On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:22 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:24] in the Pledge of Allegiance.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3.a

   July 31, 2025 CRA Meeting Minutes

   approved

   The CRA Board approved the minutes from the July 31, 2025 CRA meeting.

   • motion:Approve the July 31, 2025 CRA meeting minutes. (passed)

   👤Baker#July 31, 2025 CRA Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:25 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:25] I think we'll go right to the approval of the minutes. [00:00:28] The July 31st, 2025 CRA meeting minutes. [00:00:36] For approval. [00:00:37] For approval. [00:00:38] I'll second. [00:00:39] And Baker? [00:00:41] I'm good. [00:00:42] Second. [00:00:43] I'm good, thank you. [00:00:44] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:00:46] Aye. Aye.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

4. 4.a

   Purchases/Payments for CRA Board Approval

   approvedon consent

   The CRA Board approved the consent agenda item for purchases/payments requiring CRA Board approval.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda for CRA purchases/payments. (passed)

   👤Baker

   ▶ Jump to 0:47 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:47] The consent agenda. [00:00:49] Go ahead with the proposal. [00:00:51] Move for approval. [00:00:53] Second. [00:00:55] I'll second. [00:00:55] Yep. Baker? [00:00:58] I'm good. [00:00:58] I'll second. [00:00:59] I'm good, thank you. [00:00:59] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:01:02] Aye. Aye.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 5.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)” — transcript expanded below

   Resolution No. 2025-41: Approval of FY2025-2026 CRA Operating Budget & Capital Projects

   approved

   The CRA Board considered Resolution 2025-41, adopting the FY2025-2026 CRA operating budget ($15,836,310 total revenue) and five-year capital work program ($5,990,000 in capital projects). Discussion centered on building permit fund segregation, the Schwetman building, the West Pasco Press Building demolition allocation, wayfinding signs, and concerns about unspent residential redevelopment incentive funds ($250,000) intended to complement the HUD housing rehabilitation program. The resolution was moved and seconded for approval.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2025-41

   • motion:Move to approve Resolution 2025-41 adopting the FY2025-2026 CRA operating budget and five-year work program. (passed)

   📍5853 Lafayette Street📍corner of Bank and Main🏢Aqua Harbor🏢Guardian🏢Pasco County🏢West Pasco Press👤Butler👤Laurie Baker👤Murphy#2016, 2020, and 2025 CRA debt service#CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)#CRA five-year work program#Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)#FY2025-2026 CRA Operating Budget#HUD housing rehabilitation program#Railroad Square project#Redevelopment incentives (business $1.9M / residential $250K)#Resolution 2025-41#Schwetman building#Tax increment financing (TIF)#Wayfinding signs

   ▶ Jump to 1:03 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:03] Five, nothing. [00:01:04] Resolution number 2025-41, [00:01:06] approval of the fiscal year 2025-2026 CRA operating budget [00:01:12] and capital projects. [00:01:13] This is resolution number 2025-41, a resolution of the City [00:01:17] of New Port Richey, Florida Community Redevelopment Agency, [00:01:21] a public body, corporate and politic, [00:01:23] adopting the 2025-2026 operating budget, [00:01:26] adopting the 2025-2026 five-year work program [00:01:30] for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City [00:01:33] of New Port Richey, Florida, and providing an effective date. [00:01:39] Thank you very much. [00:01:42] As indicated by the City Attorney, [00:01:44] this agenda item represents our fiscal year 2025-2026 operating [00:01:50] budget for our Community Redevelopment Agency budget, [00:01:57] and we do have an overview of that in a PowerPoint form, [00:02:05] and we're going to present that to you and respond [00:02:08] to any specific questions that you have, and it's consistent [00:02:14] with what's been presented to you in the past. [00:02:21] The CRA redevelopment fund is made up of, [00:02:27] there's no actual staff that's paid out of this fund, [00:02:31] but we do have a percentage of their pays allocated [00:02:34] to this department or this fund. [00:02:36] Twenty-five percent of the city manager's time is allocated, [00:02:40] and so is the salary and benefits, [00:02:42] along with the economic development director of 50 [00:02:45] percent and 25 percent of the marketing specialist time [00:02:49] and efforts that's put into the CRA. [00:02:57] Total revenue for the CRA in fiscal year 2025-2026 is $15,836,310. [00:03:08] The tax increment from the county is $4,686,360. [00:03:15] This is calculated at the county's millage rate [00:03:19] of 7.4292 mills. [00:03:22] This is consistent with their prior year. [00:03:25] Additional grant funding of $50,000 and interest [00:03:28] on investments of $90,000 have also been included [00:03:31] and estimated in the budget. [00:03:33] Surplus land sales consist of $2,090,000 [00:03:38] and contractual contributions of $149,000. [00:03:41] The transfer from the general fund for TIF is $5,172,590, [00:03:48] and that is consistent with the 8.2 mills. [00:03:51] The transfer from the street improvement fund totals $120,000, [00:03:56] and a rollover of prior year funds is $3,478,360. [00:04:02] This appears to be a much larger amount from prior years. [00:04:05] However, the majority of the rollover is consistent [00:04:11] with the railroad square project, [00:04:14] the funding of the railroad square project. [00:04:17] Total expenditures or total personnel expenditures $186,840. [00:04:23] Again, those personnel costs are an allocation from the division [00:04:29] that those personnel are allocated to in the general fund. [00:04:33] Next slide. [00:04:37] This one's a little hard to read, and I apologize. [00:04:40] The total operating expenditures $2,501,320. [00:04:46] The breakout is also included in the budget and also [00:04:50] as an additional attachment within the packet [00:04:54] that was provided to you for this evening's presentation. [00:04:56] Next slide. [00:05:04] Transfers out of the CRA, the transfer to the general funds [00:05:12] for services is $280,900. [00:05:15] Transfers to the general debt service totals $3,412,170. [00:05:22] Transfers to the water and sewer revenue fund total $420,240. [00:05:27] Transfers to the general fund [00:05:30] for the CRA loan totals $1,783,980. [00:05:36] For the parking garage, $265,000. [00:05:39] And the building department, $995,000. [00:05:43] The debt service consists of a 2016, a 2020, and the 2025 debt. [00:05:52] Next slide. [00:05:55] I think we skipped the capital project slide. [00:05:59] Yeah, I don't see it. [00:06:01] So let me. [00:06:03] Okay. So the capital projects [00:06:08] that are outlined here are also outlined [00:06:09] in our capital improvement plan. [00:06:11] The capital projects total $5,990,000. [00:06:15] These projects have not changed [00:06:17] from the final proposed CIP plan to you. [00:06:23] I'm prepared to answer any questions that you might have [00:06:25] on these projects or the expenditures in the CRA. [00:06:28] There have been no changes to the CRA. [00:06:33] I will note there was one change for the transfer [00:06:36] from the general fund TIF. [00:06:38] There was an adjustment to that transfer of, [00:06:44] from $5,168,000 to $5,172,000, which was an adjustment [00:06:50] to the total taxable value. [00:06:54] I would like to make one comment related [00:06:58] to the West Pasco Press Building. [00:07:00] The discussion for some time with Pasco County has been [00:07:05] that they would donate the building to the city. [00:07:08] The $25,000 appropriation in capital projects has been [00:07:14] to be used for the demolition of a building [00:07:18] on the property, not for the purchase. [00:07:22] My name is Laurie Baker, 5853 Lafayette Street. [00:07:33] It's just a question really. [00:07:35] Is it a coincidence or is the numbering for CRA resolutions [00:07:40] and the numbering for New Port Richey City [00:07:43] of resolutions just one pile of numbers [00:07:48] or is it just a coincidence that we went from 39 to 40 [00:07:55] to 41 for the CRA? [00:08:05] Do you have separate numbering system for the two [00:08:08] or is it just one numbering system whether it's CRA [00:08:11] or City of New Port Richey? [00:08:12] It is just one numbers, one numbering system. [00:08:15] Okay. [00:08:17] I see no one else come forward to bring it back [00:08:20] for discussion and vote. [00:08:23] Go ahead. [00:08:24] You want me to start? [00:08:26] I have a couple of notes. [00:08:28] I would look to, this is the, this was the issue [00:08:34] that I said I'd wait till the CRA on and it has to do [00:08:36] with the strategy of revenue going to the general fund [00:08:41] for the sale of property. [00:08:43] I know we've talked about some of the properties the city owns [00:08:46] that it can move, one particular being the development services [00:08:52] building for the county that's on the corner of Bank and Main [00:08:55] which has been traded for the Little League Field and now is [00:08:59] in the city's name which is prime spot for redevelopment, [00:09:03] whatever that might be there. [00:09:04] If that's one of them, I think it is. [00:09:06] I'm not sure and that is great. [00:09:09] The other item that's in there is [00:09:12] that the planning department fund is still called planning [00:09:16] department and it incorporates building permits [00:09:18] and building ideas which I've mentioned before need [00:09:21] to be segregated. [00:09:22] We can't use any of the building permit fees [00:09:25] for the general fund. [00:09:26] They have to be allocated for the purposes of that division [00:09:30] and we talked about doing it. [00:09:32] So I'll point out mechanically what I'm asking [00:09:35] to have considered and it doesn't have to be today [00:09:37] but I think it's something I would like to see amended [00:09:40] which is the revenue that's predicted [00:09:43] for the building permits is a million three. [00:09:47] A good bit of that I think when we look [00:09:48] in the CRA budget is the transfer from the CRA [00:09:52] for the building permits that we approved for the Aqua Harbor [00:09:56] and that was like 995,000. [00:10:00] I don't know how much of that is for Aqua Harbor but a good bit [00:10:02] of that must be for those permits. [00:10:05] If those permits are going to be restricted [00:10:08] to the building fund then you look at the expenses [00:10:11] of the planning department and it's, it would if all [00:10:14] that happened, if you divided those expenses [00:10:17] from planning department out, it would create a surplus [00:10:20] into the planning department's use or restricted funds [00:10:24] that would be in there for future year, for future time. [00:10:28] I would like to suggest that if we could get [00:10:30] and it's possible an agreement [00:10:33] that the CRA would pay the building permit fees [00:10:38] as an obligation to the city's general fund on the books [00:10:44] but that it doesn't have to transfer that money. [00:10:46] It's not going to be able [00:10:47] to be used towards your reserve requirement. [00:10:49] It's not going to be able to use for other items [00:10:51] but it is an asset on the books of the building side [00:10:54] and we should put all the cash we can into the projects [00:10:59] that we have. [00:11:01] As example, I see the Schwetman building on there [00:11:04] for the purchase primarily and some engineering [00:11:07] and it's the following year, the 26, 27 year when theoretically [00:11:12] and it will take that long undoubtedly [00:11:14] for engineering going out for proposals, [00:11:16] see what the process is for any kind [00:11:19] of major improvements at the property. [00:11:22] And I think it's one of the key elements of the purchase [00:11:27] of that by the CRA will be the cost of operating it. [00:11:30] And there are willing people who have called and said, [00:11:33] we'd like to occupy that space as it is now if it's all right [00:11:38] and it would need an inspection. [00:11:41] But if the inspection says that you could use that property [00:11:44] and it's going to require some effort, [00:11:46] then I'm going to be the first one to say, [00:11:48] let's unpark the money that can't be used but leave it [00:11:53] on the books for them. [00:11:54] And since we've made an obligation of that to help, [00:11:59] it's not going to help the restricted funds [00:12:01] because it will be restricted. [00:12:03] And so, it doesn't help that part of the strategy [00:12:07] that was part of I think the thinking. [00:12:10] That's all on that end that I have to say. [00:12:14] And again, you know, it's exciting [00:12:16] that we're all going to sit down as a collective body with staff [00:12:19] and administration and you'll have some extra time [00:12:22] on your hands with hopefully some help to take on some [00:12:25] of the burden that you have [00:12:27] so that we can really have that planning up function [00:12:32] over the first three, six months of this next year [00:12:35] so before we get past the spring. [00:12:38] We have determined how soon we can let folks into that building [00:12:43] to start functioning in some way. [00:12:45] So I'm excited. [00:12:47] I wanted to point that out. [00:12:48] I think that's another potential way for us [00:12:51] to free some more investment money because as we can invest it, [00:12:55] we shouldn't be held back in trying [00:12:57] to turn this $7 million worth of real estate we have all [00:13:00] over the place into some kind of productive return back [00:13:03] to us by getting it done. [00:13:05] I heard Mr. Murphy, one of our colleagues on the CRA Board, [00:13:15] talk about what was going to happen at Highway 19 [00:13:19] at some kind of a fair that you went to that I wasn't invited [00:13:22] to for some reason, I'm not sure. [00:13:24] It was a partisan thing. [00:13:27] It was the elephants in the house or something, [00:13:29] elephant in the room thing. [00:13:32] I'm happy that you were able to talk to them [00:13:35] and explain what you thought would happen but it's [00:13:37] like we can have some retail, we can have some of this. [00:13:39] So as we're envisioning things, [00:13:41] we need to see those visions bubble up so that we have progress [00:13:45] and I think this is one way to supplement [00:13:48] which you already have. [00:13:50] The way finding signs are another thing I'd [00:13:52] like to talk about before they go into place. [00:13:54] I don't think we've had a lot of discussion but it sounds [00:13:56] like we're pushing businesses [00:13:57] and spending a couple hundred thousand dollars in that effort [00:14:00] and we've got to find our way before we put the way finding [00:14:06] signs up as far as making sure that we know where we're going [00:14:10] and what's going on so. [00:14:12] But I look forward to those meetings. [00:14:13] I know we talked about it at the budget [00:14:15] or at the Tuesday meeting and so I'm very encouraged [00:14:18] that this is going to be the year of the tiger. [00:14:22] I don't know, year, some kind of year. [00:14:24] No. [00:14:24] Thank you. [00:14:24] Yeah, the redevelopment incentive at the top, [00:14:27] the classifications for operating [00:14:28] for a redevelopment fund, can you talk a little bit [00:14:32] about those what the delineation is between the 1.9 million [00:14:37] and the 250,000? [00:14:38] That would be 449,000. [00:14:41] 233, very top. [00:14:42] And then the other one is the redevelopment incentive [00:14:45] for the 250,000. [00:14:47] That would be 449,000. [00:14:49] 233, very top. [00:14:57] And the account number. [00:15:00] Gravity doesn't like the account coding, but the redevelopment incentives for the [00:15:04] first line item of 1.9 million is business incentives, and the second line [00:15:08] item of 250,000 is residential incentives. Item there, the redevelopment [00:15:14] incentives for residential, I do recall last year that the council had adopted a [00:15:19] $300,000 budget. I don't see that reflected here. Did something occur? [00:15:25] And maybe I'm mistaken on that, but I'm pretty sure we did have that there. [00:15:31] And just as a reminder, I know we have our CWG, hopefully, getting [00:15:38] underway here. I want to say I saw it on an agenda vote coming up on the City [00:15:43] Council side, but before our former Economic Development Director left, I [00:15:48] made it pretty clear on the record, and I feel like I got a little bit of [00:15:51] consensus and support from the City Council on the idea of starting some [00:15:56] sort of redevelopment with those funds in terms of residential. I know [00:15:59] Mr. Murphy has said on occasion from the council side that he wants to see some [00:16:04] of that, you know, our neighborhoods be addressed too. I don't want to speak for [00:16:07] him, but I feel like that's what I've heard. And so I would be disappointed to [00:16:13] say if that $300,000 was not used, or a program was not developed, [00:16:17] because I know we didn't vote on any type of program, and I'm not sure [00:16:21] beyond our nice neighborhood improvement community funds [00:16:27] through the code enforcement. Other than that, I don't know if the budget was used [00:16:32] this year, and with hurricanes and everything, I know it fell on my radar to [00:16:36] keep pushing the City Manager on it, but I do I just want to make it aware to [00:16:39] council that if that $250,000 is reflected there, I plan on pushing hard to see what [00:16:44] that turns into, whether it's curb enhancement, or roofs, or what the plan [00:16:48] is for it, and what council thinks the plan for it should be. But to my question, [00:16:54] I think I got a little bit off track there, was there $300,000 there, and [00:16:58] did we end up doing anything with a program of any sort with $300,000? I will [00:17:05] have to get you an answer on that. To answer why there's no [00:17:12] numbers here, that has to do with an import into our gravity software, and the [00:17:17] object codes off to the left are similar, or are the same, so it looks like it [00:17:22] cleared out those amounts, but we can get the actuals for you. Okay, thank you. [00:17:27] Less than $300,000, and the intention was to use it in conjunction with the [00:17:33] housing rehabilitation program. There are a number of improvements that aren't [00:17:39] eligible under the housing rehabilitation program that people need, [00:17:43] and we wanted to be able to couple the CRA program with the housing [00:17:49] rehabilitation program, so that it could be a more comprehensive program, and when [00:17:56] people were serviced by the program, they could get all of what they needed to [00:18:00] have tended to done at one time. And so, as we're going through and developing [00:18:07] the scope of services that are to be implemented at each of the properties, and [00:18:13] that's what's being done now through Guardian, who is our service provider for [00:18:20] the program. We're determining what work can be done outside of what HUD will [00:18:28] allow, so that funding source is what we're relying on in the CRA to do things [00:18:34] like garages or curb appeal, items that wouldn't necessarily be eligible under [00:18:41] the program, or it may be an item that's in excess of the dollar amount [00:18:49] that would be allowed to be spent on one property based on the SEB, and so that's [00:18:57] another way that we're spending, or planning to obligate the CRA funds to [00:19:03] support neighborhood improvements at this time. [00:19:06] Great, I appreciate that answer. It seems very substantive. Mr. Mayor, if I may, two [00:19:11] follow-up questions for the City Manager, and please feel free to [00:19:15] Council chime in here, because I'm going to make kind of a pitch, and it's my hope [00:19:19] that you guys can chime in on your thoughts. Yes, sir. So, on that [00:19:26] $250,000 with, I know we went through a cycle of CBDG that ended up, there was [00:19:33] something with the state, and then we had to have everyone reapply. For those that [00:19:38] did not reapply, I know of at least one resident, and we've had a brief [00:19:43] conversation about them before, who just, you know, didn't, you know, applied the [00:19:48] first time, never reapplied, wanted to reapply. I know you were working on me [00:19:54] with that. It was my turn to get back to you. I hadn't gotten back to you yet. [00:19:57] Obviously, our list with the contractor, consultant, that's done. [00:20:04] Is it possible under CRA to use these funds, or, you know, a portion of them, to, [00:20:12] if there was someone that applied the first time, not the second time, to then [00:20:17] appeal to these funds for use for those HUD-approved criteria? And to just be [00:20:24] very frank about the example, this is someone's roof that needs repaired, that [00:20:28] was told they would be getting funds during the first cycle, did not reapply, [00:20:34] but still needs that roof done. And why I bring it up in this context is [00:20:39] prioritizing. Obviously, there's plenty of need for neighborhood redevelopment, but [00:20:43] I feel especially concerned for people who did their due diligence the [00:20:47] first time, who then were penalized because they had to reapply, missed it. [00:20:51] How can we help them since they did do their due diligence? [00:20:56] I see this more as an individual situation than talking about the budget itself. [00:21:00] It's a, well, there was at least half, I want to say, of the CBDG people that [00:21:05] didn't reapply. It was like 30 applicants, and then it went down to 17 or something [00:21:08] like that. That's what I recall. Maybe the number is slightly off. So it's [00:21:13] substantial enough to, the larger policy question is, we're talking about, and I [00:21:17] didn't bring up CBDG in the context of HUD. I mean, that was the proposal that [00:21:21] she suggested, that what those areas that HUD wouldn't cover. So I'm piggybacking [00:21:26] off of that to say, okay, if we're also, if we're covering the areas that HUD [00:21:30] doesn't necessarily have criteria for, can we also have this be an extension of [00:21:36] the existing CDBG? Does CRA allow for that? What I can tell you is I would [00:21:41] encourage you to get that name and phone number to me, because there's a [00:21:43] number of funding sources, and based on the degree of severity of the roof [00:21:50] repair, there may be something that can help this homeowner probably pretty [00:21:54] quickly. So I encourage you to get that information to me, and let me see what we [00:22:00] can do to get them the assistance that they need. I appreciate that. I just want [00:22:07] to also stress that I want to see these funds used as well. So your conversation [00:22:12] would be with us in terms of the budget, and you're asking for more money to be [00:22:16] put into the budget? No, I'm asking the money we had already budgeted to be [00:22:19] spent, because we budgeted this last year and the year before, and all three years [00:22:24] now, we just keep... So what I'm getting at is, it's not reflected here, but last [00:22:33] year, I want to say it was three hundred thousand, and the year before that it was [00:22:36] two hundred fifty thousand, and each year we keep adopting this two hundred [00:22:40] fifty thousand, and it's not being spent. And so I'm assuming the three hundred thousand, or the city [00:22:46] manager's suggesting it was less, from last year is in that rollover amount, and [00:22:51] but it's not being reflected here as having previously been budgeted, which is [00:22:57] just a technical thing, but my point I'm trying to raise is I want to see that [00:23:01] money either spent, or an explanation for why it hasn't been getting spent. If [00:23:07] we're building up for some sort of program we agreed on to build, but this [00:23:11] is the first, I think this is the first time I've gotten a substantive answer, [00:23:13] which is, since I brought it up last year, which was we want this to complement HUD, [00:23:17] so my follow-up, or the extension of CDBG, so my follow-up extension is [00:23:24] what exactly that looked like before we approved two hundred fifty thousand [00:23:28] dollars. And I think I've gotten enough of an answer, I just don't want this to [00:23:33] turn into, I'm going to give you that one resident name, and we don't really talk [00:23:37] about how this 250 is going to be used, because the goal, that you're right, this [00:23:41] isn't about that one resident, that was just a case study, the larger point here [00:23:46] is how are we going to spend this 250, and if we're saying, if we agree with the [00:23:49] whole idea of it being a extension for things not covered under the CDBG, I'm [00:23:54] fine with that, I'm comfortable with that, I just want to make sure it's actually, we [00:23:57] get that done. Right, but the bigger point I think you're trying to make is [00:24:01] that neighborhood improvement needs to be a priority in the city, and that's one [00:24:06] of the reasons that we hit so hard when the county got their five hundred eighty [00:24:12] five million dollars, we asked for, I think, four different housing programs to [00:24:19] be supported in the city, and I have had recent conversation with the county [00:24:24] about those programs, and they have funded their housing programs very [00:24:30] strongly, and so I do think it's good news, and I can pass it along to you at [00:24:37] this time, that they have opened up the programs, and it will be before the end [00:24:42] of the year that we'll have access to those funds to be able to implement [00:24:47] housing programs that are going to provide direct assistance to our [00:24:52] homeowners that need or want to make housing improvements, other than [00:25:00] just the HUD program. Do I have a move on the 2025-41 resolution? I'll move to [00:25:06] approve it, move to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second. Anything else from the [00:25:13] maker? Just to say, if there was a technical error there, that I'll find it [00:25:19] in the digital one. I don't think it's necessary to reprint every single page, [00:25:22] so I'll just find it in the... Okay. You know, I kind of, you know, agree with [00:25:29] Councilman Butler, you know, I mean, he's just wanting to make sure that, you [00:25:34] know, we've got money there, let's use it. Let's not let it go by the wayside, so I [00:25:39] agree with that, and I think that kind of goes across the board with everything, [00:25:43] and sometimes we do these budgets, the money's there, not everybody knows it's [00:25:48] there, so it kind of gets left, and this goes with a lot of things, so I just [00:25:53] think if maybe we can maybe let people know a little bit better what's [00:25:57] available to them, I think, you know, we can be a little bit more productive on [00:26:01] doing that, so that's all I have for that. I agree, and I really would like to see [00:26:09] it, you know, a nice residential program, you know, a big fat one, put it that way, [00:26:15] so that people really see that we are trying to give back and help, and to [00:26:20] the community, I just think it's a right thing to do, and I really want to [00:26:25] see that. Also, looking at all these projects we have coming out of the [00:26:30] CRA, I mean, there's so many, and a lot of them have been out there for a [00:26:35] while, and it's nice seeing that they're finally getting completed. [00:26:40] 2028, we got over 14 million dollars going out for projects, so pretty [00:26:46] exciting. A lot of changes in the next five years. Yes, sir. First of all, I'm [00:26:56] going to look back at the budget and the minutiae of the administrative or the [00:27:02] expenses, and I'm seeing things like our insurance is pretty stable, our water and [00:27:12] sewer bills are pretty stable, our electric for city facilities are pretty [00:27:16] stable. Actually went down a little bit, and so it begs the question that once we, [00:27:25] because we haven't talked about it yet, once we purchase in October with a full [00:27:30] year ahead of us the Schweppan building, that's going to need to be either air [00:27:34] conditioned and fixed and funds spent on it. So I'll double down again to say when [00:27:40] we learn what those expenses are, I really want us to be able to turn to the [00:27:45] group that's been here just itching and begging to get involved, including folks [00:27:50] like St. Leo University who said, once you close on it, let me know. We'd like to [00:27:53] start having some classes and doing some things here. So I think from a [00:27:59] budget management standpoint, we're going to need to add a little bit of revenue, [00:28:04] and I don't think we want to, I think we want the revenue to be focused on [00:28:10] helping to cover the cost of the building and not trying to look at fair [00:28:14] market revenue or whatever, but saying okay, and Mr. Chairman, you mentioned it [00:28:20] at one point, you said now go find us some money. I think it's going to be up [00:28:24] to us to figure out how to put our applications in. On the second side of [00:28:29] that, that $580 million, that area where that is, is in the average minimum [00:28:37] household income qualified zone, and some of the things that might happen on that [00:28:43] property could be of very much interest and qualify under economic [00:28:47] development. There's money for planning, there's other things that the county [00:28:51] has, so it's important that we do use that group to help us to identify funds [00:28:58] and get those funds applied if some of them are only going to be open for us to [00:29:02] get to in the next six or eight months. So I think all of the other priorities [00:29:06] aside, if there's that much money out there, instead of us worrying about going [00:29:11] after uncertain things, we really should be pressing hard to figure out how we [00:29:16] can start to accomplish something at that building. I know already that [00:29:21] the quilters, the university, the historic society, all of our nonprofits are [00:29:28] interested. So that first money we spend ought to be spent on is it safe? Is it [00:29:35] safe to use? And how much is it going to cost to operate? And let's put the [00:29:40] challenge out to the community to say if it's functional, while we're planning for [00:29:45] a year and a half to get those funds or do major renovations, let's bring it to [00:29:51] life if we can, you know, even if it's events out on the on the property or [00:29:55] market days. [00:30:00] we can get from the library with their market days or from the rec center with [00:30:03] with their staff is allocable to that property because it's it's new property [00:30:10] and it needs to be maintained just like we do with the parking garage so that [00:30:14] just leads me to say the parking garage is like a big number and I believe [00:30:19] there's a revenue stream in here somewhere that we would get back from [00:30:23] them or am I wrong is it take a half a million to run that parking garage and [00:30:28] this is our share? No, you're correct there is a revenue stream that comes [00:30:33] back into the parking structure we have two lease tenants that pay rent to the [00:30:41] city for use of the parking structure and revenues. That may be the contractual [00:30:47] contributions that you're talking about then the hundred and fifty thousand it [00:30:51] helps offset that two hundred and some thousand so that makes it a little nicer [00:30:55] it allows us to operate it so that's that's good news finally the ads and [00:31:00] marketing you've got $25,000 and you talked about using a percentage of the [00:31:04] marketer's salary so I would just want to make sure that when we do study the [00:31:10] statutory limitations for marketing that we make sure that whenever we do market [00:31:16] that we're marketing the CRA because there's there's a way to do it but you [00:31:20] have to make sure that if you have an event it's an event to tell people about [00:31:24] there's some kind of table or it's a perp the purpose is for them and our [00:31:29] residents really are going to need to understand this when they see all of [00:31:33] this gingerbread going up because I'm sure every one of us has heard somebody [00:31:38] say oh man you're spending all this money on this other stuff government [00:31:41] should just you know not be doing it and I think the public being educated to [00:31:47] understand the reason we're doing this is a good it has to be some kind of a [00:31:52] tagline to whatever we do in marketing and so I think that's all I can say [00:31:58] those if those expenses are going up there's a bunch of volunteers out there [00:32:02] that are just begging if they're allowed and they can get in there and we can [00:32:06] make a legal you know activity that we're comfortable with to start [00:32:11] bringing that building back to life I think so that's my pitch for them so [00:32:16] thank you mr. mayor or mr. chairman okay I just want to say that um we have [00:32:22] like um 10 committees in this town and I think once we buy Swetman there'll be [00:32:27] 11 committees you know just kind of focus on that so whether it's bringing [00:32:32] in money or bringing in ideas or usage or whatever we'll get a lot they put [00:32:36] from the community so all those in favor [00:32:42] I see on here for the Marine Parkway pedestrian pedestrian bridge we're

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 6Communications▶ 32:43
7. 7Adjournment▶ 41:55