Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dispute Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate termination of 241 Bay Street TIF amid foreclosure; motion to issue notice fails on procedural grounds
Summary
Following public comment from the Vivas family alleging misrepresentation and an unresolved developer obligation, attorney Shepherd said the development agreement is in default because the property is in foreclosure and the CRA can issue a 30‑day notice to terminate; a motion to provide notice was moved but failed after commissioners concluded the board lacked the required majority based on bylaws/quorum rules.
A member of the Vivas family told the CRA the developer and counsel misrepresented the project's contractual obligations tied to 241 (2401) Bay Street and requested the CRA consider revoking the TIF. The speaker said a contractual $50,000 contribution to a park remained unpaid and alleged the TIF and related incentives had grown substantially since the original approval.
"This misinformation had an influence in the CRA's commission decision to grant a TIF ... Without Viva's court, this extension of of 10,511,000 would have never have happened," the public commenter said, urging the board to act. Later in the meeting the board took up a commissioner‑led item to consider termination of the increment revenue payment agreement with the 241 Bay Street developer.
Attorney Clifford Shepherd said the development agreement contains a covenant that the developer "shall not be in default beyond any applicable cure period" on financing obligations; because foreclosure was filed and mediation was declined, Shepherd said the agreement appears to be in default and the CRA has the legal option to provide a 30‑day notice and terminate if the default is not cured. Shepherd recommended the board review whether the agreement had been properly assigned or extended and suggested using the default opportunity to address agreements that may be legally weak or improperly transferable.
Commissioners debated whether to provide notice immediately or wait for an absent member to return. A motion to provide termination notice was moved and seconded, but commissioners and counsel concluded they needed to verify the CRA bylaws and whether a majority of the full seven‑member board was required to carry such an action; the clerk and counsel said they would check the bylaws and the record. The motion was recorded as having insufficient support under the board's rules and was not enacted at the meeting.
Staff said the foreclosure had gone into mediation and mediation had been declined by the developer; counsel said the CRA's prior extensions and hurricane‑related statutory extensions complicated the termination timetable and that staff would return with bylaws and timing details so the board could act in compliance with its rules.
