Community board workshop Tuesday January 136 to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Madam clerk, have roll please. >> Chairman John Eric Hoover >> here. >> Vice Chairman Chris Mayer. Let the record show that vice chair mayor is absent from today's meeting. Member Robert Huard >> here. >> Member Lisa Burke >> here.
>> Member Christine Sullivan >> here. >> City attorney Nancy Meyer >> here. >> And city manager Don King >> here. >> Thank you. Okay. First up is Councilman general public. I have no signups and it does not look like I have any public other than maybe Veronica. She wants to
be the public but uh okay seeing none I'll bring it back to uh council for the uh comments from the city manager. Pass over Mr. King for his comments. >> I do have some comments and uh uh please take these comments as information because if many of you have observed I
like to do white papers. I like to provide analysis. I like to keep you guys informed as as we look at the CRA. What I'm asking for from the council is to help
us build you a five-year plan because this is going to sunset January 8th of 2032. If for some reason it doesn't because something magical happens, we'll also have additional projects that are several ready that we can pull and once money becomes available, we'll start,
you know, continuing on with the project. What I mean by that is I'd like to get year one projects assigned so that we can start moving forward on them. Year year two, year three, year four, year five. Um, we can provide input, but I think the council's input
is probably more important on what they think is what are the best priorities. One of the things I looked at is I think Basher Park will be a great priority because it it's it's big, it's visible. Um, it's going to cost a bit of money, but once we get it done, if we get it done before the Fourth of July, you're
looking at probably a ribbon cutting. You can do fireworks out there because it shoots out to the water, and you can get the community out there to actually, hey, this is fantastic. and it gives the council a a a win immediately. Signs signs I think will give us a big
win is a short-term first year um project because that's going to be a visible thing that they see throughout the town. So, what I'm what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to get after the bit the big bites that we need to take that may take
some time that that do cost us some money, but I also want to get after quick wins, you know, for the community so that they're going, hey, you know, the the council's actually moving forward on these projects. They've talked about it for years, but they're executing now. So, we're in the execution mode. And one of the things
that I'll pause here for a second when you guys talk about the signs. I'd like to inject that a if it's possible to add a digital sign in front of
the uh city hall. It's got date, time, weather, but it's informative. And so what we were able to do is we were able to passively communicate to the community on council
uh dates and and different um things that are ongoing with the community. and it keep keeps them informed on let's say there's a law enforcement issue or there's a fire thing that we want to put out because they're doing some kind of event or if we're doing a community
event we're letting them know you know passively as they're driving through but also we'll get it out on you know social media and things like that because I believe that any and every form of media is critical
to us. I think um that that if that if we ignore an opportunity to get our message out that you know it it it kind of goes against us and and we have less effect. I don't think it's going to create a super large effect, but I think
it's going to have a significant effect as your as your as your residents our residents are driving through town and they see it, they're going to be like, "Hey, these guys are now educating us and keeping us informed on that project." Okay, I'll step away from that. I'm going to kind of back and
forth with the project timelines. Um I would I would like to make it a fiveyear strategic plan. Um so I so giving you guys the opportunity to go hey this is this is what we want or hey city manager
get with your team and build us what you think out of all the things that we've chosen. Where do you think they should go? How do you think they should be built? What what project should they be in? and we can do all that work for you. All I need is the guidance to go ahead and execute that for you and I can
present it and you guys go yay nay change and then we get it because what I'd like to do is I'd like to initiate that fiveyear strategic plan because what the benefit there is if I start these projects now the only thing that
you guys have to worry about is being updated on the status of the project. um timelines. I'm keeping you guys informed on timelines to make sure that we're on time and on budget. And then I'm giving you milestones of critical
events with these different um projects that that we can address. If there's things you want to tweak on it, you know, we've got those built into the milestones, but you also have the milestones. So, you know, on X date it should be complete. So, if there's anything that you want to tie to that
completion, we're able to do that. Because what I'd like to do is with these projects, I think it'll be important to kind of get out in front of the community and say, "Hey, come out here and help us open up X Park because
they're seeing your vision being executed, you know, because it's something that we've talked about for a while. I want to put put a concept into reality." Um, but that's that's what I'm asking. Um,
with with the projects that you have. I know uh Derek's gonna have a few comments. If he does, if he doesn't, just point the finger of something that I missed because we've talked a lot. Um, and the only reason we've talked a lot is because I've asked him about being
able to bring this up here and then be able to talk about, hey, let's let's get this going. Let's let's come up with our strategic plan and move it forward and not make changes. Let's not stop and go, hey, uh, let's cut this off because what I'm doing is I'm losing time, effort,
and money and then I'm switching to another project and now I'm fighting to get that project up and starting up and started. So, you know, just a clear good decision on the things that we want to do. And if another council member has voted in at
some point or another during this five-year plan, keeping them on the strategic plan. Don't let them come in here and go, "I don't like that." And then everybody goes, "Okay, I don't like that either." Let's keep pushing through it. Because what what's going to happen is as we complete these projects, you
guys are going to be the heroes. As as we go through it, everybody's going to be like, "You guys are doing a phenomenal job." and then the new council members that come on that actually complete the project if that occurs. But if somebody gets in the middle of it, stops it. Now it's like, okay, you
guys started strong. Now you guys have just dropped the ball on all the the strategic plan for the CR CRA and based on the funding that we're getting because we get we invest 700,000, we get a million back. I wanna I want to make
the most of that million that we get back of that investment from the county. Um, and I'd like to take and complete that plan. I want to be dollars spent, projects engaged no later than eight I think I
can do up to before 8 January because I think the bill is paid out. Is that correct? The CRA can stay open to deal with bond obligations. So if you do a project and bond it out prior to you could go ahead and keep the Siri open to
pay the bond, but that will be it'll just be a debt service at that point. >> Okay. And and and what I'm trying to prevent is I know these are items that if if if we don't do them with the CRA, they're going to end up becoming capital improvement projects. And I would like to save, you know, our capital
improvement budget for, you know, those things that you want to do outside of the CRA that that you guys have in mind, but also as we come towards the end of that five-year plan, being able to sit down with you and go, if if we see that
there's light at the end of the tunnel and they're going to do they're going to go ahead, hey, this was a great program. We're going to kick it up, you know, five more years, 10 more years, 20 more years. um especially with the amount of money that um Pasco County gets that
we're able to start our next long-term plan. You know, get those years up front to decide what are the next things we want to do and then get our strategic plan in place and then follow that from start to finish. But that's like I said, I'm not telling
I'm not asking. I'm just providing information on a direction that I think would be very successful as we move forward with the CRA. >> Cool. Mayor, that's all I got. >> Uh, one question on the CRA, and this might be for Derek. So, I know we talked about before, we do have a sunset date.
Um, and obviously the legislature is is constantly trying to manipulate whether you can extend those or not. And the thought process I think I mentioned to Nancy we go ahead and put in for an extension before we get caught with our pants down legislature saying we can't uh is we
>> we discussed that and I think >> you did and so I have the original finding a necessity and then in 2009 when you redid the plan you affirmed these u you know there's nine of them five of them are let's say four of them are clearly not applicable anymore they
just don't you're not allowed to do that. Uh, one of them is about dredging and so it's in our plan, but you know, you run into private versus public issues on that one. So, we probably have to do another finding a necessity which includes having all the departments come
in and say why they need it. And so, >> you know, in the past it talked about firefighting equipment and staffing. Well, we know for sure staffing is not allowed. It also talked about, you know, making uh the city hall more energy efficient where you can't spend money on on those facilities. So that's where we're going to run into, you know, being
able to get a good finding. We're going to have to go out to neighborhoods and see what the condition of slum and blight is. How are we going to measure that? Are we going to look at the value of the homes against what the median value is? We got to figure all that out. I've seen dealing with this right now,
but they're in a chartered county, so their county has more to say about it, but they actually had to get a consultant out there to assist with the findings. What what about leveraging obviously with the with the hurricanes came through and the amount of damage it caused the community from percentage wise would that not help?
>> Well, yeah, but in six years I guess we're looking, you know, can we get these things done in six years? And you know, with the hurricane, we're actually seeing probably >> some expedited fixes because it forced some of these homeowners to. So, we're seeing, you know, house housing redevelopment that would have maybe not
normally happened and they'll probably those will be finished in a say a year or so. So the conditions actually will improve that won't necessarily meet, you know, some of the lightning war. >> Yeah. I I just think about the the houses that aren't able to because they were substantially damaged. Um and and
there's areas and I can think of a couple different areas that really could use some investment that um >> they wouldn't otherwise be able to do that outside. >> I think the option is the the block grant that the county has. I think that's going to take care of a lot of that. Uh and then again when we go to
look at the necessity, I'm I'm pretty sure there's going to be some areas that are coming out. Availab for sure. We've got Paradise Estates uh that will probably come out as well. So then we'll see a natural reduction in the funding source for a CRA. And of course then there's the talk about
what's going on taxes. And so while cities may have other avenues to recoup, CRAAS do not. They only have taxes. So we may see a reduction in funding as well with that. So, as the city manager said, we're going with what we know and we know that in five and a half fiscal
years, the CRA will be sunscal with projects we want because if we my concern is if we assume that we're going to get more later that we're going to stretch ourselves and not be able to complete the process that we we want to complete. And I just don't want that to
happen. I don't want us to miss out on the opportunity to get our strategic plan started and finished and then if if it if they say, "Hey, there's more money, we'll have you another strategic plan with other items." And if we can get dredging in it, that's another, you
know, project that we can do. One of the things I have been doing is engaging uh business owners. And with the business owners I've been talking to, um there's a handful of them that are willing to pay for things that we want to do. And so I've been having those conversations
because to them it's an investment in the community. It improves the community and it's something that we don't have to pay for. So I'm in engagement with a with with a couple of them and they're like, "Hey, we'll pay for this, we'll pay for that just as long as one of them is I got to get the county's property. I
got to annex the piece of property which to us is that there's no venue. Well, there's no revenue gained from it, but it's going to be built into a very nice park. Picnic, Frisbee, you name it all. It's going to be very nice on where it's at and it's and it's on the water. Um,
and one of the big things from that is we can build up opportunities in there for revenue as as they complete it because they're willing to do the whole nine yards of taking that park from zero to complete. >> And so that was one of the discussions I
said I said, "Hey, if you want this or you think this is a valued uh piece of property for the city, I'll be willing to annex it. I don't know if I really have the money. my CRA's already been, you know, funded in certain areas. And then at that point,
you know, the business owner was like, I'll do it. I'll do it. I'll put the money in it to do it. You just have to get me the property so I can do it. And so I was like, no problem. >> I have a question, two question, two, um,
with you. You're saying some of the thing some properties are coming out, but after the hurricanes, was there any consideration of any of the properties going back in that had been removed prior? >> The ones removed were like Aquilla, you know, your your condos that are up
higher above the base flood. So, there wasn't a lot of issues there. Um, you have tide that's out now. There were actually even along Dra was in CRA, but they're but the thing is they're actually doing this without CRA assistance. A lot of them. Now, I do have a lot of ones that are doing roofs,
windows, and doors, but those uh appear to be not necessarily storm related. We're not doing any type of flooding thing. I think I may have one or two that may have done it for the storm, but it doesn't seem to be the driving factor for the residential grant. >> All right. Yeah, I just wonder I wondered because after the hurricanes,
that could have put back in that weren't weren't additional there. And um I did want to say before I forgot, the digital sign out front is a great idea. I think we should consider two because I think one should be on 19 >> either at Grand and 19 or at Ridge and 19. But two,
>> yeah, I was gonna >> because that pretty much covers our city. I mean, I understand having one out front >> because it's the city and city business, but I also believe because it'll catch even people going through that may attend our events and everybody's on 19
at some point. Everybody's not always on rich, but yeah, but there's always people out there. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to keep you in budget. >> That's all I was doing. >> Yeah. >> No, you ask for it all >> and then you hope you get some. >> Well, well, that's what I want to do
with the strategic plan. Let me let me give me the flexibility to get you that five-star product. And then as we build that fivestar product, let's say uh let's say Bre Park's that fivestar product and then the next year, the next park's a four-star product. After that, next was a three star product. Next
one's a twostar product based on money that we're willing to allocate to it. And that twostar product is complete land. Everything's done. But if there's anything additional we want to add to it, we can do that in the future and say, "Okay, hey, hey, park here, splash pad, anything that we want to do
with it, we can do after the fact." It's not going to cost us that much. Um, I put in parks. I put in splash pads. And how I would recommend to put them in is cost savings. Because if you put in a splash pad that has a filtration system to take the water and filter it back,
it's going to cost you more than it would be if you had a direct line that went into the park with, you know, shut off nozzles and then a timer that shuts it off at night that runs into the the the ocean. And what it does, it keeps the water clean. So anybody playing
there is going to be on clean city water and at the end of the day we don't have any additional high-end cost for not only installing the filtration system but ma maintaining that servicing that periodically. One thing that I would like to bring up
that I haven't because we're talking parks Olsenar Park I know you guys talked about the fence and you want to use the white fence vinyl fence as kind of a part of the park. My recommendation, let's go ahead and build the fence all the way around and we'll
put it in front of there because eventually that private property fence is going to go down. And what I don't want to do is after the fact, oh, hey, come in here and do this because what it's going to look like, it's going to look like we started a project, we halfass the project. Now we're in in the
process of, you know, fixing something that we never initially did. And I think the complete process because I'd rather have a complete product than just going in there and saying, "Hey, we're gonna assume that this is going to be fine
because we can put it up like that. Next day he can take down that vinyl fence and now we got a gap in our our park, which is I'd like to keep it keep it continuous." So I just bring that up as from from my perspective as far as a park for not only presentation but for
what the purpose of the fence is for. So that you know it's our fence, we control the fence and then you know we're not we're not subject to whoever owns that other fence to dictate, okay, now you need to buy more. Now you need to do this, now you need to do that. So
eliminating it, getting on on the initial cost here. Hopefully we're saving money by putting it on the one project piece. Maybe they'll come back and say, "Hey, we'll just throw it on there for what we've already bid it at." or it's going to be minuscule to put it on because it's an easy install and
>> do it at the time then to do it later. >> Well, it's like this. If you get it right up front, you don't have to worry that about it on the back end. But if you want something bad and you're willing to assume risk, you're going to get it bad. And so my goal is to make sure that when the city
invests in their projects that they're getting it the way they want it. They're getting it right. and then the residents see that, you know, that the that the council is actually, you know, their their thought process is, yes, we're providing you quality parks and and
we're thinking about the entire thing and we're not shortcutting, you know, hoping that at some point that fence hoping that thing stays up forever. >> Was there something with that fence that was uh wasn't permitted or something or was on our property or the So, we did a
survey. the final fence belongs to the property owner and I looked up the uh permit. They had applied for one but it was never closed. It means it was never finalized. So uh technically I guess it's unpermitted fence, >> right? >> Yeah. >> But it is it on their property or >> it's on the line. Uh
>> it's it's directly on the line. >> We have this item uh hopefully for the 27th meeting. We're waiting for a bid. Uh so there's more for there that we we did a survey. Uh that vinyl fence is on the property line. The concrete wall is two feet in some places in the other
properties on the other property. It's not even in our property. The the concrete wall >> as it's going to the water as it or as it's going the other way. >> So, as it comes from the the beginning of the park, it juts out to a point about 2 feet within the boundary of the other uh property and then comes back
toward their seaw wall at about a half a foot. What the official survey shows. So, what about the fence and the concrete wall? What What are your thoughts on that? >> Um, we're talking the mural and everything that's going to go on that.
Um, my thought after sitting in in the meeting was that we had an artist that came in with a very >> I would say a very high quality product. I don't know if you guys had the opportunity to see it. >> I think they're present tonight to
>> Okay, they'll present it to you tonight. Um, one of the great things is this person actually researched the town from start to finish. And within that mural, you're actually getting history built into it. Like the uh the Indian null
that's out there actually, you know, there was actually a structure on it. And because she read and found out the information in her mural, the structures there. And so there she's got those little details that in there that are very good. um when you look at it compared to other projects, you're going
to you're going to immediately gravitate to that one because it's just it is what you want. Uh my only concern with that is the cost. I think they wanted 35k for it and we've only budgeted 25. So that's something that we're going to need to
negotiate. Um we well S's talked to me and convinced me that uh one of her projects we could cover. It's only $4,500 and it's the actual um mural that's going to go on the bathroom. And so what we'd like to do is get that
contracted as soon as pos possible and get that up so people are seeing that part developing. So they're like, "Oh, hey, changes are happening." And then they'll see the mural. My only concern with the mural is we don't own it. I mean, the walls, we don't own it. My concern is if the owner is not
>> paint over it, it's there. >> Yeah. they'll paint over it. And and that's that's what I wouldn't want because there's going to be a lot of time, effort, and money spent for that project. And if they decide to pull it back, >> it'll be a horrible something about
>> Well, so that's news to me that we don't own it. So >> I I know nothing about >> We can't paint a wall we don't own. >> We need to talk about that more. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I had no idea. >> I did not know. We do not own that wall. >> We'll discuss that more and bring that back to you guys later. >> But just But just that changes everything. >> But that's for information. But I but I
but it goes back to is do we want to pay for the wall? Do we want to, you know, talk to them, hey, can we extend the property to the wall because there's we'd like to do community development and use that wall as kind of, you know, a project for the community that that
I'm surprised positive to you. >> I'm surprised we did not know this point a long time ago. >> Very long time. Like somebody dropped the ball on that. We just recently did a survey for Old Ner Park for the fence. So, we just recently discovered this and the fact that
>> the property is now the the home that was there has been knocked down. So, there are options that the city can explore if we're going to preserve the wall or whatnot. The wall has been there for at least 40 years and we've had a mural on it before. So, >> well, I wonder did we did we put the wall up, but we put it up on the
property maybe. I'd have to look as far as history is concerned, but that wall dates back um >> before I you know before I even moved into the city. So, and that's that's going back into the 80s. >> We have issues with lines and stuff. I wonder if that is just another one.
>> Classify as a historical monument. >> Yeah. So, >> that'll be key because that may give us some leverage, >> you know, just for the fact that it's a historical piece of Port Richie and something that maybe we can at least put 35
>> or 25 into anything until this is yes legal legally and and we owe we owe you we owe you the respons. >> So actually going back to the fence on the other side like we need work on both sides but the the other side um obviously there is some issues there
with with some stuff um permitting permitting wise and and lines where it was located. I wonder if we shouldn't work on trying to fix that and and maybe we we we do a swap for the whatever we need
to do to clean that line up and then we take over the fence. And >> did I hear that the property that the home has been torn down? That was >> that's on the other side. >> Oh, okay. That's the other side. >> Okay. >> Yeah, this is on the the uh east. >> Yeah. >> From from the survey, the vinyl fence is
fine. It's it's right on the property line. So the the fence he's on the property line we're half owner in it, >> right? So we have that now the the existing chain link fence was clearly in our the parks boundary and this so that's where the new fence would go
where the existing fence would if we don't try to clean that line up and actually if we're going to put the fence up and we want to maintain the fence obviously the homeowner would rather probably the the city take care of the fence so he'd never have to worry about it. Um, you know, I don't like putting fences right up against each other
either. So, it's I mean, it's I think it's fairly nice. And there's some issues there obviously that need to be worked out. >> When I talked to the homeowner, they uh, you know, mentioned that they want to maintain the privacy of the the white vinyl. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Our option is going to be the
see-through fence for u, you know, the for the park. >> My other option is to put another white vinyl fence right up next to it. >> Yeah. And I think we're going to have we're have the same look. you know, it's still kind of the same look and and essentially the function except now it'll be it'll be permanent. I guess the only difference
>> I'm just saying if we work out with property owner, we just go ahead and take that and we maintain it from going on and just >> Yeah, I guess we have to figure out the lot lines what's allowed. >> If I was the only thing, I'd be like, "Yeah, that'd be great." So, >> I would too. >> Yeah. I mean, just it's other than to
put a fence right up against it because obviously you're going to have weeds and stuff growing in between. It's just going to be a mess and it's it's a waste of it's really a waste. So, let's let's I think we work with the property and try to just resolve that and and >> we have both options ready to go off of the 27th. Yeah. So, hopefully we get some more then.
>> Okay. We talked about and maybe we buy a wall too. I don't know. So, >> or we just put a whole bio fence on that side and just hide it all. >> Yeah. That so interesting information. Anything else? Um that's all I have
regarding my kind of information >> uh to provide for at least for one more thing on the signs. You started to interject about the Grand Boulevard project. So obviously if we look for a
second location um as we're looking at redeveloping Grand Boulevard that would probably be a good spot for that as well as doing the medians. I don't know what access we would have in the median forel sign but obviously we're getting ready to do a improvement project there. So there's some options I think for >> that would involve if not I'm sure.
Yeah. >> But my only concern with that is are we going to build those road medians like they are out in front of city hall because you can't see because if we were to put a two-way sign there, you couldn't see it coming the other direction because the vegetation's too high. It' be a waste of money.
>> Just something to think about. Okay. >> Place we don't we don't think we own any property on 19. We have um consultants working on a landscaping plan >> right >> for for the area. So we could work around a sign placement >> so that whatever land we could put it on
the median >> it's been done before. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm thinking have to ask >> right here that big um area at Grand >> We do have some rightway on Grand for sure.
>> East side of Grand. There's a huge >> Yeah, we could definitely do something there for sure. >> Well, like you said, you wouldn't read it in the other B the other lane. >> Well, if you see it was situated so it was >> facing 19 sign >> but in that area. Well, I think there's
there's I would be looking at that because I think it's a great idea to have a second one on 19. >> I thought about that. The city city all sign is awesome. I didn't think of that. That'd be great. >> And the one thing is is if we grant if if we got, you know,
coming going traffic that can see, just double sign it. >> I mean, >> right. It cost a little more to have a double sign, but I mean it's also an opportunity to be able to push left and push right, but once again, we owe you the feedback on, hey, this is what it
looks like. It wouldn't be feasible because nobody's going to see it. So, best position for it would be here at this angle so that you know customers can come our residents can go through and be in for. >> Okay,
it sorry about Jack. Good information. All right. So, next up is board business. Item number one, redevelopment incentives. I'll pass that over to Mr. King for introduction. You got an introduction for that. Uh, or maybe Nancy, I'm not sure you put the document together, but
>> Derek kind of took the lead on this, but I'm here to help if he needs help, but I think he wrote the agenda cover sheet, >> prepare the document. >> I'll turn it over to Derek. All right. Uh, yes. So we obviously have direction to come up with a business incentive whether it be recruitment or retention
and so we looked around the uh city attorney provided some information from Bradenon quite a bit. You have a lot of alocart options with this incentive. Then we looked next door to see what they were doing. Uh they have Newport Richie's got two active projects who have uh similar agreements that I think
we're looking for. So we added that in there as well. So this incorporates, you know, uh refunding of add lower of their of their tax bill, but also upfront cost of business assistance as well. And so what we're looking here, we want to introduce kind of the clay for you to
mold, pick apart, you know, insert more things if you want to. This is the starting point of what you want a program to look like and and and to be. And then eventually we'll get to how we're going to make funded or put it into the funding stream. >> Okay. Um, and I'll just add a little bit
of uh um extra information that is is not public per se um that we'll be hopefully hearing more about soon. I'm supposed to um hear more about it sometime this week. Um but um the house development, we had some renderings that
came to us that um for the the 19 property and there's been talk about uh some $4.5 million on the backend CRA type of incentive which kind of precipitate. We need to have something regardless of that. we need to have something for going forward. Um, but this may not necessarily uh be as
pertinent as it we once thought it was. Um, I think they've they've went back to the drawing board and they are uh going to bring back another proposal for that 19th property that may may not require the city to help out with and also speed uh the development of the the commercial
uh property on where Gild Dogs used to be. Um, and so that's very much in flux. Um I don't know a whole lot about it. Um but I'll find out more and al I think they'll soon after that conversation. I think they're actually going to bring um some plans back to the city again. So
more to come on that. But the good news is what I want to preface this is that as we talk about this um we may or may not need to um have something in place for that because I think they're they're looking at opportunities where they won't need help from the city. So that's a little bit of good news.
Um, so that being said, Derek, did you want to kind of walk us through this, I guess, or and I obviously I've went through it and there's there's different items. We talked about percentage and all that. Um, without maybe seeing a real example, but I I'll let you kind of walk through and and can explain how
this come about. And >> right, so you know, we have different items here that are either in our plan now or or things that are are mentioned in our plan. And really what we were we were trying to do is not necessarily reinvent the wheel but you know make it
ours. And so you know we have your your upfront cost so your B building fees and things like that. And I've seen examples where they may pay for the whole thing. They may pay for a percentage. It depends. Uh and generally what happens is that you can't wave fees but generally the CRA will pay them on
behalf of the developer. So that's where we see a lot of that. We also see, you know, infrastructure improvements perhaps in the front of the building could be streets, sidewalks, utilities. So, CRAS can pay that as well. Uh then we have uh and what the city doesn't
have is transfer development rights program. Now, with Newport or Richie, that's a very lucrative thing down there. It's it's a bulk of majority of the funding package in the tens of millions actually because they have a TDR program. That's what we don't have. That would be a pretty substantial undertaking for us to do. it'd be a
whole you know thing with the code and and land development. So that's a piece that I'm not sure we'll be able to implement. But then now you have so on on transfer development rights too. I would imagine that built in like waterfront park for instance we can't really develop that right.
>> Um but it has inherent development ability from a numbers perspective that we could possibly sell those to go >> at a market or a market rate. That's how you get kind of your value in in your in your package when you're doing this. the um and then of course generally I've
been seeing when it comes to tax rebate it's been about 12 to 12 and a half percent uh off the increase in naturalum uh through the trim and so that's been like a regular percentage I've seen across a lot of the programs it's not these big 50% or 75% it's it's a smaller
12% because we still have to you know city still has to service you know the the property and so accountable title in the CRA but this program with the add-ons uh it's kind of it it gives them the opportunity to increase that percentage and you know
lets the CRA kind of dictate what it wants to see and and primarily based on the the CRA plan. You know if you do affordable housing you get a few extra points if you do I think car share uh if you set it up if you would do some uh other improvements that are beyond what is normally expected of you'll get that
extra percentage on your cap. The one thing that you know is unique to us is that we do have a sunset. And so I put a line in there. I talked to the city attorney about this is that the initially the line said these you know any type of incentive will sunset when the CRA sunsets. However, I put in that
the city may you know take on that agreement through you know whatever economic program the city may have. So there's still option. So, even though we're thinking about sunset, I think there's still an opportunity if we have an agreement to continue the agreement, especially if we're only talking about 12% uh on the rebate. It won't be a huge
hit. You can create an economic de development program within the city uh instead of just the CRA. >> So, is that the 12% you're referencing? That's the max of the >> and so then as you do >> Oh, so it starts at 12% minimum and then you add on after that. >> You add on you got urban canopy. So,
let's say you put in more trees than you then you need building code. you get a an actual you'll get a 1% increase from migration street and so there is quite a bit of options on these different subcategories and so I think what we would want the
board to do is take a look at them and say I like this or I don't find value in this you know pick and choose which ones these these add-ons that you like and let us know and as we as we get that feedback we can start to hone in what your program looks like uh for the the
the portion of the tax rebate. Now, the the cost of doing business incentive is really going to be based on what the project if you're doing a project, you have a 3% uh fee for your building uh fees and stuff like that. So, we could
that that's really a per project choice. You could say I want to do 75% of that. I want to do 50%. that's there's a little bit of flexibility when it comes to to those at the the front end fees. >> So really we're looking we just want to
introduce this to the board kind of see the flow. That's why it doesn't look very pretty, right? Uh just these these concepts and things like that and then they we also have a proposed application just so you kind of get an idea of how the workflow is. This does require a
good amount of staff time. you'll see that it involves the building department, public works and things like that because they have to verify if uh if we're doing a extra tree camp in a project, we want to make sure it's verified by someone private building, right? >> So, there will be a lot of verification
internally as well. >> If you go to page bottom of page nine onto page 10, Derek put together kind of a a example number example that kind of sometime sometimes that helps us visualize how how that's going to be calculated. And then following that
example, the bottom of page 10 onto page 11 and maybe even onto page 12, there's a incentive summary table. And so those are the add-ons he's talking about. So the initial part of that example calculation kind of shows you the base if they just do the base the base amount what they might be entitled to. But if
they select some of these um incentives from this the table, of course I say they select, but obviously everyone agrees to it. They don't get to do it. the CRP gets to approve whatever decisions are made um and ultimately do what they say they're going to do. That's how they can increase that 12%.
So when he mentioned the urban canopy 1% that that um 8.4 incentive semi summary tables where he's getting that that's the numbers that Darren put in here based on his research. Those are things you can change. So that's kind of an idea of what it >> So when you you start on bottom page
nine you you have the the 12% of increased property value. uh and then you jump down, but you got a base of 50% annual tax increment and then you add on the your you're adding your total what you're going to be uh awarded and then you have the annual
reimbursement rate. And so then as you get to the maximum incentive, then we break it down to what the reimbursement rate will be and that's that that's that uh that's part of that example calculation. So, are you starting at So, and I'm
reading this, um, if there's $100 in taxes, the the 50%, we only collect 50 and then we collect even less if there's additional percentages. >> So, think so $100 uh on my tax
increment, my change in tax value, my base is going to be $12 getting back because that's at 12%. The additional So, That's your max. >> So I'm only paying8 is what you're saying, >> right? So that's your that's your maximum incentive is let's say $12, but
then you can So you're not So your service isn't taking as much of a hit. You can then say, well, that's your maximum and we're going to reimburse you at 50% annually until you meet the maximum if you want to go that way as
well. so that you're you're not getting you're not taking as much of a hit when you're trying to provide services as well. I mean $12 is is nothing, but when you're talking about millions of dollars, right? And so it's a it's a way that we can provide it without impacting the city services as well.
>> But I guess what's what is the cap that we would ever rebate back? >> It' be so your maximum be it' be the 12%. That's your over the life of the improvement. It's your 12% cap. about how you get to the 12% cap. You can
choose that say uh 50% I can I can rebate you 50% of the annual amount till you get to the the 12% max. So So a 12% incentive that's that's what it's set up. Now we're we're
seeing what you want. This is just a an example. If you want to do 20% you don't have it. So I think is is that there's multiple percentages and that's where it does get confusing. So the initial calculation or messing the right word to use the initial thing to look at is your pre construction value and then the post
construction and whatever that let's say increases 100 I'm not with numbers someone you'll have to help me with this but let's say it increases your value $100,000 the your base agreement is 12 you'll get 12% of that value. >> Who will get 12%?
>> The builder. So they so they'll only pay 88% of that value >> if that's all they do. If they just do the 12% they don't add those things from that that chart or they don't add additional incentives they'll 12% will is where they minimum they minimum but when you actually pay them within a
within your agreement you'll decide do you want to give them 100% of that in one year. No you want to do a percentage of that percentage and it draws out the payments over time. So you're you the city are still receiving money. It takes longer to pay it back, but that's part
of the agreement that you would work. >> But you can't go above 12. >> Well, you could if you add say if someone's building the property under these guidelines and if this qualifies for the 12%. But maybe they're going to put in a lot of public parking. The share parking was 5%.
>> They would get an additional percentage. >> Well, we can change that too. We can add >> maybe 20% more if we want. >> Yeah. We go through and cuz we can tax the parking if we if they charge. >> These are just numbers and Derrick will correct me. These are numbers I believe he I have seen from other cities. These
are just gathered from other sources. >> What is the max with all with the 12% plus any depends on how many incentives you offer? >> Well, I think it's going to come to you. >> I think you need to have a ceiling. >> Yeah. >> And you see they actually did everything and they determined by us as well. Let's
say you offer all the incentives that are on here and someone comes in and claims they're going to do all of them and you're like, "Great, great project. We sign on the dotted line. They do half of those things that they said they were going to do. They don't get the incentives for the things they don't do, right? If if but so I I would think and just
easy figure and that we would never go any higher than 50%. >> I start there then, right? That's so you start at 12 back. >> You can add on, but once you get to 50% that's your cap. You can't get any more >> subtract instead of add. You mean? >> Well, no. >> 50 income come down or
>> No, I'm saying if you give them 12%, right, of the this $100, right? So, you're getting 12 bucks incentive. Um, they can get a max incentive of 50. So, if they have the $12 base, they provide some shared parking. They get another couple percent. So, it goes to it goes to 14. And they keep adding up, but they
can't get past 50%. So, we're going to get half the tax value. >> What makes 50% the number you have in mind? because I would you think 50 where where does that come from? >> That's something we can determine. It's not a legal this is an example not a legal standing right. So
>> that's all >> it just the way I've come to it is there's no real rationale. It's just it's it's it's the municipality uh investing in the community. It's a developer investing community and we'll
at most go hapsies with them on a tax incentive is kind of way. >> Okay. >> Over the course of >> right over the course of however it's baked out. >> You want to disperse. >> We're going to we're going to always protect at least half of the tax value because we have to service property. So
you you don't want to get too that up as chair over the years. It can increase that. I just that's kind of just >> I just wonder because like looking at this this would have been 26% right 12 and 14 so that >> and it could still be that based on what they >> would be a lot of
>> I'm just thinking if you take his example and they they do more and they actually get to 60 we don't want to allow that we want to cap it at 50 and maybe those maybe all those numbers don't I didn't do the math >> you can make it 50% for two years and then 40% for the next two years too >> and that would be done by limiting how
many add-ons we offer >> right you could you add on add on like you can stack your coupons if you will but once you get to 50% you can't get more off right is kind of the rationale >> and I will say with the agreements I have seen in other municipalities no one selects all the incentives that
it doesn't fit like all those one development don't always go together so it's usually just a handful or a few that they select >> what kind of numbers are we seeing across the state as far as maximums >> I can't answer that I can'tbody know I've only been involved a It's really
like everybody has a different add-on. It seems like the base is around that 12 and 12 half% but the add what you're agreements. We could ask for public records agreements of from different municipalities. That'll be the agreement. But is that what they actually ended up building? You don't know because it changes. So you'd have
to kind of look at the front and then at the end what they actually did. >> Okay. >> Sound like a long meeting. And if we were to approve this anytime soon, they don't just request it. We're on the
hook for it. >> That's correct. It's an entitlement that they can request if they provide these whatever these >> it'll be it'll it'll be, you know, another application that I guess Derrick would be in charge of. They would, you know, bring bring in with what this is what they propose. They would work with city staff and ultimately come to you
for an agreement to agree to what they're asking for. Um because you're also maybe not just looking at the 12% and any add-ons they might any incentives they might sorry add-on incentives they might want to use but you're also looking at that payout later and some people might want to get paid out quicker some might pay out slower
you might want to pay out quicker you might want to pay out slower so ultimately there'll be a written agreement between CRA and the developer before anything happens >> and I I I like the idea of her saying also like 50% but I think it should be
tiered over like said time the the break decreases as they get established the more that help them incentively get established and maybe have it as a maximum 25% after 10 years. Yeah, I think you had the ability to because this is a this is a
a max entitlement or whatever how it how it amortizes over years is is subjective, right? How we >> that's part of that other equation and that that kind of that's one example of that for that equation and basically it's it's separating the total or evenly throughout the number of years or you
could do it a step down to however how you want to do it. And that part of that would be in your discussions would be your developer. You know what they what they're interested in, what you're interested in and getting to that happy spot. >> Yeah. And >> obviously providing something >> and that's something that we have the ability between from developer to
developer to change. >> They can't come back and say well you gave them this way. >> They're all unique. >> But yeah. So but but the percentages that that is set. So everybody can access those different things. 12 if you keep 12% that would >> the dispersement of the funds is can be
all subjective. >> Yes, >> I I like that because yeah, obviously not all projects are different, right? You there may be a huge project you want to you want to provide more help up front or something and less project takes more city services. You might need to taper it and then that's that's I
think the biggest factor in the the payment out after the development is done is what is the city doing at that point? What services need provided? how much money, you know, you can't, you know, we don't want to give you 50% when we need 75% of what's coming in to to take care of the city. So, you have to
take that into consideration. So, each development is going to be different. More developments you have, more services you need. So, that'll always change. >> Going back to the conversation about the fees, building fees and whatnot, which we're it's 3% for building fee, right?
on on millions of dollars is a lot of money >> based on the the >> you were saying that we can't just wave that we would actually have to use CRA to pay in >> there's some there seems to be there's some fees that you can but but there's state fees and things like that so to
get around having to deal with >> the actual the take from the city actually I think we can wave that >> I don't have to look at that but but I've been I've seen where it is the CRA that will pay those fees to for the developer to the whatever agency do they
need to go to so that you're not also hurting your building department at the same time. So essentially your your CRA is paying >> Well, it's a shift of funds. CRA goes to the building department, >> right? Yeah. I wouldn't call it necessarily shift to funds, but yeah, you're you're paying an incentive on
behalf of the developer uh without saying wave because there's some fees that you can't wave. >> Some you can't wave and like Derrick's mentioning, your building department needs those funds to continue being your building department. So you want to make sure they're getting paid. >> Yeah. So and obviously there's a lot of building department work in something like this. Um, I guess the followup to
that and and I think that's that's great. Money stays in house. So, it isn't a real incentive for the for the builder or whatever. It's a shift for us and actually has has us pull out the bill department. But with the building department, that's a that's a separate
type of fund. It's it's um it's gauged on, you know, you can't you can't make money off your building department, right? So let's say you have a big development like this and we we do something fee wise whatever that's a huge amount of cost there. What happens
as we go to to audit that after that realize we took in too much money for this year we have to rebate back. How's that work if we're we've got something because a I can see we're a very large development like we have potentially coming in um would would that would be a
huge influx of cash into the building department. Well, it would be based on whatever, and Derrick's going to correct me or Ron's going to correct me if I'm wrong, whatever whatever development comes forward and needs a permit, a a a fee for that permit is going to be assessed based on whatever the formula
is. >> And if it's a million dollars for that or a $100 for that, that's it's a valid fee based on that development. So, if that money ends up in the building department, even though it may be paid by the CRA or paid by the developer, that's a legitimate
>> Well, I get that. What I'm saying is at the end you got one you got you got the staff that are there that are making a salary. It's it's kind of a fixed cost, right? And as you you know it's kind of based on all the various development happens throughout the city. But if you have one big development come in, you
take 3% of million millions of dollars, right? That's you you you basically your account grows very quickly. >> Yes. And so unless you're bringing on more staff to support it or whatever, >> you can you can the money can stay in the building department as long as it's you have to be for salaries and they
would they'd have to figure out and make sure they know how to >> spend that appropriately and that would be on them to do and with the help of their city manager and their council to make sure it's >> something that they would love a problem we'd love to have. >> Yes.
>> It's not like you can use for anything else. That's saying it's it's building department specific. >> You don't get a raise. I'm sorry. >> But you could build a second floor on top of city hall to house the building. >> Make it. Exactly. >> Improve the building department facilities. >> Okay.
>> Nancy, do are we required to release this information to everybody want to be on your website. That's what I'd recommend. I'd recommend it. Once once you finalize it and it's pretty, as Derrick admitted, it's not pretty yet. Um, it'd be on your CRA website so anyone could see it. >> So, the permit they get along with all
>> it's kind like the grant program. It's out there. It's >> Yeah, >> they get they get they're aware of it. They're made aware of it. >> I mean, I can't I can't promise if someone walks to the door, walks up to that window, whoever's there is going to tell them, I would recommend it be on your website and be advertised. >> That's what I was wondering. Well, you make it available, but they have to look
for it then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You want to push them. That's the point of having this. That's true. The work you're going to put into this and the time you're going to spend to do it, you want it out there and want it to benefit somebody because ultimately it's going to benefit the city. So these the numbers that are in here and these line items or whatever are was
these were these a direct report from Bradon or did you guys massage these? >> Uh that was some of them were direct some of them I tweaked a little bit but really just placeholders uh the the programs the percentages they're all placeholders so you can get an idea of what's possible and what what you can think of what you want your program look
like. >> So we probably ought to um individually kind of go back and you know kind of go through this line by line and kind of >> I need more time. Yeah, there's a lot to consume here. >> Workshop there's a lot more work involved. >> Yeah. And and I I can see probably have
another workshop soon after this kind of bring it back and just have this on. We can kind of dig down and and figure it out what we want. So, >> and I'll say and I think this probably goes to that same make sure it said that the the different um descriptions will be more descriptive than what you see on
your final on your final product. You want to make sure everyone understands exactly what this incentive means. Obviously, they they'll work with staff and >> have questions answered or figure it out, but you don't have to be able to read it and go, "That's exactly what I wanted to do on my project. This is great. Now I can >> What about our code? Would our code have to be updated to reflect this um
language in here?" >> We'll double verify it, but I not that I can >> defin I can't think of anything that the code would require updating to allow it >> or the language for this would come from our code. The the definitions. Yeah, if there's some Yeah, maybe some of the
definitions for um you may have just a little disclaimer in there if there's any any definitions within your final product um that reference the the code or the building code or something like that that that's where the that's that's the definition we would go by. We'll we'll verify that. We'll make sure. >> Okay.
>> You know, I didn't see anything flood mitigation. Okay, never mind. But just talk specifically about the three foot above. You know, when you you think about development, whatever, you got retention ponds and stuff like that they could add in that um could help abate water. Um
>> if it's above code really that's an incentive, right? That's above what they are basically required to do. >> And that's what that >> is that is that with the extension of city water, sewer, storm water, roads kind of is it kind of baked into that? I'm just say if I'm developing something, I'm providing extra flood
retention. >> I I would make that separate actually. Uh, you know, same thing with PFE. Right now, we're down to one. If you go to three, that's an incentive. If you do if you do more water retention than you're required to because you want to make sure you're covered for those extra rainy events, then that would be another
incentive as well. We could probably put to calculate what's required for that particular development. And if they go beyond that, that could be an incentive that they grab on to as well. >> Are seat walls required for new development on waterfront property?
I don't know the answer to that. I don't I don't I don't think so, but I don't know that for sure. >> Are seaw walls required for new development on waterfront property? Not required. That's interesting. >> Should be, >> right? >> I think there has to be some kind of
erosion thing. It has to be a seaw wall. >> Yeah, you have to have erosion. >> You have to be at the microphone. >> Yeah. Come join us. >> Yeah, there's all these empty seats. >> Yeah, there's empty seats here, bro. I told you you get pulled in. Yeah. >> Welcome to the party.
>> Welcome to the party. >> Yeah. You have to have some type of sediment and erosion control on the property, but we don't mandate. >> It could be rip ramp, seaw walls, natural. >> Yeah. >> Living seaw wall, whatever. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Is that one of the um I guess it's
mandatory. So we don't provide >> they're now going to living shorelines now too. So you're going to have a lot of that. You're going to see a lot of seaw walls go away and a lot of natural vegetation out there to break the water and break that. But so do Oh, so we have
um something in here do we for bioills. So if they were to go above and beyond our own requirements for >> then we could incentivize them. >> We could incentivize that too. But that's not in here currently. Yeah. Okay. >> I think there was flood resiliency,
maybe even um um product used in the building of these developments. >> Mhm. >> So that it doesn't wind up in our landfills and stuff. >> So I think >> I guess it would be high enough that it
shouldn't flood. But >> so I guess unless we unless we have any questions on this or Derrick, you have anything else to add? Maybe we kind of take this back, kind of consume it, and then uh plan a separate meeting, come back and reconvene and and kind of hash it out a little further.
>> There's a lot to think about. >> Yeah, it's a it's a great opportunity. >> Anything else on this? >> All right. Thanks, Derek, for leading the cause on this. Uh next up is item number two, changes the residential
grant program. Uh pass that to Mr. King, who who wants to um introduce I can introduce it. I want if you want to introduce it. >> It's up to you. I think I'm >> we're the cause of it being on here, but it may have grown since I we asked for
it to be on here. So, >> you I'll let you present it and then I've got input >> that that that >> maybe that I can add to it because I I spoke and talked with Derek over a few things because he had a few questions for me on thought of what direction we
need to go based on what questions have been asked. Okay, perfect. So, um thank you. The um recent I believe you're seeing this. We'll see what if Dererick changes that um um board member Sullivan brought up the idea of um tweaking the
residential grant program to allow for someone who wants to um utilize the program to not have to pay the $3,000 upfront or $5,000 upfront and get reimbursement rather than not have happening have the city pay the contractor directly. um and she brought
us an example from um Delray Beach CRA to to look at to kind of see how they um have have set it up. Um I've looked at that. I've spoken to the um Delray Beach CRA briefly um one of their representatives. I've sp I've looked at some other municipalities and how they
do it. And it's of course just different anywhere you look. Um everyone has different um economic requirements. Everyone has different values on how much they'll give grants out for. I can tell you that a lot of the obviously municipalities are larger and the numbers are much bigger than what we're
dealing with. Um this is the copy of that. >> I was I was definitely not wanting to match all of their specifics only that direct contractor. Right. >> Um so I so looking at that thank you. >> Looking at that the short answer is can we pay can the can the CRA pay the
contractor directly? Yes. The answer is yes. You can do that. the bigger answer, which is what I'm here for when you start rolling your eyes at me, is it of course becomes more difficult and it opens you up to more legal exposure. So that's what you have to debate and discuss and figure out what what um risk
you're willing to take and what you want it to look like. So I think the the basic example I would say is if you want to make the only thing you want to change is um have an option for um the homeowner to
have the CRA pay a contractor directly. What would be the basic change? You, the CRA, now become the procurement person. That is more work for your staff. Okay. Right now, I believe the homeowner or the applicant has to get three bids and
show the CRA uh grant coordinator, here's my bids and go through that process. And yes, you're ultimately that money is going to them if they follow all those steps. But you are now truly taking your taxpayer money that you're the steward of and paying that out to somebody. So
you are going to be contracting with the cont the contractor. You're going to be doing the bid procedure proceedings. Now it's a low number. So it's not like you necessarily have to maybe get three three bids and give s 15 other RFPs. Yeah, I got his attention. 15 other RFPs to deal with.
>> But if you're dealing with, you know, under, you know, 10,000, your city manager has that authority, but he's still going to have that work to do. So, he's going to have to do the get get the information, look at it, or someone on staff's going to have to look at it and get a contract written up. And obviously, when you get when you every
every contract the city signs, that's one more way to get sued. It doesn't mean don't do it. That's just something you need to recognize. So, that's just a very basic start. And I know you'll have questions. That's one kind that's that's the baseline. And we're on the same sheet of music here because as I looked
at it and we had discussions about it earlier, you know, h how does that occur? And my stance was no, let them do the the bids, let them pay for the work, and then let them get reimbursed after the fact because a lot of the issues,
you know, Nancy addressed, but now we've got liability issues like she said, but we also got the extra additional requirements that we've got to go out with our um DPW team. We actually got to go out and do the code inspection. There's a lot of things that while code
inspection is part of the final piece to make sure that what they built is is is is acceptable, but it's going to put a a lot more work for us to actually go out there. There's going to be some supervision, some oversight, some
quality control because now we own the project. It's the the the resident doesn't own the project. and if there's issues with with the the the bid the project now we're the ones fighting through that. Whereas for me, it'd be
great if, you know, the resident who wants this, you know, puts in the bid, gets three lowest, pays up front, gets it, and if there's if there's disagreements between the the contractor and the resident, they resolve that before the payment is made because
that's a civil issue. That shouldn't be a legal issue for the city. So, it becomes a civil issue for them to solve. Once that's solved, then we come in, we do our assessment, we pay the bill. >> This
um Delray thing um I know you said you would end up piggyback off of it. There is >> only only >> there is almost nothing in here I agree with. >> No, I only want to piggy back off of this. But like he said, what happens is if
you're if you're paying the money, then all of a sudden the property owner isn't in charge of the job. >> The changes, the money, the people that they're working with, in some cases, the
people that are hired, it all changes when somebody else is putting that money out. And you know, most of these companies, they don't get paid until the job's finished anyway. >> Okay. If I can interject for a minute. We have $100,000 that we pay out
annually, $5,000 per household. We are not servicing the households that need this money the most. >> This money is going to the higher income households because they are the only ones that have the $5,000 to put out. I've talked to numerous people about this and I put it online. I received a
lot of feedback. Not enough. It was only from yesterday, but I've talked to numerous people where I've went around and tried to help people get this $5,000 and nobody has the $5,000 for the houses that need it the most. >> So, right now we're subsidizing
um that we are we're taking $100,000 from our C every year and we're giving it to our wealthiest residents that have $5,000. Well, and that I think it was when I first started here, there was a income threshold and that was removed.
So, if that's a concern, that may be the next topic. Maybe >> not not throwing your your first question away. Let's keep talking about that. But maybe the other question is, do we need to put back that that level of income? >> That's not even even that um I'm going
to uh help you out here. think even with income threshold, it's still um I think to Christine's point is if you if you don't have an income threshold where you you you have access to that $5,000 for $5,000, right? Um if you don't have
$5,000 to to outlay out front, doesn't matter if somebody's going to reimburse you, you can't get it done. So I the the real goal here and and and I appreciate this and I and I think it's something we we need to try to figure out >> how to how to do this in another way
that achieves the goal. And the goal is is we don't want our poorest individuals with with with uh things they need to do to their their property. They just can't do it. Even if the you know, hey, spend $5,000, I'll give you $5,000. You know, I ain't got the money to eat every week.
So, um, is there some I mean, and I and of course I from the city perspective, I get that too. You know, we don't want to be, uh, doing all the contracting and all that. We just want to reimburse when it's done. Um, so that gap does exist. That being said, is there some other
vehicle whether we provide some kind of um and and and maybe um when I think about I reach out to a a contractor to do let's say my to to paint my house and it's going to cost $5,000 and I don't have it. Um I'll get
reimbured but I don't have it to get it done. It's going to beautify the the property. Um it's it's a win-win for everybody, but I've got that gap there. um the painter. Is there some way that the city could um back the job? Not direct payment, but so
that the painter knows that hey, this is being reimbursed. You're going to get your money. Um once it's finished um and it's more of a more of a promise, which is what we're really doing in the res. We're promising to reimburse >> contract. You're going to be part of
>> they follow. But other cities are doing this contract and and it bothers me that as a poorer city that we can't do this for our resilated sighting. >> You absolutely can do it. It's a product of of
>> you guys making that decision and directing your staff to figure out how to implement it. >> My job is just to tell you it can be done. Here's here's the pros and cons. The pros are obviously obvious. It's going to help help people. Um the con is it's going to have more city staff involved, more city staff time and it
does expose the liability because that's >> the liability is 5,000 per pro per project. So what is the actual liability of when that breaks down to how many of those projects really go bad when we have a building inspector or somebody
who is going to be inspecting the project after it's completed before we make a payment? Well, in your your lawsuits, if there and I'm not saying they're going to have any, but it wouldn't necessarily become because it's something was built wrong, but let's say you contracted for paint and it's done and now the person that owns the home
said, "That's not the color I wanted. That's the color you told me." Boom. We have a disagreement. People aren't. >> You can you can wave away. It doesn't matter. They can still sue you for real. >> I'm not saying it's a good a reason not to do it, right? >> I'm saying just know that's a that's an
exposure. And if you guys want that program to happen, you get that direction and staff staff will do what they can to figure out how to implement. >> Is there is there a a less um risky >> I have been racking my brain. I haven't >> Can I provide kind of a solution for
that? >> Sure. >> We keep the policy as is, >> but we what we do is we allow for exceptions to policy for those in low income um windows. So they can come in and request it knowing that they can't pay for it with with a an exception
policy. And then we work with them to with their contractor to be able to say, "Hey, this is the work that with the resident, hey, this is the work that needs to be done. Once it's complete, let us know. We're going to come and inspect. We'll pay you." And kind of work that as our exception to policy.
That's what I initially said though when I was told that in the initial meeting where I brought this up that it would have to be across the board for everybody every it would we would have to give equal access to that option but I'll take it you could work your policy to be certain and again this comes back
to an income level because that's really the issue part of the issue so maybe your policy is a certain and >> I would love to base >> quite a few of the municipalities I looked at they have different levels of grants partial grants full grants all that's based on income level So, >> so there might be some way to draft your
policy would have to change to a degree. >> Sure. >> That might be a way to do that. So we would be able to release for if if a person came to us demonstrated that they really they they don't have the ability to kick the project off or whatever that we could release funds pre
>> I would say we work with the contractor not to pre-release it but to coordinate with them that on completion and inspection that they would be paid unless the contractor for some reason has is is not set up well as a business and has to go pre- buy all the material and then
>> show up with it and build it. >> Well, we still contract one >> contract. Yeah. >> If I was if I was if I ran the world, which I don't, I would want you to have a contract with that contractor for those specific. >> It protects you. It protects them. >> Yeah. And that's what with the exception of policy, that's something that we
would do with them. >> But if we if we were to take the contractor portion out of it, obviously we're going to we're going to find I mean, they're getting three bids. They're they're showing that they're they sign a contract or whatever. So, we know that's happening because they can provide that to us. And all we do is
let's let's just use an example that in order to do this $5,000 worth of work, they need 2,000 upfront. All right? Obviously, it's going to be paid when it gets done, but there's always they want half up front or something else. So, let's just let's just say 2500. They want half up front. Um, we aren't
dealing with a contractor, but because we this individual has demonstrated to us that they are unable to do that. Um, we're aware of all the details that uh if we approve it that we can actually release that $2,500 uh payment to the homeowner
on the front end instead of back end >> and that um with a caveat that is if something happens to the project or whatever and it doesn't go through completion or whatever that they're on the hook for that and then we lean the property. >> You need a contract >> with with a home though. contract.
>> Why? Why? Why release a contractor that may walk away with your city $2,500? >> Well, it's it's it's a if it if they do that, it's on home tax, right? That's taxpayer money that you're going to let you're just going to you're going to hand over and and tell the the homeowner
who might be the one getting the short end of the stick when the contractor walks away and you're going to sue the homeowner when you should be looking at the contractor. That's who just violated that agreement. >> Can we have have unless you have a written agreement with >> have a list of preferred contractors and we can't refer people to them but can we
have like a list I don't think they should be told who to hire >> no a list where they >> I mean that's part of my problem with this it was so restrictive on right >> who who could be hired on um the city approving
the job the city approving the plant it's just that was not what >> she's just trying to still take >> I was trying to say this can be done. Yeah. Not that we had to follow this. >> No. Well, that's the piece looking at this >> and the piece you like that's in there
part of part of the reason that piece can happen is because all that other stuff's happening because it's truly a procurement by the city and it and the and the Delray Beach CRA actually found out the city pays it. The CRA doesn't pay it. CRA physically hands the money over, but it's all it's all city backed. It's not even the CRA, which was
interesting. I didn't ask questions because >> well so at the end of the day how do we help our our poorer people >> who who >> fix up their properties that we want them to fix up >> right you you say you want to do >> and otherwise why are we helping the wealthier people to fix up their properties when they have the money
themselves and that that keeps coming up so I think that's >> but everybody should have the op everybody that lives in the city should have the I I don't agree with that if you live here then then you should be available to to put in for them.
>> Yeah, I agree with that, too. I mean, >> you know, just because >> I pay taxes, they pay taxes. >> I'm not I'm not saying that I I want it gone. I'm just saying we have to provide a way for the people who don't have the money to get >> I agree with you, but you also want to wipe out them do have any more money,
which happens all the time to anybody that has money. They don't get any. I'm just saying it is only benefiting those who have a large a much larger amount of money than our poorer residents which are all over our city. If I may,
>> do do we like the idea suggested by your city manager of maybe implementing some kind and it would it would have to it would I think it would have to include some kind of a income threshold to do this that if you're you meet a certain level then you may qualify for the program where wherein we are we are
helping with the contractor which would be agreements between the city and the contractor and that third that homeowner and the city's facilitating those payments. If you don't meet that lower threshold because you can pay the 5,000 to get the 5,000 >> or whatever,
you wouldn't qualify for that part of the program. You'd actually like there's two different programs. >> I would agree to that without restricting anybody that did have from from the same amount, >> right? What's that? I missed the last. >> Yeah, that I think is a great idea. >> And that you could do on the income
thing, but I don't think you should say well you you are allotted. >> You can get this much money, but you can't. all the city. We all pay taxes. We all >> Yeah. The income threshold, and correct me if I'm wrong, the way we used to have it is is if you once you exceeded the
income threshold that uh excuse me, $1,000, but it's $5,000. Um you would have to basically spend $10,000 on a project to get $5,000. >> There was a matching grant. >> It was a it was a match. Whereas if you were under the threshold, you could just
do a $5,000 project and get $5,000 back. So it was basically 50% reimbursement >> up to the same amount, >> but you had to spend more to get it if you were in >> a wealthier person. That's how it used to be. >> But then you get that those people that are right there in the middle. They you
know they're not the wealthy people. >> Well, it's not wealthy. It's it's poverty. >> Say yeah. Well, I'm saying you still you got to think about all the people that are right there in the middle, too. And that'll affect them. >> They really those people in the middle. >> I wasn't even going to push that part of
it. I got very little response from the general public, but the residents about that um as far as the matching grant part, people just weren't interested. But people do want help being able to paint their homes, repair their homes. >> I agree with that part. >> That's all that's all I really wanted.
>> I thought you were No, no, no, no. >> And and I don't like it at all. >> So the consensus staff look into that idea of kind of two different how Yeah. And the and the only concern that I have is here here's something that we're going
to have to deal with. If if when we do the except exception of policy, there's got to be rules and regulation in place because what I don't want to do is, hey, they meet the threshold, we're just going to give them $5,000 and they're going to go out and contract somebody to do it and they decide not to do any of
that and they decide to take that $5,000 and go put a down payment on a new car. >> I will say >> I don't want to do that. I I I would say this as well because the way that it's set up now, I get I get three estimates. I don't have to take the lowest one. I can take the highest one. It's still so
but I think if I think if the city engages from the perspective we are, we're going to look at those. I think we need to No, you don't like that. >> I don't like that either. >> I don't think they have to take the low because those assuming this works and you have this exception or are a separate program to fit this particular
set of circumstances. It's going to be the city making the selection. Right. So, they're they're they're going to have their information. It's under the the city procurement threshold for bid requirements. But, of course, you're going to want to, you know, ask a couple different people, how much you going to charge to paint this house? And the
city's going to have to make that. >> Somebody shows up and, you know, old Peter truck, whatever, and they got they got to borrow your ladder and they're the lowest bid >> or you get the guy the next guy who has his own ladder and but that city's going
to make you take the first guy. >> Yeah. Let me take that back on the lowest bit that I think if you if you don't have the the money to do it yourself upfront with a reimbursement agreement and you have to have the city
basically go out and and and make those payments for you or whatever. I think you have to have the city select. >> Yeah, you you may want to use the top dog, but the city looks at the three and says, "Well, no, I'm I don't like the lowest one, but I'm not we're settled here in the middle, and this is the one
we're going to go with." I I think you have to let the the person that's actually on the hook for the payment. >> I would say even the city should be the one asking for the bids the the votes because it's >> and we would want to use I mean I think we need to it's it's a selection process right for those people and we wouldn't
we wouldn't pick the the guy in the beater truck borrowing people's ladders or whatever because he wouldn't be credentialed and and >> license all like that. >> Um >> well mayor the one I was asked this question by Derek. He gave me a whole list of questions. Basically, it's
everything that you're discussing right now. And I gave direct feedback and input if I was the guy that had to make decisions on it. When it comes to vendor, my response is allow them to have vendor choice as long as it doesn't exceed $5,000 because that's what you're giving them. So, if they want to hire
the top guy to do whatever project they're doing and they want to maximize that $5,000 for their project, by all means. um if they want to take that $5,000, find a lower bidding contractor so that they can do more with that
$5,000, by all means. What I want to do is give the the the the resident the option of how they want to invest that money into their property. Um, as long as, and I think the big thing is as long as it meets the guidelines in which this
grant is being provided, aesthetics, repair for those certain items, and not to be used as a home loan grant that, you know, people are using to remodel their house, getting the the the $5,000 every year, and before you know it,
they've got a huge fence around their house, they got a new pool and things like that. So that's my only concern with it is give them the vendor choice but with the use of the actual program just kind of monitor the program so I don't have Sally or Fred
every every year and before I know it their projects that I'm observing aren't within the scope and now they've taken that and abused the whole process and now they've just created an entire >> So that's it's the abuse of and you it's rampant in government all the time when
when you put these plants out there is people gain the system. And so what I don't want to put into place because what the goal is to help our very noble goal we should do that. That's what we exist for. >> Um but what we don't want to do is put
something out there with with um that's not um well managed and well um regulated to allow somebody come in and say, "Okay, well I want to paint my house. um buddy I know do it for 5,000.
I get another bid from a replica of his 3,000 and and I tell the city and I ain't got the money. I'm need city that hey I want I want you know this guy to do it for the $5,000 and we write the check and we know that it's it's too much for the job. You see what I'm saying? You open yourself up to
basically wasting taxpayer dollars and that's not >> and that's why that decision ultimately needs to come back to the city. So, we have to have some oversight into who's been selected, >> not because we want to take away choice, but because they take away their choice when they aren't able to.
>> And I know you always say, you know, you aren't against putting your thumb on people about I wouldn't want somebody's thumb on my project. >> No, that's not the goal. >> It wouldn't be on yours. It would only be on the person who needs the help. It's either >> to say I don't need help.
>> Well, okay. I I don't I don't mean that. What I mean is a person a person who needs $5,000 from the city might not have the freedoms to choose that a person who doesn't need 5,000, but
they're getting $5,000 from the city. >> I'm not against helping people at all. I'm just I want to make sure that we do it in a way that you are not that now you have not taken over their project for their own home. >> No, I don't >> I don't like And I agree with you,
right? I agree. You know, >> what is this 5,000 really going to cost? >> I think I think really if you ask these people >> me being able to say what to do with my home. >> I do think if you went out and talked to these people, they just want to paint their house. They want to fill the holes in their siding. They want the roofs.
They want the tarp off their roof and they don't have the money. I don't think they're worried about these little things that we're worried about right now. >> Well, maybe if they had >> I think we should look out for that part of them, too. >> Okay. Well, not just the part you need the money, but the fact that we believe
you can make your own decisions. >> Yeah, 100%. And I and there there has to be a happy medium in there. >> And I understand the liability of it. So, there's got to be some way to work it together so that that people can get their projects done without restricting
them to the city doing it doing it. >> But the grant that we're offering is $5,000, right? >> So, I like it's not it's not it's not like Well, you're only doing 3,000. We're going to give you 3,000. It's a $5,000 grant that we're providing them. Let
them paint their house. And if there's residual and there's other things that they can fix, have the opportunity to do that because that just benefits them. >> That's wrong, isn't it? It's the amount of >> currently I wanted to disappoint my question. So, we this fiscal year
awarded 10 grants and all but one the project value has been beyond the $5,000. And so that's when we verify that you've gone past the 5,000, you're capped at 5,000. Your project may be 6,000, but you only get 5,000. On the
flip side, your project may be 4,670. You're going to get 4,670. When we do direct payment, my question is on a project that's $10,000, we direct pay $5,000. How do we navigate the amount due with the contractor? Because we are we maxed out on our
contribution. How does that >> I I think I you probably have to have the the the the additional for the 5,000 shown that it's going to be paid. Maybe we we take it in or something. >> They're really quick at doing the inspections
>> and then come and give it and then pass it out the check. They're really quick at that. It isn't like a contractor's waiting a >> very He's He's on top. >> It was like a couple days for me. So, what I'm thinking is that so I I'm a I'm a homeowner that can't afford the
upfront. So, I'm going to go with this proposed new idea that the city is going to direct pay $5,000. However, my pro the project with the contractor is $6,000. How do we navigate the amount that's going to be due that $1,000? How how do we want to navigate that? Because
right now >> they would have to pay to have most the safest way, the only way I can think of is not I mean it'd be great if we all could just trust each other and know it's going to get paid. You would need a contract that involves every all three parties and saying 5,000 coming from the city upon completion and inspection and
all the things that we require and the remaining will be due by this other individual and they're a party of that contract. >> Yeah. I mean you have you have projects all the time that they're estimated Whoops. >> We just had a road project we had to pay additional what for? We had to dig deeperous. >> Yeah. So I mean what happens in that
situation? And if the project is over $5,000 and they need and the contractor needs $3,000 down, the resident portion should be paying >> that should go directly towards that
first with us only covering what? Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So my so my thing is >> hopefully with this grant and with the information and the product they put together, they've determined that, hey, $5,000 from below is going to fix my
project. And I've gone to a contractor. I've talked to him. This is this is the this is the quote he's given me and the quote he's going to operate off of. Now if we get in a situation where like it's $6,000 $7,000 and you got on that one
it's exceeds the threshold of the grant resident pays the the the remaining of that because we did our part for that grant piece. Now the fact that it exceeded we're not involved with that. I mean
that's that's a civil issue between the contractor and the resident. Almost every job is more than what it starts. Almost every job I've ever had, it's more than what it started. >> And that's what we got to prevent those hidden costs. And that's when what I when I deal with contractors, it's like
first question I ask, what are the hidden costs? Because you're not going to take me take advantage of me in the process of doing project X. So at the end of the day, we're done with this. This is all you're getting. What you what you guaranteed me for the project. I don't
care if you got to buy more paint. I don't care if you got to buy more brushes or a new ladder. We've agreed upon this and that should be, you know, a legal binding agreement between the two parties. >> You see that that was one of the things there is like that change order. >> Yeah.
>> This was misinterpreted. This was only supposed to show that yes, this can be done because originally we were hearing that you can't do this. It's not legal. This was only to show that it can be done. We can't pay direct payment back. And I was like, absolutely not. No,
>> that's what this meeting was for. So, I'm sorry for that. >> So, it sounds like to me that we're all we're all in agreement that we we we want to help folks that can't can't necessarily come up with the money up front. And it sounds like we want to
also mitigate the risk for the city. >> What if we have prominent business people in in the city that may want to have a tax write off? Maybe they can help with this too, possibly. >> That's probably so separate issue, right? But, uh, by all means, that'd be
great if they if they're in so soon, >> if they're listening. >> Yeah. >> And those are those are those are discussions that I'm having right now, mayor, is that, hey, if I can borrow your money to you, you're all in on this community. You love this community. You want to support this community. How
about, you know, assisting, you know, areas where it would benefit you to be a part of that solution and pay for it, not get me involved with it and let me allow me to use my budget more judicious in those projects that one,
you spend some money on this person. Well, in the same breath, you're going to you're going to save me money. And at the end of the day, the projects that I may be working on for the council, they benefit this business owner in the long run far better than the donation he made. >> We could apply tax incentives through
the CRA that is on that list also if they're willing to help lowincome housing in the city. So, they get a tax incentive plus they get a tax write off >> for doing that for just a plan that we have for lowincome housing. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, if we have organizations that would uh play the
middleman for this, that's that's probably an option, too, right? They >> look into it. >> And we >> we don't we don't we don't direct pay the contractor. We just reimburse your paperwork and your coverage for your the city and what agreements you can draft. >> Well, it suits everybody satisfaction,
>> right? Because we're not talking about a lot of money every year. So if we had somebody that was willing a middle middle ground business, something that could cover our our out of pocket, >> you know, upfront cost first, be
reimbured later to keep the contractor and us out of um contract with each other. >> They would be put in the same position. >> I can't see somebody wanting to. It has that's that's another party to the the mix of what could go wrong.
>> I don't know about there's there's organizations that fix places up that do that right >> for humanity and they do it without getting anything. So if there's arrangement they they come in subsitting they get reimbursed for that talking about nonprofit >> and we're not talking about the majority
of these projects going wrong. We're talking if if if any went wrong, it would be probably very small because out of the 100,000, the bulk of these are probably going to homes that we're already down 60,000 for the year. Have
any been low income properties? Do would you say? >> We don't track that. >> But I mean, I've only had really one problem with a homeowner and a contractor delayed the process, but they eventually I I uh assisted in them getting along to get the process going. Yeah, >> we so for unassigned funds we have
35,339 and 666. >> Yeah. So we are we're already down 60,000 for the year. None of which required that $5,000 >> the new fiscal year. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> 60 grand. So yeah, we so of unassigned have four projects working right now.
There's $35,339.60 left to assign for the program. >> So none of those require the the 5,000. So we're talking a risk of now 35,000 if the remainder of the 100,000 went only to the people who required the help from
the city. So we're talking a very small portion of the 100,000 actually going to remain this year. Obviously whatever you put in place goes on and on and on. Right. >> No, I know. Or you could we could have a percentage basis that >> people with money know how to find money and they're very aware of the program
and they're snatching it up fast >> trying to get money to people who aren't aware of how to get it because they don't have the means >> to to even search for money because they don't have the means to you know put any money out to get the benefits of what
they can't pay themselves >> right now. I hear direction from you to staff and myself to do what we can do to come up with some kind of a new plan program subset of a program and bring it back for consideration. It's >> all good.
>> Darren, if you had specific questions, is there anything hanging out? >> The remainder was just that interaction between the amount due. Uh that was I think we covered about everything else. I do have. So we would we would probably implement this mid
mid fiscal year then or we want to wait until next fiscal year. How do >> I mean I would think as soon as possible any houses a lot of these smaller homes with the lower income people are really falling apart. If you look if you drive around you'd see de holes in siding
dilapidated siding. I mean like just paint just falling off roofs that are tarped. I don't I don't unless there's something you can say is there is there problem actually doing it once we make an agreement and actually >> codify it that it's effective immediately or we have to wait till
another plan year >> is is it >> the question was is will we will we do it >> I I think you can start it whenever you get your new policies and procedures in place >> once we figure out what it is immediately >> the new program then will only have 30 that $30,000 to work with
the time it might be it might be done It's going to be >> so for expectations for the public, you know, you know, and it might become more popular that it'll dwindle down a lot faster. And we talked about that during the the budget uh cycle. So, we'll probably we'll have to amend the whole program then. So, we'll have to you have
to add that in there to refresh the whole program and then get it in front of the board for approval because of course everything has to get approved by >> we can always look too if reallocate money to add to it or whatever. I mean, >> what about even like allocating 50,000
to the lower income housing or $50,000 to the non low income housing. >> Mean locking it in first. >> Yeah. Locking it in and then if it isn't used by certain dates then you can start pulling from either one. That way it
limits the city's risk to the $50,000 and then of course of the of that 50 not every project is going to go bad and wind up in a lawsuit. So you're really mitigating the risk to half and then much lower than that. Where are you going to pull that money from? >> I think in your plan you it does talk
about affordable housing. So you could go from that angle is an affordable housing type of program as well because that's one part of the plan we haven't really touched on. So it' be nice to be able to touch on it however we can if you so with the CRA we have to allocate everything every year. We can't have a savings account and so you'd have to
pull from another program. doesn't mean we're necessarily like right now spending from that program, but we do have to show where every penny is going into. And then of course that always changes, you know, upon the boards >> and and even, you know, in in parallel with the grant, I mean, there's things
that we can do on the CRA that fit the same bill because if I if I read the CRA correctly, that allows for those activities that, you know, the uh grant allows for. Correct.
Are you talking for home improvements? >> Exterior improvements. Yeah. So, specifically it talks about exterior improvements. It there also talks about affordable housing and so we don't again just like lower income >> just like the business incentive program. it's in the plan, the program, the affordable housing portion. Maybe it
starts with this, you know, as a as and it can grow and you can kind of put it under the affordable housing part and and even you could probably even in that portion go a little bit beyond what the exterior residential grant calls for because really that's just for your
exterior where an affordable housing program might be able to touch on a few other things that that current program can't. Mhm. >> because I I think we can provide a pretty good, you know, option to council. Um my biggest concern is how do we educate
those that need it because they're not on the internet. They're not researching this. They're not they're not actively pursuing repairs to the house. >> Well, I mean I mean face to face content the best on our digital >> on our digital. >> Hopefully they're reading it when they
go. But but that I think that's the the the bigger thing is how do we communicate this to them so that they know it's available so they can actively >> you know apply for it. >> Mail out. >> No I I don't know. I don't I don't know about that
>> other than going door todo now. Well, so >> and a lot of it's going to be word of mouth, too, because once one of these neighbors because I I am talking in in in what I'm deal dealing with right now with the residents I'm talking to, it's a very specific area and it is going
downhill bad and it goes downhill for us all the time. So I have been talking to those residents and telling them about the programming and you just see their eyes glaze over and then we get to the point of you know they don't have the money to get reimbursed you know
>> but we got when we build an exception policy and then we provide >> but then word of mouth when one can get their house painted you know >> that's what's going to be in line >> right it's going that it is going to spread around that area >> the usage of the program in general has
taken off just on these numbers was here because when we originally you guys weren't here, but when we changed that, took the income threshold out of it, it was that was the reason we did that because we weren't spending the money. Nobody was complying for the grants. Well, so now so and maybe it's more more fluence was doing it. But um regardless,
>> can I can I ask the neighborhood because you know there's other things too. We can we work on sidewalk streets, you know. So what neighborhood are we? >> It would be the the chapel area. >> Okay. all that behind between Grand and Washington that whole >> we can have enforcement go out there
too. >> I mean I don't know if sending officials a lot of these people aren't really keen because their homes aren't up to par right now anyway. So for code enforcement or anybody from the city to show up at the moment might not be invited. So I'm I'll just go talk to
>> they're back there. I'm telling you, they're back there off chapel working at night and >> all of them are these some of these residents and and I'm not just talking about that. I'm saying in that >> but I'm telling you they're back there working on stuff when code enforcement
is not >> because they have no money. They're they're these people in situations >> say some of the places that need it that that's a thing. When code enforcement shows up, they could give them a flyer and say, "Hey, do you know?" >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Do you know? Look, you
got a hole in your sighting here. Do you know here >> that should be part of the the code enforcement process. >> So, you know, that's twofold. The code enforcement should be seeing these things, >> right? >> And if he's them, he can he can, you know, he can be bad news, good news. Which do you want first?
>> Sure. If it go first visit's good news, right? >> Hey, we see that you guys need help. >> Here's a program that'll help you. And if they don't apply for it, you know, we go back 60 days later >> if this program isn't burned up by then
because if we're gonna start, you know, like >> they'll know to do it for the next year, >> right? >> But I would hate to site them in between like we're trying to get this going and then the money runs out and then we're we're back on that. We're back at their door going, "Well, you missed the
program, but hey, you know, now now I've exposed them. I want to help. >> You have another question. I had a suggestion before and I I just wonder if you could maybe remind me. Uh we have a >> request of three contractors.
>> So say we have a contractor over on Chapel >> that a homeowner liked and of course they're licensed bond and insured and they're willing to do paint, put a door on front of their house at a certain say $4,700. So that's good. So they're
saying, "Well, we can do that on other houses if we want to work with the city." And all the homeowners say, "Yeah, that would be great. They like him, too. Can't we use that contractor on other neighbors in that house under that plan that you want to do because we know they're going to do good work?
>> They're they're licensed, bonded, and they're reputable." >> Well, until he doesn't, right? Until >> Well, they can always put their signs in the yard and then >> Well, why do they have Why do they have to do the three bids >> if the they're preferred? We we recognize and they want to use them. We like them. They they do good work.
They're responsible. They like them. They want them to do the work that they want done. >> Can we do that? So we I mean that way they'll go get paid. >> It's good business to get more just >> for anybody. It's good business to get more than one. >> But is it believe me I when you're doing
a project you find out all kinds of things might >> hard it was for me to get three bids for tree removal last year. Like it took me months to get that process done because people said they would come. They never came. People came, they never sent me a bid. They I would I would reply again.
They would say they had email it to me. It never happened. I I went through just >> Well, if the homeowner wants to get three beds for his his own preference, that's fine. >> But maybe they don't want to. They like the contract. >> You might you might have somebody that
you've already used before that you trust. So I hear you on both ways on this. >> I would equate it to a state vetted contractor. It's like for us in municipalities, if there's a state vetted contractor, we don't have to get any bids. And so if he's a city vetted
contractor, licensed insurer, does the work, good work. Is there any way that we can do that? >> There's many questions and there's different answers. Your first question was, do you have to have three? Right now, your program requires three, >> right? I was just wondering >> because if you're staying at this this
threshold, >> if you're if you're if it morphs to where the city is going to be doing the procurement, the thresholds are the city's procurement policies. $5,000 and under $10,000 and under, I think it's within his spending authority, you don't have to have the three bids. Is it good
practice? >> Probably. Well, I said good practice and then I I can't be straight. >> So, yes. I mean, it is good practice, but okay, let's say I had a project and then I got all my my bids. I got five, you know,
and I pick somebody and I like that work. So, a couple years go by. Who am I going to call? I don't want to go get now. Now, I agree with Bob. So, I don't want to go get three bits because I already know who I want because I trust them. I've worked with them before. I I
know they're >> worked with them before and they're reputable. >> So, >> but is that a constraint we want to put on the residents? Because that's up to them. >> We're putting a a a city municipal restraint on them to get three bids.
>> Right. >> Yes. >> Because that's something we've got to do is that's something that we do. >> That's my point. Right now, your your policy for the residential grant program requires three bids. If you morph this to include what we're talking about the exception or the
separate program or the affordable housing program whatever we're going to do with it whatever we're going to call it if it's that the monetary threshold is not changing even though the city is now going to be part of that selection process the city is not required to get three bids because of the num the value
so you don't have to it's your choice >> what if we you know strike a happy medium here and we because three bits can be cumbersome >> maybe we just take down two bits so we don't do just do Well, as a homeowner, you can get 10, >> right? >> Right. You can get as many, >> but in order to satisfy the grant, you
can at least have to >> because I got more than I got more than the normal three for my projects because So, yeah, you can get as many as you want, but you're right. >> We don't tell them who to pick. When they get to three bids, we don't tell them who to pick. Like, I got windows.
There was contractors from 8,000 to 50,000 >> plus, >> and they didn't tell me who to pick. I'm only getting 5,000 as long as it was done right. And under >> it seems the thing with me since we don't really care. It's really just you just at the box to check. You pay it whoever you want. So
>> that's just part of your your current program. >> I think maybe maybe we we try to make that less restrictive. But we can recommend too, but not required. >> You should get you should get as many as you want, but in order to qualify for a grant, you got to have at least two. And I think I
>> and then you can use as like >> she has his neighborhood on chapel >> and they want someone wants windows, someone wants doors, they all need paint and there's contractors reputable been doing that and he's because it's conven he can do all these houses and if they all like it he's licensed bond insured
he's reputable. We can say well maybe they come up with $500 deposit with this guy. He's okay with that. We'll pay him when it's done. They don't have to come up with money if whoever they choose has to be licensed. We don't even release it to anybody not licensed. Right. >> Oh, it's got to be >> depends what kind of work because that's
going to >> because the permit is going to require that, >> right? Well, well, in the in the in the grant, you can do it yourself and you're not licensed, bonded, or insured. >> That's right. You'll get repaid, but >> if it's done to code, >> I have an idea.
You said he could go and do all of these houses and I thought of the signs that they put in the yard. What if the city came up with a sign that said that this project was paid for by >> um CR res? >> No, I'm saying if they agreed to it. We
don't just put it out there if they don't like it. But, you know, they if they want their neighbors to get the same thing done or get the message that they can to get windows or paint or whatever, then they can agree to have a dollar work. >> Yeah. Or your CRA dollars that work just
like the big dread thing right next to all the old people. >> That's a good idea. A contract, >> you know, and then it puts the message out there like, "Oh, well, they got some that house looks better and I need this." And >> that's a good idea. >> Yeah. Just a few signs.
>> So I'll put you on that sign design. That was design. >> I think there are signage contracts. >> I think I think making a journal too because you know you never know different you know situations that neighbor might not qualify. So by doing general this you know completed by CRA
should perk up maybe a QR code to the website so they can look and see what's >> and we just put it there you know a week or two after the project's done. Just like the other advertising and moving around city as a project >> temporary you you have what you need. I think I have what I need. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're good with that. All
right. Anything any other ideas that you want to throw out before we leave you and we'll bring it back? >> Uh well, there was one other aspect of it was the income threshold. You want to stay off that for now? Just >> do that. There was no interest. >> Okay. All right. Well, that's the case. I think
>> before you adjourn, can I be done by >> Yeah. Well, so >> I just wanted to >> So I want to I want to close board business now and I move to comments from the board. But before we do that, I'll >> Yeah. Right. Before just on this subject on just to let you know the reason why we've done three quotes in the past is
to pretty much mirror the city's policy. >> So anything above $2,500 to you know city employees whatever they're purchasing also gets three quotes for whatever they're going to purchase and then goes on to approval and whatnot. So that's just one of the reasons just for transparency and it's it's it's been
>> and within the law too your your CRA both indicate that. So you know just talk about under 10,000 is city manager discretion but with internally your policy is if it's more than 2500 you'll call three painters and give the city manager
here's this information. Okay. >> Yeah. Currently up $2,500 is a department head's discretion. So $2,500 and under but anything above that they have to get three quotes. >> Okay. >> And that purchase policy intern, you know, >> that's that's their internal policy has been part of us. That's what they want. >> So I think the question is is that is it
legal for us to reduce that requirement? >> As I'm reading it, you know, we the CRA has to mimic the procurement policy of the city. So you almost have to change the procurement policy of the city then. >> Well, I don't do that. So >> well, what can we turn? I'm with you. I think that
the application process needs to be executed and followed as as we have designed it for the program >> because one that's going to give us the information. and it's going to give us the the person is going to give us kind of the income requirements and then if
they have an exception the policy attached to it. You know, we're able to vote and make those those those good decisions as far as, you know, giving these individuals the money so that they can fix their property. But I
I think what's key is, you know, kind of holding that um application process kind of, you know, intact because if if if we take away from it, we're kind of taking away from
requirements that one protect us and and and requirements that allow us to identify those in need for those projects and programs. we can change you know like I said nothing is set in stone it's just just to remember that if we reflect the change on the CRA we have to
reflect it you know for this you know policy that way the state sees that you know is also transparent and they can see why we came up with that change so and this was al this was described you know this was described to us during our audit process a few years ago so they just any policy changes that you make
should reflect to your you know to your code and and charter changes so that way they're pretty much aligned >> can we when a resident comes to us and says that they want to start this process for this grant. Can we
indicate can we in any way let them know that if you have any trouble obtaining the three bids we have a list of qualified >> that's what I've been doing >> so we can give you >> so when I go I go over to the building department say hey can you give me what
you have registered for roofs or for concrete and I provide that >> thank you not endorsing anybody it's just here's the names here I didn't have that when I did my trees of course trees isn't a named thing, but mine were dangerous and super tall in between the houses. But anyway, um I had
to educate everybody, all of the um the contractors, I guess, on the program so that they'd understand it. So, having that in place where you can bypass that. >> Yeah. The biggest delay I've been coming
up with is is the contractors, you know, they're forgetting to call in for their final permits. Some homeowners are taking the approval of the grant as the approval for the project and and while they want run concurrently the the permitting process and the grant process are separate
separate. Now the grant process closing watches the permitting process because we they will not get a a check until that permit is closed. That's I know the building officials okay the project and then we go out too and take photos as well to make sure. >> Right. A lot of these contractors, they
hear that thing and they have to get a notorized form and all that, then they drop off. So, you're left trying to get another one. So, those lists will be beneficial. Do you have tree guys on the list now? >> I don't think we had too many. And I guess it depends on how they are they
show up in the system >> and if they're landscaping, do they do trees, too? I think I run into that sometimes. >> I think I was good. Okay. So, I'll move on to comments from the board. Start with member Hubard.
>> No, I not at this point. >> Member Burke. >> Um, just thank you for going through this process. I know it's really important to a whole lot of people >> and it'll be utilized. People will be very happy with us for getting this done. But if we can pull it together, I
know a lot of people who will definitely do some improvements to their house and make the city look a lot better. So, thank you very much. >> Good. Um, I don't have anything additional. I obviously always enjoy the opportunity to get together to talk about making things better for the city and residents. So, that's it's always a
positive thing. So, with >> real quick, real quick, I promise I won't keep you going along. I know you want you're right before the next meeting. Um, I wanted to ask um in city managers opening comments, we talked a lot about a strategic plan. You might want to talk about a workshop for that. So, throw that out there before the idea gets lost.
>> Yes. Um, I would like I if we can create a workshop for that because I would like some input from council members on what your target is and then from that we can actually start executing it because what I don't want to do well I'll provide you
options. I'll build you the plan. I'll make decisions to help you execute it. But I I think that's unjust. I think you as the council are the ones invested in this and and should decide which projects you want done and it'll be my
job to build that fiveyear strategic plan and get those projects started and then provide you updates um timelines and milestones on success of this so that we're moving forward when we're successful with our five-year plan because I want you guys to get
everything that you want >> but if we don't start now we're not going to get there. Can before we do that, can the city maybe formulate a a um something that we can fill out? >> Okay. >> So that we have our ideas written out
prior to a meeting and can kind of just get through it quickly like I would like I would like to see this this this and this instead of just talking. >> I will provide you a an option and then you guys dissect dissect that option and what we can do is we can move calendar
year events. We can move project events. We can move money depending on what we want to do. But I'll build you a plan >> from day one to closing day. That that that I'll basically I'll build you your strategic plan. I'll get I'll give I'll
give that I'll give that to you for the review and then for you guys to make a decision on what it is you really want to do and then I'll take all that guidance and I'll go back and I'll rebuild for you. would it and just kind of share what we've done in the past. Not we had to do that, but um it I know
when Matt came in, we had a workshop and we all and we had we had I think we had several he had one with staff, he had one with council and he had one kind of together >> um and we had boards and stuff and we we basically which helped him take that to build that street plan. So is that if is
that something you want to do to try to help you do your part? Yep. That that we we can do that because I'd like to make it more inclusive for people. >> Um >> residents can attend. They can participate as well as throw out some ideas or whatever. But >> but I do have that mental capability to just knock it out for you. Maybe do
>> anything any void. But again, since you're new, I don't >> I'm all about building options and solutions for council. >> Do the drawing and then we'll go >> Yeah. Do straw man and then we'll get together. >> We'll go back with the crayons. >> Sounds great. Sounds great. I'll >> do you want to pick a date now or just leave that to him for when he when M
he's ready and >> so in what the mayor was saying a resolution was formed and I forwarded that to you today. Okay. >> That resolution was created in 24 which basically outlines the the strategic plan that the council designed at that time. Okay. Um what I what I can
recommend to save a lot of time is revisit that is to revisit that resolution look at the breakdown and then basically cross off or add anything that you want to you know add or keep to that to that resolution >> council or CRA or both. >> My comment is that the CRA already has a
strategic plan that it follow has to follow state rule. I mean that's our our CRA plan. And so I wasn't sure I was asking about city plan or CRA because CRA >> that was my followup question. Are we talking about the city strategic plan? >> No, I'm talking about I'm talking about
the CRA strategic plan because >> the city strategic plan's much more comprehensive and and there's a lot more that I would like to discuss when we get to that. But I think this is kind of our immediate target right now. Yes. >> Because this is something that if we
delay, we're not going to achieve our goals. So the resolution covers the the strategic plan. Okay. We need to four million. the CR the CRA has different rules when it comes to strategic planning it that highly involve the state process as well and so we we it's
been about a year or two we have an updated approved CRA plan and it's a little different process because it is the CRA and so I know we can go together through you know through it together but ultimately there's certain things that have to be in there certain things that cannot be in there and certain ways
about getting it approved it's also it also be a time to address changes in the boundary and other like deeprooted programmatic things as well. >> Well, we're going to get together. You got no choice. Absolutely. And a couple
of the smart guys, we we'll definitely sit down and we'll go through all this so that um when we do present for council for their working group, they can get more guidance and then we can bring it to council for a vote. >> Sounds good. The only other thing I
wanted to say is remind me before the end of the council meeting that we need to talk about a workshop for special magistrate. That's >> Do we even need a really we can do it? We can do it during a meeting. >> Can we take a while as a discussion item and just see if there's I mean I think everybody at this point should be on
board without a meeting. >> I think we'll talk about it >> on our break. I think there's I think they're going to want information that we don't have today to have it. So, >> and that and that I have that as a discussion point for the actual city council >> meeting because I just I don't want to forget that that'd be addressed because
you that was going to be today and we moved that workshop to have this workshop and that's one of the things I would love to see this city do if it's something you guys want to do. So, I don't want it to get lost and I know you're interested in it too. So, just don't let me forget. >> All right. That was it. Thank you. >> All right. So, anybody want to
>> make a motion to adjurnn? >> Okay. >> Okay. Emotion.