We go before your people to do the will of your people, oh God, and to do your will. We ask that you were crowned us with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Give us a piece to understand each other, God. Help us to be on one accord. Lord, we pray for unity and not divisional God. Lord, we thank you for who you are. We thank you for this place we call home, the city of Appalachia, Cola. and we ask that you will continue to bless, oh God. Bless this city, this county, this state, and these great United States of America. This we ask in your son, Jesus name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for our world. I ask for an amendment to the agenda to add under new business and emergency expenditure to replace the equipment, the older scrubber equipment and installation that will go under new business item number 10. What say you may have a motion to approve the agenda with the adoption. Excuse me, Mayor. I have a lot there. A minute please. Can we make an agenda, a minute to the customer agenda in this agenda packet? There was some edits that are justified and I would like to review them and put them on the April agenda. What you're asking to remove the consent to of those city commission regulations. Regulatory minutes says for 10 8, 2024. The regular meeting minutes and then the regular meeting minutes for one seven. Please. That was ten eight. Ten eight. Ten eight and one seven. Okay. Thank you. Wait, that motion. No. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove, a second by Commissioner George, any discussion? Here in none, all in favor. Any opposed? Motion carried. This time we'll have public comments. First, we'll have Mr. Torbin Madsen. Thank you, Mayor. Torbin Madsen, 46th Street. Today I just to you to say thank you. We had a little event that took place last week, the Marty Graugh downtown. And as you may have noticed, there are a few people that showed up. We estimate well over 5,000 people. That happened because in great part of the hard work that you and Rhett and his team did. We had water at the park for the dogs. They cleaned up the area afterwards. Everybody worked very hard. And as a result, we've been able to donate $30,000 to two wonderful charities. So I say thank you. I'll be off the Mr. Crew of Salty Barkers. We are grateful for you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations on an event. Will plan will execute it. And so glad you had met your goal or surpassed your goal. At this time we'll have coach Greg Perkins. We have an admitted in mayor and commissioners. Greg Perkins, 129th Street. I come to you as an Appalachian Collinant citizen asking questions because I'm not sure. I have quite a few people ask me also. We've had some questions about the quality of the water since the time last time they said that the quality would have been upgrading. It was great. We're noticing that there's a great foul smell in the water. And we're asking that you were looking to and find out what is going on. Maintaining of the water, I feel is very, very important. And I will be very happy if we can help water quality that kind of match this same city. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We the emergency expenditure will be discussed later that will address that issue. So thank you for bringing that forward. Miss Dolores Crom. Madam Mayor and commissioners, I was a drawing my question because basically it was going to be the same thing that collage. You know when you say this, I was going to, I think I have a report with everyone on the commission including the coach. You know when you say this, I was going to, I think I have a rapport with everyone on the commission, including the mayor, except for, I don't know that young man, I don't know everyone, that I could have called you or say you in this street, it It has to be the same thing, but I choose to not call it a name. You get a myth of those, I'm sure. So thank you for everything that you do for the city. I have nothing negative to say. Thank you for your concern and thank you for coming before us. We welcome the input from our residents and we are here to serve. That's what we were elected for. So that's what our going on with it due to the CDBG red. Back in 2021, we had the seeded to come to us to be a part of the grant. And as of today, it is just in standing right now. We would ask if we want it to opt out and we had a meeting with the city with me in Travis at the time. And we did not opt out. We opt out of the amount. We just want to go first with the amount of money that was being, to be a pair of the roof, is just not enough for us to open back up and operate. And we will ask if we can probably have a separate meeting from tonight, because I know it would be a long winded and my husband would want to speak as well and that if we can set aside a different meeting to discuss it. Thank you. We will, after your husband speak, and we will turn it over to Bri at a point. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McNair. Mr. McNair. Mr. McNair. You're not the moon there and commissioners are coming to play. I was looking on the behalf of my game. We were right put on the application for decision by 2021 and decided to come try to come up and do an estimate how much it cost for a pair of roof. They gave me a estimate of about $1,000. That's by 2021. $25,000, you can never pair roof with $9,000. But the brand operator was free. That's only when she won't allocate that project. In the beginning, we accidentally needed the interior work to go inside the building. All it is done inside of the application. But she only told it in one specific area. She had to read the news and come out and give a answer to that. And what needed to be happened to the building? She spent about $30,000 on the inter-registered company. And get rid of the COVID towards the facility. I could have had a current tried to come out and tell me exactly what needed to be done to get her up the code. But she refused not to do that. So now we have a stand still. I could have found my insurance and get it repaired. But I was waiting on the city with the grant in order to get it repaired. Now it is almost like another demolished or built in. The whole ceiling is done to collapse inside. Probably and moving it also also. It just by being alone, by not doing anything. So I don't really want to sit and need to go from here. So and I said, you guys email and never never get no respond by any of the one of you. So that's why I'm at the meeting facing you face to face. I bald, I bald. That's all I have to say. Thank you, sir. We will open up for Bri when we get to her section so that she can bring you on the from the city's perspective. And I think also attorney Hartman has been involved. So we will hear more on this topic later in the meeting. Janine. Goodman. Goodman. Thank you very much. Good evening. Janine, good evening to 26 ninth street. Two things. I noted on my card there that I wanted to speak about the game room, but also I would just ask that all of you speak directly into the mic I learned earlier that these mics don't pick up sound from around, but rather direct. I was told by one of the commissioners and I'm hard of hearing and I have a real hard time hearing. So I think if we could address the work directly, I would appreciate it. I speak in support of the game room. It's, I understand that there was a grant and they were awarded some money $9,000. Their application was for many other aspects of the repair, including some structural repairs that need to be done. There were a worth of $9,000 only for the roof and they can't put a roof on the building without the structural repair. So I just ask that you direct staff to revisit this issue on their behalf. It's the only black owned business on the end. And we need to save it. So I just ask that, you know, if there's any way to reopen those can of rooms to assist them, I ask that you ask staff to do that. Thank you. Mr. WinnerRigger and Ms. Davis, do you want to hold your comments until the topics come up for this? Thank you. There are no further public comments at this point. We will move forward with new business. The first item is inflow and infiltration study, engineering award approval. So the city was awarded a legislative appropriation for an inflow and infiltration study and I and I study on the city sewer lines. This basically, it offers a variety of testing, including smoke testing where we can find out where the intrusion is. We've been working with doberry as a continuing service engineer to find somebody to do this work for us. We were awarded $300,000. I'm asking for a motion to award the I and I study project to dobarry Engineers Inc. under their continuing services agreement. You've heard the recommendation from staff regarding the award of the Inflow and Infiltration Study project to Debarry Engineers. What say you? We're going to make a motion that we approve the Inflow and Infiltration Study to Debarry Engineers. We've been waiting for this and it fits in with our area critical concern work plan. So I'm happy we made that motion. I'm going to be motion by Commissioner Grove. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Elliott discussion. Here and none. All in favor? I. In your pose. Motion carried. City Hall repair phase three. Construction construction bid award. Brie. So as she said, this is for city hall repair phase three construction bid award. Also I'm speaking on behalf of Cindy Clark. She's project administrator. She's not feeling well. So I'm just stepping in. We did advertise a ITN invocation invitation to negotiate. All of us very responded. They were the only hall. We have a meeting with the staff at the committee. We did advertise a ITN invocation invitation to negotiate. All of the respect responded. We did check with the state. We are allowed to move forward even though we had one response. The request is old city hall, the middle building downtown. Yes, ma'am. So we have a motion to begin negotiations with Oliver Sparrow to perform the phase three repairs and reconstruction work. What say you? We have the motion to begin negotiations with Oliver Sparrow. Have a phase three work. We have a motion by Commissioner Grove to begin negotiations with all of our sparing. May I have a second? Second and a little bit of discussion. I have a second by Commissioner Elliott and discussion. Commissioner Elliott. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm so phase three is the final phase of this project or did we have a fourth phase on this? I was pretty sure it was stepped out to three but I'm not sure if this is going to put us to completion. I think this phase basically gets it occupiable. It's not going to be repairs for a specific business or operation but it'll be structurally sound and kind of a blank slate. So that leads into my follow up question which is with the grants that were obtained for this, they're from the Department of State Division of Historic Resources. What are some, what are our stipulations on what we can and cannot do with this building? I know that it has been said that we are not going to be able to put City Hall back there because of that. So are there any other, any other endeavors that are red tapes because of the grant? And the only red tape I was tape was a municipal operations. We can double check on that. I'm not aware of anything else. In regards to municipal operations, does it mean solely like city hall operations? Administrative day to day operations? Could it be something where if the city were to work with organizations or have say like a business incubator there? I think that would be an option. It's not the actual municipal function. Typically with grants when they have that exclusion, it means like your main hub or all of your employees are. They're day to day office. If it's an extension extension of the city but it's not the city. We could go into like a private endeavor. We would just be separate. Thank you. That was it. I have a motion by commission to grow the second by commission or Elliot. Is there any further discussion? Here and none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Parking and pedestrian access on Avenue D. Attorney Hartman? Yes. So the recent Gibson Parking plan approval brought into focus the parking along Avenue D between fourth and market street. came up as to kind of safety and pedestrian access along that street. the city's policy is that the city's policy is that the policy is that the city's policy is that the city's policy is that the policy is that the city's policy is that the policy is that the city's policy is that the policy is that the city's policy is that the policy is that the city's policy is that the talked about it being it's angled now that it might be safer being parallel and access pedestrian access along that road section of Avenue D. But that we ask one of our continuing consultants with experience in this area to give us some recommendations before that area is restriped and kind of finalized as part of the Gibson project that we. And it's staff is asking that the city, if you all agree, to direct the manager to have one of our consultants look at that. And provide recommendations back to you so that you can make a decision on how the parking should look on Avenue D. So you've heard the recommendation from Attorney Hartman regarding the parking and pedestrian access on Avenue D. What say you? We'll make a motion that we direct the same manager to our consultant to review the parking and access on MUD between Market Street and Forest Street and to provide recommendations concerning pedestrian accessibility, parking and visibility. I have a motion by Commissioner George. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Grohl. Discussion. Discussion. Commissioner Elliott. Discussion. Who do we have continuing services agreements with that would be taking this project? If you give me a second, I'll pull up the list. It's five or six different injury firms. Okay. I didn't know if any of them, especially specifically advised, we use specifically for traffic stuff Most of the time if they don't have somebody on staff that does transit they can sub it out to somebody who does and special losses so We would probably throw it out to probably three of them and get a quote and go from there Gotcha so visibility and accessibility in right of way are definitely a top priority. This is why I advocated for us to have a track-thick workshop last year, where I highlighted all of these issues. We brought light to many streets and accesses and crossways downtown that are no longer striped properly, not wide enough to FDOT standards to allow two lanes and parallel parking on both sides. So I think that pigeonholing is a consultant and to only looking at a very small area when we know for a fact we have a much broader problem downtown with disability, accessibility, pedestrian safety. I think that we should probably have them do the downtown corridor. Thankfully, it's a very small downtown corridor, so I don't think it would take an unreasonably long time for them to analyze that and provide recommendations. Her the comments from Commissioner Elliott, Commissioner George, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Elliott is requesting to include the downtown quarter and the study. What say you? I'd like to leave my motion and change this is sort of an immediate issue. We need to have this one area resolved at the same time as the Gibson is finalizing their addition. So there's a there's sort of a time constraint here. So I think it's kind of a limited review for just this particular purpose. Thank you. Have a motion by Commissioner George and a second by Commissioner Grove to direct city manager to hire and appropriate consultant to review the existing parking arrangements on Avenue D between the market and for street and a second by Commissioner Grove. Is there any further discussion? I have a question. Commissioner Duncan. Is there any reason to think that adding the quarter to the Avenue D area would cause any great delay? I think just time, it probably add time and also a cost. I think it'll be much more expensive to include the rest of downtown. I agree it's a good idea and we need to do it. I have concerns about how much it will be. Something of that size we might have to bid out or might take longer to get somebody on task. Okay, thank you. I have a motion by commission is yours. A second by commission of growth. Is there any further discussion? Here and none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. 4 to 1. FDOT M-Scot program. We were unsuccessful, so we were trying again. This is essentially the same resolution that was passed last year, but we have to update everything as we update our application. So, if you have any questions? I have a question. I pulled the agenda item from last year, and it's essentially the same request, and with the same recommendation that we, if we're going to do it blocked by block that we started Leslie Street and work north. At the March 5 meeting the commission voted to apply for the grant for the block between Avenue G and Avenue F. We didn't go forward with that. It wasn't funded. Okay. Right, because we had the Leslie Street project. So, I mean, we made this, so we did not, we did apply for this and didn't get it, as I said. So the worst block is the block that we... Okay. Okay. The right-up says the worst section is between F and G and that's the block that the commission had previously wanted to start with. So I mean there's some reason to select a different block if we didn't get funding for the block we wanted to start with last time. I'm not sure why that changed. I'll be honest this has been in process for well over a month if you want to prioritize a different block, the resolution itself doesn't mention the block. It just mentions Commerce Street. So if the commission wants to focus on a different section, you could tell us now and we would have time to fix the application. We've got a couple weeks until we put it in. I don't and did not a year ago have a particular preference but I remember from the discussion that the majority of the commission was focused on between F and G and had unanimously voted to start with that block. So the motion you've heard the request from staff to approve the attached resolution. Attorney Hartman, would you read resolution number 2025-01? Yes, Madam Mayor. So, City of Applied Chocola resolution number 2025-01 is a resolution of the City Council members of the City of Apatia Cola floor to authorizing the mayor or city planner to apply for FDOT funding through the municipal small county outreach program M Scop for resurfacing commerce street. Whereas the State of Florida has requested the State of Florida Department of Transportation for Financial Assistance through their M.S.Cop grant program for the resurfacing of Commerce Street. Whereas the State of Florida has requested the State of Florida to submit one M.S.Cop application attached here too. for financial assistance through their M-SCOP grant program for the resurfacing of the Commerce Street, whereas the state of Florida has requested the City of Appalachia Coal to submit one M-SCOP application attached here to, and whereas the state of Florida Department of Transportation requires that a resolution be passed by the City Council members in support for applying for financial assistance through their M-SCOP grant program. Now therefore be it resolved by the City of Appalachocola Council members of Florida, that the mayor or city planner of the City of Applied Chocola Florida apply for financial assistance from the Florida Department of Transportation for one M.S. COP grant program. So you've heard the reading of resolution number 2025-01. You've also heard the comments from Commissioner George requesting or commenting regarding Avenue F and G as the worst section of the street. What say you? I'll take the motion that we approve the resolution and see what the go in. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove, any second by... I have a second. Second. Second by Commissioner Elliott. Any discussion? So the question that I have is you do not want to identify, you want to leave it to staff to identify the street or you go with the street that is common street from Leslie to Avenue E. Please provide direction to staff. Cap, maybe clarify one thing. I said I didn't know second ago and that was true. My assumption is that the engineers have already done so much work on Leslie Street. They kind of know the situation under that block. So the idea is to move over in that fashion. But again, if you want to focus on the worst, I just think clarity tonight and then we can kind of fix it. Commissioner Grove, you made the commission to approve the resolution. Do you want to identify your motion? What street? What block? Well, if it was up to me, I would say between D and E because it's utilized by more people and we have more interactions with people tripping on that section if it includes the intersection. However, they are made to be redone. So I would defer to the engineer. But do you think we need to if we go with the engineers recommendation. So unless you guys want to deviate it's good to go with the motion you made already. You want to leave the motion as is? Yeah. I have a motion by commission to grow the second by commissioner Elliott to approve the resolution as submitted and based on the summary provided. For the discussion. Hearing none all in favor. Any opposed motion. Mr. winner.. Yes, you want. First reading of the cemetery ordinance attorney Hartman. Yes, this is. This is. Ones number. 2025 dash. Oh one. It's an ordinance of the city of Apalachical Florida providing for the regulation of activity in city owned cemeteries. Amendment of the Apalachical Accode of Ornance is part two, chapter 12 cemeteries, to add sections 12-6 through 12-17, providing for severability and establishing effective date, and again, this is first reading. Are those department, don't you have a correction? There is, there's a clerical edit that will be made. It's just the reference to the alternative language in section 12-10. That will be removed. The language, that was, we opted against that language. But the substantive portions of the on-first reading remain the same. but the substantive portions of the on on first reading remain the same Will you clarify repeat that In section 12-10 we had discussed a blanket provision on all commercial activities and we opted not to we opted to stick with the the language as drafted, which kind of crafted around allowed certain activities, not others, not for profit. That kind of thing, we went with that language and for some reason in the copy that I had sent over, I think it was redlined, that that OR language is still there, it will be gone. So on second reading we'll have it clean. So it's just a just a clerical at it. Thank you. You've heard the first reading of ordinance number 2025-01 also known as a cemetery ordinance. I have a motion to approve the first reading and to proceed with the adoption process. Make a motion that we approve the first reading of the ordinance 2025-1 and proceed with advertising for second reading and public hearing. Motion by Commissioner George. May I have a second? Okay. Second by Commissioner Grove. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. National Volunteer Wheat Proclamation. Mr. Any Hartman, will you read? Please. Senator Bappuch, call of volunteer week, April 20th to 26th, 2025. The entire community has the power to inspire, equip, and mobilize individuals to take action that changes the world, and whereas individuals and communities are at the forefront of social change realizing their ability to make a difference. And whereas during the week of April 20th through 26th, 2025 volunteers across the nation will be recognized for their commitment to service. And whereas giving a oneself in service to another not only empowers the giver, but also enriches the recipient. And whereas over 20.4% of Floridians volunteered in 2024. And whereas volunteers are essential to building a caring and productive community. And whereas a volunteer saves an organization an average of $33.49 per hour nationally. and whereas in Florida volunteer saves an organization an average of $33.49 per hour nationally and whereas in Florida volunteer saves an organization an average of $31.61 an hour and whereas volunteers dedicate their time and effort solely to improve our community. Now therefore we, the Appalachicala City Commission do hereby proclaim the week of April 20th through 26th, 2025 as National Volunteer Week in Appalfforda, we encourage all citizens to engage in volunteer work and urge others to recognize those who selflessly share their time and talents with those in need. We have the reading of Proclamation for Volunteer Week. What say you? I have a motion to accept the Proclamation. I make a motion that we accept the national volunteer week proclamation. I have a motion by Commissioner Ilya and second by Commissioner George discussion. Here and none. All in favor. I oppose motion carried. In Franklin and our local agreement, Commissioner Commissioner Elliott. Thank you, Mayor. As many of you know, we did form a new cooperative group last summer that was initiated by the Franklin County Sheriff's Office. The goal of this is being able to combine all of our governmental entities here, harnessing the power and the funding that we're able to get from the Franklin County Sheriff's Office, the Franklin County School Board, the City of that much cool, the city of Alhbacca, the city of Carabell, the Franklin County County Board, the city of Alhbacca, the city of Carabell, the city of Carabell, the Franklin County Board, as well as the East Point Water and sewer district. Throughout this process, we have been getting ourselves formulated. We were tossing around the possibility of incorporating ourselves as a 501-C3, so we would be an non-profit, non-in-geo. We received a around the possibility of incorporating ourselves as a 501C3, so we'd be an independent nonprofit, non-INGO. We received advice from council, that we received through Franklin County, as basically they are providing the legal council instead of Dan. So their recommendation was to form an interlocal agreement that indemnifies each organization that is involved as not being anyone is personally responsible for any of the business that the board conducts geared towards academic development and affordable housing. And this is so that in the event, if there are any grants that are obtained, if there are any bonds issued or anything of the sort, it gives us the ability to leverage ourselves as a governmental agency that is separate from all of the other government agencies that has representation from all of these government agencies. And it allows us to pursue public privateprivate partnerships because we still have to have a public entity that is partnering with those private entities. And this gives us a way for all of us to come together and do that in such a way that we're not putting all of the burden on one organization or one person or group to carry that. I did communicate this early enough with contact information that if there was any questions about the draft or any language that needed to be amended, I do believe that the school board was able to get this onto their most recent agenda for approval and it will be going to all of the other board soon as well. I believe we are the outside of the school board, the first governing body to receive this back. At our meeting a couple of few weeks ago, we all went over this and discussed. We did not see anything that we thought any of our boards would have a problem with. But if there is anything in here, language wise, that you have questions or concerns about, I would hope that you'd communicated those to our Council or the current acting executive director, Bill Williams. Does anyone have any questions about the interlocal agreement? So we have a motion to approve the interlocal agreement. What say you? Commissioner Elliott, are you making a motion to approve? Yes, I will make that motion. Commissioner Grove, are you making a motion to second? Just asking a question. I was just asking what stage we were at, but I'll second for discussion. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott and a second by Commissioner Grove. Discussion? Commissioner Grove? I just wanted to hear from the attorney. Yes, the agreement is standard in format following the chapter 163 format that's required legally. The one question that did come up is and it's in paragraph two of the agreement is the city. If for some reason the city does not like the direction things are going the city can terminate withdrawal just on and pull pull out of the of the group but otherwise it's it's pretty generic and fine. Are you suggesting we add that or didn't it's in there, in paragraph two. It talks about something that obviously when you're lumping in, which in a good way, you're joining forces with all these different entities within the county, I just been in the county a long time. I've seen, put anybody, anything out there, but when sometimes the, the path, the direction, its going is not in the best interest or a commission takes exception and the agreement does provide for an out for anybody, any organization that's part of the agreement. So it's not a lifelong commitment. If you choose to leave the agreement, you can. Great, thanks. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, and a second by Commissioner Grove to, I also had discussion. I'm getting there. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner Grove to approve the team Franklin and local agreement. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner George. A turning heart, so you have reviewed this. So I mean, even though you didn't draft it, I mean, our charter requires you to read and review and advise us on all our legal documents. Yes. Okay, okay. So does this create any obligation for the city? The obligations for the city are during the term of the agreement where it talks about renewing on an annual basis is that we would participate under the kind of very, again, loose, but talking about forming a commission, we'd have, we would participate in this agreement, our duties and obligations are laid out in the agreement. I don't see anything in here that is cumbersome, but that's for you all to decide whether or cumbersome or not. And then like I said, if at any point in time, and I keep saying the direction, if I know originally when we talked about Team Franklin, I saw the presentations. It's been a little while now. We talked about affordable housing. This talks a lot about economic development. Both good things. But again, if the direction changes, or there's a certain type of economic development that the commission does not believe is in the best interest of the city of Apalachia, COLA, you all can terminate and pull out. So that's what I was looking for. And otherwise, again, it's kind of a commitment to work together collectively on economic development projects. So it's okay. And my second question is for Commissioner Elliott. When this when Captain Coulter came in spoke to us the focus was on workforce housing and now there's no mention in this agreement about workforce housing it only refers to economic development. Is there some reason for the change? Yes, Commissioner and George, thank you. It was actually Mr. Bill Williams that came and spoke to us about this endeavor. And the, let me just one more here. So the reason that the language was chosen for this, as you are very well aware, the state of Florida doesn't really differentiate affordable housing and workforce housing. The language that was used in here was meant to be broad and generic in such a way that the reason we are trying, one of the funding avenues for the affordable housing, we have gotten very positive feedback from the Triumph Board, and they're very receptive to affordable housing as being now considered an avenue of economic development because it is very much necessary for it. So connecting our affordable workhouse development and development of those of that is crucial for our economic development. So the language in the interlocal agreement is meant to reflect that and not use language that is not identified by the state. So you understand how the state has a definition for affordable housing but not for work force housing. So if we were to pigeonhole into only affordable housing, this is something that could possibly sway or view how legislators are looking at us right now. Commissioner Grove provided the memorandum that Senate President Albertan put out on February 19th. This actually came out just a couple days after our most recent team Franklin meeting where we decided to go forward with the interlocal agreement model and bring that forward. Part of this this memorandum. it mainly goes along with our representative Senator Cory Simon's submitted a bill that is SB 110 floor is rule Renaissance. This is a revolutionary bill that is going to increase support in partnerships with rural communities, modernize the support for Fiscaly, Constraint Counties, for inflation, creates an office of rural prosperity, establishes, Renaissance grants, funds for rural public infrastructure innovations, enhances rural economic development initiatives, add small business development, circuit center writers, maximizes options for rural housing by raising minimum allocations for ship to jumpstart in rule housing, raising those minimum allocations to $1 million per county. That's raised from $350,000. It also preserves rental housing in rural communities. This will also expand the rule infrastructure fund related to transportation and broadband. It increases the rule revolving loan program funding as well as improves the coordination for the federal broadband programs. That was another project I had been working on was expanding accessibility here in this area. That's stalled a lot because of the way the previous legislation was written, which was mainly to put the infrastructure and the money directly into private hands, not actually benefiting the public. So all of that legislation ended up stalling quite a bit. There is the historic amendment to farm to market roads. I don't know, apply specifically to us. I also expand the Small County Road Assistance Program. And then in terms of education, it improves education opportunities in rural communities. It also creates a regional consortium service organization supplemental services program, updates special facility construction accounts, adds a student loan repayment program for rural educators. I think that is a really great incentive for our local school system here. It also expands access to health care in rural Florida to help recruit doctors and nurses in rural areas. Also the training of rural paramedics EMTs in advanced stroke, cardiac and obstetrics response. That's kind of a lot of what we need here because if you have a heart attack in this town, you better hope it's when you can make it to a facility that can treat you. It also expands rural hospital program to cover mobile units and telemedicine kiosks, increases existing Medicaid payments for rural hospitals. So far, a rule renaissance appropriations are asking for $197.4 million. As of right now, I spoke with Opportunity Florida a couple weeks ago as well. And they are going to be working with Team Franklin on getting some projects made ready to present, to go forward with because in their opinion out of every agency they have worked with in the state of Florida, different cities, counties, special districts that are all trying to do the same thing that we are doing. We are the only place, the only group of people they have ever seen that has ever had the forethought to come together, to form this group, and try to form a way to move forward cohesive as a group doing it. No one else in this state is doing it. This legislation was proposed days later by our representative. Representative Shof is also where I have been told there's a placeholder bill filed that is going to try to stop the drilling project. They want to do out near the dead lakes that we are all very heavily opposed to. I think that we have a fantastic chance to become the poster child of the rule Renaissance in Florida. And we need to jump on this opportunity or that $197.4 million is going to go to other communities that didn't squabble. I think it was your question answered commissioner George. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner Grove to enter into inter local agreement with team Franklin. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Thank you, ladies. I look forward to bringing a report from our next meeting. We'll finally be able to start getting some real head may way and start taking official action once we are the meeting. We have an appointment for the meeting. We have an appointment for accepted the executive to make this recommendation for resident commissioner. And they need an approval from this body so that resident Billy Schauer can serve on the housing authority board. What say you? I make a motion to appoint Billy Schra as the resident commissioner on the housing authority board. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Grove. Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. First reading. Treat ordinance 20, 25, 02. before the reading of the ordinance 20 25.02 but before the reading of the ordinance I have a public comment by Mr. Dennis Wiener Wiener Ringer. Dennis Wiener was 17th Street. and the trickiest among all right now. I also drive to the to the protection requirements which were only gender for last months meeting. At that time I asked that the ask you and the city manager to move the subplan revision requirements from the historic preservation section to the landing section which has been done in this package. But the problem with the package is that the only changes that are shown are those changes. It doesn't show any of the other additions or deletions that were in the package in front of you last month. So I think what happened to you is when you pulled it together, you accepted those changes and incorporated those changes into the text and using the word software and you're not highlighted as I striped through as solutions or underlining as additions. I think at this point, we need to go back and modify the document to share those revisions and then to bring on the agenda for the next one, it's meeting for the first reading. A great, the language in the, well, Well, it's all one ordinance. I agree. The language in the, well, it's all one ordinance, but the portion that the Tree Committee put together did have underlines and strike and strike-throughs and they're not showing up in the copy before you. So we'll, if we could, table this to the next regular meeting. And we'll get that copy in the agenda package. I think literally it's and I should have picked I should have caught it when I This is, we have it. I mean, I know that I'm very familiar with the, this is just the wrong copy of it. Yeah. This is we have it. I mean, I know I that I'm very familiar with the this is just the wrong copy of it. Yeah Yeah, it is just those revisions for the majority of the Transprediction requirements are just been Incorporated as a claim copy and yeah, yeah, we shouldn't have accepted how yeah, it might have I Don't pretend to understand it, but we'll get it right. Yeah, and if we, if I have a problem, I'll check with you because yeah, I'm, what I'll do is I'm going to send you back where it shows and you, you confirm that those are proper strikers and underlines. That was good. Send you now. May have a motion to a table on the first reading of tree ordinance. Make a motion be table three sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Next on the agenda is the request for the emergency expenditure for the Otis grubber. Just a brief synopsis of what's been going on during Hurricane Helene. the water tower, the Otcraper was damaged, it collapsed, it fell down. And so, the odor that you're smelling is the sulfur that's coming from the whale. The water quality is still acceptable. DEP has been notified. are aware of the situation. We have a consultant with Dubarry who has been in con. DEP has been notified. They are aware of the situation. We have a consultant with Dubari who has been in contact with DEP. And on top of it, she has actually been in contact with our Water Department, Brett Butler and Mr. John Marshall. We also have here with us today tonight Mr. Brent White with Dober who has been assisting the water department in locating a vendor to one install the odor eater and Otis scrubber. I'm sorry and to actually Have the equipment ordered and brought on. So we are on top of it. We apologize profusely for the order that you have been smelling over the past few weeks months, but they are on top of it. And I do applaud our water department because they have been working diligently. Yes, they have been working long hours, you know trying to eliminate or diffuse the situation as best as they could. So what is before this commission? And I will read it for the record. The Otis grubber at the city's drinking water ground storage tank was damaged by hurricane, hilleen, and is currently inoperable. While it requires full replacement, there is no impact on water quality, pressure, or treatment. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has confirmed that a water notice is not necessary. A A slight sulfur smell in city water is to be expected due to the damage but many customers are reporting a severe sulfur smell in their drinking water. Water department staff has been flushing lines as much as possible but the replacement equipment is an immediate need. City staff is requesting permission for an emergency expenditure in order to expedite the ordering of necessary equipment and schedule installation. The equipment must be fabricated to city specifications and the installation must be scheduled at the time of ordering. This is a sole source procurement and emergency expenditure. City staff have filed an insurance claim on the previous equipment and are working with FEMA on the claim for this equipment and installation. Ideally, the city could wait for FEMA to give the go ahead for expenditures to guarantee full reimbursement, but in an emergency situation, we are encouraged to make the necessary repairs and sort through the claim process with FEMA afterwards. Our city finance director and grant coordinator has been working with insurance and FEMA on this and they have assured me that by moving forward, it will not hinder the claim process, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. So the motion to approve any emergency solar source expenditure up to 500,000 for replacement of the older scrubber and installation. The equipment quote is $275,000. The installation estimate can range anywhere from $175 to $220,000. We did get an updated proposal for the labor is that correct and that equates to $198,000. So as of today, we are looking at around a half a million dollars to replace this piece of equipment. So hence why we've been very careful and diligent in trying to make sure that we have all of our eyes dotted T's crossed so that we can be reimbursed in the future. Our finance director has indicated that we do have funds in an SBA account that can be used to cover this expenditure. I gladly need that motion. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove. We may have a second. Second with discussion. Second by Commissioner George. Discussion. Commissioner George. OK. The tower felt down during Hurricane Helene. And we had some discussion about it at that time. And I thought that we were working towards a solution then. So I really was sort of taken aback by this emergency measure because we haven't been kept informed in any respect about this and to suddenly have a $500,000 expanse. I'm not saying it's not warranted, but we haven't been kept a price of this. I mean when was it determined that this replacement was needed? It was, John if you accept to the, just for the record, former City Manager Wade made mention of the issue a couple of times during a couple of the meetings previously. So he did indicate that they were looking for vendors at that point. I'm not sure if how that got missed along the conversation, but it was brought forward. I actually asked him at the last meeting to give us an update on this. So I'm not sure why there was no further discussion or questions asked at that point. But Mr. Marshall, who it worked with our, the city's water department is here and and Rhett is here along with Mr. White who can answer questions. We actually had something to say. You can go ahead. My name is John Marshall. I'm assistant supervisor and the red for the water department and the date was October 26. And it was didn't come down right in the storm. It was damaged from that storm which weakened it and then it just collapsed one night and that's where we are on that. It seems like it's now has become a priority because people's times are starting to stink from the water. It's a big priority and we're having a rough time keeping the town chlorinated right now. If we don't keep the town chlorinated, we're gonna go into a bowl of water notice. But right now the back T samples are good. T HMs are good because the weather's cool, but this can't be put off. We have to have it. And it is my understanding that it has been a challenge to find a vendor contractor that will travel this far. And it is such and it is a specialized project that you can't just get someone a contractor to climb up and install this piece of equipment. So it's been a priority. It's just now we have those numbers and we need to start moving to get the equipment ordered. Okay, the rest of my questions are about money. So the rest of my questions are about money. Thank you, John. Okay. We about the funding. about money. So the rest of my questions are about money. So thank you. Thank you, John. Okay. Lee about the funding. You mentioned the phones and the SBA account. I mean that's just a place where we have parked them. I think we'd rather need to look at if we weren't to receive of reimbursement from FEMA exactly where it's coming from. Is it coming from our reserves first for the water department would seem to be the first? We have a reserve this year for the water department, both the percentages that were required to keep plus some additional amounts and also some accumulation from previous years that we may not know the dollar amount for. That would be correct. Yes. I mean those would be our sources plus if we don't have the reserves, the indicator reserves for it, the only other funding source we would have would be from our ARPA, remaining ARPA funds. I mean, is that? The ARPA money, it was not set aside, so I'm not sure what is left of all of actually. The SBA, the Florida State Board of Administration, we've had that account for 30 years. That money that is sitting there is actually from Hurricane Michael Money, our insurance proceeds. I kept it completely separate and automatically moved it so it would just not be involved with general fund cash. So we can, as we move forward, pay it from the Water and Solo Revenue Fund. We can pull the expense from the reserve for water, because this is water, this is not sewer, for water only. And we can do a budget amendment to influx the expenditure in which we can add the SBA revenue on the revenue side to so we're not in the hole for water and solar, so we can do that. But we do have the cash available to go ahead and pay for this expenditure so we can get this done. So we have the cash, but not necessarily know at this point what the exact funding source will be. That would be correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then the third thing I have is this is a sole source procurement. Our procurement policy requires the completion of the sole source document. So that would, if that could be added to the motion that that be completed and compliance with our procurement policy. Any motion by Commissioner Grove and a second by Commissioner George, is there any further discussion, Commissioner Grove? Any chance of I know we talked about getting the rural water association maybe get a loan or USDA so interest the Florida rural water they have a loan program it inherently it comes from USDA so in the event that FEMA decides they're not going to cover this which is unlikely but that's something that we might have to pay our self back for that. We have any other questions commissioner? We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We have the other questions commissioner. We also need done he's all going to be working on some stuff to have one represent us from the whole world water that's working his sister. It works for the other process to make that bill get some money from. Let's follow might be able to help in this regard, especially since it goes along with a lot of their legislation. I did meet with Senator Simons a couple of weeks ago and this is on their radar. He has instructed his staff to begin looking for opportunities as well. There was an opportunity, I sent brief information regarding lending along for this as well. So they are aware of what's going on and we are keeping in touch. Kate Deloag, our lobbyist, has been instrumental and keeping me abreast of was going on and the opportunities that are available. So we are attacking this matter from every angle and if there are other opportunities that may be available, we would love to hear those options. But in the meantime, this is something that has to be taken care of. So at this point, we have a motion from Commissioner Grove, a second from Commissioner George, with the adding, creating the sole source document to be added to the motion. Commissioner Grove, will you amend your motion to include that? Yes. Have a motion by Commissioner Grove is second by Commissioner George any further discussion? Hearing none all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you, Rhett. Thank you John. Thank you, Rhett. Thank you for all that you do. We appreciate you. We will move swiftly on this beginning tomorrow. All right. Thank you. Thank you for all that you do appreciate you. We will move swiftly on this beginning tomorrow. All right, thank you. Thank you for your hard work. All right. Thank you. That concludes the new business. We will move to unfinished business. First on the agenda is the DEP storm water mitigation and repair project. Anovia consulting group. Selection of contractor for stormwater mitigation. Brie. So I'm presenting this one again on behalf of Cindy Clark. The city received a $2.4 million grant for stormwater infrastructure. This is the second time we've procured this. The first time we were not successful in negotiations. And we realized there were some things in the scope that really needed to be clarified to keep it fair and competitive. So we re-advertise, we went to the process again. And after scoring, Inovia engineering was the highest scoring firm. So the request is to authorize staff to begin negotiations with Enovia to prepare a proposal to complete the work in accordance with the scope of work. You've heard the recommendation from staff. What say you? Make a motion to approve. Have a motion by Commissioner Iliot. May I have a second? Second. Have a second by Commissioner Duncan. discussion. Sorry. Sorry. Have a second by Commissioner Duncan. Discussion? Commissioner George. I just have a question about the selection. Was manager, former manager Wade on the selection committee? He was not. We, he actually sent an email to document he was completely removed from the process He ob he delegated that to me and I handled the procurement and scoring Okay, thank you I'm emotional by commissioner Elliott is second by commissioner Duncan any further discussion Here and not all in favor. Hi any opposed? Motion carried. Next on the agenda is one of my favorite topics is the Gibson Parking attorney Hartman and Bre. Yes, so this is another iteration of the Gibson Parking Attorney Hartman and Bury? Yes. So this is another iteration of the Gibson Parking issue. What sets it apart, and we included in the commission package as well as potentially on the PNZ agenda upcoming for the May 10th meeting, is that the Gibson has proposed a new parking plan. They reduce the intensity of use in the on the site by removing tables and barstools and and revising their seating plan to reflect that. And what that did was reduce the overall total down to 100 spots which if the 45 avenue D property being an off site parking facility is tied to it then they are able to meet their parking requirements without the need for any waivers or mitigation and the reason it had been coming before the city commission was that the city commission is the one that decides on waivers and mitigation on any sort of parking plan. Parking mitigation, parking waiver. But since they did receive the parking waiver on the Gibson, so that was eight spots that they are credited with, but that's a decision already made. And again, moving forward, they are not asking for any mitigation or waiver. And in consultation with the planner, I believe it would be appropriate to, we didn't want to take it off the agenda because I know a lot of folks are coming here to see this specific item, but that this would now go back to PNZ for their review and a decision by PNZ on the new proposed parking plan that again would tie in 45 Avenue D and included in the package is just a draft of the declaration and restriction, basically, on that property that would be included. And that's just a draft. There have been the attorney for the Gibson did come back so far with one comment, which was not a problem. And it was simply that if in the future they want to move the parking off of 45 Avenue D to another site that's acceptable to the city that we would allow that. When I say allow that, it would be a discussion at that time. But that's just leaving options open, which doesn't, there's nothing wrong with that. And again, so the staff quest for emotion is that certainly the commission can ask any questions as to how we got here and any questions about the plan itself but really it's properly considered by it will be properly considered by P and Z as a proper authority to approve a parking plan that does not involve waivers or mitigation. Thank you Attorney Hartman. I apologize. Miss Davis had a comment regarding this matter and while she's coming for the record we've received comments from I think Mr. White's will we receive comment a comment from. Keith regarding this matter via email. Ms. Davis. Thank you, commissioners. Bonnie Davis, 111 Avenue D. I agree that the parking plan normally goes to PNC for approval. This one is somewhat unusual because it also includes binding dedication of an adjacent property and I seek clarification whether that is within the purview of PNC to approve or whether that is something that the commission would have to approve. Because I do think that changes should be made to it to make clear that the parking plan on which it is based and which that dedication is designed to bring into compliance with code cannot be changed in the future. It would run with land and if an applicant desired to change it, it would require a new parking plan that would go through the normal approval process. And I would encourage that that be a special to the county and the city. All counties have very clear on what is being approved. And in that same vein, I would note that the parking plan removes all the parking associated with the structure at 45 Avenue D. And in my opinion the land development code is very clear that for any structure or use in the commercial district there must be compliance compliance with the parking requirements of the code. So again I would urge that whether it's you all are being seen that that being reduced to writing and make clear that any change in the use of that property because I believe that's not used for commercial use now will require a change in the parking plan that would have to go through and approve a process and that none of those requirements will be altered by a change in ownership of the Gibson And I think the way to achieve that would be to have the community's writing be in a group of formats. So it would survive any change of ownership. Because the reality of this situation is that people need a place to park and just remember who needs to probably, you have to have compliance with the land value kind and the business below the Gibson or just to achieve that compliance. So we need to write and write and write and make sure everybody understands it. That's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Edwards, would you like to make a comment? Having me back to continue working on this. I think, I mean, I'm not attorney Hartman but I think most of the concerns that Miss Davis addressed are all written into this draft agreement. I too would like to ensure that it says that should something else happen with 45 Avenue that the owners of the Gibson and the City Commission would have to agree on that and review the parking. Sure, I think that makes complete sense, yes. Thank you. So you've heard the recommendation from attorney Hartman. He didn't have a card. I heard the recommendation from Attorney Hartman. May I have a motion to send the Gibson Park and Plan to planning and zoning board for final review and approval of the parking plan and inclusion of 45 Avenue D. I'll make that motion. I have a motion by commission. Elliot may I have a second. Okay. I have a second by commission of Grove discussion. Discussion. Commissioner George. We first see. That's good question first. I'm just want wants to. Once the commission get come finish with him then we will have him to sit down. All right. Commissioner George. Okay. I don't have any questions of Let. I mean, I just have directions to Commissioner Duncan does have a question of him. Commissioner Duncan. It's in regards to the 45 Avenue D property. Can you give me an update on the cleaning up of that area? I went through on Friday and got pretty embarrassed and have it on my mic. Can you speak into the point that I know it's a little bit in the taller? Thank you. On Thursday, I'll start cleaning up that property. there's going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I'm going to have it on the mic. I know you will and I thank you. Yes, okay, you got it. Thank you. would be concurrent. And that's why I'm specifically asking you, Mr. Edwards, because I know you will. And I thank you. Yes, okay, you got it. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. If we will call you, if we have any further questions of you, Commissioner George. I'm trying to say, I mean, I've felt for a long time that's needed to go back to P and C, I've tried to insist on it. So I think the City Commission and members of the public are to be commended for the corrections they have found to the parking plan that has moved it in a different direction than it was. We now have access to more parking spaces and the tentative plan. then we're previously, we're on previous plans and also we've maintained the integrity of our historic waiver for historic structures and decisions we've made here. There's there's a lot of things that PNZ is going to have to consider that still remain like stripping 45 Avenue D of all fits parking and The agreement to tie the property etc. But I really don't as the city commission to get more involved in it at this point We need to let PNZ Review the plan as they should have in the beginning and make a decision on the parking plan. Thank you. And we've perceived a lot of comments for this new parking plan. I think those suggestions that we have received should be forwarded to be included in the PNZ package as well, since they be deliberated here. Thank you. And I just want to say thank you, Mr. Edwards, Commissioner George, and staff for going to the table and sitting down and having a discussion and coming back with something that appears to be a product that can move forward to planning and zoning and we can hopefully lay to rest this issue and the Gibson can move forward. So thank you for your communication, your compromise, whatever was made at the table. Thank you so much for that. So we have a motion by commissioner Elliott, a second by commissioner Grove, to send the parking plan to the planning and zoning board March meeting for final review and approval of the parking plan and inclusion of 45 avenue D. If there's no further discussion, all in favor? I agree. Any opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. That concludes the unfinished business of this meeting. We'll move on to Mayor and Commissioner comments. I think I have just one comment as you can. Everyone has seen Leslie Street is at the finish line and it appears that the that will be a one-way street and there are so just want to remind everyone of that that it will be a a one way street. And we appreciate staff and we appreciate the vendor and the contractor for moving expeditiously to get that done once we've received a grant from FDOT. That's all I have at this point. Commissioner Groff. I passed out before the meeting began three sheets. It starts with a memorandum from President Ben Albritton, Senate President. And this is a bill that he was working with our legislators. We don't have to read it now, but I think it's important for us to support this bill. And anyway, This is a bill that he was working with our legislators You don't have to read it now, but I think it's important for us to support this bill in any way we can as individual commissioners or as the city It touches so many areas it provides more funding for roads More funding for a revolving program broadband business development, and economic help. It's pretty encompassing. And the idea is to pump more resources down to rural counties versus regular counties. So I think it bears our support. And if you have the opportunity, it might be good to send wishes to Senator Simon and and. But it president, all of it and a senator's show that we are in full support of that bill. The other two pieces of paper I sent are the highlights from partnership meeting. As you know, the partnership is, it's really the partnership for a resilient ablage goalabay, and it's known as a partnership. That is the successor group to the ablage goalabayormac Bay Systems Initiative that won one for four or half years. Now we have a management plan. We are moving forward on restoration. This committee is trying to decide how we can move forward on getting back to a commercial fishery. However, if you listen to the FWC meeting that took place last week, you need to keep in mind that it is a delicate balance. We have had some great indicators that part of it's coming back. However, only 77 acres have been restored. And then we have a long way to go out of 10,000 original historic acres that were harvestable. There's a very small percentage left. And I know it's hard for everybody to keep this in mind, but the bars have been devastated due to the drought. So we've got to put a lot more money to get the culture back in the bay. So that's something else that needs our support. I've highlighted some things we're working in with the Corps of Engineers and a full of fishing and wildlife. We have $20 million last week. do we got 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out of 10 million out have $20 million last year. We got 10 million hours of this year. FWC is putting in $20 million requests and we would like the city's support on that also. There are a couple of goals. The goal is to restore 2 or 2023. And we establish a fishery with a full-time coaching program. So keep in mind that there is a lot of restoration that still needs to be done. When the deadline expires on January 1, 2026, it's not going to be open to everybody to go out and get everything they want because it's still a really delicate state. So, it's hard to envision. So, keep in mind those bills. There's also another bill that came up from Moopers and a Shove. It's $500,000 to go to work program. And that's the final sheet. And it's the oyster habitat restoration bridging traditional knowledge and innovative practices. So that's to work with both new folks and the traditional oyster harvesters to pass on that knowledge. All of these bills are subject to success or fail. So anyway, we can help them along. It would be much appreciated. Just a couple of other points I wanted to bring up that the water department has mentioned in our budget coming up, that we really need to look at tap fees, that they're not paying for themselves, so when so many a new house, or has a new development, we need to look at that, and maybe increase those fees, so if that'll be on your radar, when we get to those discussions in May, or whenever we begin them. And just a note, Dave and I have talked a little bit about this. The trash pickup. We have garbage pickup once a week. And then we have lawn trash debris removal. I thought once a week. But apparently it's only once a week or a month. Once a month, including the whole town. So you and I talked about this as there. I have spoken to waste one about this. And it's interesting because what's happening is folks are putting out multiple piles. They're putting out much larger piles than we're contracted for pick up. And they send over their pluck the truck, the bucket truck. And obviously some folks are getting upset that their piles are sitting for longer than expected. But under the contract they have kind of just a rotating schedule and they or someone else is available for someone to pay separately. right? If you have a large project that you do in your yard, we were never set up to haul that off. I know historically the counties helped out and everything else I know those days are kind of past, but I believe in the contract there's even a size to your pile that you're supposed to have, but people they're saying are just lining up the road. However, that's their perspective. I watched it happen and I've done, I have some and neighbors who are keenly interested in this. And so I'm trying to be aware of it. And I watched it happen. You put one bag out. Then another one goes by and you put a cup of farm fronds out. Then you put a learn out. And after six, seven weeks, yeah, it's big. That's the problem. I mean, Am I wrong? It becomes a huge part. I actually had this page saying me that my neighbor had put new palm phones down on it. And I said, no, I've watched those bags. One by one, one a week, maybe one every two weeks. And then he just happened to cut down a couple of pom-poms, six weeks after, seven weeks after it should have been picked up. And she said, that's brand new. So this is a problem I think we need to address, and I'd like to bring it up at another meeting. So it's not sustainable. We need to discuss this. And I understand the contract was not clear. So maybe it's something we need to... Okay. But it's the, I mean, there were Christmas trees until last week on Avenue C and Avenue B. And I'm sure many other places in town, but that's where I walk and see that. So... So. So can I, um, may I make a suggestion, Attorney Hartman, Commissioner Grove, that you along with The clerk or acting city manager in terms of the terminology Schedule meeting and have a face-to-face this is is here and here to for commissioner growth. So I think she needs to be in on that conversation. So we can schedule a face to face. This is year and year for Commissioner Grove, so I think she needs to be in on that conversation. So we can schedule a meeting with them. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Grove? Thank you. Commissioner Duncan? Thank you. I had a question. Has anyone from any staff in the city going to the grant writing workshop that Bay Emergency Services is doing at the end of this month? Does anybody know about that or attending that? It was actually a part of my comments to ask if anyone was interested because I would really like to attend that. Me too. And I checked in to possibly hosting one for ourselves, but they would like for you to have at least 40 in attendance to host one. in a thought, well, maybe that's when I will ask about Bay. I'm interested in going. We just had a question. Go to that one. I can go to this one. Yeah, I know. So there was a question posed to you. I'm sorry, are any staff in the city going to this grant writing workshop by any chance? Is this the one in Panama City? Yes, by Bay and I'm sorry. Bay emergency services. Yes. Yeah, I had looked into it for myself. There is a cost associated and I wasn't comfortable asking for to be paid for. I'm open to going. If you think it's a benefit. I think if one of you want to go, I think it would absolutely be a benefit. Do you remember what the call's associated with? There's a, you get a discount for being with municipality. It's either 350 or 450. A person for two days. Yeah, it was pretty. 3.95. 3.95, yeah. Remember it was. And that includes up to days of terrific instruction, workbook and a lifetime access to our alumni resource center. That's packed full of helpful resources and sample grant proposals. I think so that we can stay on track so that can you get together and discuss that. Yes, ma'am. We can, we can, we can, we can stay on track so that can you all get together and discuss that? Yes, ma'am. So we can stay on track. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Yes. The only other thing is I would like to revisit the possibility of I've been approached again about a freshwater term. Tournament we have an ordinance that's been in place for quite some time not allowing for there to be boats launched downtown because of the number. I think that we have moved past that now. We have hundreds of boats at times down there that are being launched through salt water. But anyway, there's an interest in a group coming and speak into the commission. So I would like for that to be put on the agenda for the April meeting. I don't remember. I mean, during my time, I don't know. Well, if I could ask Madam Clerk to please look into that, if that ordinance has been done away with, then I would. Okay. Well, there are a lot of people who still think it's in place, but anyway, there are very people that are interested in getting back a freshwater tournament trail and it is also a good avenue for people to stay the weekend and eat in our restaurants and they have a great idea about how to stage it so that they're not disrupting the no-wake zone that we've now just recently discussed and and anyway so that's my request. Thank you. So for clarification, Commissioner Duncan, did you direct that research to the City Clerk? Yes. Yes, ma'am. I'm asking the City Clerk if she would please look into that Thank you. Thank you Commissioner George do you have any comments? I do okay We have may have city elections this year and need to have a Election proclamation in the month of June for qualifying the last Week of June a couple of years ago, we amended our ordinances related to elections to change the election cycle, to transition to even years instead of odd years. And when that ordinance was written, there were two or three areas that were not covered by that ordinance that I supplied to attorney Hartman after the process had started. And you thought that we could clean those up later. I think the time to clean them up is now because we would have to have a first reading in April, second reading in May in order to be ready for our elections in June. So, I think we need to proceed with that. I'll send you the comments I had before. And I think you also indicated there were a couple of areas that I missed that may also have to be amended. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. Thank you, Mayor. Most of the things that I had planned on covering in my comments, I actually shared already regarding the rural Renaissance and Team Franklin. Commissioner Duncan took one of my points about the grants class, and the final item I had goes hand in hand with Cory Simon's bill for the River Renaissance. Also has to do with affordable housing, its house bill 247 York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the city of New York, and the or master planned communities. The bills do not change current law requirements that a building permit application for an accessory dwelling unit must include an attestation from the applicant that the unit will be rented at an affordable rate to low or moderate income persons. I know that a lot of people are not in favor of the idea of rent control, but I would not consider this rent control. This is an attestation that the accessory dwelling unit is going to be used in such a way that it does not try to commercialize the home that it is associated with. I think that it's very important to not, to when we have laws like this implemented, I think that it's important that we close loopholes for bad actors to do things like rent out 200 square foot shed for $1,500 a month and drive up the rent prices for the rest of us around here. So I know that staff has already been following this bill and it was passed through first committee February 18th. I do not know. I'm sorry. That was the Senate bill 184. 247, I am not sure it has been heard or passed yet. So that is just something to keep in mind. If we go forward with any more accessory dwelling workshops, we may need to potentially curves that. We did work on that similarly for vacation rentals and then the state preempted us and all that work was pointless. That is all I have. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Elliott. Marie, I'm going to open up the floor for you. Grant's coordinator. First I want you to hit discuss the CDBGDR grant, specifically the Hill side project, specifically the McNair's game room. All right. Feel free to interrupt me and ask questions because this might be a bit of a mouthful and there might be some things left out. So as long as I have been involved with the CDBG grants since I joined the city, the scope has been set. The game room was set for roof repairs. The scope of work always said that and the budget has been around $9,600. I know it was insinuated in public comments that I was the one who gathered quotes for that. I was not on City staff at the time this was put together. This put together well before the agreements were drafted. My understanding is when... And this is all hearsay,, please keep in mind, when the application was being put together, the work that private businesses could apply for, they were encouraged to create kind of a wish list of what they wanted, but the program guidelines specify that it has to be damaged from Hurricane Michael. The game room in particular, there was an application made, it asked for roof repair, some structural repair, interior, an exterior repair, paved parking lot, striped parking lot. I believe that was most of it, maybe some electrical in there as well. The only quote with that application material that was gathered was for the roof. When I see that, my assumption is that whoever was putting this together at the time, which was a former finance director, looked at what they wanted and said, okay, the roof is definitely from the hurricane. The rest of it, if it was pre-existing, it was not eligible for this funding. I'm not sure if that's how that happened or why it was tailored down to the roof. I don't know if there were discussions held. That is my assumption when I look through the files. So that is how we have proceeded along as we've gone through this grant process. When the engineers went out and did site visits, they went to the game room, they evaluated the roof, and they kind of just eyeballed the structural, they had severe concerns. They recommended the building for demolition, they did not recommend that the city move forward with prepares. We went to the McNair's, the owners, and we discussed with them, and when I say me, I mean, mostly me and the former city manager Travis Wade. Discussed with them, We gave them the option. It was potential they could get the building demolished with the grant funding. It probably wouldn't have covered all of it, but it was an option. It was something that Commerce said they could do. They did not want to proceed with that. They wanted to proceed with repairs. So we moved along in that effort. We talked about what to focus on. The roof has always been in the scope of work. In the engineers very much so recommended we do a full structural assessment on the property to see what repairs needed to be made to get it into compliance. Because it's a commercial building, it's kind of held to a higher standard as far as building code and permitting and who is allowed to work on it as a contractor. So they did the structural assessment. It came back. It was worse than anticipated. The list of repairs was extensive. It was sent to the McNairs. This was all towards the end of 2024. We reviewed it with them. They were given a chance to look over it for themselves and look at the list. And the program agreement that we had had participant sign earlier on this process, it is based on the program guidelines. And it does state in that agreement that they're aware of the program guidelines. And a big kicker of those guidelines is if you accept the money you're on the hook for keeping that building open commercially viable of the same use for five years of the conclusion of the grant. If the grant closes out and concludes and the building is not being held open commercial, it's not safe It doesn't meet current code At that point commerce could come back and ask for their money back and building is not being held open, commercial, it's not safe, it doesn't meet current code. At that point commerce could come back and ask for their money back. And they wouldn't be going to the owner of the building, they would be coming to the city. Because the city is the subrecipient of the grant and then we are doling it out to the business owners on our behalf through commerce. I'm kind of losing my place in trying to explain this, but yeah, so there's a lot that comes with the program guidelines and we went through it with them multiple times. We called them back in after the structural assessment. This was December 2024 and I just, we went through the program guidelines, we went through the assessment and I stress to them if they accept the money, the $9,600 in the scope that the rest of the repairs have to be made to get the building up to standard so it's commercially viable and that it can be open. Now that burden to get to that point it does fall on the business owner to go the rest of the way. We talked about potential financial planning, things that could be done to maybe get them like the amount of work that they need. We at the end of the meeting, we decided we would meet again in January. They would kind of take the holidays to think over what they wanted to do. We had a meeting January 9th. When I say we, it was just Travis Wade myself and the McNair's. During that meeting, they said they had thought it over. I was under the impression and the takeaway from that conversation is they opted out of the program. I was very much so under that impression, based on things that they said, former City Manager Travis Wade also drafted up a memo the next day of his recollection of the conversation. And I do wanna stress the opt out waiver that they say was presented to them. It was presented to them. It was drafted based on the conversation that we had January 9th. I followed up with it. I emailed it. I asked them to reach out with any questions, any concerns that they had. I did not hear back that they had questions per say. It just wasn't signed for most of January. And then Nesey had reached out and said, yes, she had some questions. She she wanted to chat so we got back together in February I believe it was February 25th and met in person to go over everything and at that point the McNair stated that they had not opted out at the January 9th meeting perhaps it was a miscommunication but they had not opted out and they very much so wanted to be included in the grant, but they were requesting more funding from the program in order to complete necessary repairs to get up to code. At this point, our scope is set, our budget is set. If we are going to change that, we will have to go back through commerce. It's a lengthy process. I'm not saying we can't do it, but it is a process and again, we are on a time on the grants that we're all aware of. My understanding of what the McNairs are requesting and the discussion topic for you is we did have two out of the original five businesses in the hill opt out of the funding. One was Q's lounge and the other was the Massy building. And the Massy building was removed because it wasn't going to be commercial after the funding. So they removed and Q's kind of had a similar situation to the game room where the engineers came out. They said you really should demolish this. The amount of money you have isn't going to get you to where you want to be in the former owner at that point removed. And after they'd read the program guidelines, it does come with some things that they weren't willing to keep up with, at least for five years. So they removed, and that does leave money on the table in the scope. My understanding up until this point was any funding that had been de-obligated from a business was going back to the community project, the sidewalk and lighting project. It is not going to be able to be completed with the money and the scope of work for the Commerce project. It is like all of our other projects, we're going to come up short. We probably will get the sidewalks done, but the lighting might have to be a phase two. And I know we've talked about that before. I'll let the McNair speak for their request. I will make mention of the budget since I know there is a request for more funding from the program. So, CUS This restaurant had $82,300 allocated to its location and the massive building had $6,000. So, that's roughly $88,300 from the property owners that had opted out that we had assumed would go back to the community project and benefit everybody for sidewalks and lighting. I do want to urge you as we discuss this, whatever we do for one business, we need to be willing to do for the others. All of these projects are probably going to come up short on their scope of work and the original dollar amounts just because things have gone up over time. So yeah, I can answer questions just kind of a long summary. Before I open it up for questions, Attorney Hartman, have you had an opportunity to be briefed and if so, what are your recommendations as city attorney? I have been briefed and I did participate by phone in the meeting at the end of February. Green very, I know it was lengthy but she pretty concisely summarized what's going on. I drafted the opt out waiver. I'm familiar with the guidelines and again mean, I'll just repeat what Brie was saying, but it is that the, any repairs need to be related to damage caused by Hurricane Michael. My understanding looking at the reports on the McNair's property is there's a lot of damage there. Turbites, rot, but that is not predated to Hurricane Michael from the reports. And the requirement that you need to stay in business for five years after receiving the money, otherwise it could be liable to pay it back. So those are two kind of immutable issues with commerce and their impediments to to I know it's a little bit unclear but I do think as Bremenchin what they're trying to accomplish would be a renovation of their property to get it into back to to be current building code and that sort of thing, that has never even been priced. But it certainly would be outside the scope of this grant from my review of the guidelines. That's the dilemma. Thank you. Which McNair will be speaking on behalf of the game room? Which one of you? I really would just like to have one person speak for both so that we can kind of keep it too. So you made the comment that you opted out of the 9,000 correct out of the request for 9,000. Yes, I believe I'm sorry. So what amount are you requesting or would like to request and what would that cover? You would like to request the amount of money that we went back up to upper right. And I'm not sure of the total amount, but I don't know that we were told that the wars that opt out would be, the money would be spread abroad to the wars that stay in the Union. So any amount would help bring the gang back up to part, other than what would be allocated now for the $6600. Commissioner Elyde, I think that's all your hand go up. So this program is administered by HUD. The funding is ultimately from HUD. It's been administered by Florida Commerce. Okay. Gotcha. So the guidelines for this program, the funding for it, the allocation for it, these are all guidelines that are set by HUD and Department of Commerce. The way those funds are allocated are set out in those agreements and in those guidelines. That's the reason why that other business owners that had put in for these grants that chose to opt out of them, those are going back to the sidewalk project. We do not have the ability or right to allocate funding from that project back to you or to different business owners through there. That's per HUD and commerce. So if you want to have the funding allocated differently, I think your ask needs to go above us to commerce or HUD because we are not empowered to choose whom that money goes to. It lays out in that process that if the private owners choose not to accept it, it goes back into for the community project. And that community project is the streeting or the sidewalks and the lighting for the streets. So we don't really have much control on that regard. This is a CDBGR grant, which means it has disaster recovery. It was related to Hurricane Michael. The former finance director, Mr. Leo Bebo, is the one that worked with you guys on this. He was the one working with Gores and associates at that time. I am not sure what he told you. I am not sure what he told you the project specifications were, but it has to all be hurricane Michael related. So the damage and the wish list and the renovations, if the roof had been damaged in such a way that that damage had led to the other repairs that needed to be made to bring the building back up to code, I could see that being considered as part of that. But some items that were included on that list, parking lot and striping, that's definitely not something that was destroyed or removed by a hurricane. So I'm not sure what Mr. B. Bo led you to believe on that. But the program guidelines do dictate. And those are said by HUD, commerce is the one that administers that, and then we administer it under them. So I don't think that we're able to just hand over another sum of money to you on that. So I would recommend if you want to request that, you're going to have to send that request through your attorney to HUD or commerce. Can I comment on that? I just want to clarify, the program guidelines are set. The scope and the budget are also set, but in a sense they can be fluid. We are able to request amendments to the scope and the budget. We are a little late in the game for such a request. It's not impossible. What I will say is it would be very questionable if the city were to go to commerce and change it so much as to take money away from the overarching project, which was the sidewalks in lighting. It wouldn't be as far out of the realm for the money for the two businesses that de-obobligated, for that to be back on the table, to consider obligating to a business that was originally in that FIVE. But again, I stress there's two other locations as well. They are both also going to be under budget. We would need to figure out a way to ethically and fairly distribute that. What I will say is we around the time the agreements came out, one of the other business owners had some questions about the agreement and we ended up kind of going through the ringer with commerce on the process and commerce kind of drilled down on that owner and was like, prove your damage, prove this was from Hurricane Michael. They were able to do so, which we were glad about, but they had to produce pictures, and there were a lot of questions from commerce. So if we do go to commerce, it's one discussion about the funding, but it's another to elaborate on the scope of work. Because right now commerce has approved the roof, that's in the scope of work. If we extend it, the structurally valve was, it was extensive and some of the damages in it that relate to structural work were not caused by Hurricane Michael is just building codes of change. Things were constructed back then, not in the same fashion they are now, and some of those things would be more so an update, not a fix for hurricane Michael Damage. And it's very likely that if we do go to commerce and say, hey, we want to expand this location scope of work. They will ask for that documentation. Photos, do you have proof of what it looks like before, what it looks like after, we know what it looks like now, and they have taken photos along the way of their damages from the roof and some leaking that's happened. Commerce will ask for pictures from before dated as close to before her can Michael as possible. That's just something to anticipate if we go down that route we can ask they may not say yes and I don't know how that would turn out it's just something we have to ask and see. And I'm sorry go ahead you had you want to make a comment? Yes. Well we were approached, excuse me, we were approached in a beginning if we want to to take in the grant. We said yes. And the application that we filmed out was what we would like to see. The game will have at that time. We knew that it needed a roof which came from the home game Michael. And as long as it up all these things happened to the game and deteriorated from the not preparing the roof right away. We could have filed our insurance but we was waiting on the city. We could have used our I'm going to home on the city insurance but we didn't wait until you're back from the city and now it has deteriorated that much from 2000 and work to 2025 over time. Commissioner Duncan. Have you received any type of estimate? Any kind of ballpark from any one about the repairs that do need to be done. I have a question please. Yes. The CD to the office that there was going to use a contract to come right then and inspect the facilities. We can use our own contract. I hate to interject on that point. Who told you that? Well, again, Ms. Carmen, she was over the program. So you're referencing the application part of this, correct? Like not something recent. You're talking about when you put the application together and you were getting quotes. I think right now, if I can kind of interject here, because I could see this here and I. I can ask. Right now. I can't idea. Because Ms. McNair said that she wanted the funds to bring the game room to par. Have there been any quotes that you've received since any of the meetings that you've had with the city to get? So you don't know what it's going to cost. Because she stipulates that we can use a contract to come in there and estimate how much it costs to repair the building. I have one more question. Okay. All right. We're not going to come. Sorry. The engineering report that we put out on that building as well as the Q's building. Yes, sir. What impact? Because I know for example, like on Q's on our building, there are comments a tear down, you know, and then that impact did their ability in the past to get the roof because there were structural questions we're in there now and it's not a tear down. So I have questions about these engineering reports as well that put us in the but you as well as this building in the position where you do or don't approve. Anyway, I would like to see it looked into. I would like to see it looked into. I would like to see what it would cost. We're neighbors, let's talk. You also had two engineers that come out. Yes, sir. And gave you the same result. Yes, sir. So that was money wasted. I don't think it was wasted because you very much need that information. You need that information. Excuse me. You need that information to move forward to know what your repairs are. The structural assessment was much. Signed was up. It was much more than anything. Okay, so. So, so we are, we are, um, let's stay on task, let's stay on track. So Commissioner Duncan, you have any further questions? Um, no, I just simply said that I would love to be of assistance. I know Sterling most likely would love to come over. Let's, let's talk and see what you know. Also to Hurricane Michael program, but that grant is said repairs. Sidewalks haven't even exist, so that's not a repair foot at grant. It does talk about hometown revitalization as well. That was part of the program. All I can say to that is commerce approved, the sidewalk and lighting project, the same way we've kind of got sister projects going on.'ve got the hill you've got the riverfront and then we have a stormwater avenues they're all CDBG. The riverfront is in a very similar situation. There's a lot of sidewalk and lighting improvements parking lots and then there are also five business owners in the riverfront scope of work. Several of those owners had to contribute financial match for the city to chase down their projects because they were a higher dollar amount. That was not asked of the Hill owners. There was no match required. I do want to point that out. Part I will say, and this is kind of speaking on behalf of the former city manager, but part of the reason, I guess, that we were kind of, and we also had grant consultants and commerce saying, well, this is how people normally do this. The reason we did not assume that we should try to dull this money back out is the scopes mindset. People choose to remove for whatever reason. We didn't necessarily want to reward the ones who stuck around because you could get into situations where somebody deobligates early and there is money available. And if you say you're going to make it available to everybody else, others would stick around knowing there's more funding. It's kind of a- Why didn't you pay the owner today? Mr. McNair, we are not going to... We're going to ask the questions. We're going to try to get some conclusions, but we're not going to becker back and forth. We're trying to ask questions to ascertain what can be done going forward. So the question that we left off was have you received any quotes for the we have not. No we have. Do you have any more comments? Question. No ma'am thank you thank you Commissioner Grove do you have any questions or comments for the McNair's? Commissioner George. I mean we've had workshops about. commissioners. We've had workshops about this grant several times and what I'm hearing now is a complete opposite of what we've been told in the past. When we discussed the sidewalks versus private owner projects, We were previously told that if there were people that dropped out, that it would be reallocated to the private projects and that the priority would be to fund the private projects and that the sidewalks were the secondary issue. I mean, that came up time and time again. Now I'm hearing something completely different. I mean to me the sidewalks are just cosmetic community revitalization is revitalizing what we have and get these businesses going again. We've had little participation on the hillside but we have a couple how many do we have still in three? Business owners, including the game room three. So I don't know how did that priority shift from reallocating to the private projects to allocating the excess to sidewalks? I mean when was that decision made? My understanding is this has been constant. The dollar amounts have always been set and they've always been part of the same budget. It's all part of the same project. We kind of talked about them separately, private owners versus the community project, but it's still all in summary part of one scope of work and one budget that has been broken out the same way from the start. I'm sorry I'm not answering your question. I was not, I have not been under the impression that if somebody backed out their money would be obligated to other business owners. If that's something you want to discuss and explore we can but as of right, that's not how we have been operating. I mean, I don't believe that's what we were told, but that was my understanding is that there were, because of the passage of time, now there were cost over runs on all the projects, and that we were gonna prioritize the private projects. So this is very distressing to me. I mean, what can be done at this point? I mean, cutting back to me, cutting back the length of the sidewalks we've always already have done. I mean, the lighting's out because we don't have enough money. The scope of the length of the sidewalk has been shortened. I mean, if we make a decision that we want to prioritize the private projects that we have, can we do that? Do we still have time to do that? So I will say I don't think the discussion topic is like changing the sidewalk layout. The plans are done. We'll bid it out and see where the money, how the bids come in. Hopefully it comes in under budget, and there's enough money for everybody to do everything they want. But as I've brought now, that's not how it seems. I will caution if we run with the mindset of put the business owners first and pay for everything that their scope says. And then just what's left can go to the sidewalk and lighting. There's not going to be much for the sidewalk and lighting. And that is a very big part of this project for commerce. And I also want to I just want to make sure we're consistent on how we operate with the Hill Project versus the riverfront. We have five projects on the Riverfront and most of those consists of dockwork. It's very, very expensive. A lot of those projects are into the six figures. Some of them go up into 300,000s. It's very likely those also come in over budget and it's very easy to eat into the overarching city project. However, we handle this scenario, we need to do the same for the riverfront owners. I think the discussion that should be had is about funding. I don't think it's out of reach. We do have to get commerce is blessing on everything that we do. be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that. We're going to be kind of go from there. So have the funds for private projects that have opted out have those now been put into the sidewalk budget? It's assumed that they were going to go into the sidewalk and lighting project. They're not quote, put anywhere. The budget is still written the way it was and it's just got the two businesses that backed out Crossed out with the funding going into the overarching project. The dollar amounts for each location is still set I can't I could pull them up and rattle them off. I don't think that's a good idea though, but I mean we could get into the details if you guys want to I think we need to know that, like what funds are available. I think we need to know that, like what funds are available. I think, and I hate to interrupt. I think there needs to be a workshop with the business owners. The business owners that are part of this project, there needs to be a meeting hill with all of those businesses to discuss the entire scope of the project. I don't know how much time we have as far as bidding out the projects, but I think that will be the fair way to go because one project is going to affect the entire project. So that needs that conversation needs to be held with all of the partners that are involved in this project. That's my opinion attorney Hartman. Legally, what is what is your take on that? Certainly it's the commission's Progative to set a workshop and then What I guess Ms. Robinson would do is contact commerce and determine what timelines were under. Because that will dictate when the workshop needs to take place, what are options are because commerce is in control I keep going back to the ones where you have to be open for five years after they're coming. Otherwise they will come back and they have the right to come back and make you pay back the money, which sounds like it's making the city pay back the money. And then the city needs to pursue the property owner. So it's just ugly that part of it we don't even want to get into. And again, I think as far as the other businesses are concerned, they have documented. I mean, tell me if this is right or wrong. I'm not familiar that the the other businesses have documented Hurricane Michael damage and that the money allocated to them is for Hurricane Michael damage, like already vetted and approved. So I think to make the most of a workshop, the McNair's should also do that, meaning so we're not speculating about, I mean, I shouldn't say speculating. Certainly they can get contractor to tell them, this is what it's going to take to get this property up to par. But if it's not hurricane, Michael damage, then it's not even eligible under the guidelines as they sit. So that was unapprovable by commerce. But we wouldn't, I think, to make the most of a workshop, it would be good to know that. And that would be, I mean, is that on the applicant? That's on the property owner to... It's on the property owner to be able to essentially prove their case. I hate to phrase it that way, but they are essentially proving their case, which a lot of them did through their application materials at the start of this, to the city. In the city applied on their behalf. in theirant of this grant. The city is a lot of the steps and conversations that we've had are for the city to make sure the city is protected and the property owners are aware of what they are green to and they sign the piece of paper that says yes, I understand the program guidelines. We've worked very hard to be transparent with the owners and go through the program guidelines and have met multiple times. I hate it has gotten to a point where there was some sort of miscommunication or whatever happened, it happened and it's where we are now. We've got to figure out how we're going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are going to move forward. We are to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to So right now our deadlines are still September 2025. With an option we can request a one-year extension which it's shaping up like we should do that just for administrative side. Once the work is done closing out the grant still takes a few minutes. an option we can request a one-year extension, which it's shaping up like we should do that. Just for administrative side, once the work is done, closing out the grant still takes a couple months. So, sooner is better than later, and also if we have this workshop, we need to involve the riverfront owners, because it has implications for how their project is going to handle as well. Yes, can you get a commercial move from to giving a general bill and from a pay on your roof before we have a small shop? After you. Okay. In our will. Okay. And you know, if it's a commercial building, it has to be done by. Okay. Okay. All right. Commissioners to you as well. Were you, were you finished with your comments? I like the idea of a workshop. I don't think we're going to solve it tonight. Yeah. I have a request for point of information. Commissioner George, if you can provide a record of when this change in funding allocation happened. I have no memory of us ever being informed that other members of the private project that the funding would be reallocated to other private business owners that pulled out. I never remember being told that. My recollection of this entire program is that it has always been the guidelines that we are aware of now. So if you can provide a record of when we were informed of otherwise of what we know now in the beginning of this process, I would be glad to know because I do not recall that ever being told to us. I remember exactly what where it was but unfortunately the meeting was at Holy Family and not adequately recorded. Clerk Cummings can you find that recording for us and I will review it. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Miss McNair. Do you have any other comments? Any other request? How would you allow us know about the workshop? Do we have a number? Unbrea will contact. She will contact. Staff will contact. Okay. Staff will contact all of the parties that are involved with the grant and schedule that time. Okay. So I would um. I asked for clarification as far as scheduling goes. Um we obviously want to make that the business owners can attend. We're going to be working with about eight different business owners, so it's very likely we can't pin them all down on one day. How do you want me to proceed with scheduling? And how soon can we get the schedule? The scheduling as soon as you can get it organized, I think it will be ideal. You may have to have two. One with the hillside, one with the riverfront, I don't know. But in my thought process, as long as you have the majority of them there to move forward, to have the conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So my question to you for beating this project you can't move forward until we get this matter resolved. Correct. Okay. So time is of the essence. Okay. So time is of the essence. If you can get that quote for the root. Okay. will go with it. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you all. Mr. McNaird. If it's involved in it. Yeah. There. Sorry. The scope of work currently just says the roof. Their, the structural assessment list was like a longer list involved structural electrical plumbing. But if the roofer can determine that the ceiling was affected from the roof, wouldn't that tie into it? It wouldn't be on the roofer. It would be on the owner to produce pictures or something that shows what it looked like beforehand. We have pictures in the back part of the building. It's collapsed. It's very dangerous to even walk in there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Mathis, do you have anything for as finance director? Do you have anything for us? Can you have an idea when we'll have some current financials? Mayan, we were supposed to meet two weeks ago. She got sick. I had just emailed her just 15 minutes ago to see when we could come back again. It's going to go fairly quickly once I can get one month of balanced. It will go extremely fast after that. I'm still in her in information. Finance clerk has got 24, 25 stuff in her. Caught up. She, we are currently operating in her new quit books. So she's running AP off of the new quit books. I do think that she has to finish up entering the receipts. But she has got all the checks caught up from October to January. Starting February 1, we started using QuickBooks for everything. And so we have got our chart of accounts all completed. So we are plugging along. So that would be my goal. Yes. But I mean, Megan to come to help me balance October because she entered all the beginning balances. So it's going to be a bear a little bit to kind of get our. It is with the audits. Auditors. So I haven't heard from her. I hope I hear from her tomorrow, but she was real bad six. So I mean, I was out last week. So any questions for finance director? Attorney Hartman. I have nothing. Okay. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda that has outlined at the adoption of the agenda. As a move. Have a motion by Commissioner Elliott. May I have a second? Second by Commissioner Grove discussion. Here in none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. That concludes this meeting. The department reports are included in the packet. And if there is no further business before this body may I have a motion to adjourn? I see move. I have a motion by commission early. It may have a second second by commission to grow. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Thank you and have a good night.