The City's minutes for this meeting are not on file in this archive. This briefing states only what the City's agenda lists. Nothing here is taken from the machine transcription.
No agenda file for this meeting is held in this archive. The agenda packet button on this page opens the City's meetings-portal page for it, where the City may or may not have posted one.
The recording's machine transcription is below. It is unverified: words and names may be misheard, and it cannot establish who acted or how anyone voted.
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda items for this meeting are not available as a list here; see the agenda packet link on this page.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
141 suspect passage(s) marked in place; low recognized word rate (26.6 words per minute): source worth verifying; not evidence of silence; 1 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 14 voices separated from the audio.
17 short machine repair(s) (20 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 90.6% of 6,330 content words.
Dotted words (163 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
141 passages (21% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Voice detected, no words recognized (1 stretch). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
00:50:25 (371 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:24–00:05:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:33–00:05:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:44–00:05:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:07–00:06:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Dear Heavenly Father, I'd like to give thanks for allowing everyone to arrive here tonight. I ask that you give us not only the knowledge to make good decisions on behalf of the city of Cocoa, but give us the energy as well for this beautiful evening. I ask that you continue to watch over our city, our citizens as we leave as well. In his name we pray. Amen.
of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:04–00:07:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:07:10–00:07:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:07:13–00:07:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:07:22–00:07:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:42–00:07:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:45–00:07:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
going to call for question all in favor by saying aye. Aye. And a nays. Ayes have it unanimously. Proceeding on to item number three. Okay. Now I have a card from Jack,
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:08:03–00:08:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:31–00:08:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:46–00:08:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you, ‸ Mr. Chair. So, at the October 3rd COCO CRA meeting, we provided you with an update on the developer's deadlines. And at that time, we asked for an additional week for the developer, Mr. Brown, to meet the hotel deadlines due to the hurricane Ian from a week prior.
property to him. At that time, that triggers a 60-day notice to convey the property for the city to do all of their due diligence and for the developer to do all of their due diligence. There were four items that were required of the developer once he issued the notice of conveyance that we are going to talk about tonight. The first one is the title commitment for an owner's title policy, which is the title insurance company agreeing to insure the title of the property. Mr. Brown did deliver that to us, and it has been approved by staff. The next item,
received yet. Written proof of a binding financing agreement due within the 60-day window has not been received yet. And written proof of a performance bond by the general contractor for the completion of the project, which was also due within the 60-day window, has not been received yet. So, today we've only received one deliverable of the four items. All other items are outstanding at this point.
‸ He is deemed deficient on his deliverables and in noncompliance to move forward with the construction of the project. So, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, because of the default, there is a 30-day default clause within the agreement that allows him to have an additional 30 days to cure the default. So, staff is requesting direction, and I think the city manager and the city attorney will also elaborate on this.
but, you know, at this meeting, I guess the two options as I see them are, you know, going down the road of additional time are to declare that the ‸ developer is in default, and that starts a 30-day clock with either the remedy being, with either the deficiency being satisfied at the end of that 30 days, or having to come back to the council to decide what you want to do at the end of
30 days or so. So, hopefully, your direction tonight includes either he is in default and it has to be cured by the 30 days, or the ‸ relationship is severed, or something beyond that. And if I didn't say any of that correctly, or if there's ‸ further clarification,
think Anthony can give that to you. But, again, looking for some direction with regards to are we ‸ continuing on ‸ with an extension of time, or are we now going into default?
mean, there's some, depending on the discussion tonight, there might be a little few nuances ‸ I wish to advise you about, but let's, at this point, I mean, you can engage in your discussion and hear from Mr. Brown.
I'd like to thank you for the past times that you've met with me before and extended the contracts in the past. And, uh, ‸ appreciate everything that the board has done, the city administration,
being run, you know, a couple of years ago, unfortunately, the first two years were somewhat, uh, a little shaky and, uh, we didn't really get very far until the end of the second year. And, uh, that's, uh, when I finally got the development agreement, which happened to be signed by our current city manager, Stockton. And, uh, before that we hadn't been able to get that done, but that kind of kicked us off. Finally, after a two year period, I did get the development agreement. So I want to thank him for that. And he's done a great job since then. And I think he's a, the whole city as well as the boards and so forth
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:06–00:15:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
also that actually that was one of the first things that he did when he got here. I think it was early in his tenure that he signed the development agreement. Um, you know, I take full responsibility for the delays and everything that's happened during the course of, you know,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:33–00:15:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:01–00:16:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:16:25–00:16:28 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
um, John, uh, Giuliano. And then we had one before that, that was the still active, that was, um, issued by, uh, Gulfstream, which is a, um, financing arm of our contractor, general contractor, DFI.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:01–00:17:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:17–00:17:17 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:35–00:17:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:47–00:17:48 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:18:10–00:18:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Uh, ‸ work with blue Marlin real estate and, uh, we, we'd love the support of, you know, what Mr. Brown obviously wants to do is, is to create a redevelopment of a hotel. Um, from what I've heard, there was, uh, some issues with the due diligence as far as timing of when documents have to be delivered. And, you know, that's, that's something we see in the real estate world all the time. Um, but as, uh, Mr. Brown said, you know, there's things that do happen. And, uh,
plans to move forward as long as, you know, things are done in a, in a time manner that no longer defaults and just ‸ continues to move forward. I believe, you know, there's every right for him to continue this process as long as, you know,
but definitely make sure that the due diligence is taken care of, uh, at least in an appropriate time manner for sure. And, uh, that's what I have to say.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:29–00:19:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
found out about the hotel project and having had 50 years plus in the hospitality business. I saw the value of it and, uh, contacted Jack and became involved.
basically what I've done is just, just laid out with some detail where each of the items stands. I mean, we do have the construction contracts complete and ready for, uh, they've been signed by DFI. They're an acceptable form to us.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:51–00:20:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
additional financing commitment. That was executed by both parties on August 8th and also a copy delivered to the city as well as a personal introduction of the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:34–00:21:35 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:37–00:21:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:22:11–00:22:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I believe that's how the language leads as opposed, as opposed to sometime before. So that would be a, a closing item that our attorneys and the city attorney would would deal with in structuring the closing. And then the last item are the bonds. The, uh,
development agreement actually suggests two bonds, one in favor of the city guaranteeing completion of the public, uh, improvement section of the project, uh, including one floor of the garage. And then the other is would have the developer as the beneficiary.
by the closing. And their attorneys spoke with Mr. Garganese, uh, a week and a half ago and represented same. ‸ And there was some clarification on the second bond, which I've, I've put forth in here.
way there. And, uh, we would ask rather than get into an adversarial relationship at this time by triggering default that we would ask for an extension until December 16th. So just a matter of a couple more weeks, ‸ couple more weeks than a 30 day trigger would provide. And that's just in recognition of the holiday season coming on people taking a lot of extra PTO towards the end of the year law firms having to deal with transfers for tax purposes and so forth. All right.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:28–00:24:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:30–00:24:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:38–00:24:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:44–00:24:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:46–00:24:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:50–00:24:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:55–00:24:55 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:25:06–00:25:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:11–00:25:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:16–00:25:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:22–00:25:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:25:26–00:25:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:31–00:25:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:35–00:25:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:45–00:25:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
no, ‸ I didn't say it could not be delivered prior to closing. It is the strict strict reading of the development agreement says that it's a closing item. It's due at closing. I mean, it's possible that it could be delivered before, but what it is, it's as the property is transferred from the CRA, your agency to the developer. It's a additional security on top of the ‸ construction bond and other mechanisms that that everything will be complete. And again, uh, and the city attorney can be can correct me, but that letter of credit, I believe, stays in place until the project is complete and the certificate of occupancy is achieved.
ahead. I want to address the letter of credit issue, but before I do that, who's been, we have been trying desperately to have Mr. Brown designate a closing agent and a represent his representative that's going to be responsible for closing this transaction. From what I hear, I think both from Mr. Brown and you is that all of a sudden the closing documents are going to materialize on the day of closing and you're going to expect the city of Cocoa city of Cocoa redevelopment agency just to approve them. We have been urging Mr. Brown to designate a closing agent and provide document documents in advance for our review to date. We haven't received one single closing document with respect to the letter of credit. Mr. Brown brought into the city hall in front of the manager and myself, some form that could easily easily be printed off the internet. I advised Mr. Brown that read the agreement. It requires
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:47–00:27:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We have not. And I said that language has to be negotiated. And we're asking that your bank and your closing agent provide the letter performance letter of credit for our review to date. We have not seen it. So when you know if the agency declares default, when are we going to receive any sort of representative who's going to be responsible for closing this transaction on Mr. Brown LDI's behalf. And when are we going to get the draft closing documents, which you all are responsible for providing? Can you answer that question? Because I'm curious.
we're in conversation. I know that you've, you've had conversations with, uh, the white bird firm that's primarily DFI's attorney, although they do have a retainer, uh, of ours and have been performing some work on our behalf.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:29:44–00:29:45 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
to leave anything to the last minute. And then they'll also reach out to the financiers attorney who's up in Maryland and make sure that the proper language is produced for the letter of credit. And
said, I moved to the area in January and found out about the project and contacted Jack and, uh, uh, have become associated with LDI as project manager. It's something I've been doing for over 50 years. I've lived in Florida since 1979, primarily Orlando.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:57–00:30:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:31:14–00:31:15 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
for the work I'm doing. I mean, the, the initial involvement was basically to my, my specialty in the hospitality industry has been as a pre opening manager. I'm a certified hotel administrator and I've been in this business for a long time. So the initial work was going to be the, the furnishings, the procuring of equipment,
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:03–00:32:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:14–00:32:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:32:24–00:32:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:26–00:32:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:32–00:32:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:38–00:32:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
days so we have time to go through all the documents because if we receive them at 30, would that still, would that be null and void if we have to approve the documents they receive that we receive?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:13–00:33:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
LDI notified the agency in writing that they're ready to close. That's called the conveyance notice. And under the agreement, they have 60 days in which to close the deal. The 60 days plus has come and gone. Yeah. So the performance obligation is to close the deal. So they'll have 30 days to cure to close the deal. And it's not an easy, the easiest transaction to close. We haven't even had, I think anybody on the other side to really even talk about the details of the closing because they have not designated a closing agent. Yes, sir. And the documents that have been provided are not closing documents. They have, they met some preliminary deliverables.
the agency a conveyance notice. Um, I mean, the financing documents are far more detailed what the agency expects to see and review than what was the commitment that was originally provided. So there's a lot of work to be done to close this transaction.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:50–00:34:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I didn't hear in the motion. What happens if they can't cure within 30 days and manager alluded to that. Whether that has to come back to the agency or whether you're going to include in that motion. If they can't close the transaction within 30 days, the agreement ‸ terminates. Okay. I mean, that, that, that issue is, is on the table for, ‸ for your, ‸ for your discussion. Okay. Um, but we, the agency didn't trigger the 60 day time period. LDI triggered it some time ago. So a lot of time has come and gone.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:01–00:36:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um, was here throughout. Um, so this is a heartburn for us because we all want the project to happen. I think everyone in the community wants this project to happen.
and, and it's hard for us to make another extension when that communication is not there. Um, and I think that that's one of the biggest thing for, I hear from the city manager. Um, it's just information is not being provided in a timely manner. Um, so that's, that's really my statement. As far as the motion,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:01–00:37:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:37:35–00:37:36 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:37:39–00:37:39 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
as the old folks a piecemeal. It may have one portion, but it lacks another part of the overall scheme of things. And that's frustrating within itself. Um, so that's the reason why I believe in Mr. Brown like everyone else. And that's all I'm gonna ‸ say for right now.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:58–00:38:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank you, sir. You know, I have been gung ho about this since the beginning. Voted for every extension. But my current issue is that every time we get to this point, this, this is the last minute. Somebody new shows up saying, I only heard about this today. So there's not only a lack of communication with us. There's a lack of communication going on out there too, that we aren't even privy to. I, I,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:43–00:38:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the 30. If it goes into default, what we're going to do during those 30 days so that we don't lose any more time. Should Mr. Brown fail to, uh, cure the default. I understand that we have a current, uh, an appraisal. Recent. Uh, we've had actually two marketing studies, but the latest being done in May of 2021. Um, I just would like to know what we can be doing. Um,
that we are not looking at January. I understand we have to notify, um, legally notify lodgings that they have, uh, lodging decisions that they have gone into default. So I would like to know how all this is going to stack up so that we're not having to have a meeting to call a special meeting and so on and so forth and allow the staff also to continue working towards getting a hotel, whether it's Mr. Brown's or someone else's because we desperately need one.
so I'd like to try to do this as, um, efficiently and as fair as possible within the agreement that both parties agreed to, which I went over the agreement and I thought it was very fair. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:37–00:40:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the, the loan for the construction amount needs to be closed. And so whether you get the letter of credit and whether you get the bonds, um, uh, with the closing or at the closing is, uh, you know, something I'll, I'll leave to Anthony, but we're, we're literally talking about a loan closing and verifying that. And actually the city participating in that within the 30 days and that that's not a $17 million amount. That's a, that's according to the, to the, uh, the, uh, building permit, a $30 million amount.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:36–00:41:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the, uh, on the building permit. So, so we're, we're literally talking about there is a financing that's closed just like your house loan. There's a financing that's closed within 30 days.
would be, uh, to declare them in default, uh, with a cure of 30 days. And if that is not, um, cured in 30 days that the, the contract with LDI is terminated, we will be back to the drawing board. Um, there, there is an RFP that has to be issued. I am sure that you all want to look at that RFP. I don't, I'm not, I think I probably read the previous RFP, but, but obviously would like to create, um, um, a current RFP. Um, um,
obviously we would have to work on that RFP, assuming there's going to be a default and, and bring that back to you in December. You haven't, you don't have a November meeting or, or hopefully get back in December with that RFP for you to approve and push that back on the street.
Um, just, just, just to, to the manager's point. ‸ I'll address this to LDI. The agency is not looking for a piece of paper on financing. The agency is looking to have proof that the financing has closed and that money is in hand to complete the project period. So I want to just elaborate on that. So there's no misunderstanding. On that point, the managers indicated the numbers don't add up. And we have no proof of, uh, of a closing on the financing. And the requisite closing documents that are going to be required to provide proof of financing, including bank account statements, showing money in hand. Affidavits, all the things that you would expect in a closing. And that all has to be done in 30 days.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:29–00:44:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:41–00:44:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
after the property has conveyed, you know, simply like you getting a mortgage on your house. Unless you own the property, you can't get a mortgage on your house. So that's point one, but we can have everything, all the documentation, everything. And, you know, again, correspondence between our attorney and the city attorney showing all this is ready so that the loan is ready to close within a day or two after the property is conveyed. So we're talking two different closings, a land closing and a mortgage closing. And then as far as the, the comments about, uh, numbers, the, uh, at the time that, uh, DFI ‸ submitted the permit applications
process. So what they put down as far as the value on the permit was purely a pie in the sky estimate at that point. Now we have concrete numbers and we
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:56–00:46:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:07–00:46:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:19–00:46:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You know, we've had to prove to the lenders that we have sufficient equity to keep the loan, the loan to value ratio below 65% or 70% rather. So, you know, we have, you know, Mr. Brown has 4 years and a lot of equity in this project, a lot of dollars spent bringing it to this point. You know, not, you know, including purchasing the additional land adjacent to the ‸ city's property. So the number, the numbers do match up. So I just want to clarify those two points.
The last time we put this outfit under the gun, they did it. So I would like to change my motion to amend my motion. Yeah, thank you. I'm in my motion. Declare of default. They have 30 days to get everything done or DFI
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:21–00:47:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:30–00:47:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I will amend my second to reflect that. Thank you. I just also wanted to state, you know, I was one of the, you ‸ know, I'm definitely pro for this project and I wanted to see it happen. But at
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:53–00:47:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
CRA. And we've seen over numerous of projects, price of materials go up, you know, weekly. So, you know, my concern is, you know, we did move forward. You know, we'll have issues with financing there. So, um, I have to amend my second to reflect councilman or agency member Dow's proposal.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:31–00:48:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:49:53–00:49:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:20–00:50:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording