A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the allocation of funds for a proposed police agreement, which prompted a discussion among board members. Concerns were raised about the appropriateness of using CRA funds for police operations instead of directly aiding community development. One member expressed skepticism, stating, “We should be doing community… unless you can elaborate on that program. Another board member highlighted the disparity between funding police initiatives and addressing urgent community needs, drawing attention to a local resident living without a roof. They questioned the prioritization of resources, emphasizing the need to support vulnerable residents. Alternative suggestions included leveraging city commissioners’ broader authority to assist residents through the city budget, exploring county resources for potential roof replacement programs, and considering other funding strategies for police-related initiatives. The conversation also touched on social programs, with calls to address issues such as drug abuse and homelessness through partnerships with agencies. Members advocated for redirecting some police funds to social services that directly impact community welfare. As a potential compromise, successful initiatives from other cities—such as providing residents with resources like ring cameras for enhanced security—were suggested as alternatives to solely funding police overtime.

The meeting also addressed the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026. The director presented a detailed breakdown, noting a significant drop in revenue from nearly $8 million the previous year to approximately $3.5 million, primarily due to major property purchases. Key budgetary line items included a reduction in the home improvement assistance program and commercial grants, reflecting shifting priorities and resources. A statutory requirement to allocate 10% of the budget to affordable housing was highlighted, amounting to $350,000 for housing programs or land purchases. Board members engaged in dialogue to clarify allocations, expressing gratitude for the explanations that demystified the budget process. Despite some concerns, the voting proceeded without significant opposition.

Another focal point was the potential acquisition of properties on Lincoln Avenue, identified as prime sites for redevelopment due to surrounding green spaces. The director reported an appraisal valuing the properties at $675,000, with the owner requesting 10% above this appraisal. Board members discussed negotiating a price around $725,000, recognizing the strategic importance of these properties for future development. The conversation was informal, with the understanding that any final offer would return to the board for approval. The director emphasized the transformative potential of the acquisition, noting the next step would involve engaging in discussions with Miami-Dade County once negotiations advanced.

Further discussions included the hiring of a property management company to manage properties in-house. The director noted that three bids had been received, but concerns existed regarding the cost relative to the agency’s capabilities. The need for a property management firm was complicated by prior discussions about removing tenants. The director requested additional time to assess whether in-house management would suffice, mentioning that vacate notices were imminent for tenants in the shopping plaza.

Additionally, the director provided updates on ongoing projects, with requests for proposals (RFPs) for developing certain sites expected by late October or early November. A church property was being considered for interim use as an event space, and the necessity of addressing funding constraints for future projects was acknowledged. A board member proposed hiring a grant writer to assist with funding opportunities, emphasizing strategic financial planning. The director confirmed the agency could apply for grants.