Taylor, are you ready to start? >> Yes, sir. >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Um, I'd like to call to order the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting for Monday, July 28th, 2025.
It is u 3 p.m. And I'd like um to call u the role, please. >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Marcus Campfield >> here. >> Miss Sydney Tolcott >> here. Mr. Thton Mosley. >> Mr. Gary Pay >> here. >> Mr. Ron Whittington
>> here. >> Mr. Kevin Meyers. >> Miss Megan Edwards >> here. >> Okay. Um we have a um a small agenda today but uh we will be starting with the um
courtesy of the Florida visitors and we have one speaker request form in um Roger Woodington >> Whitting Whitting excuse me >> almost last name >> Roger will give you three minutes to
address the board. Roger Whiting, 11:03 Second Avenue North, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, 32250. Um, I'm here to discuss the minutes that you're getting ready to approve from the 14th of May. Um, that was I was here at
that meeting. I didn't fill out a speaker card because I thought I was going to get to hear what was being done as far as the zoning went, not the design of the building, the color of the awnings. I wasn't here to find that out.
I wanted to know about the actual zoning request. I even asked about setbacks and not at that meeting, but at other meetings after that, the next meeting after that with the committee that's later today. Um, and no one seemed to
know about that. But the resoning took from one zoning, I don't know the numbers, to the other zoning, but it included a variance to the zoning to put back the footage from the original zoning.
None of that was ever discussed in this committee, and I wanted to hear what was going on with that, but I was unable to. And I'd just like to ask in the future, how do I find out when those meetings are taking place?
>> Um, I'm going to turn is Heather here? No, I'm sorry, Heather. I I don't know the full history of this specific um zoning request. It was here for only a a
very limited change in zoning going to an R&D and then ultimately it moved on to the planning department out excuse me to the planning commission. Could you just fill in a few of the questions that were asked? >> Yeah, I think you're asking about the
reasonzoning for the the property that we refer to as deli comb. Yes. Are you referring to the the workshop meeting? >> Yeah, those apparently the workshops are where the zoning was all decided how that was going to change, what the changes were
going to be, the variance to allow to take away the 10-ft setback on the second street side of the property. That was not discussed in this meeting at all. And it was for the zoning bar. So, I got a picture of the sign that was
posted outside. This was the first quote unquote meeting for the variance, >> right? So, this um this group actually kind of reviewed that in in two separate meetings. There was a workshop for the applicant to present some of the details and do some Q&A um but there was no vote
take that took place and then the following regular meeting was because we don't vote the CRA doesn't vote at workshops, right? It's just opportunities to get information and discuss. So, there was a vote following that workshop um at the regular meeting. But I think your question was about how do you find out about other meetings
other than the regular meetings >> regarding zoning? >> Sure. >> Not not you know just every little thing that comes up. A reszoning is a permanent change to the city. >> Right. Right. And >> and I'd like to be able to be there to understand what's going on.
>> So all of our agendas are online on the city's website and you can click on any meeting that's coming up and see what's on the agenda. We do advertise. We are required to do public notice to in the in the newspaper which we do have to do the daily record now since the beach's leader is no longer a print. We have we
post online. Uh we do signs and we do notification via mail to everyone within 300 ft. So if you're not in that buffer, you won't get a letter, >> but you can go to our website and it'll it'll show you all the public notices for all reasonzonings under the public notice tab on Jacksonville Beach.org
main page. >> Public notice, not the agenda. public notice will be for let's say a resoning and it'll tell you all the meetings that it that it's going to go to. It might not have a workshop on there because that it's not required for workshops, but regular meetings it will have all those dates. >> So they they can discuss the
reasonzoning without the public there >> just like well the public are invited to all workshops. Very similar format as a council briefing where they discuss but they don't vote. >> Right. But discuss the reasoning with the applicant >> without a public being there to see
what's going on. Well, no. That's what the public hearings are for, for the public to to comment. >> Discussion of the I >> I don't recall the exact discussion at the regular meeting. >> It's in the minutes that you're getting ready to approve the except Well, you've already gone through everything. Unless you have questions,
we're done. >> If if it's downtown, uh it'll come to CRA. If it's not, it'll just go to planning commission and then council just for for future. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. The uh next item in the agenda is just
the approval of some past meeting minutes. Um the first item is the May 14th, 2025 meeting minutes. Uh drafts have been distributed to everybody. Uh are there any comments in reference to the May 14th meeting minutes?
Seeing none, um we'll just do a quick vote voice vote. Um for those um in agreement, please say >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Anyone opposed? The um May 14th meetings are approved. The second approval is for the June 11th, 2025 meeting minutes. Um any comments or changes to those meeting
minutes? Seeing none, we'll do a quick post voice vote again. Um, those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposition?
Hearing none. The June 11th U meeting minutes have been approved. Are there any old business items that we need to address at this point? >> Um, if I could just kind of give you guys a couple of quick updates, Mr. Chair, if that's all right. That'd be fun.
>> Um, so couple things. Um, phase one of Pier parking lot is nearing completion. Um, if you've been down to the driveway area recently, it it's truly a night and day difference. So, it took way longer than we wanted, but it is finally we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel with that. Um, so we're very
excited. Uh, we still have got to finish some of the landscaping and then we're finishing some installation of some additional bike racks. Um, and then as we all know, phase two is uh planned for in FY26. And so once we kind of roll into our next fiscal year, we will start bringing some updates on that phase. Um,
and as a reminder, phase two is uh the resurfacing and striping of the parking lot component. It is the um landscape medians, replacing and updating the light fixtures, and then just very minor kind of just updates to that parking lot so it matches the new entryway. Um, it
is not changing the layout of the parking. It's not really changing the flow of traffic, and we are still maintaining our minimum requirement with COJ of 100 spaces. So, none of that will change. >> Just before you leave that, I um first of all, thank you for um >> somebody got out there and painted that
uh Jacksonville beach sign out there, improved it. It looks looks significantly better. >> Um my question just being is are we going to do the same thing for beach and third street? And then also there's another one on sixth and first street.
>> So, beach? Yes. Uh the other one we will probably discuss that at our next meeting. We would like to just get rid of that one. Um especially as a new development is going there. It's kind of in an awkward spot. It's very severely damaged to the point where we had that
one looked at and it would not be a refurbishment like the others. It would be a complete reinstall. And since the city is doing a new sign plane anyway and there's a structure going there, um we would like to just >> Okay. Great. I just wanted to see us do the same thing. Absolutely. ones because it
made such a difference when when so many people stopped there and are taking pictures and things. >> Yeah, I saw some today actually. I went down there a little bit before this to check on a couple of things and there were people standing in front of it taking pictures. There were people standing in front of the dumpster taking pictures and I mean it was so you know
um but yeah, so we're we're super excited with the progress there and you know a big shout out to our parks and recck department for being such awesome partners on seeing this all to fruition. We truly couldn't have done it without their help. Thank you. Dad had a comment. >> Uh would it be possible just to um
propose a motion and vote on eliminating the severely damaged sign that's adjacent to the proposed new construction and remodeling and be done with it? >> It's not something that's on our agenda and I think >> well I'll add it to the next one just to make sure it's a clear item. So if
anyone for some reason has opposition to us removing it, they have a chance to come and talk to it. >> Thank you. >> Just to be fair. >> Um so one um other topic that had kind of come up before, we kind of tabled it, the life-saving station. Um we had told
you guys, I think a couple meetings ago, that COJ actually ended up providing a million dollars to J Beach. Um there were some questions internally on what that funding was going to be used for. Where are we going to put this in RCIP? If we did, you can't do that. There was a whole lot of legal going on there. Um,
where we stand now is we will be bringing this back to CRA for consideration to add the life saving station to the downtown plan, which had been previously deferred. Um, I prepared a memo and conferred with legal that kind of listing out why it is an allowable expense under the state statute. And then also that the project
that we would be taking on is substantially different than the million dollars that the city will be doing to some of the work. Um, so just so everyone's aware, we'll be providing that in the next month or two to you guys. I just kind of wanted to put that back on your radar since that will be coming up again. Um, but we made sure we
did all of our legal homework and got everybody to sign off. Um, the low speed vehicle parking lot, we really anticipated having drawings in June. Um, unfortunately once they got out there and started doing some site work and serving, uh, they realized they needed to do some additional drawings for
drainage plans for that area that we did not anticipate. So we added that and so that unfortunately has delayed us a couple of weeks. I am very cautiously optimistic we will have those by mid August and I hope to be able to bring a much better update in August for our
August meeting. Um unfortunately like I said we had to add some additional drawings to that. Um our public private partnership that one's been a little bit since we talked about that. Um, our draft RFP uh is in the final stage of
our internal legal review. Once it's complete, that will then be sent to uh those of you that have been around for a minute with the CRA or know Mr. Cliff Shepard. He is a wonderful redevelopment attorney and he is the redevelopment attorney for the Florida Redevelopment Association. Um, we are very fortunate to be able to utilize his services. So,
he will be reviewing our document as well since this is really kind of the first that we're doing. Um, just a couple of reminders because I know it's been a long time. um council and Sier both approved all the design criteria. That was that sheet that had about 10 or 12 bullet points of things that were going to go in. That is what Jones
Edmonds also had to certify for us. Um so there won't be anything that comes back to council or the CRA before the issuance of the RFP. Um let's see what else did I hear? Sorry. And then once it's issued, so I I I will tell you this, we will not be issuing an RFP and
then just blindly you guys hear about it because it hits the streets. I will notify you like probably the week before um it actually does go out so everyone's aware. We are going to have that open for approximately 90 days. Um we are also going to before bid opening, we are going to publicize. Um public works
actually has done this a couple times and it works really well. kind of a preapp meeting, if you will, where any interested developers, any parties can come to a public meeting, ask staff, public works, um our consultants at the Southern Group, administration, whomever, any questions they want about what they're reading prior to submitting
their bid. Um that's really worked out well with other projects and kind of prevents delays and having to kind of stop and add and change things. So, we're going to do one of those. Um and then, uh that's going to be a real fun one to get the ball rolling on. So, that'll be a big one. Um, like I said,
our attorney has it. He should be done here in the next week or two with that. It will then go to Mr. Shepard. Once it's gone to him, our team internally will sit down. Again, that also includes Mr. Jim Gilmore. We all sit down, take one final look, and then we will roll that out, which is a little uh scary to
say that it's that close to being ready. >> Taylor, I think I've heard you say that once it leaves the attorney here, it goes to um >> Shepard. Yes, sir. So, we're having two attorneys review it just to make up. >> Absolutely. Yep. >> Yeah. And and just because um there's
just so many components that go into something like this and our city attorney, he's phenomenal, but it was everyone agreed that we wanted two sets of eyes on it and especially someone that works in redevelopment law primarily um and has done several of these deals. So, it will also go to their firm.
Um the South Beach Park, the parking lot is it's on struggle bus right now. Um, we are very aware of several potholes and large issues. I actually went down there today to just kind of take a look at what areas are unfortunately blocked off. Public works is uh scoping the area still. Once we're able to determine the
root cause of this deterioration, um, we will then kind of present more of a comprehensive update rather than just filling in asphalt hoping for the best. We It was determined that there is an underlying cause happening and we need to figure out what that is. And so, yeah, could we aesthetically fix it? Sure. But if it's going to crack again
in 6 months, why would we do that when we need to figure out what's causing it? So, as soon as we have an update from public works on that, um, we will let you guys know. And if that comes in in between now and our next meeting, I'll send you guys an email just because I know some of you are probably getting a lot of questions. It's a big deal and it
it is I mean it's dangerous and it's really just not aesthetically pleasing. Um, >> so we'll update you guys on that. >> Yeah. The only thing I would say, Taylor, is that for someone who's hit those potholes, it sure would be nice to take a bag of
asphalt and just dump it. >> Okay. >> I mean, particularly the ones that are 6 in deep. I mean, it it wouldn't take much to do that. And um I think we'll save the alignment on quite a number of cars that Okay. that that drive through there.
>> Absolutely. That's a good idea. I will um follow up and see if we can't get some at least temporary solution on the ones that are in the center and in the driving area. Yeah, for sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was down there today and I I had to dodge it. Um it's pretty bad. >> Uh one of the other things, just so you
guys kind of know what's coming in the future, um Southoun plan, we've talked a little bit about wanting to update that. We'll be bringing that to a workshop. It won't be August because, uh we we gave August over to our legal department, so they'll be doing training, but probably September, October time frame. We'll bring you guys some changes and
modifications um just to kind of clean that plan up. And then also from a visual standpoint, just make it mirror what the downtown plan is. Um, ironically, our plans have never quite like mirrored each other. They've never looked the same. It's weirdly confusing. So, we're also going to clean it up and make it look nice as well. So, we'll get
that to you guys. Um, we've been doing this art committee stuff now about two and a half years. Uh, we kind of learn what works, what doesn't work. We do have an open seat. Uh, we would like to make a couple of changes to their bylaws and kind of how they operate before filling that seat for fiscal year 26. So, we're going to bring some um changes
to that to you guys as well. Uh kind of like I was actually telling the chairman earlier today, we're kind of housekeeping. We cleaned up the facade grant program. We're cleaning up some bylaws. We're just kind of figuring out what works and does not work with these programs. Um VP Pizza is in their final stages of review with public works for their outdoor dining and fire marshall.
So, once they get that squared away, they will begin construction on their outdoor dining as a part of our downtown pilot program. So, that's very exciting. Um pier parking lot mural. He is expected to complete work in the next two weeks. Um, there were a couple of delays due to some necessary repairs
once we got out there that were on us. It was not the artist's fault at all. Um, and the interior is not only being repainted, but we're resurfacing all of the floors. So, once everything's done, the inside and the outside are both going to be very clean and lovely. Uh, and then we would like to hopefully before the fiscal year is over, at least
encumber the expenses for the two additional public restrooms. Um, I believe we spoke briefly in a very casual way of just there were two other local artists that had really great proposals that we'd like to just work with commissioning those pieces. Um, but again, just like this other process, we
would talk with them, get art committee approved, bring that to you guys for approval and then council. We wouldn't just commission a piece and you know, surprise, there's a mural. So, that would come back to you guys as well. Um, and I know that was a lot of information. I also intended to put the upcoming meeting dates. And of course,
it's not a meeting unless I forget to print one thing. So, I forgot to print those out. But Friday, August 1st, we have our budget showcase that starts at 2 PM here in Chambers. Uh that will start with the city manager kind of giving an overview of kind of the state of the budget and where things are, our
fiscal condition. And then there is a bus tour uh with staff and council. We're going to look at a couple of different areas and projects. It's um I know I believe they used to do it that way. This is the first time I've gotten to be a part of a bus tour, so that's exciting. Um, and then August 4th, 5th,
and 11th. Did I get that right, Ruth? I think I did. Fourth, 5th, and 11th are the three um budget workshop. They're the budget discussions for various departments. The 12th is reserved for in case of in case they need more information from a department. Um, and
then the first reading of the budget is September 3rd, I believe. >> Second reading or third reading? First reading is September the 3 and then the second reading would be two weeks after that. I think I got that right if I just managed to >> No, that can't be right. That's a
Wednesday. So September there's a budget hearing for the first reading. Um I will email you guys that date, but the August dates are when we start the discussion and then it will take two hearings to adopt the budget and that'll get adopted at the end of September. So, uh, August
13th is our workshop and that will be with the legal department and, um, yeah, that'll be a fun exciting PowerPoint from our city attorney. >> If I have it correct, if I have it correct, August 11th is the date for the
um, planning and C budget presentation. >> Yes, thank you, Gary. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, the fourth and fifth are other departments. Monday the 11th is um, us. So, our budget meeting with council is August the 11th. Thank you. Thank you.
Uh the time I'm I don't remember the time for that presentation. >> Five for hours. Five. >> Five. Are there any questions on all of that update information from >> Um,
>> and as always, if something comes up, >> comments or thoughts, >> if you think of anything between after this or something kind of joged your memory later on something I brought up, just call me, email me. >> Happy to answer any questions. I know I kind of rapid fired a lot of you guys there. And if you have any question about >> the meeting dates I threw out, just let
me know. Right. >> Have a question about the bus tour. Is that something? You said you've never done it before, but what's >> the city has done these? Uh, this is the first one I've gotten to do with the city. We've always done a showcase, but it's usually all been in here and been PowerPoint presentation style. And so, this is the first year, I think, since
before CO that we're going to bring back this bus tour with council. >> Yeah. >> So, I'll let you know. It's new to me. >> Can we Can we follow behind? And >> I think so. >> I think I'm not I don't know why not. Interesting. >> I mean, it's a
>> I don't know why. >> I know they want Grim on the bus for us, but I'm just asking. >> Ruth, do you have anything to that? Sorry. and discuss >> discuss. >> Okay.
>> At what time does that start? >> Two and a half. Okay. >> And then I think It's a whole street on busation Okay, thank you.
>> That you have some comments. Sydney, anything. >> Marcus, no. >> With that, I think we shall move on to our next agenda item. Then we've kind of finished up old business and >> we've got two items really under new
business. um one the adoption and the second for discussion but um the first item is the to adopt or deny the CRA resolution 2025-06 adopting a fiscal year 202526
Jacksonville community redevelopment agency budget. Um this is something that we have um reviewed at least the preliminary reviews were done along with preliminary presentation of the uh
budget numbers and so forth. um we've been provided additional information and I would say that this is the uh the final budget changes and um and the considerations for the new
budget are complete. So with that um Taylor do we have somebody who's going to speak in reference to this or >> Yes sir. Oh, sorry. Um, so as the chairman said, um, there really
weren't a whole lot of things that are different from what you guys looked at it a few weeks ago. Um, there were a couple of changes that the CFO did let me know ahead of time. Uh, one of the changes that you'll see,
let's see, there is um a little bit of change to the payroll and the internal service charges, and that is honestly quite it. Everything else, we were pretty lucky, kind of stayed the same. Um, the tax
proceeds are budgeted at 14,95,753 for both districts. Downtown is budgeted to receive 11,474,411 and the south end 3,431,3442. Uh we also have our budget officer here uh and she will help answer any technical questions um that I may not be
able to answer. I'll open this up for discussion by the um by the board if there was anybody that has any specific comments. Doesn't look like we have any comments at all or questions. Um
if there are none, you know, I I think everything from what I reviewed is pretty consistent. There were some small changes from the um from the preliminary budget that we were given, but everything pretty much tracks
the way um we had talked about. The one thing that I would just like to see is a final copy of the you know revised budget breakdown sheets. Um I'd like to see that distributed to uh each of the board members for their uh use
and as we move through this um budget year. But there are no comments. Um, Megan, >> uh, Taylor, tell me again what changed specifically. >> I believe if I'm reading correctly, it
was the, let's see, personal services. Um, and that's essentially just payroll insurance. Um, that was just edited slightly. And then our internal service charges based off of the utilization of internal services.
So, our finance department, our HR department, those departments, and then those costs going up with payroll as well. That just increases the internal service charges. >> Okay. How much more was it increased? Do you know? >> I'm not off my head, but I can Let's see.
Um about $11,000 it looks like for police. And then for us, um downtown about $10,000. South and just over $5,000. >> Okay. So about a net 20 25,000
difference. >> Okay. 20 about 26. >> I was like I'm good. I'm not that good yet. >> Yeah. I can give the estimates. Ruth is going to give you the exact figure. >> Okay. And it was associated with payroll. You said
>> yes. payroll, insurance, pension contribution, and internal service charge. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> And those were and um Bruce, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but those were very much anticipated. We usually plan to see a little bit of fluctuation just based on our pay plan and things
going up gradually. So, that was not anything that was a shock to anyone. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. He did. He did. He did. He did. >> I move that we approve the fiscal year redevelopment agency budget. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> All right. >> Yes, sir. Miss Sydney Talcott. >> Yes. >> Mr. Thad Mosley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gary Pel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ron Whittington.
>> Yes. >> Miss Megan Edwards. >> Yes. >> Thank you. That is going to make it a a fun year. We've got a lot of work to do for for this next fiscal year. >> The hard part comes next.
Um moving on. The next item on our agenda is an item for discussion which is the facade grant um proposed changes for fiscal 20 26. Um you've been provided a copy of some recommendations
and changes that staff um have proposed to us and hopefully you've had a chance to review it. who would like to get some thoughts and comments back so that we can give appropriate um
in input to um to staff on how to uh modify this and uh get it into a form that we'll be able to use for the next fiscal year. Do you have anything that you want to add, Taylor? >> Um just a couple things. Um it's kind of
a couple of parts to this. Um, one of the big things, at least for us, when we had an internal meeting, it was us and that administration and the finance department, one of the big recommendations we would like to make is beginning for fiscal year 26, we want to review the applications on a quarterly basis. So rather than like, oh, someone
applies, we just get it gives applicants kind of a three-month window. Um, and so then we would review January, April, July, October at our regular meetings, and we would take a look at the batches of applications there. Um, and being as now kind of later in this, there's now a
new um, score sheet to kind of keep track of how they rank. Um, if you've got five or six applicants and you know, you've got two that are really, really high on that scale and then the rest aren't. We just think reviewing them quarterly will give us a little bit of a better opportunity to better kind of divvy up the funds and kind of see a
bigger picture of what we're kind of looking at within the district and what people are needing. Um, and then we really want to hone in on their standing with the city. You know, applicants, we are going to require that they be in good standing with the city.
You have no outstanding code enforcement, no prior issues. Um, you know, previously you haven't done work without a permit. You haven't violated the code numerous times. Um, you know, anyone that's caused significant delays, didn't comply or creative, you know,
administrative challenges, we would ask that that could be an administrative decision that, you know, someone applies that has historically been problems. They just can get vetoed and we can, you know, bring that to the agency. But, um, we we just want to really hone in on
making sure that those that are applying are in good standing. Um, it makes our job easier. It makes your job easier. Um, and then also requiring kind of a new reimbursement process where they fill out their G2 form which is already in their PLA packet that they get. They submit it to me right now for the
reimbursement process. What we want to change in that is giving them 60 days to submit all of their documentation including permits, proof payment, any additional verification materials that I may need to verify they did the work they said they would do. Um, and then the 60-day period would begin either if
the work they're doing requires a permit, it would be the day they got their permit. That would start their 60 days to turn their forms into me. Some work that people do do not need a permit. If that's the case, once they let me know, hey, I'm done. I will then send them a certified letter with a date, and that would be the date that
their 60day starts from. um for projects that do not have, you know, permits in place or they don't submit all the required documentation in the time frame, it will cancel their grant agreement and they will receive no funding. Um we've, you know, this has been we've done this now for a couple of
fiscal years. We're kind of like we're learning as we go, making some changes. Um but we definitely want to tighten the reigns just a little bit. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, and requiring that they give us two quotes from different vendors. So, that's something we haven't required before.
They typically can bring us one quote, they can bring us 10 quotes, whatever. Um, we are going to now request that they give us um some transparency for competitive pricing. And then also, we're going to request that they give us a project timeline with some milestone dates to kind of hold them accountable
to finishing the project in a certain amount of time. And, you know, we understand there will be issues. If something is delayed in shipping, that's fine. I mean, we're not going to be so strict, but what we don't want is to reward money and then three years later, we're still waiting. So, um, again, happy to answer questions and then we really wanted to kind of open it up for
discussion and feedback and, um, we can kind of take that back and fine-tune and then get this program amended before fiscal year 26. Is there currently I see reasons right it looks like for cause right why you would deny their application or the facade program right that's what we're
saying undue delay is there already the existence of within the discretion of the city because I right it's a nice program with limited funds right and I'm concerned it might obligate us to award the funds if they
don't meet one of those >> oh cyber or pause >> in this when anyone applies and one of the first things is that this funding in particular because it is a grant it is a privilege not a right so this is solely at the discretion of the agency um I I mean in theory it's probably not best
practices to just deny somebody because you felt like it but in theory you you could >> sure yes that is allowable like we don't have to approve >> okay so that's already somewhere that that's not an obligation okay >> because you're right road to what is it?
Good intentions, whatever the saying is that I'm butchering right now. But um trying to do a nice thing and if it turns into well it didn't meet one of these causes why you have to deny it then we'd have some concerns. But I think it's great to be able to to be reviewing it quarterly gives us an idea
of what's in the pipeline versus just kind of blindly just doing a snap a monthly snapshot. So I think that makes a lot of sense. Um, so, uh, the first comment is just the, uh, ROI tool is awesome and I think
will make our jobs a lot easier, especially because it's quantifying something that otherwise is normally subjective, I feel. Um, so really excited about that. Um and I just had a question about the quarterly review cadence. Um I'm not so familiar with the
nature like the range of these projects but is there a scenario where an applicant might feel that three months is too long to wait and yeah and and so in which case like I don't know if we
I suppose we could see what kind of response we get um from the new plan but maybe in the future we would consider like providing preliminary feedback something like that within the three month time frame before we review just in case like there's something obvious
they could fix. Um, so just a thought. But >> yeah, and something that we I mean I I do already when someone turns it in, I've actually had this now with a couple of applicants. They've turned it in and and long before it comes to you guys, I've looked through it and been like, "This this ain't going to work. Like this." And I immediately, usually within
a day or two called them and I'm like, "Hey, listen. This is a great idea in theory, but you need to tweak this, this, and this. This really doesn't align with the vision." And and usually behind the scenes, I can kind of work with an applicant and help them understand. Um, and then by the time it comes to you guys, it's fine. So, that's something I kind of already do. Um, but
as far as the three-month thing, you know, that is a reality that if somebody is ready to do a project, they technically cannot start if they want to receive these funds until their application's been approved, you know. So, um, it it may be something that unfortunately deters businesses. Um,
but at the same time, what we've seen with these grants so far is these are projects that a lot of businesses have kind of wanted to do, but they've it's either been, you know, the funding is a little tight or maybe they have other improvements that are true necessities like an AC or coolers in a restaurant or whatever, and their funds are kind of
tied up there. And then this program kind of offers an opportunity for them to know they're going to get some of those costs back. Um, and so if it's something that they've been wanting to do anyway, kind of what what's three more months going to hurt? Um, but you know, we we can get feedback and kind of see where it goes. If that gets
approved, um, and I was discussing with the chairman a little bit, you know, the beauty of these programs is if something doesn't work, we can change it. >> Yeah. >> Um, we've already amended this, I think, twice since it's been implemented. We've made little changes here and there. And I kind of look at this as a living, breathing document that kind of becomes
a part of this kind of annual budget process. We take a look at these different programs and, you know, we amend what needs amending. >> Cool. Great. Sounds good to me. Thank you. >> What about emergency or high um impact applications when they occur outside of
the cycle? Do we have any provisions or god forbid, you know, different aspects, but do we have anything that would >> um we don't. Okay. >> Right now. Um doesn't mean that we
couldn't. Um I I think my recommendation I'm one person would be to either all in on quarterly that's it. I mean because typically we're not really no thus far nobody has sought one of these grants for an
emergency situation. They're just not they know it's going to take time. If there's an emergency they're fixing it. Um, I would recommend all in on quarterly or leave it as is because I think I would fear if we start making exceptions, then every situation is going to become an emergency or every, you know, and then we're kind of like,
well, what was the point in going quarterly? Um I think Sydney's point that um since we have very specific criteria, if someone were to meet them all, they would still not be entitled to receiving a grant, nor would they have any way to
appeal our rejection if we determined >> that it was not appropriate to make the grant or that the prioritization of the other applicants was greater in our opinion. I think that's a super good point as long as that's clear because um things can get tangly.
>> Yeah, I mean it, you know, it's um it's something we really haven't ran into yet, but we are seeing a higher demand in these grants and unfortunately with that higher demand is going to come we're going to have to just turn people away unfortunately. Uh the reason one of the big drivers for making this ROI
sheet uh kind of the intent behind this would be you know I get these grant applications in I would share them with you guys once we've determined that they're sufficient just like other applications for other boards we would send the ROI sheet to you guys along with the application we would ask that the board score prior to the CR meeting
obviously to not discuss it with anyone kind of same rules uh and then at that meeting staff would actually take the sheets and then those become a part of a public record so any applicant that's wondering saying, "Well, why didn't I get it or why couldn't I, you know, the score sheets will be available?" Comments, our art committee scores like this right now. And I know art and
facades are a little different, but the process has worked really well for us having the score sheets because people ask, well, why did I not, you know, get it? And and they've come in and or asked for a copy of their score sheet and they've gone, "Oh, okay. Well, that feedback makes sense." And they, you know, kind of learn from it.
>> Well, the fact that they're being submitted in batches gives us a chance to force rank them. Mhm. >> Um, and I wasn't totally clear. Let's say we have five applications that we think are well documented,
>> well presented, >> um, um, and in line with our vision, um, but we don't have the money to fund them all. >> Is it possible to prorate the funding amongst the different applicants as opposed to just saying yes or no?
>> I think it would be possible to encourage them to come back the following fiscal year cycle. >> I hear you, but at some point you run out of money. So I just >> So I think if if they want it and we're out of money that year, then they're just going to have to wait till October one. So if we had five outputs that we
all thought were excellent that had fully complied cons consulted with you >> and they all came in the same quarter >> um would we be able to distribute the funds amongst them on a proto basis or we just
have to reject two if we couldn't afford to fund them >> reject them >> excuse me >> you'd have to reject it once the money's gone the money's gone so it you know if that first quarter uh we get a batch of amazing applicants and you want to award every single one
and it takes up the 300,000 then that's it for the year. >> I just was asking is there any way to um well let me ask is there any way that we could u determine a proration or a lesser than
full amount funding because of limitations on dollars. >> I mean you yeah I mean so that's another thing the discretion because it is a grant program. If somebody says, "I want $50,000." You can say, "Well, we're going to give you 25, so we can also give this business 25 and we can split that up." That's completely acceptable.
>> So, we could do that on >> Okay, sorry. That's on me. I misunderstood. >> I misunderstood the answer. >> That that absolutely you could do. Um, >> if there was a component of the project that was like a huge aesthetic game changer and maybe something else was nice but not as big of a deal, you could
say, "Hey, we're only going to fund this portion for this reason." Um but it's completely at the discretion of the agency how much >> say we're only going to fund this portion because it's funding availability. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. I just wanted to be real clear on that. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> Because in the past I don't think we've ever done that.
>> Along those lines, one of the things that I was going to bring up for consideration by the board is that we've uh changed the funding availability for these grants from a half million dollars. This budget now shows only 300,000.
So my question is that that um right now somebody requesting a grant can receive up to $100,000. Question is is does that need to be looked at and do we need to consider something other than $100,000. I'm just
going to throw something out there like 50,000 that that's the max that somebody would receive for a submitted grant because of the funding that we have available this year which is only 300,000. gives us a chance in my opinion
to spread those dollars a little bit more, entice others to come in and ask for the grants, you know, hopefully get a little bit more done throughout the downtown area rather than just concentrating on one or two businesses themselves.
Just food for thought and I'd love to hear comments and suggestions. Megan, I'll let you >> I think it's a great idea. I think that makes total sense. um because it right in that scenario when we reduced it like this now a third of
it's gone to one applicant. So I think I we were just all nodding our heads along that we we agree with that. Um have we used in the past year in the prior years have we used up all of the funding and typically when are we using it all up
by? Is it like Q1, Q2? >> Q2. Okay. So, it sounds like maybe I want to consider expanding the budget. I think that's in the future and at least in the interim Gary's proposal. I think that makes a lot of sense. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. >> Gary, I think that's a great idea and it to some degree addresses the issue I was trying to get to is that we're going to run out of money. I think that's a great way to do it. Could we go ahead and and make that modification now?
>> I think what's being asked what's being asked is just for input right now and then you'll come back and present us a final document. >> I think um like if that's something that everyone can like kind of nudge and agrees to. I can between now and our regular August meeting kind of go back
in and rewrite this and add that and all these kind of topics we've discussed we can kind of fine-tune and then bring that back to you guys formally August. And if August, if it's not sufficient or you have a better idea or something that pops up, then we can bring the final version in September. Um, and my only goal is I would really like to get it
adopted before FY26. If we don't, we don't. It is what it is. Worst things have happened. That's fine. But I would really like to get the final version August or September. Um, but we have plenty of time. Everybody though is I see everybody's head nodding for 50. So, we're all good
with that. I think that's a great idea. Um, I think that helped spread the wealth a little bit. And um we've seen a couple of massive projects. I really just don't even know where we could have those kind of massive projects anymore because we've already funded and done them. So I think that's more than appropriate um an amount. And like I
said, if it if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and we change it again. >> I think it's fine. >> Yeah, I think that's appropriate. I mean, we did award most to bricks last year or last year. I don't know what year we're in. Um, but we did award the full $100,000.
>> We've done three of those. >> Three of those. >> Now, since you're I think Gary's the only one who was on the board for all three of the $100,000 ones, but yes, we've done three of the full amount ones. Most actually fall between 20 to like 4550. We're kind of in that range.
So, >> yeah, I think 50 makes sense. It makes it kind of worth the effort, >> right? I I think it sounds appropriate, >> excuse me. Another item for consideration that I'd like the the board just to discuss a little bit is a
while back we had a um applicant come in and wanted to build a canopy um which started to raise a number of questions. It's new construction and at that time the conversation was we would come back and review it at the time we looked at
changes to the uh to the grant application process. I wondered if there were any further thoughts about that about do we limit new construction and if we do how do we
do it um are there any thoughts on that or are we comfortable with the way it's basically defined right now which basically says repair replacement and or new and then lists certain certain items
but specifically doesn't canopies, which was the the conversation that we had. It was a $100,000 item alone. And um I just wanted to make sure that we were all comfortable with that uh before moving on.
>> I mean, from our perspective, the new in that sense is um like let's say you have a building that the front facade is just nothing. It's just a wall. If they're going to make any improvement to that by adding an awning, by adding a patio, by adding anything to
that exterior, it is technically new. Um, if you're tearing something down or replacing it because it's unsightly, kind of like bricks, they expanded and improved. That is, it's not a new facility per se, but that is a new component. So, that's kind of where that
language came in. um in the actual rule packet it and I believe it was actually our previous chair that made this recommendation and it was it was a good one. He I believe we said somebody had to have been established the building itself for three or five years off top
of my head. I just cannot remember that the building had to be existing. So we did that because a few years ago we had a newer building come in and then like four or five months after opening got a facade grant and after kind of talking about that we're like well that didn't really make a lot of sense because you just opened like you're brand new. Um so
as far as new buildings probably not but new aixed structures um architectural elements anything aesthetic new on an existing building is what that classifies more. I hope that makes sense. I feel like I'm here.
>> So, I'm getting that. Go ahead. >> I didn't much like the canopy either, but staff explained to us that it did fit the criteria. Um, but it sure looked like a mighty fine new incremental structure to me,
but that was not a disqualifying factor, and I'm not sure how the heck we could rewrite this to address that issue. uh because of the point that was just made, you know, anything that's even on the face of building can be a new structure,
even if it's just a balcony >> enhancement or a re or a reglazing. Um, but you know, I didn't much like that and uh it was explained to me that it fit. So, I went ahead and voted for
it after much discussion. Um, >> I just that was $100,000 as well, which is why I like your 50 a lot better. >> Well, and I just again, it was just something that came up in discussion and I just wanted to make sure we vented it and if we're all, you know, comfortable,
then, you know, I'm I'm fine. A couple of other quick comments. Um, we do have security, lighting, and cameras coming as a separate grant application program. So, when I saw lighting in here, I wasn't 100% sure exactly how it
was getting covered, but in conversations with Taylor, we will have some further information about grants for security lighting and cameras. So, we'll be looking at that. I would like to um encourage also that where it talks
about construction fencing that it's not just construction at major project sites, but it's also existing fencing. I'll use home um Dolphin Depot as an example. Um right now it's just
got chain link fence up all around it. It would be nice to see it with some kind of screening on it in my opinion. Same thing with the particularly the site that's just north of the pavilion which would really I think make a significant statement in the downtown
area. had some kind of screening around it so that uh we're not looking at a uh at an empty site that looks somewhat unkempt and things to that extent. So, >> yep. >> I'd like to see it expand it, not just
constru described here as construction fencing. And um I think any fencing that that's up may be appropriate for some kind of screening and possibly um a grant in reference to it. I don't know how everybody else feels in reference to
that, but any thoughts? >> One thought, Gary. I don't think that they're required to fence that property. It's ugly. It's nasty. It's had at least two, maybe three redevelopment plans. Totally approved, never executed.
>> You're talking about >> what you call the Dolphins property, which used to be the old homes across First Street and also to be just painting carpet. That's three quarters of the block there. I know it well. I used to own the other quarter of a block and it's just um it's ugly, but
the chain link fencing just makes it uglier. Frankly, it'd be better off with no fencing. >> The owner chose to fence it. I don't think they were required to. Now, if it's ugly, nasty, falling down fencing, there might be a code issue there.
>> But, um >> but the but the owner did choose to fence that. The owner was not required to fence it to my knowledge. Bless their hearts. >> Well, the hopes here would be that you, you know, it it would encourage somebody to come forward, a developer to come
forward and and work with us to do something to more beautify that those empty lots and the con fencing that's up right now is what I'm really hoping to do. Um, you know, I don't know how that needs to
change or if um you know, just the description is slightly different. I think that's all we're really talking about. >> Yeah. I mean, so that fencing that you're referencing is um c categorized
as more safety fencing. >> Um and so we'll we can do our homework between now and the next meeting and, you know, get input and make sure that >> all other departments that would need to be are good with the idea of potentially screening that. And um that could that's
a relatively easy change >> for you know even that fencing that's um right next door to Lynch. >> You know there's a that wood what's partially a wooden fence is kind of falling apart and nobody's really maintaining it. It would be nice to see
something done with that to help make that a better impression in the downtown area. The only other comment that I have is that um on the um ROI evaluation criteria, there's an item in here about
public benefit and community activation and it lists murals as a as a uh as an item. I would just like to change that to artwork, not just murals. I'd like to encourage all kinds of artwork within
the downtown area that we we hope will be a true benefit to the public. >> Yep. I looked after we talked earlier, Mr. Chair, and I noticed that was just a weird little typo because in the project information sheet, it already says mural and other exterior art. So, that's an
easy change. I'll just make that edit on the ROI sheet to match that. Um, back to Gary's fences. Um, I believe that um, structures such as the one we were just talking about could be uh, subject to
um, code violations. They're ugly. They're falling down. And I believe that we have codes that require people to mow and maintain some sort of order on property.
So perhaps um staff could gently inquire as to the possibility of using our existing ordinances to clean up that mess instead of dressing up that mess because anything you put on it is going to get blown off anyway. But if you tore it all down and then required them to
maintain the property, um, you might have a better look from First Street because it sure ain't pretty now. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Ron, did you have anything else? Anyone else?
Do you have everything that you need, Taylor? >> I do. I have a lot. I have a lot to go off of. Um, so kind of uh what I'll do now between now and the next meeting. Uh, and if I'm really lucky, I'll be really aggressive and I may even try and get a draft to you guys at the next workshop, not necessarily for
discussion, just to pass out. And then you guys can in your free time between now and the next meeting, let me know if I missed something. Uh, and then our regular meeting in August, I will bring back an updated version of this. >> Okay. With that being said, that uh was the last uh specific item on our agenda this
afternoon. Are there any comments u thoughts from the board in in reference to anything? I know that we're 90% complete on the lethum for the um the design submission
for um the Jones um where what else are we doing with that once that gets is that going to be as soon as we get that submitted will they'll go ahead and begin construction
>> so for Laam or for the public private partnership >> the Laam plaza >> so yeah as that one. Uh once we get the final drawings, we should have our 90% drawings very soon. We'll have a meeting, make sure everybody's still on the same page, and then that package will follow the same process like we
talked about. It'll go out for bid. >> Uh we'll have a team review. The review for all the people bidding on that project, all the contractors are always public meetings. We always encourage everyone to come. Uh and then whatever recommendation is determined to be the best fit for that project comes back to you guys for the green light. And then
we take that to council for the contract. And then uh but keeping in mind that you know we also want to be mindful and respectful of events that are already scheduled through the end of this year and there are some very major events. Um >> so you know there may be something in a
clause in the contract where okay we're awarding this however construction is not able to start until >> some future date just to be mindful of events. >> Good. Any other thoughts or comments? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to
adjourn the meeting. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. Okay. All those in favor? I I meeting is adjourned. Thank you.