[0:04] It's a little weak. Yeah. I'd like to call to order the Apakka Community

[0:07] Redevelopment Agency meeting for August 24th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. here at the

[0:13] Apakka Community Center. Uh we will start with an approval of the CRA

[0:17] meeting minutes for April 15, 2026. Uh did everyone have an opportunity to

[0:22] review them? Any questions, any adjustments that need to be made?

[0:26] If not, I will look for a motion to approve uh the CRA meeting minutes for

[0:32] April 15, 2026. >> So moved.

[0:34] » Moved by member Velasquez.

[0:39] » Second by uh member Anderson. All those in favor say I.

[0:44] » I. >> All opposed. Motion carries

[0:46] [clears throat] unanimously. On to public comment. Mrs. Bone, do we have

[0:49] anyone that has submitted a card to speak? Would anybody from the public

[0:53] wish to speak or address the CRA board? If not, we will close public comment

[0:59] period and move on to our new business. Uh, starting with the fifth street

[1:04] lighting project. Who is running with that one?

[1:08] » I can I can introduce it >> please.

[1:11] » Louder than I expected. Sorry. And Forbes, economic development director.

[1:15] So, we had been carrying a project under the CRA budget that was specifically

[1:20] called Station Street Lighting Project. However, it did not have a defined

[1:24] scope. When I reached out to Duke to try to get a little bit more um context, um

[1:30] we walked the site and found that it might be more advantageous for it to be

[1:35] um along Fifth Street instead of Station Street as at least a phase one of the

[1:39] project. So throughout those conversations of which by the way the

[1:43] representative from Duke is here um he uh started in that phase one by offering

[1:48] us proposed scope as well as pricing. So as you know the CRA is able to fund for

[1:54] infrastructure um but it will not be able to um pay for

[1:59] ongoing maintenance. I just want to keep that in mind. Um and so is where did he

[2:03] go? >> Oh there he is. Come on up. [laughter]

[2:07] And so, uh, the gentleman here is Jerry, um, Brooks from Duke, and then he will

[2:12] lead the presentation. >> Thank you.

[2:15] » Do my best. >> Sorry, I meant to get here in time to

[2:18] walk around and say hello, but uh, and great. I can't see that.

[2:25] » Your mic [clears throat] on? I can't tell if your mic's on or not.

[2:28] » Hello. >> There you go. Speak. Yeah. Right into

[2:30] » All right. Speak right in here. >> Okay. So, this has been going on for a

[2:34] couple of years that we've been trying to, I guess, put something on Fifth

[2:39] Street or create an area for downtown that has that walkabout feeling of going

[2:45] to restaurants and uh whatever activity is going on.

[2:50] So going and visiting other cities that have lighting, the beastro type

[2:55] lighting, and looking, you know, how they're mounting and things like that,

[2:59] uh we've been able to come up with some ideas of how to put this together. And

[3:04] as you know, we have Duke lights out there along the road, but we can't

[3:08] attach anything to those lights to support something like this. There's a

[3:14] lot of stress that goes between pole to pole to pole when you do this correctly.

[3:20] I realize people can hang street, you know, string lights in your backyard and

[3:25] things like that. Whole different situation when you're doing it

[3:28] commercially and there's liability involved and things like that. So, this

[3:32] is following a very professional installation.

[3:36] Um, and it'll show you the mounting heights and things like that. So, I

[3:39] don't want to just read this, but let me just kind of go through it. Um, so we're

[3:43] looking at putting the lights um along Fifth Street in between uh Park and

[3:49] Central, but not end to end. Like it would stop

[3:54] just before the entrance here to this building. So on Fifth Street and then

[4:00] going down about where that mark um like a food store or something on on that

[4:07] corner there. So it would start at the beginning of that the beginning going

[4:11] towards it. Okay. So you would have the lights coming down and they would cross

[4:16] back and forth going down the road as we go. So that would take roughly 10 poles

[4:22] uh in order to do that. The poles have to be separate from the poles we have

[4:27] out there and they need to be concrete because when you're putting that stress

[4:32] I could not find an aluminum pole that would support that. I tried because it

[4:37] would be, you know, I'm tried to be the took the most coste effective route that

[4:42] I could take in putting this together. So looking at it two different ways,

[4:49] um, we I quoted it with and without audio. So you could play music and have

[4:55] the speakers attached to the poles and done from the beginning with that

[4:59] together. So, one of the things about when you go

[5:03] to audio, um, we would go like every other poll

[5:07] for speakers, but you're going to need an amplifier,

[5:11] and then there would be a tuner, which is included in the cost. Um, but it's

[5:18] it's kind of a streaming thing. So, we need Wi-Fi. So, you're going to have to

[5:21] find a business along Fifth Street that would be willing to host the amplifier.

[5:29] um you know for music if we go that route. So

[5:34] all right maybe go next slide. I don't think I've talked that one out.

[5:39] So we're looking at um about 950 lights. That's approximate

[5:46] because when you get out there and you start putting them up it could change.

[5:49] It just depends on the lengths of, you know, they're crisscrossing as you go

[5:54] through and doesn't come out perfect at 950. Um, the

[6:00] pricing that I give you includes the installation, the labor, and the cost to

[6:05] put this together. So, where we be would we be getting power from is in Fifth

[6:10] Street parking towards the back uh not the side of the food hall, but

[6:16] the other side. There's already a meter and a panel. So,

[6:22] we would upgrade the panel and tie into that. So, that's where the electricity

[6:26] would be coming from. We would bore that underground so we don't have another

[6:31] overhead wire and we would bring it out to the rightway area. And there we would

[6:37] have our first pole. Well, it would be the second pole coming off a park, but

[6:42] there would be a pole there. We would go up the pole inside of it. So you don't

[6:46] see the wire have a receptacle at the top and then from there we would go out

[6:51] two different directions with the power and it would go along with the string

[6:55] lights. You know you won't see a separate power wire.

[7:00] Okay. Um so these would be 25 foot black

[7:05] concrete poles 5T going around. So the mounting height is 20 feet and you've

[7:11] got a sag. Anytime you do beastro string lighting, you're going to have a sag in

[7:15] the lights with roughly 2 feet. So you're looking at minimum 17t clearance,

[7:21] which is above where we need to be. So we're we're looking to put it at 18t of

[7:26] clearance. >> Yeah.

[7:28] » So that won't interfere with any of those big trucks that come to 56 footers

[7:33] or >> Right. No, none of those. And you know,

[7:36] your big concern is you got fire engines hook and ladder and things like that.

[7:39] Even the Duke trucks are have to, you know, we've got stuff piled on some of

[7:44] those things with the buckets and stuff. So, we're Yeah, everything will clear

[7:48] through that. >> Yeah, we're going to meet code on on

[7:52] everything we do here. So, there's a little bit more description about the

[7:56] amplifier and the speakers and all that kind of stuff. This is just an

[8:00] introduction to it. So if you decide to proceed with any of this and you want

[8:06] some details on anything, happy to provide whatever you need. Okay,

[8:12] next slide. So that just kind of shows you the beginning and ending point and

[8:17] then how they would basically the lights would cross going down the road. The

[8:23] idea behind this design is this could carry on and we could take it over the

[8:29] Sixth Street to Station Street and keep the flow going around. Right now, the

[8:34] only businesses are on Fifth Street. Yeah. So, until we figure out how to go,

[8:39] but we can we can keep this going. We just have to find the path and then if

[8:43] the city, which I know you have land, if you do build something over there, you

[8:48] could host the amplifier, the the sound and and do all that yourselves. You

[8:53] know, I think if you want to do the music, you try to work that in in the

[8:56] beginning and you just find one of those local businesses um that are willing to

[9:01] host it until you get your own facility. You just can't build a cabinet and put

[9:06] it outside because of heat conditions um without a major cost of air

[9:11] conditioning that cabinet. So, >> so if a they're going to host it in

[9:15] regards to the the liability, I guess that's a a question for the attorney

[9:19] because if something happens with lightning strike or something and it

[9:22] damage, you know, other things within that building, then we'll be held

[9:25] liable. Is that correct? >> Just to be clear, what you're asking

[9:33] ultimately

[9:43] Yes. Am I understanding correct? >> Yes. Because I'm thinking about like a

[9:45] private business. Well, it's different things. So, if it's a private business

[9:48] that don't own the building, then that's an issue within itself because of that

[9:51] private business go out of business. Do they is the agreement with the with the

[9:56] business owner? Is it with the person that owns the building? Like I think

[9:59] it's just a lot of different because a lot of those are are tenants. So, I

[10:03] guess the agreement will probably have to be with both.

[10:05] » That's typically the case. Yes. And as far as when it comes to liability, I

[10:09] mean, there's some some steps you can take to disclaim the liability. As far

[10:12] as liability goes, there would have to be an element of negligence on the

[10:15] city's part to establish liability obviously. Um, and uh, you know,

[10:20] depending on how the lights were placed and what role the city had in that,

[10:25] there'd be a lot of layers to to look at. But um generally so to speak as far

[10:32] as the agreement goes would have to be with any interested party and liability

[10:36] would be have to be assessed according to fault

[10:38] » and and the maintenance of in regards to like the power the bill itself is like a

[10:42] separate bill will be like on a separate I'm just trying to understand it.

[10:46] » Yeah. So with the monthly well when we get to the slide for pricing yeah that's

[10:50] fine and I'll be happy to explain it but um

[10:54] yeah so right here on this slide we're kind of showing you where the layout

[10:58] would be and that kind of thing. So I think the next one is price.

[11:03] » No, I think the pricing >> first one

[11:08] » packet. >> Okay, it's in your packet. Um yeah,

[11:14] » it was in the uh the latter one I sent you. I Yeah, sorry

[11:20] about that. Okay, so price-wise kind of like

[11:26] at the end of the day, there's just one big number, right? And it's the cost of

[11:30] all the poles, the labor putting it in, the materials, everything to to make

[11:34] this happen. And that can be divided up in multiple

[11:39] ways. You can say, "We just want to pay for it, own it, and we'll take care of

[11:43] the maintenance." Okay, that's one option you could have.

[11:49] A lot of times, most every time we do business with municipalities or

[11:53] developers or anything, it's, hey, we may put some money into it, but we'd

[11:59] like to lease the lights and know that they're maintained,

[12:03] the poles and the lights and and all that. So, I put it together

[12:08] um where we could go anyway, but just to give you an idea u to keep the monthly

[12:13] fee low. So, I know public works might have to take that on. Um, without the

[12:21] audio, we're looking at

[12:28] around 70,000 down and that would give you like a $55 a month fee. Or if you

[12:35] went 50,000 down, it jumps to a $28 fee monthly. And that would that would

[12:42] include the maintenance. Is that perole or is that total?

[12:44] » No, no, that's total. Total. Yeah. So, I'm just showing you some flexibility. I

[12:49] can go all the way from zero money down to a higher monthly or we can about the

[12:55] lowest I can go for monthly is about $55. It would include the maintenance

[13:00] and all that. And and and this is something that Duke does with you on an

[13:04] a regular basis where we have lighting. This is through our non-reg side of the

[13:08] company. Uh so which we refer to as non-native as well. It just gives us the

[13:14] flexibility of working with lighting that's not under a tariff. So

[13:18] » so the annual maintenance that is included during the life agreement where

[13:21] is this is some this is separate from the warranty maintenance of the lights.

[13:24] That's something separate because in the slide it said something about the annual

[13:28] maintenance is included during life agreement.

[13:31] » Yeah. So during during the time of the agreement the maintenance is included.

[13:37] » Oh okay. Okay. So, we don't have to maintain it.

[13:39] » Correct. >> Oh,

[13:40] » yeah. That's typical with any MUN. They're not in the lighting business and

[13:45] a utility is typically asked to try to include that. So, I did.

[13:50] » What was the maintenance that you were because I know there was some

[13:52] maintenance that we we have. What is the maintenance that you're referencing that

[13:55] we were responsible for? >> I'm sorry.

[13:58] » So, in reference to referring to Sorry. So it refers to the month the monthly

[14:05] fee that they're referring to. The C could not incur that cost

[14:08] » that one. Okay. Thank you.

[14:13] » Okay. That was without audio. So the price goes up a little bit more with

[14:16] audio. And so we're looking if you put $103,000 down, it'd be like $58 a month.

[14:23] Or if you want to go with just 50,000 down, it'd be like 474 a month. So

[14:28] again, these this is showing you some flexibility. We can play with the

[14:33] numbers about how much down where you want to be monthly. Uh, but it does

[14:37] accomplish getting you this lighting installed professionally with the

[14:42] materials I spoke about. So, with that, I'd just say if there's any questions,

[14:48] » any questions? >> Excuse me, I'm sorry. You want me to go?

[14:51] » Police. >> Okay. If I understood your presentation,

[14:54] you indicated that this was forformational purposes only.

[14:59] » Yeah. Yeah. I didn't send an agreement to sign or anything like that.

[15:02] » Yeah. Is it the city's intent that those lights remain up 24 hours a day, 7 days

[15:08] a week, or if a hurricane were to come, do the lights come down?

[15:13] » The lights stay? >> The lights stay.

[15:16] » So, the lights are going to be designed in such a way attached to the poles that

[15:19] it's going to be able to withstand 100 mph winds.

[15:24] » U about minimum 140. And that includes the bulbs.

[15:32] » Will the bulbs shatter with the wind? >> Well, if there's flying debris,

[15:37] different situation, but um the the the total design is designed around to meet

[15:44] a minimum of 140 miles an hour. >> That includes the poles.

[15:48] » Oh, 100%. That's why we went to concrete. that that's where we failed on

[15:53] the aluminum and through um uh engineering we just couldn't get to pass

[16:00] the wind load. >> All right. So, when I look at the costs

[16:03] that you're proposing, [clears throat]

[16:08] uh, if this, and I'm only going to

[16:11] concentrate on the without audio at the $70,000

[16:17] construction payment, the uh total

[16:23] warranty maintenance fee for 240 months is [clears throat]

[16:27] $13,200. When you when you lower it to 50,000,

[16:33] then all of a sudden the monthly fee goes up $150 a month to $49,220,

[16:39] which is uh 30 $36,000 increase.

[16:45] Now, when you spread it over the cost between the 70 and a 50,

[16:52] it's only $16,000, which I thought was a little

[17:00] I'm I'm trying to grasp the right adjective. [clears throat]

[17:04] Questionable relative how the maintenance fee goes up $150, the city

[17:12] incurs 30 $36,000. However, I guess because of the extra

[17:20] $20,000, then that makes up the difference

[17:23] between that and the uh $16,000. Um,

[17:34] the only other thing I could add is I know we have a board item up uh that's

[17:40] we're going to discuss about design standards,

[17:46] development codes. Um, I'm not really a fan of incrementally putting

[17:53] design standards or a design in the CRA without some master plan.

[18:01] Planners call that visual pollution. So, I don't think the city wants to add

[18:06] visual pollution to Fifth Street or any other fifth street or or any other

[18:11] street in the city without having some sort of master plan. So if this is

[18:17] onlyformational purposes then I understand that. [clears throat]

[18:22] Any other questions?

[18:26] Appreciate the information. Definitely helpful. I know this was a conversation

[18:29] topic for a while. So to actually put some hard numbers to it is definitely

[18:32] appreciated. Um I I guess at a future CRA or even now if there's uh comments

[18:38] on whether we want to move forward with something in this regard or if we want

[18:42] to wait until uh like member Drago had said we establish some design standards

[18:46] and then kind of back into this from there that may make sense as well. Uh

[18:49] depending on what our goals are and things like that. Obviously with um

[18:52] changing markets, changing economy, changing political pressures and a

[18:57] changing uh board our priorities are going to change as well. So I think

[19:01] going through this will help to define what we're looking for, what we're

[19:04] trying to achieve. So appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

[19:07] » Welcome. Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you.

[19:09] » Thank you, Mr. >> Next up, we have the approval of request

[19:12] to extend the community redevelopment agency term.

[19:17] » Mrs. Forbes, >> that is me. So the next item that is up,

[19:22] I just want to do a point of clarification. There was a clerical

[19:26] error for the resolution number. It should read resolution number 2026-03

[19:32] for the record. So this item uh and just in terms of a little bit of background,

[19:38] our CRA established in 1993. Obviously you know our CRAAS are for redevelopment

[19:42] to improve infrastructure amenities and support businesses and property owners.

[19:47] in accordance with our in local agreement with Orange County, we do have

[19:51] to formally request an extension um as part of executing our redevelopment

[19:56] plan. And by the way, let me know anytime you can't hear me because I keep

[20:00] moving the microphone. Um so, as background, as part of that interlocal

[20:04] agreement, we have had conversations with the county, including submitting

[20:08] our annual performance report, which is part of that interlocal agreement.

[20:12] There's also an annual report that's required to give to our um uh governing

[20:17] authority which is also the county which is listed in statutes. We've also

[20:20] provided that as well. So I'm just giving you some context of how we've

[20:24] been compliant. We've also provided them our financial statements as well in um

[20:28] April of 23. Um and then in June of uh June 10th, we

[20:34] submitted a letter expressing the CRA's intent to update its master plan. We

[20:38] also provided them a list of our expenditures for FY23,

[20:42] 24, and 25. We provided them a list of all CRA projects. We also provided them

[20:47] a grant summary of all of our incentive um assistance programs.

[20:54] There we go. So, this resolution 2026-03 uh formally in requests the extension by

[21:02] the CRA board. And I want to be clear that this item is also going to come

[21:06] before the city commission. But um I thought it was important that even

[21:10] though it's not say required for the CRA to request an extension, I thought it

[21:15] was important because not all our board members are part of the city commission

[21:19] to give you the opportunity to see that we are formally requesting um the

[21:23] extension of the CRA in order to continue with our redevelopment um um

[21:27] activities. Uh I also have made a point of

[21:31] um showcasing how our projects or any

[21:36] activity that I bring before the board meets not only Florida statutes but also

[21:40] the city's adopted plan. So you'll see that going forward in the powerpoints

[21:44] where it shows that it meets in this case um section 163.3755

[21:50] of Florida statutes that establishes or authorizes the extension of the CRA um

[21:54] upon approval of the governing bodies and it also meets our strategic plan for

[21:58] economic development and infrastructure and transportation.

[22:02] So, our recommended motion or we what we're requesting is the approval of CRA

[22:06] resolution 2026-03 authorizing the extension of the city of

[22:11] Apaka CRA and directing staff to transmit to the city commission for

[22:15] consideration in accordance with section 163.3755

[22:19] of Florida statutes. >> Thank you, Miss Forbes. Any questions?

[22:23] Yes, member Drego. What I tried and I couldn't get the information is the last

[22:29] time that the city asked for an extension to the county. Well, who was

[22:33] the authorizing agency? Was it the city commission?

[22:39] Was it the CRA? I don't think it was the CRA. I venture to guess it was a city

[22:45] commission that asked for the extension three years ago. That's going to expire

[22:51] this year. That's the first issue because when you go back and read the

[22:56] enabling legislation, the uh taxing authority, which is the

[23:02] city of Apopka and Orange County, are the ones that entered into the

[23:05] agreement, not the CRA. Now, in the heading of this resolution,

[23:13] uh it states that well, I'll read it in I'll read it in

[23:18] its entirety for the public. a [clears throat] resolution in the

[23:22] community development agency of the city of Apka requesting

[23:26] the extension of the city of Apopka community redevelopment agency affirming

[23:32] the continuing and need for community redevelopment activities directing the

[23:36] transmitt of this resolution to Orange County. If I read that correctly, it

[23:40] goes from here to Orange County. It doesn't go to the city commission

[23:44] providing for conflict severability and effective date. Now [clears throat]

[23:49] normally under these resolutions and ordinances the first whereas the second

[23:55] whereas the third fourth and fifth when you get down to the now therefore

[24:00] resolved section one and the first whereas needs to be compatible or

[24:06] aligned with one another in this resolution.

[24:11] The second whereas talks about the redevelopment the

[24:17] redevelopment activities redevelopment incentive programs so on and so forth.

[24:21] However, the section two reads as the following. The board of directors hereby

[24:27] and this I would assume this board of directors approves the extension

[24:32] which is contradictory to the heading of the city of Apopka redevelopment agency

[24:36] and finds that continue and so on and so forth. What I don't see here is where

[24:41] what's the time extension? Is it one year, two years, three years? And

[24:47] if this board doesn't have the authority to grant the extension, which I don't

[24:52] think they do, only the county can grant it, then number two needs to be rewarded

[24:57] to request an extension of some time frame

[25:01] to either the city commission or Orange County. And lastly, the uh adoption date

[25:08] needs to be the 24th of August.

[25:13] [snorts] >> Any comments from staff?

[25:15] » Sure, I can I can address those. [laughter]

[25:16] So, on the first one, you are accurate that it needs to be the city commission

[25:20] that is requesting that extension. As I mentioned in the the the precursor, I

[25:25] was saying that I was affording the opportunity to the entire board because

[25:28] not all of the Siri board members are part of the city commission. So I wanted

[25:33] to afford the opportunity for you to see that we are in fact or rather the board

[25:37] was requesting an extension um to the the city commission. It is this

[25:43] resolution will be part of the supporting documents that will be on the

[25:46] city commission's agenda so that they also are aware that if it is approved

[25:50] that this went through the process and then you also mentioned reference um to

[25:55] a specific time period. So our interlocal agreement that's already been

[25:58] executed with the county specifies that time period which is the additional

[26:01] seven years. And then you also referenced about some of the language or

[26:07] the whereas clauses um that can be uh edited if you if the board so desires to

[26:14] do so. The intent though um is basically to

[26:19] to affirm the board's request to have the CRA extended in conjunction with the

[26:26] city commission. If it's your intent

[26:30] to send this to the city commission for them to reapprove it and send it to

[26:36] Orange County, then the request for an extension of seven

[26:41] years needs to be consistent both in the heading and in section two.

[26:46] Um now

[26:52] your um explanation of giving this to the board

[26:58] first before it goes to the city commission.

[27:02] Um I understand that. I guess the other example I can use is

[27:10] the city commission received a ordinance

[27:16] for the appointment of a CRA member. Uh

[27:23] this board was not given the courtesy to look at that ordinance first before it

[27:28] went to the city commission. Went to the city commission first and it was adopted

[27:32] by the city commission. So I don't see that or I don't see that specific

[27:38] ordinance on the board for us to give input.

[27:42] » And I can speak to a little bit of that too. This is how I see this, and I could

[27:45] be wrong. Please update or interrupt me, staff, and correct me here. This is more

[27:50] of a uh a nicity. We don't have to do this. This is not required by law or

[27:55] statute. This is more to say, hey, as a board, we want to have the city of Apka

[28:00] Commission request an extension regardless of what that extension looks

[28:03] like. Uh it's up to the city commission to get the extension with Orange County

[28:07] and obviously Orange County to agree with it. uh we can make whatever changes

[28:12] we need to, but at the end of the day, this legally has no bearing on whether

[28:15] or not we get an extension. So, we can update it if it's the board's uh desire

[28:20] to update the language uh to what board member Drago is recommending here. But,

[28:24] it's definitely not required. And if you feel this is superfluous, then we don't

[28:28] need to do it. Nobody needs to pass it. But I do think it's a hey, the board as

[28:31] a whole uh said we do want to extend it. And then this go transmits to um state

[28:36] of Apka commission. the commission whether or not this is there can approve

[28:40] or deny whether we want to extend it. Um specific to the actual appointment side

[28:46] of the board members it has not been approved yet. Let me say that uh

[28:51] language has to come back and will be back on the agenda for September 2nd. Uh

[28:56] but it's also in reference to who the city of Apopka commission can approve on

[29:00] that. Um Orange County gets to decide who they get to approve and we don't get

[29:04] to look at their guidelines for what that looks like. So, I think it it

[29:08] matches what Orange County does as well. And staff, if you would like to add

[29:11] anything or if that's >> Okay. Thank you.

[29:16] » Any other questions, comments on this one?

[29:20] » Well, my only other comment is if it's going to be brought before the city

[29:23] commission as the authority having jurisdiction, then

[29:30] it needs to be re rewarded and presented to the city commission for

[29:35] approval. And that is the the actual time extension and and the request for

[29:39] extension. And first of all, did anybody contact the county to see if the county

[29:45] is willing to extend the CRA given the fact that you have amendment three and

[29:49] the county has several CRAAS that's going to be up for termination by the

[29:54] end of this year. >> I have been in direct contact with uh

[29:58] Orange County. Right now, at this point, they have paused all extensions of CRAAS

[30:03] until the vote for the amendment goes through in one way or the other. So,

[30:07] they're willing to take in applications for renewal, but they're not uh

[30:11] accepting anything until they know where where their budget stands, so to speak.

[30:16] So, uh so we are in in direct conversation with them, making sure we

[30:19] understand where their expectations are. and uh and that was with the uh county

[30:25] manager's office or excuse me, county administrator's office is who we got

[30:29] that information directly from. So, uh they did tell us that they're pausing

[30:33] right now, but at the same time, please submit what you do have just in case we

[30:36] are ready to get move forward. They'll they'll get the ball rolling as quick as

[30:40] they um choose to. And keep in mind, too, they'll be going through a

[30:43] leadership change both on the mayor's side and both our districts and many

[30:47] districts throughout the county. So, there's a lot of changes that are going

[30:49] to be coming. So, it gives them some time to settle in as well. So, um, I'm

[30:52] okay to change any language in this. Again, this is more of a a nicity to

[30:55] make sure this board is all on the same page. And so, if there's any specific

[30:59] language, uh, you'd like us to change it to, uh, I'm open to a motion with the

[31:04] language you'd like to adjust, and we can go from there.

[31:11] » Okay. So I move uh amending resolution 2026-03

[31:20] specifically in section two to read. The board of directors hereby requests the

[31:27] extension of seven years of the city of a popular community

[31:31] development agency and finds that continued redevelopment activities

[31:34] remain necessary to carry out the purpose of the community redevelopment

[31:39] plan and that the pass and adopt section be amended to state the 21st day of

[31:45] August 2026. >> So moved by member Drago

[31:51] » second. Second by member Anderson. All those in favor say I.

[31:54] » I. >> Pardon me. We we will have to take

[31:56] public comment on that item. >> I apologize for that. Yes.

[32:01] Public comment. Uh we'll close public comment. All

[32:06] right. Uh so we do have a a motion, a second, and all those in favor say I.

[32:11] » I. I. >> All opposed. Motion carries unanimously.

[32:14] All right. Next up, we have the down payment assistance program.

[32:18] » So Oh, here we go. Sorry. So, the down payment assistance program uh is a

[32:25] policy in draft that we're looking um to get the temperature of the board and to

[32:30] establish guidelines as well as an application process to create a home

[32:34] ownership program that offers financial assistance to first-time home buyers

[32:38] within the CRA. Capitalizing off of the success of our

[32:43] residential renovation assistance program where we have assisted

[32:46] homeowners in the rehab of their residential properties. We thought to

[32:51] staff thought to expand some home ownership opportunities by providing

[32:55] eligible assistance to eligible home buyers looking to purchase

[32:59] single family homes. Um obviously this would support home ownership and

[33:03] residential revitalization. Um eligible properties include existing homes, new

[33:08] constructions, or homes requiring significant rehab. Uh the assistance

[33:13] we're looking at is up to 25% of the purchase price with a maximum value of

[33:18] 30,000 be structured as a deferred non-advertising zero interest second

[33:22] mortgage. Uh the assistance will be applied to the principal mortgage and

[33:26] the funding will be subject to budget availability which we have put in the um

[33:32] FY27 proposed budget which is still subject to be reviewed and adopted and

[33:36] it will be awarded on a first come first service excuse me first served basis

[33:41] with the goal of reducing the upfront barrier to home ownership while

[33:44] encouraging investment in long-term owner occupancy within the CRA. We would

[33:49] require a five-year homestead requirement as well as um some sort of

[33:55] um mortgage or um restricted covenant to secure public investment. We would also

[34:00] require a home buyer education course before the closing and dispersement of

[34:04] funds. Income documentation would be required for reporting demographic

[34:09] purposes. Um although this program would not be based on income eligibility, the

[34:14] collection of that data would also help in terms of the affordable housing

[34:18] component which is under um Florida statutes of which CRAAS are eligible to

[34:22] participate in. Uh we would require that financial um and project documentation

[34:28] prior to closing. Uh the assistance cannot be combined with any other CRA or

[34:33] city housing programs in order to prevent duplication of services and

[34:37] maximize um funding availability. Uh funds will be limited to the approved

[34:42] award amount and the applicants will be responsible for any cost that exceeds

[34:46] the award. So this um program still has to be

[34:51] reviewed through um legal but we wanted to get the temperature like I said of

[34:55] the board before we moved forward any further. It meets Florida statutes that

[35:00] um 163.362C that requires a community development

[35:04] plan to provide for the development affordable housing in the redevelopment

[35:08] area as well as 163713E that requires CRA's track and report

[35:14] affordable housing projects in the area. It meets the city strategic objective of

[35:18] economic viability. It also meets the CRA master plan goal to advocate

[35:22] provisions for adequate housing in good condition.

[35:26] So, our recommended motion would be the approval and adoption of the down,

[35:31] excuse me, the down payment assistance grant program um as presented by staff

[35:36] and authorized implementation um with the accordance in the accordance of

[35:40] updated policies and guidance effective October 1 contingent upon the adoption

[35:45] of the FY27 budget also contingent upon legal review.

[35:51] » Thank you, Miss Forbes. Any questions? >> I do. So, I want to say thank you. Thank

[35:55] you. Thank you. This is something, you know, I've been advocating for from day

[35:58] one about the importance of this down payment assistance program. So, I want

[36:02] to kind of go through, bear with me because I have a lot of, you know, um,

[36:05] things I want to kind of discuss. So, the first thing is in regards to the 25%

[36:10] of purchase price up to um, I recommend like most down payment assistance

[36:14] programs that we and just so you guys know, I do I am a certified HUD

[36:19] counselor and I have administered these funds before. So I'm very well diverse

[36:22] when it comes to um dist dis dist dispersing um funds. So I just want to

[36:28] say that. So one thing I do think is 25% of purchase price can be excessive

[36:32] depending on the purchase price. If it's $600,000 I know it's up to $30,000. Um

[36:36] but I do think it will be better if we have like you know 10,000 15,000 $20,000

[36:41] like in boxes like that tiers. >> That's the first thing. Uh the second

[36:46] thing it's it's says that it should be uh principal mortgage or only um I think

[36:53] we should expand that to closing costs because a depending on of the

[36:59] home buyer they a lot of times they don't have closing cost assistance and

[37:03] they don't have the down payment. So that up to that 25% can probably cover

[37:08] their down payment their closing cost and make it more affordable as well. Uh

[37:12] also part of the application it also says that in the lending requirements

[37:17] that it only and let me go to that what

[37:21] number it is. Give me one second

[37:31] only FHA VA um loans. I also recommend DSCR. DSCR is um also have a product for

[37:39] first-time home buyers as well. Um a lot of time that product is for your home

[37:44] buyers that are um are um what do you call it um forgive me

[37:51] in not investors that are um self-employed. A lot of self-employed

[37:55] borrowers do not qualify for your traditional FHA and VA financing. So a

[37:59] lot of times that DSCR product is like a bank statement product. They look at

[38:02] your you know your bank statements and they qualify off of that. a lot of

[38:05] first-time home buyers uh use that program as well. So, if we can extend it

[38:10] to also include DSCR for first-time home buyers, uh that would be good as well.

[38:15] Um also, it talks about the dispersing of funds.

[38:20] Um, I don't recommend any type of dispersement of funds um that that go it

[38:25] should be dispersed at closing um to a title agent and we should not allow them

[38:31] to reserve funds upfront without a contract and um executed contract. And I

[38:36] know it's kind of like language in here that says that they have to have the

[38:39] application filled out but then also say they can apply for it without it. So I

[38:42] think we need to kind of comb that out because if we reserve funds for a

[38:46] hundred people and you know they have up to you know six months to use it and

[38:50] they don't qualify now we have taken that money off the market for available

[38:53] people that are ready and able to buy now. Um in addition to that

[39:05] it also talk about it's a license uh contractor advancement. Um, I don't

[39:10] recommend that we advance any funds to uh any contractor. I think uh once the

[39:14] property uh is on the contract and the only time should be dispersed is when

[39:20] they're actually at closing and it shouldn't go towards because that's a

[39:23] whole liability within itself. I don't even understand how that would look like

[39:25] if we're given assistance prior to uh the person property uh closing on the

[39:30] property. And that's all for now.

[39:37] But I um we uh when I say that we the board approved some other entitlement

[39:43] programs. One was a demolition I think up to $50,000.

[39:50] Uh

[39:54] that that demolition grant cannot be used as part of the down payment. Is

[39:59] that right? >> Okay.

[40:00] » Correct. And we also uh had another entitlement program where we give some

[40:05] architect or engineer $50,000 to design something. So

[40:11] » I'm sorry. May I may may I interrupt you and just say that program was not

[40:14] approved. The board did not approve that design architectural engineering

[40:16] program. >> But the first one they did with the

[40:18] demolition. >> Yes, sir.

[40:19] » With the amendment that historical structures are prohibited.

[40:24] » Is that right? >> From dem from demolition.

[40:27] » Yes. >> Correct.

[40:28] » Okay. So the question I have here is um in the third paragraph it states

[40:34] home buyers who purchase a vacant lot with the intent to build a new home or

[40:38] home buyers who purchase a home that requires significant rehabilitation.

[40:45] Is that rehabilitation interior or exterior?

[40:53] » Why do you ask? I guess where you going with that? Where I'm going with it is

[40:56] that I I don't in keeping with the demolition permit or entitlement program

[41:02] his buildings that are on the historic register cannot be cannot use this to

[41:08] rehab exterior of the building in violation of the federal standards

[41:13] » residential. So >> you're speaking specifically to historic

[41:16] properties. >> Yes.

[41:18] » Okay. So we I'm sure we could add some language in there that references the

[41:23] historic side of it, but wouldn't that go to permitting and permitting would

[41:26] catch that? >> And you know what they what they should

[41:31] do and what they do are two different things. Now, if you remember a couple of

[41:34] meetings ago, I read you emails that I that I got from the building official

[41:39] that basically said if you submit a permit online, I approve it, it's a go.

[41:43] Historical structures are not. Now,

[41:48] uh, and I and I would also, if you're going to amend it, I would also put in

[41:52] there any building or house that's 50 years or older. You want to maintain the

[41:57] integrity of those houses. I don't think member Ruth would want somebody in his

[42:02] neighborhood to come in re, you know, to rehab a house and not keep the

[42:07] architectural integrity of the house. I don't think he wants a block house with

[42:11] a flat roof painted pink. I don't think so.

[42:16] and this without some extra wording or standards put in it, they can pretty

[42:21] well do it. [snorts]

[42:25] » So, but this specific program and uh staff, please jump in as needed,

[42:29] obviously, but this specific program doesn't necessarily go to or speak to

[42:34] rehab or renovations. It does. It says significant rehab, but then it goes on

[42:38] to say the financial assistance from the CR CRA will only be dispersed after the

[42:43] home has been constructed or the f home has been fully renovated. So, it's it's

[42:48] not specifically saying the renovation side of it. They need to do the

[42:51] renovations and then funds will be dispersed from there.

[42:54] » Well, if they do the renovation, there's nothing to stop them to fill out the

[42:57] form and get the $30,000. Nothing. >> So, they completely if you'll allow me

[43:03] to. So the intent is for for first-time home buyers, right? So these are if a

[43:09] first time first-time home buyer is looking to purchase a property that is

[43:13] historic in nature, the improvements in this particular case are not necessarily

[43:18] applicable because the funds are to be used in the purchase of the home. Now

[43:23] what improvements they decide to do, that's a separate thing. Let's say if

[43:27] they decided they were not going to use these funds, but they wanted to use our

[43:31] residential renovation uh assistance program to do improvements

[43:36] to the historic property. In that case, we would use those guidelines. And those

[43:40] guidelines are only for the exterior of the property. And yes, to I can't

[43:43] remember which board member's point, but there is a development review process

[43:46] that it goes through that should flag that this property um is therefore

[43:50] historic and there and there are different guidelines that go towards it.

[43:54] » Yeah. But that doesn't answer my question of the of the of the definition

[43:57] of rehabilitation. Is it interior or exterior or both?

[44:03] » Well, so the CRA um only does in well policy-wise, we've only done exterior

[44:09] improvements. We have not done interior. So, anybody could come in here, buy a

[44:15] historic structure, rehabilitate it, if I read this

[44:20] correctly, and then fill out a form and get $30,000.

[44:24] » No, a person could come in and fill out an application to say, "I'd like to buy

[44:29] a historic property." They could do that. And so, throughout that process,

[44:34] we would still need their documentation. We still need the same thing that you

[44:38] would do when you apply for any loan and it goes through a title company. we

[44:41] would require that same level of documentation. And so we are not

[44:44] requesting if they are doing improvements, we are requesting

[44:47] information as it relates to the purchase of the property.

[44:55] » And [clears throat]

[44:59] the the problem is that

[45:06] you explain it one way, the public sees it a different way. they

[45:12] they hear something from somebody else. In other words, it's not clear to me. If

[45:17] it has to be clear, it should specifically say this cannot be used for

[45:22] renovations, rehab of historical buildings exterior.

[45:26] » Well, it shouldn't be used for any renovations at all.

[45:30] » These funds are exclusively to purchase the property.

[45:33] » The only thing I can think of where it where it possibly is with a 203k FHA

[45:37] loan where it allows for you to escrow the repairs. So that's the only just in

[45:41] this scenario I think that's the only way they actually can use the money if

[45:43] we're saying that we will allow for the escrow through a 203k FHA program that

[45:48] they would allow because everybody familiar with FA 203 FAK. So essentially

[45:52] what happens is if the property needs $30,000 worth of rehab, you have to take

[45:56] that money put into a separate account and do the repairs and the property

[46:00] closes out. So, if we're saying that we're okay escrowing up to a certain

[46:04] amount of money, I think that's the only time it actually will apply because

[46:07] other than that, we're not giving them money up front for repairs. We only will

[46:12] escrow. So, essentially, we're saying that we were escrow repairs.

[46:14] » Well, and we have not listed that type of product as eligible.

[46:18] » Okay. Well, we said FHA, so FHA 203k is a if FHA product as well.

[46:22] » So, there are different 203b and 202. Yeah, 203k.

[46:26] » So, are we saying all FHA products? Because there's different type of FHA

[46:29] products. Well, we can add I hope to um to get us where we're trying to go, we

[46:34] can add language that specifically speaks to historic property types and

[46:38] put in language that speaks to um it can only be used for the purchase and not

[46:43] for the um for the renovation or for the the rehab and such.

[46:48] » But I think that if if we do these because FHA, we said FHA and just to be

[46:52] clear, we said FHA that mean all types of FHA because we didn't specify FHA

[46:57] like a certain FHA. So the FHA does have a 203k. What I'm trying to do is is to

[47:02] his point if we because we do say that we're gonna it is kind of confusing

[47:07] because I was had to read it twice. If we're going to say we're going to give

[47:10] it does reference saying that there's going to be you know a certain amount of

[47:13] money and it talks about a contractor. So the only thing that I can think of is

[47:16] the 203k product will actually be actually using it where we'll give the

[47:20] money to put into an escore account after closing to be used to meet FHA

[47:25] standards. A lot of times if the property does not meet FHA standards and

[47:28] if it needs some type of renovation to meet that they would allow for that

[47:33] money to go into into a separate account still close out but by a licensed

[47:37] contract to have to take dispersements and things. So I think that is that's

[47:41] the only time I actually can see us doing that. Other than that we won't be

[47:43] advancing any funds.

[47:48] » Okay. So what >> I don't think that that's an advancement

[47:50] because they do we the loan closes. Yes. >> So it closes. That's what we would be

[47:54] calling that too. >> We still applied it to. So we're not

[47:56] Yeah. Cuz we're not doing any type of >> rehabs.

[47:58] » Rehabs at all. >> Nor are we advancing in the sense that

[48:02] they received the funds prior to closing. No. So when we receive the

[48:06] closing date, then we can put in the request in order to have that payment

[48:10] processed directly to the title escrow company.

[48:14] » I'm familiar, but I was just Yeah. >> So member DGO is your your biggest

[48:17] holdup is ensuring that historic properties are preserved properly.

[48:23] Is is that the the concern? >> Yes. And and what I'm hearing is I'm

[48:28] hearing a loophole where you could somebody could file for an FHA loan, get

[48:33] all the process because FHA doesn't look at whether it's an historical structure

[48:37] and it needs to be protected by federal standards. They don't look at that. If

[48:40] they meet the application criteria, you get the loan. Then if you close the loan

[48:45] as was explained and then you fill out an application, well then you can get

[48:51] the $30,000 if there was a rehab exterior on an historical structure.

[48:56] » I guess we add the language what I'm hearing that

[48:59] » so I wait a minute. So my recommendation is instead of words smiting this,

[49:05] you know, we'll do this, we'll do this, my recommendation would be that this

[49:09] goes back for a rewrite and brought back to us at the next

[49:14] meeting with the preferred language to make sure that those historic structures

[49:19] are protected.

[49:23] » Thank you, Member Dango. Any other comments or questions from membership?

[49:28] » Yes. Um, and so I think I think we should certainly include in the wording

[49:35] is making sure that this is clear in terms of firsttime home buyer because

[49:39] that's not in here. So we ne definitely need to include that. Um, and then there

[49:45] should be a criteria in place. So I I tried, you know, reading through

[49:53] this, I didn't I didn't find a a defined criteria just at the end

[50:00] um [clears throat]

[50:05] at the end uh where it's more of documentation that the homeowner needs

[50:10] to submit um not so much a criteria that needs to be in place. So, I think that's

[50:15] something that the board should consider implementing is criteria based on these

[50:20] first home uh first-time home buyers that are going to be applying for this.

[50:24] um just my my my recommendations. It just

[50:30] helps us um define exactly the purpose behind this

[50:35] and that just everybody can apply and then we're telling them it's only first

[50:39] home first-time home buyers and then of course that just leaves people in

[50:44] and it just tasteful attitude if you will. So

[50:49] » absolutely. >> Yeah. And it oh and one other thing too

[50:52] and it should I also it said some language in regards to either cash or

[50:57] loan. I think if you have money to put buy a property cash I don't think we

[51:03] should allow the program to to actually yeah because they have they can use that

[51:08] money for a down payment on some loan you know for loan for for a loan. So, I

[51:11] don't think if you have $300,000 of putting down cash on a property that we

[51:14] should give them 25% it to help them when they have cash.

[51:22] » Any other questions, comments? >> Well, the 30,000 I mean

[51:26] » you're speaking to your mic, too. Sorry. >> The the cap is for uh it's not to exceed

[51:31] the $30,000 way it's written. You said 20% of 300,000 is not 30,000.

[51:39] » Correct. Well, how it's written right now, it says up to 25% of the purchase

[51:42] price of an improved property up to a maximum of $30,000 in down payment

[51:46] assistance.

[51:49] And >> I think that language could be cleared

[51:51] up a little bit so that it >> and and and secondly um who's the

[51:58] governing body for transparency on um submitting the application, approving

[52:06] the application and actually um carrying the the the contract through to its

[52:13] sunset. >> So that that would be staff. So we would

[52:17] monitor it the same way we do all of our other

[52:19] » the fivey year period right after five years they've committed I mean they've

[52:24] fulfilled their obligations of of the firsttime buyer program correct

[52:28] » correct >> okay but prior to that if they default

[52:32] or move >> who

[52:35] » who then steps in and and mitigates the recovery of the investment or where are

[52:42] we going to from there? Are we going to get stuck with the legal fees of going

[52:45] and collecting So I won't address the legal fees part

[52:49] of it, but I I will tell you so similar to how we do our reap program where we

[52:53] do have a recorded uh restrictive covenant for five years. So every

[52:57] applicant that has been awarded funding, it has been record they they fully have

[53:02] been explained and have they have an executed recorded covenant against their

[53:06] property. So when the time comes if they decide they want to uh refinance or for

[53:11] whatever reason they get a title search done on their property, that will come

[53:14] up. And so it also specifies in that um restrictive covenant that it is for a

[53:20] 5-year uh period. >> Yeah. And well, you know, in in all

[53:24] fairness, I live in this district, so I'm very familiar with the rules and

[53:30] regulations of but um up to this point, it's it hasn't been enforced. Um you

[53:38] know, I live in a single family district that has four or five families living in

[53:42] one home. So, I know our monitoring or governing of these uh residents have

[53:48] been very loose at best. U but I just want to make sure that if if if our

[53:54] intent is and I'm all for a college park environment where we in we we invest in

[54:00] our future and that's these younger people coming in and making these

[54:03] purchases. ownership is the true test of of you know people that own the home are

[54:10] really going to take care of the homes even even if it's just keeping the yard

[54:14] kept and and and mowing it and stuff. So I have a lot of confidence in that. I

[54:19] just want to make sure the the the legal side of it. Uh I just don't want

[54:25] to, you know, us get hung with a lot of of open debt that you know we kind of

[54:31] get entangled in. And there's no resource to go back and

[54:36] recoup some of the financial obligations that we extended up to that point.

[54:49] » There's a collection element to it, you know, that I'm just making sure that

[54:53] we're covering. >> Yeah. in these types of grants, grants

[54:58] that are are similar. I mean, you can u on the leans and so forth, put in, you

[55:03] know, the best language in the world that you can, there always is an element

[55:06] and some element of a risk. I can't guarantee that there won't be any legal

[55:09] fees to enforce it or that there would be resources on the other side once

[55:13] enforcement is made to pay for those fees. So, there is that element. It will

[55:18] always be there, you know, notwithstanding any kind of uh

[55:22] uh efforts made by staff to to prevent that from happening. Yeah, I I I agree.

[55:26] The risk is always there. I just want to make sure there's an element of

[55:29] collection if we needed.

[55:33] » Understood.

[55:37] » Any other final comments? >> Did I'm sorry, I can't remember. Did I

[55:40] say something about the u about the money being going towards the only the

[55:44] principal mortgage? Did I also add it should go towards closing costs as well?

[55:48] I did. Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Thank you.

[55:52] » Any other comments? We'll go to public comment now. Anybody

[55:56] from the public wish to speak on this?

[56:05] » Rogers back at 7 West Main Street. I just want to make sure I heard this

[56:08] correctly. So, there is no income restrictions on the 30,000.

[56:12] » Not how it's written currently. No. >> Okay. Thanks.

[56:18] » Any other uh members of the public wish to speak? We'll close public comment.

[56:23] Uh, any other final comments from the board?

[56:29] » I just think we need to table this until we can get the wording.

[56:34] » I think we have a lot of >> I think so as well. I will say a couple

[56:37] of my comments on this one is I think a lot of great points were made adding

[56:42] making sure that it's a first-time home buyer that that's that is valuable. U

[56:46] for me making sure it's not an LLC that it is in somebody's actual name I think

[56:51] uh is needed. And then I think there should be some type of condition

[56:56] requirements as well that this shouldn't be a a

[57:00] » for a full gut because it just gets muddied and and convoluted. Uh my only

[57:06] other concern with this one too is the whole core and point of a CRA is to

[57:12] the whole whole point is to increase tax value in this area. That is the point of

[57:17] this. So if we add exclusively to residential properties and amendment

[57:23] three goes into place in November, we have not succeeded in increasing

[57:27] taxable value. So my goal with this or my thought with this is I do like this,

[57:32] but I think we need to maybe navigate forward delicately and in smaller steps.

[57:37] I think right now a lot of our businesses in this district really are

[57:41] wanting and screaming for help. And I think that maybe we get creative with

[57:45] some of those incentive programs for the current businesses that are in place

[57:48] that would provide some type of resources for them in some way. Uh just

[57:53] with the economic times that they are right now, I think that will go further.

[57:56] I think we spent just about a million dollars on residential properties last

[57:59] year and I think that we should maybe prioritize businesses this year and

[58:03] maybe ping pong back and forth or find a healthy uh balance between the two. Uh I

[58:08] do I I'm all about home ownership all day every day. Uh it's just the goal of

[58:13] a CRA is to build taxable value. That is the pure goal of it and we need to make

[58:18] sure that that's on the forefront of our minds as we navigate this. So uh I like

[58:22] the program. I think just be delicate as we move forward. Add language to it. I

[58:25] think we do table it, massage this language a little bit, but then also

[58:28] think about what we can do and I'm I'm sure we'll speak about it later specific

[58:31] to the commercial side to the business side of uh our CRA. So those are my

[58:37] comments there. I'm open to a motion from the membership if we are wanting to

[58:42] table this to a next meeting. >> Yes.

[58:46] » I move that we uh table this down payment assistance program to November

[58:54] 4th which is a one Monday 2026. I have a motion from

[59:01] » Wednesday, >> November 4th,

[59:06] » day after the election. >> Well, the the email I got said the

[59:11] meeting was November 5th, which is a Thursday.

[59:15] » So, I I'm going to recognize the motion obviously uh that you have a motion to

[59:19] table until November 4th at any time.

[59:23] » Well, that that that's the next CRA meeting, so it's five o'clock.

[59:27] » Okay. because you have a commission meeting that day.

[59:30] » We do. [clears throat] Uh so I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second by

[59:34] member Baron. All those in favor say I. >> I.

[59:37] » All opposed. Motion carries unanimously.

[59:43] » All right. >> Attorney members of the board. So I

[59:47] pardon my interruption. I do think uh before we move on uh we do need to

[59:51] revisit number two. If I understood the motion correctly, I believe it modified

[59:56] the resolution and that was voted on unanimously, but I believe uh the

[1:00:02] resolution needs to be read and the actual language of the resolution voted

[1:00:06] on as modified.

[1:00:12] the >> this is bone

[1:00:14] » second

[1:00:18] » resolution 20266-03

[1:00:22] a resolution of the community redevelopment agency CRA of the city of

[1:00:27] Apakka Florida requesting the extension of the city of Apakka community re

[1:00:33] redevelopment agency affirming the continuing need for au community

[1:00:38] redevelopment agency mergency activities directing the transmitt of this

[1:00:42] resolution to Orange County providing for conflicts severability and an

[1:00:46] effective date. >> And then from there you're requesting

[1:00:50] that language was clarified in the motion attorney hand.

[1:00:53] » Uh just it would be a motion to pass as amended since uh the previous votion

[1:00:59] amended the content of the resolution. >> All right. I will look for a motion to

[1:01:04] uh pass resolution 2026-03 as amended. So moved. Uh

[1:01:09] » moved by member Drago, second by member Ruth. All those in favor say I. I.

[1:01:13] » All opposed. Motion carries unanimously. >> Yes.

[1:01:27] We're get we're getting it. >> My apologies.

[1:01:30] » My apologies. The motion that was read in reference to bringing back the down

[1:01:34] payment assistance program on November 5th, that date um is or November 4th,

[1:01:40] rather. There's already a city commission meeting scheduled for that.

[1:01:44] That's the early afternoon one. And I believe the November 5th date that um

[1:01:48] member Drago was referencing was an error date that was sent when the board

[1:01:53] meeting um notification went out where it referenced Wednesday, November 5th,

[1:01:57] 2025. So I just want to be clear that while we

[1:02:01] will bring back this item, it will not be on the November 4th or 5th date.

[1:02:10] » I'd prefer to not have it extend out to a date unknown. We prefer a date

[1:02:14] certain. So, do we want to set now then that next CRA meeting date? Then

[1:02:18] » yeah, >> would that be valuable for everyone?

[1:02:21] » You want to make a November 10th? That's a Wednesday.

[1:02:24] » That's a Tuesday. >> It's not Tuesday. I'm sorry.

[1:02:26] » We have a planning commission meeting that evening.

[1:02:30] » Wednesday the 11th. >> That's Veterans Day.

[1:02:32] » Veterans Day. >> Thursday.

[1:02:36] » We can I don't have anything on the 12th surprisingly.

[1:02:42] Uh, all right. So, November 12th at what is it? 5

[1:02:45] » 5:00 >> 30 five

[1:02:47] » five is fine if it works for the the board

[1:02:56] » because we moved it then should we do a new motion for that then or

[1:03:02] what do you recommend attorney hand >> I think that's the uh I think that's the

[1:03:06] board's election I

[1:03:19] All right. I will motion or I will look for a motion to set our next CRA meeting

[1:03:23] for number November 12th at 5:00 pm and we will review the down payment

[1:03:31] assistance program at that time. >> So moved.

[1:03:33] » Uh moved by member Drago. >> Second. second by uh member Anderson.

[1:03:39] All those in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. Motion carries unanimously.

[1:03:42] [clears throat] Thank you for the clarification, staff.

[1:03:46] All right. Next up, we are discussing the evaluation for well, this is old

[1:03:50] business evaluation of potential property acquisition 161 East 6th

[1:03:54] Street. >> So, this property was bought before the

[1:03:59] board at the last uh CRA board meeting. Is a property that is currently um up

[1:04:04] for sale. The board had requested a staff evaluation at the April 15th uh

[1:04:09] meeting or if you'll look up on on your screens you can see some information

[1:04:13] reference to it. Uh this property was actually brought to staff um that is for

[1:04:19] sale for 299,000 is42 acres with 18,380 ft of total land. It's currently zoned

[1:04:28] as mixed use. So, one of the things that was requested

[1:04:34] um by staff is a review for potential uses of the property. And so, we looked

[1:04:39] at um the property as a potential parking lot, surface parking to support

[1:04:44] the museum. Uh we conferred um with uh public works in order to provide some of

[1:04:50] the data that you see here. They are staff is available for additional

[1:04:53] questions as relates to the um the spec the specifics that are provided. So

[1:04:59] based on the square footage that was provided um we were it was then shown

[1:05:05] that there's an estimated usable area of 12,866

[1:05:08] square feet. Uh we also then staff asked public works to review it in terms of

[1:05:14] parking availability. Could it be used as a parking lot? How

[1:05:18] many slots uh would be available? What would be the cost? Um, and so this

[1:05:23] provides the total breakdown where you see it's approximately 40 spaces, give

[1:05:26] or take three spaces um, for that lot.

[1:05:33] We also looked at um, using different types of material to determine whether

[1:05:38] or not we would do a permanent parking lot versus a temporary parking lot. Um

[1:05:43] we also asked for and staff um happily provided some um ranges in terms of

[1:05:50] pricing from 92,000 to 165,000 for a permanent parking lot as well as if we

[1:05:57] did a temporary parking lot which was per pvious pavers gravel um or some form

[1:06:03] of wheel stops. Um so with option A, the gravel with the wheel stops um would

[1:06:08] cost anywhere between 150 and 350 per square foot, whereas the pvious pavers

[1:06:14] would cost between $6 and $12 per square foot depending on the material for a

[1:06:19] cost between 275 and 67 excuse me 64,300.

[1:06:27] So based on that, and by the way, there is a memorandum, a more detailed

[1:06:32] memorandum in your packet that provides um a recommendation by staff um

[1:06:37] including considerations such as park, potential parking, demand, operations

[1:06:42] and maintenance um as well as the acquisition costs. So we wanted to

[1:06:48] receive direction from the board of how they'd like to move forward if they'd

[1:06:50] like to purchase the property. I also want to reference that this property

[1:06:53] meets the the city strategic objectives of economic viability. It meets the CRA

[1:06:58] master plan for land acquisition. It also meets fer statute 1637c7

[1:07:05] for acquisition by purchase.

[1:07:10] So, with all of that, we now need direction um if the board would like to

[1:07:15] purchase the property that is currently vacant located at 161 East 6th Street to

[1:07:20] support potential future redevelopment opportunities um including strategic

[1:07:25] land assembly. >> Thank you, Miss Forbes. Comments,

[1:07:28] questions from the membership. Is that that little piece that's right

[1:07:34] opposite the um the bike trail by the bridge?

[1:07:39] » No, you're asking me specific direction. There we go.

[1:07:41] » Yep. You're just showing that piece, but where is it? Opposite, isn't it?

[1:07:44] » Right across from Duran's

[1:07:49] » um >> So, it's next to

[1:07:56] » Yes. Where that older Cobb building is. >> Right. Just south of that. Right. Right

[1:08:01] there. It's at the corner. >> PD is to the south here.

[1:08:05] » Gas pump and we right to the left. >> Gas pump was to the left. Museum is to

[1:08:11] the left. Uh Ryan uh Ryan Lumber is to the right there.

[1:08:16] » And he has his property up for sale also.

[1:08:19] » That's correct. >> I don't I I don't know. Parking lot

[1:08:25] » that Sorry, that is one potential use for it. Again, this is the first thing

[1:08:30] is deciding as a board if it's something that you'd like to purchase. You can

[1:08:34] decide at a later date how you'd like to use the property, but what was requested

[1:08:37] by the board is a potential use for it at least um for now. So, what I had

[1:08:44] suggested was a parking lot so that at least and and by the way, a temporary

[1:08:49] parking lot is my suggestion. Um so, at least that it would be advantageous to

[1:08:54] the museum so that people have better access to it. Um, however, that doesn't

[1:08:58] mean that it has to be the end use. That could be a really great P3 opportunity

[1:09:02] in the future. It is in an opportunity zone.

[1:09:04] » So, I mean, so you're talking about purchasing something and taking it off

[1:09:08] the tax roll right now if we purchase it.

[1:09:10] » That is true. >> And and it's just going to sit there

[1:09:13] until we decide what we want to do for with it.

[1:09:17] » Um, >> that is true.

[1:09:18] » It But it just

[1:09:23] I'm not I'm not big on a parking lot. I understand that the museum needs a

[1:09:28] parking, but I mean that's such a central location. I mean, we have the

[1:09:33] bridge. Um, we have we're trying to encourage people to use our bike path

[1:09:39] and we also don't even know what Ryan is going to do with his property. And

[1:09:44] that's an historic historical uh parcel. So, it's it's like I don't know if a

[1:09:51] parking lot fits in that that um area and right now we we have it's under tax

[1:09:59] we and so if we purchase it we take it off

[1:10:04] and then it's just going to sit there. It's been doing that already.

[1:10:09] » Correct. So one thing to keep in mind and this is ultimately up to the board's

[1:10:13] decision that yes it will be off the tax roles but as we are all looking at what

[1:10:18] the future may look like if we are if our the CRA's primary source is taxes is

[1:10:24] reduced then at least that's part of land assembly that would be our

[1:10:28] strategic goal that at least if we have property available we can now possibly

[1:10:33] repurpose that and that we use it to recruit potential new endusers. So that

[1:10:40] is an asset now that we would have, you know, it's one of those six in one hand,

[1:10:44] half a dozen in the other. Yes, it it is takes off the tax ro. Um I think it's

[1:10:49] been for sale for for a little bit for quite some time

[1:10:52] » for I mean it [clears throat] has been there for as long as I've been in

[1:10:56] office. It's been before that also, >> right? But like I said, if you know our

[1:11:02] um soul funding source, the CRA soul funding source gets reduced at least now

[1:11:07] we have another valuable asset. But are we promoting it? Are we

[1:11:14] marketing it so that someone is interested in that piece of property

[1:11:19] besides saying let's just make a parking lot? I just my concern is that we have

[1:11:25] Ryan selling his property. I don't even know how they handle

[1:11:30] selling a historical property. Can I This is all new to me. So, if he sells

[1:11:36] his property, how does that change his historical designation? Or does it?

[1:11:44] » It shouldn't. >> I don't think the propertyy's Well,

[1:11:47] first of all, it's a vacant property, so I don't know how it can be historical

[1:11:49] unless >> she's references on there. Some

[1:11:52] » member Velasquez is referencing uh the property to the east across the street.

[1:11:56] » Just across the street. lumber. >> Uh

[1:12:02] well, the only way it would affect it is if you didn't have a comprehensive set

[1:12:08] of design standards to protect Ryan Lumber's investment in their property.

[1:12:15] Now, I remember this was brought up under the

[1:12:20] former administration

[1:12:23] and my memory serves me correctly. the re the real estate person was looking

[1:12:29] for a buyer and thought the city had cash and they come to us with a was it

[1:12:36] $299,000. So

[1:12:40] the board at the time

[1:12:45] didn't table it per se but just asked for a better evaluation of the use of

[1:12:50] the property. Now, in keeping with the chair's comments in the past,

[1:12:57] um we need to be careful on what properties

[1:13:01] we buy relative to it taken off the tax roles and then your taxable value

[1:13:06] decreases. So,

[1:13:10] I'm not I'm opposed to buying a property just

[1:13:15] for the sake of storing the property for some future use. it could stay vacant

[1:13:19] and accomplish the same feat. However, I probably would recommend that Miss Miss

[1:13:26] Forb's economic development expertise could be put to use in

[1:13:31] conjunction with the real estate agency to find a developer for the property.

[1:13:38] [snorts] >> Any other comments?

[1:13:40] » I kind of share kind of what the board is. I think we shouldn't take this off,

[1:13:43] you know, off the tax role and not know what we're going to do with it. And I

[1:13:46] think we probably do need to look for a private partner to kind of partner with

[1:13:49] us or something or someone to kind of develop that. It's been for sale for a

[1:13:52] while. So I don't think it's like a need like now because

[1:13:55] » I'm sorry. >> Can you just speak a little louder? I

[1:13:58] didn't hear anything that you said. >> You didn't hear anything I said? Yeah.

[1:14:00] Go ahead. >> No one. Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:14:02] » I didn't. >> So essentially what I'm saying is I kind

[1:14:04] of agree with everyone. I don't think we should um actually this is not the time

[1:14:07] for it. I think that we need to look at a possible partnership, private

[1:14:11] partnership or look for someone to develop that. I just think right now we

[1:14:15] shouldn't be doing anything to reduce the taxes that we have coming in. We

[1:14:18] don't even have we don't have a need for we don't we don't know what we're going

[1:14:20] to do with it. So I just >> I just I'm not in favor of us continuing

[1:14:26] to accumulate properties that we have no >> um plans for it.

[1:14:33] » Um it's just going to sit there. >> Um someone bought the property on the

[1:14:39] other corner and built that monster. I call it the monster. And I mean, I don't

[1:14:44] want something like that to happen on that corner. I don't even know what's it

[1:14:48] zoned for this property. >> Mix. Mix.

[1:14:51] » Mixuse. So, I mean, that's an opportunity to

[1:14:55] have a, you know, >> for someone to come in and develop it,

[1:14:58] » a developer come in. I'm just concerned that that is such a

[1:15:05] prime piece of property. and we have the bridge, we have the the the uh the trail

[1:15:13] and at the same time we have Ryan selling his property. So I I just, you

[1:15:18] know, kind of let's wait to see what he hap what happens with his property and

[1:15:24] then we can kind of figure out and I think any developer is going to wait

[1:15:28] until Ryan sells his property to see what's going to become of that property.

[1:15:35] Well, and I I see the point in terms of what both your points and and member

[1:15:41] Drago's point as well. Um, and and honestly, if we were to purchase this,

[1:15:47] we need to put something that's going to be revenue driven for the city. Uh,

[1:15:51] parking lot is not revenue driven unless we're going to put meters and that's

[1:15:58] that's just that doesn't help us as a city. Um,

[1:16:02] so I I think we should definitely just keep an eye out on it. Um, because

[1:16:08] obviously we run the risk somebody could purchase it. But if we could go along

[1:16:14] with the private public private partnerships and try to find something

[1:16:19] that is generally revenue driven for the city. That would be helpful. And that's

[1:16:27] more of, you know, what's going to drive people to our downtown. The the point is

[1:16:33] we have so many people up in on that trail that do not live in Apopka. Um, we

[1:16:39] should be detouring them towards our downtown. So,

[1:16:44] what is it that we can put in that area that's going to be revenue driven for

[1:16:49] our city? That's my thoughts. just all those corners there because even across

[1:16:55] 441 we have the little cleaners that's been sitting vacant. It's it's just not

[1:17:03] I I just don't see it being developed that that area if we put a parking lot.

[1:17:08] » It's just going to kill that area. >> Agreed.

[1:17:10] » It will agree 100%. >> Any other comments from members?

[1:17:14] » Yeah, I just want to thank Miss Forbes for this evaluation. I know I've uh

[1:17:18] asked for it a few times, so I uh appreciate her developing this uh board

[1:17:23] item. >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:17:25] Any members of the public wish to speak on this?

[1:17:29] » Please.

[1:17:33] » Thank you. So, he said who's listing broker for the property? Any questions?

[1:17:36] » I I got one. >> Please, if you can come up to the mic

[1:17:39] though for the questions. Thank you.

[1:17:45] » How can I help you? The the one question I have is is you know later on we're

[1:17:50] going to be we're going to be asked to evaluate another piece of property of of

[1:17:54] equal size but matter of fact it's even bigger. Okay.

[1:17:57] » Um and this this property is is all but 150 all but 145,000 more than that.

[1:18:05] » Um is it just the the closeness to the city borders? Why would uh why would the

[1:18:14] market value be so unbalanced?

[1:18:18] » It is it's I think it's two-part. It's the prospective plans for the historic

[1:18:23] district. >> Well, you're a professional at this and

[1:18:24] this is the reason I'm asking. >> Yes, sir. That that's why I think it's

[1:18:27] the future is the qu is the answer to the question and what the city plans on

[1:18:32] doing in the historic downtown district as y'all have discussed for years. So, I

[1:18:36] think um that's what I'm hearing. I have had significant interest from all of the

[1:18:41] above mixeduse developers that want to do ground flooror retail like you're

[1:18:47] suggesting board member. Uh the last question is Diane.

[1:18:52] » Diane >> I know it's hard to say the last name so

[1:18:55] » no problem. I've had commercial users as well um the uh owner themselves would

[1:19:02] like to work with the city if that's an option that that's what they'd prefer to

[1:19:05] work with y'all. But uh ultimately I think it's a matter of time before

[1:19:09] something like uh Mrs. Vasquez mentioned would come a more high intense use in

[1:19:15] the future. >> Well, I've taken advantage of you made

[1:19:18] the recommendation you would volunteer information. I was just seeing why the

[1:19:22] disparity between the >> Well, I I just think it's it's location.

[1:19:25] Like they say, location, location, location.

[1:19:28] » It is a prime piece of property except that what's neighboring right now hasn't

[1:19:33] been developed. So putting a parking lot would actually kill it.

[1:19:38] » Yeah. Well, we were hoping y'all would want to put a building or maybe

[1:19:40] something else revenue generating on it as well. We're we're open to that

[1:19:44] basically and and representing the seller. They want to work with the city

[1:19:46] if they come up with any ideas that >> Oh, this So is it it's not So you

[1:19:50] evaluate it based off of the future value of it, not the current value is

[1:19:54] what I heard. It's a current value, but um that current value, you know,

[1:19:58] depending on how quickly the historic district develops, revitalizes,

[1:20:03] » you know, that's the timeline that's involved with it. So, some some

[1:20:06] developers that have reached out to us, you know, they're deciding how soon can

[1:20:11] they build something there. Um, and that's really been the main question.

[1:20:17] and they've I recommend them to reach out to staff to kind of figure out

[1:20:20] what's the timeline for this area to get you know more revitalized.

[1:20:25] » So in the current state it is in now is worth 299. Is that your evaluation as of

[1:20:29] » that? That that is the evaluation. Yes. Correct. And we have interested buyers

[1:20:33] at that number and uh the seller has decided they'd like to work with the

[1:20:38] city first if they could. >> Well they they

[1:20:42] » we appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you for that.

[1:20:43] » Absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time.

[1:20:45] » You're welcome. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the public

[1:20:46] wish to speak?

[1:20:57] The best hall Rock Springs Ridge. Uh just a few things. I'm trying to make

[1:21:01] sure I can remember everything, but I just want to make for clarification

[1:21:05] because I was sitting in the back. Uh did I hear what I just heard? The

[1:21:09] gentleman said there's a the property is worth about 2 million.

[1:21:15] No, I didn't. >> What was the 2 million?

[1:21:17] » 299. >> 299.

[1:21:18] » 299,000. >> 29. [clears throat]

[1:21:21] » I'm saying he's had got some offers that people was talking about much higher.

[1:21:24] Where What's the reference to the $2 million?

[1:21:28] » I don't I don't I don't remember. I'm >> okay. Then I'm hearing things back

[1:21:32] there. All right. So, >> that seat's up front.

[1:21:34] » So, now let me let me refocus. We're at a hiring freeze in the city

[1:21:40] right now, but we still can go around and look for property that we really

[1:21:44] don't need and put that kind of money and we can

[1:21:49] come up with a proposal for it, but we're at a hiring freeze.

[1:21:54] » Well, this is the CRA. >> I I I know it's the CRA. I know it's the

[1:21:57] CRA, but I'm just saying where our focus is now. Right across the street, is this

[1:22:02] still CRA? Right across the street? >> Yes.

[1:22:05] » Okay. There's two properties that I think we bought a few years ago, right?

[1:22:09] I'm not really sure, but there's two properties that we bought, took out the

[1:22:13] taxes, and they still sitting over there. I've been here for some years.

[1:22:16] There's still open lots, just open areas just sitting there.

[1:22:20] » Be we have a lot of land. >> Yes. Right across the street. It's just

[1:22:24] sitting there. We purchase it. And that's that's one of the things I want

[1:22:27] to see when we come in here. The CRA map.

[1:22:30] » That's Station Street. >> I think you're talking about Station

[1:22:33] Street. Which for? I'm sorry. You point? >> No. right across the the the light right

[1:22:36] here. Right across in the parking area. There's a couple vacant lots that's been

[1:22:39] there for for years now. I know the city own them.

[1:22:42] » They just been there. That's the CRA area, right? They just been there. We

[1:22:45] bought them for what purpose and it's just sitting there. And so that's why

[1:22:50] I'm saying >> shop own.

[1:22:51] » That was free ice house. >> What?

[1:22:53] » That was free ice house. >> Which one?

[1:22:56] » Free ice house. What? I don't >> either way. The CRA doesn't own it. I'll

[1:23:00] say that. The CRA this board can't make a decision on that those properties.

[1:23:03] Okay. So, what I'm looking at moving forward and I

[1:23:09] commission uh miss I know you talked about uh last time there was about a

[1:23:14] million dollars um we used for residents and you gave the option of commercial

[1:23:20] residents or a balance. I would like to see you keep that balance because for a

[1:23:25] long time in the CRA the money dedicated to the residents was right around

[1:23:29] 20,000. It's only till the public came up and start saying, "Hey, what about

[1:23:34] this that we donate? We we moved it up to that and we lost so much money. I I

[1:23:40] see somebody that's in the back now that was overlooking the CRA program when she

[1:23:44] was at Orange County. So, what I'm what I'm just looking for is just to see what

[1:23:49] we how we moving and how we moving about and

[1:23:53] what direction we going to go in. And then when somebody proposed a piece of

[1:23:57] land, what is our criteria for buying that land? Because if I got a

[1:24:04] piece of property that I proposed to you and you don't buy my property, I'm like,

[1:24:07] okay, what is the requirement? when somebody suggests a piece of land that

[1:24:11] we should investigate and look at and we taking all this time to really go and

[1:24:15] see how we can develop somebody else land.

[1:24:19] So I just I just want to see a more uh balanced approach and make things make

[1:24:24] sense for everybody that is clear and we understand and you put it where it goes.

[1:24:29] So we don't have no clue. We don't have no idea.

[1:24:33] We don't have no misinformation of where we going or where we headed. we know

[1:24:37] exactly where we're going and we know how it's going to benefit before we even

[1:24:41] take on the responsibility of getting it and haven't really did anything else for

[1:24:45] the future to look into it to make sure it's going to be beneficial for the

[1:24:48] city. So that's all I'm saying. Thank you.

[1:24:51] » Thank you, Mr. Hall. >> Thank you, sir.

[1:24:52] » Anybody else from the public wish to speak? I'll close public comment. Uh I

[1:24:57] do echo similar sentiments that the the board members have made. Uh I just think

[1:25:01] right now maybe is not the best time if we are looking for a parking lot. the

[1:25:05] the museum does have space right next to it that we own that we can uh maybe

[1:25:10] formalize a parking lot there if that's something that we're looking at. So that

[1:25:14] may be worthwhile to look at down the road um if we want to. So um

[1:25:20] not right now on the next one. Thank you. Um so we don't need to take a

[1:25:25] formal action on this, right? You're looking for direction,

[1:25:27] » right? >> So it seems like the direction is we're

[1:25:29] good right now. >> Yes, I I [laughter] understand the

[1:25:31] direction. >> Yes, ma'am. All right. Next up, uh,

[1:25:34] evaluating the purchase of the property at 205 East 8th Street.

[1:25:41] » Okay, hang on. Grab this. There we go. So, this is a property that another

[1:25:47] property that was bought brought to staff's attention. This one is owned by

[1:25:51] Duke Energy. And so, at the last um April 15th meeting, the CRA um board had

[1:25:58] directed staff to make an offer on the property for purchase.

[1:26:02] So, the property is here. It's currently vacant um at the corner of 8th and South

[1:26:06] Forest Avenue. It's uh a little over 19,500 square ft. Currently zoned um

[1:26:12] multi-use. It is appraised at 156,000.

[1:26:18] Um the purchase price is at 156. Um it's requiring a deposit of 10,000

[1:26:25] with the balance due of 146 at closing. The property is sold is ASIS condition

[1:26:30] with a 120day inspection period following the execution of the agreement

[1:26:34] with the closing to occur within 30 days after completion of due diligence. Um

[1:26:39] and in reference to the due diligence um will be performed um in addition to the

[1:26:44] purchase price uh which includes title surge and boundary survey environment

[1:26:48] environmental assessment and any other additional ancillary costs as necessary.

[1:26:52] And I put that note there because the 156 does not include those additional um

[1:26:58] cost.

[1:27:01] So this meets the city the strategic objective of economic viability. It

[1:27:05] meets the CRA master plan for land acquisition and it meets Florida statute

[1:27:09] 163.37C7

[1:27:12] for acquisition by purchase in the community development area to remove or

[1:27:16] prevent the spread of blight and deterioration or to provide land needed

[1:27:19] for public facilities.

[1:27:24] So, we are requesting the motion for authorization for the board chair to

[1:27:27] execute an agreement for the purchase of the property uh reference to support

[1:27:31] future redevelopment opportunities and strategic land assembly.

[1:27:36] » Thank you, Miss Forbes. Members, questions me.

[1:27:42] » Okay. My understanding from past commissions

[1:27:48] that the purchase of this property would be used for the sole purpose of putting

[1:27:53] a resource center on it.

[1:27:58] And but in the board item, it talks about purchasing a property to preserve

[1:28:03] the property for future redevelopment for the board to determine the ultimate

[1:28:08] use in a separate public process, which is contradictory to previous boards

[1:28:13] wanting to purchase it specifically for a reuse center.

[1:28:18] Uh, number two, when [clears throat] I looked at the

[1:28:22] sale for contract, I didn't see any sections in there where

[1:28:28] the mineral rights and the air rights go to the city.

[1:28:32] Um, Duke Energy can't maintain the mineral rights and the air rights of

[1:28:37] that property if the city buys it. And we decide to put up a multi-story

[1:28:42] building.

[1:28:47] Thank you for your comments. Uh any additional comments from

[1:28:51] membership >> and this would be taken off the tax.

[1:28:57] » Correct. >> And I mean we've talked about this

[1:29:02] property become, you know, designating ear marking it. I should just say

[1:29:06] earmarking it for the resource center. where I'm on the fence about purchasing

[1:29:12] it is do we have the funds to put a building

[1:29:17] on it? Can we go I mean

[1:29:22] » is there some kind of partnership someone who's going to help us create

[1:29:26] the resource center because if we purchase it and it continues to sit

[1:29:30] there as it been doing with Duke Energy then I mean and we're not using CRA

[1:29:38] dollars. We're actually using money that Duke gave us. So

[1:29:43] » the 150,000 >> $160,000

[1:29:46] » 50 150,000 >> oh

[1:29:48] » 150 so we would the CRA would be putting in

[1:29:52] » well we've incorporated that in the um tenative budget as requested by um

[1:29:58] member Anderson as commissioner Anderson.

[1:30:01] » Okay. >> Right. So that's specific to the the uh

[1:30:05] commission budget not >> commission budget. Yes sir. So then

[1:30:09] should the this board even be reviewing this then if we're spending it out of

[1:30:13] comm uh commission dollars not >> not the purchase of the land the

[1:30:17] purchase of the land. >> Oh you're saying the resource

[1:30:19] » the resource center itself >> the 15. Thank you.

[1:30:22] » So that we can have in addition to that um have been in contact with different

[1:30:25] people in the county and the county does have interest in partnership with that

[1:30:30] particular um project. >> But do we have a commitment? What? No,

[1:30:35] we don't have a commitment, but there I mean,

[1:30:39] » and I will tell you what, >> we already have if we already have

[1:30:41] $150,000, we need a resource center here. I mean, this is something that is

[1:30:45] definitely needed. >> And if we already have $150,000 already

[1:30:49] that's been just floating around for years, we need to put the money to work.

[1:30:53] » In addition to that, we have the money now in the CRA to purchase the land. We

[1:30:57] have $150,000 to help develop the land. I I don't I mean, what what what else

[1:31:02] are we waiting on? I think we definitely definitely I mean it's getting the need

[1:31:06] is there. >> I know we need the resource center. I'm

[1:31:10] just right now it's on a tax roll. So we're getting taxes off of that.

[1:31:14] » Yeah. But we're going to we're not you're not pulling out the tax ro to do

[1:31:17] anything. We're pulling off the tax role with a plan in action. The other

[1:31:20] property we just didn't know what we're going to do with it. But we have a plan

[1:31:23] for this particular property here. >> A resource center.

[1:31:26] » I know. But who's putting up the resource center?

[1:31:29] » Well, I think that's all we have to talk about that. But we have to we have to

[1:31:31] start somewhere. Any

[1:31:37] other comments? >> I'm I'm not, you know, I'm not opposed

[1:31:42] at the purchase of the property, but I think with our our budgets as strapped

[1:31:46] as they are, I am opposed at us getting in involved in something that's that I

[1:31:52] see a lot of risk and a lot of service fees that come along with it.

[1:31:59] » Any other comments before I go to public comment?

[1:32:02] I'll going to open up public comment. Anybody from the public wish to speak on

[1:32:05] this?

[1:32:10] » Leroy Bale or Pupka? I think that uh we really do need a

[1:32:15] resource center and this money have been earmarked for that and I think for like

[1:32:25] Commissioner Anderson said for so many years we didn't know where this money

[1:32:31] was until a couple of meetings ago when uh well the public didn't know until

[1:32:38] [laughter] >> she like wait a minute I knew where the

[1:32:39] money was. The public didn't know until uh uh Miss Sherman told us that where it

[1:32:47] was, but I think what it need to be used for exactly what it should be.

[1:32:55] And in addition to that, I know it's not on the agenda or anything, but I noticed

[1:33:02] that in the CRA, everything being discussed

[1:33:06] here tonight have a E behind it, meaning the east side.

[1:33:12] Nothing have been said to beautify the west side. Thank you.

[1:33:18] » Thank you, Mr. Bell.

[1:33:29] Buster Hall, [clears throat]

[1:33:33] I'm just curious to see how we move forward on this piece of land when we

[1:33:37] have $150,000 that I know I campaign for for us having a resource center for the

[1:33:45] homeless. It's not the unhoused, it's the homeless. We we changed the name so

[1:33:49] we feel better about what the situation is.

[1:33:53] So moving forward, there was a mandate for change and we're

[1:34:00] going to see if the can get keep getting kicked down the road or we going to do

[1:34:04] what we supposed to do. This is an opportunity to purchase this

[1:34:08] secure land. We have 150,000 to work with.

[1:34:13] Let's make it a reality. Thank you.

[1:34:16] » Thank you, Mr. home. Anybody else?

[1:34:26] » Christine Moore, 141 South Central Avenue. I just wanted to bring a little

[1:34:30] clarity about um where the county was before I left. Uh and the plan was to

[1:34:35] fund a a a facility for the unhoused after the east side. So, they're next.

[1:34:43] And so, um there is money coming. I know that it's in the budget. The county

[1:34:47] spends about $55 million a year. And so that would be my recommendation that you

[1:34:52] try to get some money, maybe do something temporary, but they will fund

[1:34:55] a facility in my estimation in the next five years.

[1:35:00] » So I'm sorry it repeat that again. 55 million from our

[1:35:04] » 55. It's in the budget now. I know everything could change with this tax

[1:35:08] reform passing, but uh Apopka was next after the east side to get a uh a

[1:35:16] housing. And I really don't want to tell you and say publicly what it is because

[1:35:20] then everybody's going to start running around worried about where it might be.

[1:35:24] And that would be my second comment to you. if you buy this property, you owe

[1:35:28] it to all those residents around there before you purchase it to tell them

[1:35:31] that's what you're thinking about doing with it because it will lower the

[1:35:34] property values around there. So, it's it's a very very difficult process to

[1:35:39] get the zoning for anything for the unhouse. So, they typically are in

[1:35:43] commercial areas, not middle of residential areas. And so, the the

[1:35:48] location is important. But what I came to say was I know that you are next.

[1:35:53] This northwest Orange County is next for a facility after the east side and they

[1:35:58] were anticipating that to be in the next five years.

[1:36:03] » Thank you, Miss Moore. >> Anyone else? All right, I'll close

[1:36:07] public comment. Any final comments from membership?

[1:36:11] » Is this uh does the city do do some sort of due diligence relative to

[1:36:16] environmental issues on vacant property before we buy it? Uh I know that there's

[1:36:21] funding that's built into the budget or that we're about to discuss

[1:36:25] uh specific to phase ones, environmentals, ESAs, all that.

[1:36:31] And the 120day period references that as well for due diligence and this PSA.

[1:36:38] Any other comments? >> So the total price is 156.

[1:36:42] » I'm sure there's some additional closing cost associated with that.

[1:36:47] So, does that need to be added to the 156?

[1:36:49] » I'm sure it would kind of fac, as the mayor just mentioned, we kind of

[1:36:56] factored that cost into this as as noted on the budget. It says land acquisition,

[1:37:01] due dy purchase, environmental for due property, and that. So, I think it was

[1:37:06] either 10 or 11,000, something we factored already into that.

[1:37:10] » So, the 156 includes the factoring in or not?

[1:37:13] » No, it does not. So >> it's in addition to that.

[1:37:16] » All right. >> So to be accurate then the cost of the

[1:37:20] property should be 166. >> Well the cost of the property to

[1:37:24] purchase it from Duke is the 156 >> to purchase the property to include the

[1:37:28] down payment and the closing cost is 166.

[1:37:33] » You can say that. >> Well I did say it. So is it accurate?

[1:37:39] The purchase price from Duke as I understand it. Okay. Is the 156. In

[1:37:45] addition to that, the environmental assessment is another 10,000.

[1:37:50] » That's in the budget. >> It is.

[1:37:51] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:37:52] » Okay. As a separate line item or part of the line item, the land say land

[1:37:57] acquisition. Duke property purchase environmental for the Duke property.

[1:37:59] It's in there. >> So, all right. So, it's as clear as mud.

[1:38:03] » So, I do want to reference a few things here. My my only issue with this

[1:38:07] specific site is that it is somewhat sight constrained in that I think it's

[1:38:11] only 044 acres 42 either way less than half an acre 045. So 19,5557

[1:38:19] square ft. So with that I got to put parking lot water mitigation uh a

[1:38:25] building everything else with that. So my concerns with this specific site is

[1:38:29] just that the site constraints which uh have been my concerns from the beginning

[1:38:32] on this and then the points being made as well is yes we have some seed money

[1:38:36] so to speak but what's the real plan in place um something that I've been doing

[1:38:41] on >> this is by the bike trail

[1:38:43] » correct so what I we do need to start somewhere we

[1:38:48] do need to get somewhere with this and I totally agree with that it's not kicking

[1:38:51] the can down the road it's doing it right setting up the proper thing 5 to

[1:38:55] 10 years from now I have spoken in Orange County as well and they indicated

[1:38:59] that they are uh purchasing something on the east side right now and that for

[1:39:03] them they would like to partner in that capacity specific to that site that we

[1:39:07] could u provide resources and things like that and get um transportation

[1:39:12] going that would provide and and partner with that site um delicately they said

[1:39:16] that we're not deep into that yet but that's what the conversations I've been

[1:39:20] having with Orange County because we can't do it alone. We don't have the

[1:39:22] budget to fund all this. uh nor do I I I don't think it's the government's

[1:39:26] responsibility. There's nonprofits, individuals, churches that are already

[1:39:31] meeting a need and we need to bring them all together to the table to to fund

[1:39:36] this to to be a part of this. They have funding that is already available to

[1:39:39] this. We don't need to be running this. We don't need to be expending taxpayer

[1:39:43] dollars on this. We can just support those that are doing it and get behind

[1:39:46] them and get it right. We do have a lot of land already that we already own that

[1:39:51] we can utilize should that be the the um uh the will of this board uh that the

[1:39:57] city can technically sell to I guess the CRA or or grant to the CRA without

[1:40:01] having to spend these dollars. So, I'm not by no means am I trying to kick the

[1:40:04] can down the road. I just want to make sure we get it right. I don't want a

[1:40:08] board seven years from now saying why' they buy such a small site. We'd rather

[1:40:12] an acre. We it would have been better if this or better that. Obviously, we're

[1:40:14] not we can always say it could be better, but at the same time, uh looking

[1:40:18] at whoever part having our partnership set up front, whether whoever is going

[1:40:23] to run it on the day-to-day, getting their input of what that looks like,

[1:40:25] what their true needs are going to be. Uh I I think that needs to happen before

[1:40:29] we um before we purchase it. Now, can we do that in the 120 days of due

[1:40:33] diligence? Absolutely. uh we we can discuss that with all of our partners,

[1:40:38] get partnerships in place, and if we don't have comfort with all of our

[1:40:41] partners in place yet, then we do have the opportunity to cancel uh at the

[1:40:45] discretion of the purchaser. So, for any reason or no reason, we can back out uh

[1:40:49] which it says in there. So, I think that's where our due diligence while in

[1:40:53] conjunction with doing phase ones, environmentals, surveys, uh we need to

[1:40:57] be seeing do we have partners that can actually run this, fund it, and help

[1:41:01] with it. Um it we don't have the staff to do it. we don't have the funding to

[1:41:04] do it. So, I want to make sure that we have a successful plan in place should

[1:41:07] this be the site that it's done properly. So, that that's my only

[1:41:10] concerns and and just making sure that we do have a plan in place. I do want to

[1:41:14] get momentum on this. I just want to make sure we're doing it right. But, we

[1:41:16] absolutely can do that during the due diligence process.

[1:41:19] » This the one that has wetlands in the back.

[1:41:21] » Uh yes, to the north and I think to the east as well.

[1:41:25] » I think it's surrounded by or an easement of some sort. There's something

[1:41:28] there. There's this one. It just has some really unique sight constraints to

[1:41:32] it that >> we may not love and it may not promote

[1:41:36] what we what we need which is space. >> Have the railroad crossing behind there.

[1:41:41] » I'm not sure if railroads on that side. >> Closing fishes is across.

[1:41:45] » So yeah. So I think we take the 120 days and see if it's something that we can

[1:41:48] actually >> get some partners see what we can make

[1:41:50] happen. See what happen. >> I'm I'm all for that all day. I just

[1:41:53] want to make sure the expectation we we need a at 100 day 120

[1:41:56] » day 119. I need a we need a plan in place of this is how it's going to go,

[1:42:00] who's partnering, when we're closing, here's how it's going to get done.

[1:42:02] » I think it'll help us kind of even with that, you know, within that time period,

[1:42:05] we're able to then if even if we cancel with this site, we have enough

[1:42:08] information and to kind of know what we can do. So,

[1:42:10] » it gets those conversations going, build confidence in the people we are talking

[1:42:12] to as well that this isn't just chat. We're about to close on this. Do you

[1:42:16] want to be a partner in this and how can it work? So, I think it's a great idea.

[1:42:19] Any final comments? But what you're looking for,

[1:42:23] [clears throat] you're favor purchasing a property as long as within 120 days we

[1:42:28] can determine if it's buildable relative to the resource center.

[1:42:32] » Buildable and we can find partners that are part of this process. We can't build

[1:42:36] a building with 150,000 >> seed money, but we can we can start uh

[1:42:41] so so yes, that's correct. >> Yeah, we we need to consider long-term

[1:42:46] partners. Oh, I understand. Um in terms of the maintenance because All

[1:42:51] right. So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we uh

[1:42:55] » May I interrupt be I'm sorry, but before you make that motion because I just need

[1:42:58] a little bit more clarity to make sure. What does that look like when we talk

[1:43:01] about partners? Are we looking for actual written confirmation? Are we

[1:43:05] looking for executed agreement? >> Yeah, I would want something in writing

[1:43:07] that says we should you close on this, we will there'll be a funding component

[1:43:12] to this. There's going to be a partner that runs the day day-to-day of it. And

[1:43:15] then what we will do is either a board or a city what that looks like a

[1:43:19] partnership. >> So obviously we can't commit as a city

[1:43:21] right now but we can commit as a CRA board. So yeah there needs to be those

[1:43:24] provisions in place of what that looks like.

[1:43:27] » My >> I would think

[1:43:28] » and then do we need a motion to approve is the goal is to motion this PSA

[1:43:34] in the dollar amount or just the PSA itself.

[1:43:37] » So I staff would need authorization for you as board chair to execute this

[1:43:42] agreement. >> Okay.

[1:43:44] » All right. So, I move uh [clears throat]

[1:43:48] uh that the board authorize the chair to enter into a contract for sale and

[1:43:54] purchase of real estate at 205 East 8th Street

[1:44:00] with the understanding that the city attorney makes sure that we own the air

[1:44:03] rights and the mineral rights and that uh the city perform 120day due

[1:44:09] diligence to see if a resource center is a good is a good allocation for the

[1:44:15] property. >> So move

[1:44:17] » uh moved by member Drago, second by member Anderson. Attorney hand

[1:44:23] has a comment. >> Give you the mic.

[1:44:26] » Thank you, Blanch. Uh board members, I would just like to let you know uh of

[1:44:31] course this uh I just direct your attention that the city of Apopka is the

[1:44:35] actual purchaser. So this would have to go before the council as well.

[1:44:40] So could we recommend councelor could we recommend that the city council purchase

[1:44:44] the property instead of us purchasing? See the problem we have is the money's

[1:44:49] in our budget if if I understand it. So does the budget so the money has to be

[1:44:54] transferred to the general fund for the city to purchase it? No blanch you could

[1:44:59] do it automatically. What am I thinking about? No, it's it's just the contract

[1:45:05] is between the as he just said the city of Aka.

[1:45:08] » Why? >> Yeah.

[1:45:11] » Well, then well then we have to can we amend that? I mean

[1:45:15] basically send it amended for their approval that it comes from

[1:45:20] the uh TRA board. >> Yes.

[1:45:25] » That's what I'm thinking. >> Thank you for that catch.

[1:45:27] » So we just need to amend it to say that it's from the board because it is in the

[1:45:30] budget. Uh we have land acquisition, Duke property purchase, environmental

[1:45:34] for Duke property. Uh it also had 161 E6 street and new land in FY 2027. So it

[1:45:41] had all that built into to these numbers in this budget or in the I guess

[1:45:45] carryovers budget request, excuse me. >> So if uh if we can amend I guess the the

[1:45:55] motion to reflect the proper purchaser. >> All right. So, I amend my motion to

[1:46:01] reflect the city of Apopka as the main purchaser of the property at

[1:46:08] 2020 205 East Street >> with the CRA board.

[1:46:13] » CRA board. >> So, move again.

[1:46:15] » Uh moved by member Drago, seconded by member Anderson. All those in favor say

[1:46:20] I. >> I.

[1:46:21] » All opposed. >> Uh motion carries.

[1:46:26] » Opposed. >> Four to two. uh with member Ruth and

[1:46:30] member Velasquez in opposition.

[1:46:36] » All right. >> Are we comfortable on that? I don't want

[1:46:38] to have to come back to that one if we need to make any corrections. Are we?

[1:46:40] » No, that's fine. >> Let me uh ask one question. This has to

[1:46:45] go before the city commission for a second bite of the apple.

[1:46:49] » Uh uh no. >> No, because we changed it to the

[1:46:52] » attorney hand. Does this need to go in front of the city commission for

[1:46:55] approval? or ratification of approval

[1:47:01] » unless uh

[1:47:05] anything in the ILA that requires that to go for the purchase of property

[1:47:09] » because Orange County has a charter card county. I don't believe there's anything

[1:47:13] off the off of the top of my head, but that's certainly something that that

[1:47:17] staff can take a look at >> and can be certain about.

[1:47:23] typically no that's fine but it being a charter county sometimes there are some

[1:47:27] additional requirements and so forth so I

[1:47:29] » let's make sure look into that then off hand I want to make sure that those are

[1:47:32] covered and that that's looked at >> let me just ask you a question and you

[1:47:36] said that you have some talks with Orange County

[1:47:40] » regarding some kind of resource center that they want to kind of put on the

[1:47:44] east side >> correct

[1:47:46] » and they're asking us to partner with them

[1:47:48] » correct there was no specific ask no specific dollar amount it was just

[1:47:53] instead of us having to own, manage, and run something, would it make sense to

[1:47:57] partner with an entity that's already buying it, running it, and partnerships

[1:48:00] already in place, we can contribute in some capacity, whether through CRA or

[1:48:05] otherwise. Uh, >> we will leave that 150 from Duke that we

[1:48:09] earmarked for some type of resource. >> That's correct.

[1:48:14] » Okay. >> But again, that's a commission decision,

[1:48:17] not a board decision. But yes, that's >> okay. And that can be that'll be in

[1:48:21] budget talks as well for um >> I mean I just don't want it to get lost.

[1:48:25] Nope. >> I just think that if if there's a

[1:48:28] partnership that can come forth >> because Orange County has the money

[1:48:34] » and uh I think >> contacts partnerships. Exactly. So I

[1:48:39] think that's where that due diligence in this will give us the time to get a

[1:48:42] comfort level or back out and not move forward with it.

[1:48:44] » Okay. So it has that the the contingency in there to to back out uh for any

[1:48:51] reason that the purchaser deems appropriate in its sole discretion.

[1:48:55] » So if we are not happy with that as a board, we can back out and reassess.

[1:49:00] » Okay. >> All right, staff. We're good on that

[1:49:02] one. No, there's no update that I need to make. No new motions. We got that one

[1:49:07] right. Okay. Uh moving on to resolution number 2026-01.

[1:49:12] appro appropriate existing redevelopment trust funds to the next FY27 in

[1:49:18] resolution 2026-02 >> resolution number 2026-01

[1:49:24] a resolution of the community redevelopment agency of the city of

[1:49:28] Apakka Florida approving the appropriation of funds remaining in the

[1:49:32] redevelopment trust fund to certain projects authoriz authorizing the

[1:49:37] executive director to take all actions necessary to implement this resolution

[1:49:42] providing for an effective date. >> Mrs. Sherman,

[1:49:48] » good evening. Member chairman at this chairman Nester

[1:49:56] and members of the CRA committee. I know you can't see this. I can't either. So,

[1:50:02] that's why I did give you sheets right >> at your table. Um, I want to try to make

[1:50:07] this as easy as possible in regards to the FY2026

[1:50:13] carryover funding. And I want to start with the first column to your left,

[1:50:19] which is your adopted budget for FY2026, which is in the amount of the 6 million

[1:50:26] 328123. There was only one amendment with some

[1:50:32] PO rollovers totaling totaling 96,467 which made the amended budget the

[1:50:38] 6,ion426590.

[1:50:42] some of the pending reallocations that we that you know had talked about and

[1:50:47] had mentioned. I know she just left and went to the ladies room [laughter]

[1:50:51] but are listed here like some of the CRA the B I FAP and the CRA RAP those

[1:50:59] programs are no longer eligible programs. So we were taking those funds

[1:51:03] and moving them into the contingency. in regards to the CRA DPAP program.

[1:51:11] She wants to increase that by the 253765 and she talked about this at the

[1:51:17] previous meeting and some of those fundings are coming from the contingency

[1:51:21] as well as from the 103755

[1:51:26] which was the neighborhood park at 8th Street in Highland. So wanting to

[1:51:33] reallocate those funds into the down payment assistance program of 253765

[1:51:42] and we just had a several conversations about the land acquisitions. So in the

[1:51:48] current year budget she wanted to add the 327,000

[1:51:53] plus that 150 come to a total of 477 and that was to support the purchase of the

[1:51:59] Duke property some of the environmental assessments and that 161 East Street

[1:52:06] that made that total 477 if you're following me.

[1:52:11] In addition, some reallocation in the amount of 375.

[1:52:16] That's for the Edward Edwardsfield installation of a pickle ball and

[1:52:20] basketball fencing.

[1:52:24] And she wants to reallocate the fifth

[1:52:28] street, Fifth and Central Avenue signal design for Fifth and Park Avenue signal

[1:52:34] and pedestrian upgrades. And the majority of those funds about a

[1:52:39] million51646 to go to the Alonzo Williams Park event

[1:52:43] p uh no I'm saying that wrong. This is why you can't see this thing parking lot

[1:52:48] at MA board in Hawthorne.

[1:52:53] And again some of those funding coming out of contingency some reallocating

[1:52:58] from some of the projects that were previously pro approved in the 20 2026

[1:53:02] budget. And that brings our total after some of the transfers that have already

[1:53:07] been made to the 6,ion426590. Again, it's just a reallocation of those

[1:53:12] funds within those programs. After we do that, uh, in order to determine the

[1:53:18] amount that we will be rolling forward into 27, we look at your expenditures to

[1:53:23] date and your anticipated expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year.

[1:53:29] And expenditures to date was about 870 286. We anticipate expending another

[1:53:35] 188304 making leaving a remaining balance here

[1:53:40] of 5 million 368 368,000 to be carried forward into FY27.

[1:53:51] » Okay, I'm going stop there before I go to the 27th. Any questions?

[1:53:56] » Questions from membership? So the I know that we have in here for the land

[1:54:00] acquisition that property at 161 East 6th Street.

[1:54:03] » So are we because we decided against that property. So are we taking that

[1:54:07] those funds and putting pardons in the contingency? What are we doing with the

[1:54:10] additional? >> We can take them out and put them back

[1:54:12] into the contingency if that's what you prefer.

[1:54:14] » I'm just asking. I know we haven't. >> Okay. Yes.

[1:54:17] » Okay. So >> can you tell uh can you tell us and I'm

[1:54:20] looking at the column that's has the proposed budget with carryover.

[1:54:25] So, member Anderson talked about the land acquisition, which is $777,000.

[1:54:32] Talks about Duke Property, East Sixth Street, and new land.

[1:54:39] What new land are we going to buy >> in 27? The 300,000.

[1:54:44] » Yes. So, 800,000.

[1:54:57] So that was in consideration of not just the Duke property and the other property

[1:55:02] that the board has now elected not to um to purchase but any other and and

[1:55:07] ancillary and additional costs, excuse me, but it's also including if there's

[1:55:12] any other property that may uh come up available. Um, so our office gets I'd

[1:55:18] say once once every uh every couple weeks or so or so there is someone that

[1:55:24] has property that they are interested in the CR potentially purchasing of which

[1:55:27] we bring before the board at the time. So additional funds are there in case

[1:55:31] the board elects that it would like to um review property for potential

[1:55:35] purchase. But as um finance director mentioned, it can be put back into

[1:55:39] contingency so that at the time you can review on a case-by case basis and make

[1:55:43] a decision of whether or not you'd like to uh transfer the funds specifically

[1:55:47] for that purchase.

[1:55:51] » Uh [clears throat] it just feels like we're skipping

[1:55:54] around. So let me concentrate on the proposed budget with carryover.

[1:56:00] » [clears throat] >> What the if I may the first resolution

[1:56:03] is the carry forward >> only the

[1:56:06] » estimated carry >> only the dollar amount not the line item

[1:56:11] » I want to go over the line item >> so when do I do that after after the

[1:56:17] resolution is adopted or before >> you

[1:56:20] » well I think what the the request is is don't go through proposed budget and

[1:56:25] carryover just go over carryover is what's being requested

[1:56:29] » by Mr. Sherman. Correct. >> 2027.

[1:56:32] » 2026. >> 2026.

[1:56:34] » FY. So, it's third from the right. >> Third from the right.

[1:56:40] » All right. I'll I'll I'll wait till after the resolution to go through it

[1:56:44] line item by line item. That would be appropriate.

[1:56:50] » We do have line items for the carryover. >> Uh,

[1:56:53] » okay. >> So, you know.

[1:56:57] » Okay. Any questions specific to the carryover appropriations?

[1:57:03] » I have questions on line items, but we'll cross that bridge when we get

[1:57:07] there. >> Well, we can go through line of

[1:57:09] » carryovers. >> Okay. Um, so,

[1:57:14] so in reference to the downtown Apopka trail, isn't that

[1:57:22] completed already? >> I think phase one is complete.

[1:57:26] » Phase one. Mhm. >> So,

[1:57:30] » is this this item specifically for phase two or it's not it's it's not specific

[1:57:37] in terms of what >> what

[1:57:39] » my understanding um when it was first set up it was phase two and phase three.

[1:57:43] They were going to break it out in three phases.

[1:57:46] » Okay. So, that's what this 1.3 is for. >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:57:49] » Okay. Um, my next question is in reference to

[1:57:55] the Fifth and Central Avenue signal design. I see that there's no carryover.

[1:58:01] » That's the part she wants to reallocate the 1.3 from that 1.350646.

[1:58:09] If you see in that reallocation column, this color is blue. She's reallocating

[1:58:14] those funds into other programs and the the majority of which is into the

[1:58:19] parking lot at MA board in Hawthorne. >> May I ask why you want to reallocate

[1:58:26] that to the parking lot on Hawthorne? >> Yes. So, and while I'm answering, I'm

[1:58:31] also going to ask parks to come up because this was a request specifically

[1:58:34] by our parks department in order to deal with a lot of the um significant amount

[1:58:39] of traffic that they get due to the the the games and the recreation programs

[1:58:44] that they have and specifically to that project for um fifth and what's it

[1:58:49] called? >> Fifth and C in Central and Central.

[1:58:52] » So, there's been very little movement thus thus far. Um, so my conversations

[1:58:57] with public works is that they're looking at possibly breaking it out into

[1:59:00] phases um, in order to hopefully get more traction on it. But in the interim,

[1:59:04] we want to make sure that we move forward um, and making sure that we are

[1:59:09] compliant with our expenditure requirement with the county and we also

[1:59:12] want to find projects that we could move forward that still provides a

[1:59:15] significant enough impact. So that project fifth and central is not off the

[1:59:20] table. when it becomes available and it's ready to move then we will put that

[1:59:24] in in future budget. >> When you say a little movement what do

[1:59:28] you mean by that

[1:59:33] » is it >> well and I'll describe it on like on a

[1:59:35] higher level >> then and and obviously uh Mr. Sonowski

[1:59:39] can pro provide specific updates to this >> in terms of

[1:59:42] » but what's happening is that we have staff that don't they have ownership of

[1:59:46] projects but they have 15 different projects. So that specific project

[1:59:50] » doesn't get a priority or only gets hey every time it kind of comes through the

[1:59:53] loop of what we're working on it takes some time. So there's where the delays

[1:59:57] are coming in >> and that's where there's it's staff time

[2:00:00] there. It's just span of control of the amount of projects we have.

[2:00:03] » Okay. >> Unless I'm wrong.

[2:00:04] » Yes. So [clears throat] the design hasn't started on that on the traffic

[2:00:08] signal. Uh we're looking now into at least getting the pedestrian

[2:00:12] signalization there for the crosswalks and that's going to be like a phase one

[2:00:16] and then phase two will be rehabilitation of the entire

[2:00:20] intersection with a new traffic signal and this is for fifth and central only.

[2:00:25] » Yeah. I just think we need to eventually put

[2:00:28] this put some funding back into this. But I understand

[2:00:32] » and I can also um tell you that the last conversation I had with the county in

[2:00:36] relation to the extension their request was hey you have um projects with a

[2:00:43] significant budget line item to it of which when will we see movement on

[2:00:47] those? So this is um this is intentional and moving it to projects that there

[2:00:52] will provide movement but recognizing that the project when it's ready we can

[2:00:56] we will bring it back before the board to reallocate some funding.

[2:01:00] » Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions specific to the line

[2:01:05] items for carry over appropriation?

[2:01:10] » Yeah. What is an MA board? Is that a electronic board of some sort? It's a

[2:01:14] street right here. >> Named after a resident.

[2:01:17] » Yeah, it's a street. >> Which street is that?

[2:01:20] » MA [clears throat] board. >> Oh, MA board.

[2:01:25] » Any additional questions from membership? I do want to because we got

[2:01:28] to uh approve this separately. Correct. >> Yes.

[2:01:31] » Okay. I want to open up to public then right now.

[2:01:33] » Okay. >> Anybody from the public wish to speak on

[2:01:35] the carryover appropriations?

[2:01:40] » All right. No, >> Leroy Bell. I I don't have my hearing

[2:01:44] aids in today. Um did this this was MA board and six orthorn

[2:01:52] » board and Hawthorne. >> That's that's on Sixth Street,

[2:01:56] which is MA board. That would be that would be the parking lot across from

[2:02:02] Lorenza >> Alonzo Williams. Correct.

[2:02:04] » And that Yes. We I'm I'm hoping that you guys will approve that because we really

[2:02:10] need that uh for the facility and um I know that

[2:02:17] Miss Cindy they to put in water and put in uh electric and we really need for

[2:02:25] events I think also not just the parking lot the drainage of the fields but I

[2:02:32] think that's a good project and I think uh I I'm hoping that you guys will

[2:02:36] approve that for the uh move over, however you want to put it.

[2:02:41] » Thank you, Mr. Bell. >> Well, there's $50,000 in there for the

[2:02:46] parking. >> No, there's one point.

[2:02:49] » No, for for Edwards Field, there's $50,000.

[2:02:54] » Edwards Field. >> Edwards Field.

[2:02:55] » That's Edwards Field.

[2:02:58] lot of MA board in Hawthorne is one a little over a million

[2:03:03] » 3000,7 I can't even see

[2:03:06] » that's not the number but that's >> Williams party

[2:03:08] » a million something just below it

[2:03:11] » yeah I was just trying to do parking lot >> wait till everybody finish so it's all

[2:03:15] good uh Sylvester Hall Alonzo William Park

[2:03:21] I live in Rock Springs Ridge and I frequently go Right out of my backyard

[2:03:27] across the street, I'm go over to Jason Dwellin and visit the Northwork

[2:03:32] Recreation Center and it's beautiful most of the time. But I look at how we

[2:03:37] upkeep and I look at what is there. And maybe a couple weeks ago, Leroy and I

[2:03:43] went to Alonzo William Park on a Sunday. The guys was out playing soccer

[2:03:49] and uh they had to move the goalpost away from the water so they can play on

[2:03:55] the side that was dry. And when you walk on the field and where you thought was

[2:04:00] grass, your shoes just sink down into the mud.

[2:04:05] Leroy mentioned earlier everything that we're planning with the CRA is on one

[2:04:09] side and there's nothing on the other side. That's one little park, Alonzo

[2:04:13] William Park.

[2:04:17] that we have pretty much just left the stand for itself. I complain over and

[2:04:23] over about no electrical outlets when we have events when the v uh the vineyards

[2:04:30] come out there to uh hook up. There was nothing. Thank you for finally getting

[2:04:35] that into place. But I the guys that say if you got to use the restroom, where do

[2:04:40] you go? There's about maybe six to 10 big oak

[2:04:46] trees. They just go behind the oak trees. Well, if you got to do a number

[2:04:50] two, what do you do? So when when mother nature call, you

[2:04:55] just do what you got to do. So it's a shame that we don't have not one outside

[2:05:01] restroom at Alonzo William Park. Not one outside

[2:05:06] restroom. I don't took my pictures and everything.

[2:05:10] So, I'm putting my presentation together also. But I'm watching you guys are how

[2:05:14] how you go about distributing CRA funds in certain areas.

[2:05:19] That park when you have Junth, if that park, if that parking area

[2:05:25] wasn't available, where would people park? Because any event you have over

[2:05:30] there, you go look at parking, that little area pretty much overflows.

[2:05:35] But yet and still, we've been we've been asking for years for a parking lot over

[2:05:39] there. Then the parking space that you have

[2:05:42] right in front, if you have a big SUV, you're blocking traffic.

[2:05:49] Your behind is sticking in the road. Well, when I go over to Jason Dwelling,

[2:05:53] I don't see those type of things. There's adequate parking. There's all

[2:05:56] kinds of adequate restrooms and everything. The fields are dry, mostly

[2:06:01] maintained.

[2:06:04] But we don't have that Alonzo William Park

[2:06:08] and I asked the difference why.

[2:06:13] So this time with the CRA money, can we please make the whole city of Apopka,

[2:06:19] let's bring it up to par. The areas that we don't neglect for for

[2:06:25] years, let's bring them up to par. Let's bring them up to standard.

[2:06:30] I ask each and every one of you to do that.

[2:06:33] Starting with Alonzo William Park. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Anyone else

[2:06:39] from the public wish to speak?

[2:06:49] Christine Moore 141 South Central. I did attend the training. I'm certified in

[2:06:54] Florida redevelopment area. I did that last year and I also live in it. And so

[2:06:58] I wanted to talk to you about the purpose of CRAAS is because they were

[2:07:03] about 40 50 years ago was to invest in things that increase the property tax,

[2:07:08] the value of property. It was never meant um to be a park fund. It was it

[2:07:15] was meant for streetscape. uh what you're doing with facade

[2:07:19] renovations on the commercial on the uh residential side and what what we're all

[2:07:25] facing coming in November is potential a great reduction in available revenue and

[2:07:32] so if you follow strongs I'm the president of that for aka and uh the the

[2:07:38] or the the organization urban 3 if you take any of those courses I have will

[2:07:43] tell you that you should invest with your CRAAS and things that will produce

[2:07:47] revenue revenue in terms of property values. So if you're putting a lot of

[2:07:53] money in parks, I would just ask you to say, how does that increase the revenue

[2:07:58] downtown? I also had a conversation with Byron Brooks the other day and they're

[2:08:02] really looking the county and I'm not there now, but they're really looking to

[2:08:06] reduce your funding. So I really encourage you with this budget to invest

[2:08:10] in things that will show increased property tax revenue. So, street skates

[2:08:17] in a commercial area, great. Anything you're doing on Fifth Street, I applaud

[2:08:21] that because that can potentially bring you more revenue and people building.

[2:08:26] But investing in parks, they could make the argument to you that that should

[2:08:30] come out of your parks fund. So, um I I love all the the uh renovation programs

[2:08:37] on the commercial and the residential side, but the the key is if you think

[2:08:40] about this, we're going to have less revenue coming from residential,

[2:08:45] but where we will still have revenue is from commercial and industrial. So, I

[2:08:50] really encourage you with this revenue to think about downtown, how you can

[2:08:54] increase your commercial tax base. Thank you.

[2:08:57] » Thank you, Miss Moore. Anybody else from the public wish to speak?

[2:09:02] All right, we will close public comment. Uh, any questions, final comments from

[2:09:08] membership? >> I have I have one question and I'm just

[2:09:12] kind of curious and I'm I was going to kind of

[2:09:15] » segue off Commissioner Moore's comments. >> Uh,

[2:09:20] West Orange Street doesn't have sidewalks. First Street doesn't have

[2:09:24] sidewalks. Oak Street doesn't have sidewalks. Myrtle doesn't have

[2:09:28] sidewalks. Monroe don't don't have sidewalks. East Third Street don't have

[2:09:33] sidewalks. North Lake Avenue don't have sidewalks. And North Washington don't

[2:09:37] have sidewalks. They're all in the CRA district.

[2:09:42] Um, and to cross from the west side of town to the east side to even go to the

[2:09:48] park, you're going to take your life and your to cross Park Avenue to get to the

[2:09:52] park. um that that's risky at best and you certainly, you know, without traffic

[2:10:00] control, you can't get from the west side to the east side.

[2:10:06] » With that in mind, are you wanting to are you proposing to move money around

[2:10:09] to something else? >> No, I'm I when we're talking about CRA

[2:10:13] funds, these are these are legitimate um areas where that money is intended to

[2:10:21] go. um you know and all these streets you know run north,southeast and west.

[2:10:28] So, um it's contiguous. Um what's not on the east is the same on the west and

[2:10:34] what's not on the north is the same on the south. And we can definitely

[2:10:38] reallocate funds or move them around. And as we navigate, let's say on our

[2:10:42] November meeting, the budget's set, but we can in some capacity

[2:10:47] » after they Yeah. to be an amendment. >> Yeah. To to say, "Hey, you know, we want

[2:10:51] to reallocate or the parking lot." Well, the reallocation wouldn't be an

[2:10:55] amendment, but we've done reallocations throughout the year only if we're

[2:10:59] increasing the budget overall. >> Gotcha. Okay. These streets also handle

[2:11:03] three schools, Orange County schools, and these kids walk in the middle of

[2:11:06] Lake Street. Um, so, >> so I think there's a difference.

[2:11:11] » I think we need to be aware of the fact that, you know, um, I took it upon

[2:11:16] myself to put stop signs for that reason, the lack of sidewalks

[2:11:22] and we did that 10 years ago. >> Well, I think we can definitely find a

[2:11:25] balance in in this budget to be able to allocate funds for sidewalks. Uh that

[2:11:30] definitely does help with uh improving what the CRA should be doing as well as

[2:11:36] um a parking lot. What's interesting about a parking lot too for a park is it

[2:11:41] helps to uh bring more vendors down. It helps to bring more events. It helps to

[2:11:46] create an atmosphere of commerce and community. And if you have a park in a

[2:11:51] neighborhood that is nice and wellkept and something people want to go, it will

[2:11:55] increase property values in that area. So I think there's strategy behind that.

[2:11:58] I don't think it's based on anything other than a strategy that improves the

[2:12:02] area. So, uh, and again, we can edit as we need to or adjust as we need to. And

[2:12:07] if we want to have uh more consistent meetings, too, to pivot quickly with

[2:12:12] these budgets, we can do that as well. So, keep that in mind. We don't have to

[2:12:14] wait just quarterly. We can do monthly. We can do what this board prefers to do.

[2:12:19] So, just keep that in mind as we navigate forward because I think

[2:12:22] pivoting quickly is going to be our key to success on this board. Uh, so any

[2:12:26] final questions or comments? Are those sidewalks you mentioned, are they in the

[2:12:30] northwest section of the of the city? >> They in the northwest of the CRA. Yes,

[2:12:35] » they're in the entire CRA district. >> Well, there's in the budget they have

[2:12:40] sidewalks north- west doesn't have south and east. So,

[2:12:46] » I just named every street that doesn't have a sidewall. I wasn't particular of

[2:12:50] east, west, north. The streets I named are do not have sidewalks.

[2:12:55] » Okay. And again, we can work to allocate as

[2:12:58] needed or as we want to prioritize or have some staff go out there and say,

[2:13:02] "Hey, these this is kind of the main thoroughare area. Let's prioritize those

[2:13:05] and then go from there." >> I know, but we had a resident that had

[2:13:09] been advocating for Lake Avenue for a long time, for a few years. And uh that

[2:13:15] would be Mr. Roger Beckett who I I can remember for the last four or five years

[2:13:21] he's been advocating and is correct. Um there's a lot of school uh kids that use

[2:13:27] those streets and they use uh the actual street to get to the schools. We have

[2:13:33] Dream Lake uh Apakka Middleak

[2:13:38] » and Apakka Elementary. Oh, in the high school.

[2:13:41] » Yeah. All in that corridor there. So, well, again, we can edit as we

[2:13:45] prioritize or as we want to prioritize. We can adjust these to staff and then

[2:13:48] and then go from there. So, any final comments? If not, I'll look for

[2:13:53] approval. >> Let me get one clarification if you

[2:13:55] don't mind. U Mr. Chairman, >> the 299 that is a for the 161 East

[2:14:03] 6th Street, we're going to put those funds back into the contingency. That's

[2:14:06] going to be a modification here. >> Okay.

[2:14:09] » Correct. >> Yes. And then we can reallocate as

[2:14:12] needed. Probably need to prioritize reallocating those, right? That would

[2:14:15] make sense. >> Okay.

[2:14:17] » Is that out of the uh 777,000? Yes, but it's the 477 is a part of that

[2:14:24] 477. >> Yeah. So, how much are you

[2:14:27] » 299,000? >> Did you allocate any additional dollars

[2:14:30] for the environmental on that one though?

[2:14:32] » 11,0001,000. Was that >> wasn't part of the 299?

[2:14:36] » But was that for >> No, but on top of the 299

[2:14:38] » on top of the 299 was one of those 11 for that property.

[2:14:41] » No, not specifically. >> We gave two 11s. It's two 11s that are

[2:14:44] in there. I know one was for the Duke property.

[2:14:47] » Mhm. >> And I guess like any new property,

[2:14:50] » correct? >> So that would be associated with the new

[2:14:52] property, the other 11,000. >> Okay.

[2:14:54] » Correct. >> All right. Well, I will look for a

[2:14:58] motion then to approve resolution number 2026-01

[2:15:02] with the >> amendment or change

[2:15:06] » change >> of the 161 E63 allocation

[2:15:10] » and that is in the amount of the 6 million 127366

[2:15:15] and that includes the carryover from 26 in the amount of 5,368,000

[2:15:23] and some prior year carryover in the amount of 759,00

[2:15:27] 366. >> All right, Mr. Chair, I have a couple of

[2:15:31] questions. Um, [clears throat]

[2:15:35] I've always been a proponent that when you come to

[2:15:39] when the cities get to sign documents, legal documents,

[2:15:44] uh, it should always be an elected official

[2:15:48] um because that's what the voters voted for. So with that said, I'm

[2:15:54] prepared to make a motion with amendments to resolution 2026-04.

[2:16:04] [clears throat] So I move to adopt resolution 2026-04

[2:16:09] with the following amendments. >> I hate to interrupt. We don't have a we

[2:16:13] don't have that currently. Correct. We have

[2:16:15] » have what? >> That resolution.

[2:16:18] » Yeah, >> it's right here. We have

[2:16:22] » 2026-01 >> one.

[2:16:25] » No. The clerk said the last one we adopted was 03. This has got to be 04.

[2:16:30] » It doesn't have to be that way. >> No,

[2:16:32] » this is the first one.

[2:16:36] » This one is 2026-01. >> Then I'm not looking at it in

[2:16:39] chronological order relative to the to the uh to the agenda.

[2:16:43] » That's correct. >> So it's 01 is the right number.

[2:16:47] » Yes. Correct. >> All right. Let me start over again.

[2:16:51] I move to adopt resolution 2026-01 with the following amendments. In the

[2:16:57] title, the uh award executive director gets replaced with chairman.

[2:17:04] In section two, uh there's a fiscal year 2025 should be

[2:17:11] 2026.

[2:17:18] Yes. >> In section two, uh

[2:17:25] the word fiscal year 2025 gets replaced with 2026.

[2:17:30] In section three, uh the words CRA director gets replaced with chairman.

[2:17:42] » [snorts]

[2:17:45] » Are we Can we do that? Change that from

[2:17:50] » executive director to chairman.

[2:17:56] » Got a motion by member Drago.

[2:18:01] » Do I have a second? >> I'll second.

[2:18:04] » Second by member Baron. All those in favor say I.

[2:18:07] » I. All opposed. >> Motion carries unanimously.

[2:18:11] » Thank you. >> Next up, resolution number 2026-02.

[2:18:20] » Resolution 2026-2, a resolution of the community

[2:18:25] redevelopment agency. >> Oh,

[2:18:31] sorry. Resolution 2026-02,

[2:18:36] a resolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of

[2:18:40] Apaka, Florida, adopting the annual budget for fiscal year 2026-2027.

[2:18:48] » Mrs. Sherman, >> yes. Um, the item before you, which

[2:18:56] again, I apologize. I can't see it. I know you can't,

[2:19:02] but in regards to the 2027 budget with the

[2:19:07] carryover funds, um, in regards to the adorum taxes, we have an amount of 1.5

[2:19:14] interest income 217,000. The carryover amount of 6,127,000

[2:19:21] professional services 195,000

[2:19:26] 7,000 for auditing services travel and pdem 2850

[2:19:32] other charges and assistance programs 2,534759,000

[2:19:39] books and publications 1,171

[2:19:44] land was the 300,00 000 capital improvements 4,5217

[2:19:51] 241 and contingency of 279. Again, this will change with the changes that were

[2:19:57] made in the um carryover amount as well. So, we would amend this accordingly.

[2:20:04] » Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Any questions from membership?

[2:20:07] » Now, th this is only for the proposed budget. We still haven't discussed the

[2:20:13] proposed budget with carryover. So when do we do when do we do that?

[2:20:17] » Do it right now. >> Okay, good. So

[2:20:25] So I looked at uh I looked at these line items.

[2:20:30] So my understanding is any uh block any box that's blank, it's not funded.

[2:20:37] » Correct. >> All right. So let's start with the

[2:20:39] residential renovation assistance program. There's a dollar amount in

[2:20:44] there of1,579733.

[2:20:49] When you do the math of $30,000 a household, it comes up to 52.6. So I

[2:20:56] have problems with the with the 6. When you look at the uh down payment

[2:21:03] assistance program of 3537 55 that comes out to 11

[2:21:11] five relative to being funded. My first [snorts] recommendation would be

[2:21:22] to set the um residential renovation assistance program at 1.56000

[2:21:33] or 1.56 million. That gives you 52 applications that can be funded at

[2:21:40] $30,000 for the uh down payment assistance

[2:21:44] program that gets adjusted to $360,000. At $30,000 gives you 12 applications

[2:21:52] that can be approved. The remaining 13,488

[2:21:58] of those numbers being adjusted, I would recommend that that be added to the

[2:22:04] sidewalk line item, bringing it to 126 386

[2:22:10] so the budget stays in balance. Now, for the 299 that is supposedly being saved

[2:22:17] in land,

[2:22:21] and I can make an argument that streetscape may not improve property

[2:22:26] values, especially the ones on 441 with the stamp concrete, stamp

[2:22:33] brick. Uh, but I think uh some of the residents

[2:22:38] concerned about >> Oh, there it is. Yeah. park facilities

[2:22:44] have a certain amount of amenities equal across the board. I think uh

[2:22:51] should be taken into consideration. So,

[2:22:57] I would propose, and I'll leave it up to the board to decide the dollar amount,

[2:23:01] that part of that 299 be allocated to um

[2:23:08] Alonzo Williams Park to add event power, water upgrades, and restrooms, whatever

[2:23:14] that cost is to the 54,58. And then the balance then would be added

[2:23:22] to the sidewalk. And I would hope the city when they install sidewalks, it's

[2:23:26] six inches thick and not four inches because you see a lot of utility trucks

[2:23:31] mount the sidewalks and park there. And my experience is it'll sidewalks

[2:23:36] will crack or it'll become uneven and the city's back there spending more

[2:23:40] money to fix it.

[2:23:45] On your first comment in regards to the RAP program,

[2:23:52] that program under the revised budget was 962,500.

[2:23:57] The expenditure to dates was the 522767 then 120 was anticipated. That

[2:24:04] difference that is not an even number is because that is the carryover amount for

[2:24:09] things that were not paid out or expected to be paid out during that

[2:24:13] fiscal year but rolling it forward to make sure we have the funds there to

[2:24:17] make that payment out. The amount for the FY227

[2:24:21] is the 1,26 260,000.

[2:24:25] So, it includes an carryover amount that is related to unpaid obligations.

[2:24:34] » Um, well, I don't see it that way. Uh, the last time we had to amend the

[2:24:40] budget in order for Miss Forbes to complete an application that was 16 and

[2:24:47] change. Now,

[2:24:51] $30,000 into one point 126 is what number?

[2:25:02] [snorts] >> I don't have a calculator.

[2:25:06] » They didn't give it to me in school. >> 42.

[2:25:10] » How much? >> 42.

[2:25:11] » 42. >> I don't think we were set on that

[2:25:13] 30,000. I think it's just we're still massaging that number, right? I don't

[2:25:16] think we're set on that. >> Well, I think that I Are you you're

[2:25:19] referencing the Rap right now? >> Okay. I was still Okay. Other other

[2:25:24] line. Okay. Yeah. Down payment. Not the down payment. Yeah. Okay.

[2:25:27] » No, no, no. That's that's the renovation program.

[2:25:29] » Yeah. >> Yeah. That's I got it. We got it.

[2:25:32] » That was adopted this year. And Miss Forbes spent

[2:25:37] I think she had 30 applications or something like that at $30,000 each.

[2:25:42] Some may be less, some may be more, but what I heard her tell us, she spent all

[2:25:47] the money or allocated the money. So therefore

[2:25:51] uh >> and this is how we cover those

[2:25:53] allocations that have not been paid to carry this money forward.

[2:25:57] » Okay. So the hundred,000 then that needs to that needs to be upped in order to

[2:26:04] meet come up with some round number at $30,000.

[2:26:08] Otherwise she's going to be coming back saying I can only do 9.75

[2:26:13] and we have to find money for the 75. So, the program, I'm sorry, the program

[2:26:21] allows for up to up to 30,000, but not all applications receive that 30,000. It

[2:26:26] is contingent upon the um quote and the scope of work that we get from the

[2:26:30] approved general contractor. So, some folks got a the full 30,000, but there

[2:26:36] are some that got as small as 10,000. It really just depended on the scope of

[2:26:40] work that that they did. That being said, if the will of the board is to

[2:26:44] increase it to a rounder number, we can definitely do that. I just want to offer

[2:26:47] clarity that not everyone got specifically 30,000.

[2:26:50] » No, I was talking about the down payment. The budget says 100,000. So if

[2:26:55] you allocate 30, it's not a round number.

[2:26:59] [snorts] >> Correct. So it would be in the the in

[2:27:02] the same thread as the rewrap that not every application will receive the

[2:27:07] entire 30,000. It will be based on the amount of funding that's available as

[2:27:11] well as the amount of funding that they are requested and eligible to receive.

[2:27:19] So the carryover amount of 319 and 253 has some incumbrance attached to it. Is

[2:27:28] that right? >> Yes. At least for the rewrap. I

[2:27:31] » Yeah. Not the 253. >> Yeah. The rewrap did. The 253 is kind of

[2:27:35] new reallocation. >> All right. But the down payment

[2:27:39] assistance program that's being presented to us now. So that was not in

[2:27:45] the 26 budget as a as a carryover. >> It is in the 26 budget as a carryover,

[2:27:51] but it was provided to you as a reallocation.

[2:27:54] » So no money has been spent. >> Correct.

[2:28:00] » Okay. So the my original argument stands it should be a round number in in order

[2:28:04] for Miss Forbes to have an even amount of applications relative to $30,000.

[2:28:11] But that's what the assumption that every single applicant spends 30,000.

[2:28:15] » Well, the budget has to be made on some assumptions and what I'm hearing

[2:28:18] » and this one is already >> and we're not really sure we're

[2:28:23] massaging that still. We haven't decided if we're going to get 30,000 20 like

[2:28:27] we're still kind of massaging that from my understanding.

[2:28:32] » But I I understand your position. I think is

[2:28:35] » because these numbers will change as we get to November or if we have additional

[2:28:38] meetings to work these around to where we find new priorities where we choose

[2:28:43] to pivot. If we want different land, if we want new bathrooms, if we want new

[2:28:46] sidewalks, all these numbers will adjust,

[2:28:51] if we want them to. Okay. So, the extra 299,

[2:28:58] [snorts] is there an appetite to put some into Alonzo Park for bathrooms and

[2:29:02] some added to sidewalks? >> It is. I was going to bring that up.

[2:29:06] Definitely the um Alonzo William Park, the outside bathroom. I know it was

[2:29:09] something we had discussed once before. So, I I thought we were getting like a

[2:29:13] um a estimate on that. I remember we talked about it one time. Remember? I

[2:29:19] think I asked for it before.

[2:29:23] Chris Richtor with the parks and rec department. Uh we did get some prefab uh

[2:29:28] estimates ranging anywhere from about 250 to 300.

[2:29:32] » Okay. >> So pre prefabs

[2:29:35] » prefab >> either four or six uh stall uh prefab.

[2:29:39] » What does that I'm so sorry. What does that look like? I don't like prefab.

[2:29:42] Like >> it's basically a a concrete uh prefab

[2:29:44] building. >> Um depending on you can do four or six

[2:29:47] stalls. Is it similar to what we have like Northwest Recre the um u

[2:29:53] » think of like the concession stand? >> Yeah, the the smaller concession stand

[2:29:57] between the uh fields. >> Okay, it looked like Okay, that's what

[2:29:59] Okay, >> correct.

[2:30:00] » I just want to make sure my head >> still a legitimate building. [laughter]

[2:30:02] » Okay, wait a minute. What >> did that cost us?

[2:30:05] » I'm not sure on that one. >> What did that cost us

[2:30:08] » by the amphitheater? >> I'm not certain on those. I know the

[2:30:12] most recent ones the estimate came back depending on if you're doing four, six,

[2:30:15] eight stalls, concession stand, no concession stand, those were about 250

[2:30:20] to 300 or so. >> So I think at 299 reallocate like

[2:30:22] » get us where we need to >> get us where we need to be.

[2:30:24] » And keep in mind that is just the building. So there is going to be some

[2:30:26] cost associated with getting power, water, sewer connected.

[2:30:30] » We'll put a bid out for it. That's >> well the money is in there for the

[2:30:33] water. >> Yeah, we got the 54,000 already for

[2:30:36] that. of 299 to the >> Alonzo were your bathroom. Okay.

[2:30:41] » Bathrooms. >> Okay.

[2:30:43] » So, make that change.

[2:30:47] » All right. Final questions, comments from the board. Adjustments.

[2:30:52] All right. We'll do public comment. Anyone from the public wish to speak?

[2:31:00] Again, I I I just want to thank all you guys uh uh what you're going through

[2:31:05] trying to get everything lined up. But the comment that I have I have is you

[2:31:11] had a public comment come up saying where this CRA dollars should be spent

[2:31:17] with a member roof saying that where it's definitely we need sidewalk. We do

[2:31:23] uh we got kids, but this this Lorenzo William Park uh I I remember one

[2:31:29] commission meeting we was talking about we need to find more revenue because we

[2:31:34] don't know what's going to happen with these tax dollars with amendment three.

[2:31:39] So you got to you got to look around for money and by fixing up Lor Resa William

[2:31:46] Park by putting a parking lot out there. It's the same way that we use CRA money

[2:31:51] up at Jason Dwelling with putting over the canvas over the stage. If we put a

[2:31:57] park out here, if we put a parking lot out here and fix the field up, put a

[2:32:02] bathroom out here, then we start drawing events out there. If we start drawing

[2:32:07] events out there, we start the city start bringing in a revenue.

[2:32:12] It's not a hindrance. It's something that can help the city and and and and I

[2:32:18] really I really think like I said I appreciate what everybody doing and I

[2:32:23] think a lot of residents will but you know I think we we need we need to get

[2:32:27] away from the language that um you know it's

[2:32:34] not I'm looking at one we're looking down through a lens. We got to see the

[2:32:40] whole picture. And the whole picture is we can make you

[2:32:44] can make Lorenza William Park be a great revenue for the city and it

[2:32:52] would pay for itself. All you got to do is invest in it.

[2:32:56] » Thank you, Mr. Bell.

[2:33:06] » Sylvester Hall. A couple things. I know I mentioned before that we should have a

[2:33:11] CRA director because we're winging everything and we

[2:33:15] really need expert advice. So, I'm going just throw that out. Throw that out

[2:33:20] there again. We should have a CRA director. And I'm just curious why we

[2:33:25] didn't have the meeting in city hall because

[2:33:29] when we trying to look at the numbers, I didn't want to be rude and come up and

[2:33:33] you know and try to look at numbers and then we got

[2:33:36] » renovated >> here. Well, they looking and they can't

[2:33:38] see the numbers. So, I'm just kind of, you know, wondering why we didn't have

[2:33:42] any. >> They're [clears throat] renovation. I

[2:33:43] think >> they're renovating.

[2:33:44] » Renovating it right now. >> They're renovating chambers. Okay.

[2:33:48] » I hope they hurry up because this is pretty much unsat, you know, for

[2:33:51] somebody back there and they're looking at the figures and they're trying to

[2:33:53] look at the figures with you guys. You really can't do it.

[2:33:57] » But what's important is that this is posted previously. It's online. You can

[2:34:00] look on your phone, zoom in, iPad, print out.

[2:34:02] » Anybody don't have time to go online when they come in and they come into the

[2:34:06] events. They haven't done that. So that's why you got it up here now. If

[2:34:09] you didn't, you just take it down and we need it because everybody go online.

[2:34:12] » But there is access to it. I want to make sure that it's known access.

[2:34:15] » Yeah, I I understand that. But I'm just saying like here we now and everybody's

[2:34:19] sitting in trying to look it be more presentable where we have where

[2:34:22] everybody can look at the figures. Um

[2:34:28] uh it's it's a hard balance when we look at

[2:34:32] things and it's just dependent on one person vision. Uh it's it's sad when our

[2:34:38] country feel like uh investing in people is not an a return on your investment.

[2:34:46] It's very sad when we feel like an investment on people. and we have some

[2:34:50] great people coming out of the city of Apopka

[2:34:54] and we're saying that an investment on those people is not a return on our

[2:34:57] community. That's sad. That is really sad. Thank you.

[2:35:03] » Thank you, Mr. Hall. Anybody else wish to speak?

[2:35:13] » Okay. The CRA community redevelopment agency was created under statues 163.

[2:35:21] A popka CRA was established in 1993. Now resolution 9316 ordinance 783 if I'm

[2:35:30] not mistaken to fist blight aging infrastructure

[2:35:36] and some housing shortest. This CRA cover 633 acre district. It's just not

[2:35:43] one side. It's the north and the south. This is founded by task increasment

[2:35:50] increments financing which is tiff DI if everybody understand. So the northwest

[2:35:55] side didn't have this kind of money that was TDT money task uh mean tourist

[2:36:02] investment. Now where the money goes

[2:36:07] commercial first framing according to the law

[2:36:12] commercial infrastructure priorities a street case the downtown Apok trail fase

[2:36:19] improvements grant for businesses public and business support initiatives

[2:36:25] this will drive private investment and growth the task base that funds

[2:36:31] everything else. I like the parking lot idea. That's actually one of my ideas

[2:36:36] for a long time. I hear it now. Yes, it needs to be in Apka. What we call South

[2:36:42] Aoka, but it's not really it's a puffka. We never really had a south aka if you

[2:36:46] look at our legislation. Yes, it will been bring people there and it will

[2:36:51] connect us. But the CRA money most and foremost goes for commercial development

[2:36:58] to bring private investment into our muchneeded downtown.

[2:37:05] » Thank you, Miss Burkel.

[2:37:16] » Christine Moore, 141 South Central. I want to encourage you uh applaud you I

[2:37:21] should say that um a couple of years ago the county put the city of Apka on a

[2:37:26] probationary period because the money was not being spent and the and they

[2:37:32] really don't have uh the legal right to tell you how to spend the money. You

[2:37:37] really make those decisions but there are best practices and the FRA website

[2:37:42] is terrific. If you've never looked at the winners from the last few years,

[2:37:46] you'll see in many many cities and I'm going to be heading up to Pensacola for

[2:37:50] a strong towns meeting um how they use the money to revitalize their downtown

[2:37:55] and you do have to balance the residential from the commercial and

[2:37:59] you've got an added burden knowing that your tax base may be cut in a couple of

[2:38:03] years and there's talk at the county of reducing your funds in half. So, this

[2:38:08] budget really really matters. It could be your final budget. I don't know. I

[2:38:12] don't know how that's going to pass and I'm not at the county to tell you if

[2:38:15] they'll continue. Um, your plan has really not been formally updated since

[2:38:20] 2017 and that might have been something you could have done. And I'd encourage

[2:38:25] you, some people might disagree with me, but I would encourage you to take some

[2:38:28] money out to go to those conferences because I think if you go to the

[2:38:32] conferences for FRA, you're going to see the best practices all over the state

[2:38:36] and how they spent the money and how it's brought ROI. And I just want to

[2:38:40] address the one comment. You know, this is governed by Florida statute. It came

[2:38:45] in back in the 1970s when the cities were dying, and that's a whole another

[2:38:50] long story, to help you revitalize these downtown areas. And so, it isn't meant

[2:38:56] for every expenditure. There are certain things that'll bring ROI, and you can

[2:38:59] check, it'd be nice every year if you came back and said, "We invested this

[2:39:04] and look at the property values and the extra revenue." So, you're supposed to

[2:39:08] be investing so that the downtown brings more revenue in the future. You're

[2:39:13] trying to make dollars. You're trying to encourage the private sector into

[2:39:18] investing. And so, again, if you have a chance to take that FRA course or go to

[2:39:23] a conference, some might say you shouldn't spend money on conferences,

[2:39:27] but boy, it's a great place to learn and it's a difficult job. I thank you for

[2:39:31] what you're doing. >> Thank you, M.

[2:39:37] I want to speak of what that uh Christine say. I know Andranet you um

[2:39:44] actually invested in the FRA membership the city of Apovka

[2:39:51] um under the economic development is on the conference. It's a wonderful

[2:39:56] conference and I asked a few of the commissioners about going to that

[2:40:03] conference and seeing what other cities are doing with the CRA funds.

[2:40:11] So I actually recommend there is also online courses. I'm a member of that

[2:40:17] online concert courses and our former attorney Mr. Shepard is one of the guest

[2:40:24] speakers on the conference. >> Thank you, Miss Sprinkle.

[2:40:29] » He's our current attorney. >> He's our current attorney.

[2:40:32] » He's still He still works Rusters. I want to make sure that's

[2:40:35] » I don't need him upset right now. He's current.

[2:40:38] » My current [laughter] fire.

[2:40:40] » Yeah. >> Got rid of him.

[2:40:42] » Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Want to make sure there's any

[2:40:45] opportunity where the CR C8 come from?

[2:40:52] tax interal incremental finance. >> It's the tax dollars that they set out

[2:40:57] from the citizens. Correct. >> It's tax dollars.

[2:41:03] » It's tax dollars. So, what I'm saying is I I understand that we need to make a

[2:41:10] public beautiful. It need to be the beacon on the hill. It need to be the

[2:41:14] blueprint of Central Florida. But then if we going to do that off the

[2:41:20] back of the citizens, off the taxpayers's money,

[2:41:24] we should we should be able we should be able. I I I don't I don't understand all

[2:41:32] the push back about all this money going this way. And when when taxpayers

[2:41:38] can see some of their money out the CRA going up

[2:41:44] to Jason dwelling and not just downtown for the downtown

[2:41:50] center uh uh uh the beautifification of downtown. It is and this is the

[2:41:56] disconnect with the city. will separate the city.

[2:42:02] What you do and and and my in my experience,

[2:42:07] you can you can fix all this on this side. I'm saying

[2:42:12] downtown or whatever. The way you fix it is just simply do what you do on that

[2:42:17] side. Let's do it downtown. And right here, this is a part of the city, the

[2:42:24] facade too. just bring in but and just don't just

[2:42:29] don't shut people out just because uh uh um

[2:42:35] Miss Miss Moore just said you guys are in charge of this. You spend the money

[2:42:39] the way that you see fit and only thing I'm saying is that see

[2:42:45] fit to treat this side like you do that side. That's all I ask. Thank you.

[2:42:50] » Thank you. >> We don't spend dollars.

[2:42:53] » Yeah. Let me just correct that. We've not spent the dollar. It's illegal to

[2:42:56] spend dollars CRA dollars outside of the district. So, not a dollar of CRA funds

[2:42:59] have gone anywhere outside of the district.

[2:43:01] » I know all of all what I'm talking about is in the district. I know what the CRA

[2:43:06] district from from Tit Street. >> Yes. So, all the dollars have stayed

[2:43:10] here. >> Yeah, I know. Okay. I know where it go.

[2:43:13] » Okay. Uh uh real quick when we come to the meetings uh the CRA map it should

[2:43:18] always be we should always have a map here so everybody can just see the ones

[2:43:22] who don't know the exact CRA zone that map should be here so everybody can see

[2:43:27] and when we talking about things that have worked and things that didn't work.

[2:43:31] Now I know we spent a whole lot of money on a bike trail but can anybody tell me

[2:43:36] what type of revenue it brought into the city of Apopka?

[2:43:41] Do anybody have any factual revenue or what revenue say factual figures? What

[2:43:47] money was brought into the city of Apaka from the bike trail?

[2:43:53] So that's what I'm saying. When we spending money, let's look at how we

[2:43:56] spending and what is the return for the city. Thank you.

[2:43:58] » Thank you, Mr. Hall. >> Sir.

[2:44:01] » All right, we'll close public comment. >> We're closing public comment right now.

[2:44:08] Thank you for the public for the feedback

[2:44:10] and the passion. Uh members, any final comments,

[2:44:15] adjustments, changes? Again, keep in mind we will be able to pivot and meet

[2:44:20] as often as we need to to make sure this budget is changed to what to the benefit

[2:44:23] of the residents and making sure that this is maximizing taxpayer dollars

[2:44:27] through the increase in uh property values, taxable property values. So,

[2:44:32] final comments, questions, concerns. The only thing I would I would recommend is

[2:44:38] um to visit what uh member Drago had mentioned in terms of

[2:44:44] um the funds that are remaining from the plot of land that we were not going to

[2:44:51] purchase for the restrooms for Alonzo Williams, but also to add those

[2:44:57] additional costs that he was discussing. I think it came out to like 126,000

[2:45:03] for for the sidewalks. >> So that would come, you want to take

[2:45:08] that out of the contingency, the 126,000.

[2:45:11] » So >> because they're already using the 299 to

[2:45:14] move move already. >> Yeah.

[2:45:16] » 299 is going to the Alonzo Williams restroom.

[2:45:20] » Yeah. Just anything that we may have left over,

[2:45:25] » it would fall into the contingency. >> Yeah. Whatever contingency, we use that

[2:45:30] towards >> take 126 out of contingency and put for

[2:45:33] sidewalks. Okay. >> And here's my only concern with that.

[2:45:35] I'm fine with that. Not that I'm one, but my point is

[2:45:39] » we can throw into sidewalks and a general sidewalk fund all day. Let's

[2:45:42] start to prioritize this. Let's create a list of what sidewalks so that action

[2:45:45] starts to get done. I think that's >> yes,

[2:45:47] » that's what we really need to be doing is making sure that these are we can

[2:45:50] allocate funds all day, but it's getting getting the uh the prioritization and

[2:45:54] then a plan in place and timeline. So, what may be beneficial too, and I'll

[2:45:58] work with staff to do this, is once this is approved, really back into timelines

[2:46:02] of what this looks like, have ownership in it, and uh we'll be able to provide

[2:46:06] updates from there of what this actually looks like because some of this, to be

[2:46:09] very honest, some of this stuff will not be able to get done this fiscal year. It

[2:46:12] just won't with staffing. Even though we've allocated it, staffing won't

[2:46:14] staffing time just won't allow it. So, let's have a real conversation what that

[2:46:18] looks like and what we can accomplish so that residents and this board's

[2:46:21] expectations are set properly. And I guess my other question is um is the

[2:46:26] redevelopment plan online for the public to see?

[2:46:30] » Yes, it's required. It must be online. >> Okay. Just want to make sure.

[2:46:34] » Any final comments? >> The CRA maps on there, too.

[2:46:40] » The map is included. Okay. >> I know I but I carry this. So, with

[2:46:44] every time I copy, I carry this. >> All right. All right. Well, I'll look

[2:46:47] for a motion to approve resolution number 2026-02

[2:46:51] with the adjustments that were made by members.

[2:46:54] » So moved. >> Moved by member Drago. Second by member

[2:46:58] Anderson. All those in favor say I. >> I.

[2:47:00] » All opposed. Motion carries unanimously. [clears throat]

[2:47:02] » And as usual, I'll make the appropriate changes and send it out to the um

[2:47:07] committee. >> Thank you.

[2:47:08] » Thank you.

[2:47:11] » Please. Thank you. Uh next up, uh we're going through a staff report of design

[2:47:17] standards.

[2:47:24] » Come in. Thank you.

[2:47:28] Bear with me here. We're getting used to our

[2:47:30] » Yeah, she's working on it over here. >> As hard as she's got it.

[2:47:34] » Okay, >> quicker. No, I'm kidding.

[2:47:36] So, while she's while she's doing that, um, so we added the staff report section

[2:47:41] to the CRA meetings just for future to update you on anything that's been

[2:47:45] outstanding. And it was referenced during uh a few CRA meetings ago about

[2:47:50] establishing a form of design standards with our assistance programs or any

[2:47:54] future assistance programs we we have. So, we went back and and kind of talked

[2:48:00] it over um with community development of what that would look like, including a

[2:48:05] color palette, and realized that it was a lot more involved um than we thought

[2:48:11] it was going to be. And so, we're also going um at the simultaneously

[2:48:17] attempting to update our master plan. So, our master plan's not been updated

[2:48:22] since 2017. best practices say they should be updated every five to six

[2:48:27] years. Um we have also updated the county that is our intention to update

[2:48:31] our master plan as well because as we come up with new programs um or projects

[2:48:36] it has to be included in our master plan that is that is a requirement and so we

[2:48:41] want to make sure that we are doing everything that is um in line um and

[2:48:46] transparent. So there's a whole kind of memo that talks about the process, but

[2:48:50] the basic suggestion is that we would update the design standards along with

[2:48:55] the master plan update simultaneously. That way we maximize the consultant that

[2:49:00] we use. We've already been working with our um the finance department through

[2:49:04] the procurement division. Um so we have established that scope of work. um it is

[2:49:10] going through the process now that are ideally we'd like to have that out on

[2:49:15] the street and be ready um to start the beginning or near the beginning of the

[2:49:21] fiscal year. That is the intention. So I just wanted to provide the board an

[2:49:25] update as far as that's concerned. And then I also wanted to let you know that

[2:49:30] um uh the FRA has established uh redevelopment week. This is the first

[2:49:35] time they've done it. Um, for those who are unaware, I am on the FRA board and

[2:49:40] so this is their first year that they have come up with a redevelopment week

[2:49:43] for the purpose that CRAAS every couple years seem to come under attack and this

[2:49:47] is an opportunity to showcase some of the work that they've done. So

[2:49:51] redevelopment week is September 14th through the 18th. We have scheduled a

[2:49:55] proclamation to be done um um at a future city commission meeting.

[2:50:01] Um, and then we'll also be working with our communications department to help us

[2:50:06] um, market some of the work that we've been doing. And then I also wanted to

[2:50:10] update you as far as the rewrap program. We have 20 homes that have been

[2:50:15] completed as well as um, funded. I have seven invoices, not including those 20

[2:50:22] that are sitting on my desk right now um, to be processed. So in total that

[2:50:26] would be 27 homes out of the 35 um that have been completed to date.

[2:50:32] » Excellent. >> And lastly, if you are interested in the

[2:50:36] FRA conference, it's in Charlotte Harbor this year. The dates are October 20th

[2:50:41] through the 23rd. Um I will be presenting um this year. We'll be

[2:50:47] partnering with the city of Barto to talk about uh small business

[2:50:50] redevelopment. Um, but if you are interested or you're interested in any

[2:50:54] sort of classes, um, uh, I can definitely help you with that. I made a

[2:50:58] note that I will set up accounts for each one of you. So, you will be

[2:51:02] included in future FRA newsletters where they showcase projects that other CRAAS

[2:51:06] are doing. >> Is it grants for that? Do they have

[2:51:08] grants? I know some Do they have grants for us to attend?

[2:51:12] » Oh, >> they do not.

[2:51:13] » Probably not going in. Okay. >> They do not at the conference. Can I

[2:51:17] will it be online? >> So, they have started doing

[2:51:22] they have started doing their through their academy some professional

[2:51:25] development that they do online. So our attorney Cliff Sheffer is also the FRA

[2:51:30] uh attorney. He offered one on CRA dos and don'ts that was free. It was

[2:51:34] recorded. I know I sent it to um to one of two of you that weren't able to

[2:51:38] attend. Um so those courses they have been offering for free for their

[2:51:43] academy. Those are not free. I think they're like $4.95. Um, we I did put in

[2:51:48] actually the future FY2627 budget some classes for staff because I

[2:51:53] have inherited staff um and they do need to be trained on what what it is in

[2:51:57] terms of uh redevelopment and dos and don'ts. So that is something that we're

[2:52:00] doing as far as future planning and capacity building. Um so all of this is

[2:52:04] just kind offormational purposes so that you are aware if you're unable to attend

[2:52:08] I'll be more than willing to sit with any one of you and we can kind of drill

[2:52:12] down on some things that you may have questions about.

[2:52:15] » Awesome. Thank you for the update. Any final

[2:52:17] comments from board members? U >> the memo [clears throat] that was

[2:52:21] submitted um on the design standards altruistically I

[2:52:26] agree with it. What I didn't see

[2:52:31] was the uh which I hope would be included when you find a a consultant

[2:52:38] that a visioning process would be done first for the residents and the

[2:52:42] businesses to have input and then that input gets translated into a set of

[2:52:46] development codes without loopholes without loopholes. Secondly,

[2:52:53] um it's been the city's practice that if they hire a consultant to come in and do

[2:53:00] these design standards, codes, and whatever, they accept the same

[2:53:05] consultant to work for the private sector to represent the private sector

[2:53:10] relative to the city on the same codes they designed. I consider that to be a

[2:53:14] conflict of interest. So, whatever consultant you hire, they get a choice.

[2:53:18] Either work for us or work for the private sector. You can't have it both

[2:53:21] ways.

[2:53:24] And Mr. Chair, um, is the business retention and expansion program still

[2:53:31] valid?

[2:53:34] » Forbes. >> Can you be a little more specific? What

[2:53:37] BRE program under the CRA are you referring to?

[2:53:41] » Couple of meetings ago, I asked about a a program that your former predecessor

[2:53:47] developed which was known as economic gardening. She named it business

[2:53:51] retention and expansion program. The former mayor said he would get with you

[2:53:55] to go over the program. So is it still valid? Still not just economic

[2:54:01] gardening. I I do remember you asking that question. I spoke to my former

[2:54:04] predecessor and she confirmed that there was no formal program that was created.

[2:54:09] We do practice BR or business retention and expansion. There are several

[2:54:13] components to it. Um, one of the things off the top that we've been doing is a

[2:54:17] business survey because it's very difficult to create programs for

[2:54:19] businesses if we don't speak directly to our businesses and find out what their

[2:54:22] needs are. One of the roadblocks we've been hitting is participation from our

[2:54:26] businesses. So, I would say February of this year, January, February, we sent

[2:54:32] out this survey. Um, to date, we've gotten about 28 responses,

[2:54:38] just to be to be clear. So that is something again I will work with our

[2:54:40] communications team to see how we can um better market that survey because that

[2:54:45] helps us formulate programming that we know our businesses want to participate

[2:54:48] in. Another thing that we've been doing is BR visits and I apologize if I keep

[2:54:52] using acronyms. Business retention expansion visits. That's where we go and

[2:54:55] meet directly one-on-one with businesses and we find out how we can offer

[2:54:59] assistance. So to date I think we've done about 20 or so. I've also been

[2:55:02] onboarding staff at the same time. So they shadow me to see what that looks

[2:55:05] like where business everything is on the table of how we can help you as a

[2:55:09] business. So if you have workforce needs, if you have issues um with uh uh

[2:55:13] financial analysis, if you have issues of how to market, how to get uh future

[2:55:17] customers, we discuss all those things and then we connect them with resources

[2:55:21] that are free or minimal cost and show them how they are able to um move

[2:55:26] forward and then we follow up with them months later to see how how progress has

[2:55:30] been done. So we are starting the process of our BRE program. The growth

[2:55:35] is incremental because we again we first need to do those foundational steps of

[2:55:38] finding out what our businesses need. So then we can track as we go on to see

[2:55:42] were we able to offer assistance. >> Okay. So the newspaper reports then were

[2:55:48] erroneous about the business retention and expansion program. Um I'm a

[2:55:53] proponent that some properties in a city CRA needs to be targeted for

[2:55:58] improvement. So my question is, is Davis Court in the CRA?

[2:56:04] [clears throat] >> Do you have an address of Davis Court?

[2:56:06] » Anybody that wants to answer? >> Nobody has those memorized. 600 plus

[2:56:10] acres. Not sure we have that memorized. >> What was the question?

[2:56:15] » Davis Court. It's right on It's right past the railroad tracks.

[2:56:19] » I assume you know the answer. So let's get to the end of this.

[2:56:21] » All right. So >> where is Davis Court? When you go by

[2:56:24] that facility, that one needs some major improvement

[2:56:30] because if you didn't know it was in the city of Apakka, you would assume it's in

[2:56:34] a foreign country. And those people should have be afforded the uh privilege

[2:56:41] of having their properties improved in order to make their quality of life

[2:56:45] better.

[2:56:48] So, we have printed out door hangers with um the available CRA assistance

[2:56:54] programs that have been approved. We are working with our code compliance

[2:56:58] department and we've asked them as they go out and see properties that are in

[2:57:01] need of assistance that they hang those door hangers up and hoping to get more

[2:57:05] interest in some of the programs that we have available.

[2:57:09] » Thank you. Any other final comments, questions, concerns?

[2:57:15] If not, I'm going to close. All right, we're adjourning. It's

[2:57:19] happening. We're done.

Apopka Community Redevelopment Agency

Agenda

Transcript