Boca Council Votes 3-1 to Introduce Downtown Redevelopment Contract Over Residents’ Objections

The city government campus and Memorial Park redevelopment area, Boca Raton, FL, Oct. 2025. (Photo: Boca Daily News)

Boca Raton city council members this week, in a 3-1 vote, approved a contract with a development group for the downtown government campus project that would go into effect if voters approve a March referendum. Opponents of the project said the council should have waited until after the referendum to sign any deal with the developers Terra Group and Frisbie Group, especially after they identified revised language on what would occur if a vote, for some reason, was not held. Further, the project’s objectors voiced anger over their belief that the contract was being approved in advance of the public vote as a hedge against the possibility of the project’s supporters losing their seats in the same election.

The city council introduced the contract language at their meeting Tuesday, with a second vote required to formally adopt it scheduled for the Jan. 20, 2026 meeting. The 480-page agreement includes the terms of the long-debated deal with the two developers, collectively known as Boca Raton City Center LLC, that would grant them a 99-year lease for more than 7-acres of downtown property east of the Brightline rail station, on which they would build 769 apartments, 196 condominiums, a 180 key hotel, restaurant and retail facilities, and 150,000 square feet of office or commercial space. Proponents of the deal say the revenue generated by the ground lease and other fees would generate enough revenue to pay for a new city hall building, recreational facilities and upgrades to Memorial Park, though the city would finance its own improvements upfront to the tune of about $200 million and pay fees to the developers for construction management.

A rendering of revised conceptual plans for downtown redevelopment, Oct. 2025. (Terra-Frisbie/ City of Boca Raton)

Members of the “Save Boca” organization, formed to oppose the public-private partnership deal between the city and developers, said they caught language this week that concerned them, ultimately leading it to be modified by City Attorney Joshua Koehler. The language stated that should a public referendum not occur, it would not be deemed a “rejection” and would not affect the agreement. This led some residents to question whether officials who back the project would find a way to cancel the vote, a notion that was vehemently denied by Mayor Scott Singer and other council members.

“The language is unambiguous,” said Koehler. “It says that if the referendum on March 10 is rejected by a majority of voters, this agreement … shall be null and void. There were some comments regarding an additional clause regarding the failure of a referendum to occur.”

The clause of the contract was changed to read:

“Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement or any Lease to the contrary, if the City-wide referendum on March 10, 2026 (the “Referendum”) is rejected by a majority of the voters voting thereon, this Agreement and any related documents (including, without limitation, any executed Lease) shall be null and void and of no further force or effect, and neither Party shall have any obligation or liability hereunder other than obligations that are expressly stated to survive termination. For purposes of this Section, the postponement, delay, or rescheduling of the Referendum due to circumstances outside the control or decision-making authority of the City or the Partner, including without limitation a declared state of emergency or other force majeure event, shall not constitute a rejection of the Referendum.”

Councilman Andy Thomson proposed the council add “or approval” after “rejection,” while including additional language that would call for a new referendum to be held on the next available election date. That request was not taken up by the remainder of council members present and was never considered.

The project’s objectors argued that no agreement should be in place in advance of the referendum vote in the first place.

“This manufactured haste is all about losing the number of council members willing to play along,” said resident Jacob Abraham. “It’s a fictional deadline.”

Jon Pearlman, founder of the Save Boca group, agreed and said officials were “compromised.”

“Nothing should be signed prior to the referendum,” he said. “You all know that, but you’re compromised and you’re going to do what you’re going to do. The citizens will fight. We have the support of the entire city and the citizens will prevail on this.”

The city government campus and Memorial Park redevelopment area, Boca Raton, FL, Oct. 2025. (Photo: Boca Daily News)

The contract provides that a limited amount of its language would survive a rejection of the plan by voters, which also caused concern, but was described by Koehler as a means to protect the city from legal penalties.

“You look at things like indemnification, liability, and things of that nature,” he said, referencing scenarios where a party could claim there had been damage to property or trespassing issues.

Singer, along with council members Fran Nachlas and Yvette Drucker, voted in favor of introducing the contract language. Thomson voted against it. Councilman Marc Wigder was absent from the meeting. The measure will be up for final approval at the Jan. 20 meeting.