Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA presses developer for better terms on proposed Chrome Marketplace food‑hall
Summary
The Homestead CRA reviewed a proposal to lease and eventually sell the Kearl/Chrome Marketplace building, with a 3‑year $1/year stabilization lease, year‑4 annual rent of $355,000 credited to a $4,000,000 purchase right, and a requested $2.5M CRA contribution for permanent improvements. Board members raised fiduciary concerns and asked staff and legal to continue negotiations.
The Community Redevelopment Agency spent more than two hours on July 7 debating terms of a redevelopment offer for the Kearl/Chrome Marketplace property in downtown Homestead. CRA staff described an arrangement proposed by a private developer that would begin with a three‑year stabilization lease at $1 per year, move to an annual lease payment of $355,000 in year four that would be credited against a purchase price capped at $4,000,000, and call for the CRA to invest up to $2,500,000 over the initial three years in permanent building improvements.
The CRA director told the board the city currently carries roughly $4,065,000 in debt on the property and has invested additional funds for adjacent infrastructure, and staff estimated continued holding costs and necessary capital expenditures to make the shell usable. The proposer said private investment into the site would total roughly $8.5–9.5 million and that the team already had letters of intent for multiple restaurant tenants; he argued that the city had overpaid for the land previously and that the developer’s plan and concentrated build‑out would accelerate downtown activation.
Several board members urged caution. Board member Roth pointed to a net loss on paper—the city’s purchase and capital investment exceed the proposed $4,000,000 sale price—and asked how the CRA would recoup an additional $2.5M if it invested that sum in improvements. He and others pressed the proposer for proof of financing and lender commitments before the board accepted its figures.
Other members framed the discussion in redevelopment terms: CRAs exist to take on projects the private market won’t, and activating long‑vacant storefronts could spur broader private investment in the urban core. Several members asked the CRA’s legal team to review use‑restriction options and to insert stronger protections tying developer payments and matching investments to performance and timelines so the agency’s capital would be protected.
Outcome and next steps: the board did not vote to sell or approve the deal at the meeting. Members asked staff and legal counsel to continue negotiating the agreement, return with refined terms and financing documentation, and present any proposed amendments for reconsideration at a future meeting.
