Call the Apopka Community Redevelopment Agency to order. Go ahead, internet, you're up. Okay. Approval of the minutes. Any any addition subtracts? Anybody from the public need to? If not, look for a motion to approve. So
moved. Got a motion by member Drago, second by member Anderson. All those in favor? I. >> All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Come on up, internet. We have any public comment on
okay and forbes economic development director. So the first item on new business is a request from Davis Lodge number 47 in reference to the facade renovation assistance program grant. They had put in a request um in
September actually actually earlier than September for some facade improvements and since then our office have been working with them on their application. Part of the application request initially was for $20,000 that did not include a contribution. Um since that
time we've had several discussions with them because their understanding is that um they were somehow approved for 20,000 without the contribution. However, there's been no record of that, not in the CRA meeting minutes nor in their file. Their $20,000 the
application is included. The $20,000 includes uh window replacements, door replacements, um some exterior wall improvements to the the Stuckco. Um also exterior painting, canopy over the doors, as well as some installation of
exterior lights. According to our existing policy, the max that they are allowed to receive is $10,000. It also requires a contribution because they are a nonprofit. Um, from my conversations with the lodge, they are requesting a waiver of both of those requirements so
that they can have the $20,000 without the contribution. Our policy currently does not give um any uh indication of waiver at least at a staff level which is why it's being brought before the board.
So they are requesting as I said the $20,000 for the facade renovation program and as well as the contribution amount to be waved. I have put in a had put in a request um to the lodge several times to let notify them of this meeting, but I have not um heard from
them of whether or not they were going to attend. So, at this point, I am requesting from the board direction on how you'd like me to move forward with this application. >> I'm sorry. Weren't we did didn't we discuss that we were going to uh upgrade the
the application the grant application? So what I had discussed with the board at the last meeting was looking at our existing um um grants or assistance programs and adding more language that gives um further criteria. It also
allows for there to be an appeal process. Currently, the way our policy is written, it's a little bit ambiguous and it leaves room um for interpretation. I'd like to eliminate that. So, that is staff's intention to look at our existing applica, our
existing programs, including the facade renovation um program to see how we can tighten it. But in the interim um this application is here. So, uh they have been in since the application has been in since August.
Um, I did receive a revised application for $10,000 worth of improvements, which was basically just the replacement of the windows. Um, however, they did not update the application to reflect the $10,000 as well as um approving the contribution
amount. >> So, they're asking for 20,000, but the application at that we have is only up to 10,000. Our policy is only up to 10,000. They have submitted two proposals, one for 20,000 and one for
10. The application that they submitted is only for 20. It it uh if we only have 10,000 that we have, why I mean
You can't give 20 if the grant is only up to 10, >> right? That would be outside of the existing policy. >> Would it be better if we kind of held off on this and then updated our
grant proposal and then they can resubmit? Because one of the things is how How old is this the grant that we have on the file? How old is that? How long has it been there
>> for $10,000? >> That was when we discussed I had said to her maybe we should increase the grant because I mean if it's if it's over I mean as long as I've been sitting here,
if it's over 10 years, $10,000 really doesn't cover too much, right? today's world. But if we can all agree on raising the grant, then the Davis Lodge can resubmit
for the 20,000. But right now, the grant the grant is only up to $10,000. >> Correct. So, one suggestion could be that you allow me to go back and look at our existing policy. um for all of our
um assistance programs with the exception of the rerout because that has already been approved and see how we can tighten up some of the language and then I can bring that back to the board at this time for review. Um I can also let the lodge know that that is our intention so that they are aware that
there is movement that we are looking our existing policies and seeing how we can add better definition and at that time once it's approved they can reapply. I think that would be best for Davis Lodge because right now what they're asking for is 20 and if the what we have
on the books is only up to 10, they would get disapproved and we wouldn't give them 20. We would only give them 10. And if what they need is 20, it would be best if they can come back and when it's revised. >> And in addition to that, the issue also
will be they want to wave their 25% contribution. Correct. And that's correct. There's nothing in the policy saying that they can't do it. >> There is nothing in the policy that allows a waiver. >> Okay. Allows a waiver. >> Is it 25%. Do they match? >> It's 50. >> It's how much? >> So I'm just reading what's on.
>> Correct. So it's 25% unless it is a nonprofit, which then it is 50%. >> Oh, okay. >> So it's 50% of it's a nonprofit. Correct. >> Right. >> Because I mean the whole point of CRA is to boost the values of the CRA. So,
right, that's the reason there's the disparity between forprofits and not forprofits is you're trying to raise the values >> of the of the CRA, >> right? >> So, to be clear, it's 25% for nonprofits. 50% for nonprofit.
Well, can you I I don't know who presented the grant, you know, the the uh request for the grant, but it would be in their best interest to wait until we can revise uh the grant proposal and then they
would it would allow them to uh apply for the larger grant. >> We we can do that. That is the direction of the board. >> Any other members want Dre.
>> Yeah. Uh do we uh know u this this fiscal year just started? So last fiscal year, how many uh businesses took advantage of this facade renovation program? >> Uh I would I would say is less than 10.
Uh I can get you the exact number tomorrow. I don't have that on me right now. >> So 10 out of the $100,000. Mhm. There were very few >> and it was capped at 10,000 25% for
profit 50% nonprofit. Is that accurate? >> That's correct. Well, if we're going to do it correctly, I think the same approach for for this facade program
should mimic what we did for the residential facade program. that is we had an we had an updated application, we had an agreement, we had some other documentation and
I think in the past as I looked at it there was too much money given to air conditioners and that really doesn't apply or should not apply to this type of a grant program. It should be improving the architectural appearance
of the building, landscaping, new signage which we can be able to control the size of the sign. Um, so I think I think that process should be first. We should she could probably use some of
the documentation from the residential program uh with the help of the attorney and she could probably take residential output commercial. I think the the list of what's not eligible and what's eligible
is going to be crucial and then uh if that's brought back to us within a certain time frame, we can still use the 100,000. Now, next budget cycle, you know, we can look at in increasing that budget amount
uh because there is a lot of buildings in downtown that needs um improvement. So, I have no issue with spending the money appropriately as as the chair said to improve the property values and to approve curb appeal.
That would be my recommendation. Any other members want to speak to this one? Any questions? And then if not, we'll ask public comment. Anybody from the public want to speak on
Leroy Bell Park. I noticed that in the request it laid out a bunch of items like the doors, the windows, the paint and all this. And I do know uh David's Lodge
I was raised up in it and I would love to see it upkept but then at the same time you have to be fair to the other part of the city also. And I I'm I'm one that up
here always talking about doing something on their side, but it have to be done fairly. You're talking about paint, asking for money to paint a building that you the chair.
A couple of months back sat there, you bragged about how long you and Reverend Smith was out there paint beautifying the building. So why would you put more money up on a painted
building like we had at the house up there on 8th Street? that you end up tearing down, rebuilding. I know that Davis Law just put a new roof on uh by brother, brother Pot,
if we're going to do something for the lodge. I have been here over a year and a half. Mr. Drago, Commissioner uh Nester, and Sylvester can attest to that. I had been begging
to do something over there. But it always fell on death ears. But then all of a sudden, if if the thing said I'm along with uh Mr. Drago, if it said $10,000, let it be $10,000.
If you're trying to change something in the ninth hour, is it because of an election coming up? Is that's what it is? It should have been done when you did Orange Lloyd downtown.
That's how long that I've been pushing for Davis. when I was the wish for master. But it seems to be every time it come up close to an election, I remember you ran 12 beautiful black women
out of this chamber that wanted to work partner with you over there. You ran them out. Didn't have time for them. Maybe I should get them to come back up here because of an election. Yes. Let's do something for David's Lodge, but
let's don't let and when they come when David's Lodge come, let them come correct. Let them come with the proper paperwork. You say they're a nonprofit, have them to bring the paperwork. >> Thank Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. If
not, we'll close the public hearing. Look for some direction. Well, I think it makes sense to to if we are wanting to do that as a as a board update the program to reflect the changing times and have them resubmit a fully perfected application from there.
>> Okay. Is that a motion? >> Yes. Motion by >> member, second by member Velasquez. All those in favor. >> All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, new incentive programs.
>> So, at the last CRA meeting, we talked about there being new programs. >> Can you speak just a little louder? >> Sorry about that. I use my mom voice. How about that? So, at the last CRA meeting, we talked about establishing some new CRA programs, particularly
since um some of our previous programs were no longer eligible under um Florida um statute 163. It was the building permit uh refund program, the the impact fee assistance program both for building
and residential. And so that leaves some line items on our budget and I said I would come back with some. So these programs that I have brought are con conceptual. They have not yet had the opportunity to have a thorough legal review, but I wanted to get the appetite of the board first to make sure that you
were in agreement with the direction I'm trying to go before we begin to codify them and then create applications to go with them and start advertising. So, the programs are the demolition grant. I think I mentioned this at the last meeting where
it would be reimbursement for structures that are incompatible with the existing or anticipated redevelopment. These are structures that may not meet safety requirements or they are dilapitated. They are um abandoned. They um are already on the radar of code compliance.
So I would work with them as well within the CRA and we would allow the CRA to help with the demolition of that site including any clearing of debris any clearing of debris as well as uh
doing side or providing um um uh grass or landscaping just to clear out the site. The design s engineering services grant is for architectural consultations for the business when it's early pre-development stage which allows the
CRA and city to help navigate with the um proposed um aesthetic of the property. The window wrapping grant which would help with the store some of our vacant storefronts to prove the appearance while it is waiting for um
the next tenant. and then the special project grant which would help incentivize commercial projects that hopefully would increase the tax base or create employment opportunities or attract some sort of unmet unfulfilled need within the CRA.
So under the demolition grant, as I mentioned, it would support future development um and also it would hopefully eliminate um blight issues we are proposing. And by the way, at the time that the um slides were created was
before I received some additional comments. And I say that because the $20,000 um proposed budget that is now here reference has been increased to reflect, excuse me, I'm sorry, it remains at the 20,000 and that would
come from the building permit um refund program the design engineering services um grant >> packet has that at 15,000. >> Your packet has 15. >> That is an error on my part. It needs to be corrected >> for and that's for the the demolition.
the demolition. Correct. >> Yeah, that one has at 15. >> Yes. >> So, it's going to be 25. >> It would be 20. >> It'll be 20. Okay. >> It would be 20. >> And again, these are conceptual. So, if the board decides on any of these that they feel that you'd like to increase the amount, then we can actually we can
do that as well. It would still have to come back before the board to do a to change um the budget. So, that's reflective of the programs. Under design engineering, um we would hopefully encourage thoughtful, well-coordinated development within the CRA's vision as well as early
collaboration between the applicant design professionals. We would utilize the city's existing continuing services contract with our design and engineering consultants to help facilitate that process. And for that one, we have 30,000 which would be um from the
building impact fee as well as the residential impact fee programs and then 20,000 from contingency. >> So is that because I I I wrote down when we were at the agenda review, I had it as 50. >> It is 50 total 30 and 20.
>> That's right. >> Okay. Is there on that item? Is there a way to because we've already have people that are under contract. Should we maybe have them use our our design?
>> That is the intention to use our continuing service contracts with those design companies. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So that's very similar um to following um as board member Drago mentioned about mirroring the rewrap program how we have
um continuing service contractors with some of our um general contractors to do that work. Very similar here with the design process for the window wrapping. Again, this is where we would use um utilize CRA funds in order to provide
professional graphic installations for vacant or underutilized storefronts. The proposed budget for that is 5,000. That line item is from the improvements other than um under the budget and it's titled facade renovation program. There's a
$5,000 marker for that. So that is where that funding would come from. And then the special project grant. This is specifically for commercial projects. Um and so I want to make know how the first bullet talks about residential and mixuse. No, this is strictly commercial.
Again, at the time that we were making adjustments, um we did not have a chance to update the slides, but this is strictly for commercial. Um this is for a project that offers um either employment opportunities, increase the tax base or meet some unmet need. Our
intention is um this is on a case-byase basis. So any project would have to come before the board. It would be prevetted by staff, but they then need to come before the board with some sort of perspectives, financials. It needs to understand who the major players are in
the organization and what their experience is. Um because the budget for this one is approximately 205,000 which we're re allocating the funding from the pocket park on a highlands as well as taking the 100,000 from contingency. So due to that large amount
any proposed project would come before the Siri board first before we allocate those funds, excuse me, before we awarded those funds. So, those are the uh incentive programs in concept. Again, I just want to make
sure that the board understands the direction of which I'm trying to go. We still need to work with our city attorney to make sure that we are in compliance and to make sure that it mirrors as close as possible the way we did the rewrap program. So uh the
recommended motion is consideration of the proposed incentives and direction of for staff to move forward with refining and developing the incentives including guidelines, implementation details and budget reallocations of which we would come back to the board at the following
meeting for the budget reallocations. Excuse me. >> Any questions for internet? >> So the the reroute program was $5,000 in that total was for the reroute program. >> No. So, I'm glad you caught that. So, there is a line item in our budget
called um improvements other than and it lists several micro projects and there is the facade renovation. There's a line item there for just 5,000 but the program that we did in entirety that was 900,000. >> Okay.
>> So, I I I'm assuming that was a placeholder. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Um, I guess I'm at a little disadvantage because I didn't get I finally figured
out where the proper agenda was in the on the city's website. What I didn't see in the agenda was any documentation relative to the demolition program and to that special projects program. I know member Nester
has it. I don't. So without reading it, I I don't think I can comment on it. But on the window wrapping, um I just scanned it. So the first issue
I would have would be the size of the window wrapping relative to the size of the window. I know the police don't want covering on the windows for security reasons. They want to be able to go by, walk by, look in the window, see if somebody's in
there. So, what size wrap did you have in mind relative to the size of the window? >> So, we have not gotten down to those specifications yet because again, it was in in concept. So part of our due diligence, we would work with PD so that
they can implement um crime prevention through environmental design principles to make sure that it includes that there's proper visibility um in in besides just having the window wrapping. >> Okay. So the other issue is I'm not a fan of putting a window wrap in there to
either sell or lease a building. I think that should be the owner's responsibility or in concert with the real estate person. Um, the other one, you talk about community branding. I I don't know what that community branding
is or what it looks like. Uh, you talk about historic preservation standards. Where are they? Do we have them? Because I commented in the past about preserving the buildings that are on the National Register from demolition.
>> I think that's two separate things we're discussing, though. I I your point is well taken, but those are two separate uh issues we're discussing. >> Well, she put in there she put in there window wraps that conflict with historic preservation standards. So, where's the standards relative to
the conflict? And there's probably I think there's one or two commercial buildings that are on the historic register. So, that's appropo. The other one uh was uh talked about the
program must remain in place for a minimum period. What's the minimum period? And it also talks about that if a tenant were to occupy the building and they have to take down the wrap, does the city get reimbursed for the
wrap cost? >> Would you like me to? And uh also in it, it says that the city has a list of contractors specializing in wraps. Do we have that list? >> We do.
>> Would you like me to answer your questions because you asked several? Okay. So, let's start with the um in terms of the marketing. So, CRA, as I'm sure that you're aware, we cannot market using CRA funds, but we can do the window wrapping. So we'd have to be
careful on what we can put within on the window itself. So it could not necessarily be coming soon this tenant for example, but we could potentially um do some sort of graphic that looks like there are people or activity happening. But again, that's part of our due
diligence of working with with the city attorney in reference to historic preservation. We would again do our due diligence and work with our planning department to make sure that we are compatible with our current code says. You also asked in in terms of reimbursement. So for reimbursement, we
have not put that in the policy yet because this was conceptual and I would seek board direction from you. So if you're asking if you would like there to be a clause in there so that that we can add a um clawback provision then we can do that. And I can't remember your fourth question. I'm sorry. minimum area
in which the wrap needs to be placed. >> So in my opinion, I don't think there should be a minimum amount because if there is a vacant storefront, but they have now found a tenant, I don't think we should require them to continue the the wrap, that would take away from the
business that actually trying to occupy the space. Well, it says in your document here, window wraps funded under this program must remain in place for a minimum period. So, the question is, what's the minimum period? But, it has to stay in place,
>> right? So, we can have a minimum period that's placed as long as it's vacant. So, we can I can um massage that language. >> And the last one is you said you have a list of approved contractors to do window
Yes, we do have vendors that we use that do graphic design and um what is it called? Um >> um they do forms of graphic design that we can use the same vendors that do like our business cards for example. We can also ask them to do window wrapping. So
the other thing that needs to be worked out with the police chief side window >> thank you. Well I talk loud enough so everybody hear me. >> Everyone online needs to hear you too. Um,
it would have been helpful, I think, if if the memo would have included some pictures of what these wraps look like. I mean, I it's not for me, it's for the public. >> Right. Noted. So, when we bring it back to you
when it has been properly vetted, we can make sure that there's some examples in there. So, this window wrap would also include any building that's nonprofit. >> We have not gone, we have not decided
yet, but if you'd like that to be part of the language of that is the board direction. Are you suggesting that there would be >> a nonprofit that owns a building >> could be a nonprofit that owns a building that leases it. >> So they would be entitled to the wrap
even though they're nonprofit. I'm just asking a question. So unless there is there needs to be direction from the board that specifies that and I say that because the way our current policy reads for example for the
facade renovation assistance program it allows nonprofits to participate in that program. So are we now going to extend the same courtesy for the window wrapping? We need to be consistent across the board. So if we are now saying that we do not want to
include nonprofits as part of that because they are non-contributing member to the tax base of which CRAAS are funded through that is an option if that is the direction. >> Well
I don't think we can hang our hat specifically on the revenue stream being taxable. nonprofits still have to pay utility fees, sales tax, all the other fees that the city collects. So,
there's some advantage to the city from a revenue perspective to uh I guess look at the nonprofits in a different light than what we than what we typically look at at at them. Um, now I guess that's
something for you and the attorney to to discuss as to the legalities of it, but just from a policy standpoint. Um, if they're if they're members of the community, they contribute to the community in some
form or another, uh, then I think they should be treated somewhat equally. Any any other questions? I just have a couple comments and we discussed this yesterday as well. So, just kind of bring it to the to the board as well. Uh, with the window wrapping, what I'd
like to see or I think that would be beneficial in probably a lot of our programs is to have some type of design standards or something along that line to where they're all consistent to where when you're in the CRA, you know you're there in a positive way that you know and you can see that there's certain branding or or insignia or something
that indicates this is a CRA area and and it it uplifts and it creates that marketing and branding. I think that's valuable to do. Um I don't have that idea of what that looks like, but and again it's what I said with um in our conversation yesterday as well. You tell
me if that's you're you're the expert in this. So if that's something you're like, "No, that's not going to work or that doesn't look good or that wouldn't function correctly." Obviously, no problem at all. I just think that would be helpful to really help brand our our downtown in a different way in our CRA area. >> And then most of this is specific to it's
for buildings or properties that are already vacant. So it's really to make them look not vacant. It's it's to make the look not run down effectively. Right. >> So, it's just it's to make that look light and bright and still look like a used space even though it's not, but still market in some capacity effectively. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> It's very similar to when um uh you drive down the highway and you see the um the the the billboards that says you could live here. And so now all of a sudden you start, you know, kind of visualizing visualizing what that space would look like.
>> Yes. Okay. And I like that. I think I think this is a a good program and and it'd be interesting to see again if we can create a consistency of the branding of again kind of like an HOA where you got uh color swatch A B CDE E and everyone kind of pick but they're all
similar. Uh I think that would just help with downtown branding really kind of create start create cohesion downtown and I think that'll add to value creation. Um so I think it's a great great program on the demolition assistance program side. Again, we discussed this yesterday is I think that
there should be a a tie in or some type of requirement. I don't know what this would look like or even if it's legal, but to demolish a property, there should be a timeline to reinvest and put a new property there, whatever that may be. So, it's not just knocking down properties to where we
have just vacant lots, which I understand that may benefit the community overall. Uh, but it actually I mean it would technically bring down our taxable value because it'd be vacant lot versus a improved property. So if there was some type of tiein of within one year there needs to
be permits pulled or something to put a either a new residential or commercial property on that site. Not tying their hands by any means, but just creating a timeline so that's not just a vacant lot for vacant lot's sake. Um, that was something that came up for that one. the
design and engineering side. Uh the it was $50,000 total. We're looking at that one, correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because it was broken up into where it was getting pulled from. So that one they they would have to show I guess how
how would we walk through that process of is it reimbursement or we're fronting that those funds? So I I'm trying I would like to make it as close to reap as possible where the agreement would be between um the CRA, the applicant and
the consultant in this case um so that everyone is on the same page not just in terms of the scope of work but also in terms of payment as well. >> Okay. Because just trying to figure out how that would the pragmatism of that how would we be able to play with that. So I like that. Thank you for coming up with these. because I think it's very um
very helpful and potentially should this get approved and and come back if you can show us any examples of some of these that have worked successfully in other areas. I think that would be helpful as well. I know that you you had a really good program down in the CMI area as well. So, um anything that you've done there, any pictures or
examples, I think would just be helpful to be able to show um what we're doing. >> Thank you for your time on this. >> Thank you. >> Member Smith. >> Yes. Um, now I' I've seen window wraps where you can actually see through the wrap. You can still see the interior of
the building. And so I think we use that design that that work uh just fine. My only other question is I noticed it says window wraps may include leasing opportunity information. And I'm not sure if we want to provide winter
wrapping and then advertise for that space for for profit. Yes. So, our city attorney has not had the opportunity to fully review um the programs yet, but I am certain that's something that he's probably going to
advise against. >> Okay. All right. Good >> Mr. Chair. >> Sure. Uh again, without reading the demolition memo, uh one thing that I think you need
to check with the city attorney is if any structure that's on the National Historic Register can be exempt from using the demolition grant because if you don't,
I'm afraid they'll be de demoed pretty easily. as I've been told. Now as far as the design engineering is concerned uh I guess in concept
it's probably um good to look at but in reality the concern I would have would be uh that the CR I don't think the CRA has a good set of design standards to
protect the property values of the businesses and a residents. And I'll give you an example, well, two examples. I was told and it was not refuted that
in CRA code, metal buildings are not allowed. Now, that's still accurate. There's a twostory metal garage building on Highland
between second and third. It encroaches in the setbacks and there's and there's drainage runoffs into other properties. First question is how did it get permitted if it did get permitted and it surely didn't meet any type of design standards.
Number one. Number two, there was a new insurance office building built on behind CVS, white with green. Looks uh industrial looking. All the
buildings around there are colonial. All them all are colonial type houses. The architecture is colonial. So the question becomes is was there a was there a design standard
in place? If there was, how did that building get built and permitted? So unless you have a a good set of design standards in place, this this paying
$50,000 for an architect and an engineer to come up with what they think is the right design and not compatible with the CRA to protect property values is a waste of time and money. So the standards have got to be in place first before we look at paying somebody 50
grand to design something that's not compatible or protect property values in a CRA >> and I just well she we kind of talked about that in in the meeting and that's something that she actually is already going looking toward to do because that was something that I actually brought up was that a design standard that's
cohesive in the area and I think she's in the process of actually >> putting that together. We talked about it already. >> Yes. that it's really important that when you that the CRA has a certain um distinctive character or branding so that when you are in it you understand that you have now reached a a
destination. I think it's called placemaking and at this point that is something our CRA needs needs help with. So all of our programs are a way for us to try to help um navigate in such a way that when new development as it comes,
we have a the opportunity to help um bring it into better continuity in terms of aesthetics. >> Any other questions? Okay. >> Anybody from the public wish to speak on this one?
Okay. Not uh look for a motion to I guess have staff bring it back >> fully baked. >> That's right. >> Looking for a motion. >> So move. >> Got a motion by member Smith. >> Second.
>> Second by member Anderson. All those in favor? >> All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, uh CRA master plan update. So, this is a fairly quick update. So, prior to my um coming on to AOPKA, I believe
staff had mentioned that there was an intention to do a master plan update because the last CRA master plan uh was 2017. That is still our intention. However, I would like to wait until we get our extension approval from the county before we start that master plan.
So, as you know, there was a three-year um agreement for the CRA. We are now entering, we are now in the year three. We have provided the annual report to them December, mid December um of last
year. And so, we will start the conversations with them around um I'd say September or so for that that approval for the extension. and then we will enter into the master plan process. So I just wanted to inform the board so
that it wasn't you were aware. >> Okay. So we don't need that's not an actionable item. >> No, it's not. >> Okay. All right. And then the update on the residential renovation assistance program. >> So just to let you know um where we are
with this program because this was by far your largest line item in your budget. So to date we had 192 inquiries that is by email, walk-in, call, text, um, every every which way. Um, that
doesn't necessarily mean they were all eligible. That just means that they had inquired. In addition to inquiring whether or not they were eligible, they did receive information on housing resources that are available both through the county and through nonprofit resource
providers. Um, there were 24 applications that were denied because they did not meet eligibility requirements for whatever reason. Two were what I called weight listed. It simply meant that they provided all of the information needed in the application, but timingwise,
unfortunately, they just were not able um I was not able to process them before we ran down ran out of funding. Um, there were 33 homes that were approved um for that program. The improvements included driveway repair repairs, window
and door replacements, exterior painting, fencing, landscaping. There were 15 roof replacements. Um, and five ADA um projects were part of that 33 homes. Um, to date there's been close to the the 900,000. Um, and then there were
homeowners that actually contributed as part of the program because their request exceeded the $30,000 match. So that $6,2987 are residents that um are paying over and above the 30,000.
Um and I mentioned about the five homes have been completed. The other um homes they are in the queue to be completed. A lot of them are using some of our most of our um grantees are using the city
approved general contractors. So they are going down the list and um they are working on them as we speak. >> Any questions for >> I have a question about the two applicants that were placed on the weight list. Do we do we have a >> do you know what that funding amount was
that we needed for those two applicants? >> Well, if they do the max amount that would put them at >> they requested the max amount those two >> everyone requests the maximum. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chair. >> Sure. Uh the $50,000 that was allocated
for your outsourcing of the administration, has that been used? >> It has not. >> Okay. So, according to member Anderson, you have two applications that are on the waiting list to be funded. That correct? >> Correct. >> All right. So,
>> and I'm sorry, just to interrupt you, I want to be very clear. I did not advise them that they were on a wait list. I only received the applications and let them know the program had closed. So therefore, there's no expectation as though they will receive funding. I have just internally put them on a wait list
in case there is additional funding. >> Okay. So let's talk about the additional funding. if the $50,000 is available and my understanding is that the trustee is going to come back with some budget amendments relative to all these
incentive programs that $50,000 and I'm sure she can find 10 additional dollars, $10,000 more to be added to the residential renovation program to fund those two outstanding
applications. And then that would complete at least this fiscal year. uh that program >> sound like a good plan to me. >> It's a great plan. That's what I was thinking. >> All right. See what we can do. >> Believe I have direction. Okay. >> And I just had a one comment on this too
and it's something we discussed as well yesterday, but if we can as we start moving forward and kind of build out and this is not a tomorrow project by any means or request, but just each dollar that we're investing in this or that we're investing other people's money into these homes and properties, we should be able to tie it ROI back to it.
So, for every dollar of windows we put in, we're usually getting a$110 out. Something along those lines. I think it's going to be important and valuable as we have conversations to show, hey, here's exactly what we're getting out of this. We're putting in x amount, 900,000, but we're getting $1.8 million worth of taxable value increase back
from it or whatever it may be, whatever that number is, >> because again, the whole goal is to increase property values here, taxable value. So, I think that'll be valuable uh as we just navigate to make sure that we're staying on track with what we're improving and things of that nature. And then we can speak very specifically to homeowners and residents that says,
"Hey, you know, windows seem to be getting x amount and that's 10% more than what maybe a lawn is doing." That's not accurate, but uh as an example. So, um I just think backing into some rough rough rough numbers would be helpful for conversation sake with residents and
then also with Orange County as well to show, hey, here's how we're actually improving it through our data, not anybody else's. We can show it kind of firsthand. >> I agree. I think it will definitely help in our conversations for the extension if we're able to show a quantifiable return on investment. >> Absolutely. >> And are we getting pictures or videos of
these 33 or 35 homes that >> we are so part of the payment process? They do have to provide pictures both before and after. >> I have personally driven by as well and taken pictures. I try to tell people when I come so they don't see a car driving by and wonder what's going on.
And then as a another step um before payment is issued, we also have our building department go out and do an inspection on top of the inspection they did, for example, the roof. Even if they got um painting or landscaping done, we
have someone from the building department go out and inspect that as well. >> All right. And so these going to end up on our website or someplace for public to see? >> Yes. So, we've started in our CRA newsletter um putting up some of the pictures as they become available.
>> Some folks are camera shy. Uh so, as they become available, we have been putting them up. >> All right. Thanks. >> Any other comments? I just want to thank internet. She was a a uh a department of one and she did all these applications. I mean, she was running down to >> to get everybody checked off on it. And
so, I really appreciate she now has some help. So, I now the programs we've run out of money. It's uh but anyway, I wonderful job because that I know you were you're running like a chicken with your head cut off trying to get everybody taken care of and and it was amazing job what what you did
>> basically by yourself. So, we we appreciate it. And now we got some help to, you know, get get you to the next level. So, thank you for what you've done. >> Thank you. I appreciate. And I also want to make sure I I I say that this program, which was pretty much created before I got here, was extremely innovative. I work with a lot of CRAAS
and it's not the fact that it was facade program but the way you've removed a lot of the the barriers for residents to get this help is what made it so successful. >> Thank you for what you've done. >> Thank you. >> All right, we'll be back in
>> 10 minutes.