Community Redevelopment Agency - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency regular meeting. Today is Tuesday, 04/28/2026, and the time is 4PM. Will you call the roll? Chair Kissau? Here. Vice Chair Malika? Here. Commissioner Burns? Here. Commissioner Carney? Here. And Commissioner Markert? Okay, Renee, I think you'd like to move an item on our agenda before we approve it? Nope, we're all set. Okay, thank you. I'd like a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Thank you. Vice Chair Malika? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney?

Yes.

Commissioner Markert and Chair Cassell? Thank you very much. And now we move to our presentation by CBIZ. Hello. Welcome.

What is this?

Oh, okay. Because I have to I'm getting my glasses.

It's breaking. Break for a sec. Test Can we take a one minute break for miss Burns to grab her glasses? Yes. Is that possible? Do I

need to do a break?

So you can do you wanna do you wanna I'll

wait until after he's done. You sure? Let's see let's see where we are on the yeah. Hang on a second. See a thing.

If I look what they are. You

can look

Is it in

the car?

I'll be back. Wait. Thank you. Director. Thank you. And I'd like to introduce Brandon Lopez who is our auditor with CBIZ who's gonna give our audit presentation today. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Board Commissioners. My name is Brandon Lopez. I'm the partner with CBIZ and I'm here today to present the financial statements for the fiscal year ended 09/30/2025. And these financial statements, they were issued and released at the March well in advance of the deadline of the state. Very important.

And I'm gonna go through a couple key sections and highlight a couple things. And if there's any specific questions, I'd be more than happy to go through those and answer them for for the board. The most important and the first section we're gonna highlight is printed page one. That's the independent auditor's report. And it's broken down to different sections, but the most important section is that first paragraph under the opinion.

And this opinion is what's called an a clean opinion. It's the only opinion as a board and as a agency wanna be associated with. So we're definitely happy to let the CRA know that they received an a clean opinion for 09/30/2025. And the truth, I wanna make sure I give credit where credit is due. Renee, Gina, and their team, it's a lot of work that goes into, you know, these audits.

Outside of the regular day to day that they have to do, you know, we have questions, we have requests, and every time we had those questions or the information needed, they were there to provide that information. So definitely wanna make sure I mention that in this meeting. If we continue along the next section, we get into management's discussion and analysis. It's about seven pages. And I always like to mention if you read anything in detail because these are pretty big documents, these seven pages do a good job of giving the reader an overview of the year.

And what it does is it provides a current year information compared to prior year. And what were some of the fluctuations and some of the changes and and what caused those. And this section is actually put together by management. Us as the auditors are precluded from putting this together because this is really management's perspective and what caused those changes. And us as the auditors, we're just required to make sure that the numbers are consistent with those audited financial statement numbers. If we continue along, we get to printed page 12. That's the statement of net position. Essentially, your balance sheet. And with governmental accounting, there's two sets of financial statements. You have your government wide, your statement of net position.

It's really your long term view. And then we have our fund level, which focuses more on the current, right, which is what's compared to your budget, the inflows and the outflows. But the one thing I wanna highlight, if we look at that page and the following page, page 13 is the net position, right, which is essentially the money that we have to use for the project, to use for the programs that the CRA provides. And it's a very healthy number. And over the last few years, if you look at the comparison, we see a trend up that there's, more money that's flowing into that, and there's a reason for that.

It's because we know the projects that are upcoming, for the CRA, for the community. Right? We're we're essentially putting that money away to fund those projects. So the way I like to view this is because when you look at a CRA, it's like we're receiving those tax dollars to provide those services for those programs for the community. So sometimes if someone might say is that, well, are we, you know, putting too much away or we're not spending it for that?

And us as auditors, we need to take a look at that. But there's a reason behind why that number has been growing because we know of those upcoming projects, those budgeted projects in in the future years, which I know we're gonna be discussing in today and future meetings. The following page, you get to printed page 14. That is your governmental fund, your balance sheet. So this is where I mentioned there's two sets of financials. Right? We have the long term view and then the short term view. So these next two pages, 14 to 15, show you, hey. What came in and what went out in accordance with the budget. And one of the things that we're required to do when we're doing this financial audit, because it's under government standards, is not just looking at the numbers, but also looking at compliance.

Right? Are we spending the money in what we're supposed to be, what was budgeted for? And based on those procedures, we're happy to note no issues were identified. And what's very important in government auditing standards, if there is any findings, we would have to report that in writing. So when we do our tests, obviously, don't test a 100%. We we sample. And we look at the expenditures, and we make sure was this a a program or a project that was budgeted for that was approved by the board. And based on the procedures we performed, no issues were identified. And that is reflected in the compliance reports that start on page 53 and roll through the the end of the report. These are the reports that get submitted to the floater auditor general.

So when they're reviewing these financial statements, that's what they look at. They make sure, okay. Are is the CRA or these governmental entities in a healthy position and were there any findings that were reported to us for us to take note of. And as you see in these reports, no issues were identified for the CRA. So those are just kind of the little key points that I wanted to highlight that are the most important sections but I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Thank you for the presentation. Renee, did you want to add something?

No. Just thank you. Nice to

work with you. Thank you. I'll give it to the board. Miss Burns?

No. I didn't have any questions. I was just thank you for the information. I had a chance to review CRA staff for such a

great audit. Thank you. Thank you. I

have no problem.

Okay. Miss Molica? Thank you. Now I would also just say thank you, mister Lopez. And obviously, you to our our director and miss Clayton. Clayton. This is hard work and you're right to point out that they're doing that alongside their job. And we always love when we have a clean opinion, so that's fabulous. And also your clarification on the net position and how we'll be utilizing it in the future. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Okay. We are on to public comments. Anyone from the public like to speak? Please get up. State your name.

Do we state addresses here? Just thank you to the coach.

Hi everybody. Good evening board members. Sarah Selznick, 1700 Northwest 2nd Ave, Delray Beach 33444. I'm here today as president of Shared Future Foundation and as someone working closely with the set community every day and someone that participated in the set transformation plan update. I'd like to share some thoughts on the draft RFP for the Southwest seven hundred and eight hundred blocks and the Northwest 800 block.

Right now, I am very grateful the RFP reflects the set transformation plan. I'd like to offer some feedback that hopefully could just make it a little bit stronger. Right now, the RFP is feeling a little too prescriptive to me. The set transformation plan was always intended to be conceptual. It was meant to guide, not dictate.

And but the way the draft RFP is currently written, it treats that vision as fixed and literal. And that may limit what we're able to receive in terms of proposals in return. So when we over define the outcome, we unintentionally narrow the field of possibilities. We risk missing out on creativity, innovation, expertise that some development teams may be able to bring to the table. Instead of seeing a range of ideas and approaches, we may only see proposals that try to fit into a box that doesn't fully reflect real world constraints or worse, a developer says they can fit into a box but can't and and make it happen.

We have to be honest about these constraints. We are likely not gonna get everything we want on these sites, on the smaller parcels now that the grocer is hopefully coming to the 600 block. It feels important that the process allows the set community to see what is actually feasible. We need to create space for developers to show us what they can do, not just what we've told them to do. And then from that place of real options, the community should have the opportunity to weigh in, give feedback, and help shape the outcome.

I urge you to make a few modifications to the draft. Some concrete examples. One would be including language that provides the proposer can seek variances and deviations from CBD development standards as may be approved by the city if it makes for a stronger project. Two, ability to increase height if it if in return there is deeper affordability. Three, it would be great to see a greater range 50% of AMI up to a 120% AMI so this project is accessible to current residents of the set.

Within the scoring criteria I would love to see more weight put on credibility and track record of development team. I would also love to see another category that scores projects for their ability to meet or exceed the affordable and workforce housing criteria at all levels. I'm hopeful we get to outcomes that are both visionary and achievable. Thank you.

Appreciate

it. Thank you for your comments. That is very noisy out there. Thank you. Hello. Hi. Hi, everyone.

Good afternoon, chair and board members. My name is Kristen Kerstarfin. I am the director of collective action with the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition where I work closely with residents and community leaders across the set to ensure redevelopment reflects the community's needs and long term long term stability. I want to start by appreciating the work that has gone into the this draft RFP. It clearly reflects the vision of the set and the intention to align development with the community's identity and needs.

That matters, especially given the significance of these sites. I also want to echo the comments shared earlier flexibility. It's important that we allow room for creativity and real world feasibility so we can attract strong capable development teams and see a range of ideas. I think there's an important balance to Stripe. We need flexibility with clearly defined outcomes in the scoring process.

So I would offer a few considerations that build on what's already here. First, I would encourage the CRA to be very clear about outcomes while remaining flexible about how these outcomes are achieved. For example, if additional height or variances are considered, those should be directly tied to measurable community benefits such as deeper levels of affordability or additional workforce units. So there is a clear exchange of value. Second, I would recommend strengthening how community benefit is evaluated within the scoring criteria.

Right now, there is a strong emphasis experience and concept, but it is less clear how proposals will be scored on things like commitment to community serving businesses, plans for local or targeted hiring, or strategies to ensure accessibility for current residents of the set across the range of income levels. Even within existing legal constraints, there are ways to do this through scoring incentives and clear expectations so that proposals are competing not just on design and feasibility but on the value they deliver to the community. Third, I would encourage the CRA to consider how proposals can demonstrate credibility in actually delivering these outcomes. Not just what is proposed but what has been successfully done before and how those commitments will be tracked over time. Finally, think it's important that this process continues to create space for community input after proposals are received.

Seeing what is feasible is important, but so is ensuring that the community has a meaningful role in shaping the final outcome. I am hopeful that we can land in a place where the RFP is both visionary and achievable, where it invites strong proposals but also ensures that the long term benefits for the set are clear, measurable, and protected. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Yes. I think there is no more in person comments, and we do have calls. Thank you.

Reginald Cox, 715 Northwest 2nd Street, MLK Drive, Berry Beach. Greetings, board. I am calling regarding the 700, 800 RFPs for discussion and also quite frankly, all the areas still open for development in the West Atlantic Corridor. Congratulations on the approval of the DOPson and the SEP transformation plan and update there too. However, there's still much work to be done.

As I stated in the commission meeting last week, there's tremendous opportunity for leveraging and the community led process must continue. There's people from our community, organizations that have bandwidth nationwide, in fact, international. And the leveraging opportunity that comes from a serious nod from the commission on an adoption of this plan lets them know that we're open for business to maximize all the set principles. We want to look at the 1,000 acres, not just the West Atlantic Corridor, Northwest 5th Avenue Commercial Corridor, we want to look at the neighborhoods and how all the development opportunities work together cohesively to basically enhance the community to meet our planning goals, education wise, access to capital wise, liberal wage wise, access to city contracts and being a part of the new found wealth and not to be displaced. So how do we leverage the remaining land not to be displaced?

And that's going to take creativity. That's going to take a certain amount of flexibility and to do some things that probably hadn't been done before in neighborhoods like the set. So we're going need everybody participating, being creative, seeing what's out there, but also remembering community needs to be a part of the equation for formulation all the way through implementation. And I heard that beautifully displayed last week in the commission meeting when they were talking about community leadership and involvement as regarding the DDA and the task force. So I know everybody gets it and we want to continue that.

So we can get the developers to come before the community at some point, maybe workshop like we did in 2012 with assessment. It was very successful. We continue that cohesiveness with the development community on getting something that's unique to Delray Beach for a unique situation. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair commission and staff.

My name is Chuck Ridley. I reside at 210 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. First, I want to thank you for your leadership and integrity. That fix is going to both the staff and the commission. The fact that you took community feedback both from past engagement and from recent community meetings, reflect that input in this proposal truly matters.

It shows that this process is not just procedural, it's relational. And the community sees that. With that said, I want to respectfully ask that you delay approving the RFP for the $708,100 blocks just for a little bit longer and to take a couple additional steps. First, I believe it is important that we allow the grocery store, unsolicited proposal on the 600 block to move farther down the path before we move forward here. As you know, the commission still has to decide whether to advance the unsolicited proposal, and the developer still needs approval from all these real estate committees before anything concrete can be decided.

Until we have more clarity on what the developer will actually development, I'm sorry, will actually be, releasing another RFP on adjacent blocks feels a bit premature. These projects are connected, and how one unfolds will shape the success of the other. Second and most importantly, I'm asking that we create a little more space for the community to fully understand and engage with this RFP before a final decision is made. Over the past few years, something powerful has been built between staff and the community. It's trust.

And we should lean into that. Bringing this RFP into a space like the eldest table or burning conversation or the Set Neighborhood Alliance give us a real opportunity to do two things. One, make sure the community truly understands what is being proposed and two, give residents the time and space to provide meaningful and informed feedback to you. If we take these steps, we will not be slowing down the process. We actually will be strengthening it.

And we are ensuring that when this moves forward, it does so with alignment, clarity and community support. Thank you again for your leadership and your continued support as we walk the community forward once again.

Is that it? Thank you very much. That concludes our public comment. And we need a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I have one thing actually before So the just one comment for our board meeting dates. We had included two in the backup. One was the day after Thanksgiving weekend, November 30 and November 18 was the other option. I think we're just going to go with November 18. We can follow-up closer to the time, but there's two currently on there, I just wanted to have it approved in November 18.

Cross off the thirtieth? The thirtieth, yes. We are going with Wednesday, November 18? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So do we need is that on the consent?

It's on the

consent. Need to, approve it. Is that amended? As amended. Thank you. Can I get a motion?

Can I

ask a question? It

says 1PM or 4PM.

So there is a, I believe, a meeting in the evening at five or at four On the eighteenth? On the eighteenth. So our meeting would need to be earlier unless they shift.

Okay. So, at this time, we don't know whether it would be one or four?

Correct. The

one on the eighteenth would be at 01:00.

That's 01:00.

Sorry. The eighteenth is 01:00.

Eighteenth is one. And then the one on the thirtieth would be four.

Understood. We can schedule another meeting, I guess, if we need to in November. But we need to have a meeting at least to close out our budget year. And that would be the meeting. But because of conflicts that week in Thanksgiving, our schedule is a little little tight for that.

Okay. I just wanna make sure. No problem. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. So could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended?

I move.

Thank you. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Burns?

Yes.

Commissioner Carney?

Yes.

Commissioner Markert? Chair Kisau? Yes. And Vice Chair Molica? Yes. Thank you. And now we move on to old business Item 8A, board direction and discussion on RFP CRA number 2026DashO2 for the disposition of a CRA owned vacant lot for the development of affordable workforce housing. And that is 216 Northwest 8th Avenue. Renee.

Thank you very much. So the subject property is pictured above, like you said, 216 Northwest 8th Avenue. It is a smaller lot that we recently acquired. The lot size is 40 foot by 135. We issued a request for proposals for our nonprofit development partners to build a single family workforce housing unit on this site in January.

We closed the submission on March 31, and unfortunately, we did not receive any submissions. So at this time, what we'd like to do is have the board approve to cancel the request for proposals. We had a few options for you all to consider about reissuing now or allowing us to hire an architect for us to try to build it ourselves. So those are the two things we're looking at. We would also like the opportunity to speak with our nonprofit partners to find out the reasoning why. If there was issue with the sizing, I know it's smaller, but it is a deeper lot. So really three things that we're looking at today. First would be canceling. If we want to reissue right away, we could do that. But we would like to speak with our nonprofit partners first.

Or alternatively, us to hire an architect and try to build it ourselves. There is an alley on this particular lot, so it could be an opportunity to explore an accessory dwelling unit. And I think we could have a little more, I guess, time and funding to be able to do those kind of interesting designs on this lot since it is smaller. So we're open to anything. Just wanted to have a discussion with the board.

Thank you. Any comments? Ms. Barnes?

Well, I would be amenable to having the the CRA develop the lot. It is I went by the other day and looked at it. It is a tiny lot. Like Mhmm. Like, what can we put on it? So I would be interested in seeing if the CRE could develop the lot themselves.

Okay. Thank you. Miss Malika? Did you discuss with the not for profits why they didn't bid on it yet?

Or did you want us to wait and cancel until you did that?

Well, so there's a cone of silence that's in effect. So we cannot actually go out to them and and inquire.

Cancel, then you could.

Correct. Cancel first and then we can. We can also look into the architect, simultaneously talk them. We can do all of those things. We just thought since it's a smaller lot, it could be a good opportunity for us to try to do something creative that could be replicated on smaller lots. Because as you know, we don't have a lot of land. And now this is what we're looking at. We're looking at these smaller lots, substandard lots, weird configurations that we're trying to go through and replat. So this is just an opportunity to have some creative input and give some examples that other people could replicate. Also, if we do go forward with an architect, we could still hire a nonprofit builder.

We did that for Corrie Jones Isle. And we paid for the build because allowed the construction funding for that project. So there's many different ways we can do it. We just thought since this was a little bit smaller and no one bid on it, it could be an opportunity for us to do something interesting, just to see.

Mayor? Before the RFP went out, there has been some discussion, and I didn't really focus on it at the time. But now it makes sense why none of them responded. Didn't get a I think they thought some of the parameters that were set were too tough for some of these not for profits because this is such a smaller lot. It's gonna likely take a specialized person or group to to try to to get it done. So I'm in favor of canceling this. Been speaking to some of these not for profit, say, look. What what what is it you didn't like? And if we change this, what what do we need to change in order for you to go forward with this? And if if they would like to put the money up and do it, that's fine.

If we wanna do it, that's fine too. I'm always in favor of somebody else putting the money up and doing it if we can get it. But, I mean, we need to be a little bit probably flexible on this lot because of its size.

Definitely. Agree.

I agree. I'd I, I think we should cancel. I would like to know why, and I think the mayor's probably correct on that. Entertaining an architect just to see what it could be is a good idea so we can look at how we're moving forward with some of these smaller lots. So could I get a motion to cancel RFP CRA twenty twenty six dash o two?

I make the motion to cancel RFP 26 dash o two.

Second. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Commissioner Markert? Chair Cassell? Yes. Vice Chair Molica?

Yes.

And Commissioner Burns? Yes. Thank you. And do we want to we'd like to direct you to both speak to them and then maybe give us that information back so we have an idea if we could go back out or not and then in which case we proceed.

We can do that by the next meeting.

That's fine. Thank you so much.

No problem.

Okay. On to item 8B, discussion and direction regarding request for proposals for the development of the Southwest seven hundred-eight 100 blocks of West Atlantic Avenue. Renee.

Yes. So very exciting. Have two separate RFPs that we've been drafting. They're based on the RFP that we prepared for the grocery store earlier this year into last year. So it's something similar. We went through a similar exercise where we walked through the RFP. So we're going to be doing that today. Both of the RFPs are very similar. So the presentation looks very long, but both are pretty much mirroring presentations. The only difference is that on the Northwest 800 block, included the information about the environmental situation that's going on.

We had the consultant advise us and give us some language that we could add it to the RFP. So what we'll do is we'll start with the Southwest seven hundred and eight hundred blocks. And there are points where we'll stop and ask for board input. And we thought it'd be easier to go along the way and do that instead of waiting till the very end. So we'll go through that item. And then we'll go through the other item a little bit quicker for the Northwest 800 block. And we'll just highlight the points where we had the environmental input and then where we need board input on that RFP. Once we have all of that done, we plan to incorporate the comments in. And any comments that we have from the community members, I encourage people. Even after this, everything is available on our website.

So feel free to come to our office, send them in writing to us. But this is the time to really get those comments in to us, that we can bring it back to the next board meeting. Just so it's all in a public place, we can bring it up at our next board meeting where we have that draft. And then we can talk about dates for issuance. I don't think our plans issue right away necessarily, but we do want to at least have a draft that's ready. Then we can discuss when we want to issue that RFP. All right. So I'm to have Christine start to go through just the general things and stop at the points where we need to have discussion.

You. Good afternoon. Board, Christine Tibbs, Assistant Director. So I just want to start off the set transformation plan that just got adopted recently and what's in the set transformation plan regarding the oh, it should say Southwest 600, Southwest 700, Southwest 800, and Northwest 800 Block. So between these blocks, it's about almost 15 acres.

And this is what the Set Transformation Plan emphasizes as it relates to the development of the blocks. And so we're just going go through a couple of slides. You'll see that the key redevelopment sites are the Southwest 708 Hundred, Northwest 800, Southwest 600 Block listed within the plan as key sites. And then just images from the plan itself as to concepts for the development for the blocks that we're going to talk about. I'm just going to go through.

These are all in the SET transformation plan. And now we get to the RFP and I'll go through the information and then these are the pages if you have it in front of you. So this is the aerial of where we're talking about. It's going to be sure. I can't see these two blocks here.

And then so SW 700 block it does contain about 1.87 acres, seven parcels. There are two parcels within that block that won't be included in this RFP. One has a single family home right now that's currently rented as an affordable housing unit that we own and one of our housing partners manages and maintains for us. And then another vacant parcel that's exed out there and that's currently not included because it is not connected to the other parcels. So these are all Zone CBD and all vacant and ready for development.

Along with the Southwest 800 Block this is about the same size 1.82 acres. The red box that's x out, those are currently affordable apartment units that, again, we own but our nonprofit housing partner manages and maintains for us. And then again, another vacant land parcel closer to Southwest 1st Street that it wasn't included at this time just because it's not connected to the rest of the parcels that front Atlantic Avenue. And that's it all together. So what's initially included at the forefront of the RFP are the design and development standards that any proposer should reference.

These would be within Article IV of the LDRs for CBD. So they guide the development of public right of ways, landscaping, lighting, on street parking, sidewalks, street furniture, furniture, all of that is in the city's LDRs. So we wanted to point them in that direction. There's also green building standards that are included that should be referenced in the Workforce Housing Program which is Article 4.7. And then we've included reference to the architectural styles and guidelines.

There are seven that are allowed within the CVD, two of which need additional approval to be used. And then of those seven, we are recommending that the RFP only include three of those architectural design and standards for proposers to use in their references and their projects. So

this is the first point where we wanted board input to find out if you all are Okay with us just including these three. Situations for a prior agreement that we had where there were changes to architectural style just because they feel like they could, I guess. So we wanted to say on the forefront what we want to see in this development, if you would like, or just leave it open. But just understanding that there's some of those on there that might not be the most desirable styles, but that could be what's proposed. Or later on, after contract, could be a request to change it to those in the future. But I think in the onset, if we're saying what we would like, that gives us a stronger position in the future in case something happens.

Okay, let's just talk to the board on that. Ms. Malaga?

Well, I guess you could weight that heavier if they use that architecture style, right?

Oh, and leave all seven of them there? We could. Yeah, absolutely. That's just the point of discussion. It's up for us. Mayor?

My view is there was a comment made, which I tend to agree with, that we need to be careful with the RFP because the set transformation plan uses words like encourages and things like that. It's not a mandate. So I'm all for as much flexibility. I mean, just want these properties developed. I'm for as much flexibility as we can get to have someone come in with a great design.

I'm hoping look, I particularly like the three you chose. But the only one on that list is masonry modern, which I have a continuing problem with, but always have a problem with it. Architects have a way of coming up with very clever looking buildings to maximize because it really depends what you're gonna have in the interior to see which is the most functional design. So I I I'm for, you know, letting people let people come back with something. These are great look.

We're gonna get great offers back. These these are great pieces of land. And I just think we should let people be creative. But we can encourage look. That's not say we don't we're not we're encouraging these kinds of things, and we would like to see these kinds of things built there. But I don't wanna be exclusive saying this has got to be this. Okay.

You. Miss Burns?

I I agree. I I think that we need to leave as many options open as possible. I I mean, I know that, you know, this is our delivery, and we want to save what we want, and we we want that. However, you know, as the mayor said, different designs, different I want to see everything. I wanna see all the possibilities. And so I would say leave it open too. And we can narrow that down in the choosing process. Okay.

Thank you. I'm a little it down to the three and only because I sat here last time and the the biggest problem we had was they gave us this beautiful conceptual design. It was stunning and we and it was and then when they came back, they said, well, that was conceptual and gave us masonry modern. That was not at all what we wanted. I understand what you're saying about keeping it open, but perhaps we keep it open, eliminate a few more on the list. Masonry modern specifically. I mean, do we want that?

I don't like masonry modern, so it's fine with me.

Can we go to the list? If you don't want to just limit it to the three, maybe we should look at all of them and see.

I'm just flipping through the pictures of all of them, just so these are from the design guideline booklet. We could just remove Masonry Modern and just leave the others as options.

I'm in agreement with that. I don't really like that Masonry Modern.

I just want to add that there's two styles that I had mentioned that require additional approvals that can't just, I guess, automatically be used. Is one of them. Masonry Masonry Modern is one of them. Art Deco is another one.

So should we think we get away with it?

We should change it.

Think we just changed that.

Is that the one

doesn't come to the commission.

It's staff of it.

Yes. They still require additional approvals, but it doesn't necessarily go before the commission anymore.

Could we see the art deco? Maybe we pull those two out just to help our own process along. Is that what you're suggesting, miss Tibbs? I'd be totally fine pulling that out, too.

We initially had those two, and then we added the others just in looking at the styles and if we're going with that, like, angrile, Caribbean type of look. But we could pull those two out and just How move the

do you all feel about that? I would pull those two out.

We don't want anything looking institutional. Right. It needs to be community friendly, neighborhood friendly.

I'm not positive Art Deco is a West Atlantic design type.

Would just take out those two.

Would be further east and Right. There are places forward in

Well, we can just remove those two and just leave the others. Or you can think about it. We're still bringing this back next month. So right now, we can just remove the two.

Let's remove the two now.

And then if we want to think about it further, we have plenty of time to go back and change that.

Are we in agreement? Do we want a show of hands for removing the two? Is it okay?

Remove those two.

Yeah. That's

fine. I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I have options, but I don't mind removing those two.

Well, they get four others, five others. They get

There's plenty of yes. And they all kind of have the similar look and feel. Right, thank you.

Thank And keeping on with the design development, design, and standards, right now the RFP mentions that the buildings go no more than three stories. That again was taken in reference to what was in the said transformation plan. It just mentions parking and pedestrian friendliness as a desire with wide arcades and sidewalks, open spaces and activities along Atlantic Avenue. But one of the items we would like you to discuss is the building height, as the code currently allows for four stories along the West Atlantic Avenue corridor. We do have snippets from the set transformation plan that references the desire of the community to have it be lower than four stories.

Thank you. Ms. Burks?

Yeah. So, as the mayor said, some of the terminology encouraging. I respect the intent behind the three story limit because our residents made it clear that they don't wanna be feel like they're, walled in, you know, enough fences and walls in in our past, in our history. However, you know, talking to some of the developers and talking to some some builders who have very successful buildings that, you know, the density, if we want afford if we truly want affordable housing, we may have to make some for, you know, a fourth story. So I think that we need to leave it open and not be so rigid.

And and and, again, the opportunity, like, I wanna see what's presented, you know, what can be done. I mean, if it's three, okay. But if it's four and it looks not and and you're not walling off, know, I would like to see that.

Miss Malika? You leave

it open, everybody's gonna go for the four. Right? So you could say you have a preference for the three. However, it can go up to four.

And yeah. So So are you saying three? Pardon me? Are you saying suggesting that we leave it at the three? Because I

agree with that. I'm suggesting that you may say that's the the preference. However, it Right. We would also consider four because, like, I think, miss Selznick said, if we could get more affordability with a four story, then that might be more desirable than less affordability with a three story.

Mayor?

At the end of the day, you know, the builders are gonna look at what the cost per unit is, and you can spread cost you know, reduce your cost by spreading them over four floors rather than just three floors. So I do think there will be a component there. We're gonna be saying, you wanna be able to have this priced housing. You you won't be able to get it at three stores. You may be able to get it at four. So I I I you know, I that's just a reality of of building. So, I mean, Mike Mike Mike we can say we encourage three, but I I don't wanna you're correct. If someone could they're gonna see four, they're gonna do it for four. And and I know that. So and that may that that that may be something where we have to look at.

You know, I understand that's in the in the in in the the in the transformation plan, but I'm not sure that they've it's been thought through by everybody as to what it really will mean, what you're gonna end up building there. Sounds it sounds good. Well, it

was seventeen years ago, so times have changed, and we have to move

with time. Could you speak in the mic? Can't.

Seventeen years ago.

Seventeen years ago. Yeah.

Yeah. What about, three stories on the avenue and four behind it? In other words, making asking for it to be three directly on the road and stepping up.

We can absolutely do that.

You can still accommodate your, need for units if you're four behind, but you keep that low profile directly on the avenue.

But just but understand by doing that, you're increasing the density right next to the residential neighborhood. Right. Usually, you have the density sitting on the main ave, and then you step it down a step when you're going against the resi you know, to transition it into the residential neighborhood.

But you could pyramid it

I'm just saying it yeah. Mean, I you know?

I would like to just see the design. If we can just say Exactly.

Let yeah. Put it out there.

If we can say, oh, you know, the three, but at four may be acceptable based on your design.

Think it's a little early. Wide there. It's not

like it's No. It is wider. It's wider.

That's

accommodate why it's I it it can accommodate four stories on the on the avenue itself with a step back if you want as it transitions into the residential neighborhood.

Okay. So it's So

then it's less towering over the residential neighborhood.

Right. I think you've got four. Okay, on that one.

Perfect. So we'll leave that open.

Doctor. Nancy

Yes. Thank you. Groce: So then with our development objectives, do move in. For the commercial component, we are asking proposers to identify the size, type and location of the commercial uses. Proposers are encouraged to include the community identified needs, pharmacy services, financial services, health and wellness facilities, family social entertainment.

These were identified within the twenty twelve West Atlantic Area Needs Assessment and also the Set Transformation Plan. And then we offered the opportunity that if you have it available, letters of intent should be included if there already have tenants on board for the evaluation committee and the board to consider. As to the residential component, we are proposing within this RFP to have 40% of the units be affordable and or workforce units. That would mean that the development incentive within Article 4.4.13, the LDRs kicks in, and then 4.7, the family workforce housing requirements. So this is an item for discussion in terms of the percentage of units that we would like to see within the development.

The land development regulations, if you're going to take advantage of the increased units per acre requires 20%. So we put in the draft RFP 40%.

I'll go first this time. So I like the idea of having more of a percentage, but my concern, and I was speaking to Renee, is what I really want to see is the lower AMI, like Ms. Selznick said. So if we are asking for more units, are we doing that in exchange for giving the higher 80 to one twenty? Because what we really need is the lower number, 60 to 80.

And, you know, that's so that's what I you know, I I would like 40%. I think that would be a great project. And I think considering what we're giving in exchange, that's not a lot to ask. But the parameters, the 40%, what that consists of is what's important to me. Ms. Barnes?

Oh, sorry. Before you move on, I just wanted to I moved to this slide because the the LDRs do state that the workforce housing unit shall be equally distributed between the low and moderate income levels to take advantage of the density bonus there. So low income is defined within Article 4.7. So a low income household is 61% to 80%. Moderate income household is 81% to 120%. So there is that language in the city LDRs right now that the units shall be equally distributed between low and moderate income levels. Thank you.

Sorry, before we keep going, just want to comment on one thing that we're looking for comment as well, is that the code also allows for building on-site or off-site. So how we have it drafted now is that or monetary contribution. So we excluded that option of monetary contribution because we want the units built. But something that I wanted to throw out for consideration is that we could also include the potential developing on some of the vacant CRA parcels that we have, the scattered sites, if they want to do some sort of single family home build. We don't have very many, but it could be some a way for them to also have that ability to meet their workforce housing requirements and not have so much pressure on the site. Because now we're saying have it lower and do these different things. So that might help shift It's some

of good idea. I

a good idea.

Think So we can do that.

So I

just wanted to comment that before we get into the percentage.

I agree with that, mayor.

Yeah. I agree. I think it's a good idea.

Okay. Miss Molica? Yes. Miss Burns?

I am I'm I'm okay with the 40%, and I prefer on-site. But I'm trying to process what you just said about the off-site situation.

Right. So basically, the developers have options in the code. They can build the workforce housing on-site and still count for their project, or they can build off-site and count towards their project, or they can pay into the city's monetary fund for to count for their project.

Where does the building off-site come from? Where does this land? That could that's what

I'm saying. It could be some of

the single family lots that we have that aren't very many, but they would be single family homes that would be built as part of the project. That way they could help satisfy that workforce housing requirement on-site by building them elsewhere, still within our district, obviously, on our parcels if we wanted to throw

out But would that bring more market rate on-site?

Potentially. Yeah, it potentially could.

Okay. Well, I'm not for having more market rate on-site, but I'm I'm in favor of the 40% units.

Yeah. I think I know what you're saying. You've got the four to consider that option because we do have to incentivize a little bit. And so yeah. And because we're asking for 40% versus the 20, you know, I do think it's okay.

It's a big percent.

I agree.

Particularly since it's going be a twenty twenty mix.

Direction on that? Thank you.

Just a comment, we did that for the last RFP we did in 2018. We offered Carver Square site in Corrie Jones Isle as potential off-site locations. They were just a lot more. Those were 30 single family lots. We don't have that many now, but it could be just something to help a little bit. Okay.

And

then the next thing that we included in the RFP is mention of our CRA incentives and opportunities that a proposer could seek to take advantage of. We have the Development Infrastructure and Assistance Program, provides CRA reimburses 75% of the cost of eligible site improvements for an eligible commercial project up to an amount not to exceed 75% of the projected tax increment funds generated by the improvements over a five year period not to exceed $1,000,000 And then the land value investment program where the entity may lease CRA owned land for up to sixty years at a discounted rate. And then there may be proposals for additional incentives and opportunities with a successful proposer, co ownership with the CRA, or master leasing. These are all listed. And again, that catch all where the proposer may propose something contemplated yet.

And we would work with them to see if that could work out. Thank you.

Any Yes. Just wanted to stop here. So for the development infrastructure program, we modified it a little bit because this program was paused a few years ago. And we were revamping it. So it was geared more towards Class A office space. We had this agreement with IPIC. That's the last one that we've done. So we geared this more towards housing instead of the commercial. Think I that's time we were trying to attract Class A office space. So now we changed it a little bit to where it's more for housing.

Also increased the amount because the maximum amount was $250,000 which I don't think is very much now. That number was from probably $15.20 years ago. So we increased it to $1,000,000 and then upped the percentage. It was 50% of the project cost. Now we increased it to 75. This is a portion of what they're generating, so it's not an automatic thing. But we just wanted to increase those numbers to incentivize the project. Also, the land value investment program, it says the entity may lease the land for up to sixty years. We're looking at that number because now we're in our last kind of years now. I think this was back when we had a lot more time.

So we're going to be looking at those numbers to see if we need to change those because we will be sunsetting well before sixty years now. So we still have the program. We just may have to change the number of years. And again, they can propose something completely different. There's many other types of incentives and things that people could ask for. So we wanted to have those catchalls, but all for our standard programs also.

Is everybody good with that?

I just have a question. So with the any any offers received by the, applicant, would that come before the board, or would that be something that the staff, irons out before it comes to the board?

For the incentives? Yes. It would be in their proposal. So it would get reviewed first and then it would come to the board. Okay. Yes.

Okay. Is everyone good with these? Yeah. There any opportunity? In this?

Yes. The

commercial component.

Commercial component, exactly, can have any of those.

Okay, submittal requirements, I'll try to go through this pretty quickly. A lot of it you've seen before, a narrative executive summary basically introducing the proposer, the overview of the proposed development, and then their understanding and the commitment to the goals and desires of what this RFP is trying to achieve. Then we'll go into qualifications and experience is in business in the state of Florida for the past five years, their legal structure, key personnel, the subs they're going to use, organization chart telling us who's going to be working on this project and who's going to be working together. And then as to the actual project, this is where it gets more in-depth in the RFP where we would want renderings, site plans, floor plans, use plans, development and construction schedule. There's multiple pages on what we're going to be requiring from each proposer as to what their project is going to essentially be.

Then financial structures, project cost operating pro form a for ten years, sales and lease information, financing plan, their fiscal impact which would be include jobs generated and then this is where the incentives request comes ownership and their purchase price and lease terms of the subject properties. Past projects and references, so we do ask for three projects completed within the last ten years that are similar in size and scope and complexity as to the one that is in this RFP. At least one project have been for a public entity. If they've worked with governmental entities in the past, list those three professional references from projects. Let me know if there's anything you would want to comment on.

I just want

to comment real fast. Okay.

Sorry, real quickly. So the one thing that we added here was at least one of the projects must have been with a public entity. We did not have that before. Right. That was not considered as part of the review process for the developers that we chose. So we just wanted to add that in there, that we'd ask for at least one public project to be done in the past.

I mean, I'm fine with it. Was there a reason, Ralph, why?

That we are adding it?

That they've done prior visits with the public entity?

Well, I think just to show that they have that experience working with government and public because in their past situation, they didn't know that came up a lot, that this is our first time doing it. And it was Yeah.

Lack of

I think just experience with the process in general I think is helpful.

I agree

with that. Understanding, right, of public meetings, things happening in the public, right, actually happening. So I think it's just helpful, at least that we know that they've at least had one project. And it could be anything, but at least they've done some work with the government.

Good idea. Thank you for that.

Financial information so three years of audited financial statements, their financial capacity to actually commence this project, ability to secure performance and payment bond insurance, their litigation, disciplinary proceedings, and conflicts. We asked for the past ten years of those. And then their offer price or lease amount, this is an item for discussion.

Okay. I'll comment first on the financial information. So we had one year before. And then we changed it to three years based on some of the more recent RFPs that we've done. I think for this type of a project, it's important to have that so that we can see what's been happening with the business for a few years. So just our suggestion. But if we wanted to change it, we absolutely can. And we also have the option for us to inspect their financial records. They're not actually giving it to us if they don't want to make it become a public record. We have that option to also inspect at their premises.

And then the last thing here is the offer price or lease amount if they are proposing to do a land lease. This is an open for discussion item. We generally have not put a base amount or anything in there because typically our land or severely discounted is the contribution to the project. Because oftentimes what you'll see is if you do have a high offer amount, they may want some incentive also because they need help to build, especially with the cost to build and sustain workforce and affordable housing. So we were just proposing to leave it open like we've done in the past. We wanted to bring it up for discussion.

Ms. Monica?

They're all going to offer zero, right?

Well, not necessarily. Think the last go around they offered

money last time.

People did. Yeah. People offered money. One person didn't, one entity, but almost everyone has in the past offered something. One: We've never set a threshold, like a minimum amount is what I'm saying.

So also when you were talking about leasing from the CRA and you wanted to cut that thirty years down based on your nineteen year lifespan, couldn't you also do a a transfer of that lease or something to make it a longer time period? Because they need time to make their money back. Right?

Right. And that's what we're looking at the land lease, how that would exactly work. Because once we sunset our assets, would go to the city. Right. So it would continue on in some form or fashion, or an acknowledgment of this is what's happening, and we can discuss it with the city. So we're talking about that now to figure out structurally how that would work. But a land lease is a good viable option for developers to utilize in these situations. So we don't want to take that away. We're trying to find a way where that

can work. It seems like it should be longer. Yes,

we agree.

Trying to recoup the money, right?

Absolutely. And they have the option to purchase along the way. There's different steps when they can purchase that if they choose to. So we need to make sure that we have it all straightened out with the time that we have left.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Burns?

Yeah, I like the land lease idea and for longer, but I wanted to ask about the financial information. You said three years audited financial statement, and you said that for this type of project, this is the best solution. But for other projects, are we considering a different like, projects? Well, we've

we've typically had one year One year. Across the board. So when we amended that for the last RFPs that we did for the, single family homes, we just brought over that three years to this project

as well. Okay. So okay. Because I would like to see it go back to one year for a smaller project, but I do agree that for this type of project, the three years is sufficient Okay. Or necessary, I should should say. But yeah. I'm I'm in favor of the the land the lease. I don't know how much yet. But

Thank you. Okay. Mayor?

I think that, as I said, I'm I'm we're we're asking people to put 40% workforce. We're asking people to do different things. We need to be able to incentivize this Mhmm. Whether it's with whether we decide ultimately it's a long term lease is the best play or whether or not you know, I wanna I wanna see what people come back

with. Yeah.

Developers gotta make their money or we're not gonna get the project. Right. But the citizens need to have the project they wanna have with the with the the ratios that we wanna see. So we're we've talked about this a 100 times about this. To get these projects done, we're gonna have to incentivize them. So I'm very flexible. Okay.

Thank you. And I agree as well with that. And I appreciate you adding that three year audited financial statements. I think that just secures that if we go down the path we might actually get to the end and that's the goal here. So be talking thank you very

about 50,000,060 million dollars

You would be surprised what happens. We need

to see more, I think.

We just

need to see a little bit more of the picture.

That's all.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you. So then the next is evaluation criteria. So before you is the proposed draft of how the points will break down. Development team experience would make up 30 points. Proposed development project 40. Financial structure 15. Fiscal impact 15. If you would like to see it structured differently or other items included, we can certainly take that. I'd like

to ask a question about this. It's something that always concerns me. I don't see it in here, but I want to make sure when we're evaluating this criteria, we used to have something that related to community input and then developers would go out and grab somebody from the community and then they were, you know, the last time it was giving out food and all that. We wanna get the best person for the project, not necessarily the person who's doing those sort of things. Is that I don't see that in here. Have we changed that criteria?

Well, there were sections in the RFP that referred to the prior RFP about relocating the tenants that were there because at that time we still had the 700 buildings. Some of those were tied to those types of benefits.

You're talking

about there was something about community engagement. There was a component that had a point value.

Let me look back. We'll look back and see.

Okay. I don't see it here, so I just want to see that was something that became an interesting dynamic. We see that in the city. You may have removed it already.

Well, I think in this RFP, the community benefit part of it are the things that were provided. So inclusion of the priority needs that were from the CRA plan, the West Atlantic Needs Assessment, the Set Transformation Plan, those are the types of things highlighting more. We also had information in the past RPs about job creations and bonuses and things like that. But since the city removed those from their disparity study and all that is not in place, we did not include those things because at the time we had those options before, which aren't currently. We did not include that.

So 30 points for development team, 40 points for the project development project proposed, 15 for the financial, and 15 for the fiscal impact. Is the fiscal impact being too heavily weighed? I don't know. You think We can this

adjust it. This was just a first one.

You know what? Let's leave it at that and let me think about that one. Anybody else have any comments?

Yeah. Mean, don't know whether these are the right point things or not. Again, I I was anxious to get started. And whether it's I don't know what we mean by the 15 points for the fiscal impact. If somebody is putting up money as opposed to a lease, they they get better points. But if it's a better project, they make up on it on that way. I mean, I think it's gonna be I always think these things are very hard to measure.

Right. Agree. But appreciate that. Miss Molica, are you good with this?

I think that what you mentioned is that you're going to open up for some public input. So I'd like to see if the public adds more weight for affordability or

When are you doing that? When

is Well, right now. I I think just yeah. We're asking for yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Going to say that. Miss Burns?

Just I'm I mean, I'm a rubric person person, but this it's like, how do you measure? I mean, it's not my. I won't be measuring, but I guess it's okay to start.

Okay. Thank you. I think we're all good with this.

I'll just comment on the fiscal impact too. I think it also includes, like, we have information we requested for job creation and what it impacts broadly, not just what we see here. Is just a couple of notes from it. So if you look back at the actuals, there's a section for fiscal impact that has more in there than just these few things.

I'll look at that.

And we can change this again. Is just our first This full is great.

Thank you.

And then this is just a brief overview of the selection procedure which is the same selection procedure that you've seen for all the RFPs that have come before you where there's an Evaluation Committee, they shortlist proposers, ask for oral presentation, finalize their score, and then you have the CRE board can accept the evaluation committee scores and award, reject the evaluation committee scores, and then select the proposer that you feel will serve the CRE's best interest and award to that proposer or cancel the RFP at any time. And then whenever you make your award, we would and CRE staff is authorized to enter into negotiations with that proposer.

Thank you. Very exciting.

And then these are the next steps, for this RFP. We will take all the comments into consideration that we've received, this evening, and have another draft of the RFP presented before you, at a future future board meeting.

Thank you. Any comments? Yeah. Could I see

the the step the slide before that? Because a couple of the speakers asked about being involved in examining the RFP. So is there is there public involved in that evaluation committee?

Of the proposals? Well, That's just for it's closed at that once they So receive they essentially are exempt from public records for a certain period of time. So the committee is usually our staff. We have the city that's involved as well. Those meetings are all public, and people can go to those meetings. People can comment right now on the RFP Got it. Up until when we issue Until it's until people submit. Exactly. So that's why I said I'm encouraging people to send us comments. If people want to come to our next board meeting, think it would be great to actually verbalize that we have those comments on the record here, in a public forum so that we're all hearing and receiving the same information. I think that would be beneficial. Or in writing.

Email it to before we're And looking about on if I may, Ms. Malaga, comment to that. I don't know how many meetings that you've had in the community on this, but it's a lot over the course of years and years. There have been so many but the thing that's critically important for us to remember is there's tax incentives out there for the developers and they're on a particular schedule and I think we need to move on this pretty quickly and get this in the process because I think this I was speaking to one gentleman and I think that schedule is tight and you don't know what tax incentives are going to be available next year so we don't want to create a scenario where we're short changing ourselves because tax incentives have changed and applicants aren't able to get them. I think I appreciate the comments by the callers.

I don't think we should wait any longer. We've had so many meetings on this, so many discussions, and I think if people have input, they should write to all of us pretty immediately and provide it. And, we should be looking to approve this at our next meeting. Okay. I'm very excited. Any miss Burns? No, ma'am. Mayor?

I I you know, I wanna get I've been thinking about getting this started for since 2012. So

Thank you. Miss Molica?

Anything else?

There you are. Thank you all for this. It's pretty exciting moment. Thank you. Okay. On to 8C with our discussion and direction regarding our request for proposals for the development of the Northwest 800 Block Of West Atlantic Avenue.

Presentation. I think just for the interest of time and we need to incorporate feedback, we'll just highlight the portions with the remediation. Okay. And then we can bring back the full RFPs because again they're very similar. I know there were comments at the last meeting about having maybe more commercial on this side versus the other side. We'll talk about that a little bit as well. But we won't go through every single slide like the last because they're the same.

Thank you. We appreciate that.

So same slide as before, as mentioned in the set transformation plan for the development of this block. These are the same reference slides. And then the RFP. And then these are the properties within the Northwest 800 block, approximately 2.49 acres. We did mark out the one parcel that's on the more northwest side of the block there.

But again, if off-site CRE owned land for affordable housing is included, we may look at including that block as well. So this is a little bit different in the sense that not all of these parcels are zoned CBD. Some of them are zoned single family residential, So we would have to keep that in mind when looking at any proposals that come in as a zoning change may be needed for some of these blocks or some of these vacant land parcels. They are all CBD on the more southern side up to I guess if you know the property Bilow is, that's where the break point is for CBD. So 805 West Atlantic Avenue, familiar.

It's right there in the corner there, southeastern corner. We've had our environmental consultant, Rez, draft portions within the RFP that reference the status of the current site, the work that is to come in terms of related to remediation and trying to get a closeout status for the remediation. And then if any development were to occur on 805, what the developer has to take into account in terms of dewatering, best management practices, they would have to lay that out in their proposed development project and then Res is on board to look at those proposals to make sure that all the proposers took into account what is happening at that site and what's going to be required for development in the future.

Thank you.

Then I will skip through these. We can just go straight to the

housing component because they're all, again, the exact same slides as before. The only difference really in this presentation is the residential. So on this side, because we had mentioned about having more commercial, we just suggested to have a minimum of 30% workforce housing on these blocks instead of the 40%. So that's just open for discussion. We're open to anything. But just because of the commentary, we had this at thirty percent minimum. Because of what commentary? There was a comment at the last oh, sorry. So the last hearing board meeting, there was a comment requesting that this side lean more commercial than residential. So that's why we just lowered that. The contiguous Right. Exactly.

I had asked for that instead of just residential. I thought there should be commercial components. So I totally agree with 30%. Mayor?

Yeah, I think thirty fifth is fine.

Ms. Barnes?

I'm okay with him.

Ms. You. Ms. Malika? There you are.

I think this is the same slide as well in terms of on-site, off-site. And then these are the same exact submittal requirements that we just went through. The only component that's listed here is what I mentioned with the remediation site. They'll have to showcase that they understand the requirements as listed in the RFP for that one piece of property. Same selection procedures and again we'll take into account all the comments that we received today and bring back a draft RFP at the next CRA Board Meeting for your consideration.

Thank you again. Any comments? Anyone? None. Fabulous. That's very exciting. On to new business, nine a, appointment of CRA officer deputy vice chair.

Who's who who are the officers now?

I am the, no. I'm the vice chair. So we need the deputy vice chair. You

need the

vice chair. You know Tom's not here, so we could do that

to him. Yeah. Okay. Theo I

would like to nominate Tom Tom Marker. I

would like

to second that. Fabulous. K.

Good. Commissioner With with additional responsibilities that he has to actually assemble the agendas, make all the copies, and put the books together. That's gonna be the job description of the deputy vice chair.

Uh-huh. Commissioner Markert, chair Casal? Yes. Vice chair Malika? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. And commissioner Carney?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. On to nine b. Approve a work assignment with the Tamara Peacock Company Architects of Florida, DBA Peacock Architects in an amount not to exceed $8,750 regarding the CRA owned public parking lot located at 362 NE 3rd Avenue.

Christine Tibbs again. Thank you. So this is just to place you in terms of where the parking lot is. So there's NE 3rd Avenue. The red box in the lower right hand side, that's a CRA owned arts warehouse at 313 Northeast 3rd Street. And then in between Artist Alley and Northeast 3rd Avenue, there is a city owned parking lot there with 14 spaces.

Where's Bedners on this?

Bedners is up against Northeast. You'll see their parking lot.

381.

Okay, I got you. Okay, that's better. Thank you. I know where you are. Go

ahead. Okay.

It's ugly for a townhouse.

So this is where we have 42 spaces right now at 362. It is a surface parking lot that the CRA purchased in 2010. We improved that lot in 2011. And then just to give you an idea of the infrastructure improvements that have happened in Artist Alley and along Northeast 3rd Avenue over the years, 2014 the city initiated the design of the improvements to Northeast 3rd Street, Northeast 3rd Avenue, and Artist Alley. In 2018, the CRA stepped in to facilitate the final design revisions for those improvements.

In 2019, we approved an infrastructure grant to one of the owners of the properties, I should say Northeast 3rd Avenue there for the construction of a larger water main that would connect to those larger infrastructure improvements there. 2020, the city completed minor road improvements to Artist Alley. 2022, the city finally completed the larger infrastructure improvements along Northeast 3rd Avenue and Northeast 3rd Street. I forgot to add in here they also improved their city owned parking lot. They redesigned the middle strip and did some minor parking improvements there sometime in 2024 as well.

And then also more in 2024, the most recent one, the installation of a new drainage system in Artis Alley to help with any remaining flooding issues that were occurring there even after the road improvements that were completed in 2020. So over the past, since 2010, between the CRA and the city, a lot of improvements have been put into this area to support the businesses that were hoped to come, that we hope to come to the area and they have come. And so now we are hearing issues that there needs to be more parking in the area. So we reached out to Peacock Architects who is in our continuing contracts pool to help us with a due diligence package. This is not unlike a due diligence package that you've approved and seen prior before.

This work assignment would include the scope of work is that she would analyze the applicable code and zoning requirements along with a high level evaluation of the feasibility of developing the property as a public parking structure. The preliminary review will assess the practical parking yield, including the estimated number of spaces, include a conceptual layout with key components such as vehicular circulation, stair towers, elevators, required support spaces, and then also offer a conceptual three d massing model so that you can see what the parking structure looks like in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood and businesses to give you better context of the overall scale, height, and form. And then this is intended to be a high level planning assessment to see what a parking structure there could look like, how many parking spaces could actually be obtained. Great. Well needed.

Yes.

Thank you. You need a vote on this?

Can I ask another question? Is this design going to be somebody called and I referred him to the city and Mr. Orson, so I think they're probably having a meeting with them this group that does these parking, not like Josh's, which was across the street. Like an automated

There's one over they can

fit twice as many cars in there if it's automated and they go into these So

I spoke to

him. I've came to our referred him to all of you. I didn't know Yes. Any of I don't know any

of He came into our office. Yeah, it's automated, not the mechanical, it's a whole different type of technology. She's not. We could ask her to look into it. I know I think that's a good thing just with him. We can

also I've seen them. They're in Japan. I've seen them. Right. And they work great. It's just they get twice as many cars.

We can ask her to look into that and what it would take because I guess there may be some code modifications that would be needed, but we could look into that as well just to maximize the parking there. But it's a different technology than the mechanical. So we can ask her to include that. There's something else I wanted to include as well, just for consideration here, is that in the meantime, while we're going through this due diligence process and whatever type of parking we do, look to improve there, hopefully that we can, we wanted to talk about possibly metering the lot. I know metering is a not a great word. But I think in that area

He's going to be a meter maid.

I'm gonna

We're gonna get you a little car.

I'm gonna become a meter maid because I can actually get paid as a meter maid as opposed to being sitting in the stands.

You don't get anything for me sitting here. So I this is something I've been chatting about with miss Missy since last year about just increasing parking there. And we just recently talked about the metering. The city would do it. We would do an interlocal agreement with the city and maybe some kind of a shared revenue so that whatever we're getting is going back into the parking structure that will be for the future uses. But I wanted to talk to you all first. Also, wanted to, if we are proposing this, to talk to the business owners. I've heard from at least one that they would definitely be open to this because what's happening, a lot of the cars are staying there all day. And they're not moving. It's our lot.

It's not a paid lot at all. We use it for arts warehouse parking, and that's a benefit that we have there. But I think since there's newer businesses coming in, which is great, we're now facing situations with parking there. And people are just parking and leaving their cars in the alley. We've also witnessed that as well. So just something to throw out there. Again, I know metering is not the preferred thing. I just think in this area, it's a different situation than in other parts of the city, different challenges. Miss Burns, do you

have any comments?

I understand. I'm amenable to also tickets instead of meters. I want you to know if I get a different

I'm amenable to that as well. We're gonna give you the car and the ticket. We'll get

you I the

see a uniform in your future. Miss Malika?

I didn't even finish.

Oh, I was first.

I opened opened my mouth, but the mayor took over.

Oh, I called in.

Yeah. Thank you. So I was just gonna say that I am for metering it. You know, people shouldn't park there all day. However, if there is a an event that the CRA sponsors at the Arts Warehouse, would you waive the fees on that for those particular events?

Yes. So we can structure it however we'd like to through the inter local agreement. So we can do it for cities.

Yeah. Five blocks away and I don't know.

No. And it'd probably even help us right now because even if there is something happening at Arts Warehouse, it's difficult for us with our staff to go out there and, like, block the parking. But if we're incorporating the city, service into that, we could ask them if they can help us with the parking attendants to go out there and make sure that we're able to park is what we can ask for. So absolutely, yes. Thank you.

Okay, so you have support on that. Do you need a vote? You don't need a vote?

Yes, work assignment. Okay. To approve the work assignment.

Wait, I haven't commented. So I'm absolutely in favor of getting the structure looked at for the possibility of a garage. I think that the meters are going to be moot because it's all employees that park there because I work there. So it's gonna be free parking. Or it's, you know, dollars 10 a month. Just saying.

That's fine.

Okay. We could exclude it. We could we could say that we don't want to have that be a site for the that program.

Because the Bednar's employees are

using Then why are they going to park? Well, Bednar's has Bednar's, right?

They have parking on their street and they have their lot.

They try to rope off the northern part. See the for their

Oh, yes. I can tell you the alley is right?

Are we

have a motion to approve this?

We're I move that approve the, entering into the contract with Peacock Architects to develop a parking garage and the automated or regular or whatever, you know

I would second that.

And a card for

a meter made. Our meter made card.

Chair Kassam? Yes. Vice Chair Malika?

Yes.

Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. And Commissioner Markert? Thank you so much.

Can I just add with what you'd mentioned with the parking and different things? Those things we could work out through interlocal agreement. So if we're in favor of supporting essentially some kind of metering option, let us work with the city on that and work on the interlocal agreement, and we'll bring that back. And then we can talk about parameters and how we'd want to see that.

Yeah. And have it on the agenda.

Yes. Exactly. Was just something I was bringing up as an interim's option to see what you guys thought about it. So seems like it's in favor or supportive, so we'll move forward.

I'm supportive of the 8,700 foot.

Yes. The interlocal will come back.

Yes. Great. Great. Thank you so much. And on to other business. Yes. Do you have any comments, our executive director?

I do. I have a couple of comments. So, we recently found out that we won a historic preservation board award for 98 Northwest 5th Avenue for our preservation efforts there in that building. Very exciting. The meeting is next week. So we're happy about that. They made comments not just about the building itself, but also about naming the building after the Edmunds Baines family. So we really tried to keep the structure as is. Although we had to make a lot of changes to it, we did not want to tear it down. So we tried as much as possible to actually preserve it and then also the name of the building.

All right. And then just wanted to highlight a few meetings coming up. So we have our special board meeting where we'll hear a presentation from the company that submitted the unsolicited proposal for the Southwest 600 Block Of West Atlantic Avenue. So that will be Wednesday, May 13 at 5PM. We'll be sending information out about that very shortly and briefing you all so you're prepared for the next meeting that we have coming up in May. And then after that, we have a joint meeting with the city commission to talk about the Pompe Park project on May 26 at 02:00. So that'll be also a very important meeting. And then right after that, we'll have our CRA regular board meeting at 4PM. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Doody, thank you for joining us. Okay. To the board. Miss Malika?

I'm finished. We have a ribbon cutting.

Yes. Mayor?

Nothing.

Miss Barnes? Bread. Okay. In that case, we are adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.