[Music] my KN start same thing United States of [Music] America please chairman John Eric Hoover here Vice chairwoman Linda Rodriguez here member Tom canella here member Cherokee Samson here member David Mueller leted the record show that member David Mueller is absent from tonight's meeting City attorney Nancy Meyer here city manager Matthew Copler here thank you uh first up his comment from General Public I have no signups is there anybody like to speak show hands oh it's not on my agenda Sor minutes are in it's not on the cover page my fault yeah so we're approve that motion to approve I got a motion to approve the minutes second second for discussion all in favor see5 saying I I oppose motion carries Now we move to comment from General Public um by raise your hand moving right along comments from our city manager I have two uh I have uh the first thing I just handed out to everyone real quick basally the same uh update on the Cody River Landing water main restoration project just understand that because we're taking money from different buckets one of the bucket is CRA and so that will be here as well for approval um the other part is I received inquiries from two members of the board regarding the residential grant program the question that was raised concern concerning the elimination of the matching requirements for eligibility for the latest round of Grants there were two different requirements for funding depending upon the income thresholds of the applant those above the threshold they were 50% matching requirement up to the max max maximum Grant in the latest version of the grant program the matching requirement was removed um in reviewing the discussion on this at 8823 so August 8 23 rep discuss changes the program but it doesn't appear that that removal of the matching provision was discussed question is is that something that you want to take up in the next meeting and discuss whether you want to uh have that removed or was it your intent we don't have to discuss it to have that provision remov so I can tell you was is that in in the previous handbook you had to in order to get the uh the grant whether you were below the prty line or above the private PR prty line you had to submit your financial records and so the intent my understanding was is that there's no reason for somebody coming in for the 50% match to show Financial records to show show that they can get that because everybody can get that if they're above the PTY line so you don't need to show you don't need to prove you're above the prty line we just take your word for it you have to prove that you're below the PTY line to get the full 100% match so but what changed in the handbook obviously as result of that is is that basically everybody below the poverty line or above the poty line gets $5,000 dollar for dollar for dollar does that make sense you yeah so before you had to spend in order to get $5,000 you had to spend $10,000 if you above the poverty line now way the handbook is is it doesn't matter what where you're at you get $5,000 if you spend $5,000 and5 35,000 35,000 is the number correct the budget no um the threshold for mik um oh what the poverty line is yeah well it was it was going to be dependent upon you know the number of people in the the household so it would be a different number depending upon how many people were in the household and of course it changes I think every year too right with the discussion from what I recall was first of all not a lot of people are using it the goal of the grant program is to improve the homes that need to be improved we discussed using it and then if we get to the point where oh my God everybody's using it then adjusting it for the next year as to to do it I I think we need to use this as the impetus to have people use the gr program to improve their homes because we don't want the slum on the blight we want them to fix their doors and their windows and their gutters and and and all all the things that the the the sofits and the fasher and the roofs and and the things that need to be fixed on their house and if they're making $5,000 over the poverty line do we really want to stop them from doing a $14,000 roof I had to pay yeah they they might not be able to afford that if they're making $40,000 and and that would we just using a $335,000 as as a number but you understand what I'm trying to say no and I think that the the the idea that just we we don't put any limits there it's great for me it'd be great to go out and just spend $5,000 get $5,000 right but I guess the the thing we need to be careful of is obviously the reason that was there is that we've got what 50,000 I think we budgeted for that resal so 50,000 for residential so if people who are well off living out in and well we took out some areas obviously but the people that are well off of living in in what's still considered CR boundary that have the financial resource to do that they'll suck up that $5,000 quick and that that takes away from that 50,000 we've allocated that maybe some of the the people that are under the poverty line they don't and I and I think we need to adjust that then next the following year I I think we need to use the program how much did we use last year Rachel much a th $2,000 no because I got I got how much yeah what was the max last year about the reality yeah it was 2 25,000 I think yeah 2500 no 25,000 Oh you mean allocated no but what did we what what what like 2000 yeah only two yeah and I was one of them so we need to push the program so that and I mean that was all my $14,000 roof that I had to pay cash for it's it's it's not you know I think for the people that are above the poty line it's going to be a great benefit I wouldn't sure that was the intent well this is for oil residents so let's let's get it out there get the program going and when they find out that you know this $500,000 home got it and I didn't then they'll apply for it and they'll do it as well and then we can we can apply the the the safety guards at that point yeah and also another thing we went from 1,000 to 5,000 so the reason that you know 1,000 was not a lot we change it to every year or is it still every two years every year I think every two years it was every two years I thought we changed it I think we changed it's two years okay I specifically remember the other but maybe not yeah I thought I I thought we made it every year too well manual May saor too but check that because I I thought we I I thought we did I thought we voted one as well Eric I think you're right so can we check that can we check the minutes please thank you you have to like to check the GU the council me when we discuss it but I'm pretty sure we discussed that quite a bit I thought um so with going from 1,000 to 5,000 that becomes a significant help right so and and I'm okay with you know I just don't want to what I hate to see is they have a bunch of people in line that use up the money and then people that really need it there there well I I think also um in speaking with Veronica in the past I've not spoken to her about this recently but when they when the building officials go out there and see the slum and blight and the areas that need help that they are offering the program to them and telling them about it so I think that's also another Avenue we can use because when we run out of money we run out of money so the people that you're talking about won't get it but um you know they they already know um the the houses that need help and if we reach out to them and say this is available to you for those places to use the funds I I think that's another great you the the building officials are driving around the city every day and I think to utilize them and to say this is available use it is is a really good idea okay well it probably Kickstart the program it Kickstart the program absolutely I think that's what we want so I agree I think we we need to spend that money we should just put on the budget people not use it I just I just it concerns me that the wrong people will get to use it so that's that's more concern not that's a bad thing because they need to fix stuff up as well but um well they they would still be able to use it it just there wouldn't be a requirement for a matching to get the 5,000 right they're getting dollar for dollar as opposed to dollar for $2 dollar they spend so that's idea if you have Financial Resources you need less and less government assistance so okay yeah I just I just wanted to make sure like I said I had two inquiries about it and then reviewing the minutes from the August 8th meeting that piece you know didn't get into the minutes if it was discussed so okay right counil board anybody like to speak okay moving on to our agenda we have it number one approval of resolution number 24-3 refund Pasco County fiscal year 2024 C over P pass it to Mr Cow for introduction uh the CRA passed resolution 242 on January 23rd 2024 to refund Pasco County's overpayment to the CRA however due to Pasco County adopting the lower military then the prior year the city would need to refund an additional $3,845 95 C resolution number 24-3 a resolution of the Port Richie community redevelopment agency providing a refund from the community community redevelopment trust fund to Pasco County providing for separability and and providing an effective date motion to approve the resolution number 24-3 refund to Pasco County second fur discussion any public like a comment has put a vote all in favor signify by saying I I oppos motion carries and last item number two solicitation for lease of vacant land I'll pass it to Mr C for introduction thank you um so Council May or the board may remember that uh we city was approached by Whiskey Joe's inquiring about two parsels of land that we owned relatively close to their restaurant they were seeking uh to potentially purchase and or lease that property for overflow parking they had lost their parking agreement for overflow parking and needed additional um in review as you might remember uh we found out that uh CRA money actually purchased these two parcels and under the state statute if if the CRA wishes to lease Andor sell it has to go through a public BS process so we put together a draft of what that RFP would look like as well as proposal form um so you can see it and decide if you want to take the next step which is to put this out to uh a solicitation to see if there are any interested uh individuals that meet the qualifications um to put in overflow parking in that area and those two parcels you know obviously we don't know until we put the bid out um you know what they're willing to do or what they're willing to offer for that because if we did that it would be outside of the the public bid process and not be appropriate I'm not in favor of selling them or leasing them to a specific business um we have a project going on down there now we don't know excuse me phase three where we're going with that and on top of that we have another excuse me another project in the in the outskirts that is potentially looking at going down there um selling that piece of land is obviously to the Waterfront District so it's very valuable I'm not opposed to making and the P Whiskey River has not allowed when they were cross from guil dogs looking for a cough jop excuse me um not allowed parking by any other people except if you going there why don't we just run it as a parking lot for the whole area not just a specific business Whiskey River can um whiskey Joe can access it and use it just like every other business down there I'm not opposed to making it parking until we figure out what we're going to do I just think selling outright thank you I have one thank you um is a mistake on our part let me just add that we are not recommending the city sell that property just Le because because of a lot of what you said is that a potential for a big change down there we don't want to give away our ability to help you know with that that type of uh development so we would only be recommending that it be leased under a short-term agreement but then we're limiting it only to them using it and then the other businesses cannot yes that would be correct so I and I think that's um an injustice to to the it's a small area it's an injustice to everybody everybody's looking for parking so um I I I think that's an injustice to everybody the the alternative to that is it is that it sits there and and and does does no Financial benefit to the city so it's just sitting there why don't we lease it to and you know I I get your point if it's a parking lot say for whoever it wouldn't be it's a bid process so obiously it may not be Whiskey River Maybe top bidder comes out catches or who you know whoever bids on this that they want to lease it um the the idea behind it is it's it's a it's an asset that we it's a non-performing we convert it to a performing asset it's under short-term agreement so if we do want to change the use of that and we we terminate to lease parking goes away um gets parking you just get in your car you move it so it's not like they're building anything there I see no reason why we don't use our assets to bring in income so that we can do more stuff whether it be pay employees I mean we of course it's CRA but uh obviously the we need to bring in more money more money we bring in CRA more benefit we give to the grant program I mean I mean there's nothing wrong with making a making a making a profit on your assets so especially something as this is the this is the best case scenario to actually generate income is dirt right you turn into parking and you just not much you need to do to it absolutely I just want to um add the conversation that your current um plan for your CRA is very very heavy in parking it promotes parking increase parking make parking better um so this this is very much in line with the goals that were set when their plan was adopted just so you know that at least until Thursday I guess at least I know it's going through a process now so that might change but just um at this point this is very much in line with the plan the city of the C there there's no term of lease on here that you guys are thinking about was it thing again it's it's part of the bid process they would have to submit to us what they were looking for and all that and then once we have that there could be you know discussion about what we would allow for so we put out the bid there is no restrictions on it's just we're leasing yep okay and again I don't think we want to get ourselves into a long-term lease without the ability to break that um because you know depending on what happens down there we may need to get them out there quick so um but again it's sitting there we own it we've got what $350,000 wrapped up in it does that include the demos or that just I do not believe that includes the demos I just looked at purchase yeah let's say we probably got half million dollars wrapped up in that let's start recouping some of that income through parking until we need it as opposed to just sitting there it's it's no brainer to me I agree it needs to be parking I just don't know if it should be for one specific business that that's my problem the highest bidder is what boils down to right it's actually not the highest bidder under this it's it you can look it can be it maybe but you look at what's best for the cra's goals there proposals with your objectives those always happy guys better on these no I think we need parking don't get me wrong I'm I'm for parking well another option we could convert it to parking and and and start charging that's what I was getting ready to say what if we turn it into public parking and then charge for but then you've got the city basically putting money into approv it right and we had to figure out some way to administ the CRA would be spending money right and there's better better Avenue CRA money than to build a parking lot that may not be a parking lot in a year so oh I get that as long as as long as not sitting there we're generating income from it then I think we're I'm open to conversation it makes probably more sense to open up for for bid as opposed to us trying to something because then we got to staff it we got to figure out how to get the money in same thing we're going have with the with the ramp or whatever so there's there's infrastructure that we'd have to put in that in order to get that whereas we flee it out to whoever we end up picking uh it's just well if we pick somebody I mean you could put it off a bid and we can pick nobody right correct right yeah so put out the bit I don't can we is there a way for us to have multiple businesses like maybe they can come to an agreement that they all use the property and all pay see right they proba to get together and bid together I guess right that mean they could or some one entity could bid and have that agreement separately I mean that's I think at this point it's just a question do you want to see who's interested and what they're interested in that doesn't mean that we have to just because we put a for for lease on it doesn't mean we have to lease it to somebody we can say well yeah that was a good idea but no and in reality as far as the the parking for let's say Whiskey Joe's is the is the one who ends up getting it and your your argument is is that well you go down there you want to park there to go check out the Dolphins right you can't do it because you're not going Whiskey Joe's well the reality is you're probably going to have it's overflow parking from then so they're probably not going to be too worried about it um I would I would say they may end up charging themselves so when they told my car I'll send you the bill yeah so but again I don't I don't know but the reality is as it is right now nobody parked her anyway right no I I I understand that I mean which Joe was put there with no parking with the caveat that they could park in the other place that was approved by previous Council why that was approved beond me thought it was a horrible idea at the start so but it is what it is huh I'd be first say I'm thankful to have that business here I think it they they they put us on the map people come here so it's I'm not saying that I'm just saying put a restaurant with 12 parking spots is really pretty silly so but that's hindsights 2020 okay move on parking we need parking absolutely agree with it we'll put it out there and see what happens yeah let's see if we get bids see what happens well you'll get bids but see what they are only thing I totally agreed let's let's put it out for bids uh and no doubt our lawyer and and city manager thought about this again um the main piece of it who's going to be responsible and uh the or right that be part of the agreement assume assume you get a bid that you accept you then we'll have a contract or an agreement with them and you can put that on them as part of the agreement yes and and the liability piece of it we can put all yeah don't and I I can I'm sorry to interrupt I I can write within the the uh announcement that Vision that you know the whoever successful bider is would be responsible for you know providing Insurance providing maintenance of the lot and the proposal um form gets into a little bit of that I think because it it ask them to give certain information but I can be even more specific in in the proposal and put that in there yeah I I think being more specific will let them know that know we we're just not giving the land if there's some responsibility for it too I have no problem I like the idea I'll also throw this out I don't know correct me if I'm wrong if this is something that's doable whatever but there are public partner joint venture type things right so that to solve the part you know we'll lease it to you you maintain it you do all this but you know we we need to allow us our residents whoever realistically you're not going to go to hoter park over there I mean let's I mean it's just not going to happen but I just want people to be have the flexibility to I think there's ways we can accomplish the goal as we talk about motion my motion motion to uh approve the solicitation for lease a vacant letter second I have a motion very hesitant but enthusiastic we were staring at each other we going to see who was going to do it first we doing I'm glad you won Tom motion a second any further question anyone public like to comment my hands I put vote all in favor signify by saying I I opposed motion carries and last up is our discussion of old business any discussions around we have on the old business seeing none looking for a motion motion to adjourn second