The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEOPW CRA 2015-12-14-MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com e/ '' ime9RP aRaii: ie AO -, Meeting Minutes Monday, December 14, 2015 5:00 PM Camillus House 1603 NW 7th Ave., Bldg. B Miami, FL 33136 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Keon Hardemon, Chair Wifredo (Wily) Gort, Vice Chair Ken Russell, Commissioner Frank Carollo, Commissioner Francis Suarez, Commissioner SEOPW CRA OFFICE ADDRESS: 819 NW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33136 Phone: (305) 679-6800, Fax: (305) 679-6835 www.miamicra.com SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Present: Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Carollo, Vice Chair Gort, Chair Hardemon and Commissioner Russell On the 14th day of September 2015, the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency of the City ofMiami met in regular session at Camillus House, 1603 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 5:20 p.m., and was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Suarez entered the meeting at 5: 32 p.m. and Commissioner Carollo entered the meeting at 5: 55 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Clarence E. Woods, Executive Director, CRA William Bloom, Special Counsel, CRA Renee A. Jadusingh, Staff Counsel, CRA Barnaby Min, Deputy General Counsel Todd B. Hannon, Clerk of the Board APPROVING MINUTES Motion by Vice -Chair Gort, seconded by Board Member Russell, to APPROVE PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Commissioner Russell, Chair Hardemon and Vice Chair Gort Absent: Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Carollo Chair Hardemon: (INAUDIBLE) make one announcement. Camillus House is having Christmas carols with seraphic fire at Camillus House today - tonight, rather; it's from 6: 30 to 7: 30 p.m. in the courtyard, and refreshments will be served, so if you feel that you want to celebrate some holiday cheer with some of the residents of Camillus House, please go downstairs and visit them, but I'd like to call this meeting to order at 5: 20 p. m. This is the December 14, 2015 Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting. Are there minutes to be approved from the regular meeting of September 30, 2015? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, Chair, the regular meeting minutes from September 30, 2015. Chair Hardemon: And before -- Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: -- we have the moving and acceptance, I'd like the record to reflect the presence of myself the Chairman, Commissioner Keon Hardemon; Commissioner Ken Russell; and also, Commissioner Wfredo Gort. And so is there a motion? Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Board Member Russell: Yes, second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 30, 2015. Any unreadiness? Hearing none, motion passes. RESOLUTIONS 1. CRA RESOLUTION City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 15-01609 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA"), WITH ATTACHMENT(S); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CRA TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT (THE "DECLARATION AMENDMENT) WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (THE "COUNTY") TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 28631, AT PAGE 1277 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO BLOCK 36, AS AMENDED (THE "BLOCK 36 DECLARATION"), TO GRANT THE DEVELOPER AS DEFINED IN THE BLOCK 36 DECLARATION THE OPTION OF MAKING A LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO THE CRA IN THE AMOUNT OF $785,421.25 AND A LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $785,421.25 IN LIEU OF THE DEVELOPER MAKING THE PAYMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 17 OF THE BLOCK 36 DECLARATION, WHICH PAYMENTS WILL INCREASE PROPORTIONATELY IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXCEEDS 63,250 SQUARE FEET (I.E., IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXCEEDS 63,250 SQUARE FEET BY 10% THE PAYMENTS DUE TO EACH OF THE CRA AND THE COUNTY SHALL INCREASE BY 10%) AND A LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $395,636.00 IN LIEU OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS PAYMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY THE BLOCK 36 DECLARATION WHICH LUMP SUM PAYMENTS WILL BE DUE ON THE DATE THE CRA CONVEYS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LYRIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (THE "DEVELOPER") AND THE CRA DATED DECEMBER 17, 2012, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW FOR THE CORRESPONDING OPTION TO MAKE THE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS TO THE CRA AND THE COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE DECLARATION AMENDMENT. File # 15-01609 Cover Memo.pdf File # 15-01609 Backup.pdf File # 15-01609 Legislation.pdf File # 15-01609 Legislation v2.pdf File # 15-01609 Exhibit SUB.pdf Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Board Member Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Commissioner Russell, Chair Hardemon, Commissioner Suarez, Vice Chair Gort and Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-1 5-0054 Chair Hardemon: Moving on now to RE.1, Mr. Woods. Clarence Woods, III (Executive Director, Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency): Commissioners, Resolution Number 1 is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency, with attachments, authorizing the executive director of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to enter into an amendment to the - well, the declaration amendment with Miami -Dade County to the declaration of restrictions recorded in Official Records, Book 28631 at Page 1277 of the Public Records ofMiami-Dade County, with respect to Block 36, as amended, the Block 36 City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Declaration, to grant the developer, as defined in the Block 36Declaration, the option of making a lump sum payment to the CRA in the amount of $682,975, and a lump sum payment to the County in the amount of $1, 078, 611, on the date the CRA conveys the title to the property to the developer in lieu of the developer making the payments contemplated by Section 17 of the Block 36Declaration, and in lieu of the community benefits payments contemplated by the Block 36 Declaration, if approved by the County; and authorizing the executive director to enter into an amendment to the Development Agreement by and between Lyric Development, T,T C (Limited Liability Company) (INAUDIBLE). Al Crespo: (INAUDIBLE) the land shall be binding on the CRA and its successors and assigns having an interest in the property. This declaration is for the benefit of and limitation upon all present and future owners of the property, and for the benefit of the County and the CRA. 14th term: The declaration is to run with the land for a period of 30 years and shall be automatically extended for an additional ten-year period until the payment of the last project payment pursuant to 17 have been paid by the developer. So I read that to say that this payment, this advance payment nullifies 13 and 14, because if the covenant is only going to be in play as long as there's money owed by the developer to the CRA, if they are paying you off now, then this covenant is dead. So that raises the question of whether or not this developer, once he pays this obligation off is then entitled to flip the property or do any other thing he wishes to do with the property, without the ability of the CRA or anybody else in the public arena from having a say or being included in the information on this. So that's my question. I'm sure you've got able counsel here who's going to leap to (INAUDIBLE). William Bloom (Special Counsel to the CRA): (INAUDIBLE) Development Agreement between Lyric, LLC -- Chair Hardemon: Can you announce your name for the record, please? Mr. Bloom: William R. Bloom, special counsel to the CRA. In the Development Agreement between the developer, and Lyric Development, and the CRA, there will be a Declaration of Restrictions requiring the developer to develop the property in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the CRA, the executive director. So that will be binding upon the developer; notwithstanding the fact that if he makes prepayment, the Declaration of Restrictions between the County and the CRA will be of no further force and effect; in other words, the CRA will get its bargain -- in addition to the payments, the development will be in accordance with the plans that were approved by the executive director. Chair Hardemon: On Section 14, where it says, "term," the way thatl read it, it says that this declaration shall run for a period of 30 years. No matter if there's a prepayment or not, that 30 years applies, but it does say, And shall be automatically extended for an additional 10 year period until the payment of the last project payment, pursuant to Section 17, has been paid by the developer." So the way that I'm reading this is that the extension periods are what will be -- or what are subject to end (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Bloom: I think, Commissioner -- again, I didn't anticipate this issue would come up, but the original declaration was requiring the CRA to come up with a RFP (Request for Proposals) for the selection of the developer; in this case, Gatehouse, since the CRA had previously issued an RFP for the development of this property, and was going through a process between the City -- the CRA and the County as part of a settlement of some litigation, and (INAUDIBLE) be very true that once those final payments are made under this document, there's no requirement for the declaration to continue, because the developer would have been selected, and the payments required would have been made between the County and the CRA. And then the only thing that would remain would be the declaration, outside of this restriction; and the deed, coming from the CRA to the developer, requiring the property to be developed in accordance with the plans and specifications that have been approved by the executive director. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Crespo: Mr. Chairman, a question. Chair Hardemon: I'll allow you to ask one question. Mr. Crespo: Okay, I just -- the question is this: Does this still allow the current developer to sell the property, or do a transfer to some other developer on the supposed promise that they will follow the development guidelines, or the Development Agreement? And what does that mean for the low cost or affordable housing component of this? Because that becomes a critical issue and the purpose of all these deals in Overtown was supposedly predicated on providing affordable, you know, housing for - Chair Hardemon: Not all of them, but -- Mr. Crespo: You know, so I'm just -- Mr. Bloom: This transaction only required -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Mr. Bloom: -- a minimum of 55, 000 square feet of commercial space. There is no affordable housing being built on Block 36. And any declaration or deed restriction running with the land would be binding upon the successor; but, yes, the developer, after they close with the CRA, would have the right to sell the property to another developer. Chair Hardemon: So just to be clear, this Declaration of Restrictions, for the audience -- my question to you is: The Declaration of Restrictions -- well, the new -- the next document, which is the Development Agreement, would allow for the provisions that were included within the Declaration of Restrictions to be satisfied moving forward. Mr. Bloom: Right; in other words, the Development Agreement between the CRA and the developer requires the developer to develop the property in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the executive director, and that will be in the deed from the CRA to the developer, so if the developer then sells the property the next day to someone else, they would have to still comply with that Declaration of Restrictions. Chair Hardemon: The floor is still open for public comments. Is there anyone else that'd like to make a public comment? You're recognized, sir. Ellis Canty: Good evening. My name is Ellis Canty, andl actually really wasn't coming to the meeting tonight, but the Spirit of the Lord brought me here, and I'm just wondering, y'all talking about Block 36. I'm with the International Longshoremen, Local 1416. With Block 36, my concern is about the parking. The parking there, we had some project agreements some years ago with the developer, wherein which they're building out quite a bit. It was also supposed to have been a public parking on that side with the developer that was an agreement with the ILA (International Longshoremen's Association) and with the Lyric Theater, and it seem like it went out the window. Then, also, there was $3 million somewhere with the developer that floated, and the parking still was supposed to have been put over there, where it was a project agreement, before anything went on. I'm asking this: With the agreement, the community agreement that was with the International Longshoremen's and with the Lyric, can you look at it? It's one thing that's bad and sad to say: We're one of the oldest to stay on that corner. These developers came. We done talked to them, and it was agreed that we going to have a parking over there, but some have -- some way, somehow, they got the parking lot moved. The agreement for where I -- 36, we used to park. Now, when Chandler's project -- we all had these agreements with various things. Where are the people from Overtown, and where are the longshoremens going to park? City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 We done sit here, made several agreements with several people in this -- various other rooms and settings, but yet, everyone got their way. We been quiet. Where is -- the way the port is expanding, with the two, three hundred parking spaces, where it's going to be? Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Mr. Canty. Before you answer that question, is there anyone else from the public that'd like to ask a question? Mr. Canty: But the question -- excuse me, I want to be fair with you. Chair Hardemon: Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing section of this meeting. Mr. Woods, can you address the parking. Mr. Woods: Yes. Chair Hardemon: And before you do, I just want the record to reflect the presence of Commissioner Francis Suarez. Mr. Woods: Mr. Canty is right. Initially, when we looked to develop both Blocks 25 and 36, there was an agreement that on Block 36, public parking would be a part of the project. In the years since, we found that the accommodations for the parking would be better situated on the two blocks that we put out, Blocks 45 and 56, because one particular project was going to include a massive amount of parking. There were agreements made that transferred the responsibility for a public parking garage to those two blocks, along with the $3 million that would go towards the building of the parking. That is still in place right now, even as we speak, so the public parking for the Lyric Theater and the longshoremen is slated at this point to be built or be provided between Blocks 45 and 56; it's still at this point. Mr. Canty is right. He's had a -- he's had conversations and actually entered into agreements with both developers on 45 and 56; so 36, with respect to parking for the Lyric Theater and longshoremen, is not a part of this document; at one time, it was, but it's been amended, and at this point, it is not. Chair Hardemon: But the parking will be provided -- Mr. Woods: It is. Chair Hardemon: -- to the longshoremen and to --? Mr. Woods: And we're looking at some other alternatives, as well, that would better situate the parking with that $3 million. Mr. Canty: It's still not addressed. We had an agreement with Gateway; we had agreement with the other two. Chair Hardemon: It appears to be that the agreements were amended. If -- and one thing we can do, because the parking predated my Chairmanship, and the parking -- for me, it was important that the parking remained included in whatever agreements that we have forward, so that the longshoremen have parking that was promised to them. I like to fulfill the promises that are made to the people in my community; that's one of the things that I actually enjoy doing. And so the agreement being amended, though, is something that's outside of the purview of just broken promises. This is a promise, but in another fashion; it is to put somewhere else. So what I'm asking you is -- because for me, I would think that you want parking. That sounds like their concern, but it sounds like you're trying to say you want parking on Block 36, but the agreements have been amended, and they're not providing for parking on Block 36. Mr. Canty: No. What I'm saying is this: Overtown is developing very well. And you know what? Some years ago, we sit up here, the same thing, that development is coming, and everyone City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 is coming with tall buildings, but you know what's going to happen? We're going to be the lesser of individuals, because so many agreements was made, and so many amendments was made, but upfront, before they came, we was supposed to have been in the front door, but apparently, we done slide to the back door. Chair Hardemon: There's no doors in the parking -- Mr. Canty: No. What I'm talking about, the doors; the doors of development, and the doors of understanding, where the little blue collar has a right on that corner, and had some right before to park. When -- which you said you had some agreements or it been some preparations, I yet not had heard a voice in a while. Chair Hardemon: Well, Mr. Canty, at this point, there is no parking -- well, there is no building that is built there on Block 36 yet. There hasn't been development on that site, and so you don't have the parking because -- well, there's parking, you can park there now, but the parking, as I understand it from the agreements, would not be provided on that site. I'm not going to go back and forth with you -- Mr. Canty: No, I'm not going --I'm only standing to say this: It was an agreement with the developer. Chair Hardemon: We're going to continue on, Mr. Canty. I need you to have a seat. Mr. Canty: Thank you, sir. Chair Hardemon: We're going to continue on with our meeting. You will get the parking that's provided to you as an International Longshoremen. It won't be on Block 36, as I understand it today, unless an agreement is amended in the future, but you will receive parking. Vice Chair Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Gort: For the benefit, I think you should discuss the amendments we made and the reasons why the parking was taken out of that project and moved to the other projects. Mr. Woods: It's as I stated earlier. We felt that parking would be better situated on the other blocks, because there is one particular development that is going to have an abundance of parking, and we've reached an agreement that provides parking on the other blocks. Chair Hardemon: Is the other block more -- the other blocks are closer to 3rdAvenue, more into the Overtown community? Mr. Woods: No. It's just south of where Block 36 is, on Block 45 and 56, but again, I'm suggesting that we've even done further inspection to see where we could better situate the parking, and provide it in a much better way for the neighborhood, because it's public parking. The longshoremen nor the Lyric Theater would have exclusive right or use of the parking. It has to be public parking, so we've been back and forth with this idea of finding the best way to be able to provide public parking for everyone in a location that is more accessible to the Lyric Theater and the longshoremen, and we believe we've found that. It's being developed as -- the idea or the concept is being developed even as we speak; which would give them parking, I mean, even sooner than any one of the other projects. Vice Chair Gort: Do we have a developer for those blocks? City ofMiami Pagel Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Woods: Yes. They're -- the developers on Block 45 and 56. Overtown Gateway, as Mr. Canty mentioned, is on Block 45 and All Aboard Florida is on Block 56. Vice Chair Gort: And that's part of the development contract that we have with them? Mr. Woods: Yeah, yes. They both agreed to supply parking for both the Lyric Theater and the longshoremen; they signed agreements. Vice Chair Gort: And the incentive is the additional funds that we're going to give them? Mr. Woods: Yes; that's on Block 45. Chair Hardemon: Who is "they signed the agreements"? Mr. Woods: The longshoremen as well as the Lyric Theater signed agreements with both of those developers, you know, that they would provide the parking. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Canty, I can see you're saying -- Mr. Canty: He can't speak for me. Chair Hardemon: I understand that. You're saying that he can't speak for you. Mr. Canty: No, I have not signed an agreement. Chair Hardemon: You have not -- you may not have signed it. He said the longshoremen. Mr. Canty: The longshoremen -- Chair Hardemon: ButI think that's pretty easy to evidence. Mr. Woods: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: So going back and forth about that is not necessary. Thank you. Mr. Canty: (INAUDIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion? Vice Chair Gort: No. Chair Hardemon: No. No problem. Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Is there a second on RE.1 ? Board Member Suarez: Second for discussion. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded; further discussion. Board Member Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez. City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, you know, I just want to make sure -- clam a couple things. One thingl want to clarify is the discount rate. It's being applied to the annual rent plus the three percent payment, correct? Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: Okay. So you're factoring in the three percent? Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: And then you're discounting it from that? Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: From that amount. And -- Mr. Woods: 4.5 percent. Board Member Suarez: Was there -- I miss -- didl miss something? Because I thinkl was told that I missed something when I wasn't here. Was there anything missed in terms of the actual lump sum payment? Is it the same one that's in our --? Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Woods: Well, actually, there was a scrivener's error on the resolution -- Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Woods: -- where the resolution had $628, 000, but it's actually $682, 000. Board Member Suarez: So -- okay, one of the numbers was transposed? Mr. Woods: Yes, yeah, transposed. Board Member Suarez: Where are you on this one, Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry, I was distracted What is --? Board Member Suarez: It's okay. Where are you on this one, Mr. Chair? I missed some stuff so I was kind of -- Mr. Woods: We're on RE.1. Board Member Suarez: Yeah. No, I get it. I'm just saying I haven't -- has the Board commented at all? Has any -- other than the Chair? Chair Hardemon: No, we haven't had much comment, no. Board Member Suarez: Okay. I just want to hear what everyone else's perspective is before making my decision. Chair Hardemon: No one's provided me a perspective just yet over this. We just closed the public hearing. City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Suarez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: We corrected the scrivener's error of 628,975 to 682,975. Mr. Russell, you had something that you wanted to add? Board Member Russell: Absolutely. Thank you. This is my first meeting on the Board, soI can't honestly speak to past agreements with regard to the longshoremen, with regard to what that property could or should be used for. To my understanding, there is no affordable housing element in this. This is at this point a economic deal that we need to figure out what's best for the CRA and for the community. To bring those watching up to speed and to confirm my understanding of it, they're looking for a lump sum payment that would replace a deal that we have right now that says over the next 25 years, we would get 2.5 percent of the gross rent or 38,500 a year; whichever is more, if I'm correct. And so, to replace that deal with a lump sum up front payment of nearly 683, 000, that's where I wanted to really study and understand, is it worth it? Is 683,000 is the bird in the hand. Is that worth 2.5 percent in the bush? Being that we don't know what the development could end up being, 2.5 percent -- I mean, that 38,500 is really where we come up to the calculation, up to the 680 -- nearly 683. So that means -- that's like the worst -case scenario of if that 2.5 percent didn't really perform, you know, beyond what expectations were, but we don't know what the project's going to be, so that 2.5 percent could be something tremendous if that 2.5 percent outpaced that 38,500. So for me, that shooting for 683 is kind of like shooting for the worst case scenario and being happy with it; where once -- as I believe one commenter made, that once we make this deal and the upfront payments are -- you know, it's all done up front, we really lose any leverage over time to influence the situation. We need to make sure that we're getting the best possible deal for the CRA, for the community, for the City in this case, and so I would propose that possibly, you know, the -- a couple things: That the 683 might not be enough to really satisfy the potential of what this property could do. And furthermore -- and this part is more of a legal aspect, because I don't know what possibilities we have, and you can guide me -- that if the property does change hands, or a partnership develops -- and the fear is, of course, that we've made this deal today, feeling it looks pretty good, or we've done the best we can with it, and then what happens down the road, that this project turns into something much greater, and when it changes hands or partners, the developer benefits in a way -- and good for him -- in much greater than we expected, but at the end of the day, the City ends up with the short end of the stick. I would love to see that if there were a partnership or a changing of hands that we get another look at it, or that we're involved at that point, because ifI understood right, we -- even though there's a covenant that runs with the land, we may be giving up those rights once we accept the upfront payment. So those are my two things: One, the amount; and two, what rights we might give up if there's a changing of the hands. Board Member Suarez: Mr. Chair, ifI may? Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Suarez: Thank you. So -- okay, so I think -- now I'm understanding what you're saying. I think that if this -- if Number 7 on -- if Number 17 on compensation only had the first part and not the second; in other words, the part that's L'omma,'br, you know, 2ii and then 2.5 percent, if it had just the first part, if was just a 25 year payment of 38,500 a year with a annual 3 percent per year growth discounted at four and a half percent, I think we would -- I would feel good about it. You understand what I'm saying? I think the issue is the L'omma or." Mr. Woods: Yeah. We don't know, yeah. What we don't know. Board Member Suarez: Right. Andl think that's what you're saying, the comma -- City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Russell: Meaning that that 2.5 percent could be greater. Board Member Suarez: Could be greater. Vice Chair Gort: Could be greater. Board Member Russell: Yeah. That's what we're leaving on the table. Board Member Suarez: Right, and that makes sense. Chair Hardemon: I mean, as Chair, I mean, I'm willing to entertain any motion to improve upon the deal. I mean, it's always -- that's always something; or we can take more time to actually dive into the issues. It's all at the will of the body, but, you know, because it makes sense. If -- Board Member Suarez: What I'm getting at is, the first part of the deal, if it were just the first part, I would feel good with the deal; in other words, discounting at four and a half percent -- being a finance guy, discounting at four and a half percent with a 3 percent growth, I would feel good about that deal. The $38, 000 payments annually, that's a -- coming up with a lump sum there, I think that's a fair trade. I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is the second part, which is the, 8r two and a half percent gross rent paid "I don't know if that's -- that sort of says -- gives another category of potential income, andl don't know what that category is, to be completely frank with you; or what it can be, I think is what you're saying. Chair Hardemon: The only way that I would see -- Board Member Suarez: Because it's the greater of the two. Chair Hardemon: -- handling this issue would then be continuing this to the next agenda item, and allow us to look into it further. Board Member Russell: I don't know what the time sensitivity is on this, but in full disclosure of my staff and myself we did speak with Gatehouse or their representative a little bit, and they possibly would be open to accepting a greater lump sum than the amount we're talking about at the 683. I suggested possibly a 15 percent increase over that as the lump sum, just to make up for the potential that this could be a much more lucrative deal for them down the road than what we're looking at now, and if it were increased by 15 percent, that would bring it up another 102, 000, more or less, over the 683. Mr. Woods: $785,421.25. Board Member Russell: Thank you. And that would give us a little better cushion to feel more comfortable with accepting an up -front lump sum to know that we weren't shooting for the worst -case scenario, which was the 38-5; which, in itself, like you said, if that's what the deal were -- Board Member Suarez: Right. Board Member Russell: -- would be okay, but if we're -- also have the option with the current deal for 2.5 percent, what are we leaving on the table? And this at least gives us another hundred thousand dollar cushion to feel comfortable about the deal. I don't know how the others Chair Hardemon: So is that your motion to modifi, the agreement? Board Member Russell: Yes. And then my second question was about whether or not we can City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 revisit it when -- if it can come back to the Board if there is a changing of the hands or -- I'm not sure how that works. Mr. Bloom: I think your opportunity to come back to the Board or you really should look at it now is what happens between now and the time we close with the developer if there is a substantial change in the scope of the project? Board Member Suarez: I think that's a fair statement. Mr. Bloom: Today, you don't know what it's going to be; you don't know. If the developers come in with some, you know, red projections based upon the Overtown Shopping Center, which, you know, in their mind is the equivalent -- I think there's a difference -- but, you know, when you're ready to close, when they're ready to close, you know, not only are you going to know the exact size of the project, but, you know, they're going to get financing for the project. They're going to have studies that are going to show the projected rental to be generated from the project, and you could use those numbers, take those into account, but you should build that in now so the developer has some certainty, because that's really what the developers looking for. They want certainty. Board Member Russell: Certainty, of course. Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Bloom: And so to the extent that you say, Hey, look it, instead of you know, 55,000 square feet, if they're going to do 200,000 square feet, the numbers change." Board Member Suarez: Are these numbers based on 55,000, the first number -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Mr. Bloom: Yes. Board Member Suarez: -- the 38,000? Mr. Woods: Mm-hmm. Board Member Suarez: Yeah, I think that's fair, then, to -- Board Member Russell: Right. That's the other variable I didn't mention. They could change everything completely if it's not 55, because it's now based -- Board Member Suarez: Because this is a magnitude of 5 to 1. Board Member Russell: Yeah, if it went to something else. So what would be the right way that we could move with amendment -- with wording that would give us that security but also give the developer their predictability? Chair Hardemon: Well, we can make the motion and they can draft the language; as long as the intent is -- within the motion is that. So there has been a motion and a second. Board Member Suarez: Right. I'll remove my second. Vice Chair Gort: I'll remove my motion. Chair Hardemon: Then I'll -- I was going to accept it as a friendly amendment, but nonetheless, City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 we can -- if you move, Commissioner, you can modify this agreement to include not only the language, but -- the 15 percent -- but then also the intention of having it come back before this Board if there are some major changes, as discussed. Mr. Bloom: Right. Just also to clam, to the extent the payments to the CRA are increased, the County is going to be looking for a corresponding increase in the payments to the County. Chair Hardemon: Is that in their deal? Vice Chair Gort: That's the County, yeah. Mr. Woods: That's in the deal. Chair Hardemon: It's in their deal? Mr. Woods: It's in the -- Mr. Bloom: It's not in the deal. It's in the draft of County resolution that was provided to us today. Board Member Suarez: Can I just add something to your modification? Which is to say that if the project grows in size, or if some subsequent developer/purchaser for value comes to the CRA and wants an increase in size beyond 15 percent, which is whatl think you just sort of up -charged the great -- you know -- the lesser of the two. You look at it as the lesser of the two. You gave it like a 15 percent bump. If it comes -- if the developer comes with a project or the successor in interest comes with a project that's greater than 15 percent, larger than what we've, you know, approved, in essence, then, you know, it has to come back to the Board for, you know, revisiting the upfront payment. Mr. Woods: Well, I think what he -- what Commissioner Russell was doing, he was doing two things: He was adding 15 percent to the current lump sum payment. Board Member Suarez: Sure. No, I get it. Mr. Woods: And then at the time of closing, once the developer goes ahead and gets a development plan and they actually go to close -- Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Woods: -- they'll have plans and everything, we'll have some certainty, he's suggesting that they then come back to us, and if the development plan is still 55,000 square feet, then that's it. Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Woods: But if it gets bigger -- Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Woods: -- then there's an additional -- some additional -- well, the calculation is done on the new square footage. Board Member Suarez: Right. But what I'm saying is that that should be more than 15 percent greater; just makes sense, just because we just gave them a, you know, 15 percent increase in their upfront payment for the same size development, 55,000 square feet. So we just increased the discount rate, that's all we did, unless you give them 15 percent more building capacity. If City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 they come in with a 200 or 150,000 square foot building, which is like three times the size of what we have contemplated here, then it makes sense to revisit. Mr. Woods: Then they recalculate, they recalculate. Board Member Suarez: And it makes sense. But if it's only 50 -- like if it's set up at being 55, at 75 or whatever -- I don't know what 15 percent is, what the number is. Mr. Woods: So you're saying that needs to be at least 15 percent larger. Board Member Suarez: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Bloom: What you're saying is -- Board Member Suarez: 15 percent larger than the 55. Mr. Bloom: -- if they can increase the size of their project by up to 15 percent -- Board Member Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Bloom: -- then there'd be no change -- Mr. Woods: So you're capping it. Mr. Bloom: -- in the payments. Board Member Suarez: Exactly. Mr. Bloom: If they increase the size of the project -- Board Member Suarez: Beyond. Mr. Bloom: -- by more than 15 percent -- Board Member Suarez: Does that makes sense? Mr. Woods: It does. Mr. Bloom: -- you would increase the payment proportionately. Board Member Suarez: Yeah. Because we're increasing the payment by 15 percent right now. Mr. Woods: Right, right, right. Board Member Suarez: So what incentive do they have to do that unless they're going to grow the project a little bit? Vice Chair Gort: The question is, does the County has to be approving this, also? Mr. Woods: Yes. Mr. Bloom: Yes. Vice Chair Gort: This has got to be approved by the County, also. City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Woods: Right. Mr. Bloom: This is the rent structure -- Vice Chair Gort: I mean, I was told this morning the County had a lot to do with the decision -making on this item today. Mr. Bloom: Right. In other -- this declaration of restrictions, it was all part of the settlement of the River lawsuit -- Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bloom: -- between the City, the CRA and the County. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bloom: And so the County gets to approve any amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions. Vice Chair Gort: Well, I just want to make sure you clam that, because that's important. Mr. Bloom: Yeah, right. Mr. Woods: Yeah. Remember, if the developer doesn't develop this block in a timely fashion -- Vice Chair Gort: It goes back to the County. Mr. Woods: -- it can then revert back to the County -- Vice Chair Gort: It goes back to the County. Mr. Woods: -- and we wouldn't have anything. Board Member Suarez: Okay, I think we're good. Board Member Russell: Mr. Chair, just one quick question. Chair Hardemon: There's no motion on the floor right now; I just want to make that clear. Board Member Russell: One other question: If -- would it make it any simpler with the calculations if they've already come on together if that additional 15 percent were separated out from the 683, so that they could leave the calculations as they are with the County, and everything that they have with this additional 102,000? Mr. Woods: I think the way in which it's read, they're saying Project payment,'So. Mr. Bloom: Right. Any payment that the CRA gets, the County is going to want a corresponding amount. So how many -- you know, at this point, to the extent this Board approves a payment structure higher than the County was willing to accept, I think there is a great deal of incentive for the County to go along with the CRA and accept the better deal from the developer. Board Member Russell: Understood. Mr. Woods: Won't say how unfair we think that is, but -- City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Chair Hardemon: So is there a motion? Board Member Suarez: I'll move the item with an increased payment -- upfront payment of 15 percent and an increased building capacity of 15 percent if or when -- at the time of closing, the developer has to return to the CRA if they have a building capacity that exceeds the 15 percent increase over the 55,000 square feet, and we will then take up the issue to decide whether the upfront payment or any further upfront payment is necessary. Does that sound good? Mr. Bloom: To further clarify, however, to the extent you do this and now it -- now, 18 months from now, the developer's got a larger project, you would have to not only approve an amendment in the dollars amount, but the County would also have to approve it at that time, so it becomes somewhat cumbersome an issue, unless you can come up with a structure now that takes into account the potential future increase, such as if the -- Board Member Suarez: I understand what you're thinking of. I think where you're going is to increase the percentage by the percent of growth in the project; in other words, increase the amount by the percentage of growth in the project. That's another option. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to -- Board Member Suarez: Did you understand that last part, Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: -- pass RE.1 with modifications. Board Member Suarez: Do you understand that last part? Chair Hardemon: I understand it inasmuch as everything we've been discussing, yes. Board Member Suarez: You understand what I'm saying, the last part? Mr. Bloom: Yeah. What you're saying is if -- Board Member Suarez: It won't come back then. Mr. Bloom: -- it increases more than 15 percent -- Mr. Woods: It won't have to come back. Board Member Suarez: Right. Mr. Bloom: -- it would go back, and you're saying if it increases more than 15 percent, then for -- the payment would increase proportionately. Board Member Suarez: Correct. Is that -- is the rest of the Board okay with that? Okay, so that's my motion. You want me to repeat my motion, Mr. -- Commissioner? Board Member Russell: Yeah, please. Board Member Suarez: Okay, so here's the deal -- Chair Hardemon: Andl want the record to reflect the presence of Commissioner Carollo. Board Member Suarez: -- there's two components to the compensation to the CRA Board. There -- it's an annual payment of $38, 500 that's increased by three percent every year. The lump sum payment is a discount of four and a half percent of that revenue stream, that 25-year revenue City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 stream. The motion on the floor -- and then there's a secondary component, which is two and a half percent of the gross rent payment if the development is larger than what was anticipated as a 55,000-square-foot development. So the motion is that if the development grows beyond 55,000 square feet, the developer must pay as an upfront payment at closing the proportionate amount of money that they would have had to pay for a 55,000-square-foot development, depending on the size of the development. Does that make sense to everyone? That's the motion. Chair Hardemon: Is there a second? Board Member Russell: Yeah, second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Suarez; seconded by Commissioner Russell. Is there any further discussion? Vice Chair Gort: One more question: This has to go to the County? Mr. Woods: Yes. Mr. Bloom: Yes. Vice Chair Gort: Whatever document you put together -- Mr. Bloom: We would have to document this at the County, I'm not sure when they plan to have it on their agenda. They would make corresponding change. Vice Chair Gort: We also -- the development has to be done within a certain time, and they got to start within a certain time, according -- I don't have the -- I don't have it in front of me right now, but if not, it goes back to the County. Mr. Bloom: That was ex -- Mr. Woods: It was extended. Mr. Bloom: Right. That was extended. Mr. Woods: Two years back then and so -- Mr. Bloom: Right. So they have, I think, till 2017, maybe, to start development? Mr. Woods: To '17. They have up until 2017. Vice Chair Gort: If not, it reverts back to the County. Mr. Woods: If not, it reverts back to the County. Vice Chair Gort: Okay, make sure everyone understands that. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Board Member Carollo: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I just want to verf. So the only change, really, is if it goes over 55,000 square feet? City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Suarez: The lump sum changes, that's right. Chair Hardemon: The lump sum changes. But then also -- Board Member Suarez: In proportion to the growth of the project. Chair Hardemon: -- there's also a 15 percent increase. Board Member Suarez: In proportion to the growth of the project. Mr. Bloom: Right. So the base payment is being increased by 15 percent now. Board Member Carollo: Right. Board Member Russell: Regardless of any change. Mr. Bloom: And to the extent the size of the project increases by more than 15 percent, then the payments will increase proportionally, based on the additional square footage beyond the 15 percent. Board Member Suarez: That's right. Chair Hardemon: Those are the two changes. Any further unreadiness? Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. ToddB. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Chair Hardemon: As amended. Board Member Suarez: As amended. 2. CRA RESOLUTION 15-00928 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA BOARD") AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARLES LOWELL REALTY & INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT, LLC REHABILITATION GRANT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1767 N.W. 3RD AVENUE ("PROPERTY"), MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FROM FIFTY (50) YEARS TO THIRTY (30) YEARS; AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE PROPERTY WHEREBY THE CRA BOARD MAY REVIEW THE SAME (5) FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THIS RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. File # 15-00928 Cover Memo.pdf File # 15-00928 Backup.pdf File # 15-00928 Legislation.pdf City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Board Member Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Commissioner Russell, Chair Hardemon, Commissioner Suarez, Vice Chair Gort and Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-1 5-0055 Chair Hardemon: Moving on to RE.2. Clarence Woods, III (Executive Director, Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency): Commissioners, item number 2 is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency, an amendment to the Charles Lowell Realty & Investment & Development, LLC (Limited Liability Company) rehabilitation grant for the property located at 1767 Northwest 3rdAvenue, Miami, Florida; amending the affordability period from 50 years to 15 years; further authorizing the executive director to execute all documents necessary for said purpose. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods: Commissioners, you approved the grant to Mr. Charles Lowell back in about -- I think it may have been June -- where we provided $585, 000 for the gut rehab of about 17 or 18 units at the location just specified. At the time, the Board approved the grant with a 50 year affordability period. After some discussion, we felt that we wanted to try to bring that in line with what has been done in the past on the affordability period, where we provided grants to building owners. What we've normally done in the past is -- I think the maximum done is like seven or eight years. This 15 years still is an increase, which I believe is a good thing, because we want the affordable housing that we're building, the rehab stuff to remain affordable for an extended period of time, but it also doesn't penalize the investor, you know, where, if at some point, he decided to try to market the property, this could be seen as something that is not favorable. Chair Hardemon: I'll open up this RE.2 for public discussion. You're recognized, sir. Al Crespo: Good evening. Al Crespo again. First, I'd like to point out something in relation to the previous item. The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) has given these developers millions of dollars to build on Lot 36 and -- Chair Hardemon: Mr. Crespo -- Mr. Crespo: -- but I just want to point out, sir, that this is millions of dollars that you're giving the developer, so Overtown is not going to look in five years like it looks today, and if that developer that was here, or, you know, the Gateway Group decides to go to, say, the Related Group and do a deal with them, you could have an entirely different project here. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Crespo -- Mr. Crespo: Yes, okay, let me get to this point. I just want to make -- I just wanted to have on the record that this organization has given out millions of dollars to these developers. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Crespo, you're hurting yourself. Mr. Crespo: Number two, number two, you talk about the 50 years that you went along with that. In fact, your document here says that it's Miami -Dade County Housing Agency who sets the guidelines for 50 years; that's based on your legislation, number -- Section 3 -- that the grant agreement or restrictive covenant include the requirement that the property remain affordable, as City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 prescribed by Miami -Dade County Housing Agency for 50 years. So this wasn't a decision made by you to put 50 years in. This was a County decision, and you were just following what the County indicated that you had to do. Chair Hardemon: That's not quite how I remember it. I wanted -- Mr. Crespo: Well, I mean, I'm just reading -from this -- Chair Hardemon: No, no, no, I see how it's written. I wanted 100 years -- Mr. Crespo: I'm reading it from your legislation; I didn't write it. Chair Hardemon: No, I understand. Mr. Crespo: So that's, you know, so that's something that, you know, do you have to go back and revisit this with the County and with the County Housing Authority Agency? Mr. Woods: No, no. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Crespo: Okay. Mr. Woods: Commissioner -- Chair Hardemon: Before you make a comment, just make sure you jot down -- Grady Muhammed: Good evening. Grady Muhammed, president, CEO (Chief Executive Officer) ofMiami-Dade First, relating this item to, I think, in 15 years, Overtown be changed, but 50 years, it definitely will be vastly changed, andl don't think a restriction of 50 years should be put onto the developer. The Dade County thing is Miami -Dade County, property related. This is not Dade County -- Miami -Dade County property related. This is CRA, funded CRA -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Muhammed: -- approved, so the restrictions that the CRA chooses with the 15 year, I think it's something that's reasonable, andl think it's something the developer -- again, as I was thinking about it, we have to look at all of the properties that we do workforce housing. We have to start to looking at mixed income affordable housing. We got to not just have affordable housing. We got to have mixed income, workforce affordable housing in those same units, andl think this is a potential pilot project that we could potentially use towards that, to have that mixed income housing that we need, because Overtown is a mixed income community, and it's vastly changing, andl think we have to recognize that, but at least try to still help the current residents through these type of projects. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there anyone else who would like to make a public comment? Seeing none, I'll close the floor for public hearing. You're recognized, Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods: This Section 3 of the resolution, it references Miami -Dade County affordable housing, wherein when the County prescribes there to be 50 years of affordability, normally, what that is, is either a nine percent tax credit deal, which has the LURA or Land Use Restriction Agreement of 50 years. Even our affordable housing development deals where we're doing bond deals, the ones that we're doing now, those are only 30, and we are putting 17 million -- well, in -- millions of dollars in those deals, but to just clarify what Mr. Crespo is saying, there is no millions of dollars going on Block 36. Block 7 -- I mean Block 25 has the money that we City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 provided, but that's 158 units of affordable housing; a four percent bond deal where the LURA is automatic, because there is County -- Board Member Suarez: (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) Mr. Woods: Yeah, yeah, so totally different affordable housing methods. I mean, the CRA, our money doesn't have those restrictions, and we are, you know, are able to institute whatever restrictions we believe is going to further redevelopment objectives and is best for the community. Chair Hardemon: Any further unreadiness? Vice Chair Gort: What are the income restrictions on this affordable housing? Because that's one of the most need that we have, but we're looking to the City, especially in Overtown, it's a great need for, andl can see -- I'm a great believer in mixed use, rental market rate and affordable housing, but I will see that in new buildings that are coming up, there's a lot of assistance here but -- Mr. Woods: Yeah. It's 80 percent ofAMI (Area Median Income); 80 percent ofAMl. Board Member Suarez: 80? Mr. Woods: Yeah, which really -- Vice Chair Gort: That's pretty high. Board Member Suarez: That's a lot. Vice Chair Gort: My understanding, the average income in here is $16, 000 a year. Mr. Woods: Well, it's AMI; that's the most that he can charge. Actually, what's going to happen is he's only going to be able to get rents for what people will afford in this area. That's the most that he can charge. Vice Chair Gort: Is that part of the contract? Mr. Woods: I'm sorry? Vice Chair Gort: Is that part of the contract -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Vice Chair Gort: -- the income? Mr. Woods: It'll be in the grant agreement. Chair Hardemon: Any further unreadiness? Mr. Russell. Board Member Russell: I have a couple questions. So the 50 year is an agreement we already had in place -- Mr. Woods: Correct. Board Member Russell: -- with the investor, with the developer, but we did such a good job negotiating that we feel bad and we're going to back on it and bring it down, because it's City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 definitely not an increase. This is a decrease if we go from 50 to 15. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Russell: If it's an unreasonable number, why did they agree to it at the -- I'm sorry, because I'm coming today, I'm not from that time, but if he agreed to it at that time that this could still be a good deal for him, it might make it a little more difficult for him to flip it down the road, but it would ensure that the affordability factor in whatever level it's agreed continues, and l just feel like if that's our mission here as a CRA, is to incentivize affordability, and we were able to get someone to agree to 50 years of maintaining affordability in a project, even if it flipped someone else is going to carry on with that in an affordable that -- I just don't -- I -- unless -- it hasn't been presented to me yet why there's good reason that they can't continue on successfully and us still continue our mission. Chair Hardemon: Maybe I can help answer the question. The reason that you have 50 years there is I'm a bit aggressive with my negotiating, right? Like I said earlier, I've always wanted affordable housing in this area for the projects that we redevelop, especially. I want to see 100 years. That -- I mean, that's -- for some people, they believe that's a bit unreasonable, and so as I continued negotiating, we got to 50. The Board Members supported me with that, because, of course, it's a good mission in trying to include more affordable housing, but it became a more -- a fairness argument, and so we see other commercial redevelopment that we've done on 3rd Avenue, and other affordable housing developments that we've done within that area, and the years for affordability are much less. The developer is not someone who is someone in the business of redeveloping properties. They're not a major developer, as you all know. It's not an Island Pacific, or Atlantic Pacific, or any of those major things. It is someone that was born and raised in the community that's save -- but that -- saved these apartments from the condition that they're in today with the hope of redeveloping for, as I understood it at the time, not just affordability, but there was some discussion about veterans; veterans and such. And so throughout that -- through that discussion, and then realizing that many of our other contracts are at 30 years, as the Chairman, I thought that it would probably be more appropriate to lessen the amount, the amount of years, in an attempt to gradually move up; or move up in our request for affordability, based on especially the type of person that is providing the product to the community, so -- versus someone who's a small, small guy, relatively, that is from the community, that is trying to take his shot at redevelopment in his community. Instead of punishing, if you will, putting those types of onerous restrictions on him, let's make that more so to people who have other corporations that are doing larger projects within that community. And additionally, what exacerbated the issue for me in the -- in my sympathy, if you will, for this particular developer is that we gave a grant for a project -- a similar project -- I think it's the Derring (phonetic)? The AlDerringProject. Mr. Woods: It's the Derring, yeah. Chair Hardemon: Andl don't think we put any affordability on that one. That one was --I believe it was for a smaller amount. Mr. Woods: His was four -- it was seven years, and we gave him $450, 000. Chair Hardemon: Right. So, you know, it -- so it was a bit out of scope -- out of scale, if you will. Commissioner Suarez. Board Member Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think our job and our mission is to create an area where people don't need affordable housing eventually; is to create an economy and citizens and residents with skills so that they don't need any sort of affordable housing, so that they can live in homes just like we live in, and the neighborhoods grow in ways that our neighborhoods have grown, and so I think that's the objective, and that should be our mission. I really hope in City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 15 years, Overtown is a place where there -- the residents of Overtown have gotten to a level where they don't need affordable housing, where they don't want affordable housing, where they don't need any subsidized housing, or any sort of government intervention housing. I don't know if that's going to happen or not in 15 years. I've been here for six years, and in six years, we still need affordable housing, and we still need extremely low income housing, and we still need workforce housing in Overtown, so maybe the answer is to -- you know, we can reduce the affordability, period, but with a -- with -- they come back to this Commission within a certain period of time for us to reanalyze, you know, where is Overtown as a neighborhood, where are our citizens? We do know that we are fighting against gentrification; you know, that is a real issue that we have in the City ofMiami, and in all our neighborhoods, so I don't know what the answer is, because I don't think any of us have a crystal ball and can see 15, 30, 50 years into the future. I think we are working hard today, all of us, to make sure that we create an environment and an area where, hopefully, people won't need affordable housing, where they can get the skills themselves to get themselves out of an impoverished situation, but don't know what this area is going to look like in 15 years, or 50 years, or 30 years. I know that the State imposes a 50-year limit for their program, and their program is very flawed in many ways, and one of them is the 65-80 range for affordable housing, you know, for AMl, but that's the program that they have, and unless we can change it, or unless the State, you know, changes it, that's what we have to deal with, and that's why, you know, I push for it, because we have to play by the rules, and those are the rules that are set by another government. I would be willing to reduce it with the caveat that, you know, we can look at it again, maybe in five years, maybe -- or maybe every five years we look at it again to see if it needs to be extended, depending on the needs of the community, and that might be a -- sort of a middle ground approach. Chair Hardemon: And Commissioner Suarez, I will say that, as you know, we're introducing -- andl'll use this old term -- a whole heap of affordable housing to the Overtown community. Board Member Suarez: We are, we are. Unidentified Speaker: And we hope to. Chair Hardemon: Andl want people to understand that -- because I've seen this written -- the CRA is not a -- they call it a -- I will say the CRA was created to eliminate slum and blight, all right? Our CRA operates, I think, in a very special way; that we focus on job training; that we focus on affordable housing; that we focus on all these things within the CRA at -- it does speak of affordability, that you have to provide affordability, but it does not require you to do it. You can opt out of affordability, and you've seen that in other CRAs, but here in the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA, we always provide for affordable housing; we always provide -- and we're providing now for workforce housing in moving forward. And so, not only that, as far as the gentrification issue, by providing grants, for instance to Town Park North, Town Park Village and eventually Town Park South, we are fighting against gentrification, but we must remember that -- Board Member Suarez: And with this project, too. Chair Hardemon: This project is -- no one's living in this complex right now, so it wouldn't be gentriing anything. Board Member Suarez: Right. Chair Hardemon: It's actually bringing residents -- Board Member Suarez: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- to a place that they can -- it is the elimination of the actual slum, and so City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 that's what we want to be able to do. And l just want that the person who has a 15-unit building after some -- this is -- I brought this after some discussion, but the person who has that 15-unit building should be treated similarly -- Board Member Suarez: I get it. Chair Hardemon: -- to -- or similarly to everyone else. Board Member Suarez: To everyone else, to everyone else, right. Chair Hardemon: And that's part of the issue. I think -- and you -- all of you on this Board will continue to see me push for things within our agreements that are aggressive, andl think we should look that way, because, for instance, we have the MDM development that'll probably be coming before this Board soon, and I'm sure there'll be a lot of things there that you would look at and say, *ow,'but I think it's necessary. Those are necessary steps, and so that's why I'm asking for your support, as it is written. Board Member Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Board Member Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by saying that here in Section 3 -- andl think it was mentioned by one of the speakers; I think Mr. Crespo -- with regard to Miami -Dade Housing, for 50 years, it seems like it's their requirement, so I want to make sure from our legal department that we could reduce the amount of years, because from what I'm reading here, it doesn't appear that we could. Rene Jadusingh (In -House Counsel): Well, we were using that as a guideline; not necessarily -- it's not a requirement on the CRA. We were just using that just as an example of what the County is doing. We wanted to follow them, but we don't have to, and we haven't. We have gone with our own requirements. Chair Hardemon: So Section 3 -- this resolution could have been written without Section 3. Ms. Jadusingh: Right. Chair Hardemon: I think that it was used to show just some conformity with everything else, so, for instance, this -- so Section 3 doesn't have to be there, and as prescribed'doesn't mean as required. "You could put as required,'but that's within their authority, not within our authority, if you will. Board Member Carollo: Understood. However, we originally thought the 50 years was a good amount, and we're reducing it to 15 years. Chair Hardemon: You know, I don't know if we made a big argument about that. I think the records will -- the minutes will reflect it, but I don't think we discussed that much here. That was a discussion that was having with the applicant or the developer before. Board Member Carollo: Okay, butl could see, you know, even if a request was made from 50 to 40, even 50 to 30, which I think a lot of affordable housing is 30 years, but we're going from 50 to 15, so I could see where Commissioner Suarez is saying, !ley, we could revisit it in five years," but we could revisit it in five years if it was from 50 to 40, and then we'd revisit to see if we, you know, if we need to reduce it, because maybe then, you know, there might be less of a need for City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 affordability in that area, which, in all fairness, I doubt, so I'm uncomfortable with such a big dip. We're going from 50 to 15 years. That's a lot of years, so maybe to 40 or 30, and then we revisit it in five years, but -- and again, that's because you're requesting, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: No, and -- Board Member Carollo: I would not want to change the 50 years, but since you're requesting, I think a good compromise would be, you know, maybe to 40 years or -- like I said, I really wouldn't even like to go down to 30, but -- and -- Chair Hardemon: I just want -- butl want us to make sure that we understand that this housing is a drop in the bucket in the housing that we're providing to this area. So, for instance, ifyou look at Lyric Plaza, how many units of affordable housing is at Lyric Plaza? Mr. Woods: 158. Chair Hardemon: What's the AMI requirement there? Mr. Woods: It's 60 to 80. Chair Hardemon: Okay. That's new housing that's being provided. The housing that we're providing with the -- the basketball player, what's his name? Board Member Carollo: 60 to -- Mr. Woods: Courtside Apartments. Board Member Carollo: -- but remember, 60 to 80. I mean, it could be called ifffordable,'but technically, it's workforce. Chair Hardemon: Well, ifffordable'fs all relative. I mean, I can't -- right now, ifI wanted to live in -- I can't live in Overtown right now, because, one, you either have conditions that are not something that I will accept, which is why we're making investments in that area; or you have affordable housing which the AMIs don't allow me to live there. Board Member Carollo: Exactly. Chair Hardemon: So there -- so people are priced out, so there still is a product that needs to be for young professionals to return back into Overtown, so we're -- when I say Young professional," I mean a young teacher, doctor, lawyer -- Board Member Carollo: Police officer. Chair Hardemon: -- police officer, everyone. Board Member Carollo: Firefighter. Chair Hardemon: Right. So that -- and that's why I'm saying here, you say with -- there's additional hundreds of units being -- how many units are actually with the Courtside? Mr. Woods: 84 in Courtside. Chair Hardemon: So that's another 84. And we're also building additional units across from Gibson Park at Island Pacific. How many units is that? City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Woods: Yeah, that's Island Living; that's 70 units. Chair Hardemon: And so -- and I'm saying that to say and all those are affordable housing. This is 15, about 15 units of affordable housing? Mr. Woods: 17. Chair Hardemon: 17 units of affordable housing, and so this as -- I believe that Mr. Muhammed said -- this is one place that with 17 units, not a hundred or so, that you could have some diversity in the housing for that area. Yes, sir. Board Member Suarez: Go ahead; after you. Board Member Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Board Member Carollo: Would you agree that with all those units, it's still not enough; there's still a big demand? Chair Hardemon: And let me -- I will tell you this: I believe that we have a -- andl will say this: I don't personally -- personally, I feel that Overtown has affordable housing. The people who live there can afford to live in Overtown, right? That's what personally believe. What Overtown has a problem with is the conditions of the housing, and so we want to, in the CRA, provide the dollars to improve upon the living conditions of the people who live there; however, despite the way I feel, we are still providing affordable housing to the Overtown area, because I personally believe that Miami -Dade County needs more affordable housing. I don't think that Overtown should become the dumping ground for all affordable housing. I don't think that District 5 should become that; the same way I don't think that you would want it in your neighborhoods. Board Member Suarez: Can I just -- Board Member Carollo: I -- just for the record, we're looking for more affordable housing in Little Havana. We're looking at more affordable housing in West Brickell. Board Member Suarez: Right. Chair Hardemon: But the entire -- Board Member Carollo: And we're -- Chair Hardemon: -- an entire neighborhood, personally, I believe that an entire neighborhood can't solely depend on affordable housing. You need different types of housing in the area for it to be a good community. Board Member Carollo: Understood, understood, but in all those square -mile area, two, three, four hundred units, it's really not a lot when you really come to see it; per capita, it's really not a lot. Board Member Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Suarez: Thank you. Okay, so what we have here is a variety of things, andl see City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 a couple things happening also in the CRA boundaries. One is, we are doing tax credit deals that are financed with State money, in part; nine percent deals, mostly. Are any of them four percent? Mr. Woods: All of them are four percent. Board Member Suarez: Four percent. Mr. Woods: No nines. Board Member Suarez: Almost -- exclusively. Are there any nines? Mr. Woods: No nines. William Bloom (Special Counsel to the CRA): There are no nines. Board Member Suarez: Okay, which means there's no lottery ones. All -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Suarez: -- automatic matched deals. So that is affordable -- and I'm going to wait for the Chair, because I want him to hear this. Board Member Russell: Okay; ifI could ask a legal question in the meantime? Board Member Suarez: Of course. Board Member Russell: If the CRA sunsets before this 50 year point, are they still held beyond the sunset of the CRA to the 50-year --? Board Member Suarez: It would be. Mr. Woods: The covenant runs with the land. Board Member Suarez: That's another good point. Mr. Chair, ifI may just chime in, just because I wanted you to hear this, okay? So whatl see happening in Overtown is, number one, we're doing new affordable housing, which are the tax credit deals; they're the four percent deals, where they're automatic matched, and those look like a Brickell condo -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: -- and that's why I think the State says, We want to put a 50-year affordability period, because what we don't want is somebody that didn't make a buck off a heavily financed deal, and, 'like you said, kick everybody out and start putting in Brickell tenants, for lack of a better word, no offense to Brickell, by the way, Mr. -- Board Member Russell: None taken. Board Member Suarez: -- Commissioner, Commissioner Russell, so that's one. I think there's another set of affordable housing that we're seeing, which is the rehab. Mr. Woods: Correct. Board Member Suarez: Okay? And what think you're saying is those deals should look similar. Actually, Commissioner Russell, when you stepped away, made a good point, which is that the CRA is going to be in existence for a certain period of time, and some of these requirements on City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 the rehab deals, if we do a 50-year affordability period, they would go beyond the length of the actual CRA, itself. What I think may be the best way to do is to maybe see all the rehab deals, so have a uniform set of rules and regulations for those rehab deals, and maybe say, Book, you know, you're not getting a Brickell condo. You're not doing a Brickell condo, so maybe it's not needed for us to put as long of an affordability period on these deals, as we have done in other deals in the past, but these deals should look similar. "If we're doing -- if we're giving out a rehab dollar, we shouldn't be -- there shouldn't be three different deals; shouldn't be one deal, like the one that you just talked about, where there was a seven-year affordability; and then, another deal, where there's more, and then less. Chair Hardemon: I would love to see some uniformity in that area. Board Member Suarez: They should look similar. I think that's fair. I think that's a fairness issue, and we can have a public policy debate as to what that should be. And then we're going to have -- I presume we're going to have other grant requests for rehab properties so that we can continue to rehab the properties that exist in Overtown, but what I'm seeing is the lots that we owned are being built with affordable housing, by and large. I don't think we have -- do we have anything left? Mr. Woods: Correct. No. Board Member Suarez: Okay. Everything is being built. Mr. Woods: No. Pretty much, most of it -- the larger lots -- Board Member Suarez: Right. So -- Mr. Woods: -- where you could -- we assembling other lots. Board Member Suarez: -- what I'm saying is that what we did is, we decided, hey, we want to do these four percent deals; we want to rehab properties from an affordable housing perspective; we need to do job training, okay? Because, otherwise, all this construction is going to happen, and people are not going to know how to occupy the jobs that are coming, so that, to me, is the holistic approach, but I don't have a problem -- maybe the thing to do is to defer and get some more information and -- Chair Hardemon: You know, I -- really, I don't think it's necessary to defer it. I think that we can reach a compromise here today. I think 25 years would be a decent compromise if someone would be able to make that motion and second it. Board Member Suarez: I'll move it. I just -- what I would hope is that that then becomes the standard, because I think -- Chair Hardemon: Me, personally -- Board Member Suarez: For rehabs, Commissioner; for rehabs -- Chair Hardemon: Well for -- you talking about rehabs, right. Board Member Suarez: -- not for the other ones; for rehabs. Chair Hardemon: Interesting. Board Member Suarez: Okay? City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Chair Hardemon: And we want to encourage rehabs. We just know that we funded -- Board Member Suarez: And it's a fairness issue. Chair Hardemon: I understand. Board Member Suarez: We not only -- Chair Hardemon: Yeah. We funded rehabs, and we haven't put much of a requirement on them, and so that's part of the reason that I'm sympathetic to the argument. Board Member Suarez: Look, I think all of us here are people who are fair, okay? Andl think you can have a public policy debate till we're blue in the face about what the adequate number of years is, whether it should be 50, 100, 1,000, whatever, and we could put all those requirements. I think the issue here is it's an issue of fairness, that we should be doing things fairly, and there is a difference between having a 25-year affordability period on a building that is an old building, for example, that you are spending money to -- I think in the case of Town Park, one of the big issues was just doing a four-year cert; just making sure you could do a four-year cert on the building, which is the basic structural minimum, so that the building doesn't revoke its CO (Certificate of Occupancy), doesn't lose its CO, Certificate of Occupancy, so I think -- Mr. Woods: Commissioners, can I -- Mr. Chair, can I just add a comment with respect to the idea of the affordability and the length of the affordability period? What I think we should consider, as well, is that most of these units that we're talking about are, like you said, Commissioner Hardemon, are units that are in somewhat really deplorable conditions, and right now, we have 432 rehab units in the Town Park. We're rehabbing right now 432 units. We're building 402 new units, so you got 800 units; not to mention some of the other smaller multi family apartments, like Mr. Derring, that you mentioned, Mr. Lowell. What potentially can happen if we start to -- and I'm all for it -- put extended years in the affordability period in order to get our money, what can potentially happen is that you don't have people coming to us looking for the money, because they want to be able to at some point cash out, and if it's better for them, you know, to do the rehab themselves and move the residents out so that they can charge higher rents, then that might be a set of unintended consequences for doing something like this. I'm just mentioning it because we've seen it; we've seen it before, where, you know, we were looking to be somewhat strenuous on an investor, and the investor told us, Well, look, I don't have to take your money. I'll, you know, move these people out and'L- Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Board Member Suarez: Yeah. There's another -- yes. So, in other words, the gentrification is a potential byproduct of not granting money to fix it and having some sort of affordability period. There's another potential way, which is -- it's sort of what Commissioner Russell alluded to. I don't know if he did it on purpose or by accident, but -- is you can make the affordability period track the life of the CRA, because I know there's been an effort to extend the life of the CRA -- right? -- the Overtown CRA, and, you know, if we don't -- if we let it sunset, then what we're saying is, Book, the area is no longer slum and blight. "If we do not let it sunset, we're saying, The area continues to be slum and blight, and therefore, it needs to continue to exist until 'X' number of years," that's another way of doing it. Chair Hardemon: But, you know, I don't want to -- Board Member Suarez: I know that's -- it's a little bit uncertain -- Chair Hardemon: Right, because I don't want to -- City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Suarez: -- because then it's going to be a moving target. Chair Hardemon: -- confuse the issues of affordability with slum and blight, too. You know, it's -- it can -- Board Member Suarez: And it's an uncertain. It's a moving target, obviously. That's a hard thing to put in an agreement of this kind. Board Member Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Board Member Russell: My concern is that the free market doesn't have a social conscience, and that's kind of why we're here; that if left to the market, gentrification would happen; that affordable housing, if it's not incentivized, would not happen. And here we are, in a situation where we're actually able to negotiate to where this investor will come out whole, and they will be forced to do it in an affordable way. In 15 years -- I think we'll always have a need for affordable housing. I don't think we're -- there's a realistic goal to say we're going to wipe out the need for affordable housing in Miami. It'll always exist, but that if we allow the investor to then flip to someone who is not going to be affordable after a certain period of time, that's my concern where -- What I need to understand today to get to a Yes, '7 guess, is that the investor agreed to these terms almost under duress, and felt that he was going to -- I don't know -- he agreed to the terms, or he didn't negotiate well enough on his side -- that's he's agreed to something where he's not going to be able to be profitable at this point; to where we've tied him into something where he either won't be able to flip it down the road, because it's too constrained, and if we've made a -- you know, if he's accidentally agreed to a bad business deal where we have to come back to the table, that's fair, but if he's still going to come out of this hole, if it's -- if just forcing him to keep it affordable for a longer period of time is maybe making it a little more difficult for him to find the right buyer that'l1 continue our goal of creating affordable housing in the area, I'm still kind of glad that you were able to negotiate what you did. I don't know, I just have a -- I have an issue with reducing it down to 15, not knowing where we'll be in 15 years. I'd rather add 15 years; he come back and then say, Can we stop it now? "And at that point, we say, Yeah, everything's great. " Mr. Woods: Commissioners, what would caution again is where we're looking at the actual owners, andl think it does have bearing on the actual tenants, themselves, but would caution to think about the tenants. I think the arguments that you all are making are really good arguments, because the affordable housing that we're building, the new affordable housing that we're building probably is out of the reach for the existing residents right now, and their incomes. So what we're talking about right now with the rehab of existing units and making those units livable and affordable, we have some people that are paying $200 and $300 a month. How -- I mean, for a building owner, for an investor to maintain his building, getting rents at two and three hundred dollars a month, is -- I mean, that's where you get a lot of the deferred maintenance; that's where you get the conditions that are happening right now. And but for our investment in those properties, they won't get rehabbed. Board Member Carollo: Correct. Mr. Woods: They will not get rehabbed. And what you're doing is we're going to have people to continue to live in those type of apartments. And if that investor thinks or believes that taking our money is going to, you know, tie his hands to where he's not going to be able to at some point move on from that investment, what he's going to do is just allow that building to stay like it is, and we'll continue to get people coming to us, crying about -- Chair Hardemon: And Mr. Woods, I think that's a point that think the community has to City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 understand; that in order for us to really tackle slum in an area, we have to be able to invest our dollars into that area; not just into the streets and to common areas and things, and parks, et cetera. We have to be able to invest it into 1st Court, places where some people won't walk. We have to be able to incentivize those owners to buy into eradicating slum, because if not, they're not going to invest into the area until it's profitable for them, and people will continue to live in those conditions, and that's not what we want, and so it's a tricky issue to tackle. And properties -- for instance, like this property that we're speaking of this property is not going to be in the same -- it doesn't have the same square footage as the new apartments that are being built. They're not going to be in the same quality. I mean, you're talking brand new built apartments versus rehabbing an old, existing building, so there are some things to consider when you're making your decision with that. Board Member Suarez: I would just -- I would say two things. One is, I totally agree with that point. You know, part of the reason why this area is slum and blighted is because people have allowed these buildings to deteriorate; haven't reinvested, because the market will not bear it. Chair Hardemon: It won't bear it, right. Board Member Suarez: And to Commissioner Russell's point, he makes a good point. You know, everyone is in real estate that I've ever met to make money. I've never met someone that's -- that comes up to me and says, you know, as a real estate lawyer, !ley, I want to lose money. Can you hook me up with a good investment to lose money? "They're all in it to make money, but there are different niches -- how do you pronounce that? Mr. Woods: Niche. Board Member Suarez: There's a different niche. Anyhow, andl do think there are levels of sophistication in terms of -- particularly in the affordable housing context, there have been many times people walk up to me and say, !ley, I want to do affordable housing. "Andl say, Unless you're very sophisticated and know what you're doing, I wouldn't recommend it. "In this case, it could be a situation where the developer, who -- it's not like a big developer or anything -- that said, Zook, I want to do this. I see the economics of it, 'but didn't fully understand the economics of it, and then came back and said, Book, it's not going to work economically unless there's a modification, 'and what I would just caution people in the community is to really look at the fine print, because, you know, if you're -- you know, if you're bound by something -- which is why I think, by the way, we need to come up with a standard for these kinds of deals, because if we're going to change the standard -- I agree with what Commissioner Carollo is saying. I agree with what Commissioner Russell is saying, but also agree with what you're saying. You're saying, !ley, there's some of these deals have a seven-year affordability period, 'the same deal, you know, so how is that fair? You know, and why do we have it that way, and why is it that way? And soI -- you know, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm willing to compromise on it, just because I do want to see the project get done, andl do think -- you know, but I'm willing -- there's a variety of ways. You can change this, and you can moclin, this in a million different ways to protect the mission of the CRA, but I'd be willing to compromise on your -- you know, maybe the right number is 30. Maybe that's a number that everyone sort of -- that's like a home mortgage, you know, the year of a fully amortized home mortgage from A'to Z, "so maybe that's the right number. I don't know. Board Member Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: The other thing want to point out that I pointed out in the last meeting, because we sort of had this issue, is once again, we continue to set precedence where we establish negotiations, we establish contract, we establish an agreement, and then, if it's not City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 going well, it comes back to this Board in order to have some relief. We saw this in the last meeting, we're seeing this now, and it's going to get to a point where whenever we negotiate a contract, I'm going to be skeptical and ask, !s this really a contract or not?'br When shall foresee this contract coming back to us for some type of= - Board Member Suarez: Modification. Board Member Carollo: -- Modification?" Chair Hardemon: Andl could -- Board Member Carollo: Because it's happening more and more. Chair Hardemon: Now, I completely understand that, but one thing won't stand for, no matter how I feel about the number of years is for us to agree to modifi, the big boys and then give our small boys a hard time, and so that, I won't stand for. Board Member Carollo: I don't want to modin, anybody. Chair Hardemon: No, I respect that. I understand that. Board Member Suarez: But can I just get into one point? Board Member Carollo: I'm not picking anybody up. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Board Member Suarez: But let me just say something to his point, because I've learned a little bit about this business, and the -- and affordable housing, to Commissioner Russell's point, from my understanding, the margins are razor thin, so if you make a mistake, you're going to be in the red. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Suarez: And if you're in the red, guess who's going to get that property back? We are, because if you loan money like this, you're going to end up getting stuck with it, so you're going to get stuck with either a subsequent developer coming and saying, !ley, we need more money because it's'=- the numbers don't work," or, !ley, we need to reduce the affordability period, because this doesn't make sense. "So whether we do it on day one or whether we do it on day 15, or 20, or in year 10, or five, or ten, if the numbers don't work, the numbers don't work. I mean, if some -- you know, and so we have a choice: We can get stuck with it and run it ourselves, and manage it ourselves, you know, and lose money on it ourselves; or we can, you know, do something, and let the community -- so I think part of the problem is that, you know, these deals are done with such a razor thin margin that there's a very, very, very small margin for error, if you will, and so that's why I think they come back that often. It's not the same as a normal real estate deal in my opinion. I don't know how you guys feel about it. Chair Hardemon: We've had tremendous discussion about this, but is there a motion to move this forward with amendments or modifications; or -- it's within your will. Board Member Suarez: I think I'm willing to move it down to 30, which is a home mortgage -- you know -- amortization; hope that there's support for that. Andl think we need to direct the Administration to take a look at all of these deals, you know, and make sure that what we're doing is some sort of a standard so that we can, you know, be comfortable with it and we can also understand the differences, because if -- let's say, for example, that we do it at 30, and City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 nobody wants to rehab a property. Then it makes no sense. If people are giving back the property to us and saying, Book, thank you, but no, thank you, '£t's not going to work for us, 'br we have to increase the subsidy by a lot more money, it's really the same thing. If we have to give -- instead of 500, 000, we have to give 700,000 to compensate for potential losses in how long you have to maintain it affordable, then it's the same thing as reducing the affordability period, so this just makes the margin a little bit less razor thin. So that's -- that'll be my motion, and hopefully, the Board supports it as a compromise. Chair Hardemon: Is there a second? Board Member Russell: Second. Board Member Carollo: For discussion. Chair Hardemon: For discussion? Board Member Carollo: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo. Board Member Carollo: I want to add the --I want to add a friendly amendment since it's properly motioned and second that within five years it does come back to this Board and we -- Board Member Suarez: I accept that. Board Member Carollo: -- take a look at it. Board Member Suarez: I'll accept that. Chair Hardemon: Within five years from today, or within five years of the 30 years? Board Member Suarez: Today, today. Board Member Carollo: Today. Board Member Suarez: Yeah, I agree with that. I understand what he's saying. Yeah. Chair Hardemon: So to clarify for the record, within five years, they come back before this Board to determine what? Board Member Suarez: We could determine whether that's long enough or whether that's short -- whether it could be shortened. Chair Hardemon: To be -- so we want to revisit the issue. Board Member Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Gort: Could be -- look at the -- it all goes according also how much money we put into it, because I think we need to standardize it, like it was stated before; and if we have contracts, we'll be at seven years, andl know in the fifth year, that's something we need to look at. Board Member Suarez: Absolutely. Vice Chair Gort: Why that -- the spirit that's existing there. And let's face it, the funding is what City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 makes the difference, and the -- every year, things changes, the market changes. The market at one time would be very good; other times, they're not. Chair Hardemon: And Commissioner Gort, I will say that part of the reason it went from seven to 50 is because I negotiated 50. Board Member Suarez: You were being aggressive. Chair Hardemon: Right. And so the question becomes, fs 50 reasonable? "And that's what has -- that's been the argument; that 50 was a bit unreasonable. Board Member Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Yeah, but at the same time, when you bring us back to this Board and we originally vote on it, I want to make sure that it's going to stay there, it doesn't -- you know, it's not going to get -- what would be the right terminology? Board Member Suarez: Negotiate after the fact. Board Member Carollo: Renegotiate -- Board Member Suarez: Yeah. Board Member Carollo: -- you know, after the fact. I mean, right now, we got 32,500 per unit, more or less, if we're getting it. That's a lot of rehab, you know. So I -- still, you know, we say five, six hundred thousand dollars. That's a lot of money we're giving. So when we do the initial negotiation, the initial agreement, even the big boys -- I'm sure even the big boys will tell you Commissioner Carollo is not going to want to change any type of deals. You know, the truth of the matter is I think they should own up to what they agree to. Chair Hardemon: I hope we -- that this spirit of not changing deals, when we have some things before us within the CRA, I hope we have this same spirit then. Board Member Suarez: Look, I -- Chair Hardemon: There's going to be a lot of things that we're going to -- Board Member Suarez: Look, Mr. Chair -- Chair Hardemon: The County's wanted us to renegotiate, and I just want to be able to fight that. Board Member Suarez: --I'm always open-minded to hear reasonable and logical arguments. Chair Hardemon: Right, right. Board Member Suarez: So, to me, that's not the issue. To me, the issue is -- there's a couple things at play here. We are doing a rehab deal, which is decent from a new construction deal. We need to -- is there a reason to reflect a difference to make the numbers work mathematically? That's number one. And number two, we need to be consistent, okay? If we're going to do something for X 'ive need to do it for Y. "We need to be consistent. And I'm not saying at this point to go down to the least common denominator, which would be to do -- make every deal now -- rehab deal -- seven years, which doesn't make sense, you know, to me, either. What I'm saying is we're taking it down from 50, which is half of a century for a new construction deal to a City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 30 year, which is a 30 year mortgage. You know, I think that's a reasonable reduction. And we can look at it further, maybe study the issue and see, you know, why someone would need it to be a certain length or another length. Mr. Woods: It's not new construction. This is a rehab. Board Member Suarez: No, I know. I'm saying the 50 -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Suarez: -- is for new construction. Mr. Woods: 50 is new construction. Board Member Suarez: That's what I'm saying. By the way, neglecting [sic] the fact that this is not a new construction deal, so we're reducing it to compensate for the fact that it's not the same kind of product. Mr. Woods: And the four percent bonds are 30, so where we put 17 million into Lyric Plaza, we got 158 units, but that LURA is only 30 years. Board Member Suarez: Right. Board Member Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Thankyou. One last thing, and just to -- I want to make sure that the record reflects the intent. When I say to bring it back it back in five years to evaluate, it's not necessarily to see if we're going to reduce it further; it's to see exactly if we did the right thing. and see -- I want to see exactly -- Chair Hardemon: I got it. Board Member Carollo: -- where we are with this developer and with the whole operation, and see where they're at, and stuff like that; not necessarily to re-evaluate to lower it; it's just to re-evaluate and see did we do the right thing five years prior. Board Member Suarez: That's fine. And we could make a decision at that point what we want to do. I still do think -- Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I need time to -- Chair Hardemon: Take a break, you know. Take -- talkative today. Board Member Carollo: Yeah, we were talking too much. Board Member Suarez: Good reason to do it. Vice Chair Gort: We're ready. Board Member Carollo: Thankyou. Vice Chair Gort: We're ready. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 3. Chair Hardemon: Well, you were in the middle of a comment, correct? We're ready. You were in the middle of a comment? Board Member Suarez: Yeah, yeah, I was just saying that, you know, I think we do need to do -- study this further. I think, number one, we want to be consistent; number two, we want to make sure that the deals work on rehab deals, which are different from new construction deals, so they should be reflected as different, but I think we need to do a little bit more analysis, and I think we need to do a little bit more digging to find out what the right answer is. Chair Hardemon: And so it was properly moved and seconded. There was an amendment that was proposed by Commissioner Carollo. If there's -- Board Member Suarez: I accept the amendment. Chair Hardemon: -- so if there's no objection to the -- Board Member Suarez: Amendment. Chair Hardemon: -- amendment, so at this point, we still are under discussion. Is there any further discussion about the issue? You're recognized. Board Member Russell: Yes. I guess I'm conflicted, because I wasn't involved in the initial decisions that got us here; at which time, 30 years probably would have been very, very reasonable. I -- when we say we got to be consistent, I don't want our consistency -- just like Commissioner Carollo said -- to be coming back on deals and changing. To me, it's very odd, andl -- from here forward, I'm agreeable to this compromise in this position, and we're almost feeling as if we're still at the bargaining table before the deal was done, but from here forward, I would really like us to -- when we close a deal, it's done, because you can't take a car back to the dealership afterwards and say, You know, I wasn't happy about that deal. "I think we need to really be strong on our decisions and negotiate to the best interest of the community, and it's the developer's responsibility to negotiate to the best of his side, and what we come to should be in stone, but that's for the future. Chair Hardemon: Any further comment? I will say that be it 30, 15 or 50, I look forward to this building being rehabbed, because it's an eyesore in the community. It doesn't have any people living in it. The people of Overtown deserve better than on their main thoroughfare to have this building there, and it sits adjacent to a church, and that's not reflectable [sic], I think, of what this community deserves. So being no further comments, all in favor, say aye. The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes; the modified motion, rather, as modified. Board Member Carollo: As modified Chair Hardemon: Moving on to RE.3. Mr. Woods: How many years was it? Board Member Suarez: 30. Mr. Woods: 30. Board Member Suarez: With five years -- revisiting in five years. CRA RESOLUTION City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 15-01543 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000, TO NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE, INC. ("NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS") TO UNDERWRITE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF "FOLKLIFE FRIDAYS", A MONTHLY OPEN-AIR MARKET TO BE HELD ON THE 9TH STREET PEDESTRIAN MALL DURING THE 2016 CALENDAR YEAR; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DISBURSE FUNDS, AT HIS DISCRETION, ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS OR DIRECTLY TO VENDORS, UPON PRESENTATION OF INVOICES AND SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTATION; FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED FROM SEOPW TAX INCREMENT FUND, ENTITLED "OTHER GRANTS AND AIDS," ACCOUNT CODE NO. 10050.920101.883000.0000.00000. File # 15-01543 Cover Memo.pdf File # 15-01543 Financial Form.pdf File # 15-01543 Backup.pdf File # 15-01543 Legislation.pdf Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Board Member Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Commissioner Russell, Chair Hardemon, Commissioner Suarez, Vice Chair Gort and Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-15-0056 Chair Hardemon: RE.3. Clarence Woods, III (Executive Director, Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency): Resolution Number 3 is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency authorizing the issuance of a grant in an amount not to exceed $120, 000 to New Washington Heights Community Development Conference to underwrite costs associated with the continued operation of Folklife Fridays, a monthly open-air market to be held on the 9th Street Pedestrian Mall during the 2016 calendar year; authorizing the executive director to execute all documents necessary for said purpose; further authorizing the executive director to disburse funds at his discretion, or on a reimbursement basis; or directly to vendors, upon presentation of invoices and satisfactory documentation. Commissioners, this is just the renewal of the grant for Folklife Fridays. I think this is probably our seventh or eighth year, and there is one modification to how we look to do Folklife Friday. We want to have the flexibility to be able to move it from the lunchtime to hours between 4 and 8, to see if we can begin to capture some of the crowd that's going to be there now that we are almost finished with the 158 units of affordable housing, as well as the Clyde Killens Pool Hall. All of these different developments will have activity, so we want to see if we can combine the activities with Folklife Friday. Chair Hardemon: I open up the floor right now for public comment. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this? Board Member Suarez: Move it. Move forward. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept this agreement. You're recognized, sir. Timothy Barber: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I just wanted to say we heard -- I been working with Jackie Bell -- Chair Hardemon: Can you announce your name for the record? Mr. Barber: Oh, I'm sorry. Timothy Barber, executive director of the Black Archives Lyric Theater. We've been talking about Folklife Friday, and would just ask that we don't put the stipulation that it's just simply 4 to 8. We've been partnering with Jackie Bell, the Black Archives Lyric Theater. We have a First Friday Amateur Night that we do that has been really successful, with the support of the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), and we're discussing a way -- a plan to bring activity to Overtown; call it Spend Your Friday in Overtown; and it starts at lunchtime, and it extends into Lyric Live, which starts at 6 o'clock, 8 o'clock, which is the amateur night. So we're asking that you allow us to kind of work this out to where it could be functional, because we don't want to lose the lunchtime crowd, but we also want to expand on the evening events, sort of creating something like Cultural Fridays, Big Night in Little Haiti. We're trying to bring that to the Overtown area, and having them only be able to do it between 4 and 8, for us, it's sort of like a dead zone, because people are going home at 5, and we want to capture people at lunchtime and get them to start coming back like at 6 o'clock to create the atmosphere where Overtown is not closed at night, where it's really open. So having that stipulation and allowing us to work together to join the Lyric Live Amateur Night with the Folklife Friday, and create that event, similar to what we experienced during Art Basel would be monumental, and that was just what we are asking; give us the time to work with them, joint marketing, to really push that. We're even talking about doing a Art Saturday that weekend, so build from that weekend and then build out to get people to really come to Overtown and enjoy being in Overtown, not just in the daytime, but also in the evening, as well, andl think that would be the key to really changing the economic diversity in this area. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Mr. Barber: Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am. Jackie Bell: Jackie Bell, 1600 Northwest 3rdAvenue. Congratulations, Mr. Russell. Board Member Russell: Thankyou. Ms. Bell: We hope that you become one as we are. Thank you. Folklife Friday is an economic business. It's not a party; it's about economic stimulus. The vendors that come to Folklife come because it changed their economics. New Washington Heights have been the catalyst for everything that you see happening now. 95 percent of you who sit on the Board knows that and know me. We do have a following. We want to make it better because of what is coming to our community. We want it to be a tourist attraction. Any one of you who travel the world knows that marketplaces are an economic stimulus. You go to Cairo, Egypt, you can get leather 24/7, and all other kinds of products. If you go to the Bahamas, they have a straw market. If you go to Soweto, we have a material market that are being made that we, who live here, who buy the African clothes and think they come from Africa, they don't. They come from Dutch, but the Dutch have a huge market in Soweto. You look at the women from Indonesia, who started with $2 and a micro -vending and changed their community. Ifyou go to West Africa with a billy goat City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 in the marketplace, they changed their economics. Chair Hardemon: Madam Bell. Ms. Bell: This African -American community here needs to be able to change their economics. And most of these projects that have been built so far have not changed our economics and -- Chair Hardemon: Madam Bell, your time has expired. Ms. Bell: Huh? Yes. Chair Hardemon: Your time has expired. Ms. Bell: Okay. Thank you, but please, the marketplace is for us, and it is to make a difference economically. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much. Is there any other person that'd like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Board Member Russell: There's a motion and a second. Board Member Suarez: Yeah, it's been moved and seconded. Chair Hardemon: Oh, yeah, there was a motion and a second. Any discussion? You're recognized, sir. Board Member Suarez: No. Chair Hardemon: No? Board Member Suarez: I'm ready to vote. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Gort. Vice Chair Gort: My understanding is the Lyric Theater got the Friday afternoon; and the evenings, we have the program, because I think they're very important. Lunch crowd is very important. You help the vendors, and the local vendors, and so on, but to bring additional tourist, you need to have that night artwork. The Cultural Friday will establish that the night, people come over and look at the arts in the streets and the sidewalk. You got the perfect place to do it. Somehow, I think they should combine the two and see how they can perform, and they can come back with a plan. I don't have any problem voting on the motion today, but I'd like to see the two of you get together and come up with a plan. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. 4. CRA RESOLUTION 15-01196 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $900,000 TO THE CITY OF MIAMI TO UNDERWRITE COSTS ASSOCIATED City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 WITH ENHANCED POLICING SERVICES WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DISBURSE FUNDS, AT HIS DISCRETION, ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS OR DIRECTLY TO VENDORS, UPON PRESENTATION OF INVOICES AND SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTATION; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM SEOPW, "OTHER GRANTS AND AIDS," ACCOUNT CODE NO. 10050.920101.883000.0000.00000. File # 15-01196 Cover Memo.pdf File # 15-01196 Financial Form.pdf File # 15-01196 Backup.pdf File # 15-01196 Legislation.pdf Motion by Board Member Suarez, seconded by Vice -Chair Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: Commissioner Russell, Chair Hardemon, Commissioner Suarez, Vice Chair Gort and Commissioner Carollo CRA-R-1 5-0057 Chair Hardemon: Moving on to RE.4. Clarence Woods, III (Executive Director, Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency): Resolution Number 4 is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency authorizing a grant in an amount not to exceed $900, 000 to the City ofMiami to underwrite costs associated with enhanced police services within the redevelopment area; further authorizing the executive director to disburse funds at his discretion on a reimbursement basis; or directly to vendors, upon presentation of invoices and satisfactory documentation. Board Member Suarez: Move it for discussion. Board Member Carollo: Second; discussion. Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. I open up the floor right now for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public like to discuss this matter? You're recognized, sir. Adrian Madriz: My name is Adrian Madriz, 1841 Northwest 1st Court. I'm concerned about the amount of money that's being spent on this particular proposal. I think that we need to give an opportunity for other kinds of policing methods to be given a chance to perhaps be implemented in Overtown. The restorative justice process is a process that's been tried in a lot of other urban core areas around the country, and it uses not so much the punitive power of the police as much as it is the power of the community to police themselves and to establish their Rubrics for how it is that they're going to maintain order in that neighborhood, and so since we are talking about such a considerable sum of money, I would like to see if there is an opportunity for us to explore that further before we just decide to spend it on more policing measures, which will further deteriorate the situation as far as criminalization is concerned in Overtown. There are lots of opportunities, also, for us to make sure that the folks who have been incarcerated do not get re -incarcerated, and l fear that this additional funding to policing, specifically, will not help that problem out at all, and they will actually re -incarcerate a lot of people that we're actually trying to keep out ofjail and so, if the Board is open to it, I would like to see this resolution tabled until other kinds of policing methods can be researched and studied prior to the expenditure of this $900, 000 on methods that have been proven to be ineffective in making Overtown a safer neighborhood. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Berlinda Faye Dixon: Berlinda Faye Dixon, Overtown resident, 1128 Northwest 7th Avenue, Apartment 401, Miami, Florida, 33136. I'm concerned. I'd like to -- for the Board to hear about the pilot program that we had that you guys approved, the police pilot program. I'd like to know, before this is approved, I'd like to also ask for this to be tabled. I'd like to know how that pilot program turned out, because being an Overtown resident and seeing that pilot program approved, being on the streets, seeing what's happened, what I see is more slum and blight. I see more heroin. I see every place that I've called to say that they've started a camp, this building needs to be boarded up, I'd like to know how that actually helped us, that pilot program, and what were the results of it to show that there's a proven track record before we go add more police, because we do have a lot of police. Right now, we don't have enough police networking with the residents in the community. I'd like to see additional programs for the people who suffer from substance abuses within our community, and drop -in programs where they can get help. I know that there are a few; even Camillus House has a day program, but there are still -- you know, I was at a meeting last week, and there's still like 1,300 people homeless, numbered on the street, okay. I don't know about that number, but what do know is what lsee, and a lot of it does congregate in Overtown, and one of the things -- if we would tackle the slum and blight with Code Enforcement, after hiring all these additional Code Enforcement officers to actually handle the building issues, which I've called on several times, and you all only spent $856, 000 on the St. John's Project that -- just to be boarded up. So more policing isn't the answer. We've got problems with existing -- previous existing before even maybe your tenure, Commissioner, that we need to handle those issues in those buildings, along with the previous one -- the other one that we're going to handle on 3rdAvenue, but adding more police I don't think does it. I think we need more door-to-door, hands-on approach, you know. I remember some of the old-timers, like Ms. Bell, they would say when the policemen would walk the beat, he -- they knew -- yeah, you told this story; right, Ms. Bell? They would walk the beat. We've heard the stories that they knew -- you know, !ley, John, how you doing? Where's John been? "You know. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Dixon: I think that we need a little bit more of that. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Dixon: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. GeraldMuhammed: GeraldMuhammed 5505 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. First and foremost, on the policing, you had a project, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) had a project in 2009, which was called the Peacemakers Project, and if you just take a look at it, it was one of the most -- from Chief Gomez confirmed it -- that it was one of the most successful policing -- community policing projects that we've seen, so I would just like for you to take another look at that Peacemakers Project again, andl think that'd greatly help the policing in our community with a better -- I wouldn't say a better way that the police do it, but it's a more community -based way to police our community. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Kevin Springs: My name is Kevin Springs, 8330 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. Just very quickly, I guess -- Commissioner Hardemon, congratulations on all the work you're doing; and congratulations to your new appointment, Commissioner Russell. I wanted to voice some concern about the language that's used in this -- this is a resolution. There is the interest of the CRA, there's to be -- I'm trying to figure out who benefits from additional policing services. City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 So I came to the Commission. I've talked to several of the Commissioners prior to now about programming that would enhance the lives of those that live in the community of Overtown. I came up with some programs, some ideas that I ran through everyone, and to see that this is the end result, that we're going to get more police officers is really alarming for me, because I think that an ounce of prevenfion -- and, you know, there's a mounting body of evidence that proves that more policing in impoverished areas exacerbates the problems. I'm not sure what, you know, what data you all use to come to this conclusion that more policing might be needed in Overtown, but I don't think that that's -- I don't think that that works. We have got to stop looking at these communities from a deficits point of view and start looking from a strengths point of view. There's a tremendous amount of talent in Overtown that is being overlooked, and) think that we need to take a closer look at that, and if you're disconnected from that because geographically, you live someplace else, or you have a higher education, or whatever it is that separates you from the people, if, in fact, that's what's happening, you need to take a closer look at that. And so, I would just ask this Board that you consider some of the alternative methods that we can use to strengthen this community. Overtown saved my life 20 years ago, and it wasn't due to any governmental involvement, and) like what Commissioner Suarez had to say about that; that we're looking to change the way business is done, and the only way that we can do that is we have to be progressive about what we're talking about and what we're planning to do. So I would just really suggest very strongly that you go back to the table and reconsider additional policing forces in Overtown, and look for some alternative ways to strengthen this community. They deserve it. It makes, you know, government look good, and it does, you know, the people better. And I'm here to do that, so -- Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Any further comment? Mr. Springs: Okay, thank you. Michael Simpkins: Hi. Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Board. My name is Michael Simpkins, andl'm a property owner of various parcels in the redevelopment district. You know, it's a very sensitive issue, andl'm by no means an expert, but) did want to offer a suggestion that the Board should look at. Before I purchased some of the parcels I own, in 2014, the early part, there was a grant given to activate, revitalize a portion of the Metrorail from Northwest 1st Court to Northwest 3rdAvenue. Now, that's a particular area that bad things are happening in there. I think the Board granted over a million dollars, and till today, nothing has happened in that area. That's something that) think would help the situation. I think there's a lot of things needed, you know, but that's something) encourage you to revisit. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Jackie Bell: My name is Jackie Bell. I have walked the streets night and day in Overtown. I love the police officers. There are some things that I don't like, but I talk to them about them. We need the police. We need this community policing that you all are now going to refund. It has been there before. All of these people who are coming up here talking, they don't live over there. They don't walk the street over there. We don't see them in the restaurants; do we, Commissioner? We don't see them buying nothing from the stores, do we? But they come before you, and they talk, because they got some other plans. Tim Barber and), we agree. I love you, Commander, okay? Look, this is our neighborhood. When we come and get mad and say things, you listen to the ones of us who been there through all of the bad, all of the good, okay? We need them. Don't let these people tell y'all that. Timothy Barber: Timothy Barber, Lyric Theater, 19 Northwest 2ndAvenue. I agree with Ms. Bell that, you know, when I'm there at 5, 6 in the morning dealing with the Lyric, it's the police I call, you know. There's nobody else I can call that assist with anything that go on, and that's the police. Andl do believe that we need that, and we got some great officers in Overtown, from Stucky to the Commander, and) think that we need to support them in any way possible that they City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 make a presence in Overtown. And, you know, we thank God that we haven't had any situation like other places in America has had with the police, because we got a great police force; County police force, as well. I think we need that support, andl recommend that you do fund this so that we can have the presence of the police in the Overtown area. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Any further public comment? Al Crespo: Al Crespo. I don't live in the community, but a long time ago, I used to come to this community all the time back when it was a community. Sadly, it's not a community anymore. No? No, no, it is, but it isn't, you know. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Crespo -- Mr. Crespo: You know, it is, but it isn't. Chair Hardemon: -- your comments should be directed to the Board. Mr. Crespo: Okay, but again, I'm here to talk about the money. So in your resolution, you have that you in March 30 of 2015, you allocated $700, 000, and now, you're back in December, asking for another $900, 000. And then with this financial information form, it says that you used the money from the sale of Block 56, $1, 625, 000, and the money's gone. That $1, 625, 000 is gone. And there's been money spent for all kinds of things other than the policing. If the money was dedicated for the policing -- you've spent money for -- you've got $15, 000 for holiday tree lighting event; $20, 000 for Miami Shelter; you got $25, 000 street lighting maintenance agreement. That should be a City -- that -- the City should be paying for street lighting, right? All of these things look like they should -- are designed for -- Design 2 Forum for architectural services -- all of that money should have been, you know, should not have -- at least I think should -- if you're going to have the police, you should be paying for the police out of that money. So why was all this money spent for other things? Chair Hardemon: We'll make sure your question gets answered. Any other public comments? Any other public comments? Hearing none, I'll close the public -- I'll close the floor of public comments. I want to say something, andl want to make sure that we get a -- our Police Commander to come address our body first, but the Board Members don't -- this is our second year that we're actually funding this initiative to have additional police officers within the Overtown community. It's not something that has been in other -- done in other communities. Also, within the Omni CRA, there are additional police officers in the Omni, and there are less people living in the Omni. Well, I won't say that comment, but they have less issues than what we do in the Overtown community. Also, the neighbor to the north of us, the Wynwood area has additional police officers that they pay for themselves, the BID (Business Improvement District). The presence of police officers, I think, personally, is important to invite business, to invite development. Within our Redevelopment Plan and within the Redevelopment Act, it talks about how crime is a deterrent to redevelopment. And so just tackling the issues of crime, the perceived -- or the perception of the safety of a neighborhood, in order for this community to move forward in a positive way, and for people to feel safe walking our community, and coming there in the evenings to enjoy themselves at fancy restaurants, and see plays, and visit our -- frequent our Lyric Theater, there has to be the perception of safety. Andl think that our boys and women in blue give us that. Andl want to make some comments also, as far as other ways of addressing crime within our community. We're not closing the door to those things. One of the things that the -- for instance, the Peacemakers was something thatl was thinking of revisiting; not necessarily in that form, but I thought about something different, but there. And then, also, I just want to be clear about the -- restorative justice is not something that needs additional research. I mean, there's a plethora of research about restorative justice. I don't think restorative justice does much when someone's shot and killed in Overtown streets. It really does a lot more with crimes -- where you have burglaries; things where people can actually apologize and do some City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 things within the community to restore the sense of justice within that community, but heroine usage is not going to do much for that, either. And I've personally been within the Overtown community, because I walk, shop, spend lots of time within the Overtown community, and when I'm there -- I remember there was one particular time that I remember that an officer was making an arrest of two individuals for drug usage and drug sales, andl happened to be turning the corner, and on the corner, there was a gentleman standing to the right of me at one of the dilapidated structures in Overtown that we have yet to renovate, but we will. And he was looking at the police officer, andl could tell something was wrong. And so, as the officer is getting two individuals in the back seat of one car, he then takes out a crackpipe, starts to use it, and then shares it with the woman right next to him. And so then, we have to contact that officer to say, !ley, you got two more that just'L- that you need to get from using crack on the streets of our community, in front of our children. "And he had to wait for another officer to come -- because they almost got away -- to get another car to get those two individuals. The problems that we have in Overtown when it comes to drug usage is something that you don't see in many other communities. And you may be able to buy drugs in other communities, but no one stands on the corner, like they do in Overtown, and uses them. And so that's some of the things that l just -- I can't see happening anymore within our community if you want to have a community that people would want to live in, in the future, they want to move in and invest in. And so, I'd like to ask the Commander to just talk more about where you've been with this grant, how you've been doing, where you see it going; and then also, compare or contrast it to the police visibility grant that you received in the past. Dana Carr (NET Commander): Well, good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present our initiative with the CRA enhanced police services. Obviously, arrests are a part of our initiative, because we do -- as everyone has mentioned, we have a huge narcotics problem within Overtown, and that is primarily our focus, because it brings so many other things. Whenever you have narcotics sales, that brings gunfire; it enhances robberies, because people who are addicted to narcotics tend to get desperate, so they rob people. Also, ladies who are addicted commit prostitution to fund their habit. So it brings a lot of other crimes; and then, when we have a huge homeless population who are addicted, too, that refuels customers. So we are aggressive in our enforcement in that so that children won't have to walk to and from school to view that. We do work with homeless outreach to assist the homeless in that, and try to get the rehab assistance for them. We also partner with Code Enforcement to inspect the buildings where narcotics sales are frequent so that we can control that through that aspect of enforcement. We also use Nuisance Abatement. We've submitted three properties to Nuisance Abatement in Overtown so that we can force the owners to take a active role, and the tenants who are in those properties who facilitate narcotics sales. So it's a holistic approach that we take, and it has made an impact. The police officers, in addition to making arrests, they conduct park -and -walks. So far, within the six months, they have done over 970 park -and -walks. And what that means is they're getting out, speaking to the community; knowing who the good guys are, who the bad guys are; and also, giving them an opportunity to tell them that, Listen, this is not going to be tolerated here. We're going to take enforcement actions in these locations," and try to direct them, but, obviously, if we see activity, criminal activity going on in front of us, we take immediate police action, but we talk to them in addition, before (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We direct that behavior before we arrest. So where I see it going, we're going to continue to partner with our outside sources, like the Career Center at the Lindsey Hopkins, because we have some people who are so engrained into the drug trade, that's all they have been doing. So in order for us not to bump heads, we're going to try to start offering them -- take them services so that they could find other jobs. The ones whose records are not so bad -- when I was a Commander in Model City, we have been able to place them into jobs, andl would like to bring that same initiative here, because we would always -- pretty much, they're not going to go anywhere unless they have something else to do, another alternative. So that's what we would like to offer them, so we don't have to continue the cycle of arresting them. And that's within my resources to do to assist them, but it -- because the narcotics trade is so ingrained in Overtown, I don't see how we can control it necessarily without a combination of policing services and the City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 additional resources that the community has spoken about. Chair Hardemon: What things have you done thus far with the resources that we've given you for the police enhancement services? Commander Carr: Well, when I attend community meetings, obviously, I respond to the citizen complaints about the concerns that they have, so I deploy my resources in those areas. I also monitor the crime trends and deploy them in those areas, but my main concern is to have them get out and do community policing, and that's our main focus, so that when it's time, I tell all of them, When you make an arrest, that should not be the first time that a person from the community has met you. You should know them already. "So that's what the primary focus is, and enforcement actions in our hot spots in the areas where the citizens have concerns. Chair Hardemon: Board Members, any questions for Commander Carr? No. Commander Carr Vice Chair Gort: I'd just like to -- Board Member Suarez: I just want to know if you have any -- maybe it's in here. Listen, it -- we were just talking about it now. It's a one -square -mile area, and it's very challenging to police. Do you have -- and if you don't, it's okay; if you do, it would be nice just to get a sense -- year over year, from a crime perspective, is there any sort of -- have you made any improvements? I know it's a tough question to answer, because, you know, it's a tough area to police -- and sometimes, things are out of your control, and you're reacting, rather than able to sort of predict what's going to happen -- but is there any -- do we know -- do we have any statistics to, you know, on crime that give us a little bit of hope for improvement in the area? Commander Carr: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't bring a comparison today with me. Board Member Suarez: Sure. Commander Carr: I can get that for you at a later date. Board Member Suarez: Please, if you can. I just want to get a sense for what are we -- how are we doing vis-a-vis the investment that we're making, because it's a significant investment, andl think -- you know, look -- andl think the Chair just said it very well -- nobody here has all the answers, you know. This is a problem that has been going on in this area for a long time. We cannot close ourself [sic] off to potential solutions, whatever they may be; whether they be, you know, your solutions or your suggestions, or the opposite extreme. I'm sure that there's a lot of people that believe, whether it's right or wrong, you may think they're crazy, but there are people that believe that our court system is a revolving door, and that, you know, criminals, hardened criminals don't get the real punishment that they need for the crimes that they commit, and that that is responsible sometimes for some of the things that are happening in some of our inner cities. So, I mean, there -- I've heard both sides of the argument. I'd be more than happy to look at whatever studies -- I've never seen a study that shows that an increased police presence does not lead to a reduction in crime. Every experience that I've had as a Commissioner for six years, there's a correlation between police presence in an area and a reduction in crime; there's a direct correlation. And the more police presence, the more reduction in crime there is, because a lot of crime is opportunistic in nature, you know, and if you -- if the criminals feel that they have an opportunity to commit crime, they'll -- even things as simple as smoking crack on a street. In my district on -- I just -- I saw a police officer in my district on -- we have a loitering issue on 22nd and 6th -- Southwest 16th Street, andl saw a police officer just approach a loiterer that was pan -handling aggressively, and just sort of like let him know that he was there, and that discon -- you know, the person turned around and went back to wherever they were going. So sometimes, it's just a matter of having a visibility, having a presence, you know, and exercising that presence City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 in a way that lets people know, Hey, this is not okay. You cannot be doing this here. We're not going to accept it, we're not going to tolerate it. "And those are things, by the way, that are not statistics, because the number of people that maybe haven't smoked crack on a street because of your presence is not a statistic that you can measure, so it's just something to put in the minds of people. I think it -- the one -block area of Overtown is an area that we did ShotSpotter in, because of the concentration of gunfire. That's an objective measurement. That's not -- that's got nothing to do with anything other than, objectively, where is the largest concentration of gunfire, and it happened to be, in part, in this area, so we put the sensors in this area; simple. So, I mean, we need to be creative. We need to think outside of the box. We all need to work together to come up with better and better solutions, but, certainly, this is something that support, and I'd like to vote in favor of it. I have to go to a Charter Review meeting, but I'd like to vote in favor of it, if possible. Vice Chair Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yeah, you're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Gort: Yeah. One time, the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices were created for the reason to work in the neighborhood. Board Member Suarez: I move it. Vice Chair Gort: They've become -- I'll second it for discussion. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved -- Vice Chair Gort: It's the -- you need a break? Go ahead. Chair Hardemon: No, no. Vice Chair Gort: Okay. The NET office worked, because you had the NRO (Neighborhood Resource Officer), the Code Enforcement, the NET administrator and the police working as a team. And when you work as a team, like it was stated before, you can perform a lot better. The NET office, you have your NRO. They're supposed to be in the street; they're supposed to know all of the businesspeople; they're supposed to know the community. The head of the NET office is aware where all the problems are at. Sometimes, Code alone cannot do it. You have to work with the police to do it, and you have to work with the residents in the area, also, because you can -- the best information, you'll get from them, so that's very important. And this is very close to community policemen, and that's what it takes. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. If there are no further -- Board Member Russell: Mr. Chair, I do. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Board Member Russell: I have a couple questions for the Commander. And thank you very much for taking care of the community. I just want to understand a little bit about the CRA specific police force that this is funding, as opposed to the regular police force that is out there on any given night. Within the Southeast Overtown area on a given night, how many of the cars out there -- the police cars out there -- would be from this CRA-branded force versus the regular police force? Commander Carr: The CRA is staffed with one sergeant and five officers. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Board Member Russell: That's the CRA -- Commander Carr: That is the CRA enhanced police unit. Board Member Russell: And then, would there be additional City ofMiami police force out there or --? Commander Carr: We have our regular patrol officers out there. We have a Neighborhood Resource Officer, and we have our problem -solving team. Board Member Russell: In addition to -- Commander Carr: In addition to, yes. Board Member Russell: -- this? Okay. That's --I guess that's kind of what wanted to understand fully; to know that we were making sure that this -- Chair Hardemon: It doesn't supplement [sic]. Board Member Russell: It doesn't supplant it; it supplements. Chair Hardemon: Correct. Board Member Russell: It adds to it; it doesn't replace it, and that's -- Chair Hardemon: Correct. Board Member Russell: -- I guess that's really key, isn't it, to the -- Chair Hardemon: Absolutely. Board Member Russell: -- statute? All right. And my other question is, okay, so the statistics here are not specifically from the CRA force, but from overall -- Commander Carr: That is -- Board Member Russell: -- in the area? Commander Carr: -- the statistics are specifically for the CRA officers. It is -- Board Member Russell: Oh, okay. Commander Carr: -- specifically for them, solely. Board Member Russell: Understood, understood. Chair Hardemon: Any further comments or questions? Board Member Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Board Member Carollo: Thank you. Andl will be supportive of this measure; however, I want to make sure, as mentioned before, that the monies that's allocated does go to police officers in the CRA area, so I have a question: Out of the $700, 000 that was appropriated, allocated in City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 March, how much of that money has been expensed for police officers? Because I'm going on memory, but I believe, ifI remember correctly, in the budget, there was a lot of carryover from those monies for police officers, and it's going into your budget. So I want to know how much of the money -- I understand it was allocated and approved by this Board, but how much was actually expensed and paid out to the City for police officers? Mr. Woods: The first grant that you approved was 1.274, of which $275, 000 were for cameras, and ifI remember correctly, it was around 600 and some thousand dollars that was for actual salaries; somewhere up in there. Board Member Carollo: Okay, but my question is very simple: Out of those $700, 000 that we approved, how many has been expensed for police officers in the CRA area? Chair Hardemon: They're having some trouble because their financial genius is not in the building right now; that's what happened, so. Mr. Woods: The -- Miguel apparently left, but we do have the -- Board Member Carollo: Because I remember that in looking at your budget back in September, there was a carryover for that, so if you -- Mr. Woods: Right. Board Member Carollo: -- saw the carryover, plus the additional monies that you were going to be receiving, there was a lot more, andl was wondering why the City hadn't allocated for those funds, and even though they agreed with me that we should be allocating more, this is the only amount -- the amount that they allocated was the only amount that was told by either the executive director or someone from the CRA that they could allocate, so I just want to verify that whatever we are approving here as monies going out to police services for Overtown that the City then is receiving, and the money is actually going to what we wanted it for, for police services in Overtown. Renee Jadusingh (CRA In -House Counsel): Well, the grant -- sorry. The grant from the previous year -- Chair Hardemon: Could you announce yourself for the record? Ms. Jadusingh: Oh, sorry. Renee Jadusingh, CRA counsel. The funds from last year, we've spent approximately $555, 000 on cars, and uniforms, equipment; andl think, roughly, about $250,000 on salaries, because our -- as you see, our term was only a few months, so we didn't actually spend all of the funds that were allocated last year, but we will be de -allocating that funding, and this is a new grant that we're providing for this fiscal year. Board Member Carollo: Yeah. I just think we're mixing up the funds, because some were for, like the executive director said, cameras and other things, but out of these 700, specific, are you saying that all of them have been expensed already? Ms. Jadusingh: Well, the cameras were from a previous resolution to get. Board Member Carollo: So from these $700, 000 -- Vice Chair Gort: What are we approving today? Board Member Carollo: -- has it all been expensed? Because you're asking us for more -- for additional funding. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Woods: For the next -- for this new year. Ms. Jadusingh: For the next fiscal year, right, at the advisement of the City. They ended that fiscal year grant, so they asked us to de -allocate, basically -- Board Member Suarez: Can I just chime in -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner. Board Member Suarez: -- to just say that maybe we can get a report at the next --? Mr. Woods: It's not in addition to the money that we provided last year. The money that was left will be de -allocated and we'll roll that money back into the fund balance. This money is money for this year, for this fiscal year. Board Member Carollo: Understood, but there was a big carryover. I just want -- listen, I am supportive of all police services. I will be supportive of this. I just want to make sure, once again, since I didn't have the opportunity before, I want to make sure that I have the opportunity now, since it's coming back to me for request of approval that the monies that we allocate does go to the City, so I should see these monies going into the City's budget, so they should be budgeting for this, for the whole amount, and you should have an expense for this amount. And I wish Miguel was here so we could discuss that, because -- Mr. Woods: Yeah. Board Member Carollo: -- we had issues, andl had a lengthy conversation with our City Manager and our Budget director, and they knew exactly what I was saying, and they were -- agreed with me, so I want to make sure that, once again, the monies that we're allocating -- in other words, we're approving this now, okay? This should be going out from the CRA, and then somewhere in the City budget, we should see it coming into the City. Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Carollo: And there was a discrepancy with what was coming out from the CRA and what was coming into the City. Mr. Woods: Yes, and I'm familiar with what you're talking about in regards to the -- Board Member Carollo: Because there was a carryover. Mr. Woods: -- discrepancy, and because of -- I think that the discrepancy is because of what they booked as the grant to come from the CRA. They basically booked the whole amount. Board Member Carollo: Except for the carryover that you had, and the carryover is monies that you were showing it in this year's budget as going to the City, or that you were intending to give to the City -- Mr. Woods: We're going to de -allocate that. Board Member Carollo: -- however, however, the City never showed it as coming into their budget, so I was a little concerned how we were showing -- and l forgot what was the amount -- X'amount of money coming from the CRA, or showing as an expense, X'amount of money for police services to the City, and the City was showing a lesser amount. City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Mr. Woods: Right. Andl -- what we can do is we can get you -- well, we have the exact number -- $131, 626 for salaries; $555, 731.34 for cars and equipment. The difference that you're talking about is, again, because we started sometime into the year, the salary number -- it was actually June 24 -- the numbers for salaries that the City booked, which they were contemplating the officers starting a lot sooner than they actually started, that money did not -- we did not give that money to the City -- Board Member Carollo: Exactly, and why -- Mr. Woods: -- because they did not expend it. The offers [sic] were not working, you know, during the time that they anticipated them to start working; whether it was -- when was it? -- it was -- I think we approved the item -- Board Member Carollo: But you still show the -- in this year's budget as going to the City. Mr. Woods: We showed it, right, but we had not -- well the City showed it on their side. We had it -- Board Member Carollo: Not -- Mr. Woods: -- in our budget, but it was because of the resolution and what had been already allocated for that expense. We did not -- because we didn't spend it, what we're going to do is we're going to de -allocate it from that grant; de -allocate that additional amount of money, and put it back into the fund balance, providing this additional $900, 000, which is projected, what it's going to take to cover salaries, and maintenance for equipment. Board Member Carollo: So then there should be some adjustment to our budget -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Carollo: -- when? In the sixth year, whenever you do your midyear budget adjustments? Mr. Woods: When -- this budget coming up, I mean, you know we come before you in January, when we book our actual receipts. What we passed before was a projected budget. So in January, we'll come with you with our actual budget, and there'll be -- that'll be corrected at that point in time. Board Member Carollo: Understood, but if you have, let's say, a hundred from carryover, and let's say 200 for -- now allocated, so a total of 300, and you're showing a total of 300; a hundred from carryover, 200 from new monies, would you agree that if you show 300 as police services for Overtown and so forth, and you're showing it that it's going to transfer out to the City that the City should have then a transfer in of 300? Mr. Woods: Well, what's going to happen, Commissioner, is when we de -allocate that money, it won't -- it wouldn't be in an item for the City. When we de -allocate that money, it's not going to be for police; it'll be back into what we consider our general fund. What would be there is the $200, 000 that we are allocating now for the upcoming year, or $900, 000 in this case, so what the City can look to receive is $900, 000. What we've gotten from them, the actual invoices where we've expended man hours, as well as equipment, is those two figures that I just mentioned to you, which would be about $685, 000. Chair Hardemon: I don't want us to get to overcomplicate this issue. Budgeting is a process in which you anticipate expenses, you plan for those expenses, and so you submit a budget, it is a forward -looking document. The CRA, when it expends its funds, it is providing for -- a dollar for City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 things that were expensed, so the police will then provide a -- as I understand -- andl know you get this -- I'm saying this for everyone to understand that when they provide us a -- Commander Carr: Invoice. Chair Hardemon: -- legitimate invoice or expense and we -- Mr. Woods: Mm-hmm, we will pay that. Chair Hardemon: -- then make that payment, and so sometimes, your budget does not reflect your expenses -- Board Member Suarez: Actuals. Chair Hardemon: -- yeah, the actuals, so that's where we are. But concerning this allocation for this new year, is there any further discussion? Mr. Russell. Board Member Russell: I apologize, I know we're getting a little late, butt do have two questions; one is more legal and one is more timing. From the legal -- I mean, for me, being new to the CRA, for me, I really need to understand the test for myself, whether every expenditure of the tax increment revenues, it passes the test where it qualifies as a CRA. I'm very much in favor of the additional policing. I can see the results of what it does. I guess my question is an interpretation -- I need a legal opinion from the special attorney from the City -- Assistant City Attorney -- if it's okay to spend tax increment revenue on community policing innovations, but not for general government operating expenses is my understanding. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): That's true, correct. Board Member Russell: And so does this qualq5, as an innovation? Andl noticed a few people brought together ideas tonight of -- creative ideas that we can be using with -- in conjunction with the police force. Are we using CRA funds to fund what the City should be funding, or is this -- does this qualify as a policing innovation, above and beyond? Mr. Min: Thank you for the question, Commissioner, because there was some mischaracterizations; unintentional, of course, as far as what this is. These are enhanced police services, so the City ofMiami is responsible for providing police services. The CRA, under the Community Redevelopment Act, has the ability to provide enhanced or other innovative types of police services, in addition to what the City ofMiami has to provide, so there is a base minimum that the City's already providing through its regular municipal powers, police powers. The tax increment funds can be utilized to perform these enhanced types of services and any other type of innovative policing that the CRA can come up with. So the six -- is it six police officers that are budgeted? They are not CRA police officers, per se; they are simply enhanced police services that the City ofMiami is responsible for. Mr. Woods: Commissioner, ifI can just give a simple statement in the way it was explained to me that made it easy for me to understand, regular police basically respond to call for services. CRA police, when we do our enhanced police services, it's all the other things outside the -- Board Member Russell: Understood. Mr. Woods: -- normal call for services. Board Member Russell: And my other question was about timing. There was a couple members of the public that asked for us to table this to consider other ideas and such, and then considering Commissioner Carollo's concerns, is there a time press to put this through, or are we City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 Chair Hardemon: And I'd rather answer that. I haven't -- we've been discussing -- well, we've had a police visibility grant that I don't think worked the way that it should have worked within the redevelopment area that we had been funding for many years. We renewed it as -- since I was Chairman, I think once. And then the next year, we decided to go with this plan. I think this plan is much more substantive than the Police Visibility Grant, and we've had significant discussions about what this type of plan would do for our community, and after those discussions, we have implemented it, and we've had -- now have had success with it. And so I'm not moved by anyone who asks us to table this to look into other policing methods. I think this has been working for our community, and we want to continue it working within our community, and so for me -- Board Member Russell: Understood. Chair Hardemon: -- the tabling falls on deaf ears. Board Member Russell: Understood. Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: Any further -- Vice Chair Gort: Mr. Chairman, one question. Chair Hardemon: -- any -- yes. Vice Chair Gort: As the Commander, you're in charge of all the forces within your district; am I correct? Commander Carr: That's correct. Vice Chair Gort: So, in other word, you can determine where the problems are and how to take care of those problems; who to utilize for those problems, like the solve -- what do you call them? -- the team, the -- Commander Carr: The problem -solving unit. Vice Chair Gort: -- problem -solving team? Commander Carr: That's correct. Vice Chair Gort: When it's necessary, you can request it and you can have it? Commander Carr: That's correct. I have a problem -solving team assigned. I have Neighborhood Resource Officers in addition to normal patrol officers, and the CRA. Vice Chair Gort: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Carollo. Board Member Carollo: Thankyou; thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the only thingl want to add, like I said, I'm going to be supportive of this. As a matter of fact, a couple years ago, when Michelle Spence -Jones was here, Commissioner Spence -Jones, I worked -- and she requested this -- very closely with Chief Gomez now, with regards to some of the police, you know, tactics that, you know, they were using in order to show some of these numbers that are being shown on here. So I will be supportive of this, but at the same time, I want to make sure that we have a follow-up City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 1/21/2016 SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes December 14, 2015 ADJOURNMENT meeting with Miguel, your CFO (Chief Financial Officer) -- Mr. Woods: Yes. Board Member Carollo: -- so we could discuss this, because I want to make sure, once again, that whatever I approve goes to our original intentions, and if there's any discrepancies or any disparities, I want to make sure that they are out, transparent, and make sure that we can account for them correctly. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Vice Chair Gort: One more question: We work in a reimbursement case; in other words, the City provided the services, then the City bills you, and then you pay them? Mr. Woods: Yes. Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Woods: And, hopefully, to allay your concerns, Commissioner Carollo, every bill that the City sends to us, we will pay. There won't be any outstanding invoices; it's just that where -- Board Member Suarez: Unless it above the budgeted amount. Mr. Woods: You're right. If they didn't perform the services, I don't think we should pay. Board Member Carollo: Right. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Board Member Carollo: And then they should -- but then, ifwe've allocated the monies, they should provide the services. Board Member Suarez: Of course. Mr. Woods: Right. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, say aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Vice Chair Gort: Motion to adjourn. Chair Hardemon: Move to adjourn. The meeting is adjourned at 7: 42 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7: 42 p.m. City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 1/21/2016