That's a yes? Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Good afternoon, and welcome to the City of Delray Beach. It's okay. Take your time. No, it's my brother. We'll start over. Go ahead. Sorry. Great. Sure, not a problem. Again, welcome to the City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. Today is Tuesday, October 27, 2026, and the time is 4.02. Would you please call? Oh, excuse me. Hold on. Chair, do you have anything? Renee, do you want to amend the agenda, or should we call it? Call the roll first. We can do the roll first. Okay, would you please call the roll? Thank you. Chair Casanova? Here. Vice Chair Malka? Here. Deputy Vice Chair Markert? Here. Commissioner Burns? Here. And Commissioner Carney? Here. Thank you. Now, Ms. Jadasing, I think you wanted to change something on the agenda. Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. We'd like to move one of the consent items, so we can do it, I guess, before the consent is approved. Okay. Thank you. So can we get a motion to approve the agenda? Motion to approve. Thank you. Second. Second. Great. And now we are on to public comments. Anyone from the public wishing to speak, please step up to the lectern. You have three minutes. State your name and your address. And what? I'm sorry. Oh. Okay. Hello. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Honorable Board, Honorable Executive Director, and Council and Staff. My name is Neil Schiller, Government Law Group, 137 Northwest First Avenue, right across the street in Delray Beach. I'm here today representing RH Development Group for the ALDIs, which are here later in the agenda. I just want you to know that we're happy to answer any questions you may have during that agenda item, if that's necessary. If you have any other questions, we're here to answer them after the meeting, too. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schiller. Hello. Hello. My name is Chuck Ridley, 33444. CRA, I don't know what the pecking order is, but to all the CRA and staff, I'm here to speak in favor of moving forward with the ALDIs project. They're serious. That's, that's the piece that makes, is important to me. I say they're serious because of when we came last time to speak about moving from the 600 block to the 800 block, they made that move. That tells me that they're serious. I'm still, I still haven't changed my position. I still want all the information. And so the due process is to have others apply. I am relatively sure that all interested people have a plan, but I don't want to close the door on that. I still want more information. I want to see it. And I wanted to have the amount of time necessary to do it. But I, I, I can't be happier than where we are right now. And let's see how we make this work for the entire community. Good luck. Thank you, Mr. Ridley. And thank you for your input. One last one. Sure. Steve English, uh, 102 Northeast 10th street in regards to the Aldi's property and the evaluation. I would concur with Mr. Ridley about maybe more of a comprehensive plan and seeing other, uh, potential projects come. I think making a vote on this tonight won't give us a full opportunity as to what the value of that land is. Giving the land over as a concession, I think is woefully not protecting the interest of the taxpayer. And I think there's other opportunities that if we look at all those parcels that are available with a comprehensive plan, we could factor, maybe Aldi's would be the piece, but I think we're doing it piecemeal and we won't get the best effect. So I would table it for now and get more of a comprehensive plan put together and have all the people at the table in one workshop. So thank you. Thank you for your input. Yes. Step up if you'd like to speak. Thank you. Thank you, council members. My name is Henry Gorenstein. I live 1000 Lowry Street, Delray Beach. I think the project's a good fit for the neighborhood. I spent most of my life in New Jersey and we have food deserts also in New Jersey. This particular site in New Jersey would not meet the criteria for food desert because of distance. I just want to make sure that the economics make sense on this thing to give away a piece of land that's worth $10 million or $8 million, whatever the appraisals came in at. It seems a little bit high or maybe a little too valuable. Also, it seems like this project is almost de-risked for the developer. Usually developers come in and they have risk. You know, if it's environmental, if it's site improvements, until you have a full-blown site plan, you don't even know what your costs really, truly are. And I'm not sure if the board also knows what these types of products sell for after they're stabilized. These things trade, you know, when I say these things, the Aldi portion of the project. They trade around a five cap. And I don't know what the rent deal is. I'm not privy to that. But there's an Aldi in Pompano Beach for sale right now. And the rent is almost, I mean, the sale price is $5 million. So that equates to a rent of about $250,000 net to the developer every year. So with maybe, like I said, some additional information, I just want to make sure you guys make the right decision and don't give too much away. That's all. Thank you for your input. But it's a good project. Thank you. George Long, 46 North Clinton Avenue. Give it to Aldi. For Christ's sake, demographics, stuff like that, that speaks. If that property was worth all that much, there would be developers tripping over themselves trying to get there and build a grocery store. Thank you, Mr. Long. I believe we have no more people speaking. So that concludes our public comment on to the consent agenda. Which item are we moving? So we'd like to move 7G. That's the Northwest Neighborhood Funding Strategy. We wanted to move that to 8B, please. 8B, because this says C, but you took B off. Yes. Okay, thank you. Understood. Could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended, please? So moved. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Vice Chair Malco? Yes. Deputy Vice Chair Markert? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Chair Cassell? Yes. Thank you very much. And now we are on to old business, item 8A, second public meeting for unsolicited proposals submitted by RH Development Group, LLC, regarding the development of Southwest 600 block of West Atlantic Avenue. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Assistant Director Christine Tibbs. I will just provide a brief background of how we got here today. So February 10th, RH Development, RHD submitted an unsolicited proposal to the CRA detailing plans to develop CRA open partials, initially within the Southwest 600 block of West Atlantic Avenue with a full-service nationwide grocery store, which we now know as Aldi. May 13th, the CRA special board meeting, the first meeting, occurred under Florida Statute Section 255.0653C. RHD presented their proposal to the CRA board, members of the public, and the board and the public provided comments to RHD to submit responses to. As part of the comments that were given that day on May 13th, 2026, RHD was asked if the grocery store could be developed on another set of CRA-owned properties, specifically the Northwest 800 block of West Atlantic Avenue, instead of the Southwest 600 block of West Atlantic Avenue. On July 9th, RHD submitted their response to the questions and comments provided by CRA staff. Then following, a couple weeks later, on July 22nd, they submitted an additional response to the questions and comments provided by the CRA board and the public. They initially indicated within that July 22nd response that the grocery store could not be developed on another set of CRA-owned properties, that it had to remain in the Southwest 600 block. And at that time, the unsolicited proposal was ready to be scheduled for the second public hearing. However, on August 19th, 2026, RHD submitted a letter stating that they were further evaluating the potential to develop the ALDI on a different block, specifically within the Northwest 800 block, and they would like it, they, at that time, requested additional time to complete its due diligence and evaluate if the development could be moved to that other block. They met with CRA staff and city staff to talk about the potential redesign and any infrastructure work that needed to be redesigned to accommodate the grocery store and the parking lot and any other items. On August 18th, the CRA hired Business Flare, an economic development and consulting firm, to analyze the unsolicited proposal and assist the CRA in consideration of one of the five factors that we will go further into to this presentation. And then we also began, CRA staff began reviewing the regional infrastructure plans to answer another of the five factors, which we will also be going into in just a little bit. September 15th, 2026, RHD indicated that the grocery store could be moved from the Southwest 600 block of West Atlantic Avenue to the Northwest 800 block of West Atlantic Avenue. So here we are. This is just showing you the Northwest 800 block. The parcels that we own that are marked in X aren't included in the proposal, the unsolicited proposal. The ones at the front of the block that are in purple are the ones that are within the unsolicited proposal. And then here is the site plan that was submitted as part of the response. You will see the parking, retention area, and where the grocery store is contemplated to be located in the southeast corner there. And then now we'll go into the five factors and Renee will jump into that. All right. Thank you. So pursuant to the Florida Statute 255.653C, There are five factors that the board will consider in determining whether we'd like to move forward at this time and if this project is in the public interest to continue for consideration. So the first is public benefit, and we're going to go through some of the information that we have that's included in our justification for it. That's part of the resolution. So the first one is the public benefit. So basically, the RHD is building a grocery store, which is a dire need for the community. We are in a food desert, and this proposal seeks to satisfy that. This type of development for a grocery store is identified in the Set Transformation Plan, which is the guiding document for this neighborhood. And the Aldi may also attract private investment to the area. Sorry. And in RHD's October 19th response, this response stated that the Aldi discount grocery model will help reduce household food expenses, particularly benefiting working families, seniors, and residents on a fixed income. They also cited to creating permanent jobs, also generating jobs during construction, expanding commercial tax base, and potentially producing recurring tax increment revenues to support future development interests for the CRA and otherwise. They're also a nationally recognized grocery store that would be brought to our area. Factor number two is the financial structure. So we'd hire Business Flair, as Christine mentioned, to conduct a financial analysis to look at this project. So the proposer essentially is providing us with a full-service grocery store. Private capital carries over $9.9 million of construction. At $1.09 private dollars for every dollar of tax value at market. And it's a direct catalyst that could provide increment of just under $2 million for the CRA going forward until we sunset. The full financial review is actually in the packet that we had for you printed out. It's under Business Flair if you'd like to take a look at it. But this was just kind of a summary that we pulled from the report. Also, factor number three is qualification and experience of the private entity that submitted the proposal that the public entity needs to review. So based on RHD's proposal submitted on February 10th, they cited to a combined experience of over 40 years building over 50 Publix anchored shopping centers from the ground up. They also retained APO, Engineering and Architecture, who has extensive experience in building retail and grocery anchor developments that would work on this store. They've also retained Mr. Neal Schiller, who has experience in government and CRA transactions, as well as municipal law and Florida land use. Factor number four, our staff reviewed the Always Delray Comprehensive Plan and found a few places where there's alignment overall. So I won't read them all, but basically we cited to the neighborhood districts, corridors, and capital improvement elements that would need to be met. So that's water and sewer drainage, transportation, parks and open space, solid waste, and public schools. Next is healthy communities element. I think this is the one that really stands out that most aligns is that we're providing, this is providing a grocery store in the area that is a food desert. So this one is really of utmost importance to us as we consider this proposal. And number five, factor five, is the public comments submitted at the first meeting. So based on the statute, the developers would need to take public comments into consideration and provide responses. So we had several different responses from them. Because they had an initial response, then they were able to move the grocery store from the Southwest 600 block to the Northwest 800 block, and that changed their comment responses. So most notably, they were able to move the location. That came from our board. That came from the public comments, deciding that we wanted to have the Southwest 600 block used for larger development. So they were able to come forward with the site plan for the Northwest 800 block as opposed to the 600 block. There are also questions about highest use. Ultimately, that's something that we would have to decide. It's not the, I guess, highest and best in the real estate terms and development terms. But for us, we've been looking for a grocery store for such a long time that really our board is who would be determining what's the highest use for that land, along with the community and what the community plans have cited, which is a full-service grocery store. We also, there were also comments about the pay structure, and the financial analysis that we did indicated that the CRA investment is a good opportunity of not selling the parcel for mixed-use development, not a couch that way, and that no grocery store deal would really pay market value for the land. So it's kind of a trade-off because we're getting something that's a community that we have wanted for a long time. And also, the land use depends on the use that's tied to it. And RHD noted that to close the feasibility gap created by the combined cost of construction site work and financing and delivery of a community-serving improvement. So they're putting in money into this deal, as well as Aldi. So there is a combination of funding coming in. While it's not directly funding coming to us, there's capital going into the project itself with the horizontal and vertical construction. And also, the October 19th response stated that they're committed to a long-term stewardship of this asset. So some of those things we would kind of vet out as we go through a contract negotiation, but these are just initial comments that they cited for us. And we also wanted to note that this is not final. We'd still have to go through a contract negotiation. So there's still more steps that we'd have to go forward before actually moving this along. At this time, we're just looking for two things from the Florida statute. So one is determining that this is in the public interest. If we do find that this is in the public interest to move forward, we have to proceed with two different notices. One is under Chapter 163. We have to do a 30-day notice of intent to dispose of the property and put a minimum of 30 days out there, a notice to the world to say, hey, we have this project. If anyone else is looking to bid or have any sort of input on this with a proposal, they need to put it in within those 30 days. The Florida statutes also cite to a seven-day notice in the Florida Administrative Register. So that would basically include that there's a public interest determination, factors considered in making such public interest determination, and the public entity's finding based on each factor. And that was included in our resolution. We made it very detailed. If there's any other things, if we do go forward that the board wants to include, we can update the resolution. But we did include pretty much what I just summarized there is included in the resolution as the justification. So today, we're looking for three things. First would be to approve a resolution to continue consideration of the unsolicited proposal submitted by RH Development Group for the development of the Northwest 800 block of West Atlantic Avenue and finding that it is in the public interest and authorizing CRA staff to negotiate a comprehensive agreement subject to the requirements of the two statutes, Chapter 255 and Chapter 163. So first would be take into consideration the seven-day notice in the Florida Administrative Register and also the 30-day notice under Chapter 163.380. So that's basically what we're looking for. And I'll just note, if we don't receive any responses back in the 30 days, then we would proceed to start contract negotiations with the RH Development Group. And that would bring us to just around the beginning of December. We would start contract negotiations after that. Thank you. You're welcome. Great. To the board, Mayor, do you have any comments? So we would be giving away the land, right? Is that essentially we contribute? Are we? We're contributing, yes. We're talking about private-public partnership. Usually you could say partnership. So it's not really. We would be giving the land. They would be constructing this store. Why wouldn't we not do it with a lease where we would protect the CRA's economic interest and the piece of property that it paid good money for? And so in the event that their store does not achieve what it would like to achieve or once it's 15 years, 20 years down the road, we're in a different situation that the CRA has not given the land away. RHDG has indicated that the land lease would not work for them. I'd probably ask them to answer that more in detail. Our financial analyst also cited that the land lease, based on what they saw, would not work, that they would need the land as the contribution to the project. So. Okay. If I may, you said, could you provide us a documentation that reflects that information? It's in the, yes. If you could tell me what page, I'm sorry. No, no, I saw, I saw, I saw. Okay. And then. I saw the analysis, but I just, I fundamentally. Don't agree. You know, I mean. Okay. So I think he makes a good point, though. The mayor makes a good point, because 15 years is a long way away in what's going to happen. But I think that we've been doing this for Ms. Burns over 10 years, looking to get a grocery store in this area to serve the residents. And I think that's going to require something on our part if we want to go forward. But the question is, can you create a reverter or something like that if, over time, the grocery store is no longer feasible on that property? That's where I was going. Whether you could do a deed restriction or some kind of thing to protect that, you know, in the event that they decide. Because that is the way that we have historically protected property from retail. Okay. And there's, I'm getting head shakes that that would be a good thing. So I would want to see that. We can, that would be part of the contract negotiation, definitely. Great. We would look to protect the asset. Thank you. Ms. Burns, would you like to comment? Yes. Hang on, Ms. Mullica, please. I just wanted to say that, you know, understanding, you know, talking to Renee at our pre-meeting, understanding that there are still room for contract negotiations regarding the land. Correct. However, you know, we have been wanting this and to take care of this food desert, as you say, for years. This is what the community wants. And to my understanding, you know, because they were, the 600 block we knew was not the best use. So they took a less desirable location, they worked it out, tighter space, lost 4,000 square feet of space. And so, you know, I don't want to say we are backed against the wall, but, you know, Publix is not coming, and we know that. And Walmart is not coming, and we know that. And so I'm for moving forward with this and then waiting for the negotiations to see what we can do in terms of the ground lease. And there's a line in this that I wanted some clarification on, because in one space it says that the contribution is the land, but then there's a line here that says Aldi's ground lease, Aldi's ground leases the pad. So we can talk about that. If that's a quick answer, you can do it now. If not, we can talk about it later on. Well, I think I kind of, and I guess they can correct if it's wrong, but basically the developer, RH development, would be building the underground, the ground portion, and then they would be leasing that to Aldi. And then Aldi would build the vertical, is how the deal would be structured. Okay. Right. Got it. Well, I'm ready to move forward with it, and then looking forward to seeing, you know, I don't think anybody's knocking down any doors in 30 days to submit anything. We haven't gotten anything in all this time, so I'm ready to move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Yes, no, you may, Mayor. But quick follow-up. And in this report that I read about the leases and things, that was done, did the CRA engage these people to do the analysis? Yes, we did. So RHD, they, yes, it was us. That's our person. Yes, it was an in-camera inspection of the financials. Thank you. Mr. Margaret? Yeah, I'm in favor of this project. I've been pretty involved in this from the early days, and we do have a food desert situation in the area that we're talking about. There are no other major national retailers that will come into this space. We've talked to them, and it doesn't make, with the way they look at the world, it isn't going to fit. Publix would have been a great choice, but they've got locations that are too close to us, and their models will never allow it. I think Aldi's a great choice for this area. They're a modern retailer. They sell a lot of private label products, and that's going to allow our residents to do some lower-cost shopping. And in the environment that we're in in the world right now, that's a pretty popular thing. I do also believe, and I've talked with Mr. Ridley about this, I do believe that Aldi will become an anchor tenant for us. If you want to think about it that way on West Atlantic, this will be an A-list tenant that is showing a lot of interest in that area, and I think that will ramp up other people having activity in this area, and I think that's an important consideration for us. There's still more negotiating that's going to go on, without a doubt, as the mayor brought up and others. But I'm in favor of this project, and I think Aldi would be a great fit for Delray Beach. Thank you. Ms. Mollica? So I shopped every Aldi within several miles range just to check it out and started out not loving it, but then feel the same way that I think would be very, very good for our community. Don't love the financial structure at all. When we put in $9 million, the developer puts in $4 million, and Aldi puts in $5 million to build this grocery store. Something doesn't feel right there. And then there's this outstanding thing that there's like an open-ended infrastructure obligation to the CRA, which we haven't defined financially. So that's, and I know that can be worked out in the contract, but I heard Vice Mayor say that some of the money could be worked out in the contract negotiation. That's not true. Is that correct? Well, we would look at, I think, if there's some kind of reverter or some kind of protections of the land, if in the future it's not an Aldi anymore or something like that, that's something that we would negotiate. Not necessarily contribution, because I don't think that, unless they have changed their mind, but I think that it's the partnership. I think that's the partnership that we would contribute the land to the deal to make it happen. So another question I had, I want sort of a more description of a reverter. Sure. I'm not that smart. Also, with regard to Chapter 163, 30-day notice, can we make that a longer period? We can, you can absolutely do that. It's a minimum of 30 days. Okay, so we could ask for a 60-day period for people to, anybody else looking at this, to come up with a better deal for a $9 million parcel. We can make that determination. Just wanted all that to put our thinking caps on for that. Thank you. I think that's it for me for now. Great. So, we need a motion, and if someone wants to consider Ms. Mollica's input, they should make the motion with her recommendation to, do we have to determine the amount of days in this or not, Renee? We have 30 days noted, because that's what's in the statute. So, if you want to change it. So, if you want to increase it, we have to make that notation. We would have to do that right now? Yes. Correct. I would be in favor of increasing that period to maybe, I don't know, a 90-day period. Is that unreasonable, Renee? 90 is a bit long. We usually, in our RFPs, are 45, for these larger developments, 45 to 60 days is typically what we need to do. This has been going on so long, though. I mean, this has been out there in the world. It's not like it's just local. This has been going on. No, but I think that if somebody was looking at it and go, wow. But this has been going on for 10 years. I mean, we tried to do it on two properties. Sure, Ms. Burns, go ahead, please. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I would like to see us go with the 30 days initially. And then, if someone contacts you and they need some additional time, because we have beat this dead horse enough. And I think that, yes, 60 days would be great. 90 days is a little too much. However, can we go with the initial 30 days first? And then, if you're contacting someone and needs some additional days, then we can decide at that time to go additional 30 days? Absolutely, yes. We extend deadlines frequently as well. So, if we want to start with 30, if we get contacted or see any sort of increase, we can extend it. Mr. Doody, did you want to speak? You look like you. I was going to suggest having a motion made, either for 60, 30, 45, and then have discussion or maybe the motion fails. Understood. Thank you very much for clarifying. My bad as the chair. Could someone make a motion and then we can continue the discussion? Thank you. Are you going to make a motion? She was starting a motion. Yeah, I'm making a motion that we consider the requirement of Chapter 163 to be for a 60-day notice for a proposal. I'll second it. Deputy Vice Chair Marker? Yes. Wait, we were doing that for discussion. If you don't mind, can you hold on the roll call for a moment, please? Thank you. Should we give some input first? I just think when someone looks at it and they say, we only have 30 days, you're going to get people to say, look, I don't know if we're going to put the time and effort into it for 30 days. 60 days, you will get more people to look at it. And they're not going to spend the time and the effort if they think they have to come back and they have to get a vote for an extension. I'm just saying, your best deals usually come if you give them sufficient time to make the proposal. Okay, thank you, Ms. Burns. But we've kicked it down. 90 would have been way too long. We've kicked it down the road for years. Well, as I said before, I'm in favor of the 30 days. But to go along with my colleagues, I'll go the 60 days because I'm not opposed to 60 days. I just wanted to go with the 30 days first. But if you feel that, you know, so I will go with my colleagues. If all of you would like to go the 60 days, I'm okay with that. I prefer 30. Okay. Mr. Markert? I agree with Angela. I'll go along with 60. I would prefer 30. I think at the end of the day, this has been floating out there for a long time, years. And we now have a serious anchor tenant ready to partner with us. And I would really hate to let this thing drag on and make a relationship with this great partner more fragile than it needs to be. So I'll live with 60, but we also have to be fair. We've been at this for years, and here we are, and we're up to the altar. So I think 60 would be the limit for me. And if we get into something else, we can consider it. But I think we've got a great partner sitting here that wants to be a part of the fabric of our community, and it fills a huge void that we have. So I think this is a good thing. And I'm only for it because we're not having, we're not getting compensated for the land. The compensation doesn't look so. Let's call the home. I just wanted to see. By the way, I like Aldi. And the butter, by the way, in Aldi is actually made by Kerrygold. I bet you didn't know that it's just Irish butter. It's made by Kerrygold. It's great. I shop at Aldi. I think we're all now. Okay, so do you need three different approvals here, or just the approval of Resolution 2026-17 as amended to 60 days? If a motion on the floor, I'd like you to take action on the motion for 60 days, then separately take up the resolution. Perfect. Thank you very much. So could you call the roll on the motion to approve Resolution 2026-17 with the 60 days? The first motion is 60 days. Right. We didn't vote on the 60 days. So we're not doing the resolution. Oh, you want it? We can't amend that. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Understood. Deputy Vice Chair Marker? Someone needs to clearly make that motion. No, Judy made the motion, and it was seconded by the mayor. Can you restate the motion? Yeah, I'll restate the motion, and that is to extend the required period in Chapter 163 from 30 days to 60 days for a proposal. Thank you. I couldn't have worried about that. And the mayor seconded that. Okay. Right. Deputy Vice Chair Marker? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Chair Cassell? Yes. And Vice Chair Malka? Yes. Okay. Now we need approval for Resolution 2026-17. Oh, my God. There's no... Will someone make a motion? Can I ask one more thing? I'm sorry. Sure. You're going to explain reverter to me. Oh, yes. Okay. So reverter basically is when we sell land, oftentimes we'll have a provision in the contract that should something happen and it's, they're trying to sell the land or something, they're not using it as a grocer or some provision. The land would be basically transferred back to the CRA, so it reverts back to us, not that they wouldn't own it anymore, we would own it. There needs to be a triggering point that something would have to happen and then it comes back to us. And then with regard to this outstanding open-ended infrastructure obligation, how do we wrap our hands around that? I think that's referring... How do you make me comfortable with that? Well, you know, the land still has an open remediation because of the contamination in the median. So that's what, exactly, that's what it's referring to. Right now we're in a program that the state is actually paying for all of the work and things that are tied to that. So we would, that's something else that we'd have to look at how that would work because if we're transferring the land, the, we are the ones that are in the contract with the state and the county to do that cleanup. So we would have to figure those things out as we go along. Like, we obviously don't want to pay for anything because we're in a program right now where we're not. Right, I mean, we're saying there's no cash contributions in this, but there kind of is. Well, hopefully, yeah. I mean, even if we say the land's free, there's a lot of cash contributions that we're looking at, and I'd like to somehow limit that before I said okay to this. Well, again, once we get to the contract part, we would look at that. And we'll talk to the county and to the state and find out how the cleanup would work. And also whatever, you know, there may be additional things that have to be done to that land because it's in this particular remediation program. And whether it should be the developers who are coming here to do this project for us or us because it's our land that we've had and we're dealing with the cleanup. Those are things we'd have to work out because I think there will be stipulations on how the land is developed based on what it's been through. So we just don't know that yet. We have to get that from the state and the county. But we do have an environmental consultant that we'd hired before. They did a presentation a while ago about, you know, things that could be asked of us once we start developing the land. So we'll have to engage them and start working with them to bring this project forward. But that would have happened with any project. We knew going into this that we would have to do something. We have to remediate some stuff. Well, not the remediation. We just have to do some safeguards because the land is technically clean. There's no contamination there. That was done years ago. But, right, there may be some stipulations that we're required to do. But that would have been with any developer. And I'm sure any developer would have looked at us and said, hey, are you going to help with this because this was our land that had this issue? So we just don't know what that would be at this point. And the environmental consultant had said that once we have a development, it's probably easier to push the state and the county to give us those stipulations because we know what we'll be built. We'll know where water is going. We'll know where different things are. And then they can tell us if there needs to be, I think, like extra soil taken out or membranes or all these different factors. We just don't know because we don't have a development. But this would actually push that forward and then we'll find out. Yeah. So I know that we really want this grocery store, but I feel like we're spending over backwards and spitting nickels. But today all we're doing is considering moving forward with the unsolicited proposal. We're not agreeing to it. We're just going to that next step. If you cut it off now, we have no idea what the future holds and it's done. There is no option. This is just to go to the next step. We will see if other people are interested. Then they can submit. We'll also have a better understanding of some of these issues you're questioning. Renee can review how we can impose a reverter. That's what I want in it. And we just are moving this process forward. We're not agreeing to anything but to keep it moving forward. You can still say no in the future. I know that would seem unfair to the applicant who's been working on this tirelessly and agreed to move to another location. And so they've been bending over backwards, really. I mean, we're doing what we've been trying to do for many, many years. The applicant has been very flexible and very accommodating. And I do think for today, we should just move this forward and continue the consideration of the unsolicited proposal. I'm ready to make that motion. Thank you. I will second that. Do you want to make the motion or just say so moved? I want to make a motion to approve Resolution No. 2026-17 to continue consideration of the unsolicited proposal submitted by RH Development Group, LLC. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Burns? Yes. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Chair Cassell? Yes. Vice Chair Mollico? Yes. And Deputy Vice Chair Markert? Yes. Fabulous. Now we move on to approving the publishing of the Required Public Interest Finding Report. I move that we approve the publishing of the Required Public Interest Finding Report pursuant to Florida Statute 255.065-3D. Second. Commissioner Carney? Yes. Chair Cassell? Yes. Vice Chair Mollico? Yes. Deputy Vice Chair Markert? Yes. And Commissioner Burns? Yes. And now we approve issuing a Notice of Disposal. As amended. Did we already approve that? Do it a second time? Do it again? No. Well, we need to do, we only approve the time, so now we actually have to approve issuance with, as amended. With 60 days. I move that we approve the issuance of the Notice of Disposal pursuant to Florida Statute 163.380, as amended by our, as amended. Second. 60 days. 60 days, yeah. Second. Thank you. Chair Cassell? Yes. Vice Chair Mollico? Yes. Deputy Vice Chair Markert? Yes. Commissioner Burns? Yes. And Commissioner Carney? Yes. Great. Thank you. Now we are on to 8B, which was formerly 7G, Northwest Neighborhood Improvements Project Funding Strategy. All right. Yes. Thank you. So I moved this, or asked to move this to a discussion, because we do need to have a little discussion about it. It shouldn't have been on consent, so I apologize. So this is to discuss the funding mechanism for the Northwest Neighborhood Infrastructure Project. So this is the entire Northwest Neighborhood that we've been discussing for a very long time. The city is in the process of finalizing the costs with the construction manager at risk. It's just about $119,000, under $120 million for the project, and that's something that the CRA has committed to paying for. So we have just under $12 million in our budget, and we always anticipate, I know, it's like $120 to $12 million, yes. But we always anticipated issuing a bond or working with the city to do that. So we've had several conversations with the city manager, the city's financial consultant, about timing and how to structure this. So during our last discussion, we talked about the city issuing the bond and the CRA being the backstop, so we would make the payment as we go forward through our end of our lifetime, basically until 2044, that we would have bond payments to repay this debt. The cost estimates are about $120 million. I think we would probably look to take out less than that, because you can only take out what you're spending in three years. So we were looking at maybe $80 million, or we have to see, because we'll still be receiving TIF over the next years, so we can put more cash to the project. But we just wanted to issue some kind of a debt, because obviously it's such a substantial amount. So today we were just looking for board input, and if you're okay with us starting to discuss, formally, I guess, discussing with the city actually issuing the bond and the CRA being the backstop and making those payments. So we're looking at a revenue bond, which we will annually use some portion of the TIF money to pay back. Correct. Yes, we would be the dedicated funding source. Do we have any sense of those numbers, just so it's something we can look at to know how much annually we'll be looking at potentially putting out so we can see? Because you're right. I mean, the question is, is there a benefit to borrowing less for the long term, or is there a greater benefit to borrowing the full amount? I don't know any of the numbers, so it's hard for me to say, but I would like, obviously, yeah, we need to move forward with this. So, but I think, you know, a little bit more information so we figure out exactly how we're structuring it would be great. Well, I know that on $80 million, the estimates were about $6 million a payment, yes, was the estimate. Correct. So, and it will go up, obviously, or down, depending on what we would need to take out. So, we would have those initial phone calls. We already provided our, you know, project projections for the next several years, and that's what they came up with, about $6 million if we take out $80 million. And we'll obviously get more concrete numbers as we go forward. But we're not sure if it makes sense to take out more, depending on what the rates will be, or try to have more cash. Because, again, it'll be several years as this project will be going on. So, we'll be getting TIF revenue in every year. Right. But what we also find out every time we do a project is it costs us so much substantially more than we think. Right, exactly. So, I'm questioning whether it would be wiser to borrow additionally. But let's go to my colleagues. Ms. Burns, did you have any comments? I mean, I thought that, you know, during my discussion that the CRA has kind of, like, done their due diligence and that $80,000 is a good number. And, you know, you can't take out more than you can use in the three years. So, I'm good with the $80 million. And then it's $117 million for the whole project. That's the estimate. About, yes. I think it's on city commission agenda on Monday, I believe, for you to consider. So, I mean, I'm okay with the $80 million. Okay. Well, it may or. That's a $6 million you pay, man. Well, today we're just looking for direction. Today we're just giving direction to. To start the formal discussions with the city. The numbers will get worked out later. And we can always take out more. So, if we're in year two of the project and we realize we need more funding, we can absorb it to be able to take out another bond. I'm for moving forward with it, with the $80 million. Mayor. I think it's a good investment in the neighborhood. I mean, theoretically, when all this is done, the property value should see an increase, too. So, that everybody should, it should be a very positive benefit over the period of years. So, it clearly needs to be done. I would have liked to have cash on hand, which we don't. But, you know, bond financing in this sort of a way is a very good use of the ability to finance. So, I mean, I'm in favor of that, whether I'd like to do it less than $80 million, but I hope it's not more than $80 million. Me, too. I don't know yet. Ms. Mollica? Yeah, I would be in favor of you pursuing that. Mr. Markert? Yeah. Everybody has said what I was thinking, too. I mean, $80 million is a lot of money, but I think this is the right thing to do, and I've been through this with Renee a bunch of times over the past couple weeks, and I'm in favor of moving forward with this. Great. So, you have your direction. Okay. Okay, on to 9A, new business update on CRA funding assistance programs. Yes. Okay. So, at the end of our last board meeting, there were some comments about looking at our funding assistance programs and potentially expanding them again to other areas in our district. Currently, most of the programs are open to just CRA-owned properties, not other properties. So, we just have a summary of all the programs together. All of the backup materials had every single program guidelines in the application, but I just wanted to provide this as an overview, and that if we want to make any modifications or have some discussion, we can do that, and then if we want to change it, we can bring it back to the next meeting. But this is just an overview of where we are with all the programs currently. Thank you. Okay. So, here's just the summary. So, we have business funding resources, our project consultancy and design services program. So, this is available for design, and we'll go through them in more detail, only for new and existing CRA tenants. We also have site development assistance, which is interior build-out, only for new and existing CRA tenants and CRA properties. And then we have our paint tippet signage program, which is up to $5,000, and this is district-wide. We also have a residential improvement program, CURB appeal. It is currently $15,000 per applicant, but we recently increased that through the budget process this year of up to $25,000, and we're pending the city commission to accept and approve the interlocal agreement that would finalize that. So, here's an overview of the project consultancy and design services program. This is available in sub-areas 3, 4, 7, and 8, located in CRA properties. And this is up to $15,000, which helps with the cost of consultant and design services for the business owner. Again, like I mentioned, it's CRA properties. The project must provide us with signed and sealed plans from a licensed professional. And this is providing, yeah, basically the overview here. Open to new and existing tenants on CRA properties. There's stipulations on reapplications. You cannot reapply in a 10-year period. Expanding businesses can reapply if the expanding business is at an additional location. The program does not include paying for the cost of permit application. That would be covered in the other program, the site assistance program. We do have a retainage withholding of 20% that can be provided to them once the deliverables are provided to us. And then the site development assistance program. This is the interior build-out. So, it is currently just for CRA-owned tenants. It's up to $75,000 in sub-areas 3, 4, 7, and 8 at a 75% reimbursement. When we had this open district-wide, there were restrictions in other sub-areas. So, sub-areas 1, 2, 5, and 6, and you'll see the map there showing where they are, is up to $50,000 at a 40% reimbursement. And this does do complete interior build-out. Anything that's not movable, basically. So, no furniture, no refrigerators, things like that. It's all building materials and interior build-out. So, sub-areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are limited to general retail office, restaurant, medical, automotive, professional services, and facilities, recreational, other commercial uses allowed in the LDRs. Sub-areas 1 and 2, so that's basically beach and the purple area and the core. Oh, there it is. These are restricted solely to art galleries, art studios, retail businesses, personal service providers, and office users. So, this was here for, I think, probably since the inception because we were trying to incentivize those types of businesses to come into the downtown, into the core area, into the beach side. This is a list of the eligible expenses. So, basically, you can see it's all interior landscaping, irrigation, exterior, some repairs to stucco painting, windows, and then the rest of the interior work to build out the space. We also cover design, permitting, and engineering fees as well. And this is just a summary of what we classified as new business. New business is defined as any business operating for the first time and cannot be for more than two years. A new business that was not previously in operation at a different location or engaging in an activity in a business in another name. So, this is the paint up and signage program. This is the program that is currently in effect for all sub-areas except restrictions in sub-areas 1 and 2. So, this is the CRA paying up to $5,000, up to 50%, basically a 50-50 split for exterior paint and signage. So, this is trying to encourage businesses to kind of spruce up the exterior of their property to have a nice, you know, curb and view on the exterior. So, these are commercial structures throughout the CRA district. In sub-areas 1 and 2, it's restricted to art galleries, art studios, office users that are operating within the structure. And this one, we wanted to propose increasing this because it's been $5,000 for a long time. And I think patent sign-ins and things have gone up substantially. So, we were thinking maybe $10,000 to double that amount to help try to encourage more use of this program. Because while it is available currently district-wide, we don't really get many applications for it because it's a small amount of money. And patent costs and signs have gone up substantially. So, that's something that we would like to put forward to increase that. That's something we can do now because it is a current program that's open to everyone. And here just gives an overview of what we're looking for. We would need a copy of the lease or deed, permission from the owner if they're not the owner of the property. And then any verification from the city if they're trying to change the paint color. And any approvals from the city as well. And there are stipulations that they cannot reapply for a 10-year period. And this is the curb appeal. So, now we're switching over to the residential program. So, this is curb appeal available in the set neighborhoods, sub-areas 3, 4, and 8. The up to $25,000 is pending City Commission approving our interlocal agreement. And this is helping with the paint of the exterior of homes, minor fascia, minor exterior improvements if it's needed for the painting. And also landscaping on the exterior and irrigation as well. We recently added fencing. So, we only had the fencing. So, we previously, I think we changed it like four or five years ago. But we had an availability to do fencing on the front or the sides, not the rear. But we added the rear fencing and only replacement a few years ago. But now we changed it to where you can install a new fence or replace the entire fence, front and back. Because as we started to do more of the alleys in the set neighborhood, you're opening up the back of the homes, essentially. And now you can see what's happening in the back. So, some years ago, we added the inclusion of the rear fencing as well. And then it can be a new fence, not just replacement fences. And now we are getting more applications in. I think the city was a little backlogged. But we're actually seeing a lot of fences coming in for replacement or installing new fencing as well. But we only had up to $15,000. And the fences are costing almost that amount. So, I think if we're by increasing this, hopefully that people will want to do both. Because I think they're looking at, do I want to paint or do I want this fence for safety and, you know, privacy? And I think people are electing to go with the fence. So, a lot of the new applicants are fences that we're seeing. That's exciting. It is. It's fantastic. But I think if we increase it, we'll probably end up seeing more people coming in to do both. And it's an increase. That last slide said $25,000. But you mentioned $15,000. Is $25,000 the new? $25,000 is what it, yes, it will go to. So, that's what the request was from the city. And then we put it, we have an interlocal agreement that spells out the program guidelines. So, we're waiting for that to be accepted. And then we change it to $25,000. But currently, it's $15,000. And it's been that way, I think, since, is it 2012 or 2015? Or 2015, it's been a very long time, at $15,000. All right. So, this is just a table showing an overview of the programs in one place. You'll see here the site assistant, the project consultancy site assistant, paint-up and signage, all the business programs, and then Kerr Peel is the residential. So, switching over to our incentives for developers. So, as you know, we have two programs. The land value investment program. So, this is our land lease program, which we only have available right now for the RFP, for the 6, 7, 800 block RFP. We had these district-wide for everyone, but when we closed the programs some years ago, they'd stay that way for a while. We revised it, and then we opened it back up just for the 6, 7, 800 blocks RFP. If we want to change that, we absolutely can. But right now, these are only available for the RFP that we have issued. And the other program is development infrastructure program. So, this helps with the cost of the site improvements for the underground work, up to a million dollars, which would be paid out of what the project is generated in tax increment funds over a five-year period, if they generate that. If they don't generate it, they wouldn't receive that. So, we would have to do a calculation after the projects are complete to determine what amount that they would be eligible for, if they apply. These are only if they apply for it, and they would like to take advantage of these programs. So, that's all I have for you today. Okay, any comments to the board, Mayor? You and I have had this conversation about these incentive programs a number of times. I think that, again, I am in favor of these incentive programs because they do add value to the neighborhoods, and we recoup back what we invest in. And I think I'm glad we are trying to be a little bit more aggressive in certain of these areas because when it's $5,000 to make the effort to get $5,000, and it's, you know, sometimes you just say it's $5,000, but they may, if they get more money, then they may actually do what we would like them to do to improve the looks of their property. So, I'm in favor, generally, of what you are proposing. Great. Thank you. Ms. Burns? Yes. Yeah, I was the one that brought it up, and so I'm in favor. I think that, you know, we should utilize these programs to the max for, as you say, for added value to our community and supporting our small businesses, homes, the whole bid. So, I'm in favor. Thank you. Ms. Mullica? Now, are we assigning an amount that we're, I know we're discussing to reinvigorate a program that had been in place, and you said we have the money, but what is the total amount that we're going to be dedicating to this? Well, I think the question is, because right now, paint tip and signage, we're looking at increasing that to $10,000. So, that's exterior paint and signage on commercial businesses. The project consultancy and the site assistance, those are the interior programs that are only for serious properties. But I'm saying the overall amount before we say we're done. So, we have $500,000 in our budget currently. That's it. For just for the business programs and for curb appeal, we have $600,000. So, those are two separate line items that we're utilizing. $500,000 for business, $600,000 for curb? Correct. Got it. Thank you. Mr. Markert? And when we hit those dollar thresholds, the program stops? We can put more funding into it, yeah. When we had them open district-wide, we had more money in those programs. But since we shifted it to CRA properties, we reduced it because we didn't have as many coming in. So, it's different. I think the new numbers are the right numbers for, you know, getting people interested in. And I agree with the mayor that this, we want people to take us up on this. This is going to improve the area. So, I think raising the limits is great. And, you know, we'll keep an eye on the budget. And if we start to overrun it, we can always make a change. But I think this is a great idea. Great. So, this was an update. I think you have your direction in terms of those increases. Great. Okay. Got a clarification? Sure. You mentioned that it's currently $5,000 for paint-up and signage. And you were asking or suggesting that we raise that to $10,000. Yes. So, do we do that now? Well, you can just give consensus. I don't think we need a vote. If that's fine. I just want to make sure. Yes. So, there's no question. No, no, no. We gave consensus to raise that to $10,000 for paint-up and signage. So, we'll do that tomorrow. We'll update the application and we'll put that out. And that's district-wide. So, hopefully, we'll get more input. And then we can see, you know, if we want to look at the other programs again later. But at least this is a start to see if this will help get more businesses in. Excellent. Great. Great. We're on to other business. Do comments from the executive director. Yes. I just wanted to ask or let you all know that we are requesting a change for the November 18th meeting. We reached out to everyone individually, but I just wanted to say it at the meeting as well. We had the meeting scheduled at 1 p.m., but we needed to move it to 2.30 due to some scheduling conflicts. So, I think it was all okay for everyone, but I just wanted to bring it up at the meeting today that we would shift that meeting back slightly. And we had it at a different time because with Thanksgiving and when we're closing at our budget, we try not to have meetings that are too close to Thanksgiving and too far from when your last city commission meetings took place. But just with scheduling, this was the only last possible day that we could have this meeting. So, we would look to make that shift. And there is a city board meeting, some kind of a – I think it's maybe site – I'm not sure. But one of the city boards is meeting at 5 o'clock. Okay. So, just in consideration of time, we may not have as long – if we have a long meeting, we might have to close it a little earlier due to that meeting. All right. And that's all I have today. Oh, fabulous. Thank you. Great. Any comments from our board attorney? No, ma'am. Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate you. On to the board. Mayor, do you have any comments? No comments. Ms. Burns? No comment. Okay. Ms. Mullica? Do we have the – does the CRA control the website for the improvement program, or does the city in Northwest Southwest? Because I got an email with a concern that they didn't feel it answered enough. I haven't called her back yet, because I know what's on there. But is it the city's website? Yes, public works. So, I would speak to – okay. Thank you. Yes, no problem. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Markert, any comments? No further comments. I don't have any either. Thank you all. Thank you to our CRA director and our staff and everyone who joined us today. Have a great day. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. That was fast. Thank you all.