| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Zorana Milton, Commission Reporter
305-375-3570
|
|
|
I
|
MEETING CALL TO ORDER
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Co-Chair McGhee called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.
|
|
|
II
|
ROLL CALL
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
The following members were present at the initial roll call:
~ Commissioner Bermudez;
~ Commissioner Gilbert III;
~ Commissioner Lopez;
~ Commissioner Regalado;
~ Commissioner Rodriguez;
~ Commissioner Steinberg;
~ Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins; and
~ Co-Chairman McGhee.
Commissioner Milian Orbis arrived at 10:49 a.m.
Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon and Senator Garcia were absent.
NOTE: The Clerk of the Board received advance notice of Senator Garcia�s absence; the absence was recorded as excused.
In addition to the CRA members, the following staff members were present:
~ County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan;
~ First Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty;
~ Assistant County Attorney (ACA) Terrence Smith;
~ Dr. Carladenise Edwards, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Mayor;
~ Ms. Krystal Patterson, Executive Director, Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency (NLCRA); and
~ Deputy Clerk Zorana Milton, Clerk of the Board.
|
|
|
III
|
INVOCATION OR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
|
|
IV
|
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD AS PROVIDED IN RULE 6.06
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Co-Chairman McGhee opened the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard and the following individual appeared before the Board:
Mr. Stuart May Gardner, 7340 SW 132 Street, Miami, Florida, a homeowner and former CRA member, welcomed the Board to the Naranja Lakes CRA facility and addressed the lack of parking on the property. He stated that he had sought additional parking on each side of the building for a number of years, and that residents and police officers attending community meetings were still forced to park along the street. He noted that the County possessed previously prepared parking facility plans that had never been implemented and requested that the Board pursue the completion of that parking. He also commended the police for their use of the facility, observing that residents who once feared going to their mailboxes now felt safer.
Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Co-Chairman McGhee closed the reasonable opportunity to be heard.
|
|
|
V
|
APPROVAL AND CHANGES TO AGENDA
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
ACA Terrence Smith advised that there were no changes to the agenda.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins moved to approve and set today�s agenda. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and upon being put to a vote, passed 8�0 (Commissioners Milian Orbis, Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon and Senator Garcia were absent).
|
|
|
VI
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
|
| |
|
1.
|
|
| |
261341
|
Report
|
|
| |
|
| |
NARANJA LAKES CRA MEETING MINUTES
- FEBRUARY 12, 2026
|
Approved
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Vicki L. Lopez
Vote: 8 - 0
Absent: Bastien , Hardemon , Milian Orbis , Gonzalez
Excused: Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins moved to approve the February 12, 2026, and May 5, 2026 meeting minutes. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez, and upon being put to a vote, passed 8�0 (Commissioners Milian Orbis, Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon and Senator Garcia were absent).
|
|
|
2.
|
|
| |
261510
|
Report
|
|
| |
|
| |
NARANJA LAKES CRA MEETING MINUTES
- MAY 5, 2026
|
Approved
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Vicki L. Lopez
Vote: 8 - 0
Absent: Bastien , Hardemon , Milian Orbis , Gonzalez
Excused: Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
See Agenda Item VI. 1; Legislative File No. 261341 for full report.
|
|
|
VII
|
RESOLUTIONS FOR BOARD APPROVAL
|
| |
|
1.
|
|
| |
261329
|
Resolution
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND OPERATION OF THE AGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
|
Amended
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Terrence Smith read the title of the foregoing resolution into the record.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins proposed an amendment to the alternating co-chair structure contemplated in the bylaws. She explained that, as drafted, the bylaws required a Sunshine meeting between both co-chairs to approve each CRA agenda. In the interest of efficiency, she proposed that the commissioner presiding over a particular meeting be authorized to set and approve that meeting�s agenda, with the responsibility alternating between the Naranja Lakes CRA location and the South Dade Government Center.
Chairman McGhee confirmed his understanding that the presiding commissioner at each location would set that meeting�s agenda and stated he had no objection.
ACA Smith read into the record an amendment to amend Section 2.03 of the Rules of Procedure (page MDC 015) and Section 3.03 of the Bylaws (page MDC 004) to require consultation with, and approval by, each meeting�s presiding officer, rather than joint approval by the co-chairs, in preparing and approving CRA agendas.
Commissioner Regalado indicated she had additional amendments and asked whether they would be considered together or individually.
Co-Chairman McGhee, after consulting ACA Smith, determined that each amendment would be taken up one at a time.
Commissioner Gilbert III inquired whether adoption of the amendment would require the Board to maintain the co-chair structure. Having chaired the County Commission, he stated that a chairperson�s role extended beyond presiding over meetings and setting agendas to working with staff to set the general direction of the body. He stated that an alternating co-chair system was not practical for leading an entire agency, since disagreeing co-chairs could reverse one another�s decisions from meeting to meeting and risked paralyzing the Agency.
ACA Smith initially responded that the co-chair structure would remain as set forth in the bylaws. Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Gilbert III, he clarified that the bylaws separately permitted the Board, at any time and preferably annually, to elect a chair and vice chair, and that the proposed amendment did not alter that provision. Commissioner Gilbert III indicated he could support the amendment on that basis.
Commissioner Bermudez stated he was comfortable with the co-chair structure but shared Commissioner Gilbert III�s concerns. He asked whether the Board had retained most of the prior Naranja Lakes CRA bylaws or had redrafted them entirely.
ACA Smith explained that the bylaws previously in effect had been adopted by a citizen board under a separate statute and did not work for the current structure. He stated that the bylaws presented to the Board were drafted to account for its status as a Board of Commissioners under Section 163.357 of the Florida Statutes.
Commissioner Regalado stated that the Board should legislate for the future rather than for its current situation, and that the bylaws should preserve the option of a single chair should the co-chair experiment not succeed. She raised concern regarding Section 8.01 (contracts), where she believed reversals between co-chairs would cause the most damage, and suggested that contracts be subject to a Sunshine meeting between the co-chairs. She observed that the entire document was premised on the co-chair structure and should be drafted to serve all three scenarios: co-chairs in agreement, co-chairs in disagreement, and a single chair.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins asked whether the Board could amend the bylaws at any future meeting. ACA Smith confirmed that the bylaws contained an amendment provision on page MDC 011, and Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins noted that the Board could adopt the bylaws and amend them as circumstances changed.
Dr. Edwards stated that the intent of the document was to allow for either a co-chair or a chair and vice chair structure. She noted that, while the first paragraph of Section 3.01 did not fully reflect that intent, the remainder of the document defaulted to a chair where applicable. ACA Smith added that the third sentence of Section 3.01 expressly provided for the appointment of a chair and vice chair.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins moved to amend the bylaws regarding presiding officers and the approval of agendas. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez, and upon being put to a vote, passed 7-1 (Commissioner Regalado voted no; Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon, and Milian Orbis were absent).
Commissioner Regalado next proposed an amendment to Article 4 (Meetings). She stated that bylaws should provide residents with predictability rather than be amended at every meeting, and that the document should be forward-looking. She proposed to: (1) permit the Board to designate another meeting location, with 30 days� notice to residents; (2) allow hybrid public participation where the technology was available, specifically at the Government Center; and (3) permit a fully virtual meeting when the Board deemed it necessary, with 10 to 15 days� notice.
Commissioner Lopez noted that page MDC 005 already allowed meetings at such other locations as the co-chairs or chair designated. Commissioner Regalado responded that her concern was the notice requirement and the addition of hybrid options.
Bermudez stated that CRA meetings should be held in Naranja Lakes, where the impacted residents could attend in person, and that hybrid or downtown meetings should be limited to emergencies. He indicated he would support the amendment with that concern placed on the record.
Commissioner Regalado agreed with Commissioner Bermudez and accepted a friendly amendment to prioritize Naranja Lakes as the meeting location.
Co-Chairman McGhee suggested that alternate locations be limited to the South Dade Government Center and this facility, rather than a downtown or North Dade location, so that meetings remained accessible to the community, with downtown reserved for emergencies with notice. Commissioner Regalado agreed.
Commissioner Gilbert III asked the Board, in its capacity as county commissioners, to place the CRA within a single district at the next redistricting. He also asked how many additional amendments remained and urged that the discussion be concluded.
Responding to Co-Chairman McGhee�s inquiry regarding whether State law required meetings to be held in person, ACA Smith advised that an in-person quorum of five members was required. He further advised that virtual streaming for public participation was allowable and that the County Attorney�s Office would ensure any adopted language was consistent with the applicable statutes.
ACA Smith restated the amendment for the record as requiring 30 days� advance public notice when a meeting was held at a location other than the two designated sites, and allowing virtual participation provided an in-person quorum was maintained.
Commissioner Regalado moved to amend the bylaws and Rules of procedures as detailed by ACA Smith. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bermudez and upon being put to a vote, passed 8-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon, and Milian Orbis were absent).
Commissioner Regalado raised concerns regarding Section 8.01 (contracts), proposing that contracts above a particular dollar amount require the co-chairs to agree through a Sunshine meeting.
Commissioner Gilbert III asked about the current process and suggested, as an alternative, that all contracts be signed by both co-chairs. Commissioner Regalado responded that Section 8.01 authorized either co-chair, not both, to sign.
Dr. Edwards responded that the Board itself authorized and approved contracts, and that a co-chair�s signature executed authority the Board had already granted rather than reflecting unilateral authority. She questioned whether a Sunshine meeting would be necessary solely to execute a contract the Board had approved.
Commissioner Regalado stated that, with alternating co-chairs setting agendas, an item approved at one meeting could be placed on the next agenda for reconsideration if the co-chairs disagreed. She noted that the original Sunshine requirement for setting agendas had been intended to prevent such reversals, and that requiring both signatures was not a solution because a co-chair who had voted no could withhold a signature. She expressed a preference for establishing a process to ensure agreement between the co-chairs rather than relitigating votes.
Commissioner Gilbert III pointed out that the Board typically approved contracts in substantial form or directed the administration to enter into contracts, and rarely reviewed final contract terms, which placed considerable authority in the co-chairs� hands. He stated that without a Sunshine meeting, a signature requirement would be necessary as a check on one co-chair�s authority. He reiterated that the Board should have selected a single chair rather than contort itself around the co-chair structure.
Commissioner Bermudez stated that he had full confidence in both co-chairs to cooperate, that the co-chairs could discuss upcoming agendas without violating the Sunshine Law, and that the only practical issue was whether one co-chair would keep a contract off an agenda. He cautioned that if the Board intended to revisit the entire document in this manner, the structure should be reevaluated.
Following further discussion, Commissioner Regalado withdrew her proposed amendment regarding contract approval.
Commissioner Lopez moved to adopt the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure as amended to: (1) amend Section 2.03 of the Rules of Procedure (page MDC 015) and Section 3.03 of the Bylaws (page MDC 004) to require consultation with, and approval by, each meeting�s presiding officer, rather than joint approval by the co-chairs, in preparing and approving CRA agendas; and (2) amend Article 4 (Meetings) to require 30 days� advance public notice when a meeting is held at a location other than the Naranja Lakes CRA Community Center or the South Dade Government Center, and to allow virtual participation provided an in-person quorum is maintained. This motion was seconded by Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins and upon being put to a vote, passed 8-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon, and Milian Orbis were absent).
The adopted amended version was assigned Resolution No. CRA-04-26.
Subsequently, during consideration of Item VII.2, the Board elected a Chairwoman and Vice Chairman pursuant to Section 3.01 of the Bylaws as adopted.
|
|
|
2.
|
|
| |
261330
|
Resolution
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 THE NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WLS, L.C., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY D/B/A NAI MIAMI | FORT LAUDERDALE AND NAI MIAMI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (SECOND AMENDMENT) IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $42,000.00 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SUCH AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR TERM AND TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY MANAGER TO CONTINUE PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND BROKERAGE SERVICES; RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR�S ACTION IN EXECUTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO IMPLEMENT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
|
Deferred
to
No Date Certain
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Smith read the title of the foregoing resolution into the record.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins explained that the contract had already been extended for a full year, apparently because its term expired in July 2026, and noted that the information in the agenda item was incomplete. She asked that a representative of NAI come forward.
Mr. Jeremy Larkin, NAI Miami/Fort Lauderdale, confirmed that the company had managed the properties since the CRA acquired them in approximately May 2025. He explained that the financial statements in the agenda followed the County fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, and that he had brought the prior fiscal year statements, running from the date of purchase through September 30, 2025, together with a general ledger of all transactions through July 31, 2026.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins inquired about the approximately $120,000 in year-to-date expenses reflected for the seven-month period, whether NAI was responsible for increasing occupancy, and how the occupancy rate had changed since the company assumed management.
Mr. Larkin responded that the expenses covered real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance of the shopping center and of the two vacant parcels used as passive parks, and substantial clearing of the vacant parcel at 27501 South Dixie Highway after demolition. He acknowledged that occupancy had declined from approximately 75 percent at the time of purchase to approximately 50 percent, explaining that several month-to-month tenants left after being advised of the planned redevelopment. He stated that seven pending leases, if executed, would restore occupancy to approximately 75 to 80 percent at roughly double the prior rental rates, and that each lease would include a landlord termination clause of six to 24 months to align with the redevelopment schedule. He stated that the leases had been held at the Executive Director�s request pending this meeting,
and later characterized the pause as a mutual decision and NAI�s own recommendation to time the leases with the selection of a redeveloper.
Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins disagreed with holding the leases, stating that the CRA�s priority was to remove slum and blight and that the vacant spaces should be generating revenue regardless of the timing of any redevelopment. She asked how long the leases had been held and noted that she had not received an answer. She stated that she had visited the properties the previous day, cited chipped paint and the condition of the parking lot as inconsistent with an acceptable standard of service, and expressed concern that the Executive Director had extended the contract for 12 months with a questionable record of performance. She stated she was not seeking to terminate the agreement, but was not comfortable approving a one-year extension as written, and moved to extend the contract only until the next NLCRA meeting or for a three-month period to allow NAI to increase occupancy and complete basic painting and pressure cleaning.
Mr. Larkin noted that the agreement contained a 30-day cancellation clause that applied regardless of the length of any extension. Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins responded that the Board was aware of the clause.
At Co-Chairman McGhee�s request, ACA Smith clarified the status of the leases. He stated that his office had received, reviewed, and executed one lease, and had received seven additional leases within the prior one to two weeks. His office began its review but stopped after receiving an email from the Executive Director questioning whether review should proceed. He advised that the leases used a template his office had already approved and could be reviewed and executed promptly if that was the Board�s direction. Co-Chairman McGhee confirmed that the leases had been pending for weeks rather than months.
Commissioner Regalado opined that it would be preferable to defer the extension rather than approve it for a shortened period, expressing concern about acting outside the scope of the existing agreement. She recommended either issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competing property management firms or deferring the item so that the co-chairs could work with staff on a formal amendment. She suggested that the amendment establish enforceable service standards, including painting and maintenance quality, and prohibit holding leases for more than 30 days without notice to the Board, so that expectations were set as contract terms rather than as an evolving list of requests.
Ms. Crystal Patterson explained that the leases had reached her approximately one week earlier and that her inquiry to the County Attorney�s Office was a question rather than a directive. She stated that one of the leases carried a five-year term with a 24-month redevelopment notice clause, and that, with the Board scheduled to consider a redevelopment proposal at this meeting, she wanted to give the Board the opportunity to act on that item before staff decided whether to continue leasing the vacant suites and whether a 24-month notice period remained appropriate.
Commissioner Rodriguez asked how seven leases could be generated within a two-week period. Mr. Larkin explained that the leases originated from letters of intent developed over three to four months while the prior citizen board was dissolved and the company awaited direction on the new reporting structure, and that two of the seven were renewals. He noted a shortage of small retail spaces along the Dixie Highway corridor. In response to Co-Chairman McGhee, he confirmed that NAI now had clear direction and could address the aesthetic concerns immediately.
Before the Board acted on the deferral, Commissioner Gilbert III stated that the current process was neither beneficial nor fair to staff, that the Board was overcomplicating its work, and that the CRA needed a single chair. He asked ACA Smith when and how he could move to appoint a chair.
ACA Smith advised that, having just adopted its bylaws, the Board could at any point retain the co-chair structure or elect a chair and vice chair, and that a motion was in order.
Commissioner Gilbert III moved to appoint Co-Chairwoman Cohen Higgins as Chairwoman of the NLCRA. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez.
Co-Chairman McGhee stated that he would abide by the Board�s decision but did not believe a single chair should be installed without first giving the newly adopted co-chair arrangement a trial, which he believed could work for all of South Dade.
Upon being put to a vote, the motion passed 6-3 (Commissioners Bermudez, Regalado, and Co-Chairman McGhee voted no; Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, and Hardemon were absent).
Commissioner Bermudez stated that his understanding had been that both co-chairs would jointly represent the area, and recalled that the Board had come to South Dade and replaced a prior board of community residents in order to fill these seats. He stated he was comfortable with either commissioner leading the CRA, acknowledged that Commissioner Gilbert III had consistently favored a single chair, and urged his colleagues not to allow disagreements to become personal or to tie up the CRA.
Co-Chairman McGhee responded that, in his view, the motion reflected political preference rather than policy or the interests of South Dade residents, and attributed it to differences between himself and Commissioner Gilbert III over county leadership. He stated that he would support the Board�s decision but would not be deterred by it.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins thanked her colleagues for the opportunity to serve and for traveling to the meeting, and noted that press was present for the first time at an NLCRA meeting. She stated her intention to hold accountable all parties holding contracts with the NLCRA, so that slum and blight would be removed from the area faster than in the past, and expressed hope that the Board�s attention would remain on the community�s needs rather than on the preceding exchange.
Commissioner Gilbert III stated that he had considered co-chairs inappropriate for a CRA from the outset, that the meeting had demonstrated the structure did not work well, and that Chairwoman Cohen Higgins also chaired the County�s Airport Committee, through which CRAs reported to Economic Development. He stated his view that a public body should not restructure itself to accommodate the emotions of individual commissioners, and that the Board could elect a different chair in the future if it wished.
Commissioner Regalado stated that she had voted against the creation of the CRA and against the co-chair designation, and had predicted at the time that the arrangement would be unwound at the first meeting. She expressed concern that the change was being made without the full Board present and asked who would serve as Vice Chair under the bylaws.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins moved to appoint Co-Chairman McGhee as Vice Chairman of the NLCRA. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilbert III, and upon being put to a vote, passed 9-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, and Hardemon were absent).
Returning to the item, Chairwoman Cohen Higgins accepted Commissioner Regalado�s motion to defer, noting that the extension had already been executed and that the item was a retroactive approval. In response to her questions, Mr. Larkin confirmed that NAI had budget to apply paint, that the painting would be completed before the next NLCRA meeting, and that NAI would execute the pending leases to increase occupancy and revenue before that meeting.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins further requested that Mr. Larkin to present before-and-after photographs, including the newly applied paint, at the next meeting so that members unfamiliar with the area could see the progress.
Commissioner Bermudez asked that any information obtained from Mr. Larkin and NAI be provided to the full Board so that members could make an informed decision.
Mr. Larkin committed to execute the seven pending leases, complete painting and pressure cleaning of the properties, and present before-and-after photographs at the next NLCRA meeting.
Commissioner Regalado moved to defer Agenda Item VII.2 to the next NLCRA meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and upon being put to a vote, passed 9-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, and Hardemon were absent).
|
|
|
3.
|
|
| |
261331
|
Resolution
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET FOR THE NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $50,860,061.00; AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR�S DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THE BUDGET TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR APPROVAL BY THE MIAMI-DADE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
|
Deferred
to
No Date Certain
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Smith read the title of the foregoing resolution into the record.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins noted that the proposed budget totaled approximately $51 million and verified with Executive Director Patterson that approximately $34 million represented carryover from the prior fiscal year. She stated that a budget of that size made it difficult to understand why more had not been invested in the prior year to address slum and blight, and that she wished to see the funds invested in roads, sidewalks, and aesthetics in the Naranja Lakes area.
Vice Chairman McGhee provided context, stating that the CRA budget required approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and that in prior years the BCC Chairman had withheld the item from the BCC agenda, which prevented approval of the budget and, in turn, expenditure of funds in the community. He stated that the item was now moving forward and he hoped the community would see results.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins asked members to refrain from accusatory language and allegations, noting that all members shared the same mission.
Commissioner Bermudez questioned a line item of more than $1 million designated as miscellaneous, for which the budget provided no explanation of approvals, controls, or use, and asked what the funds covered.
Ms. Patterson explained that the budget framework was the same the CRA had always used and that her firm had carried it forward when it began working with the Agency approximately a year and a half earlier. She stated that the miscellaneous line had historically housed dollars not allocated elsewhere, that the Clerk�s Office and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) often drew from that line first when processing invoices, and that the line had received little direction over the years.
Commissioner Gilbert III proposed that Chairwoman Cohen Higgins work with Ms. Patterson, and with Vice Chairman McGhee through a Sunshine meeting if desired, to bring back a budget that reflected the Board�s priorities before the Board reviewed it line by line. He noted that, in his experience as a former BCC Chairman, CRAs continued to spend funds whether or not their budgets were approved and that the BCC routinely approved CRA budgets retroactively.
Ms. Patterson added that, given the new Board, unanticipated items would arise during the year, and the miscellaneous line provided flexibility to address those needs without a budget amendment.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins supported Commissioner Gilbert III�s proposal and stated she was prepared to adopt the budget with that caveat. She suggested that the approximately $1 million in the miscellaneous line be moved to the infrastructure, landscape enhancement, and transportation line, which stood at $5 million, so that road work in the area could be funded. She further questioned why the budget included both a Direct County Support line of $250,000, described as reimbursing the County for fiscal management, budgeting, financial oversight, board administration, and coordination of Agency operations, and a separate County Administrative Charge of approximately $229,000, representing 1.5 percent of the County�s tax increment contribution under the interlocal agreement. She asked why the CRA was paying both.
Ms. Patterson responded that the CRA was required to pay the 1.5 percent administrative fee. She explained that, before the Agency had an appointed Executive Director, OMB managed the CRA�s day-to-day operations and the Direct County Support line funded that work, including OMB salaries. She stated that the line was reduced in the prior year when her firm assumed day-to-day support, and increased in the current year in anticipation of renewed County staff support following the Board�s recent action to re-engage County staff.
In response to Chairwoman Cohen Higgins� question as to whether both charges were necessary, ACA Smith advised that the funds did not go to the County Attorney�s Office but to the budget office in its role as CRA coordinator. He clarified that the statute did not establish any percentage, that the 1.5 percent had been negotiated in the interlocal agreement, and that the statute provided only that administrative and overhead expenses directly or indirectly necessary to implement the adopted redevelopment plan could be paid from tax increment funds.
Dr. Edwards, responding to the same question, confirmed that both amounts were needed, stating that they covered OMB�s costs and other County costs incurred in managing the CRA.
Commissioner Gilbert III asked whether OMB had staff dedicated solely to the NLCRA or whether the funds covered a portion of the salaries of existing OMB employees, and whether the County would have to terminate anyone if the Board declined to approve the funding.
Dr. Edwards explained that the staff supporting the CRA included OMB, Clerk of the Courts and Comptroller, procurement, and other County personnel who served CRAs across the board rather than the NLCRA alone, although certain OMB staff members were directly allocated to the NLCRA. She stated that the funds covered general operating costs and salaries rather than salary increases, and that without the funding she would have to reduce the salaries of multiple employees.
Commissioner Gilbert III disputed that salaries would need to be reduced and stated that the budget belonged to the Board, not the administration. He expressed confidence in the Executive Director and her staff, questioned whether the current level of County staffing was needed, and observed that County employees would continue to report to work regardless.
Commissioner Lopez stated that she was confused by the explanation, since the County Administrative Charge negotiated under State law was intended to cover exactly the services Dr. Edwards described, and the two charges therefore appeared duplicative. She asked for a breakout of what the $229,124 administrative charge had paid for and how the $250,000 was accounted for. She further characterized the budget narrative as incomplete and inadequate for approval, citing the training, workshops, memberships, and travel line as lacking any list of the trainings, memberships, and travel proposed or their costs. She noted that the Miami Beach CRA, on which she served, did not attend conferences, and stated that every CRA should present a detailed budget narrative.
Commissioner Bermudez concurred with Commissioner Lopez and stated that he saw no reason for travel expenses if the Board was serving as the CRA. He asked whether all County-serviced CRAs were assessed the administrative charge and whether eliminating it would affect only the NLCRA or all CRAs serviced by the County.
Dr. Edwards responded that removing the funding would affect County operations, since the funds received from CRAs supported the County�s CRA office along with the Public Information Office, strategic procurement, and other administrative departments that supported CRA business. She acknowledged that Commissioners Lopez, Gilbert III, and Bermudez had made a clear point that the budget detail was insufficient, and proposed that the administration present more detailed information for the respective line items, particularly the three in question, so that the Board could decide whether to fund them.
Commissioner Regalado offered several clarifications. She stated that the County Attorney�s Office was not funded through the administrative charges and asked County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan to address the separate legal services line. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan advised that the legal services line item was not allocated to her office and reflected the independent counsel the CRA had previously retained. Commissioner Regalado noted that the Board now preferred to use the County Attorney, that the line would need to be revisited if outside counsel were ever desired, and that she did not want members to conclude the County was double charging. She added that municipal CRAs also paid administrative fees to their municipalities and that any comparison should be limited to unincorporated CRAs.
Commissioner Steinberg agreed that unincorporated and municipal CRAs differed and that the distinction should be made.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins stated that the budget should be deferred pending more detail. She asked whether the budget complied with the recently adopted legislation sponsored by Senator Garcia requiring greater detail in CRA budgets. ACA Smith responded that the budget had not been reviewed for that purpose, and Chairwoman Cohen Higgins stated that this was a further reason to defer.
Commissioner Gilbert III reminded members that they were sitting as the CRA Board rather than as the BCC, and that while they never lost their authority as County Commissioners, their responsibility in this capacity was to retain as much tax increment revenue as possible for the Naranja Lakes area to fund roads, aesthetics, and business recruitment, rather than to weigh the effect on the County budget or other CRAs. He noted that the administration, as steward of the County�s budget, spoke for the County�s financial position and not for the Board in this setting. He stated that he supported deferral, which he had suggested earlier in the discussion.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins stated that Commissioner Gilbert III�s point reinforced her view that the two County charges were duplicative from the CRA�s perspective.
Vice Chairman McGhee requested that additional funding be considered for Rebuilding Together, which assisted seniors in the community with window, roof, and air conditioning replacement and home beautification. Ms. Patterson noted that an item to refund Rebuilding Together for the next fiscal year appeared among the agenda�s discussion items and that the Board could direct staff at that time to increase the current $300,000 allocation. Vice Chairman McGhee further stated that the CRA should retain its own attorney with CRA expertise rather than depend on the County Attorney�s Office, and that a motion or item to that effect should be brought forward at some point. He also asked the administration and the County Attorney to explain why tax increment funds generated for the community had gone unspent and what could be done to ensure residents benefited going forward.
Dr. Edwards responded that a portion of the carryover was encumbered for bills coming due. She noted that the Agency had operated under a different board and leadership at the time, and stated that with the new leadership, a revised budget, and clear prioritization by the Board, the administration would work with the Board and the Executive Director to remove any barriers to spending.
Commissioner Regalado stated that she supported deferral pending more detail and specified the detail she wished to receive. She requested a breakdown of the community policing and security line, noted that the BCC had adopted a requirement that a percentage of CRA budgets be invested in transportation, and asked whether the transportation, infrastructure, and landscape line satisfied it. She stated that those three categories should be separated into individual line items with the specific projects identified, and asked for an explanation of the $2 million SMART Plan projects reserve.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins directed Ms. Patterson to review the budget with each Board member individually and to caucus with any member interested in providing feedback, so that the budget returning at the next meeting reflected the members� priorities. She reiterated her prior requests that the names of the staff paid through the executive services fee be reflected in the budget. She further noted that the Executive Director�s delegated authority allowed contracts up to $25,000 without Board consultation, and questioned a recently executed $25,000 contract with Blum Consulting for website services, given that the CRA already had an informational website.
Ms. Patterson explained that the vendor had rebranded the Agency after it stopped using the County�s website, designed the logo, built the website, and continued to manage social media, Constant Contact, newsletters, and signage, including the sign at the facility entrance. She stated that the H.E.R.S. Consulting engagement covered executive support and one staff member, Shirley Sims, whom she introduced, and that the vendor had prepared agendas and all content before the County began assisting. In response to Chairwoman Cohen Higgins� further questions, she confirmed that the renewal was $25,000 for a 12-month period, the same amount as the original contract, and that it covered ongoing maintenance of the website and the build-out of newly approved programs and projects.
Commissioner Gilbert III stated that he did not find the $25,000 contract objectionable and that the details could be addressed when the revised budget returned.
Ms. Patterson advised that if the item were deferred, a special meeting would likely be needed because the CRA budget had to be approved before the end of September.
Commissioner Gilbert III responded that the BCC had approved CRA budgets as much as two years late without halting their spending, and that the County should not impose a deadline on the NLCRA that it applied to no other CRA.
Commissioner Regalado asked the County Attorney to confirm the statutory deadline, noting that the State required budgets to be submitted by a certain date. ACA Smith advised that the statute required each CRA to submit its adopted budget, and any amendment, to the governing body within 10 days of approval. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan agreed to review the applicable statute to confirm the time frame. Commissioner Regalado stated that she agreed with Commissioner Gilbert III but wanted the requirement verified, noting that the budget could always be amended.
Vice Chairman McGhee stated that the problem was not the statutory deadline, which CRAs routinely met, but the BCC Chairman�s decision to hold budget items from the agenda. He asked whether the BCC could direct that CRA budgets be placed on its agenda in a timely manner.
Commissioner Gilbert III, drawing on his experience as BCC Chairman, responded that CRAs routinely engaged in a back-and-forth process with OMB before their budgets reached the Chairman�s office, that few CRAs submitted budgets at the start of the fiscal year, and that the BCC had approved the North Miami Beach CRA budget years after the fact. He stated that the NLCRA would continue to function and its vendors would continue to be paid regardless of when the budget was approved.
Commissioner Lopez stated that she did not need to caucus with staff and that what was needed was for OMB, which the CRA paid for administrative services, to provide every CRA with a proper budget narrative template so that boards did not have to ask these questions.
Vice Chairman McGhee stated that a public records request showing when CRA budgets were submitted to the County for placement on the BCC agenda would be useful, and that statements made during the discussion regarding spending without BCC budget approval were inaccurate and should be fact checked.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins moved to defer the proposed NLCRA budget to the next NLCRA meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilbert III, and upon being put to a vote, passed 7-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon, Rodriguez, and Steinberg were absent).
|
|
|
4.
|
|
| |
261508
|
Resolution
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE�S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISPOSITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN NARANJA LAKES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 27501 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND 27525 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY; AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PROPERTIES AND AWARD OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO HOUSING TRUST GROUP, LLC, OR ITS AFFILIATES, FOR A NOMINAL AMOUNT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.380, FLORIDA STATUTES; AWARDING UP TO$7,000,000 IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, SUBJECT TO UNDERWRITING; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE, AND AMEND CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE DISPOSITION, REDEVELOPMENT, AND FINANCING OF THE PROPERTIES
|
Amended
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Smith read the title of the foregoing resolution into the record.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins explained that the item proposed the redevelopment of two NLCRA-owned parcels for affordable and workforce housing by Housing Trust Group (HTG), one of which had been demolished and the other of which NAI continued to manage and lease. Reading from the background section of the memorandum, she stated that the NLCRA had acquired the properties approximately one year earlier for $12,615,000, including incidental closing costs, and that the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser currently valued them at approximately $7.4 million. She noted that a three-member selection committee convened approximately two weeks earlier had scored HTG highest among the responses, and described HTG as the largest affordable housing developer in the State. She stated that she supported the development and found the proposal beautiful and potentially transformative, but objected to conveying nearly $13 million worth of recently purchased land at no cost while also extending a $7 million loan, characterizing the terms as unfavorable to the NLCRA. She asked whether an HTG representative was present and whether HTG could improve the terms.
Mr. Elon Metoyer, Senior Vice President of Development, HTG, stated that HTG was among the few developers that had agreed to repay CRA financing and that the $7 million loan would be repaid. He offered to pay the properties� assessed value, approximately $7.5 million, to the NLCRA as seller financing on the same terms as the loan, which he described as a 30-year term at approximately 1 percent interest, due upon refinancing, sale, or maturity, consistent with County surtax loans.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins clarified that the offer meant HTG would repay the assessed value rather than the original purchase price. She stated for the record that she viewed the original acquisition as an overpayment of public funds, but accepted the offer as substantially better than a conveyance at no cost and invited her colleagues� comments.
Commissioner Gilbert III stated that it was not fair to hold HTG accountable for the price the NLCRA had paid for the land. He began his analysis with the NLCRA already owning the property and wanting housing built, and indicated he would move the item as amended by HTG�s offer.
Vice Chairman McGhee cautioned that a member could be consistent and still be wrong. He explained that the Property Appraiser�s assessed value was not equivalent to a market appraisal based on comparable sales, and that the figures discussed did not reflect that distinction. He stated that he supported the item but did not want inaccurate information to go unchallenged on the record.
ACA Smith clarified for the record that the item, as amended, would sell the properties for $7,446,409 and authorize a loan of up to $7 million, each repayable at 1 percent interest.
Mr. Metoyer confirmed that the structure would consist of two separate loans, a seller-financed note and the tax increment loan, on terms modeled on the County�s surtax program.
ACA Smith noted that the combined obligation would exceed $14 million.
Mr. Metoyer also requested that HTG retain the option of a long-term ground lease, typically 99 years, as an alternative structure for tax purposes and for any additional State financing, with the loan terms unchanged.
In response to Chairwoman Cohen Higgins� question as to why a lease was needed if HTG was acquiring title, he explained that a lease was sometimes preferable for financing. Chairwoman Cohen Higgins stated she was agreeable to the lease as an alternative to be considered rather than as an addition.
Commissioner Regalado inquired as to the affordability levels and the length of the affordability covenant, and asked whether the financing flexibility HTG referenced related to Live Local credits or Florida Housing. Mr. Metoyer responded that the units would serve households between 30 and 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), that he did not know the covenant period but 50 years was the minimum, and that the flexibility related to Florida Housing financing. ACA Smith added that HTG�s proposal indicated a 99-year land use restriction agreement.
Commissioner Rodriguez, having stepped out briefly, asked whether this was the property the NLCRA had purchased approximately one year earlier for approximately $13 million. Upon confirmation that the amendment would sell the land for approximately $7.5 million where the original recommendation had been a conveyance at no cost, he stated that the amendment still represented a substantial loss of taxpayer dollars and that the fault lay with the original purchase at roughly double the property�s value rather than with HTG. He stated that he could not support the item and would not participate in the vote.
Commissioner Gilbert III responded that the Property Appraiser�s assessed value was not the same as the market value at the time of purchase, and that any comparison should be between the purchase price and the market value rather than the assessed value. He stated that the Board could not unwind the prior purchase, that the choice before it was between vacant land and housing, and that the proposed terms compared favorably with similar deals, since CRAs existed to remedy blight rather than to earn a profit. He urged the Board to approve the housing and revisit the original purchase separately if it wished.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins agreed that the original purchase was not attributable to HTG and that HTG had been amenable to amendments that improved the terms.
Commissioner Regalado stated that she had asked the Executive Director how the item came before the Board and understood that the proposal was unsolicited. She suggested that the Board request a drill-down from the Property Appraiser�s Office explaining why its valuation departed from the purchase price.
Ms. Patterson explained that both sites had commercial structures at the time of acquisition and that one structure was demolished to eliminate blight associated with vacancy and illegal dumping, which likely accounted for the current assessed value. She confirmed that the NLCRA had issued an intent to dispose rather than a solicitation and had received three unsolicited proposals, of which HTG�s was one. She added that CRAs customarily used acquired land as a subsidy to reduce development costs and achieve the 30 to 80 percent AMI levels HTG proposed.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins confirmed with the Board, HTG, and the attorneys that the item as amended directed the Executive Director to negotiate a full agreement with HTG, including the option of a long-term lease as an alternative to the loan structure, and to return it to the Board for final approval.
Commissioner Gilbert III moved to approve the foregoing resolution as amended to: (1) replace the conveyance of the properties for a nominal amount with a sale to HTG at the Property Appraiser�s assessed value of $7,446,409, to be seller-financed by the NLCRA at 1 percent interest over a 30-year term, due upon refinancing, sale, or maturity; (2) retain the award of up to $7,000,000 in tax increment financing as a separate loan on the same terms, for a combined repayment obligation exceeding $14,000,000; (3) preserve HTG�s option of a long-term ground lease, typically 99 years, as an alternative to the sale and seller-financing structure for tax and financing purposes; and (4) direct the Executive Director to negotiate the final agreement and return it to the Board for approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez, and upon being put to a vote, passed 8-0 (Senator Garcia, Commissioners Bastien, Gonzalez, Hardemon, and Rodriguez were absent).
The adopted amended version was assigned Resolution No. CRA-05-26.
|
|
|
VIII
|
DISCUSSION ITEMS
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
In response to Chairwoman Cohen Higgins� inquiry as to whether any further business remained, ACA Smith noted that the discussion items remained on the agenda.
Chairwoman Cohen Higgins announced that the Board would waive consideration of the discussion items.
|
|
|
1.
|
|
| |
261332
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
NARANJA LAKES CRA BOARD MEETING CADENCE AND LOCATIONS
|
Not presented
|
|
2.
|
|
| |
261333
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
HIRING OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL
|
Not presented
|
|
3.
|
|
| |
261509
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
EXPIRING AGREEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2026:
A) H.E.R.S. CONSULTING, LLC -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SERVICES
B) AMBASSADOR CONSULTING GROUP, LLC � ECONOMIC ADMINISTRATOR
C) REBUILDING TOGETHER MIAMI-DADE, INC � GRANT FOR RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION
|
Not presented
|
|
IX
|
PROPOSED NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
No date for the next regular NLCRA meeting was announced on the record. Earlier in the meeting, during consideration of Item VII.1, Chairwoman Cohen Higgins stated that the next meeting would be held at the South Dade Government Center, consistent with the co-chairs� prior agreement to alternate meeting locations.
There being no further business to come before the Naranja Lakes Community Redevelopment Agency, the meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
|
|
|
3A
|
CONSENT AGENDA
|
| |
|
| 10/31/2026 |
|
|
|
Agenda Key: 5545 |