Good evening. We'll call to order the uh agenda review session for the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 C city commission meeting to order. Uh can we roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Commissioner Davis >> here. >> Commissioner Dolison
>> here. >> Commissioner Bersong >> here. >> Mayor Pro Tim Mercer >> here. And Mayor Yates >> here. >> Okay. We'll have the invocation and pledge as normal. We've got a couple three presentations. Um all of which looks like will be Tuesday.
>> Correct, sir. >> Okay. And then we've got uh one set of one set of minutes to review, >> I believe. Lata, is there going to be more added? Yes, there will be two additional um minutes. One for May 6 addition um agenda review session and
May 11th, the regular city commission meeting minutes will be added on the um May 26 agenda. >> Okay. >> And we we just haven't republished in case there was anything that needed to change this evening. So following tonight, we will republish with just those added to it.
>> Okay, sounds good. Um so let's go into ordinances second reading. We've got an ordinance 026-12. Um, city attorney >> well >> or city manager. >> I think I can take these to see if that's okay, Mr. Mayor. >> Go for it.
>> So, uh, and on these, this first one, this again is the reszoning request from Beacon 6 Holdings. This is the single parcel that is going to be joined with three other parcels to construct a um convenience store with fueling services
there at the corn the northwest corner of the intersection of MLK Boulevard and First Street. Um there's been no changes that I'm aware of since you've had first reading. So this is just coming to you for second reading. Uh again, changing
the zoning of that one parcel from MX to C3, which will make all of that a C3 zoning. >> Okay. Questions. >> All right. 2615. >> Um this is a budget amending ordinance.
So, this ties in with the work that's being done at the Diamond Plex Softball Complex. Um, we do have a GMP for that project at $2.34 million. The city uh has a 1 mil set aside for
capital projects and from that 1.15 million was earmarked for this project in fiscal year 26. Uh there was also a million dollars earmarked for it in 20 in fiscal year 25. That left a delta of $188,859.
The amendment will transfer $100,000 within the construction fund into that project, $32,858 from the transportation fund, which will offset the cost associated with some crosswalk improvements, and $15,000 from
the general fund for the additional expenditures. Um the balance after you use take all those transfers there is a balance of 41,0001 uh that is remains available from the cost savings within the diamond diamond
plex softball improvement project that will be added to it as well. So it fulfills all of the funding uh through that >> and it's a second read as well. >> All right. All right. Well, if we want to hit the consent agenda, I'll let you take them.
So, I'm gonna um rely I think Mark Bombard is going to do some presentations this evening uh on this on two projects that we have here. I'll just give you a little uh precursor to it. Um so, we have two items that are
that are on the agenda for Tuesday evening that pertain to water production facilities. So we're building a water production facility at Pard Road which initially will be a 6 MGD facility and
expandable up to 8 MGD and then we are replacing a water production facility at Cypresswood that is being designed for a 1 MGD facility and expandable to a 2 MGD
facility. Um the items that Mark's going to present on this evening pertain to the design and engineering work for those two projects. These are being constructed through a Seymar uh construction manager at risk approach that Wharton Smith has been awarded
through a competitive process. Uh however, the engineering and design is different for each of those facilities. Um on the pollard road facility that work is being conducted by Atkins Rialis
and on the uh Cypresswood it is being performed by and I'm drawing a complet so those are the two items that we have and I'm going to turn it over to Mark to take you through these items as well as the presentation uh that was put
together for them combined. >> Uh good evening mayor um and commissioners. Um, T. Michael kind of summed everything up. I'm not even sure that I really need to do this. He hit everything right on the head, so that's okay. Um, so the the agenda of this
short presentation, we're going to go with team organization, overview of the projects, the design criteria, and the schedule for the project. Um, as T said, um, the two projects, Pard Water Production Facility, the design engineer is Atkins Rios. Um and the Cypress
Woodwater Production Facility um is going to be done by Right Pierce. Both these preliminary designs were started a couple years ago. Um and we're just now getting to the stage that we're here in front of to uh do the final final design
and permitting for the project coming all together. Um as T said, um Wharton Smith will be the Seymour on the project. Uh we'll work as one big team of course um to try to get these uh projects pulled in. um on budget and uh
most importantly on time because they are influenced by PRWC's um deadline for receiving the AWS water supply. Um overview of the project of course everybody knows about the one uh one water strategy. Our current demand uh is
11.6 MGD um based on last year's PR report. The future demands um shown on the chart there is about 20.8 8 MGD uh by 2050. So to meet this goals, we're going to have to look at some alternate water options uh needed to meet the future
demands. Um one of the big ones is obviously PRWC comes online in 2018. No, yeah, >> 28. >> 28. Sorry, man. I'm 10 years behind my time. Um, also to uh we we decided to
start exploring the upper end of the lower Florida aquifer. Um, and we brought to you, I think last month, the uh some additional work that was going to be done by our well driller to complete uh additional wells that he's drilled. Um, we've completed two wells
at each site at this time. Here's where the uh two plants are located. Cypresswood is located obviously over by in the in the Cypresswood area to the south of where most of the development is. Um and the pilot road site is adjacent to and across the road from the logistics
parkway that's under construction right now from the wastewater treatment plant 3 or the new water production facil facility that we're under design with right now. So some of the design criteria for the Cypresswood water treatment plant uh like T said we're going to replace the
aging infrastructure. Uh we're originally going to do a 1 MGD plant with additional expansion to uh another 1.0 MGD. We have two wells drilled right now. Um one in the future that we will probably start after the first of the
year. And on the Pard Road water production facility, um this project is going to replace the Winter Gardens water treatment plant. We're going to retain the plant as a booster station, but take the wells offline from there.
Um, this also addresses the new industrial and commercial demands that are happening down in the ILC. Um, and provide water supply all the way down to State Road 60 which is still within the utility service area. The plant will be originally at 6 MGD capacity with
additional two additional more two to bring it to eight. Um, there are three wells planned there with one additional in the future. There's only two wells there now. Um and also the future alternative water supply receiving facilities as I said uh spoke about for
the PRWC which drives the project. Um because the we are anticipating to be coming online and to be able to receive a uh the AWS water supply by October 28. Um so you can see we have pretty
aggressive schedule there. We're going to have some early out packages um to get the Seymar started before the design is 100% complete um to bring this project in um in on time. And for that I'll stand for any questions.
>> Let me add one thing to it. So kind of a just a a recap of the Seymar process. the the benefit that we or any organization gains in that is that as you're going through design
um your engineer team is is doing all of that work. The semar is part of that process. So there's a lot of value engineering that happens during the design. Is there a a better way to uh to build what it is you're designing by
adjusting the design to accommodate this that or whatever? Um so you know under traditional hard bid projects that value engineering happens so late in the game that it results in a lot more change orders and delays. This way you have
both of them working together to try and come up with designs and construction means and methodologies that achieve the greatest um economic efficiencies that you can and still deliver the project. Um, but certainly we'll stand for
questions you may have on on this portion of the presentation thus far. >> I would also like to add in there by bringing in a Seymar having two uh separate consulting firms doing two separate plants um able to bring consistency to the plants to make sure
that the technology is the same at both plants. So when our operators go from one one plant to another, we're going to have the same when they walk in the everything is going to appear the same to them, just a different plant. Burton Mercer. >> Yes. Um I just have a a question. What's
our capacity now? Is it about 12 million? >> 14.06. >> And so from that point, um Mark, I'll take a stab at at the at the fact sheets and certainly fill in the blanks where where I need where I miss. But um
speaking specifically to the Polar Road WA water production facility. So that's the one that will be designed and engineered by Atkins Realis. Um that's what this scope of work is that is
presented for you to give consideration on Tuesday evening. Um again this is a 6 MGD plant expandable to 8 MGD in the future. Their scope of work includes the project administration services, updates to the
preliminary design report, regulatory review and funding opportunities, development and preparation of the final design, construction documents and all permits, support to the Semar uh throughout the process and then also CI
services, that's the construction engineering and inspection services that they'll perform while um the project is going through its construction. construction. There's also on the Pard Road uh additional work that is tied to
improving Fourth Street East. So, Fourth Street runs from I guess it's Rifle Range Road back to the east towards wastewater treatment plant three. However, it does not punch all the way through. Our long-term goal there is to
get it punched all the way through. Um, as as you may know, when we have train issues, getting into the wastewater treatment plant is problematic. Um, oftent times our staff has had to go all the way down to 60 and come up through
logistics parkway and the unimproved corridor. It'll be a little bit easier once the logistics parkway is built. Um, but even with the changes to Thompson Nursery Road that will happen in the future under the county's program, we
need to get Fourth Street constructed will also give us access into this water production facility uh from the plant. So, there's uh just a small amount of money that is earmarked for that. The estimated total professional services fee
associated with this scope is $ 8.9 million. Um, the city does retain the ability to renegotiate that fee if the fee for design exceeds 11% of the Semar's 30%
cost estimate for construction. Um, and and that is in line with what we would expect engineering and design services to be. We had a long discussion internally over the past few weeks on this. When you're building,
the general rule of thumb is uh for architectural or engineering services, you could be I used to say as low as 8% up to 15% in more recent times. That has become more likely from 10 to 18 even
20% in some cases depending upon the technical nature of a project. Um, so the fact that we've set this at a uh not to exceed 11% holds us in a good position there. Um, and as far as
funding for this, so there is money earmarked in the current budget for the Parlor Road at 1.65 million. Um the balance of that project is to be budgeted in fiscal year 27 as well as
into 28 when we're still in construction. When we approve when you as a commission approved the fee schedule uh the rate study for our water and sewer operations
in August of 2024. those fees that were set contemplate not only your operational costs but also your long range CIP. And so the um the fees as they exist
today contemplated a uh significant borrowing of some sort and the debt service that would be repayable related there too. So we anticipate that sometime within the next
I'm going to say 6 to 10 maybe 12 months we will do a bond issuance uh specific to water and sewer. We're timing that based upon what's the best time to do it. The debt service for such borrowing is already contemplated and those
revenues are coming in and being you know set aside for within the uh fund balance within the utility fund to accommodate that debt service. Uh not knowing what structure we would use to borrow at what time and in what you know
if it's one large borrowing or or multiples over time. We think um in in my most recent conversation with Gary Huard, we think that's going to be $110 million borrowing somewhere in that range that will go towards these water
production facilities as well as um looking to the improvements at the um wastewater treatment plant. So the the the fees to the the the revenues to
accomplish this work, some of that is in play now. Some of it is budgeted in 27 and 28 and will be primarily funded through what's coming in off of those uh rates as well as the borrowing that we'll incur.
>> Two questions. So if it I get the 11% cap. If it exceeded that I We're not, it's not like we wouldn't be on the hook for that first 11, right? I mean, by the time they get to the point of knowing it would be over 11%, we've already spent
money out to them. So, well, you're it's 11% of the 30% cost estimates. So, in your Seymar, you're getting cost estimates that uh is your 30 60 90 100 >> correct? >> So, you're getting >> no 100. >> No 100 30 60 90 and then GMP.
>> Yeah. We anticipate having the 30% plans out for the 30% GMP early in the game so they aren't going to have that much draw down by that time. >> So we would see throughout the process how close we're getting and we would obviously have those conversations well
before we got to the point of expending >> 11% before we uh yeah went over that threshold. >> Gotcha. And the cypresswood plant who who does that service? Is that an is that servicing just cypress wood or is that >> No. No. All of our water treatment plants are interconnected, all nine of
them. Uh so um that obviously cypresswood kind of the water may probably stays in that cypress wood uh cypress gardens boulevard area. Um but if say cypress wood goes down the other treatment plants at winter set or
ridgeotech they supply the water to that area. So since since all the pipelines are interconnected, the water is co-mingled. >> So I I get that part, but I guess and if if we didn't have
that plant, it it would be service, but I I get that. I'm I'm just I'm getting at obviously the majority of Cypress Wood is not in the city limits of Winter Haven. And so I'm just trying to get at,
you know, is that servicing the majority of non city residents or is it >> I would have to overlay the city limits to be sure which is which, but um it would be supplying both.
>> So are we able to ever consider a sir charge on non-resident bills to offset the cost of services? >> Deep now. So let's get um
so in the 26 state legislation bill passed that historically we have been able to have a search charge. Um non city residents paid an automatic 25% search charge. You
could actually go up to 50%. there were certain justifications and um I guess documentation of ex you know defined expenses that would allow you to tap into that second 25%. The legislation
in a nutshell as it came out this year and has been approved removes that 20 that automatic 25%. And the your ability to implement a search charge is driven by being able to
divi define exact expenses you're incurring tied to servicing your non city residents. Um and also carries with it additional requirements of public meetings to
entertain those specific customers. um your ability to apply that search charge is temporary and you have to revisit that on a regular basis.
We have requested Rafelis who does our rate studies to go back and look at our rates to do another rate study for us putting everybody on a consistent same rate
for water and sewer regardless of inside or outside because the ability to establish that nonresident searchcharge is going to be extremely problematic. Um what that means is that city
residents will see an increase in their water rate. C non city residents on our water system will see a decrease in their water rate because the 25% search charge those revenues now get smoothed across all
48,000 45,000 accounts. Um in reality as I last recall about onethird of our customer base is outside the city limits.
So we have met with Raph Telus and asked them to revisit that um as well as a couple other things that we want to uh give some consideration to and bringing to the commission. Um timing for them to complete that. Mark, do you remember
what their estimate was? >> We haven't received the scope yet, but um >> I thought it was going to be a few months before we would see it. And it would be a >> it would be a January one of 27
implementation is what we're planning on because there's notices and you there's a a number of hoops that we have to step through in order to do rates. But um and I'll just you know from a
personal opinion on that matter I think that that came that legislation came about because of disagreements in a specific portion of the state where uh smaller providers were had that that
issue providing water to other municipalities providing water to uninorporated residents and it rose to the level that legislation was passed that made that took that that opportunity away.
>> Doesn't quite seem fair to the city residents, but so it goes, I suppose, with with Tallahassee. That would also be inclusive of a fee like you you couldn't have a standalone fee. that would >> you could you could put in a a a
standalone fee for um certain improvements within your systems, you know, back several years ago, >> but it would have to go across the board. >> It would go across >> one area. the um some of the municipalities and I think the county
put into play a sir charge for alternative water sources when PRC PRWC first came online knowing that that water was going to have certain expenses for booster pumps and the likes. So they started charging that. Um we did not do
that. Uh we have you know more recently implemented uh in the last rate study we did an RNR fee a renewal and replacement fee which is very low to set aside dollars for changing out asbestous pipe and and you know some of the
improvements that need to be made. We have asked Raphelis in this goround to give consideration or give us some guidance on a what we're calling an environmental fee that we could use uh for a couple things being um uh
assistance and conversion from septic to sewer which is a which is a massive expense. Uh when you when you have a home that's on septic and you're going to connect to sewer. our impact fees have to be or our connection fees have to be paid and the like and that can be
a significant cost to a homeowner. Um yet getting them off of septic has a benefit to everybody because of the you know what it protects the environment against. But those are dollars that could also be earmarked and and utilized when we have environmentally sensitive
lands that would be beneficial for recharge that it can go towards some of that work as well. So, you know, that's a a whole lot ahead of the game in what I think Raph Telus is going to bring back to us. But we're once we get that scope of work, that will come uh back
likely to the commission for approval to advance that. But we, you know, that's the that's how you get these projects done in the long term. It's it's out of fees and we don't want to, you know, the fees as they're set today have already contemplated a significant amount of investment into this uh these capital
projects, but that legislation is a that's a tough one to swallow. But again, that's the state law and um the the the challenge of keeping those fees separated I see as being highly problematic for
us. >> Current the impact fees uh current impact fees would apply I'm assuming. >> So connection fees is what we call they're right >> they're not impact fees in the water sewer industry. They're they're defined
as connection fees. They are a little different than an impact fee. We made adjustments to those in August of 24 as well. They took effect uh January of 25. Um and um those are are set and that's
uh you know I think those will also have to adjust based upon city and non city. Um and of course that's on new builds. >> So the connections are already set. They're set, but
they're going to have to be adjusted as well to smooth them because you're going to have an a city non city to the best of my understanding of the legislation. >> Would there be So there is the expectation then that there are many
more who would opt for the option of connecting instead of doing septic but going to >> well no I don't I don't believe so. I think that um the cost to to convert from septic and
Mark tell me if you think differently. I think that that number when you figure in paying the connection fee um remove not removing but maybe crushing in place the septic
um all of those costs you're probably looking under current fees about $10,000 a home 8 to 10. >> It would be more than that if you're including the fees. It's probably 8 to 10 depending on what you need for a connection. You need a grinder. Yeah. If if you're like on a lake and you need a
grinder pump to push up to our system, you may be looking closer to 18 to $20,000. >> And that's a that's a a significant cost. Um it used to and this is the other thing that that comes into play with it. It
used to be when we would pursue annexations. One of the leverage points that we always had and one of the selling points was if you came into the city, you would
see a reduction of 25% your water sewer fees. That will no longer be the case. Um, I think annexations long-term are impacted by this. And depending what happens with property tax reform, that
changes that paradigm completely because your desire to annex properties, I think there's no real benefit in annexation unless it's either commercial or industrial property. Because if it's residential and there's, you know, some
significant change to homestead property tax, you end up picking up those homes and have to provide service without a revenue source to offset the service you're having to provide. It's a complete paradigm shift. And the
existing city residents, of course, get stuck with paying for county taxes, which they receive minimal services for at the end of the day other than transportation most likely. There's just a there's a lot going on there and we've kind of gone down a whole separate rabbit hole there. But I think the >> that's what agenda review is for.
>> I know >> rabbit holes. >> But the gist of this is on these two items. So the on the the Atkins realalis again uh roughly $ 8.9 million to to take the pollard road water production facility to full design and include the
CI services and the improvements to uh Fourth Street. And then on the cypress wood because it's a much smaller facility uh at one MGD expandable to two uh that is with Wright Pierce and their um their
cost on that one is not to exceed $4.69 69 million and again we have a million budgeted for that in the current fiscal year and then uh that will be accounted for in the fiscal year 27 and 28 budgets
as well. >> All right, >> Mark, is there anything further we need to add there? >> No, I don't believe so. Jones Edmonds supplement. >> You want to take >> Jones Edmonds on the Harmony Master, please?
>> Yep. Um, so, uh, we commissioned our Harmony Master lift station in looking for my date here. Why don't I see my dates anymore? >> In December 25.
>> September 25. September 25. Um during that period uh Joan Edmonds uh did the design in 2022 and they were they were also included in there the CI um portion of it for the construction
engineering inspection service which uh was governed by our SRF loan. Um the construction started on February of 23 B&B construction underground. Um but due to the time frame it was
through COVID and other delays um the project was not completed within the time frame that the it was scheduled to be for 15 months. Um project still continued along but uh the issue was with long lead items
switch gears um at electronics technologies uh was the issue with getting them on board. Ultimately the project uh was completed 15 months after the initial completion date. Um throughout that time uh Joan Edmonds
continued uh their CI services um being about 15 months over over contract time but knowing uh being a good partner with the city and and knowing that how critical this was especially with the SRF funding um they continued to stay with us. Um, also during that time, um,
in August of 25, about six months before it was commissioned, uh, we, uh, did our wastewater asset management plan that was required by FD. Um, that was included in the Joan Edmonds portion of that contract. Um,
and ultimately, uh, we had to do an amendment to it because the project because the asset management plan didn't incorporate all the items that were in the Harmony Master Lift station. So the supplementary engineering services uh kind of makes Joan Edmonds
whole. It's approximately in round numbers about 50/50 between uh the CI services that they were they they uh they had to continue to do um and the updating the creating and updating the asset management plan.
So ultimately uh after negotiating and working with Joan Edmonds uh the total costs that they incurred that were not incorporated in the original agreement was 200 about $275,000
and we're asking uh to have that approved so we can make them whole as a good partner to to Joan Evans. So again, that's one of those projects that when you're dealing with any coming out of CO, even though this started, you know,
construction was awarded in 22, the spring of 22, delays that we saw on our own projects we're doing in house. Um, anything tied to electronics, panels, um, as Mark said, the technologies,
there was such a backlog of those items that it delayed numerous projects. Yet, you're still having to do your CI and your work on that. So, um, and then that asset management report is a requirement of SRF, which is where we're getting,
you know, a lot of our funding through. So, um, we're recommending that this be approved. It's basically a change order to that for the supplemental funding of $274,980. That money is available within the utility fund
um within their uh lift station replacements and Harmony being a master lift station. Uh it's appropriate that it come from there. >> Gravity sewer annual contract. So, um every year, um we do um gravity
sewer um CIP lining services um to we to evaluate and line um gravity sewer lines that are in being impacted by age um and infiltration.
This year's project um is going to be on the north side of Lake Ma uh and it includes about There we go. Uh rehabilitating about 8700 ft of 8 inch gravity sewer. Uh the total cost is $381,000.
Um and it is budgeted in this fiscal year for the work. >> That's basically putting a a membrane inside that pipe that is heated and expanded and it seals the inside of the pipe to give it a longer lifespan. >> How long does it
Um, we don't really know. We haven't run into the where it's deteriorated enough where we can estimate that. So, we're we're projecting at least 10 years. >> You know how long we've been doing slip lining? >> Since I've been here was the first one of the first years >> we probably another prior to that we
yeah slip line a number of pipes. Trace I don't know if we did any during your time. >> We did on Buckeye loop over there. Buckeye in that area. We did some slip line. >> It's a really good effective uh rehabilitation rate of uh >> we also just did brought to you I think
in one of your last two meetings slip lining for some um storm >> storm wipes same same process bigger plate obviously >> can you do it again after after it does deteriorate >> you can the uh the the lining is um like a
it's it's like a cloth with resin on it so as you do as you do more and more obviously the diameter of the pipe gets smaller on the inside. But I I would I would anticipate if the growth didn't change on that line, you could probably do it at least one more time and still be manageable.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Mark. >> Authorization for travel and training. >> Travel and training. We have one item and that is for Commissioner Birdong to attend the Florida Regional Council's Association Policy Board meeting. This
is on behalf of the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. will take place at the end of July in St. Petersburg. The C CFRPC covers the hotel accommodations for that and our travel training uh expenses are incorporated
within the city commission's budget. >> Okay. On to resolutions R2615. >> I'm going to ask Eric Labby to uh present this and I'll just kind of precursor it by saying this came before the commission back in December um and
was approved. However, there's an update, too. >> Yes, sir. I was going to say, um, mayor commissioners, this may sound familiar to you because we've done it once before. Um, this was the vacation of the old West Lake Eloise Drive um as part of
the Harmony uh project. Uh, as you recall, they constructed us a new road. Um part of that uh agreement with Harmony was uh that we would um then vacate the old uh rightaway as you see on the on the map here. Um we did we did
bring that before you um I think I think a year ago now >> it was in December I believe >> December we brought that before you. Um there wasn't we discovered that there was an error in the um legal description of the vacation uh document within that
uh resolution. Um and so as part of this uh new resolution R2615 um we will be uh correcting that error in the legal description. Um, also as we went back, we discovered that there was
an old Poke County maintained rightaway map. Um, and it would be appropriate to reference that um, Old Pulk County um, maintained rightaway map in that vacation. And so we went ahead and added that uh, language as well. So this is this is cleaning up an action that that
we had already taken that that we did discover an error in. >> Okay. >> I remember this one coming before There was a lot of discussion about the utilities being vacated in there and all that remains the same.
>> All right. R 2617. >> Mr. L. >> Yes, sir. Um phases three and four of the Willowbrook North uh subdivision. Uh on March 10th of 2025, uh the commission approved resolution 253, which platted
this subdivision. Um the developer did record a performance bond. Uh it was developed in four phases. The actu the phases were completed in two chunks. So phases one and two were completed first. Phases three and four um were then
completed next. Um this is to release the subdivision performance bond and confirm the acceptance of the infrastructure for phases three and four of this subdivision. This is one that started with the old process uh before it became administrative and so we're taking it all the way through because we
have a local resolution that we've already adopted uh that we need to address. Um so it's coming back before you again. This is to release the subdivision performance bond in the amount of 5,69,7118 and accept the improvements that were constructed. They have been inspected.
Um, we will accept the water, wastewater, and reuse utilities in this subdivision. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So, on to new business. Um, unless there's any object objection, I'm going to skip to
13B. We'll we'll save 13A for for last. That's all right. So, let's do 13B, the comprehensive agreement. >> Okay. So, we're going to tag team this a bit this evening. I'm going to rely upon the city attorney, Mr. Labby, and Mr.
Carnival. Carnival, as we've all spent quite a bit of time working on this. Um, I do want to preface this with a word of appreciation to John Murphy and Drew Crawford, um, who helped really assemble
and negotiate this comprehensive agreement. This is a um what I just went through this afternoon again is about a 63page comprehensive agreement that has a a lot of unique aspects to it particularly
that it's a tied back to a unsolicited proposal for a public private partnership which is um not something we often see. So take you back in time and I'm going to go through most of this fact sheet in in
full detail. So, in October of 25, the city received an unsolicited proposal from 610 pursuant to Florida statutes in the P3 Act to construct and sell to the city a new 292 space parking facility on
property that is owned by Urban Action LLC and generally located at the corner of Avenue C and Third Street Southwest. So, in the general area of the uh where Grove Roots Brewing Company is across the street from there and then to the
north, you also have Southeastern University's Winter Haven campus. Pursuant to the Florida statutes, the commission convened two duly noticed public meetings. First one was held November 24th of 25 during which the
proposal was presented and affected public entities and members of the public were able to provide comment. A second meeting was held December 8th of 2025 at which time the commission adopted resolution R2558
which made the determination that the proposal serves a public purpose using all five statutoily defined factors for determining such and is a qualifying project pursuant to the P3 Act of
Florida statutes and also declaring the commission's intent into enter into a comprehensive agreement. So when that was done in December, it's basically the takeaway is yes, this serves a public purpose. Yes, we have interest in this.
The next defining action before anything moves forward is the comprehensive agreement. Um, we were also required to issue a notice of the unsolicited proposal and report of public interest determination uh to be published in the Florida
Administrative Register for at least seven days. That is a requirement of the Florida statutes. That has occurred. Um, and we are in full compliance there. So, the agreement, the comprehensive agreement that we're presenting to you
is between the city 610 LLC and Urban Action and defines the terms, duties, and rights and responsibilities of each party pursuant to permitting, construction, sale, and purchase of a new 292 space parking facility for
public use in as a city of Winterhaven capital asset. Pursuant to the agreement, 610 shall be responsible for the design, permitting, and construction of the parking facility as a design build project. 610 has
retained Whitehead Construction as a design builder. 610 is experienced in the design and construction of multi-level parking facilities. The existing parking structure that we have adjacent to the library was constructed
in 2012 time frame generally by Whitehead at that time. The city's representatives shall evaluate and review interim designs, plans, and permitting documents. And upon permitting of the final design, 610
shall construct the parking facility and cause the final building to be delivered to the city at a guaranteed maximum price of 10,217,496. The backing up just for a second, the city's representatives, we have a another item that will follow this which
is a engagement with Kimley Horn to sign on is a um additional service to us the oversight and review and CI and all the things that we need to do within this project.
In addition, Urban Action, which owns the land on which this facility is to be constructed, uh will convey that land to the city once the parking facility building is completed and that is incorporated within the purchase price that I just
cited. The agreement also provides for city approved change orders. Uh a land inspection on behalf of the city which has a period of 120 days. Permit approval period of 120 days that runs concurrently with the land inspection
period. There is a right to cancel the agreement due to any conditions discovered prior to construction which were under the property impossible for construction or where the cost to cure such condition exceeds 5% of the construction budget. We have no
anticipation of that based upon all knowledge to date. It's a requirement for a performance bond title insurance and survey requirements. It outlines the conditions of the closing, who's responsible for what costs there, the liability insurance requirements, and
the conditions of default and associated remedies. The impact financially again 10,217,496. Our funding for that includes the utilization of $2,279
200 sorry 2,279,455 from the fisc year 25 cash carry forward. That is money in excess of our 30% uh fund balance that we we seek to retain and we earmark that specifically for capital projects.
$4,49,625 from the construction fund which has been restricted for the parking garage and 3,528,416 from the transportation fund as a result of savings from the logistics parkway
pard improvement project. So the funding is in place to advance this project if the commission so desires. Um, this is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the downtown strategic and mobility master plan that
was completed in 2022. You may also recall recall that in November of last year after we received that the unsolicited proposal, we obtained an independent analysis of it from Walker Consultants which evaluated
the cost effectiveness in the proposed parking garage relative to the current Florida market conditions. the overall public benefit in the context of the Walker prepared downtown strategic and mobility master plan of 2022 and area infrastructure compatibility.
Based upon that independent analysis, it was concluded that the proposed parking garage submitted uh estimated in the unsolicited proposal demonstrated both cost effectiveness and overall public benefit pursuant to Florida statutes.
And we are recommending that the commission approve the comprehensive agreement for construction of a new 292 space parking facility authorizing the mayor and other officials to execute the same and for the city manager designate to take all necessary actions related
there too. Um I want to turn it over to city attorney for any additional comments related to the um the project and the comprehensive agreement that's needed. >> Thank you. Mr. uh Mr. Stavresz and city
commission um as the city manager has noted uh we have been in the process of uh negotiating with urban action and 610 representatives to bring to you tonight or pardon me Tuesday night um the comprehensive agreement which is uh
reflective of what we can recommend for you to approve. Um, as part of that uh discussion negotiation, we were informed um that the land in question, which is owned by Urban Action LLC, did have some
environmental issues um that were associated with a former gas station that used to be on that site. Some of you may recall that back in the day, I don't know. Um, but it is something that is part of the um the abandoned tanks
restoration program that's administered through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and their uh the the uh environmental uh outfit that had been retained by Urban Action Creative Environmental Solutions as exhibit B to this agreement
is the report that was delivered that was disclosed by Urban Action if you will as to the extent of based on their due diligence and their evaluations the condition of the property. So there will be some
additional things that we as the city during this 120day land inspection period via Kimley Horn will have to do in order to assure ourselves that we are that what Mr. Foster on behalf of CSS is representing is accurate. Um the trust
but verify um concept and we expect uh based on my discussions with MJ Carnival who has been interfacing with the Kimley Horn representatives and is reflected in the task order. We expect that Kimley Horn will be able to perform uh that
diligence for us and um either ascertain and confirm that what has been represented to us by the urban action is accurate uh and that uh or or if not what is there um if anything else that's
important because as part of the agreement and in an effort to uh try to keep the costs and you know, our our GMP exposure to the $10.2 million. Um the uh Urban Action and 610 folks wanted to go
ahead and place certain lead time, long lead time orders. Um and they wanted to do that prior to the uh uh conclusion of the land inspection period. In fact, I think they want to do it and they're here tonight. Um I think they want to do
it maybe Wednesday of next week. Um so they want to get They're they're desirous of like we are of moving forward to try to reduce costs. I mean the longer you wait, the longer things take, the more expensive it gets. So
part of the uh the negotiation included a a request by the 610 folks to say they're going to incur approximately up to$ 1.54 million worth of hard
costs or you know expenses uh and some additional items. And so that would be something that if we were to terminate the agreement for our convenience or for you know just because we wanted to we would uh have to be on the hook for that
whether we moved forward with the agreement or not. That's reflected in paragraph 10.3.2 of the agreement. Just wanted to point that out to you. Um I I will tell you that that the agreement requires 610 and Urban Action to mitigate their damages
and to reduce those costs to the extent they can if they can. I I point that out to you. Our expectation is that that will not be an issue. Um but again, lawyers work in worst case scenarios. Um and so I wanted you and the public to
understand that is something that is in the agreement. Um and that is that is a risk factor that um is something that you know we we think is probably something that is acceptable in the overall scheme of things.
Certainly management feels that it is because they're recommending this. We join in that recommendation but it is something I wanted to to bring out. The other thing uh that you'll see um is the um as an attachment um are the um the
renderings, the conceptual drawings and some of the documents that are um were provided by Kolski and Ksky or CNK architects um who just happen to be the same architectural firm that's part of
the design builder team that designed the parking garage that that is cityowned presently. Um those um were furnished to Kimley Horn uh as a preliminary and you'll see that in the agenda item after this for Kimley
Horn to tell us on a very preliminary basis whether or not this project that is being proposed is something that the city fits in with the city's overall standards and um fits in with the
overall is compatible with the area and with the you know the overall all plans that we have for uh what we understand will be occurring in this area. Um so so I wanted to point that out to you. The the last thing I wanted to point out to
you specifically, of course, we'll answer any questions, that because we are moving forward with this now, without really knowing the full extent of when there will be a conditional closure through that ATRP program, um, which I understand is administered via
the FD and is generally something that is potentially funded through state budget appropriations every year. So, for thus far, there have been no deductible. There have been, you know, it's been fully funded and so property owners who are eligible, which this is
one of the eligible projects and we've confirmed that and Mr. Crawford is here. I know he did a lot of I I could not understate or overstate or say enough on how much Mr. Crawford has assisted um in in the heavy lifting involved in this
contract. But we've we've confirmed by re by reviewing records in Oculus uh which is the FD system and as well as confirming with um the CES folks and with the urban action and 610 representatives that this program thus
far has remained fully funded and and the city would be entitled to that uh to the benefits of that program. However, again preparing for things that are worst case scenario, we have provided in the agreement that as a condition of closing,
there will be required a cooperation agreement between the city 610 and urban action. And that cooperation agreement will be negotiated between now and then, hopefully during the first 120 days of our due diligence. But it will be a cooperation agreement that will spell
out and articulate the post comprehensive agreement requirements for dealing with this environmental issue. We, you know, we did not know about this until we were told this by the 610 folks
after, you know, when we started negotiating this contract. We were kind of disappointed because if there had been no environmental issues, this would be a much easier transaction. But it is what it is and and we, you know, we're going to go in with this with our eyes
wide open. But the cooperation agreement will be uh will articulate the the ongoing obligations between the parties and it will require and allow for the city to rely on urban action in 610 to pay for any costs or fees if there are
any that may be associated with this ATP program of what we know today. Um there are certain things that um you know depending on what Kimley Horn is able to verify uh based on their due diligence
um there may be some additional things that have to occur monitoring wells. There may be some uh additional remediation. There are various levels of remediation that can occur that take some take longer times than others. Some are less expensive than others. to keep in mind that Urban Action will remain
the owner of the balance of that land at least, you know, for the foreseeable future. Certainly, they're only selling us a smaller portion of that land. So, this contamination issue is going to be applicable to the entire parcel. So, that's why the cooperation agreement
because we we didn't want to have to be obtaining easements or be obtaining, you know, uh permissions to go on their property once the closing occurred. So, we to be clear about all that. Um, you know, I can't give you any guarantees that that the cooperation agreement um
that you know what Urban Action's positions will be and we hope that they will continue to be good partners with us. Um, but in the event that they do not enter into a cooperation agreement, that is a waveable condition and the city could still close and there's an an
ongoing obligation even after the fact after closing. closing only occurs when the project is done um and completed. That um that they uh would be uh on the hook for there's there is a an agreement
that's already in place between Urban Action and the FT and we want that agreement to remain in place. And I'm if I'm missing anything on that, Mr. Crawford is here. Um but we wanted that agreement uh and urban actions
contractual undertaking and commitment to say yeah that agreement is going to remain intact until we understand either closure or conditional closure. So we've addressed those environmental issues. We uh suggested to 610 and urban action 610
more that um your timeline to obtain permits, get construction plans reviewed should probably be co-terminous with this 120day land use inspection period. Those periods can be shortened, you know, depending on what develops and
quite frankly if they can be reasonably um probably they will be if we can. on the out of an abundance of caution, we've identified those as you know we should have those as the same time periods. Um we have each of the parties
have waved uh any other kinds of damages um and I I I the consequential um exemplary punitive damage of course city's not responsible for that. We have appropriate insurance that we've reviewed. We've had our insurance
consultants review both their liability insurance builder's risk insurance and some of the facets of of the property insurance. Um so we're we're we and our insurance consultant cyers are comfortable with the insurance uh
products and the insurance limits and amounts that are being suggested. Um we are familiar with the design builder Whitehead and CNK architects. Um we understand I believe the risks of this
project. Um we have reviewed in detail certainly during the two public meetings that were held before this commission but also afterwards the various aspects of what we were doing. And I believe that this is something uh that is um
consistent with all of the planning and all of the uh efforts thus far uh and will provide a benefit to the public uh when the 292 space parking garage is completed. There are protections built
in. Um but I will say that there is exposure to the city. Um once we get into the comprehensive agreement, we're kind of together. There aren very many offramps um after that. Um and I just want you to be I'm not I'm not concerned
particularly about that, but I'm just advising you um that as we go down the road, it gets harder and harder. Certainly once the closing occurs, that's done. We're done. And certainly after the land use inspection period goes forward that, you know, so each
step of the way it gets a little bit tighter. Um and so uh right now uh when we move forward with the comprehensive agreement uh the risk envelope is probably about 1.54 million even if we don't get a garage if we get but with
that you would get maybe some structural walls for things that may or may not be of any use to the city. Um but at the end of the day um we will have Kimley Horn as our representative to as the statute requires oversee
not it's technically not our project. So when I say oversee I I I say that in the sense as contemplated in the P3 statute. It is not a traditional CI. Um we are not in contractual privity with the design builder. That's up to them and
we're going to rely on that. They have their own to see it. Insurance and bonds are in place. All of that stuff is important, but we will have our own representative to be there as our eyes and ears to make sure that the overall
scope and the overall conduct and prosecution of this work is consistent with the standards that we understand uh need to be adhered to. Um anyway, that that's the contract. Um you know, 63 pages. It's less pages than the school
board's P3 contract. I will say um so I feel kind of proud about that. Um the uh the school board also did a a high school the new high school BB um and they just recently at their May 5th meeting approved the comprehensive
agreement. Um and that was kind of momental monumental um but the this is our first real P3 where we're moving forward with a project of this nature. We have a P3 res but it's it's really not It's not at this level. It's more of
a conceptual and doing um you know, this is an actual project and and it's an eligible project. And so we commit we commit this to you. We're certainly here to answer any questions. We hope that you've had enough time to to at least review the documents and we'll continue
to review them prior to your meeting on Tuesday. Um, we have tried to take into account the the the public comments that were made at the various meetings held last year. Um, and I believe those were addressed in the public interest
statement. Um, we've had, as Mr. Stabers noted, uh, Walker Consultants do an evaluation of this and and we feel very comfortable that this is coming in
an appropriate way. Will people disagree with it? Probably. Um will, you know, are there other opinions on this? Yes. But at this point in time, we think that this is something that is appropriate for the city commission to give due consideration and hope that you approve it.
>> I'll add one thing to that if I can, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. the um you know, one of the the questions or the concerns that came up during the the public comment was you have a garage that's not completely fully occupied today, why do
you need another one? Um if you wait until the need arises for a new garage, you're too late. Um and in the past three months, well, in the past really, I guess month, month and a half, the
um the project that is slated to happen on Central Avenue that is to bring 125 potential employees into downtown. The reason that happens is because you have a parking garage there. Well, that question of occupancy and usage of that
garage becomes a move point at that point. And so this is the next step in it on that contamination issue. My take on that is, and John said maybe somebody remembers when there was a a gas station
or fuel service there. Um, out of compliments to you all, I don't know that any of you would have been driving at the time that there was a fuel service there. It was that long ago. And my review of the documents related to that is all of those tanks
and related equipment were removed long ago. and there is somewhat of a plume there um that is contained and is at a very significant depth and part of what's recommended in how you mitigate
that is to cap in place. It's not too dissimilar to the target property of how do you how do you remediate you keep storm water and groundwater from getting into that area? And the best way to do that without removing it is to cap it in
place. And it's at a depth that is much greater than what foundations and footers would go to in this project and the project itself does cap it and there is some um consideration of approach that closes out all of that in this
calendar year through D. So, I just want to put that out that is within the CES report that is attached for your benefit. >> And and also just to dubtail on what the city manager said, my my comment on you all recollecting it was that you would have looked at documents or papers or
something that would have brought it to your attention. Not that you would have had personal knowledge um of that perhaps being there. Um maybe well never mind. for some >> but but I do think uh the other aspect to what um what city manager said I
think is important to note and that is um that the you're correct that the this parking garage is not going to be requiring any portable water. It is going to cap essentially in place become
impervious and that is kind of the solution that that that has occurred at the target site. Um the only water use that will be required will be fire suppression and that will come from portable water uh in
in other places that is already there. So no wells are going to be are going to be required. Uh there's going to be no portable water required >> uh no storm water that isn't already being you know either accounted for or handled. And so and one thing that Mr.
Lebby reminded me of is that this is in Uh what did you call it? An exemption area. >> Um >> concurrency exemption area. >> Concurrency exemption area. So although we anticipate there will be one in and out and it will be um we've already had
Walker consultants say it compatible with the regional, you know, facilities around there, but we don't anticipate there's going to be any undue um impact on the surrounding properties as a result of this project. So I think that's important to know for the record.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, also for the record, I'll make this disclosure also on Tuesday evening, but due to a potential conflict, I won't give my opinions and I won't be voting on this particular item. So want to go ahead and set the record on that. I'll say it again on Tuesday. One question for you, John.
>> I will I be able to sign that agreement or mayor prom will need to sign that agreement. >> Probably should have Mayor Prom sign the agreement. Just abundance of caution. And I appreciate you saying that. you did that as well during the November and December meetings. Um and um I think
that's appropriate >> if it goes through. >> Correct. >> Then she would if if it eventually gets approved, which we are recommending that it get approved. Um that's probably something that can be done. >> All right. >> Should have thought about that. Um I
think we have signed documents already from from Mr. Bogdan and from Mr. strength in escrow in the clerk's office, but we can we can take care of that. >> Okay. All right. Questions from the commission? I have a question. >> Yes.
>> I was just wondering uh the the contract with uh Kim Horn. Is that um required as a result of the stature?
>> Yes, sir. Okay. >> Yes. >> Has nothing to do with the contamination. >> Just so happens that Kimley Horn has some expertise in that area. So, we were fortunate, but this is under the continuing contract threshold for estimated construction cost of project.
So, Kimley Horn is one of our uh continuing contractors and the statute does require that we do this. So, that's why we're doing it. So, as it states right now, based on what you all are projecting,
we have the cost of the garage and the cost of Kimy Horn and that would be pretty much all encompassing. >> Yes, sir. >> In this project, >> pending pending any change orders that
are at the city's directive. So if we if if there are city directed change orders or requested change orders um then those costs would be incurred by us and to be negotiated. >> Okay. Just one final question. A
statement was made if we I didn't quite get it. If we agree and then disagree what what was >> the million and a half. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If if once we approve the
comprehensive agreement, if during our 120day land use uh review period, we determine we wish to terminate the contract and not move forward. We may have to be on the hook for $ 1.5 million
>> for for what uh I didn't >> we may be on the hook for $ 1.5 million. And that is tied to the fact that 610 has indicated that they want to on the 27th of May before the land use
inspection period is over, they want to get ahead of the lead times and get the economies that they hope that they could achieve. But keep in mind, this proposal came in back in October. >> And so in order to meet the $10.2
million threshold or the, you know, GMP, they want to materials um largely from Metromont, you know, the the the large panels that that are comprise the concrete that make the structure and other things that are longer lead times. So, they don't, you
know, they have some exposure there that they wanted the city to recognize. So the 120 days is will Kimly Horn be advising us or
>> Kimley Horn will be advising the city during that time frame >> during that 120 days. >> Yes. >> And one of the first things they'll do I hope is they will review the environmental uh situation. They'll they may even do some soil borings and verify
what CES has reviewed in conjunction with the the property owner. Um and they'll be able to get I see Mr. Bogdan back there. I think he's hopefully in agreement with that. Um that's our contemplation. Um
I mean isn't that that is the contemplation? I hope. Um and so that's what Kimley Horn's going to be doing for us. They'll in addition to that they will be reviewing while the project is ongoing uh you know be our eyes and ears to make
sure that what's happening there is consistent. >> So that's two problem >> Mayor Pton Mercer >> will we be or will we have our consultant being reviewing the plans the
construction plans or do we not >> if Would you like us to present that item as well at this point? Would that be helpful? >> Good evening, mayor and city commissioner. So, to kind of build on what city attorney and city manager have uh discussed pursuant to that
comprehensive agreement, the city's representative shall evaluate and review interim design plans and permitting documents and then upon permitting, they'll review the final designs >> and part of then that's our responsibility too. >> Yep. So they will the city so we work
with Kimley Horn uh VR continuing services contract as city attorney mentioned. So they will provide us independent professional review of the design documents. So as those come in they will look at those uh and give us feedback on them. Um they will provide advisory support during the permitting
process. So as that is navigated through the various agencies. Uh they will give advice during that process. Uh construction phase advisory support and so they'll do some limited observation too. So they'll come on site during construction. and they'll look at as things are going in, does everything conform with what we would expect to
see? Uh they'll look at the cost and schedule and value engineering if any of that takes place um and give us input on that. And then they'll give us assistance with the project close out documentation. So kind of making sure everything gets wrapped up uh and conveyed over to us properly. And then
it also includes the environmental uh uh you know analysis that we discuss. So that's just one piece of kind of the bigger work that they'll provide for us throughout the entire course of the project. And they'll do that at a lump sum cost of $285,000 that'll be paid
from the transportation fund. Uh again with savings from the logistics parkway and Paul Road. >> Commissioner Nelson. >> Yeah. How much of the uh you indicate that there's an overlap you know the property. You said there's an overlap with regards
to the the piece that we're purchasing for the garage, but then also this environmental piece is impacting the entire is it impacting the entire uh property that the owner has? >> Well, I mean I the
I would say >> what portion of it, you know, is impacting our piece that we're purchasing or that we're that building? My general understanding, Commissioner Dawson, is that there were monitoring wells that were on portion of land that we're buying. We've determined that just
on a physical look, that those monitoring wells have been either abandoned or have been shut or closed and other monitoring wells on other portions, not property that we're buying, but that is owned by Urban Action.
>> Will that have to be addressed at the same time or >> Well, I think they'll have a requirement as of that to ultimately achieve close out or conditional closure with the FD >> that would be at whose expense >> and that's going as we said that we we
contemplate that will be at urban actions expense and that's the purpose of the cooperation agreement I obviously urban action you know this is not a meeting this this type of meeting is not a meeting at which you generally have um our partners come up and talk they're
certainly available Um they have maybe more knowledge about the property certainly than than we do right now. Um but I'd say to the extent my familiarity with that
particular matter when you have a contamination it's contained within a specific area and you're using groundwatering wells to determine um migration of that through groundwater as it moves. And that's why you have those
out there. Um there is there is delineation of the extent of that uh to certain I think it's to the west and to the south based upon monitoring wells that have been in
place for a number of years. Um and so it may require monitoring wells to the north onto their property and potentially onto the east. Um but again, if that's closed out through the remediation process with the EP, then
that basically resolves that issue. Um and that's what's outlined within the CES document that is appended to the to the agreement. Um is you know there's also you know they have the balance of that entire property
all the way up to Magnolia Avenue and uh there was also fueling facility on the corner point of that property again at some point many many years ago. Um there's a there's a delineation between
those two. There's a from what I understand a clean section between any contamination that would have come from the north and what would have been on this property. So it's really I think the the impact on the balance is the monitoring of that not necessarily a remediation or a cleanup but the
monitoring side of it and and likely what will happen is that we'll end up with um some form of land use institutional control on that property on our property which means you can't dig dig for wells which means that you
have to cap it or create no more imperous surface surface. surface. All things that we're going to be doing. So, I would expect that that would be ultimately what will occur is that there will be some land use, institutional land use controls that the
D will like to see on that property, which we would like to be very agreeable to because they will be consistent with the use that we're going to be putting to the garage that will be covering the land. approximately how much more
land is there after the building of the garage? >> I don't know the answer. >> This is a relatively small corner of the overall footprint. Um AJ, can you go back to the slides? I don't know if we
have a an aerial. So, you know, you're talking about >> all the other property >> all the way up to the point >> and it does not include everything to the east of it towards um Second Street.
There's some private ownership uh further east. >> T Michael, the property basically runs this tree line, >> curves here, >> and then goes maybe a quarter of the overall property. probably 30 probably think it's 30%.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's probably not even >> Does that answer your question? >> Yes. But the uh the value of the property I guess you know you're saying this is something that happened well this this gas station or whatever was there apparently was there many years
ago and I guess it just was not known or remembered or so probably comes up for sale. I mean this value of property knowing this or not knowing this I think given what it what it is and the
fact that it's been remediated in the sense of everything removed and you're dealing with a you know a contamination at the depths that it is and you're use of it is such that you're capping in place and you
you're already part of the petroleum tank remediation program. Um, yeah, I don't know that I could say that that that changes the value based upon the end use because there's no cost incurred as long
as it's, you know, as we said, it's part of that program and those costs for any remediation or covered through that, not at an expense to to us as the end owner of the of the parking garage. Um, And
again, the fact that what you're putting on to it remediates that by capping it in place, I think it's a kind of um a unique um set of circumstances that that present in terms of the ultimate use of
the property and what we're proposing to do. So when when when if you may recall when Walker Consultants looked at all of that, >> yes, >> they came up with some findings that suggested that the overall cost of this
would be in line with other markets and other areas for a or below even, but for a per parking space cost, >> right, >> based on the overall numbers, if I remember correctly. And so I mean, you
got you're factoring that out that >> I don't know if that answers your question for >> it's why we built in some of the protections that we that we did. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just curious you know in terms of you know I guess they had been
so long ago that just was not remembered or you know thought about that that potential environmental piece might be a factor. Mayor Proer, >> just one more thing. Um, evidently it
has a lot of history behind it, meaning it's been there for some time. Um, and it's probably been in the program for some time. For it to have monitoring wells removed, that means there's it's not migrating off site. It's not moving,
it's not doing anything and very little. So, um, D, believe me, don't take out monitoring wells. So they keep them there for as long as they possibly can or as long as the potential exists. So
>> anybody else? >> All right. >> So that's both those items. Again, um two separate things. is the the comprehensive agreement and deputy city manager presented the um the scope of
work with Kimley Horn to be our eyes and ears on that project. >> All right. Uh we've got a task order with Kimley Horn. So is that >> what we just good? So we're good there. >> All right. So with that we'll go back and we'll dive into grant a
applications. >> Okay. So I'm going to hit the high notes on this and then I'm going to give it to Katrina Hill, our director of public affairs and communication to take you through the outcomes of the of what your
grant aid review committee did. But to give some context, historically in 2022, the commission passed a resolution 2219 that officially established the grant application review committee. Uh some of you may recall that prior to that grant
aid was solely handled by the commission in a typical city commission meeting. Um in September of 25 the commission passed an additional resolution 2548 that further refined the structure of the grant aid application review committee.
that committee evaluates the applications and provides recommendations to the commission specific to the external not for-profit agencies that are seeking funding through the program. So the going into
this year there were some refinements to the process that were recommended and approved by the city commission. The grant aid committee typically meets every fall after they've gone through their their spring process. They what they want to tweak or what
recommendations they have. We bring that back to you and we use that to build out our process that usually starts around January of that uh of the fiscal year preceding when funds are actually available. Um, in addition, the
commission had given us direction this year to exclude schools and foundations from the funding process to fund the legacy applicants at their existing levels, but only after review of their application and proof that continued compliance and worthiness existed there.
So, they weren't just arbitrarily said, "Okay, here you go." They still needed to be reviewed and and discussed and evaluated. You also set your starting budget level at 10% uh of an increase from last year's total award that equated to
$382,537. And then you recommended prioritization uh based upon programs that serve children, programs that serve the elderly, programs that serve individuals experiencing homelessness, and programs that demonstrate strong fiscal responsibility, a measurable
impact, and a clear return on investment. In order for an agency to apply, they had to attend uh one of the four training sessions that were held in the early spring. We had 118 individuals representing se 97 unique organizations
attend training sessions. Um window for applications was March 2nd to March 13th. We received a total of 58 applications this year. Katrina's staff goes through all of those in a sufficiency review to
make sure that they have everything that they needed. And then those that were missing things, we we lend a helping hand and call them in and give them an opportunity to make those corrections. The GARK met uh twice
May 5th and then again on May 15th here to deliberate on those applications. Both of those meetings were properly noticed and then for each of the applications they reviewed the appropriateness of the application for consideration of funding or to deny the
application. if there were any conflicts of interest, we had them divulge that ahead of time um so that we knew that they couldn't engage in the dialogue on that particular agency and certainly could not vote. We will ask you all that
same question on Tuesday evening to make sure that you're not voting on anything that is of uh specific tie back to you uh in much the same fashion that we did with the grant application review committee. Um, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Katrina to take you
through where they landed. >> Thank you. Um, so they did go through all the applicants one by one um and looked at all of the information that they submitted, their reporting, their applications, their um nonprofit documentation, their IRS documentation,
all of that. Um, they have recommended a total award amount this year of 358,500. That does leave a balance of 24,037 from the original budget that they were allocated. Um, a few highlights. The
they did review all of the six um agencies that were flagged as legacy agencies. They kept them all at their same funding level with the exception of Meals on Wheels where they have recommended a slight increase there due to the um increase of food costs and the
need for those types of services. Um, and then they did not fund all returning agencies. One, two, three, I think five of them were not funded again this year. The rest were all funded either at a similar level to last year
or a slight increase. And then of the new agencies, they did not fund even half of them. um they looked at them very closely and tried to fund those that met the guidance that you had offered in the focus areas and that
seemed to um be strong and worthy applicants. So I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have. >> Let me add one thing to it. If you look at the spreadsheet you have here, I I I think this speaks to the work that that
committee did that when you have a handful of these that are not funded at all, some returning, some new, they're taking very seriously the guidance and the quality of the applications.
um what impact that's having having does it align with uh again the direction that was provided and to have it come back with it's not just a cart blanch everybody that asks for something gets
something they scrutinized these heavily um I think they use the full time slots that they had in both of those meetings if not more to go through them >> and even with having, as we said, 24
just over $24,000 remaining. They did not seek to give that out. They're returning that based upon here's the applications. Regardless of what the budget is, this is what we think that it's worthy of. So, we'll leave it at that and certainly stand for
any questions you may have. And and I do want to point out also, Drew Crawford um sat through both of those. So, we had an attorney here to make sure any issues pertaining to conflict of interest that we could give proper guidance. >> Commissioners,
>> Commissioner Davis. >> Yes. So, uh, first I do want to thank the committee for the work they put into this, the effort. Um, I did attend one of those meetings and they did deliberate quite a bit and I I think that the fact that they gave us a little
money back and that they were very cautious in how they increased some of the returning applicants shows that they did take our direction seriously. So, I do appreciate that. Um my first question is when we uh grant these funds, can we
stipulate how the money is spent, are we able, for instance, they said they're going to spend these funds on supplies, hygiene products, uh food security, and then gift cards. Can we say no gift cards? >> So, the way that that's in force right now is with the reporting. And they did
heavily scrutinize that on all of our returning applicants this year. They looked at what they said they were going to spend money on last year. Looked at the receipts to make sure that aligned. As far as individual stipulations, I'm going to defer to Mr. Crawford on that. >> Yeah. Hey. Um, good evening, Commission.
Drew Crawford, assistant city attorney. The answer to that is obviously yes, right? You can't. Um, it's not something that we encouraged during the meeting. Uh, since the applicants had, for example, budgets already set. What what we recommended during the meeting as far
as individual adjustments or stipulations on how money can be spent really was to reduce conflicts if any existed to try to minimize those conflicts so that they could be uh um so we could be more transparent with how we spend so we could really insulate the
city from those issues. Um but it it really comes down to the will of the commission on that in in our opinion. I I think that any kind of stipulations are going to add more work onto oversight. Um you know the stipulations
will require some sort of enforcement mechanism which we don't we don't really have in place at this point. Um so it it's there are a lot other things to consider with that other than just a blanket do not spend on X. Um
that's really kind of it's a larger issue I guess is the better way to say that. Sure. So like salaries, pension, insurance, those things we can't >> unless we're going to talk about it and put in a whole bunch of things that we're going to stipulate and then it
sounds like the best enforcement we have is we're just going to warn them if you do it and we we see that next year you're not getting money. >> Got it. Okay. Um I I have some questions on a few particular ones. Um I know that the uh looks like the concerned citizens
that money is for the MLK breakfast. Uh they charge money to attend that, right? >> That money in their application is for their monthly um their feedings I believe. >> Okay. I saw that was going to supplies for breakfast, MLK programs, print shops, stamps for the year, food,
transportation, cooks, utilities, and insurance. >> Give me just a moment. So under their budget narrative, it says the food purchased for 11 to 12 months. Um,
yeah, it my understanding of their application is it's for their kind of year round feeding >> Okay. >> program. Um, >> what about their their budget spreadsheet? It is listed for $6,000 for supplies for
breakfast, 140 to um help print programs for the MLK breakfast, 100 for stamps for the year, and 3,700 for food. >> Okay. If I may, one thing the committee um
will be considering this fall in their meeting um city manager described they meet every fall to kind of refine the process is putting a cap on the percentage of the budget that can be used on administrative things. So they are looking at how to tighten that up for future years. Um but that wasn't in
place for this year's applications. >> Okay. I'm not going to belabor the point. I know um you know I I have no doubt this is going to go through. Um I'm probably not going to be able to support it. Um, I have a I have a lot of problems with uh with the structure of the program. I think that the taxpayers
are are going to be wondering how we're spending their money and I can't explain some of the stuff how we're spending it. Um I to me it's it's almost a form of redistribution and it and it's funding um programs that are meeting a very small niche group of people. Um, and I
don't see the larger community benefit to it. And uh, and I don't think we just have enough controls in place to be able to um, to protect how that money is being spent. I'd like to work on that for the future, but uh, but right now I'm not comfortable with this, especially when we're going to ask tax
uh, taxpayers to not reduce their property taxes. I think we owe them an explanation that every dollar we spend for them of their tax dollars, we are making sure that it's not going to any kind of a project that might not be benefiting the common good, but is more
specialized towards individual goods. So, um, those are my those are my thoughts and opinions. I don't think I I held back on, you know, where I'm at. Um, but, uh, I just think that it to be transparent, I'm going to share now and I'll share it again on on Tuesday.
>> Any other questions or comments from the commission? I uh I guess regarding uh the marching Wolverines, are they part of this or not? The Wolverines that
are in there, as I recall, and Katrina, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's the sports program. >> Yeah, the organization that applied under the name Wolverines was the youth sports league, not the band. the band. Uh there's funding that is set aside
within the parks and recreation budget. >> The lake I know the lake mod project may some of you may or may not be aware of that too and I know it was discussed there too and uh I didn't see that. I didn't know if that was even considered at this time or did they even submit
>> the you talking about the cemetery? Correct. So they submitted and they were not recommended. >> Didn't they spend their money on their attorney? That's what the concern was. >> The the committee discussed that application um intently. They did submit
um but they have not been recommended. They haven't spent all the money from before and it wasn't spent the way that was outlined in their application. Um and then there were also concerns over ownership or or of the property um from the committee. So they did not recommend
an award for them at this time. Yeah, I think the uh process I'm aware of is that the still going forward with the ownership was a major issue which is what the city asked them to do and uh in order to obtain that and so that's what the money was actually being utilized
for that process hasn't completed itself to my understanding. However, there is still uh you know once that is established and then of course uh many of those graves as you are aware or may not be aware but are unmarked.
Part of the reason they're unmarked is because many of those uh graves were moved from one location to that location many years ago. >> Yeah. And the committee did encourage them to apply again in the future. They just felt that this year the the
application wasn't kind of where it needed to be and it didn't fall in line with the categories that were given in youth, elderly, and homeless. >> Sure. >> One other thing that I failed to mention in the fact sheet um that I think is is
significant. As you know, there was um legislative changes this year through Senate Bill 1134 that was titled official actions to local governments. That speaks to your use of funding. Um
is it promote as it pertains to funding or promoting directly or indirectly or taking official action um related to programs and policies that it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion. So your grant and aid folks
fall within that that if you provide funding out that's considered funding for programs that could fall within that. So the city attorney's office has assisted us in creating a attestation um
that would be required to be signed this year uh prior to any distribution of funds and will be incorporated uh in future years should the program continue as a requirement at the time of submitt become one of their required
documents so that we don't violate anything that uh from the state's perspective in that regard. >> All right. Any other questions, comments? All right. So, just point of order. Yes. Go ahead. >> When when this comes up, so um for for
voting purposes, as I mentioned, one of the things that we had had the members of your grant need application review committee do going into it was identify any agencies that were in there to which they had an affiliation that create a
conflict. And so when they voted um if there was a conflict, we pulled that agency out so that there was a list that was just the agencies where no conflicts existed in the entire
committee could vote on that. And then for those where there was a conflict, we handled those individually with the individual who had a conflict having to abstain and file the proper form AB and so on. We recommend that be
the same case for the city commission in the event you're affiliated with any of the however many agencies are recommended for funding. >> So that was in line with kind of where I was going with my next questions. Um, are you going to go ahead and can we pre-do that? Like, uh, you can talk with
each commissioner one-on-one between now and Tuesday, break that out so that we can go ahead and just have, >> you know, separate votes on each >> Yeah, you have to disclose the conflict at the meeting. Well, can't we do that at the meeting, but also get prepared
going into that meeting to have >> Yeah, just I think the answer to it is just look at the list of who's recommended for funding and if you have any affiliation with that, identify that, we'll have the forms ready for you. >> So, that's I get that, but I'm just saying like because it just gets
confusing and going back and like, oh well, let's take this out and that out. I would rather have u just a you know here's as the committee recommended here's trunch A as the recommended by the committee here's trunch B these are
excluded because from the first trunch because you know a commissioner and b commissioner that way we don't have to go back and forth with taking things out >> I think it'll be relatively simple >> okay >> to be honest with you'll
be to expedate that as quickly as possible. >> Okay. And then um if there is a specific item that someone wanted to recommend or motion, that would be a completely separate motion outside of this recommendation. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to clarify that going into >> Yeah. and and just framing the the issue. These are recommendations from the committee you've appointed and like anything else the city commission recommendations and
you could you could say, as Mr. Commissioner Davis has said, I I'm not supportive of that. Thank you for your recommendations. I don't want to go along with that. So, you're all free to do that. um or have your own recommendations based on whatever I will >> that's kind of what that's kind of what
I'm getting at is like you know I'm trying to just the point of order of the process and in approving or denying it would be nice to and I don't know maybe it's not possible but just getting into these situations to where
this commissioner wants that then then you know it takes four votes so do we we just let it go with the four votes and that's That's the way it's going to or excuse me, three votes. >> Yeah, I think I think my my comment to you at 7:16 tonight is that yes, um that
is generally how that works. >> And if it failed, then a new motion can be brought before on different selected items. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And and as you as you all recall, under our codified rules of procedure, motions don't require seconds at our city
commission actions. they do need to be part of the agenda which the agenda rules. So I think that's part that's been adhered to here. Um so yeah I think and the mayor as you are you preside and you you either entertain it or allow it or you don't. I mean you know you're committed to allow discussion on matters
that you think are properly before you and we're going to be here obviously to help you if you have questions about that. just the more clarity that we can have going into it just in because we've been we've all sat in these meetings before where oh we got to pull this add that back just that's all I was getting
at is that Commissioner Davis you have a question. >> Yeah you you kind of joged my memory there you said the committee that we appointed um when we revised how the uh the committee process it went from us individually appointing to a recommendation being made to us. Was it
why would why did we change it? Was there a reason for that? because we had change over in commissioners. We had open seats within that and it all of our other committees are done by >> an application process that comes to you when it was first established.
>> It was established by each appointing one person to that on their behalf. >> Okay? Because I would love to have had someone that I had appointed on that committee. Um I sent my letter so I had a voice there in some way, but I would
have loved had someone and then they don't choose the the chair. How's the chair chosen >> amongst them? >> They do choose the chair. Okay. Okay. All right. We can talk I guess in the fall when we start regrouping for the next batch, we can talk about some of these things then.
>> Well, I and and you so sorry. No, you're fine. >> But I do think to confirm your point, Commissioner Davis, the city commission is the ultimate arbiter >> on how you want this process to unfold. And so that's you know as the mayor
noted that's three >> um on this issue um in terms of how you want this process to so you could you as a commission could configure this however however you as a majority wanted to do that. >> I I think that's a good good idea for us
to revisit this later when we have the time to really put some thought into it. Um and that's been I guess my biggest heartburn with this is that I'm new to it. you know, it's happening relatively quickly since I've joined the commission. So, I'm not, you know, I'm I'm raising concerns, but I'm not trying
to throw a wrench into everything. Um, but I would like to uh to come together, you know, later on in the year and and discuss more ideas and and and find out where everybody else is on some of these things. Um, and then maybe try to have an even more streamlined process when we
go into next year. Yeah, good time good good uh time for clarity on that I think is after we get a little bit more clarity on where the state legislator >> that would be very helpful to you >> with funding and budgeting and uh we we may decide that we need to pause the program um at some point. So um
certainly I think you know between now and and then we we'll we'll let that unfold and then we can bring that discuss at the commission level. So >> you know for just you know with First Missionary Baptist Church many of you I'm directly
affiliated uh Commissioner Bon actually is is part of the church as well in the sense that he does give leadership in in the ministry also that is one of the places though so we I know last year we had to
exclude that we did in fact that being the case it takes three to to approve >> or two one two >> if there's only three voting It takes two. >> Okay. So, I'm just saying that uh just for that just for that understanding
because I know that we definitely recuse ourselves from that as we did last year uh for that for that reason. Two two fails, two one passes. 31 passes. >> Correct. >> All right. Any questions, comments on this?
>> Not on this. I do have one more thing before you adjourn. Okay. >> We'll follow we'll we'll get into this on Tuesday. I'm sure we'll have more questions and discussion at that point, but good discussion tonight. So, with that, um, just the general normal items. So, I'll go to Commissioner Davis first.
>> Yes. >> So, this is, uh, I apologize. This is kind of coming out left field because we have to communicate in the sunshine. I didn't know how else to do this. I have, um, put together a memo that I can I'm going to pass out to all of you. This is the related to the data that the city
manager shared with us on salaries commission salaries. I I will also share this digitally so you can you can share it. Um I communicated with the city attorney and he suggested that I bring it up now um in the sunshine. But what
I'd like to do is is ask that we can have this agenda at some point for an actual conversation. I'm not asking that we do talk about it tonight. Uh you can see here what I did is I kind of I took the numbers and crunched them. I looked at just PK County cities. Um the other cities are interesting, but I think most
people are going to compare our city, our commission salaries to other Pulk County cities. And we're also looking at um unique growth in this area that's contributing to the workload, which is kind of why I'm interested in revisiting this. Um and then I I created some benchmarks first looking at a full um
total per capita spending in the in the county on on salaries and that gave a really high benchmark. So then I I found that some of the smaller cities had um you know they were a bit skewed giving a higher per capita uh for their salaries based on the lower population. So I
pulled those out and I set it at cities of populations of 6,000 or more. And uh and you can see there that that kind of brought it a little more reasonable. Um it's still it it raised our salaries from the 17,000 to 24,000 but it the
mayor um per capita was a little bit higher um percentage-wise. You know, I think it was about 24% compared to our current 16% differential. So I then used a 16% differential um to reduce the mayor salary a little bit just so it wasn't quite as as big of a range. So I
you can see my recommendation. This is a starting point for us to discuss if we decide to have this on the agenda. Um but that you you can see the rest of my recommendations there. It would increase us to 24,000, the mayor to 28,000. Um that's what the memo says. I would like
to know uh have some further guidance on how do we move forward um with getting this on the agenda. Is that something we need to vote on at um on Tuesday? uh take a make a motion that we bring this back at another agenda or is there a way to do consensus without a vote or how do
we what would be the next steps? >> I mean it's up if you're looking to me to answer the question I'm happy to help. >> Yeah, I'm not presuming that everybody's in favor of this. So I just want to I I want to know how you know as one commissioner what I can do. >> I I believe that that a consensus of the
commission could be had to add an item to the agenda if that was the desire. I will look to the mayor because the mayor presiding officer. And so I'd like to know, you know, his his brothers or his his thinking on that. You could add a meeting, make a motion to add something
to an agenda and see what you know what you get. Um I mean that's a more formal way of soliciting consensus at an open meeting. But I if if tonight, for example, you wanted to get consensus on having this on the agenda, you could
probably do that if you wanted to. Let's ask without objection. Is there any objection? Right. If there's any, you know, >> I think my preference would be, you know, I'd rather hear a motion at a normal agenda meeting on it and then we can have the discussion and
>> at a future meeting. >> Yeah. I'm happy to do that. >> Whether to take it >> I I intend to do that just so you're aware, but I'm happy to do that on Tuesday. >> We can do that under liaison reports, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Perfect. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions,
comments? All right. We made up for our quick meeting uh couple weeks ago. With that, we will adjourn.