[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.