HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 07D_01/14/1999 z -~-~ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 250 Tequesta Drive • Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1998 I. II. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Village Council held a special meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Tuesday, December 15, 1998. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen, and Councilmembers Alexander W. Cameron, Joseph N. Capretta, and Ron T. Mackal. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Attorney Peter Holton sitting in for Village Attorney John C. Randolph, village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. A moment of silence Governor Lawton Chiles. APPROVAL OF AGENDA was observed for the passing of Councilmember Cameron stated he had a problem dealing with the issue on the agenda at a special meeting and felt it should be done at a regular meeting because it was a contentious issue and after contentious issues were concluded there was always a tendency for people who did not like the results to say the item was rushed through at a special meeting which people did not know about, etc. C S8$CIAL VILLAG}3 COUNCIL M88TING MINOTRS December 15, 1998 PAGE 2 Councilmember Cameron stated he knew everything being done was perfectly legal and aboveboard by Florida law and by the Village charter, but still opposed it being done at a special meeting. Vice Mayor Haasea made a motioa to approve the Agenda as submaitted. Councilmem~ber Mackail Seconded the motion. The vote on the motioa Wass 811zabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. 8aasea - for Aleaaader 9v. Cameron - agaiast Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for Iv. The motioa Mss therefore ,passed aad adopted sad the Agenda Nras approved as submitted. COM~LTDTICATION FROM CITIZR~T3 Hattie Siegel, 498 Dover Road, questioned when citizens were allowed to speak more than three minutes and whether the time included responses from the Village Council. Mayor Schauer explained she tried not to cut people off before the three minutes were up, and if their comments were nQt redundant she allowed them to continue, and although the three minutes was supposed to include everything it usually did not, and it was up to the Chair to allow or not to allow more time. Betty Nagy, Shay Place, related an incident that occurred after the last Village Council meet~.ng and stated as she and another resident were leaving they were verbally abused by Councilmember Mackail who accused them of being negative in their appearances before the Village Council and apparently took offense at opinions expressed by Mrs. Nagy. Mrs. Nagy demanded a public agology by Councilmember Mackail and assurance by the Village Council that this 7 A SPECIAL VILLAGE CO'ODTCIL NESTING NINOTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 3 would not happen again to her or any other citizen of Tequesta. Mrs. Nagy urged Village Councilmembers and the Village Manager to re-read a book from Tallahassee regarding public records and open meetings, which stated that people had a right to voice their opinions at council meetings. Peggy verhoevea, 18996 Poiat Drive, expressed her agreement with Mrs. Nagy and stated she was the other resident with Mrs. Nagy. Mrs. Verhoeven stated that at the last Village Council meeting she had tried to make a legal point and meant no insult to anyone's profession, and expressed her opinion that Mrs. Nagy was owed an apology and that such outbursts should not happen. 8a1 8utchiaeoa asked whether an apology was going to be made; the Mayor responded not at the present time. IV. OVERVI89P OF PROPOSED PURCBASE OF LAND AND T83~ BIIILDII+iG AT TEQIIES~A PLAZA Village Manager Bradford commented that the survey for the Tequesta Plaza property was exhibited, as well as the latest rendition of the proposal, with hand-drawn outlines to explain different aspects of the projects. -The Village Manager explained that the question before the Village Council was whether or not to become involved in the Tequesta Plaza project as envisioned on the presentation board. The Village Manager explained that the story of Tequesta Plaza began in 1988, and in 1989 Tequesta held a charrette at the Lighthouse Gallery and School of Art which was attended by the public, where it was learned Village zoning needed to be amended since it provided for an overly large commercial area; that additional customers were needed for the businesses within the Villages central business district; and that the core of Tequesta needed to be more pedestrian friendly with easier pedestrian and vehicular access. Subsequent to the 1989 charrette, the t SPECIAL VILLAQE COIINCIL ~ETINQ ffiINOTSS December 15, 1998 PA(38 4 FDOT repaved U.S. One from County Line Road to Alternate A-1-A and amended all the medians, which resulted in closing access to Bridge Road at U.S. One for safety purposes, which had a negative effect on Bridge Road businesses. In May, 1997 another charrette was held with property owners and business owners in the central business district to look at alternatives for the central business district, and a number of proposals came from that charrette which were similar to the rendering displayed at tonight's meeting. The number one problem identified was the same as that identified in a survey conducted by the Planning Commission in the late 1980's wherein they stated they wanted to know what was to be done with Lighthouse Plaza and ~equesta Plaza. Tequesta Plaza began its downhill slide in 1986 or 1987 when the move to Tequesta Shoppes on U.S. One took place and Publix did not give up its lease at Tequesta Plaza, but held it 5o they would have no competition from that location. Village Manager Bradford explained that Tequesta Plaza was a key piece of property, highly visible, with a significant impact on the image of Tequesta. Other problems identified were that there were nine shopping centers within one square mile and perhaps what was needed was r~,ot another shopping center, as well as a problem with the sea of asphalt of the parking area at Tequesta Plaza, and no life on the rear of the Tequesta Plaza building, which affected negatively the value from the commercial zoning designation along Bridge Road. The Village had attempted to purchase Tequesta Plaza several times from the prior owner, Mr. Felhaber, but negotiations failed. In February 1998, John Zuccarrelli through his company JMZ of Tequesta Properties, Inc., purchased Tequesta Plaza and immediately contacted the village Managers office to determine what the Village wanted to do and to share his vision for Tequesta Plaza. Mr. Zuccarrelli had presented a rendering of a re-design of the shopping center which would modernize the appearance and the look of the shopping center. Village Manager Bradford explained that prior to that time, during 1997, the Village Council had established as one of their goals G SPECIAL VILLAC~S COUNCIL STING MINUTES December 15, 1998 PAC3S 5 and objectives to see what could be done in terms of redevelopment of Tequesta Plaza and Bridge Road. With that direction from the Village Council, the Village Manager and staff had attempted to design a plan preferred by the Village Council which was an outgrowth of the May 1997 charrette. That plan was very similar to the rendering presented at tonight's meeting. Negotiations began in earnest during the spring of 1998 and in June at a special meeting the conceptual plan for Tequesta Plaza was presented to the Village Council, which would entail two commercial structures on the eastern half of the property, a Village Hall on the southwest corner, and a future 25,000 square foot site for Lighthouse Gallery and School of Art. At the June, 1,998 meeting the Village Council approved the conceptual plan and directed staff to begin negotiations with JMZ Properties to attempt to make the plan happen. Staff had worked on this over the summer and now reported they had been successful and would report the terms to the Village Council. village Manager Bradford explained there were three players in the deal, bne of which was not yet identified, which would be a cultural organization; however, the plan did not contemplate or require that a cultural facility or a Village Hall be constructed. The conceptual plan included three parcels: Parcel No. 1 in the southwest corner, Parcel 2 designated as the cultural site, and Parcel 3 for 2 buildings on which JMZ Properties would begin work immediately if the Village Council should approve the proposal. Village Manager Bradford reminded the Village Council that in July 1998 they had adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity regarding the property which contemplated the need for the property in order to provide for the road for linkage from Tequesta Drive to Bridge Road and if needed, a site for a Village Hall. Since that time condemnation discussions had been held with JMZ Properties using the eminent domain power of the Village of Tequesta. village Manager Bradford explained that the proposal was SP~s'CIAL VILLAGE CO'ONCIL ~BTIm'G ~INUTSS December 15, 1998 Paa$ ~ that the Village would purchase the building and the land under the building would be leased to the Village during the time the building stood. Once the building was demolished, the exact square footage under the building (roughly 52,7'8 s.f.) would become Tequesta's property on Parcel No. 1. In addition, Tequesta would acquire roughly 28,151 square feet for a 60-foot right-of-way from Tequesta Drive to Bridge Road. The northwest parcel, previously identified for use by Lighthouse Gallery, who had subsequently said that at this time they were not interested in locating there, would be held for two years for a cultural or civic purpose. If, after two years, there was no cultural or civic proposal for Parcel No. 2, then Mr. Zuccarrelli would have the right to go forward with a commercial/retail facility on Parcel No. 2. On Parcel No. 1, the Village would have two years in which to construct a civic or cultural facility. If after two years Tequesta did not constrict a civic or cultural facility, Mr. Zuccarrelli would buy back Parcel No. 1 from the Village for $477,000. The deal also would allow Tequesta to swap parcels No. 1 and No. 2; however No. 2 was worth $2 per square foot more than Parcel No. 1., which would need to be considered. This would allow a Village Hall to be constructed near the roadway at a higher price if a Village Hall was contemplated for this property. If the proposal were approved, following Site Plan Review and Special Exception Public Hearing, JMZ Properties would proceed to construct building number one on the northern part of Parcel No. 3. Upon issuance of the CO or demolition of the current building, Tequesta would commence construction of the roadway. After that the time would be close to the 24-month window at which time the Village Council would decide what they wanted to do, if anything, and if they did not want to do anything JMZ would buy back the property. The benefit of the new arrangements for Parcels i and 2 on the west side were: No requirement to build a Village Hall; flexibility to build a village Hall on either site north or south; Lighthouse Gallery and 3PSCIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL M88TINC~ MINUTE December 15, 1998 BAQL 7 School or Art or any other cultural organization in regard to Parcel No. 2 would not have to put up any money for two years which would enable them in conjunction with the Village or anyone else to seek grant money from the State of Florida while the parcel was reserved to see if they could get grant money to build a new building. The worst case scenario in terms of civic and cultural was that none of that happened; however, that would be the best case scenario for the Village of Tequesta in terms of revenue. Revenue would be generated if Parcels 1 and 2 were developed as commercial/retail; and a lot of revenue would be generated if Parcels 1, 2, and 3 were developed as commercial/retail facilities. The property/proposal was appraised by two appraising companies with the highest being $1,431,000 and the lowest $1,380,000 to do the things that Tequesta was contemplated to do in this proposal; that is, to take control and ownership of the building, demolish the building, credit of that building's land to the southwest corner, and acquisition of the 28,000 square feet. Village Manager Bradford explained the Village had negotiated tentatively with JMZ Properties before the appraisals were made and the numbers negotiated were that Tequesta would pay $1,483,000 to do the project, then pay another $100,000 to a demolition company for demolition of the building, then pay approximately $100,000 for the roadway construction. $475,000 for landscaping and beautification of Bridge Road was proposed to be paid by assessments to the adjacent property owners. The net cost to Tequesta if JMZ bought back Parcel No. i in two years would be $1,206,000 on a 30-year revenue bond at 5.75, or $86,989 annually. The source of funds for repayment would be pledge of utility taxes and franchise fees. No property taxes would be involved in paying the debt on the bonds to make this project happen. The revenue from property taxes on the project land and buildings from commercial and 53 apartment units proposed as a third floor of the commercial/retail buildings; revenue from utility taxes on cable TV, electricity, telephone, and water; plus revenue from franchise fees from those utilities and increased SPECIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL MEETING MINUTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 8 State revenue sharing income would mean that Tequesta would receive $132,105.00 annually from the project itself, not counting spillover effects the project would have on Bridge Road and other surrounding properties. From the income of $132,105, deducting annual debt service of $87,000, a net revenue flow from the project would be realized of $45,000 per year. Village Manager Bradford explained that assuming a worst case scenario of the Village spending money and the project going bust and Tequesta never getting a dime back: Tequesta has reserved from recurring revenue sources within its budget $212,523 to pay for projects such as this and the Fire Rescue living quarters, based upgn current project cost estimates. Therefore, the Village had enough money from recurring sources in the budget to not only pay 100~r of the project, but all of the landscaping, road demolition, contingency, architectural fees, and the Fire Rescue living quarters. Therefore, even though the project was estimated to generate $45,000 annually of excess revenue over the anticipated debt service, the Village still had the money in the budget to pay the debt service and much more. Village Manager Bradford explained that NationsBank, Tequesta Plaza, and Tequesta Corporate Center currently had a reciprocal parking arrangement. An antiquated ratio of square footage to parking spaces was in the covenants and deed restrictions which applied to all three properties, which Tequesta Corporate Center owners were willing to amend. The only remaining item would be a reciprocity agreement with Tequesta Corporate Center for parking on the west side, and negotiations had started with NationsBank to amend the covenants so that reciprocity only remained between NationsBank and the east side. Attorney Peter Holton advised that the Village Council focus on the fact that with respect to Parcel No. 1 the uses were broader than just putting a Village hall there, SPECIAL VILLAGE COiTNCIL ~sNrlxG MINU'PLS December 15, 1998 PALL 9 and during the two-year period the property could be sold to a third party as long as it was to be used for a municipal, civic, or cultural purpose. Mayor Schauer asked whether any red flags existed within the packet she had received the prior evening that the Village Council should consider, to which Attorney Holton responded he saw his role in this transaction as conferring with Village Manager Bradford and Village Clerk Manganiello as they negotiated the business terms of this transaction to understand their intent, their time constraints and their financial constraints. Attorney Holton stated he waS involved in the negotiations with Mr. Zuccarrelli and his attorney Mr. Blackburn, and helped the parties come to an understanding of the business terms and assure that each side understood what the other side was offering and was willing to accept. After that had been accomplished, Attorney Holton drafted a contract which he believed accurately reflected the deal the parties had negotiated and agreed upon. The contract agreements were then placed into a framework to provide the Village with a mechanism to enforce the business deal. Attorney Holton pointed out the following red flags: (1} .Any agreement is only as good as the parties who are signatories to the agreement and enforcement would be through the courts if Mr. Zuccarrelli did not live up to his bargain; (2) There was really no mechanism to force Mr. Zuccarrelli to build a building on the northeastern portion of Aarcel 3, but damages could be realized if he did not perform. Attorney Holton expressed his opinion that the agreement placed the Village in as good a position as possible to make sure they realized the benefit of the bargain and put them into a position to go forward with the transaction. Attorney Holton explained that the agreement was for the village to buy the existing building at closing, to get a lease for the land under the building, and for assignment of existing tenant leases. Mr. Zuccarrelli was to manage the center while the Village owned the property and was obligated to negotiate at his cost termination of leases with the tenants and relocate SPECIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL b~BTING ~(CINtJTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 10 them either into his new building or other properties within Tequesta, if necessary. Village Manager Bradford commented the Village had a $1 million letter of credit from Nations8ank to give the Village the up-front money to do projects the village had contemplated. The village Manager reported NationsBank had indicated they had given tentative approval to expand the letter of credit to $4 million. This meant that as the Village went into this project they could borrow the money and only pay interest until all projects were concluded and there was a firm number to go to bond, then the bond proceeds could be used to repay the NationsBank letter of credit. Mayor Schauer commented Co~nimissioner Marcus had reported that when a municipality helped an area within their community to redevelop, the taxpayer benefit for enhancing that area was double the amount of the cost, and requested she be contacted if Tequesta needed help getting businesses to come into the area. Vice Mayor Hansen commented his pet project was Bridge Road, and questioned its relation to Tequesta Plaza and what the time schedules were for Tequesta Plaza, Bridge Road, and the Fire Rescue living quarters. Village Manager Bradford explained that Bridge Road was an important part of this project but could be done separately, and advised decisions must be made whether to spend $475,000 to improve Bridge Road, whether the entire project would be assessed, and when the work would commence. Village Manager Bradford reported various renderings had been done for the Fire Rescue living quarters; however, no firm schedule had been developed for that or for Bridge Road; however, if this project was approved a sequence of events would be developed for Tequesta Plaza and Bridge Road and another sequence for the Fire Rescue living quarters. sP$CIAL VILLAGS COtTNCIL rlrra xzrrarrss December 15, 1998 PAaS 11 Councilmember Cameron questioned what would happen if the Village Council did not approve this project, to which Mr. Zuccarrelli responded his Plan B was that if this project was not approved at tonight's meeting, the old plaza would be modernized and he would try to improve the Bridge Road side of the plaza. Councilmember Cameron questioned whether performance bands could be used, to which Attorney Holton responded by explaining the purpose of a performance bond and expressed his opinion-that such a bond would not ensure the building would be built. Councilmember Capretta explained the village Council did not want Tequesta Plaza renovated because it would still be an °old dump" and their objective had been to get rid of the eyesores in Tequesta, all of which had been gotten rid of except Tequesta Plaza. Councilmember Capretta commented a letter had been received from Tequesta Oaks Homeowners Association in favor of the project, as well as letters from residents who did not want the Village Ha11 next door to the present Village Hall. No commitment had been made regarding a Village Hali, but the Tequesta Plaza project would leave the option open for two years to place it at that location. Councilmember Capretta co~c~anented if the present Tequesta Plaza building was renovated it would bring in a trivial amount of taxes; but if this project was completed it would be worth approximately $10 million and the tax revenue to the Village would be enough to justify paying for the whole project and not cost the taxpayers a cent and make money for the Village. Councilmember Capretta commented he would like to see a cultural center at Tequesta Plaza but if it did not work out, a commercial building would work. Councilmember Capretta commented the sticky point of the project that some people did not like was that the Village would be paying Mr. Zuccarrelli approximately the amount he paid for the whole property for their share and he would still own approximately 60~ of the property; however, Mr. Zuccarrell} may have gotten a bargain and in any case the village had had appraisals SPBCIAh VILLAGE COUNCIL b~BTING MINUTES December 15, 1998 PALL is done to determine the true value. The appraisal showed the amount the Village would pay was within reason. Councilmember Capretta asked Village Manager Bradford to explain why if the Village spent approximately $2 million by paying Mr. Zuccarrelli, demolishing the building, and installing a new road, the village would only have to borrow approximately $1.2 million. Village Manager Bradford responded that it was assumed JMZ would buy back Parcel No. One for $477,000 and the $475,000 for Bridge Road would be paid for by assessments. Councilmember Capretta expressed concern for parking. Village Manager Bradford explained that utilizing existing reciprocal parking, there were 470 potential parking spaces. Adding 53 apartments would change the parking requirements. The first building to be built was described by Mr. Zuccarrelli as 3 stories with 16,000 square feet of retail on the first floor where the present tenants could. ~be relocated. Councilmember Capretta commented he would like to help the Laundromat stay in business if possible. Mr. Zuccarrelli explained that market demands would dictate whether more of the new buildings when built would be used for retail or offices, and he envisioned completing the project in approximately six years at a cost of approximately $10 million if no Village Hall or cultural center were developed. Councilmember Capretta commented tax revenue on the buildings would be approximately $132,000 annually which would cover the debt service with approximately $40,000 annual profit to the Village. Village Manager Bradford explained that State and Federal grants were available to build a cultural facility; however, the maintenance upkeep could be a problem for such an organization. Councilmember Mackail commented this waS the first time an opportunity was in place to improve the Tequesta Plaza site and no one wanted any new taxes. Councilmember Mackail reminded those present that Tequesta Drive had been widened in the past to provide an increased level of service to accommodate development. Councilmember sp$c=AZ, vzr~r~-a$ cov~rc=r. Ms~c=tea ~rro~rss December 15, 1998 PAaB 13 Mackail commented that after studying the packet provided, he had concluded there was economic benefit to the Village. Councilmember Mackail explained that the roadway had been designed at the 1989 charrette to accommodate future growth, which had turned out to be Tequesta Oaks and other properties, Councilmember Mackail commented he did not see an advantage to remodeling the old shopping center since there were already many shopping centers in the Village, all of which were not thriving. Councilmember Mackail expressed his opinion it made sense to move forward with this project, pointed out that other municipalities were redeveloping, and that the number one goal should be to make small business successful. Councilmember Mackail stated he would not have a problem with Village Hall as a central focal point on Tequesta Drive with retail shops and other businesses as a part of that, and envisioned a Public Safety Facility including Fire Rescue and Police on the present site to replace the present 34-year old dilapidated building. Councilmember Mackail explained he had been in favor of a 1.5~ tax increase, or approximately $14 increase per year for an average household, in order to invest in the Village without a great impact to residents. Councilmember Mackail commented Bridge Road was dying without access from U.S. One. Cou.ncilmember Mackail questioned the economic value of this project, to which Village Manager Bradford responded the types of revenue to the Village were property taxes, utility taxes, franchise fees, and State revenues; and property taxes were estimated to increase $72,000+ annually assuming the project ended up as all commercial retail. Adding ali other fees and taxes from the project the total would be $x.32,000 annual revenue to the Village from this project alone, which did not include Spillover effect on Bridge Road and other adjacent properties. Councilmember Mackail commented ~,ighthouse Gallery had asked the Village for years what they could do to help them, and this would provide an opportunity for them to gain a new facility for SPi3CIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL ]1488TING ffiINUT~S December 15, 1998 PACES 14 themselves. consideration discretion. Councilmember Mackail recommended serious of this project and moving forward with Mayor Schauer reported she had met with Mr. Zuccarrelli and Village staff after receiving feedback from residents who did not want a Village Hall downtown, and asked how it would affect his future plans not to have Village Hall as a part of his project, which started the longer renegotiations and development of a plan which could exclude a Village Ha11. The Mayor questioned whether the third floor apartments were planned as rental units, to which Mr. Zuccarrelli responded the apartments were envisioned to be sold as condo units. Village Clerk Manganiello requested Attorney Holton review the modifications to the contract made since the Village Council packets had been prepared. Attorney Holton provided an overview of the changes, including that the present site plan was a preliminary design and final layout of the roadway and property lines between parcels would be finalized during site plan review, with the Village parcel never being less than 52,778 square feet and the roadway never less than the amount mentioned by the Village Manager in his presentation at tonight's meeting. This would give all parties the right to modify parcels slightly during the site plan review. Another change requested by Mr. Zuccarrelli was for either party to consider the granting of utility easements or access easements during site plan review, which the Village agreed to so long as there were no obligations by any parties to grant such easements. Village Manager Bradford requested that neither Mr. Zuccarrelli nor the Village would be required during the time from closing to demolition to bring the property into compliance with Ordinance 377. Landscaping for each building would be completed Stith each building. Attorney Holton verified that regardless of the configuration, the Village would still acquire 80,929 square feet. wording SPECIAL VILLAC~B COIINCIL ~BTINC~ ffiINOTSS December 15, 1998 PACER 15 had also been changed in one of the documents the village would have to deliver in the event Mr. Zuccarrelli repurchased Parcel No. 1. The final change was on Exhibit G, adding two more tenants: Dreamcars, an automobile dealership, and Pechpecalhen Co., a furniture store, and their lease terms. Councilmember Capretta explained that only a few years ago the Village had been broke, with just enough money coming in to pay the bills, and the assessed value of all the property in the Village was only $380 million, with property values declining. The village Council had started a program to try to turn this situation around and provide some money to invest. New development had taken place--Cliveden Condominium, Tequesta Oaks, Sterling House I and Sterling House Tl--and projects to be built were a new post office and a 250-unit upscale rental apartment complex, an 84-unit life care facility, and a facility for the memory impaired. Tax revenues from these projects had freed the Village from having to look at taxes as a way to raise money, and now could make investments. investments made to this point included upgrading Tequesta Park, creating Constitution Park, upgrading the recreation center and signing a contract with the 'YMCA, and improvements to Seabrook Road. Councilmember Capretta Commented that this project was one more step in improving the Village; and~the assessed value of village property was approaching $500 million. Mayor Schauer opened comments from the public. 8atttie Siegel, 498 Dov®r Road, questioned why there was such a big rush to make a decision, to which Mayor Schauer responded that Mr. Zuccarrelli. had a time constraint. Mrs. Siegel stated her opinion that the residents should be given time to absorb the situation and stated her feeling that ordinances regarding purchase of property had not been followed. Mrs. Siegel questioned what the public necessity was, and the Mayor spsclAL vILr~Aa~ covxclL MRBTING MtNOTS3 Decemb®r 15, 1998 PAGFd 16 explained the long process of working out the deal for this project. Mrs. Siegel commented there was an ordinance and also a Florida Statute that required a 30' day notice. Attorney Holton stated he was not familiar with that and Village Manager Bradford stated the village had complied with the 3-day requirement for notice of a special meeting. Nlrs. Siegel questioned the cost if the Village did not build on the property in the next two years, and expressed her confusion. Richard Serube, 4 Couatry Club CirCI®, stated he did not disagree with the principal of a village spending money to encourage a developer to build what the Village wanted. Mr. Berube stated that in this case he wondered how much research had been done regarding the construction of a village Ha11 since most Village Managers agreed the best Village Complex would have all the departments on one site. Mayor Schauer explained that the renegotiation had resulted in no requirement to place village Hall on this site. village Manager Bradford explained that the preferred choice was to have all departments on one site. Councilmember Capretta explained placing Village Hall elsewhere was discussed as a political chip, that a design had been developed for village Hall to be placed next door, and if Mr. Berube had been attending all the village meetings he would have known that because it had been discussed many times over months and months, and added that the City administration had not been on the same site as the other departments for two years which no one seemed to have noticed; and this had nothing to do with tonight's discussion since a City Hall was not the issue. Mr. Berube objected to Mr. Capretta's tone of voice. Mr. Berube raised the problem of parking and stated the only way to have enough parking was to use on-street and shared parking. village Manager Bradford stated parking ih this zoning district was 100 negotiable so that a parking proposal accepted during site plan review would be legal. Mr. Berube stated there was a restaurant across the street the village would not sPl~CIAL i~ILLAGS COUNCIL MSSTING ~INUT$s December 15, 1998 PA©S 17 give a break of extra parking spaces to so that it could be sold and operated as a restaurant, and that the Village was giving Mr. Zuccarrelli a phenomenal break which was an observation based on fact. Mr. Berube stated he was talking about Webster~s Restaurant. Councilmember Capretta explained the Village could not take parking spaces from Mr. Van Brock~s land to give extra parking to Webster~s. Mr. Berube stated Mr. van Brock had made an offer to the Village of a piece of property and the Village never responded. Village Manager Bradford explained that Ntr. Van Brock had received a response; that the price he asked exceeded the appraisals the village had had done on the property adjacent to that he offered which the Village had to buy for the library. village Manager Bradford explained the Village had never had any intention of bu~.lding a Village Ha11 at a site other than next to the present Village Hall and the only reason it was ever discussed and bargained over was if it could make certain things happen in other places. Discussing and negotiating for the possibility of placing the Village Hall at Tequesta Plaza was done because it could have the effect of demolishing an old dilapitated building, and the Village would not contemplate building a Village Hall on Old Dixie Highway on Mr. van Brock's property because it was the highest valued property left in the Village because the Village would not get the same spillover benefit as at Tequesta Plaza. Village Manager Bradford stated the answer to Mr. Berube was the Village never had any intention of placing Village Ha11 in any location except next to the present Village Hall unless there was a secondary benefit to the Village. Mr. Berube stated he did not dispute that reasoning, and dit~ not believe the Village had responded to Mr. van Brock. Mr. Berube questioned what guarantees the tenants would receive that they could move into one of the new buildings and afford the lease amount. village Manager Bradford stated that was between ~'MZ and the tenants. Mr. Zuccarrelli explained there were only two tenants left with leases, and he had met with all the 3PSCIAL VILLAQS CCiIINCIL S~BTIN(~ MTNOTRS December 15, 1998 PAQB 18 tenants and explained their leases would not increase much in a new building because the old owner had charged high lease amounts. Mr. Berube questioned whether third floor apartments were apart of the current plan, which Village Manager Bradford clarified was true. Mr. Berube stated he was very concerned with parking and questioned how much the Village should bend when their history was not to bend so much, and described what he considered to be inadequate parking at 7'equesta Oaks. Mayor Schauer explained the people at Tequesta Oaks had requested the Village help them so that there would not be vehicles parked on the main street at night. Mayor Schauer explained that the plan presented tonight was conceptual and subject to change. Mr. Zuccarrel~.i stated the buildings would be situated to obtain the most parking. Mr. Berube stated nowhere else in town was on-street parking allowed to count far parking places on a personally or business owned parcel and everyone else in town had a reason to object for allowing that to be done to approve this project. Mayor Schauer explained the . Village Council had given the business community a lot of slack in many areas and she felt they had been fair with the businesses, and wanted the businesses to succeed. Basil Dalack, 225 avifvieM Drive, stated that a repurchase of Parcel No. i for $477,000 would mean the Village would end up paying a million dollars for 28,000 square feet. Mr. Dalack advised there could be no damages collected if Mr. Zuccarrelli did not perform because there was no track recprd and damages for a breach of contract could only be based on things that had happened. Mr. Dalack stated he had previously asked the village Manager if he would help get a referendum on this issue and he had replied absolutely not. Mr. Dalack stated that based on Councilmember Cameron's earlier comments this was not a matter of unanimity and one of the reasons for controversy was this was a lot of material to be absorbed in a very short time and he would never sign a contract like this on a 24-hour basis, and 3P8CIAL VILLAQB COIINCIL ~88TINQ ffiIbTtT"P88 December 15, 1998 PAQS 19 there was a legal reason the Village Council should not enter into this contract without having held a referendum. Mr. Dalack commented the Village Manager had stated payment would be by a bond issue. Mr. Dalack called the Village Couneil~s attention to Article 7, Section 12 of the Constitution of Florida and quoted as follows: "Counties, school districts, municipalities, and local governmental bodies with taxing powers may issue bonds, certificates of indebtedness or any form of tax application certificates payable from ad valorem taxation and maturing more than 12 months after issuance only (a? to finance or refinance capital projects authorized by law and only when approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from ta~cation." Mr. Dalack stated that therefore a bond issue could not be approved without a referendum. Village Manager Bradford stated that quote was regarding pledging ad valorem taxes and this would not be an ad valorem taxation bond. Mr. Dalack stated the Village Council was on notice there was a legal problem that if the Village Council approved this project, in his opinion the Village Council was going beyond the scope of its authority and the contract could be rescinded by a Court. Councilmember Capretta questioned whether Mr. Dalack was an attorney, to which Mr. Dalack responded that he was. Qary vaa Srock, 150 atorth U.$. Highxay Oae, questioned whether the appraisal of $1.,431,000 included the land and the building and what was proposed to happen, to which Village Manager Bradford responded that it included the land and the building, that Tequesta would acquire the land under the current building ahd the land for the road, and that Tequesta would own the building and Would demolish the building. Mr. Van Brock commented if the $1,431,000 applied to both land and building it seemed the existing building would support a higher appraisal and then $100,000 would be spent to demolish the building which meant the value then should have only been based on the land. Attorney Holton verified the building was the SPBCIAL VILLAGE COtTNCIL MEBTING ~INUT~S December 15, 1998 PAG]3 2 0 higher part of the appraisal. Mr. Van Brock stated the appraisal was therefore misleading. During discussion, Mr. Zuccarrelli stated the building was not filled with tenants because he had been negotiating with the Village for eleven months and he was getting paid for damages. Mr. Van Brock agreed Mr. Zuccarrelli should get paid for damages but stated Mr. Zuccarrelli was a cooperative developer and a condemnation proceeding was not in order; and that he should negotiate with the village for the price of the land. Mr. Van Brock stated the Village could not support paying for the road and paying for the property without going through a condemnation proceeding. Mr. van Brock stated when he developed a piece of property he had to pay for the road and then had to give it to the Village, and in this case the Village was buying the road from Mr. Zuccarrelli and the Village was going to pave it at taxpayers expense, and he would like to sit in Mr. Zuccarr~lli~s shoes in a sweet deal Like this. village Manager Bradford stated when the village expanded Tequesta Drive they had paid the Dorner Trust for the land, secured a condemnation, and Palm Beach County paid the Dorner Trust when they expanded Old Dixie, and Mr. van Brock had been the beneficiary of condemnation. Mr. Van Brock replied that was true but wanted to know why the land was being taken in this case when they had a cooperative developer. Village Manager Bradford explained the developer might not have ended up to be cooperative. Mr. Van Brock stated the figures did not add up, and referred to his offer of June 12 for land on Old Dixie Highway that needed no condemnation or basic improvements, etc. at $8.50 per square feet for two acres, which could have been expanded, and no one had responded. village Manager Bradford stated Mr. Van Brock made that same proposal at the time the library was built and the Village wrote back that they did not want it, and the same answer stood. Mr. van Brock stated that then the Village had stated they couldn~t afford it, and now the Village was in a position to afford it. Mr. Van Brock objected to the appraisal being based on what was SPBCIAL VILLA(38 CODNCIL ~BTIW(3 MI~i~'P83 December 15, 1998 PAaE 21 proposed and the proposal was to tear down the building, then the Village was not buying a building to keep but was tearing it down. Village Manager Bradford stated the Village still had to pay for the building. Mr. Van Brock stated he just wanted to make the point. Mr. van Brock commented that parking must include reciprocal parking and quoted parking figures presented the first time this project was presented in June, which now changed. Village Manager Bradford responded those figures had been notes made by Mr. Ladd to himself and were based on an old code that was not in force in the mixed use zoning district. Village Manager Bradford explained this property was within the mixed use zoning district in which on-street parking was allowed to be counted and that parking was 100 negotiable within that honing district. Mr. Van Brock stated that in any case there was a parking problem. Mr. Van Brock stated he was a property owner and managed a shopping center and objected to the Village being in the business of competing with private enterprise, especially by creating a joint venture with a private developer which put his shopping center in direct competition with that project. Pain. Cobea asked Mr. Zuccarrelli to provide alternative plans and suggested doing the project in phases without help from the Village. Mr. Zuccarrelli stated the Village would still have an old shopping center with traffic problems and this proposal was not just for Tequesta Plaza but was also to help Bridge Road, anti the Bridge Road business owners were looking forward to that area coming back, new buildings going in, etc., and explained he could not phase on his own because he could not renovate the old building and then tear it down; therefore, his options were either to renovate the old center or do the proposed project, and he must do one or the other very soon because he had spent eleven months in negotiations and it had cost him approximately $200,000 to wait, and time had run out. Mr. Zuccarrelli explained there was no way to save the old building if the road was SP$CIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL MEI3TING ]1~INOTLS December 15, 1998 PAGE 22 built, and the building did have a value on which he paid taxes, and if the building was to be demolished someone had to pay for that. Mr. Zuccarrelli stated he must make the decision to go one way or the other right away, and he could not turn away prospective tenants by telling them he did not know what they were going to do with the property. Mr. Cohen suggested a Plan B+ which could be to fix up the existing building, build a new building in the northeast corner, then a new building in the northwest corner, and ultimately tear down the old building. Mr. Zuccarrelli stated he did not believe he could do it alone. Peggy Verhoeven, Poiat Drive, commented that as a business owner she would not take a business partner because risks were too great, and she had great misgivings becoming partners with a developer. Mrs. Verhoeven expressed her view this was a very complicated plan and wondered whether all these retail and commercial businesses would remain viable, and stated she did not believe businesses could be brought in when the same type of business existed down the road. Mrs. Verhoeven stated everyone might lose because business was just starting to pick up and there were several vacant office spaces, and everyone was trying to survive. Mrs. Verhoeven stated Dreamcars would succeed because it was not competitive. Mrs. Verhoeven expressed her opinion that more time was needed for the residents to absorb the complexity of the proposal and recommended this go to referendum. Mrs. Verhoeven stated Tequesta did not have the same population as other municipalities and County taxes were increasing, and residents might not be able to afford to continue to live in the Village. Mrs. Verhoeven requested Mr. Zuccarrelli extend the time frame on this until after the holidays to allow residents more time to study the proposal, and also suggested Mr. Zuccarrelli might do the project on his own. Araold Blum, 410 Tequesta Drive, stated he saw no clause SPECIAL VILLAQrE COUNCIL ~ETINC3 MINUTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 23 for specific performance in the contract, and the Village would be in partnership for two years in an unknown climate, with the cost of money unknown, and there was no remedy if the contract turned bad. Mr. Blum stated if the Village wanted to invest money, he could tell them where to invest at 50~ guaranteed by first mortgages with less than 60~ loan to value. Mr. Blum stated he applauded the efforts of the Village to bring the new tax base in with the new developments and what had been done to refine the Village infrastructure, improvements to parks, and streetscapes; but he did not believe any money had been funded to a developer from the taxpayers and did not think it was the business of village government to become developers and land speculatgrs. Robert Cook, 17 Bay Harbor, stated he was a lawyer primarily practicing in real estate representing developers. Mr. Cook stated from tonight's comments it seemed there were at least four and possibly five ~iTillage Councilmembers who wanted to approve the project .tonight regardless of comments, and recommended that the entire parcel be appraised for condemnation purposes, and explained that would be a better deal since the Village would own the whole property and could then make a deal with any developer they desired. Mr. Cook commented it was the corporation, JMZ, who would be acting, and questioned whether Mr. Zuccarrelli was personally guaranteeing anything. Attorney Holton verified Mr. Cook's speculation that JMZ was a corporation whose assets were this particular shopping center with a mortgage in favor of Fidelity Federal and stated Mr. Zuccarrelli was not personally guaranteeing repurchase of the property and that there were clauses in the contract that stated if the corporation did not repurchase the Village had the right to bring action to force the corporation to do it or to seek damages in the event they did not live up to their bargain. Mr. Cook commented the amount the Village was paying would pay off the mortgage and the company could then get a largex' mortgage on only SPSCIAL VILLA(38 COUNCIL ~~rzNQ xl~rrss December 15, 1998 PAGR 24 one parcel, and if things did not go well and JMZ no longer existed then the repurchase could not happen, and the right to sue JMZ would be totally illusory. Attorney Holton explained the Village could then sell the property on the open market to another developer or another user of the property. Mr. Cook commented the cost of demolition was not guaranteed, and nobody was guaranteeing the cost of the road, and the cost could be as much as $22 per square foot, which no one would ever pay for the back parcel. Mr. Cook questioned why the Village should take those risks when they could condemn the whole property and own it. Mr. Cook stated the road could cost as much as $40 per square foot, and the repurchase might not happen. Mr. Cook stated the Village needed a letter of credit for $477,000 to guarantee tY~e repurchase. Mr. Cook stated he had spent his life doing deals like this, and stated he did not understand this one. Mr. Cook suggested the Village require the site be grassed and sprinkled during the two years it would take for development so the Village would not have to look at a dustbowl or asphalt for the time required to complete development. Mr. Cook recommended that if the Village Council did not wish to condemn the whole property they should examine this contract carefully and require some of the types of common protection he had discussed, and bring this back after the first of the year. Jim 8umpage, 426 North Cypress Drive, thanked Mr. Cook for his comments and agreed with Counciimember Cameron that this meeting should have been handled in some other manner with more citizens given an opportunity to be present. Mr. Humpage recommended the Village Council take more time to consider this matter. Mayor Schauer called an adjournment for a few minutes to allow the Recording Secretary to change the tapes. The meeting reconvened at 10:13 p.m. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. CouncilMembers SPECIAL VILLAC~g COUNCIL MSS'1'IN(,~ MINOTBB December 15, 1998 PAC#~ 2 5 present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen, and Councilmembers Alexander W. Cameron, Joseph N. Capretta, and Ron T. Mackail. Jim Humpag®, 426 ]forth Cypress Street, continued his comments. Mr. Rampage asked those present to remember that the Village Hall was not an issue tonight and to stay focused on the land deal. Mr. Rampage commented he believed the ta~c revenue would be there whether or not the Village was a part of this deal, and questioned whether the new road which would benefit the businesses on Bridge Road might generate traffic problems at the new intersection. Mr. Rampage stated he was not receptive to apartments on this property. Mr. Rampage stated he disagreed with Mr. Capretta~s conception of the old shopping center and he did not think it would be an ugly piece of property after compiiarice with ordinance 377, and no money would have to be spent to accomplish this.. Mr. Rampage expressed his opinion that Mr. Van Brock's property would be much cheaper. Mr. Rampage stated he realized the intent of staff and the Village Council was good, but he did not believe this was a good. deal for the Village and there were serious things tq think about before making a decision. Mr. Rampage stated he was opposed to making a move of this magnitude in such a short amount of time. Sheri Mahler, Southeast Lakeside Drive, Tequesta, explained she had been asked to attend this meeting on behalf of her neighbors, whose median age was late 30~s and early 40~s. Ms. Mahler commented there had been so much negativity expressed and this was a beautiful town and Mr. Zuccarrelli was willing to put himself on the line to make Tequesta the kind of town where she wanted to Iive. Ms. Mahler stated this was an ugly shopping center in a beautiful town. Ms. Mahler questioned where the approximately 500 new residents in thg new upscale rental development would eat and shop. Ms. Mahler commented that instead of so much negativity it would be SPECIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL b~ETING MINDTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 26 nice if someone would say something positive about possibly having a nice development which would build revenue for the Village, and she was amazed and shocked at all the negativity expressed. Ms. Mahler suggested possible valet parking under agreement with the shopping center on U.S. One where Blockbuster video was located. Ms. Mahler urged that a decision be made rather than wait more years for something to be done on this property, and discussed the revenue realized by Boca and South Beach after redevelopment. Doha Giba, Fairviear East, TeQuesta, complimented the Village Councilmembers and stated they were working hard for the best interests of the Village. Mr. Giba commented it was a far cry from the vision and the implementation of the project, and KISS (keep it simple stupid) should be applied. Mr. Giba stated this proposal was very complicated and the more people involved in a project the more complications arose. Mr. Giba asked Mr. Zuccarrelli to keep in mind that this area was over 98~r built out and there were vacancies in shops and offices, and the Village needed more spendable dollars to spend in the shops that were existing, rather than more spaces to fill. Mr. Giba expressed his opinion that it was dangerous for a municipality to get into the real estate business because it was risky and was in competition with other real estate. Mr. Giba recalled an Ordinance which required unity of title in any development, which meant the developer had to provide all parking on the site, but stated that had broken down. In summation, Mr. Giba stated that from experience he could see problems down the road as to risk of development and the possibility of the developer going out of business, financial hurt, and litigation. Mr. Giba stated he did not have the numbers, but had a feel for what was right. Hattie Siegel declined the Mayor's invitation to speak again in accordance with a second card she had submitted. s SPECIAL VILLAQ~E COUNCIL MBETIN(3 MINUTES December 15, 1998 PAC3E 27 Mayor Schauer reported Vincent Sama had called her to state he could not attend the meeting and had asked her to read his letter representing the opinion of the Tequesta Oaks Homeowners Association into the record. Mayor Schauer read Mr. Sama's letter into the record. The letter expressed total support of any action the Village Council must take to accomplish improvement of Tequesta Plaza and support for the owner's efforts to beautify the downtown area. The letter has been attached to and made a part of these minutes as Exhibit A". V, CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZAT'IOW FOR STAFF TO CLOSE ON SAS. Village Manager Bradford commented the Village Council had the contract in front of them and had had the basics of the deal for over a month. Mayor Schauer explained the Village Manager had wanted to have this meeting a month ago and had called the Village Councilmembers and asked them individually if they would be available. They had all accepted and the date had been set. Mr. Zuccarrelli had then had a family emergency and had been called qut of town, so the meeting was never held, but the village Council did know about the meeting and that it had been postponed. Village Manager Bradford continued that the agreement, other than the changes enumerated by Attorney Holton, was essentially the same as transmitted in summary to the village CounCilmembers over a month ago, that it had been explained at length, and that staff recommended adoption to let staff proceed with their previous instructions relative to renovating the central business district of Tequesta, and requested the adoption take glace that evening. Councilmember Mackail questioned village Manager Bradford regarding why the village did not condemn the whole property as Mr. Cook suggested. Village Manager Bradford replied the main problem would have been that it would SPECIAL VILLAt~$ COUNCIL M88TING MINUTSs December 15, 1998 PAGE 28 not have been a friendly condemnation and the Village would have had to pay attorneys' fees and costs that would have made the price even higher than at present. Attorney Holton confirmed that after consideration, based on the advice of Adams Weaver, an attorney in his firm, this course had not been pursued. Councilmember Mackail suggested JMZ be asked to provide a letter of credit in the amoutn.t of $477, 000 to guarantee the repurchase. Mr. Zuccarrelli stated he was not willing to place $477,000 into an account to just sit for two years as surety for a letter of credit to guarantee the repurchase pr~.ce, and discussed the lengths he had gone to in order to try to accomplish what both he and the Village had in mind. Mr. Zuccarrelli stated it all came down to whether Tequesta wanted a shopping center or a new Town Center. Councilmember Capretta reviewed the issues brought up by the residents, and agreed that the Village's attorneys should look for some kind of assurance to protect the Village from the risk of not being able to sell the property back to Mr. Zuccarrelli. Mr. Capretta made a motion to approve the proposed purchase if two conditions were agreed to: (1) that some type of financial guarantee was found to assure the repurchase could take place, and (2) that the agreement would not be effective until January 15, 1999 to allow time for this concern to be addressed. Councilmember Mackail asked Attorney Holton if he could think of any mechanism which would allow the Village to have those types of safeguards in place, and expressed his agreement with Mr. Zuccarrelli that he had negotiated in good faith. Attorney Holton stated that several mechanisms were available, including the letter of credit already discussed, some of the purchase price could be placed into escrow, and other ways could be pursued; however, to secure the $477,000 would have costs attached. Mayor Schauer pointed out the Village could sell the parcel to another buyer. Attorney Holton stated the Village might get more than $477,000 or less than $477,000 by selling r SP8CIAL VILLAGB COUNCIL ~BTING MIN'l7TES December 15, 1998 PAG13 2 9 on the open market. Mr. Zuccax on Mr. Van Brock~s figures, ir. be worth $9 per square foot o Mayor Hansen stated he had i Village could sell to another x $477,000, which had already b Councilmember. Councilmember Village had an opportunity to Mr. Zuccarrelli was taking r. taking some risks, but it wa: should be done and recommended :elli commented that based two years the land should ~ the open market. vice Mended to point out the iyer for more or less than yen brought up by another Cameron stated that the fix the problem and that sks and the Village was an important thing that ;he Village Council get on with it. After additional comments by Councilmember Mackail, Mr. Zuccarrelli proposed that the amount of risk be split so that he would provide a personal guarantee for half of the $477, 000, or $250, 000, for two years. Attorney Holton explained that the way that guarantee would work was if at the end of two years Mr. Zuccarrelli did not repurchase the property under the contract then the Village wou~.d have the right to sell it in the open market. If the sale price was less than $477,000 and the village was damaged because Mr. Zuccarrelli did not live up to his end of the bargain, then the Village could bring a lawsuit against Mr. Zuccarrelli for the shortfall, and Mr. Zuccarrelli was willing to personally guarantee up to $250,000 of that shortfall. Greg Grudavich questioned what the Village was guaranteeing to assure they would pave the road, and stated it worked both ways. Attorney Holton was questioned as to whether he felt Mr. Zuccarrelli~s offer was a good deal for the Village. Attorney Holton responded it was a better deal than the one the Village now had. Councilmember Capretta commented it would cut in half the risk to the Village. Mr. Cook suggested the possibility of Mr. Zuccarrelli placing a mortgage on the property. Councilmember Capretta stated he would change his motion. Couacilmember Capretta made a motioa to approve the proposed purchase of Tequesta Plaza property contingent SPECIAL VILLAGE COIINCIL FETING NIN~TES December 15, 1998 PAGE 30 --------------- upon a $250,000 personal guarantee provided by Nr. Zuccarrelli is regard to his repurchase at the aced of two years of the laced oa-aed by the Village. Couacilmember Nackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion arcs: Elizabeth A. Schauer - far Carl C. 8aasea - for Alexander N. Cameron - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Roa T. Nackail - for The motion area therefore passed aced adopted. vI. ANY oTaER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Village Council. VII. ADJQIIR~NT Vice Mayor 8aasea moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion eras: gl3zabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. 8aasea - for Alexaade~ N. Cameron - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Roa T. Mackail - for The motion eras therefore passed and adopted aced the meeting area adjourned at 11:02 P.M. SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL ~dEBTING MINUTES December 15, 1998 PAGE 31 Respectfully submitted, 1 ~;G~. _.J Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: From. vtnc~nt J Same To: Lis Sch~u~r Datr. Timr 5:02:28 PM P~y~ 2 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" Tequesla Oaks Homeo>`vners Association Decembct 1 S, 1998 Ms. Liz Schauer Town Nall Teyuesta F1334b9 Dear Ms. Sol~aucr: I am writing to you as President of the Tequesta Oaks Homeowners tlssociation. I was inturmed by the Town offices today that the Village Council is holding a meeting tonight to discuss the future development of the Shopping Plaza located on Tequesta Drive just opposite our community. This item is of orifice! importance to our community. The vondition ofthe txisting plaza is deplorable and not bcfttting the reputation and status of Tequesta. The current owner is on record as supporting a total reno~•ation ofthe enure Plaza: Our community of 1 SS homeowners is in total support of'any action the Council must take to accomplish the hoped for improvement. As taxpayers, we encourage the Town W cooperate fully with the owner and support his eflbns to beautify our dov~•ntown area, It is our opinion that the beautification cftbrt will also result in an increase in tax revenues to the Town. The rcaidetrts of our community must ~~iew the eye sore every time we enter and leave our homes. since our homes ace Lhe only residential neighbors to the Plaza we hope the Council would give ~x-r view additional vonsidcration. P~ R Y` 1 1 Unfortunately I have a conflict tonight and will be unable to attend and personally present the above oommerrty. 1 hereby request the placement of these oorrunents in the public record.