okay she's back we're good call City Richie board meeting Tuesday May 14 2024 like St flag United States of America and to theic for it stands Nation God indivisible with and justice for all please chairman John Eric Hoover here member Linda Rodriguez here member David Mueller here mson here member rert card here City attorney Nancy Meyer here city manager Matthew coppler here okay moving on on comments from General Public I have no signup anyone all just like to speak see hands I'll bring it back to comments from the city manager pass m c comments good even just had one item uh the ra update plan is still moving forward if you haven't probably forgot about it uh we did receive the draft uh version of that and ham and I are in the process of reviewing that we have to get it back to it in the next couple days and uh once we get through the draft and there's any changes that we make they'll prepare a final draft um and we'll uh give it to you for your review for a week or so and make any recommendations that you would want to see on that and then gets presented as as the final uh at an upcoming meeting okay there are minutes to be approved itet was cover page as attachments but just not on the cover okay thank you okay um so I've been made aware that there's minutes to be approved look for a motion motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting motion second for discussion all in favor 6 say I iose motion carries and then uh comments from the board I'll start uh VI mayor Rodriguez any comments not at this time thank you member Rodriguez in this Cas sorry I appreciate that thank you we can do it now rather than old business uh there was a grant program for businesses has that been end yet the process yeah we have a date minut nothing okay bringing it back uh board business uh item number one approval of resolution number 24-11 amending current year fiscal year 2024 CRA budget pass it to Mr copper for introduction uh the state requires CRA budget to include all balances for prior fiscal years for statute Section 189.1 163 prior your balances are estimated and creating the budget since they are prior to the fisal year year end City's fiscal year 2023 audit has been completed and a financial statement shows the remaining fund balance year end for CRA is 2,926 780 C City budgeted 2,915 312 from reserves C resolution will amend the fiscal year 2024 CRA budget to match the audited fund bance um just let you know my signature block is incorrect he's got Eric John on that one and look for a motion our discussion motion to approve resolution number 24-11 current year C budget second motion second further discussion public I comment hands I'll put it to vote all in favor signy by saying I I motion carries uh next up is number three discussion of lease agreement with Whiskey Joe's for overflow parking lot I pass it to Mr coer for introduction community redevelopment HC open proposals on April 5th 2024 for the lease parking on two vacant Lots C the owns the River Landing District CRA only received one proposal from Whiskey Joe's restaurant in their submission Whiskey Joe's propos a month-to Monon lease in the amount of $1,050 per month the attorney prepared a draft polias agreement for the board's review following review and discussion if the board wishes to move forward to draft to be sent to Mr Jones for their review and comment that actually I'd say that was item number three it's actually item number two because the minutes were not in there on the table contents it's the numbering is off so this actually item number two if you're following along open for motion or discussion this is month a month yeah did uh did we do any comparative comps on if that was a good price to get for that that's what they submitted right no I get that I'm just curious you know we don't have to take it if it's right right extremely low ball we can come back with a with a [Music] oh with there's no opportunity to negotiate that's we take it or not what they've submitted so yeah so your choices would be fine ored is it strictly for Whiskey River can other people it's a leak agreement so they would control we just be collecting the the rent seem like the only people place that has a problem parking over there is whiskey I'm sorry it seems like the only establishment over there that has a major problem with parking is Whiskey Joe's for a motion or more discussion well I again I think we just need consensus to move forward oh is it not oh discuss sorry yeah so again The Next Step would be you're okay with this we' effectively get into negotiations of all the other details got yeah I mean the the we own the the prob we own it for a while we've got money invested into it it's just sitting there month month lease I think it's uh prudent that we get something for that until we decide what we're want to do I think month to month is is par it doesn't hold either one of us into show they gonna have insurance on that too I believe yeah so yeah we're we're totally indemnified has lease that's our post lease yes they get to come back and maybe try to discuss that I don't see a downside to it at all I don't see where it a downside to it so anybody how how much is invested in that property do you know 400,000 it might be it might be closer to 500 you know with the Demolition cost and all that no that's it it was I think it was like 350 350 for the purchase I'm not sure what the demolition the demolition cost about 4 375 4 your time there's some trees and bushes on it are they going to clear out no I I tore them down I don't remember the number off top my head I think I think they they had indicated that they would have to do some s prep on that to allow for what they they need to do man I don't know why we need to delay it probably over there is now they they need to look at they need to review the lease and they may come back with right condition usually the way it works is I write a long lease and then their Boyer comes back and says I don't like this part I want to add this part and kind of figure those things out sometimes it's easier than others and would they be is are they what is their intention are they going to be charging people for that or they they' be leasing it from us for ,50 it be parked by valet for Val I believe their detent is for overflow parking when they need additional parking but they technically they could charge it it's just be they' be have full rights to property right I mean 1,50 a month that's 12,600 year 12,600 year right that cover our taxes for the property there is no taxes we don't get taxes we all city is non taxable we don't tax ourselves it's not necessarily true um it's one of the thing well because the problem the problem is that we're leasing it right we're we're making money off of it so and I don't know if it's 100% how they do it but I think there's there is a possibility so what what do we pay so we we need to put a triple net lease together that they'd have to pay for maintenance and taxes and insurance right well that would be included in whatever the price that's why I just want to make sure that whatever they leases for is going to cover our expenses at least right yes in section five about that so it's state county tax section five believe the state tax I don't that it wouldn't be dropped stays the same all right so just for my understanding so if we if property and we lease it then then it converts to tax if count if we're if we're using it for municipal purposes then it's taxes up right is when you go outside of that you know property tax generally in other states and in Florida as well when when you know you're doing something where you're leasing it to a private that makes sense it becomes taxable okay and so that and we have that in the lease agreement to they would be responsible for those that's exactly good work try thank you yeah very good work so for the county to know to do that we'd have to notify them a change of use correct yeah how does the county know that we start leasing that is it they watch the Youtube video wow yeah then um we have ways that's scary I'm sure there's some kind of notification thing that city has to do right well I mean I I think again you know we want to comply with all state local Federal roles so if there is that provision that's Co any questions all right I think we're that all you need for that yep if if you're good with it go to the next up and we'll send it out to any OBS no [Music] okay and last up is item number three discussion all business is there any discussion all business I do have I'm sorry I did forget on the beginning before actually before we do that before I close out sorry okay anybody public like comment on the last thing on the leasing okay bring it back good the grant program I think I brought it up last time for the residents um we changed the the total amount to $5,000 per year year um we every two years every two years okay but we still need to look at that because as I said last time somebody might not have the money they might have it an increments over the two years right now it reads if you apply for something and they and we the city gives them $1,000 they can no longer apply for that for another two years as opposed to I can afford $1,000 you know I can afford the project and the city will give you $1,000 and in 9 months I can afford another project which is another $1,000 they can't apply for that Grant again right it's it once say that's right that's you get up to 5,000 but it's a one one time thing but I think it needs to be like a cumulative like $5,000 from 2024 to 2026 and they can have multiple projects what happens if it's just a front door it's not going to be it's not going to be a $5,000 door probably do you know what I mean but they might want to do a door and then in six months do gutters or do landscaping and all that is a is a is allowed with the grant program so I think we need to change that that the resident can get the $5,000 over multiple Cuts but totaling a maximum of $5,000 over it because with this is designed to fix blight people don't have that kind of cash flow especially in this economy now to just lay all that money out to get the $5,000 back and I and our goal is to decrease blight and I think we need to address that no I I completely agree um is that something we have to wait till next budget cycle can that something we do mid budget I mean we've already got allocated so we should be able to make a change procedur it sounds like the wording might just need to be looked at and I'm happy that someone sends it to me I can look at it okay I I I would like you to look at that if you don't mind is any objections to have been looking that no the Cody R Landing project have we gotten any yet still zero it's closed we have to put out the bid again no but and nobody bid right right so what's our next step we have to have that conversation on what you want to do with the project um we've been working with uh the utility um so the water line water engineer right um and he's been reaching out look looking at um existing contracts with some of the surrounding counties for water main replacement so we can get an understanding of if that could be an option to go forward with the water main part of the project uh because that's that is the more important piece of this from a until you know the infrastructure standpoint um and I think we're just waiting for one more to come back because I think Pasco County's on call and so once we have those numbers we're going to have that conversation um to see what you want to do if you want to go forward with parts of it none of it I thought we wouldn't go back to some of these companies that have bid in the past and asked them why they you know what was the what was holding them up you know why did they not want to bid what was the deterrent so um we we did have a meeting with aers to go over that um that would be something that I would expect the engineering firm did as soon as the bids came back because you know no bids um when we had the meeting they informed us that they didn't do it and didn't sound like they were too interested in doing it um I asked them then why did nobody bid andless see there are five things one our location apparently we are located too far from areas that contract s can do work the second was the size of the project it was a very small project for them the third was the council they felt that the behavior of the council over the last I don't know how many years um set a set how do they put that exactly they they made unrealistic expectations and and so it scared people away because Council wasn't you committed committed to the project or something like that the the fourth is we didn't have a good network of contractors because we don't do a lot of projects and the fifth thing was there was the fifth one honestly after the third one I kind of lost way place I just kind of I wasn't nice um I you know quite frankly you know I've never seen an engine fir do this um and especially when that got paid several thousand dollars well more than several thousand 100 thousand yes yes um I think one of so the utility and why we're contining working with the utility engineer part of this who was a sub of airs is he actually did reach out and talk to uh the one company and I can't remember what the company was but it was a company was actually attended the pre-bid meeting and he he there was a couple things you know they felt that that the scope of the work was was not sufficient or or the I guess the engineers as on the scope of the work the two things didn't match up and the the company was concerned that they were going to put a bid in that would be two to three times what the engineers estimate was the the Air's Engineers yes yeah good yeah um another another issue uh especially on the water line and and we keep getting more feedback on this the thing that that you know is driving that cost up is on the West Side there's a lot more block than on the east side and uh the filling was again that the design or at least the bid it really didn't cover that risk to the contractor or if you hit the you know hit the rock you know how are you going to get you know paid for that um so that's that's one issue at least on the Utility side um I think there was a conc certain about RightWay that there wasn't sufficient RightWay to actually do some of the Civil work that was being proposed in terms of the sidewalks and roadways and so those are the kind of the feedback we got through that that engineer which I would have thought would have I think they worked on right away they talked to businesses and all that so I don't understand that part of it I did we get all the documents and surveys and everything that we paid for from from Mays so that we can reuse that potentially usually want to do their own I think yeah I mean problem again that's that's kind of the difficulty in this where you know if you were to bring in a new engineer there there are some pieces of what was done that can be reused you a survey use surveys if they were there like two years whatever yeah but you know there's there's other pieces that you know any engineer any engineer that's going to you know put the stamp on it they're GNA want to do it themselves but I think and again another another issue that I saw with with the water like along the water line is that that you know we it was designed at a a level that didn't didn't anticipate any type of yeah growth on the demand of the water lines there it was designed at the level to meet the current existing customers along the water line and and while it may meet some growth that that's going to happen there it's not going to meet exponential growth and one of the conversations that we had with that engineer was okay what what can we accommodate with this and and if we're going to go back to the drawing board you know I want to make sure that that we're putting together a plan that's going to meet you know and not necessarily a 20-year window and not necessarily all of the the proposed development is going to happen but if you looked I mean you know from a plan perspective you look at a build out of what's there look at your code you say we can do this amount of density this this amount of type of development and so you want to build towards that and it didn't sound like that type of analysis was done unfortunately so I think again where we may I G say those numbers are like 1.4 1.5 million that we've gotten so far from the uh the on call contracts um which I think are quite High uh you know we know or at least we believe that that it's not going to meet the the future development what could happen based on what the current codes are and while you know impact fees are meant to help that out um if we're going to be putting some things in we should at least go to a standard to make sense some level of of development there so it's a little bit more difficult to have that conversation until we have all the pieces to be able to sit down and say say here's here's what we're thinking probably at this visioning exercise when we get all feedback and all we work through that obviously that would be a good time to and and that's kind of what my thought is is if we hold off so we we kind of know what what we think we want to see developed there we have more of a Target to shoot perfect thank you thank you for the update I had heard about that when you ask him I saw his face start to light up I you know I I remember that day very well for some reason anything else motion to adjourn motion second motion second all in favor s by saying I I