[CALL TO ORDER]
[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related) (3 Minutes Max.)]
[COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS (Non-Agenda Items)]
[2. PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2023 CYCLE #2.]
[00:25:24]
NINE TO ALLOW EACH APPLICANT THEREFORE, REQUEST FUNDS WOULD COME FROM THE CRE FUND BALANCE.
[00:25:30]
OR REDUCE ELIGIBLE MATCH BY 33% MAKING THE TOTAL FUNDING NEEDED $19,987. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF[00:25:42]
WHAT A 33% REDUCTION FOR EACH APPLICANT WOULD BRING THEM TO. AND ON AUGUST I'M SORRY SERIES[00:25:52]
SIERRA B S RECOMMENDATION ON AUGUST 1ST 2023. THE CRB VOTED 3 TO 1 IN FAVOR OF IMPROVING[00:25:59]
ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE IRRIGATION SHALL BE INSTALLED TO[00:26:06]
PREFER TO PRESERVE LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS TO ALL APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING. TO THE TOTAL GRANT MATCH FOR ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS WAS REDUCED BY 33% TO KEEP WITHIN THE APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE PROGRAM. AND I'M SORRY. AND THREE UPON SYRIA APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE ONE YEAR FOR PROJECT COMPLETION IF THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED. IF THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED, IS NOT APPROVED ITS FINAL EXPECTIONS OR DOES NOT RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IF APPLICABLE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE GRANT, THE GRANT AWARD SHALL EXPIRE. IF APPROVED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 CYCLE TWO OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR THE AWARD EXPIRES. A NEW SPENDING FROM CYCLE TWO WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE REMAINING COMPLETED APPLICANTS TO MATCH THEIR ORIGINAL REQUEST. MAYOR, UM. AND SEND YOUR THINKING THAT THE PEOPLE THAT APPLIED FOR THIS WE OFFERED THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND TO NOW GO BACK AND SAY WELL.WE CAN'T WE DON'T HAVE IT. I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WITH THE APPLIED FOR IT, THEY RECEIVED THE MATCH THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THAT THAT WE SHOULD YOURSELF. WE DO THE BUDGET, REMEMBER? YES THE $9000. OKAY? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
NO, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH VICE MAYOR BRUNER THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AND, UH AWARD. THE. THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT TO 29,008 31. TO THE FIRST FIVE PEOPLE ELIGIBLE, YOU KNOW, NOT THERE. THERE'S AN YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE RULE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED FOR THE AWNINGS. BUT THAT'S NOT. THAT'S A THAT'S I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. UH, BUT I DO THINK THAT FOR THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT, UH, SINCE THE SIERRA DOES HAVE THE MONEY RIGHT NOW, THESE ALL LOOK LIKE WORTHWHILE IMPROVEMENTS. SO ANY OTHER. SO DO WE HAVE A ANY EMOTIONS OR ANYTHING? YEAH WE'LL BRING THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE BOARD NEXT MONTH, OKAY? SO YOU NEED A MOTION OR ANYTHING FOR TODAY, JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FULL AMOUNT. OKAY.
DO DO WE HAVE I THINK THERE'S SOME PEOPLE HERE ON HIS. WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR WE CAN HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE. ON THIS ITEM. WHICH WOULD COME TO THE MR GOLDIE, PLEASE COME IN AND PLEASE FILL OUT A GREEN CARD. COMMENT ON THIS OR. THIS IS A. YOU WERE COMMENTING ON THIS ITEM . NOW SHE IS AN APPLICANT. SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT FOR THE RECORD. ONE STATE THAT. YEAH.
APPLICATION FROM THE. QUESTION. CRB. THAT SPRINKLER SYSTEM MUST BE. SURE THAT. REQUIRED TO HAVE
[00:30:07]
A. YES. I THINK SO. IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT PLANTS AND THEY NEED TO GET WATER SO I WOULD SAY YES.WELL, ACTUALLY, THE LANDSCAPING. NEXT APRIL, 5TH. DROP RESISTANT PLANTS. OF COURSE, THE LANDSCAPING. AND OF COURSE, THE LANDSCAPING WILL BE WATERED. THE APPLICANT WILL CERTAINLY MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WATERED BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT IN ANY PLANTS IN THAT ARE GOING TO DIE. BUT WITH THAT SAID , I JUST FEEL THAT YOU KNOW YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE IS IT ACTUALLY FAIR TO PUT IN A STIPULATION AFTER THE FACT WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM NEEDED TO BE IN PLACE. MR MAN. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. SO IRRIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED. AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM. IT IS RECOMMENDED. UM AND THE CRB ACTUALLY MADE EMOTION AS A PART OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL. ALL LANDSCAPING HAS TO HAVE IRRIGATION, BUT THAT WAS A DECISION BY THE CRB BOARD GUIDELINES DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM SO IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY OUR RULES. IT'S JUST THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT BUT BY THE CRB AND IF, AND MR ALI SAID THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON, UM, JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS DROUGHT RESISTANT, UH, PLANTS THAT DON'T DON'T BECAUSE I'M GUESSING I'M GUESSING THIS FOR SCRIP. SH IN SHOP, WHICH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE PROBABLY THE FIFTIES THERE FOR 60 YEARS, SO IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE EASY TO PUT IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND ARE VERY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR UP. PAVEMENT AND SO FORTH. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INSTALL A WELL OR SOMETHING THEY CAN'T PUT DRIP IN. THIS IS A BIG THIS IS A BIG THING. I HAVE TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO START DIGGING UP PAVEMENT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING THAT THEY INSTALLED WITH THE PROGRAM. SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE GRANT AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRES THEM TO MAINTAIN IT FOR A PERIOD. OKAY WITH MOVING THE, UM OKAY, REMOVING THE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT. I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. I DO AS WELL. I ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THOSE OLD BUILDINGS ARE MY WIFE'S FAMILY OWNED ONE THAT WAS OVER JUST A COUPLE OF STORES DOWN THAT WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTIES, AND THERE WAS NO WAY YOU WERE PUTTING IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. SO AND WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, AS WELL AS LONG AS YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE. EXACTLY WHAT WAS REQUESTED. IS THAT THEY BE MAINTAINED. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BY GROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM. YOU KNOW IT CAN BE WATERED AND OKAY. WE HAVE ANY EMOTIONS OR ANYTHING ON THIS. QUESTION ON AHEAD. I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN TO ASK THEM ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE DID. THE PLANTS THEMSELVES AND THEY WERE PLANTS THAT WE WERE PLANTING THE RIGHT AWAY ARE ENCOURAGING. PEOPLE ARE PLAYING. WE HAVE UM, PROMISE THAT WE'D DO THE 90 DAYS . BUT I DON'T THINK FOR THIS TYPE OF GRANT WOULD GO AROUND AND WHAT ARE THEIR PLANS FOR 90 DAYS, SO HAVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY MUST MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING IS ENOUGH HARBOR.
THEY DECIDED TO DO IT THAT ISN'T THAT IS PART OF THE GRANT THAT THEY DO HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED.
WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH TO APPROVE THAT NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS NECESSARY. BUT ARE YOU INCLUDING THE BUDGET. THE BUDGET AMENDMENT? YES SECOND. OKAY. I'M SORRY. CAN WE JUST CONFIRM THAT THAT IS FOR ALL APPLICANTS THAT IRRIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ALL APPLICANTS. UM. THEY JUST SUPPLEMENT. AIN'T WHATEVER THEY PUT IT WITH THE GUIDELINES NOT ADDING TO THIS IS THE RULE.
CORRECT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS JUST THAT ON AUGUST, THE FIRST THE CRB MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND I JUST WANTED IRRIGATION SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PRESERVE LANDSCAPING. THAT'S A BIG EXPENSE, ALL IN THEIR MAIL. OKAY? THANK YOU, BUT I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT. I'M REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD TAKE A LOOK AT THE CRB MEETING FROM AUGUST THE FIRST AND GO INTO THE MINUTES AT ABOUT 40 MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS. MR CAMPENNI QUOTE. I THINK THIS WHOLE PROGRAM IS A BIG WASTE OF MONEY. I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO SEE THAT THIS PROGRAM NOT PROCEED. I HAVE NEVER BEEN FOR IT. I THINK IT'S CRAZY. SO IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY BUSINESSES, FUTURE
[00:35:06]
GRANT PROGRAMS. REQUESTING THAT MR CAMPENNI STEPPED DOWN. AND IF HE DOES NOT STEP DOWN THAT THE BOARD REMOVE HIM. HOW CAN A MAN SIT ON THE BOARD OF THE C R B AND THE C R A AND NOT HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN THIS EVERY ONE OF YOU WHEN YOU SIT THERE, YOU SAY I AM HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. HOW CAN MR CAMPENNI BE SITTING THERE ON THAT BOARD MAKING DECISIONS WITH AN OPEN MIND? THANK YOU.THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE THAT. THE I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE SAID AT MEETINGS THAT WE DON'T APPROVE OF, OR IMPROVE. I MEAN, OVER THE YEARS I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT. BUT I DON'T. UM I THINK IT'S WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHAT WE SAY, GAIL, I SURELY AGREE WITH THAT OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. AND IF YOU WOULD PUT SERVE WHEN YOU'RE DONE AS YOU FILL OUT A GREEN CARD WITH YOUR NAME, AND IF YOU PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS ROBERT WHITLOCK. I AM THE PRESIDENT EVAN LEAH COMMERCE CENTER. WHICH IS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS HERE AND IT'S REALLY MORE INFORMATIONAL FOR THIS, UM, AGENCY. IF YOU WILL, THAT I DO APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE DECLINED TODAY IN THE FUTURE AS THAT AREA OF NORTH STUART BEGINS TO DEVELOP FURTHER. WE HAVE 13 PROPERTIES AROUND US THAT ARE GOING TO DEVELOP INTO RESIDENTIAL IN OUR PROPERTY GETS USED A LOT. WITH THEM WALKING THEIR DOGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT . SO WHILE YES WE ARE PRIVATE. YES. OUR LAND IS, UM IF YOU WILL APPEAL A. THERE IS USE OF OUR LAND BY THOSE AROUND US, AND I DO APPRECIATE THE AWNINGS CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE SO THAT WE CAN BE A NICE NEIGHBOR TO THIS, FOLKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY SO WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION BY UH, I SMEAR BRUNER. AND WHO DO I KNOW WE HAD A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE YEAH. THINKING THAT IT WOULD BE VERY GOOD TO JUST KEEP THESE TWO THINGS SEPARATE. THE ONE SMALL MOTION ABOUT THE. THE ISSUE OF THE SPRINKLERS AS A DISCRETE PROMOTION. SECOND MOTION FOR THE BUDGET MOTION TO IMPROVE THE APPLICATIONS THAT THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR FUNDING. SUBJECT TO A BUDGET AMENDMENT. OKAY WITH THAT. THANK YOU. SO IF YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION THEN, IF YOU MAKE A NEW ONE FOR THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WOULD DRAW MY MOTION AND NO ONE IS FOR WE DO NOT HAVE TO PUT IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS ALL OF THEM. OKAY SO ISN'T THAT THE CURRENT RULES ALREADY? YEAH, JUST I THINK, BUT WE DO NEED TO REMOVE THE BECAUSE OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE CRB. SO THAT'S SO I'D SAY IT'S EMOTION TO, UH TO THAT THE REMOVED THE REQUIREMENT OF A IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THEY MAINTAINED THE LANDSCAPING. CORRECT YOU HEAR THAT? YEAH OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BURKE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT MOTION. THANK YOU, MA'AM. NONE MARRIAGE. YOU CALL THE ROLL. FACE VICE CHAIR. BRUNER YES, CLARK? YES REMEMBER COLLINS? YES MEMBER RICH? YES MCDONALD. YES OKAY. SO NOW IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANTS, UH, AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT, UH. HOW MUCH 9000 IMPRUDENT AND HAVE STAFF BRING BACK SUBJECT TO THE BUDGET AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO FUND IT SO YES, WE CAN MAKE THAT MONEY.
THAT'S JUST A NOTE FOR THE TOTAL WOULD BE $9831 1000. $9831 831 DOLLARS TO APPROVE THE AFRICAN OPPORTUNITY BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $9831. WE HAVE A 2ND 2ND WE HAVE EMOTION BODY BY SMEAR BRUNER A SECOND. BUT COMMISSIONER CLARK, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT MOTION? THIS AMERICAN. I JUST MAKE A COMMENT. YES, ABSOLUTELY. I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS COMING AND SPEAKING TO US, IT HELPS US WITH YOUR FEEDBACK AND, UH, YOUR INPUT ALLOWS US TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM A BETTER ONE. PRIME INSTANCES. THE AWNINGS HERE, SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE COMMITTING TO CREATING AS MUCH SHADE AS WE CAN. SO IF WE TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT, HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB. SO THANK YOU FOR APPLYING AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME. THANK YOU,
[00:40:01]
UM, SPEAK TO US. MARY, WHAT YOU CALL THE ROLL. REMEMBER RICH? YES CLARK? YES COLLINS? YES CHAIR, BRUNER. YES WELL, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. AND CONGRATULATIONS FOR ALL YOU THAT RECEIVED GRANTS. SO AND, UH, WE'LL GET YOU THAT MONEY HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING, SO OKAY,[4. DIRECTION TO DRAFT BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR REPAIR TO WATERFRONT RESTAURANT (RC): RESOLUTION No. 10-2023 CRA; A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THE REPAIRS TO THE WATERFRONT RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 131 SW FLAGLER AVENUE, STUART; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
MOVING ON. NEXT WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA SKIP DOWN AND DO THE , UH, DIRECTION TEAM DRAFT A BUNCH OF MEMBERS EXPENSES TO REPEAT THE RESTAURANT. AND MIKE, WHO IS HANDLING THAT AND ALL THOSE GUYS HOW ARE YOU? VERY GOOD. GOOD TO SEE YOU. SO AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, ONE OF THE COUPLE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION'S ASKED US ONE THERE'S A BREAKDOWN OF THE FUNDS AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS MY PARTNER, DEREK CHAMA AND BREAKDOWN OF THE FUNDS INTO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. THOSE CATEGORIES BEING EQUIPMENT. AND FUNDING AND ELECTRICAL SAFETY AND THEN STRUCTURAL. AND THEN AS AN ADDED INSIGHT TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE. IN TERMS OF HELPING THEM. WHAT DO YOU WANT BUILDING? WE ALSO SPLIT UP INTO HAVING TO GO. HOW DO YOU BUILD UP THE BUILDING? HOW DID BUILDING AS A RESTAURANT AND THEN SOME COLLATERAL BENEFIT OF THE WORK THAT WE HAD DONE THERE AND WE'VE BROKEN ALL THAT DOWN FROM THE PRESENTATIONS WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT ALONE CAN HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. GOD RICH. ALSO POINTED OUT VERY, VERY THANKFULLY ALSO PROVIDED TIME ON OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED. TIMELINE OF EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED SO THAT CLEAR TO THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY UNDERSTOOD OUR INTERACTION WITH THE CITY.THERE WAS ONE GIVEN. WHAT WE DO. THE AGENDA. BEAUTIFUL HURRY UP. HOLD ON, GUYS. WE GET THERE. THE COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE PRESENTATION IN FRONT OF THEM. BUT I DID HAVE THE CORRECT ON YES. WORKING ON IT. MINE IS DOWNLOADED. HERE IT IS GREAT. SO ON THE ON THE TOP LEFT HAND SIDE , YOU CAN SEE A BREAKDOWN OF ABOUT $1.4 MILLION 1.391 TO BE EXACT THAT WE'VE ALREADY INVESTED INTO THE BUILDING. $434,000 FOR STRUCTURAL. ANOTHER 139,000 FOR SAFETY 578,000. FOR M E P. THAT'S MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING. AND THEN ANOTHER $240,000 FOR EQUIPMENT FOR THE TOTAL OF 1391. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS TO SPLIT THAT BASICALLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND OURSELVES TO THE TUNE OF $694,000, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. IN A WAY TO FURTHER GIVE INSIGHT TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE SPENT. I'D LIKE TO DO A COUPLE THINGS FIRST. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TOTAL INVESTMENT THAT MY PARTNER AND I HAVE MADE INTO THE BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS $4 MILLION OF TOTAL INVESTMENT. THIS IS SIMPLY FOR THESE AREAS THAT WE'VE DONE TO THE BUILDING AS WE'VE, AS WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT IT AND THINGS THAT WE'RE KIND OF BEHIND THE SHEETROCK, QUOTE UNQUOTE AFTER INSPECTION, SO THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND SIDE BREAKS DOWN. UH THOSE SAME FUNDS INTO FOUR DIFFERENT BUCKETS BUILDING HAD HABITABILITY. RESTAURANT HABITABILITY. COLLATERAL IMPACT BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT WE HAD TO DO FOR THE HABITABILITY OF THE RESTAURANT. AND THEN THERE WAS SOME VALUE ADDED LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHILE YOU'RE THERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TEAR DOWN THE WALL, YOU HAVE TO PAINT IT AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COMPLIES. SO THERE IS VALUE ADDED THAT WAS DONE AND THAT TOTALS BACK TO THE $1.4 MILLION.
A COUPLE OF THINGS TO NOTE ABOUT $944,000, OR ALMOST 70% WAS REQUIRED JUST FOR HABITABILITY.
THAT WAS CORRECTING THINGS OF THIS 40 YEAR OLD BUILDING THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE . AND DEREK AND I, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BUILT THIS RESTAURANT IN A WAY NOT FOR BEING HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS AS OTHER TENANTS HAVE DONE, BUT REALLY TO BE HERE FOR THE LONG TERM, YOU KNOW, DEREK IS A RESIDENT HERE AT STEWART AND WE BOTH FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE IN STUART, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PACIFIC LEE GIVE ME A FEW EXAMPLES OF HABITABILITY. SURE. IT JUST SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE PREVIOUS RESTAURANT WAS SLUMMING IT UP OVER THERE. SO WE'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE AND DEREK AND I WILL. IF YOU DON'T MIND, DEREK. HE'S LOOKING FOR THAT. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? CAN YOU JUST REMIND US? I KNOW YOU HAVE A TIMELINE THAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO GIVE US REMIND US WHEN YOU SIGNED YOUR LEASE, AND WHEN YOU STARTED DOING YOUR REPAIRS, WE SIGNED THE LEASE. MAY OF 2021 . WE HIRED AN ARCHITECT AND THE ENGINEER IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2022. THAT ARCHITECT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC THAT SET OF ARCHITECTURE. ENGINEERS THEN
[00:45:03]
BEGAN TO LOOK AT THE RESTAURANT AND GO BEHIND THE WALLS. AS AS YOU WOULD SPEAK IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND QUARTER OF 22. THEY NOTIFIED US OF THE SAFETY ISSUES, HABITABILITY ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HIGHLIGHTING HERE IN A SECOND, AND THEN WE LET THE CITY KNOW THAT PRESENTLY AND WE HAD DONE THAT ALONG THE WAY. AND AGAIN, THERE'S FURTHER TIMELINE THAT SHOWS MEETINGS.BUT THAT'S THE TIME WHEN I THINK SOME OF THE PUBLIC DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE PACKAGE, BUT JUST JUST SURE TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, SO THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE SEAWALL ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR, AND THERE'S MISSING SOIL UNDERNEATH SO THAT ALL THAT CONCRETE AT THE BOTTOM, THE CLOSEST TO THE WATER COULD HAVE CAVED IN AT ANY POINT IN TIME, SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONCRETE WORK WHERE WE HAD TO DIG UP. WE HAD TO GET WE HAD THE CITY'S ARCHITECT. OR ENGINEER COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT AS WELL FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT I SAW THAT AS BEING A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER VERSUS THE 940,000 THAT YOU HAVE HERE FOR HABITABILITY HAVE ABILITY OF BUILDING AND THEN RESTAURANTS. SO IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE BUILDING, WHICH DEREK IS REFERRING TO HERE, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW THE SEAWALL, THE BOARDWALK, THE FLOORING. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS PEST ISSUES. THERE WAS SEWAGE REMEDIATION THAT HAD TO BE DONE. THERE WERE FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS THERE WERE ABANDONED ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ISSUES IN THE BUILDING. YOU KNOW AGAIN IF YOU GO BACK IN TIME, YOU KNOW THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE TENANTS HERE AND THEY HAD DONE WORK AND HAD UNFORTUNATELY ABANDONED IT IN MID PROJECT AND AS DEREK AND I STARTED TO DO THE WORK THERE WE ? WE HAVE DECIDED WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, AND WE WERE REQUIRED BY CODE TO ACTUALLY FINISH ALL OF THAT WORK. SO THERE WAS A REMEDIATION. WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE IS PROBABLY 30 25 YEARS OR SO OF REMEDIATION OF PRIOR WORK. THAT WAS DONE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE PARTNERING WITH THE CITY, YOU KNOW, ARE NOW HAVING COMPLETE AND NOW WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE A BUILDING THAT IS UP TO CODE AND COULD STAND UP TO ANY FOR YOU. YEAH THE ASSERTION IS THAT THAT MUCH WAS SPENT TO GET THE BUILDING UP TO CODE. ABSOLUTELY. FROM YOU. CAN WE LET HIM DO HIS PRISON? WE APPRECIATE THE LOOK. THIS IS WILL MAKE YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AFTER SO AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED ABOUT 70% WAS FOR HABITABILITY FOR BOTH BEING A BUILDING ITSELF TO WALK AROUND AND BE SAFE AND THEN AS A RESTAURANT, THERE WAS ANOTHER. BUT YOU KNOW 9% AND THAT WAS THE COLLATERAL COSTS DUE TO HAVE ABILITY AGAIN, YOU KNOW IF YOU TERRIBLE FLOOR BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO FIX SEWAGE OR ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING YOU HAVE TO. YOU HAVE TO PUT FORWARD BACK AND YOU HAVE TO PUT IT BACK TO CODE. AND THEN AGAIN, THERE WAS ABOUT 23% OF VALUE ADDED THINGS THAT WE DID TO MAKE SURE WE PAINTED THE ROOF. WE MADE SURE THAT THE 88 RAMP THERE WAS THERE WAS THINGS THAT WE PUT ON THERE. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE THAT WE KNEW THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO BE THERE LONG TERM, WE WANTED TO HAVE IT THE DAY 88 REP IS THE BIG PART OF THAT VALUE OF IT. SO YOU KNOW WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW THE 900,000 THAT I'M REFERRING TO, AND THE 700,000 THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WE FEEL A COUPLE OF THINGS ONE. IT WOULD PROBABLY COST PROBABLY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EXPERTS IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS HERE IN THE CITY, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 2030% PROBABLY MORE EXPENSIVE. IF WE HAD GONE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CITY PROPOSALS. IT WOULD ALSO PROBABLY TAKEN A LOT MORE TIME THAN QUITE CANDIDLY.
YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING WAS IN A SITUATION THAT WAS WAS IN SOME WAYS VERY CLOSE TO BEING SHUT DOWN. AND WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT WE'RE WELL PAST THAT. WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT THIS IS A BUILDING NOW THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT DOOR YOU CAN GO TO AND BE REALLY PROUD OF AND AGAIN FOR US. THIS IS THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY AND WE HOPE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION. WE'RE HAPPY TO GIVE THIS. WE HAVE DETAILS FROM OUR CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS THAT HAVE ALL THIS DETAIL BECAUSE I REMEMBER COMMISSIONER COLLEGE. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SUBSTANTIATION. THERE WERE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT WE HAVE THAT HERE READY TO GO. BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE FINANCIAL KIND OF BREAKDOWN OF IT. WE HOPE IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT THAN WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WHEN WE WERE HERE. THE SECOND PIECE WAS COMMISSIONER COLLINS REQUEST AROUND THE TIMELINE, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INSIGHTFUL AND IMPORTANT. BECAUSE AGAIN SORRY. SORRY. EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER RISK EXCUSE ME. SORRY AND SO AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, DEREK AND I, WE HIRED AN ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT AND PLANNER TO COME LOOK AT THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, AFTER AFTER WE HAD PURCHASED IT. AND THEY HAD FOUND ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND HAD WORKED WITH STYLES PETE AND STEVE NICOLOSI AS WELL AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THESE PLANS AND SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, AND WE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CITY ON THIS SO MUCH SO THAT WHEN WE WERE SUBMITTING PERMITS, ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WERE SIGNED. AND APPROVED BY THE CITY IN THE PERMIT PROCESS THAT WE HAD SUBMITTED AND THAT WAS IN THE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1ST AND 2ND QUARTER OF 2022. SO WE FELT THAT WE WERE ALIGNED. WE FELT THAT WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING. WE ALSO CANDIDLY FELT LIKE THE CITY WAS RIGHT THERE WITH US. AND
[00:50:04]
THEY SAW THAT. YOU KNOW, WE WERE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE HOPE YOU YOU WANT PRIVATE BUSINESS PEOPLE TO DO, WHICH IS TO IMPROVE THE CITY STEWART AND DO IT AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, DO IT FOR THE LONG TERM. AND I THINK IF ANYONE WALKS THROUGH OUR RESTAURANT AND , YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS THIS IS A BUILDING THAT WILL LAST ANOTHER 40 YEARS BASICALLY, INVESTMENT THAT WE MADE HERE AT THE 1.4 MILLION. WE'RE ONLY ASKING, THOUGH FOR HALF OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE GOOD PARTNERS. WE WANT TO BE GOOD CITIZENS HERE.UM AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH ORIGINALLY. AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE STICKING WITH. AND WE WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH THAT AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANY OTHER THAT YOUR ENTIRE PRESENTATION? YES, SIR. SHORT AND SWEET QUESTIONS FOR THESE. I HAVE A FEW SECONDS. YEAH. WELL THIS THIS WATERFRONT PROJECT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN, UM. I HAD WRITTEN DOWN SOME NOTES. AND I WANTED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN. WE WERE VERY FAIR WITH THE HUDSON'S ON THE RIVER. AND DURING THEIR COMPLETE BUILD OUT THE OLD COAST GUARD BUILDING . I MEAN, THEY HAD TO BUILD IT FROM THE BOTTOM UP. IT'S LIKE BRAND NEW AND WE OWN THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WONDERFUL, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER. WAS IT TWO YEARS THAT THEY DIDN'T PAY RENT, AND I BELIEVE WE HELPED HIM WITH COVID. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETELY.
BUILT THIS. RESTAURANT AND LIKE YOU SAID. 40 MORE YEARS. I HOPE IT LASTS AND WHAT I WAS THINKING. THAT IF YOU, UM THEY ALSO NEED TO KNOW THE PUBLIC THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING $25,000 A MONTH THIS WHOLE TIME. THEY DIDN'T GET FREE RENT. WELL ACTUALLY, THE RENT IS INCREASED BECAUSE WE'VE EXCEEDED OUR SALES . AND SO THE CITY IS ACTUALLY GOTTEN MORE RANK FROM US AS PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, GLAD TO KNOW THAT WHILE WE WERE SHUT DOWN FOR THREE MONTHS OKAY, WE NEVER WE DIDN'T COME TO YOU. WE LOOK, WE THAT WAS OUR DECISION TO DO THAT AS PART OF OUR CONSTRUCTION. THAT WAS HOW WE BUILT IT INTO OUR BUSINESS PLAN, AND THAT'S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE STUCK BY THEM. AND, UM ANOTHER THING, IF WE WOULD HAVE WOULD HAVE IT JUST WOULD HAVE OPENED UP AND KEPT GOING. AND THEN WE DID HAVE A CONTEST STRA FEE AND WE DID HAVE A BIG MESS ON OUR HANDS AND YOU'D HAVE TO LEAVE AND WE'D HAVE THE CITY TO COME IN. I THINK IT WOULD LIKE YOU SAID, PROBABLY COST A LOT MORE. I THINK WE OWE YOU THE $700,000. AND WE CONTINUE GETTING OUR RENT. IT MADE IT A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. I'VE BEEN THERE. AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER THINGS. YOU KNOW WHAT? UH, WHAT IS THAT MONTHLY RIGHT NOW? PROBABLY CLOSE TO 30. HOURS $20,000 RIGHT NOW. OKAY? ONE IS. I KNOW THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN WITH THE PRESENT AND PREVIOUS CONCEPT. BUT AS OF TWO WEEKS AGO, WE'VE HIT THE THRESHOLD WHERE EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS BROUGHT INTO THE BUSINESS. YOU GUYS WILL RECEIVE THE 5% AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IT'S VERY SUCCESSFUL WITH ONE FLOOR, BUT YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE SECOND FLOOR. VERY SUCCESSFUL AND WE WILL NOT BE COMING TO YOU. ANYTHING FROM THE SECOND. THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING INSTEAD OF THIS BIG LUMP SUM THAT MAYBE WE COULD GIVE YOU TWO YEARS RENT OR WHATEVER IT IS. RENT FREE. WE CAN UP HERE DECIDED, UH, AND YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT, AND I WANTED TO BRING IT TO CREDIT. BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF MY COMMISSIONERS. OUR COMMISSIONERS AND, UH, ENJOY IT HERE. AVERAGE 25,000. AND THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WE OWNED. AND WITH COVID AND STUFF . WE'RE GONNA NIGHTMARE. THAT WAS, BUT ANYWAY, UM THAT'S MY SPIEL. THANK YOU NEXT. SO BACK. YOU DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION. THEN YOU'RE JUST TALKING. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK FIRST. CAN WE TALK FIRST? WELL WE HAVE A LITTLE DELIBERATION FIRST. WE COULD YES, I YES, I THOUGHT THAT OH, MY GOODNESS. SORRY SO ON DECEMBER 28TH. UM. YOU CONFIRMED WITH FORMER CITY MANAGER DAVID DIETS, THE REIMBURSEMENT AND THAT FIGURE WAS AT THAT TIME.
600 CHANGE. HE ASKED FOR AN ESTIMATED AROUND 600 CHANGE MANAGEMENT. BECAUSE THE 6 90
[00:55:12]
OKAY, BECAUSE THAT SURPRISES ME BECAUSE ACTUALLY IN THE MOTION HERE OR IN THE ORIGINAL IN THE SUMMARY EXPLANATION, IT SAYS PRIOR TO RETIRING. THE PRIOR CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED REIMBURSEMENT OF 300,000. SO YOU'RE SAYING HE AGREED ON 12 28 TO PAY USE TO REIMBURSE YOU 600,000 OR SPENCE. AND THEN HOW MUCH OF THAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY CITY. AND INTEREST. I THINK 600 SIX AROUND 98. DID HE SAY THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE YOU OR HE JUST REQUESTED THE AMOUNT REQUESTED THE AMOUNT AND REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION. OKAY, SO DID HE EVER AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER RICH, BUT DID HE EVER SAY THAT HE WAS THAT THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE THAT AMOUNT. NO THERE WAS. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICITY UNDER TIME ON IT, SAYS D. DIESS EMAIL CONFIRMING CITIES REIMBURSEMENT. YEAH SO I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THE FIGURE? HE SAID HE WOULD REIMBURSE THE CITY WOULD FIGURE THAT WAS FORMALLY SET BACK TO US AND WHAT YOU WOULD REIMBURSE HER WAS NOT SO I DON'T KNOW, SAID SO. WHAT DO THOSE THREE WORDS MEAN? CONFIRMING CITY REIMBURSEMENT. JUST WHAT THOSE WILL BE SOME REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE CITY FOR THE EXPENSES THAT ENCOURAGE HE COMMITTED SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS OF DOING THE RIGHT THING. HELPING NUMBER SEVEN THE COST OF CORRECTING THE BUILDING STRUCTURE. ITEMS THEY'RE BEING THE FIRST CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED WAS MID 2022. I HAD A MEETING FACE TO FACE WITH DAVID IN HIS OFFICE, AND THEN I ALSO SENT AN EMAIL THAT SAME WEEK, RECAPPING THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD, UM AND IT WAS VERY DETAILED ON THE STRUCTURAL CONCERNS ON FAMILY WORTH THE BANDITS ITEMS THAT WERE LEFT OVER THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. UM AND FROM THAT DAY, HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WILL HELP REMEDIATE THIS. OKAY SO IT'S THROUGH THE TIMELINE. WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT THIS WASN'T A SPUR OF THE MOMENT. NO ASK. IT'S I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT SO YOU YOU HAD AN AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH YOU AGREED, BUT SIX MONTHS LATER. YOU'RE INTO THIS. SIX MONTHS LATER, YOU'RE IN. HOW MUCH HAVE YOU SPENT BY DECEMBER 28TH 22 600 GRAND 60. NO MORE THAN THAT, OKAY? AND YOU HAVE A MEETING. TO GET TO AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT AND YOU STILL YOU DON'T TRY TO NAIL THE PRIOR CITY MANAGER DOWN TO A NUMBER, COMMISSIONER. OKAY, FINE. WE'LL KEEP IT. WELL I THINK THE WAY YOU'RE PORTRAYING IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. HOW HOW WE WERE. APPROACHING IT AGAIN. WE'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY PROCUREMENT PROCESS. AND SO BY THE FACT THAT WE WERE HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WERE SUBMITTING THE PROPERTY. WE'RE SUBMITTING THE PERMANENCE. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS OUR STANDING. YOU KNOW, WE'RE MORE PRIVATE RESTAURATEURS. WE'RE WE'RE WATCHING AND LEARNING A LITTLE BIT. HOW CITY PROCUREMENT WORKS.UM SO, BUT WE WERE NOT SITTING SAYING WELL, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT LATER. WE WERE SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RESTAURANT. WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT HAS HABITATION ISSUES. WE'RE IN THERE. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE BUILDING CLOSED DOWN. WE WANT TO KEEP GOING. AND SO WE PURSUED AS I SAID LAST TIME, IT'S NOT MAKING MORE TIME, SO TRY TO MAXIMIZE ON IT THEN SAYS REQUESTING CLARIFICATION WHO REQUESTED CLARIFICATIONS. DAVID . AND WHAT DID THAT REQUEST CONSIST OF? AN EMAIL WITH A SPREADSHEET THAT HAD THIS AMOUNT TO IT, AND DAVID ASKED US TO GIVE HIM MORE CLARIFICATION. WHICH WE DID. I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT THE TIME THAT DAVID SAID HE WAS MOVING ON. AND SO WE HAD A TRANSITION MEETING WITH MIKE. SO THEN ON MARCH, SO 90 DAYS LATER, YOU YOU. YOU PROVIDED THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THAT REQUEST. WE PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER AND THEN PROVIDED AGAIN BACK IN MARCH. OKAY, SO. THE SHAMBAUGH JAKE, OREGON, ALIGNING LOGISTICS OF MEETING WITH. DAVID DIES AND MIKE MARTEL, WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT DID THAT MEETING CONSISTENT? THE LOGISTICS OF IT OF LINING LOGISTICS OF GETTING THE FOUR OF US IN A ROOM TOGETHER WHILE EASY TO SAY, UM, ON OUR LOOKING BACK STANDPOINT WAS NOT SO EASY TO DO ON THE FIRST TIME THROUGH SO WE WERE VERY PERSISTENT ABOUT FINDING TIME AND ENERGY AND OBVIOUSLY DEREK'S RUNNING THE RESTAURANT RUNNING CONSTRUCTION. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A FEW THINGS GOING ON OUTSIDE OF THE RESTAURANT AND JUST GETTING ALL OVER. JUST TOOK US A WHILE. OKAY? AND THEN ON THE 27TH OF MARCH, YOU HAD A FACE TO FACE MEETING WITH THE
[01:00:06]
CURRENT CITY MANAGER OF THE FORMER CITY MANAGER OF MR SHAMBO AND MR CORRIGAN. YES REIMBURSEMENT? YES. SO DID YOU DISCUSS THIS IS? YES. WE DISCUSSED THE AMOUNT OF $700,000. AND IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT TIME. DAVE DIES, AGREED TO REIMBURSE HALF OF THAT. AND THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS IN. YOU HAVE YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT I KNOW I DON'T HAVE DECEMBER COMMUNICATED TO US, OKAY? THERE WAS LOTS OF NUMBERS THROWN AROUND, BUT WE SAID LOOK UNTIL SOMETHING IS IN WRITING. YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.YOUR THIS IS PUBLIC MONEY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE'RE WATCHING YOU DELIBERATE OVER $9384.17. SO WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE SERIOUS. AND WE TOOK IT THAT WAY. SO IS THERE AN EMAIL FROM YOU GUYS SAYING THANK YOU FOR THE MEETING. IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE. JUST SO WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. YOU HAVE AGREED TO REIMBURSE US $700,000 AS OF THIS STATE. WHERE THERE WAS. THERE WAS NO FOLLOW UP EMAIL TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS WHERE THERE WAS A MEETING OF EMAIL TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH IT. I MEAN, THERE WAS CONTINUED.
CONCERNED THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, LIVE AND WALK THROUGH IT, SO EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD IT BECAUSE THERE WAS CONTINUED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT MAKES UP THESE NUMBERS, AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE. AND SO WE CONTINUE TO BUILD INFORMATION, BUILD THE UNDERSTANDING AND BUILDING INCIDENT. WELL, APPARENTLY. THESE WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS BECAUSE FORMER CITY MANAGER DYAS HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT WAS AGREED TO THEN YOU DO AND I JUST THAT STRIKES ME AS ODD. BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF MONEY . ALSO THE LAST CONVERSATIONS WITH DAVID DIESS, THIS HAS GROWN MORE RIGHT. SO THERE'S THIS IS WHAT A LITTLE BIT MORE WHERE THE COMMISSIONER'S REQUESTED SOME MORE DATA OF BREAKDOWN AND TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION, SUCH AS THE TIMELINE SUCH AS THE NUMBERS, BREAKDOWN WITH THE STRUCTURAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I MEAN, THIS IS GROWN THROUGH THE PROCESS. UM YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THE CITY? SO WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT PROCUREMENT. IT'S TRIPLED. WELL, THE THAT'S MAYBE THE AMOUNT THAT SOMEONE THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO BE. YOU KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE, YOU KNOW, HALF HAS TRIPLED, BUT THE AMOUNT THAT WE'VE SPENT AS AN NO. NO I UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, WE USED TO BUILD THESE NUMBERS NOW FOR MANY, MANY MONTHS, AND YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING WE TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, TRIM IT DOWN AND TRIED AGAIN. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO PAY FOR OUR BUSINESS WERE ASKING THE CITY TO LET'S TAKE CARE OF OUR BUILDING. MR MAYOR. COULD I ASK MR MARTEL TO CLARIFY? YES, PLEASE. MR MARTEL, YOU WERE IN THIS MEETING. ON MARCH 27TH. WERE THERE. ANY SPECIFIC NUMBERS MENTIONED SPOKEN OF AGREED TO CAN YOU PLEASE? COME UP TO A MICROPHONE. SPECIFIC DATE ON MARCH 27TH AS FAR AS A DISCUSSION OF A OF A AGREEMENT AS A FINAL NUMBER. I REMEMBER THAT THAT WAS THE DAY THAT THEY ACTUALLY PRESENTED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND STUFF TO DAVID. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT DAVID WENT THROUGH IT LINE BY LINE WITH HIM AT THE MEETING AT ALL. IT WAS MORE OF A I THINK DAVID BEEN SAYING, I NEED TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION. THEY BROUGHT IT IN THAT DAY AND GAVE IT TO HIM. SO WHERE DID THIS NUMBER 300,000 COME FROM? BEFORE HE LEFT? HE WENT OVER A SPREADSHEET , AND I THINK HE SENT THEM SOMETHING OR, YOU KNOW, HE SENT ME SOMETHING AND I HAVE IT ON MY DESK STILL WITH HIS HANDWRITING ON IT. OKAY I DON'T KNOW THAT IF HE I DON'T KNOW IF HE SENT THEM AN EMAIL TO THAT EFFECT TO MAKE AN OFFER TO THEM FOR THE 300.
BUT HE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION AFTER THE MARCH 27TH MEETING AFTER THEY GAVE HIM THE BREAKDOWN AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS. AND HE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER FROM THAT ON HIS REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT WASN'T PRESENT FOR OTHER MEETINGS, SO I DON'T KNOW.
COMMISSIONER RICH. I KNOW THERE WAS A SPREADSHEET AND I WENT OVER IT. BOTH WITH UH I BELIEVE, MR MARTEL. MAYBE THAT MR DIES BEFORE HE LEFT IN THE IN THE RESTAURANT OWNER, UM THEY HAD A MORE OF A BREAKDOWN AND IN THAT SPREADSHEET UM THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT I GUESS MAYBE DAVE DIOCESE, UM HAD CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF 300. SOME CHANGE I WENT THROUGH WITH THE NIGHT CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF LIKE 500. UM BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING THAT MAY IF THAT HELPS YOU AT ALL THAT IT DOES. THAT'S WHERE I WAS AT ON. THAT WAS HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU
[01:05:01]
SPENT? SO THE DATA THE NUMBERS YOU GAVE TO MR MARTEL AND DAVE DIES ON MARCH 27TH. HOW MUCH MORE HAVE YOU SPENT SINCE THEN? COUNCILORS HAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY. 10TH WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T REALLY THINK YOU HAD AN OPEN ENDED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT WE WOULD REIMBURSE YOU. NO, WE PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT AND ADDITIONAL COSTS UP UNTIL WE REACHED LIKE 678 $9 MILLION MILLION 2,000,003. YOU KNOW, WE WERE LIKE, ALL RIGHT, YOU KNOW 300,000. LOOK, WE KIND OF WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S REALLY NOT, YOU KNOW, MATERIAL RIGHT NOW. ONCE WE GOT TO $1.4 MILLION. YOU KNOW, AND WE WERE STILL FINDING THINGS. YEAH, WE SAID LOOK, THIS IS NOT OUR BUILDING WERE LEASING IT. WE DON'T OWN IT, AND WE GOT SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. AND AGAIN. I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ALL OF IT. AND YOU KNOW, UH, CANDIDLY. I THINK IF THE CITY WERE DO THIS THEMSELVES, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE OVER $2 MILLION TO. I MEAN, I'M GUESSING OF COURSE, I'M NO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT, BUT AND THE BUILDING COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN CONDEMNED. JUST FIRE, SEWAGE AND PEST CONTROL ALONE. I BELIEVE YOU. MR. MR MAYOR. CAN I ASK MR MOTEL? ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MR MARTEL THAT THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE. THE BUILDING WAS BEING CLOSE TO BEING SHUT DOWN TO DO IT.ADVANCED STATE OF DISREPAIR. IS THAT IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? YES, UM WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY INTENTION. THEY HAD. COME IN AND STARTED DOING SOME RENOVATIONS. THEY LIFTED THE FLOOR UP IN THE ORIGINAL RESTAURANT OR WHEREVER IT WAS DISCOVERED. SOME STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR WENT OUT INDIVIDUAL OBSERVATION OF IT AND WAS CONSIDERING CLOSING THE BUILDING TO ANY FUTURE OCCUPANCY. UNTIL IT COULD BE DONE. AND THE CITY MANAGER DAVID DIESS IMMEDIATELY THAT DAY HIRED A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STYLES P I THINK CAME OUT THE NEXT DAY AND DIDN'T INSPECTION AND DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING COULD STAY OPERATIONAL WHILE THEY DID THE, UM REPAIR TO WHATEVER THE COLUMNS WERE UNDERNEATH THE FLOOR THAT, BUT THE COLUMNS HAD SERIOUS PROBLEMS. I OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT THAT'S YEAH.
I MEAN, THERE'S AND THEIRS AND WE HAD TO CLOSE THE RESTAURANT FOR THAT TIME PERIOD. AND WE HAD TO CLOSE THE RESTAURANT FOR THAT TIME. JUST RELATIVE TO THAT GOOD COMMISSION. MR COLLINS. I'M DONE, MR MAYOR. THANKS, MIKE. RELATIVE TO THAT TO THE COST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN WING THIS OR IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SHEET, BUT THE COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE REPAIR TO THOSE COLUMNS THAT THE THING THAT WOULD MAKE THE RESTAURANT FALL INTO THE RIVER, POTENTIALLY SO THE TRUE STRUCTURAL COSTS. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SEPARATE WHAT COULD BE RENOVATION VERSUS SOCIAL WHAT IT'S WORTH. I DIDN'T LIKE YOU KNOW HOW WHEN WE DO A PROJECT WITH YOU, WE HAVE WE HIRE AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO GO OUT AND DO A COST ESTIMATE BEFORE IT GOES OUT TO BID OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT PROCESS AT ALL. I KNOW THAT WHEN STYLES PETE WAS HIRED, HE CAME IN AND SAID, YEAH, THIS IS A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM. I KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME. TOOK THE POSITION WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED AND MET WITH THE TENANTS AND SAID, OKAY, WELL, SINCE YOU'RE ON SITE, IT'S ALREADY OPEN. YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY LITERALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME DOING THE WORK RATHER THAN US GOING THROUGH A FULL PROCUREMENT PROCESS ON IT. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING HE WAS HAVING THEM PUT TOGETHER THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THAT. THE RENOVATION COSTS OR WHATEVER WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT THOSE NUMBERS THAT I WENT TO MY DESK AND AT THE SHEET THAT WAS LEFT FOR ME SO MR DIAS, LEFT AND RETIRED. THERE WAS SOME TRANSITION IN THAT LAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE HE LEFT WHERE HE WAS TRANSITIONING TO ME AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. ONE OF THE THINGS HE MET WITH ME ON WAS THIS BECAUSE IT WAS AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE AND I MEAN, I CAN READ THE NUMBERS OFF, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, BUT IT'S LIKE THAT, THAT THEY YEAH, THE SPREADSHEETS BEEN GIVEN TO THEM. BUT THIS IS THE THIS WAS THE NUMBERS THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL AGENDA. ITEM THAT YEAH, I'M NOT LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW. HANDWRITING THAT NUMBER OFF TO ME. IT'S FOR WHAT THAT HIGHLIGHTED THE ORIGINAL G C LABOR ON 12 2029 98 EAST SIDE 29 1 31, THEN WEST SIDE 25 8 45. DEC STRUCTURAL DEMO IN PROGRESS 1 28 60 TOTAL THE TOTAL MAKE ON THAT STUFF. WELL, $701,507.60. IS THE TOTAL WOULD MAKE LINE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURAL.
[01:10:03]
WELL, IT JUST WE DIDN'T ASK ME FOR THE TOTAL, BUT I DON'T WANT TO. I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY LOOK HAVE THAT MAYBE IN A ANOTHER MEETING. MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO GET BUMPED AGAIN, BUT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT UP ON THAT SCREEN AND SAY THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT EXPENSES SPECIFICALLY, UH, RIGHT NOW FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TRULY VOTE AND SAY. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU HALF OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKED. THERE'S NO DETAIL HERE, YOU KNOW, BEYOND HOW YOU PARCEL THIS OUT. I WOULD REALLY LIKE AND I THINK THIS AUDIT THIS. WE'RE GONNA START GIVING MONEY OUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. THE MAJOR DON'T BELIEVE THAT THESE GUYS ARE ASKING YOU TO JUST REIMBURSE THEM A STRUCTURAL COST . THEY'RE NOT DEFINING IT AS RIGHT JUST THIS COLUMN AND YOU KNOW AND THEREFORE BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL EXPENSES THAT AN ELECTRIC WIRE MIGHT NOT BE A STRUCTURAL EXPENSE, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS BEING DONE AS HE TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU TAKE SOMETHING OUT. YOU HAVE TO DO THIS. THAT OR THE OTHER IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US FOR TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT BUILDING, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN LIKE. VALUE ADDED, YOU KNOW, AND SOME OF THESE LINES ON, I WANT TO SEE SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURAL COST. FOR WHAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA BE REIMBURSING FOR YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WE'RE HAPPY TO GIVE IT TO YOU BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION WITH DAVE WAS AROUND THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURAL IN THEIR SAFETY. OKAY SO YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING STANDING UP DOESN'T MAKE IT THE SAME BUILDING. YES THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TO. YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PIRACY THROUGH SEWAGE IS LIGHTING.BRITAIN'S CONNING AND YOU HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE SAFETY RAILS. YOU HAVE TO BE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO GET HIM OUT SO THERE'S THAT WASN'T THE TERM OF THE LEASE. WAS TO MAKE THIS COMPLETELY AS YOU DEEM SAFE. THE TERM, BUT IT WAS AS THE CITY MR CLARK? YES, THANK YOU. AFTER 5 30. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS. I AM ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY. BUT I ALSO DON'T LIKE PUBLIC LYNCHINGS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND I THINK THAT WE MADE A MISTAKE. WE LOSE THIS BUILDING? YES WE'VE HAD OTHER PEOPLE THERE. MULLIGAN'S WAS THERE OTHER PEOPLE ARE THERE. PROBABLY OUR CITY MANAGER SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE STORES ALONG TIME AGO, AND WE SHOULD HAVE AMENDED THEIR LEASE. I THINK MISS BRUNNER TALKED ABOUT THIS WHOLE IDEA OF PAIN RENT ALL THIS TIME, EVEN WHEN THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH BUILDING AND THERE WERE WORKING ON IT, AND WE BECAUSE WE GIVE CERTAIN JOBS STORE CITY MANAGER AND WE SAID CITY MANAGER YOU WORK ON SOME THINGS AND YOU HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY TO DO THINGS THESE PEOPLE RESPONDED , AND THEY WERE BELIEVING AND WORKING ON THAT. BUT THEN, IN THE LONG RUN AFTER A YEAR, SOMETHING COMES TO THE CITY BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S ASKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS OUR BUILDING ITS TAXPAYERS MONEY BOTH WAYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COINS, AND THEN NOW WE HAVE MORE TAX MONEY GOING TO TALLAHASSEE AS SOON AS THEY HAVE MORE SALES, TAXES AND OTHER THINGS IN CURRENT I JUST THINK THAT, UM EITHER WE NEED TO GET MR MORTAL TO GET BACK WITH THEM. OR WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT OUR POLICIES ARE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IF THIS HAD COME BACK A YEAR AGO, THESE GUYS WOULD HAVE SAID WE MIGHT WANT TO PULL OUT OF THIS LEASE BECAUSE IT'S TOO MUCH STUFF FOR US TO DO AND TO TAKE CARE OF A CITY BUILDING AND TO PUT ALL THIS MONEY INTO A CITY BUILDING. UM I'M HEARING THAT WE MIGHT NEED CONVERSATION . BUT I'M GONNA EAT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ARE. AT LEAST EITHER GIVE THEM $700,000 , OR AT LEAST GIVE THEM UP TO TWO YEARS WORTH OF RENT FREE STARTED NOW. UM I'M RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE A IT'S ALL GOING INTO OUR CITY BUILDING. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO COUNT EVERY RAFTER AND EVERY NAIL AND EVERYTHING THAT WENT INTO MAKING THAT BUILDING SECURE, I THINK WE'RE REALLY FIGHTING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NEED TO FIGHT ABOUT WITH A CITY BUILDING THAT WE'RE LEASING THAT WE KNOW HAD STRUCTURAL ISSUES AND HAD ISSUES AND MAYBE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO US WHEN PETE STARS DID THAT THING WE KNOW THAT A HURRICANE IS COMING. WE KNOW THAT THE WATER COMES UP THERE AND THEY'RE ALL KINDS OF ISSUES. YES THEY MADE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO OCCUPY THE BOTTOM PART, WHICH WAS A TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE MESS OF GRIT AND GRIME AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF DOWN THERE. THEY CONVERTED IT. THEY CHANGED A SEWER. THEY DID ALL KINDS OF STUFF. THIS BUILDING STILL BELONGS TO THE CITY. THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL PAYING 20 SOMETHING $1000 A MONTH IN RENT. NOBODY'S GETTING ANYTHING SCOTT FREE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED IT WITH OUR CITY MANAGER AT THE
[01:15:05]
TIME. WE NEED TO HAVE TALKED TO OUR CITY MANAGER, AND WE NEED TO HAVE DEVELOPED SOME POLICY. WE NEED TO DEVELOP POLICY. WE NEED TO DO THAT. NOW WE NEED TO DEVELOP THOSE POLICIES SO THAT MR MORTAL CAN SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY WITH THESE PEOPLE AND COME BACK TO SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW THAT OUR CITY HAS DEVELOPED. BUT IT'S AN AFTER THE FACT THING THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER GOOD. UM FAITH WITH OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER, AND THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT OUR CITY MANAGEMENT PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE SPECIFIC RULES ABOUT HOW THE LEAST GOES IN TERMS OF WHEN EVERYTHING HAPPENS. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY WE MADE LIKE MISS MISS BRUNO TALKED ABOUT. WE MADE AN AGREEMENT. WHEN, MR UM MR M. MR MONTI CAR. HE HAD TO DO ALL THE INTERNAL WORK ON THAT OLD BUILDING DOWN THERE AT THE POINT , AND WE WORKED ON IT AND WE GAVE HIM SOME OPTIONS. HE ACCEPTED THOSE OPTIONS. THESE GUYS ARE STILL PAYING RENT.THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING FREE, AND ALL OF THAT MONEY IS TO GO INTO THE GOING TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY BUILDING. WE SAW PREVIOUS IT IN QUICK MOTION. SECOND YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER CLARK ON THE KITCHEN LINE DID NOT MAKE IT. EMOTION AND THEN WE HAVE EMOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. UM I HAVEN'T WEIGHED IN YET. YES, SIR. PLEASE DO SO. UH, SO HERE'S. WHERE WE'RE AT. SO YES, IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY. COMMISSIONER COLLINS AND YES, THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS. SO THERE'S A THERE'S A THAT WE HAVE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NORMAL. ONE IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE. IT IS. THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE MISCOMMUNICATION. UM AND. AND I DON'T HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU ALL. AND MR DIAZ. UM I THINK THAT THERE WAS MAYBE SOME YES.
WHETHER IT WAS EVERYTHING WAS TOO LOOSE AND NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INCREDIBLE LACK OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH ON THIS FAR AS THE ACTUAL COMING UP WITH A NUMBER AND HOW THAT WOULD COME UP. THAT BEING SAID. I REVIEWED THE INITIAL SPREADSHEET . I THINK YOU NEEDED SOME MORE DETAIL. I THINK THAT WE ALL WANTED SOME STUFF ON THE TIMELINE. I THINK THAT THERE IS A NUMBER. I THINK IT'S MORE THAN 300,000. I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE 700,000. AT THIS POINT. I DON'T THINK I CAN. I DON'T THINK I'M READY TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE AND WHAT I WOULD RATHER DO. IT IS. CABLE THIS FOR TO ANOTHER MEETING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER NUMBER IT IS SO THAT WAY, RATHER THAN JUST COMING OUT WITH A STRAIGHT DENIAL THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A NUMBER THAT BECAUSE IF WE JUST VOTED DOWN, THERE'S NOTHING. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN BRING IT BACK, MIKE HOW'S POP NOTHING TO BREAK BACK? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO THAT'S WHY HE I'M I AM. I'M NOT SAYING BY THE WAY, I'M NOT SAYING NO, I WANT I THINK THAT YOU ALL NEED THERE IS A DESERVE AND ARE ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY SELF. ANTICIPATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO GRANT MONEY THAT IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF YOU MENTIONED ANYWAY. IF YOU WANTED US. TO LITERALLY. GIVE YOU THE LINE ITEMS OF EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM INPUT IN THESE SPREADSHEETS. AND BRING IT BACK AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT ITEM AND THE COMMISSION CAN DO A LINE ITEM VETO ON IT. THAT'S FINE AND I'M AND I'M HAPPY TO DO IT. I DIDN'T DO IT HERE BECAUSE IT'S THERE ISN'T A DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION THAT SAYS IF IT'S JUST RELATED TO A STRUCTURAL MATTER AND HAVE AN ENGINEER TELL US IF THIS IS STRUCTURAL OR NOT, IF IT'S IN OR OUT. SO WE COULD DO THAT AS WELL IF THE COMMISSION PROVIDES THE DIRECTION HOWEVER, AS YOU MENTIONED A FUTURE MEETING YOU CAN IF THERE'S A IF THERE'S A MOTION FROM A BOARD MEMBER TO BRING THAT SPREADSHEET THAT WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY, OR WE CAN COME BACK FOR A DIFFERENT PRESENTATION OR EVEN THE SAME PRESENTATION. I THINK, BRING IT BACK WITH A SPREADSHEET EIGHT AND THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR STAFF. AND IF THE STAFF COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE REVIEWED THIS, IT'S THE NUMBER 6 94. I'LL VOTE FOR IT IN A HEARTBEAT. I JUST AND NOT READY WITH THIS PRESENTATION TO VOTE FOR 6 94. UM HAPPY TO SAY TO WALK THROUGH.
OKAY, SO THE QUESTION IS MR CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH YOUR MOTION? THAT'S THAT
[01:20:02]
LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO FAIL. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE IF IT FAILS, MIKE DOESN'T BRING IT BACK. ALL WE NEED SOMETHING DONE WITH THIS. SO IF YOU NEED ME TO WITHDRAW IT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE I WANT TO ABSOLUTELY DEAL WITH THIS AND DEAL WITH IT IN THE FAIREST AND THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE ME SOME MORTAL AND OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHATEVER HE NEEDS TO DO A CITY MANAGER IF WE DIDN'T HEAR IT FROM MR DIAZ DURING THE TIME PERIOD WHEN THEY WERE WORKING ON THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KEEP US UP TO DATE AND BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE AND BRING US THE BEST OPTION. THAT'S THERE. I DON'T PLAN TO CHANGE. 300 THAT'S BEEN IN THE LAST FEW AGENDA. I AM SO THE NEXT TIME IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST TIME. MR MAYOR. I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS MEETING. DO YOU WANT ANY DIRECTION TO STAFF? I WOULD JUST REITERATE WHAT YOU SAID TO MAKE IT AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE. AND I ALSO LIKE TO, UH HUH. AFFIRM WHAT COMMISSIONER CLARK SAID. WE'RE BOTH AT FAULT HERE. THIS IS NOT JUST ON YOU BY ANY MEANS. UM AND YOU KNOW. WE YOU ARE NOT OUR ONLY LESSEE, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A VERY STRICT PROCEDURE IN PLACE. WHEN WERE YOU ESSENTIALLY ASKED US TO BECOME YOUR PARTNER. AND FIXING THIS BUILDING UP AND THAT OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE MADE MUCH MORE SPECIFIC, AND SO. WANT ME TO SUCK ON YOUR EMOTION. SINCE I WITHDREW, I WAS FORCED TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. JUST TO BE SPECIFIC. YEAH LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT. CITY MANAGER WARTELLE IS STAFF. YES YEAH, I WANT YOU TO CLICK AND JOLIE TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH MR MORTON. BUT, YEAH, YOU GUYS CHANGE THE POLICY. DAVID DIESS. GIVEN SPREADSHEET TO ME. LIMITED TO JUST THE STRUCTURAL STUFF. AND I DID THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM AND SAID BASED ON MY REVIEW WAS, WHAT IS THE POLICY? THERE IS NO POLICY LIKE 10 MINUTES AGO, AND THEN I CAME TO THAT FIRST MEETING AND DISCUSSED IT AND I SAID 300, SO YOU RECOMMEND ENGINEERING STUFF AND WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TWO DIFFERENT NUMBER WITH ALL THE TOTAL NUMBERS BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN THAT, I THINK, CAN YOU THERE'S STILL MORE TO IT THAN THAT. BUT HOW MUCH MORE TO IT? YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME THE DIRECTION BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE. WITHOUT THE DIRECTION MORE THAN 344,000 MAYOR. I WOULD LOVE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A THAT OF DETAILED SPREADSHEET SOMEWHERE THE ONE WE HAD BEFORE MORE DETAIL BECAUSE AGAIN, I WENT THROUGH THAT AND I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY LIKE 500,000, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT IT SO AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE US A LETTER SPECIFICALLY FROM THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, SAYING THESE WERE THE REPAIRS THAT WERE NECESSARY TO KEEP THE BUILDING UPRIGHT. THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE SOMEBODY TO DO THAT. THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY WORKED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE.$7000 NOT HAPPEN, SO IT'S NOT NOT. WHAT STYLE SPEAKING PROVIDE A REPORT A LETTER RIGHT DO THAT.
WE DON'T BELIEVE STUFF. APPARENTLY. AND SAY THERE'S AN ELECTRIC BILL FOR $28,000. AND HE SAYS, WELL, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW? DID THIS HOLD THE BUILDING UP? OH, MY GOD. WE ARE JUST BEING RIDICULOUS. THERE. IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS TO JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 300,000 AND DAVID? ORIGINALLY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM ON HERE. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO TABLE $300,000. NO I ACTUALLY JUST FROM MY SPREADSHEET, OKAY IF THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL COME BACK WITH THE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION THERE. I'M EMBARRASSED. I THINK, LOOK, WE ARE HERE FOR THE LONG TERM. WE HAVEN'T SHOWN IT. I HOPE YOU SEE IT. I SEE IT SO THAT SO THANK YOU FOR THAT SECOND. UM WE DON'T WE LOOK, WE KNOW WE HAVE A BUSY SCHEDULE. WE'LL LET YOU WE WOULD PREFER IF YOU WANT TO TABLE AND HAVE MORE INFORMATION. WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING IT. WHAT THE ONLY SAY I WOULD REMAIN RECOMMEND. OH, IS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE THE MOST QUESTIONS? WHOEVER IT IS AMONG YOU WHO DO WE'D LIKE YOU TO PARTICIPATE SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS. SO THAT WHEN WE COME BACK TO THIS MEETING AS MEETINGS THAT I HAVE IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE, IT'S A SUMMARIZATION OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE QUESTION. ONE AT A TIME WHEN BRUNER JUST WANTED TO ASK. YOU INVITED ME TO COME DOWN AND YOU SHOWED ME EVERYTHING. HAVE YOU HAVE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WHICH COMMISSIONERS HAVE NOT
[01:25:04]
BEEN THERE? I KNOW THERE WAS TO BE FAIR COMMISSIONER BRUNER. ALL COMMISSIONERS WERE INVITED. ALL COMMISSIONERS WANTED TO COME ALL EXPRESSED INTEREST. THERE WAS NO BUT THERE WAS SCHEDULING ISSUES AND AGAIN. THIS IS ON OUR END AS WELL. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIKE, HEY, CAN YOU BE THERE FRIDAY AT THREE. LIKE NO. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A JOB OR WHATEVER. SO ALL COMMISSIONERS WERE INVITED, AND ALL COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSED INTEREST. AND GOING. THERE WAS SCHEDULED BACK FOUR OR FIVE TIMES TO GET SUBMIT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE IF THE DETAILS OF THE SPEND, WHICH IS REALLY THE QUESTION THE DETAIL. THE SPEND IS THE QUESTION. WHY DON'T WE JUST SHOW WE HAVE AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM? IT'S BEEN AUDITED. WE SUBMITTED TAXES AND SO IT'S ALL LEGIT WENT THROUGH THE LARGEST, UM, INFLATION OF BUILDING. I JUST CAN'T. WE DID. AND BUT LOOK, UM, I DON'T WANT THIS TO LEAVE A BED. WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A BAD TASTE IN ANYONE'S MOUTH. SO LET'S BE TRANSPARENT WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION YOU WANT. AND THEN WHEN YOU COME BACK, YOU'LL TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IS FAIR AND WHAT'S NOT, BUT COMMISSIONER COUNCIL. THERE'S NO POTS AND PANS IN THE IN THE IN. THERE WASN'T THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WAS THE KITCHEN LINE OR WHATEVER IT WAS CALLED KLEIN KLEIN, RIGHT, THAT'S THE KITCHEN. THAT'S NOT POTS AND PANS KITCHEN RIGHT? IT'S THINGS TO MAKE A RESTAURANT HABITABLE. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE WE'RE SO ALL OVER THE PLACE WHEN DAVE RECOMMENDED 300,000 FOR THE STRUCTURAL SIDE OF IT, AND THAT SHOULD BE WHAT IT IS. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU KNOW THEY WANTED TO REDUCE SPRINKLERS AND PIPES AND THINGS THAT MADE IT MORE HABITABLE. BUT THERE WERE RESTAURANTS WERE FUNCTIONING IN THAT BUILDING FOR YEARS. EXTRA WHILE SO? SO I WAS GONNA ASK MR MORTAL NEEDS DIRECTIONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE BUT MISS MISS MISS BRUNER HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT JUST THE ACTUAL MONEY. BUT IF THERE IS A OPTION OR TO INCLUDE MONEY, PLUS GIVEN SOME CREDIT FOR RENT OR GIVEN FUTURE AND CREDIT OR SOMETHING. CAN MR MORTAL THINK ABOUT THAT AND PUT THAT IN HIS RECOMMENDATION TO US ? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'D LIKE FOR HIM TO THINK ABOUT NOT INTERESTED IN THAT DAY, MIKE. OKAY I'M INTERESTED IN THAT, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION, THEN I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO BRING THAT ALSO TO BRING THAT OPTION. MR. NICOLETTI. I'M SORRY YOU HAD SOMETHING PLEASE. YES, MR NICHOLS. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT OCCURRED TO ME. ONE IS THAT YOU ARE WAY OUTSIDE OF THE LEAST , DOCUMENT. YES SIR. THAT YES, SIR. RIGHT SECOND POINT IS THAT THE MANAGER HAS ALREADY GIVEN YOU INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT WAS STRUCTURAL. I DON'T KNOW THAT I MEAN, THERE COULD BE MORE THINGS THERE MAY BE, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN A SPREADSHEET RIGHT? HAVEN'T SEEN THE DOCUMENTATION. I HAVEN'T BEEN TO ANY OF THESE MEETINGS, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID IN ANY OF THEM, BUT BUT IF IT'S COMING BACK TO YOU I MEAN, THAT OUGHT TO BE PRETTY WELL DOCUMENTED SO THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST THROWING A NUMBER OUT OF NO THINGS OF YOU. THAT 100% OF THE EXPENSES THAT THEY INCURRED. WERE INCURRED. LIKE WHEN WE COME BACK. WE CAN GO GET THE BANK STATEMENTS. WE CAN GET THE CHECK REGISTER, AND IT'S GOING TO SHOW THAT THEY SPENT THE MONEY.THERE'S NO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. SO WE CAN GET THIS FINE TOOTH DETAILS YOU WANT. WE CAN ITEMIZE IT BY MONTH BY QUARTER BY YEAR BY TAX RETURN , AND IT'S STILL GOING TO COME UP TO THE SAME NUMBER. IT'S JUST GONNA BE A QUESTION OF WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OR WHAT IS THE TOLERANCE OF THE CRB BOARD, OR CR ABOARD IS A RELATES TO REIMBURSEMENT, IF ANY, WHICH, EVEN THOUGH THESE GUYS ARE NICE, IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE CONVERSATION THEY HAD WITH DAVE.
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. NOT THERE'S NOTHING OUT OF COMMISSION. ALL THE RESPECT THERE WAS. THERE WAS NO CONFIRMED DOLLAR AMOUNT. IT WAS JUST JUST LIKE YOU'RE DOING. LET ME SEE MORE. LET ME SEE MORE IN WHICH WE UNDERSTAND. I ALSO THINK THAT THERE WAS NO LIKE, OKAY, GUYS, LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU 300 BUCKS. 100,000 YOU WALK ARTICULATED 300,000 CONFUSION SEEMS TO BE MY TURN. ER, UM I WOULD. I'D BE HAPPY, YOU KNOW, TO START WITH RIGHT AWAY WITH THE ORIGINAL SPREADSHEET, WHICH I WISH WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. UM BECAUSE I WENT I WENT THROUGH IS AS YOU MAY RECALL WHEN WE MET, I WENT. WE WENT THROUGH EVERY LINE OUT OF MY DAD AND, UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THAT AS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION AGAIN. SO I STILL SAY AGAIN. I THINK THAT YOU GUYS ARE ENTITLED TO A NUMBER. I THINK THAT IT'S MORE THAN 300. I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE 700. UH AND THAT WAS
[01:30:04]
BECAUSE OF MY REVIEW OF THE SPREADSHEETS. BUT AGAIN, I WISH THE SPREADSHEET WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE BECAUSE THEN I CAN PROBABLY HAVE GONE THROUGH AND PINPOINTED THAT NUMBER AGAIN.AND MAYBE WE'D BUILD A MAYBE WE'D HAVE A REASON TO BE DONE NOW, BUT, UM, BUT WE ARE OVER A HALF HOUR WE HAVE A MOTION TABLE CALLED THE QUESTION OF EMOTIONAL TABLE WE HAVE, UM, WE DO HAVE A MOTION IN THE TABLE. OKAY IN FAVOR OF TABLE IN THE SADDLE. SAY HI. OKAY WELL AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AND WE'LL DISCUSS THIS AS WELL. WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH LIKE MARTELL AND WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS, AND THE ONLY THING LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE DO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND IT THAT IF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN BE CONSULTS AVAILABLE BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT YEAR, A WILL WILL MAKE OURSELVES ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU.
THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS ON THE SYRIA AGENDA. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE CAN JUST PROCEDURALLY. YOU JUST TABLED AN ITEM THAT WILL NOT COME BACK.
UNLESS YOU TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO TABLE IT YOU MAY WANT TO DEFER IT TO A TIME CERTAIN IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL SEE IT AGAIN. OKAY THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO. I'M SORRY. I MISSED PROCEDURAL MISTAKE. SO COULD WE HAVE A NEW ONE MONTH TO MONTH? BRING IT BACK AND BLESS 2ND SEPTEMBER SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, MEETING UP YEAH. THE NEXT MONTH . THE NEXT CRM. WE'RE IN THE C R A MEETING. AND IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT DATE BASED ON WHAT KIND FOR THAT MEETING. SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH EVERYTHING ALL THE ISSUES. SO SO WE NEED TO RE VOTE OR CAN WE JUST ADD THAT? I THINK WE NEED TO RE VOTE? OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND MARY, DO YOU HAVE THAT CLEAR? I DIDN'T GET THE MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THIS.
THIS IS A NEW MOTION TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT ER, A MEETING MOTION WHO WAS THE SECOND? I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS MADE THE MOTION. OKAY OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE CARRIES AND WE'LL SEE YOU BACK NEXT MONTH. AS FAR AS THE TWO OTHERS. I UM I DO NEED AN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TO APPLY FOR THE FDP GRANT BECAUSE THAT APPLICATIONS DO YOU ON AUGUST 30TH. SO DO NEED THAT RESOLUTION APPROVED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO PROVE THAT GRANT SECOND, OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE GRANT. WE HAVE A SECOND ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. VERY CALL THE ROLL. CHAIR MCDONALD YES. BOARD MEMBER CLARK? YES REMEMBER COLLINS? VICE CHAIR. BRUNER REMEMBER RICH AND THEN WE WILL MOVE THE TRIM PROGRAM UPDATE UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR. A MEETING. UH VERY MEANING. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THE TRIM? EVEN THOUGH IT'S THIS MEETING BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY MINUTES PAST DUE TO CONTINUE, IT TRAVELS. TAKE A THREE MINUTE BREAK THE COURSE TO GET
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.