Affordable Housing Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

It is 03:45PM on Tuesday, March 17, and I'm calling this meeting of the city of Ocala Community Redevelopment Area Agency Board to order.

Clerk,

do the public notice?

Roll call.

Roll call?

Yeah. Mister Musley? Here. Mister Eyre? Here. Mister Hilti? Here. Mister Mansfield?

Here.

Mister Bethe?

Now will you do the public notice.

The public notice for the March 17 CRA meeting was

Thank you. If everyone have had an opportunity to review them, I will entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Are there any comment comments from the public? Having none, are there any comments from the council? Clerk would call the roll.

Mister Musley? Aye. Mister Mansfield?

Aye. Mister

Eyre? Aye. Miss mister Hilty?

Aye.

Mr. Pathe?

Aye. Here. Item 5A is the reappointment of Wendy Cabrera to a four year term. Do I hear a motion to approve this item?

So moved.

Second.

Economic development manager, Roberto Ellis, is recognized for staff presentation.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Roberto Ellis, economic development manager. So miss Caberdal was appointed to the committee in on 03/18/2025. Since then, she has filled the unexpired term that ended 03/01/2026. There have been three meetings since she was appointed. She has been in attendance in each of those meetings. She's the CEO of Wear Gloves, a nonprofit located in in the CRA District. And staff recommends approval.

Are there any comments from the public? Any from the council? Call the road.

Mister Hilti.

Aye.

Mister Mansfield?

Aye.

Miss Dreyer?

Aye. But I think you had those reversed. Okay.

Musley. Aye.

Mister Mase.

Aye. Item five b is the reappointment of Rachel Perez to a new term. Do I hear a motion to approve?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Ellis, once again, you're recognized.

Thank you. Miss Perez has served on the East LaCala CRE advisory committee since 2022. She's applied to serve a new four year term which will end 03/01/2030. Over the last year, we've we've had six CRA meetings. She's been present for all of those meetings. This committee is made up of property owners and organizations representing the East Ocala CRA and staff is recommending

approval. Any comments from the public? Council? Call the roll.

Mister Dreyer aye Mr. Mansfield aye Mr. Musley aye Mr. Hilty aye Mr. Maffei

aye five c is the adoption of East Okela Redevelopment Agency residential property improvement grant application. Do I hear a motion?

So moved. Second.

Mister Ellis, once again, sir.

Thank you. This vacant parcel is located at the corner of Northeast 3rd Street and Northeast 10th Avenue within the East Ocala CRE district. The property owner TC Opportunity three LLC is proposing to construct a new single family home. This will be a three bed, two bath home with a single car garage with a total total livable area of 1,372 square feet. Upon completion, the home will be leased to a family at rates within the affordability threshold required by the city.

The based on the proposed project cost of $216,900 they would qualify for the maximum grant application. These improvements will be applied. Well, these this grant will be applied to the physical improvements of the property in our CRA. The goal three recognizes the need to improve vacant properties which hinder neighborhood revitalization. Currently, the property has a taxable value of less than $30.00. This will significantly increase that value once completed. Staff recommends approval.

Is there any comment from the public council?

I do. Yes, sir. I recognize the fact that this is going to be a property for affordable housing and things of that nature. I just have some concerns about the way it's happening. First off, if I look at the framework of CRA, it says that the single family and duplex homes within the CRA, this includes owner occupied and rental units.

But when I look at the application, application is by an individual, Robert Jenkins, and then you go farther down, there's no information under the business profile or anything of that nature. But when you look at the property appraisers account, it's owned by TC Opportunities LLC. So why is there ownership by a corporation and is being submitted by an individual person? I'm just not sure that the CRA was created for a housing unit. You know, when you talk about improving the property and the pictures of the property they have, it doesn't really need improvement.

Yes, it does need a house, but I mean it's a very well kept piece of property. So it doesn't seem like it fits that criteria.

But

as I look further, this TC Opportunity LLC owns like four pieces in that area. So are we going to be giving them 20,000 each time? It just to me it doesn't fit what the CRA is for and that's my concern. So I just need you to explain to me why we're doing something like this or for the city manager to explain why we're giving a company $20,000 and then according to the application they're then going to go in and request from the housing incentive fund reimbursement for building permits, water, sewer, fire impact fees. So I'm not sure we're doing the right thing here.

So on the subject matter of the applicant, Mr. Jenkins is the authorized representative of

Can you talk louder into the microphone?

Mr. Jenkins is the authorized representative of company that applied for the grant. The CRA accepts application from both companies and individual owners of properties located in the CRA currently. Our eligibility requirements allow any type of ownership to apply for a grant. As it relates to the improvements, the CRA grant specifically is being applied to the physical improvements of the property and also the affordable housing incentive fund offers reimbursement of the fees.

So there are two different cost items that the respective grants will be applied to if approved by the CRA council. So those opportunities for companies to build homes in our CRA, it serves a need in the community, as well as it helps to make these projects more feasible for the developer. In the end, that's what we're trying to do, add more housing in our CRA districts, increasing housing stability. If council or the CRA board would like us to take a look at what make, what are the eligibility criteria is we can do that but based on the current guidelines.

Mhmm.

The this applicant qualifies for a grant if the CRA board decides.

CRAs are different than other grants. This is actually doing what the CRA mission is. It's improving the value of the property. So when a house goes on the property it'll pay more taxes than it paid when it was worth less than $20,000 $3,030,000

dollars was the taxable value, yes.

So the taxable value will go up a couple $100,000. The thesis in CRA is that you'll use money inside the CRA district to improve properties inside the CRA district and so it's being used as a part of the plan. That's a stated part of the plan. As Roberto said, if we want to change the plan we can look at changing the plan.

I think you need to change the wording. Can see the benefit of it all but the wording says in your document it says this includes owner occupied and rental units. So I know Mr Jenkins is not going to live there.

It's going to be a rental unit.

Right. Well hopefully they'll sell it to somebody, maybe it'll be a rental but it just I don't know, it

just isn't quite Either way it has to meet the affordable standards. You know It has to be an affordable unit. How long does it

have to meet the affordable standards for?

Ten years. Is that

recovered by a claim on the deed or cloud on

the deed? Do we put a

lien on the property?

President, may I add to this? Sure. If I recall, Council President Bethea actually brought this up several months ago, and staff was supposed to go back and bring us some recommendations on how to tighten some of this stuff up because at one point, we had the same LLC applying for multiple grants at the same time on different properties that they owned, and there was some concern that that would eliminate owner occupants from taking advantage of the same opportunity. So I guess my question would be where are we on the recommendations that we had asked

Aubrey's not here. I know that they've been working on that. I think that there's a discussion that we're going have to have with counsel when we come back. My feeling is part of this is an educational process, getting the word out, kind of. The objective solely to me is to provide affordable housing units and to improve properties within the CRA.

That's the simple two goals. Regardless of it's home ownership, rental, it's that we provide houses for people and that we improve the CRA as we're supposed to and we stay within the guidelines of the rules. But if there are I think all of the plan elements, you know, we should look at as the CRA board and maybe bring all of those back, maybe one at a time over the course of several months. Maybe every other month we'll bring one of the CRAs back and look at those. Some are going to be universal, some things may be universal, and we'll weed through those.

Some of them are going be specific to a CRA or two, and we should discuss how we want to proceed with those. As I reviewed this today talked it over with Roberto, it is doing what the plan calls for it to do. It's increasing value of a piece of property within the CRA. It's providing affordable housing within the CRA.

And I would agree with

And it doesn't go beyond that

right now. But why do we accept an application in an individual's name and know information a business when we know it's a business.

Well, we knew it was a business.

So Yeah. But I mean, when you look at the application here, there's no mention of that business at all. It says Robert Jenkins as the resident residential property owner.

So that doesn't That's one of the things that the CRA staff checks when we're reviewing the applications. In the future, we can include the agreements of incorporation in the packet so that it's clear that this person is tied to this business.

Yeah. I think if the Sunbiz was included, you would see that he was a managing member, but it does there is a missing piece to

the Yeah. There's the first time this has happened. I mean, we need to tighten up on it. If it's going to be TC, it should be on there. It shouldn't be just Robert Jenkins.

The applicant has provided that information to us.

We don't dig on some of these things, we don't find it. And that's not right.

It's in this application that it's TC, the warranty is used to TC. There's something that you said, just so I'm clear, doesn't purport that he resides on this property. That's not

owned Residential Robert Jenkins.

He owns it, not that he lives there, but that he owns it. Yeah. And that

He doesn't own it.

Yeah. He's part of the He's a part of the ownership group. Yeah. That could be made clear. But, again,

it just to me, it's just not clear the way it

should be.

You know?

So what we're gonna do is work to make it clear.

Yes. Yes, sir.

Put it back to us. Okay?

Yes.

So is there any other I'll call the roll.

Mister Mansfield? Aye. Mister Muslik?

Aye. Mr. Dreyer?

Aye. Mr. Hilty?

No. And Mr. Aye. Item five b is the adoption of the addition of apostle 26297Dash00Dash01 to the city surplus property list. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Ellis, you're recognized once again.

Thank you. The CRA acquired this property in 2019. It's a vacant parcel located along the East side of North Magnolia Avenue. That's immediately south of Temple Cemetery. In 2020, we the city donated a portion of Lots 2 And 3 which is a part of the underlying plot, the original plot to the Temple Cemetery.

Since then, we have split the parcel in two, and there remains a triangular shaped section which we are now proposing to be added to the city surplus property. List. The adjacent larger southern parcel which comprises of 1.41 acres will be available for redevelopment opportunities consistent with our procurement guidelines and our land development regulations. Staff is requesting approval to move this forward. It will also be reviewed by the city council before it's posted if approved.

Is there any comments or concerns from the city council council person Drive.

So in your head, what do you envision happening with this? Because this looks like a useless piece of property to me.

So we've had interest from the cemetery in acquiring this parcel.

That would be the only thing that would make sense, or incorporating it, resurveying it and adding it to the other 1.41 acres, right? Correct.

Any other comments? Call the roll. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Munsley? Aye. Mr. Hilty? Aye. Mr. Buffet?

Aye. Are there any other public comments for the CRA? Having none, this meeting is adjourned. Ready for.