Affordable Housing Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good afternoon. It is 3.45 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, and I'm calling this meeting the order of the City of Ocala Community Redevelopment Area Agency Board. Clerk, will you call the roll?

Mr. Marciano?

Here.

Mr. Musley?

Here.

Ms. Dreyer? Here. Mr. Hilty?

Here.

Mr. Mansfield?

Here.

Mr. Bethea?

Here. Mr. WILL YOU PROVIDE THE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING?

THE JUNE 16, 2026 CRA MEETING WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED ON MAY 22, 2026 ON THE CITY OF OCALA'S WEBSITE. THANK YOU.

ITEM FOUR, IF ANYONE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO MOVED.

SECOND. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? ANY FROM THE COUNCIL? Having none, clerk, call the roll.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Hilty? Aye. Mr. Musley?

Aye.

Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Bethea?

Aye. Agenda item 5A is the approval of an East O'Kella CRA residential property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve this item? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Economic Development Manager Roberto Ellis is recognized for staff presentation.

Thank you, Roberta Ellis, Economic Development Manager, for the record. We have four applications from the East Ocala CRA meeting. These applications were on hold until the approval of additional funds in that CRA that was approved last month, so we are proceeding with these applications. The first project was submitted by TC Opportunity for LLC, and they are being represented by Veronica Bass and Robert Jenkins. The owners acquired this property back in February of this year. They have started making some improvements on their own, and they're requesting a CRA grant to complete other improvements that are covered by the grant. Currently, the proposed scope of work includes replacing the roof, putting in new windows, and adding insulation, as well as repainting the property. Based on the proposed scope, they would qualify for the maximum grant amount of $20,000. Staff recommends approval.

Is there any comments from the public? Comments from the council? Call the roll.

Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Musling?

Aye.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Hilty? Aye. Mr. Bethea?

Aye. Item 5B is the adoption of an East O'Kellar CRA residential property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve? I move. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Ellis, once again.

Thank you. With your permission, I'd like to do one presentation for items 5B, C, and D. They're all related, so I'll explain a little bit further.

Okay, sir.

So these three properties are owned by JFG Properties LLC, and that company's been represented by Ms. Joyce Gamache. The three properties are contiguous to each other. They're located along Northeast Seventh Terrace. The proposed scope of work are pretty similar across the three projects. They'll be replacing the windows of each home, as well as improving the fencing across all three properties. The existing fence is a combination of chain link and wooden fence. When all of the improvements are finished, they will be uniform in design and the material. It will become a six-foot bronze finish aluminum fence. Based on the proposed cost, the respective amounts are shown in the titles and staff is recommending approval.

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

Mr. Hilton.

Aye.

Ms. Dreyer. Aye. Mr. Musley.

Aye.

Mr. Mansfield.

Aye.

Mr. Bethea.

Aye. On 5B, Mr. Will, attorney. Yes, sir. We do have to do those individually as far as the voting.

You have to do the motion second and then vote for each one individually. Okay. Yes, because that was 5B. You just need to do C and D. All right.

5C. Hold on. Let me catch up. Is the adoption of the East Ocala CRA residential property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Are there any comments from the public? From the council? Call the roll.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Musling?

Aye.

Mr. Hilty?

Aye.

Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Bethea?

Aye. 5D, the adoption of an East O'Kella CRA residential property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Mr. Hilty?

Aye.

Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Musley?

Aye.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Bethea?

Aye. Item 5E. is the adoption of North Magnolia CRA commercial property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Ellis, you're recognized once again.

Thank you. So this property is located at 1811 Northeast Jacksonville Road. It was a previous location of the Rusty Nails of Ocala. They did receive a CRA grant award in 2018 under that business. The applicant recently acquired the building and will be making significant renovations to the property. The applicant is Exit Plans LLC being represented by Mr. Dinkins. Based on the proposed scope, they are doing other items that are not covered under the grant. So the estimated total improvements will exceed $115,000. Based on the eligible improvements, they would qualify for $17,233. The North Magnolia CRA did review this one and they recommend approval. Staff also recommends approval.

Any comment from the public? From council? Call the roll.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Hilty? Aye. Mr. Musley? Aye. Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Mr. Bethea?

Aye. 5-F. is the adoption of a West Ocala CRA commercial property improvement grant. Do I hear a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second? Second.

Thank you. This property is located along State Road 200, just before the northbound entrance to I-75. It's currently a blighted site. The applicant, Walla Coffey, is leasing the property from the owner, and they're proposing to construct a small modular coffee shop with some site improvements. And those improvements include parking, landscaping, and then construction of that building on the site. Based on the proposed scope, this qualifies as a new construction and vacant property, which is eligible in the West Ocala CRA grant. The projected cost will be approximately $220,000, and this makes them eligible for a grant of $50,000. Staff recommends approval. The West Ocala CRE Advisory Committee also recommends approval.

Any comments from the public? Council? Yes, I have a couple of questions. Go ahead, sir.

I just... I wonder if this is the right use of $50,000 from the CRA. There are coffee shops popping up all over the place. Some of them have already opened and closed. My first question is what kind of guarantee or clawback do we have if something like that happens to this location? Because there is a challenge getting in and out of that location. You can't get into it from the south. You can only do a U-turn, come back. So what ability do we have if this fails or gets sold to somebody else?

So our grant currently, it's a reimbursement grant. So once the project is completed, we'll pay the reimbursement. They'll have a period of five years where they'll have to keep all the improvements that the grant supported in place. If those are removed before the five-year period, then they'll have to pay whatever prorated portion of the grant is.

OKAY. BUT AGAIN, I STILL WONDER, THIS IS THE RIGHT USE OF, I MEAN, CRA DOLLARS ARE LIMITED. IS THIS THE RIGHT USE OF THOSE DOLLARS? YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBER HAS ANY FEELINGS ON THAT OR NOT. BUT, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE DO HAVE A LIMITED USE, I MEAN, A COFFEE SHOP OR A MODULAR COFFEE SHOP AT THAT, IT'S NOT EVEN A BUILDING THAT'S PERMANENT THERE.

I could not argue with you that this site is challenged to get to and from. I'm surprised that a modular building would qualify. Modular building to me means you could just pull it off in the middle of the night and be gone. I suppose it's not quite that easy.

This is modular on a slab?

I believe so.

I mean, we don't allow modular. Yeah, it's modular on a slab. It's not on wheels. It's just a type of construction, not so much, it's not like a mobile home.

Right. But it's leasehold improvements because they're not purchasing the land, correct?

Correct.

Aubrey Gale, Planning Director. So this project is also going through site plan review currently. So it is going to be, there is going to be some other site improvements that are going to be required, such as modifications to the driveways. There's going to be landscaping that has to be installed in order to be compliant. So it does take into, there is that modular component, which it is allowed in that zoning district. but overall it's going to be subject to site plan review requirements so there will be some other enhancements that will occur along with it but at the end of the day yes it is going to be a modular building it could be removed fairly easily and then it would be subject to another site plan at that point so and and what what recourse would we have against the landlord in it does the landlord consent to our They would have to sign off on the grant application itself, yes.

So do they give it, is our lien superior to any, what I'm getting at, is our lien superior to any clawbacks the landlord may have if the lease is terminated due to default?

I would have to look at the agreement that we have the applicant sign, and if the landlord is, signing it as well, then it would have to say that it either is in priority over whatever interest the landlord has or if we subordinate our interest to the landlord. Our agreement is with the tenant.

Yeah, in this case, the applicant is – Well, I understand.

I mean, I've done a lot of lending where you have an agreement with the tenant to do leasehold improvements, but then the landlord consents to it and agrees that your lien is superior to their interest as a landlord. So if we're doing that, then I think our interests are protected in the event this coffee shop fails. If not, then basically we've improved the landlord's property at our expense. Yeah.

Well, we did, I mean, we do that. We just did that for the Haagen-Dazs property downtown.

Actually, that's a part of the, yes. And that is a part of the process, you know, in as much as the improvements that you're putting on the property represent. It's also that the elimination of blight is the modifications to the site. This site's been a difficult site because of the access point. There's the northbound entry to I-75, and then there's a DRA, and then there's this property.

I think there was a partial taking from DOT with regards to the on this property for the enlargement of the drainage pond for the .

Yeah, so it's been a rough. THE GAS STATION WAS THERE WAS PROBABLY REMOVED ALMOST A DECADE AGO. 2016.

WHAT YEAR? 2016. 16.

YEAH, A DECADE.

GOOD GUESS. AND IT'S WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD MUCH INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE EXPLORED IN THE PAST IS CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENTS TO GET THE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS THAT WERE LOCKED IN AND HAD DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. We've come to council in years past, long years past, when some of these parcels, especially along the north side of State Road 200, were under consideration for development. We tried to do that, and that condition always got taken out.

I don't understand that. To me, that would make sense. If you access the Hudson's Furniture Lot or the Home Depot or the First Watch restaurant, that you'd have access to this site.

Seems like the default answer a lot of times is we don't want the liability on our property to cross. I don't know if that exists in other places.

I see that in other areas all the time where you have commercial development. We had that on East Silver Springs Boulevard.

Yes, we do. We're Silver City and... We have it in a lot of places. We have it in one-offs, right? We have it in places where we went to each owner and they agreed to it, but there were some that they didn't, and we could never get that put into policy or put into code.

Well, maybe that's something we need to look at.

Yes.

I mean, as traffic increases... We need to relook at the cross parallel access requirements.

Keep them off 200 by all means. Especially with now that you don't have median cuts, it's even more critical for some of these parts.

We do have some modifications in our site plan requirements that could, you know, make the, and as we're going through that site plan process, There are some things that we can ask for and work with the city engineer's office to try to get that cross access through the site plan. That is one of the requirements. Obviously, we have to get coordination through the other property owner to make sure that they can provide that as well, but we can request that through the site plan SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I MEAN, WE COULD TAKE THIS, BRING THIS BACK AND FOR, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND BRING IT BACK AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING IF YOU NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION.

I HAVE A QUESTION. DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT FIVE YEARS?

YES, SO ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE GRANT HAS TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR FIVE YEARS.

BUT DOES THAT INCLUDE THE MODULAR BUILDING?

CORRECT, YES.

So if it did not, then what recourse do we have?

So that's where we would demand a repayment of the grant. from the tenant.

At least that we are somewhat guaranteed five years. If not, we get the money back.

Right. Well, I'll go back over on this before. Trust me. I'll go back to... Oh, yeah. If it fails, it fails, and there is no shining night coming to the rescue.

I'll go back to my original question. Is this the smartest use of $50,000 from a CRA fund that's limited? To me, from a financial aspect, it does not fit that criteria. I realize that we're splitting hairs here also with the fact that it's not a permanent building, it's a modular building. So when I look at it from a financial aspect, this is not the best use of CRA dollars. That's just my opinion.

See, I'm okay with the modular concept now that it's kind of been explained to me, and I agree that that would be a great site. It's a very visible site, okay?

I don't think there's a lot you can do on this. Highest and best use is always something that, we talk about and are concerned about. I don't know what the highest and best use of this little sliver of a property is, though, especially with not having good access. I mean, this has been not in use for quite a long time. These people could have come before this board and asked for $50,000 for landscaping, and I would have said yes, because it looks horrible right there, especially when everything next to it is trying to improve. So, I mean, the West Ocala CRA, I think, has the largest fund balance of all of our CRAs, like over a million dollars? More than that. More than that. Okay. So, I mean, if the purpose is to overcome blight, it serves the purpose.

Well, I'm with it over, you know, doing away with blight. I'm with that. But one thing is... is it getting the best use for the dollars? And I will say at this point, it is. There's nothing else. Ten years. Ten years has been vacant.

I think, though, as part of our CRA conversation that we had last week, that instead of the grant being allocated to the tenant moving forward, we need to allocate it to the property instead. So the property owner applies. on behalf of the tenants, if the tenant goes out of business, that grant still stays with the property. And if they have to reimburse us, they reimburse us if they sell or whatever the procedure would be for that. They need to guarantee it.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. We can talk about this another time.

I think that better responds to Mr. Musley's concern as well because regardless of the order of priority of our property, repayment or the landlord, in the case where the tenant goes out of business or just disappears, neither one of us is getting our money, right, practically speaking, regardless of which one of us is first priority. They get the property back, though, and we get nothing.

Right. I think our goal is the improvements would stay on the property and the landlord would not have the right to destroy the improvements, to whatever extent destroy means.

Or they reimburse us.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Any further comment?

Mr. Mansfield?

Aye.

Ms. Dreyer? Aye. Mr. Musling? Aye. Mr. Hilty?

No.

Mr. Bethea?

Aye. Okay. Are there any public comments for the CRA agency board meeting? Having none, this meeting is adjourned.