS DOING AND WHEN THE SUN WENT OUT AND GOT SHOT , THE MOTHER AND FATHER WHO WAS BENEFITING STARTED BLAMING EACH OTHER. IT COMES DIFFERENT FROM ME AND YOU GOING OUT THERE , ME AND YOU OUT THERE, WE'RE JUST COMMISSIONERS. I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU'RE TRYING TO GET REELECTED. THAT'S HOW THEY SEE IT. BUT WHEN THEY HEAR IT FROM PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW THAT LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. AND WHAT YOU SAID WITH THE CRA , SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOREVER AND I SAID THE OTHER NIGHT ABOUT THIS FUNDING AND PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER, WE HAVE A WORLD-RENOWNED FOOTBALL PROGRAM , THE FIRE HAWKS. WE NEED TO EXPAND THAT UNTIL EVERY ASPECT THAT WE CAN, TO INCLUDE EVERY KID WE CAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT. WITH A $58 MILLION BUDGET, I GET THAT. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND I'M NOT JUST TALKING SPORTS. I'M TALKING DRAMA, EVERYTHING WE CAN DO TO PUT OUR HANDS ON THESE KIDS IN FORT PIERCE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT SOMEONE CARES AND IF WE CAN DO THAT, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE, I WILL BE QUIET, I BROUGHT THIS UP . GOING BACK TO OUR DAYS AT FORT PIERCE CENTRAL TO ONE OF OUR OLD COACHES. NOT GOING TO CALL HIS NAME, I SAID COACH. WHAT KILLS ME IS, EIGHT NO WAY IN THE WORLD ONE OF US THAT WAS ON YOUR TEAM WOULD HAVE WANTED A COP TO CALL YOUR HOUSE TO TELL YOU THAT , YOUR STAR QUARTERBACK IS SITTING IN A POLICE CAR . YOU KNOW I'M TELLING THE TRUTH. YOU WOULD'VE BEEN TERRIFIED. YOU WOULD HAVE HAD YOU -- YOUR DAD OR YOUR DAD TO COME OUT . AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE PEOPLE LIKE THAT . WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT, THESE GENTLEMEN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT, TO LET THESE KIDS KNOW WE LOVE YOU BUT WE AIN'T GOING TO LET YOU DO WRONG AND WE ARE GOING TO GET IN YOUR FACE AND DO IT. I AGREE WITH THE RESOURCES AND WHATEVER . IF WE DO IT, WE JUST HAVE TO DO IT. I'LL SAY THIS AND BE QUIET. COMMISSIONERS BRODRICK AND COMMISSIONERS JOHNSON, FORGET THE DIVIDE. FORGET THE LABELS , THE ONE AND TWO. YOUR PRESENCE IS NEEDED. MADAM MAYOR, YOUR PRESENCE IS NEEDED. BECAUSE WE WILL SAY SOMETHING UP HERE AND ONE FORT PIERCE AND WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IF THEY DON'T SEE YOUR PRESENCE. JUST SHOWING UP AND DOING THAT MATTERS. I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I KNOW. IT MATTERS. WE CAN DO [02:40:01] IT WITH THE HELP OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AND WE NEED TO JUMP ON IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE HELP OF THE COMMUNITY READY TO HELP US NOW. LET'S USE IT. >> AMEN. ANYBODY ELSE? >> VERY QUICKLY I WILL SAY ON THE COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER GAINES , THAT IMPACT WAS STUNNING TO ME WHEN I WAS AT SOME EVENT AND PEOPLE WERE STUNNED THAT I WAS PRESENT. FIRST OFF, I AM NOBODY TO BE HERE TO BE STUNNED ABOUT BUT THE APPRECIATION LEVEL WAS OVERWHELMING. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT FACT AND I INTEND TO LEVERAGE THAT WITH THE HELP OF ALL OF THE COMMISSION SAYING THESE ARE PARTICULAR FUNCTIONS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO BE IN FORCE AT . SO PLEASE ADVISE ME AND IT WILL HELP ME TO GET THESE THINGS SCHEDULED AND I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT. I DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT, I HAD NO CLUE . YOU ARE THE ONE THAT POINTED IT OUT TO ME ORIGINALLY AND ULTIMATELY I HAD THE GREATEST TIME AND WAS WELCOMED WITH OPEN ARMS AND REALLY ENJOYED THE EVENTS THAT I HAVE BEEN AT. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO LEND MY FACE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT GIVES BUT A PEOPLE WANT TO SAY HELLO I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO SAY HELLO. >> IF I COULD ADD , COMMISSIONER, YOU ARE DEAD ON WITH THE POINTS AND THE CONVERSATIONS AND THE PASSION THAT I HEAR AND UNDERSTAND. I AM THERE WITH YOU AND I'M GOING TO BE THERE NOT AT YOUR REQUEST BUT AT THE REQUEST OF HUMAN BEINGS. AT THE REQUEST OF BEING A COMPASSIONATE PERSON. AND IN MAKING A DIFFERENCE, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I NEED ACCOLADES OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. HERE'S MY OTHER THOUGHT AS YOU WERE SPEAKING. I JUST NEED TO TIE INTO THE PASTORAL GROUP A LITTLE MORE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A CONDUIT OF INFORMATION THAT FLOWS FROM THEIR SO I CAN DO THAT , BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS AND I HAVE ALLUDED TO THEM, SPOKEN ABOUT THEM IN THE LAST COUPLE MEETINGS ON THE PROSECUTION FRONT, THE JUDICIAL FRONT, AND IF IT MEANS SWITCHING THINGS AROUND, WE HAVE TO TURN THE BARGE AROUND IN THE INLET . IT HAS TO BE STRATEGIC BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DO IT ONE WAY. IF YOU FIGURE OUT THE WAY YOU'VE DONE IT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU NOW LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE ON THE SCREEN THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO TURN A BARGE AROUND AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY AND IT'S GOING TO HURT AND BE TOUGH AND IS GOING TO BE VERY SLOW AND METHODICAL. AND THEIR WE ARE. SPEAKING OF THAT PICTURE HERE, MISTER MIMMS WITHOUT BEING POLITICAL IN ANY FASHION, WE ARE IN A FPRA MEETING TODAY. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR FACES, AND LOOKING FOR NAMES. I'M LOOKING FOR THE CHARACTER AND THE BEAUTY OF OUR CITY. MAYBE EVERY TIME WE HAVE A MEETING WE HAVE 12 DIFFERENT PICTURES FOR THE MONTH. THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE HERE. IT JUST DAWNED ON ME TO SAY THAT AND I'M LIKE YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN STARING AT THE SCREEN FOR EIGHT YEARS AND IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BUT IT'S PRETTY DISSIMILAR . THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL IN OUR CITY. I'M NOT HERE TO PUT PEOPLE IN FACES, I AM TRULY NOT THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THERE. LABELED THE MEETING AS THE FPRA AND WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE , THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. WHATEVER IT IS. THAT CAN FLOW THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR BOARDS AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S JUST ANOTHER AVENUE OF, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE STARING AT UNTIL YOU LOOK AT IT AND SAY I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THAT THE WHOLE TIME. I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN MY HEART . JUST ANOTHER THING. BUT IT IS SMALL AND IT'S SIMPLE BUT WE ARE AT THAT SMALL AND SIMPLE POINT OF EVERY HALFSTEP MATTERS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY. >> MOVED TO ADJOURN I THOUGHT 6:00 I DON'T WANT US TO FORGET THE THINGS WE ALREADY DO FOR YOUTH. THE YOUTH COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE AND THE YOUTH AWARDS, THE FIRE HAWKS. ALL THE THINGS THAT WE ALREADY DO. THE RICH [02:45:03] HOUSE AND ALL OF THE THINGS-- THE COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT IT NEEDS TO DO MORE AND WE NEED TO DO MORE. >> MY DAUGHTER CAME HOME THIS WEEKEND. SHE'S A UF STUDENT AND ON THE FIRST YOUTH COUNCIL. I BELIEVE SHE WAS YOUR APPOINTEE. SHE AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AND I AM TALKING FOUR YEARS LATER, IT IS IN HER MIND, THAT'S THE POINT OF MY STORY. WE DON'T REALIZE THE IMPACT BECAUSE I NEVER ASKED DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> IT MEANS MORE TO THEM THAN MAYBE WE REALIZE. >> SPEAKING OF THAT, MIA IS DOING WELL. SHE HAD A GREAT FIRST YEAR. SO SHE TOLD ME TO TELL EVERYBODY HELLO. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.