[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:07]
          ARE YOU READY? COMMISSIONER. READ ANY. OKAY, I'LL JUST CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER THE JOINT MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR THE 28TH OF APRIL, 2025. ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK. 
          CITY COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CHAIR. RICH. HERE. VICE CHAIR. COLLINS. 
          BOARD MEMBER. CLARK. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. DARBY. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. REED. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. BRECHBILL. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. JAMES. HERE. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT. BOARD CHAIR. 
          BRECHBILL. HERE. VICE CHAIR. MOSER. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. JAMES. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. 
          MANARA. BOARD MEMBER. SHERER. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. WHALEN. HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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 
          [APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
I GET A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PLEASE? MOVE! APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PUBLISHED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CLARK AND A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. CAN I GET A 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27TH? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY. 
          CHAIR. I'LL SECOND. AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOB. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT? SEEING NONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. APPROVED. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDA RELATED ITEMS? I SEE ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. NO. OKAY. SEEING NONE. MOVING ON. COMMENTS BY BOARD 
          [COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS (Non-Agenda Items)]
MEMBERS. WE'LL START WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER REED. ANY COMMENTS? YES. SO? YES. I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF EMAILS ABOUT THIS TONIGHT THAT CAN BE DONE. IN THE CRA. SO YOU CAN'T EVEN AND THEN ANOTHER ONE. OKAY. SO I CAN DISCUSS THIS. SO SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'S RESPONSIBLE MIKE, FOR THE BULB OUTS WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPING. IS THAT THE CITY OR DO THE RESIDENTS SOMETIMES TAKE CARE OF THEM? BECAUSE I KNOW FOR MINE I TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          PARTICULAR IS THAT PRESENT WHEN THE POTSDAM PROGRAM LANDSCAPING IS DISCUSSED WITH THE SIDEWALK. 
          PROGRAM. THERE WAS ISSUES WITH THE CRA AND THE CITY COMMISSION THAT DISCUSSED THE. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND THE CURTILAGE OF SOMEONE'S YARD BECAUSE IT'S WHAT'S INSIDE THE FENCE IS WHAT EVERYBODY PERCEIVES. BUT THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE RIGHT OF WAY UP TO THE PAVEMENT IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING MY STREET THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SIDEWALK ON IT. IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THE RESIDENTS WANTED THE CITY TO PLANT LANDSCAPING IN THE 2 TO 3 FOOT WIDE GRASS AREA BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET, AND THE CRA AGREED TO DO THAT AND DID IT AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. BUT AT THE TIME, THEY AGREED TO PROVIDE THE WATERING OF THOSE TREES FOR THE FIRST 90 DAYS FOR THE TREES TO ROOT. BUT THEN IT WAS THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN, MOW, ETC, THOSE LITTLE ISLANDS. IT'S NOT JUST THE BULB OUTS INTO THE WHERE SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE LANDSCAPING THAT IS IN LIEU OF A PARKING SPACE. THAT'S ALSO CONSIDERED LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE UP TO THE PAVEMENT. BUT THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE PARKING ON THE STREET, BUT THEY HAVE A THREE FOOT GRASS STRIP OR WHATEVER BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE AND THE ROAD. AND OUR CURRENT CODE REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THOSE. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THE COMMISSION CAN ADDRESS THAT IF YOU SEE FIT, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO DO IT CITYWIDE. I'LL TALK TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. I MAINTAIN MY OWN. I'VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED IT, SO I'LL LET THEM KNOW. AND WE ALSO GET A SITUATION WHERE SOME PEOPLE LIKE. REALLY LANDSCAPING THREE FOOT AREA. PUT A FULL HEDGE IN AND DO ALL SORTS OF STUFF. AND THEN OTHER PEOPLE JUST HAVE STRAIGHT SOD ON IT AND NOTHING 
          [00:05:02]
ELSE. AND SO THERE'S SOME. THAT'S HOW MINE IS. I HAVE IT ALL LANDSCAPED. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. 
          THAT'S IT. BOARD MEMBER JOB. I HAVE NO COMMENTS. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBER. CLARK. NOTHING. 
          MR. VICE MAYOR. I HAVE NONE. BOARD MEMBER MOSER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? NOTHING. BOARD MEMBER SCHERER. I HAVE NOTHING. BOARD MEMBER. JAMES. I HAVE NOTHING. BOARD MEMBER. WHALEN. I DOUBT THAT THIS WILL BE THE CASE. BOARD MEMBER BRETTEVILLE. I JUST HAVE TWO THINGS. AND ONE MAYBE IS MORE IMPORTANT. MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE DELIBERATION PORTION OF THE MEETING AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE STUFF. BUT THE FIRST THING I HAD IS I, I HAPPENED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT THAT CHRIS HAD DONE AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS. I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS OR WHATEVER, TALKING ABOUT 710 AND THE ACCIDENTS AND HOW, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME WE GET SOMETHING DONE, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW? AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT SAME THING RELATIVE TO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT THE CRB LEVEL IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE KIND OF WE HAD IN THE BUDGET MONEY FOR SAFE. I'LL CALL THEM, I'LL CALL THEM SAFETY ZONES. YOU MIGHT REFER TO THEM AS QUIET ZONES, BUT I'M GOING TO CALL THEM SAFETY ZONE BECAUSE TO QUALIFY FOR THEM YOU HAVE TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S COMPLETELY SAFE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT MAXIMUM PROTECTION. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH ANYTHING ELSE, THOSE QUIET ZONES MAKE SENSE. THOSE SAFETY ZONES MAKE SENSE FOR THE CITY OF STUART. AND WE HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AND GET, YOU KNOW, AND GET SOMEBODY IN. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, CAN LOOK AT THIS HOW WE CAN HARDEN THOSE INTERSECTIONS, HOW WE CAN CHANGE TRAFFIC FLOW A LITTLE BIT WHEN THE TRAINS COMING THROUGH. I THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES THERE THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT AND WILL SAVE LIVES. AND I HATE TO SEE US WAITING UNTIL SOME OTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED OR NOT RESOLVED. WHEN WE'VE GOT THE MONEY AND WE COULD MAKE IT HAPPEN. AND SO THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THAT I WANTED TO KIND OF MENTION. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THAT WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AT THE CRB LEVEL. I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY WAS IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH A REALLY A COMMUNITY REDIRECTION OR, OR DIRECTION OR WHATEVER. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT. ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT FOCUS ON WHERE WE WANT TO GO AS, AS A CITY SINCE THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WAS DONE WHEN THE DUANY PLAN WAS ADOPTED. AND THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TODAY. AND SO I THINK THERE'S CERTAINLY IS. AND I THINK THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BOARD BELIEVE TOO, THAT THERE IS A NEED TO HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, HAVE A MEETINGS WHERE WE GET A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO WHO THOUSAND PEOPLE OVER A PERIOD. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. I THINK WE COULD DO THAT OVER, OVER 2 OR 3 MEETINGS. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME MEETING, BUT OVER TWO OR 3 OR 4 MEETINGS, WE CAN GET INPUT FROM THE BUSINESSES, INPUT FROM THE RESIDENTS AND INPUT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS. BECAUSE I, I DO THINK THAT THAT THAT OUR DIRECTION HAS CHANGED. YOU KNOW, WE HAD AN EMPHASIS TO BRING PEOPLE DOWNTOWN. NOW THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE DOWNTOWN AND SO MAYBE THE TYPE OF COMMUNITY WE ARE. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BRING IN A CONSULTANT WHO'S INDEPENDENT OF ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE PEOPLE HERE, INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY AND INDEPENDENT OF, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN PLAN WHO CAN COME IN AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE. HERE'S HERE'S HOW THEY'RE STRUCTURED. OR DO YOU WANT TO BE THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE OR THIS ONE? AND IT TURNS OUT WE HAVE 150,000 IN THE BUDGET. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, BUT ALL. ISN'T THAT TRUE? 150. 
          CORRECT. WE DID BUDGET FOR MASTER PLANNING FOR DOWNTOWN. YEAH. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS A CRB, WE'RE WE'RE IN FAVOR OF PUSHING FORWARD WITH THAT. WE THINK WITHOUT A PRE DETERMINED OUTCOME, WITHOUT A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME. I THINK THAT'S WHY BRINGING SOMEBODY IN INDEPENDENT GIVE US ALL A FRESH THOUGHT OF IT. I MEAN, I, I LOVE DOWNTOWN, I LOVE THE ORIGINAL PLAN. BUT I QUESTION WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE NOW TO. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO FIND OUT WHAT THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS THINK. ANYWAY, THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS. 
          COMMISSIONER CLARK, BOARD MEMBER CLARK. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME TIME. I. MY PLAN WITH REGARD TO MR. BRILL, I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF THE TREES ALONG HIS PROPERTY, IF THERE WAS A SPECIAL PROGRAM THAT WE WERE WAITING ON OR. YOU KNOW, THAT US ONE PROPERTY WHERE ALL THOSE TREES DIED THERE. YEAH. IS THERE SOMETHING GOING ON OR YOU PROBABLY JUST APPLIED FOR IT. 
          WELL, WE PROBABLY NEEDED TO APPLY FOR IT AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT YET. I DON'T KNOW IF THE 
          [00:10:02]
NEXT ONE'S ROLLING AROUND OR NOT, BUT I, I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S COMMITTED TO PUTTING THAT LANDSCAPING IN AND SO LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. BUT OKAY THAT ONE AND THEN BUT THANK YOU. YES I NEED TO I WAS WONDERING JUST IF WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THAT PROGRAM BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. DID YOU NOTICE WE CLEANED IT UP THOUGH? WE TRIMMED UP ALL THOSE PALM TREES. WE PULLED ALL THAT DEAD STUFF OUT OF THE FRONT, SO THAT WAS GOOD. OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT WITH REGARD TO MR. REED, I'M LOOKING AT LANDSCAPING THAT'S BEEN AT THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER. 759 I KNOW IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT EVERYTHING IS DYING AND IT'S NOT EVEN SUMMER YET, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TALK TO OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND OUR BUSINESS OWNERS AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO TRY TO KEEP UP THEIR LANDSCAPING. AND WHICH ONE? WHICH PUBLIX. IT'S THE PUBLIX DOWNTOWN. IT'S FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN CODE, ENFORCE SOMEONE IF THEY'RE OKAY LETTING THE PROPERTY GO INTO DISREPAIR. BUT HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE FOUND THAT FEBRUARY, MARCH, AND APRIL ARE KNOWN AS THE DRY SEASON, AND AS A RESULT, MOST PEOPLE'S LAWNS DRY UP AND THEIR LANDSCAPING GOES INTO ALMOST LIKE A HIBERNATION BACK. AND THEN, LIKE CLOCKWORK, THOSE MAY RAIN START TO FALL AND EVERYTHING TURNS GREEN. GREEN. AND WE SURVIVE THAT PARTICULAR. YES, IT IS TERRIBLE. THE RIVERS COALITION MEETING LAST WEEK DESCRIBED HOW THEY HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THE DEGREE OF LOW HUMIDITY AND EVAPORATION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SEE. AS A RESULT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN IT EVER IS. YOU'LL NOTICE THE AND NOTICE THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE PONDS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE USED FOR IRRIGATION. I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO SOMEONE JUST RECENTLY THAT WAS SAYING THAT THEIR COMMUNITY IRRIGATION SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE THE PUMPS PIPE FOR THE INTAKE IS ACTUALLY ABOVE THE WATER LINE. SO I, I THINK IT'LL ALL COME BACK HOPEFULLY. BUT BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CODE ENFORCE IF SOMEONE'S LANDSCAPING IS IN SUCH DISREPAIR THAT IT WOULD WARRANT SOME. YEAH. I LOVE VICE CHAIRPERSON BURKLE'S FOCUS. WELL FUTURE FOCUS OTHER THAN DOWNTOWN INTO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY THAT ARE IN THE CRA. I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN AT MEETINGS AT EAST STUART, AND ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS OF LACK OF A BETTER WORD IS THAT MONEYS HAVE BEEN SPENT ELSEWHERE, BUT NOT IN EAST STUART. SO IS THERE A WAY THAT SOME OF THAT MONEYS COULD BE DIRECTED TO EAST STUART? SO THE CITY HAS SPENT DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE ON EAST STUART THAN ANY OTHER COMMUNITY IN THE CITY. A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE DID THE SUMMARY, AND IT WAS ABOUT $30 MILLION THAT HAD BEEN SPENT IN EAST STUART THAT WASN'T SPENT IN THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. EVERY HOUSE IN EAST STUART HAS A SIDEWALK, EVERY STREET HAS STREETLIGHTS. 
          EVERY HOUSE WAS CONNECTED TO SEWER AT NO COST TO THE RESIDENTS. WE GAVE AWAY TEN HABITAT HOUSES, AND WE ALSO OPERATED THE FREE DAYCARE IN THE 10TH STREET REC CENTER FOR 18 YEARS. SO IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK FROM 1998 UNTIL 2014, THE EAST STUART NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN ASSESSED, GENERATED $0 IN CRA FUNDING, BUT RECEIVED CLOSE TO $30 MILLION IN CRA FUNDS SINCE 2014 TO THE PRESENT, MAYBE THE LAST TEN YEARS, IT HAS STARTED TO GENERATE MONEY, BUT IT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IT HAS RECEIVED, AND THE CRA IS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR US TO SPEND THAT MONEY IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO FROM LIKE 2008 TO 2018, THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF THE BRIDGE, BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE CONDOS WERE PAYING ABOUT $350,000 A YEAR INTO THE CRA, WHICH AMOUNTS TO $3.5 MILLION IN CRA CONTRIBUTION. AND THEY HADN'T HAD ANY MEANINGFUL LANDSCAPING PROJECTS OR ANYTHING NORTH OF THE BRIDGE. SO AS YOU GO UP THERE NOW, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CRA DIRECTOR HAS A BIG PROGRAM GOING ON WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING IN ANTIQUE STREET LIGHTS AND SIDEWALKS AND, AND SOME STORM WATER AND OTHER STUFF. SO WE HAVE SPREAD IT OUT. THE PEOPLE THAT SAID THAT ABOUT THE FUNDING WERE WERE JUST SIMPLY MISTAKEN. WE CAN DEMONSTRATE IT AT ANY TIME, BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH NUMBER OF MONEY PER HOUSEHOLD, BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THERE'S ALSO, I THINK 300 HOMES OR SOMETHING ABOUT ANY. STUART. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT $30 MILLION, IT'S, YOU KNOW, $10,000 OR $100,000 A HOUSE OR WHATEVER THE MATH IS ON THAT. AND A CAUTIONARY THING. BUT THE CRA PLAN THAT YOU GUYS ADOPT ANNUALLY, YOU ARE FREE TO IDENTIFY PROJECTS WHICH ONE OF THEM HAPPENS TO BE CURRENTLY A $10 MILLION RENOVATION TO THE 
          [00:15:01]
GUY DAVIS PARK, WHICH IS ALSO IN EAST STUART. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN EAST STUART ARE JUST LIKE WHEN WELL, EXCEPT FOR WHEN YOU SAY IT'S BEEN WE BUILT THE BRAND NEW BASKETBALL COURTS, PUT THE ROOF OVER IT THREE YEARS AGO, PUT THE LIGHTING UP ON IT, REDID THE BASEBALL FIELDS, REDID THE SOCCER FIELD. AND THAT'S ALL BEEN IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. SO ALL OF THAT'S HAPPENED AND WE REGULARLY HAVE BEEN MOVING FORWARD. AND YOU GUYS ADOPTING THE DESIGNS AND MOVING FORWARD ON THE PARK. BUT OUR QUARTERLY MEETING. SO IT'S GOING AS IF WE DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING IN EAST STUART. WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROGRAMING. SO IT WOULD STILL BE 4 OR 5 YEARS OUT BY THE TIME IT HAPPENED. RIGHT. BUT IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT. HOPEFULLY SOMEBODY PEOPLE IN EAST STUART WILL BE LISTENING TO THIS AND UNDERSTAND THAT MONEY'S BEEN SPENT. YES, ABSOLUTELY I AGREE. I, I WOULD JUST MENTION THAT ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, MIKE I THINK PART OF IT TOO WAS ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, WE DID A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF UNDERGROUND TYPE WORK SHORING UP ALL OF THAT STORMWATER AND ALL THAT. THAT DOESN'T CREATE A SPLASH. SO A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALLY SEE IT, SO IT DOESN'T CREATE A SPLASH. I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. BUT ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T CREATE A SPLASH. AND SO A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T SEE IT. BUT BUT WE DID PUT A WE DID PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THAT IN ANTICIPATION I THINK OF MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE THAT THAT AS OF THIS POINT HAS COME YET. BUT ANYWAY JUST MENTIONING. MR. MARTEL, JUST TO MR. BRECKSVILLE'S POINT. I MEAN, WE DID DO THE STRATEGIC PLAN. WAS THAT LAST YEAR OR. YEAH, TWO YEARS AGO NOW WE JUST NOT LAST FALL BUT THE FALL BEFORE. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT, MR. BRECHBILL, BUT THAT SPEAKS TO THE ISSUES OF COURSE IF THAT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOUR BOARD WANTS TO DO, I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THAT. BUT OF COURSE, YOU NEED YOU WOULD NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON THE CRA AS AS REGARDS YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO US. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO LIMITING. I DO THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY IN THE CRA. IT'S INTERESTING. I WAS AT A ROUNDTABLE WITH SHANNON, THE MAYOR OF PORT SAINT LUCIE, JUST THIS WEEK, AND YOU COULD NOT HAVE TWO MORE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAN PORT SAINT LUCIE. I WAS SPEAKING TO MR. MARTEL PRIOR TO GOING UP THERE, AND HE WAS JOKING, BECAUSE WE HAVE BASICALLY THE CITY. THE CITY HAS 220 ACRE PARCELS LEFT REMAINING TO BE DEVELOPED. AND I JOKED TO SHANNON, I SAID, YOU PROBABLY APPROVED A 20 ACRE PARCEL THIS MORNING. AND SHE GOES, NO, ACTUALLY, WE APPROVED A 40 ACRE PARCEL THIS MORNING. 
          THEY CAME UP WITH THEIR 20 YEAR PLAN. THEY'RE GOING TO BE DONE AT THE END OF THE SEVENTH YEAR WITH THAT. THAT'S HOW FAST THAT COMMUNITY IS GROWING. AND SO OUR CHALLENGE IS WE'RE GOING TO STOP GROWING. AND THEN HOW DO WE THRIVE? HOW DOES THIS COMMUNITY CONTINUE TO THRIVE. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE QUITE DIFFICULT. SO YOUR SUGGESTION IS A TIMELY ONE. AND I WOULD TAKE IT UP TO THE DEGREE YOU CAN WITH YOUR BOARD AND BRING US A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. NO, I'M SORRY, MR. COLLINS. MARK TO YOUR TO YOUR COMMENT. WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE GOAL OF BRINGING IN THESE CONSULTANTS OF REVISIONING. I THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT UP TO THIS, I'D SAY UP TO THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, HAS BEEN BASED ON A MODIFIED DUANY PLAN. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE ANSWER TODAY. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT PLAN HASN'T ALREADY BEEN FINISHED. TO THE EXTENT THAT STUART WANTS IT TO BE FINISHED. AND WHEN WE'RE MAYBE NOW LOOKING MORE TOWARDS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I'M NOT FROM THE NORTHEAST, I'M FROM THE MIDWEST. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE SOME OF THESE THINGS. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT UP IN THE NORTHEAST, IN THE OUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE CITY AND IN SOME OF THOSE OTHER PLACES, THEY HAVE COMMUNITY CENTERS WHERE PEOPLE IN THAT COMMUNITY CAN BE MEMBERS. THEY GO AND THEY THEY HAVE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND THEY HAVE ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS. AND IT'S NOT WALKABLE AND IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN AREA FOR THAT COMMUNITY TO HAVE THINGS TO DO, TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE SOME OF THE BASIS OF THAT RIGHT NOW WITH GUY DAVIS, WITH FLAGLER PARK AND WITH OTHERS. BUT, YOU KNOW, RESOURCE WISE, WE'RE NOT FUNNELING IF THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT TO GO, WE'RE NOT FUNNELING THE RIGHT RESOURCES THAT WAY, I DON'T THINK. AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS, I GUESS I'M KIND OF AGREEING WITH THE COMMISSION MAJORITY IN THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S TIME TO FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE WANT STUART TO BE NOW. AND WE KNOW WHAT IT WAS 40 YEARS 
          [00:20:05]
AGO. AND I THINK THEY DID A GOOD JOB. BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF GNASHING OF TEETH AT THAT TIME, TOO. THAT DIDN'T COME OUT WHERE EVERYBODY GOT TOGETHER AND SAID KUMBAYA AND HERE'S WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF THERE WAS A LOT OF ARGUMENT ABOUT KEEPING THE BRIDGE, DOING ALL OF THIS STUFF, BUT EVERYTHING WAS BASED ON THAT PLAN. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT PLAN IS EVEN THOUGH WE OUR CRA PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THE AND THE CITY COMP PLAN HAS BEEN HAS BEEN UPDATED PERIODICALLY, IT NONE OF IT'S BEEN DONE WITH THE WITH THE EMPHASIS OF SEEING WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE AND THEN BUILDING TOWARDS THOSE ALTERNATIVES. ARE THERE SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE TREAT EACH STUART SEPARATELY, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN KIND OF THEIR OWN SITUATION AND, AND DOWN EAST OCEAN THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SITUATION. AND WHERE I'M AT OVER THERE IN THE IN THE DUPLEXES, WE HAVE OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW. ARE THERE ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES? I'M NOT A PLANNER, BUT I THINK I'M SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN LEAD A DISCUSSION THAT GIVES EVERYBODY THIS OR THE ALTERNATIVES. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRADITIONAL DOWNTOWN NOW AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET. WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE? THE WAY THINGS ARE IS THAT WE'RE IN A SITUATION, I THINK, WHERE WE, WE'RE STILL SUPPORTING AT LEAST SOME PORTION OF THE POPULATION IS STILL SUPPORTING A PLAN THAT INVOLVED CONSOLIDATED DENSITY INTO THE CORE WITH MULTI FAMILY, MULTI STOREY LIVING WITH MIXED USE. WE'VE GONE AFTER WITH THE ZIP TO TRY TO TIGHTEN THAT UP. YEAH. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT. I MEAN IS THAT WHAT THEY WANT ALL OVER THE CITY, OR DO THEY WANT TO BE TREATED MORE LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS? WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE SCOPE OF THIS MEETING IS JUST THE CRA, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND WHEN WE SAY ALL OVER THE CITY, WE KEEP GOING. 
          WELL, WHEN WE'RE PLANNING FOR THE CITY THAT THE DOWNTOWN IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I DON'T DISAGREE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DUPLEX AREA WHERE YOU LIVE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THE CRA, BUT THAT IT'S NOT ALL OVER THE CITY, THAT IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE CRA JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE MEETING WE'RE AT. I KNOW, BUT BUT FROM A I TOOK A MISTER THAT YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO THE CITY THAT WE ACCEPT THIS ANALYSIS. THE ONE THING YOU SAID THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY GOOD, YOU SAID NO PRECONCEPTION. RIGHT. SO I THINK I THINK MR. COLLINS QUESTION IS. YOU WEREN'T LISTENING TO WHAT HE SAID THERE BECAUSE HE SAID, LET'S LET'S BRING IN THESE PEOPLE TO SEE IF THEY CAN GIVE US WHAT WE WOULD PERCEIVE TO BE SENSIBLE ADVICE. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SUGGESTING YOU THIS IS A DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO. AT THIS POINT. YOU JUST THINK THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED. I ACTUALLY, AFTER I STARTED GETTING INTO IT MORE, I DON'T HAVE A DIRECTION I WANTED TO GO. I, I ONLY WANT TO GO WHATEVER DIRECTION THE PEOPLE WANT TO GO. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT BEING ON A SOAPBOX. I'M JUST SAYING AT THIS POINT, THE PEOPLE HAVE CLEARLY ARTICULATED WHAT THEY WANT BY HOW THEY VOTED. SO TO SAY THAT THERE'S SOMEHOW A PROBLEM WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THINGS ARE GOING NOW, AND THAT WE NEED TO BRING IN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TO HELP US SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. IT'S ALL A BIT VAGUE AND IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IT'S A LOT OF WORDS. AND THIS IS THE ISSUE. WELL, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ADDRESS? THE ISSUE IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I LOST BY 100 VOTES. RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? PEOPLE WON BY 100 VOTES, BUT THAT DOESN'T AN ELECTION I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THE MANDATE. IT IS IT. AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ULTIMATELY THE RESIDENTS OF STUART ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF A COUPLE HUNDRED. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. AND IT'S NOT. AND I THINK POTENTIALLY WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH POTENTIALLY THE ANSWER THAT THAT THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING. BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT FROM A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE ON A BUY IN THAN 100. OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, MR. BRECHBILL, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR BOARD AND COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION TO BRING TO THE CITY COMMISSION, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. NO MORE COMMENTS. MR. BAGGETT, COULD YOU READ ITEM TWO FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT JUST BRIEFLY. I WAS CONTACTED BY SOME RESIDENTS ON SEMINOLE STREET THAT HAD MADE SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE VACANT PARCEL THAT REMAINS ON SEMINOLE STREET AND ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE THAT WAS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND I TOLD THEM, OBVIOUSLY, THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR THERE'S ALREADY A CODE ENFORCEMENT PENDING ON THAT PROPERTY. THEY ASKED ME IF I WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE DURING THE CRA MEETING TO SEE IF THE CITY 
          [00:25:03]
WOULD CONSIDER MOWING THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN IT ON A WEEKLY BASIS, AND THEN JUST ASSESSING THE PROPERTY OWNER OVER TIME. MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS IF YOU TAKE ON THAT BURDEN, THEN YOU NEED TO DO THAT FOR EVERY SINGLE PARCEL. YEAH. CAN YOU MOW MINE TWO TIMES? WELL, WE COULD DO IT, BUT WE COULD CHARGE EVERYBODY. OBVIOUSLY THE THING IS YOU PUT THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY UNDER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND THE QUESTION IS HOW OFTEN DO YOU MOW IT? AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, DO YOU START MAINTAINING IT AT THREE INCHES AND DON'T WAIT TILL IT GETS OVER SEVEN INCHES SEVEN MOWED EVERY SATURDAY. AND SO I JUST I WANTED TO BRING IT UP, YOU KNOW, GET THE WILL OF THE BOARD. IT'S THE VACANT PARCEL ON THE WATER ON SEMINOLE STREET, ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HISTORIC HOUSES OR WHATEVER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ADDRESS IS. IS IT AN ABSENTEE OWNER? YEAH, THERE'S A THERE'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING. THEY HAD A PRIOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON IT. AND AGAIN, IT'S ON THAT BIG VACANT LOT. YEAH. AND HONESTLY, I MEAN THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION. YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT A GOLF COURSE, BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT THE MAINTENANCE THAT'S ON IT CURRENTLY, I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN TIMES WHEN THE GRASS DID GET A LITTLE HIGH. BUT I THINK IF YOU WENT OVER THERE RIGHT NOW, THE GRASS IS NOT THAT HIGH. IT'S JUST NOT THAT WELL KEPT BECAUSE THE LANDLORD HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT ABSENTEE ON IT. 
          BUT AND I DON'T DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE IF THE PERSON IS. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S MORE OF A POLICY ISSUE FOR THE CRA INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT CITYWIDE. DID THE CRA HAVE ANY INTEREST IN HAVING CODE ENFORCEMENT REGULATE BY MOWING AND MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY LAWNS, AND THEN ASSESSING AND CLEANING THE PROPERTIES FOR IT? THEY CAN LOOK AROUND AND GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU GUYS OR NOT, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE I'M GETTING MUCH TRACTION. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. SOMETHING THAT'S BOTHERING THE NEIGHBORS, I GATHER. WELL, THE PEOPLE THAT MOVED IN NEXT DOOR ARE COMPLAINING THAT IT'S NOT AS NICE AS THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. STEVE VITALE'S ENFORCEMENT WORK, BUT IT'S NOT FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NOT FOR THE UNKEMPT. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW. I WAS ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I KNOW. 
          THERE'S AN OUTSTANDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PENDING ON IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S INCLUDING THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE. AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THEY GO OUT AND MOW IT, AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND IT'S. SO I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO GET TOGETHER AND HAVE A LITTLE COALITION OF TAKING TURNS TO MOW IT SO THAT IT LOOKS NICE. STEVE SAID. ANYTHING THAT'S NOT WHO CONTACTED ME, BUT THAT I MEAN, IT'S I THINK IT'S A SUBJECTIVE MATTER AND IT BECOMES VERY COMPLICATED. I MEAN, IT JUST BARREN PLACES. MY RESPONSE WAS THAT IF THEY, IF THEY CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE'LL RESPOND, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THEM, ANYTIME THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S VIOLATING THE CODE OR WELCOME TO CALL US AND WE'LL WE'LL DISPATCH CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GO TO THE PROPERTY. BUT YOU KNOW. NO. BOARD MEMBER. BERLIN. WELL, YEAH. I MEAN, SO THE CURRENT CODE, THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES IN THE CODE. LIKE ONE OF THE THINGS IS YOUR GRASS CAN'T BE LONGER THAN SIX INCHES. I CAN TELL YOU, I DON'T EVER REMEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT GOING AROUND WITH A RULER AND MEASURING EVERYBODY'S SIX INCHES. IT'S GENERALLY WHEN SOMEONE'S GRASS GETS ABOVE A FOOT TALL OR IT'S COMPLETELY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GO OUT, AND THEN THEY GIVE YOU A 14 DAY NOTICE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THERE'S OTHER CODES THAT DESCRIBE NOT MAINTAINING YOUR PROPERTY WELL, AND IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO IT. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE SOMEONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT LIKE WHERE THE SAND IS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT DOESN'T HAVE GRASS OR LANDSCAPING AND THEREFORE IT'S NOT RIGHT, I THINK THAT IT'S MORE COMFORTABLE TO ME TO RECEIVE A SPECIFIC COMPLAINT FROM SOMEBODY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO THEN RESPOND TO IT, BECAUSE, AS YOU POINT OUT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO BE SO SUBJECTIVE. 
          AND JUST GUESS WHAT SOMEONE LIKES OR DOESN'T BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT SAY, I WANT MY YARD TO BE IN ITS NATURAL HABITAT. I DON'T WANT FLORATAM SOD AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, ETC. 
          AND I WANT IT TO BE SCRUB JAY TYPE LAND. THERE'S A SIGN ON THAT PROPERTY, RIGHT? I KNOW, I KNOW THE OWNER, I KNOW THE ANSWER. I KNOW THE BANK. I KNOW THE HISTORY OF IT COMPLETELY. 
          BUT YES, IT IS FOR SALE FOR MORE THAN IT'S WORTH. THIS, THIS KIND OF EVERY REAL ESTATE STREAM. BUT THE PERSON WHO'S SELLING IT, I MEAN, THEY'RE THE ONES SELLING, SHOWING THE PROPERTY. THEY SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY. I MEAN, THAT REALLY IS. YEAH. OKAY. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO DESIRE FOR ANY ACTION ON THE PART OF THIS BOARD. SO WE'LL MOVE ON. ANY OTHER 
          [2. AMENDMENT TO HEIRS' PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RC): RESOLUTION No. 04-2025 CRA; A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HEIRS' PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
COMMENTS, MR. MARTEL? NO, I'M. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. OKAY, MR. BAGGETT, LET'S TRY AGAIN. 
          [00:30:03]
AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NUMBER ZERO FOUR DASH 2025 CRA, A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HEIRS PROPERTY ASSISTANCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. FOR NOW. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. THE CRA DIRECTOR. FOR THE RECORD, THIS ITEM IS COMING BEFORE YOU TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE HEIRS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GUIDELINES. 
          WE DO HAVE SOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS, SO I'LL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM GUIDELINES. 
          SO WHAT IS HEIRS PROGRAM? WHAT IS HEIRS PROPERTY. IT'S REFERRED TO PROPERTY THAT'S PASSED DOWN FROM AN OWNER TO THEIR CHILDREN OR RELATIVES WITHOUT ANY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION. THEREFORE, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE OWNERSHIP. AND IF THE OWNER DIES WITHOUT A WILL, THE PROPERTY COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO MULTIPLE FAMILY MEMBERS. SO THEY HAVE SHARED OWNERSHIP AND THIS CAUSES CLOUDY TITLE. SINCE EACH FAMILY MEMBER OWNS A FRACTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM? LACK OF CLEAR TITLE CAN HINDER ACCESS TO LOANS, GRANTS, HOME INSURANCE, AND PROPERTY TAX SAVINGS THROUGH HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. THIS CAN BECOME PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE SHARED OWNERSHIP OWNERSHIP CAN LEAD TO NEGLECT, DISREPAIR, AND ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT ABLE TO UPKEEP THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY. IT'S ALSO DIFFICULT TO RECEIVE FINANCIAL AID FROM GOVERNMENT IF THERE'S EVER A HURRICANE OR MAJOR STORMS THAT IMPACTS THE HOME, ALSO VULNERABLE TO LOSING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE OWNERS OR WHOEVER INHERITED THE PROPERTY ARE UNABLE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, AND THIS NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY REDUCING PROPERTY VALUES, ATTRACTING CRIME, AND AFFECTS THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. SO WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? BECAUSE CLEARING THE TITLE HELPS TO KEEP THE HOME WITHIN THE FAMILY AND BUILDS GENERATIONAL WEALTH. IT KEEPS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THEIR IN THEIR HOME. IT PRESERVES OUR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. IF THE OWNER CAN ADDRESS THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY, IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM ACCESS TO EQUITY, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION, AND IT HELPS TO REVITALIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX BASE. SO LAST YEAR WE GATHERED SOME DATA FROM COUNTIES PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, AND WE IDENTIFIED APPROXIMATELY 31 PARCELS THAT ARE HEIRS PROPERTY WITHIN THE CRA. AND MOST OF THOSE ARE IN THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE ASSESSED VALUE FOR THESE HOMES IN 2024, AND ALL OF THEM WERE UNDER $300,000, EXCEPT ONE PROPERTY DID EXCEED TO 345,000. 
          SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD RECOMMENDED TO LIMIT ASSISTANCE FOR THE PROGRAM FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAD ASSESSED VALUE OF $300,000 OR LESS AND PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO A MAXIMUM OF $3,000 PER PROPERTY. SO ONCE THE BOARD APPROVED THE PROGRAM, WE CONTRACTED WITH BONNIE BROWN TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PROGRAM. AND AS I MENTIONED, CURRENTLY THE PROGRAM IS LIMITED TO $3,000 PER PROPERTY. IN MARCH, WE RECEIVED OUR FIRST APPLICATION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 SOUTHEAST ARAPAHOE AVENUE. THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT $185,000. THE APPLICANT IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE, BUT THERE ARE SOME COMPLEXITIES WITH THIS CASE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES TWO PROBATES. THE ATTORNEY TYPICALLY CHARGES PER PROBATE, NOT PER PROPERTY. SO IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD HAD THREE SONS, SO THE EACH SON INHERITED ONE THIRD INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN TWO YEARS LATER ONE OF THE SON DIED. SO, SO THE PROGRAM. SO THE PROPERTY REQUIRES TWO PROBATES IN ORDER TO CLEAR THE TITLE. AND SINCE WE ARE LIMITED TO $3,000 PER PROPERTY, STAFF IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PROGRAM TO ALLOW $3,000 PER PROBATE NOT TO EXCEED $9,000 LIMIT PER PROPERTY. THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT OF THE BUDGET. WE BUDGETED $25,000 FOR THIS PROGRAM, SO THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE BUDGET REQUEST. STAFF IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER ZERO FOUR. DASH 2025 CRA FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE HEIRS PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GUIDELINES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MOVE 
          [00:35:01]
APPROVAL FOR. DISCUSSION PURPOSES? SECOND, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A WHO SECONDED IT, SECONDED BY MR. BRECHBILL. I I'M JUST GOING TO LET ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO TALK TO ASK QUESTIONS FIRST. NO, I'M I'M SORRY. MY BACK IS TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. HOW MANY PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN THIS PROGRAM? WE HAVE ABOUT 31 PROPERTIES THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT THAT COULD QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM. OKAY. OF THAT 31, HOW MANY DO YOU ANTICIPATE WILL BE INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE PROBATE HEARINGS? I WOULDN'T KNOW IF THAT IS CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT WE WOULD PUT A LIMIT TO $9,000 PER PROPERTY, OKAY. OR LESS, WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES. CAN I ASK A $25,000 PER YEAR? IT'S PER YEAR BECAUSE I HAVE TO BUDGET EVERY YEAR. SO I'LL BUDGET $25,000 AGAIN NEXT YEAR, BUT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE'LL USE ALL OF IT. BOARD MEMBER SHERER. THANK YOU. SO 31 PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED THAT COULD QUALIFY. 
          AND ARE WE BEING SORT OF PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE CONTACTING THOSE PROPERTIES TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY OR DO WE SIT BACK AND WAIT FOR THEM TO CONTACT? NO, WE SEND OUT FLIERS. WE SEND OUT POSTCARDS SO THAT I GUESS THEY WERE CONTACTED WHATEVER WAY SOME TIME AGO. AND WE'VE IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, WE'VE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE SO FAR. 
          YES. AND WE ARE WORKING WITH I THINK ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SAID HE WOULD HELP US PASS OUT MORE INFORMATION ON THIS PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THIS IN EAST STUART, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE MOST OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS IN EAST STUART THAT NEEDS THIS ASSISTANCE. GOT IT. BUT AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR ME, THE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CRA AND WITHIN THE CRA WE'VE IDENTIFIED ABOUT 31 THAT WOULD. OKAY. GOT IT. THANKS. I CAN CHIME IN BRIEFLY. 
          I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME INSIGHT. THAT WOULD BE YOU'D FIND ASSISTANCE IN EVALUATING THIS PROGRAM CURRENTLY UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES, IF SOMEBODY DIES AND YOU HIRE AN ESTATE LAWYER TO PROBATE THE ESTATE, THE FLORIDA STATUTES SAY THAT THE ESTATE ATTORNEY SHALL BE PAID A FEE OF 3% OF THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE FOR THE FIRST MILLION DOLLARS, AND THEN 2% FOR THE SECOND MILLION, AND IT GOES DOWN TO 1% AFTER THAT. I BELIEVE IT ALSO HAS A FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE. THE REASON I SAY THAT IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STATE, FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CRITERIA FOR ANYBODY TO HIRE THE CITY TO HAVE A LAWYER PROBATE THEIR PROPERTY FOR THEM. WHAT HAPPENED IS WE STARTED NOTICING, IN PARTICULAR IN THE STUART NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THERE WAS SOME GENERATIONAL ISSUES WHERE FAMILY MEMBERS HAD LITERALLY DIED. AND THEN THEIR CHILDREN OR SOMEBODY MOVED INTO THE HOUSE AND HAS BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 30 YEARS. AND THE REASON WE IMPLEMENTED THE PROGRAM IS THEY CAN'T APPLY FOR ANY GRANTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TITLE OWNERSHIP, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN ANY CRA PROGRAMS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TITLE OWNERSHIP. THEY CAN'T GET A PERMIT TO REPAIR THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TITLE OWNERSHIP, AND THEY CAN'T SELL THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TITLE OWNERSHIP. AND SO THAT LOSS OF TITLE HAS CREATED BLIGHT AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THE CRA CREATED THIS PROGRAM AND IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS. IF YOU GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A CODE AND IT CALLS IT AN AIR ESTATE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE TITLE OWNER DIED AND THAT THERE'S A DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR THE TITLE OWNER. BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYBODY THAT FOLLOWED UP WITH AND CREATED A NEW TITLE OR TRANSFERRED THE DEED TO ANYBODY ELSE. AND SO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAINTAINS THESE PROPERTIES IS THAT IT'S VERY EASY FOR US TO IDENTIFY THE 31 PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE AIR ESTATES. I MEAN, THEY'RE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. WE DIDN'T WHEN WE ADOPTED THE PROGRAM, CREATE ANY FINANCIAL CRITERIA OR VETTING PROCESS OTHER THAN YOU HAVE AN AIR ESTATE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY. IT JUST MEANS UNCLEAR TITLE. 
          WELL, ESSENTIALLY NOT JUST UNCLEAR BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE AN UNCLEAR TITLE BECAUSE OF A TRANSACTION OR BECAUSE OF A DEED THAT I DID IMPROPERLY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THIS IS WHERE THE PRIOR OWNER DIED. SO THE OWNER CAN'T FIX THE TITLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER WITH US. SO THIS WAS TO ASSIST THEM IN CLEARING THE TITLE. WHO PAYS TAXES? WELL, A LOT OF THESE 
          [00:40:02]
PROPERTIES HAD UP UNTIL ABOUT 2015, DIDN'T EVEN PAY TAXES. THEY HAD NO TAX BILL AT ALL. BUT THE TAX BILL COMES TO THE HOUSE, AND THE PERSON SITTING THERE SENDS IN THE 3 OR $400 A YEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T GO AWAY. JUST LIKE THE ELECTRIC AND WATER, THE BILL CONTINUES TO GET PAID. BUT THE TRUTH IS, THERE IS NO TITLE OWNERSHIP. AND FROM A FINANCIAL CRITERIA, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE WHEN WE FIRST STARTED IT, THE VALUES OF THOSE PROPERTIES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AND RELATIVES WEREN'T INTERESTED AND NOBODY WAS GOING TO DO IT. BUT NOW ONE OF THE OCCURRENCES WE FOUND IS THAT IF THE NIECE OF SOMEBODY THAT DIED IS LIVING IN THIS HOUSE AND THE NIECE IS 40 NOW HERSELF, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS OR SOMETHING, AND SHE HAS HER OWN KIDS LIVING WITH HER, AND THEN THE TWO OWNERS LIVE IN ATLANTA. AND SO IF SHE WERE TO CONTACT THE TWO OWNERS AND SAY, HEY, WE WANT YOU TO SIGN OFF ON THIS PROPERTY SO THAT WE CAN TRANSFER TITLE TO ME. THEY SAY, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, HOW MUCH IS THAT PROPERTY WORTH? NOW? I THINK WE SHOULD SELL IT AND SPLIT IT THREE WAYS, OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE JUMPING IN BECAUSE THE PERSON IN POSSESSION DOESN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SOLVE IT, BECAUSE IT MAY RESULT IN THEM HAVING TO DIVIDE IT WITH OTHER RELATIVES. HOWEVER, IF YOU TOOK A $300,000 HOUSE AND YOU HAD IT GO THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE AND IT WAS NOT TRANSFERRED BY HOMESTEAD, THEN THAT $300,000 ASSET IN TERMS OF THE STATE STATUTE DETERMINED THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE PAID WOULD BE, IN FACT, A $9,000 FEE TO DETERMINE THE THIS ESTATE OR FAMILY. SO THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEING CHARGED CORRELATES PRETTY CLEAR. ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. OTHERWISE. THEY WOULD SAY TO YOU, HERE'S MY FLAT RATE. I'M NOT DOING IT ON THE PERCENTAGE FEE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF IT BECOMES REGULAR PRACTICE THAT WE START DOING THIS TOO MUCH, PEOPLE MIGHT JUST START SAYING, WELL, I'LL JUST GO TO THE CITY AND HAVE THEM HANDLE THE ESTATE. I'LL WAIT TWO YEARS AND JUST HAVE THE CITY DO THE TRANSFER AND PAY THE FEES FOR ME. I KNOW THAT HASN'T WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE, BUT IT'S A GOOD THOUGHT. BOARD MEMBER BRECHBILL. YES, THERE'S A SECTION I LOOKED AT. THERE'S A SECTION IN THERE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THIS PROGRAM IS ONLY APPLICABLE FOR SINGLE OWNER. IN OTHER WORDS. BUT BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH THE DISPUTED SITUATIONS, RIGHT? I MEAN, I THINK WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW IS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THREE ESTATES HAVE TO BE DONE TO CLEAR UP ONE TITLE, BECAUSE GRANDPA MIGHT HAVE DIED AND LEFT THE PROPERTY TO HIS TWO CHILDREN, AND BOTH OF THEM MAY BE GONE. AND IT'S LITERALLY A THIRD PERSON LIVING THERE. AND SO GRANDPA'S ESTATE NEEDS TO GET DONE SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN TRANSFER TO THE NEXT PEOPLE, AND THEN THEIR ESTATES NEED TO BE DONE TO TRANSFER IT TO THE PERSON IN POSSESSION. RIGHT. AND JUST FOR BOARD MEMBERS WHO WANT TO RUN AROUND IT, IT YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS GET TO A POINT THAT SOMEBODY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR TITLE INSURANCE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE TITLE INSURANCE FOR LOANS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TITLE INSURANCE TO SELL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TITLE INSURANCE FOR THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT OUR GOAL WAS. AND I THINK JUST PERSONAL BIAS I THINK THIS PROGRAM IS A IS A GREAT PROGRAM FOR LIFTING UP AND ALLOWING THE MEMBERS OF, OF EAST STUART TO LIFT THEMSELVES UP BY CLEANING UP THE TITLES. THEN THEY CAN GET SECOND MORTGAGES, THEY CAN DO THINGS LIKE TO IMPROVE THEIR HOUSES. THEY THEY MAY SELL THEIR HOUSE AND TAKE THE PROFIT, BUT THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. AND THEY SHOULD GET PAID FAIRLY IF THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT. SO I THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AND THIS ISSUE WITH THE THREE VOTE WITH, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY THREE, I THINK ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT PROPERTY BACK SQUARED AWAY BECAUSE THEY MISS OUT. IT'S LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THEY MISS OUT ON EVERY GENERATIONAL WEALTH CHANGE WE HAVE. WHEN THAT MARKET GOES UP, THEY'RE NOT IN IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CLEAN TITLE. SO ANYWAY. OKAY. NOW COULD YOU JUST GO BACK A SLIDE OR TWO? OH, I, I'M SORRY, BUT IF I COULD JUST ASK A CLARIFICATION. HOLD ON. JUST LET ME FINISH. SURE, MR. CHAIR, IT'S IT IT LISTED THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMS. IT TALKS ABOUT KEEPING THEM IN THEIR HOMES. 
          BANAL. YEAH. THAT'S. GO. YEAH. OKAY, SO IT'S SO IMPORTANT WE SAID THE SAME THING TWICE HERE. 
          ADDRESSING TITLE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE HOME AND THE FAMILY AND KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE IF WE'RE SPENDING $9,000 JUST SO PEOPLE CAN SELL IT. IF THEY'RE SELLING IT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN RECEIPT OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. THEY CAN PAY THAT BILL. I AGREE WITH THIS PROGRAM IS DESCRIBED HERE, BUT I YOU KNOW, I WOULD PREFER SOME SORT OF 
          [00:45:05]
RESTRICTION ON THAT AS FAR AS THAT COMMENT IS CONCERNED, THE CDBG GRANT FUNDS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN OUT 11 LAST YEAR THAT YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH, THAT REQUIRES ANYBODY RECEIVING THOSE FUNDS TO SIGN A MORTGAGE WITH FLORIDA COMMERCE AND THE CITY OF STUART THAT SAYS THEY WILL NOT SELL FOR THREE YEARS. SO THAT SORT OF RESTRICTION MAKES SENSE TO ME. BUT BUT THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO REINVEST IN EAST STUART. AND SOME OF THEM MAY, BUT SOME OF THEM MAY NOT. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS ABOUT BECAUSE WE ALL WE ALL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE MOST ALL OF US HAVE CLEAN TITLE. AND SO WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IF WE WANT TO SELL AND DOWNSIZE OR GET OUT OR DO WHATEVER, WE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PUT ANY RESTRICTIONS ON IT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE SUCH THAT THE MARKET PUTS RESTRICTIONS. BUT YOU WERE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THAT TITLE YOURSELF AND NOT THE CITY. THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT MATTER WHEN WE'RE PAYING FOR IT, RIGHT. BUT I COULD DO THAT. AND IT WASN'T VERY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE I HAD CLEAN TITLE YOU COULD FIND CLEAN TITLE. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU START TALKING NINE, TEN, $12,000, YOU KNOW, A PROPERTY OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND YOU KNOW, THAT PERSON DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE. ONLY THE PERSON WITH MONEY HAS THE CHOICE. AND AS MIKE POINTED OUT, A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S NOT THE PERSON IN THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY ARE CONTROLLING THE PROPERTY TO SOME DEGREE ARE NOT EVEN LOCAL ANYMORE. SO ANYWAY, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST SO WE NEED TO HAVE WE NEED TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION. I ALSO HAVE A COMMENT. OKAY. BUT LET'S JUST LET'S GET I SORT OF TOOK IT BACKWARDS. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER JOB. BOARD MEMBER JOB. WE HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHERE IS THIS PROPERTY PANEL. DO WE KNOW IF IT'S ANY STUART OR IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE IN JUST SOUTH OF EAST STUART? OKAY, AND ARAPAHOE SHOWED IT RIGHT HERE. IT'S SOUTH OF 16TH STREET. OKAY. AND THE NEXT QUESTION IS SORRY, THERE WERE TWO PARTS I SHOULD HAVE SAID. THAT IS SO YOU HAVE THREE OWNERS. IS THERE IS IT MEANS TESTED WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN FINANCIAL BRACKET TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM? NO. WE JUST LOOK AT THE PROPERTY VALUE, NOT PROPERTY VALUE. SO PROPERTY VALUE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT EITHER. NO, IT WAS. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IDENTIFIED IT AS THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEN WE CAME UP WITH A VALUE. I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE OF THE HEIRS WHO ACTUALLY COULD AFFORD TO DO THEIR PROBATE, AND WHY WOULD THE CITY WANT TO PAY FOR IT? SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. BOARD MEMBER JAMES, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED WE'VE GOTTEN A LIST, AND WE'VE CONTACTED AT LEAST HALF OF THE PEOPLE ON THE LIST WITH PEOPLE THAT WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE PEOPLE THAT OWNED THE HOUSES. I HAVE PEOPLE THAT KNOW PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOUSES. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. PEOPLE ARE NOT JUST FREE TO JUST SAY, HEY, COME ON AND HELP ME. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE MAY BE SOME TRUST ISSUES. AND SO I HAD SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS THE PEOPLE AND THEY'VE BEEN REACHING OUT. AND WE SHOULD HAVE SOME APPLICATIONS FOR YOU. NOW THE INCREASE I'M ALL FOR IT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THEY CAN'T AFFORD AND YOU KNOW, AND SO WHATEVER THE CITY CAN DO TO HELP THEM TO GET THEIR TITLE, TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE BLIGHT IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. MR. VICE MAYOR, SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS EFFECTIVELY TRIPLING THE BUDGET FOR THIS PROGRAM BY GOING FROM 3000 TO 9000. NOW, THE BUDGET DID NOT. THE BUDGET IS REMAINING AT 25,000. THE PROGRAM. AND IT'S JUST THIS ONE. THE AGENDA ITEM IS BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF A ONE OFF. SHE OPENED UP THE ESTATE OR GOT THE LAWYER TO DO THE ESTATE. 
          THEY OPENED IT UP AND THEY REALIZED THAT IT'S NOT A SINGLE CASE NUMBER ESTATE, THAT IT REQUIRES. THREE ALTHOUGH YOU GUYS HAD ALREADY AUTHORIZED UP TO $25,000, THE CRA BOARD ONLY AUTHORIZED $3,000 PER PROPERTY, BUT OVER TIME IT'S EFFECTIVELY TRIPLED. BUT IF YOU VOTE YES ON THIS, IT DOESN'T AUTHORIZE THE NEXT PROPERTY TO BE $9,000. IF IN FACT, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT COMES BACK, WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU AS WELL. YOUR POLICY COULD STILL BE THERE UNLESS YOU SAY UNTIL THE NEXT AMENDMENT THAT CHANGES IT FROM 25 TO 100. THAT'S THAT'S GOOD. 
          THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. OBVIOUSLY, IF IT'S WORKING, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPEND $10,000 PER PROPERTY. IF IT'S MAKING A BENEFIT. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD CONSIDER. I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS. I THINK THERE IS RISK HERE IN. IT. 
          IT SOUNDS NICE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES, BUT. SOMETIMES THE WAY THINGS WORK ORGANICALLY SEEMS TO WORK THE BEST, RIGHT? AND TO SOME EXTENT, THE MESSINESS OF THE TITLES IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE CITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT HAS 
          [00:50:03]
ALLOWED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT COMMUNITY, TO. AVOID GENTRIFICATION. YOU KNOW, LIKE THEY'RE ABLE IT'S MESSY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IDEAL AND CLEAN ON PAPER, BUT BECAUSE TITLE IS SO MESSY, ANY STEWART, IT HAS KEPT THE STEWART E STEWART. SO I AM HESITANT TO POTENTIALLY DO THIS. AND. WITHOUT SOME KIND OF SAFEGUARD TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, THAT THERE'S SOME TIME FRAME ON NOT SELLING THAT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, AND IF THE INTENT IS TO SELL, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN A PROBATE PROCESS AS PART OF SELLING THE HOUSE. AND THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR PEOPLE TO SELL THEIR HOUSES IN EAST STEWART EFFECTIVELY. BOARD MEMBER JOB. OKAY, MAYBE I MISREAD THIS. IT MADE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS A BLANKET. WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM THE PROBATE TO SEVERAL PROBATES. THIS IS JUST FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL FREE PROBATE PROPERTY. I MEAN PROPERTY FROM PROPERTY, ONE PROPERTY. IT COULD HAVE MULTIPLE PROBATE, OKAY. AND EACH PROBATE COSTS $3,000. SO IN THIS CASE, TWO PROBATES HAVE TO BE DONE ON ONE SINGLE PROPERTY. 
          AND SO THE COST WOULD BE $6,000 PER PROPERTY FOR THIS CASE. OKAY. NOW I UNDERSTAND, BUT I AGREE WITH VICE MAYOR COLLINS. WE SHOULDN'T BE FUNDING THIS. IF A FAMILY COMES TO TERMS WITH WE'VE PAID FOR THE PROBATES. THEY NOW HAVE CLEAR TITLE AND THEY SELL IT. THERE SHOULD BE A MECHANISM THAT THE CITY COULD THEN RECOUP THAT MONEY. BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY, THE GOAL HERE WAS SO THAT PEOPLE COULD IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY, TAKE LOANS ON IT AND THOSE THINGS NOT TO GO AND TURN AROUND AND JUST SELL IT. SO I THINK IF THERE IS A SALE INVOLVED AT CLOSING, THE CITY SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THOSE FUNDS. SO I COULD WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE WE CAN. THE COURT. OKAY. SHOULD I FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO? BOARD MEMBER OH, I THOUGHT MIKE. MIKE, YOU SAID THAT THAT WOULD BE TREATED JUST LIKE HOW WE DO THE OTHER CDBG. I, I DIDN'T I SAID THAT WE HAVE A PROGRAM WITH THE CBD THAT THE STATE DOES AND THE CITY DOES, BUT THEY HAVE TO SIGN A THREE YEAR LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. 
          IS IT PRORATED? IT'S NO, IT'S WITHIN 36 MONTHS PAY BACK WHATEVER IT WAS. OKAY. AND I THINK IT'S UP TO $80,000 FOR THE CDBG GRANTS. IT'S THE DISCRETION OF YOU GUYS. I THREW THAT OUT THERE JUST BECAUSE THAT'S A METHOD, BECAUSE YOU HAD BROUGHT IT UP. AND I WAS JUST SAYING, LOOK, THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THREE YEARS IS WHAT YOU GUYS DEEM APPROPRIATE. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF IT. I MEAN, WHATEVER THE BOARD'S UTILITY LIEN. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO HOOK UP THE SEWER IN THE CITY OF STUART IS MAKE A PHONE CALL. NO MONEY. NO. NO NOTHING. YOU SAY I WANT TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER. WE SEND A GUY OUT THERE THE FOLLOWING WEEK. THEY FILL YOUR SEPTIC TANK IN, THEY CONNECT YOU TO SEWER. YOU'RE COMPLETELY HOOKED UP. AND THEN WE GIVE YOU, ESSENTIALLY AN INTEREST FREE LOAN TO PAY THE BALANCE OF IT OVER THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS SO THAT IT GETS PAID. BUT WHEN WE DO THAT, WE SIGN A LIEN SO THAT IF YOU SELL THE PROPERTY DURING THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS, WE GET PAID BACK IN FULL AND WE COULD DO THE SAME THING HERE. IT COULD BE A PLEASURE, BUT IT COULD BE A LEAN FOR 36 MONTHS THAT IF 36 MONTHS IS EXPIRED, IT'S FORGIVEN. OR IS POINTED OUT WANTS IT TO BE. WHENEVER IT SELLS, YOU CAN BE PAID BACK AND DISCRETIONARY. I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS, AND WHATEVER THOSE REASONS WERE PUT UP THERE, IS TO TRY TO GET TO STIMULATE SOME, SOME REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. 
          PEOPLE WHO HAVE THROUGH GENERATIONS HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DEAL WITH THEIR PROPERTY ISSUES. 
          THIS IS A WAY FOR THEM TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT 3 OR $4000 TO GO HIRE AN ATTORNEY STRAIGHT UP. AND SO THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY. AND I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES NEED TO HAVE THAT LEG UP. AND SOMETIMES THEY NEED TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO THAT EVEN PLAYING FIELD, NOT EVERYBODY'S ON THAT EVEN PLAYING FIELD YET. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BEING DEVELOPED. AND WHEN PEOPLE GET SO FRUSTRATED WITH IT, THIS IDEA OF GENTRIFICATION, YES, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY WHEN THEY CAN'T. THE FAMILIES CAN'T GET TOGETHER AND THEY CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. FOR THE ONE PERSON WHO'S HERE, WHO'S LIVING IN THE PROPERTY AND REALLY NEEDS TO GET 
          [00:55:04]
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPAIRS AND TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, AND PROBABLY THAT RELATIVE WILL SAY, IF YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF IT, THEN WE'LL YOU YOU CAN DO IT AS LONG AS YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF IT. SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS THING, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS TIT FOR TAT. AND WE DO THIS. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO GET PAID OR YOU'RE GETTING THIS FREE. THERE ARE JUST THIS IS THE WAY THAT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS NEED TO WORK IN ORDER TO STIMULATE THE COMMUNITY AND TO STIMULATE REDEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM. I THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT IF WE DO NEED TO PUT SOME GUIDELINES, JUST LIKE WE HAVE WITH THE HABITAT HOMES, IF NOTHING IS SOLD WITHIN THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS, THEN YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE LOAN IS FORGIVEN. 
          THAT'S FINE. BUT I THINK THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S THE ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO AT LEAST NOT FEEL LIKE THEY'RE SO STRAPPED IN. THEIR NECK IS UP AGAINST THE WALL. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR GENERATIONS, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY TO JUST STOP AND GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO MOVE FORWARD. COMMISSIONER GORDON. I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN. I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM, BUT THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE TAXPAYER NOT TO BE REIMBURSED AT THE POINT OF SALE. TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, IF THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD, THEY'RE MAKING MONEY. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE SELLING IT FOR. THEY'RE SELLING IT FOR A PROFIT AND FOR THE CITY TAXPAYERS TO BE REIMBURSED BACK FOR 6000 OR 9000. I DON'T SEE THAT AS UNREASONABLE WHEN YOU'RE FRONTING THE MONEY. BASICALLY, THE CITY WOULD BE FRONTING THE MONEY SO THAT THAT SALE COULD TAKE PLACE. IF IT'S NOT A SALE, THEN THEY'VE HAD A LEG UP TO BE ABLE TO GET A LOAN OR WHATEVER TO DO A HOUSE IMPROVEMENT. COMMISSIONER. MEMBER. YOU KNOW, THE WE HAVE A PROGRAM. WE HAD A PROGRAM LIKE THIS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COLLINS. THE YOU KNOW, IT IT DOES MAKE SOME SENSE. THAT PROGRAM HAD A PAYBACK. IT ACTUALLY HAD TWO PROGRAMS. IT WAS, I THINK 7000 AND THEN 9000 THAT YOU COULD USE AS A DOWN PAYMENT. THE FIRST ONE THAT CAME OUT, YOU HAD TO PAY IT BACK NO MATTER WHAT, WHENEVER THAT WAS KIND OF A BAD THING FOR PEOPLE, BECAUSE NOW THESE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR TEN YEARS AND THEY'RE GETTING HIT WITH THIS COST. BUT THEY HAD THE OTHER ONE THAT IF YOU WERE IN IT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, THEN THAT THAT WAS FORGIVEN. AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. WE CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU'RE IN THE PROPERTY FOR FIVE YEARS, OR MAYBE IF YOU PUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE PROPERTY, THE LIEN GETS RELEASED. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE GET PAID BACK IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. YEAH. THAT'S I, I THINK THAT THAT'S MAKES DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROGRAM. IT'S STILL I THINK IT MAKES IT GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. 
          RIGHT. THEY WOULD THEY WOULD STILL RECEIVE THE MONEY. AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN INCREASE IN VALUE IMMEDIATELY ON THAT PROPERTY, IMMEDIATELY GET AN INCREASE. SO ANYWAY I MEAN THREE YEARS IS A FAIRLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, RIGHT. WHERE ARE WE. SO, SO WAIT. SO I'M JUST I'M LISTENING AND I'M THINKING, SO THE BEFORE THIS MEETING STARTED TODAY, THE PROGRAM WAS IN PLACE AND THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO COULD HAVE HAD TEN APPLICANTS AND ALL THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT. SO THE ONLY REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE AN APPLICANT HAD MORE THAN ONE PROBATE REQUIRED. SO INSTEAD OF 3000 IT GOES TO SIX OR SO. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, NO MATTER WHAT POLICIES YOU GUYS DECIDE RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY THING YOU'RE VOTING ON TODAY IS THIS $9,000 ISSUE. IF THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT WE COME BACK AND AMEND THE POLICY TO INCLUDE A MORTGAGE IN THIS OTHER STUFF, WE'LL HAVE TO RETURN WITH ANOTHER CITY COMMISSION OR CRA MEETING AS IT RELATES TO THIS $9,000 POLICY THAT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTION COULD BE AMENDED TO HAVE A CONDITION, AND THAT CONDITION WOULD BE WHATEVER YOU ADD. GOT IT. SO WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING IT BECAUSE THERE'S KIND OF THIS EXCEPTION SITUATION. OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT EVEN BE. ALL THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT IN ANY CONCERNS ABOUT RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY OR MANY OTHERS PERHAPS. PROPERTIES, EIGHT PROPERTIES. AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE DISCUSSING WHETHER THAT'S A GIVEAWAY OR INAPPROPRIATE OR WHATEVER. SO I GUESS MY I WANT TO ASK WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST? IS IT THE CONCEPT, THE OBJECTIVES? IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE NOT SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVES, ONLY THE PRINCIPLE? OR IS IT THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT? SO WHY WHY ARE WE PROTESTING NOW VERSUS BEFORE? HOW LONG IS IT. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. BUT WE JUST ADOPTED THIS BACK IN OCTOBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO, I GOT YOU. BUT IT WAS STANDING RIGHT. AND THEN AND AGAIN, UNLESS THE FIRST ONE 
          [01:00:01]
HAPPENED TO BE AN EXCEPTION, IT COULD HAVE. IT COULD HAVE COMPLETED THE WHOLE PROGRAM. SO THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL. I MEAN. THE PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT, ISN'T AS EVERY SINGLE YEAR IT GETS TWEAKED OR ADDED. AND IT ORIGINALLY HAD HURRICANE WINDOWS WERE ALLOWED AND THEN HURRICANE WINDOWS WERE TAKEN OUT AND THEN IT TENANTS WERE ALLOWED AND THEN TENANTS WEREN'T ALLOWED AND THEN TENANTS WERE ALLOWED AGAIN. AND SO THE EVOLUTION OF IT IS THAT AS YOU DO THE PROGRAM, YOU KIND OF LEARN FROM IT. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE INSTITUTED THE PROGRAM KNOWING REALLY NOTHING. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE GOING TO FACE. WE DIDN'T KNOW. BUT YOU KEPT IT AT 25, WHICH WAS A SMART THING TO DO, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. YEAH, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF EVERYONE WAS GOING TO BE RIGHT. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST WONDERING IF, I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, THIS THIS BODY, I GUESS, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUCH A PROGRAM BASED ON THE CONCEPT WITH A CERTAIN BUDGET, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS NOW THE CONCERN, IS IT THE BENEFIT, THE BUDGET AMOUNT, OR IS IT WAY BACK TO THE FIRST STEP AND YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ACTUALLY THE CONCEPT? THAT'S WHAT I'D, I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW. THE PROTEST. IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE, DO WE THINK THE CONCEPT IS GOOD BUT JUST THE EXECUTION ISN'T QUITE RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, THIS RESTRICTION OF, WELL, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY GOING TO GET A FREE 3000 OR 6000, SELL THE HOUSE SIX MONTHS LATER, AND THEN THE CITY JUST GAVE THEM THIS BENEFIT. I THINK THE MOTION WAS BASED ON CHANGING IT FROM PER PURE PER PROPERTY TO PER PROBATE. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE MOTION IS ABOUT. THAT'S INCORRECT. NO PROPERTY. RIGHT? NO. PER PROBATE. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY FOR PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHAT THE. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS FOR THIS IS FOR THIS. WE HAD ORIGINALLY SET THAT TO BE PER PROPERTY. YEAH I GOT WE'RE NOW WE'RE SAYING PER PROBATE SO IS EVERYBODY. IS EVERYBODY HAPPY TO DO THAT TO. I, I THINK THE NATURE OF THIS CONVERSATION DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE'S SOME MORE THAN JUST THAT THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED HOW THE PROGRAM AND POTENTIALLY EVEN MIKE COULD THIS BE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S TABLED AND THEN BROUGHT BACK AS A MORE DEFINED RESOLUTION WITH THOSE TYPES OF PARAMETERS RIGHT NOW VERSUS JUST DOING THIS RIGHT NOW? PROPERTY THAT HAS ATTORNEY ENGAGED TO SAYING WE NEED $10,000. SO BEFORE WE SET A PRECEDENT WITH ONE, BEFORE THIS BECOMES REALLY A CODIFIED THING WHERE WE HAVE FORMALIZED. ITSELF, WILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT MEETING. ANYWAY, BEFORE WE FORMALIZE THIS, BY TAKING ACTION WITH THIS FIRST PERSON BUTTON, BUTTONING THIS UP BASED ON THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD. IF WE WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE PARAMETERS AROUND REPAYMENT AND LOAN. YEAH. 
          IT WOULDN'T. BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING FOR ONE PERSON THAT WE END UP NOT DOING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BY VOTE. RIGHT. AND SO WE COULD OFFER AN AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW TO THAT. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO. YEAH. YEAH I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE ADD AN AMENDMENT. 
          YEAH. YEAH. WE. OH, SORRY. THERE'S A PENDING MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED ON THE FLOOR. 
          OKAY. SECOND THAT. I WOULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CONSIDER A. RESTRICTION OR A I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT LEGAL TERM IS, BUT WHAT LAURA WAS SPEAKING TO SO THAT THERE WOULD BE A REPAYMENT OR YOU COULD NOT SELL THE PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS. OR IF THEY DO, THEN THEY REPAY THE MONEY TO THE STATE. IT WOULDN'T BE TO ME. IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSIONER CLARK TO AMEND HER MOTION. THERE WE GO. HER MOTION IS TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY, AND THE POLICY CURRENTLY SAYS $3,000 PER PROPERTY. THE PER PROPERTY, OUR PROPERTY. CURRENTLY WE'RE AT PROPERTY. THE STAFF IS SUGGESTING TO AMEND THE POLICY. YES, TO INCREASE UP TO 9000 PER PROPERTY, BUT UP TO 3000 PER PROBATE. CLEAR? YES. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE HAD NO APPLICANTS BUT ONE. AND THE ONE THAT APPLIED HAD TWO NEEDS. IT'S TWO, IT'S TWO. IT'S POTENTIALLY. 
          BUT WE THIS IS FIRST OFF, IF THIS IS THE ONLY APPLICANT WE HAVE. SO WE'VE NOT SPENT ANYTHING. SO THERE COULD BE. YEAH I MEAN IF, IF SOMEBODY DIED WITH 11 CHILDREN AND FIVE OF THOSE CHILDREN DIED IT'D BE SIX. LEE DO YOU MIND? THE CITY WOULD LIMIT THEIR PARTICIPATION IF THEY CAN'T DO IT AND THAT'S IT. IT WOULD. IT'S FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT. BUT WE'D HAVE TO LIMIT IT IN THE MOTION. AND THEN ALSO, IT'S ALREADY LIMITED. LEE, DO YOU DO YOU MIND CLARIFYING OR TRYING TO SUMMARIZE? WELL, WE'RE NOT COMMISSIONER JOBS. WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THIS ONE PROPERTY. THE AMENDMENT WAS TO AMEND THE POLICY. CORRECT. SO CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE, THE ONLY APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT IT 
          [01:05:09]
BE PER, PER PER PROBATE BECAUSE THE GRANDMOTHER DIED AND HAD SONS AND ONE OF THE SONS DIED. 
          SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROBATE FOR THE GRANDMA AND THEN AND THEN THE SON, THE SON HAD DIED HAS TO HAVE A SEPARATE PROBATE. SO IT WOULD BE 6000 FOR THIS PROPERTY. IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT, THE AMENDMENT, THEN IT'S CAPPED AT 3000 PER PROPERTY. SO WE'RE JUST I HEARD DISCUSSION THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING THIS ONE ISSUE. WE'RE NOT WE'RE THE MOTION WAS ON THE POLICY AS IT IS WRITTEN BUT PER BUT PER SOME OF THE OFFERED AMENDMENT TO THAT AMENDMENT. DO YOU THINK YOU COULD HELP SUMMARIZE FOR DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WHAT'S BEEN SUMMARIZED. NINE UP TO $9,000 PER PROPERTY AND $3,000 UP TO $3,000 PER PROBATE. BUT CURRENTLY THE POLICY IS JUST $3,000 PER PROPERTY. DOESN'T MATTER. I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M ASKING YOU TO HELP CHARACTERIZE AND SUMMARIZE WHAT COMMISSIONER JACOBY WAS REFERENCING WITH REGARD TO PUTTING STIPULATIONS ON THAT FOR A THREE YEAR TIME FRAME FOR A LOAN, FOR REPAYMENT. 
          WELL, THAT'S YOU'D BE HE CORRECT? HE ASKED. RIGHT. HE HE STARTED TO ME AND THEN BUT HE'S UNDER THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. YOU NEED TO WHEN THERE'S A PENDING MOTION ON THE FLOOR, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THE MOVING MEMBER COULD AMEND THEIR MOTION. IF NOT, WE GOT TO VOTE ON THAT. THAT MOTION. AND IF THAT DOESN'T PASS AGAIN, RIGHT, THEN YOU COULD HAVE A NEW MOTION WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. CAN I THINK I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO DO THAT BEFORE WE MOVE. YES. 
          MAKE A MOTION. LET'S MISTER MISTER BAGGETT AND MR. MORTELL AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE THIS IS JUST FOR THIS ITEM. IF WE WANTED OTHER THINGS IN THIS. BURP UP THAT BURP. 
          SORRY, THIS FIRST PROPERTY ORDINANCE TO CHANGE, WE'D HAVE TO BRING IT BACK OR FOR THIS LIMITED REASON, WE COULD AMEND SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO TO THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE, NOT JUST ABOUT THE AMOUNT FOR EACH CASE HERE BY PROBATE CASE, WE'RE DOING TWO THINGS. WE'RE CHANGING THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT SOMEBODY COULD DO A PROBATE WITHIN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, LIKE THREE TIMES, I GUESS. AND THEN OF COURSE, KEEP THE NUMBER BY THOSE CASE, EACH TIME AT $3,000. BUT ALSO THEY'RE SAYING THAT WHEN A PROPERTY IS INVOLVED WITH A PROBATE, THAT IF THE CITY IS FUNDS HAVE GONE INTO THAT PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH FUNDS HAVE GONE INTO IT, WHETHER IT'S UP TO 3000 OR 6000, 9000 THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD WITHIN THREE YEARS, THREE YEARS AFTER WITHIN THREE YEARS, THEN THE CITY COULD RECOUP, WHICH WOULD GO BACK INTO THE CRA FUNDS TO DO OTHER PROPERTIES. IT WOULD RECOUP THOSE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY. YES. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT ME TO AMEND MY MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF AND DO THAT? THAT'S WHAT. THAT'S WHAT I'M. ARE YOU AGREEING TO THAT, MR. BLACKWELL, WHO IS OUR SECOND? I WAS MR. BURKE. I WAS A SECOND. HE WAS A SECOND. AND I JUST HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE I. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. YEAH. 
          BEFORE WE START MAKING CHANGES, LET'S JUST SEE IF ONE EVEN WORKS. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING, IS JUST GOING TO SEE IF ONE WORKS. AND THEN AFTER THAT I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE RELATIVE TO THIS BEING PAID BACK REFUND REFUNDING INTO THE CRA TO REUSE IT IN THE PROGRAM. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL GREAT IDEAS, BUT CAN WE JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST THAT WE'VE GOT ONE SO FAR THAT SHOWED AN INTEREST AND NOBODY'S GOT THROUGH IT ALL THE WAY YET? I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA JUST TO SEE THE PROGRAMS IN PLACE. LET'S SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE EVEN CARES ABOUT IT. I MEAN, IF WE WOULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY. I KNOW YOU SAID THE MOTION IS TO KEEP THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT. 
          I WAS SAYING THAT I WAS KEEPING MY ORIGINAL SECOND, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. SHE'S ALREADY CHANGED HER MOTION. NO, I HAVEN'T CHANGED IT. I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ME TO AMEND IT, AND I ASKED MARK IF HE WANTED. IF MARK DOESN'T WANT TO AMEND IT, I'LL. OKAY. PLEASE VOTE ON MY MOTION TO JUST ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. CAN I MAKE ONE CORRECTION HERE? YOU BOTH KEEP 
          [01:10:05]
SAYING IT'S ONE WE'RE NOT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE VOTING ON CHANGING THE LANGUAGE. NOT FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL. IT WOULD BE GOING FORWARD. THERE WOULD BE. RIGHT? YES. NO, IT'S NOT IT'S CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN THERE. RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER JAMES. YES. BOARD MEMBER. REED. 
          NO. BOARD MEMBER. CLARK. YES. VICE CHAIR. COLLINS. NO. CHAIR. RICH. AND BOARD MEMBER. 
          BRECHBILL. YES. BOARD MEMBER. JOB. NO. SO. ALL RIGHT, I'D MOVE THAT. WE MODIFY THE PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR UP TO $3,000 PER PROBATE AND A TOTAL OF $9,000 PER PROPERTY, AND THAT IF AND THAT, THAT MONEY HAS TO BE PAID BACK. IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD WITHIN A THREE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. OKAY. CORRECT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT? PROPERTY. OKAY. SO. OWNER AND EVERYTHING LIKE. 
          YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. AND SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THE OWNER STILL COULD SELL IT. WE'RE NOT RESTRICTING THE SALE. NO, BUT WE WOULD TAXPAYER GETS REIMBURSED. RIGHT I THINK THAT'S FAIR. 
          EVERYBODY WINS. YEAH. AND LOOKING UP THE PROPERTY TO. YEAH I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WANT TITLES. YEP. YEAH. YEAH. THE CITY WILL STILL PAY THEM THE MONEY. YEAH. YES. AND THEN HOW THEY WANT TO GO FORWARD IS A LAWYER THAT THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT EXCEPT THE TITLE. 
          YES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY ANY BOARD MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY. LIFE GOES ON FOR 40 MORE YEARS. YEAH. AFTER THREE YEARS YOU GOTTA RELEASE SOMETHING. RELEASE A LIEN OR SOMETHING. LEGALLY. CORRECT. THAT COULD BE. AN ISSUE IN THE CRA IS TO REINVIGORATE BLIGHTED AREAS AND GIVE THE MONEY BACK TO THE COMMUNITY TO GENERATE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED AS LAND THAT COULD GIVE THE MONEY AWAY. IT'S NOW BEING RESTRICTED TO. 
          IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT GRANT. IT'S ONLY A GIVE AWAY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS. VERY SIMILAR TO THE GRANT AS WELL. THE COST OF THOSE DOLLARS OVER 40 YEARS. GETTING THE BACK IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THREE YEARS. YEAH. THANK YOU. MIKE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE WANT TO DO THREE YEARS FOR ALL LIKE UP TO 9000. SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT. LIKE IF THEY'RE ONLY RECEIVING ASSISTANCE FOR $3,000, SHOULD IT BE THEY WOULD HAVE TO RETURN IT IF THEY SELL WITHIN ONE YEAR, YOU KNOW, $6,000 ASSISTANCE, THEY HAVE TO PAY BACK THE WHOLE THING OR JUST THREE. OKAY. THAT'S FINE, THAT'S FINE. JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR INPUT ON THAT, THE WHOLE THING BACK SIMPLER IS BETTER ALWAYS. OKAY. 
          ROLL CALL, PLEASE. BOARD MEMBER. REED. YES. BOARD MEMBER. JOB. YES. CHAIR. RICH. YES. VICE CHAIR. COLLINS. BOARD MEMBER. BRECHBILL. YES. BOARD MEMBER. JAMES. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER. 
          CLARK. YES. MOTION SECONDED. THE MOTION. CLERK. BOARD MEMBER. CLARK. OH. BOARD MEMBER. CLARK. 
          YOU'LL SECONDED. REVERSE OF THE FIRST. CLARK. I'M JUST REVERSE OF THE FIRST. NO. DID YOU HEAR HER RESPOND? OKAY. MR. HOGARTH, YOU'RE UP. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS BEN HOGARTH, 
          [3. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION - LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FOR THE 2025 FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE SESSION]
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING STATED. AND RIGHT NOW, DID ANYTHING CHANGE? I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATURE PARTICULARLY CLOSE LAST TWO WEEKS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A SUPER FORMAL PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. JUST A QUICK UPDATE FOR CRA PURPOSES. ONE OF THE BILLS THAT CAME UP DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, PROBABLY 
          [01:15:04]
FOR THE ONES FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, A CRA BILL CAME UP AND WAS LOOKING AT THE TERMINATION OF CRAS AROUND THE STATE, TIMING IT OUT. AND OTHER STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA HAVE DONE THIS WHERE THEY'VE THEY'VE SET UP TIME FRAMES FOR WHEN CRAS TERMINATE. WHEN CRAS ARE FIRST INITIATED, THEY HAVE A 30 OR 60 YEAR TIME SPAN. SO THE TERMINATION OF CRAS IS NOT ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S PROBLEMATIC. WHAT CAME UP IN THE SESSION THIS YEAR? HOUSE BILL 991, AS ONE OF THE BILLS WE WERE RECENTLY WATCHING HAS NOW BEEN SUPPLEMENTED. AND NOW WE HAVE SENATE BILL 110. THAT BILL WOULD TERMINATE CRAS IF IT'S ADOPTED BY THE SENATE. IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE AS WE SPEAK. IF IT'S ADOPTED BY THE SENATE, AND THERE'S A SMALL CHANCE THAT THAT COULD STILL HAPPEN, ALL CRAS WOULD TERMINATE REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT SAYS IN THEIR IN THEIR OWN PLAN BY 2045. 
          AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD TO KNOW, I THINK AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN YEAR AFTER YEAR, BUT PARTICULARLY EVERYTHING'S STARTING TO, TO, TO GET MORE REFINED AND MORE SPECIFIC. IS THAT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IS KIND OF HONED IN ON BONDING AND HOW CRAS DO THEIR PROJECTS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF CRAS, SOME COULD COULD SAY EVEN THIS CRA HAS NOT DONE A LOT OF HUGE REDEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. AND REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE CRA IS TODAY, WHAT THE BILL WOULD HAVE DONE WAS STOP US FROM DOING ANY PROJECTS AFTER OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR, ANY NEW PROJECTS THAT WE HADN'T BONDED, THAT WE HADN'T HAD APPROPRIATED. 
          THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN THANKFULLY AMENDED AT THIS POINT. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO NOW IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE DOCKET IN THE CRA PLAN PROBABLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE CRA AND BY THE COMMISSION IN THE NEAR FUTURE FOR BEING ADDED AND KIND OF HAVING THE PLAN BE WRAPPED UP IN, IN A, IN A TIDY BOW OF WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS FOR REALLY THE NEXT 20 YEARS, BECAUSE WE FULLY EXPECT, EVEN IF THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR, WE'LL SEE ANOTHER VERSION OF IT THAT COULD BE EVEN STRONGER, COULD SAY ALL BILLS OR ALL BONDS NEED TO COME DUE BY A CERTAIN DATE. THEY'LL RUN INTO LEGAL CHALLENGES THEN AGAIN. BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING TIME AND TIME AGAIN IS THAT THE CRAS ARE BEING REQUIRED TO KIND OF PUT UP OR SHUT UP. THERE'S REALLY THERE'S NOT REALLY A BETTER COLLOQUIALISM FOR IT. IT'S ACTUALLY IF YOU YOU TAX PEOPLE NOW YOU NEED TO DO PROJECTS, NOW YOU NEED TO NOW YOU NEED TO DO PROJECTS. WHETHER IT'S BONDING, HOWEVER YOU LEVERAGE YOUR MONEY, YOU'VE TAXED THESE PEOPLE. YOU NEED TO DO PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THE CRA. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE KIND OF GOING FORWARD. I, I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHAT EACH CRA NEEDS TO DO OR WANTS TO DO IN IN THAT ALSO INCLUDES THIS CRA. IT'S JUST IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO TAKE THIS MESSAGE FROM WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE DELIBERATIONS THIS YEAR AND IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THIS BILL PASSES OR NOT, THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN LOUD AND CLEAR THAT CRAS NEED TO START DOING PROJECTS IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE. AND BECAUSE THEY'RE LEVERAGING COUNTY FUNDS, THEY'RE LEVERAGING CITY FUNDS TAX, TAXABLE FUNDS. WE NEED TO USE THOSE FUNDS TOWARDS PROJECTS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE VISION OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE FOR THE CRA, I THINK IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. THE BOARD STARTS THINKING ABOUT THAT. AND COINCIDENTALLY ENOUGH, THE SECOND THING THAT WAS JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY MENTION IS THAT WE HAD A THE COMMISSION HAD APPROVED PREVIOUSLY ONE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR THIS YEAR. IT'S OUR SECOND TIME REQUESTING MONEY FOR THE GUY DAVIS PROJECT. WE ARE THANKFULLY ON BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE BUDGETS. AND AS YOU'VE SEEN, IT'S BEEN KIND OF THEY'RE KIND OF BEEN BATTLED THE TWO CHAMBERS RIGHT NOW. THEY MIGHT GO INTO A SPECIAL OR AN EXTENDED SESSION. THE GOOD NEWS IS OUR PROJECT IS STILL IN BOTH BUDGETS, A QUARTER OF A MILLION AND A HALF A MILLION, RESPECTIVELY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT FOR OUR PROJECT AT THE END. WE'RE IN A GOOD POSITION, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION THAT THE CRA, THAT THE CRB, ALL THE BOARDS REALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THESE LEGISLATORS OR THE LEGISLATORS AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF IS SAYING AS A WHOLE TO CITIES, BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, COME GOOD ON THIS, THIS BILL THIS YEAR, THEY'VE THREATENED THIS CONSISTENTLY EVERY YEAR FOR THE LAST DECADE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR THAT MESSAGE TO BE KIND OF LOUD AND CLEAR, THAT WE REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT PROJECTS OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR POINT OF VIEW IS WHY DO YOU EVEN HAVE A CRA. SO WITH THAT SAID, I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME. I REALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST BRING UP THE CRA BILL. 
          THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHERS IN THE COMMISSION HEARD ME JUST TWO WEEKS AGO TALK ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER PROBLEMATIC BILLS THAT WE'RE WATCHING THAT WE SHOULD SEE FINAL DISPOSITION THIS WEEK BY PROBABLY THURSDAY AT THE LATEST. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. THANK THE VERY GOOD NEWS OUT OF THE LEGISLATURE. THANK YOU, MR. HOGARTH. SEEING NO OTHER ITEMS FOR OUR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.