WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=NdAaLSnB-5A

Part: 1

1
00:01:13.920 --> 00:01:29.840
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Um, I would like to call to order the Community Redevelopment Agency regular meeting for Monday, April 27th, 2026. It is 3:01 p.m. Uh, would the clerk

2
00:01:29.840 --> 00:01:44.240
please call roll? >> Gerard Pow >> here. >> Ron Whittington >> here. >> Megan Edwards >> here. >> Dad Mosley >> here. >> Kevin Myers. Sydney Talcott >> here.

3
00:01:44.240 --> 00:02:03.759
>> Marcus Campy. >> Thank you. Um since we have one of our regular members missing this afternoon, uh Sydney will uh step into that role for us this afternoon. So we have a quorum and uh we'll be able to conduct business this afternoon in accordance

4
00:02:03.759 --> 00:02:19.120
with our agenda. Um first item of the agenda is courtesy of the Florida visitors. I've not received any specific cards for uh addressing the board. I don't know anybody either. No sir, >> we have not received any. Then we'll

5
00:02:19.120 --> 00:02:36.400
move on to the next portion of the u of the agenda which is approval of the meeting minutes. Um the meeting March 23rd, 2026 meeting minutes. Um are there any changes, additions, corrections by any

6
00:02:36.400 --> 00:02:52.319
of the board members to those meeting minutes? I don't see any. So, with that, um, I'll ask for a motion to approve the, um, the meeting minutes of March 23rd, 2026. >> Motion to approve.

7
00:02:52.319 --> 00:03:08.000
>> Motion has been made. Um, is there a second? >> Second. >> And we have a second. Um, let's just do this as a voice vote. All those in favor of approving the meeting minutes, please say I. I. >> All those opposed,

8
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:24.159
we we have passed those meeting minutes. The next item is old business. Anything that anybody has that they'd like to address at this point in reference to old business? I don't see any. So, we'll move on to

9
00:03:24.159 --> 00:03:40.400
new business. Um, new business, we've got um several grant applications to consider this afternoon. And with that, um, I'll, uh, Taylor, I'll let you, uh, go ahead and

10
00:03:40.400 --> 00:03:57.599
and address the grant applications and help us better understand the information that we had received. >> Yeah. Um, so item A for four point Sherin is going to be for safety grant, um, not facade. So that one is kind of a

11
00:03:57.599 --> 00:04:13.360
little bit different. Um, held to a little bit of a different set of standards. We did not do an ROI evaluation sheet when we adopted the safety grant program. Um maybe going forward it's something we consider and look at but when this was adopted uh that did not exist. Everything that the

12
00:04:13.360 --> 00:04:30.160
applicant has provided um is in line with the intent of the safety grant uh funding and they are wanting to upgrade and replace uh the camera systems, the CCTV surveillance at Fort Points. It

13
00:04:30.160 --> 00:04:46.160
will be a 32 channel camera system designed to monitor the exterior areas including all the entrances, parking areas, pedestrian walkways, and perimeter zones. Um, the system will also include software that allows authorized users to review recorded

14
00:04:46.160 --> 00:05:02.960
footage, search for specific events, and assist um, our police department with incident documentation when required. that was a part of the safety grant when we created it was if you are going to receive CRA funding for cameras, you absolutely must give access to the police department when they need it. Um,

15
00:05:02.960 --> 00:05:18.880
and so they acknowledged that by applying, but they also made sure to specify that um in their document as well. After going through this um staff recommendation would be to approve um their safety grant, but I'm happy to

16
00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:36.400
answer any further questions you may have about this one. Are there any questions from the board members uh of Taylor in reference to this application? Megan >> Taylor, this was this is different from the facade grant in that they do not

17
00:05:36.400 --> 00:05:53.440
have to have spent the funds yet and get reimbursed. Is that right? >> Correct. So they this is the same as our facade grant. Um they will cover it up front. We will go out um and inspect to make sure that they did what they say they were going to do. And then once they do that, we issue the reimburseable

18
00:05:53.440 --> 00:06:08.960
grant amount. >> And this is a on the exterior, I assume. >> Yep. >> Great. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions from uh Taylor, I have one or two quick

19
00:06:08.960 --> 00:06:25.919
questions. Um it talks about a 32 channel camera system, but it looks like there's only four cameras that are being installed. Is that correct? Okay. So, we have

20
00:06:25.919 --> 00:06:40.720
bear with me. >> No problem. >> This is all starting to run together. Um, so there will be four, the way I understood it is it's 32 channels, meaning there will be 32 different essentially vantage

21
00:06:40.720 --> 00:06:59.440
points. Um they will have four hard drive ports, four fixed lenses but my understanding is those lenses will cover essentially 32 viewpoints between those four is how I understand that. Um if I am wrong I am

22
00:06:59.440 --> 00:07:16.560
happy to get some clarification but the 32 channel means there will be 32 different vantage points. So when it's recording and you can go back and search events, you can search through 32 different angles. They won't be a stagnant fixed angle. >> That's what I was trying to understand.

23
00:07:16.560 --> 00:07:31.840
Also, I wasn't sure I was clear on that as as I was looking at it, but it's really only four cameras that they're installing and then they're going to be u monitoring different angles with each one of those four cameras. Okay.

24
00:07:31.840 --> 00:07:48.400
Um and you indicated that uh this has all been coordinated with the police department. Um >> I have talked with um Sergeant Tanya Tater about this and then once an applicant is approved uh we have in the grant package that they have to come in

25
00:07:48.400 --> 00:08:05.039
and have a meeting with myself and PD to kind of elaborate with the police department on this and before they can proceed with the work. >> Okay. So if at that point anyone in PD sees something that maybe we didn't catch the first time around or they have a concern, then they would be able to raise that concern with the applicant.

26
00:08:05.039 --> 00:08:20.639
>> This is the first application I think that we've seen in reference to the security side. So it's >> you know I think a great step in the right direction. Um, the only thing I would ask that maybe in the future that we take a look at doing is as we

27
00:08:20.639 --> 00:08:38.080
describe the system, we talk about $10,000 being spent uh as part of the grant. How much does that leave us um for remaining within our budget for the the rest of the year? You don't have to answer. >> No. Well, as of right now, that would

28
00:08:38.080 --> 00:08:53.839
leave 290,000 because this is the first grant we're technically approving and we had 300,000 for this fiscal year to cover safety grants and facade grants. So, we have one big line item for incentives of 300,000 and then any facade and safety

29
00:08:53.839 --> 00:09:09.279
both come out of that. So, >> in theory, if this was the only one approved, we still have $290,000. >> Yeah, no problem. I and you've already clarified one thing for me that I thought we had separate I thought there was a separate security um allocation as

30
00:09:09.279 --> 00:09:24.959
well as a separate facade. >> No, it's all under incentives. >> It's all under one. So, as we look at all of these approvals, we just need to keep that in the back of our mind. Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. I don't have anything else.

31
00:09:24.959 --> 00:09:41.200
With that, uh, the chair will entertain a motion, uh, in reference to the four points Sheridan safety grant application. >> I move that we approve the Four Points Sheridan safety application. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second.

32
00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:57.040
>> And there is a second. Um, we'll do this. Before we do that, uh, any final comments, questions from the board? I just uh is there because we're already through Q1, right? And we only have

33
00:09:57.040 --> 00:10:12.080
$10,000 of the 300,000. >> Is there any way we're able to promote this on social media because I would love to get people incentivized here coming into like warmer months and to start making that investment. >> Absolutely. um we can I think what we

34
00:10:12.080 --> 00:10:28.320
run into is and this doesn't mean it's bad by any means but I think a lot of people hear um a grant and they think the money is going to be upfront and then they come in to meet about it or talk about it and they realize oh okay I'm wanting to do 150,000 in improvements and yes I can

35
00:10:28.320 --> 00:10:45.920
get 50,000 back from that but it's that initial upfront cost I think deters um you know which again that doesn't mean that we need to change the way we're operating that this is typically how incentive programs are. Um, but I do think that deters some. Um, I know

36
00:10:45.920 --> 00:11:00.800
firsthand because I've been told this that some don't like the regulatory aspect of it. They don't like the idea that they have to turn in item by item receipt. Um, I know you guys don't see that side of it, but I mean, I literally count to the penny and if it's off, it's

37
00:11:00.800 --> 00:11:17.040
a problem. Um, I've dealt with it and I always work through and and help applicants. Um, I think that deters some that it's just so strictly regulated. But again, when it's potentially $50,000 being reimbursed, you know, we have to make sure we're >> covering all the bases. Um, but I'm

38
00:11:17.040 --> 00:11:33.680
happy to, to your point, as we're getting into spring and summer, work with communications and, >> you know, even if we just do a short little video or some type of a post, a quick little reel, just reminding people that it's out there. I know we've done it in the past. Um, but it definitely would not hurt and I think it would benefit us to put some more info out

39
00:11:33.680 --> 00:11:49.920
there. And I guess maybe even from the approval point of view when we have some of these new people coming in, right? Alder and Oak coming in, you know, when that's going on, are we saying, "Hey, just so you know, by the way, we do have the safety grant program here. We do also have the facade, right? Those types of things." >> Again,

40
00:11:49.920 --> 00:12:06.480
that might be easier to do right as they're doing the initial build out, whatever the case may be. I just think it's great and I think right now it makes $300,000 sitting there. >> Just Yeah, I think it would be really great if more people would utilize it. Thanks.

41
00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:22.079
>> Yeah, she does at our meetings. Yeah, and that's something too. Thank you. Um the mayor sends out emails and things and we've got a meeting that she hosts. Um and she's also very very good. She's a big advocate for putting this out there and actually um some of the

42
00:12:22.079 --> 00:12:37.040
applicants that have applied and received funding are also honestly great word of mouth. They tell people how great it is. Um one of them said I like to hound him on his invoices but you know I had to but it worked out great. So but we'll definitely explore some more creative opportunities with um

43
00:12:37.040 --> 00:12:54.880
spreading the word. >> Sydney. >> Yeah. I just wanted to add uh that's a great idea I think too because we only have so much of a budget and you know it goes it will go down throughout the year

44
00:12:54.880 --> 00:13:11.680
as we award these grants and so letting folks know that you know there's like get in get in early is >> yeah I mean it's definitely first come first serve and if it runs out it it runs out um I do know we had one applicant that did not meet this deadline that will be coming back to us

45
00:13:11.680 --> 00:13:28.160
at our July review um they have said for a fact they'll be coming with a grant as well um for safety. >> So, it's it's it's picking up traction for sure. >> Commander Crumbley, did you have any comments or thoughts on this that you

46
00:13:28.160 --> 00:13:44.079
wanted to make? >> Hey, sorry. Thank you, Tommy Crumbling. Um the thing that I was talking I was kind of mentioning in her ear. Taylor and the mayor do a really good job at the the mayor calls it her business owners group. So, she has a what we'll

47
00:13:44.079 --> 00:14:00.079
call the downtown business owners group meetings where everybody comes in. They meet with the mayor, some of the city staff. We'll go and talk to the business owners and let them know, hey, these are the facade grant. We talked about that for the last couple years. Now, we've

48
00:14:00.079 --> 00:14:17.199
got this grant going. And >> to y'all's points, you know, the mayor does remind everybody and and so does Taylor that, hey, this is all first come, first serve. maybe get your stuff in early. We encourage everybody to get it in in the first quarter and you know it's first come first serve, but um it

49
00:14:17.199 --> 00:14:33.680
has been a lot of communication through the different various parts of the city staff. Sergeant Tater does a really good job with her. I don't know if any of y'all have ever worked with her with her community engagement stuff that she's doing now and also the downtown Cape guys are they're always out there

50
00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:50.560
talking to the businesses whenever something comes up and a incident where man I wish we had you know, business owner says, "Man, I wish we had a camera here," or whatever. A lot of the guys will tell them, "Hey, uh, hint hint, wink, wink, you could." And, you know, so, a lot of the folks are definitely

51
00:14:50.560 --> 00:15:05.680
trying and, uh, trying to get that message out there, trying to get everything better moving forward slowly but surely. And, uh, like Miss Mob said, the the problem is all the fine points,

52
00:15:05.680 --> 00:15:20.639
right? And a lot of people, they struggle with the fine points or they, well, I know a guy that can do the work for me for half the price if, you know, if I'm not getting an invoice and all that kind of stuff. So, not saying anybody's doing anything wrong, but it's

53
00:15:20.639 --> 00:15:36.959
just to get all that stuff lined up to apply officially for the grant. I think that's why we're seeing slow numbers kind of coming in, onesies and twzies here and there. And I think as more people get approved, more people

54
00:15:36.959 --> 00:15:53.759
start getting going with it. U Bob got the facade grant last year, right? Got several >> several. So, you know, he he's a big proponent now even at the business owners meetings like he's a a proponent that he's telling people, hey, you need to take advantage of this. And

55
00:15:53.759 --> 00:16:10.720
>> and with Bricks and so whoever said it, the word of mouth is perfect. It's working out good. Um, and it it as that personal experience grows, I think the program is going to continue to grow. And then we will find ourselves

56
00:16:10.720 --> 00:16:28.079
like, man, we only got $10,000 left in the kitty and we got four applications. What do we do? You know, so thank you all for doing it. Thank you'all for entertaining it. And it it will eventually help us, I think, tremendously. So, thank you.

57
00:16:28.079 --> 00:16:44.880
>> Thank you. Any further comments from the board? Seeing none, we have a motion plus a second. Uh, we'll do this by roll call, please. >> Ron Whittington, >> yes. >> Megan Edwards, >> yes. >> Dad Mosley,

58
00:16:44.880 --> 00:17:00.240
>> yes. >> Sydney Talcott, >> yes. >> Gard Patel, >> yes. Motion passes. We'll move on to the next grant application, which is in reference to Breezy's coffee shop. This is a facade

59
00:17:00.240 --> 00:17:16.559
grant application >> first of this year or fiscal year I should say. Um yeah so Breezy's um owner Greg Connley reached out to me. He had heard about this kind of through word of mouth and um didn't I don't think initially even realized that he was in

60
00:17:16.559 --> 00:17:32.400
the CRA district. And I'm like no you're definitely in the district. You're eligible applicant. And I said, uh, actually one of our bigger initiatives has been trying to move public art and different improvements further down in the district so it doesn't just feel like, okay, we're focused on these three blocks. Um, so I was like, this is a

61
00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:49.280
great opportunity to improve some very well-known local businesses that are very well loved in the community. Um they are seeking funding for a they're doing a pretty large um exterior renovation for roof replacement, windows, doors, siding, uh

62
00:17:49.280 --> 00:18:04.799
structural improvements, their exterior staircase, some new landscaping, and some new landscape lighting to improve their visibility at night. Um so there is quite a lot uh it it would exceed obviously well more than the $50,000

63
00:18:04.799 --> 00:18:20.880
max. So, they are seeking the $50,000 maximum funding award. Um, there were as I was looking and and I apologize when when I sent this out, um, it's it's been a crazy week and I noticed I think it

64
00:18:20.880 --> 00:18:35.760
was my fault I left some things off of the all the attachments that I sent you guys. All like 88 pages of all these lovely attachments with all these random invoices attached. Um, I was trying I went back and looked right before I came in here. uh the dollar amounts that are

65
00:18:35.760 --> 00:18:50.960
reflected are in fact accurate. Uh what they are though is pulled from several different quotes. Um I would just ask if it is approved that it just be approved for the total project cost not to exceed

66
00:18:50.960 --> 00:19:08.160
that bottom dollar line listed that 143 with the CRA portion obviously not exceeding the 50,000. um because unfortunately for the ease of understanding it's not all listed just on one very quick simple invoice. There were elements from a lot of different vendors which is appreciated because

67
00:19:08.160 --> 00:19:22.960
they are going with the fiscally responsible route which is why we started requesting several different quotes. Um happy to answer any questions though that anybody may have. >> I'll open it up to the board if they

68
00:19:22.960 --> 00:19:40.480
have any questions of Taylor. I don't see any. Um just a quick comment of mine. Um this is to me kind of exciting to see. Um it's the first real grant application that we're seeing outside the downtown district

69
00:19:40.480 --> 00:19:58.080
>> and um yes, the CRA district is larger than just the downtown and and we need to allow our businesses to take advantage of it that are outside that downtown district. Yep. >> I think this is a a great example of a place that um could definitely use our

70
00:19:58.080 --> 00:20:14.000
assistance and so forth. Um just a quick question. I was a little confused uh Taylor when I received all the information. There is the ROI evaluation scoring sheet that was included in the information we received.

71
00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:31.039
Is that something that you wanted um done by the board or is this done prior to it coming to the board? >> So, uh this and again I I probably should have clarified a little bit more. This was back when we did all of the

72
00:20:31.039 --> 00:20:47.360
modifications about a year ago to the facade grant program itself. We added this ROI. Um it was added just to Sorry. >> I'm sorry. I'm having a little trouble. >> I know. Huh?

73
00:20:47.360 --> 00:21:03.919
>> Say whatever we want right now. >> Yeah. >> You call us names. >> All right. I think we're we're a little better now. Um, no. So, the ROI sheet came from when we made all the changes to the Well, I say all, we made some minor changes, lowering the max amount to 50,000. We added kind of an ROI

74
00:21:03.919 --> 00:21:20.640
scoring sheet. I scored them just because I got to thinking. I'm like, you know what? We have not talked about that in quite a while. Um, it's not anything that is required. I mean, I'm there there is no, you know, no one's going to hold you to anything. It's not a requirement. It was just something the board did, I think, just for

75
00:21:20.640 --> 00:21:36.080
organization purposes. Um, when we modified the grant, and if anyone else remembers differently, please feel free to chime in. But I think we did it just to kind of give a little more black and white kind of clarity on um why we would be awarding something versus not. Um,

76
00:21:36.080 --> 00:21:52.000
but the intent was to the point Commander Crumbly made, when we get down to where we have so many coming in and we've only got $50,000 left and we've got six businesses wanting it, we establish that ROI procedure to help kind of make those decisions. Um, so if

77
00:21:52.000 --> 00:22:08.240
you did fill it out and you want to share what you scored, great. Um, if you didn't, that is perfectly acceptable and we can, you know, make that more of a requirement and make it a little clearer going forward. Well, obviously it's a it's a help for

78
00:22:08.240 --> 00:22:23.120
everybody who's um on the board as they're evaluating the different grant applications, maybe even physically do it themselves to get a comfort level as to whether or not it's should be accepted or not. >> But I just wasn't sure when I saw it

79
00:22:23.120 --> 00:22:38.960
whether you were wanting us to do it. >> But um >> yeah, like I said, I did it just because I just like to also keep I mean even with public art stuff, I also score. My scoring never matter. it doesn't, you know, count towards anything, but I do like to score them. And, um, I will just say, you know, for the record, I did

80
00:22:38.960 --> 00:22:57.919
give this one a 22 out of 25. Um, so it did rank pretty favorably in, you know, staff's opinion. >> Okay. So, did you >> Yeah, I just had a a minor note that um I think this is an exciting applicant.

81
00:22:57.919 --> 00:23:16.080
Um, >> give him a second. um given given that it is the first one outside of uh the downtown district, but also the visibility on Third Street is

82
00:23:16.080 --> 00:23:31.120
very promising and exciting and could also just to continue the point on the word of mouth uh hoping for you know more of a flywheel effect with this program. So anyway, I think that this is

83
00:23:31.120 --> 00:23:47.840
a definitely a a great um can't beat it. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. The chair will entertain a motion in reference to the approval of the Breezy's coffee shop facade grant application. I move that we approve that

84
00:23:47.840 --> 00:24:04.960
we approve the Breezy's facade grant application um and also add the um suggestions that Taylor made regarding capping um the total at one was it 147 Taylor >> yes let me I will say

85
00:24:04.960 --> 00:24:21.440
>> and you also said to c to cap our contribution to 50 which I'm not sure we need to do that since that's our maximum contribution >> yes so their project would qualify for the maximum total funding which would be 50,000 and um for an amount not to exceed a total project cost of $143,90.

86
00:24:21.440 --> 00:24:37.520
>> I move that we do it that way. >> Second. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. Um any final comments from the board? >> None. With that, roll call, please.

87
00:24:37.520 --> 00:24:53.039
>> Megan Edwards, >> yes. >> Doc Mosley, >> yes. >> Ron Whittington, >> yes. Sydney Talcott. >> Yes. Gerard Ptown. >> Yes. Thank you. Um that'll move us on to the uh third application that we have this

88
00:24:53.039 --> 00:25:08.720
afternoon, which is the Caribbean Connection facade grant application, >> which actually is right next door to >> same owner. >> Almost the same owner. Yes. >> And I do want to say they have been uh their their group down there has been wonderful thus far to work with. They've

89
00:25:08.720 --> 00:25:26.480
um been great. asked a lot of questions, super responsive when I've had questions. So, so far they've been wonderful to work with. Um, they are seeking a facade improvements to Caribbean Connection. And actually, in one of the renderings um from before,

90
00:25:26.480 --> 00:25:42.559
you can kind of see that pergola that goes in between the two um buildings. So, it all kind of honestly ties together pretty well. Um, but they are wanting to remove the existing storefront elements and install composite siding and some structural upgrades. They want a new pergola

91
00:25:42.559 --> 00:25:58.480
structure with concrete footings, wood framing, new architectural awning with metal roof to enhance the building frontage. They want to refurbish and excuse me and install some new uh exterior signage and includes uh LED lighting and the repainting of the

92
00:25:58.480 --> 00:26:14.480
existing sign structure to enhance visibility aesthetics. I did let them know very early on in the process that anything even whatever was approved here today if for some reason we get into it and something does not follow the code they cannot proceed that everything has to be by the book um they completely

93
00:26:14.480 --> 00:26:31.520
understood and from our initial look at what they're proposing we don't foresee any issues uh with what they're asking for um they also want some new landscaping and exterior lighting um some track lighting to illuminate their mural and some landscape lighting again to enhance

94
00:26:31.520 --> 00:26:47.039
that visibility at night and kind of make that corridor a little safer with lighting. Uh and then some exterior artwork. Um this total project cost is coming in uh just shy of 83,000 and they are seeking again the full um $50,000

95
00:26:47.039 --> 00:27:10.000
amount and I am happy to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions from the board? There are none. Um I'm sorry. I was just looking at um trying to get my arms around the the

96
00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:26.640
numbers. I'm I think I was looking at the wrong application here, but you're saying they're asking for the full $50,000. >> They are. They're asking for the full 50,000. Um, and I'll be honest, going into our June review, I'm I'm going to play around with some ways to

97
00:27:26.640 --> 00:27:41.679
just make this a little more organized. This was the first one where we requested multiple quotes from multiple vendors and kind of had everything all together. Uh, and it's enough to make your eyes start to cross when you're trying to kind of pinpoint, especially when it's this element from this vendor,

98
00:27:41.679 --> 00:27:58.640
but maybe this element from this one. Um so I will say going forward I will make that um a lot easier to understand. >> I you know echoing Sydney's comments earlier this is another Third Street um

99
00:27:58.640 --> 00:28:16.720
application and uh one that um will make I think a significant improvement along Third Streets and definitely support it. Um the I think there's some changes that they want to do to the exterior signage on this uh application. So that there is

100
00:28:16.720 --> 00:28:32.320
already existing signage there. It's just >> kind of remodeling it, upgrading it type of thing, but it will meet the uh city's requirements for um for signage and so forth. >> Yes, we discussed with the applicant as they were applying anything that they

101
00:28:32.320 --> 00:28:50.640
did had to follow the code. So they're aware that any changes um had to be what the code says and if it's not they don't get funding. >> Chair will entertain a motion for this application. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion to approve the um

102
00:28:50.640 --> 00:29:08.880
Caribbean Connection facade grant application. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Um any final thoughts, comments from any of the board members >> with that? Quick question. Taylor, what did this rate on the ROI evaluation?

103
00:29:08.880 --> 00:29:24.480
>> I believe this one was almost the exact same. I think I had this one at either 22. Yeah, >> because the other one was at 22. Yes. Then this one was also uh 22. >> Okay. Thank you. And that was I believe a perfect score with the visibility. Um

104
00:29:24.480 --> 00:29:40.000
I think the only thing they ranked low in. I gave a three on both was the category of prior maintenance and and work. Um just because I'll be honest that one is and again going forward as we're getting later in the fiscal year maybe it's something we look at. That is

105
00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:56.559
a very hard one to score. >> Um but I think they had three fives, a three, and a four. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we have a motion in a second. I think that's it for the

106
00:29:56.559 --> 00:30:14.000
comments. So, uh, would you roll call vote, please? >> That Mosley, >> yes. >> Ron Whittington, >> yes. >> Megan Edwards, >> yes. >> Sydney Town, >> yes. >> Gard Pat, >> yes. >> Motion passes. That's um three for

107
00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:29.679
three. >> So far so good. Moving right along. >> Um, we have one more grant application this afternoon. uh 1026 Avenue North. Again, a facade grant application. Um

108
00:30:29.679 --> 00:30:44.399
Taylor, why don't you lead us through that if you would please? >> Um yes. So, these proposed improvements include stucker repair, uh exterior painting, and some updated light fixtures. Um they will help improve, uh

109
00:30:44.399 --> 00:31:02.320
the visibility and modernize the building. Um, this one thing I do want to call everyone's attention to with this application because I actually don't think anyone except the chair were on the board several years ago when um

110
00:31:02.320 --> 00:31:18.960
it's probably been three they were one of our very actually I think they were the first facade grant application we ever had. Uh and then they began having conversations about redevelopment of I feel like I'm yelling but sorry I'm I'm trying to yell over that.

111
00:31:18.960 --> 00:31:36.399
Uh so this was one of the very first if not I believe the very first grant application we ever had when we established the program. Um they ended up not moving forward with their grant after it was awarded because they began working with Corner Law and they were going to redevelop the site. Um that uh

112
00:31:36.399 --> 00:31:52.159
ultimately did not end up happening. And so one thing I do want to call everyone's attention to that I do respect because I'm I you know they understood that that had occurred previously and you know that could cause some um hesitancy is their written project summary and their timeline. Um

113
00:31:52.159 --> 00:32:07.840
that is why you'll see a pretty detailed timeline in there because I you know was pretty clear that we really wanted there to be an expectation set to make sure these improvements did occur. Um because even at this stage if in a month they decide okay they're going to go back out and seek out a partner or someone wants

114
00:32:07.840 --> 00:32:23.760
to buy you know these these are the type of things a redevelopment of something that takes years. Um, so I staff's recommendation kind of after looking at what they're wanting to do, I would say, uh, we're comfortable with moving forward with that grant just because the

115
00:32:23.760 --> 00:32:41.399
improvements aren't anything crazy significant, but they're enough that they will enhance the aesthetics of that building and it is a very large building um, on the northern end of the downtown. So, I am happy to answer any questions that anybody may have.

116
00:32:41.519 --> 00:33:00.080
questions of Taylor from the board. >> Uh, go ahead. >> Um, comment, not a question. Um, now that weddings are back on the council arena again every week. Dozens, if not

117
00:33:00.080 --> 00:33:15.679
150, 200 people come to Jack Beach who may have never been here before to attend the wedding. This is what they seek. This is where they park. They get to look across the treated weeds and chain link. They get to look at the gas. They get to

118
00:33:15.679 --> 00:33:34.720
look at this. Mr. I need is using his own company to do this. That company resurfaces and deck ships all over the world in transit as well. They're highly competent small team that he adds on

119
00:33:34.720 --> 00:33:52.640
um extra labor for for larger jobs. seen some of the work. It's good. >> Yeah, >> I think the price is reasonable and goodness knows we need some help there. We really do. It's it's a piece of our beach that's is is exposed to people who've never seen the beach as opposed

120
00:33:52.640 --> 00:34:08.159
to people come downtown and hang out on the beach all the time. So, I'm I'm very much in favor of this and I'm glad that that they put the effort into coming back to do something because if it's really a bad situation, this will make it look better.

121
00:34:08.159 --> 00:34:26.960
corner lot would have been too good to be true. Obviously, it was too good to be true, but I'm highly in favor of this. Thank you. >> Any other comments from the board? Taylor, u one thought from from me. Um

122
00:34:26.960 --> 00:34:43.359
obviously, you know, making improvements on this property is necessary. It based on what I've seen, it's deteriorating fairly quickly and uh we need to to do something to improve it. So, I'm basically in favor of um approving this application. The one thing that would be

123
00:34:43.359 --> 00:34:59.599
nice to do is we talked about this before, but there's the um Jack's Beach sign that sits there on 6th Avenue North and right at First Street. It'd be nice to redo that sign, you know, at the same time the rest of this is being done. And

124
00:34:59.599 --> 00:35:15.359
if it, you know, requires some approvals from the CRA to do that, I' I'd like to go ahead and do it and really spruce up that that whole block along there and make that sign look a little bit better. We had talked about it being removed

125
00:35:15.359 --> 00:35:29.599
when the other project was being considered. But now that we're not going to be doing that, um, it'd be good to upgrade that sign. >> Okay. I'll take a motion in reference to this

126
00:35:29.599 --> 00:35:45.440
application. 1026th Avenue North facade grant application. >> I move that we approve the 102 6th Avenue North facade grant application. Thank you. >> Could I Is there a second? >> Go ahead. >> Second.

127
00:35:45.440 --> 00:36:02.720
>> Okay, we have a first and a motion and a second and Megan in reference to comments, please. >> I I remember when Corner lot was here and we approved them and we were so hopeful. Um but it's how it goes, right? >> Yes. So we were so hopeful. Um I am

128
00:36:02.720 --> 00:36:19.119
thrilled. I think we all agree right in terms of it does need aesthetically it needs something. >> Is there any consideration or was there any discussion regarding occupancy um because it's I appreciate that it does need to

129
00:36:19.119 --> 00:36:34.960
aesthetically look better. Um but right now it's that's half vacant. Yeah. um at least half vacant. Is the idea was this discussed at all? Like we need to get this fixed up and maybe we can attract some occupancy because I agree it needs

130
00:36:34.960 --> 00:36:51.680
aesthetically needs to be improved but what's the actual return? I would like to nothing looks really worse I think than a bunch of vacancies. >> Yeah. >> Um so what was was there any discussion on that? >> Yeah. I mean I think the applicant uh recognizes that and they know that they

131
00:36:51.680 --> 00:37:07.760
need to make some improvements. Um, I will say in the way the grant is structured, you know, because it is only covering those exterior improvements and we we've never really played a huge role in the occupancy. Um,

132
00:37:07.760 --> 00:37:23.440
so while there's maybe not something that's enforcable there, it is a conversation and it's something that needs acknowledging and >> sure. Yeah, I wouldn't expect, right? This would the facade grant program would be the avenue for that, but you know, it's a it's $50,000, right? So,

133
00:37:23.440 --> 00:37:39.920
we'd like to know um particularly with it being where it is, you know, to point >> um it does need to look better, but it's also got to be occupied. >> So, >> and I'm I'm happy to, you know, in in theory, you know, if if this receives approval, also talking to the applicant

134
00:37:39.920 --> 00:37:56.560
and um they've, you know, the first time around and even this time, they are also I they are great to work with. They're very easy to communicate with. I'm happy to talk to them and say, you know, this received approval. However, we're just curious and we just want to know what your plan is for attracting new businesses just to kind of give the agency a little bit of an update. Um,

135
00:37:56.560 --> 00:38:12.240
that I have no problem reaching out and asking for >> because you would hate for us to be giving approvals in anticipation of a sale, >> right? I I want it to be improved by the person that owns it so that we can get attract occupancy and attract some other businesses here. So, yeah, I would

136
00:38:12.240 --> 00:38:31.280
agree. just a a conversation. >> Yep. >> All viewer can really do. So, thank you. >> Um two very separate comments. One um one one arm of the empire that Mr. IDB status is

137
00:38:31.280 --> 00:38:48.000
deeply involved in retail property and development. They probably have as many contacts with the sorts of tenants that might be able to move in here as anybody I know. more than anybody. Not that I don't know that many people, but they're all over town pro management because

138
00:38:48.000 --> 00:39:02.640
these are signs here and there in front of all sorts of types of properties. Um, so I would hope that with the facade grant and facade improvement that they will do what's obviously their own interest and at least some of this space even if they have to do it on

139
00:39:02.640 --> 00:39:19.200
conceptionary terms. Um, they understand the impact that this has on the customer. They're not they're not blind. second very separately. Um, if indeed we do approve this, and I hope we do, uh, that's going to put us at over half our

140
00:39:19.200 --> 00:39:37.839
annual budget done. And if there's any way you could look at possibly um, finding a way to supplement this budget as we go forward because I very hope that we'll have some more good quality applications and uh, we're going to be out of money.

141
00:39:37.839 --> 00:39:53.520
I'm glad we moved the max down to 50. has to get us a little further down the road. That was one of our better moves. But um we need we need to look for some more money and um because we're not going to get through another quarter with hardly a penny or dime left. >> Okay.

142
00:39:53.520 --> 00:40:10.800
>> And thank you very much. Those >> those are my two thoughts. I I think they can find tenants once it's fixed up. They're in a perfect position to do it. And I hope we can find some more money. Thank you, >> Megan. Thank you for your comments. a uh

143
00:40:10.800 --> 00:40:26.960
something I haven't personally focused on but I think that you know that is a a challenge is making sure that the uh retail property is leased you know but the challenge is always chicken in the egg kind of thing you know but hopefully

144
00:40:26.960 --> 00:40:43.280
that this will make some improvements and hopefully get some um retail businesses in there that will complement that whole area. Uh we have a motion and a second. Any follow up comments from anybody. Now with with that uh roll call

145
00:40:43.280 --> 00:40:59.040
vote, please. >> Ron Whittington, >> yes. >> Megan Edwards, >> yes. >> Be Mosley, >> yes. >> Sydney Talcott, >> yes. >> Gard Pel, >> yes. Motion passes. Four for four.

146
00:40:59.040 --> 00:41:17.520
Um, last item on our agenda is the um the art committee bylaws amendments. Um, we were given uh some amendments that uh staff was recommending that we approve.

147
00:41:17.520 --> 00:41:32.000
Um, Taylor, do you have any comments or >> I do actually. Um these came from our meeting February, March, one of those. Um just talking about some options and

148
00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:49.599
some flexibility. Uh so we did uh with the help of the city attorney um made sure all of this was legally allowed. Uh in section 3.1A, changing it to five to seven people shall serve at any given time. That gives the flexibility to if

149
00:41:49.599 --> 00:42:04.319
five members works and everybody's good and things are moving along that's great. If we get you know 10 applicants in and it's like wow we really think we should increase this to seven then that gives the flexibility to operate um between the two. Uh if you will go to

150
00:42:04.319 --> 00:42:21.680
section 3.5 uh we were running into some issues with term limits um because we've got four existing who are now all in the same rotation based on when they were initially appointed. So there is no sort of like falloff um from the committee.

151
00:42:21.680 --> 00:42:39.119
So what we came up with is when someone is appointed they'll be assigned a seat number. So seats one through five or one through seven. Odd number seats will serve a four-year term. even number seats shall serve three-year term. At the time of their appointment, um your seat number will be designated and so that will dictate which term you serve

152
00:42:39.119 --> 00:42:55.200
so you know what rotation you're on. Uh and then adding those term limits that also came out of the CRA discussion um you know giving a maximum of two terms. So for those serving seats 1, three, five or seven that would be an eight-year max and seats 2, four and six

153
00:42:55.200 --> 00:43:11.359
would be a six-year maximum. Um and then one recommendation that did not make it in here is actually section 5.7. Uh we do recommend changing the language of a quorum uh to basically say a quorum Michelle consists of a majority of the

154
00:43:11.359 --> 00:43:27.839
members appointed to the committee as of the date of the meeting. So that way if we have a seven member committee, you know, four would be the quorum at that point versus a five member committee where three would be, you know, the quorum. Uh so that was some

155
00:43:27.839 --> 00:43:42.560
language that the city attorney looked at um after the fact and we would like to change that language as well. Um the only one, you know, that is there's not even it's not even that it's a questionable thing um just would

156
00:43:42.560 --> 00:43:59.680
be the term limits that is new. Um, you know, the CRA doesn't have term limits. Um, so just throwing that out there. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Um, would the term limits apply to the

157
00:43:59.680 --> 00:44:15.599
existing four members? >> Yeah. >> And how would they be picked to be threes or fours or would they be termed out? >> So after, you know, in theory once if these are approved. So this wouldn't be something that would get approval today. If you guys are comfortable with the

158
00:44:15.599 --> 00:44:32.240
changes, the next step would be the way um the operating documents are written is the changes would go to the art committee. They take a look at them, provide feedback. That would then come back to the CRA at a regular meeting uh via a resolution and then it would be adopted via that resolution. Once that resolution would be adopted, all of

159
00:44:32.240 --> 00:44:49.359
these rules would go into place. And so it's not something that would necessarily be retroactive. Um it would be basically from these terms forward. >> Okay. And have these people already been reappointed? >> These four. >> Yep. >> So this would not apply to them until

160
00:44:49.359 --> 00:45:05.200
their next potential appointment. >> This is something we looked at and it would apply this No, it would it would apply to this term. we would be able to >> plow this term. >> And separate but last comment, since we restrict this to Jacksonville Beach residents, which I think we should,

161
00:45:05.200 --> 00:45:22.800
>> um, by putting in strict term limits, we could be putting ourselves in a position where we cannot recruit >> agree >> proper replacements. >> I agree. >> And I don't know all the four members. I know two of them. Know one of them very well. And these people, the two that I

162
00:45:22.800 --> 00:45:39.520
know, really enjoy what they're doing for very different reasons, very different personalities. >> But um I think we need to think about some way to possibly avoid that conundrum in the event that there are not qualified applicants because the

163
00:45:39.520 --> 00:45:54.880
qualifications are are are not uh limiting, but they are specific. Mhm. >> And the population of potential applicants is far less than the 22,000 population in Jacksonville Beach. >> Yep.

164
00:45:54.880 --> 00:46:11.359
>> Um so we need to think about some way to potentially mitigate that were it to occur sometime in the future when we're all dead and gone or at least when I'm dead and gone. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, and it's one of the things that term limits are fine. We can put the term limits in place. um you

165
00:46:11.359 --> 00:46:27.359
can, you know, kind of veto that to come out at this time and it's something that gets looked at in the future. You know, when the people that are currently sitting on the committee are up for reappoint, uh if if there is a large applicant pool inclusive of those four, but there's also 15 others, there's

166
00:46:27.359 --> 00:46:43.359
absolutely no reason the agency could decide to go another direction. I mean, it it would it's essentially the exact same when council is looking at the CRA. Okay, you know, um these three people are up for reappoint. these are the applications, this is what we've received and and at that point it's up

167
00:46:43.359 --> 00:46:59.680
to council. Do they reappoint existing members or do they decide to, you know, offer new new members a chance? Um, it would essentially be the same with the art committee. >> Who vets the applicants? >> Staff. >> Staff. >> And the existing board would have no input into that vetting.

168
00:46:59.680 --> 00:47:15.839
>> Nope. >> Nope. >> None. >> Okay. Well, let's just be aware that term limits could put us in a tough spot down the line somewhere. So anything that could be done to make that slightly flexible might be helpful. >> Yeah. >> In the event that no qualified applicants were identified. However,

169
00:47:15.839 --> 00:47:31.119
>> language like that. >> Yep. >> But that's that's pretty firm. If no qualified applicants were identified, >> this can't be waved at the discretion of >> in theory. Yeah. I mean, I think too, uh, the section 3.5, at least from my

170
00:47:31.119 --> 00:47:47.359
perspective, trying to kind of look at how the art committee is is how it functions and what their role is. Um, that makes my job a little bit easier because in theory, this is approved. The current members we have, okay, so you guys are now numbers one, two, three, four. You two now, this new term you're

171
00:47:47.359 --> 00:48:03.920
on is four years. You two are now on three years. And then that makes I feel like going forward whether there are limits or not on terms at least for us that makes it a lot easier because we don't have four people either all going away or all stay you know it >> but it's two it's two four year term limits right two four year terms is the

172
00:48:03.920 --> 00:48:18.560
limit I thought that's what I heard >> that or two three years so if they're odd number what I just heard you say was your term limit is four years yours is three okay >> yes yeah depending on >> two times four >> seat numbers because we really did need to try to figure out a way to

173
00:48:18.560 --> 00:48:35.760
get members on kind of a rotating uh terms, you know, just like all of you. You guys are not all on the same term schedule so that way it makes reappoints or new appointments flow a little better. And um for us, that's the biggest thing right now is just trying to get that a little more organized.

174
00:48:35.760 --> 00:48:51.920
>> Well, unless somebody has a problem with it, some language like if in the event no qualified applicants were identified, somebody would have the ability to offer a one-year extensions or whatever. keep this enrollment. >> I'll be honest, I think it would just be

175
00:48:51.920 --> 00:49:07.839
easier to get rid of term limits because once we start getting to in the event of and if the ability arise, it it starts to get very subjective um or excuse me, very gray, very objective. There's not >> well staff's making the decision. >> We make the recommendation.

176
00:49:07.839 --> 00:49:23.119
>> Recommendation. >> You make the decision. Um, I think at that point if we're going to start offering if, but when Mayies, it's easier to just eliminate term limits and then just bring every applicant that's vetted and qualified to the CRA just

177
00:49:23.119 --> 00:49:39.520
like council receives and say these are your existing members. These are all the candidates that have been vetted, qualified. They do live in Jack Speech. They meet the requirements. Kind of do with these what you will. Um, I think that would be an easier path than trying to add additional language under term

178
00:49:39.520 --> 00:49:54.480
limits. >> Okay. Well, whatever you think's best. I just don't want to end up in a situation where we don't have Yeah. >> a board of highly qualified people we do now. >> Yeah. It's very valid. >> They're doing a great job. One or two of them. >> Their decisions aren't quite what I

179
00:49:54.480 --> 00:50:11.119
like, but they're close. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Megan. >> I agree with that. I think there are we're either going to have to expand it's either term limits or we're going to have to expand the geography right I think it's you know something to the

180
00:50:11.119 --> 00:50:27.200
effect of in the event right let's say we do we don't have term limits um or we don't have the ability we don't have the people that we need are we do they want to expand out to beaches do they want to now expand >> that's right so I think it's either

181
00:50:27.200 --> 00:50:43.280
we're going to have to expand the the geography or they're going to have to expand the term lines I mean, they can change that later, but I guess it's up to them. What was their How did the term limits come about? What was the I guess kind of the the discussion loop since we don't have term limits? What made them

182
00:50:43.280 --> 00:51:00.720
decide? It was recommended at the CRA that these came from you guys. >> Yeah. This this was not me. I don't agree. >> It was you. Oh, okay. I wasn't >> I'm I'm glad Ron said it because I wasn't gonna call you out, but it was Ron. Okay. No, fair enough. Fair enough.

183
00:51:00.720 --> 00:51:17.280
And I think um and this is why it comes back multiple right that we say okay well wait a minute do we need to expand geography or do we need to expand do we get rid of term limits I think it's a worthy I think it's definitely worth discuss >> to be fair too at the time when it came up how we it was discussed at the meeting how I remember it was like okay

184
00:51:17.280 --> 00:51:32.720
well that could work but then it's kind of one of those things when you hear something it's like yeah that's great and then you start getting into it and it's like oh >> you know and and the geography we you know initially when this committee was created it was >> the greater beaches area actually all the way down to Paneavidra even like

185
00:51:32.720 --> 00:51:47.200
basically Mayaport into Panavra. It was all the beaches and then once we started looking at it we were like well >> how does that make sense when planning commission board of adjustment CRA and city council are only Jacksonville Beach residents? Does it make sense to have an

186
00:51:47.200 --> 00:52:03.920
advisory board to the agency made up of people that aren't residents? And so that's where um the geographic boundaries came into place uh was just keeping it consistent with the rest of the city boards. >> Sure. And I and I remember us talking about it too in the context of are we reappointing some of the people on right

187
00:52:03.920 --> 00:52:20.960
and I and I understand there's more than just us on this board more than right that everybody wants to be involved too so we want to give them an opportunity um but I think an unintended consequence of saying term limits and only in Jack speech where we have you know a population of 25,000

188
00:52:20.960 --> 00:52:36.720
that's going to prove >> prove tricky at at some point. So, and if you apply and you're on the committee, um, something that I've just learned from talking to artists who are like, "Oh, I would love to be on the committee." And I have to give the disclaimer, great. You can't submit for an art call. And they're like, "Oh, never mind."

189
00:52:36.720 --> 00:52:52.880
>> Um, so that quickly takes, you know, you have a large population, people that would even be qualified immediately as a very niche small population. And then when you tell them, hey, that's great, you're awesome, but you can't do any artwork, that immediately cuts that probably by 70%.

190
00:52:52.880 --> 00:53:08.319
>> Sure. And even when we were talking about reappointing, I know we were even talking about what if we increase it to nine people on the art committee and then I think we're we're asking for it even more. So, um I worthy conversation as written. I don't have a huge

191
00:53:08.319 --> 00:53:28.240
objection to it. Um but I do anticipate I agree that they're gonna get to a point where you're going to run run into >> to neckups. >> Yeah, definitely. Unless unless you the reason is is it going to be a detriment to finding folks

192
00:53:28.240 --> 00:53:45.359
putting a term on here >> because that was not the intent. What I what I've seen in previous boards if you have the same people on their infant item it can become a problem. >> Sure. >> And we're and we're appointed so it's a little bit different for us because they could they could kick us off

193
00:53:45.359 --> 00:54:00.240
>> that is >> tomorrow. So, so we actually dad and I have a mutual friend who actually had imposed limits on a certain board because >> the infighting they got they could get entrenched and that was the only point

194
00:54:00.240 --> 00:54:16.880
for putting a limit on there. So, >> just so you know, so if that's not if this is going to be detrimental, >> don't you know if it's going to be a problem. >> So, I'll withdraw the request. But I think it's I don't know how to do that. >> I think it's a worthy discussion. And

195
00:54:16.880 --> 00:54:32.079
again, I I really do. I mean, I when it was initially brought up, had I thought like, "Oh, that's not going to work." You guys know I have no problem being like, "Well, I don't think that's the best, you know, path forward." Um, it wasn't until I really started looking at it and kind of went, "Oh," you know, when we put the call out saying, "Hey,

196
00:54:32.079 --> 00:54:50.800
we have an opening, um, we received a few applications, and by a few, I mean like less than five." Mhm. >> And I believe off the top of my head, only two were even qualified and actually lived or operated a brickandmortar business in Jacksonville Beach. And of those two, um I think one

197
00:54:50.800 --> 00:55:06.480
maybe didn't fully understand that they couldn't also be considered for calls. And so I mean it it went really fast. Um >> well let me >> so that's what is a little concerning on term limits because if we get to these guys end of their term they're all done

198
00:55:06.480 --> 00:55:22.640
and then we're in a position where we have applicants and we only have one that's truly qualified. >> Um yeah you know you could be in a little bit of a pickle. >> Okay questions. How long has this committee been standing? >> Four years. >> And how many on there now? >> Four.

199
00:55:22.640 --> 00:55:38.559
>> Has there been have there been more request? Is that the limit? >> Five is the limit. We have not been successful at filling that fit seat yet. >> Okay. >> Well, you know, even even if it was >> even if it was 10 years, you know, just

200
00:55:38.559 --> 00:55:54.160
a a number a cut off. I mean, I think that's that would that's the intent is so someone can't stay on there for >> 20 years, you know. Not anybody would be gone by then. You never Well, but you know, again,

201
00:55:54.160 --> 00:56:10.720
back to I think it was maybe when Thad was we were discussing it. Um, even without term limits, the appointments are at the discretion of you guys. Uh, you know, just like your appointments from city council,

202
00:56:10.720 --> 00:56:25.920
you know, it if we get 15 applicants next time and you guys are like, "Wow, okay, it's time for some fresh eyes." there is absolutely nothing and there is no consequence to not reappointing. Yeah. >> Um >> if you want to keep term limits in there

203
00:56:25.920 --> 00:56:42.720
um you know a member could serve until a qualified applicant was selected to fill that seat if they did in theory term out. Uh you know but at that point you could run into like okay well I can stick around for six months until you find a replacement. You know I don't

204
00:56:42.720 --> 00:56:58.400
think the ones we have currently would feel that way but you you you never know what that could look like. Um, I'm happy to also, you know, take this item and and go back to the city attorney and just kind of bounce some ideas around if it's something that you guys are passionate about. I mean, whatever you

205
00:56:58.400 --> 00:57:12.720
guys think. >> I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you know, if there's objections and we're thinking that's going to interfere with the committee's, you know, operation, that's not that was not the intent. Sure. And I just, you know, I'll just make the

206
00:57:12.720 --> 00:57:28.960
comment that um the boards that this that the city has, there are no term limits for any of the boards, whether it's the CRA, planning commission, board of adjustment. They're all um there's no term limits,

207
00:57:28.960 --> 00:57:45.040
but when you get to city council, >> Sure. >> There is two four terms. >> Yeah, there are the requirements for term limits and so forth. Um that's just for information. Not that it's >> and you can do two terms as council

208
00:57:45.040 --> 00:58:00.640
person and two terms as mayor. Those do not count as the same terms. So in theory, someone can be around for 16 years on council. >> I know that there was one planning commissioner that we had for 16 years. At least at least. >> Yep.

209
00:58:00.640 --> 00:58:18.480
>> Um could you just help me? I I got a little confused when I looked at sections 35 and 36. It talks about um even numbered seats and oddnumbered seats and then it says those serving in seats 1 357

210
00:58:18.480 --> 00:58:34.240
and then 2 46. What what are we trying to do there? I'm not sure this are the individuals tied to a specific seat number. >> Yes. Yeah. Um, so going forward they would be at their appointment assigned a

211
00:58:34.240 --> 00:58:51.839
seat number so that way we could have opposite terms. Um, because right now just kind of the way the cookie crumbled, those original seven that we have, the three we lost happened to be our three-year term folks. The four remaining were the four-year and we're like, okay, well, this is it's fine. Uh,

212
00:58:51.839 --> 00:59:09.200
but going forward, we want to be able to assign a seat number and then that would be their term so they become on opposite rotations. >> Okay, that that helps me. I didn't because I didn't think we had seat numbers. >> No, we don't presently. >> So, this is new. This is something else that's being implemented into this.

213
00:59:09.200 --> 00:59:24.720
>> Yep. >> Okay, >> one more idea here. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um something that just occurred to me that might mitigate some of these issues regarding term limits and number of people on the board. We have four now.

214
00:59:24.720 --> 00:59:40.960
Let's say we go ahead and do the term limits. Um but let's say we constantly advertise. >> Not being in a rush to fill the other three slots. >> Sure. But if it's constant advertisement, you might pick up one this year, one next year, one the year

215
00:59:40.960 --> 00:59:56.640
after as opposed to going looking for four all at once. >> Yep. >> Which you're not going to find. So if you if you keep it keep the gate constantly open and and and don't get in a rush to fill the incremental seats that we may be authorizing that you

216
00:59:56.640 --> 01:00:14.640
could trickle charge this battery >> and keep it ready for changes as they come. And you might pick up one quantified applicant this year. You might get one next year. You might get two four years from now, >> but I don't think you're going to get four all at once, >> right? And that's kind of uh what we

217
01:00:14.640 --> 01:00:29.920
learned after this first goaround. And you know, uh it's kind of like appointments to the boards. You know, folks can contact Jody and and ask for a board member application. Doesn't mean that they're going to be appointed even that year, but they kind of get on the roster, if you will, and they remain an

218
01:00:29.920 --> 01:00:46.240
active person that they can call, council can interview. Um, and so we've been trying to kind of keep a rolling database, if you will, of qualified applicants that could serve. >> But with a small pool, if we just stick with Jacksonville Beach, which I I really believe we should because if we

219
01:00:46.240 --> 01:01:03.119
get away from Jacksonville Beach, where do you stop and start? And and where's the interest? >> So if we just stay with Jacksonville Beach and we try to trickle charge, pick up one here, one there. >> I think we might have a much healthier board over time. >> Yep. um much you know not try to to rack them

220
01:01:03.119 --> 01:01:24.599
all up should just be on the hunt be on the hunt and if you bring in one at a time I think they would integrate probably much more smoothly into the existing board potentially more smoothly so that's it thank you >> yep

221
01:01:25.040 --> 01:01:42.079
>> I got it Yeah. Um >> you've gotten quite a bit. So I my um my question is do you have what you need? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So it will be you'll be coming back to us again at some point in time with you know and

222
01:01:42.079 --> 01:01:58.480
>> probably I'm going to say probably the June meeting uh June or July because I will go make the changes. Like I said they'll be discussed the next time the art committee meets. Um that's just the way their bylaws and hours were written on how they're kind of governed. They'll take a look at them. and then we will

223
01:01:58.480 --> 01:02:14.079
bring the final draft version of any amendments back to the CRA in the version of a resolution. >> Okay, with that we we've pretty much gotten through our agenda. There are two items that I want to touch on real quick

224
01:02:14.079 --> 01:02:31.359
before we uh close the meeting. one. Um, would you just reconfirm because I know that I received an email message today about meeting changes for the month of May and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page as it relates to that. It sounds like we only have one

225
01:02:31.359 --> 01:02:46.559
meeting. >> May I'm sorry, >> May 18th. Yep. >> May 18th. Right. And that's a regular scheduled meeting. There will be no workshop in the month of May. Yes. So for everyone on the board, please u hopefully you can make the adjustments

226
01:02:46.559 --> 01:03:03.440
and um be here for that meeting on the 18th. Um and uh one last comment. Um it's my information, the information that I've received is it's my understanding that the uh director of planning and

227
01:03:03.440 --> 01:03:20.079
development has resigned from the city. >> Yep. and uh she also served as the executive director of the CRA. >> Um with that, I think there's needs to be some conversations between council,

228
01:03:20.079 --> 01:03:36.000
city manager, and the CRA on how we move forward in reference to that position and uh how we fill that position. But, um, I just wanted everybody to be aware that, um, that is what we're having to

229
01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:52.319
deal with at the moment. And, uh, we'll, uh, we'll address that as we move forward here. If there are no other comments or thoughts, um, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.

230
01:03:52.319 --> 01:04:02.000
>> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. No.