GIVES ME SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.
[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET THIS STARTED.LET'S CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
THIS IS REGULAR MEETING 2020 405 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD.
CAN WE START WITH A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? CHAIR. PRESENT VICE CHAIR.
YEAH. PRESENT. I COULDN'T HEAR HER.
SORRY. BOARD MEMBER FELIX HERE.
HERE. BOARD MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ON.
WE HAVE NO MINUTES TO APPROVE THIS EVENING.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. I'M SEEING NONE.
[NEW BUSINESS]
SO THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH ARE THE AD HOC PRIORITIES.I'M GOING TO TURN THAT OVER TO STAFF.
GO AHEAD. I'LL DO THIS. GOOD EVENING.
AS PER ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE AD HAC PRIORITIES AS THE BOARD AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IN THE AREAS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE MEMO.
THE REPORT IS DUE BACK IS DUE TO THE STATE ON DECEMBER 31ST.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE GAME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS SO THAT WHEN YOU DO SUBMIT THE REPORTS, WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THE REPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO MEET TO CONSIDER THE INCENTIVE STRATEGIES.
HOW WOULD THE BOARD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THAT? DO WE WANT TO GO ONE BY ONE THROUGH EACH INCENTIVE, OR DID SOMEONE HAVE ONE THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS FOR POSSIBLE CHANGES? I DEFINITELY HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON SOME OF THEM.
OKAY. DO WE WANT TO GO ONE BY ONE THEN? OKAY, LET'S DO THAT.
SIDNEY, DO YOU WANT TO READ THROUGH EACH ONE? OKAY, ABSOLUTELY. SO THE FIRST ONE, PROCESSING OF APPROVALS OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS OR PERMITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IS EXPEDITED TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN OTHER PROJECTS AS PROVIDED IN STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 163.
31776F3. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? AND HOW ARE WE CURRENTLY MAKING MEASURING THAT.
SO BASED ON OUR LAST MEETING, I DID REACH OUT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, JOHN PEARSON, AND I WENT AHEAD AND I ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE US SOME INFORMATION AND TO REMIND HIM THAT WE HAD THE FORMS FOR THOSE PERMIT REDUCTION FEES AND TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOW, REMEMBER THAT ALL THE UNITS HAVE IT HAS TO BE 100% OF THE UNITS HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEY HAVE TO BE FUNDED WITH CDBG, HOME SHIP OR ARPA TO MOVE FORWARD TO QUALIFY.
SO THAT IS BEING LOOKED AT BECAUSE WE ARE REVISING OUR PROCESS A LITTLE BIT.
AND AS FAR AS TODAY, ONLY VOA HAS DONE THAT.
WE TALK ABOUT IT AT LENGTH WITH DEVELOPERS WHEN WE TALK TO CONTRACTORS AND THEY KNOW THROUGH THE REHAB PROGRAM, HEY, FILL OUT THIS FORM WHEN YOU GO AHEAD AND FILL IT OUT AND THE BUILDING DIRECTOR OR I'M SORRY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL EVEN SAID IF THEY CAN'T FILL OUT THE FORM, AT LEAST WE'LL VET IT THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT.
AND I'M GOOD WITH THAT AS WELL.
SO IF THEY AREN'T RECEIVING FUNDING THROUGH THOSE SOURCES AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING FUNDING THROUGH SOMEWHERE ELSE OR THEIR PRIVATE FUNDING, BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO DO AFFORDABLE, NO, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN.
[00:05:07]
IT HAS TO BE CDBG SHIP HOME ARPA WHAT THE CITY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT DEVELOPERS HAVE RECEIVED FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES UNLESS THEY TELL US. AND IF IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE THAT WE MANAGE, WE HAVE NO WAY OF BECAUSE IT'S NOT A GRANT THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH.IT HAS TO BE GRANTS THAT THE CITY IS FAMILIAR WITH CDBG HOME SHIP ARPA.
SO IF THEY'RE FUNDED THROUGH THE STATE FOR THROUGH LIKE IF THEY DO FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND THEY RECEIVE SALE OR OTHER FUNDING THROUGH THEM, THAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS WELL, BECAUSE THOSE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LOCAL CONTRIBUTION.
SO THEY WOULD COME THROUGH A SHIP.
WE WE'VE HAD SEVERAL THAT WE WEREN'T IN PALM BAY KNOW, IN OTHER CITIES THERE.
SO FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DOES NOT REQUIRE LOCAL FUNDING.
THERE IS A TIEBREAKER THAT WILL GIVE THEM AN EXTRA POINT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TIE.
IF THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LOCAL FUNDING OR THE CITY DONATES THE LAND.
BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT TO TO WIN AN RFA THROUGH THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.
THEY SHOULD BE RIGHT. BUT IF A FUNDER HAS FUNDING THAT, MAYBE THEY'RE JUST GETTING REGULAR 4% NON COMPETITIVE TAX CREDITS, BUT THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO DO SOME AFFORDABLE.
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT STAFF CAPACITY IS HERE FOR CDBG HOME SHIP ARPA.
THE CURRENT GRANTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF CAPACITY TO BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THE GRANT INSIDE AND OUT, A GRANT THAT WE'RE NOT ADMINISTERING TO BE ABLE TO VET THOSE OTHER KINDS OF FUNDING.
I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S VETTING FUNDING, THOUGH.
IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT EXPEDITED PERMITTING, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE GOING BY IS OUR LAP.
WHAT WE'RE GOING BY IS WHAT THE STATE IS TELLING US.
AND THIS IS THIS A THIS BULLET A IS COMING STRAIGHT OUT OF THE RUG.
IT'S COMING STRAIGHT OUT OF WHAT'S IN THE LAW, WHAT'S IN THE FLORIDA STATUTE.
SO SOMEWHERE IN 63.3177 6F3, IT STATES IT HAS TO BE FROM THE CITY.
FUNDING. SO WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THE PROCESSING OF APPROVALS OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS OR PERMITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IS EXPEDITED TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN OTHER PROJECTS, AS PROVIDED IN STATUTE 16331776F3.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING BY.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
UNLESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING IS STATUTES ONE SIX, THREE SOMEWHERE IN THERE, DOES IT SPECIFICALLY SAY IN ORDER FOR IT TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXPEDITED TO THE GREATER DEGREE THAT IT HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY FUNDED BY THOSE CITY FUNDS.
THIS IS FOR SHIP, THE STATE HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
SO THIS IS WHAT REGULATES FOR US AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING.
THIS ISN'T FOR A DEVELOPER THAT GOT FUNDING FROM THIS OTHER SOURCE THAT NOW STAFF HAS TO GO OUT AND OBTAIN ALL THE KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW THAT GRANT IN ORDER TO KNOW.
YES. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE VETTED.
ALL RIGHT. SO THIS JUST GOVERNS YOUR SHIP FUNDING.
THIS IS FOR THE AHRC REPORT IBIS.
I'M STILL. MY BRAIN STILL HURTS.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD GIVE ME A CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, SO CURRENTLY AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY CAN GET EXPEDITED PERMITTING.
YES, IF ALL OF THE UNITS IF THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
OKAY. NOW, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT BY FLORIDA STATUTE? THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SAYING.
OKAY. YES. SO THERE'S THE CITY REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
CORRECT. WHAT WE'VE DONE WE'VE IMPLEMENTED.
YOU MEAN TO CHANGE IT IS IT IS THE CITY IS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED.
[00:10:04]
YES. RIGHT.AND IS IT IMPLEMENTED ON A RENEWAL BASIS? IS IT THE IMPLEMENTATION? IS IT STILL GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE IN SIX MONTHS? TWO YEARS? FIVE YEARS? YES, SIR. WE DO THIS REPORT EVERY YEAR.
YEAH, BUT IT CAN'T JUST BE STRAIGHT AFFORDABLE.
IT HAS TO BE FUNDED THROUGH THE CITY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR.
IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND HAS A 100% OF THEIR UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE.
THEY CANNOT BE EXPEDITED IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THEY GET EXPEDITED.
EXACTLY. BUT YOU JUST SAID THEY HAD TO BE FUNDED THROUGH CDBG.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE PROJECT ITSELF HAS TO HAVE THAT FUNDING CHIP HOME CDBG.
AMI AND I DON'T NEED ANY MONEY FROM THE CITY, THEN THEY DON'T GET THAT EXPEDITED.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET CLEAR.
HOW WOULD THE CITY MEASURE THAT? THEY WOULD COME AND SAY, WE'RE DOING ALL OF OUR UNITS AT 60% AMI.
AND I, THEY WOULD SUBMIT WHATEVER.
SO SO NORMALLY IF, IF LET'S SAY THEY HAVE CDBG FUNDING, HOW LONG DO YOU MONITOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY, THEY ARE STAYING AT THE AMIS THAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO STAY AT IN ORDER TO GET THE FUNDING? IF WE'RE APPROVING THEM FOR FUNDING, IT WOULD BE STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT HOW LONG WE'RE GOING TO DO THE MONITORING.
WE COULD TRACK IT, WE CAN REPORT IT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TRACK BECAUSE WE'RE ADMINISTERING THAT GRANT.
LET'S SAY IN THE LAST 24 MONTHS, HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS HAVE COME BEFORE THE CITY? A TEN 1520 634.
FOR THE PERMITTING FOR THE EXPEDITED PERMITTING.
YES. ONE VOA BECAUSE WE JUST IMPLEMENTED THIS EXPEDITED PERMITTING IN OCTOBER OF 2023, JUST JUST ONE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
OKAY, I OKAY, I HAVE I HAVE LET HIM FINISH.
HOLD ON ONE SECOND. NO REASON I MAY ASK THAT QUESTION IS LIKE, LET'S TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DAIRY QUEEN THAT'S COMING IN ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT THERE WAS A WINDOW OF TIME WHEN IT WAS BEING REVIEWED.
NOW. THAT DEVELOPER HAS LOAN COMMITMENTS WHICH EXPIRE AFTER A WHILE, AND JUST HIS WATER SEWER IMPACT FEES ARE $40,000.
NOW, IF I WERE DOING THAT PROJECT AND I WAS CHECKING IN TO SEE HOW THE REVIEW STATUS IS GOING, AND I'M BEING TOLD, WELL, WE HAD TO PUT IT ON HOLD BECAUSE SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAD AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT COME IN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR.
NOW, FORTUNATELY, WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE OF THESE PROJECTS COMING IN.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCILS EVER HAD THIS KIND OF DEPTH OF DIALOG ON GIVING, YOU KNOW WELL AND ON LOOKING AT IT LIKE I LOOK AT IT.
MISS BETTER. YES, I WAS GOING TO COMMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE PROCESS FOR APPROVAL.
WE HAD A CONTRACTOR AND I'M GOING TO SPECIFY CRYSTAL PALACE THAT HAD MADE AN APPLICATION HERE AND DID NOT PURSUE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE THEY FELT THE PROCESS WAS NOT ONLY CUMBERSOME, UNFRIENDLY AND NOT CLEAR.
SO I DO SAY THAT I THINK THE PROCESS ITSELF NEEDS TO BE SPELLED OUT BETTER FOR FOLKS WHO ARE COMING INTO THIS CITY TO DO THIS, BECAUSE IF WE WANT SUCCESS, WE NEED TO PROVIDE AN AVENUE AND A PATHWAY FOR THIS.
I DO NOT SEE THAT THE CONTRACTORS WHO WANT TO INVEST MONEY IN OUR CITY IF THEY LOSE MONEY.
[00:15:01]
AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY ON WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING FROM DAY ONE.AND COMING BEFORE US TO LOOK FOR FUNDS.
THESE FOLKS NEED TO BE PREPPED BETTER, I THINK, FOR SUCCESS.
BECAUSE IF WE WANT FOLKS WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HERE BEFORE TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THESE FUNDS OR TO ENCOURAGE THIS TYPE OF BUILDING IN OUR CITY, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER PROCESS.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS SHARED BY OTHER BUILDERS, NOT JUST ONE.
BUT I'VE HEARD THIS FROM MANY.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND AS AS IT PERTAINS TO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON HERE TO MISS BEARD'S POINT THAT MAYBE WE INCLUDE IN THAT LANGUAGE THAT YES, WE DO HAVE AN EXPEDITED PERMITTING PROCESS, BUT IT'S ONLY RELATED TO PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE CITY OF PALM BAY.
BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY THAT THIS READS, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING, YEAH, THE CITY ALREADY HAS A PROCESS, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IT ONLY INCLUDES PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE PALM BAY FUNDING.
I UNDERSTAND MISS BEARD'S POINT, BECAUSE IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF PRIVATE FUNDER THAT'S NOT ASKING FOR CITY FUNDING, IN MY OPINION THEY SHOULD STILL BE RECEIVING EXPEDITED PERMITTING REVIEW. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE MONITORING ASPECT OF IT.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THAT OR OBJECTION? I AGREE WITH THAT.
YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS TO COME TO THE CITY AND SAY WE WERE DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY FUNDING FROM YOU THAT THE CITY WOULD SAY, COME SEE OUR BOARD FOR AT LEAST THE $100,000 THAT WE CAN APPROVE FOR SHIP FUNDING.
YES. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT STAFF WOULD SAY, HEY, LET'S LET'S MAKE SURE WE CAN GET YOU THE BENEFITS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO PUT THAT IN THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WOULD HOPE THAT WHEN THEY'RE PREPPED TO COME HERE, THAT THEY'RE PREPPED FOR SUCCESS VERSUS WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST FROM FOLKS WHO ARE NOT FROM HERE OR HAVE HAD OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
JUST SAYING WHAT'S WHAT'S OUR CURRENT PROCESS? SHOULD SOMEBODY, A NEW APPLICANT IN REFERENCE TO CRYSTAL PALACE, WHAT'S THE CURRENT PROCESS? SHOULD THEY NEED INFORMATION? I WOULD IMAGINE YOUR OFFICE IS RIGHT OPEN RIGHT TO PROVIDE THAT ANYTHING AND INSERT A QUESTION.
ABSOLUTELY. SO MEET WITH DEVELOPERS ALL THE TIME SIR.
I BELIEVE KNOWING HOW TO GET THE INFORMATION, I THINK THAT'S KEY.
BUT I TRULY WANT TO BELIEVE THAT ALL STAFF ARE READILY AVAILABLE AND WILLING TO TALK TO ANY APPLICANT THAT ARE BRINGING PROJECTS INTO OUR CITY.
SORRY. EXCUSE ME. TO TO MADAM CHAIR'S POINT.
I DO AGREE TO MAKE SOME CLARIFICATION TO TO TO THE FIRST ITEM HERE.
CLARIFY BECAUSE I WASN'T QUITE SURE MYSELF.
AND SHE MADE A GOOD ARGUMENT AS FAR AS SHOULD A DEVELOPER COME IN FULLY FUNDED.
HOW DO WE GO ABOUT, HEY, I WANT TO DO 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I DON'T NECESSARILY NECESSARILY NEED THE CITY MONEY.
YOU KNOW, SHOULD I WOULD SAY DEFINITELY.
WE SHOULD ROLL THE RED CARPET FOR THEM.
THESE ARE THE KIND OF DEVELOPER WILL LIKE.
YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY ROLL THE RED CARPET IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE, OF THE TERM.
SO THAT THAT WOULD BE MY, MY STANCE.
SO HOWEVER WE CAN MODIFY AND ADD TO THE LANGUAGE, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
OKAY. ARE WE GOOD ON NUMBER ONE? ALL RIGHT, JUST ONE MORE OTHER COMMENT.
IF WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT FOR THE DEVELOPER, THAT IS GOING TO GET QUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY QUALIFIED TO GET EXPEDITED, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DOCUMENT FOR THAT DEVELOPER THAT CLEARLY LAYS OUT A STEP BY STEP.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. THIRD, THIS IS WHO YOU CONTACT AT THIS POINT.
[00:20:06]
IS. I KNOW PALM BAY HAS A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING.THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT STANDARD IN EVERY CITY.
AND THAT SHOULD BE LIKE ON A TIMELINE.
SO THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS BASED ON THEIR FUNDING, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN ISSUE WHERE THAT THAT MEETING FALLS IN THE TIMELINE THAT PALM BAY HAS SET FORTH.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
THAT WOULD BE A DOCUMENT THAT THIS BOARD COULD LOOK AT AND HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER FOR TRANSPARENCY, AS WELL AS A CONTACT AT EACH STATE OF THAT TIMELINE OF WHO THEY WOULD CONTACT, LIKE IF THEY WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR PERMITS ARE, WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, WHAT DOCUMENTATIONS NEED TO BE FILLED OUT.
YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HAVE A UTILITY AGREEMENT THAT HAS TO ALSO BE PAID PRIOR TO GETTING THE MEETING.
SO THERE'S SOME STEPS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN IN A SPECIFIC ORDER WITH PALM BAY THAT I THINK WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU GUYS HAD A DOCUMENT THAT STATED ALL OF THAT, I SECOND THAT. GOOD IDEA.
RIGHT? LIKE EVEN ANY DEVELOPER.
YEAH, BUT IF I CAN ADD I KNOW WE HAD PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.
THERE'S A POINT OF CONTACT WITHIN THE CITY.
AND I THINK THIS WE HAD PREVIOUS DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE COUNCIL OUR CONVERSATION IN TERMS OF MAKE PUTTING SPECIFIC FUNDING TO HAVE THAT THAT PERSON WITHIN THAT CAN REALLY LIAISON THAT SUPPORT PRETERM BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS WHERE THAT SOMEBODY THAT CAN CONNECT THE DOT AND BE THAT POINT OF CONTACT FOR THAT, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF I DON'T CERTAINLY WE HAVEN'T IMPLEMENTED IT YET, BUT THAT'S A CONVERSATION INTERNALLY WE HAD I THINK THERE STILL SHOULD BE A CHECKLIST AS DESCRIBED TO BE INCORPORATED ALONG WITH WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.
COUNCILMAN. I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, ABOUT 20, 25 YEARS AGO, THE CITY DID HAVE A SPECIAL STAFF PERSON WITH DEVELOPMENT AND NO PLANNING EXPERIENCE, ETC.
I FORGET THE EXACT TERM, BUT HE HE WAS SOMEBODY THAT KNEW ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, KNEW THE DEPARTMENTS, WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ORDINANCES.
AND LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, I GET A LOT OF CALLS ON SOME OF MY PROPERTIES FROM PEOPLE WANTING TO PUT FOOD TRUCKS ON THERE. NOW THAT'S COMPLICATED DECISION.
AND I TELL THEM TO CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL GOT TO TALK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, PERHAPS PUBLIC WORKS.
NOW, IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY, IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER, AT LEAST FOR ME.
AND FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO ESPECIALLY DO COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IS YOU CONTACT THIS PERSON HERE, AND HE'LL HELP YOU OUT.
AND I KNOW IN THE PAST, THIS PARTICULAR PERSON YOU KNOW, HELPED WITH GETTING PERMITTING ON CERTAIN PROJECTS WHERE THEY NEEDED SIGNAGE, SIGNAGE, VARIANCES, THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO THAT'S JUST SORT OF MY TAKE ON WHAT DEPUTY MAYOR FELIX HAD TO SAY.
OKAY, I THINK I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE.
WE COULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE FEE WAIVERS.
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A LITTLE INTRO ON THAT? DO WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT OR ANYTHING.
YEAH. ARE WE VOTING ON EACH ONE OR ARE WE JUST WAIT UNTIL THE END? OKAY, I DIDN'T KNOW, I WAS JUST ASKING.
ARE WE GOING TO. I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY JUST A CONSENSUS.
I MEAN, NON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDED PROJECTS FROM DEVELOPERS.
SO PUT THAT AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO POINT NUMBER ONE, WHAT YOU SUGGESTED TO THEN HAVE SOMETHING DONE TO INCLUDE EXPEDITED PERMITTING FOR NON GOVERNMENT FUNDED DEVELOPERS.
SO THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION AS A BOARD.
OR DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
DO YOU WANT A MOTION A FORMAL MOTION ON THAT.
[00:25:03]
YES. OKAY.MR. ATTORNEY SAYING OKAY DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT THEN OR MISS BEARD, DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? OKAY. SO LET ME TRY.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD TO LOOK AT CITY STAFF TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPEDITING. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE CITY'S FUNDING, AND ADDING THAT TO THAT, ADDING THAT TO NUMBER ONE, AS WELL AS THE CITY CREATING A DOCUMENT WITH A DETAILED TIMELINE AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO FROM START TO FINISH FOR PERMITTING.
RIGHT. AND THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR EXPEDITED PERMITTING TO ALSO BE CONSIDERED FOR PRIVATELY FUNDED.
IS DO YOU AGREE? YES, I AGREE TO THAT. OKAY.
WE'RE GOOD. DOES THE SECONDER AGREE TO THAT AMENDMENT.
WELL I, WE STILL HAD THE LIST OF THAT.
MISS BEARD HAD MENTIONED FROM START TO FINISH.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? I THINK THAT'S A SECOND RECOMMENDATION.
I BELIEVE STAFF IS CLEAR ON THAT RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THE MOTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WHICH IS STRICTLY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND EXPEDITED PERMITTING. I'LL SECOND IT AS LONG AS I KNOW WE'LL BE CIRCLING BACK TO THAT CHECKLIST.
SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THE MOTION.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? DO WE HAVE A NAY? DID I HEAR A NAY? NO. GOOD. OKAY.
AND I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER TWO THE WAIVERS FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OKAY.
SO ALL ALLOWABLE FEE WAIVERS PROVIDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT? OKAY. GO AHEAD. SO I BROUGHT THIS UP MANY TIMES.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE BLANKETLY WAIVING THE IMPACT FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS WITH A SPECIFIC AMI 100% WAVELL WAIVING OF IT, AND THEN A HIGHER AMI AT 50% WAIVING OF THE FEES.
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE NOT BASED ON HAVING TO COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN THIS LAP, AS WE JUST STATED FROM THE CITY AND THE TIME THAT WE THEY IMPLEMENTED THE WAIVER OF THE PERMIT FEES, THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE PROJECT IN ALMOST, ALMOST A YEAR. WE'RE GETTING CLOSE THREE QUARTERS.
YEAH. SO THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE PROJECT.
SO IF THE CITY AND EVERY TIME I BRING THIS UP, I GET TOLD THE CITY HAS TO HAVE THIS MONEY.
BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE ONE A YEAR.
AND I THINK LAST MEETING WHEN WE COUNTED THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR THIS WAVELL WAIVER, IT WAS SUCH A MINUTE NUMBER, BUT WOULD, BY WAIVING THESE FOR THESE AFFORDABLE PROJECTS MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE FOR THE DEVELOPER WHO IS HAVING TO SAY ALL THEIR UNITS HAVE TO BE AT 60% AMI.
THAT DRASTICALLY CAPS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY CAN CHARGE FOR RENT.
AND SO EVERY SINGLE PENNY COUNTS.
SO I WILL GO ON RECORD AGAIN SAYING THAT I BELIEVE THE CITY OF PALM BAY SHOULD WAIVE ALL IMPACT FEES AT 60% AMI AND PROVIDE A 50% WAIVER FOR 80% AMI.
SO I WILL SAY AFTER TAKING THE TRAINING, OKAY, THAT I HAD NOT AGREED WITH THIS WHOLE FEE WAIVER.
BUT I DO THINK THAT GIVEN THE TRAINING I TOOK TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALSO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF IT IN OUR COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT WAIVING THE IMPACT FEES IS APPROPRIATE FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ONLY. AND I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THIS, THIS OR I'M GOING TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
[00:30:04]
THIS GETS REVIEWED ON A YEARLY BASIS.OR HOW OFTEN DOES THIS GET REVIEWED HERE? I'M ASKING STAFF. I'M SORRY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YEARLY.
SO YEARLY WE HAVE TO HAVE THE A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE STATE.
OKAY. SO MY POINT WOULD BE IF WE DID THIS TODAY, TODAY.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD THIS MASSIVE INFLUX OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THIS ONE THING.
WE COULD REASSESS IT IN A YEAR, BUT IT WOULD BE ALSO REALLY AMAZING IF WE HAD A MASSIVE INFLUX OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING COME TO PALM BAY BECAUSE. I WILL AGAIN STATE THAT WHEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME PRESENT THE NUMBERS OF THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS IN PALM BAY.
IT IS NOT NOT IN COMPARISON WITH OUR POPULATION.
AND THE AMOUNT OF ASSISTED UNITS IN PALM BAY IS VERY, VERY LOW.
SO I THINK ANYTHING THAT THIS BOARD CAN DO TO DRIVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO PALM BAY, I'M I'M FOR. I JUST I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
WOULD YOU SAY IS GOOD, BUT CAN THEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE BE CONVERTED INTO PRIVATIZATION? WHERE THE WHERE THE DEVELOPER THEN JUST DECIDES TO SELL THEM AT MARKET? YES. IS THERE ANY WAY TO RECAPTURE IMPACT FEES AT THAT TIME? I WOULD THINK IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER UP FRONT THAT COULD BE WORKED IN IS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, RODNEY? YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO WHAT'S THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD THAT YOU GUYS ASSESS FOR YOUR SHIP FUNDING? BECAUSE THEY THEY PUT A LAURA ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS A LAND USE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT, WHICH STATES THAT THE PROPERTY HAS TO MAINTAIN THOSE AMIS FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF YEARS FOR HOW THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TYPICALLY REQUIRES A 50 YEAR.
LAURA. BUT I CANNOT REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE CITY REQUIRED FOR THE FOR A LAURA FOR SHIP 50 YEARS 1515 OKAY.
FOR $100,000 OF FUNDING, 25 FOR 100,000 OR 15 YEARS.
15 YEARS. OKAY, THOUSAND WORTH OF.
SO, RODNEY, MR. MORTON'S QUESTION WAS, COULD A PROJECT COME IN AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND THEN AT SOME POINT TURN INTO A MARKET RATE PROJECT? AND THEN AT THAT POINT, THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEIR IMPACT FEES HAVE BEEN WAIVED? HOW WOULD THE CITY RECOUP THAT LATER? COULD THEY? NO, YOU CAN'T USE HAS TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF THEY CHANGED IT FROM BEING AFFORDABLE TO NOT BEING AFFORDABLE WITHIN THAT 15 YEARS, WE CANNOT RECOUP THAT IMPACT FEE.
NO. AND MR. MORAN'S QUESTION, IS THERE ANY WAY TO CHANGE THE WAY? I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN RECOUP THE IMPACT FEE, BUT IN THE CONTRACT IT TELLS YOU IF YOU DON'T KEEP THE PROPERTY AFFORDABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME.
SO IF YOU SELL IT, YOU DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
WE'RE GOING TO RECOUP THE MONEY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE PERSON.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK ABOUT IMPACT FEES.
LAURA, COULD YOU ADD THAT TO THE LAURA.
SO IF THE LAURA STATES THAT THE SHIP FUNDING OF X NUMBER OF DOLLARS WOULD BE RECOUPED AND WE WERE ALL AUTOMATICALLY WAIVING IMPACT FEES, THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE LAURA THAT THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE I'M ASKING A QUESTION, COULDN'T WE ADD IT TO THE LAND USE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT THAT THE IMPACT FEES WOULD HAVE TO ALSO BE REPAID? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN A CONTRACT THAT CAME THROUGH THE CITY OF PALM BAY THAT SAID WE WERE GOING TO RECOUP OUR IMPACT FEES.
WELL, BECAUSE. CAN WE CHANGE THAT? I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE IF LET'S SAY THEY KEPT IT 14 YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK.
IS IT PRORATED? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PRORATE IMPACT FEES FROM 15 OR 10 YEARS AGO.
WELL, YEAH, THE IMPACT IS ALREADY DONE.
YOU'VE ALREADY WAIVED THEIR IMPACT INITIALLY.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND TELL THEM, OH, 14 YEARS AGO WE GAVE YOU THIS.
BUT NOW 15 YEARS LATER WE WANT THE IMPACT FEES FROM 14 YEARS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THAT.
[00:35:08]
AND IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE WAVING THEM WHEN THEY FIRST SIGNED, WHAT IS THE HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WAS BACK THEN? I GUESS YOU WOULD ASSESS A DOLLAR AMOUNT TO IT IN THE CONTRACT.BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE ALSO TOO IS HOW OFTEN HOW HOW OFTEN DOES A LAURA GET.
GET THE MONEY, AND THEN THEY DON'T KEEP IT AFFORDABLE FOR THAT SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME.
HOW OFTEN HAS THAT HAPPENED? IT HAPPENS. QUITE COMMON.
IT HAPPENS QUITE COMMONLY AND IT'S CONSIDERED PROGRAM INCOME ONCE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH WE HAVE WHERE SOMEBODY RECEIVED ASSISTANCE FOR FIRST TIME HOME BUYER AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY HAVE TO SELL THEIR HOME OR SOMEONE PASSED AWAY.
AND SO THEN WE HAVE TO RECOUP THAT MONEY.
WHEN THEY SELL IT, THE CITY GETS BACK THE FUNDS AND THAT'S CONSIDERED PROGRAM INCOME.
YEAH, I THINK I THINK I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
AND WHAT IT BREACHED THE CONTRACT OF YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE AN AGREEMENT FOR 15 YEARS AND YOU BREAK IT 13 YEARS OR 14 YEARS, YOU NEED TO REIMBURSE THAT MONEY.
I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE.
I WILL JUST SAY, IN MY OPINION, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF WAIVING IMPACT FEES.
I DON'T MIND THE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS THAT GIVE A DEVELOPER AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM, BUT IMPACT FEES ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE CALLED. THEY ARE PAID FOR THE IMPACT THAT YOU ARE PLACING ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY.
AND CONSIDERING THAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY IS PRETTY BEHIND ON SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS THE ROADS IMPACTS TO THE UTILITY SYSTEM SEWER SYSTEM, THAT'S WHY WE CHARGE IMPACT FEES. IF WE DON'T CHARGE IMPACT FEES TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS OF CITY OF PALM BAY COMPENSATING FOR THAT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS OUT THERE AND WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT EVERYBODY ELSE HERE IS STRUGGLING TOO.
AND I DON'T WANT MY WATER BILL GOING UP BECAUSE WE WAIVED A UTILITY IMPACT FEE.
SO I AS I SAID, I DON'T MIND THE DEFERRALS.
YES. I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT WHEN YOU WAIVE THE IMPACT FEES, BECAUSE THE IMPACT FEES ONLY DEAL WITH THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT'S IMPACT TO, TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SO THE ONLY THING THAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR IS WHAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THAT PROJECT UP AND RUNNING, IF YOU WAIVE THAT AND THEN 14 YEARS LATER YOU SAY YOU WANT IMPACT FEES, THE IMPACT IS ALREADY DONE 14 YEARS AGO.
SO THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD GET IMPACT FEES IS IF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT NOW.
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE, THE SURROUNDING AREA.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS ALREADY WITH THE UTILITY FOR A DIALYSIS CENTER.
KIND OF STUCK. SO YOU NEED TO GET THE IMPACT FEES UP FRONT.
YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THEM AT THE END, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU COLLECT THE MONEY IS YOU TURN.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT MR. ATTORNEY, BUT ON THE SECOND HAND IS ON THE NEXT HAND IS THE CITY HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROJECT TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AFFORDABLE? BECAUSE IF YOU, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, KEEP THE COST THE WAY THE AVERAGE HOUSING OR THE DEVELOPMENT GOES, IT CANNOT BE AFFORDABLE.
SO WAIVING THE FEE FOR THESE PROJECT, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THE THE CITY CAN DONATE PROPERTY AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE BUILDER OR THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS PROJECT IS WELL CONTRACTED THAT THEY COMMIT TO THE WHATEVER THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, AND IF THEY BREAK THE CONTRACT, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM TO COLLECT WHATEVER FEE I WAIVE BECAUSE YOU BREAK THE CONTRACT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT, BUT YOU CAN WAIVE IT I THINK SO.
[00:40:02]
SO WHEN YOU WAIVE IMPACT FEES, NOBODY ELSE PAYS IT.THEIR IMPACT WAS DONE WHEN THEY BUILT THE PROJECT.
WELL, WELL, THE FEE, WHATEVER THE IMPACT FEE IS, IF IT'S $10,000, FOR INSTANCE THE THE FUNDS HAVE TO COME FROM SOME OTHER PLACE TO PUT IN FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR KEEP THE CITY RUNNING.
IT'S JUST LIKE BUILDING A ROAD.
WE BUILD A LOT OF ROADS IN, IN VALKIER AND STUFF.
AND IF YOU BUY A LOT, SAY, 1000FT FROM THE MAIN, AND YOU DECIDE TO PUT A HOUSE DOWN 1000FT, YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE ROAD 1000FT, IT COSTS YOU $50,000.
AND IF IT'S FIVE PEOPLE HAVE PROPERTY ALONG THAT ROAD.
WHAT HAPPENED TEN YEARS, 20 YEARS? IF SOMEBODY COMES TO BUILD A HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO PAY THEIR $10,000 A YEAR TO THAT ROAD 20 YEARS FROM NOW, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT.
THAT'S THEIR THEIR NEW COMING IN.
WELL, IT'S IN FACT, THIS IS WHY WE I DON'T SUPPORT WAIVING IMPACT FEES FOR ANYBODY.
OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S JUST LIKE YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW LET'S SAY THEIR IMPACT FEE WAS $10,000.
WE ACCEPT YOUR MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO FORCE THEM TO COLLECT $10,000.
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT TAKES? COST ME THE CITY TO TAKE THEM TO TRIAL TO GET THE $10,000 BACK.
WELL, YOU GOT TO PUT IT IN WRITING.
IF YOU BREAK THE CONTRACT, YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO PAY ALL THESE FEES.
IT'S ILLEGAL TO TRY TO COLLECT THE IMPACT FEE, OKAY.
PREVIOUSLY. SO HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY TO LITIGATE THAT $10,000 WORTH OF IMPACT FEES? THAT. RIGHT.
I MEAN, WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS ALL NIGHT.
MR. FELIX, IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY, PRETTY INTERESTING DISCUSSION.
NOW, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE IT'S LISTED AS ALL ALLOWABLE FEE WAIVERS.
WOULD WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE FEE WAIVERS ARE.
IF BUILDING PERMIT FEES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERMIT, THE PROJECT IS NOT.
SO THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.
IT'S FOR ALL THE OTHER BUILDING PERMITS FEES EXCEPT FOR THE STATE CHARTS, THIRD CHARGES AND THE IMPACT FEES. IT ALSO DOESN'T INCLUDE THE UTILITY ALLOWANCE FEE.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT ALREADY OF THE FEES AND SOME OF THE THE IMPACT FEES GET PAID AT THE END. RIGHT BEFORE THEY GET COLD, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM YOU CAN GET WAIVED UNTIL DEFERRED.
YOU DEFERRED. DEFERRED TILL THE END.
SO IT DEPENDS ON THE DEVELOPER.
SO AGAIN I'LL JUST STATE THAT IF THIS WAS A A LOT OF PROPERTIES AND A LOT OF UNITS, THEN I WOULD I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS BEING MADE.
BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON AVERAGE 30 SOME UNITS AT AT HIGH WE SAID HIGH.
[00:45:01]
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS 30 UNITS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MINUSCULE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE CITY THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECEIVE.HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO THE DEVELOPER.
ALSO, I THINK THAT IT'S A MOOT POINT.
LIKE IF THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT'S GETTING THAT MUCH MONEY TO BUILD 30 UNITS AND THEY HAVE OTHER FUNDERS THAT ARE REQUIRING THEM TO TO KEEP IT AFFORDABLE.
THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DEFAULTING ON THAT AFFORDABILITY PERIOD IS VERY LOW.
SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF AN ARGUMENT THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AS IMPORTANT TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE GET BACK FUNDING FOR A PROJECT IF IN YEAR 14, THEY DON'T STAY AFFORDABLE.
AGAIN, I JUST, I THINK THAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY HAS TO.
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BRING IN MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND I'LL CONTINUE TO SAY IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH I WANT TO BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH MCDONALD'S.
WHERE DO WE WANT OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING THESE JOBS TO LIVE IF THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AN AFFORDABLE RENT? AND I'M SORRY, YOU CAN GO ONLINE RIGHT NOW AND LOOK FOR A TWO BEDROOM.
AND SOMEBODY WORKING AT WINN-DIXIE CANNOT AFFORD TO QUALIFY FOR A TWO BEDROOM IN PALM BAY.
SO I JUST THINK AS A BOARD, WE HAVE TO START DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO START BRINGING IN MORE OF THESE PROJECTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE CITIZENS WHO NEED A PLACE TO LIVE WHERE THEY WORK.
AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE UNITS TO PROVIDE THAT.
IN PALM BAY. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ASSISTED UNITS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY PROJECT BASED UNITS IN PALM BAY.
AND IT WOULDN'T PUT A HUGE BURDEN ON THE CITY.
HOW MUCH WAS THE IMPACT FEES FOR THE 30 UNITS THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT IN THIS YEAR? WHAT IS THE HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SHE ASKED A QUESTION. NO, SHE MIGHT NEED YOU.
SHE MIGHT NEED A SECOND TO FIND IT, AND HE CAN ASK A QUESTION IN BETWEEN, I DON'T KNOW.
I ONLY HAVE A HALF A PRINTOUT.
ARE WE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S UNDERLYING NUMBER TWO? EVERY THAT THAT THAT INSERTION.
AND BECAUSE THE STAFF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SEEMS TO BE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THIS INCENTIVE AT THIS TIME, THAT THAT WAS THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION LAST TIME.
THAT'S CORRECT. YES. SO THAT'S THAT WAS LAST TIME.
SO WAS THE SO PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A WE WERE RECOMMENDING WAIVING IMPACT FEES.
NO. PREVIOUSLY WHAT WE APPROVED WAS THIS WHOLE CONCEPT THAT'S HERE UNDER NUMBER TWO.
AND SO THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS DO WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT ANY TYPE OF ADDITIONAL FEE WAIVER.
DO WE FEEL THAT THE CURRENT INCENTIVE IS SUFFICIENT? OH, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
I JUST SAW THAT NUMBER TWO ON PAGE FOUR IS THE ONLY SENTENCE THAT'S UNDERLINED.
SO THAT MADE ME THINK THAT NOW WE'RE TAKING ADDING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, ADDING THAT TO WHAT WE RECOMMENDED LAST YEAR.
I THINK THAT MAY BE UNDERLINED BECAUSE THAT IS AN EXCERPT FROM ORDINANCE 2022, DASH 73.
AND THAT'S THE PORTION OF THAT ORDINANCE THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THIS INCENTIVE.
IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. OH OKAY.
YEAH. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING OR WAIVING FEES.
AND SO THAT THAT SENTENCE IS UNDERLINED BECAUSE THAT'S THE PORTION OF 20 ORDINANCE 2022 DASH 73.
AND SO THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE DOES WAIVE FEES OR SAYS IT DOESN'T.
WE'RE CURRENTLY ONLY WAIVING THE PERMIT FEES.
FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE 100% AFFORDABLE.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? THANK YOU. SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT THE NUMBER FOR HER.
WE DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES ON THAT PROJECT.
OKAY. COULD WE MAYBE IT'S A 60,968 40.
[00:50:01]
OKAY. SO MAYBE AFTER THIS MEETING, COULD COULD WE DOUBLE CHECK THAT NUMBER AND MAYBE JUST SEND IT OUT TO EVERYBODY JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? NO. OKAY. IT'S.I CAN TELL YOU AROUND WHAT IT IS.
HAVE IT. I CAN TELL YOU AROUND WHAT IT WAS AROUND 150,000.
SO THE CITY WOULD HAVE LOST AROUND $150,000 IF THEY WOULD HAVE IMPLEMENTED WAIVING THE IMPACT FEE FOR A PROJECT AT WHATEVER PERCENTAGE WE SAID.
THAT'S IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A BIG POSITIVE TO ATTRACT SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
AND MAYBE IT WON'T. MAYBE WE WON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE YEAR.
AND THEN IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE CITY AT ALL.
AND IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE 100% OF THE IMPACT FEES.
IF IF WE'RE SO ADVERSE TO IT RIGHT NOW, WE COULD DO 50% OF THE IMPACT FEES AND WE COULD MAKE THE ARMY 60% AMI AND IT HAS TO BE 100%. WE AS A BOARD CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND SO IF WE'RE SO ADVERSE TO IT AND WE WANT TO MAYBE DIP OUR TOE IN IT.
HOW ABOUT WE DIP OUR TOE IN IT AND SAY, MAKE IT VERY RESTRICTIVE? I JUST THINK THAT IT'S WORTH SOMETHING FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER.
WE I MEAN, THESE IMPACT FEES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES, WHICH GO TOWARDS THE CAPITAL FUND FOR FUTURE PROJECTS, FIRE IMPACT FEES.
AND. ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. IF AFFORDABLE PROJECT DOESN'T PAY TOWARDS THOSE, IT'S GOT TO COME FROM REGULAR TYPE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND OR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS.
I JUST FEEL THAT WE SORT OF JUST SHOULD DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERES.
NOW, GENERALLY, MULTIFAMILY LAND IN PALM BAY IS CHEAPER THAN MULTIFAMILY LAND IN ORANGE COUNTY AND OTHER COUNTIES, SO A DEVELOPER COMING INTO OUR AREA ALREADY HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF LOWER PRICED LAND.
I JUST IT JUST REALLY TROUBLES ME WHEN I'M WORKING WITH SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO PUT IN A RESTAURANT OR A MEDICAL BUILDING. THAT HAS TO PAY $40,000 IN WATER AND SEWER FEES, OR $10,000 IN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, LIKE WHEN I WAS INVOLVED IN THE MEDIFAST BUILDING.
I THINK HE HAD A $15,000 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE.
AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF THAT MEDIFAST WASN'T THERE, EVERYBODY LIVING AROUND HERE WOULD HAVE TO GO UP MINTON ROAD A COUPLE OF MILES OR EAST OF I 95 BY THAT MEDIFAST BUILDING BEING WHERE IT'S AT.
IT ACTUALLY SHORTENS THE DRIVING DISTANCE FOR PEOPLE THAT NEED IT.
AND THE SHORTER THE DISTANCE, THE LESS THE TRAFFIC.
SAME WAY WITH THE DAIRY QUEEN ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S COMING IN.
THAT BEING THERE IS SHORTENING THE DRIVING DISTANCE FOR A LOT OF OUR RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO EAT. SO MANY OF THEM GO UP TO HAMMOCK LANDINGS.
THEY JAM UP MENTON ROAD, THEY JAM UP EMERSON DRIVE.
YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING, A RESTAURANT OR A MEDICAL FACILITY BUILT IN THIS AREA IMPROVES OUR TRAFFIC SITUATION. IT SHORTENS DRIVES.
SO TO MAKE THESE KIND OF DEVELOPERS THAT ARE INVESTING IN OUR COMMUNITY.
PAY IMPACT FEES THAT ARE CALCULATED BASED ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BASED ON ANY
[00:55:01]
PROJECT WHOSE IMPACT FEES ARE WAIVED.I JUST THINK IT'S AN IMBALANCE.
YOU GUYS WANT TO ATTRACT COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL? I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME.
SOMEBODY CAN'T WORK AT DAIRY QUEEN AND MAKE MINIMUM WAGE AND AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.
AN EMPLOYEE MAKING $60,000 A YEAR CAN BARELY AFFORD TO PAY FOR A TWO BEDROOM IN PALM BAY, BECAUSE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WILL REQUIRE THAT YOU MAKE TWO AND A HALF TO THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF RENT AND INCOME.
AND SO IF WE CANNOT DO SOMETHING TO TO BRING THESE UNITS, WE WILL LOSE OUT ON THE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE BUSINESSES CAN'T AFFORD TO COME. THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO COME TO PALM BAY IF THEY CAN'T EMPLOY THE PEOPLE THAT THAT NEED TO WORK THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
WE GOT WE GOT TO TRY AND REMEMBER ONE WORD AFFORDABLE.
THE ONLY WAY THESE HOUSES CAN BE AFFORDABLE IN OUR CITY, IT HAVE TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
THE ICE CREAM PLACE OUR COLLEAGUES IS TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE SELLING THEIR PRODUCT FOR FULL PRICES.
AND IF WE ARE TRYING TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT HAS TO BE SUBSIDIZED SOMEHOW.
IS EITHER THE CITY GOING TO DONATE THE LAND, WAIVE SOME OF THE FEES AND STUFF LIKE THIS TO MAKE THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T COST ME THE AMOUNT AS THE AVERAGE BUILDING.
THAT IS WHY I'M GOING TO SUBSIDIZE.
I'M GOING TO CUT THE PRICE AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.
SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THE FEE, THE CITY HAS TO GIVE INTEREST FREE LOAN OR SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
BECAUSE I WAS THINKING, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE QUESTION STARTS FIRST AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IF A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR WANT TO, YOU KNOW, FINANCE THE BUILDING THEMSELVES.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT MYSELF TO BUILD SOME UNITS WITHOUT THE CITY HELP.
BUT I GUESS THE CITY HAS TO WAIVE ALL THE FEES AND AND AND PROBABLY GIVE ME A NICE PROPERTY TO BUILD THEM ON, YOU KNOW, BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE WHERE THE PRICE, IT HAS TO BE DIFFERENT TO BE TO BE ANYWHERE AFFORDABLE.
SO AM I UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, THAT THIS IS SAYING THAT THESE FEES ARE WHAT WE'RE WAIVING AND THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS ADDRESSING, BECAUSE RIGHT HERE IT LISTS THE FOLLOWING FEES WOULD NOW BE NO LONGER APPLICABLE IF THE PROJECT WAS DEEMED ELIGIBLE UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
RIGHT. WELL THIS IS THESE FEES DOWN HERE ARE PERTAINING TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
THESE ARE NOT CITY OF PALM BAY SPECIFIC INCENTIVES.
THESE ARE NOW IN STATE STATUTE THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER CHARGE THESE FEES.
OKAY. SO IS THAT NOT WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL FEES IN ADDITION TO THESE.
AND SPECIFICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPACT FEES.
WELL OKAY. SO SO THAT'S DIFFERENT.
THESE ARE LIKE APPLICATION FEES.
UNDERSTOOD. BUT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS TO ADD IMPACT FEES TO THAT.
I'LL SECOND. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. I'M HEARING ONE.
NAY. THAT MOTION I VOTE I THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE WHICH IS ALLOWANCE OF FLEXIBLE DENSITIES.
OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS SECTION FROM LAST YEAR FROM THE LAST REPORT.
MAYBE THAT WILL HELP GUIDE THE CONVERSATION.
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED VOLUNTARY INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE 22 DASH 73 AT THE MEETING ON JULY 21ST, 2022, WHICH ADDED A SECTION RELATED TO DENSITY OR INTENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES OR MORE FLOOR SPACE THAN ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT OR PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OR ZONING, OR GREATER HEIGHT REDUCING OR WAIVING CERTAIN FEES OR GRANTING OTHER INCENTIVES.
SO IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY MY OPINION IS THAT.
[01:00:01]
THERE'S NO FURTHER ACTION NEEDED ON THIS TIME, AND THAT THERE IS BASICALLY AN INCENTIVE IN PLACE IN CURRENT POLICY, BUT OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS A SUGGESTION.I'M HEARING CURRENTLY A DENSITY BONUS I DIDN'T.
THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A DENSITY BONUS.
YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND ASK PER.
I JUST I'LL JUST STATE THAT THAT TIME IS MONEY.
AND I SAID THIS BEFORE THAT I THINK THE CITY PLANNERS COULD BE GIVEN SOME LEEWAY ON SOME DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
I SECOND IT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING ONE NAY I VOTE I THAT MOTION PASSES.
MOVING ON TO NUMBER FOUR IS INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY RESERVATION.
SO IN LAST YEAR'S REPORT, THE CITY HAD PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED AN ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY TO EVALUATE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ADOPTED LEVELS OF SERVICE STANDARDS.
THE ANALYSIS FOUND SUFFICIENT CAPACITY.
SO AGAIN, I'LL STATE ON THIS ONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE ON THAT ONE? HEARING NONE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND NO FURTHER ACTION ON THAT INCENTIVE.
AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
IT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE OKAY.
WE'RE GOOD? YEAH. IT'S OKAY, BECAUSE I JUST HAD TWO AGENDA ITEMS, AND YOU GUYS KEEP GOING.
I'M SORRY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ON INCENTIVE NUMBER FIVE, RODNEY.
I'M SORRY. WE'RE ON INCENTIVE NUMBER FIVE.
AFFORDABLE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE ENTIRE SECTION, OR HOW ABOUT, COULD YOU GIVE A SHORT SUMMARY? YES, ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY.
EVERYBODY CAN READ. I REMEMBER FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T HERE, I LET ME GIVE A STAT.
LET ME TAKE A STAB AT IT. I REMEMBER THIS FROM LAST YEAR THAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY CURRENTLY PERMITS ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SO THAT'S LIKE AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.
I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT LAST YEAR.
BUT THE THING I WOULD WANT TO ADD TO THIS IS I THINK WE HAD A DISCUSSION WHEN IT SOMEBODY CAME TO ONE OF THE MEETINGS AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, AND I HAD BROUGHT UP THAT THEY SHOULD, IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO BE WAIVED FOR THE PERMITS AS WELL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BE AN INCENTIVE THAT IS IN WRITING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THOSE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, IF ARE IF THEY ARE AFFORDABLE, CAN GET THE SAME PERMIT WAIVER THAT WE WE HAVE A NUMBER, WHATEVER IT WAS TOO.
SO COULD WE ADD LIKE A NUMBER 12 THAT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT THAT FALLS UNDER THE SAME CRITERIA FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR THAT PROGRAM? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE.
OH WAIT, I'M GETTING GETTING CONFUSED.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK THE CITY FUNDING IS REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.
YEAH. SO SO I THINK DO WE HAVE AN UP SO SOMEBODY DOING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING IN THEIR BACKYARD CAN GET CITY FUNDING? NO, I'M SAYING EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE CITY FUNDING THEY'RE STILL ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.
IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE? I THINK EVERYBODY'S BRAINS MUSH NOW.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE A MOTHER IN LAW.
[01:05:02]
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.DWELLING. YEAH, I'M GOING BACK.
THAT'S LETTER E AFFORDABLE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
CAN WE JUST ADD THAT THEY CAN APPLY FOR THE WAIVER OF THE PERMIT FEES.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE HOW DO YOU DEEM THAT AFFORDABLE? I'M BUILDING MY MOTHER IN LAW OR MY YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN OR CHILD.
HOW DO WE I'M NOT COLLECTING RENT OR EVEN IF I AM, HOW DO YOU.
I THINK THERE'S A FINE LINE HERE.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. HOW WOULD YOU TRACK IT? YES, IT DOES MAKE SENSE, BECAUSE YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT CHARGING ANYBODY RENT UNLESS THEY'RE RELATED TO YOU.
I MEAN, YOU COULD, BUT I KNOW THAT OTHER CITIES DO.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY TRACK IT.
THAT'S THE PRIVATE ENTITY, RIGHT? THAT FEE SHOULDN'T BE WAIVED AT ALL.
SO ACCESSORY DWELLINGS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE FOR MOTHER IN LAW.
A LOT OF CITIES ENCOURAGE THEM TO ADD AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THEIR CITY, SO RESIDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ADD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING AND THEN RENT IT AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE.
AND SOME CITIES USE THAT AS A WAY TO ADD AFFORDABLE UNITS TO THEIR CITY.
THAT'S WHY IT'S ON HERE AS ONE AS ONE OF THE NUMBERS OF THE MAP.
I THINK IT'S A VALID DISCUSSION, BUT CAN WE, I THINK GO BACK TO TOM BING? YEP. I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR OR WE LOOKED AT THIS ANNUALLY.
YEAH. LET'S DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND NO FURTHER ACTION ON THAT INCENTIVE.
CORRECT. YEAH. I'LL SECOND IT.
I THINK YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION.
OKAY. MR. FELIX MADE THE MOTION.
I HAVE A SECOND OVER HERE. A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE, I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO NEXT IS REDUCTION OF PARKING AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. I THINK THAT FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE CITY STAFF BE ABLE TO GIVE A LARGER REDUCTION WITHOUT A DEVELOPER HAVING TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
NOT THAT IT'S A A MANDATORY WAIVER.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE STAFF BE ABLE TO GIVE THAT REDUCTION WHEN IT MAKES SENSE.
THEIR STAFF IS CURRENTLY ABLE TO GIVE WHAT KIND OF REDUCTION AT THE STAFF LEVEL.
THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
YEAH. IS IT ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE? YEAH, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.
I THINK IT'S UP TO, LIKE, A 20% CHANGES.
IN THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS OF CODE.
AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
I THINK THAT THAT IT SHOULD BE GOING TO THAT ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF APPROVAL.
IF IT'S ABOVE IT, I MEAN IT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE POLICY, THEN IT TO ME THAT IS PROJECT SPECIFIC. AND SO IT SHOULD.
SO THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT ONE.
SO I THINK WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE IS SUFFICIENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT ONE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? NO. OKAY, SO I'LL MOVE FOR NO FURTHER ACTION ON THAT INCENTIVE.
I'LL SECOND IT. MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. WE HAVE ONE.
NAY I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
THE NEXT IS ALLOWANCE FOR FLEXIBLE LOT CONFIGURATION INCLUDING ZERO LOT LINE CONFIGURATIONS.
LET ME READ YOU THAT ONE. IS THAT NUMBER TEN? THAT'S NUMBER SEVEN.
I'D LIKE TO TO TO ADD THAT THIS IS A GOOD OR A GOOD ORDINANCE THE WAY IT IS.
[01:10:01]
FURTHER CHANGES. I SECOND IT.DO WE HAVE A MOTION? AND A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE, I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO THE NEXT IS STREET REQUIREMENTS.
WHICH THIS IS SAYING WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE AN ADOPTED INCENTIVE.
INCENTIVE TO MODIFY STREET REQUIREMENTS.
DID WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT RECOMMEND.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO MAKE NO CHANGES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE, I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO THE NEXT IS ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROCESS BY WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS BEFORE ADOPTION OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND ORDINANCES THAT THE INCREASE OF THAT INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSING.
SAYING THAT THAT INCENTIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED.
DO WE REQUEST ANY CHANGES FOR THAT ONE? MOTION TO LEAVE IT THE SAME.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE, I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
PREPARATION OF PRINTED INVENTORY.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING.
THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT INVENTORY.
SO THAT INCENTIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED, AND IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR NO CHANGES ON THAT ONE.
SO MOVED. A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE. I VOTE I IN THAT MOTION PASSES.
AND NUMBER 11 IS THE SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT NEAR TRANSPORTATION HUBS.
ANY DISCUSSION OR WE WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT MOTION TO APPROVE AS IT IS.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES NOW, RODNEY, WE'RE ON NUMBER TWO.
WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE CDBG PROGRAM.
THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN PROVIDES A CONCISE SUMMARY OF THE ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT WILL BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE FISCAL YEAR TO ADDRESS THE PRIORITY, NEEDS AND SPECIFIC GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE FIVE YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 24 CFR PART 91 105, SECTION A3.
THE AMENDMENT REPRESENTED HEREIN APPLIES ONLY TO THE CITY OF THE PALM BAY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CDBG PROGRAM, AND DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE BREVARD COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM CONSOLIDATED PLAN.
BELOW IS THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO BE PRESENTED.
SO ORIGINALLY, THE FUNDING FOR GOOD PARK WAS SET AT $482,000 300 AND I'M SORRY, 40 $482,379 AFTER THEY PUT OUT THEIR BID TO GET THE WORK DONE, THE BID CAME BACK AT $121,012.
THAT LEFT A BALANCE OF $361,367.
THE AMOUNT THAT'S THE AMOUNT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO BE REALLOCATED TO ANOTHER PROJECT.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO ADD THAT AMOUNT NOW TO THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, REALLOCATION OF CDBG FUNDING OF 361 $367 REMAINING FROM GOOD PARK, FOR A TOTAL OF $522,098 FOR CDBG FUNDING FOR DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
THERE'S BEEN A 30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH BEGAN APRIL 11TH AND IT ENDS MAY 16TH.
AN INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WOULD INCREASE.
THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN PALM BAY, AND POSITION THE CITY TO MEET THE US HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT HUD 1.5 EXPENDITURE RATIO, WHICH WE HAVE TO MEET BY AUGUST 1ST OF 2024.
THE CITY'S DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED BY COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE CHC.
[01:15:01]
THEY ARE THE CERTIFIED COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION CHOSEN BY HUD, AND IS RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A MODEL.AND KAI AND THE CITY CONTINUE TO RECEIVE REQUEST FOR MORE FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM.
THERE IS ALSO AN ATTACHED EMAIL WHERE.
KAI IS LETTING US KNOW THAT THEY HAVE EXPENDED THE FUNDS.
AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DO A RECONCILIATION.
SO YOU SAID THIS HAS AN EXPENDITURE DEADLINE OF AUGUST 1ST OF 2024.
OKAY. THE GOOD PARK PROJECT HAS THAT THAT HAS ONLY BEEN AWARDED.
THAT WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY? WHY WAS THAT ESTIMATE SO FAR OFF? BECAUSE THAT'S A LIKE WHAT? HOW DID WE GET SO LIKE, WE ALLOCATED THAT MUCH MONEY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN VOTED TO SOMEWHERE DIFFERENT.
AND WE WERE SURPRISED AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO LEAVE ON THE TABLE.
YEAH. AND WE HAVE TO MEET OUR 1.5 EXPENDITURE RATIO.
WE JUST HAVE TO WE DID ASK THAT QUESTION AND THE STAFF HAD REQUESTED THAT FUNDING SAID THAT AT THE TIME THAT'S WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE. THEY DID HAVE SOME OTHER WORK NEEDED AT THE PARK, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
AND UNTIL THEN, WE CAN'T DO THE REST OF THAT SCOPE OF WORK.
SO HOW WOULD THEY HOW WOULD THEY SPEND THAT.
YEAH. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LINED UP THAT WANT TO PURCHASE HOMES THAT NEED.
BUT THEY HAVE LIKE BECAUSE I IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WORKING WITH A CLIENT THAT HAD WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH A PROGRAM LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS QUICKLY. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND THE HOUSE.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK.
IT'S IT WAS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THAT FUNDING EVEN THOUGH SHE JUMPED THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS.
SO HOW WOULD THEY EXPEND THAT MUCH MONEY IN TWO MONTHS? SHE WALKS THROUGH WITH THE CLIENTS.
I'M NOT SURE WHO YOU HAD HELPING THAT CLIENT, BUT SHE LITERALLY WALKS THEM THROUGH.
DOES THE FINANCE CLASS, THE HOME BUYER CERTIFICATION COURSE THAT THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN THROUGH HUD? AND THEY ALREADY HAVE A LISTING OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE PEOPLE CALLING EVERY DAY.
SO THEY ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE THERE SHOVEL READY.
YES. IN CONSTRUCTION TERMS. WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT IT TAKES IT TAKES MORE THAN 30 DAYS TO CLOSE RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE UNDER CONTRACT.
SO I WOULD BE LEERY JUST FROM MY KNOWLEDGE OF REAL ESTATE, THAT THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY TO SPEND AND TO GET THEM TO CLOSE AND DO EVERYTHING IN TWO MONTHS, SHOULD THEY HAVE A PIPELINE ALREADY? MY UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN JOIN THAT PROGRAM IF YOU HAVE A LETTER, AN APPROVED LETTER, YOU CAN JOIN THE PROGRAM.
SO THERE'S MONEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
IT JUST IT STILL TAKES IT STILL TAKES AT LEAST A MONTH TO CLOSE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT UNDER CONTRACT.
AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO FIND.
IT HAS TO BE. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU, JUST YOU AND I GOING OUT AND GOING, LET ME GO FIND ANY HOUSE.
IT'S THE HOUSE HAS TO BE UNDER A CERTAIN PRICE A CERTAIN YEAR.
IT CAN'T BE BUILT WAY BACK IN 1930, LIKE IT'S GOT TO BE BUILT WITHIN A CERTAIN.
AND AND WE HAVE A TIGHT MARKET RIGHT NOW.
SO THERE'S NOT A THIS WHOLE AMOUNT OF INVENTORY OUT THERE.
AS FOR LIKE LOOKING OUT FOR THE CITY IF WE HAVE TO SPEND IT, I'M JUST SAYING I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS THAT THEY COULD SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY AND CLOSE THE DEALS, AND IT HAS TO BE ACTUALLY EXPENDED, RIGHT? LIKE THEY HAVE TO WRITE THE CHECK.
THEY HAVE TO CLOSE ON THE HOUSE AND WRITE THE CHECK.
SO IT'S 1.5 RATIO OF THE ALLOCATION THAT WE RECEIVED.
CLOSE AND THERE'S A LITTLE FUNDING LEFT, BUT WE MEET OUR 1.5.
WE'RE GOOD. IT'S NOT JUST THAT THIS PARTICULAR MONEY HAS TO BE 1.5.
IT'S OVER ALL OF THE CDBG ALLOCATION.
[01:20:02]
FOR THE 45 DAYS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THIS IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO SPEND THE MONEY, BUT TO ALSO INCREASE THE TAX ROLLS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE NEEDING THE MONEY TO BECOME FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS HAVE IT, AND YOU'RE INCREASING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.YEAH. NO, I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN EXPEND IT IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME.
THAT'S WHAT MY IT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF THEY IF THEY FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT THEY CAN DO IT.
ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S WHY WE ATTACH THE EMAIL FROM CHI.
OKAY. AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO SPEND IT.
WE DON'T LOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S A 1.5 RATIO OF THE ENTIRE ALLOCATION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT'S THE ENTIRE ALLOCATION, THE WHOLE 700.
BUT I GUESS THE ISSUE HERE IS GOOD.
PARK CAN DEFINITELY NOT USE IT BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.
AND THERE REALLY IS NOT ANOTHER PROJECT AT THIS POINT.
I MEAN THIS IS THIS IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO EXPEND THE FUNDS, IS WHAT I'M HEARING OKAY.
CAN I JUST ASK WHATEVER THE CONTRACTOR IS ON THE GOOD PARK PROJECT? IS STAFF OKAY WITH THAT CONTRACTOR AT THIS PRICE? LIKE, ARE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THIS MONEY TO ANOTHER PROJECT AND THEN, LIKE, CHANGE ORDERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS BEFORE I TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? SHOULD I SAY SORRY? NO.
BILL BATTEN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.
THE GOODY PARKED INVESTMENT WAS A TANGIBLE INVESTMENT.
YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THAT, HOLD IT IN YOUR HAND.
IT'S SOMETHING YOU SPENT YOUR MONEY ON.
IT'S THERE WITH THE CDB FUNDS.
SO NOW YOU ONLY HAD SO MUCH FUND AVAILABLE.
SO THAT WAS LIKE I SAY THAT WAS TANGIBLE WHERE A DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE ONLY BENEFITS A FEW.
AND HERE'S THE BAD PART WITH THIS ONE.
RIGHT? I WOULD RATHER SEE THE FUNDS USED TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW, WITH THE SHORTFALL WITHIN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS OF THE 8.6, I MEAN, $867 MILLION WE'RE GETTING READY TO FACE.
WE COULD THIS WAY EVERY ANYBODY THAT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR IT, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON JUST A FEW.
IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT MANY THAT ARE IN SOME KIND OF A FINANCIAL STRESS WITHIN THIS AREA RIGHT NOW.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY, LOOK, IF THERE WAS SOME OTHER LOCATION WHERE YOU COULD BENEFIT MORE INSTEAD OF JUST A FEW WHERE YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, WE HAVE THESE TEN PEOPLE ON THE LIST, LET'S BENEFIT THEM INSTEAD OF BENEFITING MANY, ALL OF THEM.
LIKE I SAY, ALL OF THEM ARE CARRYING GOOD MERIT THOUGH.
I DID WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT SORT OF ALONG THE LINES WITH MR. BATTEN HAD TO SAY.
I KNOW A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE SIDEWALK ALONG SAN FILIPPO, AND WE SORT OF SHELVED IT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WAS GOING TO COST.
AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME OTHER REASONS, BUT, I MEAN, THAT SIDEWALK DID SEEM IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO WHEN I, WHEN I READ READ THIS EARLIER TODAY, I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, NOW.
INSTEAD OF THAT MONEY GOING TO THE DOWN SYSTEM.
DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
WHAT ELSE COULD IT GO TO THAT WOULD BENEFIT MORE PEOPLE? WELL, I THINK I THINK AT THIS POINT THE ISSUE IS THE EXPENDITURE DEADLINE.
SO AUGUST 1ST. SO THEY ONLY HAVE TWO AND A HALF MONTHS.
SO THE EXPENDITURE IS MR. BATTEN HAS DESCRIBED WOULD THAT BE ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AUGUST THOUGH AS WELL.
IT COULD BE BECAUSE OF THE AND I'M SORRY.
NO, GO AHEAD. IT COULD BE BECAUSE WITH CDBG FUNDING YOU HAVE TO SERVE 75% HAS TO BE LOW INCOME.
[01:25:03]
IT HAS TO BE IN A LOW INCOME AREA.IT HAS TO BENEFIT LOW INCOME AREAS, WHAT'S CALLED CENSUS BLOCK.
RIGHT. SO I WILL SAY I ATTEMPTED TO WORK ON A CDBG FUNDED SEWER CONVERSION PROJECT IN OUR NEIGHBORING CITY, AND IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MEET THAT CENSUS TRACK REQUIREMENT.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY SERVICES, IT IS IT IS.
AND ESPECIALLY THE PLANT, IT IS A LARGE SERVICE AREA.
IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY KNOW THAT WE'RE WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM.
OKAY. I WANTED TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION WITH THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
CAN YOU JUST. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I.
SO THEY DON'T JUST GET TO POCKET THAT AND GO IN THE BANK.
SO I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU PLEASE.
ABSOLUTELY. WE MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT IT IN THE AGREEMENT AND SHE HAS IT IN THE LAURA THE MORTGAGE.
AND NOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD AT ANY TIME, THAT MONEY HAS TO COME BACK.
AND THAT'S RECOGNIZED AS PROGRAM INCOME.
SO THEY DO A LAND RESTRICTION AGREEMENT ON THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
IF YOU, YOU KNOW, MESSED UP THE CONTRACT, YOU HAVE TO REPAY.
AND ON THIS PARK FUNDING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE PARKS IN OUR CITY NEED TO BE UPDATED AND HAVE NEW GAME PLANS AND ALL THAT.
WHY DON'T WE ALLOCATE SOME OF THESE FUNDS TO THE TO THE.
AND WE HAVE PARKS IN LIKE NORTHEAST AREA.
THAT'S IN THE AFFORDABILITY SECTION.
YOU KNOW THAT NEED THAT NEED HELPS.
SO WHY DON'T WE PUT THEM ON IN THE PARKS.
ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'LL BE IN THE NEXT INFORMATIONAL STAFF REPORT.
YEAH WE FUNDED SEVERAL PARKS IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.
YEAH. AND I, I THINK TO INCLUDE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.
YEAH. YEAH I WAS ON I'M ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD TOO.
AND THE LAST MEETING WE HAVE MAYBE 15, MAYBE NO, MAYBE TEN LADIES THAT CAME AND WANTED TO YOU KNOW, GET THIS, YOU KNOW, PARK AND GET IT REPAIRED AND PUT IN SOME NEW TENNIS COURTS AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF, BUT NO FUNDING WAS AVAILABLE.
THE PROBLEM IS, I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO PARK PROJECT THAT COULD MOVE FAST ENOUGH TO EXPEND THE MONEY IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME.
IF I'M MISS SPEAKING STAFF, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
BUT THE ISSUE IS THE TIMELINE TO EXPEND IT.
IS THAT HOW YOU SAY IT, MR. BATTEN? I'M SAYING IS CORRECT.
GOOD PARK. WHICHEVER IT IS, IT'S GOOD.
I WAS SAYING GOOD, BUT HE SAID GOOD.
I'M GOING TO GO WITH MR. BATTEN.
HE SAID GOODY. OKAY, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE FUNDING FOR GOODEE PARK AND INCREASE THE FUNDING FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. I SECOND IT, SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M HEARING NONE I VOTE I AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO NEXT WE'RE MOVING ON TO I LOST MY PAGE.
[OTHER BOARD BUSINESS]
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? STAFF.IT'S UP TO YOU, REALLY, MR. MORAN? YEAH. I WANTED TO ASK SOMETHING REAL QUICK ON THAT 361,000.
[01:30:01]
HAS HE THOUGHT ABOUT BUYING A HOUSE? HE SAID, YEAH, HE'D LIKE TO, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY NOW.RIGHT NOW WE'RE MOVING 361,000 OVER THERE.
NOW, WHEN I SEE HIM TOMORROW TO MAKE A DEPOSIT, WHO SHOULD I TELL HIM TO GO RUN AND SEE? AND. AND I'M SERIOUS.
TELL HIM TO CALL CHI CHI COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE.
CAN WE GET HIM HER? I'LL GIVE YOU THEIR PHONE NUMBER AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE.
THEY DO. YOU GUYS HAVE THAT INFORMATION ON THE CITY WEBSITE TOO, RIGHT? WE DO. YEAH. THE DIFFERENT PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES.
WELL, I DID SEE THE I DID SEE THE PLEASANT MEMO FROM THERE'S AN ADDRESS FROM FROM NICOLE.
YEP. AND THERE IS A PHONE NUMBER THERE, AND SO THAT'S WHO ULTIMATELY WOULD BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO.
YES. WELL THAT'S NOT WORK ON FRIDAY.
THEY ONLY OPEN MONDAY TO THURSDAY.
OKAY. SO HE HAS TO GO BEFORE THEM.
I'M GOING TO TELL THEM TO GO DOWN THERE.
SO FOR THE RECORD, NICOLE TENPENNY AND CREW ARE FABULOUS FOLKS.
THEY DO AN AMAZING JOB THERE AT CHI.
I HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THEM FOR DECADES.
DECADES. OKAY, THEY ARE AWESOME.
SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT MEETING SO THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE ON THAT ONE. YES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE INFORMATIONAL STAFF REPORT THIS EVENING? I DID WANT TO JUST SAY THAT THAT NEXT MEETING ON MAY OR I'M SORRY, JUNE 12TH WILL ALSO BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'LL BE BRINGING THE ACTION PLAN FORWARD FOR 2025.
BUSY MEETING. OKAY, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
WHEN DO THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE BOARD POSITIONS NEED TO BE BACK IN? FOR THE VACANCIES ON THE BOARD.
YEAH. SO I THINK IF YOU NOTICE, THE THERE WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT COUNCIL ON MAY 16TH, BUT IN TERMS OF THE CLOSING DATE, I CAN REACH OUT TO LEGISLATIVE AND WE CAN SEND OUT AN EMAIL JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN THE CLOSING DATE IS.
THANK YOU. BECAUSE YOUR COUNCIL DOESN'T MEET IN JUNE AT ALL, RIGHT.
NO, THEY DO NOT. THAT'S NICE TO SEE.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY, I'M HEARING NO OTHER BUSINESS.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M..
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.