WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=WVTVh6Sho6M

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:01:13.520
down the hall. All right, we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's now 3:01 p.m. This is a meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency. Um, if you will please stand for the pledge and the invocation. Father, we thank you for this day and we

2
00:01:13.520 --> 00:01:28.080
thank you for all your many blessings. Lord, we thank you for those blessings upon ourselves and our city. Father, we pray, dear Lord, that you will be with us this afternoon. Guide us, Lord. Give us the wisdom and the clarity, Lord, and discernment to make the right decisions

3
00:01:28.080 --> 00:01:43.680
as we carry out business to benefit our city. Lord, 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

4
00:01:43.680 --> 00:02:00.880
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, thank you. We will go ahead and get started. Um, we will start with the consent agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> Motion to approve.

5
00:02:00.880 --> 00:02:16.879
>> Second, >> we have a motion and a second. Any discussion amongst the dis? >> Okay, so we're on the Let me get the right one. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose?

6
00:02:16.879 --> 00:02:33.599
>> All right. Motion passes. Mr. Executive Director, we go ahead and take us on into or excuse me, we will start with 3A. Is there any um additions or deletions to the agenda as written? >> No sir. Motion to approve agenda as written.

7
00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:49.040
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> A motion and a second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. We'll move on into item 3 C1. Mr.

8
00:02:49.040 --> 00:03:04.879
Executive Director. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh board, um Pervis Gray, our auditors here, Megan and Ryan, are going to give us an update and go over our fiscal year 25 audit. I think ultimately at the end of this if the board is uh good with the audit um then

9
00:03:04.879 --> 00:03:21.120
we'll just take we'll just you know get a motion to approve that and then we will work and getting that submitted along with the cities uh in the coming week. >> Sounds good. >> Yes, sir. Please come forward. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Ryan Tucker. I'm a

10
00:03:21.120 --> 00:03:35.760
partner with Pervvis Gray. I have Megan Camp with me. She was the uh team lead uh CPA on the engagement team for the city and the CRA and we are pleased to present the results of our audit uh for the fiscal year ended nine September

11
00:03:35.760 --> 00:03:51.280
30th 2025. You may recall a couple just a couple of years ago there was a number of findings in the CRA report. I think there were three and this year um that we have no findings. So the made a lot of progress.

12
00:03:51.280 --> 00:04:07.040
Danielle has um gotten her feet under her over the last couple of years and done a done a had made a lot of improvements to the recordkeeping for the CRA and the city. So, uh just a few highlights we'll go through and Megan's

13
00:04:07.040 --> 00:04:24.000
going to go through our communications letter. Uh but if you turn to page one of our independent auditors report, this is where we issue our opinion on the CRA's financial statements. And this is what's referred to as an unmodified opinion and that's the highest level of

14
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:39.440
assurance that you can receive from a CPA firm. Um, so good job there. Pages four through seven are what's called management's discussion and analysis and Danielle and her the

15
00:04:39.440 --> 00:04:53.840
accounting team put this together. It offers some an overview of the financial statements and comparative information compared to the prior year. Um, if you're interested in that. And

16
00:04:53.840 --> 00:05:11.520
then on page eight and nine are the general fund and then the adjustments that get made to convert the general fund of the CRA to a full acrruel. Um, which just brings on the capital assets of the CRA. there is no outstanding

17
00:05:11.520 --> 00:05:26.880
debt. Uh so there's information on those two pages about the financial operations and then there's a page 10 has a budget versus actual statement and you the CRA did come in over budget

18
00:05:26.880 --> 00:05:45.360
on revenues by about 51,000 for the year and underbudget on expenses by about 1.8 million during the year. The notes to the financial statements uh begin on page 11 and go all the page all

19
00:05:45.360 --> 00:06:01.520
the way to page 17. And there's a fixed a capital asset roll forward on page 16 and just shows that you the CRA did sell a piece of land two parcels of land during during that time period. So those were removed from the the

20
00:06:01.520 --> 00:06:16.800
capital asset schedule. And then um and towards the back of the report is our internal control letter. If there were significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the internal control system for the CRA, we would report them

21
00:06:16.800 --> 00:06:32.960
on page 18 or 19. There were none. Page 20, we're required by the Auditor General's office to um issue an examination report of um Florida statutes 218415 on the investment of

22
00:06:32.960 --> 00:06:48.800
public funds. Uh if there was any compliance issues there, we'd have to report on those. There were none. And then on page 21, we have to look at the provisions of 163, 387,6

23
00:06:48.800 --> 00:07:04.400
and 7 Florida statutes. And as you know, there's a lot of very specific items in there on about CRAAS and the budget adoption and amendments that have to be reported to the county within 10 days. We have had to report on

24
00:07:04.400 --> 00:07:21.039
that in the past and y'all gotten that that straightened out and squared away. the appropriation of funds held at year end by the CRA has to be you know appropriated to specific projects and that's also been squared away. Uh, so

25
00:07:21.039 --> 00:07:38.639
there were no issues to report. And then in on page 22 and 23, there's some specific things the auditor general requires that we take a look at in terms of fraud, waste, or abuse, or some specific transparency items they want us

26
00:07:38.639 --> 00:07:54.080
to uh report on there as well, or any comments made in the preceding financial audit, we'd have to comment upon. and there were really no issues to report on there. Um, so that was really all we

27
00:07:54.080 --> 00:08:13.520
wanted to go over on that on the there's a communication with those charged with governance letter and Megan you want to talk about that for a second. >> Good evening. So under uh generally accepted auditing standards and governmental auditing

28
00:08:13.520 --> 00:08:30.160
standards we are required to communicate certain items to those charged with governance which would be you the board. Um we communicate the plan scope and timing of our audit through the engagement letters and our required communications letter that come at the

29
00:08:30.160 --> 00:08:46.720
very beginning of the engagement. But then at the end of the engagement, we also provide an additional communication with those charged with governance, which is the separate letter that is inside um it's inside the bound copies. We just put it right right there under

30
00:08:46.720 --> 00:09:03.600
the front cover. Um and this will sort of tell you how the audit went. We do communicate certain significant audit matters uh such as the significant accounting policies. Those can be found in note one to the financial statements. Just kind of let you know where to find

31
00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:19.760
those. Um, there were no new accounting policies relevant to the CRA that were adopted in the current year. We did have two governmentalist accounting standards board standards that were issued this year. Um, but those were not relevant to

32
00:09:19.760 --> 00:09:36.160
the CRA. One was on compensated absences. That only applies at the citywide level. And the second one was on certain risk disclosures which does not apply just based on the nature of the assets and liabilities of the CRA itself. We do disclose to you that there

33
00:09:36.160 --> 00:09:52.640
will be some upcoming accounting pronouncements that will be relevant to the CRA in the next couple of years. So the first one uh well actually the first two are going to be uh effective for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2026, which is the fiscal year we're in right

34
00:09:52.640 --> 00:10:07.760
now. That's going to be statements 103 and 104. 103 is on the financial reporting model improvements and it is just basically related to how certain items are presented and disclosed within the financial statements and the

35
00:10:07.760 --> 00:10:24.880
required supplementary information. Um the key change that you're going to notice on that one is it's going to be a a expansion of the MDNA and a movement of where the budget to actual schedules are presented and that'll be next year. Also, there will be expanded disclosures

36
00:10:24.880 --> 00:10:40.800
of certain capital assets under Gazsby 104. So, those are both going to happen next year. The following year ended September 30th, 2027, Gazsby 105 will become effective. And it just sort of clarifies uh the nature and timing of

37
00:10:40.800 --> 00:10:56.880
disclosures of subsequent events and just how we present those within the financial statements. uh we had no significant uh difficulties in dealing with management while we were performing and completing our audit. There were no misstatements identified during the

38
00:10:56.880 --> 00:11:12.240
course of our audit. Uh we had no disagreements with management arise during the course of our audit and no other audit findings or issues. We did apply limited procedures to the required supplementary information within the

39
00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:27.680
financial statements that comprises the management's discussion and analysis and that was just inquiry and comparison with the financial statements themselves and other information that we came across during our basic audit. So do you have any other questions about how the

40
00:11:27.680 --> 00:11:44.480
audit went, the performance of it or any significant items encountered during the audit itself? I'm very pleased to see that um that we came through with a good audit this go around. I see that there were no discrepancies between management and the auditors this go around either.

41
00:11:44.480 --> 00:12:00.800
So everything looks good. Any further comments from the board? >> None. No ma'am. Thank you. Thank you guys for your work. Everything went good. We're very pleased. >> Thank all right Mr. Executive Manager. Move on to >> Just if we can >> Oh, yes sir. I'm sorry.

42
00:12:00.800 --> 00:12:17.519
>> Chairman, just a motion to approve. That way we can submit. >> So moved. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further comments from the dis from public? Seeing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed?

43
00:12:17.519 --> 00:12:34.399
>> Motion passes four to zero. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Chairman, I'll let Chris kind of take this one over. I think he's got a consolidated version of it. >> Okay, >> Mr. Strong. So I'm seeking guidance regarding applications as the inquirs and communications received during the

44
00:12:34.399 --> 00:12:50.959
period in which the previous CR board was dissolved and prior to the current board's um consideration adoption of revised program guidelines. We had received some um at least one application and one um phone call were saying that they had

45
00:12:50.959 --> 00:13:06.079
attempted numerous times to reach the CRA and at the time they could not reach the CRA. Under the old guidelines and the current guidelines, individual could not start a project before the CRA board

46
00:13:06.079 --> 00:13:21.440
approved a program. Well, since there was no one to approve the programs or to do anything, they had already initiated the the work need to be done um removing a hazardous tree and

47
00:13:21.440 --> 00:13:37.519
starting on a residence. So what I'm requesting is do we want to do anything during the time frame that the CRA was basically in transit or of going over the new guidelines and

48
00:13:37.519 --> 00:13:55.600
everything such as during that period if someone actually handed an application or can prove that basically through emails or telephone records that they attempted to reach the CRA but couldn't reach them that We kind of grandfather

49
00:13:55.600 --> 00:14:13.600
their in and basically do it as if they had previously did a project and it was approved. >> Any guidance from the board? Mr. Beerbone? >> Uh I would just like a little bit of um

50
00:14:13.600 --> 00:14:30.959
advice from Clay on how if we are considering doing this, number one, can we do it? Number two, is there a way to do this and not set a precedence that binds our hands in the future? >> Sure, I think you can do it and I think if you do it, it's because of the unique circumstances that Mr. Strong described

51
00:14:30.959 --> 00:14:50.399
would allow you the opportunity to do it without establishing precedent. Uh, I will offer this one other comment, then I'll let y'all debate. It really is the board's call. But honestly, our programs are first come, first serve in full discretion of the CRA. Every bit

52
00:14:50.399 --> 00:15:06.079
of them are. None of them are an entitlement or an obligation. Typically, what you would see in these scenarios is you would not take these kind of steps of allowing someone to prove up a good faith attempt to contact you about something that is a privilege, not a

53
00:15:06.079 --> 00:15:23.519
right. and this is a privilege. So, um it may well be unfortunate for someone to have missed out on this opportunity, but my question would be they provide emails that support that they reached

54
00:15:23.519 --> 00:15:40.399
out. Are we going to go back and ask our former executive director, are you sure you called them? I don't know that we're in a good position to do that. I don't know that puts us in a good position but at a certain point we don't have the institutional

55
00:15:40.399 --> 00:15:56.240
knowledge in house to say that these people weren't contacted and so I guess the question is if you're opening the door to this aside from if we I mean the harm is just saying we're not awarding these right Mr.

56
00:15:56.240 --> 00:16:12.959
Correct. The ones that we have, nothing was awarded. One application was turned in and was not processed and another person called and said that since they attempted to reach someone, they couldn't. So, they went ahead and had a hazardous tree removed. I mean, I think

57
00:16:12.959 --> 00:16:29.920
from our perspective, I mean, you don't have to. I mean, anybody can have a hazardous tree removed whether you apply for the grant or not. I think the application's a little different than just the phone call. That's my other. I mean, if somebody put an application in and it's eligible, I don't I think you

58
00:16:29.920 --> 00:16:48.000
can be reasonable there. But it also you're not going to be any trouble if you just say we're not doing any of but that's your call. I can make it work whichever way you want. >> Any further comments or >> Well, yeah. I mean, I don't know how many cases there were of applications

59
00:16:48.000 --> 00:17:05.280
that got lost in the shuffle, you know, and in the transition. Um I do am well aware of of one and he is in attendance tonight. Um uh Mr. Burke and th this gentleman bought two homes on on Live

60
00:17:05.280 --> 00:17:22.640
Oak um and is living in one and redoing the the other. Um, but both of these homes were in pretty pretty bad shape. And you know, he he had turned in an application, I believe, in December, if

61
00:17:22.640 --> 00:17:39.120
I'm correct, November or December. October. >> November. >> November. Okay. November. And, um, handed it to the executive director at the time. Um, and it was evidently not processed. Can't find any record of it

62
00:17:39.120 --> 00:17:55.360
going before the board or being approved or anything. Um, and so it's one of those things that these homes were undergoing water damage. Uh, they were in need of quick repair. Um, and he,

63
00:17:55.360 --> 00:18:11.039
from my understanding, was very patient, you know, in in waiting for this. As soon as we became the board, I know multiple times, uh, he was in contact with the city, you know, over the status of his application, what have you. So, I

64
00:18:11.039 --> 00:18:27.760
just feel like this is one of those cases where we have a person trying to improve not one but two homes in the historic district and um unfortunately got caught in this this transition and I I think there was

65
00:18:27.760 --> 00:18:44.799
actually perhaps a it fell through the cracks even before we became the board. And I I just think that's extremely unfair for somebody that's investing to the level that he's investing in these homes that we can't find a way to do something. So in the meantime, and I'll

66
00:18:44.799 --> 00:19:00.960
let him speak for himself when when you deem that uh >> yes >> time, right? And uh but I lost my train of thought, but but anyway, um I just Oh, in the meantime,

67
00:19:00.960 --> 00:19:17.840
he had to he had contractors waiting to work. He had to and you can correct me if if I'm wrong at some point. Um but and the work had to go forward uh just to keep further damage from being h

68
00:19:17.840 --> 00:19:34.559
happening to these and losing contractors. Uh, so that transition time, it's not his fault. And that's that's my point. And and I think we I feel like we we should be as fair as we can to uh to help him in some way.

69
00:19:34.559 --> 00:19:50.640
That's it. >> So, the only thing we're approving is to reset the clock. Any reapply? And is that what we're doing? >> Well, the application's already in at this point. Yeah. How How many have we got? time. >> There's only one application that I know

70
00:19:50.640 --> 00:20:07.600
of that's been turned in that has never got processed. So, um he's for the applications wise, his will be the only one that would be being brought forth to you that also has already started the project. >> So, we got a motion from the board then.

71
00:20:07.600 --> 00:20:24.240
>> We're just we're just letting him apply for a grant, right? Motion to approve. >> Well, the grant's already been applied for at this point. He's submitted the application. are asking you now for approval of that. >> Staff's asking for approval. >> We we'll bring back we just we wanted to have the conversation with the board

72
00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:40.400
before we had these individuals go through the application process. We want to know if you're going to consider it or not or be open to it. If you're going to say no, then we're going to save everybody's time. >> But if you're saying you are then that individual particularly that would be one to take forward. >> So technically this application would be in ineligible due to the fact that he

73
00:20:40.400 --> 00:20:56.480
has already started the process. >> He started the process. >> That's why you're accepting it as timely filed. That's the motion >> because you're treating as though he because he did file it before he started the process. >> Right >> now he started the process because he couldn't get a response from us. >> So your motion will be to treat it as

74
00:20:56.480 --> 00:21:12.480
timely filed and process it. >> So moved. >> Second. Have a motion in a second. >> We're just approving the process is all. >> Yes, sir. >> We're approving and letting him move through the process. He may still not get it, but you're giving him a chance. >> It'll be back on your next meeting for >> Okay.

75
00:21:12.480 --> 00:21:35.039
>> We have a motion and a second. Um, is there any public comment? Mr. Burke, would you like to speak? >> I apologize for the way I'm dressed. I didn't realize I'd be speaking. >> It It's It's fine. Please come forward. >> The grant application was extensive and

76
00:21:35.039 --> 00:21:51.440
I was aware of the limitations as far as the financial limitations on the grant. So, there were certain things that I had to go ahead and do for water intrusion, for safety. The front porches had to be replaced on 273.

77
00:21:51.440 --> 00:22:07.440
Um, and the flashing, you know, that's not even done yet. I just temporarily walled off the the second floor. Uh, I'm I'm just asking for the opportunity to be able to uh move forward with the grant

78
00:22:07.440 --> 00:22:23.520
and have it approved. Uh, I felt like I've, you know, invested quite a bit of money in both homes and I've, you know, done that, you know, uh, in compliance with all, you know, city

79
00:22:23.520 --> 00:22:40.400
codes and everything. Chris has been very good, you know, in communicating with me, but that's that's about it. Well, I think this board recognizes the fact that you came forward in a timely manner before and you just had to work with us on getting our stuff worked out

80
00:22:40.400 --> 00:22:56.480
here. So, um, sounds like they'll probably be moving this forward and you'll be able to continue that application process at this point to get it back for approval. >> Okay. And so, what happens next? >> Uh, Mr. Towns, >> Chris will get with you. We'll get we'll take what you've already submitted and

81
00:22:56.480 --> 00:23:13.360
then we'll be back here at our next at the next board meeting for them to approve and if they approve it, then we move forward. Okay. Yep. Fair enough. >> We're not gonna make you go through the whole thing again. >> Okay. >> Luckily, the board has already reduced that application down drastically. So, >> all right. >> We had to go through that. >> All right. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Citizen's name that you

82
00:23:13.360 --> 00:23:32.480
spoke. >> What was his Mr. Mr. Burke? What was your first name again? >> Henry Dwight Burke. >> Okay. All right. We have a motion to sec. Do we have any further public comment? just to avoid a future problem.

83
00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:49.200
>> Yes, sir. >> Any any public comments? >> No further. >> Okay. Um I feel confident this is fixing the pass, but to keep from muddying the water if anybody wanted to raise a stink.

84
00:23:49.200 --> 00:24:05.280
I'm wondering since he's my next door neighbor and I consider myself a friend with with him and we watch each other's house when the other one's out of town. I'm wondering if I shouldn't recuse myself. >> So, is he in business with you in any way, shape, or form, or is he just a

85
00:24:05.280 --> 00:24:20.480
neighbor? >> He's a pretty good neighbor. >> All right. But not a business associate? >> No, sir. >> Not a family member. Right. >> No, sir. >> All right. Do you feel you can be fair and vote on this matter based on what

86
00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:38.240
you've heard and the recommendations to staff? >> He deserves this. It's fair. >> Then I see no basis under 112 that you could that requires you to recuse. If you choose to do it, I don't see it as a necessity. >> Okay. >> Okay.

87
00:24:38.240 --> 00:24:53.440
>> All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Passes four to zero. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right, Mr. Chairman. Uh, number three and four kind of go together. Mostly three is probably going to answer

88
00:24:53.440 --> 00:25:09.520
our question on four. So, we'll just we'll start with the fiscal year draft budget. So, um I'll let Jesse scroll down to that right there. I'm going to go through it. Um a high overview of kind of over every line a little bit and then we can we can go

89
00:25:09.520 --> 00:25:24.960
from there. So, I'll start at the top on revenues. I just did a rough estimate on what I you know a rough what it could be an increase in revenue from last year to this upcoming fiscal year based off of prior year increases of taxable value

90
00:25:24.960 --> 00:25:40.240
over the last three years and then this year the total city's taxable value has drastically reduced when we say reduced the increase is less than it was in the prior years the prior years was roughly 50 thou 50 million a year that increase year-over-year for about three years straight this year is about 20 million

91
00:25:40.240 --> 00:25:56.159
so there was a drastic slowdown down in that taxable value increase. So, I assigned a 10% number to it. We won't know that number for sure until we get um on the other side of July when the state opens up the trim function and Oasis. That'll give us the exact dollar

92
00:25:56.159 --> 00:26:12.799
amount. Um personnel services um of course that went down drastically um from prior year uh roughly $97,000 give or take. operating expenses. Going through here, you're going to see

93
00:26:12.799 --> 00:26:30.159
professional services is less than prior year of 100,000. And because we moved some of that money down to another line, 30,000 represents uh the 20% delta you're going to see from line 51530. 80,000 we put in for redevelopment plan

94
00:26:30.159 --> 00:26:45.919
update and I added 10 that okay in case the board has something during the year they want to have studied designed um or we can move that those dollars at a later time financial audit uh part of the our contract and what the city has

95
00:26:45.919 --> 00:27:02.320
with purpose Cray we have an annual $10,000 amount for the CRA audit the CRA city admin fee the board approved amount this year of 40,6 677. I've assigned a 30% increase to that. Um I'll continue

96
00:27:02.320 --> 00:27:18.960
to to define that, but that's to take into consideration. We know increased cost to the city from health care, uh work comp, FRS, things of that nature. Um we're no longer in a separate office. So all of our telephone, utilities, internet, all that's being provided by

97
00:27:18.960 --> 00:27:36.640
the city as well now as it was not prior. So therefore, under telephones, utilities, that's now zero. um under fees, memberships, and subscriptions that has reduced because the only two things I've seen the last two fiscal years is the board's um membership with

98
00:27:36.640 --> 00:27:53.360
FRA, the Florida Redevelopment Association, and our annual filing fee with the state of $175. The next one is insurance. Looking at our prior years, uh we're we're around 30,000 out of left 32 in the case of of an increase it comes up between now um

99
00:27:53.360 --> 00:28:09.360
our renewals. So one of our renewals happens in the March time frame. Uh so this is FMIT which is property liability casualty things of that nature and also public official insurance that we are required to have. CRA lease we will not have that lease

100
00:28:09.360 --> 00:28:25.440
come October. So we won't budget that. Travel expenses. Um they were 3500. I've got 4,000 in here and it's highlighted for the simple fact that that would be associated with staff or the board members doing one of two things. Going

101
00:28:25.440 --> 00:28:41.520
to the annual conference andor going to trainings. So if anyone drove their personal vehicle to the training today and is going to submit a reimbursement, that's where that would come from. So the reason it's highlighted is a question to the board. Does any board member intend to or would like the ability to if the board agrees to to go

102
00:28:41.520 --> 00:28:57.360
to the annual conference? Is that something any member here is looking at potentially doing? because that is that's why that's highlighted for us to talk about and to put in. >> Is are you planning on any CRA related travel this >> I wanted to go this last time but my AC

103
00:28:57.360 --> 00:29:13.520
system went out and the only time he could get to me was uh the day of the meeting so I had to bail on that. I'd like to attend some training but I don't know where or when that might be. >> We can figure some out. Luckily, this last one in the Panama, I think, if I'm not mistaken, they've done one in the

104
00:29:13.520 --> 00:29:29.520
panhandle at least once a year. >> Um, yeah, they've done one in the panhandle. So, they should have one every year in this region. So, we can be sure to let you know, let everybody know that. >> Okay. >> They typically do that. >> I'd like to say that's a possibility. >> Okay. >> Mr. Bear,

105
00:29:29.520 --> 00:29:45.760
>> I might have some interest in in the conference. It would just really depend on timing. >> Do we know when that is? >> Uh, it's at the end of October, I believe. believe it's the end of October. I think it's like uh the last week of October. >> Is it Is it in the same location every

106
00:29:45.760 --> 00:30:02.399
year? Like is it always in >> this year coming up? I believe it's in Port Charlotte. So, which is just south of Tampa? >> It's October the 20th through the 25th. >> I would I would say we just leave it that that 4,000 marker for now and then if we don't expense it, you can figure

107
00:30:02.399 --> 00:30:17.919
out something later then. >> Well, I know I know myself and Mr. Trump plan to attend. So that's why I'm asking if our board members who plan to attend, we're going to need to factor in, you know, the hotel, any travel reimbursement maybe occur with that. >> Sounds like you at least may have one or

108
00:30:17.919 --> 00:30:35.600
two throughout the year. They need to bump that up 20,000 or three. How what do you feel about it? So we can factor that in. Uh >> that that weekend that October as of right now, I wouldn't be able to go. >> Okay. >> I'm not going to be able to go.

109
00:30:35.600 --> 00:30:54.480
>> Okay. We can we can tweak that number then and we can do that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh the next one's advertising leaving that same amount. That is for, you know, we put in the newspaper when we're working with applicants, things of

110
00:30:54.480 --> 00:31:11.440
that nature. Office supplies, that'll be drastically reduced. We have a bunch of that already on hand. Um and so we don't we don't foresee needing much more than that. operating supplies. Again, going through what's been spent in this year and last year. I do not see the need for almost 10,000. So, we've dropped that

111
00:31:11.440 --> 00:31:28.480
down drastically to 3,000. We've done this similar with city's done it similar. I don't know. I don't know what all could come up. So, we've drastically left some in case something happens that I'm unaware of. Um recording fees. So, we created that line this year, $500. That's for when a grant program is done

112
00:31:28.480 --> 00:31:44.720
and the individual if we were to go and do the lean on that property part of the grant program that's where this would be put in at not within the grant line item uh to help track it >> abatement stuff. >> So the baitment's coming up. Okay. >> It'll be it's got its own separate line. >> Okay. >> Um the next one 5300 redevelopment plan

113
00:31:44.720 --> 00:32:00.480
update. So again I took 80,000 out of professional services and moved it down to redevelopment update. I think based off of um our previous training and just based in general looking at the redevelopment plan, it needs it needs to be updated. I think I think this board's made very clear a lot of that stuff is

114
00:32:00.480 --> 00:32:16.640
probably not going to proceed. Um so I don't think it needs to be in there. Uh and then some of the things that you do want to proceed with is probably best to call those out specifically um and have those in there. And that's why also agenda item four, that task order. I think if we're going to do a redevelopment plan update, we could do

115
00:32:16.640 --> 00:32:32.240
those things at the same time. No need to have two different task orders. So that's that's the reason we're putting the money in that line item. >> Okay. >> Um education and training 2000. Again, looking at it, the conference registration fee would come out of this line. And then anything, you know, we

116
00:32:32.240 --> 00:32:47.919
had that training. That's where we would pay the training fee out of for what we did a few weeks ago. Abatement, fines, and abatements. This is for when the city does the abatement process to the special magistrate and she assigns she orders that abatement. And then obviously CR has that agreement with the city that we would take those over and

117
00:32:47.919 --> 00:33:04.559
do those. So right now we're looking at potentially getting all the ones that are currently under abatement order done this fiscal year. Um that's the intention and the goal. And so um we'll put another 50,000 in there for next year which is anywhere from four to six properties if the city were to go that to find those for next year.

118
00:33:04.559 --> 00:33:21.200
>> Do you feel that that's adequate for what you got mined this year? >> So this year yes. So we went through it. We can see that that's probably going to do the ones that are currently under abatement order. There were two of the properties had 30-day orders and the other four had 60 days 60-day orders that the magistrate had done. Um so

119
00:33:21.200 --> 00:33:38.240
yeah, this fiscal year. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um equipment and maintenance 2000 that is in there in the case of the trailer. If anybody has a dump trailer, they know those parts are very expensive. So in the case of that was to break down or hydraulic arm or something.

120
00:33:38.240 --> 00:33:53.679
Does anybody else have any questions for him on just the operating expenses portion so far before he gets too far gone? >> No. All right. Okay. The grant section we took and added a commercial line and bust and pulled that money out of what

121
00:33:53.679 --> 00:34:08.800
what was previously combined. So now you have a residential residential income base and a commercial line. Um so just a little bit clear on what those dollars are going to program wise. um put 75,000 in residential, 150 in in residential

122
00:34:08.800 --> 00:34:25.919
income based and 75,000 commercial. The it's an increase of roughly 50,000 from the amount last year. And that's largely predicated on the fact that you all increased the incomebased ones from 20 to 30. Um and then we've actually I think Chris not here tonight. It should be maybe the next meeting. I think we've

123
00:34:25.919 --> 00:34:42.800
already got four to six applications under coming before you. So pushing it hard, working with individuals that have been identified for code violations u and then getting it out into the community, hopefully getting some some movement there. Um so that is the reason for the increase uh in the grants

124
00:34:42.800 --> 00:34:59.359
section. >> Okay. Under capital outlay, I'm going to come back to downtown real quick if that's all right. If we can just circle go to the rest committ that one that's a big one. >> Um so the next one would be 6620 blighted parcel acquisition. So there was 120,000 budgeted in the current

125
00:34:59.359 --> 00:35:15.920
fiscal year, there's been none to date spent. So uh but based on what we've talked about with the neighborhood and districts looking at partial acquisition, Chris and I have identified a number of properties that would meet would be good candidates for acquisition then for demo and and surplus off to

126
00:35:15.920 --> 00:35:31.119
some housing development, affordable housing development, things of that nature. >> I I know we're already in June. Do you feel like that that's um some a goal that you can achieve before the end of this fiscal year? >> So that's something so the current 120 in the in the current fiscal year I'd

127
00:35:31.119 --> 00:35:46.079
say from a practicality stand probably not because you're talking about identifying contacting closing. >> So in the prior 120,000 this fiscal year that money will be carried forward because it won't be spent and I've applied it to the downtown redevelopment. So, it's being applied to

128
00:35:46.079 --> 00:36:02.640
a project that's that is required. >> Um the amphitheater project um there was in the prior year 954,000. We subtracted out um how much been spent to in this fiscal year for that and took that difference, applied it to downtown

129
00:36:02.640 --> 00:36:17.839
redevelopment and left 500,000 a prior year allocated dollars to the amphitheater. Now, it's up to the board if y'all think that's too much, too little based on our conversation. So, we can have that conversation in a minute and go over if you think it's not enough or too much. Um, but that's the reason

130
00:36:17.839 --> 00:36:33.119
behind the $500,000 number is some uh work to be done amphitheater. I think we've all kind of talked about a little bit. >> All right, we'll come back to it. >> 6640 is Crescent Drive. Um, there was last year or this fiscal year 20 226,000

131
00:36:33.119 --> 00:36:49.920
budgeted. uh we subtracted what has not been spent this fiscal year, applied that carry forward to downtown redevelopment and then left 50,000 of prior dollars in there. That dollar simply represents a demo cost. Again, it's up to the board what you wish to do. We can discuss in a minute, but

132
00:36:49.920 --> 00:37:05.760
that's what that is meant for at the moment. >> All right. >> Uh the next line, the dog park facility, um that has we've talked about it. It's under design. Obviously, that design is paused. I put $200,000 in there um because we're still talking about thinking about it until the board tells

133
00:37:05.760 --> 00:37:20.079
us otherwise. And so, you know, the initial cost was what about $400,000. I I think I pretty well understood from y'all. We were not going to do that. So, I put cut that in half. There's 200 in there. So, again, it's up to you what you do with those dollars. We can move them around however you wish or leave

134
00:37:20.079 --> 00:37:36.320
them. Um is there let's see prior carry forward number. Do y'all have that? Did y'all Oh, I have it in front of me, too. Jesse, do you have that thing I emailed you? Yeah, this is it. So, kind of going over real quick prior year carry forward dollars. So, again, back at the top of

135
00:37:36.320 --> 00:37:54.720
that budget, you've seen in revenues, a carry forward of $3,18,958 that is made up of 500,000 to the amphitheater that was already prior year allocated. We left 50,000 to Crescent Drive of prior year allocated dollars and then the downtown redevelopment in

136
00:37:54.720 --> 00:38:18.000
which we have combined a number of prior year dollars we know has not been spent that needs to be allocated. So that's of the downtown redevelopment number in your budget which is right now 3,498,861 2,468,958 is carry forward from various uh areas.

137
00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:37.119
So first area is um what was budgeted in fiscal year 26 for alleyways and streetscapes which is now downtown redevelopment. Uh that would be carried forward in the amount of 1,748,274. Uh the next one was encumber but not spent of the amphitheater of 324,000.

138
00:38:37.119 --> 00:38:53.599
uh then Crescent Drive of 176,000, BL parcel acquisition of 120,000 and then the three grant programs that we do not anticipate. We're just not going to physically have time through this fiscal year. Um if we do, we'll monitor this until then, but and so those three three

139
00:38:53.599 --> 00:39:08.880
combined was roughly $100,000. So with the prior year carry forward of downtown redevelopment of 2.4 4 plus new year dollars. Um that brought us to a downtown redevelopment budget of

140
00:39:08.880 --> 00:39:26.800
3,498,861. That line encompasses alloy improvements, railroad crossing, pedestrian improvements, and street resurfacing. Right now 7th to 8th. So trying to combine those, clean it up, and then try to make sure we're tracking every dollar um from prior year into the

141
00:39:26.800 --> 00:39:43.760
new year. So, what also means is anything you do not see on this sheet at the moment recognizing that we will end of fiscal year when the when the um clo inear close out happens, we're probably still going to have some some money that's going to have to be allocated. I'm not going to capture every dollar.

142
00:39:43.760 --> 00:39:59.520
We're probably going to have 100 $200,000 that we're going to need need to assign like they did this year. This prior year was almost what 1.1 million one million or so. So, we should have a lot less trying to be sure we're keeping track as best as possible. Um, but if it's not generally on this sheet right

143
00:39:59.520 --> 00:40:15.920
now, then that means anything you see in the budget are going to be new year current dollars, meaning they don't at the moment have the same requirements as prior year dollars. So, they have the little bit of flexibility inside the budget. Uh, meaning if if the board decides, hey, we're not going to do as much property acquisition or we're not

144
00:40:15.920 --> 00:40:31.200
going to do as much grant programming, then we can move that that money to a project if we have a shortfall or you see a necessity and need change. Um, so that's that's the high level of it. We can get we can get deep deeper into it if we need to.

145
00:40:31.200 --> 00:40:46.320
>> We'll start with Mr. Bear Bone, work our way around the table. >> Oh boy, here we go. Uh, so I'll just kind of throw out a couple of couple of thoughts on the capital outlay section. Um, number one, I think, um, 27 Crescent

146
00:40:46.320 --> 00:41:02.880
Drive, I think we need to cut our losses on that building. >> I agree. Um, I I haven't made up my mind yet whether we whether we de demo that property or whether we just put it back on the market and see what the market will bear as is. Um, but I but I think

147
00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:19.599
we need to cut our losses there. We either need to demo it and sell the parcel or we just need to sell it as is and see what we get for it and and move on. So, that's my thought on that. As far as the dog park facility, um I really think that we need to scale

148
00:41:19.599 --> 00:41:38.960
that back. Um, having had conversations with staff, I really think that an approach that's probably a little more um, fiscally responsible would be let's allocate $50,000 to it and get a fence

149
00:41:38.960 --> 00:41:55.839
put up in this area back over here behind us uh, with maybe a couple of benches and some some watering bowls or something like that and um, see where we go from there. you know, put the fence up, put some benches out, see how it's utilized that people could easily park

150
00:41:55.839 --> 00:42:10.400
right here and and utilize the the parking lot that we have. Um, and then let's keep tabs on how well it's utilized. And then from there, you know, in subsequent years, we can look at improving it even more. Uh, so to me,

151
00:42:10.400 --> 00:42:27.040
200,000, take that 150 that would that would free up by reducing that line item and let's put that into the new line item that is below it, the neighborhood district redevelopment. And in particular, over the years, I've had multiple

152
00:42:27.040 --> 00:42:44.560
citizens independently approach me about parks on the east east side of town. And I have had several conversations with previous CRA directors about uh seeing what the CRA could do because the parks and that sort of stuff are in

153
00:42:44.560 --> 00:43:01.359
the CRA plan to actually accomplish that mission. And you know, I was always met with, yep, that's in our plan. We'll see what we can do. And here we are and nothing's been done. So, let's let's actually put some actual money in the budget and let's get a let's acquire

154
00:43:01.359 --> 00:43:16.720
some property over there. let's improve some of the parks that are already over there that need improvement. Um I I really think that that's what we need to do. That is to me that is the essence of the CRA and I think that that's something that really needs to be looked

155
00:43:16.720 --> 00:43:31.920
at and and focused on. So those are those are my thoughts on capital outlay. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Mr. Harrison, >> I'll try to go right down the line with what you did Mr. Be. Um 27 Crescent

156
00:43:31.920 --> 00:43:47.280
Drive. I tend to agree. Um I think Kobe and I were talking about well you have budgeted about $50,000 to to demo the building. Then what do we do uh with it at that point and how much value is it

157
00:43:47.280 --> 00:44:04.160
to the city? Um parking, you know, that that kind of thing. Um I I kind of I kind of lean towards seeing what the market would would bear on that as well. We might, you know, we might not recoup everything. We might recoup it. I I don't know that the CRA

158
00:44:04.160 --> 00:44:20.960
spent for it. Um, but at least it's that much, you know, and it would there could be some uses for that building that are suitable, not for what we wanted to do with Culture Arts Alliance, but possibly with with other

159
00:44:20.960 --> 00:44:36.319
types of businesses or whatever that could probably use the building. there's something out there that could probably use it for what it is >> um or the way it is pretty much. I don't I don't know, but I don't know. It might be worth thinking about that, talking about that some more. So, I'm I'm open

160
00:44:36.319 --> 00:44:52.800
to to maybe seeing what we could we could potentially sell it for. amphitheater. There is an interest still and and I think a lot of people realize that the six to8 million dollars that it was going to cost to do, you know, the the the

161
00:44:52.800 --> 00:45:09.520
state-of-the-art amphitheater was more than really needed to be done there. And I think there's a lot of people in the community that want to see it improved. The seating better, maybe just painted, I don't know, just more comfortable shade cloth, things like that. uh some

162
00:45:09.520 --> 00:45:26.640
changes to the the building itself um that could be done for a fraction of that $6 to8 million um and be perfectly suitable for the small types of events that we have historically had there. Um so, you know, I I would like to see some

163
00:45:26.640 --> 00:45:43.680
type of improvement done on that personally. Um I I think the community uh gets good use out of that. Uh it just can can be can be upgraded, I guess. uh dog park. Um we had talked about storm water and Kobe you said so if we did a

164
00:45:43.680 --> 00:46:01.040
just a fence thing um there are we still required to do all those storm water things. >> So it's my understanding the storm water was more so associated with the creation of imperous surfaces what's already beyond there. So if you were to uh make changes to the existing parking lot so

165
00:46:01.040 --> 00:46:16.480
you were to put in sidewalks things of that nature those impervious surfaces then that triggers the need for storm water. >> Gotcha. So I don't I don't necessarily think that just a fence and you know certain apparatuses out there are going to trigger the stormwater issue, but it's the impervious surfaces causing that.

166
00:46:16.480 --> 00:46:34.160
>> Okay, good deal. Um neighborhood redevelopment. You know, we had someone speak in a council meeting about parks on the on the east side and there's some opportunities over there. There's there's some places where that could be done. Um I would I I I that's that's that's something that needs to be done.

167
00:46:34.160 --> 00:46:50.640
I I believe and if if I could I think I addressed everything. Um back to the uh the grant programs um coming we talked about this a little earlier uh today as well. You know I think about do you know

168
00:46:50.640 --> 00:47:07.599
we have we don't know what the city council is going to do in 2033 when CRA sunsets if they're going to continue it you know or if they're going to let it end or or what what's going to happen with it. we might not all be here at that time, you know, on the council. So, we don't know. So, I look at it like we

169
00:47:07.599 --> 00:47:24.079
have seven years. Seven years. So, if you look at five uh you know, like the CRA residential $75,000 budgeted, if if five projects got the maximum $15,000,

170
00:47:24.079 --> 00:47:39.440
that budget is gone. And we did five houses. And if we do that for seven years, that's only 35 houses in this city. And we all know there's a lot more than 35 homes that need to be uh addressed, right? So I I'm concerned

171
00:47:39.440 --> 00:47:55.280
that because we are just coming on with this thing as a board and what time we have left and not knowing whether CRA will continue after 2033. Should we should we pick up the pace somewhat with the number of homes that

172
00:47:55.280 --> 00:48:11.040
we can address with these grant programs? Uh or do we leave it as is? Just just a thought. Um and you know I I don't know about the other the residential the incomebased one probably. I mean that's I feel like that's where we're probably going to

173
00:48:11.040 --> 00:48:28.000
have the most eventually when when word gets out that these things are happening and they're working and they're pretty easy to get. Uh I think we're going to have more of those. So I I I just question whether, you know, how many of these things we're going to be able to do in the next seven years if that's the

174
00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:44.880
life of the CRA. You know what I mean? That's my only concern with with uh that amount. >> Mr. Cosen, I I'll loop back around to me at the end there. >> You want me to go? >> Yes, sir. Please. Um, I would say put

175
00:48:44.880 --> 00:49:00.720
Crescent um Drive on the market and the city can save that $50,000. Um, and if we're going to sell it, what's going to be the process? Is it going to be um are we going to list it

176
00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:15.920
with a realtor? Are we going to um take bids? Uh what's going to be the process for selling that? >> At this moment, we would do the bid process. So, we put together an ITB um and we we issue out ITB.

177
00:49:15.920 --> 00:49:35.920
>> And is that how the council uh the board would agree on doing that? Y'all think that's the best avenue? The reason I ask is because if you were going to put a bid on on it, they you know there may be a lot of people that's

178
00:49:35.920 --> 00:49:51.520
not interested in it and we get lowballed and you know how much did the city pay for that >> or the uh CRA pay for it? >> 300 wasn't it? I believe the purchase price was 273,000 and then that then you

179
00:49:51.520 --> 00:50:12.160
had surveyings and uh assessments done. >> So just south of $300,000. >> Yes. >> If I wanted to buy it, I'd be saying let's put it out for bid, but I'm not interested in buying it because that's a

180
00:50:12.160 --> 00:50:28.920
steep price right there. Um, anyway, we could debate that all day. I'm just saying save the city the $50,000 for demo and let the buyer take care of that.

181
00:50:31.520 --> 00:50:47.200
Is it the intention that the building would be demoed because I've heard both things tonight? I mean, your point would be save 50,000, let the buyer take care of that. believe the conversation I heard over here earlier was that the building may be usable. >> I'll have a different twist here in a few minutes.

182
00:50:47.200 --> 00:51:04.559
>> Then I'll hold my tongue because the the new buyer may want to keep it and use it for its original purpose, a warehouse. You know, I'm not saying the new buyer is going to want to demo it. He may not. But that would be the home that would be

183
00:51:04.559 --> 00:51:22.880
uh the property owner's right to do with it as long as he was within our codes. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that that that's what I was saying. A buyer might have a use for it, not not us. >> Um are we talking about anything else now?

184
00:51:22.880 --> 00:51:38.240
>> All of those. Yes, sir. The capital outlay go. As far as the dog park goes, um, that was Kim's baby and she said, uh, when was it Three Notch or Anchor that did the engineering for it? >> Anchor is the engineer. >> They came out, they came came up with

185
00:51:38.240 --> 00:51:55.440
some astronomical price. And Kim came right up behind them and stood at the at the podium and said, uh, she's not looking for some Taj Mahal. She she said, "I think we could just do this for like 36 $38,000 for fencing and call it

186
00:51:55.440 --> 00:52:13.119
a day." And so that would be under the $50,000 mark, which, you know, that's a good mark, $50,000. Um, but then there was some debate on handicap parking and bathroom accessibility and people coming in city

187
00:52:13.119 --> 00:52:29.520
hall and we got handicap parking out here and then they'd be coming in and using the bathrooms. And somebody said, "Well, why not use the old Wayside Park down there? The city already owns that." Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And they got bathrooms, >> and they've got handicap parking down there, and they've got everything we

188
00:52:29.520 --> 00:52:53.240
need. And um since, you know, she's been wanting that for a long time. Uh I don't know if uh I I wish she was here to weigh in on that, but in the grand scheme of things, with what all we have facing our city.

189
00:52:53.359 --> 00:53:09.520
I hate to say this, but a dog park would probably be on the bottom of my priority list. >> So, are you willing to allocate any funding to that or you just want to move on from that one then? >> Todd recommended 50,000 and I think that's more than fair.

190
00:53:09.520 --> 00:53:34.079
>> Okay. But as far as the location goes, that's still up for and what else here? Uh, so we've got $5 million as a estimate. Everything always costs more and they do change orders and they get halfway in it

191
00:53:34.079 --> 00:53:48.880
and we didn't realize this and we didn't realize that and that's just the nature of construction. But the price tag that we've been given for a completed alleyway project is $5 million. And every time we uh decide what we're going to take away from that

192
00:53:48.880 --> 00:54:04.960
$5 million, it reduces the money that's available for the alleyway, which right now is right at uh 3.5 million. So, I'm wondering uh if we do all these uh would be nice to have projects, you know, all

193
00:54:04.960 --> 00:54:22.800
these wants and we come up short on what we need to take care of for the alleyway. How are we going to pay for it? >> Mr. Towns, >> two things real quick, Commissioner. One, the most recent estimate we had back in April was 4.4 million. That was for the alleyway, 4.4. And then two,

194
00:54:22.800 --> 00:54:39.200
this line item, this downtown redevelopment line, that's almost 5 million. It includes alleyway improvements, railroad crossing, pedestrian improvements, and street resurfacing 7th to 8th. >> But we we all know from experience that whatever the price tag is is going to be

195
00:54:39.200 --> 00:54:55.119
more. And >> yeah, I just want to make I just want to make sure you realize this line item is not just the alleyway. This line item is downtown. And the reason it is because in the current redevelopment plan, there's a specific project and it specifically says downtown redevelopment and list of items. >> I understand there's a lot of nicities

196
00:54:55.119 --> 00:55:12.240
that are attached to the alleyway, but if if we do this like it should be and and we and it's a oneandone and we have underground utilities and the fiber optics and we put some lighting down there so that it's safe at night. If we do it like like we should, it would

197
00:55:12.240 --> 00:55:28.960
probably realistically eat up that $5 million without the additional nicities that we would all like to have for the downtown redevelopment. I'm just saying that um when we run into a deficit and it's like, oh my goodness, we don't have

198
00:55:28.960 --> 00:55:45.760
enough money to finish this. I've heard uh I I've heard about well we need to borrow some money and then we get back to how do you borrow your way out of debt? So if we're going to pay for this and get it done without getting deeper

199
00:55:45.760 --> 00:56:04.960
in debt. Um we can't do everything we want to do, everything we would like to do. So, that's just my opinion and I know y'all think that we can do it all and that's okay. That's your prerogative, >> but um I don't see how we can

200
00:56:04.960 --> 00:56:21.440
>> how we can get that done and and have all the all the nice things attached to it. We need to focus on one thing, get it done, move on to the next project. So, that's just uh I don't know how we're going to how we're going to pay for it

201
00:56:21.440 --> 00:56:38.559
without uh and I think y'all know how I feel about borrowing money. So, it just gets us deeper in debt. That's all I got. >> Uh, couple things deeper in debt. Is the CRA currently in debt? >> CRA is not >> I'm not asking you now. I'm asking the

202
00:56:38.559 --> 00:56:53.359
executive director because I know he's got answers to this one. Currently, CRA is not in debt. >> And um, a couple of things I I I agree with some of the comments that I've heard tonight on different uh, projects. I I'm completely in favor of the

203
00:56:53.359 --> 00:57:08.640
downtown alleyways project. I think we need to continue to go forward with that. I do have one question. Do you feel that even if you engaged or we said, "Hey, let's start. Let's move forward with the alleyway project because I know speaking to you offline

204
00:57:08.640 --> 00:57:24.400
in the past, it's been, hey, the CRA's got this funding and I would want to just grab one of these projects. Let's just go ahead and finish this and get this done and then we can move on." and and knowing that that's your um the the way that you want to attack these

205
00:57:24.400 --> 00:57:40.960
projects, do you feel that we could complete the downtown alleyways project in one fiscal year? >> Because I don't >> from a money perspective or from a time timing. >> Um I don't personally I don't think so just looking and seeing other cities

206
00:57:40.960 --> 00:57:56.960
again I've never personally been involved in one but looking at Crest View and Panama City >> and Pensacola Pensacola has been a lot faster. I thought they th a lot of money problem but Cresfield and Panama City was multi-year now again they're much bigger a little more complicated but you're talking about redoing the roads

207
00:57:56.960 --> 00:58:13.280
you got to relevel you're tearing all the utilities and the ground out you're under underground overhead which requires coordination with power company and the communications companies we're going to have to determine about the garbage situation we're going to determine about hookups to buildings how how does that change does that require

208
00:58:13.280 --> 00:58:29.760
any changes on the physical building um so there's a lot to be considered And that's that's for sure. I highly doubt one fiscal year you're going to have enough time. >> So, the reason why I bring that up is I I look at the amount of revenues that we're taking in or that's being um trusted to the CRA to complete some of

209
00:58:29.760 --> 00:58:46.160
these projects and improve the city. And and I I realize that we're not going to get that complete next year even if we say yes, let's go ahead and move forward with it right now. Um, I say that because I would hope that we would continue at

210
00:58:46.160 --> 00:59:02.559
our current, if we could continue at our current funding level because we're getting $794,000 worth of county avalorum contributions to this. And if I look at just the grants port program alone, that's only 300,000. So, not take that away from

211
00:59:02.559 --> 00:59:17.440
what the county's contributing so far, that still leaves us with 400,000 of county contributions. And the rest of this funding is going towards it. It's and even those funds are going towards beautifification of the city and

212
00:59:17.440 --> 00:59:34.000
remediating black and increasing the outlook on our city property tax values and everything else which is going to be extremely important in the future moving forward with commercial properties and attracting those businesses to certain areas and keeping them in these areas.

213
00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:50.960
Um, with that being said, to me, the downtown alleyways project is is my priority one as as it is for all of you as well. I think that we need to continue to look at the blighted partial acquisition. Um, the way at the current funding level you've got because it only

214
00:59:50.960 --> 01:00:07.280
improves the neighborhoods and the property values of those people that live there and their businesses in those areas. So, with that being said, you don't really want to take away from that because you want to attract those businesses there so that we can get those avalor dollars brought into the

215
01:00:07.280 --> 01:00:24.400
community. Um, the amphitheater project, I agree with what I've heard from um, Councilman Harrison and and I think a little bit from Councilman Beerp as well. It's I think that we can get additional funding from other sources as

216
01:00:24.400 --> 01:00:40.480
well to meet our needs with the amphitheater. I I would like to see you reach out to the TDC and to look at whether or not they're available to fund um a couple of sun sales to cover the seating area. Maybe we could reach out to the sheriff's office and see if we

217
01:00:40.480 --> 01:00:56.000
could get inmate um labor out there to help redo and resurface some of these benches. And then we would have minimal cost with just the materials to stain or or polish the seats or however we do that to where people don't have splinters and whenever they're sitting

218
01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:12.160
down there. And it it would still and we can clean up around the building too and do some different things there. Um w with very little funding. And I and I think that the TDC will be willing to help out with that. It's just approaching Mr. Algrren and maybe um

219
01:01:12.160 --> 01:01:28.799
maybe even Mr. Irvin being that he he previously spared this board he or the CRA that he would help out with some um some push there as well. Uh the Crescent Drive development I feel like the rest of my council members do, but I got a different twist. Um, even

220
01:01:28.799 --> 01:01:46.319
today I heard once again somebody wanting to uh look that was looking for some space inside the city to establish a presence here. Um, can Marro the ambulance out there at HCA that's that's that's also helping with Walton County

221
01:01:46.319 --> 01:02:01.680
and their deficits when their ambulances are gone. um they're looking for different places to to rent, which made me think some of these properties like this Crescent Drive development. I wonder if they're willing to lease the

222
01:02:01.680 --> 01:02:19.119
property from us at a novel price and make um some improvements their sales, which only improves our property. My question to Clay is if is that legal to begin with, and can we move down those paths? >> We can look at a lease option. I'm not going to tell you that it's illegal. The

223
01:02:19.119 --> 01:02:36.240
structure of it is where the detail is in the details. My earlier comment, I think you your last point there kind of gets to where I was going with my comment between kind of what Councilman Coen and Councilman Harrison were suggesting. The only thing I'm going to tell you about this project is it was

224
01:02:36.240 --> 01:02:53.119
acquired as part of blight remediation. >> Therefore, the CRA has found that this building was blighted at some point in time. >> Flip it. So my question would be should we ever and I get you're a

225
01:02:53.119 --> 01:03:08.720
different board than the board that voted to do it. You may disagree with your decision. I just want the board to think about how it would answer the question if it were ever asked by an inspector general, auditor general, or otherwise. You bought a blighted property,

226
01:03:08.720 --> 01:03:22.720
determined you did not want to improve it. You put it back on the tax roll with no improvements to recoup some money. Let's say we break even. Let's just be neutral. Let's don't make any money. Let's don't lose any money.

227
01:03:22.720 --> 01:03:39.440
And nobody improves the building. What has been the purpose of the money that was out of the CRA trust fund not eligible to earn interest or otherwise once it was used to purchase that property? I I think this project this

228
01:03:39.440 --> 01:03:55.839
property presents a little bit of a unique situation in the sense that the CRA did determine it to be blighted. So, what are we going to do to fix that? If it's just put it back on the market, that's one thing. But, um, if we have a list of what makes it blighted, perhaps

229
01:03:55.839 --> 01:04:14.000
that becomes a requirement of we'll sell it to somebody else with the instructions to fix it up. Um, those are things you just need to think about. And I'm not telling you you'll ever get in trouble if you don't, but I am concerned about it because we spent

230
01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:31.680
almost $300,000 of taxpayer money to acquire something we said was blighted and now we're going to say, "Well, we're not getting anything with it." Um, typically the goal when you buy property is to remediate the blight >> and restore it or turn it to the public where the public can do it. Um,

231
01:04:31.680 --> 01:04:47.119
this is not meant to say you need to spend the $50,000 to tear down, but >> I see why we don't need to lease it at the moment. >> That that goes to your point. Yeah. >> But I I do think that if you tear it

232
01:04:47.119 --> 01:05:02.480
down and then try to sell the property and hope that somebody redevelops it, that's completely consistent with the way CRAAS work. Just buying it, flipping it back. I mean, the only time we've done that before, and we looked at this very closely, by the way, was with the

233
01:05:02.480 --> 01:05:17.599
properties over there directly across from the county admin facility. >> We settled that back at an even break even point, but we did so because of the county's commitment to tearing it down and making it part of their overall governmental complex. So, as them being

234
01:05:17.599 --> 01:05:34.720
a funding contributor to the CRA and the fact that they were going to bear the cost of tearing it down rather than us do it, that's how we were able to justify that. So, This is one we I want to make sure we're very clear in what our purpose is rather than simply we don't like that it happened or we

235
01:05:34.720 --> 01:05:51.440
don't have a use for it anymore. How do we get out of it? Well, not having a use for it anymore is fine. It's why do we buy? We bought it because it was blighted. If we just let it continue to exist as blighted, one day we open oursel up to a very big question. Then

236
01:05:51.440 --> 01:06:08.079
my recommend my recommendation then would be to sell it with the understanding they have to remediate the BL especially if we're going to take a loss on it because I from what I've heard already I believe that we are. >> I mean I I know Chris and I walked

237
01:06:08.079 --> 01:06:24.720
through it. I know Council Harrison did. So I'll let Council Harrison if he wants to opine on the condition of it but yeah. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. as far as the condition and that's what I was about to say. You know, the cost of getting it was bought

238
01:06:24.720 --> 01:06:40.880
to reduce black, but the cost of doing that has since been figured out. And and and they're talking about, you know, taking the entire roof off, trusses, everything. Go back with new trusses,

239
01:06:40.880 --> 01:06:58.240
lower ceiling, insulation, all decking the roof, complete taking the lid off that building completely and raising probably three4s of the building floor level. >> Well, my thought was only about tearing it down. I actually believe we should ever begin remodeling the building.

240
01:06:58.240 --> 01:07:15.039
>> Okay. I was buy it. If not, we'll tear it down to sell it. >> Yeah. The only other comment I will make is does the CRA, and it's not something we have actively kind of what Kobe's going

241
01:07:15.039 --> 01:07:34.720
through right now with you, does the CRA potentially see a benefit into if that building did not exist, that becoming public parking for the downtown area? >> Because I'm going to tell you that was suggested at a meeting. the members of the CRA that favored

242
01:07:34.720 --> 01:07:51.440
buying it and then potentially leasing it out were my recollection at least was wholly opposed to doing that if you're spend $50,000 to tear it down. >> And the problem is it's not compliant with the ADA or with any number of Florida building code provisions. Not to

243
01:07:51.440 --> 01:08:07.520
mention it's just in a dilapidated state of repair. Um >> I will So I just would throw that out there as another consideration. I'm not trying to make you dump the 50,000 into it, but I promise you, you're going to pay a whole lot more if we have to go through an auditor general and inspector

244
01:08:07.520 --> 01:08:24.640
general investigation or a grand jury over this. >> I don't want to do that, right? >> And and again, I want to be very clear. The property is bought with certain things in mind by that by the prior CRA board. It just so happens that those certain things in mind, one, to Councilman Harrison's point, are way too

245
01:08:24.640 --> 01:08:42.000
expensive for what we thought. two, because they didn't go through the steps of getting their assessment, they're building assessments and things of that nature on the front end. We're now in a position where we have different priorities we've assessed that we want to go to. All that's okay.

246
01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:58.239
But I can tell you the question that gets asked is going to be everybody in a public meeting just got done saying we don't think we'll get our money out of this. So, how did we create a windfall scenario for a property owner? Was that proper? Was that legal? Somebody asked that question. That's an

247
01:08:58.239 --> 01:09:14.799
investigation. We're gonna have to spend a lot of time. So, or we >> defer to council. >> Go that right route. I'm just saying about it, please. >> I'll come back around to my last two there, Mr. Beron. >> So, based on the counselor's advice, I I

248
01:09:14.799 --> 01:09:30.000
think my tune has changed and I think we ought to maybe consider a parking lot for 50. What was it? 57 Crescent Drive. 27 27 Crescent Drive. Um I'm not overly wild about it, but that certainly checks

249
01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:46.640
all the boxes from making sure that we're doing everything properly. Um so from that perspective, I think that and and also I had conversations when all of this originally came up, had conversations with people and it was pointed out to me

250
01:09:46.640 --> 01:10:04.239
at the time even even if even let's just hypothetically we sell it, right? Whoever is going to buy that building and then try to turn around and bring it up into compliance is going to end up eating up a lot of that area right around that building with ADA parking and ramps and all this kind of stuff

251
01:10:04.239 --> 01:10:20.480
that I don't know that it then becomes truly functional for what we we think it's going to be functional for versus we we turn it into some sort of overflow parking that benefits the city when we have large events whether it's Christmas reflections or something downtown the

252
01:10:20.480 --> 01:10:35.120
amphitheater. or a Main Street event, you know, downtown on on Baldwin. Uh I I I can see that being more functional for that than, you know, watching someone kind of just pick that that lot apart, trying to

253
01:10:35.120 --> 01:10:51.440
bring it up to to code and standard. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think if you and I think if we were to look at a parking lot of some sort, you don't have to pave it. You could leave it grass and put in the proper stops or you could rock it, things of that nature. And I think also there is there's sidewalk already on what would

254
01:10:51.440 --> 01:11:08.159
be the west side of Crescent to walk there. There could be some probably some improvements made there um as part of this to make sure people can safely get across to there. Um so there is a way to to get to the circle or into the historic district from there. >> And if and Mr. Towns is correct and what

255
01:11:08.159 --> 01:11:24.000
you did was you did some form of grassing or something of that nature. Um, there's nothing to say that you could not have it prepared with some type of fencing to make it some type of park usage or otherwise when it's not being used for overflow. I wasn't going to say that, but the chief just said it.

256
01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:39.280
>> What did he say? >> Dog park. >> Dog park. >> But I mean, you see that happen in other cities where they have a multi-purpose. All right, we reserve the right to come in here and use it for overflow parking for big events, but until then, it's a grass area. Once you get the grass established over enough period of time,

257
01:11:39.280 --> 01:11:56.440
parking on it a couple days a year is not going to destroy it unless it's right after a big rainstorm or something. >> So, I would just say those are things I would suggest you consider before we put it out on the open market. But, if we do want to put out on the open market and you get your money back,

258
01:11:56.719 --> 01:12:13.920
my concerns start to go down. If we lose money, my concerns go way up. If we make money, by the way, my concerns are also up. We put it out for bid. We can still reject bids if it's not amanable. >> We could. >> Well, it sounds like we're talking about put it out and here's the price. Here's the number we want.

259
01:12:13.920 --> 01:12:29.760
>> Pretty well. You're putting out for bid, but you're going to need to basically get break even is what I'm telling you. >> What's the purpose of making money? That's could be the one challenge. And the next challenge is why'd you lose money? Why'd you overpay if that's the case? um versus I would say this, if you

260
01:12:29.760 --> 01:12:46.400
did turn it into a grass or gravel or a similar parking lot, you didn't go through the full pavement process, >> there's nothing that as further downtown parking develops that stops you from saying we no longer have a need for that as overflow parking

261
01:12:46.400 --> 01:13:02.480
and then putting it on the market and selling it to then get it back on the tax roll. Then at that point in time, you've quantified a use for a period of time that's going to pass muster on any auditor or inspection. It's the immediate issue that I see is we bought it, we did nothing with it,

262
01:13:02.480 --> 01:13:19.280
now we just want to get out of it. >> That's where you get into trouble in my experience. >> I don't want to do that. >> So, are we still talking about the um >> Crescent? Crescent. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um,

263
01:13:19.280 --> 01:13:34.640
>> are we going to have any more comments before vote? >> Well, we're not voting on that part just yet. And I've still got a couple more to hit here real quick before I'm finished. So, okay. But I was going to let you comment on it because that was big topic of discussion. So, we may as well get on through that one. >> Okay, I'm good.

264
01:13:34.640 --> 01:13:52.640
>> Good. Uh for the dog part for me, I'm I tend to lean more towards what Councilman Cosen said and looking towards something we could do at Wayside or maybe even given the topic we just had there. I don't necessarily know that I want to invest money right here on

265
01:13:52.640 --> 01:14:09.120
this heel where we're at. Um I'm good with the $50,000 marker, but I think we need to cut it back by about 150 at least. Um and then neighborhood district redevelopment. I I would rather see that money go towards that. Um there's some issues on the east

266
01:14:09.120 --> 01:14:25.840
side of town with um remediating the blight at those parks from myself and the chief rode around one night and and I can see why um the citizens in that area feel like they've been left behind at times. I think we could give them something to be proud of over there and

267
01:14:25.840 --> 01:14:42.960
and um safety and security along with it to kind of make it a safe place for kids to go and play. Um, so I I would like to see that money reinvested there. That's that's all I've got though for >> reinvested in which part? >> Pat Cooville number two

268
01:14:42.960 --> 01:14:58.800
>> on the east side >> or even lighting. I know Mr. Graham's been in here several times talking about lighting um throughout that side of town and making sure that the streets are safe and different things we can do over there. I would rather see those funds expensed for something like that for

269
01:14:58.800 --> 01:15:13.440
citizens than um than I had the dog park. Large portion of it being dog park. >> Can I say something about the dog park? >> Uh Mr. Townsen, I don't want to get too far. Yes, sir. Go ahead and then we'll come back to you.

270
01:15:13.440 --> 01:15:30.320
So, if the dog park was fenced, if if the dog park was the Wayside Park and it was fixed and it had public hours available to the park posted, that would cut down a tremendous amount of uh Chief

271
01:15:30.320 --> 01:15:46.800
Hurley's problems. Would you agree? >> They're already I got you. They're already posted. I mean, the hour is already posted. It's it's an active park, city park. So, it's already posted. We already clean the bathrooms, the garbage. The police

272
01:15:46.800 --> 01:16:03.640
officers shut it down at night time when they come through. We open and public work staff. >> It's not a meeting place anymore. >> So, I don't know about that. I'm just saying from an operational it's already it's already a functioning operating park. >> That's as nice as I could put it, Todd. >> Yeah.

273
01:16:05.120 --> 01:16:21.760
>> Only saying a word. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Mr. Towns. >> Um, so I guess you know then the the next thing will be at our meeting in July, we'll come forward. I'll come forward with a clean clean budget line

274
01:16:21.760 --> 01:16:37.280
and uh so we can hopefully get that adopted because then it'll need to be given to the city to be included in in that overall budget. Um, two things I know for a fact we'll do right now is we uh over the next month we'll look at redevelopment plan update try to kind of get a hard figure on what that may be or

275
01:16:37.280 --> 01:16:52.880
close to what that may be exactly. And then uh if we're looking at 27 Crescent Drive, we may try and contact someone, get maybe a little bit closer quote on what that may look like from a demo and and res look. Um so those those two numbers we will look into the

276
01:16:52.880 --> 01:17:08.239
amphitheater. If that's something the board wants us to do, then I we can set up and reach out to the TDC, talk to them about that. um we can talk to the sheriff's office about potential labor and then between you know between that then and October one then the board can have more discussions on what exactly is

277
01:17:08.239 --> 01:17:24.560
it that you're looking to get done out there >> at the amphitheater. >> So I I completely agree with my fellow council members on the amphitheater uh comments. I I actually accidentally skipped over that when I made my initial comments, but the only my only request is I fully support what he just said in

278
01:17:24.560 --> 01:17:40.560
doing my only request would be let's take it one step further and let's get some sort of cost estimate on >> the improvements whether it's um a lot of things you mentioned sage shade sales say that 10 times fast um the

279
01:17:40.560 --> 01:17:57.280
improvements to the seating uh we certainly need to look at some improvements to the actual structure of the of that building the the stage >> uh paint, you know, I know a lot of the trim is falling out. So, what would it take? Is that something that we just need to put out to bid or is that something we can just simply allocate

280
01:17:57.280 --> 01:18:12.640
some money to to do from a staff project perspective? Getting some details on on all of that, I think, would be >> what I would like to see. >> Let us reach back out to DAG because our contract DAG is still active. We just we paused. Um they had finished phase one

281
01:18:12.640 --> 01:18:29.520
which was $180,000 mark and there was an additional How much was that Chris? About$7,000. >> There was 7,000 that went into phase two which was the um feasibility study and things of that nature that occurred. So those been paid. So we're up to date on invoices but DAG's already under

282
01:18:29.520 --> 01:18:44.880
contract. I'm pretty sure they were using Okcon Associates engineering firm to help with when we got into the engineering portion. So, I feel like we going to re-engage DAG, tell them what the board is looking for in terms of scope a little bit more and start working on to bring you back some information before we go to the TDC and

283
01:18:44.880 --> 01:19:00.640
sheriff's office. We can bring that back. I think we're talking about shade, we're talking about seating. We're talking about the existing structure getting, you know, improvements, redevelop that existing structure. Um, so let us work with DAG. We can bring some stuff back and see what that looks like. I just I just think that having

284
01:19:00.640 --> 01:19:17.440
that plan to go to the TDC or whoever we're seeking funding from, even if it's a grant opportunity, I think would put us on better footing than just we know we want improvement, but we don't know what. So, just having that plan, I think now versus later, it would be better. >> And I agree. I apologize for leaving

285
01:19:17.440 --> 01:19:32.400
that out. That was kind of my unspoken intent to begin with. So if it was there, >> yeah, we'll pull the contract, look at the plan for next phase, and then >> amphitheater improvements without the extension. >> So we're not voting on that tonight. >> We're not on any of these.

286
01:19:32.400 --> 01:19:46.480
>> Okay. We're just having a discussion. >> Okay. Um since we're having a discussion, is now a proper time to add something to it? >> Uh if it's dealing with these agenda items? Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, I just want to uh caution my

287
01:19:46.480 --> 01:20:03.840
fellow councilman that uh I've heard some I've heard some things like maybe we can get some money from here or maybe we can get some money from there or maybe we can get some grants or maybe we could do this. Um I don't think that the uh that 800,000 that we get

288
01:20:03.840 --> 01:20:20.480
from the county uh for the CRA, I don't think that's in concrete. I think they could cancel that. >> Uh no, sir, they cannot. with with >> they cannot >> with 60 can't cancel it with 60-day notice. They're locked in. >> No, sir. They cannot. It's a statutory

289
01:20:20.480 --> 01:20:36.960
obligation. Their time to object to it or oppose it was when we provided them the notice back in 2018 when the county took no step to. >> So that money's lock that money is guaranteed. >> As long as there is a CRA, that money is guaranteed >> and we don't adjust the rate. >> And our responsibility and obligation as

290
01:20:36.960 --> 01:20:52.400
people of this city and improvements for this city. >> Yeah. that that was a statutory scenario that was put into effect about eight years ago. Counties have the right to come in, have a seat at the table and talk to us about it. That case, all proper notices were

291
01:20:52.400 --> 01:21:09.199
sent. The county took no action to challenge or request anything different. So, it went into effect automatically and has since been set in stone. The only way the county's contributo portion changes is if you in some way, shape, or form change the rate, dissolve the CRA,

292
01:21:09.199 --> 01:21:28.560
or change the map. As long as the rate set now, you're guaranteed that money until the CRA stops existing. >> Okay. So, that's we're guaranteed that 800K. >> Good to know. And I would note that is one of the reasons there was frustration initially

293
01:21:28.560 --> 01:21:46.080
about the CRA with the county when that first came to their attention because they had not remitted the money in the first year or two because they just totally were unaware of it. It appears >> the only other thing uh Mr. Chairman is the downtown the alleyway project. So um

294
01:21:46.080 --> 01:22:02.560
would the board like to go ahead and give give anchor instruction to go ahead and restart that sign? >> Absolutely. roughly 30%. And my intention would be if everyone's okay with it, I'll get with Elizabeth and every milestone of the of the design process. So I think we're about 30. I don't I'd look back at the task order on

295
01:22:02.560 --> 01:22:19.360
what the the stages are, but at least 60 90, probably more than that. They'll come, we'll present on it so we can keep track just like the city council did with the runway project. >> Here's where we're at this time. Here's where we're headed next. And here's the decisions you need to make so we can incorporate that moving forward. >> Is there a vote on that?

296
01:22:19.360 --> 01:22:34.800
>> Not tonight. >> No. As long as everyone's okay with it, I'll give them direction. We'll move forward. >> But that'll be >> verbally give them the okay to start like tomorrow. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But yeah, we the intention is to come back on different phases of it. That way y'all get what it is, what we need next,

297
01:22:34.800 --> 01:22:51.920
so we can keep it >> keep going. But >> other than that, I believe that is it. >> Okay. >> And like I said, number four, item number four, um, no need on that. uh we will scrap that and work toward a overall redevelopment plan update.

298
01:22:51.920 --> 01:23:10.239
>> We will now move into the citizens comment portion. Do we have any comments from citizens? >> See none, we'll close out citizens comment. Move back to the board. Uh Mr. Bomb, anything else to ask? >> No, sir. I'm good. Thank you. >> Mr. Harrison, >> no sir.

299
01:23:10.239 --> 01:23:26.880
>> Nothing from me either. Uh Mr. Atinson, anything from you? >> No, sir. >> Mr. Townsen, >> I'm good. >> Mr. No sir. >> All right. Well, seeing that uh we have taken all those, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> All right. We are adjourned.

300
01:23:26.880 --> 01:23:30.719
I'm sorry, Sumi. Help.