All right, we'll call the Popka Community Redevelopment Agency to order. Commissioner Smith, you just want to give us the pledge and we'll we'll get the prayer at the city council. >> Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we've got a set of minutes uh from the 716 U CRA board. Uh I'd look for a motion to
approve. Uh motion to approve the minutes as presented. >> Okay. Motion by member Draco. >> Second by member Smith. All those in favor? >> All oppose. Motion carries unan. >> Okay. Public comment. Anybody public comment?
>> Okay. Presentation. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Good evening. I have uh a concern that has been going on for months and months and months. Um I feel we need to have these me meetings noticed for a half
hour earlier. as long as you have seven days, you can notice them uh notice new meeting times. Um all of the citizens that are at home and in person and all of the business people coming to the
7:00 meeting um are really put out by the fact that this meeting runs over every time. And um if this meeting is consistently longer than an hour and then you have um no time to go to the restroom, get your
papers together, think and meet with your constituents, um then there's obviously a timing issue. So, what I request is that um someone make a motion to change the time to five uh to 5:30 so that y'all can be
professional about getting your time together and organize yourself and be prepared for your next meeting and then you don't have to feel rushed at the end of the meeting and um your your business people and constituents attending the next meeting um don't feel like they're
second class to attend the council meeting. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? All right. Uh, going to presentations. Business. Resolution 2025-04. Who is this young lady here coming down? >> Good evening. Antranet Forbes, economic
development director. Nice. I can still be called young. Where is it? So the resolution before you is um is resolution number 202501 acknowledging the requirements of House Bill 7030. Um
so the primary objective of this bill that was adopted back in October of 2024. It spoke to special districts and the masses. However, as it pertains to CRAAS, it talked about the requirement to establish clear goals and objectives as far as performance metrics were
concerned for each CRA. That is separate from the annual report. And that um report is required December 1st of each year, whereas the annual report is required March 31st of each year. So, the resolution that's before you
simply acknowledges that the CRA understands that this house bill has occurred and our intent um to comply with it and I'm available for any questions. >> Any questions? >> Yes, Mr. Forbes. We spoke about this yesterday and so thank you for taking
the time to meet with me. Uh, a few questions on this and it's pretty much going to be the same things we just discussed yesterday. The we don't currently have set goals and objectives as a CRA board, do we? >> Not that I have found. However, that's okay. So, and the reason why is because
when this first came out, a lot of our my CRA colleagues, we were kind of scurrying about trying to figure out exactly what the requirement was. The benefit of it is that there no template has been provided and so we are actually able to create what our goals should be.
My intention is to tie these goals and performance to our budget once the board adopts it. >> Okay. And when do we you expect that next meeting or >> do we need to get it we just need it done before December 1st. >> Correct. And let me make sure I speak
for the record because I kind of just nodded my head. So yes, I do intend to bring it before you at the next meeting. And yes, it does need to be filed quote by December of the end of the year, which simply means we need to provide it to the county. >> Okay, understood. And then it was a
question I had in reference to the actual um uh bill itself. We don't have we don't take any state funds or federal funds through the CRA. Correct. >> Not through the CRA. >> Okay. Okay. That it it has a special section that stipulates kind of
additional rules and requirements. So, I just wanted to make sure that those don't apply to us then. >> Correct. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> Any other questions, Miss Forbes? Okay. All right. Anybody from the public wish to speak on this resolution? >> If not, close the public hearing. Look
for a motion to approve resolution 2025-04. >> So move. >> Got a motion by member Velasquez. Second. >> Second by member Anderson. All those in favor. All oppose. Motion carries unanimously. Next up, resolution 2025-05
>> and 06. and 06. >> Yes. Okay. So, resolution number 2025 is to appropriate the existing redevelopment funds into the next year for FY26 and resolution number 202506 is the
adoption of the um 202526 budget. So, in accordance with the Florida statute section 163, the CRA is required to appropriate the existing balance within the redevelopment trust fund in the following fiscal year. At
this time, the estimated balance is about 4.7 million. I have incorporated that to help fund the carryovers plus the FY26 budget. So we need to adopt the resolution to incorporate those
carryovers in the amount of 4,753 853. And if you want details of what that consists of on page 24 of 54, it consists of your FY26 budget that was
brought before you at a previous meeting and the estimated remaining balances that are uninc unencumbered that are in your FY25 and how those were funded. If you if you
on page 24 of 54, you got 1.8 8 that we used to fund FY26 and the 2.9 is the remainder of FY25 totaling 4.7 that has to be that is considered carryover that has to be incorporated
[Music] and the list of projects are there and I know we talked about um some Mr. Draco and you had a question. >> Is it always me that has the questions? >> Is it always me that has the questions?
you you don't have one. >> All right. So, I discussed this with the trustee uh just a little while ago and um the first item that uh brought to my attention was the residential fee assistance program. We had budgeted
allocated 600,000 as a carryover and there was another 300,000 added for the new budget made it $900,000. We also maximize the amount per resident at $30,000.
So therefore, the phraseology in there, the 10 units has to be changed to 30 units >> for for it to equal $900,000. Now, my understanding from the trustee is that um
uh there could be a proposal to use some outside contractors to administer the grant program. Now, when I look through the budget, I see where
Alonzo Williams Park had two budget items. went for $75,000 for power and water and $50,000 for power and water. >> One in the carryover and one in the 26. >> So I would recommend that the 75,000
remain allocated to Alonzo Williams Park for power and water. The $50,000 gets transferred up to the residential fee assistant program specifically to cover the cost of the contractual service for administrator in
that program. And that would balance the budget. >> So the 50 and not the 75 is what you recommend? >> Yeah. Well, uh I'm figuring the 75 for Alonzo Williams because of cost overruns, uh cost of labor, supplies,
contingencies, those types of things. >> Okay, Miss Forbes, you got inquisitive. Look, you want to got any thoughts? >> I didn't realize you can see me from that far back there. So, it was only to give you a little bit
further explanation for member Drago, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. >> Yes. I want to make sure I pronounce your your name correctly. If it's >> Drago, >> okay, perfect. So I want to make sure I give you a little bit more explanation in reference to outsourcing um the
program. Right now that is a contingency plan depending on the response um if it is approved um by the board this evening. the response that we get back to make sure that number one we are quickly as staff able to execute the program but also number two make sure
that we have a party that is well-versed and to do these type of renovations as also serve as a somewhat fiduciary between the um applicant as well as the city that they'll be able to hire the contractors and um authorize the work to
be done before submitting payment or repayment back to the Um, I assume that you read the documents relative to the contract for the grant agreement and the grant guidelines and residential facade repair grant program
application. You're satisfied with all those documentations? >> I am. I've made my um suggestions and edits and um the CRA attorney and I have are both in agreement. Uh the other thing is um and I guess a trustee can answer this
question. If we adopt these resolutions then the it takes effect October 1st. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. So from now until October 1st then the ED that stands for economic development
uh has enough sufficient time to put her program together relative to how she's going to market the program. talk to the residents whether individually or by groups uh go over the contractual arrangements what it covers in a way of cost etc. Is that accurate?
>> I would think so. Did you by October 1st, is that enough time for you to do >> Yes, we should be ready to go. >> Okay, good. >> Any other questions? >> A couple questions. The the renovation the residential res renovation
assistance program, didn't we set that at 100,000 >> residential renovation program? No. No, that was the one new. >> No, that was that was the grant >> the grant was >> in the regular budget.
>> Regular budget. >> The residential. No, no, that was the one that start was six in one and then we carrying over the the other amount. The it was the 300 then the 600 was carried over. >> 600 equal >> the fee assistance program. >> The one we're talking about tonight
after this >> is that one that's 900. >> The fee assistance program. >> Residential fee assistance program. That's what it's called. >> But >> it's my understanding >> residential facade. >> We were focused on facade, not on impact fees. >> There's a there's a separate line item
for impact. >> Okay. That that should be down to the other one, the residential, that one, but this one. Okay. But it was 900. The description need to be updated to be flipped. >> But that should be it should show
$100,000 for the residential renovation assistance program. Correct. >> No. No, that's the one that that is the 900. >> It's 900. >> Yeah. >> That is the 900. >> Then the the one that we're discussing
tonight that has $100,000 in it that we're trying to use by the end of the year. >> No, that's 100,000 >> that that's the in the regular budget. >> That's in the regular budget. That's a whole different program. Correct. Right. >> That's not in the CRA. >> Correct.
That's the nonprofit grant program. >> Nonprofit grant program. >> Yeah. No, that's not what I'm talking about. >> I'm talking about the whatever we allocate $30,000 per homeowner. >> That's what I'm saying. It should be the >> That's not in the CRA. That's not this budget.
>> Yes, but it's the one that is the 900 is what I'm saying. >> The one that said that it's for impact fees. >> Yeah, the descriptions are back. Right. The descriptions are back. >> Okay. Okay. So, I was acting like I'm crazy in here and I'm not. It's labeled incorrectly and it's wrong. >> Yes. The descriptions are accurate. >> Okay. So, then but the residential
renovation assistance program, >> isn't that what we were putting $100,000 into? >> No. >> No. I'm still saying that. That's still No, >> it's the commercial program. >> Exactly. >> We're putting into the commercial program. >> 100,000. That's what >> That's what 100 went. >> Mrs. Forbes, is that your understanding
as well? >> She wasn't here. >> She wasn't here. >> I understand she wasn't here, but she was hanging on the program. I assume that she's read it. >> What? >> Open that part. >> Go back to >> so I can see it. >> It's this one right here. That's the 100
>> It's just these descriptions are flipped. >> So yes. So the the commercial part of the the facade improvement program that is for the 100,000 and it's my understanding that the residential facade assistance program is the one that's supposed to be 900,000. That's my
understanding. Okay. If if that's what makes sense to everybody else that it doesn't seem like it's adding up, but >> that's fine. >> We had a long discussion. >> That's what Yeah, that's what we in the previous >> We put it under the commercial side of
this. >> You put money under commercial >> in the 26 discussion that we brought to you. >> No, I know. put some and then the grant itself that grant program that we're discussing tonight >> is the 900,000 >> that's labeled incorrectly
>> yeah just need to flip >> so I didn't realize that we were rolling over so much money to that one >> yes that well hold on the 600 was what we reallocated to the program >> reallocated >> yes when we reallocated all the funds in FY25
that was the 600k Okay. >> And then 300 >> was already in. Yeah. 300 was added with the uh 26 >> and that came before this um board as well. >> We had discuss several several discussions about this.
>> Yeah, you did. And and it was discussed many discussions. It's okay if I ask questions though. Correct. >> I would assume that's okay. >> Yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I appreciate appreciate the uh the respect. Okay.
So then the walk me through the land acquisition for 518 South Washington 602 and 614 South Park. >> Um Bobby for the land acquisitions. >> Yeah. I I thought that as a board we had
only agreed to the Duke property. >> The other land acquisitions again were discussed. >> I think we discussed it but I don't think there was any move forward or or official action taken to say that yes, that's what we want to purchase.
>> Which properties were those against, commissioner? >> 518 South Washington 602 and 614 South Park Avenue. >> The ones on 518 South Washington, that's the property next to Alonzo Williams Park. That's the one that's in probate and that was discussed at this board.
>> But I thought we said with all kind of the real estate acquisition side, it's all up in the air. That was the Quest property. That was the one that was up in the air. That and I think that one was struck, the Quest one. >> Okay. And then the 602 and 614 South Park.
>> Those are I believe they're near um if I recall correct. Yeah, they're just down here just past uh where Station Street merges where it kind of comes into that V down there. >> Did we say we wanted that? >> That was my understanding. Yes.
I don't remember. I remember us discussing it briefly, but I don't remember there was an absolute Yes. Because what are we going to use that for? >> Potential purchase of the property to put some type of city facility or something on it for that triangle parcel. >> Mhm. Yes.
600,000. >> I think there possibly I mean that's that's fine. I mean, we can always adjust this moving forward. I just think those funds can be better used rather than spending it on those parcels at this point to benefit this program and
the residents within it. So, okay. I'm good on the rest. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Member Smith, anything? >> I'm good. >> Member Velasquez? >> No, I'm good. >> Good. Member Anderson? >> No. Fine. Thank you. >> Member Williams. Good. Okay. All good.
All right. >> All right. Anybody from the public wish to speak on this one? >> Okay. Um, I think it would be helpful if you guys kind of had some stuff what you're talking about on the the extreme other than the title, but to hear what we're hearing now to that the city of
Apache is going to budget 600,000 to purchase property without a clear plan on what you're going to use it for, I think is a waste of taxpayer dollars. for the simple reason is someone like myself who has a commercial location that pays taxes to the CRA. I don't
think it was my intent if we're going to use the money to reinvest to for the city to take the money and invest for their particular reasons. So that's just things I just think that's it shouldn't be done in that manner. Um, and if you're going to go start a purchase property, I think if you're going to put
together a strategic plan or whatever the case may be moving forward, there should be something tying to the reason on why you need a property and why you purchase it. But I just think to spend $600,000 a month, where the land's located, I'm not sure, but I just think it's unfair to the residents that
actually have paid money into the CRA. That's just how I see it. I can't see it anywhere differently. Um because I know a lot of times the board or the mayor gets approached about property and they want to sell it to the city. We go get appraisal and we
purchase it and then we sit there and just hold it for years and years and years. So I just think it's just a bad use of of funding. Um that's just my opinion. Thanks. >> Anybody else? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. for a motion to
approve resolution 2025-05. >> Mr. Chair, uh yeah, >> so that 2020 255 that has to do with the um rollover, >> correct? >> Carry over. Okay. >> Correct. >> So, going back to member Neesa's
um discussion relative to the $600,000 for land acquisition. Uh, can an item be put in the budget to transfer that 600,000 to a contingency item under expenses? >> Yes, if you want to just say
contingency, we can say contingency. >> So, with that recommendation, I think uh it would provide sufficient time for the new EDDD to analyze those parcels and come back
with a recommendation. And that 600,000 can be taken out of contingency and moved to another line item to purchase the property if in fact that's the recommendation. >> Okay. I'm I'm fine with >> Yeah, if everybody agrees. >> All right.
>> Okay. With that that those changes. >> Well, and one other change uh Mr. chair is to transfer the uh transfer the $50,000 that's in account uh 5156300
>> to u the residential fee assistance program. So that makes it $950,000 and 900's for the actual work. 50 is for the contingency for the >> contractual services to help uh administer the program which
>> from experience is going to be a challenge uh from a paperwork standpoint. But, uh, that's what we agreed upon and we should be able to spend the 900,000 on 30 houses. There's plenty of houses
in this CRA that's in need of help. Uh, now, if for some reason we're successful and we spend the 900,000 within shorter than 12 months, we have another 600,000 available to move in there if we so desire.
Got to take the residents. >> I can say I can say this from experience. Uh CRAAS typically the residents subsidize a commercial portion of CRAAS.
So in this particular case, I think the residents who have contributed to the their tiff money into the CRA deserves to have that money reinvested in their property. So I think hope hopefully my recommendation would would accomplish that.
>> Okay. So we got a motion by member Drago to so we're moving the 600 to >> contingency >> contingency and then 50,000 from transer to the con to a construction oversight or is that
>> correct? Yeah construction oversight for the resial facade. >> Which 50,000 is this? He's taking it out of the >> Alonzo Williams electric and water because we have 75 >> that was done for the 26 >> and you had the 50 that was carrying
over from your reallocation. So >> it ended up being like umund >> 25,000. So just taking it from the 125 down back down to 75. >> And that was to put the electric that
you can order in case like food trucks. I think we're going to be able to do that for 75,000. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And then where we at with the Duke land acquisition? Where we at with that?
>> We have a motion on the table. I had questions about that, too. >> We'll have to get an update on that where we're at on it. Have we written a contract? Anything of that nature? >> Not that I'm aware. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, we can get an update
on that and then timelines and all that built in as well, please. >> Okay. So, we got a motion by member Drago. >> Sorry, quick question. Okay. >> For the 50,000 for the contractual services, does that need to be a different line item or is it lumped into that?
>> It'll be a different line item. >> Okay. That's I want to clarify. >> I'm just Yeah, it will. >> Thank you. >> It will. >> All right. >> So, Mr. Chair, the motion to adopt resolution 2025-05 includes the amendments. >> Correct. Yes. Yes.
>> Motion by member Drago. >> Second. Second by M member Smith. All those in favor. >> All opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Next up, resolution 2025-06. >> And this is the adoption of the 2526 budget that incorporates that carryover
that we just talked about. And that comes to a total of 6 million 328,123. >> Any questions for Blanch? I move to adopt resolution 2025-06. >> Okay. Any anybody from the public want
to speak first? If not, got a motion by member Drago. >> Second. >> Second by member Velasquez. All those in favor? I. All oppose. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Yep. Okay. Next up, presidential facade repair grant program review and
discussion. >> Finish line as we can be. I'll do a quick refresher. Um, we have provided and in the packet is provided a bunch of documents that enable the program to operate. Um, they include the application, the description of what the
uh grants cover, the grant agreements between uh us and the grant recipient. Also, the payment agreement between us and whatever contractors are used, and they've been modified each time we've been here based on comments that we got from the meetings. um since the time
that we sat here last. Uh we now have happily a new economic development director and CRA executive director and she took a cut at the documents and sent them back to us and we made some additional changes at her request. One of the changes that got made which she
requested or I think wanted us to do but y'all didn't approve and I think probably don't want us to approve is going to the individual picking their own contractor and not having a city approved list. how that came about, and I'm telling you this up front so we get to the questions, is that we don't have
an approved list yet because, as I said in response to her comment, we need to do an RFQ to pick the contractors that would be available and be CRA approved contractors. Um, and so, um, somehow that got changed into you just pick your own contractor, which I know that that
unless something has changed, that's not where this board is. So, I've already instructed, uh, Miss New to make changes back. I think that's the lack of a city approved list or CRA approved list is reflected in the draft in front of you, but it's easily changeable because we saved the prior drafts. So, we'll put
that back in unless I have that wrong. Is is my understanding correct that y'all still want both options? Yes. Okay. So, with that having been settled, the the issue uh that we have, I've got some questions. I'm just going to go through them and ask them because there are things that are board decisions just
like that would be and I want to make sure that we we get those correct. So the first one that I have marked is on one of the uh lists of eligible expenses it talks about fences and walls but doesn't talk about installation costs. So the question is would you want us to
include with the construction of uh or the payment for a fence and wall the installation cost? My presumption would be yes, but I don't want to presume it's not my call, it's your call. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Uh yeah, I talked to an attorney about that. Um if you're going to allow the
removal and replacement of front yard fences, obviously you're going to allow for the installation of front yard fences. Now, I know the city has a code on fence insulations
and um if a current front yard fence is non-conforming is taken down, it can't be put back in non-conforming. It has to conform to the fence regulations. Um, and if I remember reading the fence regulations, it's kind of narrow
relative to front fences. talks about rear fences, side fences, but front fences are narrowly defined and the size of it is narrowly defined. So, uh, that would be up to the resident. If he he or she had a front fence, they
could replace it, but it has to be conforming to the regulations. It's not conforming, they can't put it back according to the regulations. So, I have no problems supporting the installation of new front yard fences as long as it's complied with the code. Sure.
>> And is that the consensus that that's okay? >> Okay. >> Um, and if anybody wants to stop me and have a discussion about any of these, that's fine. I'm just trying to to get to the point so we can move on and try to be timely. Um, >> do you have a tea time? You said >> no, no, no. I have a 6:30 meeting time
at 6:31. Um since we are comm recommending the CRA followed prompt payment act actually I don't think we have a choice in the act is a dispute resolution process that can be run and decided by you as the board or can be cited by the administrator which way do
you want it to be if there's a dispute over payment between us and a contractor do you guys want to be the deciding body or do you want it to be the the the executive director >> I don't but >> I I would give the confidence to the director.
>> Director. >> Okay. Okay. >> Does this uh counselor does this have to do with because you're kind of jumping around here. We talked about the dispute resolution procedure that's >> yes be part of the >> and who who is the decider for the city.
>> Now I I question whether or not there is a procedure in the purchasing policy and everybody did get an answer. Is there a decision? >> There's a statuto procedure. It's a statutory procedure under the prompt payment act. This question is who's going to decide for the city? So the city has a dispute resolution relative prompt payment.
>> Correct. There is a prompt payment the uh dispute resolution in the statute but it doesn't designate who for the city makes the decision from the city side. That's what I'm asking. >> All right. >> So for the CRA portion of it, yeah, I don't have any problem with the EDDD doing it. >> Okay. Um
>> do you want her to do it or do you want city administrator? >> Just tell me though. I don't care. I I I mean I don't >> economic development. >> Okay. She's the one that's following that. >> Overseeing all the projects. >> CL
>> and then is there an I don't know that statute. Is there an appeal process? And if somebody disagrees, I mean, we also want to be careful about putting her in a precarious situation. And you know, so how, you know, she's directly involved in a program, then obviously or more
than likely they're disputing a decision that she made. So you know, how does that work in practice? Should it be somebody a third party other than the economic development director? can be uh how how it works in practice is it would be if if it's somebody you want
indirectly then Mr. William would be the logical choice and from my perspective it there are plenty of times where the people who are involved in the actual underlying decision get to decide the final decision. An example but not unrelated but you'll get the picture is
labor negotiations. You all get to decide what you don't agree in and then if you don't agree through collective bargaining with at the table then you get to be the board that actually hears and makes a final decision in union negotiations about what the contract is going to be like. So that's not unusual in the government space. It's unusual
anywhere else but in the government space that's not unusual. But that is what you want is all I just tell what your preference is. >> I mean up to the board. I just think it would be cleaner not to put, you know, potentially now you have a conflict of interest and then there's the appeal
process and all that good stuff. So >> I can get on board with that as long as it doesn't make Mr. Williams want to shoot me with daggers for putting more work on his plate. >> He wouldn't do that. >> Okay. >> So So that's fine. >> So it'll go to Mrs. Forbes first and then to Mr. Williams. >> Well, primarily because M Forbes would
be the administrator of the program unless you brought in the third contractor. So, if you're coming to get paid and she says you don't have all the right documents or the that you didn't pass inspection or whatever and she says that was bologoney, you know, I should have been passed and I should get my payment. Well, there's a dispute now.
Okay, who's going to resolve the dispute? And it couldn't be, it could be her. I mean, that's okay legally, but it can be Mr. Williams. And that says, okay, I've made my piece. I've said my piece. Now, it goes to someone else who's not me. What do you see in other CRAAS in the state or in the area?
>> This never comes up to be honest with you. There's there's there the inspection process is such that when you run an inspection and somebody doesn't pass, they don't fight over payment. They come fix the issue because it's if it's not passing, it's because your building department says it's not
passing. So, it's really a non-issue, but it's one that I need to make sure I document as properly >> a specific process in place. >> Right. >> I think it would be appropriate for it to after Mrs. Forbes come to this board for final final if they want to appeal it in some capacity. I think that would be appropriate. Whatever y'all want to
do, I just need to know to put it in. >> But I mean, and you're saying it rarely comes up too if if at all. So >> because the contractor just wanted to get paid, they don't want to lawyer up. They want to get So if if John Hansen or somebody from his office comes out and says this failed, you know, you need to
do more or whatever it is, they just do it. And the only way it would become a dispute is if they you misinterpreting the code. >> Sure. >> Yeah. But on the other hand, without knowing what the policy is, most of them have a due process clause. So the
initial reviewer would look at it and say, "The quantities aren't right, etc." And then the contractor goes back and says, "Yeah, you're right. The quantities are wrong. I'll do the multiplication." Or if he or she says, "No, I'm right." Then um and I I guess
the question becomes is the city's had million-dollar contracts like a $42 million contract to expand the wastewater plant. So they typically get disputes relative to payments. So I don't know the policy relative to the
due process. I know that if it ever did get to court, the court would ask that you did you exhaust all your administrative remedies. >> Right. That's accurate. >> All right. So, I don't know what the administrative remedies. It just can't be one person and I wouldn't put that one person in jeopardy uh relative to
the city. So uh if if the person is the the additional screening and there's a dispute after the decision is made not to pay or partial pay, you can partial pay. Uh then uh I think it would behoove
the person to consult yourself who's knowledgeable in this to make sure that whatever procedures are done is to protect the city. uh it is almost certain but whether it's me or someone else who h is at the city attorney at that time that that would happen because it would happen
automatically. Hey, are we okay here? Are we doing it the right way? That's sort of standard. >> Okay. >> So, do we want Mr. Williams? Do we want it bring back here? I just need to know what how to write. >> What's M for what you say?
>> So, my my preference and I'm in agreement with the sentiment and what's being discussed. I do always think it's important to have a second pair of eyes. So, while I will be the primary administrator in the throws of the process, it is important to have someone else to make sure due diligence is done.
So, to board members Williams point, I think it's really important for if someone has an appeal or there is a dispute in some way, then I can present my findings and recommendation to our CEO who can then advise of how he would like us to proceed. That would be my
preference. >> Okay, there we go. >> You got There we go. >> Okay, everybody good with that? >> Yes. >> All right, the next issue is there was no spec specified deadline for the completion of the improvements once they've begun. Uh, Miss Forbes suggested
a one-year deadline. If that's okay with you, we'll leave it that way. If you want a shorter deadline or a longer one, this is what I need to know. How long to get done once they've started the project. >> Fair. >> Yeah, that's a fair. >> Okay. Um
the next one is uh there y'all remember that you decided that they could only uh get grant funding once in 10 years. What was unclear to us is since the grants are total of $30,000. Let's say I come
in and I only need 15 and five years later I want another 15. I'm still under I'm still 30 or less but I'm within the 10-year window. So is the 10ear window for whatever you get. That's all you get or is it 30 max within 10 years? >> 30 max within 10 years.
>> Okay, that's one. Is that where everybody is? >> I just need to know how to write that part. >> Okay, so it's Yeah, it's a total of 30 in that 10 years. >> So if it's even if it's four different grants of whatever a piece, you're okay as long as it doesn't exceed 30 in 10 years. >> And that stays with the property, not the person.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Okay. >> So a person could have 100,000 120,000. >> Okay. Yes. >> Of different houses if they had >> Right. Right. It's by the property >> 30,000 >> in 10 years. >> Yes. Total as opposed to one grant in 10
years >> within a 10 year period >> because there could be three grants of 10,000 each. >> So the 30 is the key, not the 10 years is the key. That's what I'm trying to figure out. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> All right. So the the way we discuss
this, if we give a grant to pro property owner A, property and there's a lean placed on it for repayment. So if property owner A sell to property owner B, >> then they pay it back. >> Then they pay it back and then property owner B is entitled to $30,000 moving
forward for 10 years. uh that's a that's something you could put in here, but it would be the property and it wouldn't matter if it was in the 10 years because they still got the benefit of the improvement. And the way it works is on a sliding scale, if you'll recall, y'all said over five
years. So if if they keep it only one year and then sell in the five-year time frame, then they pay back 80%. If it's in two years, 60 and so on down to zero after five. Uh, and but but the way it's currently structured, unless you want to structure it differently, is it it runs
with the property. There was a grant for that property. Whether regardless of whether it was paid back or not, they got their $30,000 and improvements went into the property. Whether they sold it or not is their issue, not the CRA's issue, unless you want to make it the CRA's issue.
Well, it seems kind of contradictory that if you property owner A gets a grant for 15,000, sells it in a year, the new owner, whatever pays back the city. >> Well, the new owner doesn't pay back the city unless that's what he negotiates or
she negotiates in the contract by which they buy the property. Do you understand? So, if I come in and you you've done the grant and you've done $30,000 improvements and we're in year two. So, technically you would you would have to pay back because you're the seller. You would have to pay back 60,000. So, you can negotiate with me
and say, "Look, I'll knock 60,000 off the purchase price and now it's yours." Okay? I'm not getting any extra benefit. I'm getting the benefit of the $30,000 of improvements that were put in before I got here. The idea of the 30,000 per you guys, but if you want to change it,
it's okay. is we put in $30,000 worth of improvements to make the property better. Presumably, it's better. So, it's not on the critical needs list where some of the others would be. And that's the reason why it follows the property, not the property owner, if
that makes any sense. >> You have something to add? >> Okay, good. All right. >> Okay. Um, the next thing that we provided a definition for, and I just want to make sure you're okay with it, is there was a concern about the contractors being family members. And so
we added a prohibition. And we defined family connection as follows. any spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, cousin, whether by
blood, marriage or adoption, and any individual living in the same household as the grant recipient. All of those people I just mentioned would not be allowed to be a contractor for the work for this grant. If that suits you, we can move on. If it doesn't suit you, we need to talk about how you want it.
>> Very good. Okay. >> All right. Okay. Okay. >> And we can always adjust these down the road as well. Correct. >> Uh yeah, this is your program. >> If we find that, hey, this isn't working or there's sticking point here with our residents. >> Absolutely. It's your program. Um and then the last one is the issue of soft
costs. Now, what is a soft cost? Licenses, permits, uh or soft costs. The question is, do we want them to be included as ed eligible expenses or we just looking for the grant money to be actual physical improvements, hard
costs? So, if you say yes to soft cost, that's what we'll write as eligible. If you say no to soft costs, then we will say excluding permits, licenses, and whatever else is necessary to start the job. The arguments for if you say no to
soft cost, then you may be precluding some people who can't even afford the soft cost. If you say yes to soft cost, then you're taking some away from the overall fix up. If it was a $30,000 fix up, you may only have $25,000 left after soft cost. So
>> I think if we do soft cost, we need to set a percentage the cap. So you can't So someone can't have like 80 soft cost and then 20% of actual improvements. So maybe set like a 10% or some type of percentage uh cap in the soft cost.
>> That's that's a very good way to do it. I just need the percentage. >> So, I don't I would say 10 >> 10% is $3,000 up to $3,000. >> Oh, 10% up to 3,000. Okay, I can do that. Is that Is that good with everybody? >> What we got?
>> So, sorry. >> I was just going to offer that also in the guidelines we do mention about multiple quotes being required. So that would give staff the opportunity to compare the soft cost from one vendor to the next to make sure they are considered reasonable.
>> Okay, >> that is an alternative than putting a percentage of of how much soft cost. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I like the percentage with the with the multiple quotes just just just so that the soft costs don't eat up, >> you know, a fence if you will. So
>> Okay. Do we we still want them not to exceed number of three? Um, >> yeah. Which should be >> Isn't that implied though? >> Isn't that implied? >> No. >> No. Could be substantially larger depending on what >> No, but I'm saying it's 10%. 10%
>> of 30,000, >> right? Oh, >> just 10%. >> It should be 10% of the value of the work. So, if you, it would be implied. You're right. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Good. >> So, 10%. >> Got it.
>> Okay. That >> all I got. Thank you. >> All right. If you're all good with those document changes, I will provide them to Miss Forbes and we're off to the record. >> Counselor. Counselor. >> Counselor. >> Oh, excuse me. >> Okay. So, we had a phone conversation
about the contract, the grant agreement, uh, section two improvement completion deadlines. >> I'm sorry, I could not hear you. >> Improvement completion deadlines. >> Yes, sir. And I made a recommendation to you about including some language that
whatever written instrument is executed by the economic development director or designate to the grant recipient extending the work six months the board should get a copy of that written document. >> Okay. Uh you're right that is an internal control but he did mention it.
So, let me explain it in case it was not clear. What he is asking and I think is a good internal control similar to one we've said uh with Mrs. Bone if she gets some something regarding the challenge to a candidate. She doesn't get decided but she brings it to you to to talk about it. Um what Mr. Grego was
suggesting is that if there's a need for an extension of six months to make you guys aware of the extension through whatever documentation we get so you're it's it's on your radar screen so if another extension comes up you know the reasons for the first one and whether or not you want to get another one because
as it's currently constructed anything over six months has to come to you anyway. Is that did I get it right? >> That's correct. One other thing that's not in here um is in order to have an applesto apples comparison relative to the work, who
develops the scope of services for each one of the components of the work like painting. Who develops the scope of services for painting a house? >> The contractor. >> The contractor. So, in other words, I would leave it up to the and I don't
know who's going to oversee that. I would assume the economic development director would make sure that and counselor you've seen this you know I give you this quote and you come back and all of a sudden there's change orders because oh I forgot to put in caulk you know I forgot to do this I
forgot to do that and so before long you're in the change orders so there has to be I don't know how you write that in the policy other than the uh well the CRA director just needs to look over those proposals relative to the scope of
work and make sure it's satisfactory to the homeowner in that for instance if you if a contractor come in and say I'm going to paint your house well there's different grades of paint so normally when subdivisions are built there's
construct there's contractor grade paint they're not very good >> right >> so you would want the paint job to last more than five years now I live in a subdivision and Mr. Neesa lives lives in one and Mr. Smith and some of those paint some of those houses had to be
painted after two or three years because the quality of paint's not good. So I don't mind spending a 30,000 but I want this 30,000 to at least be spent in such a way that the homeowner receives quality work and that it's somewhat
maintenancefree for a longer period of time. Let me let me explain exactly where I think this leaves us. We initially proposed this program with city CRA only approved contractors and we could impose all kinds of standards.
The board decided to open it up to the ability of homeowners to pick their own contractors not on a CRA approved list. And that's important because the contracts are between the contractor and the homeowner. Whether or not it's a CRA approved contractor or whether it's one
that's just that where the homeowners picked the contractor out, we are not in a position to police the quality of the contractors beyond their licenses. And I suspect that most people here, if not all, know that not all contractors are equal even if they have the equal license. Not just like not all lawyers
are equal, even though we're all members of the bar. It's just not that's just not how it goes. So, it would be almost impossible to go into a private contract between a homeowner and the contractor and say, "Well, we don't like your specs because you're you're specking Sherwin
Williams and it should have been Benjamin Moore or you're specifying a Home Depot brand instead of Sherwin Williams or whatever the case may be when it comes to paint, caulk or other things." So we are kind of unless you decide to wait into it which is going to require some levels of administration we
haven't talked about leaving the scope the materials supplied and all that stuff to the contractor and the homeowner to agree on and also to suffer the consequences of our job from a grant standpoint is to simply say does this
equate to $30,000 worth or 15 or whatever they're asking for and if it passes that test. Beyond that, we we're not warranting, guaranteeing, workmanship, or any of those things because then we want the warranties of the contract to flow not to us, but to
the homeowner. So, if there's a dispute, the homeowner has standing to say you did lousy work. You need to do this as a warranty job or whatever else. So, that's how it's set up. Now, if you want to put specifications, everything has to be a certain grade of paint or whatever,
then we have more work to do. Now that that I understand that, but the other issue would be if the homeowner selects a contractor and the contractor uses products that are not quality
and a homeowner is not happy, doesn't want to pay the contractor, then are we responsible for holding payment until the work is No. >> No. If they pass our inspection per our payment agreement, that's why our inspection is important part of the deal. Then we would authorize the
payment and they have to agree, the contractors have to agree up front, whether they're ours or whether they are picked by the individual homeowner. They will have to sign an agreement that says we're going to pay this much upfront. We're going to pay then we'll pay you 30, 60, 90, and 100% completion. We'll
have 10% retainage and all those terms that are in the payment agreement, which y'all have already seen. So whether it's one that we have prevetted or checked or somebody individual, they're all going to be on the same page as to when they get paid. They have to provide proof that they did the work. It has to pass
inspection, etc., etc., etc. Once those things are done, even if the homeowner isn't happy about it, unless we agree that the work is not up to snuff, we have to issue the payment because that's our agreement. So I think this does bring up a good point though in that there we can maybe
not require but strongly recommend certain levels of product quality. So again, not an absolute requirement has to be this and you but you can say Sheran Williams I need the better not the best not the good I want the better one at least and and pick your across the board they have whatever Benjamin
Moore all that you can match that same quality with nail type with window type I want single hung or double hung I want whatever it may be it needs to be at least this is what we're looking for yeah I think that would be valuable to do I understand that would take a little more time but I do think the point that's being made shouldn't be lost in
that quality should still be there just because we're throwing money out there it should still be of quality and the point is increasing property values within the CRA. So I think doing that with quality materials I think should be part of the conversation providing a list of materials that we might think
are better and I don't know who we get that assistance from. I don't know if you can put that together. Maybe Mr. Hansen would be able to put it together but yeah I don't have a problem with any of that. We can do any way you want. I'm just telling you the practical issues that come up. >> Understood. Absolutely.
Sorry, I keep butting in. Um, so I just want to uh address a couple of points that was that was made um and make sure we're kind of all on the same page. One of the things I think is completely critical for it to be successful is for um it not to be perceived as it's so
convoluted and complicated for the resident that they almost feel intimidated to even um apply for the program. But we also want to protect the CRA and city's interest as well. So yes, the homeowner is the one who gets to choose the scope of what work they want
on their property. But I will tell you and for the board members that I got to speak to individually, I talked about wanting to do what I call the big ticket items. So under eligibility, there is um roof work is something that is eligible as well as windows and doors. And those
things are a huge impact to a home particularly as we are in hurricane season. Although I feel like we're always in hurricane season or coming out of it. That's really important to a homeowner because it could also help lower their property insurance rate. So, those big ticket items are the ones that I am really planning to promote because
how else can you get such a substantial improvement and grant assistance to do that? Paint is nice. Um, and that's something that we can we can look at. But what we are encouraging is those larger, more substantial home renovation
projects like the ro new roofs and new um windows and and new doors. And those things require permitting that goes with it. They require inspections that go with it. So that'll be our um safety net for lack of a better word to make sure both the homeowner is protected as well
as as well as the city. Um, and then also I've been speaking um with the attorney's office about a um a form of an owner acknowledgement um authorization. That's something the owner says, "Yes, the work was done to my satisfaction. I am I am happy with
it." So that then we can proceed um with payment. So that's something that we're meeting about this week to figure out what that language looks like. >> I appreciate that. I think paint though is important. That's a low hanging fruit that's easy to make big changes long term. And I think that's part of what a CRA and uh what the goals are here.
Specifically in speaking to kind of not convoluting on page seven of the actual grant agreement itself, it goes into um auditing and that the CRA and the city shall have access to and the right to audit um certain items from the grant
recipient to the homeowner. And it goes into saying that the um grant recipient must keep all financial records in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles or GAP for a lay person that is meaningless.
You're correct. Um I I we can we can make it simpler. It that is good legal ease to protect me and you. But if you're asking me, do I think most homeowners would understand it? I don't think so. Neither do I think they will understand how to avoid the impacts of the lean law. One of the reasons we we
really were trying to push for having CRA approved contractors is for that exact reason that we would a have contractors who understand the standards we expect, b understand that we're not going to give them anything. And that's why we've included this language as
applied to even the personally selected contractors about lean releases and final waiverss of lean and contractors all the stuff that's required to avoid the homeowner getting lean. But at the end of the day, if you're going to have private contractors chosen by the individuals as opposed to our prevetted
list where we've looked at their work, seen their references, and whatever else, then to some degree, it's we cross our fingers and hope that they picked a good one because that's all we can do. But I can take out the gap language. No problem. Yeah, I think that again unless you're going to provide exactly we need
to see it in this format and with these numbers and exactly in the way that we want to see it which I'm fine with but it's like either or either give the exact kind of understanding of what receipts need to look like whatever it may be timelines or take that out. >> Yeah, we can do that. It's not a problem. >> I think that that I definitely
understand the issue that's more of a belt and suspenders thing from a legal perspective than it is one that would be understood by homeowners. I get that. >> Yes. But on the other hand, Um going uh with Mr. Neesa, the the
recipient could easily give the city copies of invoices uh satisfaction of leans so that the city has a record of it after property owner leaves and property owner B takes over. >> That's part of the pay process. They have to provide those documents to get
paid. >> Okay. Uh the other thing um in St. Cloud, did you have historical structures? >> Yes. >> So they're on the National Register? >> Yes. >> Okay. So we have six here.
>> Mhm. So, this grant program would accommodate those historical structures, which requires a little more attention to detail relative to them not coming in, taking out a certain window type, and putting in a different window type. >> Correct?
>> You're the authority having jurisdiction. So, don't be afraid to say no. >> Yes. So, not >> Yes. You're going to say yes or no. >> No. No. No. So, not to get into weeds. However, every property once they submit an application So, every application that comes in, the
scope will be reviewed and that scope needs to go through uh our development review process to determine whether or not there is any permitting um or additional um review that's required. We will do that before we even make a determination of the award. The reason
being is that if we say yes, you are approved for this award for this amount, that clock starts ticking, whether it's a year or whatever, and now that applicant may be concerned of, well, wait, I'm going to run out of these funds if I don't hurry up and get whatever permit is required. So, we as
staff will take it upon ourselves and do that review beforehand to determine what the permitting process looks like, including historical structures, before we will issue any form of award. That doesn't mean they will disqualify. That just means we'll hold off on the review until first they do the development
review. >> So, if the building department got a per a permit to demo a historical structure, would you see that permit application? >> If the building department got a demo what? >> Got a demolition permit to to demo and
historical structure in the CRA. Would you get to see that permit application? >> So, that's not part of this program. The question is, you're in charge of the CRA, right? The six structures. >> My conversation with the building
official that if it's done right, the demolition permit could be approved. So, the question becomes to you, will you be able to see those permits and take some give some guidance relative to why that structure needs to be
needs to be demolished. I think that's part of a relationship that I'm growing to build with our building official in hopes that when those type of permits applications come through, then I'll be notified. But honestly, if I am fully embedded into the CRA, then I should
know about them before they even hit that process. >> You hope? >> I do. >> Okay. Anything else? Uh just for the on the application, can we just add, you know, is this property located in a historical district or designated on the
um registry? >> Sure, we can. >> And then that way it's a check. >> Sure, we can. The the only reason I'm I'm back here shaking my head, no, is because they don't have to go through the CRA department to get a demo. >> No, not not for that process. I meant
with with respect to this application application. if they're coming to us for a >> grant. I think that's a different process. >> But I just want to make sure I get the broader question, which is >> if someone comes in, applies for a demo permit, it never gets to CRA. It only gets to John Hansen or somebody who's
his designate. And the only way that won't happen before we even get any questions about grants is if the six properties that you're talking about are identified to the building official so he can raise a red flag, which will be the simplest way to do it. So if we have those addresses, provide them to Mr.
Hansen. That way they'll be on his radar screen. But short of that, there's no guarantee. >> Okay. >> All right. We all good. I think we're gonna I don't know. You hadn't been writing this down. I just I think we really need to go back through the changes that we made
that you've made that we've agreed to as we right as as a part of the motion. So, I don't know if you can because I had them on my phone as prompts. I I got the answers, but I also have the ability to go to the clerk and say, "Pull that tape." Okay. >> Which I will do. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I would recommend that the attorney go back do his word smithing or as he understood what we said and uh you know within the next meeting or within a month we
could have another meeting CRA. He gives clean documentation, explain all the changes that he understood, we asked for. We agreed to it, >> then we can approve the documents and uh >> well that >> the problem is we're trying to get the money out. So that's that's that's the
reason I >> have to do what now? >> We're trying to get the money out now >> and we need that to be able to get the money out. So we're well, my understanding from the trustee, no money can be spent on that facade program until October 1st when you adopt the budget. >> Yeah. We we've got money in there. Now,
>> if you like, I can tell you the the summation that I took notes on. >> I mean, and then we'll have just maybe there might be some scriptors error, but I think yeah, if you you want I just think we need to have we made a lot of changes, but we've got we need to we need >> that material where we can't launch it.
>> So, >> so I have that um both the owner can choose its own contractor as well as the CRA can provide a pre-approved list. The installation of a fence must be conforming with code. Any disputes will
be reviewed by the executive, excuse me, the EDDD is and solved by the uh CEO. The not to exceed amount of $30,000 is in its totality within 10-year period for the same property. Up to 10% soft
costs are allowed and considered eligible. The board must be notified of extension approvals and remove the term GAP GAP general accepting accounting principles language from section 11 of the audit. >> Okay. And and and the recipient needs to
give the decision copies of all lean uh leans for uh leans copies of invoices. So you have a copy of the documentation in case a property changes hand and they question you say I have the copy of the invoice.
>> That's part of the payment. >> That's part of the Well, that's wasn't clear. >> Yeah. As I mentioned, everything you ask for is part of the the documentation required to get payment, the lean releases, all of that stuff. The invoices, all of that.
>> Well, I was talking about the copies of the document given to the city. >> Yes. Those are those are that you you bring those to the city to get paid. So >> yes. All right. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And and let me So we already have CRA contractors, correct? >> We don't. That's one of the things that I had mentioned to uh I think Miss
Forbes, but also to you guys. Unless y'all have a list you want me to use, I don't know who to put on the list because she was asking, well, who where's the list? Unless you have a list already, which maybe you do, it would have to be an RFQ that says, "Here's what we're looking for." If you're interested in being on the list of
contractors >> that are preferred if you want. So, we're talking about rolling this program out. How long is it going to take you to come up with the list? >> But don't we have a list of contractors? >> That's a purchasing name. Has nothing to do with >> But we already have a list already. We >> already got four, Bradley. >> Uh, we have a list of general
contractors for city property projects. city properties. Now, we can't >> you can't use those. >> You can reach out to those. We can give you the list, but they would have to contract with them directly. >> Yeah. >> Because the contract that we have with them is just for city property.
>> So, essentially, you'd be a private contractor for that resident. It wouldn't be a city. >> We vetted them and they qualified in basically if you want to use them. So, we can share that list. So we can share that list as vetted with them with the homeowners, but they would then enter into their personal
>> separate contract list. >> Technically, we do have >> we do have >> we do have a list right there for that purpose purpose. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Public comment. We do it alphabetically. Rod Olsson, as a taxpayer, I'm more comfortable with any disputes coming
before this agency, not any one person. This is a new program. It's a lot of money. It should come before you as a group, not any one individual. >> Um, just a general question. Is there items that's ineligible for the resident to do? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's going to be specifically
spelled out. Yes. >> All right. Thanks. >> Anybody else? This whole program I came in on the tail end, so I ain't going to speak on a lot of things, but I would like to see transparency uh throughout. And I noticed that uh the city attorney keep talking about our vetted contractors
that we have that we don't prevett it, but still we paying $180,000 to remodel uh 1,200 square foot home. So it don't add up. You know, we're still talking about auditing people and we still can't
get audit here for hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, I would like to have complete visibility of this and then when it comes out, like we say, the water bill is a perfect way to advertise and put this out to the community because everybody gets a water bill so everybody know that it's out there.
Thank you. the um contractors um if they're just city contractors that have done it and they're used to do their commercial contractors. Um residential contractors are different and some of your commercial contractors
will not do residential work. They might do the commercial um options, but they're not going to want to do many of them will not do residential work. And so, you're going to need a list of contractors that will
do residential work. So, you'll need to put a request out um for people uh contractors that are residential contractors. Anybody else? as a licensed CPA for the last 39 years.
Great call taking out GAP for a private resident. It just doesn't make sense. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Not. We'll close the public hearing and look for a motion to approve. >> Well, can we discuss the going? >> Sure. having the um
contractor or I guess resident should it not go to or Mrs. Forbes gives an answer that they don't like, it needs to come back to somebody. I think it should come back to this board so that we can have oversight of what's going on and they can
uh state their case so to speak to the board so we can all look at it individually and understand kind of the case that's being presented versus one individual to another one individual. I think it would behoove us to do that properly to ensure that the process is correct and if we need to adjust
anything then we as a board can then adjust it because we'll understand firsthand what the issues are with any issues that come up. >> My my problem is that then we've got to we have to have how many special CRA board meetings to I mean I don't know
maybe we don't have any. I mean I I would suggest we >> the attorney said they're rare if at all. So I think to have that back stop of what we may have one for the next 10 years I think is worth taking the time for us to do it
>> or maybe it's tiered where it goes from the from Mrs. Forbes to Mr. Williams and then if there's still no resolution >> or that final stop. Yes, >> I think that's a good idea. I'm definitely okay with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Got a motion with that one additional
requirement and looking for a motion. >> So move a motion by member Drago, second by member Velasquez. All those in favor? All opposed? Motion carries unan. All right, we'll take a fivem minute break. We'll be right back.