Community Redevelopment Agency - Regular Meeting

All right, let's go ahead and call this Pompano Beach CRA meeting to order September 15th, 2026 at one o'clock. If I could ask everyone to please silence your cell phones or put them on vibrate so we don't get disrupted during the meeting by someone getting a phone call, that'd be great. So please silence those cell phones. Irvin, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Here. Commissioner Perkins? Here. Commissioner Seegerson? Here. Commissioner Smith? Here. Vice Mayor Fournier? Here. Mayor Hardin?

Here. I'm going to ask everyone to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I get a motion approving the CRA board meeting minutes of July 21st, 2026.

So moved. Second.

Dan seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Mr. Harrison, any changes to our agenda? No, sir. Very good. Can I get a motion approving the agenda as printed?

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Are there any items the Commission wishes to pull from the consent agenda? Hearing none, all items on the consent agenda are open for discussion during audience to be heard. Very good. Thank you for that. That takes us up to audience to be heard. Mr. Alford, anyone signed up?

We have one speaker, Mayor.

Very good.

Delvin King.

All right. Just name and address the record and please limit your comments to three minutes.

Good afternoon, Delvin King. Darlene Smith has my address. You can ask her. What is an elected official? An elected official is a person chosen by the voters through an election to hold a public office and make decisions on behalf of the public. They work at different levels of government, including local, state, and on a national level. Darlene Smith, you are not an elected official. You cheated. Sir, I'm going to. This is your first warning. I'm giving you your first warning again today.

Yes.

If I get you to three, I'm going to have BSO escort you out of here.

Okay. That's your first warning. Okay. We're not going to make this personal. Thank you.

Okay. So you went on Sarah's show and you say you found out about my address of the discrepancies in February. You waited till no one else could run. You waited. You waited. no one else can run and made sure that you was the only one that can slide your way through but i come to tell you you don't represent district five you may represent yourself and barry moss but you don't represent the whole district five she hasn't been elected by the people So as of right now, that's just a sitting person. That's just because one, she don't comment on anything. I watched the budget meeting. Y'all said nothing. You had no questions. How could you sit here and have no questions, no concerns about the budget? How come only three people have questions and concerns? You're just okay with everything? Everything that city staff do is just fine with you, correct? Like, you finna go through this meeting today, you have no, my district has no questions. No questions. No concerns. And that bothers me. That bothers me. That show me what kind of leader you are, she is, or she is. Ineffective. And this is a problem that we have in Pompanoe. But again, you cheated.

Cheated. Mr. King.

Mr. Mayor.

I'm going to ask you to keep it simple.

Mr. Mayor, please. That's twice. You want your second warning too?

Yep.

That's twice. Okay. So, you're not respected by this community. I ask you to resign today. And every day I'm going to ask you to resign. Thank you.

And, of course, just for the record, Commissioner Smith was elected by the people of District 5. Thank you. Just to correct the record, she was not elected. Mr. King, your time is over. No, no, no. Please, Mr. King. No, no, no. You waited until I left. Final warning. BSO, please escort this gentleman out. Okay. Escort him out with me. Escort this gentleman out. Thank you, sirs. Anyone else? Mr. Alfrid?

That concludes the audience to be heard.

Very good, thank you. Yes, Commissioner Perkins.

I think as the chair of this commissioner meeting, When someone walks up to speak, I think you need to be, or I know you need to be very fair with everybody on the same level. I've had people to walk up to that podium and give personal attacks on me. And you sit there, or you sit here next to me, and you said nothing. You allowed it. So I just want you to really think about being fair to everyone across the board. when someone walks up to that podium and speak. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, that takes us up to Commissioner Fessick.

Just one thing. Commissioner Perkins, I hear you, and I also have had that happen to me. But what I'd like to make sure that we do is potentially maybe we have to look at how our rules of conduct and how they're being applied. are if they are in line with the freedoms that certain people have to speak. So I think maybe that's something worth looking at again at another point in time, but I just want to put it on record that many times we have had people say things and you allow them to speak. And as soon as somebody questions decisions that were made, I don't feel that somebody's feelings related to what was done or your comments at the end of our last meeting with a congratulatory note, feel like people have feelings about that, and maybe that's the reason why you're seeing, it's not personal, it's just the feelings about what was done. Thank you.

Very good. All right. Is there a motion to approve items one? Item one.

One is consent. Consent. I'd like to pull number one.

Oh, you'd like to pull number one for discussion. Very good. All right. Item number one is a resolution.

Mayor, before we start with the regular agenda, if I may, I'd like to again correct our record, if I may.

Okay, sure.

I listened to the City Commission meeting last night regarding the budget and there were some statements made relative to the CRA that I need to correct. One statement was to the effect that the extension of the CRA to 2061 was somehow not open and transparent and that it was words to the effect a line buried in a plan. So I want to be sure for folks that are listening and certainly for the day as to that our record is clear about how that extension occurred. In May of 2024 at a regular CRA meeting, May 21, 2024. Resolution 2024-30 was before the CRA board. When we do an agenda item, we have backup for that agenda item. And in the backup, there was a memo that specifically said that the amended and restated plan for the eCRA extends the lifespan for an additional 30 years. In addition to that, the amended NCRA plan was attached to the agenda item with what we call underline and strike through. When you underline, you're adding language. When you strike through, you're taking language out. On the page in the plan where the extension language occurs, there's a paragraph relating to the statutory requirement regarding the life of a CRA. all of the words are in red except for and the when you do a strike through an underline you also show you track the changes so that folks can see so the changes are in red except for this particular one the paragraph is all red but standing in the middle of that paragraph in bright blue is the following statement the extension date for completing all redevelopment is december 31 2061 and i have copies for members of the commission so that you can see what was attached to the resolution on May 21, 2024. Now the way it works is the CRA cannot adopt a CRA plan. That is only done by the governing body. The city commission is the governing body and the city commission is the one who decides whether or not what the CRA is recommending is acceptable. So on June 11, 2024 resolution 2024 one 45 was before the commission because it had been recommended by the CRA. It was on consent. Commissioner Fournier, who was then commissioner, obviously now vice mayor, pulled the item from consent so that she could specifically talk about the fact that one of the changes in the amended and restated plan was the extension of 30 years. And again, there was backup for the agenda item. And then after Vice Mayor Fournier made her public comments. There was public comment on the item. A very nice lady came up and talked about teaching art classes at the McNabb House. And the second public comment was by Audrey Fessick, who was not on the commission at that time. and she commented about the fact that she thought the 30-year extension was unnecessary and that the eCRA should take a, quote, victory lap. So I want to emphasize that there was not ever a time that the 30-year extension was not noticed publicly, discussed publicly, adopted by the CRA, and adopted by the City Commission. The other thing that I have to speak briefly about is the comments that were made about CRA contracts and CRA consultants. And I want to be sure that our record is very clear that if we have existing contracts the CRA is obligated to fund those contracts if we have the money to do so. We are not, no one in the finance department or on this board or the city commission has declared us in a state of financial emergency and we have the funds with which to pay for those contracts. Should the CRA or the city commission decide that they did not want to fund a contract, the first step is to look at the language of that contract and then, depending on what the termination provision is, to terminate the contract. But while it is an existing legally binding contract, the obligation of the CRA is to fund that contract. And finally, I just want to make sure everybody that's listening knows what the law is about a budget. The CRA is a special district, and so it is governed by two statutes. First, the CRA statute, Chapter 163. Chapter 163 then goes on to say that we are bound by Chapter 189, which is the statute that governs special districts. Just as with the statute that governs the City Commission, Chapter 189 says the governing body shall adopt a budget. There's not an opportunity to say, well, I don't like some of the things in the budget, so I'm not going to adopt it. The governing body shall adopt a budget. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ms. McKenna. Appreciate it. All right. Mayor? Yes, Commissioner Perkins?

In yesterday's meeting, I brought up the word consulting or consultants simply because we are trying to cut back on the budget to try to save money to put in other places. And I brought up the fact of consultants because I didn't see anywhere listed where we were cutting back on consultants in any area, but I could see in different departments where we're reclassifying positions and we were talking about cutting some positions in the city. So that was the reason that I brought up consultants in ways of cutting back on the budget. Thank you.

Good. All right, takes us up to item number one is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a sublease agreement between the CRA and Finley's Restaurant and Gift Shop, LLC, relating to property located at 731 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Unit 103C, Pompano Beach, Florida, providing an effective date and for other purposes. So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. This item was pulled by Commissioner Perkins. Commissioner?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I 100% support Finley's Restaurant for the sub-lease agreement. I just wanted you to just give us a little update and background for those that are listening.

Sure.

This is at the 731 building.

That is correct. It's 731 Dr. MLK Boulevard and the restaurant Finley, Sarah Finley is in the audience here today. She's nearing the end of her lease term and she's interested in continuing to lease the restaurant. She's a true owner operator of this restaurant and has been for the last 10 years.

And I support it. And also I want to thank staff because I've been complaining about the landscaping around the 731. True. And I could see great things happening there. So that's a good thing.

It's good to hear.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you. Very good. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Seeing none, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Fessett? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Fournier? Yes. Chair Hardin? Yes.

yes thank you that takes us up to our regular agenda item number two is a resolution a resolution of the pompano beach community redevelopment agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a facade and business site improvement program grant agreement between the cra and sl 1241 1251 north dixie llc relating to the property located at 1241 1251 north dixie highway providing an effective date and for other purposes so moved

Second. Moved and second for discussion. Ms. Vasquez, good afternoon.

Yes, good afternoon chair, vice chair, board members. The item before you today is a facade and business side improvement grant application from SL 1241, 1251 North Dixie Highway, LLC. The property is located at that address 1241, 1251 North Dixie Highway and contains 12 bays for the property located at the same address. The property came under new ownership in April of 2026. and they are seeking to make exterior improvements, which include painting to the exterior of both the structures, installation of impact windows and doors, signage, a dumpster enclosure, parking lot improvements, landscaping, and irrigation. The eligible cost under the program is at $313,110, and the maximum program contribution would be $200,000. as a reimbursable grant. That's because they have several bays, so therefore they qualify for the maximum dollar amount. Staff sent the owner a letter recommending the property be brought into compliance prior to placing the item on the advisory committee or board agenda for consideration. At the July 7th Northwest CRA Advisory Committee meeting, they allowed the property owner to present the application to the committee, who therefore recommended the item be brought before the CRA board for considerations, since a large investment had been made in acquiring the property. of issue was the current and past compliance issues on the property, although over the past couple of months, the property owner has been evicting some of the tenants from site who are causing the ongoing issues. This is the existing conditions, and these are the proposed improvements on the bottom slides. As you can see, the parking lot is in disrepair, so these are the improvements they're planning to make along with the curb stops, striping and lining. The timeline per this contract would be to, if approved, would be that they must obtain a permit within six months of approval, commence construction within 12 months, and the work must be substantially completed less than 24 months of the effective date of the agreement. At the Northwest Advisory Committee recommendation, and staff recommends this as well, that the property owner continues to bring the property into compliance with the city codes during the improvements period, and that reimbursement be contingent upon the property being in full compliance with city codes and reimbursement would be upon completion of the property. That concludes my presentation on this item. The property owners are here if you have additional questions as well as for staff.

Very good. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Being none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I have some concerns with this because at prior meetings we've talked about code compliance issues and ensuring that we don't have those issues for this grant money. And it just seems like this entire process is a little non-traditional. Do we have any precedent where we have done it like this, given or approved the grant money to a property that is not in compliance on the contingency that it will come into compliance?

It does state within the applications that the property needs to be in compliance and has no code lanes. This is out of the normal and we brought this forward at the recommendation of the advisory committee. As of today, they are working on evicting those tenants that are causing the issues on the property. As of today, they have three open cases on the property. Normally, we request that the property is in compliance prior to moving forward and investing public dollars into the property.

We have a report on those cases.

Not in your backup. I just got it today. It's mainly, I can tell you what they are.

It seems to me like a little more time might make sense here for them to get everything in order. I'm worried about setting a precedent in doing this.

I can tell you what the open active code cases are. There is a tow notice case that's been opened since July of 2026. There is a city ordinance violation as of July 8th, 2026. And there's a tow notice case that has been opened since 11-20 of 2025. Everything else has been brought into compliance to date.

Okay, and I appreciate the amount of work that it must take when you purchase a property like this to deal with the tenant issues, the code issues, and that they are trying to improve it. This grant money is... something that we have set parameters around for what is required. And I'm just worried about the precedent this sets here. So my concern is that maybe just if they have a little more time, we would feel more comfortable doing this. But the recommendation of the advisory committee is to just make it contingent on the code cases being resolved.

That the property be brought into compliance. And if approved today, it would mean that CRA staff would continue to monitor over the term of the contract, which is for two years, that it remains in compliance. We have had active conversation with code enforcement on this property. So I received pictures as of when I was walking out the door today. They're saying although there's improvement, it's still not at 100%. Okay. Thank you.

Further commission discussion? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. So what happens if by suggestion, by this, if we approve this today with these parameters in place, what happens if they fail to bring those things into compliance?

Then we would request reimbursement back on the grant. Okay. And we did write those parameters into the agreement as well as the resolution.

It was my understanding that we were not going to reimburse at all until they were in compliance. That's what I understood the recommendation.

That is correct. You are correct. We would not reimburse them until the property's into compliance. But if they come back out of compliance, then we would request the funding back.

Okay, I agree that we have to be very mindful about if we set parameters or set the rules that are in place and that would disqualify somebody from applying for these that as painful as it is, we have to abide by the rules that we set. Is there a reason or have they given us a reason to staff that they can't do this work

wait to do this work until after they bring the property into compliance i would like to defer to the property owner if that's okay thank you please come forward just give your name and address for the record of course your relation to the property sure uh john foreman um property one of the property owners um address uh 550 south andrews avenue uh suite 400 fort lauderdale Really appreciate you guys hearing this and hearing us on this. We've been working with Kim and Win really kind of since we were under contract for this one. So we paid $6.3 million to buy this property. Myself and my business partner who's over here and our property managers in the back as well have been working very hard to bring this property. When we bought this property, it was from a group of international owners. who really just have allowed the property to become what it is today, which is there's no rules around parking, there's no rules around which kind of tenants are at this property or anything like that. My family and my business partner's family are the ones who own it, so it's all of our family money that is into the property. Part of the urgency and really, as we were buying this property, realizing that there was a possibility to work with you guys to partner here to clean this thing up was what was really attractive about buying it. what we've found is that uh as we've evicted tenants and as we've continued to really try to make this push to clean up the property um it sort of con it just compiles on each other right and so um we have pursued we are pursuing cleaning up the property painting it and doing as much as we can. I think knowing you guys are in partnership with us for this one gives us a great deal of confidence to spend the amount of money that we need to spend here. If we are not partnering on this one, I think that that budget unfortunately just can't be as large as it really needs to be. And what we've found is we think that by fixing it up, We believe that we will, again, bring the property into compliance. The cases that are open towing-wise, we have towed hundreds of vehicles, and we are continuing to tow hundreds of vehicles, and we will continue to do that. I am in close connection with Code Compliance on this as well, and we talk weekly about, on Northwest 13th, that's not our property. It's city. Own property right of way and so, you know, so we're, it really is a partnership for this property. It is something we need you guys. We need your help on. Um, I've, you know, I spoke to Miss Perkins and Miss Fournier before the meeting. We are doing everything that we can. I think that. And I completely understand the stance by staff of regarding properties need to be in compliance prior to it was clear to us it was in the application sort of our discussions to point and how we got here is that I think this property in particular and I understand we don't want to set a precedent. This is a unique property and we feel that the nature of Northwest 13th being city property and that being a large part of the problem connected with this piece of property and the amount of money that needs to get invested really to attract the new tenants that need to come and the timeframe. We all have to do that with a lot of money invested in the property. We really are hoping that you guys would consider working with us through this, understanding this is unique.

So there were two tow violations, one from July of this year and one from November of last year. What was the other one? Do you know?

I think it was city ordinance.

A city ordinance violation. That's what it states.

But what was the violation?

I believe the parking issues that we're talking about. I think it's Northwest 13th.

They're grouped together.

I think it's all related to parking, which we are actively, actively We could go drive there after this call and go look at it. We're towing as many cars as we can every day. Honestly, we have never, we told the tow company, don't ask us, right? If it doesn't run, if it doesn't have the right tag, if it has an expired tag, if it's not parked in a parking space no questions asked just tow it and it's nightly morning in the day as many times as possible we're evicting a bunch of those tenants as i think we discussed what we found is you'll evict one tenant and they all know each other and they'll go to the other tenant space so we're evicting that tenant so we have a uh uh noi problem where now our revenues are completely down right trying to attract tenants to come to the property um needing to spend dollars to fix it up and so i think that's the urgency on our part okay and so basically this is not this is just a tow violation not for one particular vehicle oh yeah it's uh there are vehicles that need to be towed yes correct you've been actively we are actively towing i think that um that will again as we continue to evict it's that and i think people because Northwest 13th is a dead end street and truly the only property that has active businesses is ours and the car wash, everything else, the church is locked off there and then it's a dead end. I think that a lot of people know that they can go and dump a vehicle there or dump garbage and stuff like that. And so that's what we've been working with code violation officers and inspectors to please help us because we can't legally tow on there. So we've been partnering on that.

Okay, so the issue is that some of the parking or dumping is occurring on city property?

That's correct. That is absolutely correct. And of course, it's in front of our property, near our property, likely connected to somebody with the property, maybe not, but it's all jumbled in there, right? So this property, again, is unique in that it's less cut and dry and so the partnership is really key to us.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain that. And I'll just let you know, if it's approved, as long as it's compliant with those- Those stipulations, the parking, which we are absolutely on board with.

Just so you all know the alignment here, we won't be able to attract the right kind of tenants to this property in its current state. Really what it comes down to is between the amount of money we've invested in the property, the amount of money that we need to invest in the property, and then the amount of tenants we have to kick out at the property. Knowing that we are partnering on this together and working through that process gives us a lot of confidence doing that and just saying, let's get all the permits that we need to. We're not going to wait until we get approval, and it's a little bit of a self-perpetuating problem. If we can say, let's go ahead and get all of our permits right now, for the entire budget um and release it immediately i think that that gives us the confidence to do that and kick out as all the rest of the tenants that we need to is it is it fair and this is probably not for you but is it fair to put a timeline on needing to be compliant

The agreement is a two-year time frame. So for them to pull the permits, I believe they're going to have to have the property into compliance at that point in time. So that will also trigger that mechanism as well. Because a large part of this incentive is the parking lot, which is in between the two sets of bays that are there. And I believe the dumpster enclosure, which currently doesn't exist, is also of issue. So I believe the permitting will trigger that as well.

Okay, so it's roughly about within six months then?

Yeah, without a doubt, without a doubt. Now, our goal is getting the right kind of tenants in here, right? Getting the right kind of businesses that are in here. Not every auto group is created equal. There are few that do what they say they're going to do, many do not. And so a large part of our effort has been removing the existing auto tenants that are in there. trying to understand their businesses, trying to speak to the principles of the businesses to make sure we're getting the right kind of people at the property. So it has been a very large effort by, you know, again, myself, my business partner, our property managers, as we work on this. And we are, I've given a few of you guys my business cards. I'll give all of you my business card. If you drive past the property and have any questions, you can call me on my cell phone. We are actively trying to work on this and understand that has been quite the issue.

uh over the past 10 years with the previous owners well thank you i appreciate you coming again today and um thank you for your investment in pompano we appreciate you guys very good commissioner secrecy thank you mayor um well i have to say that anytime that we can improve the look of dixie highway as as it's been in a lot of senses, very dilapidated. I am all for that. It's also right next to the brand new, beautiful medical center as well. So although it's not what we usually do, I'm gonna support it because This is an eyesore. I drive Dixie all the time. So it'll be great to see the improvements. And I understand it's sort of a catch-22. Can't attract new users without getting rid of the existing tenants. And it's so hard. I know with code enforcement, also often people live abroad. There are big real estate investment companies. I can think of one example. They're in New Zealand. It's very hard to chase down international owners and to get them to come into compliance. So I also feel comforted at the fact that you're local, you're here, and you are working towards improving that. So thank you.

Very good. I'll be honest with you. I look at it a little differently. I've never said anything before about our rules and regulations, but I think tying an inducement like this to code compliance issues is a bigger lever to end compliance and keep compliance. So I don't have a heartburn with this at all. I think it's a great way to try and ensure that we keep good partners in the city. So yeah, I support it. Further, Commissioner Perkins?

Yeah, one question. I just wanted to know, what year did you purchase the business? This year. This year, 2026? April. April of this year. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Smith.

I want to just say thank you for investing in Pompano. And I totally understand you putting up $300,000 is a large investment in addition to purchasing the property. And us supporting you with the $200,000 grant with the stipulations is fine with you. I feel that we need to move forward and encourage the redevelopment of that area because it is ugly. So thank you for what you're doing. The pictures already show improvement, and I appreciate that.

Very good. Very good. Anything further? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Fournier? Yes. Chair Hardin?

Yes, item three is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a facade and business site improvement program grant agreement between the CRA and Moore Trading LLC relating to the property located at 2318 East Atlantic Boulevard, providing an effective date and for other purposes. So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Ms. Vasquez.

Yes, once again, Kimberly Vasquez, CRA project manager. The item before you is facade and business side improvement grant application for Moore Trading LLC. The property is located at 2318 East Atlantic Boulevard directly across from the Mela. The existing conditions of the property include a narrow front hindrance with a planter area, no landscaping at the northwest corner. So this is the current conditions of the property as they stand today. The proposed improvements include minor demolition, and that includes the removal of the existing planter box that you saw on the former slide. And that's due to the plant material not growing in this area. There's no irrigation. They find it as being a dumping for trash as well as illicit materials. Expanding the doorway. expanding the doorway, and minor structural on the northeast corner of the property. They need to build a wider entranceway and install a new door, impact door, painting, signage, and security cameras are all part of what they're going to be doing. The estimated cost of the improvements is at $37,890, of which $20,000 is eligible for reimbursement under the grant program. The East Advisory Committee reviewed the application at their meeting on September 3rd and recommended approval based on the landscaping improvements on the northwest portion of the property. There currently is just nothing there. And staff recommends approval of the application as recommended by the Advisory Committee. Once again, they must obtain a building permit as per the agreement within six months, commence construction within 12 months, and the work must be completed no later than 24 months. I think in the case of this particular property, they anticipate having it done within maybe a three month time frame. I want to recognize that the applicant is here, Jack Russo as well as his wife, Gloria. They're in the audience. That concludes my presentation on the facade and business side improvement for this property.

Very good, thank you.

If you have any questions, I'll take any or the property owners here as well.

All right. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion. Questions? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I really don't have a question so much. It's just a statement that Minuteman Press, when I saw this come across, they've been a pillar in the Pompano Beach community and have invested for quite some time. So I know that they have grown substantially over the years and outgrew their former space. So I'm, one, excited to see that they've been able to move and would love to continue to support them because they've obviously been supporting Pompano Beach for decades. I don't want to give away how many decades, but decades. Thank you. All right.

Mr. Perkins.

Yes, this is a old business, I would say, at Pompano Beach. Been in Pompano about, what, 30?

49. 49 years, wow.

So this is a welcome move. So yes, I support this 100%, and the renderings look very nice on Atlantic Boulevard, so welcome again.

Oh, are you having a grand opening for 50 or something, or what?

Okay. All right. Let us know. We'd like to be there.

Thank you.

Very good. Further commission discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Fournier?

Yes.

Chair Hardin?

Yes. Item number four is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a commercial interior build-out assistance program grant agreement between the CRA and Moore Trading LLC relating to the property located at 2318 East Atlantic Boulevard, providing an effective date and for other purposes. So moved. Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Once again, Ms. Vasquez.

Yes, Kimberly Vasquez, CRA project manager. The CRA received an application for Moore Trading LLC, who is the property owner, on behalf of the new tenant, which will be occupying the space, glorified printing. Inc., doing business as Minuteman Press. They're requesting funding assistance through the Commercial Interior Buildout Grant Program. Once again, the property is at 2318 East Atlantic Boulevard. This particular program provides financial assistance for eligible capital improvements to the existing commercial structure that are necessary for tenant occupation and business operations. Excuse me, I got a little tongue-tied on that one. Glorified Printing is also known as Minuteman Press. They've been serving Pompano Beach since 1977 and they're located currently at 43 North Federal Highway. The business is part of the International Minuteman Press franchise network, which includes more than 1,000 independently owned and operated locations worldwide. The improvements that they're requesting funding for is the removal of the interior walls, removal of the carpet, repair and replace ceiling tiles, paint, electrical, and flooring. The current owner, Gloria Jacaruso, has owned and operated the business at the former location since 2010, and she currently employs eight full-time staff members and then one part-time, and she also contracts out with several vendors. The relocation to this East Atlantic Boulevard area will more than double the company's existing space and she'll be able to expand her current operations with additional equipment and plans to employ additional employees. The relocation represents the retention and the expansion of her long-standing Pompano Beach business while facilitating the productive reuse and improvement of an existing commercial property within the East CRA District. And I believe this is also going to be a generational business. It's going to be passed down to another family member. As with the other contracts, they have to obtain a building permit within six months, commence construction within 12 months, and be substantially completed within 24 months of the contract date. That concludes my presentation. And once again, the property owner and the business owner are here for additional questions.

Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. So I'm happy to support these funds to renovate and modernize this building and for this business to double their space. The only disappointment, obviously, is it's going from District 3 to District 1. I'll take it. That's okay. But this really is an example of how these... small grant programs can uh i think ms vasquez said it reuse too like enable these buildings to be upgraded make our city look better in small ways and facilitate growth and retention of long-standing businesses so happy to support this even though we're losing minimum press in disney in district three thank you very good for the commissioner fessick there's still nobody nearby

Thanks. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton.

Yeah, I think it's gonna be a great addition to Atlantic and welcome.

All right, anything further? Seeing none, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik.

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins. Yes. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Vice Chair Poitier. Yes. Chair Hardin.

Yes. Item five is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a facade and business site improvement program grant agreement between the CRA and Old Town Center LLC relating to the property located at 120-122 North Flagler Avenue, providing an effective date and for other purposes.

So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Once again, Ms. Vasquez.

Kimberly Vasquez, CRA project manager. We received a facade and business side improvement grant application from, excuse me, Old Town Center LLC for the property located at 120-122 North Flagler Avenue. The property is currently vacant, and under this grant agreement, they're looking for some stucco repair and restoration work they have to do some concrete and masonry repairs waterproofing and sealing and they also have some roof repairs part of this the estimated cost of repairs is sixty one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars the eligible reimbursement cost under the program would be forty nine thousand four hundred as you recall it's eighty percent of the project cost and within the northwest it's up to amount of fifty thousand dollars per structure They feel like these improvements will enhance and modernize the exterior of the property and be able to attract a tenant to this location. This is a nighttime vision of what they anticipate the property to be. They also own the property just to the east, the two-story, and they will be doing improvements to that property as well. That concludes my presentation on this item. The property owners are here if you have additional questions regarding any improvements to the property for staff or for them.

Very good. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton?

Yes, I want to say thank you for investing in Pompano. And I think you're at the beginning of something that will be very successful in the future. I'm going to support this. Thank you.

Very good. Further commission discussion?

Yeah.

Like Commissioner Perkins? Like Commissioner Fessick?

The property owner is here.

Yes, they're here, Joseph Shahabar.

Yes, how long have you owned the property?

Please come forward, just give name and address of the record.

Yeah, sorry, it's okay.

Joseph Shahabar, address is 120-122 North Flagler Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. Sorry, what was your question?

How long have you owned the property?

We closed on it in February.

Of this year, 2026?

Of 2026, yeah. We're very excited about it.

Okay. So, excuse me, what type of business do you plan to?

I mean, we're attracting all kinds. We're looking for service industry, maybe a food and beverage concept. We just came back from a trade show where a bunch of national tenants were in Orlando. so we pushed Pompano in front of a lot of them. There was a couple that were interested, so we're still vetting through it.

Okay.

All right, so, Ms. Vasquez, I, okay, thank you.

You're welcome, for sure. Should I stay up, or? I am. Okay.

When I saw the pictures here, it brought back some old memories. This property, is this the same property that was owned by RMA? That is correct, yes. You purchased the property from RMA in 2026? Correct. Okay. I remember when RMA purchased this property, they were under contract with the city to the city and the CRA to redevelop that area. And, no, no, no, you don't have to come back. I've always felt that this property should have been city property, but of course, RMA purchased the property and, as you just stated, sold it in February of 2026, and I do have an issue with that. Because I felt this property should have been owned by the city or the CRA. Is it fair to ask how much you purchased the property for?

I want to speak on that also. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Come back up. I'm sorry. Come back. I'm sorry, sir.

We had purchased it for 1.318. I understand your want to, you know, for the city to own it, but we're like all in on Pompano. I think our interests are very much aligned. We definitely want to activate that area. We see a lot of potential in that downtown corridor. There's only two restaurants there right now. We have big plans for 114, which hopefully soon you'll see. I mean, I think we're gonna do a phenomenal job, so I think you'll be proud.

Okay, so you purchased both units for? 1.38.

Okay. 1.35, 1.381, yeah. Okay.

Yeah, I just, like I said, my concerns have really nothing to do with you.

But I think you're going to be very happy. I don't know what your vision was with the CRA, but we're, I mean, like 114 is a lot of work. We got our hands full.

Right.

But we're excited about it.

Right. Well, again, this has nothing to do with you, but when RMA purchased this property and they were under contract with the city, they didn't purchase it for a million, but... they're doubling what they purchased for it.

Oh, on that side? I can't speak on that.

Yeah, I know, that's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with you. So it was kind of flipped.

I understand.

And I'm just, I don't feel comfortable with this at all, which has nothing to do with you.

I completely understand.

It has everything to do with RMA and the way the process transpired.

Yeah, transpired.

Yes.

But we will activate that area. That property and the property adjacent to it are, you know, our goal is to attract a lot and help continue that area, so.

Right. Yeah, I always felt that when the property was purchased by RMA, they would let that property sit there.

It was. It was completely.

Until everything around it is somewhat building up. Was assembled. And they can sell it and make more money for it. That's what they do. And that is my concern, so. I am not happy with this one, but thank you, Mayor.

I hope you will be happy once you see the finest product. We're doing our best, and we're spending a lot of money. We really are.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fessick?

Thank you. Yes, so I also have pains related to not you. One question about this. So you started your LLC, the new one, and you purchased the property. Was it both in February of this year?

Yeah, probably.

Okay. Do you have or have you had any prior ties to...

No, none at all.

Okay, so this is just something.

I'd even try to reach out a little after the fact and ask questions and it wasn't answered.

No business interests between the two of you? No, zero. Yeah, so my concern isn't with, I never like to punish a new property owner for the sins of a previous one necessarily, right? I want to thank you for your investment. Thank you. Anything I say further is not going to be about you. agree with commissioner perkins that the purchase of the property from rma ages back and looking at how many repairs are necessary and leaving make having them make a profit in an air and leaving so much undone if you will basic stuff like roof stucco repair while they were under contract to redevelop and renovate our city That's the part that gives me heartburn. Yeah, that doesn't sit right. Yeah, it doesn't sit right. But it's not for you to pay for their sins.

I think we're going to come and fix it, honestly.

I think that's our purpose. So I have pain points related to them, but I do not have pain points related to you, and I wish you the best with your business.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I have a couple questions also. So we have heard about the conditions of these buildings. I've heard everything from hermite damage that was almost unfixable or, you know, I've heard tear down or i've heard a lot about these these buildings so i just want to ensure we're not throwing good money after bad right so what exactly and this is probably the next item with the interior but but what is your assessment of the condition obviously you when you purchased it you probably did an inspection you have a pretty good idea of what this is going to take what can you give me an idea of what the condition actually is because i've heard a lot

I have videos and pictures also, which if you'd like, I'd share. I've seen pictures. Yeah, yeah. It was crazy. But yeah, we obviously underwrote it both sides, tearing it down, fixing. So the structure itself is pretty good. There was no restroom. There was no HVAC. There was no electrical. The roofs were kind of shot. So all that had to be done. And it made more sense economically to repurpose the building. Which if you look a little bit at what our website and what we do, we kind of repurpose buildings. And we put a lot into it. And we put the right tenants in there. And we did it in Fort Lauderdale. We did it in Dania Beach. And we're happy to do it in Pompano Beach as well. So yeah, it was just a perfect shell. It was just gutted. um you know okay so you have you've assessed these yeah we underwrote both sides we looked at it drastically from both sides and it definitely made more sense economically because the foundation itself was still good to do it this way okay miss vasquez under the prior owners was there any incentive money ever provided to these this property no there was not

Okay. As long as I share the reservations of my fellow commissioners about the chain of custody here, but that is not your problem.

We have nothing to do with them. I didn't know they were so – I didn't even know much about them, honestly.

And what type of business do you think you will end up with? You talked about going and talking to businesses. Is this going to be a full build-out?

We're doing a full build-out inside. We do a vanilla box. We're already started. We're probably done on 120 within 60 days, I would say. We had a little bit of a hiccup with the termites, which we revised plans, and we're already past that. But we've got LOIs from barber shops, a med spa. I'm trying to talk to Jimmy Johns, potentially, and that franchisee who has the Pompano area. We try to get quality tenants. Like I said, I believe heavily in that corridor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Very good. Commissioner Smith.

Yes.

The other property that you own is the one that's immediately to the south?

Yeah, 114.

That's got the red brick on it now?

We own the coffee shop, the 120-120, or 120, and then the two-story building. Okay. Soulful Steep, if you've ever been.

Yes. Yeah, yeah. I'm just excited that you're coming and you're investing in an old town. Yeah, yeah, so are we. So much potential in that area, especially with downtown coming in across the street. So thank you for doing that, and I look forward to patronizing new businesses.

Thank you to you guys, honestly, and we look forward to continuing. Very good. Thank you, sir.

Further commission discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call up Commissioner Perkins.

Yeah, so I was looking for the date, and I want this to make it very clear and to go on record by saying this is the property and the reason that RMA resigned. or I should say Kim Briesmeister and Chris Brown resigned because of this property. At the time, Kim Briesmeister was executive director of the CRA for the city. And because she purchased this property while she was under contract, She resigned, and she was supposed to be really redeveloping that whole area is what this is about. And like I said, it has nothing to do with you, but I've been waiting to see how long it was going to take her to sell it. I didn't know she had sold it until I read the agenda. And I just want to say that she made three to four times more money on this than she purchased it for. And we are still, right now today, still paying her in this city as a consultant. She makes a salary with the city and she also makes a salary, well I shouldn't say salary, but she's a consultant for the city right now and she's a consultant for the CRA right now. And she just received 1.3 million for this property that she purchased During the time, she was supposed to be redeveloping that area. I just wanted to put that on record. Thank you.

Very good. Anything further? Let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Fournier? Yes. Chair Harton?

Yes. Item number six is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper officials to execute a strategic investment program grant agreement between the CRA and Old Town Center LLC relating to the property located at 120-122 North Flagler Avenue, providing an effective date and for other purposes.

So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Once again, Ms. Vasquez.

Yes, Kimberly Vasquez, CRA project manager. We received the CRAs in receipt of an application for the strategic investment program grant for 122 North Flagler for interior build out to this location. Once again, this is the property location. It's in Old Town. This is the existing conditions. As you can tell, there's no, no ceiling flooring. There are some walls, but I do believe there's going to be some interior demo and as well to this property under this scope of work, they're looking for structural concrete work, framing, drywall, uh, plumbing, electrical mechanical, which is HVAC, uh, flooring and lighting painting. And that we also included the architectural plans, which can be incorporated as part of the application. The estimated cost of the interior repairs for this location is estimated at $191,050. The eligible reimbursement cost under the program is $13,159.32. These are a little hard to read, but this is the interior demolition plan. Electrical and lighting. and mechanical plan, and I do believe he said they're already under construction for this location. They plan to attract, I think we've already had this discussion, either retail, restaurant, et cetera for this location. This is part of a tenant improvement. What I didn't state prior to, and as with all our contracts, they have to have a permit within six months, commence construction within 12 months, and the work must be completed no later than 24 months. just want to state for the record normally we ask that they come before you prior to doing any improvements they were in communications with staff and due to the timing you know between meetings uh they did like they did ask if they could go ahead and go through the permitting process so i just wanted to state that for the record that concludes my presentation all right thank you this is a public hearing is there any input from the public on this item please come forward just name and address for the record

Good afternoon, I'm Ms. Vazquez. Hello. You're doing an outstanding job. Thank you. You're welcome. First of all, I would like- Name and address. Jocelyn Jackson, Mayor. First of all, I would like to bring you to the diet's attention. I attend a lot of these city commission meetings and also the CRA meetings, and also participating in some of your workshops. So with that said, to bring it to all of your attention, some of you have also invested in real estate since you've been on that dais. And I'm a licensed realtor. And as an investor, this is some things that we do within the city in the corridors we live in. We buy investment properties to get a turnover. So I had to add that in, in reference to the private message, because that's why you purchase. You purchase to get a turnover. Some of you don't own property, and you never have. You got to buy an inheritance. But me, I'm going to buy everything I can buy for an inheritance and building wealth for my grandchildren. And this project, this grant here, Ms. Vasquez, Could you put it back up to see? I know, is it going along Flagler? I think, is this by the cafe?

It's right next to, yes, Soful Steep. Okay. It's just to the south of Soful Steep. There's two, you'll see two doorways there. All right, so this funding is a grant? That is correct.

Is CRA providing this funding? for this construction to be taking place?

That is correct, reimbursable grants. They must complete the work prior to receiving any funding.

Okay, so this particular renovation that's being done, this will stay with the unit?

That is correct. Okay. We always refer to our grants as brick and mortar.

Okay, awesome. Now, do we own that? No, we just only participate in the rehab.

We do not own the unit. No, it's owned by the property owner, Joseph Shahabar. Okay.

All right. Good thing. I'm for it. I'm for development. I own property, too. And I'm looking to invest in purchasing more and looking forward to being in the new downtown as well. So, yes. Great job, Kimmy.

Very good. Further input from the public? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Commissioner Perkins.

Yes, just for the record again, this is the second location that RMA Kim Briesmeister and Chris Brown purchased during the time they were under contract with the city to redevelop that area. And I just wanted to make sure that's for the record. Thank you.

All right. Anything further? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Fournier? Yes. Chair Harden?

Yes. Item number seven is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the proper official to execute a reinstatement and fourth amendment to the property disposition and development agreement between the CRA and Solstice Townhomes LLC relating to land located on the west side of North Dixie Highway between Northwest 15th Court and Northwest 15th Place, reinstate the agreement to extend the construction completion date to June 30, 2027, and amend the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, providing an effective date.

So moved. Second. Moved and second for discussion. Mr. Tran.

Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the CRA Board, new and trans-CRA Director. The item before you is for Solstice Town Homes. They are located right on Dixie Highway in between Northwest 15th Place and Northwest 15th Street. On September 21st of 2021, the board approved the development agreement with FD Construction to construct ten town homes on that property. The agreement was amended with the first amendment on April 18th, 2023 to extend the construction completion deadline. The board also approved another amendment, an assignment from FD Construction to Solstice Town Homes LLC with the second amendment to extend the construction completion deadline to September 30th, 2025. The last amendment that was approved was the third amendment, which extended the construction completion deadline to March 30th, 2026. With that said, that's why they're coming forward before you now. There's some issues with the current development agreement and covenant of restriction. When you drive by the townhouse development, they're about 90% complete. The issues that they are encountering, and the letter was provided in your backup, was that they're having a hard time with buyers qualifying. And if you ever had a chance to go visit those units, they are beautiful units. They are above builder grade quality. They have marble floors, beautiful appliances. So you can see the amount of detail and amenities they put into the units. So there are some issues with buyers qualifying for those units. Not only that, but because of the agreement and the restrictive covenant, there was a five year restriction on those units to be rented. In an effort to help the developer sell some of these units and also move this project forward to completion, they came up with an idea and staff agreed with it is, look, the intent is at the end to have qualified buyers in these units. In the timeframe that this has occurred, the developer has come up with a rent to own program. Nothing has been done in the city about a rent to own program. This would be the first. So the restrictive period will be for a period of two years for the rental portion. And within those two years, the builder and Mr. Obel will help them through the process of either a credit repair, mortgage, education program, any of those programs that the nonprofit type of organizations do to help an owner and buyer qualify to get into those units. So before you is, the First Amendment to the Declaration of Covenant and Restriction. In that agreement, it spells out the restrictive period that they are looking for to reduce down to a two-year period from a five-year period, and also before you use the Fourth Amendment and reinstatement. Because the agreement technically expired in March for the construction completion date, they're requesting the reinstatement and also a fourth amendment to the property disposition and development agreement. With that said, I'm available for any questions. The developer is here to answer any specific questions on the program itself.

All right, thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Please come forward. Just name an address for the record.

Jocelyn Jackson. I have sold multiple properties in the corridors, and the issue sounds like it's the pricing of these units. So may I ask, What are the pricing of these units?

I can defer to the developer of what the asking price is, but also with this agreement and amendment, the developer is offering a $25,000 towards the purchase price of the units as well.

Are we waiting on the price, though? Let me get my calculator out.

I'm sorry, Mr. O'Bell, can you come forward? Ms. Jackson, can you move aside so Mr. O'Bell can answer the questions?

Okay, I was trying to get my calculator to go.

Thank you. Mr. O'Bell, I believe the question is, what is the sale price for the units? So it's $500,000 for the three-tubes.

I'm sorry, what was that? It's $500,000 for the three-tubes, and also for the two-tubes it's $469,000. So we literally brought them down and implemented this plan to further support. Because we have a lot of people from the Northwest Corp that's been coming. But we also seen they can afford the mortgage. And just so, let me just provide some perspective while we're here. People can afford their rents, they can afford their mortgage. Oftentimes the challenges are coming up with the down payment as well as the financial literacy that they don't have that stops them from achieving such goal. What we have come to implement is this process that will help with budgeting, credit improvement, mortgage readiness, and as well as individual financial coaching. So we have partner, many of y'all know, by the hat that I wear, I'm a CEO of a non-profit. And we do a lot of charitable work in this community, right? Part of that work is making sure we're not only preserving families, but we're preserving financial stability. So this is the American dream at its finest, where someone, this is the first of its kind in Broward County. Let that be the note. In Broward County, there's no other rent-to-own program. And we get a chance to make history based on the America 250-year dream. And that's the story we leave here today. There will be a historical moment today in Pompano based on the American dream that was promised. On his 250-year birthday, we are able to do that. And people will have the resources they need, but we'll also have the training, create sustainability. I know oftentimes some of us commissioners and mayor, vice mayor, you all ask what sustainability look like. Well, this is it. The right investment.

Very good. Thank you, sir. I don't go too far. There's probably going to be other questions in the commission, but yeah, let's give it back to the public now. Thank you.

Can the audience ask questions?

I'm sorry? She just asked what the selling price was. What the selling price, so with- Go ahead, Ms. Jackson.

With the selling price, I have it to be on that three bedroom. It's $425,000. Okay. Okay, let me just say this, because for the three bedroom, two bath, with the participation with the city, It'll come out to be the 500, I mean, $425,000. So I'm confused of how they're not being able to get the buyers. Cause that's good. That's a great price. Be a homeowner at the 425. If these are the true numbers.

Okay, all right, no, no, no, no, this is your time.

Yeah, if those are the true numbers, that's what I'm saying. They said they were struggling with getting buyers.

Okay.

I sell property all the time in this area. So I'm confused. I just sold a 525,000 full value in Coyote City.

Really, really?

A home. So that's why I'm confused of the saying they can't get buyers for the 425. So with the two years, if they're proposing a plan to be two years rental, with that price that they paying for the rental, be also allocated to come off the purchase price. I'm trying to see the benefit for the residents if this what they're trying to do. That's all. I'm trying to see how can they benefit if I go on for two years. What is the benefit? Will I still be back at square one? That's it. I'm just trying to make some sense of it because I sell in this area all the time.

All right. Thank you for that. Appreciate your comments. Okay. Further input from the public?

Mayor, just for reference purposes, the last townhome development that was completed up there was DR Horton. Yes. They're on Northwest 3rd. The sales price for those units were about 485, I believe, the last unit sold for. So they were in the upper fours and that was a cookie cutter type of townhouse product with builder type finishes. When you see the product that Mr. O'Bell and Mr. Diaz did build, they are beautiful units. So they are upgraded units.

Okay. Mr. O'Bell, if you could give a three-minute pitch before we get into commission questions and all that, that's fine because you're a member of the public as well. Let me just say this.

As someone who have a global perspective, I understand real estate very well. not just here domestically, but internationally. I'm not sure how people sell their properties, and I'm not sure what their properties look like. People can say whatever they want when they come on this mic. But here's what I do know. I do know if you come and check out these properties, these are not your standard townhomes. We have had our counterparts we have built. No one is very nice saying their builder's finished. Builder finished? But compared to what we have is luxury. Very much so. And many of you have come and seen them. Some I have asked, you haven't been, that's fine. I get it, life happens. But the reality of it is, these are top of the line town homes. And we want to make sure that people in this community, across America, there's a housing crisis. Across America, don't matter where you go, across America we have a housing crisis. We was innovative enough to come up with an opportunity for those that live in the district, as well as those who may not live in the district, but live in the city. To be able not just to own, but to be in a position to rent to own. So they receive financial literacy knowledge. They create their own sustainability plan. This is not just selling homes. We're truly invested in this work. Many of y'all have seen me invest from an academia standpoint, which many of y'all wanted me to run for school board. I'm glad I didn't, because they're shutting down more schools. Many of y'all have seen me invest in families, which we brought down $6.2 million in federal resources to help preserve families. Right now, we're launching two Family Life Conference, one in Fort Lauderdale and one in Palm Beach, because I am truly invested in these families. You have seen me, done things in after school program, and some of you, your constituents, have benefited from our rental program, where we have been able to pay rent for people right here in this district, in this city of Pompano. I can read a text today if you want me to, where someone, this Pompano resident, was able to receive their rent paid. So, anyone can come up here and say whatever they want. The truth of the matter is, we're about creating sustainability. And on 250 years of this country's birthday, we didn't need policies. We didn't need people to advocate on our behalf. We was creative enough to say, let's do a rent-and-own. And that's exactly what we did, to create opportunities. That's how you help change communities. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor and Vice Mayor of the Commission.

Thank you, thank you. Any further input, please come forward.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to go into a preaching mode, but I just feel like people get up here and say whatever they want.

We've got more members of the public who want to speak, so if you can sit down now. You want me to sit, okay. Take a seat. Come on down, just give your name and address for the record.

Hello, my name is John Berger and I live in Palm Air. I just wanted to talk about the last two speakers. I understand that your concern, this lady's concern, is about affordability. That's a problem in the entire country. It's not just here in Pompano Beach. On the flip side of that, Being in the building business today is very expensive, and as Mr. Tran said, the last approval was at 485, and that just gives you a base of where it was in the past, recent past, and where it's going now. The goal in Pompano Beach isn't just to have affordable living. We all want that. It's also to upgrade the community. And you're not going to get investors, you're not going to get builders to come in and lose money. It's that simple. So it's a national problem. We need to be focused on what Pompano Beach needs to move forward. It's a combination of two things, upgrading the community and affordability. And we just have to find that balance somewhere. Thank you, sir. Next speaker.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Ingrid, and I am one of the interest property owners at this property. And I am in favor of the restriction of two years instead of the five years. However, the rent to own, I am not. Because we want families that are going to be there long term, and we want families. We don't want a rental community. We want ownership. And this, for me, is a concern. There needs to be a perimeter and we want to make sure that we understand because we as the homeowners, we have to abide by the HOA or the condo docs. And we wanna know what the perimeters are gonna be before we decide to buy because we don't want this flipping of every two years. We want families that are gonna invest, that are gonna stay long term. We're moving from Massachusetts to Florida and we wanted to go to this property and now it seems like things are changing, and this is very concerning.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor, question. Mr. Perkins, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am. Excuse me, are you saying you are against the rental?

You want the homeowners. If we wanted a rental community, we would have gone to a rental community. We would have rented somewhere. We want ownership. We want owners that are going to take care of their property just like we would. Because not only saying that rentals do not, I mean I have rented, I have raised my children in rental communities. But we looked at this property and we want people to be in Pompano long term. Not just to say yes, I am going to do everything that I can. to be in the program, and then what happens then? We have to abide by the HOA as the owners, so we need to understand that full picture.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Ms. Jackson, please. Can you please? Ms. Jackson?

Ma'am, I have a question for the lady.

Please. Can you? Ms. Jackson, can I ask you to be quiet? Thank you. You had your opportunity. Thank you. Further input from the public.

Really, Rex?

Yes, really. Further input from the public. Sure. Please. Please, come on forward. Just give your name and address to the record.

My name is Lorenzo Mills, 4611 North Federal Highway, apartment 135, Pompano Beach. A rent-to-own program. Mr. O'Bell? Is that correct, Michael? I used to work for you. A while back.

Director comments to the chair, sir, thank you.

Okay, a rent-to-own program is very good for the city. I would like to know more about that program and go into detail about that. Because there hasn't been nothing like that here. So after this meeting here, can we go into detail about that?

I'm sure you can, sir.

OK. That was my question.

All right. Very good. Thank you. Further input from the public? I'm sorry, sir, you've already had your opportunity. Further input from the public? Anybody who hasn't gone before? Very good. All right, let's go ahead and close the public. Now open it up for commission discussion questions. I've got Commissioner Smith first, followed by Vice Mayor Fournier, followed by Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton.

You need to look to the left. I've had my hand up before you finish.

I've got Commissioner Smith, followed by Vice Mayor Fournier, followed by Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton. Go ahead, Commissioner Smith.

Mr. Abel, could you explain how the rent-to-own is going to work, what percentage of the rent will be going towards a down payment, and you're helping them out with the $25,000. Can you just kind of give us an idea of what you're expecting to do?

So our expectation is to go in, once we identify the individual, is to go in, put them through the training of the financial literacy process. put them through the training of how they can start preparing for the mortgage. So we know that a portion of their deposit will go towards their deposit for their mortgage, right?

I'm sorry, Mr. O'Bell, can someone please silence their cell phone? Thank you. I apologize, Mr. O'Bell.

So the structure is to propose the monthly contract, right? Once they go through it, they get a chance to put, we teach them how to save, so they have the resources to put down when it comes to the closing costs. And a portion of our costs go towards that as well. So we're helping them with their closing costs, which happens to be one of the biggest challenges we're seeing in our community, right? People can make the monthly payments, but they're unable to make the closing costs. So the training we provide not only that we'll help them have the comprehensive understanding of financial literacy, that financial literacy space, but we'll also assist where a portion of their deposit or giving will go towards it. And obviously we already have reduced the price to fit that need for today's climate.

So a percentage of the rent that they pay for those two years will go towards the down payment?

No, the rent itself, we have to pay for a mortgage, so I want to be very clear. We have to pay for a mortgage, right? Their rent will pay for their mortgage, but what we'll do, because we have already lowered the price, we will help them go through the financial literacy to able to assist them with saving. so they can have their deposit. The problem we're seeing is that people are not able to save so they can put down towards their closing costs. And we're helping to merge that gap. And we're working with Housing of America who help. I'm not sure if any of you all have heard of Housing of America, but they're like a home ownership program. They help you with your deposit, they help you with your costs. That will help bridge that gap.

So there'll be renting and learning financial responsibility. And in this education of financial responsibility, we're hopeful they will start to save and that savings will be the down payment.

With the partnership with Housing of America, they should be able to do that, yes. Because Housing of America is the key to home ownership. They have been very successful helping people be able to own homes. And they help with deposits.

I am not familiar with them, so I'd like to know a little bit more about them, because I guess I just had the vision that rent-to-own would mean that part of the rent would be going towards the down payment over those two years, and at the end of the two years, maybe the down payment was made. That was just my assumption, so my assumption is wrong.

the biggest again let me just stress this the biggest gap is people having closing costs right you and what we're doing in partnership with housing america is help people obtain that closing cost okay thank you thanks for answering my question thank you mayor very good advice mayor thank you hold on one second i'm sorry mr obel this isn't the time to he wanted to add did you answer her question okay Thank you. Vice Mayor, go ahead. Thank you. Look, I'm just trying to make sure I meet everybody's needs.

I hear you.

There's a lot in this amendment, so I want to go through it because we are effectively changing the rules of the game here. You haven't closed on any yet, but it is a different... structure and what you're contemplating is different than what was approved before so let me just say this though i want to speak okay and then i'm good i have some questions for you and i'm sure but i i there's there's a lot in here so initially or prior to the amendments that we're looking at today it was a five-year it's all the units are for sale only for sale no rentals uh to start out with and it was a five-year restriction on renting a property correct okay so in here we're going we're being asked to go from a five-year rental restriction to a two-year rental restriction on ownership on people who purchase the units they have to owner occupy it for two years not five correct

So if you really look at it, they'll be there for four years because, again, the goal is for them to own it.

So I'm not talking about the rent to own program. I am talking of someone outright purchases a unit right now. They only they there's two years before they can rent it. That is the new deed restriction. Maybe new and that is the new.

That is what was requested. So you are correct. Originally it was five years and it's going to be reduced to two years if approved.

So I am trying to get my head around what this will look like for people who live there relative to what we thought it was going to be, which was all units would be purchased and you had to live there for five years. Now it is going to be a very hybrid. uh situation where we will have people who purchase outright if they can and they have a two-year restriction before they can rent it but after two years they could rent the units and that applies if they if they sell it so if there's a resale there's a new it resets the clock and there's a two-year restriction again okay so that's one of the things in here going from five to two or units that are outright purchased. We're also, you are giving 25,000 to someone who purchases a unit in assistance for closing, correct?

So originally it was at 550. We had the prices higher. What we did, we reduced the prices

five for a three two and you're giving and for the two twos it's four sixty nine i understand but so so we're actually there would be four seventy five on a three two no it's five it's a five hundred thousand purchase price it's a five thousand five hundred thousand purchase price remember it was 550. we what is the 25 000 in here then this is what we include

That was a contribution. That's what, so we could have gone from 550 to 525. We will remove additional 25,000 on our end.

Okay. So the 25,000 is gone and it's just a purchase price reduction to 500?

Yep, for the 500,000. Okay.

What happens during, so if someone does want to participate in the rent-to-own program, which I agree with Commissioner Smith, it's more like an education and we'll help you out along the way, but less of a traditional rent-to-own program. They will pay market rent. So you can pay your mortgage and you will work with them during that two-year period to get their financial condition in shape to save in order to purchase the property within that two-year period.

Yes, in part.

And if they can't after two years, do they have to leave?

That would be part of the program. Yeah, if they can't, because that means they would not have followed the rules and guidelines we put in place.

Or they lost their job or had some other financial setback or a health issue, whatever it is. Just trying to, like I said, understand what's going to, what the living conditions here will be versus what we thought it was when this was approved. So you could really have people living there for two years if they... Their situation changes, they have to move, and then you could have someone else renting.

Can I respond to that or no?

I'll give you a chance at the end, but I'm just trying. There's a lot in here, and I just want to make sure that I'm covering all of it. So people would have to move if they weren't able to close on the property after two years. And then why did this expire? What happened there? Did we just not get it on an agenda? What happened?

I think it probably could have been a multitude of things.

Okay. Are any of the properties CO'd? Yes. So they are ready? Okay. So really, the rent-to-own program is really just giving people more runway to get their financial situation in order, though, that they can purchase it. Yes, I mean I go ahead

Yes, so basically, my name is Jerry Fernandez, 1090 Southeast 3rd Street, Pompadour Beach, Florida. And I'm the builder and developer together with Mike. And one of the reasons we came with these ideas, I was at a restaurant one day and I'm talking about what do you do? I'm a builder and this, here, there. And the guy goes, listen, I drove by your place, I like those townhouses, but I don't know if I can afford them. I said, listen, come by, we'll talk about it. So he says, I make $85,000 a year. My credit isn't the greatest. So we started trying to qualify him and we're this close. So this close. The guy wants to get into the house, but this close to being qualified and live in the house for however many years he wants to live. So that's how, and this is not, this is one of the two cases that I came across. Just like that, talking to people, you know, in the publics, in the restaurant, because that's what I do, I offer my products, you know, I'm a builder. Look at the, and a lot of people, I start talking about them, say, oh yeah, the townhomes, yeah, I've seen them, they're beautiful. But, you know, I don't think we can afford them. So that's how we, you know, a couple people came to our open houses with the same thing. And going back to the five-year restriction, we have buyers that say, oh, wow, I love the product, but I don't know if I want to be stuck with a five-year deal here. A lot of people came, listen, we just want to buy it for two, three years and then rent it and move somewhere else. This is our beginning. So that's why we went back and said, well, can we do two years and then another two years? And then these rental programs, these type of people that are almost there but aren't there. So there's gonna be a pre-qualification process also for the rent to own, because we're not just gonna, okay, you can make the payment, and yeah, no. We're gonna study the case, see, like these guys, they're really close, but they're not there.

But if they don't end up making it through the program, they just have to leave. So can you give us a little bit more background on how we got to this five-year covenant? Because obviously this board decided this at some point, so unwinding this, I think we'd have to have a different intent here if we wanted to undo that.

Yes.

As I recall on the day, there was a lot of discussion from a former commissioner there that didn't want this, they wanted more home ownership in the townhouse. And they thought that a fair restrictive period would be five years. It'd be hard to make somebody not rent their properties after five years. A lot of things can happen. That's how we got there on the five year restriction. It was a whole discussion on the dais. But the idea was to keep this as a home ownership opportunity. What we have done on the CRA side, and affordability as brought up by Mr. Burger earlier, is very, very real. Mr. Obel stating that one of the hardest things to get into home ownership is closing costs. Well, I think the hardest thing is really credit and down payment assistance. So when you look at later further on in the agenda, of course, is our Northwest plan. We do allocate some money there for down payment assistance. We will definitely work with. anyone in a home ownership opportunity to provide that down payment assistance to lower the cost. Because you know that our housing department does offer that now, but with CBDG funding, there's a price point, a maximum price point that you can buy a unit for. These are just a little bit over that HUD CBDG threshold that down payment assistance could help get that buyer there into home ownership. So that was our thought about with our finance plan and what we can do as a CRA is to offer that down payment assistance in our plan. So I hope that answered your question.

That is helpful. And you had mentioned that this would provide an opportunity for Pompano residents. Is there some restriction on this program to Pompano residents? No. I assume there can't be because we've done this before, but I just want to be clear, this is not just for Pompano residents either.

So I hear you on that and you're correct, right? It's not just for Pompano residents. But I want to be clear. I don't say this for any other reason but to add context. As someone who was homeless once before, and working my way up to where I'm at today, it took someone assisting me along the way. It took someone to open a door. It took someone to spend extra studying time with me so I can pass that next class. Part of this is we're not saying we're giving handouts, we're giving a hand up. This is one of those situations where success comes before work in the dictionary, right? The only difference is we've been doing the work and constantly investing in this very much community. So we are going to make sure those who are Palmetto residents have a chance at receiving this opportunity. But at the same time, we need to be clear that some people are just missing it just by this much. And with a small little hand up, they get there and we have home ownership.

So I hear you and I share your priorities and with home ownership opportunities and your concerns about affordability and getting people there. But in some ways, it's like a... We're trusting in you, right? And the partnerships that you have and you build. Do you have restrictions on what you can do with it if you sell some of these and then lease or start your rent-to-own program? Could you somehow sell this?

Can we sell it? If we, let me just say this, and I want to be very clear.

The rented units.

So let me just say this. If someone comes to say, hey, I want to buy this outright. We just heard of someone who say, look, we want to buy this outright. We're not going to turn them away, right? If they want to buy this outright. Hold on, let me just.

I'm not talking about individual units. I'm saying, let's say you sell four of them and you rent the rest. And then in a year, you're like, I'm, this is, you know. This is a lot of work. Can they sell? There's no restriction on that.

Right now, there's a five-year restriction recorded.

For the developer?

On the property, on the units. They have to stay there. There's a restrictive covenant in place right now.

But we also, I understand about the five-year, but I think what we also have here is a four-year, because two years of renting, and then you go into home ownership. You still have two years after you make the purchase that you're restricted to it. So that's four years someone has given. Now, I know it's not the perfect math sense for some, but the reality of it is you're still getting that restriction. So if we have buyers who just came up and said, look, I don't want rent, but at the same time, I'm happy that you took the five-year restriction because I won't be buying if there's a five-year restriction either. So just like you may feel like this is a catch-22, I think what we're doing is meeting the market and the families halfway.

And I have complete confidence that that is what you are doing. And that is your intention. And I hear the pitch and I buy it. I'm just trying to think about what could happen here. And so part of it is you're asking, I mean, you're telling us, you're asking us to trust you and that this is how this is going to work because there's no... I mean, there's no real program written down here on this rent to own, and it does change the properties intended in one way with this restriction, and now it does change it. So I believe it is a bit of a way you're asking us to trust you. You're going to do all the work up front on these people to ensure they're the right people, that you can get there in two years, because you don't want the turnover either. You want them to purchase it in two years, but it is still trusting you, and you're going to find the right people and get them through this process. So I'll let someone else talk, but thank you for clarifying all the changes in the amendment.

Very good. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton.

Okay, so I have some specifics. And I agree with Mr. Trans. It's the down payment that is the hardest part. To be able to buy down that mortgage. And is this going to be a situation where you're actually going to have the loan? You're holding the paper?

Yeah.

Okay, so they're going to be making payments to you going forward and, but, so I'm not quite, I mean, rent to own has been a concept. I remember it, you know, 30 years ago or so, there were situations where in a condo you could rent to own or apartment you could rent to own in another area of the country, which is ultimate goal of what you're trying to achieve. So will you be putting potential buyers through a vetting process? Yes, talk in the mic, guys.

Yes, we will.

There's a process they have to go through that Jerry and his team and the team have set up on the financial side. So we want to make sure, yes, they will.

Yeah, and obviously affordability and homeownership are the two biggest issues. and is difficult to buy a home. Not so much in Pompano, we have pretty affordable prices. The ultimate goal is to be homeowners. So.

Just wanna give people a chance.

Sure. And I was on the dais when we talked about this sort of five year, And I think the reason then was that it was then easy for, if it was less, it was easier for investors to come in, purchase it, and then rent them out. If you don't have some sort of covenant, often that's what happened. It's good for the developers because you're selling your properties, but in the sense the community strives for more. fee simple properties, home ownership. It's great. And the market has changed. I think it has slowed down. So, but I have been to your townhouses. I have toured them. And they are super nice. You think living overlooking the, you're looking east over the base, air park area, and you see the plains, is really quite interesting. I can see the appeal there. So eventually, if somebody does take all those classes and does all of that, they're gonna own, they're gonna be able to pay their mortgage.

Yes, absolutely. We have another buyer that, you know, they have the income, they just have to, I think she works in the food industry, the service, so she needs to get her taxes to the point where she can qualify. Last year taxes weren't enough, she needs to be there for a year to get her taxes up, but they need to be- I get you, so then you're foreseeing that they are going to qualify for a mortgage. So right now, the answer will be no, you can't own. But with these, yes, you have a year to make this happen, bring your paperwork, you qualify, you can keep the house. And by doing that also, she's locking the price today. Because in three years, I guarantee you, those townhouses are gonna cost what they're costing today. Everybody knows that. Right, thank you.

Okay, did you want to add anything to that? Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. Looking at the program, so when you mentioned that there was Five-year restriction market value, but there was with the CRA a separate program, or is it linked to this? Is the program completely separate for down payment assistance?

That's in your Northwest budget as proposed down payment assistance for home ownership.

Okay, we do not have it existing currently? No. Okay, and are there restrictions on those funds as per the plan for the down payment assistance?

Yeah, what we're gonna do with this area is to work with housing department and get the exact eligibility for their program so that we don't duplicate anything. We wanna bridge the gap of let's go a little above but not like huge amounts above it. And what is that missing middle that people are having a hard time purchasing?

Okay, I'm gonna probably ask you a lot more questions than that when it's time. understand the concept and I and I and I also have been to the site and been to the properties and I think that they're lovely my question is how does this rent-to-own program differ from a lease purchase agreement I don't we haven't looked at the lease but to me it's the same thing it's rental lease to purchase right but at least lease purchase agreement is pretty standardized across

Well, maybe it's that terminology.

Sorry, make sure you're on the microphone so we can hear you. It's terminology.

We've got to look at both, maybe one and the same or very close, which is, you know, I guess the easiest terminology to come up with was rent to own.

So let me just say this. We're leasing. There's no training. There's no training to make sure you're financially secure. There's no support for resources. There is. There is. I think that's what makes us different.

Right, that's what you can do. So with a standardized lease purchase agreement, you can put addendums with stating that you will work with you. You can make those addendums to a standardized Florida. The only heartache I have on this isn't, I love your intention, right? But from developer getting involved in a legal purchase process that's supported from a CRA funding mechanism, that doesn't have, like we don't have the program right now, right? So the cleanest way to do it, even if you do remove the restrictive period and lower that, the cleanest way to do it, in my opinion, is to go with a standardized lease purchase agreement, make the addendum as a, basically say, you know, by signing this, one of the conditions, it's conditional, you have to take part in our program, our mentoring program, and you have to complete it and have your little checkpoints or whatever they may be, so that, will allow them to potentially, and so you can look at them that way, it gives you the flexibility, ideally, to look at everybody on an individual basis. If you decide you want to have them pay market rent, that's fine. If you want to give them the offset where they pay market rent but a portion of that market rent goes towards their down payment, great. The problem I have with this is that we're reinventing a wheel that's been in existence for a very, very long time. And I'm concerned with not having the parameters already in place. i'm i'm on board with the restrictive period being lessened to make it more palatable to some homeowners if that's if that's the case um but my concern is that i just you know and how i guess my concern is that first because we don't know what this looks like and i and i applaud you i know you know i know that we know you and i would have to agree with vice mayor that it's kind of like You're asking us to trust you, but we have to have some more specific things in place so that we can make sure that we're doing things appropriately with taxpayer funds. I would recommend maybe, let me ask a couple questions. How far away is the price point currently from the OHQI qualifications? You know that answer? Thanks, Cassie.

Hi, Cassandra Lemesurier, Real Property Manager. I actually just looked up, OHUI is still using the 2025 levels, so $451,000 is the maximum price the home can be for someone to qualify for their first-time home buyer down payment assistance. They were anticipating the 2026 coming out shortly, which should have an increase, but it wouldn't be you know, anything that would be high enough where it's gonna be upwards of 500,000 or more, it should be a smaller increment increase.

Okay, and with our proposed down payment assistance program, what was the cap that we're looking, you know, what's our maximum on that, and is it a matching assistance of any kind?

Yeah, OHUI does go up to 80, so we need to sit down and talk about what it is. Some counties, like Broward County, offers up to 100,000, and it's a revolving type of program where If they sell, then it goes back to the program. So there are some programs out there that exist. We don't have to duplicate it, invent a new program, but we will come up with a program that fits our needs in our cities and what that gap is. Okay.

Have we looked into, in other cities, I know in Greenville, South Carolina, there's neighborhoods where their CRA has basically created these, the CRA has essentially funded neighborhoods and communities where they can offer home ownership, but the property, underlying property, is still owned by the city, or the CRA in the city, essentially. And then home ownership is actually, just like you would buy a co-op, essentially, or a condo. You own that portion, but the underlying, that holds the note to everything else. Is there an option for us to look at some of that? Because my concern is this is a, there's a lot of money, so if you qualify for OHUI, then you can get up to $80,000, but then if we give them another grant or a qualification, whatever that program, however it's going to be structured, is that going to ultimately help somebody, or will they be, have a tax bill that they're not sure, from getting essentially dollars

so income even though it's not income in my experience in this position we have done a lot of these in the past where cra used to be run by housing department so on on the record on you know recorded in in the official records There's a lot of participation from OHUI putting ship funding in, CRA putting $50,000, $60,000 in. And it's all about recorded with a mortgage deed and promissory notes. So over the years, after you satisfy requirement of like 10 years to stay on the property, we do a satisfaction. So we've done a lot of these joint projects in the past with both departments' fundings.

Okay. And then, Strollball, your project, obviously you took this on, are you subject to a construction loan because now you're 90% clean? Is there a timeline in which this needs to happen for you personally?

Yes.

Okay, do you let us know what that looks like?

Looks like we probably have another three months.

Three months?

Three months to, you know, finish construction, 100%.

Okay, and then what happens at the three months?

Then, you know, either we got to refinance or sell or rent, whichever works. Okay, so are you...

I'm just trying to understand, what is the underlying thing? Would an extension of allowing a time, would that help you in any way, or would that not help? Would that not satisfy your construction loan?

No, that would help on the construction end, not on the financial end. We have two months to finish. We'll be done by the end of the year. But we have to get to the point where, at the end of the year, we're either gonna refinance, or hopefully sell them all, or get into this rental program.

Have you figured out what, I mean, well, I guess that's not. Newen, do we have, is this because it's a public property partnership kind of thing? Is the cost, the build cost built into something that is public record or no?

No, the build cost was solely up to them. We did the land piece, so our restrictive period is the value of the land. Okay.

I... I think that the intentions are good here do and I and I love the idea of getting people into homes and I recognize that you're trying to come up with different ways based on your different ways to solve the problem based on your needs also from finishing construction and then having you know once their CEO there's a construction loan that needs to be paid and your basis usually is to sell the properties in order to pay those that off at the same time you know having one of your proposed Purchasers say that they are opposed to a rent program is concerning to me because I would hope that that would have been resolved before coming here. I would suggest maybe if it's at all possible, I mean, we have a meeting next month. In that next month, is it possible for us to look into a lease purchase program or the lease purchase similar to what exists already that would solve some of those needs that you have? We haven't even talked about this down payment assistance thing, so for us to even consider it when we haven't even seen it or heard about it really in the plan or discussed it is a little bit of a cart before horse for us, in my opinion.

Commissioner, if you notice, while the individual came up, said, hey, I want to purchase this, and I'm worrying about the rent, people renting. But also, I'm worried about the five-year restrictions, right? So you're going to find someone who may not like the sky is blue, may not like the sky is gray, whatever it may be, whatever their challenge may be, they may have an issue with it. And I'm not knocking them for having that, because everyone is entitled to their choice, right? But I think we have to be real about the approach to accepting

want to be careful how i say this i think we just got to put things in perspective that we can't we're not going to be able to solve everyone needs and everyone's desire right but legally legally with with you cannot be discriminatory in terms of leasing to somebody so that sets you up for certain things right so you have to have the parameters and we have to know the parameters of what that rent to own program would look like before we could say or cross-check it against from like a legality standpoint before we could say that we could vote on it do you understand where i'm going with this like because we're held to a certain standard as well

No, I understand the standard. And I think we're going about this the right way, right? But I also believe that given where we are and where the people who desire to own these properties are, we're trying to meet them halfway with a hand up and not a hand out. And these are oftentimes people who just want to step away.

Again, the intent is separate from the logistics. The intent is good. I'm on board. I fully think we need to get people into affordable homes. I'm on board with finding ways that we can make properties in our city more accessible to people who want to revitalize areas and put roots down here. I'm also on board with the two-year restriction period being less than, because I feel like there's a lot that can happen in essentially four years, right? You graduate, high school is four years. College is four years, unless you take the extended plan. So those are parameters that a lot of people can say, I'm comfortable with signing for a four-year, ultimately a two-year or a four-year term. I understand the pushback on five. For some other reason, it's like mental, right? You just think of being a little bit more restrictive. So I'm like 75% of the way there with you. I really am. I just want to see if we can make this simpler because we have to make sure that it's done right and we have to make sure that it flows with what everything else we would do if it was a standalone purchase. You can get creative with what you choose to do as a property owner or as the builder because we are involved and it's city land. we have to make sure that those T's are crossed and those I's are dotted. So I'm almost there with you. I would recommend, if anything, that maybe we, if at all possible, table this and come back at this and find a little bit more clear directive. And I'm not sure if that's something you'd be on board with. Thank you.

Very good. Commissioner Perkins.

all right thank you mayor um i've um i've toured the property um there and i've been working with mr michael bill basically with the school teachers in those surrounding areas and i guess with most of the teachers that i sent over to him most of the problems were credit Credit, credit, credit. So I'm listening to what everybody's saying, and everybody has an expertise from my listening in real estate and all of that, but what I'm really hearing is that he wants to give people a chance. So I have about, I want to say about six, maybe more, new town homes, rental developments in the Northwest or in my district. And when those developers come in, they don't care about giving anybody a chance, not in my district. These town homes, whatever, start at 525, 550, some of them 6,000. Developers never come to me, never meet with me, but they have a tendency to pull these people in from somewhere to move into these townhouses and apartments. So when Mr. Obel said to me he was considering rent to buy, I thought it was a great idea. I thought it was a way of trying to help the people. But it is concerning about the young lady saying that if you want to rent, go somewhere and rent. If you want to buy, buy. So I think that's something that we can work out. I'm on the end of, I guess for most of you, I'm different. I'm just like, how do we help the people? get housing, own a rent? How do we help them? So, Mr. Obel, I am going to vote yes for this today, but I would like for you to come back to us in 30 days, our next CRA meeting, and have everything in place based on the questions that you were asked here, the dais. So, I... I'm listening attentively what everybody was saying, but you have the down payment assistance in place, and I think that's what most of the teachers really like the most that I sent over to you. However, a lot of questions have been asked, and you gotta get it in writing or put it together and bring it back and present it to us in 30 days. Can we do that?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so yeah, I will support it 100% right now, but in the meantime, I would like to talk to you along the way as you're going about everything.

We'll always be as transparent as possible. Okay, thank you. As always.

Great.

Commissioner Fessick.

Thanks, just a quick question. Does that 30-day... Condition need to be a motion to be part of this or not? No.

Legal?

That's up to the CRA. If you want to approve a resolution with a condition that there be further discussion in 30 days, you can certainly do that. But as it stands right now, the resolution is to approve this amendment with nothing in it about coming back to the board.

But if we wanted to mandate some 30-day return, then it wouldn't necessarily be an approval today, correct?

That would be my recommendation that you not mix the two. If you wanna consider this and have them bring you something back, I would rather see you postpone this matter to the next meeting with the conditions that you want them to explain to you.

Otherwise, as Commissioner Perkins did, she's got a commitment for someone to return. Right, exactly. But you can still vote yes on this, and this is approved, but then has a commitment to get information back from the developer. But that's just a commitment, personal commitment, which he's not bound to, correct? Right, exactly.

If you approve it today, you've approved it today. He can voluntarily come back in 30 days.

We're truly committed to coming back in 30 days.

We're talking about the legal parameters. Now, you could amend the resolution to make the approval subject to hearing satisfactory conditions at the October meeting. which would mean that all you're doing today is conditionally approving it. And again, my recommendation to keep your record clean is to postpone this resolution, because what I'm hearing on the dais is you're not quite ready to say we're all the way to the finish line on this. so postpone the approval of the resolution for 30 days let them come back identify exactly what it is you need to hear from them in order to make an informed decision and you haven't lost anything by doing that okay so thank you mayor commissioner fessick commissioner fessick has a floor just real quick do you have a timeline

Commissioner.

As you can see, you have people who's waiting on this decision. We have lost buyers over the five-year restriction. we have literally lost three buyers over the five year restriction right and we have put this in place to help those buyers who are just a step away and who's waiting on us to see what this decision gonna be so look they can show up tomorrow morning be like no we we can't and then we out of it right so we're honestly this is a 50 50 shot right now okay okay thank you so much thank you very much so

another because i'm trying like i said i'm with you where i'm with you all out of the way here but i i do have concerns about the program itself it would it be would it be possible to in order to not limit you would it be possible to approve just the five year to two year restrictive period today emotion or or would since it's on this agenda, and then bring back the remainder for the next vote, or no?

Not really, Commissioner, because you've got an amendment in front of you that has all of the other provisions. I want to make sure that legally we're clear on something. Mr. O'Dell just said that they're losing buyers because of the five-year restriction. What I think I'm hearing is that the buyers want to be able to rent the unit After two years, is that accurate? You have buyers that want to buy, but they then want to be able to rent out their unit after two years instead of the five year restriction is too long for me as an investor. I don't want to invest if I have to wait five years before I can start renting. Is that what I'm hearing?

What we are saying is that we have buyers who want to purchase, and we have buyers who in the halfway mark want to purchase, right? And the five-year restriction won't typically sit well with them. So I'm not saying that they're looking to rent right away. However, what I am saying, it creates issue for a lot of the buyers.

And let me just, let me follow up on that from a legal standpoint, because I want the board to be clear on what they're hearing. I think what I'm hearing is that you have some buyers that are not intending to live in the unit long term. And the five-year restriction is too long for them to not be able to rent.

No, that is not what we're saying. What we're saying is life happens and something can happen in the four years. and which someone can require to move because they can't afford it, whatever reason it may be. We shouldn't be able to tie people here. If they own it, they own it, right? So many of the buyers are like, hey, can you meet us halfway? And we're willing to do that, but we need the board approval to meet them halfway. But it's not saying that they want to move out in five years and rent them out. That's not what we're saying here.

How long does it take to close on one of your properties?

About 45 days? We have two that are ready to close.

Can somebody speak into the microphone so we can hear? We have two that are ready to close now.

And how long does that process take to close?

It's taking about 45 days or 60 days because we were struggling getting the CO. We finally got the CO September 3rd.

Okay. So you just got the CO September 3rd for all of the units or for the units that they... For the first four-unit building. Okay, and so the ones that you have, there are two that you have that are ready to purchase. What stage are they in that process? If you called your title company tomorrow and they had availability, could they close tomorrow?

Not tomorrow, because we've got to record these documents in Broad County. Once they're recorded and official, we're ready. And how long does that process take? Probably a couple of days, two, three days.

Okay, so that's what I was trying to find out, like where does that timeframe look like? Is it longer than a month or is it less than a month, right? So would some of those... Okay, let me see, I guess I'll just, that's not a question. I really feel strongly, I like what you're doing, but I really feel strongly I think we should come back at this. I don't want to see this opportunity pass by because I really like this idea. I just want to see the parameters in place. And that's why I say I really would support the reduction of the time frame because I think that's important for prospective buyers. A lot can happen in a year, much less two or five, right? So if we're removing barriers to homeownership, that I feel is one that will be effective. It's the rent to own portion that I want to see a little bit tighter. That's where I am. And I know I told you, I think it's a great idea. I think that your intentions are right. I think people a lot of times barely miss, I think I told you directly, barely miss the qualifying period help in not getting anything right so you're trying to fill the gap and i see that and i know your heart and i know your intent i just want to make sure that we have it legally locked down too and so i make a motion to just delay this to the next next our next commission our next community redevelopment agency meeting in october well i think we have two motion because you have mr perkins has one and now you just know commissioner fessick has made a motion to postpone until the next meeting okay is there a second on the motion to postpone

Motion dies for lack of second. Commissioner Fessick, you still have the floor.

I'm not done, thank you.

Very good.

Can I ask a question to Ms. McKenna based on this? i i i did see yes vice mayor and then commissioner sneed so i agree with commissioner fessick there's one part of this that bothers me the developer so it's item 4.6.24 the developer enters its successors or assigns rights to implement a bona fide rent to own program approved by this the cra prior to initial conveyance so ms mckinnon if we wanted to reinstate their rights and go to the two years Can we just pass this item without that one section? 4.6.2 sub item four. I think takes out the rent to own program and then we can revisit that. But we would pass everything else. Could we make a motion to pass the resolution without?

you can you can do that if you if that effectively passes it allows them to record it close their sales but but you want the fourth amendment yes to be revised yes to delete a paragraph numbered 4.6.2 for item four the developer's right to implement a bona fide. Okay, so you want to delete that line or that provision so five would become four. Cassie, are you following this?

So what you're looking at and that I think that appears in two different sections because you have the amendment to the property disposition and development agreement where you're referring to 4.6.2 being removed so therefore 4.6.3 would move up. No, no.

She's saying 4.6.2, the Roman numeral IV, which is four, that's deleted, and then five becomes four. If that has the same effect of what we're trying to do here. Exactly, yes. You can certainly, you can do that.

The motion needs- I'd like to make a motion to modify the Fourth Amendment and reinstatement agreement to delete provision 4.6.2, Roman numeral four. Yes.

A second, yeah.

Okay, so it's been moved and seconded to delete that section, which deals with the rent-to-own program, and that would leave everything else intact and reduce... Just a clarification, you said 4.5...

6.2 from renewal 4, which reads the developers and or its successors or assigns rights to implement a bona fide rent-to-own program approved by the CRA. But it still includes the, it goes down to the two-year owner occupancy requirement from 5, and it reinstates their...

And it includes the $25,000 contribution. Everything else that's in the amendment stays exactly the same. It's just, you're just eliminating the rent to own concept.

Which I think we're all interested in, but we need more information on.

All right. For the record, the motion would also need to include for the First Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that you remove item C, which is the developer rent-to-own program, so that it will be consistent with what you're doing with the property disposition development agreement. Do I need to redo the motion? Modify the motion? Yes.

Modify the motion to also amend the First Amendment to the Declaration to... Elite provision C, A, restricted use of properties, subsection C, developer rent-to-own program.

Still second that? Second. And seconded by Commissioner Perkins. Okay. All right, we've got a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any input from the public? And you are part of the public.

So essentially you are saying no to the rent-to-own. in providing everything else. That's what I'm understanding.

Did you listen to us?

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get clarification.

Yes, yes, that is correct. The Rent Your Own program is coming out at this point in time. That's the answer to your question.

Everything else is a go.

Further input?

I mean, I think we end up ultimately missing It helps some folks, but I mean, if you're allowing us to come back, I mean, everything will have to do what we have to do at this point.

Done? I'm done. Okay, thank you. Can you vacate the podium? This is time for public input, so I've got to take other public. Okay. Thank you. Please come forward. Just name and address the record. This is on the motion.

I clearly understand it, Mayor. Jocelyn Jackson. I agree with the motion. I'm glad you guys took it in consideration. This is very important to the residents, because we love transparency. And we want them to understand when they purchase any home, these properties, what's available to them. And to come back in 30 days to revisit No, first of all, it would have been a great idea if those buyers was here today, the ones who's supposed to be closing within 30 days. That would have been nice to know, too. Also, since you voted to reduce the time for rental to two years, that's what the motion is on right now, correct? Okay. Now, this don't have no bearings on the $25,000 that they're still supposed to be contributing, right? You didn't take that out. That's still eligible for the participants, correct? Okay, now when they come back in 30 days, if they come back with a plan as far as the rental conditions, would this vacate this ruling for today?

We'll still be in place. We can't speak to hypotheticals what might happen in 30 days. All we can do is speak to what we've got.

Okay. And I agree, too. Also, I'm agreeing, too, with this rental program, you never know because people be in hardship. So we need to be very conscious when that come back, too, because that is a fact. Okay? We don't want the people to be in and out, in and out. And those people want to be back there. They want to be homeowners in this new district. We don't want people not able to be qualified. And if any of them is interested, again, I have an outstanding credit repair. If that's the issues with these school teachers, I can recommend them to be calm. A homeowner's. Thank you.

Thank you. Further input from the public.

Don't be shy. Corey Thompson, 2160 Northwest 4th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida, 33069. Mayor, when I look at my, take my garbage can out, it say Pompano Beach, Florida warmest welcome. And now I hear something about a rent to own program. People catching hell out here. Gas is almost $5 a gallon. I go out and eat at Jay's Steakhouse almost every week, having fun on Friday nights. You don't see the same family in there, you know why? because people are catching hell. Want it to be nice, they say Pompano done some productive, instead of the usual 3-3 divide. Then I can say, then I can have something to brag about again, instead of hear jokes when people talk about Pompano. We need to be fundamentally sound and think about the people. Everybody forget about the people. You know why realtors don't want rent to own? Because they're probably going to X them out. So realtors don't want rent to own because what is their job? Like everybody else who has a profession, to make money. And you know what? This is going to be something else when people talk about trend, CRA. I can say why I like the CRA and give them an explanation about the CRA. And Michael Bell as well, somebody from our community. We got teachers came four houses right now. They came to four houses, police always got to do a double overtime and they risking their life. Firefighters running the burning buildings, paramedics can catch whatever by doing CPR on people. We need to be fundamentally sound and think about the people. When people elect you, they don't elect you to think about yourself, they elect you to be their voice. Somebody please come up with something and grab hold of this Rent to Own program and take it to the finish line. Thank you.

Good, thank you. Next speaker, please come forward.

John Berger, I live in Palm Air. I am a big proponent of Rent2Buy. It's a very valuable tool to homeowners and investors, and I thank you for all of your information about that. Mr. Tran, how many units are we talking about in this particular project?

Ten.

Ten, okay. I am most familiar with this in single family housing. And the reason I say that is because if I am renting a place and considering buying it, and I'm one of ten, and I'm surrounded by nine renters, I'm not buying a place knowing that I'm going to have renters all around me. Or that they may buy it and can later turn it into a rental. I'm not buying that house. So my point is this. If this is the carrot that this commission says, that's a great carrot, we should approve this, I'm not in agreement with that.

Very good. Further input from the public? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion on the motion. Commissioner Seegerson, Eden, then Fessick.

And then we have Commissioner Smith down here who raised her hand. Okay.

I'll look that way, too.

So, and I'm, you know, I need some clarification. Nguyen, or Ann, or Claudia... Give me the history of this property. I believe we dedicated, the CRA dedicated this land for a consideration of $10, or what were the parameters?

Yes, so it was an unsolicited proposal that we received from the developer to develop these units and go through the full process of land development process for the land to be donated. So that's why our restrictive covenant is to restrict the valuation of the land for a certain period. As with a lot of our single family homes, we do that with the restrictive covenant and for a period of time, it gets reduced by one whatever per month until that compliance period's over, then it's forgivable. So we do that in terms of just negating the cost of the land from the whole construction cost so this one we we did not um sell the property uh it was uh given the land okay great so we really don't own the land anymore not anymore no okay um i just wanted that uh clarified um thank you very good commissioner fessick thank you so i my

Just want to make sure that we're clear. This is about proving pretty much 95% of this at the moment, and then asking Mr. Olbell and his team essentially to come back with the, maybe in the next 30 days or whenever you're ready, and come back with a plan related to the rent to own so that we can discuss that as a solid plan and on its own merits. And if that requires either an amendment to this, I'm assuming, then we can discuss that portion at that time. I'm trying to, in my opinion, I feel like this is a great way to solve the majority of the problems so you're not We try to remove as many barriers as possible to what we're trying to accomplish, while making sure we get that right, potentially get that right, or at least have something solid to look at to discuss at a future date. I'm just curious if that would be an acceptable alternative, because a lot of times we come up with ideas, but I want to know if that would be an acceptable outcome for you as well. is that a question for the i guess it's a question for but yeah but if it's it's it's more so if it would if i feel this way and i i'm just asking i'm hoping that he'll come back in 30 days with with a plan and i will say um maybe look at some other cities or some other rent to own programs or that are tied into different cras look how they've been structured i know newen has said that they're happy to work with you and try to find ways that the other cities or other cras haven't have

Yes, no, we will work together to come up with a plan that satisfies the board's concerns and something innovative to open up opportunities for home ownership.

And I think maybe this might actually take on, it could potentially take on a life of its own, especially since you're talking, which we'll talk about at a later date or later today, related to the proposed downtown assistance portion of the Northwest CRA plan. And perhaps maybe if we're doing something like this in partnership, maybe we can do something that we can approve from a policy that we can apply this. And he could basically be our guinea pig for this process, right? That we could apply to other potential properties in the Northwest District, right?

All we heard was guinea pig.

Yeah. But, you know, there's a new museum. But, no, but that would be where you can work out the kinks. to find out in real-world applications what will work and what the challenges may be. Of course, we can always modify it, but if you're already saying you'd like to try to find a program that works to help people, he wants to help people, I think that would be the best outcome.

I agree. Excuse me, Mayor, what was your question to Mr. Bill?

My question was just, I wanted to see if that was something, if he was willing to participate in that next 30 days to come back at us with a or come back at us at any point in time with a more solid plan for the rent-to-own portion.

So that is a question for the developer? Yes. Okay. Does the developer wish to answer? Please come forward. Otherwise, we can't hear you and the public can't hear you.

um transparently honestly i like i would like to get it done today but obviously that's not the case uh so that's the next best thing so you know look i i think i've been very open to working with each and every one of you all on this days and i'll continue to do so thank you and i look forward to working with you too i think i think like i said i think your heart is good i think you have done amazing things in this community

And I know that you want to continue to do that. And my goal is to just help you get across the finish line. Yeah. Thank you.

I appreciate you all. Commissioner Smith and Vice Mayor?

I, too, feel that rent-to-own has strong potential. I was disappointed that it wasn't what I assumed it was, so I'm looking forward to hearing the details of what the plan is. And I was looking for Housing of America to read up on the structure that you were working with, and I can't find it, so I'd like to have that link to read up on that prior, or maybe part of the packet that we all look, we look at between now and the next CRA meeting. But I do think there's some strong potential, and I think this is some breaking area that we can get into that can help other developments going forward. So thank you for putting that before us. Perhaps it's not gonna happen today, but I think there's strong potential for it to happen in the next 30 days, and I appreciate you guys working as a team to come up with something that's gonna work for everyone. Thank you.

Very good. Vice Mayor?

Thank you. I have a question for Ms. McKenna. The item that we took out, 4.6.2, item 4, it says that developer has a right to implement a bona fide rent-to-own program approved by the CRA prior to the conveyance of a townhouse unit to initial purchaser. So that already says to me that whatever rent-to-own program needed to be approved by the CRA. Right. So we're just saying they need to come back for approval. We're almost saying the same thing, correct? We really are, yes. So that's what I'm trying to say. We're giving you everything we can today and kind of taking that out, which was already out anyway because you had to come back and get approval by the CRA prior to implementing this program. but giving so come back to us with that when you're ready to give us the details and then we all want it we all agree we hear you we just want to hear more about it before we put this line back in and then we will pass it once we know what it is we're passing So but in the meantime, you can be reinstated and get the other and have certainty on the other parts of it that you've asked for from this board. So thank you for clarifying that because it sounded to me like it had to come back anyway.

Very good. Further commission discussion. Commissioner Fessick.

I just wanted to clarify that that's approved by the CRA or approved by the CRA board, because those two things could be interpreted differently. So, right. So I think that this is a better option with having it come back.

The CRA is the board.

Right. But just we've been interpretations where certain people have made authorized decisions before. So I just want to make sure that that was clear in the contract as well. Thank you.

Further commission discussion? Seeing none, let's call a roll.

We're calling the roll on the amendment?

Yes, the amendment.

Okay.

I thought, Kervin, I'm sorry, I thought the motion was to approve the resolution with an amended Fourth Amendment, not that we were first doing the amendment to the Fourth Amendment.

Okay, no, because there was different additional layers to it, or the declaration of covenants and things like that.

Right, but it's still, it's to approve the resolution

Okay, because I don't remember what it actually was. If it's to approve the resolution with the changes, fine, we'll do that. Yes. It's fine by me.

Okay.

That saves a second vote.

Exactly. No, it's a motion to approve the resolution with the Fourth Amendment amended as it was described and with the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants amended as described.

Right, thank you. She said, and that's what she said. Providing it's approved in a minute. Go ahead.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Fournier? Yes. Chair Harden?

Yes. Thank you.

We need a break, Mayor.

Commissioner Sigerson? Break. Break. Sure, let's take a 10 minute break. Come back at 3.44. Bring this meeting back to order. Pompano Beach CRA meeting September 15th, 2026 at about 3.46. Item number eight is a resolution.

A resolution of the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency approving the east financing and implementation plan and adopting the final estimates of revenue and expenditures for the fiscal year commencing on October 1, 2026 and ending on September 30, 2027, appropriating the funds shown therein as may be needed or deemed necessary to defray all expenditures and liabilities of the east district of the CRA for such fiscal year. providing an effective date and for other purposes.

So moved. Second. Moved and second for discussion. Ms. Vasquez.

Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, board members, Kimberly Vasquez, CRA project manager. The item before you is the East CRA District FY2027 budget and, excuse me.

This is the East CRA, yes.

It'll be both. The East CRA District Fiscal Year 2027 Budget and Five-Year Financing Implementation Plan for years 2027 through 2031. As previously presented, your certified values for 2027 were $849 million, with a total value growth of 4.5%, with the highest being in your commercial use for the East District. Your total sources are 41.9 million. That's coming in the form of tax increment of 8.1 million, and we do get that from the city, the county, and the North Broward Hospital District. We're recognizing some building rentals of $194,000. We do have some investment earnings of $81.6 thousand. And then you do see here a tax increment bond of 18.9 million. That's inclusive of issuance cost for that. And the carry forward fund balance of 14.5 million. That's unencumbered, unexpended funds. Total uses is also $41.9 million. This is your expenses, and that's coming in the form of operations. And I'll just briefly break that out. We have administrative costs, which is for full-time CRA employees and two employees that we pay 50% of but 25% of their cost goes to each district, which is that's for the real property manager and your community development housing inspector. 6% to the city clerk for his services that he provides, the CRA executive director at 6%, and then 15% of an assistant city manager's salary. We did present before that we did do a hard freeze on one full-time position for the CRA, which was the project coordinator, as well as two part-time positions. Our general city cost allocation is $44,908. We have general office expenses, which includes supplies, travel, training, taxes, property maintenance, etc. At $388,112. We have an internal service fund charge, which is for services the city provides to the CRA. And then the tax increment split for the Mela at $1,051,900. That's what makes up the operations. We have reflected 1.8 million towards debt service, that is your 2013 A and B bond series, as well as proposed debt service and issuance costs for your FY2027 bond that you see proposed. Contingency at 2.4 million, and then you see the bulk of your expenditures are going to redevelopment projects at 35.5 million. Infrastructure and streetscapes. You see your revenue sources is your tax increment revenue bond at 18.8 million. We have tax increment revenue at 1.6 million and then a carry forward fund balance of 10.7 million. The bond would have to, it's in your plan and it's reflected in the budget, but has to come back to this committee or this board prior to issuance. And I just want to say that we are at 100% construction drawings for this McNabb house project and therefore we're ready to go to bed. And we feel like as staff and we're proposing this 18.8 million bond as the most expedient way and a tool that the CRA can use to do this project in totality. Our expenditures are for public parking capital improvements, and you do see the McNabb House, which is inclusive of that bond for $28 million. Redevelopment initiatives, you see your revenue as tax increment revenue, and expenditures are incentive programs at $200,000, and then dissemination of information at $50,000. Housing and neighborhood stabilization, tax increment revenue is the source of funding coming in and expenditures for the redevelopment ambassadors program. As you recall, this board did not approve the roving ambassadors, but we are holding that funding to come back at a future date with some type of programming for this at 168,000. We have property acquisition at 3.7 million. And then the consultants and professional services tax increment revenue at $170,000. And you see that split as consultants and professional services at $164,700. And then we also have an investment advisor that we pay services to at $5,300. That concludes the presentation on the FY 2027 budget. And as per, I think Claudia stated, we have to approve a budget by October 1 as per Statute 163 and Statute 189. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Please come forward. Just name an address for the record.

john berger and palm air can i make a comment at this time about the northwest um cra budget that will be uh talked about in the future well i'm not gonna i can't like tackle you and stop you but i'd prefer you wait until the presentation for the northwest i mean it's coming up right after this one but if no it is coming up today that's okay further input from the public

Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion on the ECRA. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I have a few questions. And the first one is the 100% construction that you said for the McNabb property, you're 100% done with the construction project or the drawings and ready to go to bid?

That is correct. We have 100% construction drawings on this project. Okay. And...

My pain point here is that we have asked for well over a year to have regular updates and meetings and discussions about this to have input, and we have been sufficiently ignored for the most part. So there's that. And if we approve this and ready to go to bid, then even if there's no bond issuance, or even if there's no bond issuance, we don't get to that point yet. would you have to come back to us for approval of somebody to be the person who does the project?

That is correct. We would have to come back to you for a contractor for the project. We'd have to come back to you to approve the bond. We would have to come back to you because we're going to have to actively pursue a restaurant tour for the McNabb house. All those things would have to come back to you as part of an approval process.

Property acquisition. Could you please go back to that page? And so I see expenditures is the $3 million. Which properties are CRA owned and city owned? But what are your proposed expenditures there?

if i can jump in for just a moment generally we try not to specifically identify properties so that our negotiating opportunities are not impacted by the fact that a property owner knows that we're interested if there's a way to address your question without necessarily having it be a you know a discussion here that would be helpful for Ms. LeMessurier and Mr. Tran as they work on property acquisition?

Not a problem. Are these property acquisitions related to the McNab House presentation that we've seen before? And the site plan we've seen before?

Cassandra Lemesurier, Real Property Manager. As you can see from the aerial that's on the property acquisition slide, there are two areas that we're completing assemblies. One is directly west of McNabb Park, and the other one is on the west side of Federal Highway. So the one that's on the west side of Federal Highway, a little bit further away, it's never been depicted necessarily as a permanent part of McNabb Garden, botanical garden and restaurant project. However, the properties that we already own that are directly west of McNabb, especially the three vacant lots, were shown as the potential to be able to serve as parking for the project. Okay.

I seem to remember another few properties that were included in the public meeting with identification. And I just want to know if those are still in play as part of this 3.7.

The other site I believe you're talking about is what we refer to as the old Wells Fargo drive-through site.

No. No, I'm referring to the ones that were listed in the January 2025 public meeting that was held where there were two properties specifically that we were looking to acquire.

If you're talking about the properties to the south that are privately owned, that's outside of the district, we weren't targeting those.

So I guess I understand Ms. McKenna's reasoning here to try to not tip anybody off, but because we've publicly disclosed the locations of the properties that we were actively seeking for parking, I think we should make sure that it's known on record that their two properties were owned, that they were potentially owned by people involved with the Economic Development Council and our former mayor. So those are two separate properties and they're affiliated businesses. For the sake of clarity, I want to make sure that that's clear and on the record. Is that still the case as per the site plan?

I believe the property you're referring to would be where Contrast Furniture was located, a little bit north on the assembly that is directly west of McNabb Park. It's on the east side of Federal Highway, and then there's also a vacant lot south of that that serves as parking. So I believe those are the two. It would make sense to assemble those, but we're not actively seeking to purchase those at this point in time.

i don't want to sit through a seven hour meeting like we did last year so i'm going to keep it short and sweet for the most part but i'm going to just go on record that again i feel like this entire project has been ridiculously flawed and full of a lot of issues from the get-go i know i brought it up with the city we have a lease path for the property itself that has unresolved issues in my opinion and mr berman seems to disagree and think that construction costs, much like he did in the 88-page document from Vice Mayor Fournier related to other properties and building, that somehow acquisition of properties can get the CRA to that number to satisfy lease requirements that are clearly stated. I disagree. I would like outside counsel on that. Do we currently have the entire, have we fixed the title problem that we had?

I've gone on record as saying that I researched every single record relating to the McNab title and we assembled all of the documents relating to title. We have a title commitment issued by a title company and there are no outstanding issues relating to the city's ownership of the McNab Park land.

Thank you. That is not the question I asked. Do we have currently a clear title to the McNabb property?