to bless them according to your will, God. And for this we give your name, praise, glory, and honor in Jesus Christ. 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 all. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? I make the motion. Have a motion by Commissioner Grove. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Elliott. Any discussion? Here in none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? agenda adopted This time we will have public comments we have several cards here first we'll have mr. Dennis winner eager I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have comma. I have a comment. I live at one 17th eight street, which is the southeast corner of a street now in the J where the sidewalk would be built on the to the front side of my property as well as the lights would be installed. I have a comments about the lights. The last design set, engineering design set, the lights, well let me back up. There's three in your agenda tonight. There are three examples of lights that would be installed on 16-foot poles. In my opinion, the style of those lights are Victorian and they're really not in keeping with the architecture of the hill. So my suggestion is for you to consult architecture and architect. It was familiar with the history of the hill and do select something more appropriate. The design said that I saw for the sidewalks and the lights which has been some time ago now. I don't know if it's changed to only if it has but they're proposing four or five of these 16-foot tall lights on each block along eight street and the other areas. I don't think they're needed. There are already lights on the corners of each of the intersection of the streets and the avenues. Like I said, I don't think they're needed. Most people don't walk after dark on the hill and it's not because it's unsafe. It's just that they don't. I mean, I see traffic coming going all the time and most people don't walk at night. And if you install those lights, say the city's just gonna have to pay for the electricity, basically the taxpayers gonna pay for the electricity for those lights. That the workshop that was over a year ago now on February 20th, 24, I commented that I would like to see the lights made dark sky compliant. And I believe at that meeting, the city manager agreed with that comment and so that they would be dark sky compliant. And I'm looking at the design of those lights they don't appear to be dark sky compliant dark sky compliant lights shine reflect the light down. and there are more efficient use of light, rather than light, going in every which direction up and sideways. So we can get the spec sheets for the lights. I didn't see any footage about Darsky compliant. They don't appear to be Darsky compliant. An example of Darsky compliant lights for the ones that are currently at Lafayette Park. If you've seen those, I have the... the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I did have some suggestions for all alternatives for the lights. Cost shades that are attached to the agenda make it pretty clear I think that. The budget's going to be tight. There may not be enough money for everything. And if that's the case, I would suggest not installing lights at all. Or if you don't like that suggestion, maybe just installing lights in certain locations, for instance, installing the tall lights up in the, up on MLK where the existing businesses are between 8th tenth street. And the last option I would suggest to you is if there's not enough money to fund all the lights, is that you consider only installing the pedestal lights, which were in that engineering design set that I saw over here ago. And those pedestal lights are just short lights that are only 18 inches tall. They have a small light on the top of them. They're kind of ambient lighting. And they would obviously be much less expensive than the $2,000 per light 15 foot tall light. So as that you consider those alternatives as you get to it at the end of the agenda here. Thank you. Miss Cox. Miss. Cox will. Ms. Lee Cox will. I have commented endlessly over the last four years. I just was hoping there would be an opportunity once we've heard from everybody. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good time. Thank you. Jean, give me 2269th Street, App. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. to maintain that we have a lot of time to be able to do that. I would like to agree with the expenditure of the sidewalks in the lighting. The city doesn't have the capacity to maintain what we do have in terms of sidewalks. I do walk a lot and there are many. Delighting, I agree with Mr. Dennis, wondering about the Doug Sky compliant lights that's environmentally so important these days. Worldwide, there's movement, a movement to reduce light pollution. And I, I disagree with the need for the lighting in general. In addition, I just want to register my support for whatever the city commission can do on behalf of the game room and the as we pointed out last meeting the only black owned business in on the hill right now. I know there's a lot to be done to bring the building to up to standard, up to code and perhaps there isn't enough money for that but perhaps there's some other mechanisms that can be utilized and found for the game room because I think it's really important that the city continue to support the hill and the black community on the hill. So with that, I thank you for your considerations. So I have cards from again, the Ray-Lily Cox Whale, William Barber McNair, Wes Warren, and Steve Rass, who are all participants. You want to speak now or I don't have a card for Water Street Hotel, but they do have a representative here. So would you like to comment now or you would like to wait until later? And Mr. Cox wants to wait until later. Miss McNair. I'm going to come to you shortly. Mr. Warn, do you want to speak now or you want to? I'll do for her. I would like to. Okay. Mr. Rash. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time out to. I'll speak. I'm going to have to go back to the next slide. I'm going to have to go back to the next slide. I'm going to have to go back to the next slide. I'm going to have to go back to the next slide. I'm going to have to go back to the next slide. I'm going to about AppLunch Cola outside the fact that we love it. We once went to find a reason to buy down here, but obviously us being in business and it being, it's not a lot of opportunities first to buy stuff down here that makes financial sense, right? So this came up, it was an interesting idea. We actually had to buy something, it was kind of a timeline issue. So we want to buy it. And then that's when the grant thing came in literally about two weeks after we closed on this property. So I found out that this was coming. Been waiting, I've been waiting, we've worked with Bri on this, trying to get familiar with the process. She's been awesome. Glad we're finally here having this discussion. But obviously, since then, we've kind of been proactive, trying to do what we can, and have met a lot of people along the way down here. A lot of people have been running too. So really enjoyed being here. We're also, I'm also the person that's building and renovating the Zeigler House on H Street, too, which is three doors down, actually right next to the NEC. And that's been a process started here in this room over a year ago on the, and we're still got a little bit to go. So we're happy to be here, just more or less introducing myself, after looking and breaking down some of the stuff, of the financial stuff, on this, the spreadsheeted gave us. I didn't notice a stark difference in the money, I'm wanted for the hill versus some of other streets. And I get that that's, you know, three or four years that they've done this or whatever. But, you know, after getting a little bit, well, that must leave in the hill area and meeting some of the people. I'm here to advocate, not only ourselves in the many wild to make that better but also for the other people in the hills. So that's going to be a real eye on all this. So more or less just when they come and say that before this gets started. So very much here for the restoration of the hill, I think it's very important. And obviously, the last year to have me in my life and my family and found ourselves in here, and we were doing more stuff. And obviously, the hill we're going forward would be better for us and better for the people that are using our laundry mat. I don't know if anybody has used that, but we batted eight machines out of pocket. We're really doing what we need to. We took over that place. It wasn't anything that I would want in my community. So the needs of work still needs a lot of work, but that's kind of what we want. So I'm happy we're here having this discussion. Nice to be all you guys. Thank you, nice to meet you, and welcome to the community. Steve? Are you sure? All right. I'm going to be on the safe. Sure. Thank you. I wanted to come to kind of explain my situation. We have been approved for some of the CDBG grant to rebuild our Grant to rebuild our DACA water street seafood. It's been kind of a long process. I've been kind of a little bit unsure about it part of the way, but when the project was approved, I had some reservations because there was restrictions on the property. If you had this dock, if we had this dock built this doc built restrictions on my ability to do whatever I wanted to do with the property for a period of time and you know to I mean my plan with the property is to one day move my seafood business off the waterfront and and do something else with the property it would be compatible and you know good for community and that That would include dockets, which are docks have all been really damaged by the storms over the years to the point that most of them are almost unsafe and unusable. And I've tried to get them rebuilt, but I'm trying to get a dock. A dock, somebody to build and this is impossible because they're all busy. But it's really a good opportunity to have the doc rebuilt, but in actuality what we really need, eventually it slips, not linear doc, but slips all down there for the best use for the most boats and most capacity. So, you know, I've been conflicted as to what to do. You know, first of all, if we have the dock built, you know, I got to put up $40,000. And then there is some level of restrictions, but he kind of explained those to me some more, but there's still some kind of, I think, I think, it not be that big an issue, but three years, five years from now, we want to develop the property. And we're going to tear a fairly brand new dock down and redo it. I mean, that makes sense to do that with my money or taxpayers' money or anybody's money. So I'll reach on to figure out what to do. I've been struggling with that. And again, my own property out kind of by the airport and my plan was one day to build a new facility there. And the trend is going, I mean as far as the seafood and the fish that we get across our docks is going down, the trends going down, there's less and less fish and boats and fishermen and all they're above. And we get more of our seafood in by trucks and whatnot. So being on the waterfront is not that critical. The boats that we unload, we can always send a truck to the docks and unload the fish into the truck and take it back to our seafood processing facility. Not being on the waterfront has a lot of advantages like when hurricanes come and baiting in some taxes and a whole range of stuff. So that's my plan eventually and so to spend the amount of money and time and effort to put a dock in there that might only be for a fairly short period of time. It just makes me really hesitant to do it. So that's kind of where I'm at with that. I just thought I'd explain it to you guys if you weren't aware. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you Steve. Thank you for participating. Anyone else want to comment? So the goal for tonight, because we really need to make a decision to move forward on the bidding process. So the goal for tonight is to make a final determination so we can start that bidding process. we want to reallocate funds from withdrawn participants and put it into the community project? Do we want to divide it among the participants remaining in the program? So those are some of the questions that we need to answer tonight. Taylor with Goresars and Associates, he is here and he is going to give us some guidelines. You've heard some of the things that have been said. But before I open the floor to you, I do need to ask the McNairs a couple of questions because at the last meeting, it was given to them homework assignment to obtain beds for the structural stabilizing the structure and asking, determining an amount that they want to be allocated toward their project. So to the McNairs, do you have proposals for the structural, stabilizing the structure and do you have an amount that you want to present to the commission? Thank you Madam Mayor and the commissioners. I have a photo for each commissioners in the mayor in Attorney and Brea and I didn't bring an extra one but the other is she and I can hand them out have some proposal for the game room, mostly for the roof because it was kind of crutch time for doing the floors. And I had one that can be there next week in order to give me a proposal on the floor. So most of the proposals that you have there, some of them are one of them is for everything. And then I think the other ones was for the booth. Okay, so the amount, I mean, included in the current project, it was, I think it was 90, 398, 100. Okay, let's see. 9,600. Okay, 9,600. Is in, so what are you asking to be done? I mean from the commission that pertains to this particular grant that will qualify for this grant. What are you asking to do? Right now we're not able to operate and I know you all see it and need it to be brought brought up to do. Right now we're not able to operate and I know you all said it had needed to be brought one up to code so I would like to see that it be brought up to code in order for us to get back open. So are you saying that you want from this grant or the funds to go into the project into your project to bring it up to code. Yes. But you do realize that this grant is only hurricane Michael related. Yes. OK, so if it's not hurricane Michael related, then it's not even, it can't even be considered. OK. Well, we was approached from the city, from the amount of the roof in the beginning. I believe that the roof could have been prepared, and that if we had a got money in time, but as time went on over, I think it's like three years, it deteriorated. All right, so thank you. We're gonna hear from Taylor. Okay. And then we'll come back to you. Okay. Thank you so much for providing this information. Thank you. Hey, well, you've heard the comments from Miss McNair. You've heard the comment from Mr. Rash and Mr. Warren. So I'm going to open the floor for you to give us a summary, the synopsis on what we need to do. Thank you Madam Mayor. My name is Taylor Dorn. I work for Gores and Associates. I'm a consultant on the riverfront, I'm not consulting on the riverfront and the Hill project. And I previously worked at Florida Commerce and actually was the program manager for the home town revitalization program when these grants were written. What I'm here to talk about primarily is the rules that not only the city is under, but that Florida commerce is under to report to the federal government and the housing and urban development department in particular. In specific, the threshold that these projects must meet is that everything is located entirely within the city jurisdiction and all of these projects are located within. They must also be obviously within a disaster area that was designated by the state or by HUD. was considered a HUD designated area for her. Can my that was designated by the state or by HUD. The city was considered a HUD designated area for Hurricane Michael. Additionally, and this is very important, HUD requires that all projects meet one of three national objectives. They must either benefit an LMI person, which is considered a low-moder income person, someone who makes 80% of the medium income in a given area or less. Or there's two other options. It can repair slum and blight. Generally, this is deteriorated buildings or deteriorated lots that are then rebuilt to revitalize commercial areas or create new housing opportunities. The last is meeting an urgent need. The definition of urgent need is convoluted and in a way it's very difficult to meet this objective. It's considered sort of the last resort. If you cannot find one of the other objectives to meet, because it requires a lot of documentation on the back end, because you have timelines that you have to meet on starting work to repair that. Generally, urgent need projects are things such as an area not having drinking water. Something that needs to be immediately repaired. With this in mind, the projects for both the Hill and the Riverfront are considered to meet the Slemen-Blight National Objective. In this case, we're repairing a lot of deteriorated damages businesses. And this was the determination from commerce during my time working there. Additionally, all of these activities need to be eligible under not only the state of Florida's action plan for Hurricane Michael but also under HUD's guidelines for the CDBG disaster recovery program. And as all of you know and how long this timeline has taken, there's a lot of different steps that must be met, including environmental reviews, including proper procurement of consultant, engineers, construction, all of these things have, you know, lengthy timelines that when you're doing private repairs, you don't deal with, but you have to build all this compliance on the front end, or you get to a point that is HUD or commerce in their place will do what is called Clawback, which means if a project is determined not to meet these objectives, the city will be responsible for repaying that money to the state and the state in virtue to HUD. And that is why qualifying national objectives is critical to all disaster recovery projects through CDBG. With that being said, this is the hurricane Michael specific CDBG and because of that, all projects have to have a solid damaged high back to hurricane Michael. If they do not, then you're really yourself open to the risk of clawback from the state and also from Bivertew HUD. In addition, the hometown revitalization program in specific deals with the revitalization of businesses, private community areas, as sidewalk repairs or lighting because of the requirement for the minimum threshold that commerce had in place to meet the grant funding requirements to apply. So these eligible funds include public facility improvements, lighting, streetscape sidewalks, as well as physical improvements to commercial areas such as flower beds or just, you know, new crosswalks, things like that. It also accounts for acquisition, demolition, site preparation, and rehabilitation of commercial structures, all of which can be carried out by the unit of local government in this case the city. Assistance to small businesses for rehabilitation and physical improvements for their place of business. So that's where the private practices come in and the funding can go to the businesses. An important note here, commerce does not allow for businesses to directly apply to these programs. So in the case, the city approached different businesses because businesses were not allowed to directly apply to the program. It can only be done through municipality. And the last thing to keep in mind is facade improvements. So any sort of front of the building when you guys have the sort of downtown area like you do, those areas can get new kind of brick facades or awnings, things like that. Just all of this is kind of focused on bringing in extra economic benefit, tourism, things like that. But with that being said, these are the criteria that these projects have to meet. If they do not, these city will be put at risk of having paid out money that is either not refundable or if it is refunded and then HUD later reviews it and decides that it wasn't eligible, they have to pay it back. And that will be a bill coming from Florida Commerce to the city to repay that funding. Right. Thank you, Taylor. I'm going to open it up to commissioners, but but I want to first address a couple of the participants with your professional opinion, having been in the business and the office of Florida Commerce for a while. So Mr. Rash is undecided at this point if he want to move forward. What would you say to him to convince him? And if you can't convince him, the funds that are allocated for that project, which is one of the questions on the floor tonight. What is your expert opinion on reallocating those funds? So I can comment on specific recommendations for the city and tell you one way to go or another. What I will say to Mr. Rache is I was as a representative of Commerce present for your environmental visit in I believe it was 23. And at the time I believe that Commerce determined that there was eligibility still on that property. And I think that the improvements that you have available to you through the project are good if you're going to continue to operate there. But I know given the plans that you have to move your practice that potentially building and destroying a dock would create an issue for the city because that property has to maintain its designation for five years post this grant and that's a rule of this programs. So if repairs of any sort, whether it's the doc or not, I know there's some, I believe, demolition work to be done on the property as well. If anything is done on that property, doc demolition, that property cannot change zoning from commercial for five years. It can change businesses. You could build a new thing there. Changes can be made, but that zoning has to say the same. So that is the only rule in terms of this grant. Mr. Rast, do you have any questions or comments for Tepp? Can you come to the microphone so that we can? Curious if you could share what the what the um cost or what the What the allocation was for that project? For the entire riverfront no for water streets portion so that would be a city question because commerce only only pays out a full grant amount. The actual budgeted amounts are determined within the city. You have that number. Okay. Hold on. I need to pull it up. I do want to point out Mr. Ash has a match involved in his project. There's a $40,000 match associated with it. I know we've talked a little bit about if the docs that are going to be built are going to serve you or not or if it's your long-term goal. I think that would be your decision to make, and if you want them or not, because it does come with, I don't want to call it a liability, but a responsibility for the next five years. I'm pulling up the grant budget. I don't want to misspeak on your numbers. Okay. So in the original budget, Water Street Seafood was in the scope of work budget for $130,000 for building demolition and $298,000 for dock repair. And then there was a $40,000 contributed match on top of that. Oh, yeah. In addition to building the old Wilson building, We're actually using that for some kind of warehouse. the building. The building. The building. We're actually using that for some kind of warehouse. Storage now. It's in disrepair, but it works to store what we're storing there. We're kind of using it right now. I don't know if we want to tear it down, but okay. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I'm going to go back to the room. I don't know if we want to tear it down but. Okay. Go ahead attorney Hartman. Partailer, I should have asked you this beforehand, but it's sort of coming up in this context is we have Mr. Rash spoke. He's kind of on the fence about whether you want to proceed or not. We talked about and I'm familiar with the guidelines that require the business to be in operation for five years after completion of the construction called for in the grant. And the clawback is what worries me from a city perspective. Excuse me, Dan. Can I get you to talk, speak into the money? Sure, the clawback is what obviously concerns me from a legal perspective that the grant is given to the city the city allocates the money if an applicant or a recipient of this grant money takes the money doesn't remain in operation for five years or doesn't open for operation upon completion of the grant funded component of the of. Who does commerce and obviously up the chain, but who do they call that money back from under that scenario? The city is the recipient of the grant. The private business owners are not allowed to be direct recipients and thus case, HUD cannot legally by their own rules go after any private person in this case. So the city is taking on the liability of this grant. Okay, let me ask you then, as the attorney for the city, I mean, this can place the city at significant risk. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of risk based on a individual private property owner's business expectations or even business calamity, right? It could be bad luck that something happens or they could change their mind and just move on, but we're left holding the bag, the city is. The question I would have is can, it's weird, but can the city secure this money? Meaning can we have the property owner sign an agreement agreements something that would attach to their property and be released after five years? But can the city get security for? These monies even though they're flowing, you know, they're coming from the federal to the state to the city. Have you seen that? so I was waiting us to breathe earlier this. This program is not a long program that this has been in existence. In terms of CDBG around the country, that the United States government has done on a federal level, this is a fairly new funding stream for both the federal level and thus the states. So there's a lot of questions such as what you're asking that to be honest with you probably just haven't been answered. There hasn't been a situation yet in which the federal government has had to make a determination on how they're going to handle that specific situation. But what I will say is that the question that you're asking you seem and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem worried about a business failing for bad luck or they want to move or there's some reason that they want to leave. The city is not on the hook to keep the business open for five years. The city is on the hook for two things. One, the business must be open and operational at the close of the grant. And two, the zoning must stay the same. That's it. If this business, let's say, Water Street, seafood, for example, gets all this funding in two years and they move. And they leave the property as is. The city doesn't lose anything. They don't own anything back because there's no longer an operational business there that's still a zone commercial that's still a revitalized spot that can now be sold to a new business. There is no like all you you know Imagine another Covid happened and every business that you funded closed that they're not going to come for the funding because they closed It It's about zoning. That area has to stay the same for what the funding's purpose was. Okay, but that's great. That actually gives me some, you know, makes me relax a little bit. But in the, I'm kind of in and out of this when I talk to Bri on the guidelines, there is a requirement that they be in business for five years post or is there not, I guess that's not a requirement that they be in business for five years. Whose requirement is that? That's a commerce requirement. But to the city because they don't deal directly with the recipient. So it's just a, it's a wish. It's a hope not a requirement. I've heard the term. Come back. Speaking to the mic please. I've heard the term commercially viable tossed around in meetings like at the end of the close of the grant it's a space that is able to open for commercial activity. And that's the extent of that. It needs to be commercially viable. It needs to have a business able to move in at any moment and operate. Okay, so the timeline is not, it's just a description, not a requirement. It's okay. Sorry. It's really about the business being operational at time of close and in the zoning. If a year in the business is gone, it's still a property that was revitalized. It's no longer slum and blight. It's still meeting that national objective. That is what the grant is for. And you you know if a business fails in that location How's not gonna come ask for the money back for a business that is now a viable location that can be sold again Because you've accomplished the task of that grant that is now a commercially viable place you can re-avortize for a new business try to bring in you know Someone new to bring in those tax dollars again. Okay. Hold on to your question. So let's move on to the McNayers because they were, their original budget was 96. I'm gonna round to $9,700. So now based on the information that was just provided and that was just for the roof. The roof repair range anywhere from $47,000 down to $16,000. And to stabilize the property is around $225,000. So in order to update their project based on the information that we provided. What is the process? So in order to update the budget, because of the way that your grant agreement is written, and I have a copy here, including the most recent amendment to this agreement, We'll talk about, sorry to get in the weeds guys. We'll talk about attachment, a scope of work. This is number eight in the amendment. It's gonna say deliverables and it'll have a table here. Deliverable one is the program implementation. Deliverable two is engineering and the last deliverable is construction. This is commerce's budget. They have specifically not line itemed anything in this. So to move budget around within this construction budget requires no amendment. Now, the wording of the attachment ASCOPE of work number four, eligible task and deliverables, specifically states what work is to be done on the project. And if anything changes with that, you will have to amend. And if it changes more than 10% of the footprint of the building, then you will have to-clear environmentally. Are we repeat that last statement? If changes to a scope require or would change or alter more than 10% so this specific property, I don't think the footprint is changing. Okay. whatever, but it will, the process to stabilize the building requires a lot of work and is costly. I think I saw some $225,000 is the one estimate that we receive. So, but the problems have to have been part of Hurricane Michael or come from Hurricane Michael correct. That is correct. So in you will need to have evidence that all repairs done can be tied to Hurricane Michael. And I would recommend that you have that approved by commerce before you proceed forward with those repairs. Because and not verbal confirmation written that can be saved down to your file so that if there is questions later on you have that documentation from the funding agency that it was clear to move forward. So I'm, if you would allow, I'm going to allow the McNairs to ask you questions if they have any questions. Do you have any questions? I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I they come and ask the city came and asked us if they could do the work from her came doing her game, Michael. And as long as the building set, the roof got worse, it didn't, it collapsed. Up Like this roof right here, it completely collapsed from the leakage and then it worked on the floor and the walls. It worked on everything over time. And I could have filed my insurance, which I'm not able to do so long because it's too late, it's years back, you know, so many years I've asked. So that's where we are at. We're the only one or two of the only black businesses on the hill. And we're unable to operate. We've been shut down. My state license is on tip-around hold to act and be able to operate again. And I made that choice. You know, because I can't open makeup to sell out of it. So I was wondering if it came back up the park because we have somebody at answers every other week, if we could make a house in place to go and we was open for kids in the community and we saw a lot of it, it was just a game that we sold food out of and for the kids in the community. And we just want to know if the city with the grant could be of help to us to bring that to par. So, a couple things. I think that what you're describing is a viable reason and a tieback can be shown to Hurricane Michael from what you're saying. But what I will say is verbally the city you, me, even writing that down will not create and a viable time back to HUD and Florida Commerce. What we need is written from an engineer or a structural expert that says this damage can be tied back to the storm. And if that can't happen, then any damage that can't be tied to the storm will be deemed ineligible. That is the minimum requirement for this program. Do I get the engineer or do I do this to see it? The engineer to do with us what we have. I mean, I know the engineer what we already have. Say, excuse me, say that they will demo it. And I definitely don't want that. I think it can be prepared. We have had two different engineers look at the building and they both did recommend demolition. I want to note that's based on how much it would cost to bring it up to code versus how much it would cost to rebuild. That's where their recommendation is coming from. I will say the city has spent commerce funding on an extra structural assessment for this location. There's a copy of it and everybody's agenda packet. There are comments in that structural report that name reasons that are not storm-related. We can go through it in detail if you guys want, but a structural assessment has been completed and it does not tie back to the hurricane. Do you have any more questions? I'm gonna open it up for the commission shortly. Do you have any more questions for Taylor? I can't thank a family thing, House. Did you want to say something? Really? My name is Wendy Wreckner. I'm known to keep you clean game room. My facility was damaged by Hurricane Michael. We was approached by the city to be part of the grant program, and that the reason we chose to do that. Instead of filing insurance. Not an insurance we did have is no longer this. So we can't go back and try to get insurance, you know, collect insurance from, but a facility. If we knew that, we wouldn't have participated in the grant situation. So now we just stuck up the river without a paddle right now. I will say there's no question about the roof damage. If that ties back to Hurricane Michael Michael I think that's very evident. My concern is in the additional request the structural and that's going to be for the city commission to decide. Excuse me but when you have a roof leaking everything down Now get destroyed. Probably got mold in there too. All the walls, water down the walls, all your insulation, all your wine probably got water in it too. So all that had to be replaced. And the floor, it just sank into the floor. It's about four inches from the wall to the floor. So it's just a water issue. And I put a top on it, roofed it, try to prevent it from getting it in a worser butt. So we're gonna come back to your issue in a moment. Mr. Warren, do you have any questions for Taylor regarding your project? Hi, I'm Wes. and-mouse. Yeah, honestly, not quite sure how this works. I saw that we only have $28,000 for a lotment and probably $130,000 for the damage. most of it is exterior damage, roof, facade, you know, the windows are they have cracks and stuff. of they've been too younger since I've bought. the the the the the the the the or money to prepare their buildings as well. So we're really flexible. I mean, I'm a patient with anything about this. So we have some flexibility. Again, but if it's all about what's been shown and everything, we're going to kind of have to defer to that kind of stuff. So obviously, you know, we'd like to get harder, share a bit, but I don't even know how we would spend it. Considering there's, I mean, our, a lot of men is only like 20% worth of what the building is needing. So if that conversation is something to be discussed later, then I can defer back or we can have that discussion now. As far as a lot went forward, right? Let's circle back. Okay. There's a lot going on right now. Ms. Cox, will you like to ask a question, make a comment? Yes. I wanted to ask a question. Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. I did have a question if you don't have the figure available. That's totally fine. You said something about the minimal grant requirement that had to be met. So I think that's why we folded in maybe sidewalks and I think what was the minimal number that had to be met? Okay, so I don't have the exact but I do remember during this time period it was somewhere between depending on the program, every program was either at 250 or 500,000, it was the minimal, it was dependent on the program. So I can't say if hometown was a 500,000 or a 250,000, but obviously these estimates for the businesses alone would have gotten over that 250 prior, but also I will room The estimates at the time that this grant was applied for which would have been in late 2020 into early 21 This was not the cost that we were looking at at that time you know across the board and all the projects that we do We're experiencing 20 to 50% budget overruns because of how different funding, because of how different cost were then prior to COVID, than how they are now. And that's a big cause of a lot of the projects that we see that are getting having to be phased into different portions to fully finish them because they need multiple grant funding streams because commerce as well did not save money to backfill projects. They allocated every dollar of this program. Okay. So. Okay, that's helpful. And as much as I can be helped at this point, because I've got like a whirlwind up there, when we talk about 200 to 500,000, are we separating the waterfront from the hill? We're a grant recipient on the hill. And I don't know if you were in the meeting that we had with Bre and City Manager last year because we had a really very great meeting with Department of Commerce because we were really confused by the process. So when you talk about that 500, you must be separating it because clearly downtown, that's a much bigger ticket item than the hill is. Is that right? I'm sorry. These are not got you questions. No, you're good. You're good. I'm in a unique position where I both ran this program and now work it from a private perspective. Okay. That's right. I forget So right now the, so hometown, this grant program in total had one minimum. That minimum was the same for both Riverfront and Hill. But the city at the time applied for two grants from this program and they scored high enough that they received both grants. I believe at the time in what a lot of applicants do and what we as consultants advise our applicants to do is sometimes it's important to split projects because if the city had applied for one project for what would end up being close to $5 million. They have less likely of a chance to get that funding because it's a higher dollar project for a low dollar grant. Home town was only given 38 million in total to hand out. So the city chose to split the two projects at that time in order to maximize chances of funding and then we're beneficial enough to get both of those separately. Right. And that's why we see the separation of the two grants and also why one is high dollar and one is lower dollar. Right. And also like anybody on the waterfront, I mean, they're matching. So we're not matching, but they're also gonna get bang for the buck, probably, because it's in a very established and certainly a much more maintained commercial district within the city than say the commercial district would be on the hill. So I was sad to see that we were having a meeting with combined grant recipients tonight because I think the situations are significantly different in certain aspects of the grant, not super excited for anything happening good down on the waterfront. That's awesome. I just think it is confusing for some of us to figure out where to put our feet. You said something about, I'm gonna move on from that. You said something about HUD could decide whether or not, this sounds like after the grant money was given or put in place if something was ineligible. And that seemed to be like after the money was given. And so I'm wondering if we've made the application, if we adhere to the scope, if we have written documentation with Department of Commerce with the grant administrator here in Tallahassee, I mean, nobody's going to come and jump out from behind a corner next year and say, we decided you were not eligible. If we follow the rules within the grant, if we accept those provisions, I mean, you're not gonna, I mean, nobody's gonna come back on us. Are they? Because it sounds like there is some confusing fusion, even for the city as to what. And so I'm asking you, I guess I'm asking you a commerce question right now. Maybe I should leave you alone about that because you quit there and you got a better job. So I will say in the process it is very, very rare that HUD will come back and tell a state funding agency that they have to recall funds that they have documented. That is why I advised the mayor that you need written documentation with approval from commerce to really solidify that work for the game room specifically because that is something where there is a viable argument that it is hurricane damage from over time But if commerce doesn't see it that way or structurally it can't be rebooted that way Then you run into an issue where if commerce still gives you the funds for it and Later on down the line then you can run into a scenario like you're, yeah, a year from now, HUD could run an audit on this program and say, yeah, we don't think that this funding meant a national objective. That's, um, okay. Just to be clear, one more thing, for all grants under CDBGDR, not just this program, but everything that ties to this HUD funded disaster funding. There is a requirement that all close out documentation be kept for five years because that is HUD's legally allowed audit range. So up to five years after the program, HUD could still in your fourth year, 11th month request all the documentation and ask for it. It's- That's the city is required to keep the documentation. The city yes, but the city's requirement is because of Florida commerce who requires it because they're required to keep it for HUD. So to be clear, HUD's not going to come here and ask for money. HUD's going to go to commerce and ask for money. And then commerce is going to make a decision on whether to ask the city for that funding back or to take the hit because they messed up. And that's why getting the approval written from commerce gives you more defense in a situation where HUD changes their mind or determines that commerce made a wrong decision. Okay. I want, I think that's the last of the questions that I had, but I did want to say something and none of this will be shocking because we've been talking about the grant for a long time. In terms of, in defense of the McNair's, I want to, I do want to mention, which is something we went over exhaustively with Department Department of Commerce, that in the initial application, it says, oh, God. It says required attachments and then optional attachments. It says photo evidence of damage caused by Hurricane Michael is optional. And we bought this up at the Commerce meeting because we filled out this application. We were notified, and I guess 21, that we had gotten it. And then we got, like an updated agreement. And it's asking us for all this stuff that, of course, we couldn't supply like photos after Hurricane Michael a couple of years later, or three years later, which is why we had, went and had the meeting. And I appreciate the grant money and I do appreciate it. I think the city was very well intended in trying to solicit people on the hill to try to breathe some life and to what was a struggling business community. But I have said in the past that I feel like the really protracted rollout of the grant ended up choking the last bit of oxygen off to the African-American communities. We're clearly transplants. We're not African-American communities. I mean, African-American. But we have grieved. We have grieved the way this is kind of a whole fallen out because we watched people. really liked and businesses we enjoyed kind of waste away. And I would do want to say that I did ask, I spoke with this about, I spoke to Bri about this a couple weeks ago. I was told the reason the role that was slow because the deceased mayor was in charge of the immigrants. And that since he was dead, that was why we didn't get to get our grant money. And you know, that's really kind of a goofy kind of answer. But it speaks to the fact that the main narrators, along with other hill businesses, maybe some people on the waterfront I don't have relationships with any of those people Have been a great disservice in the vagaries associated with this process and I Think that I'm my husband as a general contractor. I'm a residential contractor. We understand their increases in business, not 50% by any stretch, but certainly there have been changes in the last three years due to the pandemic. But I think that my hope for the future is if the city's gonna participate in more grants, and I think we see all federal grants kind of drying up for the moment That we would have someone who would advocate for the citizens in a more meaningful way because the whole process has been so opaque and I certainly would have done things differently if I Were any other business owner? We knew how to price that materials. We can actually install things so we can probably stay really close to budget, if not with budget. But people don't have our knowledge set. And so I think they were kind of left out in the cold on this whole thing. And we're not smarter than anybody. I just know how to put a nail in a piece of wood. I cannot run a game room. I cannot run a bar. I don't run a laundromat. And so that is what I would say to the commission. I really don't know what to ask you to do for the McNairs or for our community. I just would ask for you to try to think of something that is fair and just because this is a tremendous loss to our community and we'll have sidewalks and lighting that, you know, I just don't, I don't get it. So anyways, that's my thing. I do want to thank Brie for always being forthright and helpful in the capacity that she could be. And I thank you for coming today. So I'm going to open. Thank you for your comments, Ms. Cox. Well, I'm going to open up for the commission. I know Commissioner Duncan has questions that she would like to ask. So I'm going to open it. I'm good. I don't know. At the moment. And I'm going to write it down. Sorry. I'm sorry. Commissioner Elliott, do you have any questions? Okay. I do not have any questions regarding the scope of the program. What our do's and don'ts are with HUD and commerce on reporting from that perspective. The question I do have is to the reallocation of... sorry, give me a moment just to put through here. A little long. Is the reallocation, potential reallocation of funding for projects on the hill. So if we can recap, and I'm Brian, I might need you to answer this one. What is the current cost to date that has been spent of the Commerce funding? So I can't give you an exact number off top of my head. We've spent a lot on grant administration and engineering up to this point. Out of the overarching budget which is around 935,000, the construction budget is right around 700,000. So that means 235 has been spent on plans, environmental, technical specifications to get here along the way. here that includes the sidewalks and lighting and all the individual business owners and any change orders that have come from revisions along the way. We might incur additional engineering based on decisions tonight on which way we go. That's just something to take into account. What is provided in the agenda packet is a breakdown of the construction only funds in our budget that's left for this work and it breaks down by the owners and then the city project on the budget that was part created at the time of application that we've been adhering to and it also provides current estimates on some of these projects, which is where you see that. They're all coming in over budget. OK, so because the program guidelines stipulate, everything has to be directly related to Hurricane Michael? We have obtained two engineering reports for the game room, correct? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. We have received, so far, we have received out of this two structural reports for the game room. We got, like, an initial engineering assessment, which is then basically just looking at the building and they made the assumption that it was more cost prohibitive to just demolish based on the dollar amount allocated. Talked to the owners, they were not interested in that option. So we spent additional engineering for the structural assessment where they were a little more invasive and what they looked at in their report that's presented. Okay, so we and those are both of them that are included in our packet. Ones from November 2nd, 2023 and the other one is about a year later in November 25th, 2025. Based on what Taylor has told us that the documentation guidelines require and the assessment report that we have right here. Some of it supports that roof damage and there is water damage, but the conclusions and recommendations of this report do indicate that a foundation specialist needs to be brought in to address it, that cracking to the exterior is from settling over time, and because that the extensive damage is going to require so many components to be changed, it's going up to you brought up to code. And not quite any of our quotes really cover all of that information, I don't think. So I don't really see a constructive way forward right now to get another structural assessment. I mean, if there is more documentation that can provide that those things that they have concluded were not necessarily related to water damage for Michael, I don't know if we should be hiring an engineer to look at those if they've determined they can't be related to Michael. So is there another dot so the determination so cracks on exterior of the building caused by a foundation that has settled over time. Foundation exceeds allowable settlement in multiple areas and needs to be addressed by a foundation specialist. The porch of the back of the building is not constructed properly and new designs be completed with adequate foundations, sizes, and connections. The flooring system is failed in multiple areas and needs to be constructed using adequate member sizes and floor connections. There is some damage that is definitely hurricane Michael directly related, however some of it is not. And I am unsure if rolling that dice with commerce and with HUD is going to result in them saying all of the work that needs to be done is from Hurricane Michael. That is currently in the structural report that we have. So if there is reason to believe that there is adequate documentation that can support that it is from Hurricane Michael, then there can be a discussion about hiring another engineer out of the funding that we have. But already, we know that we're going to be over budget. Can I comment on that? Yes. I have pause and maybe Taylor can jump in on this. I have concerns if we spend grant money, which is essentially taxpayer money, on the same thing twice, we might not reimburse for one or the other. Because we've already paid a structural, for a structural assessment. If we ask for another one, I'm concerned we won't be reimburseed, and it'll come out of pocket. Yes, I'm concerned we won't be reimburseed or it'll come out of pocket. Yes, I'm done for now. Thank you. I'm sorry. But are we asking for another structural assessment or are we asking for a foundation expert? I mean, is it the same thing? I don't know. I mean, that's what's in the engineering report that we have. The conclusions and recommendations are that a foundation specialist needs to address the foundation settled issues. Yes, so my question is, is that the same thing? A foundation specialist will be considered a different cost, but if another structural engineer were to come to this project and survey the exact same building, the cost would not be reimbursable under this grant because the duplication of benefits policy that is present. Right, but my question was, is a structural assessment the same as a foundation expert? Because we're talking about it being duplicated, repetitive, so we don't want to get into a situation where it's not reimbursable, but that's my question. Is it the same or is it not? I think that your question depends on who the engineer is. Yes. Because a structural engineer may consider themselves a foundational expert, and under which case they're still a structural engineer and they may build as a structural engineer, You're really just going to have to look at what they're going to build you as. If they build you as a foundational expert, then it's not going to be a duplication. If they build you as a structural engineer, then it's going to be a duplication. Right. Because I'm not an engineer. I'm not a contractor. I'm not a builder, but I am a lawyer and I deal with experts a lot. And when you hire an expert, when you ask them what you're doing or what the end result is supposed to be, then that's what you do. You ask them, we don't want another structural assessment. We want a foundation expert to talk about this issue, not that I'm saying we should do it, but I'm just making sure that we're, We're talking about apples and apples and oranges, before we even make that decision. But I guess my main question is, should do it, but I'm just making sure that we're, we're talking about apples and apples or apples and oranges, you know, before we even make that decision. But I guess my main question is, how did we get here? I mean, if we applied for this grant and we got a proof for it, wouldn't that suggest that we provided the proper information to begin with and even to even get here? Because that's what's baffling me, because I feel like we have a group of people that we're now saying to be very cautious because we'll city be very cautious because if these individuals after the fact cannot prove to the satisfaction of commerce and HUD that what was done was done based on this grant and done appropriately then we're on the hook for it which to me feels like the eaten at Stale that we're trying to convince these people to opt out. So how did we get here? I'm sorry, I forgot your name. What was your name? What's your name? LaRaea. When Miss LaRaea was speaking, there was a point in which she was discussing the timeline, cost overruns, all these things. And you write, for example, cost overruns are not 50% for a contractor. But to the point that you're making, these grants are different than a normal contract because they have other requirements. And so we run a longer timeline, we run like all of these construction budgets are higher than what you would find on the street because every contractor is required to meet federal labor laws which includes extra reporting. Davis Bacon, which requires a minimum payment of every employee. So yes, the costs are higher than they should be. That is just the nature of grant work in the federal grant system. That length of time is to be very fair, and I wanna say this on the city's behalf. And this is both me as the consultant and me as the ex-commerce employee that worked on this project. This program took too long to roll out, and that is commerce's responsibility. there is nothing at this point that will change about that situation. And because of this issue that Commerce has had, you see Commerce's new grants roll out a lot faster than this one did. They were out in in seven months. This grant took two years. That's irresponsible. But at the end of the day, we're still beholden to that or we get money taken back. And as the administrative council and the expert on the program, I, as annoying as it is, can only tell you the same thing that this is what they can do. Right, you're, it's the worst case scenario. And it could be the worst case scenario. And I'm certainly not trying to beat you up in any fashion. And I thank you for being here tonight, but I just feel like nobody's asking the hard questions of, but what do we do now? It sound, I mean, I get it. Commerce wrote it out slow, but the reality of it is, is damages that began with Hurricane Michael damages were compounded by the lack of rolling out. It's not the city's fault. It's not your fault. It's, you know, it happened, but we're still left with human beings in this situation and how do we fix this? You know, I mean, yes, so I, I, I, I, I, that's where I feel like you're same as Coxwell. You just feel like you're spinning in circles because I've been trying to figure this out in my head as well. And, and I understand that a lot of times government expenditures aren't more expensive than they should be, which is politics aside, whatever. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at, but one of the questions I have is... a lot of times government expenditures are more expensive than they should be, which is politics aside, whatever. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at, but one of the questions I have is, so exactly what is grant administration cost? I mean, like you're saying, so, yes, so is that an amount that the city charges out of this money that we receive for administering this grant? I mean, I can answer. So there is a federal standard for grants. Grants are not allowed to be more than 5% administration. So across the board, grant administrators charge 5%. 5% annually, 5% period. 5% of this budget period. My company in particular is not an hourly company. So our company was hired for 5% to run this grant. We don't charge the city any hourly to create applications or to help them. Like I came today, I didn't charge free hourly to be in an office meeting. I am just here as long as the city needs me for however long. I'm a local resident to the Panhandle. I'm not flying in from New York. I live in Wukala County. I drove over. Appleatch is actually my closest client that our company services, but to your point, there are granted administrators that do charge hourly rates. And I'm very happy that we don't do that because I think that it is just to suck up the money and then leave with it. Well, because in reality, we've done a whole lot of talking about this grant, but what's even been administered? Every, what's going on? What's your system environmental? Yeah, our company put together the environmental review, which took over a year to make. We interface with the engineer, we help create the bid packages, we invoice commerce, we report with commerce, we talk with commerce. The budget that's written in the, in your meeting package was written by my partner Felicity. There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff that happens to continue. And a big aspect of that is compliance. is making sure that we're hitting all the required marks so that there isn't a risk of deobligation or clawback. Now to your point specifically about what do we go from here? I'm not gonna tell you what to do, but I will give you what I believe are your best options and you can discuss to figure out what you think is best. You have the funding in this grant. You have what's the total again? It's like 900,000 for this Okay, you've already spent some on engineering. You have a 5% obligation to your administrative fee. Everything else is construction. Specifically, everything else is construction without a line item budget from commerce. You can move that money around as much as you want. The only rules that you have is that if you change something that's written specifically in the scope, it has to be amended. When an amendment is happening, you have to pause work if you're in construction phase. Right now you're not in construction phase so you could keep operating and moving towards bid before that amendment finished. But you can move this money around to your content. It's not specified in anything. And at the end of the day, I will say this. You have the plans for the sidewalks and the lights. They're complete correct They're done. They're already done. They're paid for by the grant if you end up not doing a single sidewalk You still have completed plans for the grant Which is what we refer to like Shelfing something getting it to this get shelf red Okay, our shovel ready or whatever. Shuffle ready. And I will say in future applications, if you wanted to do sidewalks or lighting or anything else, or if you have plans for one of the businesses as well, like all of that stuff, when it's shovel ready, when it has finished designs, scores higher on applications. They'd much rather front of project that's going to go straight into construction than figure out how it's going to be built and run into an environmental issue. This project, Hilles specifically, I know Riverfront is still a little bit away from finishing environmental, but Hilles specifically is environmentally cleared. It could start construction, at least from commerce, as perspective today. We could start digging. So theoretically, if we wanted to approve all of, yet, approve these projects, just like Mr. Hartman asked, we could always secure it behind the scenes. But if there's any recall, and then we still have the individuals that own the businesses, own the hook for the money, if there were to be some kind of clawback, correct? Yeah, you would need to have city agreements with them in the clauses for the grant to make sure that you guys were covered legally, but yeah, there's no rule against doing that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're very welcome. Commissioner Grove? I just thank you for being here. It's great to have an expert such as you. I know I went through the packet over the weekend and it's a lot of things to consider. And Bri, I had a question for you. If the McNair sort of come in and get a building permit, would they be able to put on a new roof on that structure? And if they did, would they come in there any new, new, I can't think the correct word. Permanent to be a commercial structure, inspections that would say, oh, the foundation is like these report reports say the foundation was never adequate. So I'm just wondering, sorry, this keeps shrinking. With the building premise that they get for the roof, because the structural engineer says the roof, it was not done properly, it was only made with two by fours and one layer of sheathhing. And then can the walls hold the new roof that they're thinking about putting on and with electricity, I have to be updated at this point, which would trigger a lot of things. I will say the building official isn't going to go inspect the building just for the sake of it. Maybe for building license was pulled and we had question we would send him if the owner right now Said I want to go pull up roof permit, and I'm gonna put a roof on it They absolutely could do that. They would be held to a higher standard during inspections and at that point It would be likely the building official would walk in and say hey, I've got concerns. What are you planning to do? I will say their scope of work at the very start of this and up until very recently was just for roof repair. And the reason we're talking today is because the engineers came to the site. They did create plans for roof repair and then they put in their letter and caution the city if we put this roof on the building will fall in. It needs structural work. Which at that point we went to commerce. We went back and forth with them on what we could do. We requested a scope amendment that included the structural assessment, possible structural work based on how that turned out. So we went ahead and put it in there. We got the full structural assessment back. It came back saying there was a lot of improper construction. That's the words that it uses. And that is the point that the city reached out to the owners and said, hey, the structural assessment came back and it says this, what do you want to do? This doesn't look like hurricane Michael damage. And then we're here. So. Does that answer your questions, guys? Calm around. Yeah, I just, I just, I know when I had my house, when I got put in, when I raised it, it triggered a whole new, how do we do all the power? Which is very expensive. So I'm curious if this is going to trigger a lot of things once this building has started to be worked on. And if one engineer says, if you put a roof on it, a structure can't handle that. Where do we go from there? That's what they said. That is the structural report that we have. I mean Commissioner Elliott mentioned that, I mean the structural report flat out says there are, there's hurricane Michael damage to the roof. There is other damage caused by settling and things that are not hurricane Michael related. Just filled for thought moving forward, I understand that a structural specialist may be different than a structural engineer. At the same time, if the structural engineer said, hey, the foundation is settling, and that is not due to Hurricane Michael, then I don't know necessarily why we would move ahead with a foundation specialist, but the applicant. And I believe in reviewing some of these applications, whether it be the cox wells, or obviously we talk about the riverfront, people are relying on the grant for a portion of the reconstruction or the renovation, but then they're doing some of it on their own, and then they're opening up, getting them back in operation. And from a legal perspective, the thing that I, a lot of my concerns are delayed a little bit here. I'm pleased with that that the clawback isn't as scary as it appeared, but one thing remains is that the work, we need to get documentation that says that the, what the grant funds are going towards is related that there's a tie-in to Hurricane Michael and then we need to get something in writing back from commerce approving the documentation we provide them and as it stands, the only documentation we can provide is documentation that says it is not due to Hurricane Michael. Right? And that's a sticking point that we would need, I'm calling it just thinking of building a legal case here, if I was the applicant, I would get my own engineer, structural engineer, and I would have that engineer be sympathetic to my situation. We could use that if it's a particular topic that I'm going to talk about. I'm not sure if it's a particular topic that I'm going to talk about. I'm not sure if it's a particular topic that I'm going to talk about. I'm not sure if it's a particular topic that I'm back to Hurricane Michael. But we do need, and I say really they need, they need a structural engineer to support their position that that additional damage was caused by Hurricane Michael. We can take that and we can go to commerce for them and try to tie it in and get something written back from commerce so the city is covered because the last thing the city needs because I think of when I came on board when we had some outstanding legal things where you know we have an unexpected $100,000 check we have to write or something and we don't need any more of that right that's my I would like to avoid that moving forward. We, it clearly says that all of that they've mentioned, in the professional engineering, state, or a user professional. all of that things you've mentioned. I found that the official engine and stamped all of them. I mean, is there professional documents that are saying that exact thing? So, and also, Bri, is there a way we can keep track in our printing system of the five year and not changing the zoning? Because I think that's important too. Is there a way we can make sure these properties are not these and I don't think they will because the zoning's been there for a long time. I mean, I think the district's still going to be commercial. And I think the downtown is still going to be commercial also. So I don't see anybody coming in a resound, but it'd be nice to have a trigger if somebody did come in with a head of resound saying, you know, you can't do that because of the grant. What I will say to that is I agree it's highly unlikely in these properties of resound. But in the event, like Taylor said, we do have to keep all these files for five years. So it'll be in the office. It's accessible. We could communicate that to the building department just so they're aware. I'm the one who would intake the rezoning request and that wouldn't end up coming to the city commission. So the city commission would be the one to prove any rezoning and it would be your staff's responsibility to inform you before the meeting. Hey, this is one of those properties and it hasn't been five years yet. Okay. The other thing is, when people have said, that we were asked by the folks to meet for those very things, and they were, yes, it was documented. We have many people who still to this day say they were sidewalks and I'm not a fan myself of either one, but we did have several public meetings where Hill residents long-term Hill residents came and said you never invested in the We want to see same investment in here. We want to see the sidewalks. I'm going to see the writing. I mean, that was there. So, I don't think that's up to the mayor, but I just want us to, and also what's our campaign for the mayor? So currently, these grants end on the present end date is September 25 with a potential extension to September 26. but Commerce is grant with HUD, which is like the grant that funds all of these, ends in 26. So unless Commerce gets an extension, no one can extend past 26. And as of me speaking with you, there has been no information outward that commerce is having those discussions with HUD. Well not that I would extend it. I'm embarrassed daily that we still haven't done any of the work that was slated to be and going on year seven. So many of the doubts have been fixed, and many of the projects have been unheard. All right. work that was slated to be done in the coming year seven. So many of the dogs have been fixed and many of the projects have been unhulled. All we need to do is stay in town, the fire station, all that stuff is still sitting there. And it does blight the town. So I'm anxious to see a start. But anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you, Commissioner George. All right. Taylor, thank you for your clarification on a lot of these issues. It kind of puts a different light on it. I'm going to repeat some questions to make sure I understand. The tie-in to Hurricane Michael. Okay, we haven't at this point been told by commerce that we have projects that don't tie to hurricane Michael. Is that correct? I'm sorry, could you repeat the beginning part of that question? Okay, we, okay, I'm trying to understand the tie into hurricane Michael. We haven't been told by commerce at this point that any of our projects don't meet that criteria. That is correct. Correct. Okay. I mean reading the reports and I'm certainly this is my field but to me these reports don't say there's not a hurricane Michael tie in. I mean it says there's damage it doesn't say how it resulted so it sounds like that determination that there's not a hurricane Michael tie in was made internally like by the city. I will say based on the reading of the document, there is direct reference to water intrusion with the roof. And if the structural engineer believed that that water intrusion continued down the property, then they would not quote other reasons for those additional damages, such as the, and this is their conclusions and recommendations. This is due to extensive damage to construction components of the structure. I think one key line in this, in my opinion, is the roof system has inadequate member sizes and connections. That the storm doesn't make you have inadequate connections. It doesn't change how something was constructed. I do believe that this idea attorney brought up a good point that there is definitely, and I've seen it done with other projects when I worked at Commerce, a second opinion of a structural engineer that understands the nuance and history of the building and will revaluate this building and give to your point that you've made that water coming down the walls can cause that infolding, that then means that a new roof would collapse in. But also to the city attorney's point, That would be duplication of both of us. So the city cannot fund another one of those. It would have to be privately done. It is not reimbursable through commerce. Okay. And I'm going to ask again about the five year call back period. So you're saying basically that the city is going to be doing a lot of work. And I'm going to ask again about the five year law bat period. So you're saying basically within the first year the building has to be rehabbed or it can be used for where it can be open as a business. To be very specific, not within the first year, on the day that this project closes, that building needs to be an operational business. Okay. You said something different about the first year and the second year, and I didn't fully understand that. I believe what I was saying at the time was that hard is, does most of the reviews in the first year post project closeout?out, although again it is possible that they do their reviews within the five year period. So, the business could last six months, go out of business as long as that property isn't re-zoned and the changes are still there, it's still a viable project, You still meet the national objective. Okay, so if they're in business when at the completion of the grant and it continues to be signed commercial during the five-year period then there's no issue. Yeah, the city has. Does that answer Mr. Rashes? Concerns? Because you said, I think you also said if it sold as long as it continued to be zoned. So there really isn't much of a risk once you have a viable business open at the completion of the grant. There really isn't a risk for the business owner or the city except for there being a retroactive determination that the requirements weren't met in the beginning or the zoning was later changed. That is correct. That is the two key issues. To Mr. Rache's concern, there is no there is no requirement for you know him to maintain the business. The business can sell, the business can transfer ownership. All that can happen. As long as the zoning stays the same it's fine. From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, you're concerned as more with spending the money on things that you may not be using in the future and may not be pertinent to that property or may not be exactly what that property would need in the future. Is that correct? Okay. So, and that's a different, you know, concern. I will say that at the timeline that you're at in this grant, you really can't afford to go back to environmental. And changing docs to slips is not going to stay within the current environmental. Because you're looking at, I mean, at your shortest time, at your very, very shortest time, 90 days for environmental, and that's if everyone takes their shortest amount of time to review things, and they never take their shortest amount of time to review things. Okay, next thing. You said that you can move money within the construction budget without amending the scope through commerce. So when you're saying move it around is that among projects that were previously approved, but not increasing the work on a specific project. Yes. To clarify, you can move money within the budget without changing anything about the current grant agreement. To change the scope, what actual work will be be done that would require an amendment. And if that scope change exceeds 10% of the structure then you would have to re-trigger environmental issues. But the footprint, not? Oh, yeah, sorry. The footprint. So expanding the building, not, you know, the whole building could get, I mean, for example, like a building could get entirely torn down and then rebuilt in that same footprint, and that would still count as environment to be cleared. Because you're not changing what space that building previously took up. Now, I will say one thing in specific that has to do with the environment requirements. The state housing, the clearing house, which is an environmental department, they require that because the hill is considered a historic community, that any rebuilds of parts match the previous buildings aesthetic. So I don't know what the current roof is on the game corner for example, but that roof would need to be of the same bill. If it's shingle, it needs to go back a shingle. If it's metal, it needs to go back as metal. That's a requirement for reconstruction from the clearinghouse. Okay, that makes sense. Okay. So when you're saying within the construction budget that makes no difference whether it's a private project or a city project. So we aren't restricted like was allocated for sidewalks doesn't necessarily have to be for sidewalks if it is moved to the private projects. No. So at this point you could reduce the sidewalks to zero. Reallocate everything in the budget and show the sidewalk project with design. Your concern at that point though is how much time you have to reuse that budget to design new projects for the private businesses and finish them before commerce is hard deadline in September of next year. If we did that, we would have, if we're changing the scope of particular projects, we would have to have an amendment. And how long does that take? It's supposed to take 30 days. Yeah, I know. Sometimes commerce allows things to slip through the cracks. We had one take over a year. That was an exceptional mishap on there and that wouldn't happen now. I would hope but they take a long time. I would think that the deadlines are approaching that they might be try to turn those around quicker. They would, they also, you know, as the funding agency have the ability to say no. And if they think that you can't finish the scope change in time, then they won't improve it. They'll just leave it as is. Okay. Okay. I'll just leave it as is. Once we have a different question, it's about the downtown projects. There's a significant change decreasing the budget for the demolition of the old fire station and the and the construction of a parking lot there. Is there some change to what the proposed project is there? Because it's now less than $100,000. No change in the scope of the plans. I think it's just a benefit to us that the price of certain materials might have went down. I will say a lot of these original quotes were in that COVID era. Some things have come down, which is a good thing. So it's the same project that was envisioned. Yes, ma'am. I mean, I'm personally more for private projects than sidewalks and lighting, and particularly, lighting should go first, sidewalks, whatever the private projects need and the balance for sidewalks. seems like the consensus was that most people wanted sidewalks if we were going to have them along MLK to connect the botanical gardens all the way through to 12 streets. So we kind of had decided in the last workshop if that's all we could do. Everybody would be happy with that. Anyway, those are all my questions. Thank you. Come here, Shane Grove. Someone just texted me and they said the sound is not transferring in the video if you can quickly resolve that, but. Okay, thank you so so we can hopefully wrap this up. This program started out to be a benefit to our residents, our businesses above the waterfront and the hillside. It started out that way and we appreciate that opportunity to provide or having that opportunity to provide to the businesses. And thank you for pointing out the issues that came with the program and why it took so long. It doesn't negate the fact that it was, it has been an extensive long drawn out program that has been frustrating. But thank you for pointing out those issues that with the program. And I felt that it was necessary to have two, the both heel side and the waterfront together so that we can come to a consensus and we can move forward with the bidding process on both of those projects. And I understand that they can be bid separately, correct? When you say separately, do you mean like Hill and riverfront? They are for instance if the waterfront was already. All of the businesses were ready. They have to be bid separately in the eyes of commerce in the cities. Totally separate. Hill I will say is ready to bid right now if we didn't make any changes if we make make changes that kicks in more time, riverfront, we're still waiting on Shippo to approve as part of the environmental. Once we get that from them, I think we're 90 days out, bidding itself takes a good amount of time. So, if Mr. Rash is undecided at this point, does he have witnesses deadline to advise whether he's opting out or so the original agreements that we sent out they do kind of go over the Tom on for you to contribute your match money which means you're in and you're you're you're going to be bidding out and you'll have the work done we set that Tom on for 30 days ahead of when the bid is on the street so right now we still got a little bit of time if he wants to think about it. But 30 days ahead of that publication date, the city has to have that funding in an account sitting ready and it can't be pulled back out at that point. Okay, and so do and can you repeat when you expect the last elements of the waterfront to be submitted? So, and I'm just going to read this from our report because it's simple. Once Chippo proves and permitting is complete, which that ETA is unknown, then we will be roughly 60 days out from bidding these projects out. We do have Josh here. I'm sorry, I'm going to make you talk. Do you want to speak about the permitting timeline? Do you have an idea on that? Sorry. Josh Hall, edge water group. We are doing the permitting for all the riverfront stuff there. We're in the middle of permitting now and there really is no no way to put a date or a timeline on it because there's you can't the the federal government won't do anything in a timely manner. So we're waiting on them, but things are coming in, and we're hoping within the next 60 to 90 days we will have everything done. But it all looks good. So we get the permit within 90 days this project or this program the waterfront and separate the two get it in 90 days we bid 30 day or 60 days for the bidding timeline you have to have it on the street for 28 days That's from your data publication. The Tom's lags a week when you put an add-ins. You got to add it on the street for 28 days. That's from your data publication. The Tom's lags a week when you put an add-ins. You got to add that time in. So you're at 36. I don't know. Can't do math. But yeah. So we're at 120 days. And then after you've bid it, you do have to get the bids. You have to, like, staff evaluates them. I have to make a recommendation to you. You award at the next meeting. And Commerce plays a role in this too. Do you want to speak on that? Yes, so then once you guys make your decision before the final contract is signed, Commerce sees all your bid documents. Make sure that everything is within HUD guidelines, within federal procurement requirements, and then they'll sign off on it, and that's when you can actually execute your construction contract and issue a notice to proceed. So, we're looking at about 180 days before we can even begin. That's... I mean, that's the rough timeline. And that's what things going smoothly, no issues. Exactly. That's with commerce saying, yeah, that looks good. That's with, you know, with the federal government issuing environmental permits in a timely manner, all of these things are, you know, free and the engineers and we could do everything in a one day turnaround and certain departments can still take their whole 45 day allowable time and there's nothing that we can change about that. And so then you throw in the holidays. So then you have that lapse of time. So my where I'm going is we have until September of 26 did I hear? That's correct. As of right now the longest a grant can be extended for this program is September of 26. So we'll have nine months basically to complete the entire project. And this is just the waterfront. That's just the waterfront. And I did just want to note, there's a difference in grant closing out and construction completion. There's quite a bit of administrative paperwork that has to be done after the construction is over. To then close the grant out. We've got to be closed out by September 26th. Every completely closed out by September 26th. So we're pushing it right now. All right. And that's just the waterfront. Okay, so now we're within the same timeline basically or is it shorter for the hillside project? So it depends. If there's changes to hill then it could be a little bit longer but if hill goes as is with current scope it can be bit out in 30 or no use at 60. I just we put in the report 90 days for procurement award contractor approval from commerce and contract execution construction time to be determined after contracts on 90 days. So that's for does to go from bid advertised to contractor selection with commerce approval 90 days. Because on that one we have environmental clearance. There is no waiting on any federal agencies or anything like that. It can go now. So, a couple of things. So if the McNairs can prove that their issues, the issues. The exact the estimated issues come from Hurricane Michael and the roof, the water intrusion. There's opportunity to increase their budget. Correct. You would need to pull it from somewhere else, but yes. Okay. So now my question to the McNair's. So you can we can prove that. The issues are from Hurricane Michael, the water intrusion. Do you have any funds that can be injected into the project? Because I think there was... There's a structural repair. I have 225. a structural repair. I have 225. 1,000. Did I see that? I did see 225,000. There's the roof. I'm sorry. Oh it is. Does the 225 include the roof? It doesn't include so that the total will be 225. So question to how much do you have to inject into the project yourself? Nothing. Zero. So, if the only thing, the only item, the only issue that we could determine that is Hurricane Michael contributed is the roof. And I think I heard someone say that by placing the replace in the roof that it may negatively affect the actual structure. The next correct in the structural engineers report there is an issue that a correctly constructed roof with the weight that it has plus the deterioration of the building could cause a collapse of the structure. Could the tie-in be the structure, the walls, and the roof be tied in to her to into Hurricane Michael if that was in my opinion. The toughest part of the game room is the foundation and the building code. The walls I think are pretty easy to tie in with the roof intrusion. I think when you get down to the foundation of the structure, and then the fact that, as you mentioned, that when you repair a house, you incur at a certain point a responsibility to bring the entire structure up to code if you are doing a certain amount of repairs. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know for sure, but to me if you're replacing all four walls and the roof, you're probably going to get to that point. And that would get us to now the foundation needs repair. And that's where I don't think there is a clear connection to any Michael damage at this point with the current assessment that we have. Okay. Mr. McNeer. Mr. McNeer. Yeah, the ceiling. My microphone please. You have the, uh, Cillin helps collapse inside the building from the roof, Lincoln. Oh, Cillin's collapsed. You guys should have pitches here. We do. But the problem is what the engineer has stated. That's the inference that it was not properly constructed. Well, that's what was stated. So that's where we are and trying to figure out how to try it into Hurricane Michael. Don't determine which way to win the record flow during the hurricane. We understand. We understand how did engineer wrote up the report? To to say that the roof has been damaged. And it damaged inside of the facility also. I think that what we're all battling with, and it's like Mr. Hartman said that in a situation in a situation where someone is trying to dispute what another engineer is saying, that unfortunately that takes someone of the same expertise and the caliber. And what they're saying in this report right now is that the structural issues predate or it's due to the age of the building or the way it was constructed, that's the way it's being interpreted. And my misunderstood, I mean, that's what I understand from what's the structural engineer is saying, the pillars, the two by fours, the things like that, that while there is hurricane Michael Damage, that some of the other issue is just that the structural questions are based on the original construction to begin with. Yes, the structure is not up to code. Current code. Yep. Commissioner Grove. So if we did as this in our packet suggest if we did the roof of searing wall repair floor and structural repair they would still have to put in to get the building wired in HVAC. Would you be ready to open of day one when they're going to be required to open? So part of that is a question that may nays can answer. I imagine yes it would need electrical and probably some plumbing or things that are needed. I do wanna say the current scope is structural evaluation, building stabilization, roof repair, interior ceiling and flooring. When we put in that amendment request, it was based on the structural assessment. The structural assessment did not come back in the way we were hoping. We were hoping it would come back and tie everything in for us and we could do what this scope says. At this point in time, if we wanted to move forward what it says, we would have to send the structural to commerce. And I feel they would most likely say, I'm worried they would cover any of it. That's my concern. All right, so. I think we're okay on the waterfront. We're we're ready. We need what we know what we need there and then we can move forward. Waterfront. Yeah, I'm sorry. I know we're jumping on topics a lot. There was one I believe there's only one location on the riverfront that their budget that they were allocated is a lot smaller than the estimate that came in. So my question would be if we're considering reallocating funds around on the hill, are we contemplating doing the same for the riverfront? I believe it is Water Street Hotels quote, came in a good bit under. The rest seem pretty close. So we know what the difference is. If you go to flip forward to the riverfront, the first sheet of my report, and it's got the budget amount and cost estimates down at the bottom in blue or all of the locations. Some of their estimates came in under which is great. The Waters Street hotels there, budget was 23,000 and their estimate came in right under 84,000. There are funds that can be reallocated without having an amendment. Correct? It appears that way. Again, this is all based on estimates. When we get bids in, we'll know for certain. But I hate where at this point, but we need to make decisions before we can get the b one. We'll know for certain. I hate where at this point we need to make decisions before we can get the bids. You need a decision as far as Yes. If we, what are your thoughts on reallocating after? For Riverfront. I think that in the case of Riverfront, again, the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one. The other one is the other one what these buildings are having done to them, that's when you get into the need to fix that. I will point out in attachment A of the agreement there is project descriptions, which include the activities that will happen. that activity description is very vague. Like, for example water street hotel just says doc repair It doesn't specify how much it doesn't specify how long anything like that so That all that stuff can be very easily Altered indelible three for the construction. Everything just says docker pair at location or demolition and docker pair at location. And then the only requirement to meet that is any accordance with commerce approved design plans and working drawings. So as long as commerce approves your final designs, that will then go into the budget package. It won't require an amendment. And just to confirm, the budget table is not written with any specificities. So the budget is yours to move around internally. The only time that you need to do an amendment is if you needed to move money from construction to engineering or engineering to construction. So I guess what I'm asking is if we could get a consensus on if in this kind of a pause to both both does the city want to prioritize the business owners' funding loss and make sure their plan sets can be complete and then we'll use what's left on the city locations and I know they're very different projects so it's hard to compare sidewalks and lighting and hill kind of, nobody in the room super crazy about it. The riverfront, when you get into the riverfront project, that includes Andrews Pierre, the Coast Guard Property Rehabilitation, the volunteer fire department. It also does have a good bit of sidewalks and lighting in that scope of work. A lot of it though is dock repair along the riverfront on the city side. Let me share, bro. I know that people really were having the underspear and the docs all repaired that that is significant for the whole community and they wanted it done months and years ago. So I will say Andrew's peers estimate came in a lot lower than dispainted so I think that's a good thing. Yeah a lot of these quotes were gathered around the COVID era and they were very very high. Now it's gone down. So yeah that's a good thing. Do all the businesses have their putting money like the water street would put in more money. Not water street. I don't think that water street hotel three out of the four on the riverfront had match allocations. JV Gander water street seafood and sip your creek Marina all had matches. Water street hotel did not have match money obligated under the budget. I think it's because it was a smaller amount inherently, but I can't speak to that. If we got to a certain amount, would they put in? We could approach it that way. If the bids came in the way they read on this piece paper, which would be ideal, it might not be realist read on this piece paper which would be ideal, it might not be realistic when you get contractors bidding on these projects and they're held to a higher standard with Davis-Bacon, you see those prices go up. Most of these, the estimates, let me see, Water Street seafoods came in under Cipiacrit marinas came in under Water Street Hotel and JV Ganders were both above. So we could look at what wiggle room there is there in the money already obligated for the businesses and if they're covered, we could go with that route. Let's agree with commission and unless the other commissioners disagree, I agree with commission aggrove as far as approaching what a street hotel to see what contributions they can make to the project. So having said that, I think it's only fair that if we are going to inject funds that... Yeah, let's do it that way. For unless my colleagues think differently. Agreed with commission to grow to approach them and then we'll go from there. So that's the riverfront. So we go back to the hillside which. Thank you. I do have an opportunity to have open dialogue with the engineers who wrote these reports. I do. I mean, I talk to them regularly about the projects that that's what you're asking. You guys could reach out. I can coordinate it if you've got questions. Yeah, I would like to because I mean it is Yeah, I would like to I'd like to speak to one of the engineers and ask some questions Okay, just let me know we have different engineers for the riverfront and the hill we had to bid these Yeah, yeah, I want to speak to the engineer that did the report on the game room. I want to ask some questions of that report. Yes? I like to do that too. So what we'll do, I mean, I know we need to move forward. We really need to move forward on this, because time is of the essence on these projects. So we really do need to move forward. It's been a long process and it's been a long process. Miss McNair. Okay. I would like to see if the engineer that drew up my contract for the game will address the construction damage and that it will contribute to Michael if you speak on my behalf. That's one of the, I think we're asking the same question. I want to know, I'm sorry. I don't, to me it doesn't seem outside of the possibility that here there may have been, I mean buildings age, buildings have damage, gravity does what it does. But we also know that if a building gets saturated, if it gets water logged, it gets heavier. So I would like to know, it wasn't specifically addressed in the report that I recall, but I would like to know. I don't think that they can exclude the idea that there is increased damage by the way, the water the fact that it was left exposed over time. I just don't see how they can exclude that possibility, but I'm not an expert, so I would like to ask that question. Is that the question you were talking about? I can ask that. Thank you. Thank you. So what for this particular project for the heel side so that we can go ahead and kind of get this underway. If you would schedule a meeting with Commissioner Duncan and the engineer schedule a meeting with Commissioner Grove and the engineer and then you report back to the commissioners on the findings from those meetings for the game room so then we'll know how to move forward with the heel side. Okay, are we, my question is are we just holding until we get the opinion or do you? I think that's where we are at this point. Based on what I've heard from the majority is that there's some questions that need to be answered before decision can be made. So if you could schedule those calls meetings as quickly as possible so that we can move forward on so we'll know how to move forward on this project. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I do want to comment just so we're all aware of what that timeline would look like if things do change. Let's say best case scenario they are willing to make edits to their assessment and restamp and we move forward with an elaborate scope for the game room. There will have to be new plans drafted for all of the new work that's being included. That will add on to the time on considerably. It's just something that we should be aware of and the other owners in this project. Just give us some grace on the time on if we get into that. September of 26. 26. Okay. Jinx. All right. So, um, Bree is going to schedule a call with you and her and the engineer and then with She and Commissioner Duncan and the engineer and she'll report back to the full commission And now make myself available if we can dovetail it so that we spend as little of your time or the engineer's time as possible Then we can certainly you can coordinate for us like we can do virtual Yeah, we'll we can set up teams meetings and I'd probably for their state try to do them on the same day maybe 30 minutes each. I will reach out to them tomorrow and get their availability and kind of communicate it back to you but I would I'll highly suggest we do this early next week so we can maybe talk about this at this place. Yes I will I will make it happen thank you thank you tell me what the total allowance for the hill is the total amount of money going to the hill. 590 520. 755. Do you want the total cost for the hill, including admin and everything? 935, 753. 935? 935. All right. So I think we've kind of put a pin in the private sector of the program. So the sidewalks and the lighting, I know in this room the consensus is that no one wants to sidewalks or the lighting. But there has been conversation about sidewalks and lighting on the hill. And so if that is an conversation about removing, then that needs to be opened up to the entire community and not just in this particular conversation. Having said that, there's a discussion about the lighting choice. And I have to agree with Mr. Winner-Winger. I don't like those. I mean it is not conducive to the historic nature or the aesthetics of the hillside. And I think that the light intrusion is an issue so it needs to be Park sky for anyone. Okay that's a simple solution to that item I can get more options if everybody likes the lighting at Lafayette Park which I know that is when our air walked out but we do have the specs on that we can bring that as an an option and maybe try to find a couple other. I do think it was kind of a costly option. I was gonna say those were very expensive. So a similar product, perhaps. We can, yeah, I'll voice it to the engineers. They're the ones who sent the three recommendations. So I'll just ask them to take another swing at it. Does anyone else have any questions regarding the lighting? There was another style that was considered for Luffy at Park that was less expensive. You probably will find that. Because our the donor I'm not contented to put in more money to upgrade the lighting. Absolutely. Yeah, I think there's definitely cheaper options out there We just got to find I have one question about I Keep looking at it and forgetting to ask is there also a change of scope on the warrants Minimal because it's showing a increase in from the budget from 25 to 114. Yeah, their scope has always been the same. I don't know why the estimate is so much higher than what they were allocated is probably due to just at the application when it was put in. I'm not sure if the current owner provided the quotes or if that's something the city tried to help with. Okay. I had to come to the microphone. I'd like to understand where we stand on that as well. Again, this has been the year to have the process. We heard a week into closing that we were getting this grant and made a little stuff, and you guys buy nothing, scum down. I personally came down after our first round of tenants left and had $10,000 worth of damage upstairs in the apartment's loan. So I had to go into my own money, renovate those on top of all the other damages that had occurred. And currently, about $60,000 of our money into the laundry mat that we're currently trying to get up to speed to. And we are currently the only business operating in the market. So we have a market, you know, affordable housing units up there. So right now currently we are the kind of the hub that a lot of people use in our facilities and will it be kind of waiting for this to shake out to understand where really it would be for us to get used to spending all the money and you know, have this. So, we'd like to see what we stand. I feel like we have to get an opportunity to say, hey, our stuff is the way it is, but again, not quite sure. So we would like to understand how that goes as well. So I don't know who would answer that. Ms. Robinson? Robinson? Because I we did have a $130,000 worth of documented stuff that had been approved and structural engine. I mean, I've just filed the protocol the whole time. I haven't asked for any money specifically. So is your question... do you mind putting your question in one sentence? Yeah, I mean, where will I stand in this? I mean, obviously mean obviously we're sounds like the business owners and I'm actually not quite sure There's three business owners that are getting money and there's only I think two of us here There's three yeah, okay the Larela and Glenn and the I don't know the all the one about the Fuse market. Oh, okay cool. So I didn't know that all right cool So I'm glad to glad to know tonight, but I'd like to know where we stand in all this. Is your question, how do we have 100 and something in estimates? Not necessarily. Is that even a possibility that that's going to be allocated? You said that the sidewalk's money was going to be reallocated. Is that an expectation that I should be like something made forward? That that would be that this extra money would go towards the courts essentially or I might just wear it's hat. Because again, you know. So based on what I'm hearing and attorney Hartman correct me from Rome, based on what I'm hearing from this conversation tonight, there are three, of course there's three businesses. One of the businesses, the game room, is requesting funding for more of their issues that they have. So, AJs and the many more have been, the budget is allowing for many more 95. Is that I'm at 20. So the budget for the minimum was 255 and their current estimate is 116 right. A J's budget was 57 their current was 57, their current estimate is right at 69. 69? So under 100,000 total. So I don't know how this was approached or how this was at, I wasn't the previous owner, but it sounds like even with William E.C., it doesn't sound like an opportunity, especially six and a half years later, you let a building sit six and a half years, I mean, inevitably it's going to look like it looks. So that's common where I'm just kind of confused on the simple, the direction of that really looks like. Just more expectation. We're really spending a lot of money down here. I mean, we're hundreds and thousands of dollars right now. So any kind of clarification on this would be great. So at this point, the $125, did I hear that correctly? For the meeting mall? Is in a budget? Is part of the budget? It's just when it's been, that's the cost of what the repairs have said it's going to be. Yeah, that's the cost estimate. His budgeted amount is $25, $25,000. So what is that $90,000? Sure. It's a big difference. Yeah, it really needs to be there at 9,000. I mean, between us, we're only like that. And one of the conversations that we were so to have tonight was to reallocate those funds. But we need to know we don't know what the McNair's what that issue is, what that closes. So I'm always kind of a tourist, right? I drop in on Brie, I drop in on Mount Taylor talking about this, but my understanding is this and they can correct us if we're wrong, is those numbers are in the budget because those are approved, Hurricane Michael amounts. So that's the estimate of hurricane Michael damage to these structures. Then there was a limited back in the day. We allocated money between sidewalks and lighting and the commercial projects. Some projects dropped out. That money was then reallocated to sidewalks and lighting. What's interesting tonight that we're talking about, because this has been a subject that's been discussed a lot. What happens to money when someone drops out? What happens, you know, and then what I'm hearing, at least my understanding now, is that if the scope of someone's project doesn't change, so your scope was, is actually $150,000, $150,000, but you only got allocated 25. If now there is additional money, or the city literally wants to reallocate, say, we don't need street lights or we can get rid of 100 feet of sidewalk, the city is why you would, I think, want to stay engaged with everybody just like the other two projects, you could get more of your 100, you can get more of that funded because that's already tied to Hurricane Michael. It's already approved. Then we have a different case potentially, not potentially, but we have a different case with the McNairs because that would involve a change in the scope. They were approved for $9,000 just for the roof. There was, I guess we did the structural engineering survey and everything to determine if there was more damage that could be so would be higher. Again, the minimall, but that wasn't the case back in the day. So on the McNair end, there's more paperwork involved because we would have to change the scope of their project and that requires going back up to commerce, getting approval to change that. Whereas what I heard Taylor say was, if we're just funding more of a project that's already been approved, that's okay. They're fine with that because that's already been run through them. So on this, we have to, so even in these three projects, for instance, get it approved by commerce, change the scope of that, and then have commerce tell us in writing that they agree and to cover ourselves so we don't end up with a potential clawback situation. That's my understanding. Can I ask a question? Was your did that answer your question? I'm going to an extent. I don't know is that an option at this point? You two well is the funds being allocated to my project at this point still an option? If we took it, I mean, because if it is an option, it would, you know, again, I'm kind of been a unique situation this because I'm actively trying to renovate that with my own funds. But if I can get financial help from the city to help do this, it would obviously help me and obviously have a huge project going on on eight street right now on the Zeagler, which is a lot. But again, it would free me up, obviously. But again, I look at my budget too, and I think I personally could do that at 60% of the cost that I have right now. I don't need that amount of money. I'd be more than happy to put that back towards the minors. So again, you know, don't need necessarily $2,000 worth of upgrades. I would love for the facade on that building to be something the neighbor is proud of. It's a metal building. It's okay. But you know for me personally I would love to see that I would love to see street lights and all these things too. So but again I'm just more of a list trying to figure out where I can stand so I can plan. So I believe there's three main points here that need decisions. to make the right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. The right-hand sidewalks are paid. businesses before the sidewalks are paid, the sidewalk in the lighting. Okay, pencil that. That's one. Okay. Second. Let's take on one at a time. Private businesses. Yeah. Private businesses over sidewalks. That's the question for Riverfront. What is your consensus commissioners do you want to help the private businesses over sidewalks and the riverfront? When you say does that include the docs and stuff too or just sidewalks? So my apologies. For Riverfront there's technically three aspects to it. There's the demo work and the Docker-Pair to Public areas. There's the sidewalk and lighting work and then there's the private business work. I think for this specific one it would be pertinent to create a priority list. What is your most important thing? What is next funded and what is going to get the final amounts of the budget. Out of those three options, what is priority one for the city, what is priority two, and what is priority three? On the riverfront. So that's going to be between the private businesses, the public repairs and demolitions, I the blighted areas that need demolishing such as the old fire station and then the lighting and the sidewalks. I just want to point out if you go to the riverfront budget, they're color coded, it looks pink, green and blue. Those are your three categories to prioritize in the way the plan sets are organized. So blue is the owners, green is like Andrews Peer, the fire station, pop-em plans, Coast Guard property, those things on the riverfront, and then the pink is all sidewalks and lighting. So what I'm kind of hearing and you can correct me if I'm wrong is the order might be business owners and then the green set of work which is Anders Peer, fire station, light, and then the last priority would be sidewalks and lighting, and there's quite a bit of money tied to those right now. the community. The community is a community that is a community that is a commissioners. Commissioner George, what say you? What's your priorities? That would be my priorities. In that order, that brief just? Yes. Okay. Commission. My priorities would be the docs. Private business and sidewalks last. Commissioner Duncan. Demo docs. We're talking about River Front. Private businesses and sidewalks and I will just say I'm curious because I know like the big nairs have shared with us that and I know it's heal I know it's a separate issue that they forego their insurance to pursue this but I would want I mean if private businesses collected insurance I would want to know that too I think that's an important factor before I even say it before it's before sidewalks I I mean, we still have a fiduciary responsibility. I mean, it's looking at me like I'm saying something crazy. Am I saying something crazy? Well, I did, and I'm sorry, but I also have another question that just don't don't me. So who was the other people that opted out? Of any of the businesses. It was plural, so. Now that we're thinking of it, Riverfront didn't have any, hasn't had anybody opt out so far. I know, I don't know if he rushes to one of the areas. He left. He's on the fence. How did the hill, it was the Massey Building and CUS. And the Massey Building, they opted out because we met with them. And they made it clear the building was going to be for residential purposes. It was not going to be commercial. So they removed. They only had about $6,000 in their budget. It was just for some demo work. And then CUS had their initial assessment. The current owner was told, hey, they're recommending demolition. How do you want to approach this? You want to go for a structural? We started talking about the guidelines and what came with it. And the former owner seemed very set in wanting to sell it. Not sure if she wanted to do and opted out. OK. Because is that was based on the same structural report that the minars had as well or the same type of report? It was based on the initial engineering assessment. When the engineers went in and created the plan set and said this is going to cost a lot more to fix. Are you interested in a demo because the program would cover that? And obviously, you didn't want to demo the building because it means a lot to a lot of people. And we were kind of getting into the weeds of the guidelines and what comes with accepting the money. And she chose to just opt out. OK. OK. So yeah, so Riverfront, Demo Dogs, Private Business and Sidewalks. But I do have that extra question that if a private business actually did utilize their insurance, then I would have a question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. the private business actually did utilize their insurance and would have a question. Thank your name in business. Lee Cable, Water Street Hotel and Marina. When we were approached with this program, we were told not to make any improvements, not to do anything. We did not collect insurance and I was also told that other businesses had the means to add and to the money where we did not. So that's where we stand with that. I just wanted to make that known. Thank you. And, Attorney Hartman, I have a question for you then. Where does, I mean, where it does in when the the the private sector and grants and this federal money where it collides, where does the the requirement to mitigate your damages? Where does that come in or does it not? And that is a good question because I know Mr. Mayor, McNair said he a tarp the roof to try and keep the water from coming in. I think an engineer would probably come in and, which I mean, I read that report and it's pretty detailed. And again, you could get just as we know, right? You can get another engineer to come in and give a report. I'm going to call it more sympathetic to the idea that where exactly did the water come in? What did the water come in contact with? What materials did it come in contact with? What damage resulted as a direct result of the water that came in during a certain period of time or the entire time? Boom, that's it. And then that's a tie back to Hurricane Michael. If we're still talking about, I mean, I mean, we're talking generally, but specifically, McNair, I would want to know that. And it's possible that the engineer that did the report can tell us that. But again, I think you would want a clean report showing that. And I'm going to be real honest. But I think people do have a not-do-dubitigate. Well, and I'm going to be me that. And I'm going to be real honest. But I think people do have a not-do-to-bedigate. Well, and I'm going to be real honest, and I'm going to be very clear about this, because I'm the new owner of Q's. I've read the report that was submitted on Q's. My partner is a certified general. I've clouded all over it, and it is not a tear down. So I'm frustrated. I'm very frustrated, and that's where I'm coming from. But anyway, I'm going to say, yeah, good. Demo's dogs, private business, and so on. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Elliott. Priorities for the rear front would be the docs, private businesses, demo sidewalks. So I think the consensus is. The. I'm going to say the city project. The city private and point Commissioner Duncan and Commissioner Grove would like to have a conversation with the engineer regarding the report, the structural engineer that is. So once that is concluded and they have their decision or their information reconvening on what that decision will be, for now that one is mute. The decision has been made. Next is going to be on the Hill community prioritization of private business or the sidewalks. So first priority and then second priority. Based on the conversation that we've all had here, I would imagine that it's going to be private business and then sidewalks and lighting secondary with the discussed amendment to the lighting being dark sky or the elimination of the lighting and just the sidewalks for the shorter portion that was discussed earlier between the botanical gardens. Are you? I asked. Sure. Two. to the minimum of point. They determined that a certain amount was due to hurricane damage. So how do we then turn around and allocate more money when it may not have been hurricane damage? So that's what I'm trying to figure out as a way to get rid of the hurricane damage. and allocate more money when it may not have been hurricane damage. So that's what I'm trying to figure out is how do we justify the increase to be clear. Their scope has not changed. So what they asked for is the same thing that was originally looked at and said that it was damage. They haven't added anything or changed portion of their scope. So as currently stands, the mini-mall scope from the beginning of the project to now is the same. That is the determined, any damage, any increase at this point is already going to be considered hurricane tieback if the funding increases because we're not changing the scope. And that scope has been to put it by commerce in writing in an amendment. Okay. So we are, we understand where we are as of now. Any further discussion from this body. Regarding the CDBGDR grant. Hearing none see and may I have a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by commissioner Elliott. I have a second. Second by Commissioner George, all in favor? Aye. Hi. Meeting adjourned. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We have an agreement to put the code inside. We're going to have to help her out. We're going to have to help her out. We're going to have to help her out. That's not us. We're going to have to help her out. We're going to be doing it.