That was only 11 months ago.

Okay.

Now I'm here in clear water, though.

Good morning.

Today's meeting of the neighborhood and affordable housing advisory board is called to order on May 12th, 2026.

Welcome everyone.

Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to the chambers.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

To ensure a complete record of the board's actions, we ask that each individual wishing to speak, clearly state your name and spell your last name for the clerk.

I'm Robin Field, the board chair, and I will ask the board members to introduce themselves and identify the fields that each represent.

I will start to my left.

Linda Byers says City Resident.

Charissa Doughty Affordable Housing.

Kelly Bethsburn, Hope Villages of America.

And again, I'm Robin Feel, and I am a lender in the affordable housing space.

Our first order of business is to approve the board's minutes of March 17th, 2026.

May I have a motion to approve item 2.1.

Move approval.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Minutes are approved.

Is there anyone here to speak on items not on today's agenda?

If so, please step to the podium and state your name and spell your last name for the record.

You will have three minutes to speak on a subject that is not on today's agenda.

Seeing no one come forward, do we have any e-comments?

We will move on to the next item.

Item 4.1 is to approve the staff recommendation funding allocations for the use of CDBG funding for the program year 2026-27.

Dania Perez will present this item.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Dania Perez, P E R E Z.

And let me post up.

There we go.

Okay.

So we're going to go over the annual action plan budget.

So the annual action plan budget, which is which is also called the AAP, is our yearly roadmap to budget.

It's a yearly roadmap and budget that helps ensure we stay on track with the five-year consolidated plan, which is developed based on identified community needs.

Okay.

Do you guys need a minute to look at it or good?

Sorry, just on this side.

Um for each funding source, a percentage is allowed allowable for administration cost.

These funds are applied towards staff salaries for duties such as monitoring compliance and project management.

And then at the bottom you have the the total the totals for each funding source.

Since the organizations had already did their presentations, but if anyone has any questions, please go ahead and feel free to ask.

And then at the bottom is the subtotal of the total amount that we're estimated amount that we'll be spending, which also includes our soft cost.

Unfortunately, for um CDPG public service services, not every applicant was approved due to the 15% cap.

So this means that only 15% of the entitlement allocation can be used for eligible public services activities, which I believe everybody is aware of.

And then under the economic development, which isn't subject to the 15% cap.

Prospera and Upward Care was approved to provide technical assistance to low moderate low moderate enterprise businesses.

Then we have affordable housing.

Sorry, guys, my notes got mixed up.

Okay, this is um this budget is for affordable housing development programs.

As you see, we can um we can we use multiple funding sources to dedicate and to for dedicated to the creation and preservation of both rental and owner-occupied housing.

We also have a CHOTO set aside, which is re which is request, which is required, which is a required home program allocated for certified nonprofit organizations that develop affordable housing, and overall the majority of our home funds are invested directly into housing activities.

Then we have our housing assistance programs.

So through these programs, we work with multiple agencies to assist Clearwater residents with preparing for and achieving the goal of homeownership.

In addition, in addition, we utilize home Tibra in partnership with the housing authority for security deposits.

You know what?

I'm sorry, I need to backtrack because I did miss something.

I wanted to go over, oops, wrong way.

So back to economic development.

I wanted to address the facade.

Um we have this program took time to update because it was important to ensure that all the program requirements and compliance standards were properly met.

We also sought out assistance from professional consultants within the industry, and I am happy to report that we're actively processing files now, seeing making sure that they do qualify for the product for the program.

Sorry, I missed that one.

Let me go back.

And Slim and Blight.

So Slum and Blight, basically, we just it's I know it's it's a small portion, but we are able to allocate some funding each year to address Lem and Blight, which can include demolition or acquisition and rehabilitation of properties to expand affordable housing stock.

And then any questions?

Yes, the facade improvement program and slum and blight is that designated to any particular area like a CRA area or special taxing district.

So the facade the CDPG facade program is designated for the LM low mod area.

So it's so we didn't make it where it was just specifically for one area, it's all low mod area.

And the slum and blight, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the Slum and Blight is CRA area, which would be North Greenwood.

Yep.

Any other questions?

No.

All right, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions from the board?

Which we've had.

Does anyone from the public wish to comment on this item?

Do we have any e-comments?

Hearing no further public comment, may I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve.

Can we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 4.2.

Recommend approval to the City of Clearwater's community redevelopment agency's board of trustees.

A proposal for the redevelopment of CRA owned parcels located within downtown Clearwater and authorized CRA staff to negotiate an agreement for development, purchase, and sale of the property with said entity.

Mr.

Dylan Mayu will present this item.

Good morning, my name is Dylan Mayu.

I'm the housing manager.

This presentation is an overview of the CRA-owned properties between Washington and Martin Luther King here in the downtown gateway.

I'm gonna go over the solicitation and evaluation process, the proposals received, and then the staff are requests for your recommendation to the CRA Board of Trustees.

The Washington MLK site consists of seven CRA owned parcels located within the redevelopment area.

On January 14th, 2026, the CRA released the request for development proposals for redevelopment of the site.

The intent of the solicitation was to uh was that we would receive proposals aligned with specific goals in the CRA, economic revitalization, housing opportunities, long-term sustainability, activation of the corridor, community benefit.

Staff received five uh responses to the RFP, uh after which a technical review committee met on April 21st to evaluate and score the proposals.

Um today's presentation will summarize those proposals and our discussion.

So before we get into it, this is uh a slide here that that shows the evaluation criteria that we utilized.

Um the scoring, I'll kind of go through each one.

Um optimal community and economic benefit.

So that scoring was discretionary.

Um price offered, so the way that was scored was highest price received 20 points, second highest price received 15, third highest price received 10, and then everyone else received five.

Uh project diversity.

Um so if the project included non-residential use, affordability, workforce, and market rate, um, then the project would get full points, otherwise it was it was a reduced number off of that.

Uh regulatory compliance, this is pass or fail.

This is based on our community development code.

Uh presentation complete completeness.

Um, so we asked the question did the proposal come with conceptual site plans and renderings, uh, and then uh financial completeness.

So this was scored based on financial forecasting, um project budget, timeline, and then resumes of uh past projects from the developers, and then we had a section that was discretionary uh based on just the proposals and kind of where everyone each each staff member that's part of the TRC was from a different department, so it allowed them to kind of adjust their scoring that way.

Uh the committee evaluated not only the conceptual vision of each of each proposal, but also financial feasibility, readiness to proceed, uh compatibility with redevelopment goals, long-term visibility, um, and the level of public subsidy requested.

Um this approach was intended to be balanced uh with community impact and then also realistic realistically can these be implemented.

Um staff received five proposals as I mentioned.

The proposals included mixed use and mixed income developments, affordable and workforce housing projects, market rate multi-family, and hospitality and commercial activation concepts.

So the first proposal was submitted by Archway Partners for a project titled Washington Commons.

This proposal includes a mixed use mixed of mixed income mixed use development consisting of 178 residential units, and this will be developed in two phases.

The project also includes approximately 3,000 square foot of neighborhood service retail.

Um, some additional amenities, a fitness center, tech lab, a community build community room, and um green green building elements such as solar and EV chargers.

A notable aspect of this product of this partnership proposal is a partnership with CORA Housing Authority.

The project is primarily structured around low income housing tax credits.

They proposed kind of a two-prong approach going for 9% and also 4% with bonds at the same time.

The committee discussed the proposal's mixed use elements, housing mix, and overall redevelopment potential.

The next submission was by Clearwater MLK civic district holdings.

This is this proposal is a little bit different than the rest.

This proposal presented a catalytic mixed use concept intended to create a destination district and gateway into downtown and North Greenwood.

The proposal includes 75 mixed income residential units, a boutique hotel, commercial and civic space, a food hall, event space, and a co-working incubator space.

The development team described the project as a long-term phased redevelopment focused on creating both daytime and nighttime economic activity.

The committee's discussion focused on mixed the mixed use version or vision rather, economic activation opportunities and complexity associated with the phased implementation.

There was some concern.

There's some things lacking in that proposal, some like the long-term feasibility or financial feasibility items were missing.

DW development group, this is the third proposal.

This proposal focused entirely on affordable housing.

This is going to be a split between 30 and 60% units, 168 total units.

Amenities included a community center and residential support services.

Again, this is another light tech project.

And the committee discussed the importance of affordable housing production, financial feasibility, and overall alignment with the CRA redevelopment objectives.

This is kind of the rest there.

It's kind of a breakdown of what the project was.

This proposal included 171 units.

So we mixed income at 30, 60, and 80% AMI units.

The proposal included amenities such as community gathering space, fitness center, playground, and a pet park.

The concepts proposed two five-story residential buildings developed through phase tax credit.

The committee discussed the proposals of workforce housing approach, development scale, and ability to support the local employment base.

And then finally, the next one, oops, going back.

There we go.

The last one was Vel Air, so this one was different than the rest.

This one was a fully market rate proposal.

It consisted of 151 residential units.

It was going to be a mix of studios through three bedroom units and emphasized pedestrian pedestrian-oriented design and streetscape improvements.

Unlike the other projects, this requested no public subsidy.

These included the importance of mixed-use development and creating activity beyond residential only projects, the balance between affordable workforce and market rate units, alignment with the CRA redevelopment goals, regulatory compliance considerations.

Additional focus on market conditions and long-term sustainability.

So we talked about vacancy rates, financing conditions, construction costs, the ability of projects to proceed through permitting and development timelines.

We also imported, we also noted the importance of selecting a proposal with a realistic path forward.

Another recurring discussion point was the desire to minimize public subsidy exposure while still achieving minimal meaningful redevelopment outcomes.

So these were the scoring outcomes, archway partners, new star development, clearwater MLK district holdings, Vel Air, and then DW development group.

These rankings reflect the committee scoring based on the adopted evaluation criteria.

That's what I went over on that second or third slide.

And then the overall project assessments.

So today staff is requesting your recommendation to the CRA board of trustees.

After this meeting, the CRA will be bringing this to their board.

I think it's next week for their approval to start negotiations with whoever they choose.

So with that, I'm happy to address any questions.

Can you go back and show the archway one again?

Sure.

The number one, please.

So that was the first one you covered, right?

Mixed.

Yeah, I think I think this one was kind of the best of all worlds because it did come with some commercial.

So that allowed it to score higher on those uh points.

Um it they have they have good experience, their proposals well laid out.

It actually covered everything that we requested in the RFP.

So it says mixed income was mixed income, it will be under 80.

So it'll be a standard Litech project, but likely have units 30, 50, and 80%.

This will be phased, so it'll be two different um LITEC applications.

One would be the 84 unit and the 94 unit.

Which I mean, in the real world, that's great, right?

But like we have Nolan, and that commercial space has not flourished.

I mean, and they had the food hall, and they've had all those spaces in.

I mean, I drive past it every single day, and it's just not I don't know.

I'm almost like up to saying like is that really what we need in that area?

Well, I think the conversation is at the TRC was it's only 3,000 feet, so it would be likely like a small coffee shop or something, something like that.

Versus that whole bottom half.

Right.

Whereas, you know, one of the develop one of the proposals, uh, this one here was much more mixed use, much more commercial.

Um yeah, so but a lot less housing.

A lot less housing, yeah.

Yeah.

Housing's important.

It is important, yeah.

That's why we're here.

So and Archway has a good track record with the city.

I mean, they just they just did the ribbon cutting for Dora Gardens.

They can they continually um receive uh uh tax credit awards for different projects in the Florida in the state of Florida, so um, they seem to have kind of the full package as far as the proposals concerned.

Exactly.

Where is this property located?

You said Washington and MLK, but trying to visualize exactly where that might be.

So this this uh site was actually used as a temporary dump site after the hurricane, I think Hurricane Helene.

Um right now it's actually I think that the northern parcel there is being utilized for a uh uh parking for the um the bus transit station.

I'm not sure if it's for their their construction workers or if that's just you know a place you can park and then be transferred over to the the transit station.

Um trying to think how I can give you a better idea of where that's at.

It's it's close to the no the to the nolan, it's not too far away.

I see a lot of waterfront.

I mean, when you see the building, you see the the bay out in the background, and I'm thinking it's pretty close to the water, but evidently it's not a good thing.

No, it's not I think sometimes the uh um developers in their conceptual renderings will add enhances the enhances, but I'm going boy, it's right on the water there on the bay.

I do have a question.

Um, since I Clearwater Housing Authorities in this, do I have a conflict of interest with moving port?

Or should I spend it?

You would need to do unfortunately I can't give you an answer one way or the other, you have to determine it for yourself.

Okay I'm gonna not include myself on the recommending since there's enough here.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we can vote on that.

We do we need to vote on it and yeah.

Oh, I yeah.

Just a small part.

It follows the the item 4.1 at the bottom there, it'll be the same process.

Okay.

Okay.

Supposed to write my whole script here.

Are there any more comments or questions?

Well, it's kind of, I mean, it's all of a sudden we're voting on these multi-million dollar projects, and you look at a slide and you make a decision based on that information.

Did you have additional questions?

I'm just taken back by the fact that it's these four huge projects that we until this moment even knew those applications or those proposals even came forward.

So to make a decision based, for example, I like the fact that the housing authority is involved in this particular project.

Are there other projects where not for profit organizations are involved?

I do I there's not enough information for me to make a to vote and make a decision.

I I'm sorry, but that's it would have been nice to get get it in advance.

But I'm relying heavily on the fact that you had people review these thoroughly.

Um, and did an evaluation that were kind of relying on y'all's expertise.

If there's any, I mean, do you do you have any specific questions?

There are no other um proposals that came with uh a nonprofit attached to it.

That was the question.

Basically, we're not specifically making the decision here on the other.

This is just a recommendation to the board of trustees.

Correct.

For them to based on considering based on uh five minutes of conversation.

But also based on the recommendation of the committee.

Okay, all right.

All right, now I understand.

So your recommendation has value and consideration, so we then would make a decision on one of these projects based on your recommendation.

Correct?

Yes.

And these you have four recommendations.

There's there's five total projects.

Five total projects.

And the recommended projects from the technical review committee, which was made up of staff from different departments.

Right.

Is Archways Washington Commons?

All right.

All right.

So they did points, and that was the highest point.

I got it.

I got it.

Okay.

That makes sense to me now.

I didn't realize that.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, does anyone from the public wish to comment on this item?

Are there any e-comments?

Okay.

So hearing no further public comment, may I have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve the recommendations of the trustees.

Do I have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Thank you very much.

Uh at this time, I'll ask the board members if there are any other topics previously discussed that the board would like the staff to present an update on at a future meeting.

Mr.

Mayor, do you have anything additional to report?

Um, only that the um the city audit.

I wanted to call out some of my team here.

Um, the city audit was just completed.

You're calling them out?

I'm calling them out and giving a recognition uh recognition.

Um the city audit was just completed and uh no findings were found for our department.

We had a very clean year, so really great job team back here.

Um it's not uh it's not an easy thing to do, there's a lot of moving parts, but they they kept it together and they really did a great job.

So other than that, congratulate this.

Do any board members have any final words before we adjourn?

No, this concludes our business for the day.

Our next may have meeting is scheduled for June 9th, 2026.

Thank you, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

That's quick.