Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW CRA 2013-09-12 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com [,f • IN Q9▪ IEP 99 i �YD Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:00 PM Special Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Michelle Spence -Jones, Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Vice Chair Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner Frank Carollo, Commissioner Francis Suarez, Commissioner SEOPW CRA OFFICE ADDRESS: 1490 NW 3rd Avenue, Suite 105 Miami, FL 33136 Phone: (305) 679-6800, Fax: (305) 679-6835 www.miamicra.com SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 RESOLUTIONS 1 13-00986 Present: Chair Spence -Jones, Commissioner Sarnoff, Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Carollo and Vice Chair Gort On the 12th day of September 2013, the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Miami met in special session at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida. The meeting was called to order by Chair Spence -Jones at 2: 26 p.m., recessed at 3: 08 p.m., reconvened at 5: 49 p.m., and was adjourned at 6: 04 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Clarence Woods, Executive Director, CRA Maria Chiaro, Assistant General Counsel William Bloom, Special Counsel, CRA Todd B. Hannon, Clerk of the Board CRA RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH LYRIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCKS 25 AND 36; APPROVING THE PROPOSED VARIANCES TO THE SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE CRA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TRANSMIT THE PROPOSED VARIANCES TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION. File # 13-00986 Cover Memo.pdf File # 13-00986 Legislation.pdf Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Vice -Chair Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Chair Spence -Jones, Vice Chair Gort, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Sarnoff Noes: Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-13-0053 Chair Spence -Jones: Call the meeting to order. I was wait -- I know I just saw Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Suarez. So two seconds, then I'm going to -- we're going to officially start. So I know he just walked out. If you guys see him anywhere, please -- Oh, there he goes. Board Member Suarez: Present. Chair Spence -Jones: Present. Okay, so we'll go ahead and get started. I'd like to officially call the meeting into order for Thursday, September the 12th, for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency. At this time we have two items actually on the agenda. I mean, there was also was supposed to be a third thing, which was more of a discussion item, and I'm not really sure if he's here today from the Miami Foundation. I don't know, so what I'm going to do is just shift that to the last meeting in September. Clarence Woods (Director, Community Redevelopment Agency): Okay. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 11/14, 2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Chair Spence -Jones: So we're going to officially call this meeting to order, and we're going to start with Resolution Number 1. Mr. Woods: Commissioners, Resolution Number 1 is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment, in substantially the attached form, with Lyric Development, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), in connection with the development of Blocks 25 and 36; approving the proposed variances to the settlement agreement between Miami -Dade County, the City of Miami, and the CRA; further authorizing the executive director to transmit the proposed variances to Miami -Dade County for consideration. What this is, Commissioner, this is a project -- one of the bond projects that you guys have already voted and approved. It was voted by the City of Miami as well as Miami -Dade County. What we're doing here is we're altering the project, if you will. What this does is it allows -- instead of it being two phases on Block 25, it'll all be one phase. We're consolidating both phases. We believe that it will be a better project in doing so, and we ask that you consider this, that you approve it. Chair Spence -Jones: Do we have a motion or we have a question on this item? Board Member Suarez: Move it. Chair Spence -Jones: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Vice Chair Gort: Second for discussion. Chair Spence -Jones: Second for discussion. Your mike. Vice Chair Gort: Will you go over the details of the changes? Mr. Woods: The details of the changes: The original -- Vice Chair Gort: And the funding. Mr. Woods: Okay. The original project as it was conceived when we originally put it out in 2007, it required the development to have four phases. The first phase was 98 units. That 98 units was going to be funded by CRA contribution from our bond issuance, as well as a 4 percent tax credit -- 4 percent bond deal, which includes some tax credits. The second phase was going to be an additional 98 units, but that would have required the developer to seek 9 percent tax credits, which is a competitive type of financing. The financing wasn't totally conceived at that point, but it would take a 9 percent tax credit in order to get that phase built. Phases 3 and 4 were to be built on Block 36. Phase 3 would be a 300-space parking garage with some office liner. Phase 4 would have to be 30,000 square feet of commercial space. In making this change, what we're doing is, because we now are able to find -- well, consolidate the parking on the other blocks, it now makes sense to go ahead and consolidate both phases 1 and 2, and then we'll have a much better developable block for Block 36. So, essentially, that's the development plan and the financing as it is conceived as now. Vice Chair Gort: But it's important you also explain the difference between $10 million before, $7 million, and how it's coming together now. Mr. Woods: Originally, the $10 million was just for phase 1, and that was going to be 98 units. In phase 3, there was $3 million for our bond issuance to do public parking garage. Vice Chair Gort: Right. City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Mr. Woods: But now that we've -- going to put the garage -- or have the parking spaces on another block, we can now use that $3 million in consolidating phase 1 and 2 and then add an additional $4 million so that we can get a total of 160 units on Block 25, which will be one phase. Board Member Suarez: Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Gort: The reason you need this amendment is because the validation has taken place, it was accepted a certain way, and that's why you have to make the changes now, because of the validation process that took place; am I correct? Mr. Woods: Well, the validation does play into it, but it's more so about the settlement agreement with Miami -Dade County. Vice Chair Gort: With Miami -Dade County. Mr. Woods: Yeah. And we have some proposed variances that we also have to have approved by Miami -Dade County. Vice Chair Gort: It would have to be approved by us also. Mr. Woods: By -- right, by this Board, as well as Miami -Dade County. Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Board Member Suarez: Mr. Chair -- Madam Chair, just a quick question. Chair Spence -Jones: Yes, you're recognized. Board Member Suarez: I think the other thing that's important to note on this project is the difference between the 4 and the 9 percent. Vice Chair Gort: Right. Board Member Suarez: You're saying now under this structure that there won't -- they won't have to compete for the tax credit -- Mr. Woods: Exactly. Board Member Suarez: -- on the units that are going to be built. Those are going to be built pursuant to the tax credit program that's automatic. Mr. Woods: Absolutely. Board Member Suarez: So instead of it being speculative, like we have done in other deals in the past where we grant an entitlement and then nothing happens forever, you want to take the land back -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Suarez: -- which has, unfortunately, happened way too often -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Suarez: -- since I've been here, and before. Now, this actually makes the project City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 more viable, in a sense. Mr. Woods: Absolutely. We can do it right away. Board Member Suarez: Thank you. Board Member Sarnoff.- Madam Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: Yes, you're recognized. Board Member Sarnoff- Phase 2, I've never quite grappled with phase 2. I know what phase 1 is; I know in phase 3; I know what phase 4 is, so describe phase 2, please. Mr. Woods: Phase 2, as it was originally proposed, was going to be an additional 98 units, but the method for financing phase 2 was going to be a 9 percent tax credit deal. That's the extent of phase 2. Board Member Sarnoff- So phase 1 would be 98 units -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Sarnoff- -- and phase 2 would be 98 units. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff.- And phase 1 would be 30 to 60 percent ofAMI (Area Median Income). Phase 2 -- 30 to 60 percent, 32 units; 60 to 80 percent ofAMI, 33 units. Mr. Woods: Mm-hmm. Board Member Sarnoff- And 80 to 140 percent ofAMI, 32 units. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff- And that's phase 1. Phase 2, is that the same? Mr. Woods: Phase 2 was going to be different. I think phase 2 was going to be -- more so, it was 60 to 80 and then 80 to 140. Vice Chair Gort: Who's (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Board Member Sarnoff- Eighty-eight to 140? Mr. Woods: One -fifty, actually. Board Member Sarnoff- One -fifty. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff- And are they broken down? Mr. Woods: I'm sorry? Board Member Sarnoff. Is it broken down after 60 to 180 -- 80 -- after -- City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 William Bloom: It's broken down in the amendment, Section 12 -- 9.8 of the amendment on page 3 has the breakdown of the percentages, and so we left the percentages the same for the first 98 units and then layered in the additional 60 units, with a slightly different threshold. And again, previously, phase 2 was not getting any funding -- Mr. Woods: At all. Mr. Bloom: -- from the CRA, which made it much more speculative (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . Board Member Sarnoff- No, I understand that aspect. I want -- I'm trying to grapple in my own mind at the end of the day, what is built at the end of the day with phase 1 and phase 2, and here's what I'm hearing you tell me: Two 98-unit developments. Mr. Woods: As it was originally conceived, yes. Board Member Sarnoff.- Okay. And now today, what is it being conceived? How many will be built? Mr. Woods: A hundred and sixty. Board Member Sarnoff.- Okay. So then phase 2 has fewer units. Mr. Woods: Yes, it has fewer units and less subsidy. Board Member Sarnoff.- What was the intended subsidy behind phase 2? I understand today it's getting 3 million, correct? Mr. Woods: Plus an additional four, yes. Board Member Sarnoff- Where's the additional four coming from? Mr. Woods: The additional four will come from the bond issuance once we get that money approved at the end of the month. Board Member Sarnoff- So you're saying phase 2 will be built with $7 million of bond money and then $7 million -- I don't know where the 3 million came from. I know where it came from with regard to the parking garage. Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Sarnoff. . But where did -- where's the source funding? Is that CRA dollars? Mr. Woods: The -- yes, the bond money, yes. Board Member Sarnoff- The bond money again. Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Sarnoff- Okay. Mr. Woods: And again, there isn't going to be a phase 2 on Block 25. We're going to do one project on Block 25. Board Member Sarnoff. . Right. You're pushing phase 1 and 2 together. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Mr. Woods: Absolutely. Board Member Sarnoff.- You're modifying what was phase 2. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff- Okay. Board Member Carollo: Madam Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Thank you. I want to expand a little bit on what Commissioner Sarnoff was saying. With regards to the affordable housing, how many units are from 30 to 60 AMI? Mr. Bloom: There will be at least 49 -- at least 49 units will be at 60 percent or below AMI. At least 79 units will be below 80 percent ofAMI Up to 30 units can be up to 120 percent ofAMI, and the balance can be up to 150 percent. Board Member Carollo: Okay. So regarding the 49 units that are 60 percent ofAMI, is it going to be 60 or below? And just so the people know, what is 60 percent ofAMI? What's the amount that they're going to have to pay monthly? Vice Chair Gort: Explain what `AMI" stands for. Board Member Suarez: Area median income. Mr. Woods: Yeah. Board Member Carollo: Because a lot of times we hear "affordable units, affordable housing," but we want to know what is affordable housing and who is going to be able to pay this and who may not. And it's fair to say that the 80 percent and the 120, 150, it's a lot higher than the 60 percent, correct? Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Carollo: Okay. So let's talk about the 60, which this is the lowest that these affordable houses are going to go for. How much is 60 percent ofAMI? Marc Plonskier: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Marc Plonskier. I'm president of the Gatehouse Group. A 60 percent rents for a three -bedroom unit are $899 a month; for a two -bedroom unit, $784 a month; and a one -bedroom unit, $658. Those can only change as AMIs actually change and -- Board Member Carollo: Understood. So how many -- out of these 49 units, how many are three -bedrooms, how many are two -bedrooms, how many are one -bedroom? Mr. Plonskier: It's roughly 20 percent of the units are one -beds; 50 percent, twos; and 30 percent threes. Board Member Carollo: I'm sorry, say that again. Mr. Plonskier: How about -- I'll give -- actually, why don't I answer your question directly. The 33, one -bedrooms; 79, two -bedrooms, two baths; 46 -- City of Miami Pagel Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Board Member Carollo: Hold on. Thirty-three -- these are 49 units at 60 percent AMI. Mr. Plonskier: I'm sorry. We're looking now at all of the units. It's currently our expectation that at least for the first 15 years that all of the units will be affordable at 60 percent or below. Board Member Suarez: That's what I was going to say. Mr. Plonskier: Yeah. Board Member Suarez: Otherwise, you can't have -- Mr. Plonskier: We can't use the tax credit. Board Member Suarez: -- you can't use the tax credit program. Mr. Plonskier: Exactly. Board Member Suarez: That's why I was confused when -- Mr. Plonskier: So the expect -- Board Member Suarez: -- we started talking about 120 percent AMI. That didn't make sense. Mr. Plonskier: Yeah, exactly. The -- so the expectation is that for the first 15 years after the units are first occupied, they'll remain affordable at 60 percent or below. After 15 years, then they can move. Board Member Carollo: So for the first 15 years, all units will be at 60 percent AMI? Mr. Plonskier: That's correct. Board Member Suarez: Or below. Board Member Carollo: Okay. Mr. Plonskier: That's correct. Board Member Carollo: And all the units will be at 60 percent AMI. How many are three bedrooms, two bedrooms, and one? And I'm sorry, the total amount of units is how --? Mr. Plonskier: One -fifty-eight. Board Member Carollo: One -fifty-eight. And from there, how many three -bedrooms, two -bedrooms, and one? Mr. Plonskier: Forty-six threes; 79 twos; 33 ones. Mr. Bloom: To clarify more, the percentages of the units -- the agreement provides for 26 percent of the one -bedroom units -- to be one -bedroom units. Of that 26 percent of the 49 units that are going to be below -- at or below 60 percent AMI, 26 percent of those units would be one -bedroom units and not less than 28 percent of those units would be three -bedroom units. Board Member Suarez: And he's actually giving the actual numbers. Mr. Woods: Mm-hmm. City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Board Member Suarez: The number of units. Mr. Woods: Correct. Vice Chair Gort: This is also -- Board Member Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) agreement? Vice Chair Gort: -- required by the County? Mr. Woods: Yeah, that's -- Board Member Carollo: Are you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) agreement, 'cause -- Mr. Woods: -- per the agreement. That's per the agreement. Board Member Carollo: -- there's been a lot of moving parts here and -- which I don't know we've had really too much time to see all these moving parts, and I'm even seeing -- are you guys in agreement? Because -- Mr. Woods: Yeah. Board Member Carollo: I don't have anything further, at least not for right now. Board Member Suarez: Let me just -- can I just interject real quick? Because I think he made a good point and Commissioner Carollo made a good point, you know, and I think the Chair and I have had this discussion before, too. We -- the tax credit program, in my opinion, is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's what we have to deal with in terms of what the state is providing financing through. So, you know, I agree with -- I kind of agree with -- I think -- where I think you were going with some of the sentiment -- and I think we can do better from our perspective with where you're going so -- but also, I'm glad you clarified, because I think there was almost a misperception that you were going to build this building and for the first -- you know, it's important to note that it is an affordable housing building for the first 15 years that otherwise wouldn't be able to get tax credit financing from the state. Chair Spence -Jones: All right, do we have -- did we have a motion and a second on this? Oh, we did. Board Member Suarez: I moved it. Chair Spence -Jones: So we had a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Vice Chair Gort: Aye. Board Member Sarnoff Aye. Board Member Carollo: No. Board Member Suarez: Aye. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay, this item passes. 2 CRA RESOLUTION 13-00988 City of Miami Page Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA"), WITH ATTACH MENT(S); APPROVING OVERTOWN GATEWAY PARTNERS, LLC ("OVERTOWN GATEWAY") AS THE DEVELOPER FOR BLOCK 45 AND ALL ABOARD FLORIDA-STATION, LLC ("ALL ABOARD") AS THE DEVELOPER FOR BLOCK 56 AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED VARIANCES; DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH OVERTOWN GATEWAY WITH RESPECT TO BLOCK 45 AND NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ALL ABOARD FOR BLOCK 56 IF OVERTOWN GATEWAY AND ALL ABOARD ARE APPROVED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; AND CLARIFYING THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN AWARD OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR TO OTHERWISE CREATE ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER IN OVERTOWN GATEWAY OR ALL ABOARD. File # 13-00988 Cover Memo.pdf File # 13-00988 Backup.pdf File # 13-00988 Legislation.pdf 13-00988-Submittal-Overtown Community Development Foundation Synopsis.pdf File # 13-00988 Signed Legislation.pdf File # 13-00988 ExhibitA.pdf Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Vice -Chair Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Chair Spence -Jones, Vice Chair Gort, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Sarnoff Noes: Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-1 3-0054 Chair Spence -Jones: So we're going to move to Resolution Number 2, but before we get into Resolution 2, I want to kind of put a few things on the record first, and then I think we've also come up with some additional resolutions, based upon our break. So let me just first start in not only speaking to my fellow Board Members, but also speaking to the community, 'cause I think it's important that we're all on the same page with this. First of all, I want to state that this is another historic occasion for Overtown. You know, we have been working very hard over these last eight years to really, really get some things done, and one of the historic occasions -- on one of the occasions, we just finished or we're in the midst of doing was led by my Vice Chair, Chairman Gort, which is the bond issuance that for the first time in O.T. (Overtown), we're going to have -- in a long time -- some major projects happening. So we were able to accomplish that and move that forward, and hopefully, by the end of the year, the beginning of next year, we'll be breaking ground. So that was one of the major accomplishments that has taken a very long time to get done in O. T., so I want to thank Vice Chair Gort for making that happen. The last blocks -- and these are the -- we're talking about the major blocks that are left in O.T. -- that, you know, we have been trying to get something happening on these blocks for almost more than 20 years. I know that at one time or the other when I first got in office, one of the major projects that was associated with these blocks that I actually inherited was the Crosswinds blocks, and as you know, those projects actually did not happen; for whatever reason, it just did not happen. So I believe it was 2007/2008 -- it's been about five years, us going back and forth regarding these particular blocks, which are the last big blocks that are left in O.T., making sure -- trying to figure out a way to make sure that those projects get -- something gets developed on those blocks, because the reality was we were back and forth with the County on litigation. It wasn't land that we outright owned, and it was actually being reverted back to the County if we didn't produce something on those lots. But thanks to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Administration and our attorney's office and our hired counsel, we were able to at least come up City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 11/14, 2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 with some sort of agreement with Miami -Dade County to kind of get these things done. Now, recognizing -- and that's why I want to remind my fellow Commissioners, even with us getting a "yes" to move forward and to having agreement -- having an agreement with the County, we had a very small window to make it happen. And the last project that you just heard of, which is kind of going to be a combination of tax credit -related projects and whatever monies we put in, when you have a very short, tight window like that and you don't really know when the funding sources are going to actually come through the state, it's very difficult to get a project built. So you really have to have the financing in order to make major projects happen, because we're not clear whether or not it's going to happen or the money's going to be available through the state. So the County already kind of had us in a box. We only had a certain window to make this stuff happen. So I wanted to kind of clear up this, you know, thought of us rushing the process when, quite frankly, this is something that's been -- and I know we've been working on it for almost eight years trying to get something done, and I think it was clear for me to clear up on. So this is the last and final blocks that we have to really, really see something major happen in O.T. Now, on the RFP (Request for Proposals), these are the last few lots that we just completed in our RFP process. I have to say that there has been much that has happened with this RFP process that, quite frankly, I'm not pleased or not happy or not comfortable with at all, and I'm going to say, not from the standpoint of the process, because I believe that the process from the standpoint of what we created worked, but just kind of everything that happened in between. I stayed away from the process 'cause I know people on both sides. I love both projects. I think that both projects are great for the community, and I just thought that it was important for me not to weigh in on it one way or the other, so I stayed away from the process. But I do want to say I met with both groups prior to, you know, the RFP going out, and I was very clear of how important it was to make sure that key things were done in the community, that they connected with key people in the community before they put their RFPs together, and I think both of them had an opportunity to do that. But I do want to outline to my fellow Commissioners, 'cause there's a lot of rumors and a lot of stuff that's floating around the process, and my opinion about this, and, you know, how we're handling both projects or both bidders. I want you guys to be very clear of what my concern was, okay? My major concern in all of this was fairness from day one, okay? Eight years -- and I stated this on the record at our community hearing. I stated on the record, in the eight years that I've ever -- I've been in the CRA as the Chair, I have never ever -- I did not recall, and even asked our counsel at the time if he recalled us ever negotiating with bidder 1 and bidder 2; just never happened. And I had a concern about that. Because I don't want to start doing something differently if -- who bidder number 1 turns out to be and we're not happy with bidder number 1. I had a concern with that. So when I asked the question, "Have we ever done this before?" 'cause I don't recall it ever happening, it was communicated to me that it had not ever happened. And when I asked the question, "Then why is it happening now?" then the response was, `I don't know." So that caused the first alarm for me. It's like, well, why are we doing something different? First of all, I would never want to be in a position where we're making the decision, and then in the middle of the game, we change the game. You just can't -- that's not right. Even though, you know, I might think bidder number 2 is a better project, you know, the reality is if bidder number 1 was the first person that was selected then what we've always did first was we negotiated with bidder number 1. That's the fair process to me. So I put that on the record; and I thought, for my constituents, it was important for me to state. The other thing -- and I'm just keeping it all out in the open -- that was brought to my attention that really, really bothered me, it was stated to staff -- and I'm not saying which staff but I am going to put it on the record, 'cause I feel it's important to say. We all know I'm leaving in three months. But any time someone says to a staff member if, you know -- or a staff member is threatened in any way about a decision that's going to be made, I'm -- I become extremely alarmed with that, because we -- as Commissioners and as elected officials, we should never weigh in on that process. We should respect the process, and we should follow the process. Whether or not I'm here or not, that should never be stated to any employee of the City of Miami, `If a selection is not made, then there's going to be some changes." So I'm putting it all out in the open, 'cause we cannot -- we should not ever operate in that vein. So that was the other reason why you saw me very concerned about this process. It should not be based upon whose staff here. It should City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 be based upon what project is best for the district; very concerned about it. The third thing that really bothered me in this process is the division that it has created in 0.T. You don't understand how hard it's been to pull this community together, and to see a big project or big projects coming into the neighborhood and see divisions happening between one side of the community and the other side of the community, it, to me, is horrible. It's like everything that we work hard to do to bring people together, one project has, it seems as though, brought us apart. And whether or not, you know, you're for one thing or you're with the other thing or you're getting paid by one group or not getting paid by the other group, I really don't care anything about that. I only care about doing what's right. And I don't care if I'm the only person being hung on the cross to do what's right, I'm going to do what's right. I don't care ifI have friends on the left side or friends on the right side. If it's not right, I ain't participating in it. So for me, that was my concern. My concern was now you're creating a problem in my community, in 0.T. You're creating division when it's not necessary. So I want my fellow Commissioners to know my suggestion in that hearing after listening to both sides -- because my main objective was, one, to respect the RFP process, which if number 1 came in, we should respect it. The other part of it was ifI would have had a community hearing and the community came back and said, "You know what? We don't like bidder number 1 " or "We don't like bidder number 2, " then I'm taking community input. I've done this in every project that we have in Overtown, especially the $50 million related projects that we have going on. We always have the process. We always tell developers to come out and say, okay, present your projects. If any of the community residents or business owners have a concern, they can put it on the record, so when you get ready to negotiate your deal, those key issues are included. What I requested to do or have done was normal for us, because to me, I respect what the people want to see happening in their area. So that wasn't an unusual process. So that was the second part of that. That was RFP process, bidder number 1 came in -- I'm not going to say "first" 'cause I offended folks the last time. They were chosen. They were the top bidders. The second part of this process was the community input, which we had last week in the hearing, and it was obvious that, of course, bidder number 1, from the community's perspective, it seemed as though they got more support on the project. So here I'm going with an RFP process, with a bidder number 1, and then I'm also going with community input where the majority in the -- people in the room said that they like bidder number 1 or they supported bidder number 1. So these are all the things I'm weighing. It's not just my decision. It's looking at everything that's going on along with it. So at the end of the hearing, I simply put on the record, based upon my conversations with the committee that we selected to make the decisions and choices, after I called one of the board members or the committee members and asked her what she thought after having -- and I can say her name at this point -- Pat Brenan, which has been in this business for more 30 years doing housing and financing. I picked up the phone before the meeting and asked her, and she made a recommendation. "Commissioner, here's a solution to your issue. Figure out a way -- first of all, remove staff from the process. Allow for the two to at least communicate, and they figure out how to work it out. " And I understand that there were some concerns about that, but at the end of the day, I know that we have in the past have worked or found ways, creative solutions for both projects to work, 'cause quite frankly, I think that both projects are great projects. I love the idea of the jobs that are going to come from the train. I love the idea of us now having additional affordable and workforce housing happening in the area. I love the idea of both projects focusing on small businesses, and I love the idea of the projects being culturally and historically sensitive to the community. So they both met. Now, some of them stated in their RFP - - you know, submitted certain things, but when it got down to negotiating, the deal changed, changed significantly. But that's not what you submitted, and that's fine. But the reality is what can we do together -- and that was my recommendation, and I'm saying this to my fellow Commissioners -- what can we do to really satisfy both groups and to satisfy the community, which was the most important thing? So from that meeting -- and I just want to be clear -- I am - - regardless of what happens in today's meeting, there's one thing that I know is extremely important that happens is that I do want to make sure that there is an advisory -- a community advisory board that's put in place that's going to act as a monitoring group that would include the City Attorney, that would include our CRA attorney, and members from three groups that I City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 know have been actively involved in keeping O.T. intact. One is definitely the four historic churches that have come together, because we know the bedrock of O.T. are its churches, and I don't know where they are, but I'm sure they're in the room. Wherever they are, if they could just stand so I could be very clear and see them? Where are they? My Historic Mount Sinai, Greater -- St. Agnes? Okay, great, all right. So we want to make sure that as a part of this committee -- I believe they have an organization -- right, Father Barry, now? -- an organization that all of them work kind of somewhat together. I believe Daryl is the person that works along with them. I want to make sure that Daryl and that group, Father, are a part of what actually happens, 'cause we can state a lot of things on the record, but it needs to be monitored, and we need to make sure if there is a community -- or there will be a community benefit agreement, there's a group that's making sure that that happens. The second part of this that came out of it was the business association, okay? Can you stand so we can --? We need to make sure that the business association is also very much a part of all of the small businesses that are there and all of the small businesses that will come, and I think we have some other businesses in the room, as well. If you're here, stand up where you are. We want to make sure that they are also represented and a part of what's happening in O.T. And then -- thank you. And last, but not least, on this advisory board, to make sure that we don't break -- we don't make or break promises is HOFDIA (Historic Overtown Folklife District Improvement Association) , which is the Black Archives -- where is? I also saw my -- where is the ILA (International Longshoremen's Association)? Where is --? Okay. All the HOFDIA members, please stand up for a minute so I see y'all and y'all clear. I don't know where Dorothy Fields is. Okay. So -- thank you. I want to make sure that there is at least one representative that would be a part of this community advisory board for this major transformational project to make sure that there is not only once there are agreements made, that the builders actually do what they say that they're going to do. So in closing on this, I want to say this: I asked for Bill and I asked for Maria to once again -- because I was told by counsel, you know, after sitting down and trying to work through this the very next day after the hearing -- 'cause I was really disappointed, and I was really hurt by what came out of that meeting, really. And my solution was to try to have a conversation or meeting with both groups the next day; didn't really go anywhere. As a matter of fact, it seemed as though there was so much angst between both of them that we were not able to come with a resolution. I was advised that that was not possible, but I found out from my counsel that it is possible for us to have a solution between both groups. So at this point, I just want to be clear -- and I'm going to ask from my fellow Commissioners -- because the issue for us is that we cannot wait. We cannot wait to put out another proposal and lose another five years trying to figure out what's going to happen. We are at the point where we can really have projects move or the project moves in a big way. We have to vote on this issue or the County has to vote. This issue has to be in front of the County by September the 16, is it? We have to have it done by the 16th. William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): We have to make a decision by the 16th, which means you have to make your decision today, and then we have five days to transmit that decision to the County for them to start their process. Chair Spence -Jones: Right. So we want to make sure that it's still moving along. So what I am requesting today -- first of all, the both developers, the main people, can they please stand, come into the mike; the main developers. I don't need all of them, just the main, main folks. All right. So what I have asked during my lunch break, which I haven't eaten as of yet, was that these gentlemen find a creative way to work together to figure out what we can do on these lots, and to my understanding on -- during my break, they were able to come up with -- they're still working it out -- a positive solution for both. By a nodding of the head -- I want to be clear, and I would like for my City Attorney to be very clear so that she can advise me -- not outside, other counsel, Al -- that this can be done, okay? So before we say that, Maria, can you please officially put it on the record? Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): Yes. This proposer -- this proposal went out. He sought responses. You received responses and your evaluation can accept as many of the City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 proposers as you wish, and all, none, or some of the proposals that were submitted. So if it is this Board's desire to accept some or a part of the proposals submitted by two of the submitters, then this Board can do that, and the response can be fashioned in a way to accept, as I said, all, some, or none of the proposers. If the proposers are willing to fashion a response -- fashion a submittal that makes a cohesive response that this Board is willing to accept, then that would be equal to accepting proposer "X" and proposer "Y, " so you may do that which you described. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. So what I'm saying to my fellow Commissioners so we're all on the same page, this is really about two major lots -- blocks. I believe Block 45 -- let me make sure I'm saying it right. It's all these different blocks -- and 56. Of course I'm not going to ask two people to marry each other if they don't love each other, so we're not asking them to get married because, obviously, they'll be divorced in less than -- we'll be annulling the marriage. But what we are asking is for them, as gentlemen -- The people in O.T. have waited too long. This is a golden opportunity for us to do wonderful and amazing things. I'm asking for you, as gentlemen, to at least take this time -- we are going to adjourn the meeting -- not adjourn it. What's the right word, Marc? Recess. Board Member Sarnoff.- Recess. Vice Chair Gort: Recess. Chair Spence -Jones: Recess the meeting and come back with something that we can all be proud of for O.T., and we will bring it back as a resolution and vote on it today so that the County will officially, you know, have the item in front of them. And I want to say this, guys: You know, I can't -- we can't afford to have the community fighting against each other. There's got to be a better way. And the number of phone calls that I've received and -- just about this situation has been horrible. And I think that this is a positive solution for both sides. I know that both sides wants to do the right thing, and if we can sit down and work through it, I would greatly appreciate it. The people of O.T. would greatly appreciate it. So I'm going to ask for one person from each group to at least officially put something on the record, and we're going to adjourn [sic] the meeting for -- some of you guys say you only need 30 minutes, but I'm going to give you longer than 30 minutes -- Vice Chair Gort: Recess. Chair Spence -Jones: Recess, I'm sorry. Longer than 30 minutes. But don't rush to the mike too fast. Michael Reininger: Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Sure. And I want to say this about this -- I don't want to call you "this guy," but this wonderful guy. And for those that don't know him, we had an opportunity to meet prior to this RFP going out, and I want us to understand in O.T. that we have the -- so many wonderful, talented people that are attached to both projects that we're going to be able to do some amazing things with. And we sat down and had lunch prior to all of this stuff going out, and just the things that he's created and done with Walt Disney, I mean, just in Dallas, just amazing things that -- did I -- is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) city? Mr. Reininger: Denver. Chair Spence -Jones: Denver. I'm sorry. Denver. I mean, that's just going to be so valuable for O.T., you know, and I just really want to make sure that those resources reach out to the people that are in the surrounding area. And with that being said, you can go ahead. Mr. Reininger: I think I can -- what I can say is fairly succinct, which is for a little over a year City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 now, we've had perspective and a point of view about a major project that was an infrastructure backbone that we think has the opportunity to change Overtown and downtown Miami in a way that perhaps it's never been affected as positively in the past. It's always been our intention to make sure that we do that in a way that is completely inclusive and provides connectivity of all sorts -- social connectivity, physical connectivity, economic connectivity. So per your request, I'd be happy to get in a room and see if we can maintain the component parts of what we think is important to realize that vision in any way that we can. So we'd be happy to entertain the opportunity to see if we can get that worked out. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you. Your name on the record, I'm sorry. Mr. Reininger: I'm sorry. My name is Mike Reininger. I'm the president and chief development officer for All Aboard Florida. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mike. Mr. Peebles. Don Peebles: Yes. Chair Spence -Jones: And let me just say this, too, okay? Guy -- and I'm going to say this to my fellow Commissioners and to the residents in O.T.: I don't -- I want us to understand how amazing this could be for O.T. You know, it's important to have young boys and young girls growing up in the neighborhoods in which they live in see people that have made it, you know, and to know that, you know, he is -- they're the number -one bidders; that's the reality. They came out as number -one bidders, and they're -- and I just wanted to say to you that we appreciate you having an interest in being in the community and working with the community and also building up young people like Baron that have an interest in doing what you do. So I want to at least also acknowledge you for all the things that you have done, and we look forward to seeing you guys sit down and figure out what makes the best sense for O.T. Mr. Peebles: Great. Well, thank you. Look, I came to Miami -Dade County in 1996, and actually lived in Miami and Coconut Grove when my wife and our young son came here, and we were attracted for a number of reasons. Today happens actually to be my 21st wedding anniversary, but this is an important project. This is the city where I raised my son, who's now a sophomore in college in New York; and my daughter was born. And I think that it is critical. One of the reasons that we're attracted to this project is Overtown needs to have a transformational project done. We think that the train coming down to Miami will be transformational as well, and we certainly want to do everything we can to create an economic engine that hopefully stimulates greater economic activity in Overtown. And a big part of what I stand for and what our company stands for is opportunity. And I'm very proud that Baron Chandler, who's led this development for us, who came to me working for us as an intern in between his first and second year of business school and then ultimately ended up running our development for us throughout the U.S. (United States). And for him to lead this project with us is an astonishing thing, and about what our company stands for, and what should happen here is other residents in Miami who have not gotten an opportunity get to learn and get an opportunity, and so part of our attraction to this development is not only to transform the project, but to create an economic opportunity for young people in Overtown and local small businesses in Overtown that can have an opportunity so that we can start narrowing this income disparity. And so we're willing to sit down and work out anything in reason. We're excited about moving the project forward and are appreciative of the opportunity. Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. Peebles. Name for the record. Mr. Peebles: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Don Peebles. I'm the chairman and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Peebles Corporation. Thank you. City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Chair Spence -Jones: Well, with that being said, my fellow Commissioners, I would like for them to at least take this time, because it's going to be a minute for at least, Bill, them to work out -- I think they've already started it; they just need to kind of tweak it. So we're going to recess. You guys said 30 minutes. I'm going to give you longer than 30 minutes, okay? So I'm going to give you to, let's say, 4:15. We will adjourn -- no. Board Member Suarez: Recess. Chair Spence -Jones: Recess until 4:15. All right, thank you. And I believe Bill is going to -- okay, all right. Board Member Sarnof The City Commission -- Chair Spence -Jones: Can we continue -- Board Member Sarnoff.- Yeah. We're going to take a five-minute recess. We'll re -adjourn and -- Chair Spence -Jones: You want to go right into it? We can. Board Member Sarnoff.- They want to take five minutes. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. What are we picking up when we come back, so I know? Board Member Sarnoff.- We should be taking up the blue page items. Blue pages are left and then -- Vice Chair Gort: Blue pages. Board Member Sarnoff- We might get to the RE (Resolution) pretty quickly. We should have about an hour break. Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman, will the community have opportunity to speak? Chair Spence -Jones: We did the community hearing already. We're already done with the community hearings. Unidentified Speaker: Okay, thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Unidentified Speaker: Because like to put some on the record, definitely about the Commission. His chief of staffs brother is definitely a lobbyist for Gateway. We have to definitely get this on the record. Later... Chair Spence -Jones: Let the other two or one or whoever else is going to attend, just if we could let them know that we're starting. It's going to be pretty quick. I think we came up with a resolution. So I'd like to officially call the meeting back to order for the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA. And I believe we have our -- both City Attorneys that actually -- hired CRA attorney and our City Attorney that actually worked through the details on the agreement or at least what we'll be ending over to the County. So if the two parties that are involved, if they can at least step up to the mike, whoever they are. City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Mr. Bloom: Commissioner, if you want, I'll give a summary of what was discussed. The concept would be that the Overtown Gateway Partners, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) would be the developer of Block 45. They would be constructing on that the 60 affordable units that are required to be built under the County settlement agreement. In addition to that, they'd be building a 150-room hotel. They'd be constructing some office space and additional market rate residential units with a ground floor commercial liner. On Block 56, All Aboard Florida would be developing a, again, ground floor retail liner. They would be building approximately 80 to 90,000 square feet of office space. They would be building no residential on that block and parking, and in between the two blocks, Sawyer's Walk would be a -- which is Northwest 7th Street -- pedestrian walkway that would be developed in a common scheme to coordinate the two projects. They agreed that in lieu of making the rent -- the project payments required under the development agreement, they would both ask for a variance to make a total payment of $5.5 million; half to the County, half to the CRA, with each developer paying half of that amount. In addition, each developer would make a annual contribution of $125, 000 for ten years to a community benefits trust to be administered and benefit the Southeast Overtown/Park West. It's 125,000 per developer, so a total of 250,000 per year; a grand total of $2.5 million. They would both ask for variances. The County required 24 months to build each project from the commencement of construction. They're both asking for a variance of 36 months due to the complexity and size of the projects. All residential units in excess of 60 could be market rate units. A default in Block 45 would not be a default in Block 56 and a default in Block 56 would not be a default in Block 45. There'd be no reversion of title once each project started, but if they didn't finish it within the agreed upon time frame, they'd pay each, County and the CRA, a penalty of $2,500 per day for each day until the project is completed. They would make a payment in lieu of providing the indemnity contemplated by the settlement agreement. Block 45 would be responsible for satisfying the affordable housing requirements; and if either party terminates during the investigation period, which would be 60 days, then the CRA would issue a new RFP with respect to that block. As far as parkway -- Board Member Sarnof Wait, I have a question on that. I don't mean to interrupt, but why is there a 60-day investigation period? Mr. Bloom: That -- to do with environmental and check title, things like that. The developers had asked for, you know, a longer period of time, and in the course of our discussions, we had agreed on -- Board Member Sarnof You answered the question. I didn't know why there was -- Mr. Bloom: In addition, the settlement, to help reach agreement between the parties, the CRA proposed making a grant of $3 million for -- towards the Block 45 development, which would be utilized for purposes permitted under the redevelopment act; either affordable housing, infrastructure, or a park. Board Member Suarez: I have a question. Chair Spence -Jones: I -- oh, okay. I got -- Board Member Suarez: What's the indemnity payment; how much is it? Mr. Bloom: A half million each. Board Member Suarez: Okay, yeah. There was, yeah. Chair Spence -Jones: I just want to add something really -- I'm sorry. You got (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Board Member Suarez: No, no, go ahead. Chair Spence -Jones: And I -- what we've asked for Bill to do is also take this time to actually put this all in writing, and I would like for you guys to get it -- you know, get the physical document before it actually goes over to the County so that you have a chance to really review it and look at it, as well, before it goes over. Mr. Woods: We're going to read the resolution into the record now. Mr. Bloom: Right. I have a resolution that's prepared. Now, it doesn't -- it covers everything but the $3 million CRA grant which we can deal with separately. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Bloom: Because that's not a UNINTELLIGIBLE for the County, but that's something that we proffered. Chair Spence -Jones: I just -- there's some additional small things that I want to make sure that we can add in this based upon the hearing. First of all, let me say I'm glad to see that you guys were able to sit down and come up with something that makes sense. The first thing that I wanted to make sure, though, was included, 'cause the next step would be, we would -- this would actually be sent over to the County, right? After the resolution is drawn up, it would be sent over to the County and that -- right -- and then after the County votes and approves it, then it comes back to the CRA to actually negotiate a development agreement, correct. Mr. Bloom: That's correct, and that development agreement will encompass the concepts that were raised in the public hearing last week. Chair Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Bloom: It'll also deal with issues like parking that was dealt with in the RFP, and their responses, so all that will be documented including the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Spence -Jones: Right. So what I wanted to be clear on was once this is actually voted and approved from the City side or the CRA side, it goes over to the County, then it comes back to the CRA for the negotiations, the negotiation of the development agreement. But I wanted to make sure that we were clear, 'cause I know from the community hearing, there were a few things that came out of that meeting that we want to make sure are also included in the development agreement. Now, I mentioned several other groups earlier that we wanted to be a part of this advisory group, and I did not -- and I failed to mention -- I don't know if Saliha is still here, but they have put together a entire group to focus on youth -related issues, and I know that you guys have already been working with them. I just want to make sure that I include that in there, as well. And then I know that it was also mentioned to me around the issues of environmentals. Even though that's all in the public hearing, I would like for both groups to make sure from the public hearing that we had last week, those issues and concerns that came from the residents and the business owners and the stakeholders are also included in the negotiations for the development agreement. So with that being said, I just wanted to make sure that we put that in order. And I do know that they're two different projects, but what I have asked for the Administration to do is to make sure that whatever you guys create on those two blocks, that they are culturally sensitive to the area, tie into the historical significance of Overtown as you guys begin to create, working along with the Planning & Zoning Department in the City of Miami. So I believe Gregory Gay is the person that has been heading up that effort. I'd like to just submit this, too, in the record really fast, though. This is from the Overtown residents and the organizations that are part of O.T. Sorry. And these are -- this is all of the historic -based organizations. I just want to submit this into the record to make sure as the CRA director and City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 our attorney sit down to communicate and negotiate the overall deal, that these things are also included as a part of the overall agreement. So I just wanted to officially submit it in the record, and these are the same things that we talked about before. So with that being said, do we have a motion and a second on this item? Vice Chair Gort: You got to read (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Bloom: Let's -- Chair Spence -Jones: You got to read it into the record. Unidentified Speaker: He's got to read the resolution. Mr. Bloom: Okay. Unidentified Speaker: You have to read the resolution. Mr. Bloom: A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Development Agency, with attachments, approving Overtown Gateway Partners, LLC as the developer for Block 45 and All Aboard Florida -Station, LLC as the developer for Block 56, and approving the proposed variances; directing the executive director to attempt to negotiate a development agreement with Overtown Gateway with respect to Block 45 and All Aboard Florida with respect to Block 56,- clarEying that this resolution is not intended to be an award of development rights or otherwise create any development rights in Overtown Gateway or All Aboard Florida. Board Member Suarez: So move. Vice Chair Gort: Second. Mr. Bloom: Now the variance -- let me -- again, the variances were -- Vice Chair Gort: Do it again. Mr. Bloom: -- what I previously read into the record, the -- making project payments -- in lieu of making the project payments, it's a lump -sum payment of $5.5 million to be paid one half by each developer; the community benefits totaling two million -- Board Member Suarez: Wait, wait, wait. Can you stop? On the first one, that's the expected revenue front -loaded, right? That's the expected revenue -- Mr. Bloom: That's correct. Board Member Suarez: -- present valued -- Mr. Bloom: Yes, sir. Board Member Suarez: -- and paid up front. Mr. Bloom: That's correct. Board Member Suarez: So the City's going to get a five and a half -- I'm sorry. Chair Spence -Jones: CRA. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Board Member Suarez: The CRA is going to get a five and a half million dollar up -front payment. Mr. Bloom: The CRA would get one half of that. The County would get one half of that. Board Member Suarez: Understood correct. My apologies. But that was always going to happen that way. Mr. Bloom: Correct. The community benefits totaling $2.5 million would just go to the benefit of -- within the redevelopment area. Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Bloom: All right. Extending the time for the completion dates from a 24-month time period that the County has proposed to 36 months 'cause of the size and complexities of these projects. Board Member Suarez: That's going to have to be approved by the County, correct? Unidentified Speaker: It has to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Board Member Suarez: Yes. Mr. Bloom: All these variances must be approved by the County -- Board Member Suarez: Understood. Mr. Bloom: -- asking that the County and the CRA agree to give estoppel letters in connection with the declaration -- Board Member Suarez: And that's 36 months for completion or for start? Mr. Bloom: Thirty-six months from the start of construction to complete construction. Board Member Suarez: Got it. Mr. Bloom: Okay? Requiring that only 60 units have to be affordable housing. Board Member Suarez: On each block? Mr. Bloom: No. Sixty total. Board Member Suarez: Total. Mr. Bloom: Anything over 60 can be market rate units. The 60 affordable units will be constructed on Block 45. Board Member Suarez: Understood. Mr. Bloom: Okay? Again, the payment of $1 million in lieu of making the indemnity agreement, 500 from each developer -- 500, 000 from each developer; claring that once they start construction, title will not revert, but if they don't timely complete construction, they'll pay to each, the County and the CRA, a penalty of $2,500 per day from the outside date until the -- each project is completed; providing that a default with respect to one block isn't a default with respect to the other block and -- City of Miami Page20 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 Board Member Suarez: You're saying -- I'm sorry. Just to go back to the reverter, you're saying it would not revert either back to the County or the CRA or --? Mr. Bloom: Right. Once they start construction, they got to finish construction. Title doesn't revert, but they would have to pay a penalty of $2,500 per day to the County and to the CRA if they don't complete construction within the agreed time frame. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bloom: So in essence, they're paying for the land with the upfront payment. Board Member Suarez: Right, right. Mr. Bloom: With the rent payments before, there would be an acceleration of rent if they didn't mean the deadline, so here we're imposing a financial penalty of $2,500 per day or $5, 000 per day if they're late, as liquidated damages. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bloom: So there's an incentive for them to finish, okay? And then to the extent either one of these parties terminates during the inspection period, that the CRA would issue a new RFP. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Chair Spence -Jones: And just -- attorney is telling me that I need to make sure that the two -- at least two of you guys are on the record -- Rafael, just make sure we're clear. Rafael Suarez -Rivas (Assistant City Attorney): Just like, for the record, each of the principals for the developer to please state that they're in concurrence with the statements that were made. Mr. Reininger: We do consent. We are in concurrence with the statements. Board Member Sarnoff. Wait, wait, wait. State your name -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Please state your name. Mr. Reininger: I'm sorry. My name is Mike Reininger. I'm the president of All Aboard Florida, and we consent. Board Member Sarnoff.- A Florida corporation, right? Mr. Reininger: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff- And you have authorization -- Mr. Reininger: No. Yeah, it's a Delaware LLC. Board Member Sarnoff- A Delaware corporation. Mr. Reininger: Yes. Board Member Sarnoff- And you have authorization from your board of directors to enter into the subject settlement agreement as stated on the record? Mr. Reininger: Yes, that's correct. City of Miami Page21 Printed on 11/14/2013 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes September 12, 2013 ADJOURNMENT Board Member Sarnoff.- There you go. Mr. Peebles: Don Peebles on behalf of Overtown Gateway Partners, LLC, a Florida LLC. We consent. Board Member Sarnoff.- And you have authorization from your board of directors to enter into the settlement as stated on the record, which you've heard clearly? Mr. Peebles: I do. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay, with that -- Mr. Bloom: One clarification: That, you know, the executive director has 90 days to negotiate this. Given all the comments, we think it's appropriate that the final development agreement be submitted to the Board of Commissioners, to the CRA for final approval so there's no misunderstanding what the final deal is with these developers, but it all has to be done and approved within the 90-day period. Board Member Suarez: That's fine. Chair Spence -Jones: And the only thing that I would want to add -- I know we had a motion and a second, and we have agreement on the record. I would like to make sure, just as we had the community hearing to hear and see both projects, we would like -- I will not be here -- I would like to make sure that there is another community hearing to show both projects in the end so that everybody knows what's actually happening before we move forward. So I just wanted to make sure that would be included in it, as well. So after you negotiate and you put together the deal, we just want to officially present, this is what's happening on these historic blocks, all right? Mr. Woods: We can do that. Chair Spence -Jones: With that being said, we had a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." Vice Chair Gort: Aye. Board Member Sarnoff.- Aye. Board Member Suarez: Aye. Board Member Carollo: No. Chair Spence -Jones: all right, this item passes, and we -- Mr. Woods: As amended. Chair Spence -Jones: As amended, this item passes. And we officially adjourn the CRA meeting. Board Member Suarez: Thank you. Board Member Sarnoff- Okay, we're going to open up the BH (Budget Hearing). I'm going to take a five minute quick recess so you can all change places, get comfortable The meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. City of Miami Page22 Printed on 11/14/2013