Jul 14, 2026 FPRA Regular Meeting Agenda

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

THIS IS THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

IT IS JULY 14TH 2026. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> EXCUSEED. >> IS THERE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

>> MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

[5. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IF NOT I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

NEXT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. >> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT.

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

WE'LL MOVE ON. >> NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> ANYITE THAM NEEDS TO BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA?

THERE IS A, B AND C. >> NOT THAT WE MOVE BUT JUST FOR COMMENT. I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON IT REAL QUICK THEN WE CAN DO CONSENT.

>> MAKE A COMMENT. >> ON THE ITEM 7B, THE PAVILION SHOWS 49,975 BUT IN YESTERDAY'S BUDGET MEETING IT WAS 25,000 FOR THE GAZEBO AND DOWN BY-- THE SQUARE, SHOULD WE-- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S JUST A PLACEHOLDER OR IF THAT'S AN ACTUAL BID, BUT IF IT'S A 25,000 FOR THAT, AND THIS ONE'S 49,9, I THINK WE NEED TO RE-EVALUATE THAT GAZEBO ON THAT BUDGET. SO I JUST SAW THAT AND IT JUMPED OUT AT ME AS PRETTY HIGH.

>> SO MAYBE VERIFY THOSE FIGURES.

>> OTHER THAN THAT I WOULD APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> SO ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? OKAY IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

>>.

[B. FPRA Resolution 26-18 approving an Interlocal Funding Agreement Between the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency for the Jaycee Park Improvement Project]

>> NEXT ITEM FPR RESOLUTION 2618 RESOLUTION OF THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. DEPENDANT SPECIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA INTERNING INTO A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AND THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGE ANDS.

WHEREBY FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE JC PARK IMPROVEMENT.

PROVIDING ALL THOSE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING SERVERABILITY AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> MR. CHESS? >> YES.

AN UPDATE? >> MADAM CHAIR.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. YOU APPROVED THIS AS THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING. SO WE ARE JUST BRINGING IT TO THE FPRA BOARD. THE ITEM UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA WHERE THAT WAS THE BID FOR THE ROOFS UNDER THIS

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AS WELL. >> OKAY.

IS THAT THE ONE HUH A QUESTION ABOUT?

>> NO IT WAS IN COMPARISON OF WHAT WE'RE PAYING-- ALL THESE ROOFS AT JC PARK. GAZEBO IS SO SMALL.

AND IT SHOWED 25,000 ON THE BUDGET JUST OTO POINT THAT OUT THAT THE BUDGET IN THE GAZEBO IS MUCH HIGHER THAN EVEN THE COST F OF DOING ALL THESE ROOFS FOR 50,000.

>> NOT SURE ABOUT THE GAZEBO THAT'S NOT AN FPRA PROJECT BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPARISON. ALL RIGHT SO TO DO A MOTION FOR

THIS RESOLUTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION IS SECOND.

CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

[C. FPRA Resolution 26-19 Authorizing or Denying a First Amendment to Grant Agreement for Commercial Facade Improvement located at 515 N Indian River Drive ]

OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AUTHORIZING OR DENYING FIRST HAMMEDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT LOCATED AT 515 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PROVIDING FOR SERVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> MS. TARNAGE. >> MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT AT 515 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE THE BED AND BREAKFAST

[00:05:02]

I THINK THEY GOT THE FIRE PERMIT LAST WEEK.

I THINK THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH SOME GREASE TRAP ISSUES NOW. EXPLAINING THE NEED FOR THIS EXTENSION. BUT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND

APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION. >> THIS IS THE FIRST EXTENSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE ISN'T IT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONERS?

>> I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS. ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME HEALTH ISSUES WITH THE APPLICANT'S GROUP.

SO I AM VERY INCLINED TO GIVE AN EXTENSION HERE.

>> OKAY IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL THE ROLE PLEASE. >> SOMETHING TO SAY? OH, OKAY. JUST A HICCUP.

SOREY.

[D. FPRA Resolution 26-21 approving an Interlocal Funding Agreement Between the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency for the Sunrise Center Elevator and Public Art Improvement Project]

CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AND FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREBY THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE SUNRISE CENTRE ELEVATOR AND PUBLIC ART IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WILL PROVIDE SITE ACCESS IN COORDINATION SUPPORT.

PROVIDING FINDINGS. PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION AND REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS AND CONFLICT HEREWITH.

PROVIDING FOR SERVERERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE

DATE. >> YES, SARAH DELGADO IS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS BUT I'LL COVER IT QUICKLY.

WE DISCUSSED THIS DURING THE BUDGET OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.

WE'RE JUST NOW-- WE PUT OUT A BID AT ONE POINT AND DIDN'T GET ANY RESPONSES. SO WE'RE KIND OF REASSESSING HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS. THE ELEVATORS IN THE PARKING GARAGE. THE SUNRISE CENTRE, HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BLEAK. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO IMPROVE NOT ONLY THE INTERIOR CAB OF THOSE ELEVATORS, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT THE EXTERIOR DOORS AND THEN POSSIBLY EVEN DOING MURALS THROUGHOUT THAT. EACH BAY ON BOTH THE SOUTH I'D AND THE NORTH SIDE ELEVATORS. SO THIS IS AN INTERNAL CORE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE PARKING GARAGE IS A CITY FACILITY THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH FUNDS FROM THE FPRA.

BUT WE JUST WANT TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR OF THE RELATIONSHIP AND HOW THIS WILL ALL WORK TOGETHER WITH PUBLIC WORKS. SO THAT'S THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT. WE WILL BE BACK BEFORE YOU FOR A WARD OF ANY BIDS FOR CONTRACTORS FOR THE-- NOT THE INSIDE OF THE VINYL WRAPS AS WELL AS THE MURALS.

SO THIS IS AN INTER-LOCAL FUNDING AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU

TONIGHT. >> OKAY, SO WE'RE NOT TALKING DESIGN YET. WE'RE JUST TALKING AGREEMENT?

>> OUR IDEA IS TO-- FIVE LEVELS.

OF ELEVATOR. NOT FIVE LEVELS OF SUN VISE CENTRE THAT ALWAYS CONFUSES ME. WE'VE LOOKED TO HIGHLIGHT EACH DISTRICT ON EACH LEVEL. MAYBE DO A PEACOCK ON ONE.

MARINE ON ANOTHER. THE JETTY.

LINCOLN PARK ON-- THAT'S KIND OF OUR INITIAL IDEA.

WE'D LIKE TO GIVE THE ARTISTS FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT.

OF HOW THEY WANT TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

BUT THEY'LL DEFINITELY COME BEFORE YOU AS WELL AS THE CRA ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORKER APPROVAL.

>> OKAY, QUESTIONS? >> NO.

MADAM CHAIR. I LIKE THE IDEA OF SOMEBODY COMING AND SEEING DIFFERENT PARTS OF FORT PIERCE.

YOU KNOW, ON THE ELEVATORS. THAT REMINDS ME OF-- IF YOU EVER FLOWN OUT OF ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

THE WAY YOU CAN REMEMBER WHERE YOU PARK IS YOU REMEMBER WHAT ANIMAL THAT GREETS YOU AT. SO YOU WILL HAVE TO REMEMBER LIKE A NUMBER. LIKE I WAS WITH THE BEAR.

SO LET ME FIND THE BEARS AND YOU GO TO THE BEAR.

SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> EXACTLY.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I'M WITH THAT.

AS LONG AS WE COVER EVERYBODY. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> BECAUSE YOU KNOW IF YOU MISS SOMEBODY.

WE GOING TO HEAR IT. >> JUST DON'T DO THE BEACH.

>> HEAR EVERYBODY. SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT

EVERYBODY'S COVERED. >> YES, SIR.

>> HIGHWAY MURAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THAT'S OUR INTENT.

>> SO I'M FINE AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS MADAM MAYOR

I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

[E. FPRA Resolution 26-22 appointing members to the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee. ]

CERTIFYING APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE. >> YOU HAVE BALLOTS FOR US.

>> I DO. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HAS SELECTED COMMISSIONER FLEE SA FRANK LYNN FORBES AS HIS DIRECT APPOINTMENT AND IT WILL BE INCLUDED ON THIS RESOLUTION.

TWO AT LARGE SEATS EXPIRING JULY 31ST AND THAT'S WHO WE WILL VOTE ON FOR TONIGHT. I WILL PASS OUT THE BALLOTS.

>> AN INCOUPLE SFWHENT. >> THERE IS ONE WHO WISHES TO REMAIN. IT'S NOTED AS CURRENT MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST MAKE SURE YOUR NAME IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BALLOT, PLEASE.

[00:10:58]

BEAR WITH ME THERE'S A LOT OF NAMES ON HERE.

SECOND CHOICE IS. >> OH, I DON'T HAVE THE BALLOT ANYMORE. OKAY.

DID YOU PULL IT OUT? >> WHICH ONE, SORRY?

>> DID YOU GET MY SECOND CHOICE?

>> I'M TRYING TO READ IT. >> THAT'S MY HANDWRITING.

>> IS IT RICE? HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE THE LAST

NAME? >> BECHT.

>> WE CAN JUST PASS IT BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONERER.

>> COULD JUST BE-- SO MANY NAMES ON THERE.

MIGHT JUST MISS THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW.

SECOND CHOICE IS EVANS EDMOND. CHAIRWOMAN HUDSON FIRST CHOICE IS EDWARD BECHT. SECOND CHOICE IS JESSICA SAMPSON. COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, FIRST CHOICE IS EDWARD BECHT. SECOND CHOICE IS JESSICA SAMPSON. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER GAINES IS EDWARD BECHT AS FIRST CHOICE.

SECOND CHOICE IS JULES PAUL. OKAY SO THAT WOULD ELECT THE MOST VOTES TO EDWARD BECHT WITH EIGHT AND JESSICA SAMPSON WITH

TWO. >> SO IS THERE A MOTION TO

APPROVE? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.

>> I MISSED THE MOTION. I'M SOREY.

WHO WAS THE FIRST? OKAY GAINES.

[F. King's Landing Quarterly Update - Bill Ware, Live Oak Holdings]

LANDING QUARTERLY UPDATE. >> ALL RIGHTY.

MR. CHESS DO YOU HAVE A LEAD-IN?

>> YES. MR. BILL WARE WILL GIVE US A QUALITY UPDATE ON THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF THE STATUS AND ALSO HE'S GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE FORT PASS HOTEL ANALYSIS

AND PROPOSAL. >> OKAY.

>> MR. WARE? >> MR. WARE?

WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

BILL WARE, LIVE OAK, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

HERE AGAIN TO PROVIDE MY QUARTERLY REPORT.

TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF REDUCING IT TO A MINIMUM AS I HAVE DONE USUALLY. SO IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME AND WE'LL GET THROUGH THIS. OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM WEEKLY MEETINGS CONTINUE. THAT'S WHAT ALL OF OUR CONSULTANTS, CONTRACTOR AND SO FORTH.

OUR CIVIL PLANS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE AGAIN ARE COMPLETE.

AND HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO ALL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION INCLUDING THE CITY FOR DCPR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

I ASK OUR CIVIL ENGINEER DAVID BAGGETT WITH HALEY WAR TO PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT. HE'S SENT THIS REPORT VIA E-MAIL AND IF YOU WILL, I'LL READ IT TO YOU NOW.

IT'S SHORT. FROM DAVID, CIVIL PERMIT SAID IS UP TO DATE. 100% PLANS FOR ALL ON SITE AND OFF SITE WORK. PENDING ANY REMAINING AGENCY COMMENT. WE ARE ON OUR THIRD MIDDLE TO THE CITY. FOURTH REVIEW TOTAL.

[00:15:01]

THERE WERE SIX REMAINING COMMENTS THAT WERE VERY MINORER AND HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN FULL. PENDING STAFF REVIEW, WE ANTICIPATE DPCR TO BE COMPLETE THIS MONTH NOW.

UPON DPCR APPROVAL, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT THE SITE WORK. FOR THE SITE WORK BUILDING PERMIT WHICH SHOULD BE A MUCH QUICKER TURN AROUND SINCE THE PLANS HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE DPCR PROCESS.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT APPROVAL BY THE END OF AUGUST.

SWIFT ERP, THIS PERMIT IS PENDING ISSUANCE.

JUST AWAITING THE SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE.

JESSE MERKEL. THEY HAVE UNTIL WEDNESDAY THIS WEEK, TOMORRO, TO ISSUE THE PERMITS.

SO WE EXPECT TO SEE THAT ANY MOMENT.

WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE DPCHLT PUA PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL. UPON APPROVAL BY FPUA, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY TURN THE PLANS INTO FDUP FOR WATER AND SEWER PERMITS. STATE LEVEL PERMITS REQUIRES FPUA APPROVALS FIRST. THESE PERMITS ARE USUALLY ONE TO TWO WEEK TURN AROUND. THIS SHOULD TIME UP WITH THE SITE WORK PERMIT IN AUGUST. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE OR NEED ANY OTHER INFORMATION. NOW-- ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OF THE MAIN BUILDING WHICH IS THE CONDOS AND RETAIL RESTAURANT PARKING GARAGE. CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND ARE NOW 100% COMPLETE IN SCHEME ATTIC DESIGN PHASE.

WE ARE NOW REVIEWING THESE PLANS FOR EFFICIENCIES.

JOE COLLIER, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF MAIN SAIL LODGING AND DEVELOPMENT. OUR HOTEL MANAGING OPERATING PARTNER, AND I HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH MR. CHESS AND MS. HARNAGE. AND IN PERSON ON THE PROSPECT OF THE CITY'S INTEREST AND CONSIDERATION IN PROVIDING A BOND FINANCING FOR EQUITY AND PARTICIPATION IN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPOSED MARRIOTT TRIBUTE HOTEL.

I ASKED-- TO BE HERE TODAY BUT HE IS IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR A PREV PREVIOUSLY-MADE COMMITMENT.

HE DID SEND ME AN E-MAIL WITH A FEW COMMENTS TO SHARE WITH YOU.

AND IF YOU WILL, I WILL READ IT TO YOU NOW.

MAIN-- HAS SEVERAL TRIBUTE PORTFOLIO HOTELS UNDER DEVELOPMENT IN CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE LIVETIME DATA AND CURRENT EXPERIENCE. THE COST OF BUILDING AND THE COST OF CAPITAL HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE OUR INITIAL DEALINGS IN FORT PIERCE. THE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING NEW HOTELS IN A MARKET THAT IS UNTESTED FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS HAS BECOME VERY DIFFICULT AND IN SOME MARKETS, IMPOSSIBLE. TWO WE ARE WILLING TO FORGE AHEAD WITH SOME VERSION OF THE ALTERNATE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE PUT FORTH. MAIN IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROCURE AND SIGN RECOURSE ON THE SINGLE LOAN, SIGN THE GUARANTEE OF MARRIOTT AND INVEST TO $5 MILLION.

WE JUST NEED A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY AND WE WILL DELIVER A QUALITY HOTEL IN WHICH WE WILL ALL BE PROUD AND WILL CREATE CATALYSTS FOR THE CITY. IF FORT PIERCE BELIEVES IN THE GROWTH AND POSITIVE MOMENTUM OF THEIR TOWN, THEN THEY SHOULD FEEL OKAY ABOUT THIS STRUCTURE. THEIR RISK IS CAPPED, OURS IS NOT. THREE, WE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH BEING THE FIRST SERVICE HOTEL PIONEER IN A MARKET.

THEY VISITED FT. MYERS AND SAW THAT LUMINARY PROJECT.

THE CITY OF FT. MYERS PROVIDED $30 MILLION IN INCENTIVES PLUS TAX ABATEMENT TO GET THAT DEAL DONE AND THEY HAVE NO OWNERSHIP IN THE HOTEL. WE ARE OFFERING FORT PIERCE A MUCH BETTER PACKAGE. THE LUMINARY WAS THE CATALYST FOR SIX NEW PROJECTS THAT CAME INTO DOWNTOWN.

FOR WE CAN STRUCTURE A TAKEOUT DEAL THAT IS TRIGGERED BY THE HOTEL HITTING CERTAIN HURDLES. IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE THE HOTEL HITS EX-EVITA, THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO RECAP THE HOTEL.

REIMFWURS CITY WITHIN 12 MONTHS ET CETERA.

I HOPE THIS IS HELPFUL. SO THAT'S FROM JOE.

AS AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED IN MY LAST QUARTERLY UPDATE IN PERSON MEETING, WE SUBMITTED A PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO MS. HEDGES AND HER TEAM. SHE AND HER TEAM ARE REVIEWING.

OUR SCHEDULE EXHIBIT OF COURSE IS CONDITIONED ON THE TIMING OF OUR PROPOSED FINANCING OF THE HOTEL.

OUR PSA IS STILL IN FULL FORCE IN EFFECT.

WE HAVE RECENTLY COMMENCED DISCUSSION AND COLLABORATION ON AN EXTENDED CLOSING DATE. AS WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THIS DATE IS LIKEWISE CONDITIONED ON THE PROPOSED

[00:20:01]

IN CLOSING, PLEASE KNOW THAT LIVE OAK IS FULLY COMMITTED TO BRINGING KING'S LANDING TO FRUITION.

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN INVESTED TO DATE.

WE FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE PROJECT.

WE APPRECIATE THE INTEREST AND COURTESIES EXTENDED BY THE CITY. AND CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE MODEL OF A PARTNERSHIP WITH YOU.

THANK YOU. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MRS. WARE? >> I'M GOING TO HOLD FOR MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO START OFF.

>> MADAM CHAIR? >> I'LL LET YOU START.

>> THIS IS FOR BOTH WHOEVER CHOOSES TO ANSWER SIT FINE WITH ME. OF ALL THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINING THE THIRD HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.

>> NO. MADAM CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER. SO AT OUR LAST MEETING WE DISCUSSED THE MILESTONES AND I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT THOSE ALLUDING TO TOWARD THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH WAS GOING TO BE DRAFTED TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE TO SHIFT SOME OF THE DATES. I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE WE LEFT OFF. SO AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE ARE THREE DEADLINES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

AND THEY ARE THE START DATE. A START AND END DATE FOR EACH.

I THINK THE LAST MEETING ABOUT HE WAS ON TARGET FOR THE END DATE. BUT NOT THE START DATE.

SO TO THAT END THOSE OBLIGATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

MR. WARE KNOWS HE IS CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE WORKING TOWARD THAT FOURTH AMENDMENT.

DURING THE DRAFTING OF THAT FOURTH AMENDMENT, THIS HOTEL FINANCING CONVERSATION CAME UP. SO ONCE YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS OF BILL. YOU CAN KIND OF LEAD INTO THAT.

THERE'S NO REAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT.

AND THIS IS AN UPDATE ITEM. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS A PATH FORWARD. AS THE FPRA CONTINUES TO RECEIVE THE UPDATES FROM KING'S LANDING AND KIND OF DIRECT

STAFF ON OUR NEXT STEPS. >> BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE IN THE BEGINNING IN ALL THIS AND WENT THROUGH THE HISTORY.

AND EXCUSE ME-- TONIGHT I HAVE HICCUPS AND THEY ARE STARTING TO BE REALLY ANNOYING TONIGHT. THAT HAS HOTEL FINANCING BEEN FULLY AND FINALLY CLOSED? AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE

AGREEMENT? >> NO, SIR.

>> I JUST WANTED TO GET YOU ON THE RECORD.

>> NOWHERE. >> WHICH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OR DEADLINE IFS ANY REMAIN OUTSTANDING.

SO SO YOU CAN COME BACK TO CHEYENNE OR TO YOU, BILL.

>> SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY COMMISSIONERER, MADAM CHAIR.

THERE IS A SCHEDULE AS TO AN EXHIBIT TO OUR AGREEMENT.

SO CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT OF THE THREE.

PHASE ONE VERTICAL DCPR VERTICAL START DATE.

PHASE ONE VERTICAL PERMITTING START DATE.

PHASE ONE INFRASTRUCTURE. MOBILIZED FLASH PROCUREMENT START DATE. AND THEN ALL OF THE OTHER DATES WOULD STILL BE IN EFFECT. SO THE THE AMENDMENT WOULD SHIFT THAT ENTIRE SCHEDULE WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE CONTEMPLATING IN OUR LAST MEETING.

SO-- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWER YOURS QUESTION.

CORRECT. OR EVEN HIS WORDS.

SO--. IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR ME TO-- GET THESE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. ASK THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE AS AMENDED.

HER ANSWER. UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT DIRECTLY. GO AHEAD.

>> MADAM CHAIR. MY OPINION THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THIRD AMENDMENT BASED ON THIS TASK.

SO THEY WOULD BE IN DEFAULT WHICH IS WORKING ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. TO BE DISCUSSING OPTIONS WAU

LITTLE BIT LATER. >> HERE IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION. IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. WOULD DOING SO WAVE, IMPAIR, OR OTHERWISE AFFECT ANY EXISTING CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE CITY. INCLUDING ANY OF THE RIGHTS.

BACK TO THE CITY. BRA.

>> AND MADAM CHAIR. >> YES, MA'AM.

THEY WOULD. HOW-- TO BE WAVED INTO THE THIRD AMENDMENT. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE AS WELL THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DEADLINES COMING UP

[00:25:05]

THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL KEY DATES. >> THERE IS-- SORRY.

THERE ARE PERFORMANCE BONDS. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY WHAT WAS FILED AND WHEN.

BUT THERE ARE TERMS RELATED TO PERFORMANCE BONDS.

I DO NOT REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ALL OF THEM.

>> THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THIS ON TRACK IS ACTUALLY HAVE PERFORMANCE BONDS. IT SAYS AT EACH MILESTONE IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, IT'S $50,000.

IF YOU DON'T DO THIS IT'S HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

WHATEVER THAT SITUATION CAN BE. BECAUSE-- BILL, WHEN I FIRST MET YOU, I WAS ON BOARD WITH THIS THING ALL DAY LONG AS A TOURISM CHAIRMAN BACK THEN. AND THE CITY NEEDS AND SHOULD HAVE A HOTEL. AND THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE DOWNTOWN.

I HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THAT THING.

SO ARE YOU PREPARED AND ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS THING AND SUGGEST ACCEPTING PERFORMANCE BONDS ON EACH OF THE BEST MARKS AT SOME

LEVEL? >> YES-- I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT WITH MY PEOPLE. FOR SURE.

BECAUSE I'M NOT THE DECISION MAKER.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT AGAIN GETTING TO IF I MAY.

GETTING TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

THE DRIVING MATTER OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS A REVISED SCHEDULE. A MUCH MORE REALISTIC SCHEDULE.

AND I THINK WE HIT THAT REALLY HARD LAST TIME.

AT LEAST WE TRIED ANYWAY. SO AS CHEYENNE SAID, DURING THE COURSE OF THE DRAFTING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WE GOT WORD ABOUT THE FINANCING CHALLENGE. AND IT WAS A-- SURPRISE TO US.

SO TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, THE SCHEDULE IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR PERFORMANCE HAS TO BE TIED.

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE HOTEL HAS TO BE TIED TO THE FINANCING OF THE HOTEL. SO THAT YOU CAN START TO BUILD THE HOTEL. SO RIGHT NOW WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION THAT-- WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT DATE IS.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'M HOPING IN A WAY THAT WE'LL GET TO LATER IS A PATH FORWARD THAT WOULD GRANT US TIME TO PROCURE THAT FINA FINANCING.

WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IN PART. JOE KOL-- WITH MAIN SALE HAS DONE A NUMBER OF THESE PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONCEPT OF THIS BOND FINANCING CAME UP. SO WE'VE SPENT SOME TIME GOING DOWN THAT PATH IN TERMS OF CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION.

BUT IS IT A POSSIBILITY, IS IT NOT? DOES IT WORK, DOES IT NOT. I MEAN JUST A VERY KIND OF OPEN CONVE CONVERSATION.

LIVE OAK AGAIN HAVING LEARNED THIS.

AND BEING AS HEAVILY INVESTED AS WE ARE.

HAD MADE IT A DECISION. NOTWITHSTANDING THE CITY'S CONSIDERATION OF THE BOND ISSUE.

AND WE HOPED YOU WOULD CONSIDER IT OR AT LEAST REVIEW IT.

BUT WE ARE PLANNING TO TAKE STEPS IN A PATH FORWARD TO SOLICIT AND PROCURE PRIVATE FINANCING AS OPPOSED TO THE CORPORATE OR PUBLIC FINANCINGS THAT MAIN SALE TYPICALLY HAS PARTNERS IN THERE PARTNERSHIPS. SO I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY I UNDERSTAND THE DILEMMA AND IT'S A DILEMMA THAT'S UNKNOWN.

BUT WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WITH THE ADVENT OF MAIN SALES

[00:30:01]

THAT'S A LONG-- I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LONG WINDEDNESS.

>> NO. I'D RATHER YOU EXPLAIN EVERYTHING YOU COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN.

BECAUSE THE CITIZENS HAVE HAD-- ALONG THE LONG RIDE.

MY COLLEAGUES HERE. WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FROM THE BEGINNING. I'M JUST COMING IN.

BUT MY FRUSTRATION IS THAT WHAT'S ENDED AT THIS POINT.

I'M JUST A NEWTIMER HERE. SO-- SOME OF THE OTHER SITUATIONS THAT I'VE HAD CONCERN ABOUT.

THE VILLA PORTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM THE INITIAL OFFERINGER IN PROJECT. OR FOR A PROJECT.

I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE ORIGINAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS THE RFP OR RFQ IS NOW COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS DIFFERENT IN THE BEGINNING.

WE HAVE HAD CHALLENGES WITH OUR PROCESS ON OTHER PROJECTS AND THIS ONE NOW HAS EVOLVED IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL RFP.

AND SO I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC. SO THESE ARE COMMENTS THAT I'M MAKING BECAUSE I HAVE CONCERN NOW THAT THE REQUEST FOR $15 MILLION IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS. THE OTHER IS IN MY OPINION HAVING LOOKED THROUGH THE BUDGET AND LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING FORWARD. WHETHER BIT IN THE CRA OR WHETHER IT BE THE CITY BUDGET, THE FACT IS IS THAT $15 MILLION IS JUST NOT IN MY OPINION AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SAY, BUT IS NOT IN THE CARDS TO HELP FINANCE THIS THING. YOU KNOW I GUESS OTHER QUESTIONS HERE ON THE FINANCING SIDE.

WHETHER CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING, FINANCING HAS BEEN FULLY COMMITTED AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

ALL THE REQUIRED PRIVATE EQUITY HAS BEEN SECURED.

YOU'RE SAYING NO. FINANCIAL RECIPES ASSUMED BY THE CITY. WHAT ARE THOSE RISKS GOING TO BE? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE EVEN DISCUSSED THAT SITUATION. THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING WE'VE HAD ON THE REQUIREMENT ON THE $15 MILLION.

WHETHER THE CITY'S INVESTMENT WOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO LEND THEIR INTERESTS. IS THIS $15 MILLION GOING TO BE PUT UP AS COLLATERAL FOR ANOTHER $150 MILLION OR $60 MILLION WHATEVER THE CASE IS? SO-- THAT'S A CHALLENGE.

WHETHER THE CITY'S POTENTIAL EXPOSURE OF CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASE AND PROJECTED PERFORMANCE FALLS BELOW THE PROJECTS, AND THE ASSUMPTIONS SUPPORTING THE PROJECTED RETURN ON ANY PROPOSED MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO EVEN BY CHANCE COME THROUGH.

THE BIGGER PART ABOUT THIS IS THIS FPRA BOARD WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE $15 MILLION COMMITMENT.

THE FACT IS THAT THAT WILL BE THE CENTRE STONE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THE CONDOS.

THE RESTAURANTS. ALL OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL MAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON TO WHICH THE CITY OR I'M SORRY THE CRA WOULD NOT BE A PART OF RECEIVING ANY PROFITS FROM THAT.

THE VALUE OF THAT HOTEL BEING SUPPORTED BY THE CITY WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF ALL THE OTHER REMAINING PARTS OF THAT ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IN MY OPINION.

AND I DON'T SEE THE RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT.

NOW I'LL QUIT THERE MAYOR. MADAM CHAIR.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> YES THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

MR. WARE, I WASN'T HERE THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE I WAS SOMEWHERE, SOME CLASS. BUT I WASN'T HERE.

BUT I DID WATCH IT. AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED YOU AT LEAST FOUR TIMES WOULD I GET A HOTEL.

I THINK WHATEVER IT WAS. BACK AND FORTH SEVEN TIMES.

I MEAN FOUR TIMES. AT LEAST FOUR TIMES IF I CAN REMEMBER RIGHT. AND MY QUESTION WAS, DURING THAT CONVERSATION, WAS IT KNOWN ABOUT THIS FINANCE?

>> NO, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO WHEN DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THIS FINANCING?

>> LATE APRIL. >> AND WHEN DID THAT MEETING?

>> THE 13TH. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO NOT GOING TO JUMP ON YOU. YOU KNOW HOW I ROLL.

I DON'T REALLY LIKE E-MAILS. YOU SEND ME E-MAILS AND MAKING ME COME UP HERE AND READ THEM. I'M JUST-- I HOPE THEY ARE LISTENING. BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE THAT SOMEBODY IN THAT COMPANY COULD HAVE COME STILL WITH YOU AND SAID THIS IS WHERE-- WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND LET THEM EXPLAIN WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING INSTEAD OF READING E-MAILS.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU STRAIGHT FORWARD.

I AM A HARD NO ON $15 MILLION. ON $1 MILLION ON $500,000.

I'M JUST A HARD NO. I WILL NOT PUT THE TAX PAYER'S

[00:35:03]

I'M NOT VOTING ON NO FOURTH AMENDMENT.

AND IT'S-- I'M ALMOST-- I CAME IN.

I'LL CALM DOWN. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT.

I GOT YOUR EYES. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT.

I CAME IN COMMISSION I THINK THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

FIRST AMENDMENT. SECOND.

I THINK I CAME IN AND I ALWAYS TELL THE STORY I THOUGHT EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY TO SEE ME SITTING UP HERE BUT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE AUDIENCE FOR KING'S LANDING.

AND I FOUND OUT LAST I HAD TO VOTE.

LIKE OKAY WHAT AM I VOTING ON? LIKE IT HIT ME LIKE EACH TIME I'M JUMPING IN THE FIRE. SO I GOT IT.

HI TO GO BACK AND READ EVERYTHING.

SO I'VE BEEN SAYIN', AND YOU'VE TALKED A LOT ONE ON ONE.

I'VE TOLD YOU PERSONLLY I'LL BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SHAKE YOUR HAND-- YOU CAN TELL ALL THE CONVERSATIONS.

I'M A HARD NO. ON ANYBODY.

I GOT TO REPRESENT THE TAX PAYERS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. AND FROM WHAT I SAW LAST NIGHT, IN OUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. AND WHAT COULD BE COMING FORWARD. I CAN'T DO IT.

SO-- FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT, I HEARD YOU SAY, LIVE OAKS ARE LOOKING AT OTHER WAYS TO DO SOMETHING.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

THAT'S GOOD TALK. BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW ME PROCESS.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. MY THING TO QUESTION IS-- THIS IS DON'T HAVE LIVE OAKS PEOPLE COMING ME.

THIS IS NOTHING ON LIVE OAKS. BUT IF A PERSON WHO BUILDS HOTELS BASED ON HIS E-MAIL CAN'T FIND FUNDING, WHERE IS OTHER FUNDING AND IT'S NOT YOUR EXPERTISE.

IT HAS BEEN A BIT-- PUTTING PROJECTS TOGETHER.

NOT GOING OUT TO FIND MONEY. IN AND FIND THAT MONEY AND ONE, IF YOU DO, ARE WE GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY-- OH WELL BILL SINCE YOU FOUND THIS MONEY, WE NEED YOU TO GO FIND SOME OTHER MONEY? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY EITHER? NOT SAYING THEY DON'T.

BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY WELL I CAN GO GET 15 FROM COMPANY A. THEY MIGHT ASK YOU FOR-- ONCE YOU GET 30 OR 40 THEY COULD, I DON'T KNOW.

MY QUESTION IS-- AND IT'S SIMPLE AND I'LL GIVE IT TO MY COLLEAGUE DOWN TO THE END. IF WE SAY NO TO THE $15 MILLION. CAN THIS PROJECT BE COMPLETED?

>> WELL THAT'S OUR INTENT FOR SURE.

WE'VE INTENDED TO PICK UP THE BALL.

AND IF I MAY ADDRESS YOUR QUE QUESTION. THERE ARE A MILLION NUMBER OF TYPES OF INVESTMENT GROUPS. LIVE OAK, AND THIS PROJECT, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, NEEDS TO BE A LOCAL PROJECT.

BY LOCAL OR REGIONAL INVESTORS. AND-- I'VE REACHED OUT TO A HANDFUL ALREADY. AND THERE'S INTEREST.

AND I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE WHO.

BUT OUR INVESTOR APPROACH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MAIN SALE IS ACCUSTOMED TO AND WHAT THEY DO THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST. SO IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. THE RESULT OF THAT IS THAT THE RETURN EXPECTATION IS NOT AS HIGH AS THOSE REQUIRED BY-- OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR APPROACH IS.

>> OKAY SO-- SO THAT I'M CLEAR, LET'S BE CLEAR.

I CAN'T APPROVE OR I CAN'T VOTE ON ANY OF THE AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING WITHOUT SEEING SOME DOCUMENTATION.

MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDINGS. SOME DOCUMENTATIONS WITH SOME SIGNATURES. WITH SOME NOTARIES.

WITH SOME TIME STAMPS ON THERE SAYING THIS IS THE MONEY THAT LIVE OAKS HAS GOING TO THIS PROJECT.

THE PROJECT IS THIS IS THE MONEY FROM THE OTHER GROUPS SAYING THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE BUILT.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GO OUT AND GET $15 MILLION THE OTHER SIDE IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR PART.

SITTING RIGHT HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT.

I BELIEVE YOUR WORD. BECAUSE YOU'VE LOOKED ME IN MY FACE AND YOU'VE NEVER GIVEN ME ANYTHING.

BUT WHAT YOU KNOW. SO IF YOU SAY YOU CAN GO GET IT OR ATONEMENT TRY TO GO GET IT. I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU FOR YOUR WORD FOR THAT. BUT-- RIGHT NOW SITTING IN THIS CHAIR. THAT MEANS NOTHING TO ME BECAUSE TOI PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AND AT NO TIME YOUR AMENDMENT

[00:40:05]

ER TO RESIDENTS FOR SOME MONEY. SINCE IT STARTED, BECAUSE THIS STARTED BEFORE I SAT HERE. EVERYBODY IN YOUR BUSINESS OR IN YOUR FIELD KNEW CONSTRUCTION PRICES ARE GOING UP.

EVERY YEAR. EVERY YEAR.

SO THIS IS NOT NOTHING. OH WELL.

NOW IT COSTS MORE. YOU CAN'T SELL ME WITH THAT.

WE KNEW THAT. I HEARD THAT FROM TWO TO THREE.

AMENDMENT TWO TO THREE. YOU KNOW, SO I HAVE A-- I'M TRYING NOT TO HAVE A-- TRYING NO TO GET YOUR HICCUPS.

>> I MADE THEM STOP. >> BUT I'M JUST SO IF YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE LISTENING I'M A HARD MONEY ON ANY MONEY COMING FROM FORT PIERCE. AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, BILL A HARD NO VOTE FOR ANY AMENDMENT GOING FORWARD UNTIL I SEE SOME FINANCIALS THAT WILL SAY THIS WILL GET DONE.

>> JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT LAST PART AGAIN.

OUR INTENT IS TO APPROACH INVE INVESTORS. SO WHEN WE'RE SUCCESSFUL DOING THAT IS THE TIME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE FINANCIALS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY

TO DO THAT. >> THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

AND YOU KNOW WHERE MY OFFICE IS.

SO I MEAN--. SO WHEN YOU GET A OR SEND IT TO WHEREVER YOU HAVE TO SEND IT TO.

WHOEVER IT IS, WE NEED TO SEE THAT.

AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID HE WAS LISTENING. PRETTY SURE HE'S AT THE TV RIGHT NOW. I KNOW HE'LL WANT TO SEE THAT BECAUSE HE'S A NUMBERS PERSON. WHAT I WOULD LIKE DO IS GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS FINANCING PACKAGE AND WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO GIVE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IN EXCHANGE IF THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> A TYPICAL LOAN STRUCTURE FOR THIS HOTEL IS 65% DEBT AND 35% EQ EQUITY.

SO 65% IN THE FORM OF LOAN FOR A LENDER AND 35% OF CASH LAND AND EQUITY. FROM GOPER AND PARTNERS.

THAT WOULD BE THE $15 MILLION WOULD BE THAT BUNCH.

IT WOIB A PART OF THE 35%. >> OKAY SO LET'S TOUCH ON THAT FOR A SECOND. MY CONCERNS IS THAT THE TIMING OF THIS IS BAD. IN ADDITION-- YOU GUYS PUT TOGETHER GOING OUT TO PRIMARY LENDS WERE.

AND THERE'S LENDERS THAT SPECIALIZE IN THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. YOU'RE SAYING YOU ONLY GET 65%

DEBT RATIO COVERAGE. >> LOAN.

CORRECT. >> 35%.

YOU GUYS KNEW THAT GOING IN. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS OF HOW THIS INDUSTRY WORKS.

WHAT WERE YOUR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PROJECTIONS?

>> I DON'T KNOW RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M SORRY.

I DON'T COME PREPARED FOR THAT. >> WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH HERE STHAR I'M SURE THAT THE HOTEL FOLKS DID THEIR FINANCIAL PERFORMERS. WENT TO PRIMARY LENDERS AND THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID WE'RE NOT BUYING WHAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SAY. WE'RE NOT BUYING YOUR INCOME OR RENTAL FOR ROOMS ET CETERA. IS THAT ACCURATE? AND THEN THEY DID THEIR OWN PRO FORMA BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS AND SAID YOU GUYS THIS IS SHORT.

I THINK THAT NUMBER IS WHAT $39 MILLION OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES? AND $6 MILLION ON OUR EQUITY BEING PUT IN? AND $15 MILLION PROPOSED IN THE

CITY OF FORT PIERCE, CORRECT? >> IT WAS AGAIN.

YOU'RE THROWING NUMBERS THAT I FOR WHATEVER REASON I'M NOT FOLLOWING. BUT IF IT'S 35 OR WHATEVER YOU TALK ABOUT THE MAKE-UP OF THE 35%.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE.

IT'S $60 MILLION CORRECT FOR THE HOTEL?

[00:45:02]

IN THEORY. AND $45 MILLION BETWEEN DEBT,

CORRECT? >> THE 35% WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF THE $15 MILLION. LAND VALUE.

CASH. >> WHICH LAND VALUE?

ALL THE LAND AT KING'S LANDING? >> FOR THE LOAN.

IN INVESTORS AGAIN. THE PROGRAM OF THESE INVESTORS.

THAT'S THE TRUNCH THAT WAS CHALLENGEED.

>> HOW IS IT CHALLENGEED? >> BECAUSE THE RETURN EXPECTATIONS EXCEEDED WHAT THE RETURN OF THE PERFORMA

GENERATED. >> HI OKAY SO WHAT THE PROFORMA IS THE ISSUE HERE. NO PRODUCT ON THE MARKETPLACE I GET THAT. 35% OF THE 0 IS 39.

THAT'S HOW YOU COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.

THE 35%. SO THAT GAP IS $21 MILLION.

>> OKAY. >> YOU GUYS ARE PUTTING IN SIX?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. NOW I UNDERSTAND.

YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT SO EXPLAIN TO ME OR TO THE CITIZENS OF CITY OF FORT PIERCE HOW IS THAT $15 MILLION BEING SECURED AND WHAT IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

STRUCTURE? >> YEAH.

>> I'LL INTERJECT WITH QUESTIONS AS YOU GO, OKAY.

>> OKAY. UM THROUGH SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, I MEAN THIS CONVERSATION HAS E INVOLVED.

SO I'LL SAY WE STARTED AT X AND NOW WE'RE AT Y.

SO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IS A 60% OWNERSHIP PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY FOR THE $15 MILLION.

SO THE $15 MILLION BUYS THEM-- THE CITY.

60% OF THE HOTEL OPERATION. AND THAT IS LAND, BUILDING,

CASH FLOW. >> SO BASICALLY TAKE A SECOND POSITION BEHIND THE PRIMARY LENDER.

CASH FLOW AT THEEND OF THE YEAR.

>> THAT'S NET CASH FLOW? >> CORRECT.

>> AND WHAT'S THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THAT CASH FLOW.

DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT OFFHAND.

>> WELL, IT'S-- I THINK YA'LL RECEIVED IT.

BUT IT'S GOT ALL OF THE INCOME EXPENSES AND SO FORTH.

SO WHEN YOU GET DOWN NET CASH FLOW, THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE

DISTRIBUTED. >> SO THAT'S MY FIRST ISSUE IS THE DEFINITION OF NET CASH FLOW IS WHAT THE CITY IS GETTING A RETURN ON. I OWN A VERY SMALL COMPANY.

IT IS MY GOALTEND OF EVERY YEAR TO HAVE 0 NET CASH BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE TAXED ON ANY INCOME THAT'S GOING TO PASS THROUGH TO ME. THAT'S NOT A BUSINESS THAT I KNOW THAT DOES NOT TRY TO ACCELERATE EXPENSES TO LOWER THAT NET NUMBER BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT MONEY. WHY WOULD I NOT THINK THAT 60%

OF NET INCOME IS 60% OF 0? >> YEAH.

UM-- YOU'RE COMPARING A BUSINESS TO A REAL ESTATE

ASSET. >> THE ASSETS TO YOUR REAL

ESTATES. >> YEAH.

>> THE BUDGET. AND APPROVE IT.

AND A THIRD PARTY APPRAISER TO COME IN AND DO THE SAME THING.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE-- YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF PAIRS OF EYES THAT ARE LOOKING THROUGH THAT IT SHOULD WORK.

PART OF THE NUMBER'S REQUIREMENTS AND YOU UNDERSTAND EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND THIS. BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST APPLY IT TO YOUR HOME. THEY ARE ONLY GOING TO LOAN YOU X PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF THAT PROJECT.

AND THAT VALUE IS 65% OF COST. SO THEY ARE CAPPED THAT FOR THE MOST PART. SO IT'S INCUMBENT ON AGAIN, THE OTHER SIDE TO CONTRIBUTE THE 35%.

BUT WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS AND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HAVING A ZERO, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A REAL ESTATE-- FOR AN INCOME-PRODUCING REAL ESTATE ASSET, IS WHAT LENDERS CALL DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE.

[00:50:03]

STW FR AN OPERATING STATEMENT, CASH FLOW IS GOOD.

BECAUSE IT GENERATES RETURNS. THEY HAVE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT AND ALL THE OTHER INTRINSIC VALUE THAT GOES WITH CREATING THAT SUCCESSFUL PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SATISFIES YOU OR ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE-- IT-- IF A COMPANY OPERATES AT A ZERO.

THEY DON'T IN OUR LINE OF WORK, LAST VERY LONG.

>> OKAY. SO--.

THE CITY--. PUTS $15 MILLION INTO THE TRANSACTION. AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A FIVE-YEAR COMMITMENT. WE GET TAKEN OUT IN YEAR FIVE.

AND LET'S TRY AND STAY AWAY FROM USING ANY COMPLICATED FINANCE AND REAL ESTATE TERMS HERE.

SO WE CAN GET EVERYTHING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO-- ANY THEY TAKE US OUT.

PAY US IN FULL. >> 50% OF THE CASH FLOW THROUGH THE FIFTH YEAR AND THEN WHATEVER THAT SALE OR REFINANCING NUMBER IS, YOU GET YOUR 60% OF THAT.

>> WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN ONE MORE TIME?

>> SO AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS. AND PART OF-- I DON'T KNOW-- BUT WHAT OUR PROPOSAL OR WHAT KIND OF COMPONENTS WERE IN IT.

ONE OF THEM IS, AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE OWNER.

PART OF THE DEVELOPER. THAT EVERYONE AGREES TO ON THE FRONT SIDE. THAT WILL ENABLE US TO DO THAT.

MY POINT IS SAYING IS THAT IF IN YEAR THREE.

AT THE END OF YEAR THREE, THOSE METRICS ARE MET, THEN THEY CAN REFINANCE OR-- REPLACE YOUR INTEREST BECAUSE THE METRICS WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT. OUR MOTTO IS SET UP FOR A FIVE-YEAR EXIT. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FIVE-YEAR EXIT. BUT-- WE'VE-- AGAIN, ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THINGS, DIDN'T WANT TO OVERSAY OR OVERPROJECT. SO-- THE MODEL BUILDS UP TO THE METRICS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING THAT FIFTH YEAR.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT CAN'T HAPPEN SOONERER.

>> AND YOU SKI HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AFTER THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO AS FAR AS SECURITY OF THE $15 MILLION?

>> YEAH, WELL FIRST OF ALL, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR 60% OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE REAL ESTATE IN THE BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING THAT THAT ENTITY OWNS. WE'VE ALSO THOUGHT ABOUT-- AND THIS IS OUR PART-- WE HAVE TO NAVIGATE AROUND.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MORTGAGE.

ON THE LAND THAT IS KING'S LANDING.

THAT IS NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE CONSTRUCTION NUMBER FOR THE HO HOTEL.

AND AGAIN I DON'T KNOW SO THAT'S JUST ONE PARCEL IF YOU W WILL.

>> WHAT ABOUT CONSTRUCTION FINANCING FOR YOU? THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE US SUBORDINATE TO THAT AND YOUR PERMANENT FINANCING ON YOUR PERMANENT STRUCTURES.

>> WELL I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE MORTGAGE AGAIN I'M THINKING BUT THE MORTGAGE THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE ON WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL THE EXCESS OR SURPLUS LAND, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE RELEASE PROVISIONS AND THAT WHEN WE EMBARK ON A CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSING FOR THE CONDITIONO BUILDING.

OR ONE OF THE TWO OTHER BUIL BUILDINGS. THAT REAL ESTATE WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEASED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION UNDER THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN ORDER TO FINANCE IT.

SO IT WOULD-- AGAIN, YOU'D HAVE A MORTAR GALLONING ON ALL OF

[00:55:03]

>> THAT'S CORRECT SO OUR POSITION UP FRONT IS WE'RE SECURED BY ALL THESE OTHER PARCELS.

THAT OTHER TIME THAT GETS MELTED DOWN BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RELEASE OUR LIEN RIGHTS AS YOU ARE CONSTRUCTING.

>> IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE PROJECT.

>> OKAY. SO-- AND MR. CHESS, HE'S A FINANCE GUY. IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING AS I'M MOVING FORWARD, PLEASE JUMP IN. BECAUSE I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH. SO IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, PLEASE JUMP IN RIGHT AWAY. ALL RIGHT BILL SO WE HAVE SECURITY BASED ON LAND. WE SECURE IT BY DIRT.

UNTIL THE DIRT IS NEEDED TO BUILD A BUILDING ON.

AND THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IS 60% OF NET INCOME ANNUALIZED.

BASED ON AN AUDITED STATEMENT. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT THE PRIMARY COMPONENTS HERE, RIGHT? WELL YES YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THE CITY IS NOT SITTING AROUND IN AN ACCOUNT THAT WE SEE WE ARE JUST GOING TO INVEST IN REAL ESTATE.

THE CITY OWNS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE.

BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO INVEST IN REAL ESTATE.

THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. SO THE NUMBER IS PROBLEMATIC.

THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER OBVIOUSLY.

BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS, IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CONTINGENT ON GETTING ANSWERS TO THIS FINANCING

QUESTION? >> MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO INTERA FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESOLVING THE

FINANCIAL ISSUES. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD TOLD ME IN ONE ON ONE MEETINGS UPSTAIRS.

SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT INTO THE DISCUSSION HERE.

SO--. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WITH THE FINANCING. THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED FWHI BODY FURTHER. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO-- OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO VOTE TAKING PLACE TONIGHT.

AND I'VE EXPRESS MID CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BASED ON THE TIMING. BASED ON THE ASK.

AND BASED ON MY DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WE FIND OURSELVES HERE.

BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THIS.

I HAVE WRACKED MY BRAIN AND TALKED TO THE SMARTEST REAL ESTATE PEOPLE I KNOW AND THEY ARE LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO YOU. A CHEQUE FOR $15 MILLION.

I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY WOULD WRITE A CHEQUE AND SAY TAKE 4% OF MY MONEY. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE NOW. I WILL SIT AND LOOK AT MY NOTES

AND FOLLOW UP. >> I THINK WE'RE ALL AGREEING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THE $15 MILLION THAT CAME AS A SURPRISE TO YOU. CERTAINLY CAME AS A SURPRISE TO

US. >> SHOCK.

>> IN YOUR E-MAIL HE READ I THINK THAT THEY SAID FORT MYERS PUT IN $30 MILLION. AND FOR THE MIER DIDN'T HAVE THE INTEREST IN THE HOTEL. YEAH.

AND I HAVE TALKED TO AT LEAST ONE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM FOR THE MYERS AND TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE IN THIS PROCESS.

AND SHE SAID I RECOMMEND THAT WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T GIVE AWAY THE STORE. SO THAT'S-- THAT IS AN AMAZING FIGURE. THAT A CITY CAME UP WITH THAT.

AND SO THIS FORT CAN'T AFFORD THAT.

AS YOU WELL KNOW. YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND I'M NOT IN THE FINANCE BUSINESS, SO I-- JUST KNOW THAT IT'S GOT TO COME FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. AND SO WHEN WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH YOU BOTH IN THIS PUBLIC VENUE AND PRIVATELY, I SENSE THAT YOU ARE VERY COMMITTED AND WORKING VERY HARD AND I THINK I BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE SURPRISED BY THIS ASK.

Y YEAH.

AND I CAN IMAGINE SOME OF THE WHY THIS IS WHAT IT IS TODAY.

AND IT ISN'T JUST AN INCREASE IN A CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SINCE COVID HAS BEEN KNOCKED DOWN BY THE CONSTRUCTION. I MEAN THAT HAS JUST-- AND KNOCKED DOWN BY COST, PERIOD. SO-- AND NOT THAT ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE OTHER. BUT JUST YESTERDAY THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT BUILDLING TWO HOTELS OVER ON THE BEACH

[01:00:06]

AND PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ALREADY ABOUT OUR BEACHES BEING CROWDED AND OUR WATERWAYS BEING CLOGGED.

NOT TO MENTION TRAFFIC. SO I GUESS WHAT THE VIEWPOINT THE STATISTICS THAT MAIN CELL GOES THROUGH.

AND MARRIOTT GOES THROUGH, THEY DON'T BUILD.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD A HOTEL THAT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE

THEM MONEY. >> THAT'S TRUE STATEMENT.

>> YES. BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUCCESS FL THEY DID. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS.

I DON'T WANT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO BE IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE IN THE THEATRE BUSINESS. RIGHT.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE FREE MARKET THINGS THAT SHOULD HAPPEN. I KNOW THAT OUR CITIZENS BADLY WANTED A HOTEL DOWNTOWN. AND WANTED A CLASSY HOTEL DOWNTOWN. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER OF HOW TO GET THERE. A GLIMMER OF HOPE WHILE YOU THINK THERE IS A WAY TO GET PRIVATE FINANCING.

ARE YOU 70% CONFIDENT THAT YOU COULD DO IT.

50% CONFIDENT? >> I'M MAJORITY CONFIDENT.

>> OKAY. I'LL ACCEPT THAT.

>> SIMPLEST ONE. I DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

OKAY BILL, SO--. LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FORMULATION. 35% TO 65%.

SO LET'S ASSUME FOR A SECOND THERE WERE NO COST INCREASES FOR THE COST OF THE HOTEL. SO LOOKING AT A $45 MILLION BILL. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NUMBER PROJECTED AND INCREASED TO 0 BASED ON PROJECTED COST OVERRUN. AT 45 MILLION SOMEBODY STILL COMING UP WITH ABOUT CLOSE TO $16 MILLION.

SO MY SUGGESTION HERE IS THAT-- AND THIS IS REALLY A JOE QUESTION. IF YOU HAD 35% DELTA ON ANY PROJECTED COST, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE COST IS, ANY PROJECTED COST, THEY STILL GOT TO COVER 35% OF THAT.

MY SPECULATION HERE IS THAT THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF

COVERING THAT 35% FROM DAY ONE. >> NO, SIR.

BUT-- YOU'RE MISSING I THINK A PRETTY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS.

ZBLEN LIGHTEN ME THE NET INCOME OF THAT HOTEL HASN'T CHANGED.

SO WHETHER IT'S $35 MILLION OR $60 MILLION.

IT SAYS IT IS GOING TO OPERATE. BUT WHAT IT'S DOING.

IS IT'S PROVIDING A HIGHER RETURN.

NRSZ THEY COST THE CASH FLOW. THAT YOU ARE INVESTING LESS.

SO IT'S MORE PROFITABLE. WHICH MEANS YOUR RETURNS ARE HIGHER. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN COST. THAT'S WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST DOES. IT ZENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING

TO DO WITH YOUR PERFORMA. >> MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT THEY KNEW FROM DAY TWHAUN THEY HAD A COVER 35% DELTA.

SO WAS IT THEIR INTENTION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT $16

MILLION INTO THIS DEAL THEN? >> YES.

>> NOT WILLING TO PUT $16 MILLION FROM NOW.

>> AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY THEY. >> WHAT I'M TELLING SU THE RETURNS AT A $45 MILLION COST ARE HIGHER AND--.

AND LET ME JUST-- AND BACK IN THE DAY, WHERE SUFFICIENT FOR MAIN SALE TO EMBARK ON THIS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE 35%.

THE RETURNS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THEIR PARTNERS.

>> OKAY SO THEIR PARTNERS ARE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THE MONEY IN BECAUSE THE RETURNS ARE NOW DIMINISHED.

SO GO FIND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE. GO TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND GET IT FOR FREE, BASICALLY. BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL-- THERE'S A THEORETICAL RETURN, THAT'S THEORETICAL.

I STILL GO BACK TO THE NET CASH FLOW VERSUS GROSS.

THAT NET CASH FLOW IS NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LEFT TO DISTRIBUTE. THAT'S MY CONCERN.

SO ORIGINALLY THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE YOUR INVESTORS PUT IN THE $16 MILLION. NOW THEY ARE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO THE INVESTOR'S MARKET BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT RETURN. THAT IS BASED ON THE $60 MILLION CONSTRUCTION COST. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY DON'T

[01:05:03]

>> JUST DEMANDS A DIFFERENT INVESTOR GROUP.

THAT'S REALLY FROM-- AND-- I WISH WAS HERE TOO.

BUT AGAIN-- THEIR INVESTOR GROUP HAS RETURN EXPECTATIONS

THAT EXCEED. >> $0 MILLION RETURN BASED ON 35% EQUITY. I GET IT.

THAT'S WHERE WE FIND OURSELFS. THEIR PEOPLE ARE OUT.

CITY OF FORT PIERCE ISSING WITH PUT INTO THE CORNER TO FUND THIS OR THIS PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY JUST GO AWAY.

>> WELL AND AGAIN-- THAT CIRCLES US BACK TO THE LIVE OAK AND OUR INTENT TO GO AFTER THAT PRIVATE EQUITY.

BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN SECURE IT AT LOWER RETURNS.

>> OKAY SO I ASSUME YOU GUYS ARE ARE GOING INTO THE INVESTMENT GRADE-- WHAT DO THEY CALL THOSE.

THAT TYPE OF STUFF. IT'S ALL THE FRINGE FINANCING THAT'S OUT THERE. HARDER MONEY AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING THAT ROUTE.

>> NO, SIR. >> YOU'RE LOOKING FOR REAL

INVESTORS. >> FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND

FAMILY OFFICE. >> GOT IT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. I'LL HAVE MORE BUT I'LL COME

BACK AROUND. >> MADAM CHAIR.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS WAS THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BEING PROVIDED BY THE CITY.

I'M SOREY BY THE FPRA. AS TO BE HELD IN COLLATERAL BASICALLY TO FINANCE ALL THE OTHER PARTS OF THIS OTHER THAN THE HOTEL. THAT THE CURRENT-- THE ORIGINAL VALUE WAS ABOUT $2.5 MILLION AGAIN I WASN'T HERE IN THE BEGINNING. SO THIS IS ALL COMING FROM AS MUCH RESEARCH AS I COULD DO. AND THE PROPERTY TODAY BASED ON RECENT COMPARABLES ARE ABOUT $8.5 MILLION.

SO THE VALUE HAS GONE UP AND SO FOR THE DEVELOPER SIDE, BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT AS A PORTION OF THEIR FINANCING TOOL IS YOU ACTUALLY SAID AT THE HOTEL PROPERTY WOULD BE SEGMENTED OFF. THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT PORTIONS WOULD BE SEGMENTED OFF AND MORTGAGEED.

SO THAT'S A WHOLE VIEW OF THE MORTGAGING OF THE PROPERTY.

MEANING IT'S AN INVESTMENT BY THE CITY BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE MORTAR GALLONINGING THE PROPERTIES IN WHICH THE CITY HAS BAN PARTNER. SO THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL FINANCING PORTION THAT THE CRA IS NOW A PART OF.

FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT YOU CAN MORTGAGE THOSE PROPERTIES TO EACH OF THE OTHER THAT ONE DEVELOPER OR ANOTHER.

IT'S LIKELY THERE'S OTHER BUILDINGS DEVELOPED BY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS NOT IN THE WHOLE OF ALL THE BUILDINGS.

BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T YET HEARD HOW THE CONDOS WILL COME OUT AND RESTAURANTS WILL COME OUT AND HOW THERE'S GOING TO BE FINANCED. SO THAT ASIDE, ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT I WORKED ON IN A PREVIOUS LIFE.

I KNOW YOU HATE THAT I'M SORRY. BUT THERE'S A PROPERTY ON NORTH BEACH THAT WAS IN THE SAME EXACT SITUATION AS THIS.

AND THE INVESTOR STARTED WALKING AWAY.

BUT WHAT THE OTHER PLACE DID WAS CREATE A CODE THAT YOU COULD DO CONDO HOTEL FINANCING. IT'S A FINANCING TOOL.

HERE'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY, I BELIEVE TO BE ABLE TO FINANCE THE HOTEL BY SELLING OFF SOME OF THE HOTEL ROOMS. AS AN INVESTMENT BY INDIVIDUALS.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ROOMS I DIDN'T REMEMBER.

I HAD 150 HOTEL ROOMS AT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS EACH AT $75 MILLION. SO THERE'S A FINANCING TOOL THERE THAT COVERS THE WHOLE COST OF THE WHOLE THING.

IN A $59.7 MILLION IS THE TOTAL COST.

SO IF YOU SELL OFF EVERY HOTEL ROOM FOR HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AS AN INVESTOR, NOW YOU'VE GOT $75 MILLION TO FWILD HOTEL WITH MONEY LEFT OVER. $15 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT THE ORANGERNAL COST OF 59.7. SO MAYBE THAT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEM GO BACK AND RESURRECT THE IDEA OF A CONDO HOTEL FINANCING TOOL. IT HAPPENS IN VEGAS ALL THE TIME. LARGER CITIES DO THAT ALL THE

TIME SO AGAIN. >> I WILL TAKE IT BACK.

I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN THOSE. I KNOW OF THEM BUT I'M HAPPY TO

TAKE IT BACK, AND WILL. >> I JUST TODAY-- AND I WISH THIS WAS DIFFERENT. BECAUSE--.

THE FPRA CITIZENS AND THE CITY HAVE BEEN WEIGHT PATIENTLY.

19. SO SEVEN YEARS IN SEVEN YEARS OF NO OUTXOMS UP IN ARMS. THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF HOW SOMETHING ORANGE GNAT ART REQUEST FORKER PROPOSALS AND NOW IT'S NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

SO IN MY POSITION TO MY COLLEAGUES I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE SAY GOOD-BYE AND REE VALUATE.

[01:10:10]

ANOTHER BEGINNING. THAT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE FINANCING UP FRONT. IT SHOULD HAVE BENCHMARKS.

IT SHOULD HAVE A PERFORMANCE BONDS.

THAT WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE PROPERTY IS TOO VALUABLE TO LET SIT VACANT NOW FOR SEVEN YEARS. AND IT WILL BE ANOTHER TWO OR THREE YEARS BEFORE ANYTHING GETS BUILT IF WE START ALL OVER. BUT-- I DON'T SEE THIS GETTING ANY BETTERER. I THINK YOU'VE BEEN AN EXCELLENT PRESENTER OAF INFORMATION TRYING TO PULL THIS TOGETHER. BUT I JUST DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE BACK-UP AND THE FOCUS BEHIND YOU THAT ARE GIVING YOU AS MUCH HELP AS YOU NEED. SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, I WON'T BE MOVING FORWARD IN ANY POSITION TO DO A FOURTH AMENDMENT AND/OR CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP. AND I THINK WE SHOULD START TO RAMP DOWN THE CONTRACTUAL COMPONENTS OF THIS.

AND BRING IT BACK IN HOUSE AND START OVER.

THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. >> COMMISSIONERER GAINES.

>> JUST SITTING DOWN AND LISTEN TO EVERYTHING.

WHAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH. HOTEL ROOMS TO TRY TRIAND GENERATE MONEY. AND JUST-- TRY TO BEING COOL SO I'LL BE COOL. I CAN'T APPROVE OR VOTE ON.

ANYMORE AMENDMENTS UNTIL I SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO GET PAID FOR AND HOW IT'S GOING TO GET BUILT.

AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. I'LL FOLO UP ON COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY'S COMMENTS. LOOKED INTO THE ANALYSIS OF WHERE THIS WOULD GO FROM HERE. IF IT WERE TO DIE A NATURAL DEATH. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST IT WILL BE TIED UP IN LITIGATION THREE TO FOUR TO FIVE YEARS.

GET THIS SORTED OUT. WE DO NOT OWN THE LAND THERE NOW. SO VOTERS HAVE TO BE KICKED IN AND ALL PEOPLE WILL FIGHT. LOOKING AT THE 10 TO 12 YEAR TURN AROUND CYCLE ON THIS. THAT'S JUST MY ANALYSIS OF IT.

HAVING SAID THAT I SHARE THE CONCERN.

B I DON'T THINK THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE SHOULD BE AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION AND. >> SURE, GO AHEAD.

>> HAS THE DEED BEEN TRANSFERRED? THE TRANSFER HAS BEEN-- HAS THE DEED BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ORGANIZATION? AWAY FROM THE FPRA?

>> DALE OWNS IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AUTO-- DEVELOPMENT IS THE PROPERTY OWN SKR THEY HAVE A PURCHASE AND SEAL AGREEMENT. LIVE OAK DOES WITH AUTO BON.

>> YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CLOSE SOON, AREN'T YOU?

>> TOMORROW. >> YES TOMORROW IS THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE AUTO BEEN AND LIVE OAK AND THE CLOSING FOR THE HOTEL FINANCING. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE TOMORROW AS WELL. THE THIRD AMENDMENT READS IS IF THAT CLOSING DOES NOT OCCUR. ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR THE CITY.

I THINK ICE SMART TO HAVE A SEPARATE MEETING TO DISCUSS

THIS IN DETAIL. >> MADAM CHAIR.

MRS. HEDGES, IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO A SHADE MEETING. BECAUSE THE POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS. I THINK THAT THE FPRA SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO A SHADE MEETING TO DISCUSS LEGAL WRANGLING AND OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES THAT WE MAY FACE

GOING FORWARD. >> MS. HEDGES?

[01:15:02]

>> MADAM CHAIR, NO, IT HAS TO BE PENDING LITIGATION.

SO THERE IS NOT PENDING LITIGATION CURRENTLY FOR WHICH WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD A SHADE MEETING.

>> SO TAKE-- SO IN ACTING THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE, IT SAYS REVERTS BACK TO THE FPRA. THAT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED LITIGATION? BECAUSE WE WOULD-- FPRA WOULD BE SEEKING TO RETURN THE DEED TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNER BECAUSE

OF THE BREACH? >> IF THE FPRA AND THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECTEDTOUS INSTITUTE LITIGATION TO RETAKE THE PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO, THEN LITIGATION WOULD BE PENDING. WE COULD HOLD A SHADE MEETING AT THAT POINT TO DISCUSS STRATGY, SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. THAT TYPE OF THING.

WE ARE STILL LIMITED WITHIN THE STATUTE FOR WHAT WE CAN DISCUSS IN THE SHADE MEETING. HOWEVER, PENDING LITIGATION, IT HAS TO BE FILED. FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT

MEETING. >> AND MY POSITION FROM THE BEGINNING WAS ALL ABOUT THIS REVERTER COMPONENT? I THINK THE CITIZENS WAITED LONG ENOUGH.

I THINK THE CITIZENS DESERVE AN ANSWER.

AND THE ANSWER IS MATERIAL BREACH.

THE CLOSING MOMENT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW.

THAT ADDS TO THE MATERIAL BREACH OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF THAT. AND IF WE HAVE TO START OVER, WE HAVE TO START OVER. BUT IT'S AN ASSET THAT THIS CITY SHOULD NOT LOSE. THOSE ARE MY POINTS AND THANK

YOU MADAM CHAIR. >> I THINK WE NEED TO HASH OUT AT THIS LEVEL ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AND HAVE A VERY CANDID DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

MY CONCERN. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERY COMMENT MADE TO MY RIGHT AND I'M LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION.

AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE YET. BUT I HAVE A FEELING THERE'S GOING TO BE. I SUGGESTED A SPECIAL MEETING WEEK OR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. AND DISCUSS EACH ASPECT OF THE TRANSACTION BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE DEFAULTS.

THIS IS A MAJOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION WE NEED TO GET RIGHT. IT WARRANTS FURTHER DISCUSSION.

THAT'S ALL I'M SUGGESTING. THE ONE THING I'M NOT GOING TO COIS DISCUSS THIS WITHOUT THE PUBLIC KNOWING WHAT'S GOING ON.

I'M NOT DOING THAT. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT.

DON'T DO IT AT 9 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

LET PEOPLE COME AND BE ABLE TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS.

YOU KNOW EVEN OPEN IT UP. I KNOW SPECIAL MEETINGS THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS.

BUT THIS IS THEIR MONEY. THIS IS TAX PAYER'S MONEY.

THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING JUST AS LONG.

OR LONGER THAN YOU KNOW FOR THIS HOTEL.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO VOTE TONIGHT. WE'VE ALL SAID HOW WE FEEL AND MR. WARE KNOW IFS HE GOES BACK AND ASK HIM WHERE THIS COMMISSIONER GAIN STANDS. I'M PRETTY CLIER I TOLD HIM WHERE THEY STAND HE ASKED THE QUESTION.

THE ONE THING WE SAVE TOO MUCH OR HAVE TO COME BACK.

I TY WE NEED TO PUT IT TO A SPECIAL MEETING.

LET THE PUBLIC KNOW IF THEY WANT TO COME.

AND THAT GIVES US TIME TO GIVE OUR FELLOW COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HIS TIME AT THE MIC.

I'M PRETTY SURE HE HAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF ANSWERS THAT YOU KNOW-- IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BACK MR. RAY YOU CAN TURN IT ON AND LISTEN. AND WE GO FROM THERE.

SOONER OR LATERER, THIS IS COMING TO A VOTE.

AND I'VE HEARD. MADAM CHAIR-- 70 WENT DOWN TO 50. AND I GOT WHERE YOU ARE GOING.

GLAD YOU ARE GOING TO 50 SO-- AND I GOT YOUR ASK AND I'M AN ATTORNEY SO I GOT YOUR ASSET MAJORITY SO I GET IT.

[01:20:04]

MAYBE HE COMES BACK AND-- MAYBE HE COMES BACK IN.

WITH MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

ALL OF US IN HERE WILL BE SINGING A DIFFERENT SONG.

COMING TO THIS MEETING ALL WE HEARD WAS-- YOU ABOUT TO DISCUSS FOR $15 MILLION. I CAME EARLY IN HERE WITH MY STUFF EARLY BECAUSE I WAS READY TO LISTEN TO WHERE THIS $15 MILLION COMING FROM. HAD YOU STOOD UP IN THERE IN YOUR PRESENTATION AND SAID I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE E-MAIL WAS SENT. THAT THE REQUEST WAS $15 MILLION BUT I WAS ABLE TO SECURE 12 AND GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO BACK AND SECURE MORE. ALL OF OUR COMMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. EVERY ONE OF OUR COMMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. SO YOU SAY YOU CAN DO IT.

SHOW ME. OR COME BACK AND SHOW THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE WHAT YOU SAID.

STAND THERE FOR EVERYBODY. WITH ALL YOUR PEOPLE.

EVERYBODY-- LET THEM HEAR. I HAVE THIS MONEY BECAUSE ME PERSONALLY, I DO BELIEVE IF YOU WANT TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.

I DO BELIEVE. AND THEN YOU WANT TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. I WANTED TO PLAY IN THE WORLD CUP BUT I NEVER MADE IT. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? BUT I KNOW IN YOUR HEART FROM SPEAKING TO YOU.

YOU WANT THIS PROJECT COMPLETED.

SO ALL I'M SAYING IS LET MR. WARE GET OUT OF HERE AND GO TALK TO HIS PEOPLE. WE SET A MEETING.

WE LET THE PUBLIC KNOW. WE PUT ON OUR COMFORTABLE CLOTHS AND SHOES BECAUSE WHEN THEY COME IN HERE, THEY GOING TO COME AT US FIRST AND WE GOT TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT.

BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE HANDING HERE AND NOT ON THESE FACEBOOK AND SOCIAL MEDIAS THAT ARE GOING AROUND FORTER PIERCE.

SO-- MEETINGS. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO I GET IT. BUT ON SOMETHING THIS BIG THIS NEEDS TO BE NOTHING ON THE AGENDA AFTER WE SAY-- AND MADAM MAYOR, I KNOW WE DO SPECIAL MEETINGS.

WE USUALLY JUST GO TO THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.

I WOULD ADD THAT-- THE LEGION. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGAIN.

TO GO RIGHT INTO OR SPEND THAT TIME.

AND THEN WHATEVER. THE OTHER THING I SAY IS TO DO THAT MEETING. TO MR. WARE AND EVERYBODY ELSE.

IF THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU WANT, KNOWN OR DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING, DON'T WAIT UNTIL YOU GET HERE TO ASK HIM HERE. LET'S GET IT TO CHEYENNE.

LET'S GET IT TO MR. CHESS. LET'S GET IT TO THIS TEAM.

HE BRINGS ALL YOUR QUESTIONS BACK.

BECAUSE I WANT HIM-- I DON'T WANT HIM TO SAY I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO THAT. GIVE THESE QUESTIONS.

GET EVERYTHING BACK. BUT IT'S FOR ME MADAM CHAIR.

IT'S ALL DOWN TO MONEY NOW. EVERYTHING IS MONEY.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS MR. WARE, YOU CAME PROBABLY A DAY TOO LATE BECAUSE OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR PUT SOME SLIDES ON YESTERDAY WITH SOME BUDGET ISSUES.

THAT GOT EVERYBODY UP HERE WORRYED.

AND SEE THISES WHY WE'RE LIKE THIS.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY AND-- THAT'S WHERE I AM AGAIN. I NEED TO SEE WHERE THE MONEY'S COMING FROM AND THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY FOR THIS PROJECT FOR ME TO SAY LET'S MOVE FOR

FORWARD. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES I APPRECIATE THE IDEA THAT DOING EVERYTHING IN PUBLIC.

I DO THAT AND I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF HAVING THE PUBLIC TO BE PART OF IT. BUT IN LITIGATION AS YOUR PROFESSION, YOU KNOW THAT CREATING YOUR PROFESSIONAL YOUR LEGAL OPINION FROM YOUR SIDE OF THE E QUATION IS IMPORTANT AS TO NOT GIVING UP WHAT YOU WOULD DO AS TO HOW YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THE PLAINTIFF OR BEING THE PROSECUTOR SO TO SPEAK.

SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO DO YOUR OWN LEGAL DISCUSSION AND NOT HAVE IT ALL PUBLIC AT A

[01:25:03]

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SUGGESTED HAVING ALL THE BASIC INFORMATION SO SON SXON SO FORTH ABOUT THIS FOR A FUTURE MEETING. I HAVE DONE FIVE DIFFERENT STUDIES OF THIS PROCESS HAVING THIS BEEN THE ONLY PERSON HERE FROM THE BEGINNING. ALL THIS DOCUMENTS PUT INTO ART FIRL SFWOELGS GATHER THE SUMMARY UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT THE TIMES AND DATES. AND A LOT OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS TO THIS. AS TO HOW I WOULD RESPOND TO CERTAIN THINGS. BECAUSE I'VE DONE MOST OF THE EXPLANATION HERE FROM THE DESK VERBALLY.

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PACKAGE THIS UP TO GIVE TO YOU.

TO DISTRIBUTE TO THE FPRA BOARD.

AND THE CLERK AND ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER.

>> I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT RIGHT? NOT BEFORE THE MEETING OR DU

DURING. >> I'VE BEEN READING ON ALL THE MATERIALS. MY COLLEAGUES JUST ASKED I COMMENT AND I READ FROM MY NOTES.

THEY WANT TO HAVE IT IN AD ADVANCE.

I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT TO THEM IN ADVANCE SAYING THEY CAN READ. TO BE BRINGING FORWARD.

>> MADAM CHAIR. COMMISSIONERER DZAODSKY IF YOU

WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THAT. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO MR. WARE YOU'VE HEARD US TALK ABOUT A SPECIAL MEETING.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT CAN HAPPEN IT'S GOT TO BE PROBABLY MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS. BECAUSE OF NOTICE ISSUES.

SO I'M GOING TO JUST ASK YOU. WILL YOU BE AVAILABLE AND WILL

YOU BE ABLE TO BE HERE WITH US. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MR. CHESS. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TERMS OF TIMING AND WHAT ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS?

>> THE ELECTED OFFICIALS KIND OF FLUSH THIS OUT.

I'VE TALKED IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE FINANCE.

I DON'T THINK IT BENEFITS ME TO DRILL DOWN THE RETURN OF INVESTMENTS. 10.5%.

AND 7.16%. THERE-- I SHOULD SAY DECISION THAT HAS TO BE MADE. AND THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT HAS TO BE MADE. THE MOST VIABLE OPTION TO HELP DOESN'T HAVE IT. AND HOW WE GET TO THAT THE TIME FRAME THAT PROVIDE MR. WARE TO SEEK THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING JOINT VENTURE CAPITAL FAMILY FRIENDLY TYPE DEALS AS WELL.

BUT ALSO ANOTHER HOTEL CAN COME WHO HAS THE FUNDING WHO CAN FILL THE GAP. WE DISCUSSED THE NUMBERS.

THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS. I THINK WAS SAID WHO PRESENTS THIS PROJECT. BUT THE DEVELOPER OR THEIR HOTELIER MAYBE THEY HAVE OTHER RESOURCES AND MAIN SALES NOT WILLING TO PROVIDE. AND THAT'S KEY FROM ME MAYBE THIS IS AGREEMENT THE HOTELIER DOESN'T WANT TO PUT UP THE CAST. WHO SEES THE BENEFIT WHO WILL TAKE THE RISK. IF THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE OUR CASH. WHY WOULDN'T SOMEONE DO THE BEST THEY OWN THE CASH. AND THOSE PROJECTIONS? AND THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THIS.

AND IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DOESN'T MEAN SOME OTHER HOTELIER WON'T. I THINK THE PROJECT CAN STILL BE KEPT ALIVE IN SOME WAY. SO IF YOU FIND A $15 MILLION WAIT WILL THERE. BUT IF NOT.

WE HAVE OPTIONS TO BRING ANOTHER HOTELIER IN.

NOT IN LOW LEVEL HOLE THEIER BUT WHO IS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK AND FIND ADDITIONAL FINANCE.

>> WITH EVERYTHING IN PLACE. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO BASED ON FROM THE CITY MANAGERER PERSPECTIVES OPERATIONS.

ASKING FOR $3.9 MILLION I MENTIONED THIS TO YOU JUST TO COME FROM OUR APPROPRIATED RESERVES TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY GET THE $15 MILLION TO FUND A PRIVATE VENTURE.

AND THAT'S JUST BEING CLEAR. AND BEING A GOOD STEWARD WITH THE RESIDENTS FUNDS. WE HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF CITY ASSETS. AND THAT'S MY POSITION.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAYBE NEED OUTSIDE INVESTMENTS.

AND DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO GROW THE CITY.

BUT HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? SO I MEAN THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID IN THESE FUTURE MEETINGS. I RESERVE MY COMMENTS.

BUT IN A NUTSHELL THAT'S WHERE I AM.

AND THE MONEY COMES FROM OUTSIDE THAT'S FINE.

IF THERE'S ANOTHER HOTELIER WHO CAN PROVIDE A HOTEL AND HAVE THEIR OWN FINANCING THAT'S ALWAYS I THINK A VIABLE OPTION AS WELL. AND I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

[01:30:02]

>> SO ARE WE AGREED ON A SPECIAL MEETING JUST THIS TOPIC

ALONE? >> ONE QUICK QUESTION BASED ON CITY MANAGER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

MADAM ATTORNEY, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IF JUST SAY THE MANAGER SAID, SAY THEY HEAR US TONIGHT AND SAY OKAY WELL THEY SAY WHAT I SAY, NO.

JUST HYPOTHETICAL. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT.

SO DON'T E-MAIL ME. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT.

BUT HYPOTHETICAL IF THEY SAY NO TO MR. WARE, DO WE LEAVE IT UP TO YOUR GROUP? OR DO WE COME BACK AND HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF SIDE AMENDMENT WHICH I HATE OR BEST OTHER AMENDMENT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO LET ANOTHER-- HOW DOES THAT WORK IF WE DON'T LET ANOTHER HOTEL FRANCHISE TRY TO COME IN TO SAY-- YOU KNOW HEY WE'LL TAKE OVER.

WE CAN DO IT. HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> MS. HEDGES? >> PART OF THAT FOOP HE'S TECHNICALLY WE HAVE MORER DEFAULT TAKING PLACE TOMORROW.

NOTIFYING ON DEFAULT UNDER THE THIRD AMENDMENT ARE WE JUST GOING TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THIS MEETING TO SORT THAT OUT?

>> I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. THE MONEY IS NOT THERE THE AGREEMENT IS NOT GOING TO GET SIGNED.

WE KNOW THAT. SO BUT I'M JUST BASED ON WHAT LIKE I SAID SOMETIMES I NEED TO SIT BACK AND LYSE SON WE WANTED TO PUT A PIN IN IT ORRER POP THE BALLOON SO TO SPEAK.

HE WAS KIND OF SAYING WAIT A MINUTE LET'S SLOW THE ROLL THERE MAY BE ANOTHER HOTEL THAT WANTS TO COME IN THAT HAS THE MONEY TO COME IN AND DO IT. SAY THAT HAPPENS.

SAY THEY SAY NO FORT PIERCE WON'T GIVE ME THE MONEY I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT AND MR. WARE CAN'T DO IT.

BUT WE GET NOTIFICATION FROM ANOTHER FRANCHISE OR HOTEL THAT WANTS TO DO OUR VISION. HOW DO WE DO THAT?

>> MS. HEDGES. >> MADAM CHAIR, CURRENTLY THE WAY THE AGREEMENT UNDER THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS STRUCTURED IT IS SPECIFIC TO MAIN SALE. SO IF THE FINANCING OF THE HOTEL WILL BE THROUGH ANOTHER ENTITY OR SELF-FINANCED OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO A FOURTH AMENDMENT IF THE FPR BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION IS WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THAT ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISM. BUT AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, IT IS UNDER THE IDEA THAT IT WILL 9BE MAIN SALE.

THAT THEY ARE PARTNERING WITH. >> SO IT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT WHEN IT COMES BACK.

MONEY ON PAPER. PAPER-- AND IF THEY HAD THAT THEN WE COULD PUT IT INTO AN AMENDMENT AND SAY OKAY MAIN SALE IS UP. THIS HOTELIER X IS IN.

THANK YOU MA'AM. >> YES, SIR.

>> MR. WARE. YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF OUR

DISCUSSIONS. >> I HAVE.

>> AND SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE.

>> I DO. AND I WOULD IF I MAY.

TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY AND I'M NOT SURE THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE OR OTHERWISE. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT AS A PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, THAT YOU CONSIDER GRANTING LIVE OAK A SUFFICIENT TIME TO FIND THE MONEY.

THE FIND THE INVESTORS AND MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN.

MUCH SOONER THAN OTHERWISE COULD HAPPEN.

AND I DON'T KNOW STANDING HERE AGAIN GIVE AN FINITE PERIOD OF TIME, WOULD DO ANY HARM OR ANY MORE HARM.

ANY HARM TO THE CITY. TO ALLOW US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, I'M JUST SAYING WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL OUR MISSION. THANK YOU.

>> AND YOU'RE ALSO SAYING THAT THAT MISSION WON'T BE FULFILLED BY OUR SPECIAL MEETING PROBABLY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN MY REQUEST IS FOR YOU ALL TO GRANT US THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> AND IF I MAY. WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION.

THE COUNCIL MEETING IS THAT THEY NEED TO ASK THE TIMELINE.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THEM? REASONABLE RESTRICTION AND I'LL COME BACK ASKING FOR MORE EXTENSIONS. WELL AND IT'S EXTENSION MODE.

SO WHEN WE HAD THAT SPECIAL MEETING AND YOU HAVE THAT ASK AND REQUEST GET BACK WITH YOU ALL AND BUSINESS PARTNERS AND ASK US NOT ME BUT ELECTED TO OFFICIALS, THE BODY HERE, WHAT ARE THE TIMELINES YOU'RE ASKING FOR? SO WE CAN PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE PART OF THE DISCUSSION? WE NEED TO GET THAT FROM YOU TO GIVE YOU THE AMPLE TIME TO ASK HIM AS A BODY.

[01:35:04]

AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR ON BOTH SIDES.

THANK YOU. >> AGREE.

>> THANK YOU. >> AGREE.

GOOD SUGGESTION. YEAH.

YOU BRING TO US AND SAY THIS-- YOU'RE SAYING I'M MORE TIME.

YOU BRING TO US AND TELL US WHAT THAT TIME WOULD LOOK LIKE.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT?

>> YES JUST TO SUGGEST I HAVE LOOKING AT MY CALLENEDER.

I HAVE AVAILABILITY AT THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

AFTER THAT I'M OUT OF TOWN TWO WEEKS TODAY IN THEORY I'M GONE.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ARE.

>> BASED ON WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM THE LAST TEN MINUTES WITH THE MEETING FROM THE MANAGER FROM MR. WARE, HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING AND NOT HAVING ANY INFORMATION WHERE THIS MONEY'S COMING FROM, WILL THAT REALLY DO WHAT WE WANT IT TO DO? BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING TO SAY HEY GUYS. YOU MISSED THE MEETING.

AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. BUT WE HAVE SOMEBODY TRYING TO GO GET THE MONEY. SIGNIFICANT HERE THINKING I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING NOT TO HAVE ANSWERS.

I WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING WHERE MR. WARE CAN COME BACK OR WHOEVER HE BRINGS OR SAYS CAN COME BACK AND SAY ABCD. WITH THIS MONEY THING.

BECAUSE IF WE GET AN E-MAIL FOR MR. WARE SAYING I CAN'T GET THE MON! MONEY-- UP THERE GOING TO SAY NO. START-- MS. HEDGES AND EVERYBODY TO START-- YOU KNOW. GETTING THE PROPERTY TO GO BACK FROM THERE. SO TRYING TO THINK ARE WE PUSHING IT TOO FAST FOR TWO WEEKS.

WE WILL BE RIGHT HERE IN TWO WEEKS.

SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IF IT'S A TWO WEEK TIME PERIOD IS SINCE WE'RE ON THIS TWO WEEKS. WE GIVE MR. WARE TWO WEEKS TO LET US KNOW HOW MUCH TIME HE NEEDS.

>> OKAY, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> YOU GET TWO WEEKS TO GET WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES TO SAY HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO GO OUT AND GET THIS FINANCING? AND MR. WARE PLEASE DON'T COME BACK AND SAY A YEAR OR SIX MONTHS.

I MEAN I KNOW HOW IT WORKS BUT I'M JUST-- NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL THAT TO THE PUBLIC. I'M JUST NOT.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING FINANCERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TWO DAYS AGO THAT'S HOW THE PUBLIC IS THINKING.

SO BE MINDFUL WITH YOUR REQUESTS.

BUT I'LL BE HONEST I CAME HERE TONIGHT TO SAY HEY IT'S DONE.

I'M DONE. I'M OVER THIS.

JUST BEING HONEST WITH YOU. BULISENING TO YOU AND HIM AND MY COLLEAGUE DOWN AND LISTEN TO MY CITY MANAGER WITH YOUR STATEMENT. YOU ARE TRYING TO GO OUT TO FIND MONEY TO SAVE THIS PROJECT, OKAY.

I GOT TO SIT BACK NOW BECAUSE I CAN'T KILL IT BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE IN FORT PIERCE THAT WANT THIS HOTEL.

SO I GOT TO STEP BACK. SLOW MY ROLL AND SAY OKAY LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THE BUSINESS DEAL BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU CAN'T FIND THE FINANCING WE'RE STILL AT DAY ONE HERE. WHERE WE HAVE TO START OVER HERE. AND THEN MY COLLEAGUE-- WE'RE GOING TO BE IN LITIGATION. BUT THE ONE THING WE'RE MISSING TONIGHT IS--. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

YOU KNOW-- HE'S EARNED THE RIGHT TO PUT HIS TWO CENTS ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GONE. ABOUT THE FOUR OF US HE'S EARNED THAT RIGHT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE GOT LUCKY. WASN'T HERE TONIGHT.

THAT'S NOT SAYING SO. BUT YOU PROBABLY HEARD A LOT MORE. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.

HE YELLO LIGHT KIND OF DIAL REAL QUICK.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOOD WITH EVERYBODY ELSE WITH THE TWO WEEKS TO GIVE TIME TO COME BACK AND GET THE BEST OF MS.

HEDGES OR SOMEBODY. >> HE CAN TELL US HOW MUCH TIME

HE NEEDS. >> MADAM CHAIR.

>> MS. HEDGES. >> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

>>-- YOU COULD SET A STATUS ON THAT DATE.

THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALTERNATIVELY, IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE HIM A DEADLINE TO PROVIDE TO US, WE CAN WORK WITH THE

[01:40:02]

>> MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THANK YOU.

MADAM ATTORNEY, I JUST KNOW THAT AUGUST 3RD MEETING I WILL BE IN CINCINNATI SOMEWHERE. BUT I'M FINE WITH WAITING THAT LONG TO DISCUSS IT IN FRONT AT A PUBLIC MEETING INSTEAD OF US GETTING AN E-MAIL AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. IT WOULD BE PUBLIC RECORD AND

WE GO FROM THERE. >> AND THE VERY NEXT WEEK IS PROBABLY THE FPRA MEETING. BEEN MONTHLY.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> I WOULD HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

CORRECT. I'M GREAT WITH THAT.

>> OKAY. ARE WE CLEAR?

ARE YOU CLEAR MR. WARE? >> I AM.

NOT SO CLEAR ON THE DATES BUT THAT'S OKAY.

I CAN FOLLOW UP. >> I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEARING FROM YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT YOUR TIMELINE TO BE WITHIN

TWO WEEKS. >> YES I DID GET THAT.

>> OKAY AND THEN AFTER THAT, DEPENDING ON WHEN WE CAN SET ANY KIND OF SPECIAL MEETING OR MEET.

IS THAT RIGHT COMMISSIONERS? IS THAT RIGHT?

>> VERY GOOD. >> OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR HARD WORK. >> EXCITING STAFF COMMENTS.

[A. July 2026 FPRA Programs and Activities Summary  ]

>> MR. CHESS. >> JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONING AND JUST OPENING UP THE DISCUSSION. I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT.

ABOUT THIS. AND I'M JUST HERE TO SUPPORT ANY DECISION THAT'S MADE. I'M GOING TO BE SURE THAT MY ROLE AS YOU LOOK OUT FOR THE FUNDS AND TO BE A GOOD STEWARD OF CITY FUNDS. AND THAT'S MY INTEREST.

BUT ALSO THERE'S A BUSINESS SIDE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WE HAVE TO BE OPEN. SO I JUST WANT TO BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE ON BOTH SIDES. BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF A RESIDENTS TO FUNDS AND HOW WE SPEND FUNDS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING GOING FORWARD.

I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND I THINK YOU ALL HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD ON EVERYTHING THAT YOU ASKED.

AND THE DECISIONS YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE.

AND I'M THEOR SUPPORT IT EITHER WAY.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I'M NOT FOR OUR AGAINST.

BUT I KNOW I'M FOR THE CITY RESIDENTS IN PROTECTING THEIR FUNDS AND HOW WE INVESTED THEIR MONEY.

WITH THE PROPERTY TAX LOOMING BEFORE US.

THAT'S COSHER FOR US AND WE HAVE OUR DEPARTMENT HEAD DISCUSSIONS. CHEYENNE YOU'VE BEEN GREAT IN TERMS OF MANAGING THIS AS A LIAISON AND COMMUNICATING AND WE ASKED DETAILED QUESTIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND YOU ADDRESSED ALL OF THEM TODAY AS WELL AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>> WE'RE DEPENDING ON FINANCIAL EXPERTISE AND GOOD BUSINESS

SENSE. >> WE'RE THERE AND $15 MILLION IS NOT IT. PERIOD.

I WILL NOT RECOMMEND IT. I CAN RECOMMEND HIM GOING OUT SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDING. BUT I CANNOT RECOMMEND THE CITY GIVING A DIME TO THAT PROJECT. BUT I SU FORT PROJECT.

SIZE OF MY MOUTH. SAYING I SU FORT PROJECT.

BUT NOT THE CITY CONTRIBUTING ANY MONEY TO THEIR PROJECT IN THE LEVEL IN WHICH THEY ARE FOR PARTICIPATION.

>> YEP. WE GAVE THE LAND.

THEY GOT THE LAND. YEAH.

MS. HARNAGE DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> ONE QUICK NOTE. THE GARBAGE CANS HAVE BEEN

INSTALLED. >> I SAW THAT.

>> DOWNTOWN IN JENY PARK AND RIVER WALK AND THEY DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB FACILITATING ALL THAT AND ORGANIZING IT.

THE NOTE THAT I WANT TO MAKE TODAY SI HEARD FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF THOSE TWO AREAS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING GARBAGE CANS IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOODS.

LINCOLN PARK SPECIFICALLY SO WE ARE LOOKING AT NEXT FISCAL YEAR ADDING THOSE IF THIS PILOT IS SUCCESSFUL.

THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A PILOT SEE HOW THEY WORK AND HOW THEY ARE WITH GARBAGE COLLECTION AND COMPACTING AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. SO THEY ARE THERE AND WE ARE ALSO LOOKING RIGHT NOW YOU'LL SEE ON THE SIDE OF SOME OF THE GARBAGE CANS. THERE'S A POSTER SIZED POSTER THAT SAYS BIG BELLY AND EXPLAINS WHAT IT IS.

THOSE CAN BE USED FOR SPECIAL EVENT PROMOTION AND FPRA CITY PROMOTION OR ANY INITIATIVES WH & WHAT'S GOING ON.

INSERT THEM YES. WORKING NOW WITH LEISURE SERVICES TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT COULD LOOK THROUGH SPECIAL EVENT PERMITTING. TO LOOK AT PROPOTIONAL INFORMATION FPRA AND CITY INITIATIVES IN THERE.

THAT IS THE UPDATE. THAT MONTHLY REPORT IS THERE I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THANKS AGAIN EBBING OEG MR. CHESS'S COMMENTS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON KING'S LANDING. WE HEARD WHAT WE THOUGHT WE

[01:45:01]

FORWARD. >> GREAT.

MS. HEDGES DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>>-- DELGADO. >> YOU JUST SAID SARAH.

SO JUST GIVING PROPER-- PROPS WHERE THEY BELONG.

>> GARBAGE CANS ORGANIZING. >> I WAS NOT-- NO, MA'AM.

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHTY.

THEN WE ARE ON THE BOARD COMMENTS?

ALL RIGHT. >> I'LL START.

I JUST HAVE ONE. MR. CHESS'S EXPERTISE IN FINANCE HAS COME THROUGH IN THIS ISSUE.

THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH HIM HAVE BEEN VERY FINANCE CEREBRAL. I GUESS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT. THE GUY KNOWS HIS BUSINESS WHEN IT COMES TO FINANCE. AND IT'S A JOY TO SIT THERE AND SPEAK WITH HIM ABOUT THEORETICAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT BANKING PEOPLE AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF.

IT'S ACTUALY BEEN VERY GOOD WORKING SCENARIO.

SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT TOMORROW BECAUSE I HAVE A FEW MORE IDEAS ON THIS THAT I'LL RUN PAST YOU.

GOT TO FIND SOMETHING. WE'LL JUST BE PULLING THE

RABBIT OUT OF A VERY DEEP HAT. >> DONE THAT ONCE OR TWICE.

>> YES. YEAH.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> A QUICK QUESTION.

BACK TO THIS KING'S LANDING, SO FOR WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE FINANCING.

SO-- AND I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

SO IF SOMEONE IS IN THE PUBLIC. LISTENING TO THIS.

THEY THINK THEY WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY IN OR THEY THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEIR INVESTMENT GROUP WOULD LIKE TO DO, WHO DO THEY CALL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT NO RESIDENTS CALLING THE CITY. SO SOMEWHERE ON YOUR WEBSITE RECAP OF THIS MEETING CALL MR. WARE? DO NOT CALL ME. DO NOT CALL ANY OF THESE COMMISSIONERS. BECAUSE I'M JUST BEING HONEST BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT'S THE LAST THING WE NEED.

SECOND IS ABOUT THESE GARBAGE CANS.

PLEASE TAKE ONE OF THEM GARBAGE CANS OUT THERE IN THE PARKING LOT DOWNSTAIRS. MAYBE TWO.

PUT ONE IN PEACOCK AND ONE IN LINCOLN PARK TO MAKE SURE UNTIL YOU JUST GET A GARBAGE CAN TO TIDE US OVER.

NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY MADAM MAYOR BUT OTHER RESIDENTS IN OTHER DISTRICTS LOVE THE GARBAGE CANS BUT ARE UPSET.

JUST ONE. LET THEM KNOW THIS IS WHAT'S COMING. PLEASE DO THAT JUST FINE.

>> COUPLE RIGHT OUT HERE. >> I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU GET THEM FROM. JUST FIND ONE PUT WHATEVER AND IF YOU HAVE ME AND YOU NEED TO RIDE AROUND AND FIND A SPOT.

I'LL DO THAT I HAVE SOME IDEAS. I KNOW ONE WE COULD PUT ONE ON THE PARK WE JUST NAMED ON 13TH AND D RIGHT THERE.

PUT IT RIGHT THERE. BUT PEACOCK DISTRICT JUST PUT WITH THE PEACOCKS SO FAR. YA'LL LAUGHING BUT I'M TELLING YOU THE RESIDENTS LOVE LET ME SAY THAT.

MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS LOVE THE IDEA ABOUT THESE GARBAGE CANS. THEY LOOK NICE.

THEY REALLY LOOK NICE. OUT THERE IN THEIR FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET A GARBAGE CAN.

TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THEIR COMMENT THIS IS A PILOT WE WANT TO SEE. YES PLEASE, THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING TO ADD, OKAY. I'M GOOD TOO.

THANK YOU ALL. THIS IS ONGOING.

YEP. ONWARD AND UPWARD.

SO WE'RE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.