It's called for purp field fields for the invocation. Please stand. >> Father, we just come to you in the precious name of Jesus. We just ask for wisdom, Lord, for the community redevelopment agent uh meeting and then
uh later on the meeting that we have for the city council meeting. So, we just want to give you the glory and honor as you use us together with wisdom to better the community and each other in the city as we say the pledge of allegiance to the flag. We thank you in
Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. 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. >> Cler, please.
>> Chairman John Arver >> here. >> Vice Chairman Chris Mayer >> here. >> Member Robert Hubard >> here. >> Member Lisa Burke >> here. >> Member Christine Sullivan >> here. City Attorney Nancy Meyer. Let the record show that City Attorney Meyer is
absent from today's meeting. City Manager Don King >> here. >> Okay. Thank you. First up, I got uh four sets of board uh minutes to approve. I go through one at a time. So, look for a motion to approve the January 27th, 2026 CRA minutes. >> So, moved.
>> Second. I have a motion second. Any fur discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. Next up, any motion to approve the February 3rd, 2026 CRA workshop minutes? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Second. Okay. Chris for the second. Uh any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Next up. I need a motion to approve the February 10th, 2026 minutes. >> Motion moved. >> Okay. Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion?
All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. opposed. Motion carries. And finally, I need a motion to approve the February 16th, 2026 CRA workshop minutes. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I
>> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Uh next up is comments from the general public. I do not have any signups. I show hands. Any like to speak? Nope. Okay. Bring it back to council. Vote to the board to uh comments from the city manager. Pass to Mr. King for his comments. Um I have two
uh topics here that I want to address. Um and these are CRA related and may deviate from CRA. We might need to carry over to another meeting um based on discussions had here. First thing I want to bring up is the purchasing of the adjacent property to Olenor Park that's
on the Miller Bayou. Um I I just want to kind of get the sense of of where the council is with that. Um the reason why is because we're currently at 1.2 $2 billion projected to be spent for the uh
uh the reverse osmosis water plant. So based on the prices that we've negotiated so far, it looks like we'll be at 1.2, which allows us a little bit of flexibility for potentially going after the bayou uh the Miller Bayou property. I think that this would be a
great additional asset to Olner Park and what you're looking at is park and you're going to see it on the next CRA meeting where we actually will present the parks to you. um that Olsen Park will not become won't just be Olsen Park, but it'll be Olener Park Beach because we're able to really develop
that area and actually um improve and expand that project there, which will be really nice when you take a look at it. More space, more beach property for it and allow uh Port Rich to have its own little beach here in the center of town. Um, that being said, uh, just for for
thought as we move forward on it, because if if this is something you want to move forward on, I'm already reaching out to find out the cost of the of the property. Um, actually have to reach out through a third party agent because I can't get, you know, I can't get the uh
uh the owner to reply back to me. So, I actually had to reach out. But, I'll get that back. I'll give you guys some information on what that cost will be and see if there's an appetite for it. I would highly recommend, but I will leave it up to the council to make the decision on that. And I think once you see what the park would look like with it, I think you guys will want to move
forward with it. And I think it'll be a great ad to the parks that we're doing. The next piece I'd like to bring up, um there's been uh general uh discussion about the Colitus property uh bait shop properties. Many of us know about it. Um currently, um in discussions and talking
with Billy Kolakitus, we're looking at um if we're interested in buying the property, um he is willing to sell at 1.5, but he's being very, I would say, generous in the different options that he's offering us. So that it's not a $ 1.5 million cost. It's a potentially
half and then uh um and then uh financing the other half at a low low interest rate over a period of time. Um >> is that a change from what he sent via email supposedly sent during an email was $1 million
up front and then the rest of it over >> well he's looking at what what the last discussion I had with him was uh 750,000 down and then another 70 uh 750,000 financed. But uh there's also various options that we need to look at. So if you guys are interested in going that
route, I will provide better options to that process based on the options that he's providing us as I look through our budget and tell you what we can what best supports our approach moving forward. And if that's a direction that the council would like to go, I will begin the movement on that process. I
will begin the negotiations and the discussions and I will get back um and provide council options on where we where we would be and where we can go forward with regards to purchasing on the property. >> So the next steps would be I'm assuming
>> price there 1.5 that's what the price is. >> There's always room for negotiation. I I I never I never cut that out because if I do then I'm not doing justice to our our our finances >> cuz once once once you would have that uh that price negotiated the next steps would be to have it appraised and we'd need two for that level of cost which
what we were at before and those appraisals are 3,000 a piece right >> I think what was it 2500 a piece is what we're take >> so I think the next steps is is if if uh if you get that price whatever if it's 1.5 or whatever you you finalized I think that needs to come back to council
to see if we want to move forward on the uh the appraisals based on that price because and that with the other information you're talking about the other property um expenditures that we have for the water plant obviously is a have to potentially other one we probably need to look at that holistically and see if we want to
>> correct >> look at more >> and and the reason that I bring that up is because we initially looked at CRA being the funding method behind it but if we if we look at our strategic plan and everything that we're going after and and the and the projects that we want complete within our window before
sunsets. Um, if we're not careful, we're going to lose opportunities for the parks and other projects that we want to do that will definitely have a significant impact on the community as a now instate item that people can see, realize, touch, feel, and experience.
Whereas, if I cut that money and I provide it just to the purchase of a property, then we're not going to see any realization of those that those those park infrastructure builds. That's my only concern. So, with the budgeting, I've got to look at where we can where where we assume the least amount of risk
in order to finance it, pay for it, and move forward with the process. Now, I I think we have an appetite for that. Okay. I think there's enough people on the council have an appetite for that. >> I think there's enough people on the council have an appetite for that.
Obviously, the parks right now is our primary, but that is connected to one of our parks. And so, we want to make sure it's not like, hey, are we going to throw out the baby or the bath water? You know what I'm saying? We're we we hoping that we can budget it and do both. So, we would appreciate you bringing back to us the ability for us
to be able to make an educated decision, not miss out on a great opportunity, plus not throw our whole lot on one property. We don't want to do that, you know. But, but I I I've been down there. I've looked at it. I think it's a great opportunity, you know, but I also have a passion for the other parks. So, if you
would give us some concise information and let us make that decision, that'd be great. >> I will. I will. I will. At the next meeting, I'll make sure that I have a complete packet for you. I'll make sure it's in the agenda item and that you guys have an opportunity to review it before actual council and I'll provide you an exact sum on on the probably best
courses of action and then whatever I'll add all the other ones just in case you guys want to do a modification of the options I provide >> is is the is the appraisal for that property is it one I mean isn't it one lot is $2,500 versus two lots and five
grand I mean it's a piece of square rectangle property. We can't get $2,500 appraisal on that property. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The whole thing. >> So, but but >> you have to have two. >> I thought I thought we had >> Yeah. Two two appraisals. >> Two independent appraisals.
>> Okay. It's not They're not It's not two appraisal because they're splitting the property up. It's appraisal one appraisal and they have another independent one that appraised the whole thing as well. Okay. >> It's just a check and balance on the process. >> Yeah. Okay. And I mean >> what I was intending on doing if it was okay is getting the appraisal as we move forward so that you guys at least know
what the cost is going to be at least what what the potential cost will be and then where we will negotiate at >> when we're talking about a piece of property that size. Okay. And the potential impact it would have on us. I think five grand's probably a cheap investment for us to make a good decision if that makes sense. somebody.
Well, so I want to interject. Basically, if there's if there's no ability to execute on that, I would not want to spend the $5,000 until we make a decision that we actually want to pursue that because while it is $5,000, it is money. >> I think right now on this board, there's enough room for for three of us to vote
and say that we want >> if you want to take a vote on appraisal, we can definitely do that. >> Have we have we looked at or discussed with the Tai restaurant at all? Because that's a key piece of property as well right there, Jason. We we haven't we haven't moved forward on that one just based on there's a little bit of
I would say inconsistency with the the property owner but we can go back with that and we can tie that to this piece if you'd like. >> Uh they're not desperate yet. You mean? >> No, they're not desperate yet. >> Has anybody reached out to Pasco about the um Olner lot? We were going to talk
to Pasco about possibility putting it under >> and dating it to >> the city. >> Oh, we can do that. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Go ahead. take care of that. >> That was the project that we looked at was on the other side of the body that we turned down, but the same type of mechanism,
>> same type of >> which would cost us >> or any mechanism that they have. I don't know what caused the uh you know demolition of that house over there. I don't know what if that was a flood issue or could get Pasco involved and
somehow um grant that to the city, deed it to the city process. the grant process, they would purchase that property from the the owner >> and then they could possibly beat it over. >> We'll take a look in that because in our initial discussions with the grant process, um we would have had it would have been more simplistic for us if
there would have been a house still on the property. Uh but since there's not because it's already been it's been demolished or it's been blighted, but it was blighted independently, it kind of makes it a little more challenging. But I'll come back and we'll see what kind of avenues of approach we have used to get the county involved at least to
adjust some of the price. It's worth an ask because their program is to prevent uh property from being developed in the future in a mitigation thing because right now somebody could buy that and develop it. >> Correct. >> So there might be an avenue there that >> and and and currently the property is up
for sale. Um when I did reach out to the owner, um it was at $4.99 and and when I did reach out, she refused or didn't want to take my call and did not follow back up with me after my multiple calls to to her. Uh, but what I did see is the price go up to 529. >> Wow.
>> So, I'm a little concerned. You know, >> if you can't sell it, raise the price. Right. So, >> well, what I'm look what you're looking at is you're looking at a a a a property value at cost that has a home on it. This property doesn't have a home on it. It's
just a lot. So, the price of the lot, you know, is is is pretty expensive considering, you know, what's being asked for based on what the value probably is at the end of the day. There are other homes on because I'm on Miller Bayou, too. I have a house there. It's a lowlying house and my neighbor's trying to sell. He's
at 599 and got no nobody biting at all. Correct. And that's got a house on it. >> Yeah. And that's my frustration. It's it's it's house price for a lot. >> Sometimes you just have to give those things a little bit of time to work themselves out. >> And that's Could we talk about giving
you the authority to go forward with an appraisal? Um, is that something you mentioned you might want to do? >> That's what I'd love to do right now because if I can do that, I can begin movement on it. >> I'm gonna make a motion that we allow the city manager to appraise the property over there at the bait shop. >> And that's my motion.
>> Okay, motion a second. Any further discussion? The only discussion I would make is I'm a no on this and reason speed because I don't think we have enough information to decide if we want to do that. Obviously appraisal coming back would help with that. But again, if it if it
comes back, let's hypothetically say that that comes back at the 1.5 that they're asking and then we we go through and we look at you know 1.2 for the water plant. We have um whatever three four if we decide to move forward this other project and then we're going to tie up another 1.5 and we can't execute on the parks or whatever that we decided
we don't want to move forward on purchase. We've dropped five six grand on appraisals that we didn't have to. So that's and and I was in your camp on that mayor in the beginning. Okay. But I see the value on the lot and I want to make sure we're not missing a good opportunity. That's all. >> Yeah. That's >> and I think we'd be darying to duty here
to not move forward at least looking at that opportunity. >> You know, it's board. Yeah. So, but I'm down on >> and if it's an eitheror for me, I would rather move forward with the bait shop property than the Olsener property just because the Olsener property is more of a neighborhood situation whereas the
Bait Shop property would service the waterfront district and um you know everybody with the boat launch and I just feel like it'd add more the money would be better invested >> get us more peace, more gambling. Since we obviously can't do both, if we have
to focus on one thing, I would prefer we focus on the bait shop and that would be >> No one's going by pay 500 million or 500,000 on that older property. >> It would be a great draw to have a beach though. >> It would be, but it's, you know, we have a couple opportunities at the moment and
I think we need that parking over there. The pavilion over there would be great. residents feel like they lost something by the loss of gild dogs and this would be a great way to give something back that we could, you know, really provide something great for events where we were
we're not bound by all these restrictions. Um, we could have great events over there, parking, you name it. There's so many there's so many opportunities over there. I would just hate to miss it. Every time I go over there, I just look at it and I'm like, h
for the city, it's really >> That's a good point about the restrictions. >> Yeah, it's not We wouldn't have those restrictions. >> Well, what I would say, there's a couple things that I'd throw at you that would kind of simplify things for me, is is that um keep the momentum on it. If this is the direction you want to take, get
allow me to be your emissary getting this stuff accomplished because I I am ready to run forward with this and take, you know, take control of it. Um, I will tell you, finally spent my first weekend here last weekend. Um, spent my time down on the waterfront, you know,
Thursday and Friday night. What I have noticed is there's a huge requirement for parking and parking is kind of in a is is limited based on where you go and who will allow you to park. And worst case scenario, you can turn that piece
of property into a paid parking area until we develop it. in that time frame, you're actually making you're gonna make some good revenue off of it until we can get it up and standing as is as is a waterfront pavilion or whatever direction that you council members
choose to move forward with it. But at least in the interim, it's revenue producing for the city as we as we continue to move forward um with where we want that what we want it to be as we as we put more money aside into the development of that project. or if we
get a developer that's willing to come in and take on that responsibility because I'm working with people for that is is moving that process forward. But the only reason I haven't brought that up yet is because I haven't got I haven't got a a consensus or any
decisions or any final, you know, uh remarks in that direction. But I think if this is something that you do do purchase for the city, then it gives me leverage as the owner to be able to negotiate as opposed to be a third party entity where I'm trying to negotiate
another piece of property from somebody else into the waterfront um project and goal that we want. >> Don, it connects two pieces of property we own right now. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> You know, and and that little restaurant by itself out there is not worth a lot. Think about that little restaurant.
What's it worth? not setbacks are not going to fly. So there's a lot of restrictions they're going to have in the future. So Bob's right. That's an important piece. That's not the only piece. You know, there's other options. And I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to get you horsepower to go do that. >> What's that?
>> She had some good ideas for that entrance to landing and stuff. >> Ol property with a house on it was appraised under $250,000 with a house on it. So, she's asking twice as much as was worth. >> I mean, that sounds low for a waterfront
property, but yeah, I would say with a house, it's probably right now in this this climate, Bob, it's probably worth about 550. But without a house on it, you got to deduct >> at least 250 >> 250 from that. So, it's $250,000 270,000 piece. >> I will say that the the house that the
the lot that was a house on it, it had a house on it, was tore down, and I think uh Rankens built a house on it. Um, that lot was actually they were asking 500,000 for that lot about 10 years ago and >> Yeah, but the market I looked at it and I wouldn't pay that. So, um, and they
never sold it that day. They end up building their own house on it. So, what's worth it's hard to say at this point, but >> market's really soft for those lowlying houses right now. Very, very soft. >> And I'm here to provide options. I just want to make sure that I have your consensus on the process as we move forward. >> We're about to find out.
>> I mean, when we move forward. >> So, any further discussion on that? Uh any public comment? Okay. Going to put to a vote. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Next up is Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Uh that's all I have at this time there. >> Okay. So, just to be clear, we've authorized him to move forward with an appraisal on the property up to five grand. Right. >> To speak with Pasco. Was that >> something? So, that was something >> that's done because like I say, you have Sure.
>> Okay. Wait, >> just to clarify that was just for the bait shop, not the older properties, right, Chris? Yes, sir. >> That was on the motion I got. >> No, the question I have is that can I also move forward with the um park just to be able to give you a cost and a price
>> as far as an appraisal? >> Yes. >> Because I want to give you options to >> Not yet. >> I think we I think we >> I think we we break right now based on Christina's This is just me speaking and you're you have the floor. This this is this just to point out that this is
exactly backward to what you guys are doing for the other property, >> right? So >> this one was just sprung on us. We've been talking about the bait shop property for a while. >> I get that. But again, if you holistically, if you if you want to consider that under the same premise that you just voted to do a appraisal on
the other one, you would want to do appraisal on another one. Is that >> necessarily because I don't want to get us in so deep on multiple properties. I want to focus on one property and I've had my focus on one property since I began sitting in this seat and I don't want to change gears at the moment. So,
I just want to focus where I'm focused, get those appraisals and I'm not really concerned about property at the moment. We're all about the same thing. I don't want to spread out and water out our our our money right now. So, we're being a little tight said, okay, let's do five
grand to see where we're at before we jump onto the other. We don't want to do all out and just start throwing >> property is more of a priority >> and from my perspective I'm doing multiple properties anyways as as we speak. >> I understand. Yeah. >> But the only way I'm really interested in um the ner property at this moment is
if Pasco is going to get involved and at least partially fund that. >> Well, let me track that down and maybe that's a point for later. >> She's asking way too much money for that, right? >> Appraisals appraisals on the on the coke keeps property hold off on the others. >> Okay. Uh if I could just D just to
follow up um just to let you know there are other properties that we are looking into um for the for the water plan. So there's >> that was a 1.2 total. Yes, >> we're staying in the realm of that, but that's just to let you all know that we're we're >> have been appraised, right? >> They've one the the main property has
been appraised and and done. We're almost done to uh we almost have the contract finalized to bring before the board. So, as soon as we have that um agreed by both us and the seller, um we're going to present that to the board for approval. And then, of course, the uh other two smaller parcels that we're
looking at, but that's that's within the realm of what we're trying to spend for those properties. I just want to give you give you an update. And we've been very successful in negotiating. So, they're coming under what we've projected. >> We got the right guy at the helm. >> Well, we got the right team.
>> There you go. I feel like if the um if Bill from the bait shop property I I feel like he's reasonable enough and um excited about this opportunity to sell his property to the city as a legacy that we could maybe even work out some
kind of letter of intent to purchase next year if need be. If we need to, you know, reserve some funds if we can't fund everything this year. I feel like I just think that that's something that we could discuss with him and we can at least have the ball rolling to where when when we're refunded again next year
>> and and that's where I owe you when I come back to you, you know, at at least how, when, and why so that you guys have a good course of action going forward. >> Okay, >> thank you sir. >> Anything else? >> Okay, moving on to board business item number two, branding, science,
selection. I passed that to Mr. King for introduction. Uh just uh just opening remark on this. Uh we've done a well I would say that uh Derek and team has done a great job um going through and uh for the design not only the design
but working with council to to get you know what it is you're looking for. And I think tonight when you look at the products that he's going to be presenting, hopefully we get your approval to move forward because we're at this point where we're ready to actually start building them and getting them in place because I think at this
point um we're on we're on glide path to getting, you know, our signs out there because we see this as a is a a good facelift and image for the city. And if we can get those out in those key locations with all the other work that we're doing right now with the US19
project and with the median, I think it's going to really set it up, you know, really nice for for the city. And I think also for, you know, the city hall is going to look much better with the different signs out there and make us a more attractive municipal building. >> It already looks phenomenal with the u
new look we have. >> But we are fixing the lights. I know I've had comments about uh the single eye bar across the light. um you'll see uh that um Daryl has a great solution for it. Um he's come up with this all himself. So when you see it, you guys are going to be pretty impressed. So that being said, I'll go ahead and turn
it over to uh Derek this time. >> All right. This is the latest version uh from last time you saw this suite. What we changed was in primary monument with LED. We provided a gap in between the two uh to allow for easy maintenance of the
video board. And it's it's wide enough that they can be cleaned. They're not too wide. We're going to have some birds hanging out there. And so everything else the board approved prior except for that. So that's the edit that we made. The these are two dimensional. So those
those primary signalion what you've seen before. Uh we have an item that's going to come to your next meeting that will ensure that what you saw in the threedimensional sign is what you'll get. They'll do some uh construction administration for us. So, we'll ask
that in next meeting. So, we'll be sure to get what what you were presented. So, today we're just looking for the final approval on the sign sweep. Once that happens, we can uh the company will go and start doing manufacturing documents and then we're off to the races on on
bidding and manufacturing. >> That's good. >> Excellent. >> I'd like to make a motion. >> Okay. >> Or move to uh second or move to approve the design concept. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion second. Any fur discussion? Public comment. Seeing none, put vote.
All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Next up is old of business. Is there any old business discuss? Hang on. The US 19 agree. Anything? So, anything new?
moving forward. >> Uh yes, so the city manager moved forward and approved the proposal from the um from the engineer. Uh they told me they have already they already pre-started the calculations for the the drainage permit. So they're at 80%. So they should have them done relatively
soon. So I'm going to stay in contact with them and get updates. So anything else business? Okay, moving on to comments from the board. I'll start to my left. Vice chair mayor. >> Um I think I've said what I need to say
today and we've accomplished a lot. So >> member Burke, >> I'm good. >> Member Hubard, >> I'm good. >> Member S, >> I'm good. >> I'm good as well. I look for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor say by saying I. I. I. >> Me journ.