Okay, today's date is Monday, April 27th, 2026. It is now 300 p.m. We will go ahead and call this meeting for the Community Redevelopment Agency to order. Um, if you will please stand and we'll have the invocation and pledge.
Father, we thank you for this day and all your many blessings. Lord, we pray dear Lord that your presence will be with us tonight, Father, as we carry out the business of this city and try and do what's best, Lord, for our citizens and what's your will, Father. We ask these
things in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> 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. Um, we'll go ahead and move to the consent agenda. And we would entertain a motion for to approve the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion amongst the board audience? All right. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> All oppose? None. Okay, passes four to zero. I failed to advise earlier, but we do have a quorum. We have four council
members present. All right, we'll move on to the regular agenda and um move to 3C1, our executive director. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on. Hold on just a second. Uh we need to get a motion to approve the agenda as written.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right, motion passes four to zero and now we'll move on to 3C1 city man or Mr. Executive Director, excuse me.
>> Thank you, chairman. Uh board attached is revisions to the bylaws. Uh those revisions are highlighted in yellow and then strike through and underline. Um I sent this to Mr. Atinson. He had two comments. I
included those comments in here as well. Again, these are some pretty pretty um basic changes to kind of conform with the new board layout uh and to update spending thresholds in accordance with city policy. And so ultimately I know Mr. Atinson's on the phone if he has any
comments on anything that may need to be changed that I didn't include, but other than that, we'll just ask for approval of the revisions provided. >> Okay. Um Mr. Harrison, >> question. Um,
I got thinking about the uh article 3 uh.4 >> about compensation and my concern is this. We signed up to be the CRA
board and and that is until sunset. So my concern is will this serve as a deterrent for future candidates for city council having to do city council and CRA. So
just something that um you know I was I was kind of kind of concerned about I'm not concerned about me financially you know anything like that. That's not what this is about. It's just about, you know, what if I were thinking about running for city council and I knew that I had to be on the city council and the
CRA board, I probably would have thought harder about running, you know, you see, and so I I don't want it to create a problem uh down the road. So, um I was just I called Clay about this earlier
and and asked if since we are because the bylaw says there's no compensation for board members. However, we serve as city council members and we are compensated. So my question to him was since we're compensated city council
members and also now serve as CRA commissioners, could that be construed as we are being compensated? I would think not, but I would u have anything Clay, do you want
to speak up on this? I I'll chime in. Yes, sir. I'll chime in on that. I did talk to Councilman Harrison about that and no, I don't believe it would be a violation of the compensation language of the bylaws, but what I did propose to Mr. Harrison. Um, as that you do have an
item coming up next on your agenda that talks about cost share, administrative fees, things of that nature, there may well come a time where a portion of the city council members compensation um is deemed to be eligible or lawfully paid out of CRA trust. Um, that's
something we will need to look into. But if that's the case, um it's still going to be something you go through the charter process for your own salaries and it's then a cost share back from the CRA to the general fund. But to make sure that part is culture when he raised
that and I know that's not the issue he specifically raised it occurred to me that it is worthwhile for us to add a that section with the following language being inserted if the council is agreeable that would basically read it
that however this section shall not apply to council's compensation that is payable as a city council member under the city charter or any reimbursements
made to the city for cost sharing between the agency and the city. So, I have that language. I can provide it to Mr. Townson later this evening. If the board wishes to adopt the bylaws with that express language I just read into the record, you can do so. And that
would resolve um while I don't believe it's an issue that would resolve Councilman Harrison's comment as well and would allow the most flexibility moving forward on those issues. >> Well, that would allow whether whether we address it or some future council address it at least that change in the
bylaws would allow them to do so. And I would think that um even what we've spoken about in the past, whereas when it comes to the CRA meetings, we are CRA commissioners. It's only the CRA business resides at this board and doesn't cross over when we go into our
city council meetings as council members. It is keeping that clean and separate so that um those those lines don't cross basically at any time either. >> Right. >> Mr. Verbon. So, and this may be a little more of a question for Clay, but what
would be the the kind of interplay between if a future council, whether it's CRA or city council, said we we should be compensated for our time as a CRA member, commissioner, whatever we want to be called, does that is that
treated separately from our salary that is regulated by the charter if if we were to enact? >> I do not I do not believe it is. I I will I will tell you what I told Councilman Harrison. I've not sat down and looked at this in great detail to
see how other cities do it. And frankly, I don't know that I'm going to spend a whole lot of time trying to ascertain that because our charter is very specific about council member compensation and how it can be increased and under the time frames. Because of
that, it is my advice that we would not pay city council members serving as CRA members a separate compensation. I believe we would likely be violating a number of issues if we did that. Uh so
my view of it would be if in the future the council voted to increase the respective salaries for the city council across the board and obviously the charter says that goes into effect at the next election for those seats so
nobody can get an incycle pay increase or endterm pay increase. that that's what you would do if you feel like you need to adjust that uh to not be a deterrent to the average citizen becoming a council member because they're now taking on more
responsibility and more meetings. Do it as part of the council member salary. Allow the city manager to address what a cost share allocation of that would be out of the CRA trust fund to cover any of that time to the extent we can justify it legally of course and we
would handle it that way. I just think we should never be in a position where we're trying to pay two separate checks out, especially not when the CRA has been a non-compensated entity and there are certain restrictions on compensation anyway that we get into when you're
already an elected official. So, I would make it all about the council salary. If that ever does go up and we want to pay a portion of that out of the CRA funds rather than the general fund, it's basically moving the money from one account into another back into another.
So we can figure out how to make that happen if that's what you ever want to do. But I would definitely make it about a council salary, not a CRA salary. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Clay. How would you handle it if a oncoming council member did not want to be a member of the CRA? They just not
show up for the meetings. The attorney general has made it very clear that when the CRF8 is constituted as the board of the city council, the city council's action to the adoption of the resolution that appoints itself to the board binds all
members to be on the CR. And the implication from that opinion, and mind you, I've never seen where this has actually been tested or pushed. The implication very strongly from that opinion is that if you're refused to
serve in that capacity, you are engaging in a non-performance of your elected duties as a city council member and at that point in time, your qualification to hold office may be impeached. >> So the short answer is that resolution
means once you're elected to the city council, you're also on the CRA. There's no way out from that. That's been a question presented to AG. So obviously you're not the only person to think about it, but I can't see where anybody's ever actually pushed that to the actual hearing. >> Okay,
Mr. C, you got anything? >> No. >> Anything further? >> I'll make a motion to adopt the bylaw changes with the addition uh of the wording that was provided by council on the phone. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any
further conversation from the dis? >> Is there anything on these bylaw changes that the public has had is the public been made privy to all these changes? All the bylaw changes.
>> Okay, >> that's all I needed. >> That's all he's got. Any Mr. Harrison? >> Yes. One one more question. the annual report that it mentions in the bylaws is is that the annual financial report is what it's referring to. >> Uh no, so there's there's two separate ones. So um under section, let me go
back here. So under article four fiscal management, you have section five which is audit which is what we do with purpose gray CR has a separate financial audit from the city uh which encumbrances a financial report to be submitted as well. But the annual report you see here number four is uh reference
to state statute. Um it's a simple we we've done it for this fiscal for the prior fiscal year and we have to do it and it just talks about the redevelopment plan the the goals of the de the redevelopment agency um the progress made toward those redevelopment goals. So it is it's separate separate
distinct from the fiscal from the financial report has to be filed with the state. >> Gotcha. >> Thank you. >> Clay did you have something to add? I know you. >> Oh, I I muted because I was going to add in that there are two separately required reports that we have to have.
The annual financial report is what has to be provided as part of our audit standard. The annual report is a separate and distinct document that is part of your CRA M. >> Okay. >> Any further conversation from DIS from the public?
All right. We have a motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes 4 to 0 C2. >> Chairman, uh Wall asked to bring back that share cost with the city for
services rendered or functions therein helped with the trust fund. And so I I've looked at that um looked at the different departments that have a role in um the CRA and the trust fund. Again, majority of these functions happen simultaneously with with city staff's
already day-to-day operations. It's not adding anything new. It already occurs. Um, and so looking at that, uh, taking the, uh, cost, total cost to employee of those individuals associated with this, I came up with a fee of $40,676.65
for this fiscal year. And then there would be an annual fee uh, every year subject to increases that the city sees from personnel related cost. So, we would come back, we'd budget that every year. We would receive that updated number from the city and bring that budget that forward for those for those
uh functions you see listed above. And again, these aren't all-encompassing if I go back and look, but they they're going to cover 99% of what what occurs that city staff is doing for the trust fund. >> So, you're seeking a motion for approval? >> I am. Ma'am, I'm seeking for a motion
approval of that annual fee. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any comment from the dis comment from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40.
>> Uh C. >> Chair, I will I do want to add one comment that you adopted that. We will work with the city auditor that is also CRA auditor on making sure that that is tracked correctly on an annual basis to make sure we have lawful compliance. I
would go ahead and give everybody the admonition that typically when we get into call shares of this nature, do not be surprised if in the first year or two you see comments in the audit about this. Doesn't mean it's going to be a
finding. Doesn't mean it's going to be something that's a bad thing. But because it's starting, one of the things we see with other governmental agencies, I'll use the TC as the best example, is it is a scenario where those questions often are raised to ask how often has it
been reviewed? Was there any independent factchecking done back and forth between the agency and the city council to verify the actual amounts of time consumed? Again, I'm saying that not because it's wrong. It can be done
wrong, of course, but I just want everybody to know that upfront that if all of a sudden this pops up as a finding in one or both audits or a comment, not a finding perhaps, that's not that there's anything wrong. It's just that that's something we're going to be monitoring and managing moving
forward. It's a prudent way of managing everybody's finances. But I can assure you this the exact type of issue the auditor and the inspector general here were looking at us would be looking at to make sure we're done correctly from a compliance standpoint. So nobody panic
if you see that in the future. It's simply a function of we're about to start doing something new and we want to make sure we're doing it right and that's why you do have authors. So just that let me comment on that at the outset rather than comment on why did you tell us back when we were talking
about it we might see it. Thank you, sir. >> And I have had uh some conversations with the auditors so they're aware we're going to start doing this. So we'll do exactly what Mr. Atinson said and work with them, make sure they got information, but they're they're aware this is coming. So >> thank you, sir. All right. 3C3
chairman. Um this the financial bond. So uh you all recall the CRA uh went out uh for solicitation, found a bank to provide a bond to the CRA. That bond was ultimately presented to the city council and denied. Um I received some correspondence from uh Mr. Jeremy with
PFM who's our financial adviser. Uh he's been the one coordinating with the bank PNC uh back and forth. And so ultimately uh the bank is looking for you know direction from the CRA board on what what are we going to do? Uh obviously the council denied it but that this did not generate in city council. This
generated with the community redevelopment agency. So therefore you need to make we need to make the decision uh are we going to go after it again? Are we going to step back for now uh and then look at this at a later date? that that's to be determined later, but the bank just needs to know what the board wants to do. Um, like we talked about, I tell you that there you
you will probably expect an invoice to come. If you were to move forward with the bond, there are costs associated with this development that would have been wrapped into the financing of that bond. But since if we don't move forward with it, uh, then you can probably expect to receive an invoice. I can't tell you what that is at the moment. Don't have it. Uh it's just when you
look over that initial agreement between the bank provided the CRA, there are costs that have been incurred by the bank and most like a PFM in getting all this together and developing it. So just something to be mindful that's going to come. I just don't know what that is yet until we we give the bank our decision and they can tell us what that number is.
>> Okay. Sir, are you looking for just staff direction or >> I got a feeling Mr. Atkins is going to want want the board to make formal direction on what it is we're going to do >> because we did solicit it. It was a formal process went through with PNC Bank. So I'll let him tell us kind of
what it is exactly we may need. >> Mr. Atinson, >> I think at this point the discuss first off we need discussion is one of those odd situations. We're going to take that before a motion. I think the CRA board which is now you
need that discussion. Is this something that you want to move forward with? Is it something you want to terminate? Um so start with that discussion and based on what the discussion CRA board ends up having um that's where we will then craft the motion. Um but yes, we owe the
bank some response. You're definitely going to be on the hook for any fees incurred um up through this point with BFM. I can't speak for bond counsel because I'm not at this hearing about that. Although typically there is something new if you choose to terminate
at least on the bond council side if not on mine. Um and then certainly on the bank side because they were awarded the competitive procurement to issue this. Um and the CRA is the one who now is being called upon to either try to put
it back before the city council or to otherwise vote it back. So just have that conversation and whatever y'all say, I'll help structure the motion. Mr. Kosen, >> are we ready to uh make a suggestion or a motion?
>> Yes, sir. >> I'd like to make a motion that we terminate going forward with the bond and um pay what we owe the bank. >> Got a motion. Do we have a second?
>> I'll second for discussion. We have motion and a second. Uh, any conversation regards? Mr. Beerbomb, >> I I I certainly agree that I think we don't need to move forward at this this moment, but I still think ultimately if
we're going to try to accomplish the projects that we, from what I have recall, we are in somewhat of an agreement on, we're going to need the bond for those those projects. So for me, it's more of a question of is
it correct for us to just cancel it and then regroup and rep prioritize the projects that we want to see put into a bond and then go back out? Or is it more appropriate for us to just simply say we're going to delay this 90 days,
rep prioritize the projects we want to see included into the bond, get a new number for what that bond number would be, for example, the alleyway, and then modify it so that we we don't completely kill the pro, you know, the the bond issuance, but we maybe extend it. I
don't I don't that's my my thoughts. What's the best course of action here? because I do think that there are projects that as a as a CRA board, we've all expressed that we want to see come to fruition. >> I think um >> Mr. Cos,
>> we've all agreed that the alleyways probably on the top of the priority list, >> right? >> And we haven't given Liberty Partners or any other grant opportunities a chance to come in yet. Um,
I have a have a problem with getting in debt when we're already in debt. And if we get a $5 million bond, I think the interest rate on that is like a million dollars. And the city, last I checked, was 13 million in debt,
and this would put us at 18 million in debt. Um, >> but it won't that that you you keep saying that, but that's not a fair characterization of of the debt. Sorry. >> No, you're you're okay. Um, I Mr. Atinson, would you like to revisit that
again? >> I I honestly don't know that it's necessary to revisit it again, but I will, and I'll be very brief. The city's debt obligations are wholly separate from the CRA. the CRA debt obligation by statute do not attach to
the city even if the city council approved the CRA bond which is just statuto function the simple reality is the CRA trust fund would be the one on the hook for paying it not the city council and and yes I do understand Mr.
Joseph's point that the CRA trust fund is funded out of a carve out of appalorum dollars. So I'm aware of the logistics on both end, but from a purely legal and financial perspective that the city that obligation
is 13 million and unless the city council borrows more money as the city itself, not CRA, that number remains the same. the CR taking out $1 or $100 million that obligation solely that of the community redevelopment agency as a
private section. >> Uh Mr. Atson, can can I ask you one other question while I got you there? So with with what u Mr. bear bombs proposed if we were to take back up on council again for another we want to go out to
bond for these other projects will we have to go out for bid then or what's the best course of action given what we've got now because I I assume that's based off the list of priorities that we've already presented to them so if that changes would it be better to go back out for um bond counsel again or
would it be to leave this open >> well you already have couns ways away. You're not going to competitively bid the attorney service, PFM service. It's only the financial institutions that bid the rates. So, just so you understand, when we bid this, we're not bidding it
for, you know, RFQ, so to speak. What we're doing is we're asking banks to bid a term sheet of what the loan would look like, the interest rate, the repayment terms, prepayment penalties, and a variety of other financial
institution requirements. you then select which one best fits the goal. Let's say you have an entity we best weed best fit the goal. Candidly, I think you're going to have to go back out either way. One, I don't see this
body moving forward in the next uh 60 days, one way or the other or 90 days. The bank's not going to hold open forever. That's just one simple fact of it. Well, the other part of it is it's abundantly clear to me from all of your
conversations and the actions of the CRA at its last board meeting that there is not an intention to fund the same project that the banks were initially advised were part of this funding. That may be a material altercation of the RFP
we issued. And because of that, it may well be that we have no choice but to go back out. So at this point in time, if the desire is to look at doing this in the future, we'll look at doing it in the future and we'll just issue new debt service procurement instrumentation to
see what banks can give us at that balance. Um the only reason to stay right now would be if we think we're going to actually h some of this banking that is a narrowing of the scope of what they've already did which the alleyway by itself would constitute but then we would be doing it in the very near term
not six months from now. >> So we just need to let them know that we're we're no longer at this point in time we're not interested in moving forward with the bond. Uh I I would I would ask for a motion to cancel the award um of that procurement and to
discontinue um this specific debt issuance. >> Would you like to modify your motion to to that language? >> Yes, sir. >> Would you like to modify your second, Mr. Harrison? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we have modified the motion in the second. Um everybody, any further
conversation from the Das, Mr. Harrison? Yeah, just just to be on record of saying, you know, I'm I'm not opposed to the bond. I think we just have some decisions to make as to we we I think we sounds like we're pretty much in agreement with the project. Um the costs
are what's up in the air and then what confused things before was the huge cost of the amphitheater and what have you and that created a lot of reservations about the total amount to get both projects done. So this this council see, you know, seems ready to to move forward
with this and I think it's best to take a pause at this point um and do just exactly what Clay suggested there. >> Further comp conversation from the DOS we have a motion in a second. Any conversation from the public?
>> None. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes four to zero. Move on to 3C4. >> Chairman. 3C4. Uh dog park design
update. So, uh commissioners, you know, we had our our special meeting about all the projects. The question came about the dog park. That was one we were sent back to get more information particularly concerning storm water, right? There was the conversation about the storm water design portion of the
project. And so, uh spoke further with Anker who's doing the design work. Spoke further with Mr. Wallace the community development director and ultimately the way the city's land development code is written currently a project of this nature and category would require that stormwater design to be conducted
because of impervious services and things being altered with again in a current LDC. So given that um and that is the engineers opinion based on our code and speak with Mr. pause um you really have you know you really have two options and then there's the bigger question associated uh one is to either
continue design and finish it out or to stop design where it is with the understanding if we were to come back in the future and pick this project up to do it we would need to complete it then um I think anchor based off their our conversation about $11,000 left in that task order with the bulk of that being
the stormwater work to be conducted. Um, so those are really the two options and the biggest one is if if this board wants to continue uh with a dog park or not. So if your answer is no, you know, we have different priorities, then you probably answered your question to the to the design and vice versa. If you
decide it is, then you probably answered your question there as well. So ultimately looking for direction on how you'd like to proceed um with the with the dog park. >> Mr. revol what are the options in terms of scaling this back and starting with something a
little more digestible say just simply a fence and implement that see what the usage is and then at that point we can look at you know parking improvements or uh bathroom
improvements and and kind of take this more of a phased approach instead of trying to bite this all off and it being, you know, $410,000 plus the storm water design, which I can imagine on that hill right there is going to be substantial, you know, could probably even double the cost of the project just
in storm water design. So, if we if we just simply elect to do a fenced in area and designated as a dog park, does that then require storm water and can we just do that, you know, just do a fence for $20,000?
Uh, I mean that would be uh I guess that's a I mean ultimately I think if we were to scale it back I think the parking I think the reason for the parking was to uh and pick that area was ADA um to make sure that we were ADA uh acceptable especially walking into it because there's parking but there's not
a curb cut out. There's not a sidewalk would lead to the entrance of what would be the park. Um so I think we're going to pair it down. The first like your first layer would be appropriate parking there. um your fence water sitting. But I you know again based off the
conversation engineer even those particular things particularly the parking um because of the impervious surface changes in the fence it was going to require stormwater design but I like we talked about I don't know what the storm water would cost in terms of construction until we actually did the design. That was the that's kind of the hangup.
>> Yeah. I I just wonder if we couldn't just count this parking lot here >> Mhm. >> as as the parking lot and and position it in such a way that there could be minor modifications done to address, you know, whatever ADA needs to be done, you know, with a curb cut on that the back
side of the parking lot right over here >> and just be smart about it versus treating it as its own kind of standalone entity that's then going to incur the the storm water stuff. Is there a way we can be smart about this?
>> Yeah, Mr. Kosk, >> at a previous meeting um recently, I believe Miss Kim Winterberg was she was taken a back at the cost of this $400,000. And she said uh that is this
is not what she had in mind. She said uh I think we could actually get it for somewhere around 36,000. and she said, "If you'd give me some time, I can get you some harder numbers and look at it this way." And so, uh,
step back from going forward with the 400,000 and let's see what Miss Miss Winterberg brings back and, uh, to delay the storm water, uh, until we are 100% we want to go forward.
Does that make sense, >> Mr. Harrison? the the parking, you know, the north end of the police department parking right off the street, you know, is like even with that fenced uh storage section back there could that possibly
it's probably not ADA on to where the gate would be for the dog park, but there might be >> Yeah. Not current >> short extension or something, >> but I think is the was the initial idea was on the end there on the north side of that parking lot. Um, >> I think I think the numbers Miss Winterberg was referencing to in the
third is the fence. That was kind of that hard number we had received >> about a year year and a half ago now probably um to fence it in a certain way. Um, so again, we can go back and look and see about, you know, what if we already have the parking lot here, what
are some some minor changes to be made that may not require um those those impervious surface pro improvements. Um, and we can do that. That was fine. Yeah, Mr. Co. >> and kind of the idea you had about using
the parking lot. Um, that would be a significant savings and having a a curb cut out for handicap access. And since this is a public building and public property, they would have access to bathrooms. So, we wouldn't have to worry
about bathrooms >> between during business hours. Yeah. >> During business hours. Yes. Yeah. Okay. >> So, um, are you looking for a motion at this point, Mr. Towns? >> I mean, I think we're just looking for direction. It seems like we might want to take another stab at this and look at
it from a different angle if that's what I'm picking up. >> I'll have to I'll have to, you know, communicate with anchor on what that may look like as a change order to the task order or if what they have, we have the ability to work around some of that. So, let me communicate with them. We'll talk about it, tell them what kind of the board is looking to see and then we'll bring it back.
>> Okay. Everybody's comfortable with that. >> We are. >> So, we're not Mr. Co. >> We're not terminating um we're terminating the $400,000 dog park is and we're stepping back. Uh so,
should we go ahead and uh pay anchor for what we owe him? >> So, the invoices are up to date. What she was saying was if because they paused when the board uh changed, they pause work. She was saying that on the task order there's about $11,000 left in the approved task order. The bulk of
that work was going to go toward a stormwater design. So I don't think any more cost has been incurred on that. They've been on hold. Um so I would communicate with her, talk to her about what the board would like to see move forward and see if that's maybe we change just we can just change the scope of the existing task order uh with the with the remaining amount of money in
there. Again, we'll come to you before we spend any more money. I think I think I think we're not in a big rush. We got to spend any money point. >> We'll bring it back at public comment. I don't think we're going to have a motion on it at this point and then that way you can talk about it then. Thank you, ma'am.
>> All right, we can move on to 3C5. >> Okay, that's the uh so yes sir, the uh our May 25th meeting is on Memorial Day. The city is closed. Um I know that at the next city council meeting the city council will be determining their their course of action. Um, so ultimately, you
know, we're going to see about if we need to reschedule a council. It may be more prudent to let let's see what city council does at their meeting and then um, of course, we we won't have a meeting between then. So myself and the chairman can work together on uh, if that if that meeting is necessary and when we may have if everybody's comfortable with that, Mr. Co.
>> Good. All right. We're good with that. >> Number six, uh, discussion uh, on the start time and date to regular meetings. So, Commissioner Heins, she had brought this up last meeting asked that I have that just the ask of it um ultimately of the start time and date. Again, this board established that that our first
meeting um that the times be at 3:00 on the second Monday of the month before the regularly scheduled city council meeting. So, it's ultimately up to all of you um when you would like to hold those meetings and when. Um so, again, she asked that I I present that to you since you could not be here. So, that's
what I'm presenting. Anybody want I mean I've got a comment on it but does anybody else want to talk about it Mr. Coach? >> So that would mean another day for a meeting instead of doing it back to back. >> Yes sir.
>> I know for me personally this works out best and and I think for staff as well because we don't have to worry about any overtime or flex if they're if their salary um we can go ahead and knock them out at the same time. As far as the time of day, uh that's not something new for
this area. The board of county commissioners carries on several meetings during the daytime. Um and it's never been questioned. Um for years, we've always allowed for public engagement at these meetings and and the other ones. So I for me personally, I'd
rather stay with what we've got now if everybody else is in agreement. >> Mr. Harrison, you got any thoughts? >> Yeah. Well, there's so many other meetings, you know, that we all attend and committees and boards we're serving on and what have you. So, it's it's
tough to find another day that just that always works. Um, so I I kind of agree with you. I haven't really given that a whole lot of thought, but I know the other days are they're they're >> our weeks fill up very quickly. Um,
so the Monday, I mean, it it makes for a long day, but that's okay. And this is only one day out of the month as well. So it's >> all right. So Mr. Townsen, I think you've got direction there from us. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh 3D1 is proposed changes to
CR grant program. So we're going to ask Mr. Tron to come up kind of go over some of these changes um and give us a little bit of a high level executive summary on what we're proposing. Uh I think ultimately our expectation out of today unless the board has something different is um really going through them on a
high level, taking in the feedback and questions and comments probably making those changes and bringing these back. Um and then two of these we would we would like to see move forward today um with some revisions. That would be the incomebased hazardous tree mitigation
grant program and the site cleanup grant. We think those those are going to have very minimal changes to them from the current version. So, we think we could probably keep those moving to have applicants come in. But the other one's probably going to have a little bit more discussion and conversation. So, we need to bring those back. I have a feeling. So, >> Mr. Strong,
>> you want to start with the um site plan or the cleanup and the um tree, or do you want to start? Where do you want to start with? Which ones? >> Unless anybody's got a preference, it's yours. >> Well, the um incomebased tree was really not changed. Maybe just some of the wording to clean it up, but the program
itself was not changed at all. So if you want to leave it as is. The only thing I did was basically shorten the application because you wanted the shorter application for those. So what they what they have to fill out is basically um minor roughly four pages.
>> Sorry. So, um, >> any thoughts from the dice, Mr. Beerbone? >> So, I I discussed this a little bit with Mr. Townson earlier today. Um, I thank you for shortening that that application up. The the two things that I wanted to
kind of point out, I gave him this example. Uh, the two times that I have moved within City of Phoenix Springs and I've had to apply for a new account, they physically made a copy of my social security card. So, there are two copies of my social security card floating around this building somewhere. probably
I would hope in the vault, but my point was when it comes to like for example income verification, let's just simply have some way of verifying that but not having them necessarily submit a document that has sensitive personal information on it,
especially income that we then as a entity have to protect, have to worry about redacting, have to worry about keeping and maintaining and all of that. So any any opportunity that we can seek to just simply say Mr. Strong could say, you know, I certified that I reviewed their
financials and they met the qualifications versus them physically having to submit that. And then as as Kobe pointed out, if that thing gets put onto the agenda, we have to worry about proper redaction occurring so that we're not disclosing, you know,
>> PII. So that that's my request there is that we we look for opportunities where we can just simply verify some of this information and Mr. Strong could certify it. Um the other the other minor tweak would be I know in the past it has said
you know for those that meet 60% of AMI for blah blah blah blah. Let's skip all that. We can agree to whatever that percentage is in an open public meeting and have that documented, but on the forms and everything that the public sees when it comes to inquiring about this program, let's just put the number.
It's it's a static number that shouldn't change but once a year. So instead of making people go calculate it and figure it out and then potentially maybe pulling the wrong number and calculating it wrong, let's just put the number. It should only change once a year. So, let's just let's just stick that number on there on all of our public documents.
As long as you make less than $47,592, whatever whatever that number is. Let's just put it on there. Make it simple. >> Doesn't Doesn't that number change though depending on the number in the household and and everything else? Because I seem to have read something about
>> it does. Basically, the more people you have in the household, >> the higher that number. >> Well, then can we Okay, fair enough. But can we at least put whatever that that number is that's used for the base calculation of >> those? Yeah. >> Mr. Atinson, do you see any issues with
what Mr. Rebones proposed? >> I don't I think it's a matter of how staff structures it, but I don't see it as a legal issue whatsoever. >> Yeah, we can we can do that. I think one of the things I know Commissioner Berman
I talked about it and I think Chris and I did as well maybe um is probably what we would do is you know the application comes in but the application has some of that pertinent information on it you're talking about right that we would probably look at that or create some sort of checklist that Mr. go through
and say, "Okay, they they fil they've provided all the required forms. They've done all these things and I certify to the board that these levels been met." And then that form goes on the agenda as our certification to all of you that they've met the requirements of the grant and it's ultimately up to all of you whether you would approve it or not. That way we kind of reduce some of that
paperwork. We keep people consume information confidential. That way we can we can control when it's been redacted according to state law. So, Mr. P. >> Okay. So, um, I'd like to suggest adding one more
protective layer. Um, a senior citizen trick is you go shopping during the work week in the middle of the day when everybody else is working and the stores are pretty much empty. So, you go down, you do go do
your grocery shopping, you get in and out. That's what seniors do. Um, when we moved here, I noticed that there is a lot of young able-bodied people
not at work. uh presumably on public assistance and because of the meth epidemic uh they just chose a lifestyle uh to collect government assistance and
not have to work. So I would I would like to add a layer of disability if they are if if they are physically disabled
or mentally disabled and it's documented. Uh otherwise we're penalizing people who have made good choices and
because they make over so much money, they don't qualify because they've worked and it's kind of like you get a penalty for making good choices. So, could we add the disability part
that you not only have to be of a under a certain um in a in a certain financial bracket, but that you also have to be disabled? So ultimately my caution on that would be that the way you see other CRAAS deal
with this is have an income bracket for an incomebased grant program but also include a potentially higher income bracket if the person's income is substantially or wholly derived from bonafide disability.
that is the much more common of the outcomes. Um I I say that because what you're really talking about is if you're saying somebody has to be disabled, you're closing the program off outside of what
CRA's purpose is. The CRA is not meant to be a public assistance or a social assistance program. It's meant to be blight remediation. And so the further you limit that uh by saying well it can only be disabled people with blight I
think we're starting to get a little far a field of the mission >> that was >> but I would also cost >> actually Clay I was thinking uh not being the sole requirement but an additional require uh requirement based
on income >> right but what I what I'm saying is that if it is an additional requirement. Effectively, everybody under a certain level is eligible, but the distinction becomes disabled. Now, what you're asking for is that we give preference to
any disabled person that qualifies. Um, certainly that is consistent with a wide variety of ADA and other similar programs that I think we could do. Um, so that you know if somebody comes in and it's competitive between a certain group outside of just first come first
serve that we give preference to disability. I certainly see doing that. But yes, my my admonishment or caution would only be that if we're only if we're saying that the only people who can get these grants are if you're below a certain income and you are disabled,
that may arbitrarily limit the program in a way that's inconsistent with the aim of CRA, which is again about blight remediation, not helping lower income or under served or dis uh disadvantaged population. >> Okay.
the income limit. Just to be clear, the only reason we have an income limit and and some cities don't at all. By the way, I want to be very clear, some places do not have any limitation on that whatsoever. The reason we did was the legitimate concern of some of the
CRA board members at the time that there were people who were well capable and able to pay for this themselves. They were choosing not to out of whatever reason, but certainly not good faith or good community spirit that would now
take advantage of this and that the people that were doing that would be gaming the system to the disadvantage or the detriment of the people who truly do need it. I don't think we've seen any issue of that. I mean certainly we're not even in most years I don't think we've actually allocated all the grant
money but that's the only reason we even have an incomebased program or an income limited program was to avoid that concern but if the desire is look at possibly adding something that either expands the income limit for those with who receiving disability that's one way
of doing it or alternatively giving preference to disability is definitely something we could take into consideration that I've seen elsewhere >> Mr. Bomb and I'll come back to Mr. Harrison. >> So I certainly share share those those concerns that that Clay raised that the
previous um board had when it comes to people taking advantage of the system. Um but I I do appreciate Clay bringing up the fact that there are other CRAAS that don't have the income based stipulation because one way to look at
this is everybody pays into it. So everybody should have a fair shot at obtaining those funds because everybody's paying into it. Um and and only limiting it to certain income brackets eliminates other people. But however, I I am in agreement that people
that are basically not operating in good faith that are have the financial wherewithal to remedy some of this and are not until the government comes along and offers a freebie. That's not operating in good faith. But I'm just wondering instead of an income requirement, is there some other method
of curtailment that we can we can do that is not income based? Is there some other stipulation where it's I don't know. I don't know what that is, but limiting some of this to a certain income bracket
can, you know, can potentially eliminate people that, in my opinion, they paid into it. They should have the opportunity to to receive that that benefit. Mr. Harrison. >> Yeah, I I I I agree with you on on that.
Um we evidently there, like Clay said, the CRA money's grant money's never been completely used yeartoear. So getting other people that really need it and the properties that can really see great gains uh you know
transformational changes in their properties are those lower income people. Uh one of my questions was um the 60% is that pretty much a accept percentage statewide that we
>> had to increase it due to South Walton's income. So we actually increased it to make it where it was more beneficial where more people could actually have access access to the grant >> otherwise less people would actually be able to have access to it.
>> I I got you. Yeah. So so to me to you know to to make the biggest changes you know with the with the blight in some areas of our city we have to somehow get these people engaged you know to take part in it. So, I love the income based uh thing from from from that standpoint.
I do have a question on the uh part three there, the program limitations. Um you know, you they can apply for these things once per year, every grant cycle, right? So, what do we have? I mean, I my
concern is I I know of places myself that you could clean it up and I've heard CR pass, you know, CRA director say this. You can have a dumpster there and clean up the yard and three months later it it looks like it did three months ago. So, how many times will we
do this repetitively with the same person uh that cleans up, you know, and then they collect, you know, and it piles up and do we just perpetually do this every year with them? Well, for this program under five, I was going to ask you, the maximum war is going to be
$5,000 and you can only do it once every three years. >> So, five on the uh residential site cleanup. >> No, this is on the this is on the hazardous tree. We're still >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I'm I was wrong there. I'll go back to that. >> So, my question was, do we want to keep
it 5,000 once every three years? >> I I would say so. I'm good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And did you want to leave it income based or do you want to open it up for anyone that wants to do it? >> Mr. Cos.
>> So, one of the things that I'm sure everybody here has heard that gave the previous CRA board a black eye was um when people when CRA signs were show showing up in front of uh
>> some of the best homes in our city limits. some of the most beautiful homes in the city were having CRA. And the thing was I I actually have a friend that lives in
one of the houses that got a grant to put new windows in. And I said he he and I are good friends enough to where we can be very point blank and candid with each other. And I said, "This is supposed to be for blight
and you know, if I had your money, I'd burn mine. Why are you doing this? You know, this isn't what it was meant to be." And he said, "But that's the way their rules are written." >> And I quote, "If they're stupid enough
to give away money, I'll take it." So there needs to be a line drawn there. And I I actually have one who who had um gotten a grant for roofing, I believe it was. And in the end, we were discussing
another issue and he's like, "Well, the one of the things he threw up was, you know, I appreciate the fact that the CRA had re-roofed my house for me, but I had the money and I was going to do it anyway." He just it was in one of those conversations where different things
were being talked about but so similar to what you're saying there. >> So how does how does everybody feel about it then still? >> So I think I think on this one we're on the just on the tree one. Let me summarize a little bit what it is and then we can So basically the the tree
tree hazardous tree mitigation is income based. It's a $5,000 max one every three years. it'll they they have 90 days to complete the removal. Uh they will be required to get two quotes to provide that to to to staff. Um and then as part
of the application, um once this then the applications, this is one of a few that this board will approve. As of right now, this a structure. Um and then once it's approved, once the work's conducted, we would cut a check directly to the vendor. It would not go to the
applicant. It would go to the vendor once the work's been inspected by Mr. and he verifies it's been completed, we would cut the check to that vendor directly to ensure payment. So that's in summary that is this program here. >> Yes, >> Mr. Per, >> do we know how many denials we've had for this incomebased tree grant?
>> When I was going through these, most of these for the for the tree mitigation for income base. I didn't find any that were based off of this. Most of them were above the threshold for the income base. So, it fell to the the one you and I were discussing earlier. Basically,
where's a 50-50 match? >> So, as far as I know, no one's ever applied just for the income based one. >> Okay. >> Based off going back and looking at the different um applications. Well, then it it almost sounds like to
me based on that answer then this needs to be adjusted because no one's utilizing it because it's too restrictive >> and everybody's ended up going to the the 50/50 match generic one. >> So great question Chris on the um
because we'll move forward in a minute to the residential grants. There's incomebased and non-income based. There was a roofing grant and then there was a regular residential cleanup grant basically or cleanup residential grant. We're going to combine those into one. So it'll be one that has a certain
dollar. So if if applicants people weren't applying one, they didn't meet the requirements or people that met the requirements weren't applying to this one. They were going to the residential grant and just doing the tree move to that. >> Yes. >> Then what's the point in having a separate income based tree grant when you already have an income based residential grant? So it would reduce
paperwork on one. So I mean because does the current under your current residential grant did it include tree removal? I know that included landscaping but >> so the income based um one would not include for trees. >> Okay.
>> Um basically the previous one was only for a roof. I'm wanting to increase it for it does the entire structure not just the roof in case they have wood rot needs certain areas need to be replaced on the on the sidewalls. That way they can go down
then we can do more than just a roof for some of these individuals. Um, I would almost keep both ones just in case if they do meet the incomebased tree removal, we're not pulling funds
away from the house itself to go to remove a tree. >> So, Mr. May, >> is it is it your recommendation kind of based on conversation that we adjust the limits or do you think we ought to leave it at the the 60% AMI?
I mean the 60 the 60% AMI would be good to get the people that are income based. The ones that truly can afford it. They would switch over to the one where's a 50-50 match that the one that income based is geared
to the help the ones that really can that cannot come up and pay the full amount then ask for the 5050 back because that's what happens with with that one. M >> if I can't afford $5,000 to remove a tree, what's the odds of me paying the
$5,000 upfront and then getting back the other 2,500. >> But in the um Chris, but in the proposal that we're going to make for the residential on the income base, it's it's a 100% grant. Correct. >> Correct. >> So that really wouldn't
>> we could just if you wanted to, we could increase that increase it. I'm asking to increase it from 20 to 30 for the whole structure. We could always add trees to it >> and increase it from 30 to even a higher amount if that's what you want to do.
>> Well, I'm not think I'm not I'm not suggesting the board increase the amount. If you're going to go from 20 to 30, that's already increase. All I'm suggesting is we just add tree removal to eligible um projects within the grant program. We can do that >> because if people who don't meet who are above the income level, they're doing it
in the residential grant program and we'll just have people who don't meet who are income based, they can just do the same thing in the grant program because it's not that they're only limited to the one grant, right? It's they're limited to a maximum of $30,000. >> Correct. Also though, I'm saying that
when we do the ones for the structures for that, it's one every 10 years. So that means we would need to adjust the if you're doing a tree, this one is once every three years. We'll have to figure out how we're going to do the adjustment of the time length
for for that section. >> Okay. >> So you're proposing Sorry, may I >> Andy? Yes. Go ahead. >> You're proposing one one program with kind of two tracks, either a 50/50 or an income base and get rid of the tree. >> Correct. Then tweak it to address some
of the tree concerns. >> Correct. So what you'll see in a minute on the residential side that Chris has put together. It's the residential program. That's we took the two. So there was there was two. There was a roofing and then there was a residential and then the residential had income and and then regular non-income. So we he's taken and combined the two. So you just have one residential program. You either
meet income requirement levels which allow you to get up to uh $30,000 of 100% match once every 10 years or you're above income level and you can get up to 15,000 50-50 match. So what we're talking about now is if we wanted to, we could look at
possibly getting rid of this one and just including tree removal into the two grant programs. He's saying that though you then run into the income based is one every 10 years >> where this this tree is one every three years. So we can make some adjustments
to the residential to include tree removal and maybe there's a tiered structure to the amount or something like that or we can keep it separate. >> Mr. Barbone, >> I'm not I'm not opposed to that. I think that Ju just trying to think about like I've
I've had four trees removed out of my yard, but at the same time I'm I I just can't fathom having multiple trees removed, right? If if you're needing to have assistance
removing a tree, it's got to be close to the house, >> you like a danger to the house. Thank you. whereas the trees that I elected to remove weren't weren't a threat to my house. We were they were, you know, in other areas of the yard. So, I just can't imagine the the limitation of once
every 10 years being an impediment versus technically the tree program itself right now was every three. So, I'm not opposed to just lumping the tree into the the residential program and it being capped at 10 years. And if we if
we have someone come back, we could then staff could advise us, hey, we're seeing a lot of repeat people that do have legitimate trees that need to be removed down. Then to that point, we can address adjust the program >> because like like you said, I still think staff's going to go out and look at this and they're going to have a
recommendation on our should we approve this or should we not. It's first come, first serve basis anyway based on the budgeting and then it's our sole discretion too whether to approve it or not. So that's >> we bring out Mr. a good child as an arborist to review the trees.
>> Yes, sir. >> So, would y'all would y'all like to add hazardous pre mitigation to both income based and non-income based or only income based? >> The non-income bases is actually that's in there >> and that's that's what I'm saying. So,
if they were already had the skirt around, right, you already had it you has there was a specific incomebased grant for tree removal. But if you did if you were above in you already had skirt was already included. So, like that's what I'm saying. So, if we're going to include it in both, and this is a null and void point, we just put it in there that the tree removal was related
to hazardous only. Uh, with that, or do you take it out of the one above and only leave the one below? It's up to you all. I just think we probably have a redundancy now that we hazardous only, wouldn't you? Or damage to the property to how would you feel about Mr. Cook?
depending on what their income was. >> You know, if it's if it's if their income is below >> ami >> the mark >> and they can't afford to take down hazardous trees,
>> but they need some assistance. We do live in the hurricane capital of the nation or the world. >> That's good, >> Commissioner. Well, I think what Mr. um towns is actually saying if we actually throw it into the incomebased residential program, combine the income
based res residential program with assets tree, it would still be the income base which what you're wanting to do based off of the 60%. So that part I think would basically be beneficial for you. They're not having to pay upfront
and getting reimbursed. >> So I think what Mr. Mr. pounds is wanting to do. See if you all want to just include the two together to make one program so that people aren't having to look around for the different programs. >> I agree. >> Combine them. >> Yeah.
>> We would basically just scrap this one entirely and we would just put inside the residential program. An eligible project expense is hazardous tree mitigation. And they have to follow the general same general guidelines. It's got to be inspected. >> Same disease. >> Yeah. It's got to be inspected XYZ.
It could be a healthy tree, but if it's hazardous, it >> got to go. >> Okay. Correct. >> What else you got, M? >> Is that Is that what we would like to do? >> Yeah, >> Chris, we can I think Chris and I can make those changes. I think the next we can do real quick is a site cleanup. >> Yes. >> Just run through that one real fast.
>> The um site cleanup, we would actually like to make it where it's inhouse only due the fact there's no money involved. We just take the take someone calls and requests the dump trailer, we take it out there, let them fill it up, we haul
it off to the dump and so forth. So instead of bogging down the the board with requests for the dump trailer for site cleanup, >> you could handle that. >> We handle it ourselves in house and that's it. >> And based off the guidelines, it's basically
if someone calls it in, they may keep it for seven days. And if if no one else is has requests for it, they can keep it longer, but we'll basically keep a calendar showing who where's it going, public works will assist. My truck can take it
and drop it off, but I talked to Mr. um Anderson. He prefers that they remove it, especially with being full. They have special trucks. They'll haul it off. So, and basically, this has not changed at all based off of what Mr.
Irvin had originally suggested. So I think we're all in agreement >> essentially keeping the same guidelines. Uh the only thing that's main thing we're asking is that every other every other grant program that comes before the board is going to come to the board for approval application wise. We would like these applications when submitted
by individuals for staff to approve them make sure and we can move forward with assisting in that because the majority of these will come from and have come from code enforcement. So you'll come to magistrate hearing and and the special magistrate will say have you spoke to the CRA about their site cleanup program? then they will communicate with
Mr. Strong and we help them out. So we feel like from an efficiency standpoint, no money's being changed, we can get these in and out. >> I agree. >> Hey, Craig. Yeah, >> you're good. >> But back to my question about the annual thing if if if there's someone that just
like does it every every single year, should we have a conversation about how many years we do this? >> So the grants all the grants are um they're not entitlements. We pretty clear in there that everyone just because you apply for it, you do not get it. you're not just automatically get it. It comes to the board. We would treat them the same way. Okay?
>> So, if you have a habitual offender coming back and back and back, some point it's it's going to stop probably after the first one. Maybe the second one depend some special circumstance. >> Um, and that point is going to go to code enforcement action. For example, the CRA did one of these uh cleanups with I think Habitat one time. If you
ride back again, it's right back it was the day before they cleaned it up. So, we're not going to we're not spend time and resources on helping someone who isn't going to help themselves, right? and we're going to have to take some sort of other action. >> Yeah, that was my only concern. Now, do we have an agreement with at the landfill when we take these dumpster? Do
they charge us? >> It's the same. So, we still fall under the city's um our interlocal agreement for solid waste sanitation. They're still the >> uh materials that cannot be dumped in according with that uh interlocal agreement and we have those in the application. Certain materials cannot be
put into the dumpster, sir. >> Thank you. >> What else you got for us, Mr. Trump? All right, let's talk about the two residential different programs. So we have let's start off with the um income based. So on that one basically still off the 60%
of the um area medium income. Um they still have to do all those guidelines. Um, as you can see, um, basically instead of just doing a roof, what they'll be eligible for is exterior paint, exterior painting, siding,
masonry repairs, doors, windows, shutters, awnings, canopies, roof repair and replacement, porches, stairways, railings, um, basically anything on the outside of the building. Now, the one question, so this is based off of um, another city in Florida.
The one of the questions I do have is a little bit farther down is landscaping irrigation front yard only. Is that something we really want to assist with? >> No. No. >> Okay. And then it talks about now
do we want to do driveways and walkways, front yard fencing? Now I would now it says anything with co- compliance repairs. I would say yes. If if I have a violation on someone's fence, then yes, I would say that that should help repair that. But if someone just wants a new
fence when it's being based off income, do we want to do that? >> I I think the code compliance angle is is pretty strong with that, Mr. Harrison. >> No, no. Would you repeat that, Chris? >> So, further down there, it says code compliance related exterior repairs. So
basically, we actually have an ordinance that basically says you have to keep your fences maintained. So if I have a code enforcement problem on it, then I would say yes, this should go to it. But do we if there's no co code compliance issue on it, do we want to pay to have
someone get a new fence to put up because h how the city work theirs was it falls under those parameters. >> Mr. I I just yes, there's some fences that could could be considered blight, but I just
really struggle with if I'm looking at at this through the lens of the CRA was here to to address blight. I just I cannot wrap my head around fixing a fence as mitigating blight. Like to me, mitigating blight is what you were
talking about earlier of let's fix a roof, let's fix a wall that's rotten out to save a structure. That to me is its core mission. Fixing a fence. I just I can't get on board with that. >> Yeah, Mr. Harrison.
>> Yeah, I I tend to agree with that. I think the the housing is the thing. That's the property values. Fences add some value, right? Uh but >> for example, without the roof, you you you know, everything else is downhill, >> right?
>> What about driveways and walkways? >> No. Good. Okay. No. >> All right, >> Mr. Bearbell. >> So, so on that, you you rattled off the exterior painting, cleaning,
refinishing. Um, and and that's another one that I've heard from I've heard from the public as saying that's a questionable expenditure for for some of these. Um >> well that I think would fall under if
basically if I've cited a person with chipping peeling paint based off our ordinances using the proper maintenance code you can't have your um basically your exterior open to the elements. So they would basically have to re repaint it now. we could just make it where it's
primed white is what we're suggesting. So that when they fix a section that's um has that um violation of chip and peeling paint that basically has to be only primed if that's what we want to do. And if they want to make it where it's something
else then it goes farther into out of their pocket. I just again to me that's one of those where is it cosmetic versus structural like a a busted window, you know, a a
falling down porch, a rotten wall, a bad a bad roof, those are no-brainers to me. But pressure washing a house and and you got to have some pretty serious chipping paint for for most people to be able to
spot it from the road. I mean, I know I wear glasses, but you know, I I just I just to me that just falls a little more on the borderline of cosmetic versus true blight in my opinion, like like a busted window or or you know, junk in
the yard or a blue tarp roof type of thing. >> Well, you can remove that. What about for an 80y old woman though? >> Sir, >> what about for the 80 year old woman or or or man that that doesn't have the ability any longer on maybe the east side or the west side of town and
they're just trying to keep keep it sealed in. I I would almost lean more towards the code compliance and staff's recommendations on those and then see because I can see what you're saying, but I can also see the flip side of it where the person may need help in order to remediate that
because it it could be bought as in and of itself and bring down the property values next door or across the road or >> would would you consider that under maybe strictly the incomebased track of it versus >> Yes, this this one is only the income
based one. >> Okay. Because you don't you don't get to just come in and and say, "Hey, I want to paint my house. I've got, you know, I got this tiny little chip over here and I want to paint my house." And then it becomes like like you were talking about, they're going to give away the money. I'm I'm going to get my house painted for free or for 50% off.
>> So maybe we limit that some of these categories to >> pressure washing and and painting and that sort of thing onto the income side only. You either qualify for it because you're 80-year-old on fixed income or sorry, go paint your house.
Just thought >> I agree. >> I think we're all in agreement on that. We'll let you reddraft >> that or we could actually remove that and like like Mers is saying, we just make it under code compliance. If basically if I side the house and one of
the things is basically you have a lot of chipping and peeling paint to fix that. I mean that will fall underneath that that section of being elig eligibility. Okay. It's whichever the board wants to do. But then again, if we have an ed lady
who wants to be proactive to fix the problems, >> that income based piece of it. >> Yeah, I would I would think at that point she's covered under the income base. Okay. >> I think >> and we don't have a problem increasing the grant from 20,000 to 30,000 doing it
once every 10 years. That way it's not being really taken advantage of. So, so basically every 10 years they qualify for up to $30,000 worth of repairs. If they only do five in the first year and come back year three,
then there's still 25,000 left available for them to correct. They can have up to $25,000 in repairs. Or if they hit all 30 because the whole roof of the house fell in, then they're they're just out of it for 10 more years. He's >> there's there's only seven years left on
the >> Yeah, but we'll be gone. But we'll be done. >> Yeah, >> there's only seven years left on the CRA. >> That's true. >> So, that would be one change is from 20 to 30 is what we're looking at. Again, you know, these things are just going to be monitored to the year. They're y at the budget time. This board's going to
set amount to be put in there. You know, those applications come to you based off priority and the meet the redevelopment plan. Once you expend them, they're gone. You have the ability to mend that or not. And every year you can revisit that. We may need to revisit this number in the future and say, "Hey, we got too much participation. You know, we need to see how we can help with that." Um, a
part of this also is a five-year declining repayment. So, like, let's say someone does come get the full 30 and does the work. Um, we'll keep track of that. And over that five-year period, it declines by 20% every year of repayment if they were to sell the home or do something of that nature, right, to pay
that back to the CRA trust fund. Um, same same thing with the contractor. that part of the application is quotes XYZ. Once work's completed and inspected, we pay the contractor directly. That would be something that come straight from the CRA trust fund to the contractor. Um, another thing in
here that, you know, Chris and I talked about a little bit in the current I think it is, but you know there's the property must carry active homeowners insurance. I don't really know if there is a a legal reasoning for that, but my question to that is let's say that because we are combining the roof grant
program into this and other things. If the home can't get home owners insurance because the roof is inadequate and they're going to repair the roof or replace the roof with this grant, do we then say, "Okay, you're eligible, but you have 60 90 days to show proof of home insurance after the fact or is home insurance even a concern to this board."
Again, I don't know the legalities of that. That's Mr. Atinson question. Um, but that's something that's in there now. So, >> there's there's a lot of there's some people that can't afford it that >> there's going to be a number of homes that aren't even eligible for a number of different reasons. I'm not discriminating against that unless
there's Mr. Atinson and I'll come right back to you. >> So, my recollection of why it was put in there about it was the initial conversation of we're going to pay to do this. Um, we,
you know, they're getting something for nothing and the least they can do is keep their property insured. Um, and the benefit of the roof grant is it possibly could help people get something insured that they would otherwise not have that
opportunity to do with the idea that we don't want structures to then burn down and not be able to recoup our investment in them or get them rebuilt. But I completely understand what everybody's
argument and position there is. And as far as I'm concerned, if that's something you didn't want, there's not a requirement that it must be a >> Okay, >> Mr. Cos, >> there's not a requirement in there now that if uh if you don't
have insurance, >> no, I think Mr. Atkinson is like referencing like state law or something. There's not a requirement that the grant that you have to have insurance. >> Corre correct. That is correct. You don't have to have a requirement that says they must get insurance. That's not a requirement, okay?
>> But it is in there now that they do. I'm just saying that's up to you if you want that requirement. >> The only the only way I know that you have to have insurance is if you owe on your home. If you own your home, you don't have any you've got the option of not having insurance. And with Florida
having some of the highest insurance rates in the state, >> there's a lot of people that ought not to have insurance. So, I don't need think they need to be penalized for that. I agree, Mr. Bearbone. I >> I would say if we're truly concerned
about recouping our investment in in a roof or whatever repairs we're doing, wouldn't the better function be to simply place a lean that we then agree to remove after x number of years so that if if in the event the structure does burn down and they somehow get
compensated for the structure burning down or being damaged, >> we're then in line to receive some sort of compensation versus forcing them to carry insurance. as you said, in one of the highest premium states probably in the state or in the in the in in the United States. So,
I'm I'm I'm not for telling people that they got to maintain insurance, especially if it's an older house that they've worked all their lives and they've paid that mortgage reliably and paid it off. Who are we to tell them they got now go out and get insurance just because they get a a replacement roof because again, they're on fixed income.
>> I agree. >> And it is in there that the CRA may record a lean security payment obligation. So that's something we can work Mr. Atinson on. You know, is that something we do at the time of >> Well, on on this one, income based, a lean is placed on the on the house. >> Okay. When the work Yes. That way if
they do sell the house, since we're paying 100% of it, >> we get we recoup what we do um because it's a 5-year lean and we forgive 20% every year until the five years. Then we write off
the whole lean release. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that so that was the income based. >> So we'll make we'll make some changes and we'll bring that back for adoption. >> The other one is the other residential one >> and this one actually has two tracks
because I combined two of these. We had the um >> which one are we looking at? >> This should scroll on down. Uh Jesse, you'll see where it's next. Just keep on going. You'll see where it says memorandum. That'll be the start of it. That way we can kind of stick to right
here. Keep on going >> a little more. Keep going. Right there. >> There we go. >> Okay. >> Yep. Page 59 on your PDF. >> Okay. >> So on originally we had two programs. We
had basically a residential program and we had a um a residential and building program. So these two were combined together. The um one of them was to help um entice building. Basically, you had a
vacant lot and we would pay so much into up to $5,000 to entice someone to develop that piece of property. The other one was a 50-50 match up to $15,000. So basically, this program was combining those two kind of like to a track A and
a track B. The track A stayed the same. Basically for a vacant lot, we will help pay up to $5,000 with different costs of what they're doing. Um, and then the other one will be a 50-50 match up to $15,000.
The elig the elig. So basically the eligibility for track A would be construction of newru um single structures. Um minimum size would be 100 square foot heating and cooled must attain all required permits and
approvals and must comply with all the city and county building codes. So basically when someone builds a a brand new house, we will help with the cost of up to $5,000 that that can help with basically with the AC or whatever they're doing. So
that basically help revitalize a area where there's some vacant lots and we want to get that area going again. The track B side basically now this is where we need to decide based off of the city. They did the exterior painting and
siding. They did roof repairs, windows, porches, awnings, exterior lighting, landscaping, driveways, fencing, demolition, um co- compliance related and restrictive um historic or architectural features. So with this being a 50-50 match, do we want to leave that or do we want to remove some of the
things from that? >> Mr. Bon, >> so track A to me is is a no-brainer. It's it's promoting infill on vacant lots and the city wins and everybody wins. And to me, if you go back and again read the core definition of a of a
CRA at a statute level, this is this is 100% within within that scope. Um, track B, the only thing that I I kind of go back to is what discussion from the previous program, exterior lighting, um, some of some of the more cosmetic stuff.
Do we really want to include that in this program type of thing? Fencing, landscaping, driveways, walkways. >> Um I I would almost say we just strictly focus on the the more structural components versus
I don't that that's kind of what I'm thinking. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Kos and then I'll come >> plan B is not an option now, right? That's is that what you said? No, no. >> He's talking about leaving out the
driveways, walkways, and stick >> like we did on the other program. >> Okay. >> Pull pull all that cosmetic stuff out. >> Okay. So, if I wanted to build a house and I'm looking for a piece of a lot to
build a house on. The city's going to give me $5,000 to help me buy that lot. >> No, sir. >> A house on? >> Not to help buy it. Maybe we It goes to the um water fees. Maybe it goes to when you're building your house, it goes to
help pay for the AC. Basically, we're incentivizing someone to build a new house there to increase the in value of that whole area, >> right? >> Up to $5,000 >> within the CRA district. >> Correct. >> Within the map of the CRA,
>> which is pretty much the whole city >> for now, >> excluding some area. But that's what I was saying to me that's a core mission of the CRA by statute is to promote people to invest in these areas infill redevelop. That's
to me that's the very definition of redevelopment. >> I mean just truthfully you're increasing a $30,000 lot to $150,000 lot >> with a water sewer bill and everything else. >> Mr. Harrison.
Well, most you know a lot of these things require permit to be pulled and that's what basically triggers reassessments. You know, some of these things do not trigger those things and it's mostly the cosmetic things, you know. Um, so, you know, I'm in agreement
to kind of focus on the things that actually lead to an increase in property value. Um, and you know, painting and that is is I mean that's an improvement of a neighborhood and if a property sells and
it's been improved, it increases the value of neighboring houses. So, we know that things like that do help, but some of these not necessarily. I think we're going to have a hard stopping point at 4:30, so we're going to have to reel it in kind of we're looking at
bringing this back to us anyway. Um, any other points right now? >> It just sounds like another giveaway program. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Miss Hein, >> what number are we on? >> We are on three D1.
>> And uh, Miss Lewis, if you'll note, uh, Commissioner Heaven was here. 423. Y >> we'll just make sure that was in there. >> So are you all talking about this one program or all all different programs? >> So we've been through um the board has
decided to basically the incomebased hazardous tree mitigation grant to do away with that grant and include those provisions within the residential uh redevelopment grant. Um they have moved forward with the site cleanup grant which is the trailer. That grant in it
stays the same as it is with staff approval of the applicant. Um and then all the residential grants that have been combined into one both income or non or income based or non-income based and then the commercial which we have whenever yet those will all be approved by the board. Those applications will be
submitted to the board for review. So um the only thing one we're lacking right now is the commercial one. And again, if if we're going to bring we're going to bring the residential one back, if the board wants to take time to review that, we can clean it up as well. Bring that back to y'all, too, because I think we've probably got a pretty good general idea of what you're probably going to
say yes or no to when it comes to that as well. So, we can bring those back for y'all's adoption as well if everyone's comfortable with that. >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. Do you want to move on to um Mr. Cosen? >> Well, Chris, you're not fixing to leave,
are you? >> No, sir. I was going to sit right there for you. >> You got more to say right now? >> Well, we had one more for business, but I think we're putting them on hold for next for the next meeting. >> Yep. >> Which is fine because I really The residential ones were the more important ones to me to >> allow for public comments. So,
>> yes, sir. He's going to he's going to be in that everything's been staff direction already and they're they're going to bring it back to us. >> Okay. >> All right. Item four. Uh, okay. Chairman, this is the financial report. you asked this be on here every time. So
I I just put in a place in which you all could see the budget report for the fund as of March 31st. It's not really much to uh you know uh go over with it, but I wanted you to see it. Uh the ability, you know, if you'all have something you'd like to see specific next time or no, we can do that. Things to note uh
really that where did my note go? There we go. Uh based on the as of March 31st, the trust fund is sitting in or around $3,414,000. Uh that is because there was um the CRA
had carry forward from prior year of$878 and then once they got into the budget cycle um the auditors brought forward roughly a million60,000. So that made the carry prior year carry forward 1.9 million. So that made the CRA budget
$3,778,673. Uh fiscal activity year to date for the CRA is 363,72507. And this is all on here. So that's where I'm getting the $3,414,948 number from from account balance. Again, a lot of these expenses are really going to slow down because of the projects
being on hold until we start to get that community impact feedback and brought back to you. Um, so this is as of March 31st of this fiscal year. >> And I know we can go for hours on this one. I I would almost say that we need to revisit that with the plan and how
how we want to move forward maybe at a other meeting. So if all of us will get with the executive director between now and and whatever time that is, he can bring it back forward before us then. Thank you for presenting that to us. >> Yeah. anything that you you'd like to see or just give them and we can start
bringing those forward as well. >> Sure. Um item five, Clay, have you got anything for us from the CRA standpoint? >> I do not, sir. >> Um at this time, I'll call for public comment. I'm sorry. 5.
>> Yeah, Mr. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I was seeing that under his >> that' be Mr. Atinson. >> The Mr. Racketinson, we do have the CRA uh executive director employment agreement. Um I noticed we we had changes on there. >> Yes, sir. I think that's pretty
consistent with what you looked at previously. Um I did make one or two small edits with Kobe that he was in agreement with. I believe this is a fairly consistent agreement that provides an adequate um scope of duties
for Mr. Townsen relative to his role as city manager. I think we have a clear definition of what he's doing in each one and avoid any risk of crossover between those responsibilities. It could be a problem for him as the city manager
and the CRA director and more important our staff and employees. So that being the case, it is presented for your review. Um certainly if there's any questions or comments, let me know. We'll be glad to address those. >> And on this one, we're looking for a motion for approval. Correct. This is
for this is the approval one. Yes, sir. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion and a second. Do we have any other uh conversation for the dice? >> Seeing none, any of the public? Seeing none, all those in favor signify
by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion pat carries 5. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you board. >> Uh Mr. co if you can can we hold it till after public comment? >> Sure. >> Okay. At this time, we're going to go
ahead and exercise uh or make time for public comment. When you come up, please state your name. You'll have three minutes and then just address all comments to me. Thank you. >> My name is Melinda Henderson. I'm a resident of the city. Uh I gave you an annual report about the National Trust
for Historic Preservation grant that we have. Did you have any questions on that? If you do, I'll be happy to answer those now. None. >> Good. >> No, ma'am. Thank you. >> Um the when you were talking about the
dog park, who says we have to have two bathrooms? One is sufficient. You can make them, you know, so you can lock the door and, you know, take turns
using them if you have to have one. Most people are not going to spend two or three hours there, you know, uh to go before they leave the home, then they come back. If you find that the usage a little bit later on is very very high,
then you'll know how many you need to build. Um but there's no proposal on there for just building one. Um the other thing is there is pvious pay uh pavement. you know, you can get those blocks that the grass grows in between
and that saves you from having to do a a runoff pond or any kind of uh fancy um stuff. So, that that might work. The other thing of concern to me is that um I I was agreeing with what was said
about the sidewalks and driveways and things like that. However, if that becomes a necessity that they look at that they think uh really could benefit and there's no
other way to get to it, could they bring those kinds of things to you as an exception for individual approval? >> Thank you, Miss Henderson. Is there any further public comment?
Seeing none, we'll move on to executive comments. And we'll start with M Mr. Coen and then we'll come around this way. >> So there's 3 what million dollars in the budget now for the CRA? >> 3 3.4 >> almost. Okay.
Would the CRA be able to take a sizable chunk out of that, like maybe at least half and put it on the alleyway project? >> That Mr. And that's kind of what I was alluding to earlier about the the budget breakdowns. If you look at those and get
with Mr. Towns and then we bring that back at at another meeting and discuss those very things. >> So there is already a substantial amount of funds to the project. I believe close to 1.8 million. Um and every year even this budget cycle that's something you have to reexamine again. So we can talk about it but yeah and that's going to be
happening very soon. So >> yes. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Yes sir. Miss Hein. >> Um, sorry I'm late. Uh, can we go back? I just I wanted to uh I had a comment on the dog park and I don't know what was
decided in my absence. You know, if y'all decided anything, but I'd actually talked to Toby about this this week. Um, and maybe somebody can refresh my memory, but I was shocked when they came to the podium and said 410,000. >> Then I started thinking and when I was
driving by this Wayside Park already has bathrooms. that already has all the things that the dog park would need except for a fence. What is the possibility we could maybe reconsider putting it over here? Because you've got bathrooms down here. Are there two down
here? Two bathrooms. >> I I know there is one. There's one building that has two, but I check those two. >> That's what I was thinking. So, you already got water down there. So, they could go and get the water for the dogs or whatever. Everything's there except for a fence. And I'm thinking, boy, that'd be a lot cheaper than $410,000.
So, I just wanted to throw that out there for consideration. Um, >> maybe we might want to reconsider just fencing in down that area and having the dog park go down there. >> That's that's just a thought. >> So, what the So, what the board did is
I'm going to speak with Anchor about seeing it what kind of reconfiguration it may take or what possibility of coming off of this parking lot here to reach this area down here. So I think we would do is I'd gather that information that's going to come back at your next meeting and then there I think that's would be the appropriate time to because
ultimately this is this is me um the tree board brought it forth to the CRA about the dog park. So I think it would be at that point for y'all to kind of decide if you do want to investigate that down there as an option. We send it back to the to the treeboard entity who recommend it to y'all and see what they may their input may be.
>> Yeah. And and I know they do a lot of hard work just like all these other boards. So I don't want to slap anybody in the face. It's just, you know, with all the considerations and all the monetary savings that we need to come up with so that we can put priorities in a different place. I just thought, boy, that'd be a great saver right there
because it's already got all the essentials that they need. >> So, thanks. We can do that. >> Appreciate the update. >> Mr. G, Mr. Harrison, >> um Kobe, there's Subie told me the other day there's a June 12th CRA training in Panama City. >> Correct. So, I forwarded that out to all
of you. It's not mandatory. It's voluntary, but in Panama City, there is a CRA training put on by the Florida Redevelopment Association and the actual FRA attorney will will be putting that on. So, could be very helpful. Again, it's up to you. If you'd like to attend, just send that over to me and we can get you registered. >> Thank you.
>> I do highly recommend if you are able that you do try to attend that. It will be very beneficial. >> Thank you, Mr. Towns. uh uh board, we have a a young lady that will be starting with us on May 11th as our
admin assistant. She will be upstairs starts on the 11th of May. So, she'll be just in time to start hopping in uh and and helping out um her first task and assist and with me and Mr. Stron is going to be our meeting at the Tiffly Gym on May 14th. um on that side of the
community to talk about CRA and um really not really a Q&A. It's more so of interactive of we're going to have stuff set up, talk about the grant programs, talk about what we're doing, how we can assist and what what our plan moving forward is hopefully the vision. Um and then we're also going to be coordinating with Main Street on the meeting
downtown. So I spoke to Miss Broadway already about that. So that'll be probably an all day thing that we'll we'll allow people to come and go, business owners, things of that nature. So, we're working on setting that up, but look forward to having uh the lady with us on May 11th. >> Awesome. Thank you, sir. And I have
nothing. So, um it is now 4:39. We'll call this meeting adjourned. >> Mr. bouncing. You want me just to keep a