We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Today's date is Monday, uh, June 8th, 2026. It's now 3:01 p.m. Um, this is the meeting for the Community Redevelopment Agency. Please stand for invocation and pledge of allegiance.
Father, we thank you for this day and all your blessings, Lord. We thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come to do the people's business, Lord, to uh do what is in their best interest, Lord, and their will and what is your will, Lord. Far more importantly, we pray dear Lord that you will give us guidance and
clarity throughout this meeting. Let us treat each other civil and accordingly. Father, we ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. I pledge algiance 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. All right, Mr. Executive Director, we can go ahead and begin with 2A. >> Thank you, chairman. uh board, you know, we we have two grant programs left to go
over. We talked about them at our most previous meeting uh on the changes and so uh we'll have uh Mr. Strong go over them. I think all first one is commercial and then we'll get into the residential. So if it's all right with you, Mr. Strong can go through the >> Yes. Mr. Strong.
>> So So all the programs being presented this afternoon are going to be um reviewed as on a basically a first come first- serve basis. Um and all the subject to the annual CRA budget availability participation in the programs is discretionary and dependent
upon the project quality um funding availability and um consistency to the CRA redevelopment goals to qualify for these programs. The property must be located within the CRA district and meet the different requirements per program
for the um facade and reinvation assessment program. the um the the program is commonly referred as going to be the um FR eligible um applicants may receive reimbursement up to 50% of eligible um
project costs and maximum award is $15,000 per project. Funding is provided um as a reimbursement after project completion and final inspection is approved. Um who can apply the project?
The applicant must um both own actively operate the business or nonprofit organizations within the improved space. Um applicants must be um properly licensed, current on taxes and must have um unresolve or must not have unresolved
code enforcement leans or civic violations. The program also requires applicants to propose a minimum of three distinct eligible um improvements as part of the redevelop project. Eligant improvements are designed to
fund visible and um impactful improvements that enhance commercial properties um and contribute to the economic development. Eligibility um improvements include facade um enhancements such as painting, storefront upgrades, signage, awnings,
and decorative lighting. Site improvements may include parking lot services, ADA accessory upgrades, um lanes or sidewalks and pedestrian um and amenities. Um adapted reuse
improvements that um active vacant and under underutilized spaces also may be eligible. um soft soft costs also as permitting design fees up to capped at 10% of the total improvement costs. The um accidents must um maintain owner
occupancy and actively operate um the um approved business for a minimum of five years following the project completion. Grant funds are reimbursed only after all approved work is completed and a final inspection has
been conducted. Um, applicants may not perform the grant fund work themselves and grant funds cannot be used to pay relatives or businesses such as financial relationships to the um occupant. The CR CRA reserves the um
rights to approve, deny, or partially fund any um application. Okay, as you can see on there, basically it's um up to $15,000. basically a 50/50 matching fund.
So, um, so what is your ask today? that the program be approved so that we can go ahead and start getting out some of these programs to these citizens to the city. >> All right, board. Anybody have any
questions, comments? >> Mr. Verbro? So, it was brought to my attention, and I'm I'm having a a brief moment here trying to to locate the actual contradiction, but it was brought to my attention by a citizen that we list
under eligible applicants at the very bottom bullet point there, nonprofit organizations providing community, cultural, educational, historic preservation, charitable, or neighborhood based services consistent with CRA redevelopment objectives. But somewhere else in the document and I'm
again forgive me for not being able to put my hands on it just this moment. We actually said that they were excluded if they did not pay if they did not pay taxes advorum taxes. So that that's what
nonprofit's not going to not pay >> if that's in there that that's in the error then we can remove that. That won't be a problem. >> Okay. So are we saying or which way are we going to go on it? Are we going to say that they are eligible? Well, I'm asking that to be eligible. What the board wants to do will be your decision.
>> Okay. So, you are you are recommending that a nonprofit, say the women's club downtown, has the ability to apply for a facade a facade grant. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Mr. Harrison,
>> I have really about four questions, but I think they're all pretty easy. Uh, one is on that facade painting. Uh, if it covers exterior paint painting, I get it on on downtown buildings, if they're an interior building, there's really only the facade, right? But if it like a
corner building or any other businesses uh that that we decide to uh give grant money for painting, is it just the face of the building or the entire building? >> It could be the entire building. What can be seen? >> Okay, good deal. I just wanted to
clarify that. Um the uh under site improvements uh one of the uh things that is bulleted is outdoor seating areas or pedestrian amenities. Um seating areas would that be the actual physical area, not necessarily tables
and chairs for a restaurant or anything like that. Correct. >> As in >> Well, yeah. Like if if if we're giving grant money for a business, say a restaurant to um to make an outdoor
seating area, what actually would that in entail and what would it exclude? Um like well the so basically walkway especially if it's dealing with the ADA compliance that that would um apply to all that.
>> Yeah. Um, if it's just considered just for aesthetics, no sir, that would not apply. >> Okay. >> So, if you're just doing something as a like beautifification, landscaping aesthetically, >> Yeah. >> No sir. Um, we want something basically
that would truly benefit the um the structure itself. >> Okay. So, a good example might be last stop. It just occurred to me their their patio area out there. Would that be considered improvement that this would cover something like that? just the physical structure of the patio.
>> I mean from the the physical structure we were looking at a lot of this from a permanent aspect is what the applicant doing what they're recommending is it is it a permanent enhancement um of some sort. So in that case I think Chris is taking the stance that some of it may not like particularly the tables and the
lighting and stuff those are not permission fixtures. Correct. But if you're going and putting on pavers and you're putting down a concrete pad and things of that nature, I don't see why we wouldn't do that because that's more of a permanent fixture >> versus those things that can easily be removed. >> Yeah, that's I just wanted to make sure
of that. That's great. Um and then under adaptive reuse and building improvements, um interior improvements necessary for occupancy or code compliance. I I get the code compliance.
uh what what types of improvements are necessary for occupancy? What would that would would that entail um on the interior of of a building? >> Well, so with anything that a person can bring back for special approval from the
board, we're mostly looking for anything that deals with the exterior. Um, if it basically if you need something to to access the building for occupancy, that's something that we would look at. But that actually deals
with the interior itself. They would have to make a special request to come in and ask the board to something that's not actually within the guidelines. >> I guess we're more so looking at those things that like if the building needs a new electrical system, it was it's it's tube and knob and needs to be the new
breaker system. Is that something the board feels is an appropriate use of dollars to get the business operating, get the business the building in the code? >> That's that's what Chris saying ultimately they're all going is all coming to the board. All these applications are coming to you. It's going but it's also going to determine that that sheet we talked about at the beginning where he's going to give a
quick synopsis and say we recommend or don't recommend. If what they come to is interior and we don't recommend it, you still have the ability to make that change if you feel that it's a necessary improvement. >> So consistency is my concern. If it's a code thing, if we're if we're do if we're spending money to get them uh
electrical like you say so they can occupy the building, I I get that. But, you know, I'm concerned about making various decisions for various cases of what is considered necessary for occupancy. Is that,
you know, air conditioning? Is that flooring? Is that uh countertops? or or what exactly might that entail? You know, I I just hate for it to be so wide open that we we'll be accused of of making allowing this one to do something
and not allowing this one to do it. You know what I'm saying? >> So So are you talking about having some sort of sort of language in there that says that for interior improvements, they must be of some sort of necessity in relation to the CO process from the building department. Like the only way that building get a CO to occupy it is
if it's one of the check marks required by the building department. >> Yeah. Is that I think I think that would that would narrow it down and not just leave it open for cont you know interpretation by you know 100 different applicants uh in in scenarios. Um
>> so in that case that's when the board want is it also would also be a requirement of such as that they provide that documentation from the building department that this is a requirement to receive a CO. >> Yeah. I don't care about that. Well, I mean, I think the problem is
you're not going to get the building official to agree that a CO can be held for any reason other than what is provided for in the Florida building code. I can hear you right now, Mr. Bearden is not going to withhold a CO merely because we have a policy that suggests it should not be issued.
He has been adamant about that on other issues within the county is that as the building official, it is his purview and is the Florida statute he goes by. Now, in terms of um us signing off for leasing leans, things like that, I mean, I think we can find other ways to address that perhaps, but I don't
believe we can actually create a CO category above and beyond. >> I think I think there's I think what they're saying is if the applicant is going to get a CO from the building department, the building department says, "Hey, you need a new electrical system to meet code." They come they could come to the CRA and say, "Hey, electrical is going to cost 15,000.
Would the board be willing to provide half of that and would it to help us assist? >> Yeah, but I think that becomes a problem of there's a lot of this stuff that's going to be part of it. So, they're going to basically be asking the building department, tell me what's required for a CO. The building department say everything in the building code. Okay. >> Well, do I need this versus that? Well,
that's what I'm saying. He's not going to get into agreeing this is what's needed for a CO versus that because there are a lot that could be required for the CEO. And so, the moment he puts that out there, we're not going to get that is where I'm going to. I mean, he's just not gonna I don't think we can do that. But I do think it could be one
where what we're looking at is that we add language and what we've seen else when we looked at this first time was language that effectively says that if this is a necessary remediation measure to keep the house
from being condemned and we can get that from building department, you can use that. So don't attach it to whether or not they do or don't get the CO, whether or not a CO will or will not be issued. Attach it to whether or not it would keep it from being condemned. So if we do that, I think that would
solve your issue and create the same scenario, >> Mr. Bever. >> So I want to come at that. I I agree with the where Councilman Harrison is going with this and I want to come at it from just a slightly different angle. If
I I to me I think it would be a tragedy for us to approve a facade grant for something on the exterior of a building and then there be something structurally wrong with the building that causes it to then,
>> you know, be be condemned or collapse or have some other issue >> and then we're out >> the money for the facade plus whatever it was to to fix it so that the facade doesn't collapse or or whatever it is. I think that's kind of my thought process is what I'm kind of tracking along with you on is it would be a tragedy for that
to happen. So I'm open to approving under special circumstances if you can say hey to maintain the integrity of the facade we need to do X Y and Z on the interior of the building. That that argument to me is completely
within your train of thought of let's be consistent with what we're going to approve but not be just so open-ended that we're up here approving, you know, random objects in the building, you know, for for the money. >> Yeah. It it just it just strikes me as
as a little bit wide open when we when we think about what is necessary for occupancy. If it's something structurally, you know, absolutely. I mean I don't have any problems with this thing at all other than consistency that we are applying it the same to every
every applicant that comes down the road you know and separate things that are need absolutely needed for occupancy of the building versus startup cost for a particular type of business. you know, uh, startup cost, you know, if you, you
know, we we've got to be able to distinguish and and not be making special choices, um, in in my view. But, I mean, if the purpose is to get the building occupied with everything structurally sound and all that, that's that's that's a that's
a no-brainer. I just I just want us to be careful about what a business owner that's about to start a business might say, "Well, I got to have this toen my business. Well, that might be on them, not on taxpayers. That's right.
You see, and that's what I want to, you know, if we can distinguish between that. >> Um, >> Mr. Cosen, >> one of the things that jumped out at me on this is these benefits
that were the taxpayers are paying for. There's there's three people who have earned their living in the private sector in private business sitting at this dasis and every
dollar every penny that I put into rental properties or you put into your business or Clay put into his law office. Our best friend is the IRS. believe it or not, cuz for every dollar you put in your business,
that comes off your taxes. So when I look at the overall big picture on this budget, we're asking almost $4 million for the CRA.
And last year, we only used $120,000 for blight, which was what the CRA was originally intended for. And if the the biggest thing we can do to help our business owners,
the biggest thing we can do is the alleyway. And this $4 million almost $4.8 million 3 um 3.8 8 million
would go a huge huge way forward on this alleyway project. You take out $120,000 to maintain what the city um has already done for blight.
>> Keep doing the blight. let the business owners get their tax incentive for improving their properties and go full steam ahead on the alleyway. Um, if
this plan that we're talking about is fantastic for rich cities where money's not an object. The last briefing I had with Kobe was there's no more meat on the bones. There is no more meat on the bone
when we start getting into our budget. And we've got we've got three priorities is our primary responsibility. We're responsible to the citizens of
this city who a lot of them are uh without basic services. We've got places right here in downtown DeFuniac uh that don't have basic city services. Uh people have to have their septic tank pumped out. We don't have uh the pump
stations we need because it cost a lot of money. Uh there's uh I know you get tired of hearing this word, our infrastructure. Um we still have asbestous water pipes feeding our city's
population. carcinogenic. This these are all really good things good things to have. But if we're going to be able to look after our citizens,
number one, our employees, number two, and maintain the infrastructure of the city government that supports this. We need more space and room. We've got a
wonderful historical building right here on this property right next to us, the old Harbison building that is in bad need of repair. And that's that belongs to us. That could you that could go we need to
use that some of that money for that when we have the money to do it. I would love to do all these projects we're talking about, but the math doesn't add up. If we're going to do things
and get it done and not talk about it, I'd like to suggest that a a huge portion of this CRA budget go to the alleyway to help our business owners. >> Um, >> so so what you're trying to say to then, Mr. Coen is you don't agree with funding
the FRAP program as much as the um as it would come to funding the other projects such as streets streetscapes and alleyway. I'm just trying to rein it back in on the topic right now is is the FRAP program and whether or not we approve or or disapprove. I I can
understand why why you're bringing up the points you are. I just want to keep it on topic as much as possible because here in another couple of um agenda items we're going to actually hit that budget. So, >> right. So, um, if we're going to do what if we if we
want to get something done, I would suggest that we scrap 2A alto together, put the money back toward the alleyway and infrastructure and taking care of our employees and derelic buildings that we currently own and
can't use. >> I I agree with you. Let's keep it on topic of this meeting. CRA, not city council. That one will be the next one. But let's I I agree with you there. I'm just trying to keep it on topic with the agenda items. So, you're saying scrap 2A, don't fund it, and then uh
reallocate those funds to other needed projects on the CRA budget. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Any more discussion? Got one more question, but you haven't had a chance to speak yet. >> I'm good right now. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Last thing, and just for clarification
on page nine of those guidelines and policies for that particular program, um about how the 10-year funding limit works on uh I don't have it pulled up, but it's on page nine. It says the limit applies regardless of whether
application is submitted by the property owner or another party with the property owner's written permission. So my question is what does that mean? Because it says in this program it can't be a tenant. It has to be a owner
operator. The owner of the property and the tenant of the property. But this clause says with the property owner's written permission, somebody else might be able to apply for for this. So that's a contradiction. The the reason that was
in there was there were times that it was presumed that someone may be contracting with someone working through historic preservation or otherwise and they may have their architect contractor or similar make application on their behalf being the person actually performing the work. Uh the thought at
the time and I'm not saying you need to keep it but the thought at the time was that that might be the better person for us to talk to if the owner says I honestly don't know what my contractor is doing. I know I've hired them to fix X, Y, and Z, but the contractor may be the better point or the architect, especially through historic standards.
So, the concept there is basically an owner's applicant, not a tenant, but that can certainly be removed if you wanted to. >> I I agree with Mr. Harris. I think it's just clarifying that it's it either is or is not. If this is going to go through, I'd like
to which I don't support it, but if it go does go through, I'd like for you to add that the applicants must be a US citizen. >> I don't have. >> And if it's not a bridge too far,
the contractors doing the work should be local people. And when I mean local, I mean within the confines of Walton County, Holmes County, >> you can put whatever restrict. I mean, it's your program. It's your grant
program. I've got less qual. Um, if somebody's a somebody's here legally but not a US citizen, they are entitled to certain legal rights. I don't know that we can step on the federal government's toes in that regard, but um but it is your program
and as you see fit, I will defer to the board. >> So, do we have a motion at this point? >> And uh I would like to make a motion that we scrap 2A
and focus on getting the alleyway done. There was a time when and this was before my time that the focus was on the airport. I wasn't here to make that decision. It was done when I got a seat at this DIS.
But because of the grant money and the time clock that was that was ticking, I jumped on board because >> if we're going to get that much money, we need to we need to use it and not lose it. I agree. Mr.
Townsen, did airport funds ever come out of CRA? >> No. What I'm saying is is that we we got grant money for that and there was a ticking there was a time on it like December 31st this year. >> So that's why I jumped on on board with that. Uh now
I'm using that as an example to say if we went after this alleyway with the same vengeance that we went after the airport, we can get this alleyway done in no time. That's that's my point. >> Okay, we got a motion. Do we have a
second? It does for lack of a second. Do we have any other motions or staff direction? >> I'll I'll make a motion that we proceed with this program with the uh revisions
that have been discussed >> which which revisions because we've talked about a lot here. So >> if you if you'll so allow me Mr. Chair maybe let that see if I can get a second for that and then we can clarify those those particular revisions.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? Second. >> All right, we got a motion in a second. So, Mr. Beerbone. >> Uh, so I think the first thing was just making sure that we even though I I wasn't able to find it that we are going
to in fact allow nonprofits. Yes, sir. And then I guess I want to have a little bit of further clarifying discussion on how do how do we feel about the discussion that Councilman Harrison and I had around approving certain interior
improvements? Are we going to tie that to, you know, structurally sound? Are we going to ask for language that it be tied to make ensuring that the building is structurally sound? Like where where do we land on on those those discussions and being consistent?
It sounds like we get um I think Mr. Atkinson had it pretty laid out. We get him to include the language, but it was based around the structural in terms of not allow the way for the building to be occupied and or not to become a condemned. >> Correct. To avoid the building entering into condemned status.
>> Okay. So to remove it out of condemned or to prevent it from being condemned. Okay. So just >> Mr. Cos >> when you're talking structural
that includes foundation and a lot of old buildings foundations are crumbling and uh as far as the B the especially these old historical build buildings in the historic district. So that that would be that could get very
expensive very fast. And let's just say the uh the foundation passes engineer inspections and it's good to go where you still got loadbearing walls. Uh are they termite infested? Are they compromised? Are they safe for the
public? You know, that structural can get very expensive. But we're capped at 15,000. >> And this is we're already given they're already given the incentives by the federal government. But I see which way this is
going and I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I'm just I think that this money could be well spent if we looked after higher priorities. That's just my opinion. >> So Kate uh so so I guess you know things
are just flashing through my mind. for example, code compliance that could include a commode, right? Or urinal in the bathroom and stuff like that. So, >> well, I think so. I think there's I think we're looking at a difference that when we're talking about occupancy and we're talking about we're talking about
structurally, we're talking about with the building code, >> correct? >> We're talking about code enforcement. We're talking about Chris's ability from the exterior of the building. Chris cannot do anything on the interior of the building. >> We're talking about exterior of the building. We're talking about code enforcement. But but the adapt the adaptive reuse and
building improvements under that commercial grant allows interior improvements necessary for occupancy or code compliance. Right? So I guess I'm asked is grant money can it be used for in other words to occupy a building it
has to have fixtures it has to have plumbing fixtures it has to have does it include that or just limited to building only as far as for occupancy that's that's my concern where where do we distinguish what it actually covers and what it does not cover you know
>> unless the board does I think if you add in l Mr. Atkins is explaining you're probably going to it's probably a lot like the code. A lot of times we talk about the code we try we put things in there that are that are not allowed and you assume everything else is allowed. Isn't how it works? >> Yes. >> Because we try to go and try to list out everything that is required to beat
building code. We'll just have the whole building code in there. So I feel like you've got that language that he has that says it's got to be you know not to become condemned. And again, all these come to you anyways. And this is going to be treated as an special exception when you start to get into interior structural like we would want the applicant to come with a plan of what is
what is it you're actually doing. Yeah. >> What's what's this money going to be for? How's it going to keep the building from falling in XYZ? So, >> I think we try to get into everything. We're probably going to probably really bog us down. >> Yeah. The structural I don't have any questions about whatsoever. I mean, uh, but it's just
again consistency. We might we might we might grant money for somebody to put all their plumbing fixtures in, you know, >> and then deny somebody else. Well, then we've made a mistake, you see. So, I'm just looking for consistency in what we are able to do and and what we cannot
do. >> Um, that's my only concern. That's the only reason I brought it up. Not not to drag this out, but um long as we can be sistent in the decisions that we make uh when when people apply for this money for interior improvements necessary for
occupancy. Um >> chair. >> Yes, Mr. Ken. >> I'm hearing some concern that there might be too much open-endedness and lack of consistency. Um, if y'all don't mind, would uh would
it be proper to make a subsequent motion that we readress the loose ends and um bring this back before the CRA at a later date or is this something that you just want to >> this I was about to rein this back in because of time a little bit, but um
would does the count or does the board feel that um because of all the discussions and the things that are out there, let the let staff bring this back to us in a revised form uh notating the concerns that we've had and for approval
at the next meeting with staff direction or do you want to proceed forward with the motion and and then the um amendments to that motion? Well, I mean, what what does everybody think about, you know, if if everybody's okay, if I'm if I'm a lone wolf here on
on on >> plumbing fixtures and things like that, >> um, that's okay. I mean, I I can I can live with that. I respect majority. Um, but if there's a simple statement or something we could we could do. I you know, we we have look at this agenda
tonight. Both both of these meetings is terribly long, right? We've got a lot to do. of bringing it back and having staff redo all that work. If we can just have a simple thing or you know a simple way to address this, are we going to do those types of
I don't even know how how to label that type of thing, the plumbing fixtures and that. But >> I think that's why you combine to what is needed to avoid I mean outside of I think that's why you label like I said something to keep the building out of
condemn out of being condemned or to um bring it out of that status. >> Okay, Mr. Beerbone. >> And and that's that's where I was going with it was let's just have some language or a line that staff can insert in there that it it it's labeled the facade renovation program. So any
interior work that they're requesting funding for has to somehow be directly linked to the preservation of the facade. >> Well, it has to be the I'd say preservation of the structure from a condemnation standpoint. >> As long as you make it about I mean you don't want to put build a facade around something that's got fall in on itself.
>> Right. Right. That's that and that's that was my point. Yeah. >> So so we're just talking about the front wall then basically interior. >> Well no I mean I would think no. So I mean >> operation >> I'll give you an example. Termites. >> Okay. a foundation that's >> sorry >> cracked and is unsettled. Either of
those would be examples where if they come in, hey, we're going to do the facade renovation, but we need some money to repair this. That's a consideration. You're still going to be approving it at these meetings still. Correct, Kobe? >> Right. >> So ultimately, the board's going to have the chance to hear that, but they're going to have to demonstrate how it's to
keep it from being condemned. It can't be, >> okay, >> I've got lenolium floors and I want hardwood. >> It's got to be something more than that. Okay, questions. >> I think I'm sorry, but I think that Mr. Harrison's concern is like >> give us some guidelines so that it's not
so open-ended and we're not accused down the road of playing favorites because we approved one thing versus the other. I think that's what he's seeking is some clarity there. >> Not to labor the conversation. It would have be easier if we just excluded this all together and brought back throughout time some changes to interior
applications and leave this application purely exterior. >> Would that make it easier and put some stuff together for interior that's related to just the things we're talking about? >> So a separate program. >> No, same program but some at the end of
the day this is still going to be an exception. These things going to be an exception to this program here. Right. So, it's it's submitted under this. Um, but you're going to have to show all this additional information as to why is how does the building structurally say like
what's causing the issue? Is this going to correct the issue? What do you have? Because of course, we don't want to put $15,000 into the foundation if there's $100,000 worth of work left and they're never going to do it. Um, so I'm just saying we can leave it in there or do we pull it out and bring something back separate that that puts in the policy a
little bit further what you are talking about gives a little more detail to it. Just one or two lines >> approve it but then bring back some clarifying. >> Yeah, we can bring back some clarifying stuff for the for interior work. >> So exclude the current language of interior work and then bring it back for
amendment at a later time >> if the board comfort. >> You okay with that? >> Yeah. So we would just remove section three adaptive reuse and building improvements. Okay. >> And then we'll bring something back to you for interior work that's got more detail to it. Okay. >> So before I get back to Mr. Cosen, so so
far um add language to allow the nonprofits and then remove section three. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Mr. I can't remember if this was under 2 A, B, or C, but um since we're talking
about 2A, was this the one that had if it was a bu if it was a business, a $30 million business and had employees between 100 employees and >> No, sir. >> That was the next one. >> No, this So this program basically you
have to own the business, right, >> and operate the business yourself. I got that. >> So, >> this is this is helping the small mom and pop business, but correct. This is the local ones. Okay. >> Yes. If so, basically, if you have a Walmart, they will not qualify. >> Right. Gotcha.
>> All right. So, we got a motion. We got a second. Uh, any further board discussion before I go to public comment? Public comment. Is there Miss Atinson? I know you. >> Miss Sue, may I approach the >> Yes, ma'am. Please.
I am uh here to say thank you to Mr. Strong and everyone here uh for >> Can Did she get your name, Miss S? >> Susan Smith. My name is Susan Smith and I'm a member of the women's club board. I'm sorry, not the board. I'm a I'm a member of the women's club and we have a
lot of members in attendance here. Um and thank you for coming everybody. Uh, our building at Women's Club is at 23 South 6th Street and is over a century old. Our clubhouse serves as a popular boutique selling quality hand clothing,
secondhand clothing, quality secondhand clothing at thrift store prices. Of course, we are a nonprofit and of course, all of our volunt all of our members are volunteers here. Our income is used for serving the community in many ways and we're prepared. If you
would like to know those many ways today, we can do that. Um, we are currently seeking to assist some assistance to repair and restore the building and we are humbly asking for your support, your help. Our building is
full of history since the early days of our community. Even though a storm took over off the second floor many years ago, the building still has historical value in this town. To have the most urgent repairs completed, you're looking at an estimate we have from Clint
Alfred. That total would approximately be $14,000 and does include a handicap ramp accessed on the right side of the porch. To explain why we need these renovations, I'd like to tell you that our building does not have any
insulation at all. So, in the summertime it is tremendously hot in there and in the winter time it is extremely cold. As a matter of fact, we often work wearing our winter coats while we're working there. Um, we do not have central air or heat,
but we do have two window style units that are helpful if you're standing right beside them. Um, the insulation is needed under the floors. The pipes need insulated so we don't have freezing pipes anymore in the
winter. And we uh would like to have insulation not only there and under the floor. We don't have included in there the ceiling and that was an oversight but um we'll get that done house however we can sometime. Uh we do need perimeter
skirting around the perimeter. So that'll keep varmints out and help the heat and the cooling aspect of that. The beam repair we need is on the front of the building. That's listed in Mr. Alfred's estimate. And the handicap ramp is also listed there with a couple of
alternatives alternate ways of doing that. At this time, the future of our building is in jeopardy. And we certainly do not want to lose this asset because um we have a lot of women that depend on it here in the community
um to furnish their closets and get to know their neighbors actually. and and many come from about a 40 mile radius around Definiac to come to our clubhouse and uh beyond on occasion. We've had them cross state lines many times. Uh the woman's club has provided so much to
the community over the years. And if you would like, I can defer the rest of my time to Miss uh Guowski to tell you what those benefits are to the city. >> Pause your time real quick. We can um I would like to kind of keep this limited
to the the actual um program itself determining whether or not you're in support or not in support of the program. Obviously, this is a reason to to support the program without a doubt. Um but tonight's really not the night to bring it forward for approval. It would
be go through the process once the program is approved. But but I I just wanted to make that clear because that's really what this item is about tonight. So, um, but yes, ma'am, if you would like to come up and speak to if you're in favor of it or not, uh, the there's
still at least 30 seconds left on there. >> Chris, >> sorry, but I am in favor. Um, Chris Gazowski, Women's Club historian. Um, I was really interested in everything you were talking about this
uh 2A because that is exactly what we would apply under. And since you've decided, I think that we can have nonprofits apply. I mean, that's really all I think we want. I mean, we support
the facade renovation program and we'd like to apply for it. >> Okay. >> Thank you, ma'am. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of or or not in favor of the FRAP program passing tonight?
>> Miss Jaden. >> Hey, Jaden Broadway, executive director of Main Street. Uh, we think it's a great program and we're really looking forward to our merchants downtown being able to use that. And as far as a women's club goes, I'd be happy to meet with you because AARP has several grants
available that will help definitely with your um um handicap accessible ramps. So get with me, Paty, and uh we will we'll see what we can find for you guys. Thanks, guys. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> All right. Anyone else?
Got one more. Shirley. >> Hi, I'm Shirley Gillery. Um, I think this will be a great program, but also for helping the people in the community, too. We got to remember there's things needed a little bit outside of the
downtown corridor that can help the city also. And outside of the downtown quarter, we pay tax, too. So, I think it'll be a good program for everyone. >> Thank you, Miss Shirley. And we're about to get into a couple of those here in just a second. Any further comment on
the FRAP program? And >> just to clarify, chairman, the program is available at any uh any eligible applicant within the CRA area, which is 75% of the city limit. So, uh any any commercial business that meets this require these requirements is eligible for this program.
>> Thank you, sir. All right. So, the motion at this time is to approve the FAR FRAP program with the additions of to allow the nonprofits and to remove section three. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Oppos. >> All right, it's 3 to one. Um, and in approval of the FRA program, we'll move on to 2B. Okay. So, this program focuses um primarily on
improving neighborhood safety, um, reducing blight and supporting long-term residential stability. The program comes into two funding tracks into one unified application process and utilizes assistance for residents with structural need. Um to qualify for the program,
applicants must be meet HUD inquir or income guidelines and remain below 60% of the area medium income for Walton County. um eligibility um properties must be owner occupied located within the CRA district and must not have um
delinquent taxes or um active um foreclosure um proceedings. So under track A you have the hazardous tree mitigation. Um the program focuses on hazardous tree. The funding is intended to address um dangerous trees or limbs or pose a threat to structures,
utilities or public safety. Um projects are limited to $5,000 per property and must be completed within 90 days. The um track B is a residential um provides um assistance with exterior and um structural residential
improvement. Examples include roof replacement, windows, doors, um accessory improvements, porches, and code related repairs. Funding is available up to $30,000 depending on project scope and um approval. Um with
that though the um there is a five-year lean placed on the house. Every year 20% is reduced from the um lean until 5 years which comes down to zero. Um ineligible improvements the program does
not cover um interior renovations um routine maintenance landscaping unrelated to um structural work or any work started um before the CRA approval. All work must be completed by um licensed contractors and property owners
are not permitted to um to complete grunting work themselves. Applicants are reviewed by CRA staff for completeness eligibility and project um priority. The CRA may conduct inspections throughout the pro the
project process. Applicants should also understand that repayment provisions may apply if the property is sold within five years after receiving structural renovation assistance. Um so the tree track A can be applied once every three
years. Track B which is for the house itself can only be done once every 10 years. Okay. All right. Do we do we have any discussion or Mr. Bron? >> So, uh, number one, income eligibility.
It says, uh, household income must not exceed 60% of the AMI for Walton County. Uh, the AMI for Walton County according to the Bureau of Statistics is 81,986. So 60% of that would be $49,191.
So a household income of $49,000. in and and in my the reason why I bring that up is the previous CRA already had this and it was even more restrictive than the current 60% and they had to up it in
today's economy $41,000 or $49,000 for a household seems incredibly low. Well, from my understanding it's also based on number of persons. So basically um for Walton County um one person is 42,600 is is that 60%. If you have two individuals
in the household it's $48,666. Um three people it's $54,780. Four people is $60,840. So they actually um why pulled this up a while ago is also based off of how many
individuals actually live in the residence also. But even even those numbers that you rattled off just now still seem incredibly low to me. >> I mean, we can increase that. I mean, they have 80% which is for one person $56,800. I mean, we can increase the amount if
that's what you want. >> What would be a household of four on that? >> A household of four for 60%, which is what it's at now, is >> $81,100. >> Okay. >> I I I think that that's reasonable. >> 80%.
Because at the end of the day, they're paying into this as well. >> Practically everybody within the city is paying into this. So these are their tax dollars. >> That's a household of four, >> right? >> Is what he's talking about there, >> right? >> Mr. Harrison, you got anything?
>> No, I'm just thinking about those those numbers. Um I agree with you. Those those are those are low. the objective is to do as many as we can do. Um, you know, in my mind, but um,
yeah, I'm I'm I'm open to to that. Um, I do have a question on paint. Now, I I've expressed opposition to painting houses because I consider it routine maintenance. However, is there a code compliance aspect to paint that has
been deteriorating for years and peeling and that kind of thing? >> Yes. We actually under the um code or the maintenance code that we use which is the international code um council >> for property maintenance. Basically if you have chip and peeling paint or you
have paint that is worn where the wood is exposed to the elements now. >> Okay, >> which can cause help causing um wood rot, right? >> It's a violation. And so I have written people in the past for those violations. Now it's not usually just like one
section. It's a huge section of the of the structure that is peeling and painting. So, they have to go and scrape that off and then basically reut a some sort of protective coating on there. >> Okay. >> So, would those be cases where exterior painting could be done?
>> Oh, yes, sir. >> Okay. Because it would be it would be part of the code enforcement violation. >> Gotcha. Thank you, >> Mr. Kaiser. So, if somebody applied for this and um was awarded, they would get
um a maximum of $30,000. >> Correct. >> If you're going to help as many people as possible, I'm wondering if that's a little high. I I I don't because the the neighbors next to me that bought the house and are
renovating the house, hearing what they have spent and they've done a lot of it theirelves, 30,000 will get gobbled up in a heartbeat with with one quote for windows, doors, paint. >> Okay? And keep in mind for these this program,
you actually have to own it and live there. So it could not be used like for a rental house. >> Again, I'd like to emphasize that in a perfect world, if all of our city's needs, uh, all of our employees needs were met, if there was no infrastructure
issues, I'd be all for this. And I'm not going to vote against this because I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a really good idea. I just the math doesn't add up uh if we're going to um if we're going to take care of our needs
first. I'm having a little deja vu about a lot of wants before needs. And the governor is uh already the our legislation has decided that they're going to do away with uh the tax on a phase in basis
and the only thing we're going to be able to do to make up uh shortfall is to increase taxes. Anyway, save that song and dance. I'm not voting against this because I think it's a bad idea. It's just that the math
doesn't add up when you compare needs and wants. >> Okay. I um just so my thoughts on the program that these programs are good for especially for what we're wanting to do with them. Um this is for people who
live in residential homes who who need help. I I foresee those people coming forward. Um definitely based on income. We're talking $81,000 for a household of four. It may be the difference of them being able to provide structure for their their families and whether or not
they're able to afford that insurance on that home to be able to cover that. That's that's beyond here or there. Um so for we still get to go back over the CRA's budget and establish that. Um and then to say how much of this we're
actually going to spend and we still have to approve these projects on a case- by case basis as they come in. So, um I for me I'm I'm going to be in approval of the program especially for the need on this one. But do we have any further discussion? Mr. Bearbon. >> So, I I'm making a a motion to approve
the residential safety and renovation program with with the modification that we go up to 80% on the household income. >> Okay. Got a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. Motion and a second. Do we
need any further discussion for the board before we go out to the public based on that? Do we have any public comment on whether or not you're in approval or disapproval of the residential safety renovation program? Um, that's what that's about. Yes, sir.
My name is Robert Curry. >> Um, and just outside looking in. Earlier we were talking about the alleyways and this and that, but you're talking about spending taxpayer dollars, and I greatly appreciate you raising it from 40,000 because you can't live on $40,000. Um,
so greatly approve of this, especially for the citizens, but if we're going to talk about what needs to be done, um, the employees of the city, yes, but the alleyway already caused so much like disarray with all the citizens and we're
going right back to the alleyway. Um, I think this is a great thing to do and need to stay focused on our citizens. I do believe property taxes are going to go away. So that is going to affect the county, probably the city. Um, so just
be wise with our money because we all do pay into this and business want getting it help or a personal person getting help. I think the citizens have more right to getting help. So if we approve the first one for the businesses to actually get $15,000, I don't think
$5,000 for a tree removal because it's going to fall on your house is that bad. Um, and that's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> That brought up an excellent question. >> I'm just a second. Let me let me make sure if anybody else has any further comments. Any further comments on
whether or not you're in approval of the residential safety and renovation program from the public? >> All right, Mr. Cosen. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. My name is Brother Parker and I'm here and yes, I do approve of the program, but I'm also concerned about
the income base um within the household. Yes, me and my husband, we we do live together. But the thing is we also considered to be senior citizen and we do have to live with that and we have property that does need to be renovated, does need to become up to standards. But according to the income tax base, we
will not apply for that simply because we are in the income bracket. But yet and still there's quite a bit um needs to be adjusted in order to have that property to come up to standards according to you all standards. So therefore I approve of it but I'm
looking at this income base right here. So that would be the clause that I've totally come against right there. >> Can you pause that for me? Are you saying you're above or below that income line? >> We're above that >> at the 60% or the 80%. >> Uh you have you have to say 80% income. Right. Right. And you have to have at
least 49,000 in your home to come in. >> That's minimum of for 80% for two individuals at $64,850. >> Right. But right, I mean with whenever you own a a fixed income, you will have that amount whenever you have two
individual working with retirement and social security coming in. You will have that amount coming in, but it's a fixed income. >> So you're saying you're above the 64 then >> as of now, but it won't continue to stay that way. Yes ma'am. So, >> so unless the board changes them, the
next item will be the same program but on a non-incomebased. >> So, there would be the same program, different eligibility requirement, uh different grant amount available. But there is a program for non-income base as well that we'll get into next.
>> Okay. But in the meantime, leans are are still being fined against the home against that resident. >> So, that's where we're at right now. Okay. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Any further public comment on item 2B,
>> Miss Shirley? >> Hi, Shirley Gillery. Thank you guys for approving this. That works well. Really appreciate that. That residential safety is very important. If we keep our people safe, then we have a good community. So, thank you for approving that. >> Thank you, Miss Shirley. Miss, any
further public comment? Mr. Cosen, >> the gentleman that came up and spoke earlier um brought up a good point. Uh all these programs when I keep saying the math doesn't
work. And I was under the impression that the alleyway was a priority. If the alleyway is not a priority, that's a game changer. So, in order to get all these programs
done, do we want to scrap the alleyway? Do we want to scrap the alleyway project? Now, that's not anything that we're going to vote on, but if we're going to if we're going to make the make the
money work, well, then you can't have it all. And I agree that that's something we're going to have to decide on, but we'll hit that on item 3A when we start looking at all the programs and how much we want to fund
and whether or not to fund up. >> Okay. >> programs. So, I understand what you're saying. It's just there's another another piece of this still to come. >> And when people talk about safety, uh that this is good because uh it
doesn't comproi compromise safety. Well, It's not this dasis. It's not these elected officials fault. This has been coming for years. But my definition safety is not drinking
water from cancer-causing pipes. >> I agree with you and I think this entire das does as well, Mr. Kos. It's the total system. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Um any further comment in before we go to a vote?
>> Just just just one one comment on under the previous uh CRA board. I remember a figure and I don't remember the time frame. Maybe some of y'all can help me out with this. But they had given 80 something just seemed like 83
grants. Kobe, you might remember this. 80 something grants for a total of just over $200,000 for eight for 80 grants. A lot of those were were fences and things like that, but some of them are property. And you know, a lot of these
repairs that we're talking about in this particular program, unless I'm mistaken, were were not covered. Uh they they weren't incomebased. Am I correct in that? Uh and so therefore you you think
well they gave 80 grants that's a lot. It's really not a lot because it it ex people that couldn't afford to pay for the upgrades on their house and there's a lot of them throughout our city. They didn't have the money to put up front to
repair or it wouldn't be blighted. You see? So that those programs were hard to get off the ground. What we're trying to do here is get programs in place that will genuinely help people that don't have the money upfront to to get their house uh upgraded. And yes, the city
can't invest taxpayer money without some tie to that money that the person continues to live there and just doesn't flip the house at taxpayer expense. So there there will be leans placed on it just like there are with taxes and what what have you, but those are completely
forgiven. um you know at at the end of the of of the period. So we are genuinely trying to help more people um that don't have the money to do it themselves and the only way to do that is put the money up front, pay the contractor and then that person stays
there for the number of years that's required. That's it. They're free and clear at that point. So we're we're trying to do the right thing and and and address the most people we can. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Nay.
>> Passes three to one. >> I'm sorry. It was leg day at the gym. I got a cramp. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Executive Director, item 2C. Glad you okay, Mr. Co. Chris, you'll give us the synopsis. >> Oh my goodness.
>> So, this program was created to encourage reinvestment into residential on properties located within the CR boundaries. Their program supports both new residential construction and improvements to existing homes. The overall goal is to reduce blight, improve property values, strengthen
neighborhoods throughout the community. The the program is divided into two long funding tracks. Track A provides up to $5,000 in reimbursement assistance for construction of new single homes on vacant lots within the CRA. Track B provides reimbursement assistance for
residential um renovations and exterior improvements covering up to 50 50% of eligible projects cost with a with a max award of $15,000. All requirements provided after from project completion and the um final
inspection has been approved. Um eligible improvements primary focus on exterior rehabilitation and safety improvements. Examples include roof repairs or replacement, windows and doors, porches and railings, accessibility improvements and code on
related repairs. Now they also can use this also for the hazardous tree removal. They also qualify within the condition as property is properly documented and pre-approved by the CRA. Um the key requirements is to qualify the program. the program must be located
within the CRA boundaries and must not have delquent delinquent taxes or active um foreclosure proceedings. Um all work must in the CRA approval before construction begins and all work must be completed by um properly licensed
contractors. Um projects are um expected to begin within 90 days of approval and generally must be completed within one year um with this program. So actually with either of the programs, if they actually have code enforcement leans or
violations, we can overlook those to bring the property into compliance. And basically from there on out, if they have something like that, they can apply for the lean reduction if that goes into place.
>> One question, how long do they have to maintain the house on this one? >> Um, this one is not one. This is basically it's a 50-50 match up to $15,000. And it doesn't have to be homesteaded. It could be any house that they own. >> How do y'all feel about that being non-h
homestead? I did not catch that >> because that's to me that says that any developer can come out here and apply for CRA funding at that point if there's no timeline for maintaining the home and the fact that it's not homesteaded
to them. >> Mr. Beerbomb, >> that is how it's written. >> So I want to um maybe kind of advocate for that side for a minute just just for the sake of discussion.
Blight is blight. And if that owner owns two houses, three houses, one house, why would we not want them to receive money to improve a blighted property? That that's my question. >> You mean if it was rental,
>> Mr. Mr. >> I'm >> correct. whether whether it's rental or not, if it if it's a blighted property or it's if it's a property that is in a state of disrepair, >> they own it. They're local. Why why would we penalize them?
Especially when they're paying taxes on it. They're paying into this fund that they're receiving this money out of >> because they're already getting an handsome federal reward to the IRS and tax deduction.
But everybody else is eligible. >> Homeowners, people who live in their home, >> but they they own that home as well. >> I mean, again, the purpose of this these programs, the purpose of the CRA is to address blight.
>> And as a secondary as a secondary knock on effect of all of this, >> it increases property values, which then helps everybody else out. not only the city but the the surrounding area. Like for example, this
weekend I or actually it was Friday. Uh went down Orange and looped around Orange and I noticed on my my loop down Orange that there were several houses in that area that have recently made exterior improvements and that that helped that neighborhood
tremendously. So, hypothetically, if one of those houses had been a second house by someone that maybe saw an opportunity because something was listed for sale and they could afford to buy it, why are we penalizing them?
>> Because the homeowner >> doesn't have the advantage of a taxdeductible program for a second home for rental property, >> but they they're paying into this program. >> Well, so is everybody in the city, >> right? So why are we why are we
penalizing them just because they decide to own more than one one piece of property? >> It goes back to dollars and cents. It if we're going to help >> I I detect this is this is going to pass.
I'm going to stay with not based on the math. We're putting all of our wants before our needs just like last year. What we should be doing is talking about the budget and how much we've got to spend and where we're going to allocate for the for the citizens and the city and
the employees and then what's left you go through the nicities but we have a difference of opinion here and that's okay >> and I won't say it's quite so much that it's just separate board so keeping our focus on the CRA and what we have here
and our focus on the city council when we take our seat as city council member but I get what you're saying with it, but I I can see both sides of this that the one thing that it's maximum assistance of up to 30,000 every 10
years to my original thought was the fact that this isn't limited to the residents or the residential homestead. But if to Mr. beer bombs effect. If they are putting up a home or remediating bite to get that home back on the
market, say that person is the landlord tenant type situation, they're paying property taxes on that. Whereas they would not if it was homestead property at this point based on the possibly may may not. It still hasn't been voted on
by the people yet, but it's coming up to ballot later this year. But realistically, we could benefit from or the city could benefit from commercial property taxes at that point versus >> not benefiting from it if it's homestead. So then you are in fact
creating a revenue stream for the city to collect on taxes. >> I get it. We have our city has needs this big. >> We've got this much money >> that you are now expanding. if that was
the path in that direction. That's what I'm trying to get. That's one way I'm looking at it. But Mr. Harrison, >> so under the frequently asked questions, it asks, can rental properties qualify for the grant? And it says only if the property owner currently resides in the
home. So that >> that's contradictory. Yeah, that'll be removed. No. So program the program is made so that >> basically if um you own the property you're eligible up to $15,000.
>> Um now if you want we can add to it basically if if concerns of the different um members if it if we can make it where if it's not being lived in it can be has to be related to a code enforcement violation.
if that's what something y'all want to go to. Or if y'all want to leave it as is where it's basically if you own the house, you can request up to the $15,000 on an exterior project to help remove blight.
>> Where is the 15,000? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Co, >> while you're looking that up, just to throw something out there. There's a lot of widows and widowers and
senior citizens that have too much house and they can't afford to live any place else because it's paid for and they're on a fixed income. Um I happen to know about two or three of them that are subsidizing their income with dental students from uh the dental college down
the road. And so that would qu even though they live in the home if they have rental property you know that would help them out a little bit. So I I said all that just to muddy the water a little more. >> Thank you sir. Any further comment from the dis
>> question. How many property is there a limit on how many properties they can do? >> No sir. And this is based off the the um the original program. >> Mhm. So, >> you know, if it's left as is, it it's
going to be a budgeting thing because, you know, I don't think the goal is to put a huge amount of money in this particular pot and and not be able to help a lot of people throughout the city that that need these these grants. I mean we we can do what you where we
limit then if for some reason you have four properties we can limit down to only three properties or two properties that the person is in their name inside the city limits. >> Yeah. >> That they can only do so many. >> So Mr.
>> the the one thought I had was um maybe um a rate limit. In other words, you have three houses in the city limits and you can't go hit all three in the same year. You can do one a year, you can do one every two years, something like that
to keep them from draining the well and from just loading up on the front end. So that that was that was kind of my compromise for you know a a land owner that you know >> has some issues and want wants to utilize this program. Put some sort of rate limit so that they can't just come
drain the fund in a single year. Mr. Chair, may I just offer a few? >> Yes, sir. >> So again, it is your program. You have broad authority to consider what you do. I would note that if the programs you
adopt and the policies you implement result in a scenario where the CRA is not spending the money that it is collecting. You do subject yourself to potential state compliance and audit measures because the purpose of the CRA money is not to build an account that
exists in perpetuity or is not spent. It is meant to be reinvested. So when this has been looked at elsewhere and I won't talk too much about the history because we got a different board here than what put some of these policies in place. I'll simply make the observation that it
has been identified elsewhere in the state that understanding that one owner in prior to any other owner and then cycling so that we're not
resulting in a situation where one person depletes the fund has been recognized as a model that is both non-discriminatory, statutoily compliant, and a method of allowing the funds to be used. But for
instance, if you put $100,000 into this fund, and you have no homeowners apply in a given year, because the blight is disproportionately with
nonowner occupants, you're going to have a potential issue. why that money wasn't spent. At the same time, if you say the money's in the fund and we're going to let everybody come in, we're going to evaluate them on the criteria. We're going to award what we're going to award and then at that
point in time, if somebody owns five properties and nobody else applies but those five, that's up to you. But I would say that the better question is what does the program serve? because it seems like there is a bit of a bit of
consternation with what this program actually accomplishes. This CRA is inherently limited to blight remediation. We don't have the widescale commercial type programs for infield development, construction of new housing
that some CRAAS focus on. So with that being the case, it's whether you want these programs to exist. And if you do, the purpose of them is to actually spend the money you put in them, not to limit the money you put in them. And I know that is counterintuitive, but that is the nature of the CRA is to spend the
money it has. You're not in a position where your goal is to save the money. >> All right. >> So, Mr. Chair, >> one. Yes, sir. One last one before we go to a motion. um all these programs, these three programs
that are being passed tonight, um if there's money left at the end of the year that hasn't been used, can that money can can we divert that to higher priority needs? >> So, yeah, you'll effectively so during
the budget process, the board's going to well determine, you know, we'll look it's okay to date how much has been spent out of these pro these set aside programs. uh we will then you know determine okay we expect this much to be done through the end of the fiscal year CRA is a little bit easier to deal with than from let's say the city's general
fund perspective there's a lot more to that well what'll happen is once the new year rolls over and we get into closeout phase and then we truly understand the auditors will give us a close out on our account then we will come and this board will need to make a budget amendment just similar to the prior board did back in February or March a large portion of
money we'll come back at that time to say okay the fund had x amount of dollars that was budgeted but wasn't spent and this surplus needs to be reallocated and in that time the board can reallocate those dollars to something with else within the mission of the of the CRA.
>> All right. So, we've had quite a bit of discussion on this item. Is this something that anyone would like to make a motion on? >> I make a motion to approve. >> Got a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> We had a motion and a second. Any further comment from the DA before we go
to the public? >> And chairman, the last thing I would say on this program and all other programs is we've put in here and we've tried to repeat over and over again that it these are discretionary. They're up to the purview of this board and they're going to be based on the priority of the board in terms of areas of the city that need
have the most need. Um so that doesn't hear very much. The applicants will be aware of that. They recognize that discretion sits with you all. Okay. Do we have any public comment regarding the motion that's been raised to approve residential redevelopment assistance program?
Miss Shirley, come on down. >> I am retired. I'm Shirley Giller. I am retired and I do have properties in the city. I do not live in the city. I actually live in the county, but I do pay tax in the city on these properties. And I did get a few letters from Mr. Strong and I took out my little
retirement budget and updated my properties to a degree, but it it's very it's hard for older people that have property in the city to keep it up and this will help them. May not help me, but it will help others. Okay. So, it's a good idea. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Sh.
>> Yes, sir. Come on back. Um, so the question I have is if we get all this money put in here and then it's not spent and we get closer to the end of the year, could Mr. Strong go out and go to the public and be like, "Hey, this is available. Would you could he go out
and kind of like campaign?" Because I mean, I want the city to it raises morale. You know, the more y'all help us and the better our houses look and the better everything around us looks, the better we feel as citizens. So, we get to the end of the year and hey, none of
this has been used. Can he go, even if he goes to somebody that's already used the fund, like, hey, you applied for this earlier this year. Nobody else has applied. Would you like to get back in it? The money still gets spent. It still makes the city look better. Would he have the ability to do that so we don't
run into audits and stuff later on into the year? >> I think that our code compliance department will work very well with the CRA and trying to remediate those plots. So those uh fines don't continue to accumulate and to meet all of the program's goals. So yes, sir. Just the
short answer is I think they'll work together just fine. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any further public comment on item uh 2C. All right, we got a motion and a second. Go to a vote. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed? >> Nay. >> 3 to one. Motion passes. Mr. Executive Director. Let's move on to 3A, the budget. >> Thank you, Chairman. So, uh, commissioners, uh, you know, this is really kind of just our first take at the budget. We know we got I think the chairman wants to be done no later than
4:45 today, so we can get some preliminary conversation going, but um, you'll see on this document, the far left is what was adopted for fiscal year 26. Uh, the next column you see is fiscical year 26 amended, and I'll explain that in just a second. And then
on the right that'll be fiscical year 27 proposed. You'll see there's nothing in there yet except for personnel. But uh the amended column that takes into account a few things particularly uh really just two things mostly.
>> Yes. Um that is um one there was a carry forward the prior board did again like back in February March that was just over a million dollars. you'll go down to that bottom line that says 515 530 5 5310 CRA streetscapes and alleyways. You will
see there was that that's where that money was allocated from the prior board. Um and then this board made some changes when you first took over. Um you'll see a new line for city admin fee 5153205 of 40,670.
uh I made internal budget amendments to cover that cost um particularly out of the personnel services lines because it was no longer needed. And so anyways, that's the amended uh to the fiscal year to the current fiscal year. And then again looking into the next fiscal year,
the personnel is as of current today. Um, and then we should know uh in the next few weeks a a roundabout number on potential revenue from both the city and the county based off the tiff. Um, and what we received as preliminary taxable
values from the property appraiser. And again, a lot of these dollars, for example, um, streetscapes alleyway, 27 crescent travel to about a minute, amphitheater, blighted parcel acquisition, um, those projects, a lot of those dollars will carry forward into next year. That's what the board wishes
to do. whether that be assigned to the existing project or be reassigned to another project. Um, you know, as we go through this process, you all get a very detailed sheet, very similar how the city does it, explaining and showing where the money's going, where it was, where it's headed. That way, we can always keep track of it. Um, I tell you,
going through this a little bit preliminarily, um, we're going to see about a about a 50 to $60,000 reduction between personnel and operating expenses. um just because of the change in staff, the uh moving over to city hall rather than having a separate office space. So you'll see about 50 to
60,000 less there that will hopefully uh we can redistribute into other lines whether that be uh the grants or capital outlay projects. One thing that I would like to do going into the next fiscal year is under the grant section. This particular grant section is about the
ones you all just approved, right? Um and so first one's residential, residential income based, and then next year we'll also have a commercial. So we'll bust those out uh into three different categories so you can see exactly what you're pl what you've allocated to. Um and then we can also keep track of how much is being spent
from those three specific grant programs. Um so again, really the conversation that kind of need to have a little bit tonight so I can prepare for the next meeting and have some more numbers is projects. Uh the grants I think you've approved them. Those those will be more simpler, but the projects
particularly um the amphitheater, Crescent Drive, streetscapes and alleyway. Uh those are three big ones. Some other ones that aren't on here that will be added that has been uh in in the works and pause particularly the railroad crossing improvements and the
restriping downtown. Those have been put on pause. Uh the dog park, we need to consider that and determine kind of what our next steps are within the next few weeks. um if we're going to move forward, we're going to make changes to that. So, we can put those in here for particular lines to keep track. Um so,
that's kind of where we're at, high level. Um if we want me to start off with one particular, we can or chairman, you can take it back over. >> I'd like to ask one question. Can you can you um kind of clean it up or remind us why the streets the downtown streets been put on pause for this time? If I
remember right, it's to put it in conjunction with streets and alleyways so that all that infrastructure times out at the right point. But correct. Am I right on that? >> Correct. So the design is currently about 30% complete. Um the board paused it. We've had a me our downtown meeting so far. We've had one other one. We've
got four more set and scheduled to have around the community. Um and so at this moment it's around 30%. Um so obviously we all know that was most likely going forward. Uh what we were trying to do is get information from uh the business owners and the citizens on what else
downtown do we need to put onto the same plan set. How do we make sure we're not conflicting with things? Um but we can get with um anchor and see and go back through the task order and see what the next deliverable is between 30 and 60. And what I mean by that is to determine
okay between 30 and 60 what is it that we are designing? Are we designing something that would have to be amended later if we change something or is this purely technical? I think the biggest questions we're going to have to determine when it comes to the alleyways is the scope of it. So, you know, the project started out from a storm water
perspective from water getting into the businesses from the rain. There's no proper drainage uh and also resurfacing the alleyways for that proper drainage. Then it turned into undergrounding the utilities overhead. So power and communications. Um and then the third it
came into the underground utilities existing water, sewer and gas. So some point the board we're going to talk about and decide what's the full scope of it because design's going to be changed based on that. Um we don't want to get you know close to 60 to 90% design thinking we're going to do it all
and if the board changes the mind it takes an aspect out of it. We've now got to redesign some of that work. >> Didn't the city find that there was PVC and underground behind some of those businesses there? Yeah. So, the existing I think the if I recall correctly, the water was fine. Uh, it's the sewer line
that could be replaced and I believe there's a gas line as well. Um, so again, I don't necessarily think if if you're going to do storm water correction, the existing underground really isn't uh that big of an inconvenience you could say or that hard to go after. The bigger question is overhead. We're taking something that
currently doesn't exist under underneath the existing road and want to move it under. Um, and from a coordination standpoint, that's really a two-parter. one, utility companies, working with them to get their design, their approval, their timelines to move it, and then two, how do you factor that into the existing layout of underground
utilities, shifting water and sewer and gas around to be able to put them under the dirt? Um, you then converting side building power to underground or overhead connection. Um, so and then we part of our conversations was garbage. A lot of the business, some of the business owners and Main Street, you
know, where's the garbage going to go? Are we going to have garbage cans in the back like we do now? Are they going to be are they going to be centralized locations for dumpsters? Those are all some conversations need to be had to determine where they're going to go and how do we get them. >> I think the good thing is that at least this board all of our members have walked those alleyways at least once or
twice by now and we should be able to see looking up that that the overhead power lines definitely constitute black in my opinion. Um as well as safety concerns due to age and the way they threw them up. So that I think that one's still a need. One thing I would
like to see though is have I know this is usually a Miss Heftlin uh comment, but the actuals on these grant programs for the past two this year current and the year prior is um the actuals for those. So that to Mr. Atkinson's u
comment earlier how we would actually budget that appropriately for the upcoming year. what do we want to continue to put a bunch of money in there that's not going to be expensed or or maybe we shorted it in one versus the other. So I could see for me that that would definitely help when determining
that number. Um and then I'm sure Mr. post. I ain't going to speak to him, but my feelings as well is I I the streets and alleyway's primary concern. Um I and I'm going to pass it off my colleagues in just a second, but the Crescent Drive development for me, um I had a
conversation with Mr. Towns in about that one the other day. I I really wish we would have done something different than acquiring that property knowing what I know now. Um and and I say we because we are the CRA now. as well as um the amphitheater even though we don't
we I I feel or I don't feel that we can go to the scope that we want to there based on our needs but that amphitheater does still need some help at the very least those benches need sanding and and some um some sealer put on them. So
because of the damage to the sun, we need to look at sun sales at at the very minimal for that amphitheater is something we still highlight and showcase for events. I think it's something that the TDC could actually help us with based on the usage for those events as well. U but those are
just my thoughts comments from the board. Mr. has you know I don't know how we end up in this same position every year where instead of
focusing on um the things that we need the most and who it's going to help the most um that should be done first but that's okay. um that doesn't seem to be what we're
doing. The money that has uh we put millions and millions and millions of dollars into that airport. And how many people does that help compared to the number of people that our
historic downtown uh business section helps? I don't even like the idea of um I really don't like the idea of
if we don't put the priority into that alleyway that we did the airport, we've got our priorities wrong. And when you start thinking about shaving back nicities, underground utilities, that's
not nicities. Uh getting rid of all that spiderweb wiring overhead. That's not nicities. Um I really don't want us to
get cheap on our business district. People don't come to the Funiac Springs to go to Walmart. people go to Tfuniac Springs to go to our downtown historic district business. Uh so we're we're not taking care of
what we should be taking care of first. But here we are talking about nice to have things and we don't even know if we're going to be able to give our employees a raise this year. >> Posting that's again keep it separate. This is CRA not city council. So if
somebody could could tell me either now or after the meeting what happens in one the city has a direct effect on the CRA and vice versa.
We say that they're separate. >> They are. >> But they affect each other dramatically. Agree. >> For every dollar that goes into the CRA is a dollar taken away from the city. And that's just as simple as it gets.
>> I would like to ask you to speak to Mr. Townsen outside of the meeting and let him discuss some of the advantages of the CRA and accomp in helping you accomplish some of the goals with the city. However, we have to keep these meetings separate. Um what you brought up about airport funding, I I I
understand that you're talking about in relevance of um getting it done in a timely manner. I completely agree with you on that. Um, I don't think that anybody up here wants to focus on nicities as much as we do. We would like to see that downtown streets and alleyway get accomplished just like you
would. That's a need. That's not a want. That's a need and that that's pretty much the focus here so far. Do y'all have any comments? We're approaching our timeline. >> Just just real quick if I can. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Harrison. >> Um, the the alleyway,
>> you know, if you you look down the alleyway and there's power lines everywhere. I've not really paid attention to whether that could be done in a cleaner way, whether Florida Power Light could come in and do it because it's extremely expensive to put it all underground. And and I'm not saying
don't do that, but it's just something we what comes with that project, that particular aspect of that project, is the the new panel boxes and and underground service to each of those buildings. And I've never counted all the buildings that front the alleyway on
north and south of the alley, but it's a considerable number of buildings. Who pays for that? Are we asking these business owners to put out5 $6,000 to put a new meter on to accommodate because we wanted to go to underground?
I I don't know how we handle that, but that's something we're going to have to try to resolve. uh because that's incredibly expensive because most of those are probably some of them might be three-phase. I don't know. But um they're they're they're expensive meter boxes to do to do that. So do business
owners do that because we're redoing the alleyway or you know do we do that somehow through CRA or or what? So I I just I don't that's something we just got to have to work out. But I I would absolutely say the alleyway project needs to be done simply because of the
storm water and cleaning it up and and and making it function better. >> Mr. Vwell, >> so a couple of thoughts. Um I think that some some of the comments made earlier may I may not necessarily agree with on on their face. However, we
ended up coming to the same the same space, the same agreement, and that is that there's certain things we need to do as a CRA to invest and make sure that we're investing in the proper areas. So, I I agree that we need to invest in our
downtown. People don't come to go to Walmart here. They come because of that naturally round lake and the historic district that we have with all of our businesses in it. you know, our um fellow municipality 14 miles to the south doesn't have what we have. We we
have a unique offering. Uh and so I I agree that investing in it is is the right thing to do. Uh I I did want to point out that Councilman Congers, you had kind of addressed this a little bit
making comparisons between wants and needs or, you know, airport versus alleyway. Um, to me those are apples and oranges. You know, the airport was funded with FDOT dollars and federal dollars and and um state appropriation, completely separate funding bucket. And
I think that's one thing that we need to make sure that we kind of keep in the front of our mind. The CRA was created fundamentally created by statute to allow us to take some some of the the the Avalorum tax dollar and set it aside
and do redevelopment so that the city improves. That's the fundamental mechanism of the CRA. So to me it's it's walk and chew gum at the same time. It's making sure that we take care of all these different areas. The
city's not just the fire department or just the police department or just the downtown. The city is the entire city. And we have we have a lot of different functions that we serve. So, I I'm in I'm in favor of getting the alleyway done. I'm in favor of funding all of
these uh these various programs that we've authorized tonight. Um I forgive me, I had to step out for a second, but you know, when I walked back in, you were talking about the the amphitheater and maybe doing some improvements to the amphitheater. you know, as someone that's recently
participated in some of the events down at the the amphitheater, um I think it's something that we need to address. Do I think that we need to build an $8 million new amphitheater? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And and to me, the amphitheater is not number one on my priority list. And I think I've made
that clear from from day one. Um but do we need to improve our amphitheater? Do we need to improve that down there? I think that that's something that we could we very much need to go to the TDC and say we have some dollars that we put into it that very much it's match
dollars now TDC you can clearly fund amphitheaters. Amphitheaters are specifically mentioned in the statutes as fundable items and we need to say we want our funding by and large where where does most of the north end funding come from >> the
>> defuniac springs. that's where we have all of all of the the beds that generate that that North Walton TDT revenue. I I think that that's just black and white. That's how it is. So, you know, forgive me if I'm not if I'm not addressing anything specific that maybe
you're looking for, but you know, we we certainly needed to address the the the uh the alleyway. And I don't really know of any other way to do it but to underground it. and that's the only way to actually force them to to clean up
that that back alleyway. Um so that those are my thoughts on on the budget. >> Mr. Townsen, we we're getting close to that um that hard deadline, but based off of the the action requested tonight, we have discussed the budget and and I
think you can kind of tell through our discussions and your prior discussions with members where we'd like to see this go. And uh this is we all have a copy of it now. So we could kind of look at what was funded pre previously and get with you individually prior to the meetings
and and see where we need to go. Maybe you can consolidate some of that and bring back a cleaner version of this in the end. Um is there anything else you need from this board tonight? >> Uh no sir. So we we'll do that. We will like I said you'll probably see some new lines on here. So hope the goal is by
next meeting to bring uh a rough draft budget to the board. Um, you'll see some new lines, you know, of capital improvement projects that we that aren't on here currently. Um, you'll probably see a combination of some, right? If we're talking about streetscapes and alleyways, you know, um, we got to figure out the railroad crossings, the
paving downtown. So, we'll work on getting all that together to you. We'll work on getting the numbers on the year-to- date and prior year grant expenditures out of those lines. That'll be that'll be simple. Um, and then we will put together a list of all the projects. Again, I think we had on previous agenda. we'll get it to y'all so you can look at through it, think
about it. Um because there are projects we need to we need to go over particularly the dog park. That's one needs to be considered and and discussed in the future. And then the 27 Crescent Drive building. That is something that really needs to be thought talked about. Uh and I would say I got the keys. Commissioner Harrison's been through it.
Chris and I and then any other member who wishes to go through the building, I'd recommend we do that one day. Just get with me and we'll go through it. I think we all need to lay our eyes on to understand exactly what it is we have on our hands. >> I think we do as well. One last question I would like to see you bring back as well is based off of the recent um
actions of the state legislature and the governor if that act was to go through um in November when it's passed I'd like to see what those numbers look like in the first year for us from the CRA's perspective what that cut would look like. So, uh, the city council has a budget workshop on the 15th of June. And
so, that I know that'll be part of the conversation a little bit there, some heads up on that. And then we we can do we've done some just like rough numbers on just percentage wise of increases over prior years. We don't know the exact number yet, but we can talk about that. We'll have that and we can also talk about here what that number may
look like. We won't have the exact taxable values until July one, but we now have an estimate that we can kind of work off of. >> Last minute alibis before we end this meeting. Mr. co. >> I like the idea you brought up about the TDC. Do you have any idea just um
>> roughly what the balance is for the north end? >> There's at least $280,000 I think currently or roughly around there that is unallocated, right? >> So that funding can be requested by the TDC and then the TDC is still looking at an ongoing project. So there may be some
more money there. I I sit on that board outside of here. So I'd be glad to talk to Mr. Algrren and get Mr. Cos or Mr. Townsen together and try and figure out what we can do there. If you got any ideas, please get with Mr. Townsen so he can bring them forward to us and we can all talk about that, too.
>> Do you know how much money uh went to the tractor museum? >> There was 600,000 allocated that's allocated currently. I don't know where that the status that of that project is, but we'll have to look at it. >> So,
>> where is that to be located? >> Uh the tracker museum. It's currently >> in Mossy Head. >> The location was where the agricultural um center is going to be >> in Mossy Head >> halfway. >> Yeah, halfway between. >> That's something you want to take up
with me outside of this meeting or Mr. Algren or other members of TDC as well. Last minute out. Mr. Harris, >> just real quick, Kobe, as far as categories, the amphitheater, I didn't speak on that a while ago. I'm I'm in favor of a scaled down version of some sort to redo that as well. So I'm I'm
I'm good with us talking about that for sure. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Mr. Bone. >> Yes, sir. >> There. All right. We'll go ahead and call this meeting adjourned. It is now 4:43.