[7:41] Workshop, September 15th, 2026. I'd like to call this meeting door.

[7:50] Now, if we could please stand for pledging allegiance to

[7:57] the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic, from which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[8:12] City Clerk, please call roll. Good evening. Vice Mayor Vazquez, here, Commissioner Clark. Here. Mr. Szan, here. Commissioner Dickey. Here. Mayor Doctor.

[8:21] Here.

[8:21] Thank you.

[8:23] And at this point, we have only one discussion item, and it is for a presentation from

[8:32] Raft Tillis.

[8:37] Can you all hear me okay?

[8:40] The light wasn't on.

[8:41] I just want to make sure I can hear myself.

[8:42] So, for the record, my name is Terry Belvery with Raft Talis, and I have a, actually kind of

[8:50] a lengthy presentation, but only because we're going to be addressing some frequently asked questions that have come up in prior sessions.

[8:57] But before we do that, I was planning to provide everyone an update of the project and where we're at.

[9:08] Okay, so I think I know this is a small font.

[9:11] We've sort of presented this before and shown it, but we began this whole process back in April of this year.

[9:20] And that was originally the project management and planning phase.

[9:26] The second phase was from April to July.

[9:30] That's where we were doing review and assessment, identifying strategies, things like that.

[9:37] Right now we find ourselves in the July to September timeframe right in the middle in that third phase, which is the engagement, visioning modeling.

[9:44] And I'm going to talk a little bit more about that on the next slide about what we've accomplished so far

[9:48] and where we're at with some of our other core items.

[9:52] But we're getting really close to October.

[9:55] And in October, we're going to be providing reports

[9:57] and a lot of the findings associated with...

[10:00] With all the work that we've been doing. And then that will conclude everything once we come back in the October through December timeframe will be just presenting everything to the public so that they aware of everything and all the details and the financial analysis. So there were three core technical components and two core engagement components. The engagement components included high level survey from residents. And then my colleague

[10:29] Cheryl Trent, who's a project manager for the engagement,

[10:33] could be here this evening, so I'm staying in her stead this evening,

[10:36] to meet and do some community engagement events,

[10:40] as well as get input from you all, our governing body,

[10:45] and incorporate that information to the study.

[10:49] The three core technical components of this study

[10:51] was to develop a financial model.

[10:54] And with me here today virtually is Stephen McDonald,

[10:57] who led the development of the financial model and he can answer more detailed and detailed

[11:04] than I can about any sort of specific questions anyone may have about that.

[11:09] So he's available this evening for us.

[11:11] And some of the questions he may be able to elaborate more on when we get into the FAQ section.

[11:16] There's also the general fund sustainability model.

[11:20] And that's something that allows us to assess bigger picture, how does changes to land use

[11:25] code and redevelopment, maybe more broadly, how that might affect the overall general

[11:30] fund for the community, but it also provides some additional benefits we can evaluate different

[11:35] sorts of things that you may be thinking.

[11:37] I understand today you're going to be discussing the budget so we can incorporate that kind

[11:43] of thing into the financial model, the general fund model, and then look at how that's going

[11:48] to play out over the next several years with some of the proposed amendment and other things

[11:54] that could impact the general fund, and then there's another item, the review of existing codes and regulations.

[12:03] And I've got a little bit more detail on the next few slides, so I won't explain everything just off of this slide.

[12:10] But all of that was achieved through sort of nine project tasks off to the right, which have already been presented in the past.

[12:17] So as it relates to sort of the first technical component, the financial model.

[12:23] It's designed to help you identify different zoning regulations on the commercial redevelopment

[12:30] targets, how that's going to change the fundamental financials, and we'll talk about that in

[12:37] a little bit more detail with FAQs, and we're preparing a detailed report with the impact

[12:43] of each scenario.

[12:44] One of the things that we did was present, based on the highest and best use for the property,

[12:50] And we got some additional comments from folks, including the public about other types of scenarios that folks would like to explore for some of the redevelopment.

[13:00] And so we're exploring additional scenarios.

[13:03] And I actually brought a template just to ensure that we're being transparent with not only you all but with members of the public around.

[13:14] And because back in August, my colleague, Steven, who's on the call, had given a presentation and we had demonstrated some of the financial feasibility under some, under a highest and best use case hypothetical for the property where the Thunderbird sits, to sort of demonstrate how it wouldn't really be viable.

[13:39] and there were a lot of questions from the public and so I think what we wanted to be able to do and one of those things was that we weren't exactly because we weren't willing to share the model that we weren't being transparent and that, you know, we're, you know, things are black boxed and we took that really to heart some of the commentary there and we want to make sure that we're being absolutely transparent with everyone.

[14:05] And so some of the stuff that we'll be releasing in the near future is going to include all the detailed calculations that were relied upon in that presentation presented as well as any additional scenarios that we're going to be looking at that we're going to have all the calculations for those other scenarios and then that way everybody can see for themselves like how we're arriving at the calculations.

[14:30] When can we expect that I think really soon, like in the next two weeks or so, I'm guessing we just need to perform some of the analysis on the other scenarios.

[14:41] We just got that information this week, but it doesn't take us that long to run the scenarios, but I don't want to like over promise and under deliver so I might want to just have a conversation with Cheryl and then we can get back with city staff and give you a firm, deliverable expectation for that.

[14:58] I don't know.

[15:00] I don't know, Stephen, if you wanted to weigh in at all.

[15:05] No, I think that that's fair, Terry. We're working on them now, and it won't take us that long to complete all the scenarios. So a few week, a couple of weeks is a good guess.

[15:22] For full transparency, can you elaborate the scenarios?

[15:27] I wasn't prepared this evening to go into that, but I think, you know,

[15:33] So is there a way, Steven, you might be able to characterize the range of this in areas

[15:37] that we're looking at?

[15:39] Yeah.

[15:39] First of all, thank you.

[15:41] Yeah.

[15:42] I think, though, the best way to respond to that, too, is we want to make sure everybody

[15:49] understands, you know, it's one thing to take our financial model and, frankly, take

[15:58] math and do simple calculations like density, right? It's easy to take a parcel and calculate

[16:06] what density can be, but it's a lot different when you have to basically try to design

[16:12] that density. I mean, there are certain constraints, for example, if you go from surface parking

[16:22] to structured parking, and again, we had a lot of conversation about structured parking

[16:25] the last presentation, the notion of structured parking is if I have a footprint, if I'm trying

[16:32] to maximize my coverage of my footprint, I might design these levels and given industry

[16:39] standard spacing requirements, you know, I'm going to have 35 spaces per floor, say, for example.

[16:47] Well, that's not always, if you do four floors, that may over-deliver parking.

[16:52] If you do three floors, it's going to under-deliver parking.

[16:55] The actual design and construction of product doesn't always exactly match things like density.

[17:04] So as we've reviewed some of these scenarios, I think we want to make sure everybody understands

[17:10] you can't just apply coverage and assume I'm going to be able to design a building to match

[17:15] exact coverage.

[17:17] So we're getting back with staff to just refine the scenario.

[17:20] so I think the best way to describe them would be you clearly have an existing case scenario.

[17:28] We can design things, we can estimate like we did with that hypothetical development

[17:34] the last time based on current code and of course you go to a book end which might be

[17:39] you know a maximum concept and then there's there's always variations in between but

[17:48] We just need to make sure everybody's aware that, for example, just because you add five feet to height, it's not going to change anything.

[17:59] You know, you don't get a floor. You don't get an extra story in the building. Just because you go to 60 to 65 feet doesn't mean you get more development.

[18:07] So we just want to make sure that we've refined those, but I think the best way to describe is you've got your current state, and there's a potential max.

[18:16] So there will be some scenarios in between.

[18:18] But I would say that the main thing is is that we understand that folks want to see more scenarios, and they want to look at it differently.

[18:25] And what we're trying to do is present those options for everyone.

[18:28] And we're trying to present like reasonable ones as well that are in between the book ends, but also like what has come up, you know,

[18:37] from folks from the public, from you all, and you're going to have the scenarios very

[18:45] soon, and we can take feedback from you about that.

[18:57] And then the general fund sustainability model, just to update you, we've made our team

[19:05] has made really great progress.

[19:07] The model is actually built at this point, but it requires a lot of assumptions, a few more

[19:12] assumptions to go into it, so we're definitely on track with the general fund model.

[19:17] It differs from the model that Steven's been running and developing because Steven's

[19:23] been looking at the finances on a per project basis, like a redevelopment project basis.

[19:29] The general fund model is more a model of your overall governmental financials and how potentially

[19:36] actually some of the changes you may be envisioning how that might revolve a result in different

[19:43] development within the community and is that going to have a material effect or not like

[19:47] on the general finances for the municipality.

[19:50] So that's going to be what that tool is going to be for.

[19:54] Have you all worked with Victor or Chief Financial Officer with that?

[19:59] Yes sir.

[20:00] Yeah, yeah, we've been, we requested a lot of data from Victor and trial balances, cash balances, all that kind of information to feed it into the model. And generally, when we build these kind of models, we always do our due diligence and historically back test it is a way to sort of characterize that so then that way of confidence and the projections. And then once we have that model developed, then we can run alternative scenarios

[20:31] And again, you know, the benefit of that tool is it's not limited to just this exercise with the commercial redevelopment.

[20:37] You could use it for other analytical purposes as well, you know, should you choose.

[20:42] But that's not the focus and why we were building it.

[20:45] We were just trying to be able to demonstrate to the public bigger picture of some of these changes.

[20:49] Like would it have an effect or not?

[20:51] And, you know, yeah, more broadly speaking, that was the objective.

[20:58] The last thing was the review of the existing codes and regulations.

[21:02] We did, we're doing final QAQC on that, and that should be available next month with the full report.

[21:13] So that will kind of capstone some of the basis for all the inputs.

[21:18] I know last time when we did the presentation, there were some concerns about some of the details.

[21:28] like have we reflected it correctly?

[21:30] And I think that there are some things that were not material to the findings from the last meeting,

[21:35] but were not correct like the parking spaces.

[21:38] And so, Steven's corrected that, we've corrected that, and then we also have the due diligence that we're doing on the code review to make sure that we're not going to miss any of those points.

[21:47] So that's the third element of the technical component.

[21:53] The surveys are already been done, we have the responses back.

[21:57] I wasn't planning to speak to that this evening, really, Cheryl's been keeping that with my colleague Claire Pritchard, who isn't here today to speak to that.

[22:08] So I wouldn't really want to get into the details of it.

[22:11] So if I said to say, I know that the results are available, staff's reviewing them, and we're going to have them to you really soon or shortly.

[22:20] The other one was the community meetings, so Cheryl had those, I think she's got feedback

[22:26] and she's compiling that, again, all of this stuff is going to be coming back to you in

[22:29] short order.

[22:30] So today is just a very brief status meeting to let you know, are we on track, not on

[22:35] track, and then also to spend a little bit more time with you going over the financial

[22:39] model and some FAQ questions.

[22:44] This is just a breakdown of all the deliverables from the engagement.

[22:48] I'm not going to go through each one of these, but it's included in the PowerPoint presentation

[22:54] for folks to look back over if they're wondering about what are some of the things that we're

[22:59] going to be producing as an output of this exercise.

[23:05] And this allows us to kind of get into more of the questions that FAQ's about the financial

[23:11] model.

[23:11] So Steven was the one that went back and based on the prior meetings kind of compiled a series

[23:18] of questions and then put some answers, I hope you don't mind some of these, I might

[23:22] just be like reading from the slide, but I think the benefit is that, you know, we have

[23:27] Stephen here that can address more detailed follow-up questions, should there be any?

[23:32] Or if you all have any questions, and hopefully this will be helpful, this could be something

[23:37] that we can even put on the website to provide more information to the public, and certainly

[23:43] if there are more questions that we need an answer to, we can work on those as well.

[23:51] So, what is the main purpose of the financial model?

[23:54] And it's to illustrate how the changes in development constraints would impact the financial performance of a development option.

[24:00] Holding all else constant says an economic terminology and we just want to clarify what is holding all else constant really mean.

[24:08] It's an economic term that applies to measuring a change in one factor can only occur if you keep all other factors constant.

[24:13] So, it's a way for us to control and then be able to say, like, if we keep everything

[24:18] else the same, this is the outcome that, you know, we would expect.

[24:22] So, it's a common way that we do these types of analyses.

[24:27] Is the financial model considered an industry standard method of financial modeling development?

[24:34] Yes, it's based on concepts that emerged in the 70s and the standard model for approaching

[24:39] real estate acquisition development and financing.

[24:41] And if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to jump in.

[24:49] Is the financial model based on highest-invest use?

[24:52] Yes, assuming there's market demand for a hypothetical development.

[24:56] One thing I want to mention is that in one of the...

[25:00] The presentation that Stephen gave, he had done some light work on market demand. So he did, you know, the distance, sort of like a ring study distance from, you know, the city and how much do we have of this kind of retail or, you know, like John's passes example has a lot of the retail. You wouldn't replicate John's pass again down here because you have John's pass up there. So there are some of these things that are important.

[25:28] And I think one of the members of the public made a comment when I was in meeting and indicated why haven't we done like a market demand study.

[25:37] That wasn't the focus of this study, but it would be really valuable to do an evaluation like that.

[25:43] So we wouldn't say not to do that, but just to kind of better explain highest and best use concept.

[25:51] But it suggests that a development is legally permissible, physically possible, market

[25:56] supportable, and provides maximum economic benefit.

[26:00] Now, why is it that we use the highest-invest use?

[26:04] Because a development may not work if it's not at that highest-invest use, so we try to

[26:10] start with that.

[26:10] That's actually why back on the 18th, when Steven did the presentation, he was presenting

[26:17] a hypothetical highest-invest use for the property.

[26:19] And it was a little bit different from maybe what was originally proposed.

[26:24] So I think there was some confusion over what we were actually, what's even was actually

[26:28] presenting on the 18th with the property.

[26:33] And so one of the scenarios that we're looking at is actually like what was the original

[26:36] proposal for the hotel and what would that look like.

[26:42] So we're actually doing that among other scenarios.

[26:48] What measure of financial performance does the model provide?

[26:52] In this case, it's the standard residual land value model, and

[26:57] it indicates how much is available to pay for land considering the market value of development,

[27:02] subtracting all these other costs that are enumerated, you know, construction costs, soft costs overhead,

[27:08] marketing and sales costs, any carry costs, tax, and normal profit margin.

[27:14] So, that's basically what goes into the analysis and how we're able to, you know, so that's the whole approach of the model that Stevens developed.

[27:22] Does the financial model measure IRR know the financial models intended to indicate how locally imposed legal constraints, land use and zoning and physical property constraints would likely limit certain types and intensity development?

[27:36] So it is a development, financial model, not an operating financial model, and that's why I just want to make sure everybody's okay with that.

[27:49] Does the financial model indicate if there is a market demand for specific type of development, I already kind of touched on this.

[27:55] No, we didn't do a formal market study, although Stephen did present on it, I think a few presentations ago, a high level kind of market analysis.

[28:05] Our financial model assumes that there is sufficient market demand and only test legal

[28:09] physical and economic constraints.

[28:11] So we're really focused on a few commercial properties and we already have some plans

[28:18] for what those are and so we're evaluating that as part of this evaluation and focused

[28:25] on that.

[28:28] Can the financial model be used to validate an application for land use or zoning?

[28:32] Yes, however, it's important to note that the model would not account for market segment or market brand requirements.

[28:38] For example, lodging industry can be segmented into multiple target markets such as luxury or budget,

[28:43] full service or limited, tourist or business, national brand or boutique, et cetera, et cetera.

[28:48] So there are these variations and Steven's got a challenging task because he's got to make assumptions about

[28:53] where some of this development for highest and best use falls in there.

[28:57] So, you know, that it's important to make these disclosures.

[29:03] Is actual price for land considered in the financial model when validating a project?

[29:08] No.

[29:09] I know that a lot of people have a difference of opinion publicly about that.

[29:14] But the idea is that that is the fair market value the land.

[29:18] And if you don't look at the project with that baked in,

[29:22] And the landowner could always sell the land to realize that value in the moment.

[29:29] So when you're doing these types of valuations, it's standard practice to reflect it at the market value of the land.

[29:34] And that can go both ways.

[29:36] That can go positive or negative.

[29:39] And there's a lot of speculation and risk involved in real estate development.

[29:42] Most people will recognize and understand.

[29:46] But this is the explanation as to why you wouldn't or you would reflect it at the market value.

[29:56] How sensitive are the results of the financial model?

[29:59] it can be written.

[30:00] Really relatively sensitive to small changes in individual assumptions. However, significant variances in the results could likely be a function of poor application of the model. For example, there is generally 100 to 150% difference in hard construction cost per square foot between the best quality and lowest quality construction. Steven, if you're available, I wasn't sure if you wanted to expand a little bit on this question and answer for everyone in the public.

[30:28] Yeah, Jerry, I just think, um, you know, as we go through this and there's there has been a lot of focus on well, what was your assumption for for laying value or was what was your assumption for construction cost?

[30:39] I just want to make sure again as we walk through and present scenarios, um, the results of scenarios we can make and can adjust.

[30:52] But what is critical is if you change one assumption more than likely, it requires you to change another assumption in the model.

[31:02] And again, we go back to, I think everybody sometimes gets in their mind, oh, there's only one construction cost for a hotel.

[31:10] Well, as I think we illustrated many months ago before we even did the October presentation, the cost of a hotel room,

[31:17] and constructing a hotel room can vary widely.

[31:20] So if you take the model,

[31:22] and if you want to assume high quality construction,

[31:25] you also have to assume high ADR.

[31:28] They go hand in hand.

[31:30] You're gonna require, or you're gonna expect,

[31:32] as a hotel operator, you're gonna expect high ADRs

[31:35] when you're delivering a high quality product.

[31:37] If you wanna go in the model

[31:38] and make something financially feasible

[31:41] by assuming a low quality construction,

[31:43] and then you have to go in and do budget ADRs,

[31:47] budget hotel ADRs because you can't command quality ADRs

[31:52] if you're not delivering quality products.

[31:54] So it's just important that, you know, yes,

[32:01] every employee, every assumption can have a range of value,

[32:06] but it's probably most critical to make sure,

[32:08] if you're changing one thing, one assumption,

[32:11] you probably need to make sure you're changing all of the assumptions that go along with it.

[32:15] Yeah, and it's important to mention that, you know, we're an independent firm. I mean, we don't have

[32:19] any preference one way or another of the outcome. So, you know, Steven's just applying his experience

[32:27] in doing this kind of work for, I don't want to say like 50 years, I think, but it's been a very long

[32:34] time that Stephen's been doing this and I think that he's just trying to apply industry

[32:41] best practices to how he makes these assumptions and to his point is that, and that's one

[32:48] of the reasons why I think there was hesitancy around like providing the model because if

[32:52] folks don't know to do those things then they're going to potentially come up with a lot

[32:56] of scenarios that may not be viable potentially but that being said, we want to be completely

[33:02] transparent about how he's doing these calculations and arriving at the values.

[33:07] And so we're trying to make a good level of effort to provide that and also run additional scenarios.

[33:15] And ideally, the scenarios that we're looking at are going to capture the book ends and in between.

[33:21] So if there are other alternative scenarios that you would be looking at, that it would fall between those different categories.

[33:27] So then that way, you know, we can speak to even some of these other scenarios that may be envisioned, potentially.

[33:36] Is there only one acceptable answer for proposed development using this model? No, there could be literally dozens of possible development scenarios.

[33:45] And I think one way to think about that is, you know,

[33:51] when we do a lot of this modeling, we always try to identify what our book ends.

[33:55] And then you know you can think that anything between those bookends is a possible scenario you could run.

[34:02] And that's a way to sort of think about it.

[34:04] So you could have almost an infinite number of different scenarios that you could operate in between those bookends.

[34:11] By changing one scenario or one assumption or another assumption or modulating those assumptions a little bit.

[34:17] But it's not always necessary to run each and every one of those because if you know what the bookends are and you know some other parameters

[34:24] then you can rule out some other things, assumptions that, you know, for example, to Steven's point, if you had the height to 60 or 65, if you needed 70 to get the extra story, whether you run 66 or 67 or 68, it's not going to change the outcome.

[34:42] So that's the point that I'm trying to make.

[34:47] Does the model use proprietary or hidden assumptions or formulas?

[34:52] No, I think that there was a comment because we didn't provide the model that there was concerned by the public that it was.

[35:00] We didn't have transparency around how we're doing the calculations, and I just want to put that to rest that we're not doing that. We're going to be providing all the calculations and all of the assumptions for all the scenarios we're running. And it should be included in our report as well if it isn't separately provided.

[35:19] What are the sources for assumptions used in the model? All assumptions are derived from industry standards, as I mentioned earlier. Manuals of practice or cost models, such as construction, cost estimating, engineering, and

[35:32] construction management and this is Stephen doing a three extensive experience in development

[35:37] of performance.

[35:41] It has been noted that construction costs could have a 100% to 150% range of difference

[35:48] based on quality.

[35:49] Are there assumptions in the financial model?

[35:51] Are there any assumptions in the financial model constant?

[35:55] The only assumption in the model that generally does not have a potential range of values is the

[35:58] assumption of the tax rate.

[36:00] So, I think that was a little bit to just point out that, you know, that's why you can have so many different scenarios depending on what you want to adjust within the auto.

[36:15] We've gone through all of the FAQs based on the feedback that we received from the public and everyone, and you know, just want to open it up for some Q&A and try to do our best to answer all of your questions this evening.

[36:29] and anything that we can't answer on the spot, we can certainly circle back with and get you answers.

[36:40] Here, on several of the sides, you'd mentioned how you consider Steve is considering legal and physical requirements when playing around with that model.

[36:54] How do you overlap, and I really don't know the answer to this question, but how do you overlap public what you're hearing from the public,

[37:01] public, the feedback that you're getting from the public about, we've asked a lot of questions,

[37:07] you know, what's your vision, what's your aspirations, what do you want this community to look like,

[37:12] how do you incorporate those into the financial models? So yeah, I mean that's a really great question,

[37:19] I don't know if you would incorporate it into the financial models, if the goal of the financial

[37:24] models to evaluate the profitability of like certain types of developments, but they do express

[37:30] themselves when, you know, the public has input around density height development, these types of broader goals are objective for the community or how the community wants to look, right?

[37:44] And I think that the feedback that we've been doing through the outreach that Cheryl and Claire and the team have done is going to work itself into our report findings and recommendations.

[37:59] And then that information is going to be available to you as the governing body to make a decision about later on about whether you want to change certain parameters around your plan development, assuming that it comports with all requirements at the county level as well.

[38:21] I have a question, we heard a lot tonight about the financial model and that and that's all super important part of this.

[38:27] I know there's also component of the survey and kind of what residents said they wanted around, you know, height, density, and also what they wanted just in the town in general.

[38:39] When is that going to be rolled in, and we're going to see some of that because to me, I think resident input is one of the most important things that we can get.

[38:46] Yeah, so the, the, I think all those reports are getting released to staff in the next week or so when I talked to Claire earlier this evening, who's working with Cheryl on that, and I think we have a deadline no later than mid-October for the overall report, which would include all of that, so I would say in a matter of weeks, all this information will become available.

[39:10] Well,

[39:16] I hope to see a financial model for the Thunderbird location as soon as available with all the parameters that Mr. McDonald will input with, but I'd like to see like the 5 over 1 with 106 units and 64 height limit and then 80 feet up to 100 units per acre or 184 units, which I understand was requested by the Thunderbird owners, so that's all I have.

[39:47] Yeah, I've agreed with that. I've given that feedback to Cheryl. I think the Thunderbirds

[39:52] a good example. Probably one of the easiest ones you're going to have to work with. Yeah,

[39:56] because you've got the baseline of the 106 units. You've got their

[40:00] They came forth and asked for, which was county, max, 184. And then, so those two scenarios, and then is there anything in between those two still is profitable for the owner developer of the property? Yeah, Steven's looking at that. And I think we're working with staff to identify a few of those that might help better answer and guide everybody. But if we don't hit the mark on the things that we want to look at, we can certainly entertain more.

[40:28] Yeah, one of the things that I've been addressing is we have a very nice city here, and the cost of some of this where we go to the lowest quality versus the best quality.

[40:46] And I would assume that with the homes we're building, million dollar homes, that we're not going to put six motel sixes in.

[40:57] and then basically say, wow, I'm scratching my head.

[41:00] You know, why did we do this?

[41:02] Because the quality of a motel six

[41:04] isn't anywhere near the quality

[41:06] of some of the higher-end stuff with Marriott.

[41:10] Yeah, I mean, Steven, I was wondering if you heard

[41:12] that question, if you wanted to weigh in.

[41:16] Yeah, absolutely.

[41:17] I mean, I think our broad assumption going,

[41:19] you know, from the beginning straight in

[41:21] is any resort community that has an amenity

[41:25] like ocean front and already has properties that are at the higher end but certainly a lot

[41:32] of properties that need to be redeveloped, we assume high quality construction.

[41:38] And I think that again, that's some of the challenge with what we're hearing and again

[41:42] the illustration of last time we thought about the hypothetical model, we were assuming high

[41:48] quality construction, we were assuming trying to maximize as much as we could of a particular

[41:54] parcel that raises the cost and at the same time we're assuming a high quality ADR as well.

[42:02] You know, I think if you recall, we were at the top end of on the retail side of the 45

[42:09] triple net, which I think raised the eyebrows. But again, we are going after and trying to assume

[42:16] that your community and your developers want the highest quality. And so we're modeling that. We're

[42:24] We're not bas- we're not assuming, you know, budget hotels, just so to make something look profitable.

[42:30] And to add to John's mayor, Drs. Point is, Motel 6 won't provide a fancy restaurant or amenities for other residents and so on, so.

[42:40] Yeah.

[42:42] But they'll leave the light on for you.

[42:46] All right, are there any other questions?

[42:53] If not, I appreciate you coming and giving us the update and look forward to the next four or five weeks.

[43:00] Yes, yes, I don't have one for a workshop.

[43:08] Marie Barba.

[43:15] Questions for Mr. Rath-Tillis, whatever you'd like to see.

[43:19] My name is Terry.

[43:21] Territory.

[43:22] Hi.

[43:23] And I thought since you can't provide, I would not provide any software for my application as well, but you can provide executables, maybe through, you know, the commissioners going through, it doesn't have to be an app, but they can actually get to an executable without providing the actual software.

[43:43] You know, it's binary, I don't know who's going to sit there and convert all that.

[43:47] So, but my question, and that would be nice if we could start with the base and

[43:53] have maybe the commissioners go, well, we add an additional in the hotel area.

[43:59] An additional 10 units, what would we, you know, what would we, maybe the financial model, what we present itself a certain way.

[44:09] I mean, for me, that I'm not in the hotel business, that I would think that the price per room would be my number one target.

[44:17] What can I get out of this room?

[44:19] That's how much I'm going to put in architecturally into it.

[44:25] But I think a lot of us are also curious about starting from the baseline of what we currently have in our building codes.

[44:37] What you force, can you have those scenarios start off at a baseline for the commissioners and then built from there?

[44:46] That's including the downtown area, 22 units per acre.

[44:53] You have approximately three acres, so you have 66.

[44:56] And then you're going to, you know, just assume that you're going to have a restaurant.

[45:00] Retail, jewelry, whatever. Can you provide that kind of thing? I don't know. And then, of course, probably have to collaborate with our planners to see about the parking situation. Something like that, I think that's more tangible for some of us to see if, you know, we want to include more density or height through whatever means that we're going to do. We're going to haven't established that yet here. So don't hold me to any of that stuff. I'm not, you know, pushing anything.

[45:28] And so, or we built to the current building codes and how much, you know, I don't know, they used net instead of ROI in this real estate, in this hotel room rental scenario.

[45:46] So, but that would be one of my requests as just to see if we could start off with the baseline, maybe give them an opportunity to see what that would look like.

[45:54] Thank you.

[45:54] All right. Are there any other questions? Yes, please, come on out.

[46:06] I'll pause. And I'd like to second what Marie said and what I believe Terry said and

[46:11] what I've been hearing about different scenarios because right now I think the residents are

[46:18] having a problem trying to understand exactly what are we talking about. You know, we're saying,

[46:24] oh, this many rooms, this many rooms, but it doesn't really make sense. And I think that

[46:30] If we were to start with, okay, say the Thunderbird because that's most obvious.

[46:36] If we were to take the Thunderbird to the six stories, and we'd add, I guess, another

[46:42] four stories to part of where it is, some extra stories, and then let's look at what those

[46:51] kinds of numbers could be specifically with the high quality rooms, and then see why that

[46:58] that won't work or why if we just adjust it somewhat it might work, but we don't have

[47:05] an understanding of what that baseline is.

[47:09] We're just talking about, oh, it's not going to work, so we need to do this.

[47:13] Let's understand more what those actualities are, what the numbers are and why it either

[47:20] will or won't or how we can adjust them.

[47:23] I, you know, the residents are just like, you know, I'm confused.

[47:29] And I think that would be really helpful just to start with what our rules are now.

[47:34] If they increase to that point, and then let's see if it works or not.

[47:41] And then if it doesn't, then we'll move on.

[47:44] But let's see what, let's get some, something that we can put our teeth into.

[47:49] Thank you, Barb.

[47:51] Any other?

[47:52] Sarah?

[47:56] Hi there, Sarah Pennington, I love poems.

[47:59] One thing that stood out to me at the last presentation of the modeling was we have a few

[48:05] different levers we could pull and to me, the first level I would pull when something

[48:11] isn't working would be the parking.

[48:14] So instead of saying, oh, we need to have, you know, X number of parking, we should look

[48:19] at adjusting that parking level. So many people use Uber these days. I don't know what percentage

[48:25] of tourists coming to say at a hotel here are actually driving in and parking their cars. But to me,

[48:31] instead of pulling the lever of increasing height or increasing density, why don't we start with

[48:37] just looking at reducing parking as the first thing to do and then determine, okay, how can we

[48:43] I mean, reasonably reduce that, and then where does that put us as far as feasibility for the project?

[48:59] All right, anyone else?

[49:02] Okay, so I'm going to close the public comment, and I'm going to end this meeting here.

[49:11] Yes?

[49:12] Could I just run one thing by the full commission to be considering over the next hour or two?

[49:17] Thank you.

[49:17] Sure.

[49:19] Commissioner Cieson, I apologize, Treasure Bay is your district, I tried to contact you.

[49:24] I had this thought late today, it might not even be a good thought.

[49:28] But we will know a lot more in early December in terms of the, if the budget gets passed

[49:37] on the second reading tonight, there's funding in it for Treasure Bay to do some design work.

[49:42] and we'll be able to push the request for quotes out for that design work starting tomorrow.

[49:50] So you would have significantly more to look at, say late November, early December than you will October 6th.

[50:00] Continue to go on. The consensus of the commission was that do the Treasure Bay workshop on October 6th. And the second thing you'll know is whether amendment three passed or not, which will impact everybody's budget and Florida. So if you guys want to consider that, give me some direction at the end of the meeting. So you want to kick the bucket down the road to December? What I want to do for your constituents, that item always seems to cause a good bit of

[50:29] of anxiety is to actually have something for you to act on.

[50:34] If we want to let Gary show you his updated sketches,

[50:40] we can do that in two weeks.

[50:42] But the information you'll need to make a decision,

[50:45] I don't think you'll really have next two weeks

[50:48] from tonight on October 6th.

[50:50] So that's entirely up to you guys.

[50:51] My constituents are reaching out to me.

[50:54] I'm speaking with them,

[50:55] they want to see it on agenda on October 6th.

[51:05] I have one question, I had requested, I believe it was back in June, I mean, I could go through my emails, but I believe it was in June, I had, and I know, apparently there was some difficulty finding it, the golf course and the expenditures as opposed to how much it made starting at 2017 to be fair.

[51:33] that way it wasn't, you know, based on after the hurricane or right before the hurricane,

[51:40] you know, it gave more of a lengthy, and that was actually a request that was placed by someone

[51:47] here in the meeting that she had tried to request it, but obviously, you know, couldn't necessarily,

[51:55] and she's kind of newer to the community, and she was curious because she liked the golf course,

[52:00] which you wanted to see the numbers.

[52:02] So I think going to 2017, if it's available, which I'm sure it should be, but I've not received it.

[52:10] So no matter whether we, I mean I would like to have that as soon as possible because I think it's very difficult to kind of even weigh all of that if we don't know the cost as opposed to everything.

[52:23] So you're looking for the revenue reports annually from 2017 to 2023 prior to the hurricane?

[52:31] Yes, the revenue and the expenditures.

[52:40] So no matter when we have it, I mean, obviously, I think for all of us, it would be a huge benefit if we have that,

[52:46] whether it's October or December, I think we need to have that to make an informed decision.

[52:52] Thank you.

[52:53] I would tend to agree, we may be having to come back to do this six, then come back and do December as well.

[53:04] And I don't know if that's the best use of our time since we're waiting for, I'll tell you what the amendment three is going to be a big deal.

[53:13] And I think that I don't know if our residents understand that or not, but I think we do.

[53:21] and so we need to, I don't know how much we can tell them about it is the bigger thing.

[53:32] Well, it's up to five of us, so give direction to the captain.

[53:38] Okay, I'll add a little to this too.

[53:41] I certainly don't want us to rush out after we approve the budget

[53:44] and go spend that $1.5 million that we have here marked there for the treasure pay.

[53:50] for design proposals.

[53:54] I think that's premature, I'd hate to spend it in particular on design proposals that we're never going to do.

[54:01] So if we, for example, if we ask for, if we pay somebody for a design proposal for a golf course, first of all,

[54:09] I think we already have a golf course designed that was done several years ago.

[54:14] So we need to pull that one back out and see if that still applies for a design for anything else.

[54:19] I think we can ask people that they'd be interested in giving us some proposals, but

[54:24] I don't think we should be paying anybody for a design of a, for lack of a better word.

[54:31] What do you call that pop stroke or whatever?

[54:33] And that's not, start paying P and P, if we may or may never approve that, so.

[54:39] So I'll have Mr. Vaughn that bring his figures in.

[54:43] These were rendering sketches, initial concepts, not a full blown line whore, pop stroke, golf design.

[54:52] But he has the figures for what he's proposing and is nowhere near.

[55:00] So, I'll add that to you free that consideration later this evening, but what I think I'm hearing is you might not want to address it until after a minute. Correct. So, what date had you proposed? So, December 1st is the 1st Tuesday of the month this year. And so, that's what I'm thinking, but I'll get you those.

[55:29] numbers as you start this meeting after so you have a little more time to think about it.

[55:37] Okay. Can you get us those numbers that Tammy requested in the meantime?

[55:42] Probably not before the end of this meeting. I'm not sure we're to look but one of

[55:47] our finance people in order to go find that. Yeah, Tammy, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor FastQuest,

[55:54] are you talking about just the financials of total revenue, total hand,

[55:58] total expenses for running all of Treasure Bay for the past, you know, since, and is that what you're doing?

[56:04] For the breakdown of the golf course, specifically, so not excluding tennis, and I think that was when I originally talked to Victor,

[56:11] I think that's, and I could be completely wrong, but I, because I, again, I think this was back in June when I was asking for it,

[56:19] maybe even earlier than that, but I think it was trying to separate the tennis, the, what's the other thing they play out there?

[56:29] No, it wasn't Pickleback then, Pickleball wasn't a thing.

[56:32] Gosh, it's a football, so they were trying to separate, I guess is what the break down was.

[56:40] So literally as narrowly as we can narrow that down to the nine whole golf course of expenditures versus what it was making.

[56:52] I think, I mean, that's to me the number one thing we need before we can make a decision.

[56:57] and because I want to see before the hurricane, you know, where we were at.

[57:04] Yeah, and the one thing that we also need to take a look over there is that we have now have the living shoreline as well as we have a walking trail.

[57:13] And I think that the walking trail may be an issue, but anyhow.

[57:20] Certainly a liability.

[57:21] Absolutely.

[57:22] Yes, absolutely.

[57:24] I wouldn't say either one of those, but I'll say that discussion of that, because in terms

[57:31] of a liability, we can figure out how to work around the liability issues, in terms you

[57:37] don't have people walking when they're playing golf and you don't have people playing golf

[57:41] when they're walking, so there's easy ways to work around that, so I wouldn't be too concerned

[57:48] about that.

[57:48] I had the design, like again, I'd like to take whatever we did, I know we spent money on designing a hard nine golf course.

[57:57] Let's pull that back out, look at it and see if it's still applicable or if we can tweak it to make it applicable, given that we now have the walking trail there.

[58:07] So let's just not start from scratch on the design and let's not go spend $180,000 on a new design either.

[58:17] let's see let's work with what we got first before we spend more money all right

[58:26] do we need to

[58:26] wait or see what we're going to do here or can we move it definitively to December 1st

[58:36] I'm good December 1st okay okay so we'll do that at December 1st all right anything else Charlie

[58:45] all right we are now adjourned

Board of Commissioners

Transcript