Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'll call to order the agenda review session for the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 City Commission meeting to order. Could we hear a roll call, please?

Yes, sir. Commissioner Davis?

Here.

Commissioner Dollison?

Here.

Commissioner Birdsong?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Mercer? Here. And Mayor Yates?

Here. Okay, we'll have the invocation and pledge as normal. We've got a couple, three presentations, all of which looks like will be Tuesday.

Correct, sir.

Okay. And then we've got... One set of minutes to review.

I believe, LaTanya, is there going to be more added?

Yes, there will be two additional minutes. One for May 6th, agenda review session. And May 11th, the regular city commission meeting minutes will be added on the May 26th agenda.

Okay. And we just haven't republished in case there was anything that needed to change this evening. So following tonight, we will republish with just those added to it.

Okay. Sounds good. So let's go into ordinances second reading. We've got an ordinance 026-12. City attorney? Well. Or city manager?

I think I can take these. Okay. Go for it. So, and on these, this first one, this again is the rezoning request from Beacon 6 Holdings. This is a single parcel. that is going to be joined with three other parcels to construct a convenience store with fueling services there at the northwest corner of the intersection of MLK Boulevard and First Street. There's been no changes that I'm aware of since you've had first reading, so this is just coming to you for second reading. Again, changing the zoning of that one parcel from MX to C3, which will make all of that a C3 zoning.

Okay.

Any questions?

All right, 2615.

This is a budget amending ordinance. So this ties in with the work that's being done at the Diamond Flex softball complex. We do have a GMP for that project at $2.34 million. The city has a one mill set aside for capital projects. And from that, 1.15 million was earmarked for this project in fiscal year 26. There was also a million dollars earmarked for it in fiscal year 25. That left a delta of $188,859. The amendment will transfer $100,000 within the construction fund into that project. $32,858 from the transportation fund, which will offset the costs associated with some crosswalk improvements, and $15,000 from the general fund for the additional expenditures. The balance, after you take all of those transfers, there is a balance of $41,001. that remains available from the cost savings within the Diamond Plex softball improvement project that will be added to it as well. So it fulfills all of the funding through that. And it's a secondary as well.

All right.

well if we want to hit the consent agenda I'll let you take them so I'm going to rely I think Mark Bombard is going to do some presentations this evening on this on two projects that we have here I'll just give you a little precursor to it so we have two items that are on the agenda for Tuesday evening that pertain to water production facilities. So we're building a water production facility at Pollard Road, which initially will be a six MGD facility and expandable up to eight MGD. And then we are replacing a water production facility at Cypresswood that is being designed for a one MGD facility and expandable to a two MGD facility. The items that Mark's gonna present on this evening pertain to The design and engineering work for those two projects, these are being constructed through a CMAR, construction manager at risk approach, that Wharton Smith has been awarded through a competitive process. However, the engineering and design is different for each of those facilities. On the Pollard Road facility, that work is being conducted by Atkins Realis. And on the Cypress Wood, it is being performed by, and I'm drawing a complete. Wright Pierce. Wright Pierce, thank you. So those are the two items that we have. And I'm going to turn it over to Mark to take you through these items, as well as the presentation that was put together for them combined.

uh... good evening mayor uh... commissioners t michael can summed everything up i'm not even sure that i really need to do this it's okay uh... so that the agenda of the short presentation we're going to a team organization overview of the projects that design criteria and schedule for the project uh... as t said uh... the two projects pollard road water production facility the design engineer is atkins rios uh... and the cypress wood water production facility uh... is going to be done by wright pierce both these preliminary designs were started a couple years ago uh... and we're just now getting to the stage that we're here in front of to do the final final design and permitting for the project. Coming all together, as T said, Wharton Smith will be the CMAR on the project. We'll work as one big team, of course, to try to get these projects pulled in on budget and most importantly on time because they are influenced by PRWC's deadline for receiving the AWS water supply. Overview of the project. Of course, everybody knows about the one water strategy. Our current demand is 11.6 MGD based on last year's PISA report. The future demands shown on the chart there is about 20.8 MGD by 2050. So to meet this goal, we're going to have to look at some alternate water options needed to meet the future demands. One of the big ones is obviously PRWC comes online in 2018. No, yeah, 28, sorry. Man, I'm 10 years behind my time. Also, we decided to start exploring the upper end of the lower Florida aquifer. And we brought to you, I think last month, some additional work that was going to be done by our well driller to complete additional wells that he's drilled. We've completed two wells at each site at this time. Here's where the two plants are located. Cypress Wood is located obviously over in the Cypress Wood area to the south of where most of the development is. And the Pallet Road site is adjacent to and across the road from the logistics parkway that's under construction right now from the wastewater treatment plant three or the new water production facility that we're under design with right now. So some of the design criteria for the Cypress Wood Water Treatment Plant, like T said, we're gonna replace the aging infrastructure. We're originally gonna do a one MGD plant with additional expansion to another 1.0 MGD. We have two wells drilled right now, one in the future that we will probably start after the first of the year. And on the Pollard Road water production facility, this project is going to replace Winterset Gardens water treatment plant. We're going to retain the plant as a booster station, but take the wells offline from there. This also addresses the new industrial and commercial demands that are happening down in the ILC and provide water supply all the way down to State Road 60, which is still within the utility service area. The plant will be originally a six MGD capacity with an additional more of two to bring it to eight. There are three wells planned there with one additional in the future. There's only two wells there now. And also the future alternative water supply receiving fillies, as I said, spoke about for the PRWC, which drives the project. because we're anticipating to be coming online and to be able to receive the AWS water supply from PRDC by October 28. So you can see we have a pretty aggressive schedule there. We're going to have some early out packages to get the CMAR started before the design is 100% complete to bring this project in on time. And for that, I'll stand for any questions.

Let me add one thing to it. So kind of just a recap of the CMAR process. The benefit that we or any organization gains in that is that as you're going through design, your engineer team is doing all of that work. The CMAR is part of that process. So there's a lot of value engineering that happens during the design. a better way to build what it is you're designing by adjusting the design to accommodate this, that, or whatever. So under traditional hard bid projects, that value engineering happens so late in the game that it results in a lot more change orders and delays. This way you have both of them working together to try and come up with designs and construction means and methodologies that achieve the greatest economic efficiencies that you can and still deliver the project. But certainly we'll stand for questions you may have on this portion of the presentation thus far.

I would also like to add in there, by bringing in a CMAR, having two separate consulting firms doing two separate plants, we're able to bring consistency to the plants to make sure that the technology is the same at both plants. So when our operators go from one plant to another, we're going to have the same when they walk in. Everything is going to appear the same to them, just a different plant. Mayor Burton-Mercer.

I just have a question. What's our capacity now? Isn't it about 12 million?

14.06.

And so from that point, Mark, I'll take a stab at the fact sheets and certainly fill in the blanks where I miss. But speaking specifically to the Pollard Road water production facility. So that's the one that will be designed and engineered by Atkins Realis. That's what this scope of work is that is presented for you to give consideration on Tuesday evening. Again, this is a six MGD plant expandable to eight MGD in the future. Their scope of work includes the project administration services, updates to the preliminary design report, regulatory review and funding opportunities, development and preparation of the final design, construction documents and all permits, support to the CMAR throughout the process and then also CEI services. That's the construction engineering and inspection services that they'll perform while the project is going through its construction. There's also on the Pollard Road additional work that is tied to improving 4th Street East. So 4th Street runs from, I guess it's Rifle Range Road back to the east towards Wastewater Treatment Plant 3. However, it does not punch all the way through. Our long-term goal there is to get it punched all the way through. As you may know, when we have train issues, getting into the wastewater treatment plant is problematic. Oftentimes our staff has had to go all the way down to 60 and come up through Logistics Parkway and the unimproved corridor. It'll be a little bit easier once the Logistics Parkway is built. But even with the changes to Thompson Nursery Road that will happen in the future under the county's program, we need to get Fourth Street constructed. It will also give us access into this water production facility from the plant. So there's just a small amount of money that is earmarked for that. The estimated total professional services fee associated with this scope is $8.9 million. The city does retain the ability to renegotiate that fee if the fee for design exceeds 11% of the CMARS 30% cost estimate for construction. And that is in line with what we would expect engineering and design services to be. We had a long discussion internally over the past few weeks on this. the general rule of thumb is for architectural or engineering services you could be i used to say as low as eight percent up to fifteen percent in more recent times that has become more likely from ten to eighteen even twenty percent in some cases depending upon the technical nature of a project So the fact that we've set this at a not to exceed 11% holds us in a good position there. And as far as funding for this, so there is money earmarked in the current budget for the Pollard Road at 1.65 million. The balance of that project is to be budgeted in fiscal year 27 as well as into 28 when we're still in construction. When you as a commission approve the fee schedule, the rate study for our water and sewer operations in August of 2024, Those fees that were set contemplate not only your operational costs, but also your long-range CIP. And so the fees as they exist today contemplated a significant borrowing of some sort in the debt service that would be repayable related thereto. So we anticipate that sometime within the next, I'm gonna say six to 10, maybe 12 months, we will do a bond issuance specific to water and sewer. We're timing that based upon what's the best time to do it. The debt service for such borrowing is already contemplated and those revenues are coming in and being, you know, set aside for within the fund balance within the utility fund to accommodate that debt service. Not knowing what structure we would use to borrow at what time and in what, you know, if it's one large borrowing or multiples over time. in in my most recent conversation with gary hubbard we think that's going to be hundred hundred and ten million dollar borrowing somewhere in that range that will go towards these water production facilities as well as uh... looking to the improvements at the wastewater treatment The fees, the revenues to accomplish this work, some of that is in play now. Some of it is budgeted in 27 and 28 and will be primarily funded through what's coming in off of those rates as well as the borrowing that we'll incur. Two questions.

I get the 11% cap. If it exceeded that, it's not like... we wouldn't be on the hook for that first 11, right? I mean, by the time they get to the point of knowing it would be over 11%, we've already spent money out to them.

Well, it's 11% of the 30% cost estimates. So when you're Seymour, you're getting cost estimates. Is yours set up for 30, 60, 90, 100? Correct. No 100. No 100, just 30, 60, 90, and GMP?

Yeah. We anticipate having the 30% plans out for the 30% GMP early in the game, so they aren't going to have that much drawdown by that time.

So we would see throughout the process how close we're getting and we would obviously have those conversations well before we got to the point of expending 11%.

Yeah, before we went over that threshold.

Gotcha. And the Cypresswood plant, who does that service? Is that servicing just Cypresswood or is that?

No, all of our water treatment plants are interconnected, all nine of them. So that obviously Cypresswood kind of the water probably stays in that Cypresswood, Cypress Gardens Boulevard area. But if, say, Cypresswood goes down, the other treatment plants at Winterset or Ridgeville Tech they supply the water to that area. So since all the pipelines are interconnected, the water is commingled.

So I get that part, but I guess, and if we didn't have that plant, it would be service, but I get that. I'm just, I'm getting at, obviously the majority of Cypress Wood is not in the city limits of Winter Haven. And so I'm just trying to get at, you know, is that servicing the majority of non-city residents, or is it...

I would have to overlay the city limits to be sure which is which, but it would be supplying both.

So are we able... to ever consider a surcharge on non-resident bills to offset the cost of services provided? We're getting deep now.

So that's good. So in the 26 state legislation, the bill passed that historically we have been able to have a surcharge. non-city residents paid an automatic 25% surcharge. You could actually go up to 50%. There were certain justifications and, I guess, documentation of defined expenses that would allow you to tap into that second 25%. The legislation, in a nutshell, as it came out this year and has been approved, removes that automatic 25%. And your ability to implement a surcharge is driven by being able to define exact expenses you're incurring tied to servicing your non-city residents. and also carries with it additional requirements of public meetings to entertain those specific customers. Your ability to apply that surcharge is temporary and you have to revisit that on a regular basis. We have requested Raftelis, who does our rate studies, to go back and look at our rates to do another rate study for us, putting everybody on a consistent same rate for water and sewer, regardless of inside or outside. Because the ability to establish that non-resident surcharge is going to be extremely problematic. What that means is that city residents will see an increase in their water rate. Non-city residents on our water system will see a decrease in their water rate because the 25% surcharge, those revenues now get smoothed across all 48,000, 45,000 accounts. In reality, as I last recall, about one-third of our customer base is outside the city limits. So we have met with Raftelis and asked them to revisit that, as well as a couple other things that we want to give some consideration to in bringing to the commission. Timing for them to complete that, Mark, do you remember what their estimate was? We haven't received the scope yet, but I thought it was going to be a few months before we would see it. And it would be a January 1 of 27 implementation is what we're planning on. Because there's notices and everything. There's a number of hoops that we have to step through in order to do rates. But then I'll just, you know, from a, personal opinion on that matter i think that that came that legislation came about because of disagreements portion of the state where uh... smaller providers were had that that issue providing water to other municipalities providing water to unincorporated residents and it rose to the level that legislation was passed that made that took that that opportunity away it doesn't quite seem fair to city residents but so it goes i suppose with with tallahassee that would also be inclusive of a fee like

You couldn't have a standalone fee.

You could put in a standalone fee for certain improvements within your systems. Back several years ago... But it would have to go across the board. It would go across the board. One area. The... Some of the municipalities, and I think the county, put into play a surcharge for alternative water sources when PRWC first came online, knowing that that water was going to have certain expenses for booster pumps and the like, so they started charging that. We did not do that. We have, you know, more recently implemented in the last rate study, we did an R&R fee, a renewal and replacement fee, which is very low, to set aside dollars for changing out asbestos pipe and, you know, some of the improvements that need to be made. We have asked Raftelis in this go-round to give consideration, to give us some guidance on a, what we're calling an environmental fee. that we could use for a couple things being assistance in conversion from septic to sewer, which is a massive expense. When you have a home that's on septic and you're going to connect to sewer, our impact fees have to be, or our connection fees have to be paid and the like, and that can be a significant cost to a homeowner. Yet getting them off of, septic has a benefit to everybody because of the you know what it protects the environment against but those are dollars that could also be earmarked and utilized when we have environmentally sensitive lands that would be beneficial for recharge that it can go towards some of that work as well so you know that's a whole lot ahead of the game in what i think raft tell us is going to bring back to us but we're once we get that scope of work that will come uh... back likely to the commission for approval to advance that you know that's the that's how you get these projects done in the long term it's it's out of fees and we don't want to you know the fees as they're set today have already contemplated a significant amount of investment into this uh... these capital projects but that legislation is uh... that's a tough one to swallow again that's the state law The challenge of keeping those fees separated I see as being highly problematic for us.

Current impact fees would apply

So connection fees is what we call, they're not impact fees in the water sewer industry. They're defined as connection fees. They are a little different than an impact fee. We made adjustments to those in August of 24 as well. They took effect January of 25, and those are set, and that's, you know, I think those will also have to adjust based upon city and non-city. And, of course, that's on new builds.

So the connection fees are already set?

They're set, but they're going to have to be adjusted as well to smooth them because you're going to have city, non-city, to the best of my understanding of the legislation.

So there is the expectation then that, that there are many more who would opt for the option of connecting instead of doing septic but going to septic?

Well, no, I don't believe so. I think that the cost to convert from septic, and Mark, tell me if you think differently, I think that that number, when you figure in paying the connection fee Removed not removing but maybe crushing in place the septic All of those costs you're probably looking under current fees about ten thousand dollars a home Eight to ten it would be more than that if you're including the fees It's probably eight to ten depending on what you need for a connection. You need a small grinder If you're like on a lake and you need a grinder pump to push up to our system You may be looking closer to eighteen to twenty thousand dollars. Yeah And that's a significant cost. And this is the other thing that comes into play with it. It used to be when we would pursue annexations, one of the leverage points that we always had and one of the selling points was that if you came into the city, you would see a reduction of 25% in your water sewer fees. that will no longer be the case. I think annexations long-term are impacted by this and pending what happens with property tax reform, that changes that paradigm completely because your desire to annex properties I think there's no real benefit in annexation unless it's either commercial or industrial property. Because if it's residential and there's some significant change to homestead property tax, you end up picking up those homes and have to provide service without a revenue source to offset the service you're having to provide. It's a complete paradigm shift.

And the existing city residents, of course, get stuck with paying for county taxes, which they receive minimal services for at the end of the day, other than transportation, most likely.

There's a lot going on there, and we've kind of gone down a whole separate rabbit hole there.

That's what agenda review is for. I know. Rabbit holes.

But the gist of this is on these two items. So on the Atkins-Realis, again, roughly $8.9 million to take the Pollard Road water production facility to full design and include the CEI services and the improvements 4th Street, and then on the Cypresswood, because it's a much smaller facility, at one MGD expandable to two. That is with Wright Pierce. And their cost on that one is not to exceed $4.69 million. And again, we have a million budgeted for that in the current fiscal year. And then that will be accounted for in the fiscal year 27 and 28 budgets as well. All right. Mark, is there anything further we need to add there? No, I don't believe so.

Jones-Edmonds? Supplementary?

You want to take the Jones-Edmonds on the Harmony Master, please?

Yep. So we commissioned our Harmony Master lift station in, I'm looking for my date here. Why don't I see my dates anymore? In December of 25. September 25. September 25. During that period, Joan Edmonds did the design in 2022, and they were also including there the CEI portion of it for the Construction Engineering and Inspection Service, which was governed by our SRF loan. The construction started on February 23, B&B Construction Underground. Um, but due to the timeframe it was through COVID and other delays, um, the project was not completed within the timeframe that the, it was scheduled to be for 15 months. Um, project still continued along, but, uh, the issue was with long lead items, switch gears, um, and electronics technologies, uh, was the issue with getting them on board. Ultimately, the project was completed 15 months after the initial completion date. Throughout that time, Joe and Edmunds continued their CEI services, being about 15 months over contract time, but knowing, being a good partner with the city and knowing how critical this was, especially with the SRF funding, they continued to stay with us. Also during that time, in August of 25, about six months before it was commissioned, we did our wastewater asset management plan that was required by FDEP. That was included in the Joan Edmonds portion of that contract. And ultimately, we had to do an amendment to it because the project, because the asset management plan didn't incorporate all the items that were in the Harmony Master Lift Station. So the supplementary engineering services kind of makes Joan Edmonds whole. It's approximately in round numbers about 50-50 between the CEI services that they had to continue to do and creating and updating the asset management plan. So ultimately, after negotiating and working with Joan Edmonds, The total costs that they incurred that were not incorporated in the original agreement was about $275,000. And we're asking to have that approved so we can make them whole as a good partner to Joan Evans.

So, again, that's one of those projects that when you're dealing with any – coming out of COVID, even though this started, you know, construction was awarded – in 22 the spring of 22 delays that we saw on our own projects we're doing in-house anything tied to electronics panels as mark said the technologies there was such a backlog of those items that it delayed numerous projects yet you're still having to do your cei and your work on that so And then that asset management report is a requirement of SRF, which is where we're getting a lot of our funding through. So we're recommending that this be approved. It's basically a change order to that for the supplemental funding of $274,980. That money is available within the utility fund within their lift station replacements, and Harmony being a master lift station, it's appropriate that it come from there.

gravity sewer so uh... every year uh... we do uh... gravity sewer uh... c i p p lining services uh... too to evaluate and line gravity sewer lines that are in being impacted by age uh... infiltration This year's project is going to be on the north side of Lake Maud, and it includes about, there we go, rehabilitating about 8,700 feet of 8-inch gravity sewer. The total cost is $381,000, and it is budgeted in this fiscal year for the work.

That's basically putting a Membrane inside that pipe that is heated and expanded and it seals the inside of the pipe to give it a longer lifespan How long does it extend?

We don't really know we haven't run into the where it's deteriorated enough where we can estimate that so we're projecting at least ten years

You know how long we've been doing slip lining, Mark?

Since I've been here was one of the first years.

Prior to that, we slip lined a number of pipes, Tracy. I don't know if we did any during your tenure.

We did on Buckeye and over there in Buckeye. In that area, we did some slip lining.

It's a really good cost-effective rehabilitation way to do it.

We also just did, brought to you I think in one of your last two meetings, slip lining for some storm water pipes.

Same process, bigger plate obviously.

Can you do it again after it does deteriorate?

You can. The lining is like a, it's like a cloth with resin on it. So as you do more and more obviously the diameter of the pipe gets smaller on the inside. But I would anticipate, If the growth didn't change on that line, you could probably do it at least one more time and still be manageable.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, Mark. Authorizations for travel and training? Travel and training, we have one item, and that is for Commissioner Birdsong to attend the Florida Regional Council's Association Policy Board Meeting. This is on behalf of the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. It will take place at the end of July in St. Petersburg. The CFRPC covers the hotel accommodations for that, and our travel training expenses are incorporated within the city commission's budget.

Okay, on to resolutions, R2615.

I'm going to ask Eric Labby to present this, and I'll just kind of precursor it by saying this came before the commission back in December and was approved. However, there's an update to it. Yes, sir.

I was going to say, Mayor and Commissioners, this may sound familiar to you because we've done it once before. This was the vacation of the old West Lake Eloise Drive as part of the Harmony. As you recall, they constructed us a new road. Part of that agreement with Harmony was that we would then vacate the old right-of-way, as you see on the map here. We did bring that before you, I think a year ago now. It was in December, I believe. December. We brought that before you. We discovered that there was an error in the legal description of the vacation document within that resolution. And so as part of this new resolution, R2615, we will be correcting that error in the legal description. Also, as we went back, we discovered that there was an old Polk County maintained right-of-way map, and it would be appropriate to reference that old Polk County maintained right-of-way map in that vacation, and so we went ahead and added that language as well. So this is cleaning up an action that we had already taken that we did discover an error in.

Okay.

I remember this one coming before you because there was a lot of discussion about the utilities being vacated in there and all that remains the same.

All right.

R2617. Mr. Lavin. Yes, sir.

Phases three and four of the Willowbrook North subdivision on March 10th of 2025 the Commission approved resolution 2503 which planted this subdivision The developer did record a performance bond. It was developed in four phases the action the phases were completed in two chunks. So phases one and two were completed first, phases three and four were then completed next. This is to release the subdivision performance bond and confirm the acceptance of the infrastructure for phases three and four of this subdivision. This is one that started with the old process before it became administrative and so we're taking it all the way through because we have a local resolution that we've already adopted that we need to address. So it's coming back before you. Again, this is to release the subdivision performance bond in the amount of $5,069,711.08 and accept the improvements that were constructed. They have been inspected. We will accept the water, wastewater, and reuse utilities in the subdivision.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, so on to new business. Unless there's any objection, I'm going to skip to 13B. We'll say 13A for last. That's all right. So let's do 13B, the comprehensive agreement.

Okay. Okay.

So we're going to tag team this a bit this evening. I'm going to rely upon the city attorney, Mr. Labbe, and Mr. Carnival. Carnival, as we've all spent quite a bit of time working on this, I do want to preface this with a word of appreciation to John Murphy and Drew Crawford, who helped really assemble and negotiate this comprehensive agreement. This is a, what I just went through this afternoon again, is about a 63-page comprehensive agreement that has a lot of unique aspects to it, particularly that it's tied back to an unsolicited proposal for a public-private partnership, which is not something we often see. Take you back in time, and I'm going to go through most of this fact sheet in full detail. So in October of 25, the city received an unsolicited proposal from 610 pursuant to Florida statutes in the P3 Act to construct and sell to the city a new 292-space parking facility on property that is owned by Urban Action LLC and generally located at the corner of Avenue C and Third Street Southwest. So in the general area of the, where Grove Roots Brewing Company is across the street from there and then to the north you also have Southeastern University's Winter Haven Campus. Pursuant to the floor of statutes, the Commission convened two duly noticed public meetings. The first one was held November 24th of 25, during which the proposal was presented and affected public entities and members of the public were able to provide comment. A second meeting was held December 8th of 2025, at which time the Commission adopted Resolution R2558, which made the determination that the proposal serves a public purpose, using all five statutorily defined factors for determining such, and is a qualifying project pursuant to the P3 Act of Florida Statutes, and also declaring the Commission's intent to enter into a comprehensive agreement. So when that was done in December, it's basically the takeaway is, yes, this serves a public purpose. Yes, we have interest in this. The next defining action before anything moves forward is the comprehensive agreement. We were also required to issue a notice of the unsolicited proposal and report of public interest determination to be published in the Florida Administrative Register for at least seven days. That is a requirement of the Florida statutes that has occurred, and we are in full compliance there. So the agreement, the comprehensive agreement that we're presenting to you is between the city, 610 LLC and Urban Action and defines the terms, duties and rights and responsibilities of each party pursuant to permitting, construction, sale and purchase of a new 292 space parking facility for public use as a City of Winter Haven capital asset. Pursuant to the agreement, 610 shall be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of the parking facility as a design build project. 610 has retained Whitehead construction as a design builder. 610 is experienced in the design and construction of multi-level parking facilities. The existing parking structure that we have adjacent to the library was constructed in 2012 timeframe generally by Whitehead at that time. The city's representatives shall evaluate and review interim designs, plans, and permitting documents, and upon permitting of the final design, 610 shall construct the parking facility and cause the final building to be delivered to the city at a guaranteed maximum price of $10,217,496. The, backing up just for a second, the city's representatives, we have another item that will follow this, which is a engagement with Kim Lee Horn to sign on as a additional service to us, the oversight and review and CEI and all the things that we need to do within this project. In addition, Urban Action, which owns the land on which this facility is to be constructed, will convey that land to the city once the parking facility building is completed, and that is incorporated within the purchase price that I just cited. The agreement also provides for city-approved change orders, a land inspection on behalf of the city, which has a period of 120 days, Permit approval period of 120 days that runs concurrently with the land inspection period. There is a right to cancel the agreement due to any conditions discovered prior to construction which were under the property impossible for construction or where the cost to cure such condition exceeds 5% of the construction budget. We have no anticipation of that based upon all knowledge to date. It's a requirement for a performance bond, title insurance, and survey requirements. It outlines the conditions of the closing, who's responsible for what costs there, the liability insurance requirements, and the conditions of default and associated remedies. Impact financially, again, $10,217,496. Our funding for that includes the utilization of $2,279,455 from the fiscal year 25 cash carry forward. That is money in excess of our 30% fund balance that we seek to retain, and we earmark that specifically for capital projects. $4,409,625 from the construction fund, which has been restricted for the parking garage. and $3,528,416 from the Transportation Fund as a result of savings from the Logistics Parkway-Pollard Road Improvement Project. So the funding is in place to advance this project if the Commission so desires. This is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Downtown Strategic and Mobility Master Plan that was completed in 2022. You may also recall that in November of last year, after we received the unsolicited proposal, we obtained an independent analysis of it from Walker Consultants, which evaluated the cost effectiveness in the proposed parking garage relative to the current Florida market conditions, the overall public benefit in the context of the Walker-prepared Downtown Strategic and Mobility Master Plan of 2022, and area infrastructure compatibility. based upon that independent analysis it was concluded that the proposed parking garage submitted as submitted in the unsolicited proposal demonstrated both cost effectiveness and overall public benefit pursuant to florida statutes and we are recommending that the commission approve the comprehensive agreement for construction of a new 292 space parking facility, authorizing the mayor and other officials to execute the same, and for the city manager or designee to take all necessary actions related thereto. I want to turn it over to the city attorney for any additional comments related to the project and the comprehensive agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Stavarez and City Commission. As the City Manager has noted, we have been in the process of negotiating with Urban Action and 610 representatives to bring to you tonight, or pardon me, Tuesday night, the comprehensive agreement, which is reflective of what we can recommend for you to approve. As part of that discussion, negotiation, we were informed that that the land in question, which is owned by Urban Action LLC, did have some environmental issues that were associated with a former gas station that used to be on that site. Some of you may recall that back in the day. I don't know. But it is something that is part of the... the abandoned tanks restoration program that's administered through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And the environmental outfit that had been retained by Urban Action created environmental solutions as Exhibit B to this agreement is the report that was disclosed by Urban Action, if you will, as to the extent of based on their due diligence and their evaluations the condition of the property so there will be some additional things that we as the city during this 120 day land inspection period via kimley horn will have to do in order to assure ourselves that we are that what Mr. Foster on behalf of CSS is representing is accurate, the trust but verify concept. And we expect, based on my discussions with MJ Carnevale, who has been interfacing with the Kimley-Horn representatives and has reflected in the task order, we expect that Kimley-Horn will be able to perform that diligence for us and either ascertain and confirm that what has been represented to us by Urban Action is accurate and that, or if not, what is there, if anything else. That's important because as part of the agreement and in an effort to try to keep the costs and the, you know, our GMP exposure to the $10.2 million, the Urban Action and 610 folks wanted to go ahead and place certain long lead time orders. And they wanted to do that prior to the conclusion of the land inspection period. I think they want to do it and they're here tonight. I think they want to do it maybe Wednesday of next week. So they want to get, they're desirous of, like we are, of moving forward to try to reduce costs. I mean, the longer you wait, the longer things take, the more expensive it gets. So part of the negotiation included a request by the 610 folks to say they're going to incur approximately up to $1.54 million worth of hard costs or expenses and some additional items. And so that would be something that if we were to terminate the agreement, for our convenience or for, you know, just because we wanted to, we would have to be on the hook for that, whether we moved forward with the agreement or not. That's reflected in paragraph 10.3.2 of the agreement. I just wanted to point that out to you. I will tell you that that the agreement requires 610 and Urban Action to mitigate their damages and to reduce those costs to the extent they can, if they can. I point that out to you. Our expectation is that that will not be an issue. But again, lawyers work in worst-case scenarios. And so I want to do, and the public should understand, that is something that is in the agreement. And that is a risk factor that is something that we think is probably something that is acceptable. In the overall scheme of things, certainly management feels that it is because they're recommending this. We join in that recommendation, but it is something I wanted to bring out. The other thing that you'll see as an attachment are the renderings, the conceptual drawings, and some of the documents that were provided by Kolski, Coleman, Karski, or C&K Architects, who just happen to be the same architectural firm that's part of the design builder team that designed the parking garage that is city-owned presently. Those were furnished to Kimley Horn. As a preliminary, and you'll see that in the agenda item after this, for Kimlinghorn to tell us on a very preliminary basis whether or not this project that is being proposed is something that the city fits in with the city's overall standards and fits in with the overall, is compatible with the area and with the overall plans that we have for what we understand will be occurring in this area. So I wanted to point that out to you. The last thing I wanted to point out to you specifically, of course we'll answer any questions, that because we are moving forward with this now, without really knowing the full extent of when there'll be a conditional closure, through that ATRP program, which I understand is administered via the FDEP and is generally something that is potentially funded through state budget appropriations every year. So thus far, there has been no deductible. It's been fully funded. And so property owners who are eligible, which this is one of the eligible projects, And we've confirmed that. Mr. Crawford is here. I know he did a lot of, I could not understate or overstate or say enough on how much Mr. Crawford has assisted in the heavy lifting involved in this contract. But we've confirmed by reviewing records in Oculus, which is the FDEP system, and as well as confirming with the CES folks and with the Urban Action and 610 representatives that This program thus far has remained fully funded and the city would be entitled to that, to the benefits of that program. However, again, preparing for things that are worst case scenario, we have provided in the agreement that as a condition of closing, there will be required a cooperation agreement. between the city, 610, and Urban Action. And that cooperation agreement will be negotiated between now and then, hopefully during the first 120 days of our due diligence. But it will be a cooperation agreement that will spell out and articulate the post comprehensive agreement requirements for dealing with this environmental issue. We did not know about this until we were told this by the 610 folks after we started negotiating this contract. We were kind of disappointed because if there had been no environmental issues, this would be a much easier transaction. It is what it is, and we're going to go in with this with our eyes wide open. But the cooperation agreement will articulate the ongoing obligations between the parties, and it will require and allow for the city to rely on Urban Action 610 to pay for any costs or fees, if there are any, that may be associated with this ATARP program of what we know today. Um, there are certain things that, um, you know, depending on what Kim Lee Horn is able to verify, uh, based on their due diligence, um, there may be some additional things that have to occur monitoring wells. There may be some, uh, additional remediation. There are various levels of remediation that can occur that take some take longer times than others. Some are less expensive than others and keep in mind that urban action will remain the owner of the balance of that land, at least for the foreseeable future, certainly they're only selling us a smaller portion of that land. So this contamination issue is going to be applicable to the entire parcel. So that's why the cooperation agreement, because we didn't want to have to be obtaining easements or be obtaining permissions to go on their property once the closing occurred. So we wanted to be clear about all that. I can't give you any guarantees that the cooperation agreement, what Urban Action's positions will be, and we hope that they will continue to be good partners with us. But in the event that they do not enter into a cooperation agreement, that is a waivable condition. the city could still close and there's an ongoing obligation even after the fact after closing closing only occurs when the project is done and completed that that they would be on the hook for there's there is a an agreement that's already in place between urban action and the FDEP, and we want that agreement to remain in place. And if I'm missing anything on that, Mr. Crawford is here, but we wanted that agreement and Urban Action's contractual undertaking and commitment to say, yeah, that agreement's going to remain intact until we understand either closure or conditional closure. So we've addressed those environmental issues. We suggested to 610 and Urban Action, 610 more, that your timeline to obtain permits, get construction plans reviewed, should probably be coterminous with this 120-day land use inspection period. Those periods can be shortened. depending on what develops. And quite frankly, if they can be reasonably, probably they will be if we can. But out of an abundance of caution, we've identified those as, we should have those as the saving time periods. We have each of the parties have waived any other kinds of damages and the consequential Exemplary punitive damages for cities not responsible for that. We have appropriate insurance that we've reviewed We've had our insurance consultants review both the liability insurance their builders risk insurance and some of the facets of the property insurance so we're we're We and our insurance consultant, Cybers, are comfortable with the insurance products and the insurance limits and amounts that are being suggested. We are familiar with the design builder, Whitehead, and C&K Architects. We understand, I believe, the risks of this project. We have reviewed in detail, certainly during the two public meetings that were held before this commission, but also afterwards, the various aspects of what we were doing. And I believe that this is something that is consistent with all of the planning and all of the efforts thus far and will provide a benefit to the public when the 292 space parking garage is completed. There are protections built in. but I will say that there is exposure to the city. Once we get into the comprehensive agreement, we're kind of together. There aren't very many off ramps after that. And I just want you to be, I'm not concerned particularly about that, but I'm just advising you that as we go down the road, it gets harder and harder. Certainly once the closing occurs, That's done, we're done. And certainly after the land use inspection period goes forward, each step of the way it gets a little bit tighter. Um, and so, uh, right now, uh, when we move forward with the comprehensive agreement, uh, the risk envelope is probably about 1.54 million, even if we don't get a garage, if we get, but with that, you would get maybe some structural walls and Metro mod or things that may or may not be of any use to the city. Um, but at the end of the day, um, we will have Kim Lee Horn as our representative, um, to, as the statute requires, oversee. It's technically not our project. So when I say oversee, I say that in the sense as contemplated in the P3 statute. It is not a traditional CEI. We are not in contractual privity with the design builder. That's up to them, and we're going to rely on that. That's why we wanted to see it. Insurance and the bonds are in place. All of that stuff is important, but we will have our own representative to be there as our eyes and ears to make sure that the overall scope and the overall conduct and prosecution of this work is consistent with the standards that we understand need to be adhered to. Anyway, that's the contract, you know, 63 pages. It's less pages than the school board's P3 contract, I will say, so I feel kind of proud about that. The school board also did a high school, the new high school BB, and they just recently, at their May 5th meeting, approved the comprehensive agreement, and that was kind of a mental, monumental, but the, This is our first real P3 where we're moving forward with a project of this nature. We have a P3 with RES, but it's really not, it's not at this level. It's more of a conceptual and doing, you know, this is an actual project and it's an eligible project. And so we commit this to you. We're certainly here to answer any questions. We hope that you've had enough time to at least review the documents and we'll continue to review them prior to your meeting on Tuesday. We have tried to take into account the public comments that were made at the various meetings held last year. And I believe those were addressed. in the public interest statement. We've had, as Mr. Stavros noted, Walker Consultants do an evaluation of this and we feel very comfortable that this is coming in in an appropriate way. Will people disagree with it? Probably. Are there other opinions on this? Yes. But at this point in time, we think that this is something that is appropriate for the City Commission to give due consideration and hope that you approve it.

I'll add one thing to that if I can, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. One of the questions or the concerns that came up during the public comment was you have a garage that's not completely fully occupied today, why do you need another one? If you wait until the need arises for a new garage, you're too late. And in the past three months, well in the past really I guess month, month and a half, the project that is slated to happen on Central Avenue that is to bring 125 potential employees into downtown The reason that happens is because you have a parking garage there. Well, that question of occupancy and usage of that garage becomes a moot point at that point. And so this is the next step in it. On that contamination issue, my take on that is, and John said maybe somebody remembers when there was a gas station or a fuel service there. of compliments to you all. I don't know that any of you would have been driving at the time that there was a fuel service there. It was that long ago and my review of the documents related to that is all of those tanks and related equipment were removed long ago and there is somewhat of a plume there that is contained and is at a very significant depth. And part of what's recommended in how you mitigate that is to cap in place. It's not too dissimilar to the target property. How do you remediate? You keep stormwater and groundwater from getting into that area, and the best way to do that without removing it is to cap it in place and it's at a depth that is much greater than what foundations and footers would go to in this project and the project itself does cap it. And there is some consideration of approach that closes out all of that in this calendar year through DEP. So I just want to put that out. That is within the CES report that is attached for your benefit.

And also just to dovetail on what the city manager said, my comment on you all recollecting it was that you would have looked at documents or papers or something that would have brought it to your attention, not that you would have had personal knowledge of that perhaps being there. Maybe, well, never mind. I'm not going to say it. But I do think the other aspect to what the city manager said I think is important to note, and that is that the, you're correct, that the, This parking garage is not going to be requiring any potable water. It is going to cap essentially in place, become impervious, and that is kind of the solution that has occurred at the target site. The only water use that will be required will be fire suppression, and that will come from potable water in other places that is already there. So no wells are going to be required. There's going to be no potable water required. No storm water that isn't already being, you know, either accounted for or handled. And so, and one thing that Mr. Labby reminded me of is that this is in, what did you call it, an exemption area? Concurrency exemption area. Concurrency exemption area. So although... We anticipate there will be one in and out, and we've already had Walker Consultants say it's compatible with the regional facilities around there, but we don't anticipate there's going to be any undue impact on the surrounding properties as a result of this project. So I think that's important to know for the record.

Okay, well also for the record, I'll make this disclosure also on Tuesday evening, but due to a potential conflict, I won't give my opinions and I won't be voting on this particular item. So I just want to go ahead and set the record on that and I'll say it again on Tuesday. One question for you, John. Will I be able to sign that agreement, or Mayor Pro Tem will need to sign that agreement?

Probably should have Mayor Pro Tem sign the agreement, just out of abundance of caution. And I appreciate you saying that, Mayor. You did that as well during the November and December meetings. And I think that's appropriate.

If it goes through. Correct.

Then she would sign it. If it eventually gets approved, which we are recommending that it get approved, that's probably something that... That can be done. Should have thought about that. I think we have signed documents already from Mr. Bogdan and from Mr. Strang in escrow in the clerk's office, but we can take care of that.

Okay.

All right, questions from the commission?

I have a question.

Yes. I'm just wondering, the contract with Kimberly Horn, is that... required as a result of the stature? Yes, sir. Okay. It has nothing to do with the contamination. No, no.

It just so happens that Kimley Horn has some expertise in that area, so we were fortunate. But this is under the continuing contract threshold for estimated construction cost of projects. So Kimley Horn is one of our continuing contractors, and the statute does require that we do this. So that's why we're doing it.

So, as it states right now, based on what you all are projecting, we have the cost of the garage and the cost of Kimberly Horn, and that would be pretty much all encompassing

Yes, sir, pending any change orders that are at the city's directive. So if there are city-directed change orders or requested change orders, then those costs would be incurred by us and to be negotiated.

Okay, just one final question. A statement was made. If we, I didn't quite get it, if we agree and then disagree, what was? The million and a half. Yeah.

Yeah, if once we approve the comprehensive agreement, if during our 120-day land use review period, we determine we wish to terminate the contract and not move forward, we may have to be on the hook for $1.5 million. We may be on the hook for $1.5 million. And that is tied to the fact that 610 has indicated that they want to, on the 27th of May, before the land use inspection period is over, they want to get ahead of the lead times and get the economies that they hope that they could achieve But keep in mind, this proposal came back in October. And so in order to meet the $10.2 million threshold or the GMP, they want to order the materials. largely from Metromont, you know, the large panels that are comprised of concrete that make the structure and other things that are longer lead times. So they don't, you know, they had some exposure there that they wanted the city to recognize.

So the 120 days is, will Kimley Horn be advising us? Yes, Kimley Horn will be advising the city. During that time. During that 120 days. Yes.

And one of the first things they'll do, I hope, is they will review the environmental situation. They may even do some soil borings and verify what CES has reviewed in conjunction with the property owner. And they'll be able to get, I see Mr. Bogdan back there. I think he's hopefully in agreement with that. That's our contemplation. I mean, isn't that, that is the contemplation, I hope. And so that's what Kimlinghorn's going to be doing for us. They'll, in addition to that, they will be reviewing, while the project is ongoing, you know, be our eyes and ears to make sure that what's happening there is consistent. So that's two problems.

Mayor, Mayor Curtin-Mercer.

Will we have our consultant reviewing the plans, the construction plans, or do we not?

Would you like us to present that item as well at this point? Would that be helpful?

Good evening, Mayor and City Commissioner. So to kind of build on what City Attorney and City Manager have discussed, pursuant to that comprehensive agreement, the city's representative shall evaluate and review interim design plans and permitting documents, and then upon permitting, they'll review the final designs.

And then that's our responsibility, too.

So they will the city so we worked with Kim Lee horn VR continuing services contract as city attorney mentioned So they will provide us independent professional review of the design documents So as those come in they will look at those and give us feedback on them They will provide advisory support during the permitting process. So as that is navigated through the various agencies and They will give advice during that process. Construction phase advisory support. And so they'll do some limited observation too. So they'll come on site during construction. They'll look at as things are going in, does everything conform with what we would expect to see. They'll look at the cost and schedule and value engineering, if any of that takes place, and give us input on that. And then they'll give us assistance with the project closeout documentation. So kind of making sure everything gets wrapped up and conveyed over to us properly. And then it also includes the environmental, you know, analysis that we discussed. So that's just one piece of kind of the bigger work that they'll provide for us throughout the entire course of the project. And they'll do that at a lump sum cost of $285,000 that will be paid from the transportation fund, again, with savings from the logistics parkway and power road improvement project.

Commissioner Donaldson? Yeah, how much of the, you indicated that there's an overlap, you know, the property, So there's an overlap with regards to the piece that we're purchasing for the garage, but then also this environmental piece is impacting the entire property that the owner has?

Well, I mean, I...

I would say... What portion of it, you know, is impacting our piece that we're purchasing or that we're building on?

My general understanding, Commissioner Dollison, is that there were monitoring wells that were on the portion of land that we're buying. We've determined that just on a physical look, that those monitoring wells have been either abandoned or have been shut or closed. And other monitoring wells on other portions, not property that we're buying, but that is owned by Urban Action,

Will that have to be addressed at the same time?

Well, I think they'll have a requirement as part of that to ultimately achieve closeout or conditional closure with the FDEP. That would be at whose expense? As we said, we contemplate that will be at Urban Action's expense, and that's the purpose of the cooperation agreement. Obviously, Urban Action, this is not a meeting, this type of meeting is not a meeting at which you generally have our partners come up and talk. They're certainly available on Tuesday. They have maybe more knowledge about the property certainly than we do right now.

But I'd say to the extent of my familiarity with that particular matter, When you have a contamination, it's contained within a specific area and you're using groundwatering wells to determine migration of that through groundwater as it moves. And that's why you have those out there. There is delineation of the extent of that to certain, I think it's to the west and to the south, based upon monitoring wells that have been in place for a number of years. And so it may require monitoring wells to the North onto their property and potentially onto the east But again, if that's closed out through the remediation process with the EP then that Basically resolves that issue And that's what's outlined within the CES document that is appended to the to the agreement Is you know, there's also you know, they have a the balance of that entire property, all the way up to Magnolia Avenue. There was also a fueling facility on the corner point of that property, again, at some point many, many years ago. There's a delineation between those two. There's, from what I understand, a clean section between any contamination that would have come from the north and what would have been on this property. So it's really, I think, the impact on the balance is the monitoring of that, not necessarily a remediation or a cleanup, but the monitoring side of it.

And likely what will happen is that we'll end up with some form of land use institutional control on that property, on our property, which means you can't dig for wells. which means that you have to cap it or create no more impervious surface, impervious surface, all things that we're going to be doing. So I would expect that that would be ultimately what will occur is that there will be some land use, institutional land use controls that the DEP will like to see on that property, which we would like to be very agreeable to because they will be consistent with the use that we're going to be putting to the garage that we'll be covering

This is a relatively small corner the overall footprint AJ can you go back to the slides?

I don't know if we have an aerial so You know you're talking about

all the other property all the way up to the point and it does not include everything to the east of it towards second street there's some private ownership further east t michael the property basically runs this tree line curves here and then so it's maybe a quarter of the overall property

Probably 30, yeah, probably 30.

I don't even think it's 30%.

Yeah, yeah, it's probably not even, yeah. Does that answer your question?

Yes, but the value of the property, I guess, you know, you say this is something that happened, well, this gas station or whatever was there, apparently was there many years ago, and I guess it just was not known or remembered, or so the property comes up for sale. I mean, does the value of the property Knowing this or not knowing this?

I think given what it is and the fact that it's been remediated in the sense of everything removed and you're dealing with a contamination at the depths that it is and your use of it is such that you're capping in place, and you're already part of the Petroleum Tank Remediation Program. Yeah, I don't know that I could say that that changes the value based upon the end use because there's no cost incurred as long as it's, as we said, it's part of that program and those costs for any remediation are covered through that, not at an expense to us as the owner of the parking garage. And again, the fact that what you're putting onto it remediates that by capping it in place.

I think it's a kind of a unique set of circumstances that present in terms of the ultimate use of the property and what we're proposing to do. So if you may recall, when Walker Consultants looked at all of that, they came up with some findings that suggested that the overall cost of this would be in line with other markets and other areas for a, or below even, but for a per parking space cost based on the overall numbers, if I remember correctly. And so, I mean, you're factoring that out. I don't know if that answers your question. It's why we built in some of the protections that we did.

Yeah, I was just curious in terms of, I guess it's been so long ago that it just was not remembered or thought about that that potential environmental piece might be a factor.

just one more thing evidently it has a lot of history behind it meaning it's been there for some time and it's probably been in the program for some time for it to have monitoring wells removed that means there's it's not migrating off site it's not moving it's not doing anything and very little so DEP, believe me, don't take out monitoring wells. So they keep them there for as long as they possibly can or as long as the potential exists.

Anybody else?

All right. So that's both those items. Again, two separate things. One is the comprehensive agreement, and as Deputy City Manager presented, the scope of work with Kimley Horn to be our eyes and ears on that project.

All right. We've got a task order with Kimley Horn, so is that what we just did? So we're good there. All right. So with that, we'll go back and we'll dive into grant and aid applications.

Okay, so I'm gonna hit the high notes on this and then I'm gonna give it to Katrina Hill, our Director of Public Affairs and Communication to take you through the outcomes of what your grant aid review committee did. to give some context historically in 2022 the commission passed a resolution 2219 that officially established the grant need application review committee some of you may recall that prior to that grant aid was solely handled by the commission in a typical city commission meeting the In September of 25, the Commission passed an additional resolution, 2548, that further refined the structure of the Grant and Aid Application Review Committee. That committee evaluates the applications and provides recommendations to the Commission specific to the external not-for-profit agencies that are seeking funding through the program. so the going into this year there were some refinements to the process that were recommended and approved by the city commission the grant aid committee typically meets every fall after they've gone through their their spring process they see what they want to tweak or what recommendations they have we bring that back to you and we use that to build out our process that usually starts around January of the fiscal year preceding when funds are actually available. In addition, the commission had given us direction this year to exclude schools and foundations from the funding process. to fund the legacy applicants at their existing levels, but only after review of their application and proof that continued compliance and worthiness existed there. So they weren't just arbitrarily said, okay, here you go. They still needed to be reviewed and discussed and evaluated. You also set your starting budget level at 10% of an increase from last year's total award. That equated to $382,537. And then you recommended prioritization based upon programs that serve children, programs that serve the elderly, programs that serve individuals experiencing homelessness. and programs that demonstrate strong fiscal responsibility, a measurable impact, and a clear return on investment. In order for an agency to apply, they had to attend one of the four training sessions that were held in the early spring. We had 118 individuals representing 97 unique organizations attend training sessions. Window for applications was March 2nd to March 13th. We received a total of 58 applications this year. Katrina's staff goes through all of those in a sufficiency review to make sure that they have everything that they needed. And then those that were missing things, we lend a helping hand and call them in and give them an opportunity to make those corrections. The GARC met twice, May 5th and then again on May 15th here to deliberate on those applications. Both of those meetings were properly noticed. And then for each of the applications, they reviewed the appropriateness of the application for consideration of funding or to deny the application. If there were any conflicts of interest, we had them divulge that ahead of time. so that we knew that they couldn't engage in the dialogue on that particular agency and certainly could not vote. We will ask you all that same question on Tuesday evening to make sure that you're not voting on anything that is of specific tie back to you in much the same fashion that we did with the grant need application review committee. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Katrina to take you through where they landed.

Thank you. So they did go through all the applicants one by one and looked at all of the information that they submitted, their reporting, their applications, their nonprofit documentation, their IRS documentation, all of that. And they have recommended a total award amount this year of $358,500. That does leave a balance of $24,037 from the original budget that they were allocated. A few highlights. They did review all of the six agencies that were flagged as legacy agencies. They kept them all at their same funding level with the exception of Meals on Wheels. where they have recommended a slight increase there due to the increase of food costs and the need for those types of services. And then they did not fund all returning agencies. One, two, three, I think five of them were not funded again this year. The rest were all funded either at a similar level to last year or a slight increase. And then of the new agencies, they did not fund even half of them uh... they looked at them very closely and try to fund those that met the guidance that you had offered in the focus areas and that seemed to uh... be strong and for the applicants so i'm happy to answer any specific questions you have uh... if you look at the spreadsheet you have here i think this speaks to the work that that committee did that when you

a handful of these that are not funded at all, some returning, some new. They're taking very seriously the guidance and the quality of the applications, what impact that's having, how does it align with, again, the direction that was provided, and to have it come back with It's not just a carte blanche. Everybody that asks for something gets something. They scrutinize these heavily. I think they use the full time slots that they had in both of those meetings, if not more, to go through them. And even with having As we said, just over $24,000 remaining. They did not seek to give that out. They're returning that based upon here's the applications. Regardless of what the budget is, this is what we think it's worthy of. So we'll leave it at that. and certainly stand for any questions you may have. And I do want to point out also, Drew Crawford sat through both of those, so we had an attorney here to make sure on any issues pertaining to conflict of interest that we could give proper guidance.

Commissioners? Commissioner Davis. Yes. So first I do want to thank the committee for the work they put into this, the effort. I did attend one of those meetings, and they did deliberate quite a bit. And I think that the fact that they gave us a little money back and that they were very cautious in how they increased some of the returning applicants shows that they did take our direction seriously. So I do appreciate that. My first question is, when we grant these funds, can we stipulate how the money is spent? Are we able, for instance, they said they're going to spend these funds on supplies, hygiene products, food security, and then gift cards. Can we say no gift cards?

So the way that that's enforced right now is with the reporting. And they did heavily scrutinize that on all of our returning applicants this year. They looked at what they said they were going to spend money on last year, looked at the receipts to make sure that aligned. As far as individual stipulations, I'm going to defer to Mr. Crawford on that.

Yeah. Hey. Good evening, Commission. Drew Crawford, Assistant City Attorney. The answer to that is obviously yes, right? You can. It's not something that we encouraged during the meeting. uh... since the applicants had for example budgets already set what what we recommended during the meeting as far as individual adjustments or stipulations on how money can be spent really was to reduce conflicts if any existed to try to minimize those conflicts so that they could be uh... so we can be more transparent with how we spend so we could really insulate the city from those issues But it really comes down to the will of the commission on that, in our opinion. I think that any kind of stipulations are going to add more work onto oversight. The stipulations will require some sort of enforcement mechanism, which we don't really have in place at this point. So there are a lot of other things to consider with that other than just a blanket, do not spend on X. That's really kind of, it's a larger issue, I guess is a better way to say that. Sure.

So like salaries, pension, insurance, those things we can't, unless we're going to talk about it and put in a whole bunch of things that we're going to stipulate. And then it sounds like the best enforcement we have is we're just going to warn them if you do it, and we see that next year, you're not getting money. Got it. Okay. I have some questions on a few particular ones. I know that it looks like the Concerned Citizens, that money is for the MLK breakfast. They charge money to attend that, right?

That money in their application is for their monthly feedings, I believe.

Okay, I saw that it was going to supplies for breakfast, MLK programs, print shops, stamps for the year, food, transportation, cooks, utilities, and insurance.

Give me just a moment. So under their budget narrative, it says the food purchased for 11 to 12 months. Yeah, my understanding of their application is it's for their kind of year-round feeding program. Okay.

What about their budget spreadsheet?

It is listed for $6,000 for supplies for breakfast, $140 to help print programs for the MLK breakfast, $100 for stamps for the year, and $3,700 for food. OK. If I may, one thing the committee will be considering this fall in their meeting, city manager described they meet every fall to kind of refine the process, is putting a cap on the percentage of the budget that can be used on administrative things. So they are looking at how to tighten that up for future years. But that wasn't in place for this year's applications.

Okay. I'm not going to belabor the point. I know, you know, I have no doubt this is going to go through. uh... i'm probably not be able to support it now my book i have a lot of problems with uh... with the structure of the program i think that the taxpayers are are going to be wondering how are spending their money and i can't explain some of the stuff our spending it might to me it's it's almost a reform redistribution and it's funding uh... programs are meeting a very small niche group of people uh... and i don't see the larger community benefit to it and uh... and i don't think this have enough controls in place to be able to uh... to protect how that money's being spent i'd like to work on that for the future but uh... but right now i'm not comfortable with this special we're gonna ask tax on taxpayers to not reduce their property taxes. I think we owe them an explanation that every dollar we spend for them of their tax dollars, we are making sure that it's not going to any kind of a project that might not be benefiting the common good but is more specialized towards individual goods. So those are my thoughts and opinions. I don't think I hold back on where I'm at, but I just think that to be transparent, I'm going to share now and I'll share it again on Tuesday.

Any other questions or comments from the Commission?

I guess regarding the Marching Wolverines, are they part of this or not?

The Wolverines that are in there, as I recall, and Katrina Craig may have been wrong, I think that's the sports program.

Yeah, the organization that applied under the name Wolverines was the Youth Sports League, not the band.

The band, there's funding that is set aside within the parks and recreation budget.

I know the Lake Maude project, some of you may or may not be aware of that, too. I know it was discussed there, too. And I didn't see that. I don't know if that was even considered at this time or did they even submit.

You're talking about the cemetery? Correct. So they submitted and they were not recommended?

Didn't they spend their money on their attorney? That's what the concern was?

The committee discussed that application intently. They did submit, but they have not been recommended. They haven't spent all the money from before, and it wasn't spent the way that was outlined in their application. And then there were also concerns over ownership of the property from the committee. So they did not recommend an award for them at this time.

Yeah, I think the process, what I'm aware of, is that still going forward with the ownership was a major issue, which is what the city asked them to do in order to obtain that. And so that's what the money was actually being utilized for. That process hasn't completed itself to my understanding. However, there is still, you know, once that is established and then, of course, many of those graves, as you are aware, or may not be aware, but Part of the reason they're unmarked is because many of those graves were moved from one location to that location many years ago.

Yeah, and the committee did encourage them to apply again in the future. They just felt that this year the application wasn't kind of where it needed to be, and it didn't fall in line with the categories that were given in youth, elderly, and homeless.

Sure. One other thing that I failed to mention in the fact sheet that I think is significant is you know there was legislative changes this year through set of the one one three four it was titled official actions to local governments that speaks to use of funding is it promote is it pertains to funding or promoting directly or indirectly or taking official action related to programs and policies that relates to diversity equity and inclusion so your grant and aid folks fall within that that if you provide funding out that's considered funding for programs that could fall within that so the city attorney's office has assisted us in creating a attestation that would be required to be signed this year prior to any distribution of funds and will be incorporated in future years should the program continue as a requirement at the time of submittal become one of their required documents so that we don't violate anything from the state's perspective in that regard.

All right, any other questions, comments?

All right, so just point of order, yes, go ahead. When this comes up, so for voting purposes, as I mentioned, one of the things that we had had the members of the grant need application review committee do going into it was identify any agencies that were in there to which they had an affiliation that would create a conflict. And so when they voted, If there was a conflict, we pulled that agency out so that there was a list that was just the agencies where no conflicts existed and the entire committee could vote on that. And then for those where there was a conflict, we handled those individually with the individual who had a conflict having to abstain and file the proper Form 8B and so on. We recommend that be the same case for the city commission in the event you're affiliated with any of the, however many agencies are recommended for funding.

So that was in line with kind of where I was going with my next questions. Are you going to go ahead and can we pre-do that? Like you can talk with each commissioner one-on-one between now and Tuesday, break that out so that we can go ahead and just have separate votes on each tranche.

Yeah, you have to disclose the conflict at the meeting.

Well, can't we do that at the meeting, but also get prepared going into that meeting to have...

I think the answer to it is just look at the list of who's recommended for funding, and if you have any affiliation with that, identify that, and we'll have the forms ready for you.

I get that, but I'm just saying, because it just gets confusing and going back and like, oh, well, let's take this out and that out. I would rather have just a, you know, here's, as the committee recommended, here's tranche A. As recommended by the committee, here's tranche B. These are excluded because from the first raunch because you know j commissioner and be commissioner that way we don't have to go back and forth with taken things out relatively simple we'll be prepared to expedite that as quickly as possible and then uh... if there is a specific item that someone wanted to recommend or motion that would be a completely separate

motion outside of this recommendation is that correct yes okay just want to clarify that going into these yeah and and just framing the issue these are recommendations from the committee you've appointed and like anything else the city commission the recommendations only i mean you could you could say upward as mr commissioner davis has said i've

i'm not supportive of that thank you for your recommendations i don't want to go along with that so you're all free to do that or have your own recommendations based on whatever i will that's kind of what i'm that's kind of what i'm getting at is like you know i'm trying to just the point of order of the process and approving or denying it would be nice to and i don't know maybe it's not possible but just Getting into these situations to where this commissioner wants that then you know, it takes four votes So do we we just let it go with the four votes and that's that's the way it's enough or excuse me three votes Yeah, I think I think My comment to you at 716 tonight is that yes That is generally how that works And if it failed and a new motion can be brought before on different selected items, correct?

And as you as you all recall under our codified rules of procedure motions don't require seconds at our city commission actions they do need to be part of the agenda which the agenda rules so i think that's part of that's been adhered to here um so yeah i think and the mayor as you are you preside and you you either entertain it or allow it or you don't i mean you know you're committed to allow

discussion on matters that you think are properly before you and we're going to be here obviously to help you if you have questions about that just the more clarity that we can have going into it just in because we've been we've all sat in these meetings before where we got to pull this and add that back just That's all I was getting at. Commissioner Davis, you have a question?

Yeah, you kind of jogged my memory there. You said the committee that we appointed. When we revised the committee process, it went from us individually appointing to a recommendation being made to us. Why did we change it? Was there a reason for that?

Because we had changeover in commissioners. We had open seats within that. And all of our other committees are done by commissioners. an application process that comes to you when it was first established. It was established by each person appointing one person to that on their behalf.

Okay. Because I would love to have had someone... that I had appointed on that committee. I sent my letter so I had a voice there in some way, but I would have loved to have had someone. And then they don't choose the chair. How is the chair chosen?

Amongst them.

They do choose the chair. Okay. Okay. All right. We can talk, I guess, in the fall when we start regrouping for the next batch, we can talk about some of these things then.

Well, and I don't mean to interrupt, so I'm sorry if I did. No, you're fine. But I do think, to confirm your point, Commissioner Davis, the city commission is the ultimate arbiter on how you want this process to unfold. Yeah. And so that's, you know, as the mayor noted, that's kind of three. On this issue, in terms of how you want this process to... So you could... You as a commission could configure this however you as a majority wanted to do that.

I think that's a good idea for us to revisit this later when we have the time to really put some thought into it. And that's been, I guess, my biggest heartburn with this is that I'm new to it. you know, it's happening relatively quickly since I've joined the commission, so I'm not, you know, I'm raising concerns, but I'm not trying to throw a wrench into everything. But I would like to come together, you know, later on in the year and discuss more ideas and find out where everybody else is on some of these things and then maybe try to have an even more streamlined process when we go into next year.

Yeah, a good time for clarity on that, I think, is after we get a little bit more clarity on where the state legislature is going with funding and budgeting, and we may decide that we need to pause the program at some point. So certainly I think between now and then we'll let that unfold, and then we can bring that, discuss it at the commission level.

Yeah, just for, you know, with First Missionary Baptist Church, many of you are directly affiliated, Commissioner Birdsong actually is part of the church as well in the sense that he does give leadership in the ministry also. That is one of the places. I know last year we had to exclude, and we did. In fact, that being the case, it takes three to approve.

Or tier one.

If there's only three voting, it takes two. Okay. So I'm just saying that just for that understanding, because I know that we definitely would recuse ourselves from that as we did last year for that reason.

2-2 fails, 2-1 passes, 3-1 passes.

Correct.

All right. Any questions, comments on this?

Not on this, but I do have one more thing before you adjourn. Okay.

We'll follow, we'll get into this on Tuesday. I'm sure we'll have more questions and discussion at that point, but good discussion tonight. So with that, just the general normal items. So I'll go to Commissioner Davis first.

Yes. So this is, I apologize, this is kind of coming out left field, but because we have to communicate in the sunshine, I didn't know how else to do this. I have put together a memo that I'm going to pass out to all of you. This is related to the data that the city manager shared with us on salaries, commission salaries. I will also share this digitally so you can share it. I communicated with the city attorney and he suggested that I bring it up now in the sunshine. What I'd like to do is ask that we can have this agenda at some point for an actual conversation. I'm not asking that we talk about it tonight. You can see here what I did is I took the numbers and crunched them. I looked at just Polk County cities. The other cities were interesting, but I think most people are going to compare our city, our commission salaries to other Polk County cities. And we're also looking at unique growth in this area that's contributing to the workload, which is kind of why I'm interested in revisiting this. And then I created some benchmarks, first looking at a full total per capita spending in the county on salaries, and that gave a really high benchmark. So then I found that some of the smaller cities had, you know, they were a bit skewed, giving a higher per capita for their salaries based on the lower population. So I pulled those out and I set it at cities with populations of 6,000 or more. And you can see there that kind of brought it a little more reasonable. It raised our salaries from the $17,000 to $24,000. But the mayor per capita was a little bit higher percentage-wise. I think it was about 24% compared to our current 16% differential. So I then used the 16% differential to reduce the mayor's salary a little bit just so it wasn't quite as high. as big of a range. So you can see my recommendation. This is a starting point for us to discuss if we decide to have this on the agenda. But you can see the rest of my recommendations there. It would increase us to 24,000 and the mayor to 28,000. That's what the memo says. I would like to know, have some further guidance on how do we move forward with getting this on the agenda. Is that something we need to vote on on Tuesday, make a motion that we bring this back in another agenda? Or is there a way to do consensus without a vote? Or how do we, what will be the next steps?

I mean, if you're looking at me to answer the question, I'm happy to help.

Yeah, I'm not presuming that everybody's in favor of this, so I just want to know how, as one commissioner, what I can do.

I believe that... that a consensus of the commission could be had to add an item to the agenda if that was the desire. I will look to the mayor because the mayor is the presiding officer and so I'd like to know his druthers or his thinking on that. You could add a meeting, make a motion, to add something to an agenda and see what you get. I mean, that's a more formal way of soliciting consensus at an open meeting. But if tonight, for example, you wanted to get consensus on having this on an agenda, you could probably do that if you wanted to.

Let's ask without objection. Is there any objection?

Right.

I think my preference would be I'd rather hear a motion at a normal agenda meeting on it and then we can have the discussion and at a future meeting yeah i'm happy to do that i intend to do that just so you're aware but i'm happy to do that on tuesday we can do that under liaison reports right yeah yeah perfect great thank you all right any other questions comments all right we made up for our quick meeting a couple weeks ago with that we will adjourn