INDIANTOWN \u2013 Village Council members on Nov. 20 gave their verbal consensus to renegotiate a $3 million purchase-and-sale contract for the 5.1-acre parcel at 15225 S.W. Warfield Blvd. The previous Council had approved the contract in 2022 with plans to build a new Village Hall, but voters later ousted two members who supported that idea.<\/p>\n
Village Manager Taryn Kryzda introduced the item briefly before turning it over to Village Attorney Wade Vose.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn Tuesday, I received an envelope that had been dropped off, and inside that was the contract that is attached to this agenda item,\u201d Kryzda said. The buyers were offering to purchase the five-acre property and had included several option terms. The contract stated the transaction must be completed by Dec. 12 or the offer becomes invalid. \u201cYour next meeting is Dec. 11,\u201d she added. \u201cI\u2019m not expecting you to take specific action other than providing Mr. Vose with some direction.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vose explained that staff would need to rewrite the contract because the added options appeared on an improper form. \u201cOne of the most important pieces for understanding this whole thing is the buyer agrees to replace this initial standard-form contract with a more formal contract within seven days of formal acceptance,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He recommended that he and the Village\u2019s broker, Kevin Powers, work directly with the prospective buyer to draft a proper agreement. The proposal includes a $75,000 payment for a one-year option, effectively allowing the buyers to lock in the property while conducting a 90-day due-diligence review.<\/p>\n
Vose then outlined a request for a second one-year option, also for $75,000. He characterized it as a \u201cbroader second-phase due diligence they\u2019re willing to pay for.\u201d The buyers say they intend to build a healthcare campus and plan to submit a conceptual site plan by Dec. 5.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt least in the initial opportunity I\u2019ve had to look at the principals behind this entity, my read is these folks are real, to put it in the vernacular,\u201d Vose said.<\/p>\n
Councilwoman Karen Onsager, a real-estate broker, was the first to weigh in. \u201cI read over this contract, and just like you said, it needs to be put on the proper form,\u201d she said. \u201cThey\u2019re paying for the option, but I think holding it another year out, we should consider some kick-out clause. I like the idea of selling it, but I\u2019m a little apprehensive about holding it for $150,000 for two years. That would be my only concern.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked to explain the terminology, Onsager noted that option contracts allow buyers to purchase time. \u201cIt\u2019s not typical to see the 90-day due diligence. It\u2019s typical they hold due diligence for the entire year,\u201d she said. \u201cI understand what they\u2019re doing \u2014 they don\u2019t want to commit until they know the property\u2019s going to work for them.\u201d The closing date, she added, would need correcting if a second option is included.<\/p>\n
On the kick-out clause, she said: \u201cIf someone else comes forward and says, \u2018I will put a contract on it,\u2019 then that clause gives them 90 days to decide whether to purchase it, or we sell to the other person. And I feel like they need to come up with a little more option money if they\u2019re going to hold it up for that second year.\u201d<\/p>\n
Councilwoman Phyllis Waters-Brown asked Vose what would happen if, after the 90-day review, the buyers opted not to continue. \u201cDuring the first 90-day period, the $75,000 would be like a refundable deposit,\u201d he said, calling that \u201cvery typical\u201d in commercial real-estate deals.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf after the 90 days they say yes, I want to continue \u2014 what happens then?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat $75,000 would become the Village\u2019s at that point,\u201d Vose said. \u201cWe get to put it to use, and it remains under the option for the rest of the year.\u201d<\/p>\n
Waters-Brown then raised concerns about utilities, noting that the parcel currently lacks water and sewer. Kryzda said those services may not arrive until a new water plant is completed in a few years.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re having some conversations about doing things differently with our existing wells,\u201d Kryzda said. \u201cUntil we get the site plan and know what they\u2019re planning, it\u2019s hard to say if it would have it or not.\u201d<\/p>\n
Waters-Brown also expressed concern about losing future property-tax revenue if the developer operates as a nonprofit. Vose responded that nonprofits performing community-benefit work often qualify for tax exemption. \u201cRegardless of the tax consequences,\u201d he added, \u201cin the end it\u2019s just one parcel.\u201d<\/p>\n
Onsager circled back to her preferred kick-out clause, but Mayor Carmine Dipaolo defended the option structure given the property\u2019s utility delays.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhoever purchases it is going to have to wait up to two years to utilize that property,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t know too many people who are going to spend that kind of money and just let it sit there. You\u2019re talking $75,000 and $75,000 if you go for a second year. That\u2019s $150,000 plus the $3 million \u2014 so that\u2019s $3.15 million and a deal I would take.\u201d<\/p>\n
He stressed the Council was not voting but simply giving direction to Powers and the buyer. \u201cThese guys are real,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t think they\u2019d be here just to play a game.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Council then agreed to allow Vose to proceed with negotiations.<\/p>\n
The only public speaker, community activist Linda Nycum, echoed Onsager\u2019s and Waters-Brown\u2019s concerns and questioned the stability of the limited-liability corporation formed to buy the property.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe buyer \u2018Building Tomorrow\u2019s Infrastructure\u2019 was formed on Nov. 13, according to their articles of incorporation,\u201d Nycum said. \u201cThat\u2019s not a lot of time to establish any history of good business practices, let alone financial stability. I expect our elected officials to do more due diligence before committing to this.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Council is scheduled to conduct a formal hearing on the revised contract Dec. 11.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"INDIANTOWN \u2013 Village Council members on Nov. 20 gave their verbal consensus to renegotiate a $3 million purchase-and-sale…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":74784,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[326,171,173,172],"class_list":{"0":"post-74783","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-port-st-lucie","8":"tag-martin","9":"tag-port-st-lucie","10":"tag-port-st-lucie-headlines","11":"tag-port-st-lucie-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74783\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}