Naranja Lakes CRA BCC Meeting - Aug 27, 2026

Good morning. Oh, that's kind of loud. That works. Check testing one, two, testing one, two, three. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Narendra Lake CRA meeting on August 27th, 26th at 10 a.m. We're going to get this meeting started. Madam Clerk, Mr. Clerk, can we get a roll call? Present and accounted for. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Thank you very much. Co-Chair, would you mind leading us into the invocation into our Pledge of Allegiance? Everyone, please stand and bow your heads. Dear Lord, please give us the strength, guidance, and wisdom to make decisions on behalf of the amazing residents that reside within the Narendra Lake CRA. It is in your name that we pray. Amen. Amen. The United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Mr. Attorney, a reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. Is that in order at this moment? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Those who wish to speak at this particular moment, you have two minutes to come to the podium and make your positions heard on one of the items that are actually found within the agenda today. At this particular moment, a reasonable opportunity is open. Yes. And please also state your name and your address and why you're here on one of the particular items within the agenda. Mr. Stewart, I've got people who are in this facility. At all times, people are afraid to go to their mailbox. The police have done a fantastic job. You are in this facility. I've tried for a number of years to have people who are parking on each side of this building. So you have, everybody has a problem with places to park. So even when they have, you do that you need to have places to park. The police have to park on the side of the street because they have never got parking done. The county has a copy of the parking facility, the plans that we've brought up. One of the things I wish you could do is get parking so we have regular parks so people can park here. If the plans are there, maybe you can get it done. Thank you, Stewart. Anyone else? Going once, going twice, seeing none. Reasonable opportunity at this moment is closed. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Also, we're going to move to approval and changes to the agenda. Mr. Attorney. Mr. Chair, there are no changes to your agenda. A motion to set the agenda is in order. Is there a motion to set the agenda? Is there a second? Second. Hearing the motion, motion may second. All in favor? All against? Approval of the agenda is set. Also, let's go to the approval of minutes. February 12, 2026 and May 5, 2026. Is there a motion? Move it. Seeing it was moved, are the co-chair second? All in favor? All against? Minutes have been adopted. Now we're moving over to the resolutions for board approval. Mr. Attorney. Mr. Chair, your first item is item 7-1, which is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency, approving and adopting bylaws and rules of procedures for the governance and operation of the agency. Thank you. Are there any questions, concerns? Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I have an amendment to the proposed bylaws regarding the alternating co-chair scenario that the bylaws currently contemplate. After speaking with the attorneys, I propose for the intention of efficacy that the commissioner presiding over the CRA meeting be the commissioner to approve the agenda. The way that it currently stands, there needs to be a sunshine in order to approve the agenda between both co-chairs. And I think it would be more efficient to simply have the chair presiding over the next meeting be the commissioner to approve the agenda in the spirit of efficiency. So I'm not sure if you have an objection or feedback to that, but that's certainly a proposal that I'd like to make to amend the bylaws. Thank you. At this time, I have no objection, just for clarity for purposes. So what we're saying is, if it's held in the South Dade Government Center, then that particular commissioner would actually set the agenda. If it's held here in an Arrangea Lake CRA location, then the agenda would be set by the commissioner here. That's correct, Mr. Co-Chair. If you recall, during the Sunshine meeting that we had, we chose to alternate meetings here and at the South Dade Government Center. So our next Arrangea Lake CRA meeting will be at the South Dade Government Center. As opposed to being here, you're presiding over this meeting. I will preside over the next meeting. And we would have the agenda set by that presiding commissioner and alternate accordingly. I have no objection to that. To the attorneys, is there something that you need to read to amend the bylaws accordingly? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to amend item Roman numeral 7-1 to amend section 2.03 in the rules of procedures on page MDC 015 and section 3.03 in the bylaws on page MDC 004 to require consultation with each meeting's presiding officer rather than the co-chairs in preparing and approving CRA agendas and to provide that the final agendas shall be approved by the presiding officer rather than mutually by the co-chairs. I am happy to hand out the proposed amendment so I don't have to read all the strikeouts and underlines, but that's the gist of the motion. Thank you. Are there any questions or concerns? Commissioner Regalado, thank you. I have other changes. Are we going to do them all together or are we going to go one by one? Let's do them all together. I've got a question, though, that I may, Mr. Chair. Give me one second. Give me one second. Let me, Terrence, just for clarity purposes, her amendment is on the table at this particular moment, and am I hearing that we're going to accept all the amendments, we're going to look at, listen to all the amendments and then pick and choose which amendment, or do you think it's best that we go one by one? If the maker of the motion wishes to allow for the friendly amendment, if it's a friendly amendment to her motion, then yes. Otherwise, we proceed under the motion that's on the table right now. Okay. So what we'll do is that way we can keep everything clean and straight to the point. We'll deal with each amendment one by one, unless there is a particular reason why we shouldn't. Perfect. That worked for you, Commissioner Rigolato? I'm fine with that. Okay, so move it. Okay. All right. Okay, so on this one, I'm writing this on this amendment. Okay. You're recognized. Thank you. Commissioner Gilberto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it's a question to the attorney or the maker or whoever can answer this. So, if we adopt this amendment, does it require us to maintain the co-chair system? Because just having actually chaired the county commission, it's more than just presiding over the meeting and setting the agenda. It's the chairperson who works with the staff to actually set the general direction and bring items to the board. It's not just limited to – and so I know that one of the items that we have on here is the contract for the executive. I think that we need to be mindful. And this is my opinion when we initially did it and I said we should make Commissioner Hardeman the chair. It's my opinion now that having an alternating co-chair system is not pragmatic when you are leading an entire body. Because to the extent that there is disagreement between the co-chairs, you spend time just reversing each other, meeting after meeting, there's a reason why the county commission has one chairperson. There's a reason. And so this, I don't believe, is practical. If this requires us to do that, then I probably wouldn't support the amendment because I don't believe that we should have co-chairs that alternate in subsequent meetings. You run the risk of paralyzing the entire agency if the two co-chairs disagree, because we all know how long things take to get done. So between one meeting and the next, they just would reverse each other. So I don't think that's practical. But that's to the attorney. What does this require? Mr. Attorney, you recognize? I don't know if there's a question that seems like more of a statement on the record. Is there a question, Commissioner Gilbert? I'm going to ask. Does this require us to maintain? You know, there was actually left the question. Does this require us to actually maintain the co-chair system? Yes. You would still have co-chairs as set forth in the bylaws. The only changes is that, as you have summarized, it's each co-chair gets to alternate between meetings and they leave and they're the presiding officer of that meeting. Yeah, I guess the continuation of the question then, in the bylaws right now, how would we do it if we want to have a singular chair? The bylaws contemplate that at any point, preferably annually, the body itself can elect a chair and a vice chair, so it leaves it open. So you could either have co-chairs or you could have a chair and a vice chair, pursuant to the bylaws as written right now. And so if we made this amendment, would that change that portion of the? No, that portion is not being altered as it relates to the possibility of the body electing a chair and a vice chair. I see Jess smiling because he realizes I'm about to go back and say then the answer to my question was, no, it doesn't require us to maintain the co-chair system, this amendment. Okay, then I can support the amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Bermudez, I know you had a question also. No, I'm fine with the co-chair, but I also share Commissioner Gilbert's concern that I don't know how we got here, but that's a different story because I think the people would be fine. But I spoke my piece back then. The only question I would have, and I guess the answer now with Commissioner Regalado having whatever suggestion she has, is my understanding was, looking at the bylaws, that basically with the exception of the co-chairs and us being the body, did we maintain most of the bylaws of the prior Naranja Lakes CRA, or what has, I mean, I'd like to know just, did we like redo them totally, or did we do what a CRA is supposed to do that was doing before, which is what I thought we were going to do. You're right now, sir. The current bylaws that you're operating under do not work for this structure. Those bylaws were implemented by a CRA that was a citizen board, and there's a separate statute. The bylaws is drafted today, that is presented to you for your consideration, is drafted in a manner that takes into consideration that you are the board of commissioners under a separate portion of the statute, which is section 163.357. Essentially, the difference would be, if I may, Mr. Chair. You recognize, sir? Yeah, essentially the difference would be we are the body that approves, and we just approve our own approval. But, so, because of state law, there was a change in the process. But I just wanted to make sure that we're going to run these meetings like we would have, like, because I would have expected the CRA to run a meeting correctly anyways, whether it has county commissioners on it or not. So, but I'll say my piece. I'll wait to hear Commissioner Regalado's vast and sundry suggestions. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. That's why I thought we should take them all together, because I think they're all going to intersect. One of the things that I was going to mention when I get to mine is I think when we approve bylaws, we should have the option that one day the people who represent Naranja could agree on one chair. So I don't think that we should approve bylaws that are exclusive to our current co-chair situation. The board decided on this as, like, an experiment. If the experiment works out, fantastic. But if it doesn't, there's a world in which we wouldn't have this problem. So when we legislate, we shouldn't legislate for our current situation. We should legislate for the future. So that was going to be one of my amendments, that there actually be a way to change this in the future if the board wanted to change it in the future. I think we need to have options. That's number one. To Commissioner Gilbert's point, I think he brings up a good point. I think there are some legislative solutions to that. When you look at the bylaws, specifically Section 8.01 with contracts, where I think is where you would have the most damage in terms of what he's saying, in terms of flip-flopping, like what you approve one month, you may not approve the other month. Maybe the solution there is that when it comes to the approval of contracts in the agenda, there has to be a sunshine. Because at that point, you would want the two human beings to agree on what they're bringing the CRA. So I don't think that necessarily all the business can be unwound. What we should be concerned with is the business that goes to the heart of the services that can be unwound. So I think, Madam Co-Chair, that you could tweak your amendment to kind of deal with some of that. But the problem is that, to Commissioner Gilbert's point, the entire document is premised on this co-chair. So he could literally go section by section, pointing out all the issues. Because obviously, the document is drafted for a co-chair situation. But I don't think we should draft a document that has just that option. Because I think there is a world, and we could, you know, if this doesn't work out, we could do something else. But there also is a world in which the co-chairs could agree. So I don't think we come at it saying the co-chairs are always going to disagree. I think that's an extreme. I think we can have three different scenarios. The co-chairs agree, the co-chairs disagree, and you have, like, a chair in the future. Because the two people who represent Naranja agreed on who would be the chair. So I think for this particular document, we need to draft something that can serve all of those realities. Because it is the foundational document of the CRA. And I have similar, you know, suggestions about other pieces of it. But I think that there is an underlying issue that we need to deal with. Thank you. You recognize. Co-chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terrence, correct me if I'm wrong. We can amend the bylaws at any time, correct? We can place them back on an agenda and make subsequent amendments in the future. Is that correct? Yes, Madam Chair. On MVC 011, there's a provision for amendments. Okay. So we can pass bylaws today. And in the future, should factual circumstances change, we can always amend the bylaws to reflect those factual changes. Thank you. Are there any other questions, concerns, or unreadiness on this amendment? Commissioner Gilbert. Are we taking up this amendment and the amendment, and I'm a little confused about that. Are we taking up this amendment and Commissioner Board Member Regalado's amendment, or are we just taking up this amendment? So... Carla, Denise, you're recognized. Carla, Denise Edwards. In other words, I agree with Commissioner Regalado. Let's hear them before we vote on the amended bylaws. I do want to clarify, it was the intent to allow for a co-chair situation or a chair and vice chair situation. I think, Terrence, the first paragraph doesn't reflect that intent, but the rest of the document actually does. It carries forward in the event that we have a chair and a vice chair, it defaults to the chair and carries that forward. So, I do think the first paragraph under Section 3.01 doesn't fully reflect the intent. However, the rest of the document does. Because... Okay. It doesn't. So... But that was the intent, was for us to... For you all to be able to do both. Oh, got it. Oh, okay. So... Terrence? Mr. Chair, just to correct the... Carla, Denise, actually, if you look at MDC 004, Section 3.01, it does take into account that you have the ability to appoint a chair and vice chair. It's in the second... Pardon? The third sentence of 3.01, which... I think I was kind of in the middle of my thing. I was kind of in the middle of my thing when that started to happen. But I do think what she was saying was there's a contemplation. The availability is there. But so we're going to hear everything out and then vote, or we're going to take them one by one is what my initial question was. And the answer to that, I believe we're going to take them one by one. Okay. I think that's easy. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, Commissioner, are there any questions, any concerns, or any readiness on this? Is there any particular amendment? Commissioner, do you want to make the motion? Oh, yeah. I thought Terrence had already made the motion to... Do I need to restate it, or...? I think I made the motion, and I believe that it was second. I think we just need to vote on it. Yep. All in favor of the motion as amended? Aye. All against? Against. Seeing that the ayes have it, item passes. All right. So, where we are now, Mr. Attorney? I believe you are going to consider the next motion. Yep. Second motion. Commissioner Regalado? Thank you. So, I'm going to start with the easy stuff. I think the easiest change is when we get to Article 4 on meetings. I think that we have here physical meetings in this location and then at the Government Center. I think that we should add, you know, or other location the Board deems fitting. Just because there's things that could happen. And to the point, I mean, yes, we could amend the bylaws every single meeting, but the purpose of the bylaws is to give the people that live in this area a parameter as to what's happening in the CRA, and they don't have staff like we have staff, so I don't expect them to follow every meeting to see changes in the bylaws. When I hear about bylaws, it's like a condominium, like you do it once, you do it right, and you amend it when needed. I don't think this is something that we should have on the agenda and constantly be changing. I think people want predictability and reliability in government, and that's why we should try our best to be future, you know, future thinking. So, I think we should give ourselves that opportunity to name another location if something should happen. And I also think that we should provide a hybrid option. So when we're at Government Center, we have the capacity to provide people access because we have video cameras there and people could participate. That is not reflected in the bylaws. But when we go to Government Center, because it's so far from here, I think people should be able to participate virtually. We have the technology. Why aren't we doing that? And we already lived the pandemic. We had a moment in which everything shut down and people could only do virtual meetings. And when we do bylaws, we should learn from the past. So if something happens, we should have the ability to have a fully virtual meeting. And then we need to deal with the attendance of that meeting. So that if there is a crisis and we need people to get online, we could do that. So I think that's the easy one. Just kind of like be a little bit more future focused when we establish the meetings. That would be my first one. Thank you. So to sum it up, sum up your proposed amendment. For this one, it would be to add another location that the board determines and provides notice to residents within 30 days. That would be the first piece. The second piece is to allow hybrid participation when the technology is available, specifically at Government Center. And then the third would be to allow a fully virtual meeting when the board deems that necessary. Again, that one, you know, probably not 30 days because you would probably do that because you have an emergency, but you would give people 10 to 15 days notice. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I noted on the bottom of page MDC 005, it says that meetings of the agency shall be held at and alternate between the following locations or such other location designated by the co-chairs together or chair if applicable. Does that not do it? My issue is the notice. So I think that if we put it at another location, we should give 30 days notice. And then I want to include the hybrid options. All right. Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah. This is like beating a dead horse, but truthfully, I'm going to vote for it. But the intent should be for the people of this community that have been involved in this process to be able to get to these meetings, preferably in person, because if we get into the habit of having these things downtown, first of all, I love technology. But, you know, the fact is there's always people on the side, et cetera. And I would like the people of this community, which are the ones impacted, which is what the CRA was created to in, if not in every opportunity. And I'm fine with the switching of both because they're near the area. But, you know, I just don't want us to get into, by doing this, I just don't want us to even start thinking that we should, and for some reason or another, like it almost happened last time. Unfortunately, we were going to have the meeting at six o'clock and we couldn't because it was too late and we didn't have quorum. So I would like to make sure, and I'm going to vote for it out of respect to Commissioner Regalado because I think her intent, it's well intended. But I want to make sure, and I want to be on the record to be clear, that this should not take place. Our meetings here, if we decided to be the CRA for Naranja Lakes, we got to come to Naranja Lakes. That's the bottom line. I don't think we should be, get into in any way, shape, or form of a habit of doing things hybrid or coming permanently where we could, and I agree, maybe there's an emergency and that's fine, but I don't want us to get into that habit. So I'm going to support it, but I want to go on the record because that's the reason that I vote, that I agree, you know, I didn't agree with it to begin with, but if we are going to be the CRA board, then we have to be the CRA board to the people that live in this community. If I can respond to that. Give me one second. Commissioner, are you finished with your statement? I'm going to support it. I'm going to support it, Commissioner Regalado. I just want to say, I agree with you 100%. Commissioner Regalado, you recognize. I agree with you 100%, but the document that we have been proffered does not prioritize that. I agree with you, that's why I'm here, but obviously not everyone is here and the document does not prioritize that. The document says that we're going to go back and forth between Government Centre and here, which is at Government Centre, we have the capacity to allow people to participate virtually and we've talked about how long it's going to take people to get from here to Government Centre. So, but we can change it and I'm happy to accept a friendly amendment, JC, to prioritize Naranja Lakes. Commissioner Regalado, let me ask you, would it help with the fact that the alternate locations are between South Dade Government Centre and this location? Because it's not so much the North Dade location that we're looking at, it's the South Dade location and this location. So, would that help your analysis and also your motion that would further do what JC talked about and that is keeping it within the South where the people of the community can reach it and possibly go downtown only in an emergency situation with notice? I'm happy to do that and the reason I mention it is because I think at some point we'll end up at Government Centre, right? Look at what happened to us last time. So, I think as long as there's notice and we're cognizant of it, because to Commissioner Lopez's point, the bylaws say that we can pick another location. That's what I was trying to address. The bylaws say that. So, even though JC is saying one thing and we all said and the two locations that are picked say South Dade, the bylaws say that we can agree to another location. Thank you. Commissioner Gilbert. Wow, that worked. That worked. What worked? Putting the thing up like this, Crystal said, put it up like that. You've got to waive it next time, man. I'm used to Government Centre. Yeah. Just as a note, not us as the CRA board, but us as county commissioners, please, when the county redistricts, put this in one district. Put this in one district. That's the lesson I'm learning, that we need to have this in one district now. Yeah, this isn't going to be. And then I just need to understand how many more amendments you have to the bylaws, because I don't, I'm not, yeah, I'm not, I don't, no. We're not going to sit here and go through, we're not doing that. I got it. Thank you. We need to probably just wrap this up. Give me a second. To the attorney, is there any state law that requires meetings to be held in person as opposed to virtual meetings? You have to have an in-person, so you have to have your quorum in person to hold the meeting. As for the virtual aspects, I believe Commissioner Regalado wanted some sort of streaming for the public to participate. That's allowable. That would not. And for members of the board, it may be allowable for them to participate, but you definitely need in-person quorum of thought. Okay, so just to make sure I heard you correctly and we heard you correctly, so long as there is a quorum in a physical location, there's a possibility of having a virtual participation somewhere else? Correct. Well, whatever you decide, we'll make sure that it is consistent with our understanding of what the law is and what the statutes provide. It's not in the CRA statutes and a different statute, so we would make sure that it's consistent if you decide on the amendment. All right, so we're going to go ahead and take a vote on Commissioner Regalado's amendment. Can you restate that for the record and make sure we're all clear? All right, so my understanding is that everyone's in agreement that the bylaws already say that you could choose an alternate location. Right now, you're meeting here and at South Bade. If I understand Commissioner Regalado's amendment, if it is at a different location, for example, the government center downtown, then you would provide 30 days notice in advance for the public to be able to attend. And that she would also like to amend the bylaws to allow for virtual meetings, as long as there's in-person quorum. Got it. That sums it up correctly, Commissioner? Got it. I'm very... Right. Is there a second? Seeing it moved by Commissioner Regalado, is there a second? Second by J.C. Bermudez. All in favor? Aye. All against? Amendment passes. Another one, Commissioner Regalado? Since Oliver's had a good month. I'll save some of the other ones for later another time, since we want to, it appears we want to go back to this document and this is our first meeting. But I will say, like I mentioned earlier on the contracts, I am concerned with the contracts and what could happen. I think the board should consider that if the contracts are of a particular amount, that the co-chairs should have a sunshine. I just think it's going to save us so much time. I don't want to go 10 rounds on contracts. And this is Section 8.01. Coach, Mr. Co-Chair? No objection. You're recognized. Mr. Co-Chair, what's the process now? I'm assuming that why don't we just require all contracts to be signed by both co-chairs if we're going to have co-chairs? Exactly. Just require... So there has to be a sunshine meeting, but there has to be some agreement because both of them are going to have to sign. If we're going to have co-chairs, both of them are going to have to sign. So then we don't need to change it. If it just... Yeah. It's fine. Well, it says either co-chair or other agency. So it's either, not both. That's my point. You can have it unwind. Thank you. I'd say both. Edwards, you're recognized. Thank you. At that juncture, the board would have authorized and approved the contract. So the board is authorizing the co-chair or co-chairs to sign. So it's not that the co-chairs have unilateral authority. Yeah. So, but a lot of times when we authorize... Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Are you... Finish your statement. No, no, no. Finish your statement. It was... You were cut off. You okay? The point is, I understand that there shouldn't need to be a sunshine meeting every time we need to sign a contract. There... But the board is authorizing the execution of that contract. So I would be curious from the attorneys if that actually does require Sunshine to sign the contract that's already been authorized. No. I'll explain. Can I just point out that I still... What, what I don't... We... I still had the floor when she started talking. And then... I apologize. I asked her. I don't know what just happened. We got it. We'll, we'll, we'll fix it. We'll fix it. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Regalado, back to you. Then we're going back to Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah. And all I was saying was, since we're having alternating chairs for the agenda, to Oliver's point about people unwinding, and I appreciate your, your point, however, you can move to reconsider. You can put it on the next agenda. So if the chairs disagree, so let's say you have a contract. One co-chair says yes, and the other co-chair says no. The chair that's in charge of that, that meeting, approve the contract, and it's okay. Then the next meeting, it's the next person. They could put it on the contract again, and they could put it on the agenda again, and we can reconsider. That's what he's speaking to of the unwinding, right? So you eliminated the need to have a sunshine meeting to approve the agenda. Okay, fine. That's fine. But that, one of the reasons that we required that is because when we first created this CRA, the three of us said the same thing. We don't want an unwinding, which is why we originally said that the two of you had to have a sunshine meeting in order to set the agenda. Now you've eliminated that. So what I'm saying is, I don't want to be reconsidering items every month because there's a difference of opinion. So can we establish a process where there has to be agreement by the chairs? I don't think it's the signature because that's really when we voted. So you could have a chair that voted no. You could have a co-chair that voted no and a co-chair that voted yes. If you require both of them to sign, someone could withhold their signature and then it's not executed. So that's not the solution, which is why I proffer this idea of a sunshine meeting, but only for contracts of a particular amount. I just, I don't want to mire us in, in, in this process, but the reality is that we've created a structure that disagreement could lead to some confusion. And I'm just trying to find a solution to that. I'm not saying that the sunshine is the agreement, you know, is the solution to this problem. But since you eliminated the sunshine to establish the agenda, I don't want us undoing things at every meeting. So I'm open to other suggestions. I'm just trying to find a path forward so that, you know, us and the public is not subjected to a, um, a disagreement because I don't want to relitigate a vote every other month. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions or concerns? I've got a question. Commissioner Bermudez, right, right, yeah, yeah, thank you. Commissioner Gilbert. Thank you. Um, we also don't always approve final contracts. We approve contracts in substantial form or we give the administration an administrative direction to go into, into a contract, which is generally what happens. That's generally what happens. We very rarely see final contracts before us in any capacity. And so you'd be placing an enormous amount of authority in, yeah, that doesn't, that doesn't make sense. And let me just say that we are contorting ourselves into going through this document because we did not want to make the decision to just pick a chair. Yeah, which we should have done. We should have done. So this is, we could even, listen, if y'all want to flip coins, like whatever, who has heads? I mean, but pick a chair. Like we, it was our job to pick a chair. We got, we thought we were Solomon and we split the baby. And now we're stuck with, with, with, yeah, no babies. But Solomon, it's in the Bible, it's Solomonic, yeah, it's Old Testament and everything. So it covers everybody. So I'm just saying we can do that. But at some point, at some point, there's going to be a situation where there's going to have to either be a sunshine meeting or some check, a check on a co-chair's authority to enter into an agreement without consent of the other co-chair. So if you take out the sunshine meeting, then you have to require a signature. You have to require the signature because we approve in substantial form or we direct them to enter into contracts. We do not approve final contracts. Thank you. Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah, I, listen, I agree with all of the congressmen. By the way, I want to make a friendly amendment that the first thing he does in Congress is provide coffee for these meetings, but that's a different story. The, look, we're, again, we're kind of beating the dead horse. I have full confidence in both of you, the co-chairs, to, you were elected, you both represent the people down here. I would expect that they would expect that you would cooperate on things that are important. And I have full confidence in both of you. The only reason we're probably even talking, and I agree with Commissioner Gilbert, or Congressman Gilbert, that we are going, future Congressman Gilbert, that we are going through this because of the situation we found ourselves in, which I did not originally agree to, but that's okay, because this is democracy. But the only real issue is, would one of you keep a contract off the agenda when the other one would want it? So really, what would really, I mean, I can't see why both of you as co-chairs could not talk without breaking any sunshine. You got enough, you know, meetings at the commission that you can say, hey, look, this is the agenda coming up. And I just, I would hope, I have full faith and confidence in both of you, that both of you are professionals and are colleagues. So, but I agree with Oliver that if we're going to go through everything in this new document like this, then I think we need to reevaluate. You know, because if not, every meeting is going to be torture. And it's just not going to be good for the people in Naranja. It's not going to be good for the county. Period. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado, you want to go ahead and make your motion in a way that you need it to be stated for the record? I'm happy to withdraw my motion. Thank you. I think we've made a mistake in eliminating the sunshine for the agenda, but we'll just see what happens. If it goes sideways, if it goes sideways, I guess we'll just be back here and we'll figure it out. I'm just trying to prevent us from going, you know, going in the wrong direction. So I'm happy to withdraw my amendment and we'll all wish for the best. Thank you, Commissioner. Do you have another amendment proposed? No, I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm going to stop being prophetic. We'll see what happens. I'll keep my notes. If we need them later, we need them later. Thank you. Give me the numbers to the lottery. I'll take them. All right. Mr. Attorney, put us back in posture. Where are we back? On the last issue. Seeing that you've already voted on one amendment, or two, I'm sorry, two amendments, you can move on to your next item. I believe you've already approved the item as amended. Mm-hmm. They haven't? Okay. Then officially, we would need... I need a motion and a second as amended, saying it was moved. All in favor of the motion as amended? All against? Item passes. Mr. Attorney, what's next? Yes. Mr. Chair, your next item is item 7-2, which is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency, retroactively approving the second amendment to the exclusive leasing and management agreement between Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency and WLSLC, a Florida limited liability company, DBA, NAI Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and NAI Miami Property Management, LLC. Thank you. Are there any questions, concerns? Co-Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This contract was extended for a full year, and I believe it was done so because the deadline on the contract came up, and it was July 2026. And what's on our agenda has rather incomplete information. And so I have a question for NAI. Is anybody from NAI here? In the back. Please, please come. What happened to the podium? Okay. You can come up here, sir, ma'am, please, and state your name for the record. Can we get someone to bring the podium up for them, please, and leave it up here, along with the microphone? Thank you, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Can you speak up a little? Thank you. Just the name is fine. Jeremy Larkin. Commissioner? Thank you, Mr. Larkin, for being here. How long have you been managing the properties that have been acquired by the Naranja Lake CRA? Which is when? Okay. May of 25. That's what I thought, but your financials that are attached to our agenda only give us a financial glimpse from October, I believe, until April. October 2025 until April 2026. Where are the balance of the financials for NAI? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. And so the financial snapshot that you've provided in your agenda, and I appreciate you providing those documents. I don't have them, maybe they're on our desk, but I don't have them, but for the seven-month period that's included in the documents in your agenda, you have an expense. This? Is it this? Your year to date? Okay. So it says that you've spent $120,000, I guess, on upkeep and maintenance of the properties? I see. Okay. Hold, hold, hold. Can you give me one second? Sure. Can we get this mic going? Good morning. Mr. Chair, can we note for the record that Commissioner Orbis has arrived because I was feeling very lonely on this side. It put me all alone in a corner. I feel punished, but that's okay. We should have told her to bring some coffee in her out while she was here. All right. Go ahead. Is it on? So the expenses were for the shopping center, which are real estate taxes, insurance, and all the maintenance, maintaining this facility, maintaining the two vacant facilities that are quasi-passive parks, and then dealing with the vacant parcel to immediately to our north at, I believe, 27501 South Dixie Highway, where we had to do a substantial amount of clearance after the demolition to evict a homeless village. Okay. And is part of your responsibility managing these properties to increase the occupancy? It's one of the things we suggest on a temporary basis in order to enhance cash flow for the county, yes. Sure. And currently it's at 50% occupancy? Correct. Okay. What has been your occupancy increase rate since you've had this contract? What was the occupancy rate when you acquired it, and what is it today? What has been the increase in the occupancy rate since you've held this contract? So when the property was purchased, I believe we were about 75% occupied. We were immediately told that the property was going to be redeveloped. A number of the tenants, when they were advised of that, that would happen the next few years, decided to leave because they were all on month-to-month leases. We have secured the remaining tenants on longer-term leases. I believe there are seven leases sitting on the county attorney's desk, waiting for approval and execution. And all of those leases, we are telling these potential merchants and service providers that the property will be redeveloped, and we will be putting in a clause that allows the landlord, which would be the county, to terminate the lease with anywhere from six months to 24 months' notice. We want to time it with when the development is going to actually start. Okay. So the occupancy rate has actually dropped 25% since you've taken over property management of parcels. Correct. Yes. Okay. How? I'm not sure that that's a positive report. I mean, would you agree? Because you're managing the property, and I appreciate the cutting of some shrubs and the removal of some palm trees, but visually, the properties don't look particularly amazing, right? The paint is chipped. The parking lot looks pretty squallored, and we at the Narendra Lake CRA, our number one priority is to remove slum and blight in the area. And so you've taken over property management of these properties. When you acquired it, we were at 75% occupancy. We're now at 50% occupancy, and your contract has been extended another year without consent of the board. I'm not sure that that makes much sense for me. I'm wondering if there's another property management company that could do a better job, because arguably, 50% occupancy is pretty low, and you could be generating more money for the Narendra Lake CRA than you currently are, by your own admission, because when you acquired it, you were at 75% occupancy. So I'm trying to give you an opportunity, because on the hard numbers that I see here, I'm not particularly impressed with your record thus far. First, we have seven leases pending execution, which will bring occupancy to probably about 75% to 80%. Can you come to the mic a little closer? We have pending leases to be executed that will bring occupancy back up to about 75% to 80% at rates that are twice the rates that you bought the property at, the leases that are in place. So we will substantially increase the cash flow and the income as soon as the leases are executed. And why are there seven leases pending? What is the story there? Because we were told to hold off on this trip for this meeting. Who told you to hold off? The executive director said, let's hold off pending this meeting to understand when the redevelopment was going to occur so we can time the redevelopment clause so we don't interfere with the next development. Okay. So you're representing on the microphone that seven leases are pending because the executive director told you to hold on executing seven leases that would bring the occupancy rate back up to 75% and generate substantially more income for the Naranja Lake CRA? Well, if we could step back just one moment. When the property was purchased, we were advised it's immediately going to go into a redevelopment phase. So first we had to take control of the property, advise the existing tenants were all in month to month, month to month leases, which gives them the right to leave the 30 days notice that this was going to happen. A number of those properties, a number of those tenants vacated because they don't want the, to sit there in the suspense of. No, no, no, but you're, you're repeating with all due respect, you're repeating what you said previously. The question that I just asked was a very narrow one. I simply repeated what you had articulated to me, which was that you're instructing this board on the microphone that the executive director told you to hold seven leases that should they be executed would generate substantially, if not double the revenue for the Naranja Lake CRA and bring occupancy up to 75%. I'm just repeating what you said. I'm asking you to clarify if that's what you want to represent to the board. Given the circumstances of what we saw coming, it was a mutual decision. It was our recommendation. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I hear you, I hear you. Give me that and finish, please. Okay, it was our recommendation to move the leases on a slow basis to find out if the actual redevelopment would be awarded today, and then we can sync it up with the redeveloper. I don't agree with that position. If you don't, if you don't, if, if it didn't happen, we would ask to accelerate and have the leases executed if possible. Yeah, I don't, I don't agree with that position. I appreciate that. Again, the purpose of the Naranja Lake CRA is to remove slum and blight from an area. Allowing those spaces to stay vacant and not generate additional revenue for the CRA is a problem of priorities. I want to know how long those seven leases are sitting on somebody's desk. Has it been one month, two months, three months, six months? That was my original question. I wasn't able to get an answer for it. I'm also concerned that the executive director extended your lease or your contract with the CRA by another 12 months with a report card that I find questionable at best. What I'd like to do is allow you the opportunity to increase your occupancy rate, because we need the Naranja Lake CRA to generate revenue. Whether a redevelopment plan passes or not, that's just like you said, 12, 24 months down the road, you could and should be generating revenue during that entire phase. There is no reason to hold seven leases that could be generating money for the CRA that we need right now. So I would like to give you the opportunity. And again, it's not a single vote. Obviously, my colleagues and I look forward to their feedback. I feel like there's a problem of priorities here, which is why I think, at least in my opinion, for a number of other reasons that I'll highlight in different items on the agenda, why we are here. We need the money reinvested back in the CRA as quickly as possible so that our residents in the CRA can see that we are actively moving to remove slum and blight. I'd like to see paint. There's been no paint. You've pressure cleaned, but I've seen no paint. I've visited all of your properties as recently as yesterday. It doesn't look particularly aesthetically pleasing. I'd like for you to apply some basic paint. So I am okay with extending your contract for a period of a few months to allow the opportunity to actually manage these properties in a way that I think would be agreeable and acceptable for this board because currently as it stands, I personally don't find the standard of service that you've delivered to be acceptable. And so I don't know what the appropriate motion is to Terrence. I don't feel comfortable, which is the way that the item is written, extending your contract for a year. I'm not suggesting to terminate it. I'd like to give you an opportunity and maybe by the time we have another meeting, we'll have an increased occupancy rate. We'll have some paint on these properties. And I'm not suggesting painting the entire exterior. I'm talking about painting and pressure cleaning the parking lot, the driveway stops, where people are visually seeing that really is a nominal cost considering the money that you currently have in the bank. And so if it's agreeable to my colleagues, I would make a motion to not extend your contract for a 12-month period, but rather until our next CRA meeting or three months potentially to allow you the opportunity to increase your occupancy rate and do a little bit more aesthetically with management of the properties. Could I ask one question? Sir, you're recognized. Thank you. No, no, you're not going to ask him. Do you? Oh, I'm sorry. I believe in my contract, and I would ask the county attorney to check, but there's a 30-day cancellation clause at any point in time. Yep, there is. What does that have to do with anything? What does 30 days cancellation have to do? I'm not trying to cancel your contract, sir. I'm just trying to. No, what I'm saying is, is if you extend it a year, extend it a month, with a year, you still have a 30-day cancellation rate, so you could terminate me tomorrow, 30 days later. We're aware of that. But thank you. Thank you. Terrence, one of the statements made from the podium is that there are leases sitting with the county attorney's office. Can you give some observation and clarity to that? Sure. First, there was one lease that we had received, which we reviewed, approved, and has been executed. There were additional seven leases that were received in the last two, maybe one or two weeks. We were starting to review it, and then we got an email, as Mr. Larkin represented from the executive director, as to whether or not we should proceed with the review of the remaining seven. So we stopped our review. So we can do a very quick review of the seven, get those executed, if that's the pleasure of the board, and move on. So we're not talking about these leases sitting on your desk for months. These are a few weeks. No, I don't generally have things sitting on my desk for more than, you know. This is very important, and I would have reviewed them immediately, but for the email. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. I think it would probably better serve us to defer the extension and to take one or both actions. You know, I appreciate that there's certain things that you want in this, and I don't disagree with you. I just want to make sure that we're not going outside the bounds of their agreement, and I don't want to get stuck with an agreement that we don't think is good. So instead of, like, bifurcating it and, like, only doing it for a few months, either we're going to put out an RFP and get new people, and they can compete, you know, or we can set, we can amend this agreement, we can defer it and amend it, and in a formal amendment, speak to all the things that the chair mentioned, and I'm sure the other things that the other co-chair. So my suggestion would be a deferral of this, and then you all can have a sunshine meeting or work with staff and come up with an amendment and amend this agreement to encompass some of those things. So if you're happy with the pressure cleaning, but you want them to paint, well then amend it so that they have to keep the painting at a particular quality or standard, right? Those are the things legally, not just, because what I don't want is, he goes out, he does a series of things, and then we come back, and then there's another list of things, right? Because at that point, we are, we're opening ourselves up to another issue. So I think we can amend it, and we can add those quality control issues, and you can even address this issue and say, you know, we want there to be always occupancy, we never want you to hold on to a lease more than 30 days. If you're holding on to a lease, you have to provide notice to the board. So I think you can fix what happened in a very proactive way, but make it terms to this agreement instead of just, like, these are the things we want to see. Because I think that opens us up to always doing that, and I don't think that's in anybody's best interest. So my recommendation would be, and I'm happy to make the motion to defer this, and then you two can work on an amendment that covers all these issues so that we can include it in our next meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. To the administration, do you have a position one way or the other on this? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Crystal Patterson, the Executive Director. I just want to add a little bit of color in terms of the leases. I think Terrence did just provide some insight. The leases came in, I would say, about a week ago, at least to me personally. I think Jeremy was engaging directly with the attorney's office. When I got a hold of them, what my concern was, specifically, was that one of the leases, which is a five-year term, has a 24-month redevelopment clause notice on it. Given this board was going to be hearing and intent to dispose today with a proposal or recommendation to redevelop the site, my question was, and it was simply a question, not necessarily a directive, to pause. The question specifically was, should we give the board an opportunity, given it's the first meeting, et cetera, an opportunity just to simply kind of hear the item, make a decision, and then give this staff the direction to either continue to lease the spaces or pause on the redevelopment clause. So just to add a little bit of color and context there regarding, you know, why my statements were what they were at that time. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Regalado, then we're going to move on on this item. Yeah, I think that's a very interesting point. Thank you for clarifying that. So, sir, your point is that the pause was because there was a shift in the CRAs, you wanted to make sure that we all had the same idea in terms of the direction of the redevelopment. Absolutely. In addition to the fact that, you know, to the co-chair's point, there are several suites that are vacant at this point. I mean, I can't necessarily predict what was going to happen today. We have a – we didn't intend to dispose. There is an item on the agenda for this board to either approve or deny a proposal for redevelopment. And should that, you know, should that not pass for some particular reason, you know, we would need to decide how we want to proceed with the vacancies. Or alternatively, should it pass, do we want to give 24 months notice? Is that still appropriate? So, that's – these were some of the questions that I had. I'm not, you know, a property management expert, admittedly. So, I just wanted to ensure that we were tracking properly. That's fair. Thank you. Chair, you're recognized. I just have a quick question. Can someone shed some light on the leases? I just – the math isn't mapping for me. Like, so there's seven leases sitting on Terrence's desk. It's only been maybe two weeks. I know you received it a week ago or so. But in my experience in real estate, you don't rent seven locations in a week. So, like, how long is this – like, to get seven leases, that takes work. Kudos. But how do you get seven leases in a two-week period? Like, is there that much of a market for new businesses opening up? I just – or is this residential? I don't even know this, but, like, I'm not – but how do you get seven leases sold in a two-week period? There were two factors. It did come over a long period of time that we all ultimately grouped them together. We were working on letters of intent when the original board composition of the Naringia CRA was dissolved and transferred to the county. And then we basically were sitting in a brief period of limbo trying to figure out who did – working with the executive director, who do we report to, what's the process now, how are things going to work? And then things finally started to move forward again. And we reengaged with the prospects because we told them that, hey, we finally have some direction. Let's get moving. And over a course of three or four months, we were able to put seven prospects together. Actually, I think two of them are already – are renewals. I believe there's only five new ones – and got them to wait for us to get this to the table and get the leases executed or get the leases to the point where we can execute them. There is a shortage of retail space in the South Bay corridor, especially on Dixie Highway. We also have very small spaces, 710 square feet. There's very few availabilities of those small spaces in the area as well. So that does clarify some – this isn't something that's been a week or two weeks. It's a week or two weeks for us, for you, Krista, and for the lawyers. But it's been happening for three or four months. It's been being negotiated. There's been a lot of confusion. We're not getting clear direction from who was now in charge and how the direction was going to go. Wonderful. That's three or four months of loss. I mean, the executive director did the best that she could to help us. And the county attorney, as we talked to him, gave us as much counsel as we could. But we did not know exactly how to move forward. All right. I'm done. But you're clear now, though, right? Yes. You're clear now who's in charge and what needs to be done. And co-chair did bring up some great points about the aesthetics of that location. Yes. Okay. And that's something you can carry forth, carry out? We can execute that immediately. Okay. Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm just going to go ahead and make a motion. I think we need to have a chair. I don't think it's beneficial or fair to staff. I think we're overcomplicating a process that shouldn't be this complicated. We need to have a chair. Mr. Attorney, when can I make a motion to appoint a chairman? And what's the process? And before you answer that question, Terrence, let me just say what I'm hearing from the questions coming from my colleagues and hearing from the dais, it sounds to me that clarity is being formed and happening as we speak, just trying to figure out what does that have to do with co-chairs versus a single chair and a vice chair. But again, Terrence, go ahead and answer that question for him. The board at any point at this juncture, since you just adopted your bylaws, can stick again with the co-chair setup or elect a chair and a vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. So I just take a motion? I just have to make a motion? You can make a motion. I move to appoint Commissioner Cohen-Higgis as chairperson to Naranja Lake CRA. Motion made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Chairman Rodriguez. Any discussion, any questions or concerns? Well, my position is, at the end of the day, I'm going to go with the board's decision, whatever, however we vote this in or out. But at this particular moment, I do not believe that a chair position should be had without first going through the process of giving this new system a try. I do love it. And I think it can work for the entire South. But again, the motion is made. A second has been made. And all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All against? No. Against. Seeing the motion passes, the ayes have it. Okay. I'd like to make a statement. Please. Because I respect both of you, and I'm fine with either one of you. But I thought we had made a decision to be both of you, because both of you represented this area. So in the end, this may be much ado about nothing. But the only thing that I want to get across to all of my colleagues is when we make a decision, and we made a decision, we came all the way down South. We eliminated a whole board of people that were made up of residents of this community to take these seats. And, you know, I just hope that as we move forward, disagreements don't become personalized, and we can actually make decisions. I'm fine with both of you, either one of you, one of you, half of you, Hardeman, who's not here, but I thought he was going to be here. And, you know, so it's fine with me. But as we move forward, at least here in this CRA, if you don't want to do it at the Board of County Commissioners, do whatever you want. If we can try to show to the general public that we, you know, our goal is to work together and disagree respectfully, you know, I think it's very important. At least to me, it's very important. I would like to see that moving forward. I'm fine with both of you. Please don't take it personally. I just made a decision before that I felt we had already made. But if we've got to do it, and I understand Commissioner Gilbert's position, too. I understand it. He's always had the same position. So, but the point is, you know, we can't tie up this CRA with some of our personal disagreements. And let me just say this. And respectfully, I don't think this has anything to do with policy. I don't think this has anything to do with the people in South Dade. I think all of this has everything to do with a political preference. That's what this is boarding out to. And I'll say it. And I'll say it publicly. It's no secret that I was on the other side of Commissioner Gilbert. Okay. No, no, no, no. It's no secret I was on the other side of Commissioner Gilbert. And because I was on the other side of Commissioner Gilbert, that's why he made this motion. Okay. No, no, no. What I'm telling you, what I'm telling you, listen, you'll have an opportunity. But this has everything to do with this. But this is not the Board of County Commissioners. This is the CRA. Okay. You're going to get a point of order. Let me finish. Let me finish. So this has everything to do with Keone McGee choosing to go with Chevron Jones and not Oliver Gilbert in politics. That's what this is about. And secondly, this has everything to do with Keone McGee not coming out publicly supporting Corn Higgins. That's what this has to do. And thirdly, this has everything to do of hijacking the community so that they can use the money to cover some of their, i.e., friends within the process. And the only thing I am doing at this particular moment is laying forth a way, a pathway, that this community can get what it deserves. So at the end of the day, listen, if you want to go with the one chair proposal, I'm okay with that. And I support that because I'm going to support my colleagues. But I'm just putting my position on the table and saying that this has everything to do with a Commissioner Gilbert trying to orchestrate power leadership throughout the county. And I'm not backing down from him. I'm not backing down from anyone else. I'm still going to be Keone McGee. So that's where we are. So, in the end, if the board chooses to go this route, I think go ahead and do it. But, again, Mr. Gilbert, for the record, just know I will not be backing down from you or anyone else who you believe you can use to get your point across to try to punish me in any way. I just want you to remember that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner McGee. And if I can bring the temperature down just a bit. I thank my colleagues for the honor of serving. I look forward to working with Commissioner McGee. I'm grateful to my colleagues for traveling down south to be here. I'm grateful for the Herald being here. I don't think we've had a Naranja Lake CRA with press present. This is exactly what I had hoped for. This is exactly the attention that I knew that this community deserves. And this is exactly what I hope for, not the discourse that you just saw, but rather the attention to the area that has been lost and has been missing for far too long. I'm going to hold feet to the fire. I'm going to hold accountable those who have contracts with this CRA because the slum and blight must be removed from this area. So the discourse that I had with you is going to be the same that I have with everyone else. And I am just gratefully, gratefully, gratefully thankful for everyone being here and caring so deeply about the Naranja Lake CRA. And I am confident that in very, very short order with the attention and the commitment and the care of all of my colleagues that took time out of their busy schedules to be here, that we will see slum and blight removed from this area as quickly as possible and certainly faster than we had seen it taken care of in the past. That is my only and my exclusive goal. And we will continue with the order of the business of the Naranja Lake CRA. Commissioner Gilbert, you were recognized, followed by Commissioner Recomato. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just, and I won't belabor this point because it seems to be emotional. My point has always been that we should have a single chair. Before there was congressional vacancy, I thought that co-chairs for CRA was absolutely ridiculous. This meeting has kind of proven out that, that it just, it doesn't work well. Madam Chair, you're also the chair of the airport committee, which CRAs kind of report up through economic development. It kind of just makes sense. But needless to say, I have confidence in your leadership and your judgment. If there comes a time when this board wants to elect a separate chair, they can do that. But I will be consistent, as I have been, in thinking that us contorting ourselves to account for the emotions of commissioners is inappropriate for a public body. If we're here to do economic development, let's do economic development. We have a bunch of CRAs in this county who work just fine doing economic development and remedying slum and blight. We have staff, professional staff who are working here. Give them a chairperson, a chairwoman, singularly to work under in this board, and then let's see how we can move it forward. And I think that's probably the appropriate path. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Regalato, you recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say, when we first had the conversation, and I voted against the creation of the CRA, I was also against the co-chair designation. And I specifically said that when we had our first CRA meeting, we were going to unwind it. And here we are. But we're unwinding it without the full board. And that was my issue. That's why I thought that the co-chair thing was nonsense from the beginning. And that's why I voted the way I voted. Nothing to do with you personally. I just feel like we had these conversations, and now they're playing out in a particular way. And pursuant to our bylaws, my question is, who's going to be our vice chair? Because now we have the other vote, which, again, we talked about months ago when this whole experiment was first concocted. I motion to McKeownie McGee, the vice chair of the Nerangelic CRA. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Anyone who wish to be recorded no. Congratulations, Commissioner McGee, on being named the vice chair. We have not passed the item that is before us. Commissioner Regalato, I accept your motion to defer the item. I think it's important to note, however, that the contract has already been executed. This is a retroactive approval of a contract that has already been approved and extended for a year. I'm fine deferring it, because I think it's six to one, half a dozen of the other. I do want to see you do better work. Is it within your budget to apply some paint? Yes. Thank you. Will you do that between now and our next CRA meeting? Yes, I will. Okay. And will you execute the leases so that we can increase the occupancy rate and the revenue to the Nerangelic CRA between now and our next CRA meeting? Yes, I will. Okay, so the item has been moved, or no, it's been deferred. Yeah, we're deferring it, so we're moving to defer it, so I need a second. A motion to defer to our next Nerangelic CRA meeting. It's been second by Commissioner Lopez. Any further discussion? Yes. Madam Chair, just a question. Not a question. Can we, whatever information you're able to get from this gentleman and the entity, could you please make sure of the whole, just because I want to make an informed decision. I appreciate it. I agree with you, but I want to make an informed decision. And this is the care and the concern that I'm talking about that I appreciate greatly. I appreciate you representing, yes, that you will apply paint and that you will increase occupancy and execute those leases. At our next Nerangelic CRA meeting, wow us. Bring us photos. Show my colleagues that are not familiar with this area and the Nerangelic CRA the before and afters. I know you had some in your packet, but show them the before and afters, including the paint that you're going to apply. Is that agreeable to you? Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much. Did that motion, did we defer it? Yeah. We did defer it. To the attorneys, that's a yes? Yes. Okay. Okay, great. Moving on to the next item on our agenda, it's the Nerangelic CRA budget. To my colleagues, I want to note, the budget of the Nerangelic CRA currently stands at almost $51 million. And to the attorneys, it's $51 million, if I'm not mistaken, because $34 million carried over from the previous year, if that is about accurate, or to the executive director. The carryover from the previous fiscal year was approximately $34 million. Yes, Madam Co-Chair. Okay. I highlight that for one reason. $51 million is a large sum of money. It's part of the reason I wanted the Board of County Commissioners to get more involved in the Nerangelic CRA, because the area is still so riddled with sun and blight. And because, frankly, why aren't we spending the money that is in the CRA in order to improve that slum and blight? $34 million in carryover, it makes me wonder why we didn't invest more dollars during our last fiscal year in order to bring up the area. And so I would really like – I'm going to approve this budget. I really would like to see us as a body invest these dollars, right, because the roads, the sidewalks, the aesthetics, there's so much that can be done with this healthy of a budget that I really would like to see these dollars invested. And so I do have a few additional comments. I will recognize my colleagues, because I do have some specific questions about the budget, but I did want to communicate that I really do look forward to a greater investment in the Nerangelic CRA. Vice Chairman, you were recognized. Thank you very much. Let me give some context to why the $34 million probably is not spent. As you know, the Board's budget has to go before the BCC. And in prior years, this board, in the form of the BCC, held the agenda item back, and that was at the discretion of the chairman of our BCC. So that's why, if you're looking and it's asked, why haven't certain things happened as it relates to spending, as it relates to revitalizing the community, that's because our current chair of the BCC held back on the agenda items so that we couldn't approve the budget. And because we couldn't approve the budget, that meant nothing actually happened in Orangia, because in a sense they strangle the people in Orangia by holding hostage the legislation. Now that the legislation is freely flowing, hopefully we'll see things happen in this community now because the community desperately needs it. So that's where we are, and that's the reason why there was not so much spending. It's because the Board of County Commissioners paralyzed the community by not agendating the actual item as it relates to the budget. And I have a few other questions later on, Madam Chair, to address the budget also when the time is appropriate. Thank you. Madam Chair, I have a question. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, I appreciate the question. I do encourage my colleagues to dial down the rhetoric and the accusatory tone. We are all here with the same mission and strangling and stifling and allegations of any kind of misfeasance I really think have no place on this body. So I think it's important to make that note. Commissioner Bermudez, you will recognize. Yeah, Madam Chair, thank you. Yeah, my question would be the miscellaneous item there is over a million dollars, and I really, you know, there's no explanation in what approvals or controls what it's used for. So my question would be along the lines of it's a million plus dollars. I'd like to know what falls under miscellaneous and what's being used, what's not being used, et cetera. So that would be my question. Thank you, Commissioner Bermudez. That is part of my question as well. And so either to the executive director or to the attorneys, what is and why do we have over a million dollars in expenses related to miscellaneous? Thank you, Madam Chair. I can address the question. So the budget framework that you have before you is the same budget framework that this CRA has always had. So as you may know, my firm started working with the agency, I'd say, about a year and a half ago. And so we essentially just took the same framework that the agency had. In terms of miscellaneous, this line item has existed as just, you know, miscellaneous. If there is additional dollars in the budget that are not properly allocated, we house it there. I think from the county's perspective in terms of, you know, obviously the clerk's office and through OMB does process the invoices and what have you on behalf of the agency. I can't necessarily speak. I do know a lot of the times they pull from that line item first in processing invoices. But, I mean, you're absolutely right. I mean, the miscellaneous item, the line has always been there. There hasn't been a lot of direction, and so we've just continued to use it for any additional dollars that the agency has. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Commissioner, I have comments, but I'm going to reserve Commissioner Gilbert. You are recognized. Just on the budget, before we get, like, deep into it, would it be practical to allow our new chairwoman to actually work with the executive director and bring back a budget that's reflective of what you all need to see before we go through it all? I mean, and maybe if you want to, the vice chair, you all have a sunshine, but whatever. But would that be appropriate so that you actually have a budget that's reflective? And a lot of times with these CRA budgets, when they, I mean, if this is like every other CRA, they spend money anyway, whether we actually approve the budget or not. So they spend money anyway, with almost every CRA, having been the chairman before, we're always approving them retroactively. So I don't know how, what kind of control we do or don't have, but that's typically how it works. But would that be something that you all could work and do together? Yeah, and if I could offer also, Madam Chair, you know, given that this is a new board, oftentimes there are unanticipated items that come out, come up throughout the year, conversations and expenditures that potentially we need to address and cover. But because all of the other dollars are, have been allocated in a particular regard, you know, we're not, you know, we would have to go through a budget amendment and what have you. So I think this gives us a little bit of flexibility in terms of being able to address the needs that might arise under the leadership of the new board. Thank you for that. Commissioner Gilbert, I think your proposal is a solid one. I am okay adopting this budget, especially with the caveat that you just made. I do have some specific questions, though, because I do think the miscellaneous should move. I think the miscellaneous should move, frankly. It has $5 million for infrastructure and transportation. I just think that we need to beef that budget up in hopes of kind of getting some road work done in the area. And so if my colleagues are agreeable, I'd like to move the million dollars to our infrastructure, landscape enhancement and transportation pot. That's one idea. And then to the attorneys, administrative expenses are line items as $496,000. Number three says contractual. No, no, no. Let's see. Direct county support, $250,000. Provides reimbursement to Miami-Dade County for fiscal management, budgeting, financial oversight, board administration and coordination of agency operations. And then it says, and that's $250,000. Then it says county administrative charge, $229,000 and change. In accordance with the interlocal agreement, the agency reimburses Miami-Dade County for 1.5% of the county's tax increment contribution for administrative services. My question to the attorneys is, why are we paying $250,000 to Miami-Dade County for direct county support and $229,000 in a county administrative charge? It seems duplicative. Why are we paying both? Yes. Okay. Thank you for your question, Madam Chair. So pursuant to state law, the CRA is required to pay the 1.5% administrative fee. The direct county support, to my understanding, prior to this agency having an appointed executive director, the OMB was managing, if you will, the day-to-day. And I think this additional line was what was used to fund, and correct me if I'm wrong, George, but that's the line that was used to fund. You might notice in last year's budget, we did decrease that line because there was, you know, day-to-day support by our firm. This year, given the recent changes by this body to, you know, re-engage the county staff, we increased the line, just, again, just anticipating, not really sure how things are going to work out, how we want, you know, the resources to work in terms of staff support. So this line is used to fund salaries in the OMB. Okay. Thank you for that explanation, Madam Director. To the attorneys, is it necessary that we have both? I understand the statutory requirement of the 1.5. That makes perfect sense to me. But why do we have the 1.5 to Miami-Dade County, statutorily required, and then another allocation for $250? I mean, like, do you all need that money? Well, I think it's not for us. It's for the budget office. That is the coordinator for the CRA coordinator. But let me just say that the statute does not talk about a percentage. That was negotiated in terms of the interlocal agreement. Oh, I see. The statute only provides that one of the expenses that can be paid with TIF dollars is administrative and overhead expenses, directly or indirectly, necessary to implement the community redevelopment plan adopted by the agency. That's all it says. Okay. So, Chief Denise, do you need both of those fees, the $250 and the $296? Yes, through the chair. Yes, ma'am. You do. Those fees cover OMB's costs, other county costs that are incurred as a result of managing this CRA. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, Commissioner Goodler and then Commissioner Lopez. So, you have dedicated staff just for the CRA, or you're covering a piece of employees who already work in OMB. You're covering a piece of their salaries, or you just have dedicated people just for the Rangelic CRA. We hire people just for them. So, we have staff, which is right here behind me, that includes OMB staff, clerk of the court staff, others who support. So, they do procurement. I mean, they're all over. They're not individuals who are directly allocated to Naranja Lakes. They're individuals who are serving CRAs across the board, but I do have staff like Vivian and George who are directly allocated to Naranja Lakes. So, if we didn't take, if we didn't give you that money and approve this money in the budget, would you have to fire anybody? I would have to reduce the salaries of multiple people. Really? So, you mean their salaries increased because you got a Naranja Lakes CRA? No. No. Their salary is not increased. The money is used to cover our general operating, so it's used to cover salaries, not to increase. Yeah. I don't think you would have to reduce it. And, respectfully, Chief, it's not your budget. It's ours as a commission. And that is fair. And so, yeah, it's our budget. So, I don't know that we actually have to allocate that in that way. And let me just say, we have this dual structure now. We're engaging county staff because, ostensibly, the county commission is sitting as a CRA board. But I'm very comfortable with the executive director and her staff. So, I don't know that we need to have the level of staffing from the county. I think the CRA ought to be allowed to go forward with this executive director and this chairwoman trying to figure out how to move this community forward. And so, I don't know that we need to pay all that. And I don't think that we're going to pass a budget as a county commission that fires anybody if we don't pay all that. Because we're also paying them for lawyers. I know we're going to be deciding whether we want to hire lawyers, independent lawyers. I don't necessarily have an opinion on that. I will say that these people are going to come to work anyway. Madam Chair, may I ask you? They're coming to work anyway, y'all. Yes, Commissioner Bermudez. But Commissioner Lopez is next. Commissioner Lopez, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I guess I'm very confused because statutorily, and I was very much involved in these decisions at the legislative level, this county administrative charge was to do exactly what the chief just said to do. It wasn't meant to just grab it and do nothing with it and then also charge the CRA for all the services that are completely within the administrative services of the CRA. So, I guess I'm confused because it appears to me that when they negotiated the 1.5 percent, that should have covered all of the expenditures that the county is – for sure it's duplicative. But the statute, as the statute, as the county attorney has correctly pointed out, did not specify a rate. So, when they negotiated the 1.5, it should have included all administrative services other than, I guess, legal services has been set aside because that's on number item five, under operating expenditures. So, the county attorneys have a separate line item, but this county administrative charge that is in accordance with state statute was to cover the administrative fees. So, I guess the question I have now is, where's the breakout of what the $229,124 paid in the past or now, and then how do we account for the quarter of a million dollars evenly, which I love, because I would have expected to see – I think that this budget narrative, I'm just saying this, being a person who deals with budgets every day, is woefully inaccurate and incomplete. Because when I see item number four, training, workshops, memberships, and travel, I have to ask myself, where is anyone going? One. But two, I should have a list of all the trainings and what they cost, a list of the workshops and what they cost, a list of the memberships and what they cost, and then all the travel-related expenditures, so that I can determine whether or not we think that's even appropriate for a CRA. So, when I reviewed this budget, I started to see things that – it's just not a complete budget narrative that I could approve, because I don't know what it is. It's just one amount, and it just says, you know, we're going to support professional development conference attendees. I'm like, why do you need to go to a conference? I'm a member of the Miami Beach CRA. We don't go to conferences. We do the work of the CRA. So, I guess I have – my comments are, I think this needs to be far more detailed, one. And two, I don't understand what is being spent that totals $229,124, and then what is being spent that's $250,000. Those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Bermudez, you were recognized, followed by Commissioner Regalado. Thank you, Madam Chair. I kind of am in the same as Commissioner Lopez. It's a little bit – you know, I'm very confused, because we have so many CRAs, and, you know, the charges – I just don't want this CRA being treated differently than anybody else, number one. But I guess we can talk about that during the budget process. And Commissioner Lopez brings up some very valid points, which are, yeah, I don't see why there should be lines for – I mean, there could be some training. I don't know if there's a CRA component organization that maybe they can learn from or whatever. But in this case, if we're going to be the CRA, I don't see the reason why we should be traveling. So – but I'm a little bit – this county administrative charge, do all the CRAs get charged then? Yep. Okay, they do, right? Is it your statement that if that were to be removed, that would impact the other CRAs also? Is it your position? I'm sorry, not your statement. Through the Chair? Yeah. No, it's my position that it would impact county operations. The funding that we receive from the CRAs is used to cover our general operating expenses, including the salary compensation, the equipment, all of the things that go into creating the documents, hosting the meetings, managing the affairs, and interacting with contractors, vendors, et cetera, so that we can support the CRA business. So we have an office that supports CRAs. The funds are used to do that, along with anything that's needed from PIOD, strategic procurement, or any of the other administrative departments that support the business of CRAs. Okay. So if I may, Madam Chair, just one other question. So would your position be, as the administration, that if that were to occur here, then one would presume that that would have an impact on servicing this particular CRA? Or would your position be that it would impact all of the CRAs being serviced by the county in a similar fashion? Because I'm assuming you have to rent the place. There's a lot of wonderful people here that work for the county. So, right? I actually think Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Gilbert, and yourself, Commissioner, have made a very good and clear point that the budget detail is not sufficient to support the budget items that are listed. And so I would proffer that we propose or present more detailed budget information for the respective line items, particularly the three that are in question, so that it is clear on what those items are proposed to pay for. And if you choose not to pay for those and we have to find a different way, we will adjust accordingly. Commissioner Regalago, do you recognize? Thank you. Just a few clarifying points, and I'm glad Carl Denise said that. Look, every time we work on a budget, we have these conversations. You know, how much are you spending in advertising? How much are you spending in notice? How much are you spending in professional development? These are all conversations that we always have every time where we do a budget. Usually we leave that to the board that is overseeing it. Now we are the board that is overseeing it. So, yes, we need more detail. I think that's very important. I just want a few clarifications because I think we're making a few assumptions. My understanding is that our attorneys are not included in that piece. There's a separate line item. Yeah. Right. So if I could just have Jerry kind of speak to that piece about the attorneys. There is a separate line item for legal services, but unless the budget office tells me otherwise, I don't believe that's allocated for our office. Okay. The CRA used to have independent counsel, and that's what this is for. Just to clarify that point, because obviously things have changed. So this budget now needs to reflect the new structure. So before they hired outside counsel, they didn't necessarily, you know, hire our attorneys. But now that we are the board, we prefer our attorneys. Right. Now there may come a point where we want outside counsel. So we have to talk about that line item. But I didn't want everyone to jump to the conclusion that the county is somehow double dipping on that. Also, when we talk about municipal CRAs, their municipalities also have a fee for the running of it. So I think if we're going to have a conversation about the municipal CRAs, we also have to look at the fee that they're charging for their administrative piece of it and then possibly compare it. My understanding is that we're only talking about CRAs that are run for unincorporated Miami-Dade. And we should probably limit our comparison to unincorporated CRAs. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg, you had your hand up. No, I was just going to make mention of the fact that the unincorporated CRAs are slightly different than the incorporated CRAs. And we needed to make that distinction that, you know, not with a broad stroke. That was all. Okay. Is it the will of the board to defer the budget? Is it the will of the board to defer the budget? No, I have a few questions, though. Okay. I'll recognize Commissioner McGee. I do think we need to defer the budget. I think we need more detail. To the attorneys, Commissioner Garcia passed recently an item requiring CRA budgets to have a lot more detail. Has this budget complied with that new policy or have we not reviewed for that purpose? We didn't review it for that purpose. Okay. Even more of a reason for me, in my opinion, to defer the budget. Commissioner Gilbert and Vice Chairman McGee. Thank you. Just to remind you all of the kind of bipolar thing that we have to do here, that we are sitting as the CRA board because a lot of our comments sound like we're speaking as county commissioners. And so we never lose our authority as county commissioners. But in this capacity, our job is not to necessarily worry about how it affects the county or how it affects other CRAs. We want to retain as much money for the people in this area to actually do economic development and remedy slum and blight here in this area. And so a lot of the comments have started to kind of, and this is like what Commissioner Hardiman kind of said, that it's very difficult to separate. That we are the board of county commissioners, but that not, we don't sit here in that capacity. And so I'm fine with deferring the budget. I think I suggested that maybe 25 minutes ago. But I just want us to know when we're going through it, we're going through and we're trying to enact a budget that inures to the best possible benefit of the people here. And then when it comes before us, if we have a problem, so our job is to retain as much money out of the TIF for this area so that we could fix roads, paint stuff, recruit businesses. Our job is to retain as much money. That is never going to be Carla Denise's job. The chief representing the mayor, her job is she's the steward of the county's budget and the county's finance. And so they need the money. But I just want to, normally we're paired together in that. But in this instance, the administration does not speak for us as a body. We speak for this localized area and retaining resources here. They speak for the greater county budget position. And so if we could just maybe frame that in our minds and remember that, it might be helpful. Because we have to make different types of decisions. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. And it highlights the point that I made at the beginning, which is why I think the fees are duplicative, which may not be beneficial to Miami-Dade County, but beneficial to the CRA, because I want more of the money staying here. Vice Chairman, you are recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the administration, one of the things, and to the executive director, I would like to see more money towards rebuilding together. That is an organization that has taken on the responsibility of ensuring that our seniors in this community, when there are needs for replacement of windows, roofs, AC units, just the beautification portion of this, I would like to see that amount increased. I'm not quite sure where that money would come from. How much do we currently have in a miscellaneous pot? So, Mr. Chair, there is an item on the agenda today, as a matter of fact, for rebuilding together to be refunded, or, yeah, refunded, if you will, for the next fiscal year. So, this board will have the ability at that time to, you know, in their discussions, direct the staff to increase it from its current $300,000 to whatever value you would, you see fit. And secondly, let's talk about another elephant in the room. The elephant in the room that has been glossed over is the fact that this CRA is dependent upon the county attorney's representation. I do not believe that's a good idea. I believe we need to have, as the CRA, our own attorney, who specializes in CRAs, who have the experience, who can deliver an approach that's beneficial to this area. So, at some point, that discussion needs to happen, and an item needs to be brought, or a motion made, that will give this CRA its very own attorney. Listen, I have full confidence in the county attorney's office, but as it relates to a CRA, a CRA needs its own attorney as similar to that it needs its own executive director to carry out the mission of the plan. Secondly, let me just say this, I'm looking at the carryover in this particular budget, and this goes to the chief, and we heard that the money wasn't spent. But I don't think the community understood clearly why it wasn't spent or why it wasn't able to be spent. And so, I'm looking for clarity on that, either from the chief or from the county attorney. How is it that, number one, monies that were generated through TIF for this community, to better this community, were not spent? And what can we do to learn from that mistake so that, moving forward, we'll be able to ensure that the people of Naranjo Lakes receive a benefit from the TIF dollars? Through the chair, some of that money is encumbered. It is for bills that are yet to be paid and are coming due, so we want to make sure that money is available for bills as they come in and come due. But with all due respect, there was a different board and a different leadership at that time. And as I think Commissioner Gilbert has said several times, the CRA is in itself a business that has been run and operated. So, with this new change of leadership and direction, I am confident with a revised and updated budget, we will be able to fulfill the will of this board to meet the needs of the community. It is all about timing and prioritization. And so, let's prioritize how we want that money to be spent, by when, and then the administration will work with the board and the executive director to make sure any barriers that are in place are removed. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Vice Chairman. Any further? Commissioner Regalado, and if we don't mind wrapping this up since the item is ultimately going to be deferred. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to make some points as we get more information. I think we should defer pending more detail. So, I would specifically like more detail on the line item that states community policing and security. So, I would like to know what does that mean, right? You know, as we talk about everything from cameras to, you know, security guards, I would like a drill down on that. Also, we were talking earlier about Board of County Commissioners' requirements on CRAs. One of them is an item that we all approved in terms of a percentage of the CRA budget that needs to be invested in transportation. I see two lines here that may or may not fulfill that requirement. The first one is transportation, infrastructure, and landscape. That seems like things that shouldn't go together. I just think that should be broken up. That's kind of a lot. And I would like to see those – I would like to see all three broken down separately. And I would like to know when they speak of transportation and infrastructure, what exactly are we talking about? What are those projects? And then there's a very interesting line that speaks to smart plan projects reserve. For what? So, I can't wait to hear what that $2 million is for, given our particular knowledge of the smart plan and what's happening in those phases. So, Madam Chair, if we could just make sure that when we get more detail, I think we should be very specific about what detail. And those would be my requests. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. To our Executive Director, please run this budget by each of these Board members and get feedback and caucus with us, to the extent that anybody's interested in feedback, because you've heard a couple of individual takes. And so, by the time this comes back to our next agenda, I would like for it to be reflected that there has been a caucus and a consultation with the Board members, reflecting what it is that we'd like to see in this budget, so that we can be more efficient with time moving forward. And also, to our Executive Director, if you recall, I've raised this question several times at previous hearings, regarding the names of the employees that you have on your staff that is included in your Executive Fee. I'd like for that to be reflected specifically in the budget as well. It's something that keeps coming up. And I'd like to know who those staff people are that are being employed and paid by the Naranja Lakes CRA, so that detail needs to be included as well in the budget. And the final thought that I have regarding the budget, your delegated authority, Madam Executive Director, is at $25,000, i.e. you can sign and execute contracts at the ceiling of $25,000 without any consultation, discussion, or direction from this Board. And very recently, you signed a contract for website services, if I'm not mistaken, with and through Blum Consulting for $25,000. The Naranja Lakes CRA already has a website. It's not interactive. There's no commerce being exchanged. You and I can make a website for free right now with AI. It's simply an informational page, and it already exists. So I need an explanation of what the $25,000 that has recently been authorized to Blum Consulting, what is that paying for for internet and website services? Thank you, Madam Chair. So upon coming into leadership here in the agency, we brought the vendor in to develop a site. The CRA didn't have – we were using the county. The agency was using the county's website. So this vendor came in, essentially rebranded. We did the logo. She did the new website, social media, constant contact, newsletters. The sign that you see out front here today, all of these things are things that this company does and manages for the – I mean, and I just want to take one step back to your previous question. The engagement between HRS Consulting and the agency is for executive support and one staff person, and she's here today. I just want to have her stand, Shirley Sims, just so that the board can recognize who she is. So we're running this agency on two people. So this vendor is assisting us with – and prior to the county assisting here recently, we did all the agendas, all of the social media content, all of the newsletters. So it's not necessarily something that I am doing. This vendor is doing it at that nominal fee. Okay. Is it Plum or Blum? Blum. Is it Blum or Plum? Blum. Blum Consulting, is it $25,000 for a 12-month period? Yes, ma'am. It is. And is that the value of the contract that was previously signed with Blum Consulting when they started and created the website and the branding? Yes. So they were paid $25,000 to create a website and to create a brand, and they were paid the exact same amount for another 12 months to do what, since the website is already created and the brand is already created? What is the $25? $25,000 paying for now? I understand what it paid for then, but what is it paying for now? So as we anticipate the agency continuing to grow, perhaps there's going to be a need for additional assets at some point. The website is constantly maintained. I think it's on a platform that while you and I might be able to do it, I'm not really familiar with – I forget the name that she's using. But anyhow, she's managing all of that on a day-to-day basis. As we approve programs and projects, she goes in and builds all that stuff out. So it's the continuity of the assets that she has created, and she continues to manage and maintain. Commissioner Gilbert, you were recognized. I was just going to say, I don't find a $25,000 contract offensive. I don't. I think that when you all are coming back, there will be ample opportunity to explain all the details of that stuff. And so I don't find that offensive at all. But you all can just work that out. And then when you all bring back the budget, then we'll have everything lined and gone. Thank you. The item – do we need to motion for it to be – Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Just quickly, Madam Chair, I just want to recognize that if you all defer this item, you might need to do a special meeting because the CRA would need to approve the budget before the end of September. Chair? Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize? We've approved CIA budgets two years late, and it didn't stop anybody from spending money. So I don't know why we would treat you all any different. And I do have a problem with that. You pay me to say that. You pay me to say that. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to be clear. So, Lynn, let's be clear. If we're going to start the rule, and this is speaking as the CRA board member, if the county wants to start the rule that they have to have a budget approved at the beginning of the fiscal year to allow us to spend money, then they had better do it for every CRA because they have done it for no other CRAs. So if we're not going to start that rule, if the county's not going to start that rule for everybody else, then they're not going to start it for us. Commissioner Regalado, you were recognized. Thank you. Back to your point of we sit here as members of the CRA, not members of the BCC. So on the BCC side, we ratify things. But I just want to make sure from our attorney's perspective, because we know that the state of Florida requires everyone to submit their budgets by a particular time. Are we talking about that deadline as members of the CRA? The statute requires that each CRA submit to the governing body, which in the case would be the Board of County Commission. Exactly. Ten days after that budget is approved by the CRA and any amendment thereto. Ten days after. No, but the statute, what's the deadline for the statute is my question. I just want to make sure that... Commissioner, yes, I'm sorry. Let us check. I appreciate the point. Let us look at a different statute just to confirm the time frame. Oliver, I agree with you. I just want to check the statute to see what the requirement is. We can always amend it. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Vice Chairman, you recognize? Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. I can bring some clarity to this, Commissioner Regalado. The problem is not the statute. I think the CRAs actually carry forth their obligation in a very timely manner. The problem is when chairpersons of the BCC hold the item, that's where the problem happens. It doesn't happen on the CRA level. The CRA actually carries through on its function, and we have seen that with the report that was actually issued previously by the administration when it broke down the different CRAs and how they were performing. But the real question that we're really trying to ask but nobody wants to ask is, is there a way that we can direct, as BCC members, that the board and the chair actually place these budgets on the agenda in a timely fashion? Because, again, and Madam Attorney and Mr. Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, and to the administration over there, correct me if I'm wrong. But I have yet to see a CRA that hasn't met its deadline state statute by providing that, the problem normally arrives when the chairman chooses not to put it on the agenda. That's what we're seeing. Thank you. So that's my position. Thank you, Commissioner Omegi. Commissioner, Congressman? Commissioner Gilbert. Just as a FYI, as someone who's run the chairman's office before as chairman, CRAs, and I think George and those folks, they can tell you, CRAs routinely engage in a back-and-forth process with OMB to get their budget appropriately situated to get to the chairman's office. Very few CRAs actually get their budget in, like in the beginning of the fiscal year. So we're always in a position, that's why we kind of allow them to work in arrears and we, because we understand that sometimes they submit things to, and this is not speaking of this CRA, but CRAs generally submit things that OMB will kick back, they kick back budgets and say, this has to be altered, this has to be altered. And so the process of getting a CRA budget from the CRA board to and through OMB to the chairman's office is not necessarily linear or, and it isn't necessarily time sensitive because we can always, they still continue to operate no matter what. So if you all remember, we approved, I believe, North Miami Beach CRAs budget, we approved it years in advance, I mean, in afterwards, yeah, years afterwards. So all, we're doing that for all CRAs. And so as this CRA, my expectation is that we, the county will do the same thing for us. The county will do the same thing for us. This CRA will continue to, to function. Everybody continues to get paid. The, the, the, the young man who said he was going to paint the buildings, he's going to paint the buildings. He's going to pressure wash the sidewalks. All of those things should continue to happen. They, nothing actually stops because we don't approve the budget from a CRA perspective, because that's just not how the process works on the county perspective, from the county side. Yes, y'all. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Lopez, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I, I don't need to caucus with anyone. I think what needs to be done here for my purposes is for someone to teach CRAs what a, but a real budget narrative should look like. Um, this is not it, um, anyone who's ever done accounting and budgeting, and I don't know who prepared this budget, but I'm assuming that if the CRA is paying the office of the, uh, you know, to have administrative services, then clearly the chief should have a template, uh, that reflects how this would absolutely be done in the real world of accounting. And this is not it. So, I don't know who did this, and if it was, if it was our poor executive director who may, may or may not have, uh, budgeting experience or experience in accounting, but you do, your office does, that should be provided so that we don't have to go through this, because I'm telling you, this was a waste of my time. It did not give me any information that I could, I could say, I could, um, ask questions of, and then decide whether I would approve a certain line item or the whole budget. So that, that is my only comment. I hope that they're doing it for every CRA, because if, if, if some of our CRAs are managed and the boards are lay people, I don't know who has that experience. But every single CRA should be able to present to the CRA board a detailed budget narrative. So no one has to ask any questions. I agree with you, Commissioner Lopez. Um, let's wrap this up, Commissioner, Vice Chairman, making last comment on this item, and we're deferring the item. Yeah, I wanted it. Last comment. Last, this will be the last speaker, and we are deferring the item. Commissioner, Vice Chairman, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You know, and I'm glad Doug is here, um, because we, we hear things, and people don't like to recognize when they are either right or wrong. They just tend to say things. I think a public records request on when certain CRA budgets have been submitted to the county for placement on the county's, the BCC's agenda would be, do all of us service. Secondly, I heard some misinformation here that certain items cannot, um, or, or can go forward as it relates to the budget without the budget actually being approved by the BCC. Again, you know, full transparency, I think at the end of the day, we have media here, they can do a fact check, the public is watching, and I think that's what we ought to do. And I think, and that's why I enjoy these type of conversations, because we can have that dialogue in the opening. And right now, what I'm seeing and hearing, it's not, it's not, uh, correct as relates to the actions that we're seeing coming out of the CRA to the full BCC. Thank you, Commissioner McGee. The item has been deferred. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. That motion carries. We're moving on to our next agenda item, disposition of property, uh, to my colleagues. This is regarding the redevelopment for affordable and workforce housing by housing trust group of two parcels of land in the Naranja Lakes CRA. One parcel, uh, has been demolished, I believe. Um, the second parcel we heard about earlier, uh, NAI is managing it and collecting rents on it. Um, in your materials, uh, the memo, uh, created and circulated for the recommendation of this item reads, and I'm going to read directly from the memo. Background. The property was acquired by NLCRA, that's us, for $12,615,000, which includes incidental closing costs. The present market value of the property, according to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office, is $7.4 million, as depicted in the attached printout form from the property appraiser's website. So the Naranja Lakes CRA bought two properties for $12.6 million. Um, appraiser has it at $7.4 million. Those acquisitions took place, if I'm not mistaken, about a year ago, and now, uh, uh, this item is proposing and recommending that we gift those two parcels that the Naranja Lakes CRA spent almost $13 million on to housing trust group for the purpose and development of affordable housing. And in addition to gifting them the $13 million worth of property, we are being asked to give them a loan of $7 million. So, for me, I think our chairman said earlier, the math on that simply isn't mathing. I don't see how that is a good deal for this CRA. I want the development. I want the affordable housing. I've seen the photos. I understand that a selection committee was convened, I think, two weeks ago. The selection committee was comprised of three members. They scored housing trust group at the highest. Housing trust group, I believe, is the largest affordable housing developer in the state of Florida. They're an amazing organization, and they're doing what they're supposed to do, i.e. getting the best deal for their bottom line. Um, we have to be protective of the CRA's dollars. I don't understand how gifting housing trust group, $13 million of land that this CRA just purchased a year ago, makes any kind of financial sense. So, I'm hoping that housing trust group is present, and that there is some representative of housing trust group that can approach. Thank you so much for being here, and thank you for your interest in developing in the Naranja Lakes CRA. I've seen your proposal. The development looks truly beautiful, and I believe has the potential of being truly transformative. The terms of the deal, however, quite frankly, suck for the Naranja Lakes CRA. The numbers are terrible for the Naranja Lakes CRA. Can you do better? Yes, so, my name's Alon Matoyer. I am the senior vice president and development partner for the housing trust group, and I'm happy to be here today to answer questions, and thankful to be in front of the CRA board today. So, you know, we put this proposal together, and we can check, and I'm willing to, you know, make this deal better for the CRA. But I just want to go on record, I've been doing a lot of CRA developments, and we're one of the few developers that have ever agreed to pay back CRA financing. So, just to put that on the record, I'm pretty sure everyone can attest here that doesn't happen very often, or it never happens. Okay, so that $7 million will be paid back. So, in terms of, you know, making it fair, we're willing to, you know, take that assessed value, as long as the CRA is willing to do that as seller financing, and treat it the same way as the loan is being treated, that we would pay that money back. Okay, and be clear when you say pay that money back, if you will. Clarify that statement. So, it would be seller financing. So, we would, you know, it would be on the books that it would be due based on when the other loan is due. And what are you referring to specifically? So, right now, I think we have a 30-year term, and it's treated, you know, similar to surtax, where we're paying about a 1% interest rate. And it's just due either when we refinance the property sale or at that 30-year term. Okay, I apologize for not being more clear on my question. Are you referring to the $7 million that you're already taking out as a loan from the CRA, or are you talking about the $13 million of land? It would be $7 million, and then we'd be willing to pay the assessed value of the $7.5. What do you mean, the assessed value of $7.5? Because that's what the assessed value of the land was. Oh, I see. Yes, correct. So, you're willing to... Assessed value. You're assessed value. Yes. So, the CRA paid almost $13 million for this land two years ago. No clue why. And I want to be clear, that's part of the reason why we're here today. And I know what everyone's going to say. It was appraised, so on and so forth. But an overpayment is an overpayment, and I am very clear and consistent on the record that when government pays private people for land, and we get rolled, I have a serious issue with it. Because it's not monopoly money. It's the people's money. Correct. We're going to put that to the side. You're saying you're willing to pay back the assessed value. You're not eating the ridiculous deal that we made. You're not paying $13 million back. You're paying $7.5 million back. That's up to the board. I understand that, but that's the offer that you're making at the microphone currently. I accept that as substantially better than simply being gifted $13 million worth of land, and I appreciate that concession. I look to my colleagues, and I look forward to their comments. I personally am completely uncomfortable with the fact pattern that I've seen play out before where we purchase land in a substantially inflated value from private individuals and then turn it around and say, here it is because we need affordable and workforce housing. That, to me, is fundamentally flawed, and so I appreciate the concession that you've made. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues, Commissioner Gilbert, followed by the vice chairman. Yeah, I don't know if it's fair to actually hold them to account for the initial purchase of the property at the inflated price. So I start my analysis with us as the CRA owning the property, us wanting to actually provide assets, housing, and you all being able to do that. And so with the amendment, because we're starting at that point, I don't have a problem with it. I would move the item as amended. Thank you. Vice chairman, you're recognized. Thank you. And look, people can be consistent in their positions and wrong at the same time, all right? I just want to make sure that we're not glossing over this because we have a tendency to do that in order to have a tagline somewhere. But the truth of the matter is the clerk, the property appraisal's office, you're talking about appraising property. They never appraise it similar to what the appraised value is. And those of us in real estate, we understand that very clearly. So I don't want people to get to the point where, you know, you're consistent, but you can still be wrong. So when it comes down to the property appraisers, they normally look at that particular parcel within that location and they make an assessment and they put it out there. The appraiser, for those who need to be educated on this, the appraiser is when they take comps around the area and then they make an assessment as to what that particular amount should be. They have a formula for that. So when you look at, and I'm looking in here, I'm looking at the actual amount that, you know, this thing appraised for, I just don't think it jobs with what we're hearing on the record today. So my position at this particular moment is this, I support the item, but I just don't want to leave misinformation just dingling out there because you can see it on the microphone and don't think anybody will check you on it. So thank you. Anything by any other colleagues? The item has been moved as amended. It's been seconded. Mr. Chair, can I just clarify for the record that, as I understand it, that this item is being amended to sell the property at $7,446,409 and also to authorize a loan up to an amount of $7 million to be paid back at a 1% with a 1% interest rate. Is that my understanding of what the board is doing? That's the recommendation from the executive director of the CRA absent the repayment of the assessed value. The amendment is the repayment of the assessed value. Is that your understanding? Yeah, so I think to clarify that we would be requesting seller financing for that. So it would be treated, so it would be two loans. We'd have a seller financing loan and then we'd have the $7 million grant loan. I mean, from the TIF fund. Sorry about that. To the attorneys, does that register? Two separate loans. Okay, so there's two separate loans. Correct. At 1% each and each of them will be paid back to the agency. Yeah, so I mean, to clarify, I would just, you know, make it, try to make it as similar to surtax as possible. Because we're all familiar with that and approve that. So that's typically the terms for surtax. So the total amount of the loan combined would be in excess of $14 million? Correct. And then also I would like the option to, if it's beneficial to us, to do a long-term lease. Now the terms wouldn't change for the loans, but we would like to have the option to do a long-term lease also. And that's possibly for tax purposes. If you're acquiring the land, why do you need a long-term lease? Because sometimes for tax purposes, it's better for us. And then if we have to get additional financing from the state, sometimes it's better for us to have a lease. But it'd be, you know, typically when we get property from the county, it's typically a 99-year lease. Is that a problem? But I guess what I don't understand is why are you asking for a 99-year lease if the current recommendation is for you to hold title and purchase the land outright? Like I said, for financing purposes, we just want to have the option to consider that. And that's it. I'm fine with a consideration in addition to. Correct. Exactly. I understand that. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Regalado, you were recognized. Okay. So I appreciate, like, the surtox. I'm a little concerned when we talk about, like, the appraised value. Like, so, just so that we're clear on the number, because there's different things here, right? So I would love to see. I know we're not in a place where we can have it in writing. I know these are the issues here. But how long, the units that are affordable, like, how many would see AMI and how long? Like, what's the covenant? So the AMI is 30 to 80% AMI. Okay. And I don't know how long the covenant for. I mean, typically, you know, we don't, we typically, we have 50 years. I mean, that's the minimum. I'm with you, but that's usually not the deal. So I just wanted to, yeah, yeah, I just wanted to make sure. Is it 50? Terrence? If there's a land use restricted agreement, and I believe in your proposal, you indicated 99 years. Okay. Yeah. So that's the minimum is 50, but. Right. Fantastic. Okay. I just, I just wanted some clarity on that, because that gets a little dicey. Yeah. I mean, again, are you, are you, when you're saying, like, the flexibility, flexibility for the financing, are you talking about, like, applying for, like, live local credits or Florida housing? Like. Yeah. It would be for, you know, Florida housing. Florida housing. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. Just, there's a difference. A hundred percent. Yes. All right. Okay. Florida housing. The other one, not so much. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, you're recognized. So, is this, and I'm sorry, I stepped out a second. Is this the same property that the CRA just purchased recently, a year ago for, I don't know, 13 million or something like that? Yeah. And now we're giving it out for how much? The total amount is in excess of 14 million. What is it? The correct amount is, we, the seven and a half million of the assessed value of the property on the property appraiser, not the property appraiser. Seven million. Correct. That's what we're selling it for. Correct. You amended it to do what? To get the seven and a half million. It was zero before. It was zero before. So, the recommendation that's currently before us is a recommendation to convey the land at zero. So, your amendment, Madam Chair, and respectfully, is to have taxpayer dollars at a loss of seven million. Substantial loss. A substantial loss. This has nothing to do with you, by the way. I understand. I think you're going to be great. But, like, what are you guys doing? Like, what are we doing? How are we the CRA board? Like, this is taxpayer dollars. Unless I'm wrong. Like, this is a year ago, we paid double for this property of, there's not a lot, but there's some taxpayers here. I saw the gentleman spoke at the beginning. It's your money, sir. Not my money. I'm not part of the CRA. And now we're going to deed the property, lease it, whatever it is. For half the amount of what the CRA purchased it. He's in this right. You're in the right. I mean, it's worth what it's worth. You're not going to pay a penny over what it's worth. The problem is why they purchased it for double the amount. I just... Mr. Chair... I'm going to... It is why you are sitting here. ...obstain, walk out. The attorneys could tell me what I could do. It is why we are sitting here. I cannot support. I cannot vote on this. This is ridiculous. Okay. This is ridiculous. Madam Chair, one. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Okay. Often the appraised value is according to the property appraiser. It's not the same as the purchase appraised value. Market value of it. So, the market value, what we're looking at right now, we're comparing appraised values versus what they paid. We probably should be comparing the actual market value to what they paid. If we start the analysis that far back. Correct. I do not start the analysis that far back because the option before us is not unwinding that deal. Correct. The option before us is having the property sit vacant and do nothing or build housing. So, then I'm analyzing the deal that's before us based on other deals that we've done that are similar. Based on other deals that we've done that are similar, this is not a bad deal. He is right. Generally speaking, people look for ways not to pay CRAs back because the CRA's job is not to actually make a profit. It's to remedy some of life so they can technically provide instruments, financial instruments that we typically wouldn't do on a county commission. So, I don't, I understand the hesitance because we're looking so far back that we're looking at the original purchase price. Just one year back. But that's still another consideration because we can't undo that. What we can do is make sure the housing gets built. And so, whether this deal is, without the context of how much we paid for it and whether we should have paid, you know, and what the appraised price was versus the market price was, those things are all going to be different. Whether this is a good deal. This is a good deal independent of the decision that was made prior. So, yeah, this is a good deal. So, it's not your fault. So, I think that maybe we could get through his deal. And then, at some point, we want to look back and see, hey, why did we do this? We have the ability to do that. But can we just approve his housing? Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. I completely agree. And that's why I welcomed you. And I said, thank you for wanting to do business in our Naranja Lakes CRA. Yeah, because it's not on him. It's not on him. And he's amenable to making the amendments that I think make it more, it was not procured. It was a call from the chair. Okay. I'd be very happy to, Madam Chair, if you would allow me. Yes, no, Commissioner Regalado had her hand up before you, Madam Director. So, Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized, followed by Madam Director. Thank you. Because I had the same question, like, how did we get here? So, I asked her how we got here. And, you know, she could explain the process, but pretty much it's an unsolicited. So, that explains kind of what's happening. You know, and the other thing, if we're going to use the property appraiser's office, great guy, by the way, as the valuation, then, you know, you can ask them for a drill down, and they could tell you why they didn't go with the purchase price, why they knocked it down. So, you can request that from their office, and we probably should. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Madam Director, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add a little bit of color, obviously, I've not had an opportunity to sit down with each of you and brief you on this issue, but just to make you aware, when we purchased both sites, one had a structure, actually both had a structure. We demolished the structure. So, in terms of the property value as it pertains to the appraiser's office, he's valuing the land at one of our sites. When we purchased it, we purchased it with a structure, a commercial structure on it. We sensed demolish it because it was subject to just vagrancy, I mean, illegal dumping, et cetera. At that time, we had no, you know, we didn't know what we were going to do in terms of redevelopment, and so in order to immediately eradicate the blight, we demolished the structure, which is probably why devaluation is what it is today. That's one thing, and with respect to what Commissioner Rigolato just mentioned, we put out an intent to dispose. So, this was not a solicitation. We put out an intent to dispose of the two sites that we had, and we received three unsolicited and this being one. So, you know, in terms of, and I just want to take it a step further because I know there's some conversations around giving away the property. In terms of how CRAs typically work customarily, we purchase land to use as a subsidy in order to be able to redevelop and in order to be able to bring affordable housing into the community. So, we're leveraging the sites in order to be able to reduce the cost and present these 30 to 80 percent AMIs that HDG is presenting today. Thank you. We appreciate that explanation, Madam Director. I think it's completely accurate and spot on, and I think that familiarity with that process also is true that whatever the land that's being proffered as a subsidy wasn't purchased for twice the amount just a year previously with tax dollars. And I think those points have been made. To our proposer and to the attorneys, do you have the information that you need in order to pass the item today to get the ball rolling? The item directs a negotiation with the Executive Director to bring back a full contract for this Board's review, and that will be the final order of business on this issue. And just to be clear, the amendment includes giving him an option of a long-term lease as opposed to the loan that we just discussed. Is that clear and agreeable to everyone? I'm seeing a nodding of the head. So, I move the item as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded, no. That item carries. Congratulations. We look forward to working. Thank you very much. See you soon. Thank you. Any other business on our agenda? You have discussion items on your agenda? We'll waive the discussion items. Thank you so much. We'll adjourn. No, thank you for being caught. I'll follow.