Estimate Ervin. --------- Board member Charles. >> Present. >> Chairman, you have a quorum to proceed. >> Thank you so much. We'll have the pledge of allegiance and then we'll get to consent agenda. Thank you, everyone. Madam Secretary, consent agenda. >> Uh before we begin, um Chairman, if it
is um As of 5:32 p.m., board member Estimate Ervin is present. >> Can you call a full >> If there is no objection, there has been a request to move item number five to the consent agenda. >> Excuse me, what is item number five?
>> This is so the allocation for the police radios. >> Uh okay. Uh hold on. Five. Um Commercial brand request for five police.
Okay, that's fine. Um Consent, okay. That's fine. >> Unless a member of the CRA board wishes to remove a specific item from this portion of the agenda, tabs A through C and agenda item five constitute the
consent agenda. These resolutions and items are self-explanatory and are not expected to require additional review or discussion. These items will be recorded as individually numbered resolutions adopted unanimously by the following motion: That the consent agenda comprised of tabs A through C
and agenda item five be adopted. >> Can I get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> I have a motion made by board member estimate urban to approve the consent agenda comprised of tabs A through C and
agenda item five. The motion was seconded by board member Charles. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a 4-0 vote. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Attorney, item number item C, the appointment,
that does not have to be read separately. It could be a part of the consent. >> It certainly can. >> Okay, thank you. Item for action, we do have a quite a lengthy agenda today. I don't know how we going
to we So, this is our last meeting. Um let me This is our last meeting for the year before we go into >> Yes, we are scheduled for recess on July 9th. So, but we don't have another scheduled meeting. If there was to be another meeting, it would have to happen by July 9th.
>> And okay. All right, thank you. Um Okay, let's see what we we could go. First item, item one. >> Agenda item one, a resolution to approve Redwood assignment. A resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the assignment and assumption
of the infrastructure grant agreement, memorandum of infrastructure grant agreement, and declaration of restrictive covenants from Redwood CP Dev LLC to Redwood CP Holdings one LLC approving the amended and restated infrastructure grant agreement, amended and restated memorandum of
infrastructure grant agreement, and amended and restated declaration of restrictive covenants between Redwood CP Holdings one LLC and the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency authorizing the executive director to execute all documents authorizing the executive director and North Miami CRA attorney to take all
action necessary to implement all documents and providing an effective date, agenda item one. >> Okay, thank you. >> Chairman, as of 5:35, board member Timothy is now present. >> Okay, thank you, Madam Executive
Director. Going back to item one, do we have a presentation um or >> There's not a presentation, but this is essentially um I wanted to highlight what is um happening here. The request is for
amendments to be made to the current documents. Namely, the assignment from Redwood CP Dev LLC to Redwood CP Holdings 1 LLC. Additionally, the CRA's lien rights would only apply to the building one of the project. This is where the grant
funding is going to be limited to. The second major change is that the grantee will cause its general contractor and property manager to comply with section 3.4 of the grant agreement. That is a jobs requirement. Additionally, the grantee will not be seeking any tax exemptions on 7,000
square feet of the commercial space in building one. The parties will also enter a new agreement where the grant the grantee is guaranteeing a minimum of 100,000 square feet of taxable spaces across the entire project. We did recently receive the updated scope of
work, which was not um there was no objection with the scope of work. However, there was um another term where one of the community benefits that had previously been identified was to have 20 scholarships given to the community on a yearly basis for the life of the CRA.
The grantee is requesting that they make an upfront payment of that amount, but that upfront payment I believe >> What? Who who who gets the the upfront the CRA >> is requesting that instead of doing the 20 scholarships every year for the next 16 years, that they just make an upfront
payment in lieu of making those annual scholarships. They are proffering that that amount would be $50,000. Um >> For 16 years? >> Correct. So, that is something that the board needs to consider this evening. >> Okay, wait. minute.
>> uh Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah, well yes yes sir, hold on before we get on. So So what was the amount was per year you're saying? >> An amount was not allocated in the beginning. It was 20 scholarships every year. So I guess year by year
>> Wait a minute. I'm not good in math. So you're saying to me you as the executive director would even say this to us. So 20 time whatever.
>> 16 >> So cuz I think Charles is the expert here, man. >> Um if if I may uh >> Yes, please. >> Mr. Chairman, um I looked at it earlier after receiving the call from Madam Executive Director. Um even at a rate of $1,000
per um scholarship it would come up to $320,000. And we know that uh and we know that at this point uh there is no way that you can um with $1,000 you can be a scholarship for a student. Um
so I was just looking at it. So I don't understand how they come up with that calculation. Numbers make no make no sense. And I will just tell you at this point the math and nothing. >> I I think Redwood rep is >> I believe the applicant is here. >> Yes. But
prior to them speaking, I think all of these should have worked out before. I never paid attention to it, but now hearing it publicly, it doesn't make sense. >> Mr. Chairman >> Yes, sir. >> This request came to us yesterday >> Correct. >> um in the form of a revised agreement from the grantee. Um I emailed the
grantee today asking them for to provide the methodology as to how they came up with the $50,000 and uh did not receive a response as of the time of this meeting. >> Okay, but that's according to my calculation, that's
320,000 that it at $1,000 if if you say 20 out of $1,000 is 20,000 a year * 16 is 300 and something. So, how did you allow them to even come up with 50? If I So,
how did the 50 come up? >> It just came up last night on their end. This is not something they provided. They provided a time to properly review their amendment that came last night. So, we're They're saying that this came to them last night. So, did staff have enough time to properly vet this
amendment? >> Hello. >> [clears throat] >> Name name in a in your office address? Yes. >> microphone on? >> Is it on? >> Go ahead. David Burston. How is everybody doing? >> We good. >> Okay. Uh the scholarship uh portion of the agreement was vague. It said that it was
supposed to provide 20 scholarships over the for every year. The problem that we have is the bank will not allow for a reoccurring payment. So, it has to be an upfront payment for building one. We we have brought the idea that we had
were CAM licenses for property management, real estate brokers licenses, mortgage brokers licenses, which the average was about 3 to $400 per. Also, it was only supposed to be 20 per year over time. So, we felt that if it
was $50,000 time value of money, we felt that's how that offer came in. We're willing to increase it, you know, slightly, but based on what we have over here, and we're happy to provide the backup. This is what we have for right now. >> No, I'm saying backup for
what? Cuz I'm trying to understand. So, 20 20 per year >> It wasn't I'm sorry, Mayor. It was not 20,000 It was not 20,000. 20 students. 20 scholarships, but it was vague as to what the scholarship was in the
agreement. The intent was to provide uh property management licenses, licenses to get where people can get a job quickly. Mortgage broker's license, real estate agent's license, things like that. >> No, no, no, no. When I I was under the
impression as a school teacher, and that's why a lot of times when you My trusting a scholarship is a scholarship cuz we have the North Miami educational, you know, and we struggle in terms of that. So, that's what I I assume scholarship
meant. So, at a rate When I was in school, $1,000 will get you a couple courses in Miami-Dade. >> This was supposed to be trade, Mayor. >> Okay. Trade, it's probably around the same thing. So, okay, so if it's trade, a thousand per
So, that's 20,000 a year. Times 16 What time is it 16 years? >> Yes. >> So, So, you you say you So, the trade you
gave it $300 a person? >> which we brought. We We gave a value to of of approximately 300 $350 per license. We're willing to increase it slightly, but it's also a one a one-time upfront
payment as opposed to 16 years. >> But, wait. So, 350 * 20 is 7,000. So, you're saying 7,000 * the 16, even in that case, it's it's 112,000. So, how did you get to your 50,000 is my
question. >> We We This is something that came up from the bank in the last 2 days or so, so that's why we sent it yesterday. We felt that we would be able to work this last item out. Here. Um >> But, if if if I'm
>> We discounted time value of money, that's how we came into it. We're happy to increase it. >> ourselves, we are the chair, and and I understand that. Um and you received it last night. Um I've been on the phone all day with the executive director, you know, going over some items.
So, at no point this came up. I thought we had the other stuff. So, let me open it up to see what some of my colleagues are saying. Um but I was at least I was under the impression I'm glad you you clarified it for me that that that what the scholarship
meant. I thought it was just scholarship. So, at that rate so >> [clears throat and cough] >> it's for trade it's like 350 and I don't know and because we would rely on the executive >> We have it right here if you'd like to see it. It's the same >> we wanted her cuz she get paid to kind
of verify that before and the attorney verifying it it you know, whatever that >> [music] >> they put in front of us. But at least I thought it was um you know, scholarship for if it's straight it's straight. Um that's not my >> Trade is actually more expensive. You know, we're doing the FIU construction
trade program right now and it cost us close to 300,000 for 40 students. >> Oh lord. Okay. So, with that being said, Vice Mayor and then I know um uh you know, Councilman Burns and I know probably my colleagues may have some
other stuff. >> But I'll I'll defer to the council rep, so >> No, no, no, basically so no one has >> Well, I know I just I know you wanted to start there for >> if I may uh Mr. Chair again, when we talking about trade
doesn't just limit you to the real estate broker and everything could be electrical all these other trade that people could be able to find a job on the site. So, again, I don't know exactly how that number come up, but doesn't make any sense to me.
Uh I'll leave it at that and because of that >> We have a we have electrical in here also as a there there's a bunch of different We have about five of them that we're happy to provide. Um and also just because we're, you know, looking to close this out and have a closing, um, we would be willing to up
it from 50, we could go to 60,000, but because it's an upfront payment, >> I don't think >> the CRA could administer the money. >> Okay, I I think we Yes, yes, ma'am. >> Um, David, thank you for your explanation. So, let me just start with the root of the problem. You're saying that the bank
you're saying this is a reoccurring payment. >> Correct. >> So, you Does the bank Did you So, they Do they understand that your intent was to give us $50,000 and based on that >> No, they're they're at it No, the amount that we negotiate today, if we can negotiate it, that's that's not going to
affect anything, but they don't know what the payment is because it's not defined in the agreement. That's the issue was left open-ended. >> So, if we if we define it in the agreement, then it would be okay with the bank? Is that what you're saying? >> It's going to cause it's It's a problem. We have to have They because the problem
is that they're that each of the buildings would be financed on its own. So, because So, this bank wants to know No, what we could do What we could do is basically say that this building is relieved, um, for a certain amount, which we can come up with a with a payment just for this building, but the
rest of the buildings we could worry about building two, you know, in a couple of months and we can figure it out on a per building basis. We could do that. >> Personally, I don't like the upfront dollars because the point is to give the scholarship every year, personally. And you know, obviously, I'll defer to the
the district member. Um, and it's to show good faith as a developer that every year that we are giving scholarships. So, I don't want this money upfront. Obviously, you can hear that my colleagues are saying $50,000 is a joke. >> What we So, what we >> if if you are
um, if if it's because it was vague and it wasn't defined, then we can now define the dollars so that it is not a reoccurring payment or it's set in whatever so that your bank can be satisfied. But, I can tell you what you're proffering right now. You know, we want to provide scholarships to our
>> We do we do as well. So, I think we're just trying to >> You are you're getting some some grant dollars that are taxpayer dollars. There's got to be a buying for the community. So, I'll I'll see what number that my colleagues want. I just want you
>> So, if we could define that if we could define the amount of the of the scholarships per year Okay, we can put the liability onto the master leaseholder and we're okay with we can do we can honor that obligation. Then it would not be a problem.
>> As long as our attorney and us understand and our executive director then [clears throat] >> If I may And let me say with all due respect I think this item cannot just go through like that. I received a call today
2:49 p.m. from the executive director. I didn't know anything about it, but quickly when I heard the number I jump into my little math and then got that even at $1,000. So, this is something that we're just basically hurry and to put something that doesn't make sense.
Understand that the money we're talking about is that money that that is to be distributed to like people on the street. It's like real resident of North Miami that we all going to put in school and we all going
to give them a job. So, we cannot be playing like that. This is a joke what we're doing now. So, to me I don't know how we would be able to entertain and then put a lot of time into it. So, I would strongly advise that you go back and look at it with Madam Executive Director
and and our shared attorney because there's a lot of a lot of movements. We cannot just go and change things into the contract just like that because we have to sit down and look at the implication behind every move that we're making. So,
to me this is a no go because I don't understand what we doing. I don't I don't I don't think we can even move that way. >> Yeah. Can we Can we leave the liability the obligation with the master leaseholder and leave it as is for now? >> Okay. >> And then we can negotiate the first
thing. >> Yeah. The CRA only has one agreement with the developer, which is the spread agreement. We're not parties to a master lease agreement. Um we're not involved in the remainder of the development financially whatsoever. So what whatever
we have and we've negotiated is in this agreement. >> Got it. Thank you, sir. Let me Let me proffer this because we have a long agenda. The vice mayor put out a number. That should be the start. And I'm And
I'm And I'm telling you 300,000. So we could do two things cuz we don't want to waste people's time. We could do that and and talk about this or we could defer it. I'm I'm okay up until the ninth. If my Well, not up until the fifth.
>> We're okay with 300,000 if we could divide it by the eight buildings. >> We >> And we're okay with $300,000. >> So we don't have an agreement with We only have an agreement with building one. So I just want to make sure that the board understands that our CRA grant
is limited to building one. Our agreements are all limited to building one with the described in the resolution, not a master leaseholder. So I just want to make sure that everybody's understanding prior to making a decision. >> No, so whatever >> just quick question. I'm sorry.
>> Yes, sir. >> Um Mr. Zelkowitz >> No, I don't First of all, I I don't answer questions >> ask Yeah. So you have to address >> Mr. Chairman, >> Yes, sir. >> the whole purpose of this agenda item is to limit the grant agreement to one
building and that was at the request of the developer, not to spread things that we We it spread out over eight buildings. And they came to us and said, "No, it needs to be on this one." >> So, let me ask you this, Mr. Bassin. Do you Would you want more time to work with the CRA and then
if I'm open up until July 5th, if my colleagues would be okay for a special meeting um to address it, that could be one thing or >> The problem that we have is time cuz I know everyone wants to get shovels in the ground. Um just a clarification.
Am I allowed to address this at the attorney? >> No, you address it to me and then and then yeah. >> From what I understand, there will still be obligations that the Redwood CP Dev, which is the master leaseholder, has to the CRA.
I believe there's that is correct. Can I ask that question? >> Yeah, yeah. I don't I don't you could totally um Mr. Attorney, you could answer it. >> Uh I don't I don't think that's the case. At the moment, that's not the case. There's one agreement. It's being limited to phase one of the project,
which is the 200 unit. >> What about the 100,000 ft? >> I don't There's no agreement in front of us as being proposed. >> That's what we're doing. It's 100,000 ft that we're trying to confirm that we're not going to request the TIF. Is that accurate? >> I Well, if I may, the agreement was that we would have to enter into a new
agreement to be able to address the 100,000 um square feet of commercial across the project, but that agreement does not yet exist and the terms have not yet been defined. >> Aren't we Aren't we required to do that? I thought that's what we met on. So, we do not have to sign an agreement
that obligates the 100,000 ft or we do? >> It's not It's not here. >> so why don't >> produce it yet, so >> Okay. Do we have to enter >> We're moving this ahead of that um to try and expedite the process for you because >> Okay. >> you know. >> So, if we have to enter if we have to
enter into that agreement anyway, why don't we put the obligation in that agreement? And we're okay with 300,000 dollars. >> Well, I just put it out there. I didn't say uh uh Okay, let me go ahead, Council. >> No, no, no. Quickly, um let's go back [clears throat] to that $300,000 because
that number just came >> Yeah, I just >> Uh we're not talking about We're not talking about the program for 16 years. That $300,000. So, that is uh the the program that we have a uh it's not We're not talking about 16 years. So, that has to be understood because we
cannot just throw out numbers like that. Yeah, make sense. >> we look at what the North Miami Educational Foundation did when they took $250,000 and reinvested it every year and gave out $700,000. I just think that the number has to, you know, match up so that if it goes into the North Miami Educational Foundation or
somewhere that is reinvested for our our residents. >> May I make a a suggestion, um Mr. Chair? I think my suggestion would be we differ this item. We go back and work with the um uh the city attorney and uh executive director and then come up with something
clean because we are basically wasting time in here. That's That's not fair to the public. That's not fair to all of us in here because these things like basically bring this overnight and then all of a sudden we have to decide on something that we don't We don't even understand which way we're going. So, I
would uh make a motion to uh to differ this uh this item. And and >> So, what Excuse me, sir. And so, when? We need to have a a deferment date. Can You said a July would possible for July 10th meeting? A July 8th 9th, I'm sorry.
>> No, no, no. He She was saying July 9th is our ending. >> That was when we begin recess. So, the Tuesday before that is July 8th. >> What's our first July 8th July? >> And and the 14th is the last one. >> Yes, July 8th is your first one. >> me ask you this, Mr. Attorney. Can we
um go back to I I guess that's um the the item B, the recess or three authorization, and extend that until the >> The 14th. >> the 14th and then we could just kind of address this. That's the best way to
address that um and get >> still be on recess and you can set a special meeting. >> Okay, during our recess. Okay. Okay. That's Is that okay with >> You want You want to say that you're deferring it to a special meeting to be held on or before >> Should I 14th?
>> Yeah, I'm open to it but some of them say they don't have to think Honest to Honestly >> How about the Let's see. How about the 14th? We already have a city council city council meeting and and just make it definite that on July 14th is the day. >> That's what we were
>> Yes, but for the CRA purposes, we'd have to announce it as a special meeting. >> Yeah, it's a special meeting. That's what we're saying on that since that's our last So, if we could revise it but um just so you know um Mr. Brison Councilman got a call at 2 something.
I'm just learning about it right now as I sit down on the So, you know, and and she's here she could and we talked um today. So, we didn't mention that but she probably didn't get it when we spoke. So, So, again Mr. Attorney, you're okay with the the 14th? Um
But the that that that that And I think it's a motion. It's been seconded. Has it been seconded? Okay. Madam Madam Clerk, Madam Secretary, I'm sorry. >> I have a motion made by board member Charles to defer agenda item one to a
special meeting of the North Miami CRA to be held on July 14th, 2026. The motion was seconded by board member Estimate Ervin. All in favor? >> All right. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. >> Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Item number two. >> Agenda item two, a resolution to approve a Laura amendment, a resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the first amendment to infrastructure grant agreement between the North Miami CRA and TRNM Holdings
LLC approving the third amendment to tax increment recapture incentive agreement between the North Miami CRA and TRNM Holdings LLC authorizing the executive director to execute the third amendment to infrastructure grant agreement and the third amendment to tax increment recapture incentive agreement.
Authorizing the executive director to take all action necessary to implement the terms of the third amendment to infrastructure grant agreement and third amendment to tax increment recapture incentive agreement and providing for an effective date. Agenda item two. >> Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
Um Madam Executive Director, any presentation? >> The grantee is requesting that the board authorize a third amendment to extend the deadline of for the completion of the conditions precedent as well as its funding term to June 30th, 2030. This is item that's before you this day.
>> Okay, so um I think we have a representative. Um okay, maybe not. Um >> I saw somebody coming up. >> of the um let's open it up for >> Oh, we didn't have public comment on that one.
>> All right. Board Board members, any discussion on the item? >> I do. Um but I'll let Councilman go first since this is in his district. >> I I I think Duke uh was coming up to make a presentation on behalf of the owners. Is that true? >> Is he? >> Okay, I thought >> All right.
>> Arthur Sorey. >> Mr. Sorey. >> Arthur Sorey, 5200 Williams Boulevard. Um yeah, so we're simply asking that our agreement be extended to the year 2030.
Um with us not being able to draw down any funds until 2030. As you recall when this pro- project got approved back in 2023, 2023, we were approved and interest rates in our project were developed on a 1%
interest rate during the time. I think we have some turnover at the CRA and um later um Ms. Annabelle came in and rates jumped up um 7.25%. So, we've had some problems, you know,
seeking financing. But um we're getting close. And this is we understand there's other projects coming along behind us wherever and we just want to step back and defer our money to 2030, let some projects that are ready to go move forward. But
we've been here, we're working um at the last meeting um city meeting I believe a month ago we were approved to start paying rent early. So, we've commenced our rent payments to the city for our site. And we just want to continue with our site,
but understanding what's going on, but have our extension pushed back to 2030. That's simply what this is asking for, nothing else um but us to be pushed back and given more time and deferring the money until then as well.
>> So, >> my understanding um you you have a question, Ms. Burton? >> I have a question. >> Councilwoman Charles, yes, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Okay, thank you. Um I know this project was approved back in December of 2021. Um and I know no one
in our CRA history has had a project approved to this magnitude where we're paying impact fees up front. So, my first question, I know you mentioned some financial issues as to as to the reason why um you guys weren't able to build, but there is there any other reasons as it relates to why this project um is no
longer to >> It's simply just the financing piece of it, you know, working to get the financing piece together. Um we have done some site um utility work um some minimal site utility work already though. So, technically yes, we've already started
doing something. Is bricks coming out of the ground? Yeah, no, not at this moment. But, um we're here again and we've started paying our rent and everything already. But, no, that's the only reason why we're slowing down now. >> And so, like I guess my issue with this
project is um or with this request, per se, is that the CRA's budget has been tied down now for how many years? Um Mr. Tate has been up here saying, you know, we took his project, you know, he can't build, we gave the money to another developer, but now you're coming back
with a 4-year extension when I think previously we provided a what was it, a 1-year or 2-year? >> It was a 2-year. >> A 2-year. Um so, when you have a sweetheart deal like this, you have city-owned land that you didn't pay lease, you know, no rent on since 2020. You recently started maybe like last
month. Um you tie up our CRA budget for years, meaning projects that were shovel-ready, permit-ready. Um developers are, you know, looking for incentives to build affordable housing and so forth, and then you have this project that remains stagnant, but also leaving our CRA budget almost in a
chokehold because we can't do other projects or invest in other commercial grants. Like I I take issue with that. Um only because, you know, I understand that there might be financial issues, but people are building all throughout the city. They're building pretty rapidly with all of these deal structures and how you're
able to develop. So, for me, saying that because financing issue is to me, that's not a reason. Like there there needs to be a little bit more because now I think the clock should restart. I know maybe some of my colleagues may feel differently, but this project has literally held back so many other things
that we could have done that we did not do because we had to keep $5 million in our budget line item every year for this project. And how much money did we leave in our budget this year for this project, Madam Executive Director? >> We have We have 9 million.
>> So, 9 million currently in this budget? >> Yes, because we've been rolling over the money and then we had to >> Yeah, rolling over it. >> So, 9 million dollars just in our budget that we can't use because we're thinking that this project is coming um to fruition and it's not. Um I think the
applicant should just have to reapply um when he's ready. If he's not ready, cuz 2030 that's 4 years from now. So, to say, "Hey, hold us up for 4 years." Um maybe a developer comes in 2029 and he shows up ready tomorrow. Do we now tell that developer that they can? Um Madam
Manager, I also have another question with with the impact of the property tax amendment, what is our projection if that item passes in November? >> So, we have been working on our with our consultants on um numbers with that and
from what we have been projecting, the first year, if it should go into effect, we would see a 4 million loss that first budget cycle, but for the over a 10-year period, by year 10 we would be seeing 80 million dollars worth of >> How much? >> 80 80 >> 80 80?
>> Yeah, million dollars worth of loss. >> So, you do have our consultants here. >> And if I recall, one of the auditor findings um stated that we should not approve expenditures in the future. I don't know if that's in the redevelopment act, but we're approving something if this board were to approve it, we would approve
something to be drawn down in 2030. Is that >> Can we do that? >> Can we even do that? >> You're asking me if that's legal. So, in the past, there was a a 3-year limitation in the statutes where you had to spend the money at the end of the
fiscal year within 3 years of its appropriation. The legislature took the 3-year rule out. >> Okay. >> So, you could appropriate the money and and have it spent in a year, 2 years, 10 years. Um but the effect on the budget, that's
a whole different issue. >> Correct. And when you hold eight more million, nine million dollars in our budget every year, that's nine million dollars that we could have reinvested into businesses, other projects that could have created us more tax revenues. So, I don't know if this board wants to approve this item tonight, but I think
we should maybe maybe make some amendments, maybe it shouldn't be four years, maybe it should be another year or two years, or if there's any guidelines that we can say, "Hey, you approve it, but if, you know, other projects come forward, we should be able to, you know, we should be able to fund
other projects." Um I know I've been, you know, there's other projects along with Dixie, other developers who are waiting and we're saying we don't have money, we don't have money. But to hear that nine million dollars have been in our line item being held up for how many years to me it's a third. Um so, I'm not
sure what this body would like to do tonight, but I think that, you know, there should be some negotiation. We just can't let someone just say, "Hey, hold up our our funds again for another four years." And if they're ready, if they're not ready, um you know, I would like to hear what my colleagues have to
say about it. >> Yes, I'd like to hear as well. Um I think Councilman, go ahead. >> I'm sorry, one more thing. Will this if this item passes, does it impact any other items on the agenda tonight or >> Very Yes.
In a short way, yes, there is an impact. >> Okay, thank you. >> Based on that question, does it a affect any other project that's already been approved? >> Already been approved? >> Yeah. This If we approve this, does it already affect any project that's already been
approved? >> No. >> Okay. But I I didn't think so. Okay. Question, uh the nine million dollars, are we gaining interest every month at the bank? >> No. No, we're not. >> We don't get any money off a million dollars. >> get we get interest. We all of our money
accrues interest, but there's it's not in a special interest >> I just such a Mr. Sorry, how much in dollars have you all spent on the site already with the you mentioned utilities. >> Um I believe we're at about 3.4 million dollars totally spent to the where this
project is this time. >> Cuz I understand cuz I know I saw it cuz it's in my district that FPL was doing some cabling and uh other utilities were being done. So, you're moving forward on that project. >> We've moved forward on that and and that was, you know, part of my original statement. Um yes, there are no bricks
coming out of the ground yet, but we've done utility work on the site um to the tune of about I believe about $600,000 then with other stuff that we've invested in, you know, putting together plans and moving forward with some other things. We're about $3.4 million in
right now. And if if if it is the board's will, I understand Councilman um Board Member Timothy's concerns. Um a 2-year We're gracefully I mean, we'll we'll take 2 years if that's the >> Let me Let me Let me Hang on. Let me finish with my my questioning. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Um >> the 2-year >> What was the last extension we gave uh recently to Redwood? They asked for Hang on 1 second, Mr. >> I I know, Councilman, but >> What is the last We just gave them an extension of another additional year when they were shovel-ready,
did not need public financing, and they were ready to go when they won the RFP. >> That's right. CRE didn't >> Yeah, the the CRE >> the Redwood project. >> The CRE >> They didn't ask for an extension on the project recently. >> There have never been any um amendments
>> On the on the amendment. All right, then I then I stand corrected on the timeline of the project. >> Maybe the city lease. >> But also >> So, hang on 1 second, Mr. Mayor. Um We've tied up $8 million for for Redwood. We've tied up another
additional money there. What I'm just saying is that I would have never approved this lease to begin with giving away public parking lot. I wasn't here at the time, but I have to deal with what we have now. Um I would entertain
reducing it to 18 months. Either get it done or you don't done and and you move and you move on. Um I think that would be reasonable because we have a whole lot of approved projects in this town that are not moving forward um because of the the the financing and
the instability of the market. Um it is very very difficult. Um I think your your your employer is capable of getting the money and getting it done. And if there's got to be a deadline, 4 years is way too long. 18 months is somewhat reasonable.
Um by the time you get the bank approval and then you start the the city stuff, uh you're going to need that time. But um that would be the only recommendation recommendation that I would um and and I agree we should not keep funds out there for a long long period of time, but I
think an additional 18 months we're already in bed, you've already expended a couple million dollars. You're not just sitting there. >> [snorts] >> Um give you the benefit of the doubt and uh and move on. That's all I have to say. >> Okay, thank um thank you yeah yes sir. Give me 1 second
and we'll go to Councilman um Charles. Piggyback on what the the um Councilman Burns was saying. I you you came up with you say 15 12 months or 15 months? >> 18 months. >> 18 months. That That's what How many
That's a year and a half or um the problem that we would run into with that number then nothing in this agenda we could do anything with. So, which I'm fine either way the board wants to go. Um
because I was okay with um the 4 year, but then I understand about this thing which totally makes sense now that Councilman Burns says the 18 months makes perfect sense. So, as a board, I'm I'm okay with whichever way we go, but I do want to caution
the board. Um we you know, we we we will have to to honor our commitment. We will have to keep it and then maybe the other folks that we applied, whatever whatever the case is, um because we would be in trouble in terms of the um drawing down the money.
>> So, I'm sorry. Trying to understand. So, you're saying if this item passes at 18-months or >> Yeah, we don't >> or the four years that the other projects on the agenda can't get funded? >> Stall. They stall you can't >> Yes, it stalls. >> Four year I I I we even had the the issue that when I
>> Oh, so that's why it was four years is what you're saying? Because to allow the other projects. But so what happens if the these projects are not delayed or they're delayed a year or two? Please clarify your question. I'm not understanding. >> Okay, if he just said that if we pass the four years, then we can move forward
with the other projects, correct? Yes or no? >> Correct. >> And but what I'm saying is let's just say one of the projects is a year or two behind. >> So >> a project begin becomes delayed and then this Alor project is on time for 2030,
yes, it will create an impact. So, I think this this is where you guys are going to have to negotiate with you know, if the board decides to move forward with it, um it has to be based on funding availability because if they're Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> So, so just so we all understand in in each of these grant agreements, there
are conditions precedent to be met and there's a time frame. So, in each of the new documents that we're going to produce, they have a year to come and you know, have all their permits done, have all their financing in place and be ready to go in, you know, with shovels in the ground, otherwise it goes away.
The the document, the grant terminates. That's what's been going on with Alor and that's what we've been extending is them complying with the condition precedents. So, if you're asking if the other projects have delays, they may not get their funding because they they were
delayed and they are not meeting the terms of their grant agreement. They may come before you and say, "We want an extension now." Like these folks have been asking for. >> But now, if they're asking for 4 years, obviously they're not going to be ready in 18 months. >> Well. Is that true, sir? >> I under-
>> Mr. Sorry. >> Excuse me. >> Will your client be ready in 18 months? But I'm sure this is why you're asking for 4 years is because he will not. >> No, I I think our 4 years was allowing um in our conversations with everyone, we've understood that there are projects coming up the pipeline. So, our thing
was, "Hey, we'll step out of the way and even if we start in 12 months, we can't draw down our money or get reimbursed for until 2030." That's what we're saying. We're fine, you know, not having the money. We're not going to come and tomorrow we might get the financing
tomorrow and start our building. But this just says you can't ask for reimbursement until 2030. That's all we're asking in an attempt to help and be good partners in this as we have slowed the CRA down. So, we're asking to push back to 2030 before we draw down on any of our money so you can move forward
on some of these projects this evening. >> Then you'll be in trouble. Go ahead, sir. >> Yes, uh Mayor, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Uh my position is very simple. I think what we're doing, you
understand, doesn't make sense and then I'll speak for myself. Holding that money for that long already is a problem. The CRA is not a bank. And every year that we have to hold the
money into our budget, just stalling a lot of projects that could provide affordable units to our residents of North Miami. I think basically we're doing a disservice to our community by doing this. And uh Mr. Sorry started by saying, "We
are simply ask." It's not simple. It's not simple. Every day we hold to we we holding that money down we stop all the developers to come up with affordable units that we could house
North Miami residents who are now don't even have a place to live. So, we have to understand. And then you made a point about we started paying the city and everything. And you know why we started this thing. It's not just because you want to pay, because you have another deal.
So, that has to be clear. So, my position is that as um Vice Chair started when our law is ready, they can come back and apply. But now it is just not fair to everybody who's ready to go for us to
hold that money down year after year. Last time we had that conversation and your promise that was going to be the last time you just going to hold this again. Now you come back by asking for 4 years. That make no sense. And you know that doesn't make any
sense. And you can't even explain it to our residents in here. Cuz this doesn't make any sense. So, my my point is that best way to move let's stop this thing once and for all. When our law is ready, they come back and apply.
That'll be the best way. >> Thank thank you, councilman councilwoman. >> I have no comment. >> Mr. Chair, no comment? Okay, yes, sir. >> Uh follow up with something. From my understanding and my briefings that let's put it out. There's another
project coming that has not yet been approved, that's on the agenda, that's asking for a whole lot of money that has not yet been approved. So, everybody's negotiating to make sure this project that's coming on the agenda
that has not been approved yet, that's asking for a tremendous amount of money as if it's a done deal. >> Mhm. >> I understand that Mr. Tate and his group said, "We'll hold off, won't draw any money till 2030, and this way it frees
up money for you to go ahead and fund this unapproved project that we have not passed yet tonight. Am I wrong or missing something here?" Is that not the reason why he Mr. Tate said he would wait till 2030 to take the draw, even though he would be
ready to build next year? >> Mhm. Oh, he's Wait a minute. >> Wait a second. Because I was told that if they fund this if they if this uh Mr. Tate and gave him a 2-year extension, then you wouldn't be able to do the other project that is coming up on us,
and that the Tate group said, "All right, instead of 2028, cuz they were originally going to ask for a 2-year it got moved to 2030 so that you could accommodate mathematically the other the other uh project that may or may not come before us tonight." That's the way
it was explained to me by staff. >> Mhm. >> Tell me if I'm wrong. >> I don't know when Mr. Tate is going to be ready for his project. What I advised was based on our budget, both I all the items do we don't have funding capacity for everything, and I did explain that
to everyone, and that has been brought up in the meeting earlier. So, that was what I I explained. I don't know when this project is going to be ready. >> But you agreed with the suggestion to hold off until 2030 for the funding for them to draw. That like Mr. Sorry said, they may start construction next year.
But they're not going >> I'm not agreeing to anything. I'm not I'm not agreeing to anything. I bring the items up >> proposal that was proposed. >> But I don't agree. >> You didn't We're here supposed to We're here to talk about agreeing it or not agreeing it. Now so now we're saying now we're saying
that he the Tate people and I can care if they get it or not. >> Was agreed to say all we won't draw down until 2030. We'll hold off so that you guys can possibly fund and do this other project. That is what I understand by
briefings that that I received and and you cuz you had told me that you cannot do both projects. We don't have the money. >> of all, >> Councilman stops. She doesn't make decisions. We do. >> But we rely on her expertise to >> to give us the >> to to know where money we have and don't.
>> Absolutely and I and I'm ready and I was ready to support the the four-year or the 18-year but I what I explained to Yeah, what what you >> You said 18-year. >> Well, it's probably will be 18-year with the way it's going. The um the 18 months that you
you proffer Councilman, the problem that we we have and and and and everyone knows as much as we appreciate and and love Mr. Tate, um the way you put it Councilman and and we got to be careful to putting one item against another.
That that's not we here with with with this one. Whoever's on this agenda has not come and asked for any extension. So we So we've been very very fair and and everybody knows here and I said I would support whatever that we have with with the agenda. However, the money part. So
it's now the 18-month you you you you you proffer which I'm you know I'll I'll be okay. We could do that. The problem that we have with the 18 months then nothing else could come within the 18 months because we are waiting which
fairly we were how many years how [clears throat] many extension is it two >> It's been two extensions. This project was approved by the board on June 22nd, 2021. >> So that why >> Okay, why don't I do this? I take away my 18 months.
>> 12 months. >> They thought they negotiated with staff that to to accommodate other projects that 2030 would come up. So, I take that back and and just >> And so, if I think we >> Do Do you want Don't >> be clear, there was no negotiation.
We were provided documents by Mr. Tate's attorney in the form that you see them tonight. Here they are. >> Okay. >> We did not negotiate this. >> But you had discussions. >> No, there were no discussions. >> Okay. >> So, you guys just took whatever they proffer. >> There was an email
with documents that you have on the agenda tonight. I made one small change to them um that was accepted. Had nothing to do with the four years versus 18 months or anything like that. >> And there's no talks cuz I know at one point they wanted to transfer the grant agreement from one building to another
building. There's no talks of that as well? No, that did not come to us. I'm just making sure that it's not hidden somewhere in this >> I just I'm just relying on information >> that you received. >> people reach out and talk about and they and and and the agreements of what it
meant. >> [music] >> And I questioned, "Why are you going to 2030? Four years away? Why would you do that?" And it was so we could accommodate another project for the CRA. >> Can we just have them reapply? >> You have a You have a $17 million
request coming up and something else. You can't do that if they don't extend their thing because if he comes tomorrow, says he's ready to get the money, you're everybody's telling me Wait a minute. You >> I want to be clear. I prepare the items for your consideration. When I bring the
agenda items, I prepare the items, I brief them, I make zero decisions on these items. I do not vote. >> decisions, but you brief us of what the uh the the uh consequences are one way or the other. If >> I do. >> approve this or don't approve it, >> Absolutely.
>> Then there's there's a problem for the the other. >> Absolutely. And that was And that And that was >> All I'm saying that you They were working with staff or made a suggestion we would hold out to 2030. Is that not correct? >> No, it's not. >> Why did 2030 show up because it was to
accommodate the budget? >> That was what was profit No, Mr. Story's trying to say something. >> Um for the record, um we did We knew that it was going to be an issue with us getting extended right now because this is going to be as we say our second
extension. So, we were looking at a way >> Third third >> third extension. We were looking at a way which made sense for everyone and that was, "Hey, we're willing to push back and push back our draw, not saying we're pushing back our development, our the
way we're moving forward. We're willing to push back our draw on taking any CRA money until minimum 2030. That's how it came. We proffered, we sent it in to the CRA and told them, "Hey, you know, we know that you guys
have, you know, a lot of stuff coming up. We would like to offer this for our extension." We did a agreement a couple like I said, we did agreement a couple week couple weeks ago regarding the the the same property where we did a lease agreement.
So, now we're saying, "Hey, we can push our thing back. Let other people move forward if they want to move forward. We'll draw down in 2030." But for the record, we have received financial term sheets that are asking for personal guarantees. We're trying to
bring partners on board to take some of that personal guarantee off of just the Tate the TR TR Holdings. So, that's what we're working on right now. So, I don't want it to be that the staff proffered this to us. This was something that we
came up with and just to make sure that it gave us more skin in the game for us to get this extension approved. >> And and I appreciate that, but to make it clear with the extended, which I I was okay
with either way, but until we we learned there would be issues with the money because we just don't have money. That's just the bottom line. So >> No, we have money. We got $9 million in the bank. >> Well, I mean I mean other money other other than than
than that money. So again, councilman, I was trying to you know, I'm okay with you going this way, but you just got to make it worse because you you saying to us that we you know, it's picking this one over the um over this particular But it's not
>> Because the director said if we approve the 18 months, we still mess up the financing for a proposed something that's on here. >> No, because we wouldn't have the money. Go ahead. >> I have a question. When does this When does this agreement expire? >> When does this one expire? >> June 30th
>> of this year. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's the real That's the real issue. >> executive >> If this is extended till 2030, can all of the other items, if approved, be approved? >> They can be approved. >> Okay.
>> But if it is it um amended to 18 months, then no other item can be approved. >> We would not have funding capacity. >> On top of that, I'm just we're finding out also that June 30th, this expires. >> Correct.
>> So we need to make a decision as a board. Are we going to extend it or going to let it expire? What are we going to do? Because we have other items. >> Here's >> Almost 7:00. >> And also, let's not put blame on the executive director. Like we were all pretty >> That's how we got here.
>> So the question >> We were >> We have We know that if we want all of the projects to be approved, then we know we how to move. >> And uh Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, if I may, um not only don't do not put the blame on the executive director, but also the
board. But also the board. Because if you go back 2 years ago when we come with uh nonsense, I was speaking against it. It's not the first time. Because it doesn't make any sense.
Any sense whatsoever for us to keep on holding that money in here while we have other projects that are suffering. Simple. So, that is that is what you need to see. But please, don't believe it's because of this or that. No. Go back and look at the record.
That was my position back then. It is my position today. And the best way to move, let this thing expire so that we can move on. They will go back in we apply 2030. Go back and we apply. >> Let me ask the executive director a question.
And and and I'm okay with cuz what I thought until you put this ranker thing um >> [music] >> Councilman Burns regarding the 18 months. So, with the four year again, everything on this agenda we okay
because my my biggest question is we don't want to approve something and then the CRA is in trouble um later. And we know with the perhaps we we may be in trouble in terms of the the tax um they the
>> Yeah. >> What what's the thing called with the >> tax. >> the property tax >> Everybody can >> amendment. So, that will go in effect if it you know, this year so 2028. So, 2030 we would So, if you and the attorney and I'm ready to go ahead and move on and and approve or at least vote for my my
my vote with this. If you could tell us in 2030 any of these other projects and I'm not specifically talking about this particular item, the other ones. If we approve this as we were and I and I and again I was okay with, um, moving forward with it for the four years, it
would it would not be an issue with with with us with the CRA in in four years. >> Approving this item to begin funding in 2030, >> Mhm. >> we have funding capacity, but we will have funding capacity only for this,
which is why I said it does have an impact. We're not able to do other things. So, we would have >> we would have a tight budget. >> With the four years, yes. And because remember, we are start we are funding if other items have a five-year funding period, this is only putting us out four
years. There would be overlap in funding different items. There is going to be some overlap. So, there is going to be years where we would be tight, where we would not be able to fund maybe different programs that we may want to do, you know, accommodate different developments that we may want to
participate in. So, as it is right now, there is funding capacity, but there would not be funding capacity to do anything else. Additionally, of course, the property tax exemption is looming over everybody's head. That will change everything, but it is not yet in effect. We are modeling, um, we're making our
projections to look at what our numbers would be. There's going to be a tightness on our budget because of that. So, I mean, all of those things need to be taken into consideration. And we've briefed on I mean, we have had these conversations. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, sir. And we'll close.
>> If if they get the extension to 2030 and they begin construction in 18 months or a year from now, um, and the building gets built and it's up and running, um, by 2030, does that throw off additional tax dollars to us?
CRA revenue, correct? >> Does it throw off Would it Does it add? It Yes, yes, it would give us additional revenue. >> Okay. >> But they also get a TIF rebate. >> They get a TIF rebate >> additionally. >> But >> there's still some money that's going to uh >> There would be some money that they will generate some dollars for this project.
>> We None of us know what 2030 is going to look like >> No. >> money, the city uh at that point uh Homestead is going to be a $250 or $250,000 a year. And whether we even still have a CRA at that point in time is uh is down to be you
said. And so >> by me. >> You have the capacity now, and I think it works from my understanding it works that by pushing that off to 2030 before they start to do the draw down, and you can actually tie it up over instead of just
1 year over a 2-year period. You could negotiate that out, right? As far as the draw draw down goes. >> Mhm. Yeah, yes, there would be >> Yeah, or 3 years already, right? So, it's not a big hit all at one one time. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Yes, Councilman. >> I have one Yes, go ahead. >> No, no, no, no, no.
>> No, I'm going to ask this directly to you. Just want to be clear. >> Send them to me. >> What we're saying >> Mhm. >> extending this agreement 18 months. 2030, we still cannot touch the money. Is that Is that right?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, you're still going to have to leave the money in the bank account? We would not be If they're not If they're ask I mean, that is something that we're going to The board has to direct. Is that money going to be able to be used for other things during that period? Yes, right? So, then >> Because >> Yeah. >> Absolutely.
>> My whole point is that My whole point is that why don't we let this thing expire? Then they come back and apply in 2030 to get the to find the money when they're ready for the project. >> Cuz I have an issue with that cuz you I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Yeah, no, no, because again
the applicant had ample amount of time to secure financing and everything to come back in here with a clean project with everything that's been done. I was not on the board at that time. I am not going back there. But here, what I'm saying is that we're basically holding a
ton project, a lot of projects, just because of one one applicant. So, I don't understand the preferred treatment that we're talking about now because, again, the CRA is still going to be around 2030. They can come back and apply.
Simple. >> You had a something, councilwoman? >> No, yeah, cuz you made mention that if if this item passes and we pass all the other items on the agenda tonight as well, um that we will have capacity for no future projects. >> Correct. >> Cuz I see Mike
>> And when we say projects, I also mean the way we run our port we're thinking about our commercial programs, all of those things that we fund normally, we may have to tweak how we operate to be able to do that. >> So, and I'm seeing Mike and Gypsy in the back and I know that they have plans for
West Athens as well. So, a project like that potentially probably won't be able to get funded. >> No. >> Okay. Is there any way to put any type of um conditions in there? Like, let's say the the applicant has to do a, you know, quarterly check-in to see where they're at with their um conditions that
they have to meet. And if not, maybe there's like an automatic year, um you know, it maybe goes to 2031 or you know, I'm just trying to create room for capacity for other projects here because, you know, maybe this item passes tonight. I don't know. I'm not in support of it. But, I just want to put
that out there. Is there a way to put some type of mechanism in there that they have to do maybe a check-in every, you know, every year to see if they're not meeting. So, if not, maybe we push it back a year. >> So, that's not in the current amendment as it is before us, and I don't know if anybody is here to
agree to that amendment right now. >> Right. You could you could put anything you want in there. You could say they have to start construction in 12 months, otherwise it terminates at that point. They're just pushing back the funding. >> Mhm. >> So, you could put some other sort of requirement on when they start
construction. When they get their construction loan. And if they don't get it by a certain date, then it goes away and then you don't have to wait 4 years to find out whether or not you have to pay them the money. >> I just I just want to make sure that we you guys can put something in there that creates mechanism for other projects to
come in cuz let's say in 2028 they're not ready again or 2030 they're not ready again. Like now we have delayed future money for 4 more years. >> There was no negotiation. It was like here's the agreement. >> But even outside of that, the concern I would have in doing that today is that
we do not have the other party present to say that they agree to that. So we don't know we don't know that if we put those extra terms in there, if that's going to be amenable and then we don't know leaving this if the agreement is going to expire or not.
So I don't know what that would be. >> So he's here. Let me ask the representative cuz I'm ready to make a motion and see if my colleagues will support it. Um can you find out from your client if just like the the vice chair mentioned if we do put a restriction and we say
he said 18 months but we said you know we we we can't hold things for for for a while. Again, I was ready for the 4-year then I understand um Councilman Burns' point and that kind of tied up everything. But if we say 12 months without no exception
of coming back here again, would that work for um for him because that's holding us the and that's 12 months out of our stuff. No, well, I'm just it it wouldn't work Mr. Chairman. >> I want to be clear. So and again because the conversation has already been about funding capacity, if we would not have
funding capacity. 12 months does not solve the the funding capacity. If she needs it in 2030. >> What I'm saying is it is self-serving if we extend them to 2030 cuz it frees up that $9 million to play with for a couple years for other things and it's
in the mix from my understanding because that bill doesn't come due starting drawing down till 2030. It gives you more funding capability at this time. >> you. >> Um, and it's not like because you all are going to have to decide we're all going to have to decide uh to spend that
money that's sitting there from my understanding. And so, that gives you the the the capability to fund some of the other projects that uh seem to be important. So >> what I what and I'm what I'm saying, Mr. Mayor, is that if you guys move forward with the four years because that seems
to be the more favorable one, 2030, put some stipulations in No, but but put some stipulation in there that every year if they're not ready to move forward, that maybe it goes, you know, you know, like I'm just saying that >> I hear I just want to be careful about negotiating without the party here. I'm
thinking we have an amendment that we don't have because then if these terms are not, for whatever reason, amenable to the party who would be bound by it, not his representative, then that agreement may end up expiring not and you know, thing and there's an intent that was not had. So, I really do want
to make sure that the person who would be bound by the agreement agrees to the terms that are being offered. >> Mr. Story, you're shaking your head. >> I would I would Yeah. I would um on behalf of my client, I would agree with the terms of the vice mayor to check in on an annual basis and give an update of where we are. Um, the one thing that I would, you
know, want to say on behalf of my client is this deal from the beginning was predicated on CRA dollars and the land. So, saying to build without the protection in place that we do have CRA dollars that are there available for us to draw down later kind of kills the
deal because, yeah, we start building and then, hey, there's no money available, then now we're at a point where we're out completely. And then the deal doesn't work to build. >> No, I hear you. We'll do the yearly check-ins, that's fine. And then ensure that if there's if we do have other projects that are shovel-ready, that
they'll also be, you know, they'll know that maybe we take on another project instead of cuz you know that we we're doing block by block we're doing you know West 60 and all this other stuff and this thing cost cost money. We can't just hold them. So. >> We're definitely amenable to the year the year check-ins.
>> So what what I'm concerned with is I want to make sure that whatever if there is an agreement that's going to be made that it frees up dollars. And you know totally free up dollars. Like I'm hearing that there was 9 million that were held and we couldn't do
anything because no we want the ability so I would need you know >> So if we are going to agree to an extension to where this is they cannot draw down funding until 2030 then we would not be budgeting a lure until the year 2030.
>> Right. >> That's when we begin budgeting them. So right now they're in our budget we >> but but what I'm what I heard you say is that even with that it holds up or it ties up our ability to do anything else. Is that what I hear you say?
>> So if we have both projects on our books even though we know we're funding them beginning 2030 yes we're not able to then when another project comes to us if somebody wants to have a meeting with either the board or the or the CRI staff about a major scale project they are
normally coming in the beginning stages to kind of get their funding together. They're not going to be trouble ready for another 18 probably 24 months. So we're in 2026 that will be putting a project 2028 to see that they want to start coming funding. Once they begin the project in 2028 they normally don't
get their first reimbursement probably till the following fiscal year that's 29. Now you have two projects with a 2030 start. So what I am saying is just because I understand the timeline of how the projects come and when we begin funding them yes it would have an impact on how we fund future projects. So yes
if we do the 2030 amendment today for a lure everything on the agenda we will have financial capacity for. Anything that has not yet been brought to the board, we do not have financial capacity for, especially because we've not yet fully understood the effect of what will happen with the property tax exemption
if it um should pass in November. I can't say that we would have and I do expect that we're going to have to make modifications to how we currently operate. >> And excuse me, I just I want to caution you if you do this and you don't have
the money in 2030 cuz you spent it on another project, you're going to be in default of this agreement. >> Can't we take that part out? We cannot take that part [laughter] out. >> Then that's the Yes. >> And and most of these agreements do have a provision that says it's subject to funding availability, but Mr. Tate
negotiated that initially to say we can only reduce it by 20%. >> Correct. >> So let me So So I can each year by 20 >> No. >> Brads, the grant agreements say if we don't have the money for some reason, the property tax issue, the the government
fails, whatever, and we don't have the money, we're not contractually obligated to give you the grant. Mr. Tate negotiated that to say that's okay, but only 20% a cut of 20%. >> Okay, correct.
Well, we would have to, but that would have to the party would have to be here, right? Again, the third amendment that's in here. >> He is the party representative. He say he he is the >> not. I want to be clear that this story He's a representative, but he's not bound. He's not signing these agreements and he's not contractually bound right
now. >> I Mr. Emanuel, please stop. He's here as the official representative for Mr. Tate. So whatever that we do, he will have to agree. Full stop. >> He will agree to that or not.
>> Mr. So you mean every No, no, no. >> I agree with the executive director. >> Okay, but So Mr. Zakrzewski So >> So, are you telling me every contract that we have the and cuz I've been here for almost 15 years. I've never So, you telling me every representative that
that that has come before us the person who's signing and sometimes we don't even know the owner has to be here to agree to it while he is their legal representative? >> Yes. Yes, they're the actual >> So, then what why did we even put this on the agenda? If it cuz it doesn't make sense to me.
>> the Excuse me, if you're changing the terms of what the document in your agenda package is saying to be something else than what is proffered on the dais tonight, the person who is signing the document, the party, TRNM Holdings, has to be here to agree to that.
>> Or their legal counsel. >> He doesn't have a power of attorney. >> Correct. >> Okay, to say I can agree to these things. He's just saying, "I think my client would agree to that." >> So, we put a stipulation on on our >> So, can we put an amendment where we if
>> That's what I'm saying, but >> when it passes or not? >> No, no, we can't. And that's what that's why I just want to be very careful about I'm I'm really just trying to make sure that the board has the information so you can make the decisions you need to. But no, Mr. Sorry cannot bind TRNM Holdings. He does not have that
authority. >> So, did he I'm lost here. >> So, if we pass an amendment tonight and make changes to whatever there was agreed upon, you're saying that that's not a >> without his No, what is here before us tonight can be passed and he is a
representative because he's been given that what we have here tonight. Any changes that we make to this amendment that the party's attorney or the party himself is not agreeing to we don't know if they're they're going to agree to. That is not going to be binding by both
parties. >> And I and I recall and I recall and I recall there was a a rule that was implemented by one of the prior council people who'd been here for many many years that when these things come up that the owner should be here.
>> Just for these situations. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. sorry. >> If the only amendment as I'm understanding it right now is for us to agree to annual check-ins, we're fine with that. If we don't assign it by the time our deadline ends and Mr. Tate doesn't agree, then it goes away.
That's it. We but my my client is watching the meeting and he's agreed that we will do the annual check-ins and if that's the only amendment, we're fine and we're ready to go. >> Yeah, and so if he's watching the meeting and the only thing that he's agreeing to is the annual check-ins when far more substantive terms have been put forth and he's not agreeing to those
things, I really want to caution the board that that is an indicator that he does not agree. >> Uh if if I may, Mr. Chair, um we're talking about uh holding a lot of money and holding a lot of projects. And then now all I heard is annual annual
check-in. It's like um every year when I go to the doctor to annual check-ins. What what we doing? We cannot move with this. We cannot move with this. So, this doesn't make any sense. We've been sitting on this item for like way too long and there's we we're not going
anywhere. >> So, there there. >> Well, every time I was there there. >> Well, go ahead. >> It's it's not uncommon to have check-ins because that's what this document is. You're giving us an update on every single project, what money has spent, hasn't been spent, how much is still left. That's a check-in. It's every 3
months. The council woman proposed also that it's once a year. You got to do your favor and and do it more often. And >> Once a year with funding delayed if they're not ready. >> And so >> But again, that funding delay, that's a substantive You see, a check-in not
substantive. Funding delay, very substantive. And we don't have a party here to agree to that. >> to that part? >> No, I can't agree to that part. >> Okay. Okay. See. >> So, where are we with this? >> I think the motion has to be on the item as it's presented to the board right now.
>> And what is presented to us? The the four year? >> The 2030. >> So many Okay. All right. So, Madam um Secretary? >> Do we have to open it for public hearing? >> Do we Yeah, do we public public hearing is open on the item. >> The other one we forgot it.
>> Oh lord. >> This look like a council meeting today. Hi everyone. >> Charles Marr, 970 Northeast 126th Street. In my opinion, we should let this die. Just let it die. And he can come back and negotiate
whether it's July 14th at the special meeting or sometime other. And plus, if he can't be here to watch in person, why can't he
get this Why can't he get this? >> Seeing non public hearing is closed with on the item and >> I would move it as proposed at this time. >> With our amendment? No? >> They didn't agree They didn't agree. >> They didn't agree to to what?
>> doesn't like the amendment. >> No, they didn't agree to it. >> No, they didn't Yeah, they didn't agree to >> Okay, it's not the um Go ahead um Okay, Madam Okay, hold on hold on Mr. Solomon. >> Yeah, we were using >> You They were just talking for a second.
>> That was Well, well, there's a motion so it's uh we we have a motion and second. We call it in. Um You have You have a uh update? >> I was just saying we're agreeing to the one-year check-in. That's fine. >> That >> Is there a second? >> in there. They said it already. Go ahead.
>> She's waiting for a second. >> The motion fails for lack of second. >> I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, I second it. >> I have a motion made by board member Burns to approve agenda item two. The motion was seconded by board member Desulme Chairman Desulme. All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> No. >> Nope. >> The motion carries with a 3-2 vote. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Agenda item three, resolution approving La Puerta PSA, a resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the purchase of improved real property
located at 12495 Northeast Second Avenue. North Miami, Florida 33161 from La Puerta Life Center Inc. for a purchase price not to exceed $4,150,000, authorizing the executive director to execute the commercial contract and
addendum for the purchase of the property, authorizing the executive director to take all action necessary to purchase the property including payment of the purchase price and closing costs as well as the execution and delivery of all closing documents and providing for an effective date agenda item three.
>> Staff would like to propose some changes to this. As you have all been briefed, we did receive our appraisal yesterday on the property. That property has now appraised for $3.265 million. There was a 25-ft portion of the property that could not be identified.
The owner was not identified. We did have a time to speak with the seller and they advised that that property that 25-ft portion is an easement from the city for ingress and egress. So, that did affect the appraisal to the tune of $500,000.
What we are asking for right now is approval to purchase the property at the appraisal value >> of what? >> 3.265 plus the 500, so it would be 3.765. Because the seller
needs they are an entity, so they have to have their board to meet. They're not going to meet until Friday. However, if they do not agree, then we will allow the um we would have the contract terminate. We will not go above appraisal value. However, they did identify that there was a reason why the appraisal came in that $500,000 lower.
We are providing the documents over to their appraiser and asking them to reappraise. And whatever rate reappraises for, then it would come back. But we are asking for the authority to be able to purchase the property at the appraisal value, not to exceed 3. 3.765 million dollars. >> 3.1
>> 7 >> You said 2.3.256 [clears throat] >> That was what the appraisal value came in first. And the reason why is because there's a 25-foot parcel that was not appraised with the property because they could not find the ownership. However, those documents are being provided to
us. So, we will have to have it reappraised with that portion of it there, which we believe will give us an additional 500,000. However, what we're asking for right now is that we get the authority to um enter the contract at the appraisal value once the new
appraisal is done, not above. And but the other the seller was not able to make any formal decisions today because they need to meet with our board. They don't do that until Friday. >> So, do you want to move this item to the 14th? >> We possibly >> Okay. >> Hold on.
>> Hold on. >> Cuz we said we had a board special meeting. So, we might as well move it to >> I would I would have to check. I would have to check. 60 days to the contract there. >> Are you done? I Are you Are you done, madam um executive direct? >> One second. I just want to check when our um So, yeah, May 20th it would be
So, July 26th is when it would expire. >> Okay. While you and and Mr. Zuccolo is figuring this out, why are we buying a building? Let's start with this basic question. >> So, the CRA intended to have multiple purposes. First of all, to have the CRA
offices there, but additionally we would also have commercial tenants. >> For what? We have six six staff members. So, we just spent nine, and we have some other item here I would like to support on this agenda. Unless you could
tell me or provide that we won't have any issues with our funding, it's ridiculous. So, I really want to hear from my colleagues cuz you brought it to me, and I said I want to hear from from us to actually if this makes sense
for the CRA. Um we we just was in this little thing for 9 million, and we got other items we wanted to fund. >> Okay. >> So, my question to my colleagues, not you um Madam Executive Director, um
do are we okay what's going on? So, let me hear from >> Can we have I'm sorry. We have we have land acquisition. We I I just I just want to be clear about something. I know can I just be clear on something? Um if it is the will of the board, I did check the contract >> Yeah, we did.
>> to make sure that if we were to hear this on the July 14th meeting, we would still be within our contract period. So, that is still an option for the board. I just wanted to make that clear. That being said, yes um Madam Vice Chair, we do have a land acquisition line item, and I was directed to find property by the board.
>> I I I stand correctly. I forgot about that um cuz I don't remember that. >> from the loan. And that's the only money that we $5 million from the loan, and that's the only money that we can spend on it because that's what we told the county we would spend the money on land acquisition. >> So, >> Mr. Chairman, >> Yeah, yes I'm going to let you go ahead.
>> You the the original sale price that you agreed to was 4.150. >> That's correct. >> That original. And I told you that the appraisal will no way come close to that based upon everything else in the area. The appraisal comes out at 3.125
million dollars. >> 3.125 The city looked at the same property. They went in there to look what an estimate to make the renovations cuz it is a 75-year-old building that is an empty shell. They estimated the minimum of 2 million
dollars. So, you were willing to spend 4.1 million dollars plus 2 million dollars, 6 million-dollar building that's 75 years old. Now, you want to spend 3.1 million dollars >> And we've had this conversation, so this is nothing surprise. I'm not throwing her under the bus. We're just having
dialogue. >> Correct. >> So, you the 3.1 still and then another 2 million dollars minimum on renovation. So, you're now at 5.1 million dollars to get it even workable at 10,000 square feet that we
as a CRA do not need. You have a concept that you like have incubators and all that kind of stuff. We got to live within our means. And then this 500 square that 25-foot setback, it's an easement. I my whole life here always thought it was for them
to widen the bridge and that was what the city was holding the easement for. I saw the survey you sent me and and always thought for years that if the city needed to run a water pipe or whatever, that was the area and it took out about 30 of those parking spaces
that could not be built upon, but you could have parking. I don't see how we can spend 5 6 million dollars on a building for the CRA to own, generates no tax dollars >> That's true. >> as opposed to as opposed to going ahead pay rent cuz
to recoup your 5 6 million dollars, you could pay rent at 125,000 dollars a year for the next 40 years and you would still break even and not have a non-income producing project. And if we were to build a building,
I would look at 7th Avenue or Dixie Highway right smack in the middle of the CRA. You got the old WMBM building that's up for sale for 1.9 million. It's built out, it's got 24 parking lots, it's right on 132nd Street, dead in the
center of the it's Northwest 7th Avenue, dead in the center >> not buying that? Because the No, because the church that currently operates out of there has first right of refusal and they're exercising their right. >> Well, there are other buildings on Dixie Highway that are for sale. >> [clears throat]
>> The CRA is supposed to stimulate redevelopment. This is an I I love the building. I love the property, it's great for something else, but it's not great for CRA, it's not great for the building and zoning department, it's great for somebody else to do something with. CRA, invest in the CRA main
corridor and put millions of your dollars in there to stimulate the the the synergy within the area. You and I disagree of not buying within the the the main corridors. I think that's where you put your money, buy existing buildings, fix it up, show that we're
putting money in there. But, the fact that we're going to spend $6 million is what it's going to come out to be and that you want us to allow whatever the appraisal comes in, the 500,000 plus the 3.1 I can't justify five $6 million on a
building to house six employees, maybe 10 down the line. It doesn't It doesn't make any sense. We can rent buy a condo at the bottom one of the buildings that we just funded with CRA money has condo retail space in the bottom for sale for office space. I
just don't understand it that it makes It makes no sense. And I've been doing this a long time and I love people to buy stuff, but for us, it doesn't make sense to buy something that needs that much work and a 75-year-old piece of
building. >> If I may, I was going to Please, please stop. Go ahead. Go ahead, Bill. >> No, I was going to ask if we can postpone this to the next meeting cuz >> Yes, please. Because and not only that, but I have a couple of items I would like to hear before we go. But, part of my frustration, a lot
of residents were emailing me and and calling me about this particular item. And I don't know if they refuse or they have not reached out to the council members and I had to ask some of them last night, you need to let them know because if you don't speak to them or whatever whatever, have somebody email
them because the community are not on on board with this. I don't know if you guys know this, if you guys are getting the calls or if it's only me. It's it's an issue out in the community. Um so >> the community doesn't know what the plans are. I've not had the opportunity
to share what they are, but I Is there a I mean, there was a motion to table until July >> No, no, the plan >> Yeah, I made a motion to table it. >> The community doesn't know what >> I know, I made a motion to second to the July 14th meeting. >> I I understand that uh board member, but I asked a question so
oh, okay. Oh, she made a motion. >> Yes, no, no, no, we going to we going to we going to postpone it. >> I know that the clerk needs to record that, so that's why I wanted to make sure that that was happening. >> Okay, yes. >> And and Madam Chair, I'm Director. I had a briefing with you yesterday afternoon and you said you were pulling
the item. I thought that you could have at least called me at 5:00 today and say, "Oh, by the way, I'm not pulling the item, but I'm going to amend it." That's that bothers me also because when I left your office yesterday after a briefing and you know where I stood about buying this particular property.
And that um you said, "I'm pulling it because we're not going to spend a million dollars more." If you called me and said, "Oh, this is what we're thinking of doing." At least give me a heads-up and I could get even more reasons why it doesn't make sense, but >> But, board member, I want to be clear, that's not what I said. What I did
explain to you was that if we could not come to terms with the seller, I would pull it because I would not in good faith recommend to the board to spend over a million dollars over the appraisal. We are not in that position. We are in a position where we may be able to come to terms to to the sellers so I can present the item to the board
for the board to vote on. So, that's why it still came forward. >> Thank you. You ever wonder why the building's been up for 2 years and they've reduced the price from 5.9 to 4.8. They keep reducing the price. It's been up for sale for for two two years or more. There's a reason for that.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> 6:58 >> I know. I just noticed that. Let me let me let me >> The motion hasn't been taken. >> How are we moving? >> We have a motion and a second on the floor at the moment. >> I have a motion. >> Yes, number four, please. Number four and then um
>> Wait, she didn't go ahead. >> I think we have to open up the city meeting and then close it and then go back to the CRA meeting. That's what we've done in the past. >> Yeah, okay. 6:58 >> Can we Can we do that? >> Yeah. >> Um okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> We'll do that after you take a vote on this item. >> Go ahead. >> I have a motion made by Vice Chair
Timothy to defer agenda item three to the July 14, 2026 special meeting of the North Miami CRA. >> It's item Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> No, I We're going to take it real quick. Do we What was it? We we were um >> It's a motion to defer? >> Item Oh, yes. Yes.
>> I agree. >> Yeah, no, no. He said >> The motion was seconded by board member Estimé Irvin. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Thank you. >> The motion carries with a 5-0 >> Thank you. Council Board member has to go. The last one is four and then we going to ask everyone if we could defer everything else on um
>> And no, no, no. >> Oh, we will we will we reopen it. We um I forgot about that part. >> Um Could we Could we take um Could we take item eight first? >> So, no. Let's do >> So >> Let's do >> So, can you can you recess >> able to do it in time.
>> Recess this meeting, please. >> Let's recess. >> Open up the city meeting and then recess the city meeting. >> And then come back. >> Okay. >> So, give us a few minutes. I won't go nowhere and then we'll take Okay? >> So, in 1 minute we'll be saving >> Do you need to vote to recess? >> So, calling a recess at 6:59 p.m.
>> just call it. You don't have to vote. >> You got it. Part: 2
7:18 p.m. Chairman Desulme. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Timothy. >> Here. >> Board Member Burns. >> Here. >> Board Member Estimé Irvin. >> Present. >> Board Member Charles. >> Present. >> Chairman, you have a quorum to proceed. >> Thank you so much. And before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the presence
of our state representative um we have Fabian Basabe in the back representing District 107 106. Oh, okay. I was close. >> [laughter] >> Thank you so much so for joining us um tonight. We just had a little over
lap in meetings. Um go ahead, Madam Executive Director. >> Agenda item four, approval of commercial rehabilitation grant request for the North Miami Police Athletic League. NMCRIE staff is requesting that the NMCRIE board approve the rehabilitation grant request of $150,000 from the North
Miami Police Athletic League for improvements to its facility located at 12110 Griffin Boulevard, North Miami. This item will require a waiver of the guidelines as there is no match requirement. The current threshold is $100,000 and the applicant is a not-for-profit entity.
>> Thank you so much. Any discussion? Well, um um >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> Do we have to open up a public hearing? >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. But but but Mr. Dale, please sit. Um any Guys, we're going to do this. We trying to move We We good. We went through a
lot of things on this um Council Member has a has an issue. So, public hearing is open again. So, you may say what you want to say. But it seems like we okay. >> Okay. >> So, I guess the shirt worked. >> [laughter]
>> Shirt. >> so much. >> Shirt. >> Um thank you. Public hearing is closed. >> I have a motion made by Board Member Charles to approve agenda item four. The The motion was seconded by Chairman Desulme. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries with a 5-0 vote.
>> We did put on the record, Madam Secretary, that includes the waivers that are in the agenda report of the match requirement exceeding the current threshold and it's a not-for-profit entity. Thank you. >> Yes, thank you so much. We did include item number five into our consent agenda
that was passed earlier. Item number six. >> Agenda item six, approval of commercial rehabilitation grant request, Solange Chez Solange Restaurant LLC. Staff request the board's approval for a rehabilitation grant request for $100,000 from Chez Solange Restaurant
LLC located at 130 30 Northwest 7th Avenue, North Miami, Florida. Approval of this item will require a waiver of guidelines by the board as there is no match requirement. >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> Public hearing? Seeing none.
>> Public hearing is open on the item. >> Seeing >> Seeing none coming, public hearing is closed. >> I have a motion made by board member Estevez into approve agenda item six. The motion was seconded by Chairman Desumeau. All in favor? Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. Agenda item seven,
approval of revised commercial grant guidelines, a resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the revised commercial grant guidelines of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency and a pri- and providing for an effective date. Agenda item seven. NMCRA staff is requesting that the board
approve the following the resolution to revise the following commercial guidelines. Here are the substantive revisions. The facade grant program, the staff is requesting that we increase the current threshold from $30,000 to $50,000 with no match requirement. >> [snorts]
>> We are also asking that we add a priority corridor enhancement to increase the grant to $75,000 with no match requirement for those who are on priority corridors. The second change is to include the priority corridor block-by-block grant program. This will
facilitate large-scale improvements on priority corridors by >> Thank you guys for coming. >> Thank you. >> and the triplets. >> Mhm. >> We're so grateful. >> [laughter] >> You are welcome. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yeah. >> The priority corridor staff would um
approve proposed inclusion of the program to the commercial guidelines because this will allow staff to strategically target block by block for large-scale [clears throat] exterior improvements. The property owners on that block that are chosen would not have to make any match requirement. We would the CRA would
undertake the full cost of that renovation and it would be done by contractors that are selected by the North Miami CRA. The final grant that we would like to propose including is the priority corridor tenant improvement um grant program. If you are a business owner on the priority corridor
and the exterior does not need any work or the exterior is being funded by the facade program, then the tenant would be eligible for $35,000 of build-out money for interior improvements only with no match requirement. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead.
>> Couple questions real quick. Um the priority corridors are still 7th Avenue and West Dixie Highway? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And then what other commercial district is going to be left in the CRA? Um what main corridor is in the CRA? Would that be uh 125th?
>> You have many. You have 119th, you have Northeast 6th, you have different ones. But currently the designated priority corridors are Northwest 7th Avenue and West Dixie. >> Okay. And and that money comes out of that 7th Avenue uh money, correct? That's the grants will
come out of there, the 75. >> The 7th Avenue one does, but the West Dixie one has its own allocation now. >> Okay. And on the priority corridor where you give the 35,000 for interior improvements, can they end up getting both the exterior up to 75 and the 35
interior at the same time? owner >> be able to get the 75,000 for the exterior improvement and then if they had a tenant in there who would qualify for the interior ESC, could get both. >> Okay. And I have a quick question. >> Go ahead. >> With um I'm okay with everything in here, but
that no match requirement. >> [snorts] >> Mhm. >> There's that open a loophole for especially on Northwest 7th Avenue. We have a lot of um crazy tenants. Buildings are all ugly. They make no sense and we should like ticket them every day.
And then now for opening these and there's no match requirement, how do we move with these people? So it's like it's like a free it's like a free way that we're giving them. I don't I don't fully understand this part because um if you go to Northwest 7th Avenue,
I'll tell you from 119th to 143rd Street, it's only one plaza that looks like something. After that, every every other plaza is just like so bad. So if we just vote on this,
we're not pushing those owners. I understand we want to help the tenant, but the owners, we're not pushing them. >> So remember >> You have like you have the flea market. We have the Motel 7. You have on and on and on and on. So I think this is not a good way to go because we're not going
to be able to push these people. That's that's my only point. >> So remember with the $35,000 for the business tenants, they the building cannot need exterior repairs. So if that building needs exterior repairs, we have to focus on that facade first. Additionally, all scope of work has to
be approved by the North Miami CRA and once we do have our commercial pool of contractors that we have, then all the work will be done by the um contractors that the CRA does select. So those are the things that we do have in place to kind of protect the investment of the CRA, but a business owner can't come to
us for that tenant improvement money and we go there and they need a facade. If the exterior needs to be done, that has to be done first before they get the the internal money. And it has to all be approved by the CRA. It's not just what they want. >> My point is that how do we hold them accountable?
By doing this. So, it's like basically we'll just go and fix everybody's building. So, it's like we have money, we just go and fix everybody's building. Um that's that's kind of my my point. >> Well, it's a minor fresh is it 35,000? Only for the reason >> 75. >> Oh, you >> I'm talking about that that I'm talking
about that 75 because again, I'm just going to say it on North 7th Avenue. We have so many uh plaza that are like >> Right. >> in bad shape. >> There's a 5-year maintenance period that they must upkeep the property and they have to agree to that or else they have to repay the funding. So, they do have
things that have to be in place. So, if we do fund the project and in year two, the project is not looking properly, owe the CRA back the money. So, there are there is a maintenance period that they do have to maintain the improvements that the CRA has made. >> Just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing because I don't feel
like to me personally, I don't feel like we're doing the right thing in this. Cuz you're just giving them a free ride. >> That that's right. >> I have I have picking on where the the councilman said if we're allocating $75,000 to a plaza on the priority corridors, Dixie Highway
and uh 7th Avenue. Yet, we have three items on here where to me the buildings are very small and the money already just for the windows, the storefront and the overhang is $150,000 all the way up to 300 something
odd thousand dollars. What is that $75,000 going to do on 7th Avenue that has a much bigger need? I just don't you want us to approve a million dollars or more of improvements on two little
buildings on on Dixie Highway. And then 75,000 on on the other priorities, I just don't think 75 is going to cut it and I think that we need to to to look at this a little bit more than than just right now. >> So, to be clear, we would have the
block-by-block program on Northwest 7th Avenue as well. We've already chosen a block that we'd like to bring to the board for consideration. This is to facilitate and this is for the large-scale improvements. This is to facilitate a business property owner who says, "Oh, I see what you're doing on this priority corridor. I don't want to have to wait until you get to my block,
but I want to make some improvements now." Then, they can make minor improvements at that $75,000 price point. They could do new signage, they could do painting, they could probably do some landscaping that will improve that corridor as well while we do get the block-by-block approach going
on to their corridor. So, this is not for those who are in the block-by-block program. It's for somebody else who's on the same corridor who sees the work that is happening and says, "You know what? I want to start improving my property now." They would get up to $75,000. But, for those who are in the targeted block-by-block program, we make all
exterior improvements at full cost as a CRA. >> Okay. When you >> Okay. So, if I a property owner, I do $75,000 worth of improvements that the CRA gave me money for, you come along 2 years from now, 3 years from now to do the block-by-block, you're going to
invest all this money. What happens to the stuff that I How do we make sure that $75,000 is spent that can be incorporated to what we're going to do block-by-block? Cuz if I'm just painting my building and putting signage up, and you're going to come around and say, "Oh, by the way, this isn't our scale.
We don't want these signs." How do we dictate that what they spend their money on is for the future plan when block-by-block gets to >> Because the CRA still the CRA still approves all scope of work. And because we already are doing that, and that's why I included the full guidelines are here. The redline guidelines are still
here, but we would approve all um scope of work prior to approving that project. So, since we know we're doing a block-by-block on West Dixie and on Northwest 7th Avenue, there's a motif that we already know. We know there's a design guidelines when we're approving the smaller projects there with that in mind. >> Okay. But, we also don't want a
>> cookie-cutter absolutely >> Raton where everything's tan and tile and everything else. We want the uniqueness of 7th Avenue and and Dixie. >> And the board made that clear, so we make that we make >> Are we Are we okay with moving forward or is there still some questions or if can we move this to the 14th?
>> Hold on hold on Councilwoman. Um Are we >> I'm good with moving >> We good You good Councilwoman Charles? >> No, that was my only question. >> So okay. Go ahead. >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> I have a motion made by board member Estime Irvin to approve agenda item seven. The motion was seconded by board
member Timothy all in Vice Chair Timothy all in favor. Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. Agenda item eight approval of priority corridor block grant request 136
uh Dr. Wushley. >> NMCRE staff is requesting that the NMCRE board approve the priority corridor block by block grant request of $385,908.22 >> Mr. Attorney can we can all of them to be together since they or they have to be separate? >> and 10?
>> Yeah, you can approve all three of those together. >> they have different numbers it's better to look at them one by one because I >> I prefer one by one. >> One by one. >> Yeah, they have different numbers. >> Already, so NMCRE staff is requesting the approval of $385,908.22
for the large-scale exterior improvements to the property located at 13649 West Dixie Highway. It is currently operated as a physician's office and we've provided the scope of work. Which visit >> Move for approval. >> No Well, public hearing
public hearing is open on the item. And non-public hearing is closed. >> Move for approval. >> I have a question. >> Question question We have two questions. Go ahead. >> Yes. >> Um Councilman Burns and then Charles. >> Um
this is a looking at this building is just one building part of the of the block, correct? It's >> It's the Yeah, the three >> And then there's the the three of them. One's Um $385,000 is just for for the scope of work. I see the estimates, but it just seems like
it's an extremely large amount of money for such a small uh building front and what the description of the work that's being done. Um if we're going to be spending that kind of money on these small scales, I don't
think we're ever going to get any corridor done because just that [clears throat] that building almost $400,000 is a lot. And then the next one coming up, which makes a little bit more sense, where it's down into the 100,000, you know, 100 and something thousand dollars. Um
the frontage is very similar to this $385,000. I mean, the the the the facial, the what exposes to the Dixie Highway. And such a big discrepancy >> [music] >> between this building and this building um and then it's not like a
>> Yeah. >> uh 200-ft frontage. They're very small front frontage. And I'm just caution want to caution that we look and relook and double-check. Um it's not beyond people to >> So, the scope of work is different on
each of the projects, which is what attributes to the different in the difference in cost. There were three bids provided by for all of the projects. So, um they came in at what they came in, and we are requesting that we go with the lowest bid for each of them. >> [snorts] >> And again, remember that this block-by-block approach, it is
capitalizing on the CRA's investment that we already did with Massillon, and that we're currently doing with Pioneer Boulevard. So, it all builds together to show a much bigger effect on that corridor. >> And did the Did we already approve the 9% fee to the project manager
>> It's what you're doing now. No, we didn't this is what you're doing now. >> All right, because $31,000 for something that I would think that the contractors would would >> That is that is a contractor. That is the that's the general contractor fee. >> I thought it was a outside company that was doing the uh
Let me come back to the Matt Beth construction. >> That is a general contractor. >> That's a general contractor, so he's getting 9% to for the administrative costs and change order? >> Yes. >> And manager? Okay. >> That's what it is before the board.
>> So, he's getting his percentage of the the cost of the the work, the cost of the materials, and then doing the work and he's going to oversee himself and get paid another $31,000 inclusive of 385? That's the way I'm reading it the way
>> So, he's a general contractor, but there is a subcontractor that's doing the work. >> Mhm. So, who's getting So, who's getting the 9%? >> The general contractor. >> contractor is getting 9% on top of it, and then there's a subcontractor who's actually doing the
work. >> Right, so the $385,000 is inclusive of that 9% mark. Of that 9%. >> But, his question is are we paying the subcontractor and the general contractor? >> We would open the PO if it was approved tonight under the general contractor.
>> Does that make >> So, the general contractor pays the subcontractor. >> That's correct. >> Yes. >> Yeah, normally you have a GC and your GC gets subcontractors and they're paying out for windows, doors, and other other >> But, not only does the general contractor make his markup because he's going to submit the bill to us, not the
subcontractors. >> What? >> Well, he's the one that's in charge. So, >> So, what I'm saying >> One second. Subcontractor charges $50 for the door or window. Subcontractor adds his 20%, 22%, 30%, whatever it is,
on top of that. He submits the bill, we pay him, and then we're paying him 9% because he submitted the bill. >> the subcontractor's quote is already in here. It's been provided in your packet. So, we already know what the subcontractor is charging. So, that was very transparent. On top of that is the
9%, which brings us to the $385,000 mark. So, if it is approved tonight, the PO is open for this amount for this project to be >> doing is he's already making >> Yeah, the 9%. >> making his money off of the subcontractors or the overall contract. >> not. The 9% is his money. >> That's his fee.
>> Oh, that's his fee. And then remember, the general contractor also has to be the one to take They oversee the project and they have to make sure that they have the security bond. >> So, if one of their subcontractors >> that would love to get that deal to to pay their own bills that they they get additional money for. >> Mayor
No, it's not the same person. I want to be clear. It's everything else that we do. It's what the developers do. They give us a contractor, they have subcontractors. It's what everybody does. It's what we approve every day. >> comes to us and says, "I'm going to build your building for $100,000." Okay. He goes and hires Sam and Paul and
everybody else to to do the windows and all that. We're still paying the contractor $100,000. Whatever he pays his subcontractors is not our business. >> Period. >> No, that's not what's happening. >> Now, if he's going to complete the job, we're paying him 9%. >> not what is happening here. What is happening here is we procure
>> Explain to me. >> I'm I am. We had three bids for all of these projects. We got the three bids. We have a general contractor that is going to oversee the project, and these are going to be >> hired the general contractor? >> Us or >> Our consultant did. We're going through
This is a West Dixie project. So, we have a consultant who procured all of this. This was This is what we did. >> So, we have a consultant who >> that we pay to oversee the general contractor who we're paying. >> no, let's be clear. No, no, no, no, no, no. A part of FSP's contract is to oversee
the West Dixie project. >> Got it. >> So, we And the This this was explained. Um [laughter] They procured three bids for each of the properties. In order to do the work, there needs to be a general contractor. They also
procured that general contractor. >> So we paying for that service. >> are paying the general contractor the fee of 9%, which was disclosed in the packet. >> Mhm. >> The subcontractors all gave their bids. We are going with the lowest bid. So this is not a situation where the general like that's
not what it is. They gave three bids. We go with the lowest bid. The general contractor's fee is 9% on the lowest bid. >> So that's >> That's what it is. >> Who's putting the license up that's responsible for the overall project? >> The general contractor. >> And the and the bond. So they the sub >> And the bond and everything, the general
contractor. And they get a fee for that. >> Right. >> That's the 9%. >> Doesn't he get a percentage of the subcontractor's money? >> No. They get the 9% fee. >> Okay. Oh, that's what I wanted to get clarified. Okay. Thank you. So public hearing is open. Go
>> I have a quick question. Now the total cost of the project is $385,9 108 and 12 cents. >> 22 cents, yes. >> Um 20 22 cents, thank you. >> Yes. >> Um Now
so there's no requirement for the owner to pay anything. So we we paying the whole >> We are >> scope of work. >> Yes. We controlled the project. We are paying for everything. We determined the scope of work. We did get the owners to agree
to what it is. Of course, it's their property, so they have to agree with what we're doing, but it is the CRA's project with their agreement, and we are covering everything on that project. >> Mhm. Mhm. Okay. >> Madam Madam Clerk. >> Move for approval.
>> Second. >> I >> have a motion made by board member Estime Irving to approve agenda item eight. Motion was seconded by vice chair Timothy. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. >> The motion carries with a 4-1 vote.
>> Thank you. Item nine. >> Agenda item nine, approval of priority block grant request 13651 Quick Stop. Staff is recommending approval or requesting approval of this um grant. This is for $158,000 and I $158,981.43
for the large-scale interior improvements to the property located at 13651 West Dixie Highway. This is what is commonly known as Quick Stop. Move for approval. >> Hold on. Public hearing is open on the item. Public hearing is open. Yeah, non-public
hearing is closed. >> Move for approval. Second. >> I have a motion made by board member Estime Irving to approve agenda item nine, seconded by vice chair Timothy. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. >> Item 10.
>> Agenda item 10, approval of priority block grant request 13630 Space Music. Staff is requesting board to approve the priority corridor block by block grant request of $417,790.24 for the large-scale interior improvements to the property located at 13630 West Dixie Highway, currently
known as Space Music. >> Public hearing is open on the item. And what what's the amount? You say four something, right? >> Yes, $417,790.24. >> Okay, thank you. >> And you're saying >> And >> Mhm. >> Right. No, no, go ahead. Sorry. Um that is just the exterior they're doing
interior. >> No, only exterior. >> Only exterior. >> Only exterior for the four something? >> That is correct. It's a large property. >> Oh. >> Yeah, it's mixed use mixed use. >> Mixed use mixed use. >> Mixed use mixed use. We're doing >> Oh, okay. Um and we got three bids. >> Yes, they're included.
>> Okay. >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> I have a motion made by board member Estimé Irving to approve agenda item 10 seconded by vice chair Timothy. All in favor. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed.
>> The motion carries with a 4-1 vote. >> Item 11. >> Agenda item 11, resolution approving multi-family request Easy Do a resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the funding for your to Easy Do Corporation
for a multi-family residential project in the form of a multi-family improvement grant not to exceed $2 million authorizing the executive director and North Miami CRA attorney to negotiate and finalize a multi-family improvement grant agreement with Easy Do Corporation to provide funding for the
rehabilitation of a multi-family residential project. Authorizing the executive director to execute the multi-family improvement grant agreement authorizing the executive director to take all action necessary to implement the terms of the multi-family improvement grant agreement and providing for an effective date
agenda item 11. >> Staff is requesting that this NMCRA board approve a resolution authorizing an award of $2 million to Easy Do Corporation for the rehabilitation of its multi-family property. The grant will be allocating all 16 units at the property to be held for residents at 80%
of AMI for the life of the CRA. >> Public hearing is open on the item. Public hearing is open on the item. And then probably yes, public hearing closed. >> Second. >> And we got to we got to move and a second. >> I have a motion made by board member Burns to approve agenda item 11,
seconded by Vice Chair Timothy. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. >> Thank you. Item 12. >> Agenda item 12, a resolution approving infrastructure grant request MMG, a resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community
Redevelopment Agency approving the funding to MMG Colonial Holdings LLC for the redevelopment of the Colonial Shopping Center in the form of an infrastructure grant not to exceed $2,998,935. Approving authorizing the executive director North Miami CRA attorney to
negotiate and finalize an infrastructure grant agreement with MMG Colonial Holdings LLC to provide funding for the redevelopment of the Colonial Shopping Center. Authorizing the executive director to execute the infrastructure grant agreement. Authorizing the executive director to take all action necessary to implement the terms of the
infrastructure grant agreement and providing for an effective date agenda item 12. >> Before you speak, Madam Executive Director, we are going to go over a little bit with the with this meeting um before adjourning to the regular back.
Just announcing, but go ahead. >> Okay, so the applicant has submitted their infrastructure grant request for consideration. This is for the redevelopment of the Colonial Shopping Center located at 400 460 Northeast 125th Street and 12300 to 1 to 124600 um
West Dixie Highway. They're requesting the $2.9 million for this funding. It is phase one of a larger project that will include residential housing. It's been in your packet, but the residential housing comes in at phase two. It is going to be affordable housing. They only need the CRA assistance for phase
one, which is the redevelopment of the shopping center. Where President Supermarket is, correct? >> Correct. >> Thank you. Go ahead. We're going to Give me 1 second. I'm going to open it to to the public and then Um, then we'll come back to you. I'm sorry. >> What's the disclosure that's required?
>> Oh, this No, this is not This is not a quasi- This is Yeah, this is not a quasi- >> As an applicant, we don't have to disclose >> It's not a quasi- >> No, it's not quasi- >> It's not quasi- judicial, right? >> So, it um again, public hearing is open on the item. Public hearing is open. >> I move for approval. >> Hold on. I didn't even close it yet. I
didn't even get to go over >> that's in my >> No, no, no, I know. Hold on. Hold on. But, public um hearing is closed on the item. Go ahead um Counselor >> very happy that this project is being brought up. They are going to do major um stormwater repairs. There's going to be some landscaping. A beautiful
project. Thank you for bringing it. It's in District 3. So, I'd like to move for approval. >> Second. >> I have a motion made by board member Estimé Irvin to approve agenda item 12. The motion was seconded by board member Burns. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a
5-0 vote. >> Thank you. >> Agenda item 13. >> The last item. Go ahead. >> A resolution approving infrastructure grant and tax increment recapture grant request, City View. A resolution of the chair and board members of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency approving the funding for Prestige City View LLC for a
mixed-use redevelopment project in the form of an infrastructure grant not to exceed $17 million to be paid in five equal annual installments commencing in fiscal year 2027-2028 and a tax increment recapture incentive
of 65% of projected city ad valorem tax revenues following the disbursement of the infrastructure grant until the North Miami CRA sunsets. Authorizing the executive director and North Miami CRA attorney to negotiate and finalize a tax increment recapture incentive and infrastructure grant agreement with
Prestige City View LLC to provide funding for the development of a mixed-use development project. Authorizing the executive director to execute the tax increment recapture incentive and infrastructure grant agreement. Authorizing the executive director to take all action necessary to implement the terms of the tax increment
recapture incentive and infrastructure grant agreement and providing for an effective date agenda item 13. >> The My name is Executive Director. >> Yes, applicant has submitted an infrastructure and tax increment recapture grant request for consideration of the development of the project City View located at 12,000
Northeast 15 um 14th Avenue. Applicant is requesting the $17,000 in infrastructure grant funding and a city TIF rebate of 65% of the life of the CRA. Funding for the project would begin in fiscal year 2028 to be paid in equal installments over 5 years. TIF payments
would only begin after all of the infrastructure dollars have been paid regardless of when the project is put into service. Additionally, the applicant will be making 18 of its current available units within the CRA bound um boundaries available in the following manner: 10 units available upon execution of the grant
incentive agreement, four units at payment of the first installment, four units at TCO. Additionally, the project will be giving 12% of its units to be distributed as four units at 60% of AMI, 14 units at 80% of AMI, and 25 units of
at 120% AMI. The project will include 20,000 square feet of commercial space, a parking garage, and other public infrastructure improvements to the area. >> Uh thank you. I have a um some questions, but I want to open it up to public hearing. Is the um applicant here?
So, Mr. Gasa, go ahead. And while he's coming, Madam Executive Director, do we know what point between that one and and the tape project does interact because one start 2028 and then the other one 2023? >> 30. Correct.
>> At what point do do we overlap? >> In 2030. In 2030, there would there would be overlap. >> And then we would have enough funding for both. >> Yes, because there are other projects that would have fallen off of, but we still don't have capacity at that time to bring on new projects. So, I want to be clear.
>> We have funding capacity for the new one. We got the new one. We got it. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Gussert. >> Good evening. Pedro Gussert upon the night with officers at 701 Brickell Avenue on behalf of Prestige City View. Uh my apologies, my voice is uh a little bit under the weather. This evening we have a unique opportunity.
>> How how long is your presentation? >> It's It's typically uh 10 minutes. I'm going to try to keep this very short. I'm going to keep it very short. I'm going to do 1 to 2 minutes. Yes. >> Well, for me I'm I'm good with the presentation. What was important What I'd like is that um what we always ask for affordable
attainable housing. There's a nice mix. >> Let him present. Go ahead. >> 1 minute, please. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. Present. Sorry. >> So, I'll keep it very brief. The The short of it is um board chair and board members is that
this applicant is probably the only applicant who has ever been before you who has been a donor of the CRA and at the day that the agreement is signed, the day it is signed will be providing units to the city before any project is developed, before any project is built, before anything is constructed on the
site, you're going to have 10 units that are capped at 80% of the area median income on that day before anything is built. This is the location of the site. It is located south of Northeast 123rd Street, east of the railroad, in close proximity to the Brightline station that has been prepared within the city of
North Miami. This is the location of the property. It essentially acts as a doorway for a variety of different activities and will be a premier mixed-use development on the site. This is the location with with respect to its proximity to the Brightline station as it appears on the property. This is what
it exists today. This is a unique opportunity for us to be able to take this opportunity to redevelop the site with a mixed-use project, and this is what the improvements will be on the site. So, we're going to make a substantial improvement with respect to this property while providing for uh substantial opportunities for the
affordability of the development and by providing affordability on the first day before we have anything in the ground to the city of North Miami. As part of this project, we're going to be providing over 20,000 square feet of commercial uses, uh 364 units on this project along
with the additional public spaces with respect to this uh redevelopment. Uh these are some of the renderings for the site with respect to Prestige uh Estates and uh the developer of this project is a local community member who has already developed nearly 1,000 units in the
city. The majority No, all of the projects that he purchased were once owned by slum lords that he went in, put his own dollars in, redeveloped them within the CRA, and was able to put them in a position to be able to improve uh the aspects within the city. So, this is not somebody who's coming to you who hasn't done it before. They've done this
already within the city, and this is an opportunity for them to continue to create and enhance that. And he's actually going to put the headquarters of his office space within this redevelopment of the property. Uh these are the unique uh unit features on the property. It's going to be first-class materials and items within the facility,
and these are some of the additional benefits. But out out of respect for your time, I'm going to try to keep it as as brief as possible, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. >> Mayor. If you please. >> But I did Did I I did open public hearing on the item pri- I did and
enclosed it. Um yes, um Vice Chair, and then we'll go to um Board Member Burns and then Board Member Estimé Irving and then from [clears throat] there. >> Thank you. Um I just want to um thank the applicant cuz I know in the last we hour before posting, um I had requested
some 60% AMI units, and it took some time and shuffling, but we were able to ensure that we had a variety of AMI units um available at this property as it sits in my district. And I also want to thank Mr. John Sasso um for advocating before you even brought this
project to open up the streets at 121st Street. Um that will kind of serve as a this street that that closed for a while that is now reopened that can also serve as a gateway for this project. Um, but just wanted to put that on record. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, yes, um, go ahead, sir.
>> Um, couple questions. >> [cough and clears throat] >> What's the amount of the contribution at 65% at to the, uh, to the end of the CRA? What's What's the total dollar amount? >> With respect to the 65% recapture?
>> Mhm. >> I would have to ask Mr., uh, >> Springs? >> Springs come up and and discuss that. >> go go ahead and while while he's coming >> I have a couple of other questions. Um, this property is part your your you represent the owner who also owns an additional,
uh, number of acres that are within Miami-Dade County. >> That is correct. >> And it's split and over the course of the years it's been suggested and, uh, to annex it into North Miami, not annex it into North Miami, then annex it into North Miami, then not. Um,
what do we have to do or why would you not annex um, the whole property because that one, you know, into the city of North Miami because your applicant can turn around and build something that North Miami would be opposed to on his property that's in Miami-Dade County. If you're
getting 25, 30 million dollars from us, um, I would like to see us recapture that property into the city of North Miami into the CRA. Um, it takes about a year or so to do it, but your capable firm does it all the time. Um, why why why would we not do it?
>> So, I think we have a a fundamental disagreement on the time that it takes. We've been doing We've worked on four different, uh, annexations within Miami-Dade County. The current run rate is about 3 to 4 years that we're seeing. So, we've been seeing we've been For example, we've been working on a, uh, annexation in the city of Florida City
that's been taking 3 to 4 years. As a matter of fact, when we initially started the, uh, annexation, the mayor of Florida City, who was the longest serving mayor in the city's history, matter of fact, in the state of Florida's history, actually was termed out by the time we got uh, the process started and it's still going on. So,
we're at year four for it. So, I don't think that the process is taking as quick as you may believe board member and so that's one of the core reasons why. It's something that we have looked into as a matter of fact when we first started the project it's something that we asked about, we talked about, we went to the
to the county to discuss the opportunities and when we looked at what we would have to negotiate the timelines it it didn't make sense and so that's why we have not been able to go through the process and we don't we don't agree that that time frame that you're thinking is the time frame that will apply.
>> But more more than anything that the county is not really on board with annexation. >> On that >> Cuz we've been there before. >> Over the course of many years they they really >> Well, you're talking about that particular property Mr. Springs? >> They're not they're not going to do that. The dollar amount of the 65% recapture over the course of the
remaining time of the CRA. >> Um Larry Spring with Achievement Consulting Group a consultant for the project. Um based on our number runs and getting the project on by
What year is this? 2028 so your 2029 fiscal year. Um we approximately number to be just slightly above $8 million. >> Yeah. >> For the for the total life of the >> For the total life of the CRA that we're going to so >> That's the notion amount the the
discount you probably drop off another couple million dollars off that. A present value of that. So, probably around 6 million. >> Okay. And Madam Director why how did we get to 65% where I believe uh if at uh um
out west the Pepper Park was at 50% until it got dropped. Um some of the other projects that we were discussing were at 50%. We're coming in at a 65% Um I also was under the the notion that the 17 million dollar ask
was being reduced to 15 million the last time I was conferred upon that and then 65% is to me is one of the highest that we've done for any of the some of a project of this size. Yes, the the owner of the property has
done great work rehabbing some beautiful apartments that have been were terrible and appreciate that but is new to the ground up brand new and hopefully he has great GCs to go along with him but to lay out 25 30 million
dollars over the course of the this project the 17 plus an additional 8 gets up there quite a bit for the [music] number of units that are actually going to be there and are we capturing the tax money back on the retail space that you
have there and what's the total square footage of that retail space? >> 20,000 >> 20,000 >> And the answer is yes. >> Yes, okay. >> Um, if you will allow me to address your question um in essence we when we put in our request
the request are predicated on getting financing and being able to move forward immediately and as you see our offer is immediate we're offering units immediately and we're moving forward and our client is prepared to close financing and move this project forward.
We in our negotiations back and forth and settling on providing some additional lower AMI um units this was the what we ended up in the balance of that negotiation which also is actually less cuz it was we asked for 75% of the
total TIF available and we settled back on 65% of the city side so in essence it probably gets you to the number that you're relatively thinking of when we when we do apples when we do apples to apples comparison.
>> Mhm. >> So, that's why. >> Any other questions? >> No, I'm good. >> Okay, thank you. Move for approval. >> Um hold on. I'm council. You you said you had some questions. >> I just want to know. Thank you so much for the presentation. Very excited about this project. When are we planning on
breaking ground? >> Uh so that I know that Mr. Doumer Ville uh will have financing um within the next 2 to 3 months. And so I think we should be anticipating a groundbreaking this fall. >> Thank you. >> I have a quick question for you. >> Yes, sir. >> Is this reimbursable? >> Yes.
>> Uh yes. The outlet so they have to break ground and build to start getting the >> They all are. >> Okay. Okay. That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't different. >> Okay, thank you. Um I think that the item was There was a motion. It was it moved and and seconded. Okay.
>> I have a motion made by Vice Chair Timothy to approve agenda item 12. The motion was seconded by board member Estimé Ervin. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. >> Thank you, board members. >> Thank you so much. Um thank you, everyone. This was a long CRA meeting. I expect there's no report. Um
congratulations, Mr. Doumer Ville and and the team. And we are hoping for great success down in the future. Um There's no report, Madam Executive Director. I think we've had enough for one day. And you as well, Steve. I'm motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Thank you so much.
>> Have a motion to adjourn. >> minutes and then we'll be back to the North Miami >> Made by the chairman, seconded by board member Estimé Ervin. All in favor? Any opposed? The motion carries with a 5-0 vote. The time is now 7:59.