Good afternoon. Welcome to the City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency regular meeting. Today is Tuesday, April 28, 2026, and the time is 4 p.m. Will you call the roll? Chair Kassell? Here. Vice Chair Malika? Here. Commissioner Burns? Here. Commissioner Carney? Here. And Commissioner Markert? Okay, Renee, I think you'd like to move an item on our agenda before we approve it? No, we're all set. Okay, thank you. So I'd like a motion to approve the agenda. Moved. Second. Thank you. Vice Chair Malika? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Commissioner Markert? And Chair Kassell? Thank you very much. And now we move to our presentation by CBiz. Take a one-minute break for Ms. Burns to grab her glasses. Yes. Is that possible? Do you need to do a break? So you can, do you want to, do you want to? I'll wait until after he's done. Are you sure? Let's see where we are on the, yeah. Hang on one second. Because I can't see a thing. Is it in your car? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Director? Thank you. And I'd like to introduce Brandon Lopez, who is our auditor with CBiz, who's going to give our audit presentation today. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Board Commissioners. My name is Brandon Lopez. I'm the partner with CBiz, serve as a partner on the engagement. And I'm here today to present the financial statements for the fiscal year in the September 30, 2025. And these financial statements, they were issued and released at the end of March, well in advance of the deadline of the state. Very important. And I'm going to go through a couple key sections and highlight a couple things. And if there's any specific questions, I'd be more than happy to go through those and answer them for the board. The most important and the first section we're going to highlight is printed page one. That's the independent auditor's report. And it's broken down to different sections. But the most important section is that first paragraph under the opinion. And this opinion is what's called an unmodified, a clean opinion. It's the only opinion as a board and as an agency we want to be associated with. So we're definitely happy to let the CRA know that they received an unmodified, a clean opinion for September 30, 2025. And the truth, I want to make sure I give credit where credit is due. Renee, Gina, and their team, it's a lot of work that goes into, you know, these audits outside of the regular day-to-day that they have to do. You know, we have questions, we have requests. And every time we had those questions or the information we needed, they were there to provide that information. So definitely want to make sure I mention that in this meeting. If we continue along the next section, we get into management's discussion and analysis. It's about seven pages. And I always like to mention if you read anything in detail, because these are pretty big documents, these seven pages do a good job of giving the reader an overview of the year. And what it does is it provides a current year information compared to prior year. And what were some of the fluctuations and some of the changes and what caused those? And this section is actually put together by management. Us as the auditors are precluded from putting this together, because this is really management's perspective and what caused those changes. And us as the auditors, we're just required to make sure that the numbers are consistent with those audited financial statement numbers. If we continue along, we get to printed page 12. That's the statement of net position. Essentially, your balance sheet. And with governmental accounting, there's two sets of financial statements. You have your government-wide, your statement of net position. It's really your long-term view. And then we have our fund level, which focuses more on the current, right, which is what's compared to your budget, the inflows and the outflows. But the one thing I want to highlight, if we look at that page and the following page, page 13, is the net position, right, which is essentially the money that we have to use for the project, to use for the programs that the CRA provides. And it's a very healthy number. And over the last few years, if you look at the comparison, we see a trend up, that there's more money that's flowing into that. And there's a reason for that. It's because we know the projects that are upcoming for the CRA, for the community, right, we're essentially putting that money away to fund those projects. So the way I like to view this is because when you look at a CRA, it's like we're receiving those tax dollars to provide those services, those programs for the community. So sometimes someone might say, well, are we, you know, putting too much away or we're not spending it for that? And us as auditors, we need to take a look at that. But there's a reason behind why that number's been growing because we know of those upcoming projects, those budgeted projects in the future years, which I know we're going to be discussing in today and in future meetings. The following page, you get to printed page 14. That is your governmental fund, your balance sheet. So this is where I mentioned there's two sets of financials, right? We have the long-term view and then the short-term view. So these next two pages, 14 and 15, show you, hey, what came in and what went out in accordance with the budget. And one of the things that we're required to do when we're doing this financial audit, because it's under government standards, it's not just looking at the numbers, but also looking at compliance, right? Are we spending the money in what we're supposed to be, what was budgeted for? And based on those procedures, we're happy to note no issues were identified. And what's very important in government auditing standards, if there was any findings, we would have to report that in writing. So when we do our tests, obviously we don't test 100%, we sample. And we look at the expenditures and we make sure, was this a program or a project that was budgeted for, that was approved by the board? And based on the procedures we performed, no issues were identified. And that is reflected in the compliance reports that start on page 53 and roll through the end of the report. These are the reports that get submitted to the Floater Auditor General. So when they're reviewing these financial statements, that's what they look at. They make sure, okay, is the CRA, are these governmental entities in a healthy position? And were there any findings that were reported to us for us to take note of? And as you see in these reports, no issues were identified for the CRA. So those are just kind of the little key points that I wanted to highlight that are the most important sections, but I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Thank you for the presentation. Renee, did you want to add something? No, just thank you. Nice to work with you. Thank you. I'll give it to the board. Ms. Burns? No, I didn't have any questions. Just thank you for the information. I had a chance to review it, and congratulations, CRA staff, for such a great audit. Thank you. Yes, I agree. Ms. Mullica? No, I would also just say thank you, Mr. Lopez, and obviously thank you to our director and Ms. Clayton. This is hard work, and you're right to point out that they're doing that alongside their job. And we always love when we have a clean opinion, so that's fabulous, and also your clarification on the NEP position and how we'll be utilizing it in the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Okay, we are on to public comments. Anyone from the public like to speak? Please get up. State your name. Address is here. No, just as a coach. Hi, everybody. Good evening, board members. Sarah Selznick, 1700 Northwest 2nd Ave, Dalry Beach 33444. I'm here today as president of Shared Future Foundation and as someone working closely with the SET community every day and someone that participated in the SET transformation plan update. I'd like to share some thoughts on the draft RFP for the Southwest 700 and 800 blocks and the Northwest 800 block. Right now, I am very grateful the RFP reflects the SET transformation plan. I'd like to offer some feedback that hopefully could just make it a little bit stronger. Right now, the RFP is feeling a little too prescriptive to me. The SET transformation plan was always intended to be conceptual. It was meant to guide, not dictate. But the way the draft RFP is currently written, it treats that vision as fixed and literal. And that may limit what we're able to receive in terms of proposals in return. So when we over-define the outcome, we unintentionally narrow the field of possibilities. We risk missing out on creativity, innovation, expertise that some development teams may be able to bring to the table. Instead of seeing a range of ideas and approaches, we may only see proposals that try to fit into a box that doesn't fully reflect real-world constraints. Or worse, a developer says they can fit into a box but can't and make it happen. We have to be honest about these constraints. We are likely not going to get everything we want on these sites, especially on the smaller parcels now that the grocer is hopefully coming to the 600 block. It feels important that the process allows the SET community to see what is actually feasible. We need to create space for developers to show us what they can do, not just what we've told them to do. And then from that place of real options, the community should have the opportunity to weigh in, give feedback, and help shape the outcome. I urge you to make a few modifications to the draft. Some concrete examples. One would be including language that provides the proposer can seek variances and deviations from CBD development standards, as may be approved by the city if it makes for a stronger project. Two, ability to increase height if in return there is deeper affordability. Three, it would be great to see a greater range, 50% of AMI up to 120% AMI, so this project is accessible to current residents of the SET. Within the scoring criteria, I would love to see more weight put on credibility and track record of the development team. I would also love to see another category that scores projects for their ability to meet or exceed the affordable and workforce housing criteria at all levels. I'm hopeful we get to outcomes that are both visionary and achievable. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your comments. It's very noisy out there. Thank you. Hello. Hi. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon, chair and board members. My name is Kristen Kerstarfen. I am the director of collective action with the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition, where I work closely with residents and community leaders across the SET to ensure redevelopment reflects the community's needs and long-term stability. I want to start by appreciating the work that has gone into this draft RFP. It clearly reflects the vision of the SET and the intention to align development with the community's identity and needs. That matters, especially given the significance of these sites. I also want to echo the comments shared earlier about flexibility. It's important that we allow room for creativity and real-world feasibility so we can attract strong, capable development teams and see a range of ideas. I think there's an important balance to strike. We need flexibility with clearly defined outcomes in the scoring process. So I would offer a few considerations that build on what's already here. First, I would encourage the CRA to be very clear about outcomes while remaining flexible about how these outcomes are achieved. For example, if additional height or variances are considered, those should be directly tied to measurable community benefits, such as deeper levels of affordability or additional workforce units. So there is a clear exchange of value. Second, I would recommend strengthening how community benefit is evaluated within the scoring criteria. Right now, there is a strong emphasis on team experience and concept, but it is less clear how proposals will be scored on things like commitment to community-serving businesses, plans for local or targeted hiring, or strategies to ensure accessibility for current residents of the SET across the range of income levels. Even within existing legal constraints, there are ways to do this through scoring incentives and clear expectations so that proposals are competing not just on design and feasibility, but on the value they deliver to the community. Third, I would encourage the CRA to consider how proposals can demonstrate credibility in actually delivering these outcomes, not just what is proposed, but what has been successfully done before and how those commitments will be tracked over time. Finally, I think it's important that this process continues to create space for community input after proposals are received. Seeing what is feasible is important, but so is ensuring that the community has a meaningful role in shaping the final outcome. I am hopeful that we can land in a place where the RFP is both visionary and achievable, where it invites strong proposals, but also ensures that the long-term benefits for the SET are clear, measurable, and protected. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes, I think there is no more in-person comments, and we do have calls. Thank you. Reginald Cox, 715 Northwest 2nd Street, NLK Drive, Derry Beach. Greetings, Board. I am calling regarding the 700, 800 RFPs for discussion, and also, quite frankly, you know, all the areas still open for development in the West Atlantic Corridor. Congratulations on the approval of the Dotson and the SET transformation plan, an update there too. However, there is still much work to be done. As I stated in the commission meeting last week, there is tremendous opportunity for leveraging, and the community-led process must continue. There's people from our community, organizations that have bandwidth nationwide, in fact, international, and the leveraging opportunity that comes from a serious nod from the commission on an adoption of this plan, lets them know that we're open for business, to maximize all the SET principles. We want to look at the 1,000 acres, not just the West Atlantic Corridor, Northwest 5th Avenue Commercial Corridor. We want to look at the neighborhoods and how all the development opportunities work together, cohesively, to basically enhance the community to meet our planning goals, education-wise, access to capital-wise, liberal wage-wise, okay, access to city contracts, and being a part of the newfound wealth, and not to be displaced. So how do we leverage the remaining land not to be displaced? And that's going to take creativity. That's going to take a certain amount of flexibility, and to do some things that probably haven't been done before in neighborhoods like the SET. So we're going to need everybody participating, being creative, okay, seeing what's out there, but also remembering community needs to be a part of the equation for formulation all the way through implementation. And I heard that beautifully displayed last week in the commission meeting when they were talking about community leadership and involvement as in regarding the DDA and the task force, so I know everybody gets it, and we want to continue that. So we can get the developers to come before the community at some point, maybe a workshop like we did in 2012 with assessment. It was very successful. We want to really continue that cohesiveness with the development community on getting something that's unique to Delray Beach for a unique situation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Commission, and Staff. My name is Chuck Ripley. I reside at 210 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. First, I want to thank you for your leadership and integrity. That thing is going to both the staff and the commission. The fact that you took community feedback, both from past engagement and from recent community meetings, reflect that input in this proposal truly matters. It shows that this process is not just procedural, it's relational, and the community sees that. With that said, I want to respectfully ask that you delay approving the RFP for the 700, 800 blocks, just for a little bit longer, and to take a couple additional steps. First, I believe it is important that we allow the grocery store unsolicited proposal on the 600 block to move farther down the path before we move forward here. As you know, the commission still has to decide whether to advance the unsolicited proposal, and the developer still needs approval from all these real estate committees before anything concrete can be decided. Until we have more clarity on what the developer will actually, the development, I'm sorry, will actually be releasing another RFP on adjacent blocks feels a bit premature. These projects are connected, and how one unfolds will shape the success of the other. Second, and most importantly, I'm asking that we create a little more space for the community to fully understand and engage with this RFP before a final decision is made. Over the past few years, something powerful has been built between staff and the community. It's trust. And we should lean into that. Bringing this RFP into a space like the Elders Cable or Burning Conversation or the SET Neighborhood Alliance give us a real opportunity to do two things. One, make sure the community truly understands what is being proposed. And two, give residents the time and space to provide meaningful and informed feedback to you. If we take these steps, we will not be slowing down the process. We actually will be stripping in it. And we are ensuring that when this moves forward, it does so with alignment, clarity, and community support. Thank you again for your leadership and your continued support as we walk the community forward once again. Thank you very much. That concludes our public comment. And we need a motion to approve the consent agenda. I have one thing, actually, before the consent. So just one comment for our board meeting dates. We had included two in the backup. One was the day after Thanksgiving weekend, November 30th and November 18th was the other option. I think we're just going to go with November 18th. We can follow up closer to the time, but there's two currently on there. But I just wanted to have it approved in November 18th. So cross off the 30th? The 30th, yes. We are going with Wednesday, November 18th. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So do we need – is that on the consent? It's on the consent, yes. We need to approve it. Is that amended? As amended. Thank you. Can I get a motion? Can I ask a question? Sure. It says 1 p.m. or 4 p.m. So there is, I believe, a meeting in the evening at 5 o'clock or at 4 o'clock. On the 18th? On the 18th. So our meeting would need to be earlier unless they shift. Okay. So at this time, we don't know whether it would be 1 or 4. Correct. The one on the 18th would be at 1 o'clock. That's 1 o'clock. Sorry. I'm sorry? The 18th is 1 o'clock. The 18th is 1. And then the one on the 30th would be 4. Understood. We can schedule another meeting, I guess, if we need to in November. But we need to have a meeting at least to close out our budget year. And that would be the meeting. But because of conflicts that week in Thanksgiving, our schedule is a little tight for that month. I just want to make sure, no problem. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? I move. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Commissioner Markert? Chair Casale? Yes. And Vice Chair Malika? Yes. Now we move on to old business. Item 8A, board direction and discussion on RFP CRA number 2026-02. For the disposition of a CRA-owned vacant lot for the development of affordable workforce housing. And that is 216 Northwest 8th Avenue. Renee? Thank you very much. So the subject property is pictured above, like you said, 216 Northwest 8th Avenue. It is a smaller lot that we recently acquired. The lot size is 40 foot by 135. We issued a request for proposals for our nonprofit development partners to build a single family workforce housing unit on this site in January. We closed the submission on March 31st. And unfortunately, we did not receive any submissions. So at this time, what we'd like to do is have the board approved to cancel the request for proposals. We had a few options for you all to consider about reissuing now or allowing us to hire an architect for us to try to build it ourselves. So those are the two things we're looking at. We would also like the opportunity to speak with our nonprofit partners to find out the reasoning why. If there was issue with the sizing, I know it's smaller, but it is a deeper lot. So really three things that we're looking at today. First would be canceling. If we want to reissue right away, we could do that, but we would like to speak with our nonprofit partners first. Or alternatively, us to hire an architect and try to build it ourselves. There is an alley on this particular lot, so it could be an opportunity to explore an accessory dwelling unit. And I think we could have a little more, I guess, time and funding to be able to do those kind of interesting designs on this lot since it is smaller. So we're open to anything. Just wanted to have a discussion with the board. Thank you. Any comments? Ms. Burns? Well, I would be amenable to having the CRA develop the lot. I went by the other day and looked. It is a tiny lot. Like, what can we put on it? So I would be interested in seeing if the CRA could develop the lot themselves. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mallika? Did you discuss with the not-for-profits why they didn't fit on it yet? Or did you want us to wait and cancel until you did that? Well, so there's a cone of silence that's in effect. Got it. So we cannot actually go out to them and inquire. Cancel, then you could. Correct. Cancel first, and then we can. We can also look into the architect, simultaneously talk to them. We can do all of those things. We just thought since it's a smaller lot, it could be a good opportunity for us to try to do something creative that could be replicated on smaller lots. Because as you know, we don't have a lot of land. And now this is what we're looking at. We're looking at these smaller lots, substandard lots, weird configurations that we're trying to go through and replat. So this is just an opportunity to have some creative input and give some examples that other people could replicate. Also, if we do go forward with an architect, we could still hire a non-profit builder. We did that for Corey Jones Isle. And we paid for the build because we allowed the construction funding for that project. So there's many different ways we can do it. We just thought since this was a little bit smaller and no one bid on it, it could be an opportunity for us to do something interesting, just to see. Before the RFP went out, there has been some discussion, and I didn't really focus on it at the time. But now it makes sense why none of them responded. I think they thought some of the parameters that were set were too tough for some of these not-for-profits because it's such a smaller lot. It's going to take a specialized person or group to try to get it done. So I'm in favor of canceling this and speaking to some of these not-for-profits. Say, look, what is it you didn't like? And if we change this, what do we need to change in order for you to go forward with this? And if they would like to put the money up and do it, that's fine. If we want to do it, that's fine, too. I'm always in favor of somebody else putting the money up and doing it if we can get it. But, I mean, we need to be a little bit probably flexible in this lot because of its size. Definitely. I agree. I agree. I think we should cancel. I would like to know why, and I think the mayor is probably correct on that. But, you know, entertaining an architect just to see what it could be is a good idea so we can look at how we're moving forward with some of these smaller lots. So could I get a motion to cancel RFP CRA number 2026-02? I make the motion to cancel RFP 26-02. Second. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Commissioner Markert? Chair Casale? Yes. Vice Chair Malika? Yes. And Commissioner Burns? Yes. Thank you. And we'd like to direct you to both speak to them and then maybe give us that information back so we have an idea if we could go back out or not, and then in which case we proceed. Definitely. We can do that by the next meeting. Thank you so much. No problem. Okay. Okay, on to item 8B, discussion and direction regarding requests for proposals for the development of the Southwest 700-800 blocks of West Atlantic Avenue. Okay. Renee. Yes. So, very exciting. So, very exciting. We have, just for framework, we have two separate RFPs that we've been drafting. They're based on the RFP that we prepared for the grocery store earlier this year until last year. So, it's something similar. We went through a similar exercise where we walked through the RFP. So, we're going to be doing that today. Both of the RFPs are very similar. So, the presentation looks very long, but both are pretty much mirroring presentations. The only difference is that on the Northwest 800 block, we included the information about the environmental situation that's going on. We had the consultant advise us and give us some language that we could add it to the RFP. So, what we'll do is we'll start with the Southwest 700 and 800 blocks, and there are points where we'll stop and ask for board input, and we thought it'd be easier to go along the way and do that instead of waiting until the very end. So, we'll go through that item, and then we'll go through the other item a little bit quicker for the Northwest 800 block, and we'll just highlight the points where we had the environmental input, and then where we need board input on that RFP. Once we have all of that done, we plan to incorporate the comments in, and any comments that we have from the community members, I encourage people, even after this, everything's available on our website. So, feel free to come to our office, send them in writing to us, but this is the time to really get those comments in to us, that we can bring it back to the next board meeting, just so it's all in a public place. We can bring it up at our next board meeting, where we have that draft, and then we can talk about dates for issuance. I don't think our plan's to issue right away, necessarily, but we do want to at least have a draft that's ready, and then we can discuss when we want to issue that RFP. All right? Thank you. So, I'm going to have Christine start to go through just the general things and stop at the points where we need to have discussion. Thank you. Good afternoon. Board, Christine Tibbs, Assistant Director. So, I just want to start off that the Set Transformation Plan that just got adopted recently and what's in the Set Transformation Plan regarding the, oh, it should say Southwest 600, Southwest 700, Southwest 800, and Northwest 800 block. So, between these blocks, it's about almost 15 acres, and this is what the Set Transformation Plan emphasizes as it relates to the development of the blocks. And so, we're just going to go through a couple of slides. You'll see that the key redevelopment sites are the Southwest 700, 800, Northwest 800, I should say Southwest 600 block listed within the plan as key sites. And then just images from the plan itself as to concepts for the development for the block that we're going to talk about. So, through, these are all in the Set Transformation Plan. And now we get to the RFP, and I'll go through the information, and then these are the pages if you have it in front of you. So, this is the area of where we're talking about. It's going to be through blocks here. And then, so Southwest 700 block. It does contain about 1.87 acres, seven parcels. There are two parcels within that block that won't be included in this RFP. One has a single-family home right now that's currently rented as an affordable housing unit that we own, and one of our housing partners manages and maintains for us. And then another vacant parcel that's X'd out there. And that's currently not included because it is not connected to the other parcels. So, these are all zoned CBD and all vacant and ready for development. Along with the Southwest 800 block, this is about the same size, 1.82 acres. The red box that's X'd out, those are currently affordable apartment units that, again, we own, but our nonprofit housing partner manages and maintains for us. And then, again, another vacant land parcel closer to Southwest 1st Street that it wasn't included at this time just because it's not connected to the rest of the parcels that front Atlantic Avenue. And that's it all together. So, what's initially included at the forefront of the RFP are the design and development standards that any proposer should reference. These would be within Article 4 of the LDRs for CBD. So, they guide the development of public right-of-ways, landscaping, lighting, on-street parking, sidewalks, street furniture. All that is in the city's LDRs. So, we wanted to point them in that direction. There's also green building standards that are included that should be referenced in the Workforce Housing Program, which is Article 4.7. And then, we've included reference to the architectural styles and guidelines. There are seven that are allowed within the CBD, two of which need additional approval to be used. And then, of those seven, we are recommending that the RFP only include three of those architectural design and standards for proposers to use in their references and their projects. So, this is the first point where we wanted board input to find out if you all are okay with us just including these three. We had situations for a prior agreement that we had where there were changes to architectural style just because they feel like they could, I guess. So, we wanted to say on the forefront what we want to see in this development, if you would like, or just leave it open. But just understanding that there's some of those on there that might not be the most desirable styles, but that could be what's proposed. Or later on, after contract, could be a request to change it to those in the future. But I think in the onset, if we're saying what we would like, that gives us a stronger position in the future in case something happens. Okay. Let's just talk to the board on that. Ms. Mullica? Well, I guess you could weight that heavier if they use that architecture style, right? Oh, and leave all seven of them there? Right, right. We could. Yeah, absolutely. That's just the point of discussion. It's up for us. Mayor? My view is there was a comment made, which I tend to agree with, that we need to be careful with the RFP because the set transformation plan uses words like encourages and things like that. It's not a mandate. So, I'm all for as much flexibility. I mean, I just want these properties to develop. I'm for as much flexibility as we can get to have someone come in with a great design. And I'm hoping, look, I particularly like the three that you chose, but the only one on that list is Masonry Modern, which I have a continuing problem with. They'll always have a problem with it. But I don't know. Architects have a way of coming up with very clever looking buildings and to maximize because it really depends what you're going to have in the interior to see which is the most functional design. So, I'm for, you know, letting people come back with something. Look, we're going to get great offers back. These are great pieces of land. And I just think we should let people be creative. But we can encourage. Look, as I say, we are encouraging these kinds of things, and we would like to see these kinds of things built there. But I don't want to be exclusively saying this has got to be this. Thank you. Ms. Burns? I agree. I think that we need to leave as many options open as possible. I mean, I know that, you know, this is our delivery, and we want to save what we want, and we want that. However, you know, as Amir said, different designs, different, I want to see everything. I want to see all the possibilities. And so, I would say leave it open, too. And we can narrow that down in the choosing process. Okay. Thank you. So, I'm a little bit leaning with the discussion of narrowing it down to the three, and only because I sat here last time, and the biggest problem we had was they gave us this beautiful conceptual design. It was stunning. And then when they came back, they said, well, that was conceptual and gave us masonry modern. That was not at all what we wanted. I understand what you're saying about keeping it open, but perhaps we keep it open, but eliminate a few more on the list, masonry modern, specifically. I mean, do we want that? I don't like masonry modern, so it's fine with me. Can we go to the list? If you don't want to just limit it to the three, maybe we should look at all of them and see. I'm just flipping through the pictures of all of them, just so these are from the design guideline booklet. We could just remove masonry modern and just leave the others as options. I'm in agreement with that. I don't really like that masonry modern. I just want to add that there's two styles that I had mentioned that require additional approvals that can't just, I guess, automatically be used. Masonry modern is one of them. Masonry modern is one of them. Art Deco is another one. So, should we? I think we just changed that. I think we just changed that. Is that the one that? No, the staff level doesn't come to the commission. It's staff level. Yes, they still require additional approvals, but it doesn't necessarily go before the commission anymore. Could we see the Art Deco? Maybe we pull those two out just to help our own process along. Is that what you're suggesting, Ms. Tibbs? I'd be totally fine pulling that out, too. We initially had those two, and then we added the others just in looking at the styles and if we're going with that, like, angle, the Caribbean type of look. But we could pull those two out and just leave the others. How do you all feel about that? I would pull those two out. Or anything looking institutional. Right. It should be community-friendly, neighborhood-friendly. I'm not positive Art Deco is a West Atlantic design type. So we'll just take out those two. It would be for the East and there are places for it in town. Right. Well, we can just remove those two and just leave the others. Or you can think about it. We're still bringing this back next month, so right now we can just remove the two. Let's remove the two now. And then if we want to think about it further, we have plenty of time to go back and change that. Are we in agreement? Do we want a show of hands for removing the two? Is it okay? Remove those two. Yeah. I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. I want options, but I don't mind removing those two. Well, they've got four others, five others. There's plenty of guests. And they all kind of have a similar look and feel, so. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And keeping on with the design development, development, design, and standards. Right now, the RFP mentions that the buildings go no more than three stories. That, again, was taken in reference to what was in the set transformation plan. It just mentions parking and pedestrian friendliness as a desire with wide arcades and sidewalks, open spaces, and activities along Atlantic Avenue. But one of the items we would like you to discuss is the building height, as the code currently allows for four stories along the West Atlantic Avenue corridor. We do have snippets from the set transformation plan that references the desire of the community to have it be lower than four stories. Thank you. Ms. Burns. Yeah. So, you know, as the mayor said, some of the terminology is encouraging. And I respect the intent behind the three-story limit because our residents made it clear that they don't want to feel like they're walled in, you know, enough fences and walls in our past and our history. However, you know, talking to some of the developers and talking to some builders who have very successful buildings that, you know, the density, if we want affordable, if we truly want affordable housing, we may have to make some successions for, you know, a fourth story. So I think that we need to leave it open and not be so rigid. And, again, the opportunity, like, I want to see what's presented, you know, what can be done. And, I mean, if it's three, okay, but if it's four and it looks nice and you're not walling off, you know, I would like to see that. Ms. Malika? If you leave it open, everybody's going to go for the four, right? So you could say you have a preference for the three. However, it can go up to four. And, yeah, so. So are you saying three? Pardon me? Are you suggesting that we leave it at the three because I agree with you? No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that you may say that's the preference. However, we would also consider four because, like, I think Ms. Selznick said, if we could get more affordability with a four-story, then that might be more desirable than less affordability with a three-story. Mayor? At the end of the day, you know, the builders are going to look at what the cost per unit is and you can spread costs, you know, reduce your costs by spreading them up to four floors rather than just three floors. So I do think there will be a component there where you're going to be saying you want to be able to have this price housing, you won't be able to get it at three stories, you may be able to get it at four. So I, you know, that's just a reality of building. So, I mean, my, my, my, we can say we encourage three, but I don't want to, you're correct. If someone could do, they're going to see four and they're going to do it at four. And I know that. So that may, that may be something where we have to look at. But, you know, I understand that's in the, in the, in the, in the, in the transformation plan, but I'm not sure that they, it's been thought through by everybody as to what it really will mean, what you're going to end up building there. Sounds, it sounds good. Well, it was 17 years ago. So times have changed and we have to move. Could you speak in the mic again? 17 years ago. Yeah, it was 17 years ago. What about three stories on the Avenue and four behind it? In other words, making, asking for it to be three directly on the road and stepping up. We can absolutely do that. You can still accommodate your need for units if you're four behind, but you keep that low profile directly on the Avenue. But just, but understand by doing that, you're increasing the density right next to the residential neighborhood. Right. And usually you have the density sitting on the main Ave and then you step it down a step when you're going against the residential, to transition it to the residential neighborhood. You could pyramid up and up. I'm just saying, yeah, I mean, I, you know. I would like to just see the design. If we can just say up. Yeah, put it out there. If we can say up, you know, the three, but that four may be acceptable based on your design. I think it's probably a little bit. Atlantic's pretty, Atlantic's pretty wide there. It's not like. No, it is wider. It's wider. That's why. So somebody, it can accommodate four stories on the, on the Avenue itself with a step back if you want, as it transitions into the residential neighborhood. Okay. So there's less towering over the residential neighborhood. Right. I think you've got four. Yes. On that one. Okay. Perfect. So we'll leave that open. Yes. Thank you. So then with our development objectives, we do move in that for the commercial component, we are asking proposers to identify the size, type, and location of the commercial uses. Proposers are encouraged to include the community identified needs, pharmacy services, financial services, health and wellness facilities, family, social entertainment. These were identified within the 2012 West Atlantic area needs assessment, also the set transformation plan. And then we offered the opportunity that if you have it available, letters of intent should be included. If you already, if there are any, have tenants on board for the evaluation committee and the board to consider. As to the residential component, we are proposing within this RFP to have 40% of the units be affordable and or workforce units. That would mean that the development incentive within Article 4.4.13 of the LDRs kicks in, and then 4.7, the family workforce housing requirements. So this is an item for discussion in terms of the percentage of units that we would like to see within the development. The land development regulations, if you're going to take advantage of the increased units per acre, requires 20%. So we are, we put in the RF, draft RFP 40%. I'll go first this time. So I, I like the idea of having more of a percentage, but my concern, and I was speaking to Renee, is what I really want to see is the lower AMI, like Ms. Selznick said. So if we are, if we are asking for more units, are we doing that in exchange for giving the higher 80 to 120? Because what we really need is the lower number, 60 to 80, and you know, that's, so that's what I, you know, I, I would like 40%. I think that would be a great project. And I think considering what we're giving in exchange, that's not a lot to ask, but the parameters, the 40%, what that, what that consists of is what's important to me. Ms. Barnes. Oh, sorry. Before you move on, I just wanted to, I moved to this slide because the LDRs do state that the workforce housing unit shall be equally distributed between the low and moderate income levels, um, to take advantage of the, uh, density bonus there. So low income is, is defined within, uh, 4.7, article 4.7. So a low income household is 61% to 80%. Moderate income household is 81% to 120%. Right. So there is that language in the city LDRs right now that the units shall be equally distributed between low and moderate income levels. Thank you. I'm actually, wait, sorry, before we keep going, I just want to comment on one thing that we're looking for comment as well, is that the, um, code also allows for building onsite or offsite. Right. So how we have it drafted now is that, uh, and the, uh, or monetary contribution. So we excluded that option of monetary contribution because we want the units built, but something that I wanted to throw out for consideration is that we could also include the potential developing on some of the vacant CRA parcels that we have, the scattered sites, if they want to do some sort of single family home build. We don't have very many, but it could be some, a way for them to also have that ability to meet their workforce housing requirements and not have so much pressure on the site because now we're saying have it lower and do these different things. So that might help shift some of that. I'm in agreement with that. That's a good idea. That's a good idea. So we can do that. So I just wanted to comment that before we get into the percentage. I agree with that, Mayor. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I think it's a good idea. Okay. Ms. Mollica? Um, yes. Ms. Burns? I am. I'm, I'm, I'm okay with the 40% and, and I prefer on-site, but I'm trying to process what you just said about the off-site situation. Right. So basically the developers have options in the code. They can build the workforce housing units on-site and still count for their project, or they can build off-site and count towards their project, or they can pay into the city's monetary fund for, to count for their project. Where does the building off-site come from? Where is this land? That could, that's what I'm saying. It could be some of the single family lots that we have that aren't very many, but they would be single family homes that would be built as part of the project. That way they could help satisfy that workforce housing requirement on-site by building them elsewhere. Still within our district, obviously, on our parcels, if you wanted to throw it out there. But would that bring more, um, market rate on-site? Potentially. Potentially. Yeah. It potentially could. Okay. Well, I'm not for having more market rate on-site, but, um, I'm, I'm in favor of the 40% units. Okay. Yeah. I think, I know what you're saying. You've got the four to consider that option, because we do have to incentivize a little bit. Right. And so, yeah. And because we're asking for 40% versus the 20, you know, I do think it's okay. It's a big percent. Big percent. Yeah, I agree. Particularly since it's going to be a 20-20 mix. So, that's it. You've got your direction on that? Thank you. We, just a comment. We did that for the last RFP we did in 2018. Yeah. We offered Carver Square site and Cory Jones Isle as potential off-site locations. They were just a lot more. Those were 30 single family lots. Yeah. We don't have that many now, but it could be just something to help a little bit. So, and then the next thing that we included in the RFP is mention of our CRA incentives and opportunities that a proposer could seek to take advantage of. We have the Development Infrastructure and Assistance Program, which provides, CRA reimburses 75% of the cost of eligible site improvements for an eligible commercial project up to an amount not to exceed 75% of the projected tax increment funds generated by the improvements over a five-year period not to exceed a million dollars. And then the Land Value Investment Program, where the entity may lease CRA-owned land for up to 60 years at a discounted rate. And then there may be proposals for additional incentives and opportunities with a successful proposer, co-ownership with the CRA, or master leasing. These are all listed, and again, that catch-all where the proposer may propose something that we haven't contemplated yet, and we would work with them to see if that could work out. Thank you. Any comments? Yes. Just wanted to stop here. So, for the Development Infrastructure Program, we modified it a little bit because this program was paused a few years ago, and we were revamping it. So, it was geared more towards Class A office space. We had this agreement with IPIC. That's the last one that we've done. So, we geared this more towards housing instead of the commercial. I think at the time we were trying to attract Class A office space. So, now we changed it a little bit to where it's more for housing. Also increased the amount because the maximum amount was $250,000, which I don't think is very much now. It was from probably 15, 20 years ago. So, we increased it to a million, and then ups the percentage. It was 50% of the project cost. Now, we increased it to 75. This is a portion of what they're generating, so it's not an automatic thing, but we just wanted to increase those numbers to incentivize it to the project. Also, the Land Value Investment Program, it says the entity may lease the land for up to 60 years. We're looking at that number because now we're in our last kind of years now. I think this was back when we had a lot more time. So, we're going to be looking at those numbers to see if we need to change those because we will be sunsetting well before 60 years now. So, we still have the program. We just may have to change the number of years. And again, they can propose something completely different. There's many other types of incentives and things that people could ask for. So, we wanted to have those catch-alls, but all for our standard programs also. Is everybody good with that? I just have a question. Yes. So, would any offers received by the applicant, would that come before the board or would that be something that the staff irons out before it comes to the board? For the incentives? Yes. It would be in their proposal. Okay. So, it would get reviewed first and then it would come to the board. Okay. Okay. Is everyone good with these? No. Is there any retail element in those? Yes. Yes. Because I missed that. Oh, yes. The commercial component. Yes. The commercial component. The commercial component. Exactly. Can have any of those. Yes. So, we're- Got it. I think we're all good with the incentives. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, submittal requirements. Quickly. A lot of it you've seen before. A narrative, executive summary, basically introducing the proposer, the overview of the proposed development, and then their understanding and the commitment to the goals and desires of what this RFP is trying to achieve. Then we'll go into qualifications and experience, is in business in the state of Florida for the past five years, their legal structure, key personnel, the subs they're going to use, and an organization chart telling us who's going to be working on this project and who's going to be working together. And then, as to the actual project, this is where it gets more in depth in the RFP where we provide- where we would want renderings, site plans, floor plans, use plans, development and construction schedule. It's very- there's multiple pages on what we're going to be requiring from each proposer as to what this- their project is going to essentially be. Then, financial structures, project costs, operating pro forma for 10 years, sales and lease information, financing plan, their fiscal impact, which would be- include jobs generated, and then this is where the incentives request comes in, co-ownership, and their purchase price and lease terms of the subject properties. Then, past projects and references. So, we do ask for three projects completed within the last 10 years that are similar in size and scope and complexity as to the one that is in this RFP. At least one project have been for a public entity. If they've worked with governmental entities in the past, list those. Three professional references from projects. Let me know if there's anything you would want to comment on. I just want to comment real fast. Okay. Sorry, real quickly. So, the one thing that we added here was at least one of the projects must have been with a public entity. We did not have that before. Right. And that was not considered as part of the review process for the developers that we chose. So, we just wanted to add that in there that we'd ask for at least one public project to be done in the past. I mean, I'm fine with it, but was there a reason why? That we are adding it? That they've done prior visit with a public entity? Well, I think just to show that they have that experience working with the government in public because in their past situation they didn't know that came up a lot. That this is our first time doing it and it was… Yeah. Lack of… I think just experience with the process in general I think is helpful. I agree with that. And understanding… Right. …of public meetings, things happening in the public, right, actually happening. So, I think it's just helpful at least that we know that they've at least had one project. And it could be anything, but at least they've done some work with the government. Good idea. Thank you for that. Financial information. So, three years of audited financial statements, their financial capacity to actually commence this project, ability to secure performance and payment bond insurance, their litigation, disciplinary proceedings, and conflicts. We asked for the past ten years of those. And then their offer price or lease amount. This is an item for discussion. Okay. I'll comment first on the financial information. So, we had one year before and then we changed it to three years based on some of the more recent RFPs that we've done. I think for this type of a project it's important to have that so that we can see what's been happening with the business for a few years. So, just our suggestion, but if we wanted to change it, we absolutely can. And we also have the option for us to inspect their financial records and not actually giving it to us if they don't want to make it become a public record. We have that option to also inspect at their premises. And then the last thing here is the offer price or lease amount if they are proposing to do a land lease. This is an open for discussion item. We generally have not put a base amount or anything in there because typically our land or severely discounted is the contribution to the project. Because oftentimes what you'll see is if you do have a high offer amount, they may want some incentive also because they need help to build, especially with the cost to build and sustain workforce and affordable housing. So, we were just proposing to leave it open like we've done in the past, but we wanted to bring it up for discussion. Ms. Monica? For zero. Right? Well, not necessarily. I think the last go around they didn't. They offered money last time. What was that? They offered money last time. People did. Yeah. People offered money. One person didn't, one entity, but almost everyone has in the past offered something. We've never set a threshold, like a minimum amount is what I'm saying. So, also when you were talking about leasing from the CRA and you wanted to cut that 30 years down based on your 19 year lifespan, couldn't you also do a transfer of that lease or something to make it a longer time period? Because they need time to make their money back, right? Right. And that's what we're looking at the land lease, how that would exactly work. Because once we sunset our assets essentially would go to the city. Right. So, it would continue on in some form or fashion. Right. Or an acknowledgement of this is what's happening and we can discuss it with the city. So, we're talking about that now to figure out structurally how that would work. But a land lease is a good viable option for developers to utilize in these situations. So, we don't want to take that away. We're trying to find a way where that can work. It seems like it should be longer. Yes. We agree. I mean, for them to recoup the money, right? Absolutely. And they have the option to purchase along the way. There's different steps when they can purchase that if they choose to. So, we need to make sure that we have it all straightened out with the time that we have left. Thank you. Ms. Burns? Yeah. I like the land lease idea and for longer. But I wanted to ask about the financial information. You said three years audited financial statement. And you said that for this type of project, this is the best solution. But for other projects, are we considering a different, like what projects? Well, we've typically had one year. One year. Okay. We amended that for the last RFPs that we did for the single family homes. We just brought over that three years to this project as well. Okay. So, okay. Because I would like to see it go back to one year for smaller project. But I do agree that for this type of project, the three years is sufficient. Okay. Or necessary, I should say. But, yeah. I'm in favor of the lease. I don't know how much yet, but. Thank you. Okay. Mayor. I think that, as I said, we're asking people to put 40% workforce. We're asking people to do different things. We need to be able to incentivize this, whether we decide ultimately it's a long-term lease is the best play or whether or not, you know. I want to see what people come back with. Yeah. Developers got to make their money or we're not going to get the project. Right. But the citizens need to have the project that they want to have and with the ratios that we want to see. So, we've talked about this a hundred times about this. To get these projects done, we're going to have to incentivize it. So, I'm very flexible. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate you adding that three-year audited financial statements. I think that just secures that if we go down the path, we might actually get to the end, and that's the goal here. So, thank you very much. We'll be doing a $50 million, $60 million. It's big. You would be surprised what happened. We need to see more, I think. Yeah. We need to see a little bit more of the picture. That's all. Right. Thank you. Thank you. So, then the next is evaluation criteria. So, before you is the proposed draft of how the points will break down. Development team experience would make up 30 points. Proposed development project, 40. Financial structure, 15. Fiscal impact, 15. If you would like to see it structured differently or other items included, we can certainly take that. And I'd like to ask a question about this. This is something that always concerns me. I don't see it in here, but I want to make sure when we're evaluating this criteria, we used to have something that related to community input, and then developers would go out and grab somebody from the community, and then they were, you know, last time it was giving out food and all that. We want to get the best person for the project, not necessarily the person who's, you know, doing those sort of things. Is that, I don't see that in here. Have we changed that criteria? Well, there were sections in the RFP that referred to the prior RFP about relocating the tenants that were there, because at that time we still had the 700 buildings. So, some of those were tied to those types of benefits of the space. I'm talking about there was something about community engagement. There was a component that had a point value. Let me look back. We'll look back and see and check and see. Okay. I don't see it here, so I just want to see that was something that became an interesting dynamic. And we see that in the city. You may have removed it already. Well, I think in this RFP, kind of the community benefit part of it are the things that were provided. So, inclusion of the priority needs that were from the CRA plan, the West Atlantic Needs Assessment, the Set Transformation Plan, those are the types of things that were highlighting more. Okay. We also had information in the past RFPs about job creations and bonuses and things like that. But since the city removed those from their disparity study and all that is not in place, we did not include those things, because at the time we had those options before, which aren't currently. Thank you. Okay. 30 points for the development team, 40 points for the project, development project proposed, 15 for the financial, and 15 for the fiscal impact. Is the fiscal impact being too heavily weighed? I don't know. If you think this is... We can decrease that. We can adjust it. This was just a first... You know what? Let's leave it at that and let me think about that one. Anybody else have any comments? Yeah. I mean, I don't know whether these are the right points, things or not. Again, I'm just anxious to get started. And whether it's... I don't know what we mean by the 15 points for the fiscal impact. If somebody is putting up money as opposed to a lease, they get better points. But if it's a better project, they make up on it on that way. I mean, I think it's going to be... I always think these things are very hard to measure. Right. Agree. But appreciate that. Ms. Molica, are you good with this? I think that what you mentioned is that you're going to open up for some public input. Mm-hmm. So I'd like to see if the public adds more weight for affordability or... When are you doing that? Mm-hmm. When is... Well, right now. I think just... Oh, I... We're asking for... Yes, yes. Okay. I was going to say that. Ms. Burns. Just... I mean, I'm a Rubik person, but this... It's like, how do you measure? I mean, it's not my... I won't be measuring, but I guess it's okay to start. Okay. Thank you. I think we're all good with this. I'll just comment on the fiscal impact, too. I think it also includes, like, we have information we requested for job creation and what it impacts broadly, not just what we see here. This is just a couple of notes from it. Okay. Thank you. So if you look back at the actual... There's a section for fiscal impact that has more in there than just these few things. I'll look at that. Okay. Thank you. And we can change this again. This is just our first go around. No, this looks great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we've got to finalize their score, and then you have the CRA board at can accept the evaluation committee scores. And award reject the evaluation committee scores. And then select the proposer that you feel will serve the CRA's best interest and award to that proposer or cancel the RFP at any time. And then whenever you make your award, we would...and CRA staff is authorized to enter into negotiations with that proposer. Thank you. Very exciting. And then these are the next steps for this RFP. We will take all the comments into consideration that we received this evening and have another draft of the RFP presented before you at a future board meeting. Thank you. Any comments? Yeah, could I say the slide before that? Because a couple of the speakers asked about being involved in examining the RFP. So is there public involved in that evaluation committee? Of the proposals? Well, no, it's closed at that when they receive them. So they essentially are exempt from public records for a certain period of time. So the committee is usually our staff. We have the city that's involved as well. Those meetings are all public, and people can go to those meetings. People can comment right now on the RFP up until when we issue it. Until people submit. Exactly. So that's why I said I'm encouraging people to send us comments. If people want to come to our next board meeting, I think it would be great to actually verbalize that we have those comments on the record here in a public forum so that we're all hearing and receiving the same information. I think that would be beneficial. Or in writing. Email it to us before because we're looking about on this. And if I may, Ms. Mullica, just comment to that. I don't know how many meetings that you've had in the community on this, but it's a lot over the course of years and years. There have been so many. But the thing that's critically important for us to remember is there's tax incentives out there for the developers, and they're on a particular schedule. And I think we need to move on this pretty quickly and get this in the process because I think this – I was speaking to one gentleman, and I think that schedule is tight. And you don't know what tax incentives are going to be available next year. So we don't want to create a scenario where we're shortchanging ourselves because tax incentives have changed and applicants aren't able to get them. I think – I appreciate the comments by the callers. I don't think we should wait any longer. We've had so many meetings on this, so many discussions. And I think if people have input, they should write to all of us pretty immediately and provide it. And we should be looking to approve this at our next meeting. I'm very excited. Any – Ms. Burns, comments? Mayor? You know, I want to get – I've been saying I'm not getting this started since 2012, so. Thank you. Ms. Mullica? Anything else? There you are. Thank you all for this pretty exciting moment. Thank you. Okay. On to 8C with our discussion and direction regarding our request for proposals for the development of the northwest 800 block of West Atlantic Avenue. So we – it's the same presentation. So I think just for the interest of time and we need to incorporate feedback, we'll just highlight the portions with the remediation. Okay. And then we can bring back the full RFPs because, again, they're very similar. I know there were comments at the last meeting about having maybe more commercial on this side versus the other side. So we'll talk about that a little bit as well. Okay. But we won't go through every single slide like the last because they're the same. Thank you. We appreciate that. So same slide as before, as mentioned in the set transformation plan for the development of this block. These are the same reference slides, RFP. And then these are the properties within the northwest 800 block, approximately 2.49 acres. We did mark out the one parcel that's on the more northwest side of the block there. But, again, if off-site CRA-owned land for affordable housing is included, we may look at, you know, including that block as well. So this is a little bit different in the sense that not all of these parcels are zoned CBD. Some of them are zoned single-family residential, so we would have to keep that in mind when looking at any proposals that come in as a zoning change may be needed for some of these blocks or some of these vacant land parcels. They are all CBD on the more southern side up to, I guess, if you know the property by-low is, that's where the break point is for CBD. So 805 West Atlantic Avenue, I'm sure you're all familiar. It's right there on the corner there, southeastern corner. We've had our environmental consultant, res, draft portions within the RFP that reference the status of the current site, the work that is to come in terms of related to remediation and, you know, trying to get a closeout status for the remediation. And then if any development were to occur on 805, what the developer has to take into account in terms of dewatering, best management practices, they would have to lay that out in their proposed development project. And then res is on board to look at those proposals to make sure that all the proposers took into account what is happening at that site and what's going to be required for development in the future. I will skip through these. We can just go straight to the housing component because they're all, again, the exact same slides as before. The only difference really in this presentation is the residential commercial. There we go. So on this side, because we had mentioned about having more commercial, we just suggested to have a minimum of 30% workforce housing on these blocks instead of the 40%. So that's just open for discussion. We're open to anything. But just because of the commentary, we had this at 30% minimum. Because of what? There was a comment at the last, oh, sorry. So the last area board meeting, there was a comment requesting that this side have more, lean more commercial than residential. Okay. So that's why we just lowered that. The continuous. Right. Exactly. I had asked for that instead of just residential. I thought there should be a commercial component. So I totally agree with 30%. Mayor? Yeah, I think 30% is fine. Chris Barnes? I'm okay with it. Thank you. Ms. Malika? There you are. I think this is the same slide as well in terms of on-site, off-site. And then these are the same exact submittal requirements that we just went through. The only component that's listed here is what I mentioned with the remediation site. They'll have to showcase that they understand the requirements as listed in the RFP for that one piece of property. Same selection procedures. And, again, we'll take into account all the comments that we received today and bring back a draft RFP at the next CRA board meeting for your consideration. Thank you again. Any comments? Anyone? No. Fabulous. That's very exciting. On to new business, 9A, appointment of CRA officer, deputy vice chair. Who are the officers now? I am the vice chair, so we need a deputy vice chair. We need a third. And, you know, Tom's not here, so we could do that to him. Yeah. Okay. I would like to nominate Tom Marker. I would like to second that. Fabulous. Right. Commissioner. With additional responsibilities that he has to actually assemble the agendas, make all the copies, and put the books together. That's going to be the job description of the deputy vice chair. Commissioner Marker, chair Casale, yes, vice chair Mollica, yes, commissioner Burns, yes, and commissioner Carney, yes. Okay, thank you. On to 9B, approve a work assignment with the Tamara Peacock Company Architects of Florida, DBA Peacock Architects, in an amount not to exceed $8,750 regarding the CRA-owned public parking lot located at 362 Northeast 3rd Avenue. Christine Tibbs again. Thank you. So this is just to place you in terms of where the parking lot is. So there's Northeast 3rd Avenue. The red box in the lower right-hand side, that's a CRA-owned arts warehouse at 313 Northeast 3rd Street. And then in between Artist Alley and Northeast 3rd Avenue, there is a city-owned parking lot there with 14 spaces. Where's Bednar's on this? Bednar's is up against Northeast. You'll see their parking lot. Yeah, 381, right? This is their parking lot. Oh, okay, I got you. Okay, that's Bednar's. That's Bednar's right here. Thank you. Now I know where you are. Go ahead. So we have 42 spaces right now at 362. It is a surface parking lot that the CRA purchased in 2010. We improved that lot in 2011. And then just to give you an idea of the infrastructure improvements that have happened in Artist Alley and along Northeast 3rd Avenue over the years. 2014, the city initiated the design of the improvements to Northeast 3rd Street, Northeast 3rd Avenue, and Artist Alley. In 2018, the CRA stepped in to facilitate the final design revisions for those improvements. In 2019, we approved an infrastructure grant to one of the owners of the properties. I should say Northeast 3rd Avenue there for the construction of a larger water main that would connect to those larger infrastructure improvements there. 2020, the city completed minor road improvements to Artist Alley. In 2022, the city finally completed the larger infrastructure improvements along Northeast 3rd Avenue and Northeast 3rd Street. I forgot to add in here, they also improved their city-owned parking lot. They redesigned the middle strip and did some minor parking improvements there sometime in 2024 as well. And then also more in 2024, the most recent one, the installation of a new drainage system in Artist Alley to help with any remaining flooding issues that were occurring there even after the road improvements that were completed in 2020. So over the past, you know, since 2010, between the CRA and the city, a lot of improvements have been put into this area to support the businesses that we were hoped to come, that we hope to come to the area, and they have come. And so now we are hearing issues that there needs to be more parking in the area. So we reached out to Peacock Architects, who is in our continuing contracts pool, to help us with a due diligence package. This is not unlike a due diligence package that you've approved and seen prior or before. This work assignment would include the scope of work is she would analyze the applicable code and zoning requirements, along with a high-level evaluation of the feasibility of developing the property as a public parking structure. The preliminary review will assess the practical parking yield, including the estimated number of spaces, include a conceptual layout with key components such as vehicular circulation, stair towers, elevators, required support spaces, and then also offer a conceptual 3D massing model so that you can see what the parking structure looks like in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood and businesses to give you better context of the overall scale, height, and form. And then this is intended to be a high-level planning assessment to see what a parking structure there could look like, how many parking spaces could actually be obtained. Great. Well needed. Yes. Thank you. You need a vote on this? Can I answer that question? Yes. Is this design going to be somebody called, and I referred him to the city and Mr. Orris, and so I think they're probably having a meeting with them, the group that does these parking, not like Josh's one, which was across the street, but it's like an automated, they can fit twice as many cars in there if it's automated, and they go into these things. So I spoke to him. He came to our office. I referred him to all of you. I didn't know any of them. I don't know any of them. So he came into our office. Yeah, it's automated, not the mechanical, so it's a whole different type of technology. She's not. We could ask her to look into it. I know I think that's a good thing just with him. I mean, I've seen them. They're in Japan. I've seen them. They work great. It's just they get twice as many cars. We can ask her to look into that and what it would take because I guess there may be some code modifications would be needed, but we could look into that as well just to maximize the parking there. But it's a different technology than the mechanical, so we can ask her to include that. There's something else I wanted to include as well just for consideration here is that in the meantime, while we're going through this due diligence process and whatever type of parking we do look to improve there, hopefully that we can, we wanted to talk about possibly metering the lot. I know metering is a not great word, but I think in that area. He's going to be a meterman. We're going to get you a little car. I'm going to become a meterman because I can actually get paid as a meterman as opposed to being sitting in the stands. You don't get anything for the city here. So this is something I've been chatting about with Missy since like last year about just increasing parking there, and we just recently talked about the metering. The city would do it. We would do an interlocal agreement with the city and maybe some kind of a shared revenue so that whatever we're getting is going back into the parking structure that will be for the future uses. But I wanted to talk to you all first. Also, I wanted to, if we are proposing this, to talk to the business owners. I've heard from at least one that they would definitely be open to this because what's happening, a lot of the cars are staying there all day, and they're not moving. It's not our lot. It's not a paid lot at all. We use it for arts warehouse parking, and that's a benefit that we have there. But I think since there's newer businesses coming in, which is great, we're now facing situations with parking there, and people are just parking and leaving their cars in the alley. We've also witnessed that as well. So just something to throw out there. Again, I know metering is not the preferred thing. I just think in this area, it's a different situation than in other parts of the city. Different challenges. Ms. Burns, do you have any comments? I understand. I'm amenable to also tickets instead of meters. I want you to know it's not amenable to that as well. We're going to give you the car and the ticket. We'll get you the pad. I see a uniform in the future. Ms. Mollica? I didn't even finish. Oh, I don't know. I opened my mouth, but the mayor took over. You did. Oh, I apologize. Yeah, thank you. So I was just going to say that I am for metering it. You know, people shouldn't park there all day. However, if there is an event that the CRA sponsors at the arts warehouse, would you waive the fees on that for those particular events? Yes. So we can structure it however we'd like to through the interlocal agreement. So we can do it for cities. I'm going to park five blocks away. No, and it'd probably even help us right now because even if there is something happening at Arts Warehouse, it's difficult for us with our staff to go out there and, like, block the parking. But if we're incorporating the city service into that, we could ask them if they can help us with the parking attendance to go out there and make sure that we're able to park is what we can ask for. So, yes. Thank you. Okay, so you have support on that. Do you need a vote? You don't need a vote. Yes, for the work assignment. Okay. To approve the work assignment. Wait, I haven't commented. So I'm absolutely in favor of getting the structure looked at for the possibility of a garage. I think that the meters are going to be moot because it's all employees that park there because I work there. So it's going to be free parking. Or it's, you know, $10 a month. Just saying. That's fine. Okay. We could exclude it. We could say that we don't want to have that be a site for that program. Because the Bedners employees are using it. Then where are they going to park? Yeah. Well, Bedners has Bedners, right? They have parking on their street and they have their lot. They try to rope up the northern part. You see that for their. Oh, yes. I can tell you the alley is. It's very good. Right? But we have a motion to approve this work assignment. I move that we approve the, entering into the contract with Peacock Architects to develop a parking garage and automate it or regular or whatever, you know. I would second that. And a meter. And a car for a meter made. A meter made car. Chair Cassow? Yes. Vice Chair Malika? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. And Commissioner Markert? Thank you so much. Can I just add with the, what you mentioned with the parking and different things. Those things we can work out through interlocal agreement. So if we're in favor of supporting essentially some kind of metering option, let us work with the city on that and work on the interlocal agreement. And we'll bring that back. And then we can talk about parameters and how we'd want to see that. Yeah. And have it on the agenda. Yes. Exactly. This was just something I was bringing up as an interims option to see what you guys thought about it. So it seems like it's in favor or supportive. So we'll move forward. I'm supportive of the 8,700. Yes. The interlocal will come back. Yes. Great. Thank you so much. And on to other business. Yes. Do you have any comments, our executive director? I do. I have a couple of comments. So we recently found out that we won a Historic Preservation Board Award for 98 Northwest 5th Avenue for our preservation efforts there in that building. So very exciting. The meeting is next week. So we're happy about that. They made comments not just about the building itself, but also about naming the building after the Edmunds Baines family. So we really tried to keep the structure as is, although we had to make a lot of changes to it. We did not want to tear it down. So we tried as much as possible to actually preserve it and then also the name of the building. All right. And then just wanted to highlight a few meetings coming up. So we have our special board meeting where we'll hear a presentation from the company that submitted the unsolicited proposal for the Southwest 600 block of West Atlantic Avenue. So that will be Wednesday, May 13th at 5 p.m. We'll be sending information out about that very shortly and briefing you all so you're prepared for the next meeting that we have coming up in May. And then after that, we have a joint meeting with the City Commission to talk about the Pompeii Park Project on May 26th at 2 o'clock. So that'll be also a very important meeting. And then right after that, we'll have our CRA regular board meeting at 4 p.m. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Doody, thank you for joining us. Okay. To the board. Ms. Malika? I'm finished. We have a ribbon cutting. Yes. Mayor? Nothing. Ms. Burns? Okay. In that case, we are adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.