I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I get a motion for approval of the
agenda, please. Move approval of the agenda as published. We have a motion by board member Clark and a second by the vice mayor. Um is there any public comment on this? Seeing none. All in favor? I. I.
All oppose? None. Okay. Can I get a motion for the approval of the minutes of January 27? So move. We have a motion by Chair Breville. I'll second. And a second by Commissioner Goi. Um, any
public comment on that? Seeing none, all in favor? Approve. Do we have any comments from the public on non-aggenda related items? I see one member of the public.
No. Okay. See none. Moving on. Um comments by board members. Um we'll start with you, Commissioner Reid. Any comments? Uh yes. Uh I know we've gotten a lot of emails
that street. So you can't even I'm okay. And then another one. Okay. So I can discuss this. So some of my neighbors in my neighborhood, who's responsible, Mike, for the bullouts with all the landscaping? Is that the city or do the
residents sometimes take care of them? Because I know for mine I take care of it in particular is residents. When the pot stand program landscaping was discussed with the sidewalk program, there was issues in both the CRA and the city
commission that discussed the uh obviously it's easy to understand the curtilage of someone's yard because it's what's inside the fence is what everybody perceives. But the code currently says that the property owner is responsible for maintaining the right
of way up to the pavement in every neighborhood, including my street that doesn't have a sidewalk on it. in your neighborhood. What's happened is the residents wanted the uh city to plant landscaping in the two to three foot
wide grass area between the sidewalk and the street and the uh CRA agreed to do that and did it as part of the redevelopment project. But at the time they agreed to provide the watering of those trees for the first 90 days for the trees to root. But then it was the
land owner's responsibility to maintain mow etc those um little islands and it's not just the bulb outs into the where some people actually have landscaping that is in lie of a parking space that's
also considered landscaping in front of their house up to the pavement. But there's other people that have the parking on the street, but they have a 3-FFT grass strip or whatever between the sidewalk and the and the road. And our current code requires
um the property owners to maintain those. I mean, obviously the commission can address that if you see fit, but you'd have to do it citywide. I'll talk to some of the neighbors. I I maintain my own. Um I've always maintained it, so I'll let them know.
And we also get a situation where some people like really landscape that three foot area, put a full hedge in and do all sorts of stuff and then other people just have straight sod on it and nothing else. And so there's some disc. I have it all land. Right. All right. That's
it. Board member Gobi. I have no comments. Thank you. Board member clerk. Nothing. Mr. Vice Mayor. I have none. Board member Moser, do you have any comments? Nothing. Board member Sheer. I have
nothing. Board member James. I have nothing. Board member Whan. I doubt that this will be. I just have two things. And one maybe is more import more appropriate for the deliberation portion of the meeting
after the legislative stuff. But the first thing I had is I I happened to see something that that Chris had done at um one of the means I think it was one of the transportation organizations or whatever talking about 710 and the
accidents and how you know by the time we get something done you know how many more people have had problems you know and um I I was thinking about that same thing relative to something that we've talked about at the CRP level is Um, you know, we've kind of we had in
the budget money for safe I'll going to call them safety zones. You might refer to them as quiet zones, but I'm going to call them safety zones because to qualify for them, you have to create an environment that's completely safe if you're going to get that maximum protection. And you know, I
just think that regardless of what's going on with anything else, those quiet zones make sense. Those safety zones make sense for the city of Stewart. and we have the money to do it and we need to look at it and get you know and and get somebody in. There are people that you know can look at this how we can
harden those intersections, how we can change traffic flow a little bit when the trains coming through. I think we can make some changes there that are significant and will save lives and I hate to see us waiting until some other issue has been resolved or not resolved when we've got the money and we could
make it happen. and and so that that's one of the issues that that I wanted to uh to kind of mention. And then uh the other one is that um we did have some discussion at the CRB level. I think pretty much everybody
was in favor of moving forward with um a really a a community redirection or or direction or whatever. We haven't had any kind of significant um any kind of significant focus on
where we want to go as a as a city since the original one that was done when the Dwani plan was adopted and and that may not be appropriate today. And so I think there certainly is and I think the other people on the board believe too that there is a a need to have somebody look
at you know have meetings where we get a couple thousand people who thousand people over a period that's impressive. Oh, I think we could do that over over two or three meetings. You know, it doesn't I'm not talking about the same meeting, but over two or three, four meetings, we can get input from the businesses, input from the the
residents, and input from the property owners because I I do think that that our direction has changed. You know, we had an emphasis to bring people downtown. Um, now there's plenty of people downtown and and so maybe the
type of community we are, uh, we should look at that. And um I think we should bring in a consultant who's independent of all of the you know all of the people here, independent of the city and independent of you know a certain plan
who can come in and say here's what other cities have done. Here's here's how they're structured or do you want to be this one, this one, this one or this one? And um it turns out we have 150,000 in the budget. I didn't realize that but all is not true. 100 150 correct. We we
did budget for master planning for downtown. Yeah. So anyway, I just want to mention that I think, you know, as a CRB, we're we're in favor of pushing forward with that. We think without a predetermined outcome, without a
predetermined outcome. I think that's why bringing somebody in independent give us all a fresh thought of it. I mean, I I love downtown. I love the original plan, but I question whether it's appropriate now, too. So, it'd be good to find out what the rest of the residents think. Anyway, those are the
two things. Commissioner Clark, board member Clark. Okay. Um, thank you for giving me time. I yielded my time. Um, with regard to Mr. Correct. Rail, I just wanted to ask
if the trees along his property if there was a special program that we were waiting on or you know that US1 property where all those trees died there. Yeah. Is is there something going on or you probably just applied for it? Well, we
probably needed to apply for it and we didn't do that yet. I don't know if the next one's rolling around or not, but I giving away I have somebody that's committed to putting that landscaping in and looking for something, but Okay. All right. That one. And then on But thank you. Yes. I need I was wondering just if what had happened to that program
because I thought something was going to happen there. Did you notice we cleaned it up though? We trimmed up all those palm trees. We pulled all that dead stuff out of the front. So that was good. But anyway. Okay. And then the other thing is that with regard to Mr. Reed, um I'm looking at landscaping
that's in at the public shopping center 759. And I know it's private property, but everything is dying and it's not even summer yet. So, I don't know if we need to talk to our property owners and our business owners and try to encourage
them to um try to keep up their landscaping. And which one? Which public? It's the public's downtown. First of all, we we can code enforce someone if they're okay letting their property go into disrepair. But historically, we have found that
February, March, and April are known as the dry season. And as a result, most people's lawns dry up and their landscaping goes into almost like a hibernation effect. And then like clockwork, those May rains start to fall and everything turns green green and we
we survive back. Particular terrible. the rivers coalition meeting last week described um how they had not anticipated the the the degree of low humidity and evaporation that they were going to see. As a result, Lake Okachchobee is
significantly lower than it ever is. You'll notice the um you'll notice the uh communities that have ponds in their communities that are used for irrigation. Um, I was actually talking to someone just recently that was saying that their
community irrigation system doesn't work because the pumps pipe for the intake is actually above the water line. So, I I think it'll all come back hopefully. But, but we do have the ability to code
enforce if someone's landscaping is in such disrepair that it would warrant some. member Gobi. Yeah, I love um Vice Chairperson Burke Hill's focus. Well, future focus uh other than downtown into other parts of the city that in the CRA.
I know that we've all been at meetings at East Stewart and one of the the complaints, lack of a better words, is that monies have been spent elsewhere but not in East Stewart. So, is there a way that some of that monies could be directed to East Stewart? So, the city
has spent disproportionately more on East Stewart than any other community in the city. A couple years ago, we did the summary and it was about $30 million that had been spent in East Stewart that wasn't spent in the other neighborhoods. Every house in East Stewart has a sidewalk. Every street has street
lights. Every house was connected to sewer at no cost to the residents. We gave away 10 um habitat houses and we also operated the free daycare in the 10th Street rec center for 18 years. So
if you actually look from 1998 until 2014, the East Stewart neighborhood because of the way that the property had been assessed generated 0 in CRA funding but received close to $30 million in CRA
funds since 2014. to the president maybe for the last 10 years. It has started to generate money, but it doesn't come close to the amount of money that it has received. And the CRA is required by law for us to spend that money in every
neighborhood. So from like 2008 to 2018, the properties north of the bridge because of the Harbor Bridge condos were paying about $350,000 a year into the CRA, which amounts to $3.5 million in
CRA contribution. And they hadn't had any meaningful landscaping projects or anything north of the bridge. So, as you go up there now, you can see that um the CI director has a big program going on where they're putting in antique street lights and sidewalks and and some storm
water and other stuff. So, we have spread it out. The people that said that about the funding were we're just simply mistaken. um we can demonstrate it at any time, but it's a significantly
uh high number of money per household because when you think about it, there's also I think 300 homes or something about in East Stewart. So when you think about $30 million, it's about you know $10,000 or $100,000 house or whatever the math is on that again it's a
proportionary thing. But the CRA plan that you guys adopt annually, you are free to identify projects, which one of them happens to be currently a $10 million renovation to the Guy Davis Park, which is also in East Stewart. So,
no, no, I understand that, but that's been talked about for a long time. I think a lot of the people in East Stewart are just like when well except for when you say as we talk about we built the brand new basketball courts, put the roof over it three years ago, put the lighting up on it, redid the baseball fields, redid the soccer field
and that's all been in the last four years. So all of that's happened and we regularly have been moving forward and you guys adopting the designs and moving forward on the park at our quarterly meetings. So it's going as if we decided
to do something in East Stewart, we'd have to go through the same programming. So it would still be four or five years out by the time it happened, right? But it's a good opportunity to talk about it. Hopefully somebody people in East Stewart will be listening to this and understand that money's have been spent. Oh yes, absolutely. I agree.
I I would just mention um that along those same lines, Mike, I think part of it too was about 10 years ago, we did a significant amount of underground type work showing up all of that storm water and all that. That doesn't create a splash, so a lot of people don't really
see it. No, it doesn't create a splash. I didn't mean that, but anyway, it doesn't hopefully it doesn't create a splash. and um and so a lot of people don't see it but uh but we did put we did put a lot of money into that uh in anticipation I think of more commercial development there that that um as of
this point hasn't come yet but anyway just uh Mr. Mortell just to Mr. to Breckville's point. I mean, we did do the strategic plan. Was that last year or Yeah, two years ago now. We just not
last fall, but the fall before. Yeah. So, I don't know if you've seen that, Mr. Beck Doll. But, um, that speaks to the issues. Of course, if that if that's something your board wants to do, I would wholeheartedly support that, but of course, you need you would need to concentrate on the
CRA as as regards your recommendations to us. I don't think that's too limiting. I do think there is opportunity um in the CRA. It's interesting. I was at a roundt with uh Shannon, the mayor
of Port St. Lucy just this week and um you could not have two more different communities than Port St. Lucy. I was speaking to Mr. Martell prior to going up there and he was joking cuz we have basically the city the city has two 20
acre parcels left remaining to be developed and I joked to Shannon I said you probably approved a 20 acre parcel this morning and she goes no actually we approved a 40 acre parcel this morning they came up with their 20-year
plan they're going to be done at the end of the seventh year with that that's how fast that community is growing And so our challenge is we're going to stop growing and then how do we thrive? How does this community continue to thrive? And that's
going to be quite difficult. So your suggestion is a timely one and I would take it up to the degree you can with your board and bring us a recommendation. Okay. Any other comments? No.
I'm sorry, Mr. Collins. Um, Mark, to your to your uh comment, what what would be the goal of bringing in these consultants of
revisioning? I I think that everything that we've got right up to this, I'd say up to the last couple years has been based on a modified Dwani plan. That's what the whole thing was about. And I'm not sure that that's the answer today.
I'm not sure that that plan hasn't already been finished to the extent that Stuart wants it to be finished. And when we're maybe now looking more towards traditional neighborhoods, um, and things like that. Um, you know, like I'm
not from the Northeast. I'm from the Midwest. So, we didn't have some of these things. But my understanding is that up in the northeast in the out you know in the city and in some of those other places they have community centers where people in that community can be members. they go and they they have recreational facilities and they have
all these kind of things and it's not walkable and it's not you know it's it's an area for that community to to have things to do to have opportunities for the people in the neighborhood and that we have some of the basis of that right now with Guy Davis with Flaggler Park
and with others but you know resource-wise we're not funneling if that's the way we want to go we're not funneling the right resources that way. I don't think and so all I'm saying is I guess I'm kind of agreeing with the commission majority in that you know I
think it's time to find out what people want Stuart to be now and we know what it was 40 years ago and I think they did a good job but there was a lot of nashing of teeth at that time too that didn't come out where everybody got together and say kumbayan here's we're going to do this there was a lot of
there was a lot of argument about keeping the bridge doing all of this stuff but everything was based on that plan. And even though that plan is even though we our CRA plan has been updated on a regular basis and the and the city comp plan has been has been updated periodically, it none of it's been done
with the with the emphasis of uh seeing what the alternatives are and then building towards those alternatives. Are they separate neighborhoods where we treat East Stewart separately and they have their own kind of their own situation and and down East Ocean they have their own
situation and where I'm at over there in the two in the duplexes we have our own neighborhood you know are there are there other alternatives I'm not a planner but I I think I'm sure there are people out there that can lead a discussion that gives everybody this are the alternatives you know we're going to
have a traditional downtown now and that kind of thing so that's that's all I'm that's what I'm trying to get issue with just the way things are. The the way things are is that we're in a situation, I think, where we were still supporting at least some
portion of the population is still supporting a plan that involved consolidated density into the core with um multi- family, multi-story living
with um mixed use. which we've gone after with the zip to try to tighten that up. Yeah. But what I'm saying is and and I understand what but what I'm saying is what do people want? I mean, is that what they want all over the city or do they want to be treated more like neighborhoods? We have to recognize that
the scope of this meeting is just the CRA, right? When we say all over the city, we keep going outside. Well, we're planning for the city that the downtown is going to make a difference. I don't disagree. I just want to be clear that we're not talking about the duplex area where you live because that's not in the
CRA and that it's not all over the city, that it's got to be in the CRA just because that's the meeting we're at. I know. But but from that second, Mr. Breville, that you made a suggestion to the city that we accept this analysis. Uh the one thing you said that I thought was really good, you said no
preconception, right? So I think I think Mr. Collins question is you weren't listening to what he said there because he said let's let's bring in these people to see if they can give us what we would
perceive to be sensible advice. I don't think you're suggesting you there is a direction you want to go at this point. You just think there are questions that need to be answered. I actually after I started getting into it more I don't have a direction I wanted to go. I only want to go whatever direction the people want to go. I mean,
that's not being on a soap box. I'm just saying at this point the people have clearly articulated what they want by how they've voted. So to say that there's somehow a problem with the direction that things are going now and that we need to bring in outside consultants to help us solve problems that we don't know what they are. It's
all a bit vague and it sounds good, but it's it's a lot of words. because the issue was the issue is because you know when I ran for office I understand you know I lost by 100 votes right but you know what people won by 100
votes but that doesn't I an election I don't think should be the mandate it it is and and they're not going to ultimately the residents of Stewart are going to make the decision but what I'm saying is
I think it's important to get, you know, a couple thousand people involved in the process instead of a couple hundred. That's all I'm saying. And it's not and I think potentially we're going to come up with potentially the answer that that of the direction we're going, but it
would be nice to have that from a couple thousand people on a buy in than 100. Okay. I'm going to ask you, Mr. Beckville, if you can go back to your board and come up with a specific recommendation to bring to the city commission. I think we can do that.
Um, no more comments. Uh, Mr. Bagot, could you read item two for our consideration, please? Before we get into that, I just wanted to comment just briefly. I was contacted by um some residents on Seminal Street that had
made some complaints about the uh vacant parcel that remains on Seminal Street and about the uh maintenance that was being maintained by the property owner and uh I told them obviously that there was a prior there's already a code
enforcement pending on that property. They asked me if I would raise the issue during the CRA meeting to see if the city would consider mowing the property to maintain it on a weekly basis and then just assessing the property owner
over time. Um my only concern about that is if you take on that burden then you need to do that for every single parcel. Yeah. Can you mow mine too? That's what Well, we could do it but we could charge everybody. Obviously the the thing is you put the lean on the property under
the code enforcement and the question is how often do you mow it and the other question is you know do you start maintaining it at 3 in and don't wait till it gets over seven and just have it mowed every Saturday and so I just I wanted to bring it up you know get the will of the board it's the vacant parcel
on the water on seminal street um almost directly across the street from the like historic houses or whatever I don't know what the address There's an absency owner. Yeah, there's a code there's a action code enforcement action pending. They had a prior
development project on it. Um and again, it's on that big vacant lot. Yeah. And and honestly, I mean, I haven't noticed. That's the next question. you know, it is not a golf course, but
it might be that the maintenance that's on it currently, I don't even think that's the reason for the code enforcement because I know there has been times when the grass did get a little high, but I think if you went over there right now, the grass is not that high. It's just not that wellkept because the landlord has been somewhat
absentee on it. But um and I don't do you know what the if the enforcement is but anyway it's more of a policy issue for the CRA individually because it's not citywide. Did the CRA have any interest in having code enforcement regulate by mowing and maintaining
private property lawns and then assessing and leaning the properties for it. I could look around and get feedback from you guys or not, but it doesn't sound like I'm getting much traction. Okay, that's all I need. Is it something that's bothering the neighbors? I
gather. Well, the people that moved in next door are complaining that it's not as nice as they would like it to be. Steve code enforcement works out, but it's not for the code enforcement is not for the unkempt. I honestly don't know.
I was asking the city attorney. I don't know what I know there's an outstanding code enforcement pending on it, but I don't know um if it's including the lack of maintenance and it may have been, but it's one of those things that they go out and mow it and then you come back
and it's so I'm not, you know, the neighbors would like to get together and have a little coalition of taking turns to mow it so that it looks nice. Has said anything? Um, that's not who contacted me, but that I mean
it's I think it's a subjective matter and it becomes very complicated. I mean, it just looks a little barren in places. My my response was that if they if they call code enforcement, we'll respond. You know, any of them anytime they feel like it's violating the code are welcome
to call us and we'll we'll dispatch code enforcement to go to the property. But, you know, no. um board member will find well yeah I mean so the current code there's a couple of issues in the code
like one of the things is your grass can't be longer than 6 in I can tell you I don't ever remember code enforcement going around with a ruler and measuring everybody's 6 in it's generally when someone's grass gets above a foot tall or it's completely that code enforcement go out and then they give you a 14-day
notice to bring it into compliance and then there's other codes that describe not maintaining your property well and it's not specific to it. But in this instance, someone might argue that like where the sand is or something like that doesn't have grass or landscaping and
therefore it's not right. I've seen people like that. It's more comfortable to me to receive a specific complaint from somebody in order for the city to then respond to it because as you point out, it's difficult to be so subjective and just guess what someone likes or
doesn't because somebody else might say, I want my yard to be in its natural habitat. I don't want floritan sod and sprinkler systems, etc., and I want it to be scrub J type land. There's a sign on that property, right? I know. I know
the owner. I know the financer. I know the bank. I know the history of it completely. But yes, it is for sale for more than it's worth this this kind of every real estate stream. But the person who's selling it, I mean, they're the ones selling showing the property. They should take care of
the property. I mean, that really is. Okay. There's no there's no desire for any action on the part of this board. So, we'll move on. Any other comments, Mr. Martell? Uh, no. I'm That's all I've got today. Okay, Mr. Bagot. Let's try
again. Amendment to heirs property assistant program resolution number 04-2025 CR. A resolution of the community redevelopment agency of the city of Steuart, Florida approving the first amendment to the heirs property
assistance assistance program for properties located within the community redevelopment area providing an effective date and for other purposes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Panel Dani Sata CRA director for the record. Um this item is coming before you to
consider an amendment to the AIRS assistance program guidelines. Uh we do have some new board members. So I'll briefly go through the program uh guidelines. Um so what is heirs program? Uh what is heir's property? Um it's referred to property that's passed down
from an owner to their children or relatives without any legal documentation. Therefore, it makes it difficult to prove ownership. Uh and if the owner dies without a will, the property could be transferred to multiple family members so they have shared ownership and this causes cloudy
title uh since each family member owns a fraction of the property. So why is this a problem? Um lack of clear title can hinder access to loans, grants, home insurance, and property tax savings through homestead exemption. Um this can
become problematic because shared ownersh own ownership can lead to neglect, disrepair and abandonment of the property. Uh the property owners are not able to upkeep um the improvements to the property. Uh it's also difficult to receive financial aid from government
if there's ever a hurricane or major storms uh that impacts the home. uh also vulnerable to uh losing the property because uh the owners um or whoever inherited the property uh are unable to pay property taxes and this negatively
impacts the neighborhood by reducing property values, attracting crime and affects overall quality of life. So why is it important to address this issue? Because um clearing the title helps to keep the home um within the family and builds generational
wealth. uh it keeps the the people that are living in there in their home. It preserves our existing affordable housing stock if the owner can address the upkeep of the property. Um it also allows them access to equity uh
community preservation and it helps to revitalize uh local government tax base. So um last year we gathered some data from county's property appraisers office and we identified approximately 31 parcels that are heirs property within
the CRA and uh most of those are in the East Stewart neighborhood. Uh we also looked at the assessed value for these homes uh in 2024 and um all of them were under $300,000 except one property did
exceed um to 345,000. Uh so based on the information that was provided to the board at that time uh the board recommended to limit assistance uh for the program uh for properties that had assessed value of $300,000 or less and
uh provide legal assistance uh to to a maximum of $3,000 per property. Um, so once the board approved the program, uh, we contracted with Bonnie Brown to provide legal assistance for the program. And, uh, as I mentioned, currently the program is limited to
$3,000 per property. Um, in March, we received our first application for a property located at 1620 Southeast Arapo Avenue. Uh, the assessed value of this property is about $185,000. Uh, the applicant is eligible
to receive assistance. Um but there are some complexities with this case um because it requires two probates. Um the attorney typically charges per probate not per property. Um so in this case the property owner had um had three sons. Um
so the each son inherited one-third interest of the property and then two years later one of the son died. Um so so the program so the property uh requires two probates in order to clear the title. Um, and since we uh are
limited to $3,000 per property, um, staff is requesting to amend the program to allow $3,000 per probate, not to exceed $9,000 limit per property. Um, this is going to come out
of the budget. We budgeted $25,000 for this program, so there's no change to the budget request. Um staff is requesting approval of resolution number 04-2025 CRA for the amendment of the heir's property assistance program guidelines.
Are there any questions up tonight? Any members of the board? Move approval for uh uh discussion purposes. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Clark and who seconded it? Seconded by Mr.
Beckville. Um, I I'm I'm just going to let anybody who wants to talk to ask panel questions first. I'm I'm sorry. My back is and then we'll go to public comment on this. Currently, how many property owners are in this
program? We have about 31 properties that we identified um that that could qualify for the program. Okay. Of that 31, how many do you anticipate will be involved in multiple probate hearings? I wouldn't know if that it's case by case
basis, but we we would put a limit to $9,000 per property. Okay. Or less, whatever the board decides. Can I ask question? The $25,000 is that per year? It's per
year because I have to budget every year. So, um, I'll budget $25,000 again next year, but doesn't necessarily mean that we we'll use all of it. Board member Sheer, thank you. Um,
Panel, so so 31 properties identified that could qualify and are we being sort of proactive or reactive? In other words, are we contacting those properties to say, "Hey, this is an opportunity." Or do we sit back and wait for them to contact? No, we we send out
um flyers. We send out those cards. So that I guess they were contacted whatever way some time ago and we've re if I understand what you said we've received one response so far. Yes. And we are working with I think one of the board members said he he would help us
um pass out more information on this program to promote this in East Stewart especially because we have most of these property owners in East Stewart that needs his assistance. Got it. But uh again just to clarify for me the this is obviously uh for property owners within
the CRA and within the CRA we've identified about 31 that would got it. Thanks. If I can chime in briefly um I might be able to give some uh insight that would be you'd find assistance in evaluating this program.
Currently, under Florida statutes, if somebody dies and you hire an estate lawyer to probate the estate, the Florida statutes say that the estate attorney shall be paid a fee of 3% of
the value of the estate for the first million and then 2% for the second million and it goes down to 1% after that, I believe. It also has a fee structure for the executive of the estate. Reason I say that is if you're going to create a correlation between
the the value of the property and the state, first of all, we don't have any criteria for anybody to hire the city to um have a lawyer probate their property for them. What
happened is we started noticing in particular in the East Stewart neighborhood that there were some generational issues where family members had literally died and then their children or somebody moved into the house and has been living there for 30
years. And the reason we implemented the program is they can't apply for any grants because they don't have title ownership. They can't participate in any CRA programs because they don't have title ownership. They can't get a permit to repair their house because they don't
have title ownership and they can't sell the house because they don't have title ownership. And so that loss of title has created blight and other circumstances. So the CRA created this program and identified through the property appraisers. If you go to the property
appraiser site, they actually have a code and it calls it an air estate because they know that the title owner died and that there's a death certificate for the title owner, but there's never been anybody that followed up with and created a new title or
transferred the deed to anybody else. And so the property appraiser maintains these properties as that. It was very easy for us to identify the 31 properties cuz they are estates. I mean, they're exactly what they are. We didn't when we adopted the program create any
financial criteria or vetting process other than you have an air estate in order to qualify. But it just means unclear title. Well, essentially not just unclear because I might have an unclear title because of a transaction or because a deed that I did improperly
or something like that. But this is where the the prior owner died. So the owner can't fix the title cuz they're no longer with us. So this was to assist them in clearing the title. Who pays taxes? Well, a lot of these properties
had up until about 2015 didn't even pay taxes. They had no tax bill at all. But the tax bill comes to the house and the person sitting there sends in the $300 or $400 a year to make sure that it doesn't go away. Just like the electric and water, the bill continues to get
paid. But the truth is there is no title ownership in it. And um from a financial criteria, one of the one of the when we first started it, the values of those properties were significantly lower and relatives weren't interested and nobody
was going to do it. But now what one of the deterrenes we found is that if the niece of somebody that died is living in this house and the niece is 40 now herself because it's been 20 years or something and she has her own kids living with her and then the two owners
live in Atlanta. And so if she were to contact the two owners and say, "Hey, we want you to sign off on this property so that we can transfer title to me." They say, "Wait a second. How much is that property worth now? I think we should sell it and split it three ways or whatever it might be. So, we don't have a lot of people jumping in because the
person in possession doesn't necessarily want to solve it because it may result in them having to divide it with other uh relatives. However, if you took a $300,000 house and you had it go through the state statute and it was not
transferred by homestead, then that $300,000 asset in terms of the state statute to determine the amount that would be paid would be in fact a $9,000 fee to determine the this estate or standing. So, the amount that's being
charged correlates pretty clear. Anything less than that, most people are not gonna would not do the case. Otherwise, they would say to you, "Here's my flat rate. I'm not doing it on the percentage fee." But at the same time, if it becomes regular practice
that we start doing this too much, people might just start saying, "Well, I'll just go to the city and have them handle the estate. I'll wait two years and just have the city do the transfer and pay the fees for me." And I know that hasn't we haven't gotten there, but it's food.
Board member Breville. Yes. Panel. U there's a section I I looked at. There's a section in there that says something about that this program is only applicable for single owner. Um in other words, but but we're dealing with the disputed situations, right? I mean, well, I think what it is right now is
that it's actually three estates have to be done to clear up one title because grandpa might have died and left the property to his two children and both of them may be gone and it's literally a
third person living there. And so grandpa's estate needs to get done so that the property can transfer to the next people and then their estates need to be done to transfer it to the person in possession. Right. And just for board members that weren't weren't around it.
It it you know what we were trying to do is get to a point that somebody would be eligible for title insurance. That's really what we were shooting for because you'd have to have title insurance for loans. You have to have title insurance to sell. You have to have title insurance for all that. And um and so that's what our goal was. And um and I
think just personal bias, I think this program is a is a great program for lifting up and allowing the members of of East Stewart to lift themselves up by cleaning up the titles. Then they can get second mortgages. They can do things like to improve their houses. They they
may sell their house and take the profit, but that's their right and they should get paid fairly if they decide to do that. So I I think this is, you know, and this issue with the the three pro with, you know, potentially three I think anything we can do to give people
the opportunity to get that property back squared away cuz they miss out. It's like I said before, they miss out on every generational wealth change we have. When that market goes up, they're not in it because they don't get to take advantage of it because they don't have clean title. So anyway, okay.
Uh, and now could you just go back a slide or two? Oh, I'm sorry. But if I could just ask a clarification. Which one? Hold on. Just let me finish. Sure, Mr. Shear. It's it it it listed the objectives of the
programs talks about keeping them in their homes. Panel. Yeah, that's go. Okay. So, it's so important. We said the same thing twice here. addressing time which is important to keep the home and the family and keep people in their
homes. I'm not comfortable if we're spending $9,000 just so people can sell it. Um if they're selling it, they're going to be in receipt of a large amount of money, they can pay that bill. I
agree with this program is described here, but I, you know, I would prefer some sort of restriction on that as far as that comment is concerned, the CDBG grant funds that we have given out 11 last year that you
guys are familiar with, that requires anybody receiving those funds to sign a mortgage with Florida Commerce and the City of Stewart that says they will not sell for 3 years. So, that sort of restriction makes sense to me. But, but that would assume that
those people aren't going to reinvest in Stewart. And some of them may, but some of them may not. And and that's what this program is about because we all we all have that opportunity cuz most all of us have clean title and so we have that opportunity. If we want to sell and downsize or get out or do whatever we
can do that I I don't think we should put any restrictions on it. I think it should be such that the market puts restrictions but you were financially responsible for obtaining that title yourself and not the city. That's a very different matter when we're paying for it. Right. But I
could do that and it wasn't very expensive because I had clean title. You could find clean title. This is, you know, you start talking 9, 10, $12,000, you know, a property over a long period of time and, you know, that person doesn't have a choice. Only the person with money has a choice. And as Mike
pointed out, a lot of times that's not the person in the property. The people that actually are controlling the property to some degree are not even local anymore. So anyway, I understand but I I So we need to have we need to hear public comment on this if there is any. Has a
question. I also have a comment. Okay. But let's get Thank you. I sort of took it backwards. Is there any public comment? All right. Seeing none, Commissioner Job, board member Job. Um we have three individuals. I'm not even sure where is this property, Panel. Do we know if it's in East Stewart or it's
somewhere else in just south of uh East Stewart. Um, okay. I showed it right here. It's uh south of 16th Street. Okay. And the next question is is um Sorry, there were two parts. I should have said that. Is um so you have
three owners. Is there is it means tested where you have to be within a certain financial bracket to be eligible for this program? No, we just look at the property value, not property value. Well, I don't think property value had anything to do with it either. It was did the property appraiser identify it
as an air property? And then we came up with a value. I I guess my only question is you might have one of the heirs who actually could afford to do their probate. Yeah. And why would the city want to pay for it? So, thank you.
Uh, Commissioner, board member James. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to let you know that we've identified, we've gotten a list and we've contacted at least half of the people on the list with people that were famili with the people that own the houses. I have people that know people who live in those houses and so
they've been I think that's another issue. People are not just uh free to just say, "Hey, come on and help me." You know, um there's a there may be some trust issues. And so I had somebody who knows the people and they've been reaching out and uh we should have some
applications for you. Now the increase I'm all for it because there are some situations where they can't afford and uh you know and so whatever the city can do to help them to get their title to clear up some of the blight in our community we would appreciate. Yeah.
Mr. Vice Mayor. So what we're doing is effectively tripling the budget for this program by going from 3,000 to 9,000. No, the budget did not the budget is remaining at 25,000 on the program and it's just this one. The agenda item is because this is kind of a one-off. She
opened up the estate or got the lawyer to do the estate. They open it up and they realized that it's not a single case number estate that it requires three. Although you guys had already authorized up to $25,000, the CRA board only authorized
$3,000 per property. But over time, it's effectively triple. If you vote yes on this, it doesn't authorize the next property to be $9,000. If in fact there's another one that comes back, we'd have to come back before you as well. Your policy could
still be there unless you say until the next amendment that changes it from 25 to 100. That's that's that's the discretion of the board. Obviously, if it's working, you might want to spend $10,000 per property if it's making a benefit. I mean, that would be something you could consider. I I would I would
agree with the mayor's comments. Um I I think there is risk here and it it sounds nice that we're talking about keeping people in their homes, but sometimes the way things work
organically seems to work the best, right? And and to some extent the messiness of the titles in this particular part of the city we're talking about is what has allowed that neighborhood that community
to avoid gentrification. you know, like they're able, it's messy, you know, it's not ideal and clean on paper, but because title is so messy in East Stewart, it has kept East
Stewart E Stewart. So, I I I am hesitant to to potentially do this and and um without some kind of safeguard to your point, mayor, that there's some time frame on not selling that property,
you know, and if the intent is to sell, then that is something that should be done within a probate process as part of selling the house. And the city should not be paying for people to sell their houses in East Stewart effectively. Board member Gobi. Okay, maybe I misread
this. It It made it sound like it was a blanket. We're changing it from the probate to several probates. This is just for one individual. Three probates. Property. I mean, property from property. One property. It could have multiple probates. Okay. And each
probate costs $3,000. So in this case, two probates have to be done on one single property. And so the cost would be $6,000 per property for this case. Okay, now I understand. But I agree with
uh Vice Mayor uh Collins. We shouldn't be funding this. If if a family comes to terms with we've paid for the probates, they now have clear title and they sell it. There should be a mechanism that the city could then recoup that money because
you're right, we're not in the business of giving people the ability to sell their property. Obviously, the goal here was so that people could improve their property, take loans on it, and those things, not to go and turn around and just sell it. But I think if there is a sale involved at closing, the city should be reimbured for those funds.
So, I could work with the city attorney to see if we can come up with a mechanism to make sure we can the board figure. Board member clerk. Oh, I thought Mike Mike, you said that that would be treated just like how
we do the other CDBG. I I didn't I said that we have a program with the CDBG that the state does and the city does where they have to sign a three-year lean on the property. Is it prrated? It's Mr.
within 36 months, pay back whatever it was. Okay. And I think it's up to $80,000 for the CDBG grants. It's the discretion of you guys. I I threw that out there just because it's a method because you had brought it up and I was just saying look there is a way to do that and I don't know if three years is
what you guys deem appropriate. I don't know any of it. I mean whatever the board's pleasure is we could figure out how to do it. We also currently do it for the um utility lean. All you have to do to hook up the sewer in the city of Stewart is make a phone call. No money,
no no nothing. You say, "I want connect to the sewer." We send a guy out there the following week. They fill your septic tank in. They connect you to sewer. You're completely hooked up. And then we give you essentially an interest free loan to pay the balance of it over
the next seven years so that it gets paid. But when we do that, we sign a lean so that if you sell the property during the next seven years, we get paid back in full. And we could do the same thing here. They could be
pleasure, but it could be a lean for 36 months that if 36 months is expired, it's forgiven or as Commissioner Joby pointed out once it be whenever it sells, you could be paid back. Again, discretion.
I think that the purpose of doing this and whatever those reasons were put up there is to try to get stimulate some some redevelopment in the area. People who have true generations haven't been able to to deal with their property
issues. This is a way for them to do it because they don't have that three or $4,000 to go hire an attorney straight up. And so this is important to people. It's important to our city. And I think that it's something that people
sometimes need to have that leg up and sometimes they need to get an opportunity to get to that even playing field. Not everybody's on that even playing field yet. And that's why we have properties that are not um being
developed. And when people get so frustrated with it, this idea of gentrification. Yes, people are actually going to sell their property when they can't the families can't get together and they can't figure it out for the one person who's here who's living in the
property and really needs to get the opportunity to make repairs and to do certain things and probably that relative will say if you can take care of it then we'll you you can do it as long as you can take care of it. So, I think that we need to look at this thing
and it's not always tit for tat and we do this, you're going to get paid or you're getting this free. There are just this is the way that some of these programs need to work in order to stimulate the community and to stimulate redevelopment and I think that it's a
good program. I think we should support it if we do need to put some guidelines just like we have with Habitat homes. If nothing is sold within 3 years, 5 years, whatever it is, um then you know there's
the the loan is forgiven, that's fine. Uh but I think that the whole purpose is to make sure that there's the ability for somebody to at least not feel like they're so strapped and their neck is up against the wall. It's been going on for
generations and there needs to be a way to just stop and give people a chance to move forward. Commissioner Gobi, I think it's a win-win. I think it's a great program, but there's no reason for the taxpayer not to be reimbursed at the
point of sale. Um, to be perfectly honest, if the property is being sold, they're making money. I mean, it's not like they're selling it for they're selling it for a profit. And for the city taxpayers to be rebirth back for 6,000 or 9,000, I don't see that as unreasonable when you're fronting the
money. Basically, the city would be fronting the money so that that sale could take place. If it's not a sale, then they've had a leg up to be able to get uh a loan or whatever to do a house improvement. Commissioner Brickbell, board member
Brebo, you know, the uh we we have a program, we had a program like this at the federal level and and you're right, uh Commissioner Collins, the um you know, it does make some sense. That program had a payback. It actually had two programs. It was, I think, 7,000 and
then 9,000 that you could use as a down payment. The first one that came out, you had to pay it back no matter what, whatever. That was kind of a bad thing for people cuz now these people have lived in the house for 10 years and they're getting hit with this cost. And but they had the other one that if you rent it for a certain period of time,
then that that was forgiven. And I think that makes sense. we we can put something in there that, you know, if if you were in the property for 5 years or maybe if you put a certain amount of improvements into the property, the lean gets released and and then at that point, you know, yeah, we get paid back
one way or another. Um, yeah, that's I I I think that that's makes doesn't affect the program. It's still I think it makes it good for everybody. Um, right. They would they would still receive the money and they're going to get an increase in value immediately on that property. Immediately get an increase. So anyway,
I mean 3 years is a fairly short period of time, right? Wave. Um, where are we? I'm sorry. Sorry. Waving. Um, so I'm I'm just I'm listening. I'm thinking. So the before
this meeting started today, the program was in place and there could have been PAL could have had 10 applicants and all the money would have been spent. So, the only reason we're talking about this is because an applicant had more than one probate required. So, instead of 3,000,
it goes to six or so. For what it's worth, no matter what policies you guys decide right now, the only thing you're voting on today is this $9,000 issue. If the board recommends that we come back and amend the policy to include a
mortgage and this other stuff, we'll have to return with another city commission or CRA meeting. As it relates to this $9,000 policy that's going to be approved by resolution, the resolution could be amended to have a condition and that condition would be whatever you
add. Got it. So um so we're only discussing it because there's kind of this exception situation otherwise we would not even be disc all the money would have been spent and any concerns about it right on that property or many others perhaps um properties could have
been eight properties and we wouldn't even be discussing whether that's a giveaway or inappropriate or whatever. So I guess my I I want to ask what is the what is the basis of the protest? Is it the concept, the objectives? In other
words, do we not support the objectives wholly the principle or is it the amount of benefit? So why why are we protesting now versus before? No. How long is this? This is the first one, but we just
adopted this back in October or something like that. No, I got you. But it it was standing, right? And and again, unless the first one happened to be an exception, it could have it could have completed the whole program.
So that's not unusual. I mean, when we start a program, they all evolve. The BRP program, which is the building improvement program, has every single year it gets tweaked or added. And it originally had hurricane windows were allowed, and then hurricane
windows were taken out, and then it tenants were allowed, and then tenants weren't allowed, and then tenants were allowed again. And so the evolution of it is that as you do the program you kind of learn from it and in this particular case we instituted the program knowing really nothing like we
didn't know what we were going to face. We didn't know but you kept it at 25 which was a smart thing to do in case you three arbitrarily as well like we didn't know if everyone was going to be right. Uh so again I'm just wondering if I mean in other words this this body I guess previously approved such a program
based on the concept with a certain budget and I'm just trying to understand is now the concern is it the benefit the budget amount or is it way back to the first step and you don't agree with actually the concept that's I'd be interested to know the the
protest in other words do we do we think the concept is good but just the execution isn't quite right in other words this restriction of Well, we're concerned about somebody's going to get a free 3,000 or 6,000 and then sell the house 6 months later and then the city just gave them this benefit. I think the
motion was based on changing it from per pure per property to per probate. Um, and that's really what the motion is about. That's incorrect. It's property, right? No, per probate. Currently property. Currently for property. So
that's what the So what we're asking is for this is for this. We had originally set that to be per property and now we're saying per probate. So is everybody can is everybody happy to do that to I think the nature of this conversation demonstrates that there's some more than
just that that should be discussed of how the program should and potentially even Mike could this be something where it's tabled and then brought back as a more defined resolution with those types of parameters right now versus just
doing this right now property that has attorney engage that's saying we need $9,000. So before we set a press one before this becomes really a codified thing where we have formalized itself will have to come back for amendment at the next meeting.
Anyway, before we formalize this by taking action with this first person button buttoning this up based on the consensus of the board if we want to include those parameters around repayment and loan. Yeah, it wouldn't before we do something for one person that we end up not doing for other
people. It would have to be by vote, right? And so we could offer an amendment right now to that. Yeah. Yeah. So then I think that's what we should do. Yeah. Yeah. I would move that we add an amendment. Uh motion. Yeah. Yeah. We have Oh, sorry.
There is a pending motion has been seconded on the floor. Okay. I would ask the city attorney to consider a restriction or a um I'm not sure what the right legal
term is, but um amend the motion what Laura was speaking to. So that there would be a a repayment. You could not sell the property for three years or if they do then they repay the money to the city. It wouldn't be to me. It would be a recommendation to Commissioner Clark to amend her motion. There we go. Her
her motion is to approve uh an amendment to the policy. And the policy currently says $3,000 per property. The uh no for prop. Now we're at property. Currently we're at property. The the staff is
suggesting to amend the policy. Yes. To increase up to 9,000 per property, but up to 3,000 per probate. Clear? Yes. And just to be clear, we've had no applicants but one. And the one that applied at two had needs could be it's
two. It's two. It's potentially but we this is first off this is the only applicant we have. So we've not spent anything. So there could be I mean if somebody died with 11 children and five
of those children died could be six. Lee, do you mind? No. the city would limit their participation if they can't do it and that's it. It would for the circumstances where the funds are available to do that. We'd have to limit it in the motion and then also it's
already limited. Lee, do you do you mind clarifying or trying to summarize? Um, we're not commissioner Gob's we're not addressing this one property that the the amendment was to amend the policy. Correct. So currently the property at
issue, the only applicant um is is is requesting that it be per uh per per probate because the the grandmother died and had sons and one of the sons died. So you have to have
probate for the grandma and then and then the son the son that died has to have separate probate. So it would be 6,000 for this property. If you don't approve it, the amendment, then it's capped at 3,000 per property. So, we're just I heard discussion that we were
addressing this one issue or not, we're the motion was on the policy as it is written, but per but per some of the um offered amendment to that amendment, do you think you could help summarize for discussion? We have a motion to approve
what been summarized. nine up to $9,000 per property and and $3,000 up to $3,000 per probate. Uh but currently the policy is just $3,000 per property. Doesn't matter. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm I'm asking you to
help characterize and summarize what Commissioner Gobi was referencing with regard to putting stipulations on that for a three-year time frame for a loan for repayment. when you sh correct he asked motion he started to
me you need to mentor him and then but he's under the Robert's rules order you need to when there's a pending motion on the floor you would have to request the uh moving member could amend their their motion if not we got to vote on that motion that motion and if it that
doesn't happen again right then you could have a new motion with those conditions I think I think it would be wise to do that before we Yes. Um let's uh Mr. Mr. Bagot and Mr. Mortell and pinol I think you mentioned
that because this is just for this item if we wanted other things in this burp uh not burp sorry this ear's property ordinance to to change um we'd have to bring it back or for this limited reason
we could amend something that would go to the entire ordinance not just about the amount for each case here uh by probate case. We're doing two things. We're changing the the the number of times that somebody could do a probate
within a piece of property like three times, I guess, and then of course keep the number by those case each time at $3,000. But also, they're saying that when a property is involved with a probate that if the city's funds have
gone into that property, regardless of how much funds have gone into it, whether it's up to 3,000, 6,000, 9,000, that um if the property is sold within 3
years, three year after uh within three years, then the city could recoup which would go back into the CRA funds to do other properties. It would recoup those funds from the sale of that property. Yes.
And that's what you want me to amend my motion accept staff and do that. That's what that's what um I'm agreeing to that. Are you agreeing to that, Mr. Brett? Will our second I was Mr. Bre. I
was the second. He was the second one. And um I I just have a question before I This is the first one. Yeah. Before we start making changes, let's just see if one even works. I mean, that's what I thought we were doing is just going to
see if one works. Yeah. And then after that, I I agree with some of the with the majority of the comments have been made relative to this being paid back, refunding into the CRA to reuse it in the program. I think those are all great ideas, but can we just see if there's
any interest? We've got one so far that's showed an interest in. Nobody's got through it all the way yet. I think it would be a good idea just to see the programs in place. Let's see if anybody else even cares about it. I mean, if we would spend a lot of time and money
within the motion. No, he's saying the the motion is to keep the staff recommendation, right? I I was saying that I was keeping my original second if we're going to change it. Well, she's already changed her motion. No, I haven't changed it. I
asked him if he wanted me to amend it and I asked Mark if he wanted if Mark doesn't want to amend it. I'll Okay, please vote on my motion to just accept staff recommendations. Can I make one correction here? You both keep saying it's one. We're not It's my understanding we're voting on changing
the language, not for one individual. It would be going forward there would be for this case. Yes. No, it's it's not it's the language in there, right? Yeah. Okay. Board member James, yes. Board member
Reed, no. Board member Clark, yes. Vice Chair Collins, no. Chair Rich, no. And board member Breville? Yes. Board member Gobi? No. All right. I'd move that we uh we modify the
program to allow for up to $3,000 per probate and uh a total of $9,000 per property and that if and that that money has to be paid back if the
property is sold within a three-year period of time. by any public comment on that. I just know everything. Right. Yeah. And so for clarification, the owner still could sell it. We're not
restricting the sale, which gets reimbured. I think that's fair. Everybody wins. Yeah. And and looking up the property too. So yeah, I would imagine they won. Yep. be assessed,000 first year. The city will
still pay them the money. Then up to them how they want to go forward. Pays a lawyer the funds. They don't get any time. Any other comments or questions by any board members? Life goes on for 40 more years. Yeah.
After 3 years, you got to release something. Release a lean or something legally. You're correct. That could be the intent of the CRA is to reinvigorate and fix blighted areas and
technically give the money back to the community to generate redevelopment of the community. The program was designed as grant effectively give the money away. It's now being restricted to it's
not a straight grant. It's only a giveaway if you keep the property for at least three years. Very similar to the CG grants as well. The cost of those dollars over 40 years getting them back is not going to make a difference. So three years. Yeah.
Any other questions or comments? I have a question. I have a question. Um, do we want to do three years for all like up to 9,000? Should it be different? Like if it if they're only receiving assistance for $3,000, should it be they would have to
return if they start within one year? Um, you know, $6,000 assistance they have to pay back the whole thing or just three. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Just wanted to get your input on that. The whole thing back.
Simpler's better always. Okay. Roll call, please. Board member Reed, yes. Board member Giovi, yes. Chair Rich, yes. Vice Chair Collins, Board Member Breville, yes.
Board member James, yes. And board member Clark, yes. Clark, board member Clark. Board member Clark. you I think second iter Did you hear her respond? Um Mr. Hogarth, you're up.
Good evening, commissioners. Ben Hogarth, um community service time this meeting stated and right now did anything change? I've been I've been following the legislature uh particularly folks the last two weeks. Um, this is not going to be a super formal presentation or anything like that. Just a quick update
for CRA purposes. Um, one of the bills that came up during the legislative session, uh, probably for the once for the last, uh, 10 years, a CRA bill came up and was looking at the termination of CRAAS around the state, um, timing it out. And other states like California
have done this where they've they've set up time frames for when CRAAS uh, terminate. When CRAAS are first initiated, they have a 30 or a 60-year uh, time span. So the termination of CRAAS is not essentially what's problematic. What came up in the session this year, House Bill 991, um is one of
the bills we were recently watching uh has now been supplemented and now we have Senate Bill 110. That bill would terminate uh CRAAS if it's adopted by the Senate. It has been adopted by the House as we speak. if it's adopted by the um the Senate and there's a small
chance that that could still happen. Uh all CARAS would terminate regardless of what it says in their um and their own plan by 2045. And what's important for this board to know I think um and it's something that we've seen year after year, but particularly everything's starting to to to get more refined and
more specific is that what the legislature has done is kind of honed in on uh bonding and how CRAAS do their projects. And unfortunately, a lot of CRAAS um some could could say even this CRA has not done a lot of re huge redevelopment infrastructure projects.
And regardless of where um the CRA is today, what the bill would have done was stop us from doing any projects after October of this year, any new projects that we hadn't bonded, that we hadn't had um appropriated. That language has been thankfully amended at this point.
So, what we're looking forward to now is anything that is not on the docket in the CRA plan probably should be considered by the CRA and by the commission um in the near future for for being added and kind of having the plan be wrapped up in in a in a tidy bow of what the expectation is for really the
next 20 years. Um because we fully expect even if this bill doesn't pass this year, uh next year we'll see another version of it that could be even stronger. um could say all bills or all bonds need to come due by a certain date. They'll run into legal challenges
then again. But what we're seeing time and time again is that the CRAAS are being required to kind of put up or shut up is really there's not really a better colloquialism for it. It's actually if you you taxed people now you need to do projects. Now you need now you need to
do projects whether it's bonding, however you leverage your money. you've taxed these people, you need to do projects that benefit the CRA. And I think that's an important message kind of going forward. I I I don't presume to to know what each CRA needs to do or wants to do. Um and and that also
includes this CRA. It's just it's really important to take this message from what we've learned from the deliberations this year and in the legislature that irrespective of whether this bill passes or not the message has been loud and clear that CRAAS need to start doing projects um if they want to continue and
because they're leveraging county funds or le leveraging city funds tax taxable funds um we need to use those funds towards projects and you know whatever the vision of those projects are for the CRA I think it's really really important the board starts thinking about that.
Um, and coincidentally enough, the second thing that I was just going to briefly mention is that we had a uh the commission had approved previously one appropriations request for this year. It's our second time requesting money for the Guy Davis project. Uh, we are thankfully on both the Senate and the
House budgets. And as you've seen, it's been kind of they're kind of been battled the two chambers right now. They they might go into a special or an extended session. Um the good news is our project is still in both budgets uh a quarter a million and a half a million respectively. So they're going to have to to figure that out for our project at
the end. um we're in a good position and I think it's really really important uh that you know the commission that the CRA that the CRB all the boards really take into consideration what these legislators or uh the legislators and what the legislature itself is saying as a whole to cities because even if they
don't you know come good on this this bill this year they've threatened this consistently every year for the last decade um and it's important I think for that message to be kind of loud and clear that we really need to think about projects Um otherwise, you know, their their point of view is why do you even
have a CRA? Um so with that said, I didn't want to take up too much time. I really thought it would be important to at least bring up the CRA bill. There are certainly others and the commission heard me just two weeks ago talk about a lot of other problematic uh bills that we're watching that we should see final disposition this week by probably
Thursday at the latest. So um if there's any questions, be happy to answer. Thank the rare good news out of the legislature. Thank you, Mr. Hogarth. Um, seeing no other items for our
consideration. Meeting adjourned.