This Commission Meeting was conducted utilizing Communications Media Technology. Some Staff members were present in the Commission Chambers while others were present via the Zoom application to respect the social distancing guidelines.

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS:

Shirley Groover Bryant, Mayor

Tamara Cornwell, Commissioner-at-Large 2

Sheldon Jones, Commissioner-at-Large 1

Sunshine Mathews, Commissioner, Ward 2

Harold Smith, Commissioner, Ward 1

Brian Williams, Commissioner, Ward 3

 

STAFF PRESENT IN CHAMBERS:

Mark Barnebey, City Attorney (Joined the meeting at 4:31 pm)

Xavier Colon, Interim CRA Director

Jim Freeman, City Clerk

Mohammed Rayan, Public Works Director

Scott Tyler, Chief of Police

Cassi Bailey, Assistant City Clerk

Penny Johnston, Executive Assistant

 

STAFF PRESENT ELECTRONICALLY:

Todd Williams, Information Technology (IT) Consultant

 

 

   Mayor Bryant opened the meeting at 4:30 pm.

 

 

1.       SAFE HARBOR MARINA UPDATE

 

Matt Albert gave up an update on Safe Harbor Marina at Regatta Pointe. They are requesting an extension to the current easement agreement. This extension will be on the 7:00 pm meeting for approval. He presented a PowerPoint, which was included in the record. Mr. Albert highlighted where they are at this point in the project and the areas in which they have completed. He discussed Hurricane Ian and the impact it had on this project and other projects they are working on. Mr. Albert requested a 9-month extension from their original March 2023 expiration date.

 

  Commissioner Jones questioned the timing of the extension. It was answered that they originally thought the project would be completed in March 2023, but they are now asking to extend it until December 2023.

 

  Bill Galvano noted that he has been working with Mr. Barnebey on the extension agreement. 

 

 

 

 

 

City Commission/CRA Workshop

December 5, 2022

Page 2 of 4

 

 

2.       RESIDENTIAL FAÇADE ENHANCEMENT GRANT (X.COLON)

 

Mr. Colon stated that what is being presented is the second draft of the residential façade grant. It is similar to the commercial façade grant, but it also incorporates pieces of Bradenton’s successful grant program. Residents would be eligible for a 50/50 match, up to $10,000 for improvements to the outside of their home. This is a brand-new program, and funding has already been allocated in the budget.

 

  Mr. Williams opined that he liked the program, but he doesn’t think $100,000 is enough. It would potentially only help 10 families.  He also questioned if tenants are eligible. Mr. Colon clarified that it is open for owner-occupied single-family homes only. He will remove the word tenant from any remaining sections. Mr. Colon suggested seeing how successful the program is this year and making adjustments to the budget going forward. This is a 50/50 matching grant.

 

 Ms. Cornwell questioned the release of funding. She asked if a resident does the work themselves, how will the funding be released to them. Mr. Colon responded that they will be reimbursed upon completion. The grant is for reimbursement, as opposed to giving the money up front. Ms. Cornwell stated that she wants to make sure that what one is granted for, they must do. Mr. Colon mentioned the project maintenance section of the document and referenced failure to maintain the project will result in reimbursement of funds.

 

 Ms. Mathews spoke on eligible residential improvements, number 8 on the document. It would allow up to 20% of reimbursement for landscaping and irrigation improvements.

 

 Mr. Jones questioned the reimbursement of funds if they don’t maintain the project. Mr. Colon responded that there may be a lien issued, but also acknowledged that it can be challenging to recoup the money. They are hoping people act in good faith. Mr. Jones clarified that this program is not income based. Mr. Colon responded that they have to live in the CRA, but there are no income restrictions. Mr. Jones hopes this can come forward by the new year.

 

 Mayor Bryant questioned new construction being excluded. Mr. Colon responded that a house built within a certain amount of time would not be eligible. He will look into the exact timing. A limit of 3-5 years from the time of construction can be added.

 

 Mr. Williams discussed the budget amount. Mr. Colon responded that he suggests leaving it at $100,000 now and see the amount of interest they receive. They can do a budget amendment if needed. Mr. Williams’ concern is that too many people will be eligible, and they won’t have enough funds. Mr. Williams wants to increase the budget now. Mr. Colon stated that Matt Misco, Finance Manager, can be of assistance for budgeting purposes. Mr. Freeman also spoke of the CDBG grant that may also be able to assist residents in home improvements.

 

  Mr. Smith stated that the only problem he has with the program is that you must be established to participate. Mr. Colon answered that the owner has to occupy the property, they don’t have to own the property outright. They can have a mortgage on their home. Mr. Smith questioned paying back the grant money. Mr. Colon responded that all of their programs have claw back methods if one is not upholding the investment according to code. The timeframe for being in good standing was discussed. The eligibility is for 60 months. Mr. Smith doesn’t want someone to lose their home if something happens to them during the 60-month period and they’re not able to spend money to upkeep the project.

City Commission/CRA Workshop

December 5, 2022

Page 3 of 4

 

 

 Ms. Cornwell stated that this document is very well written and thought out. She would also like to wait and see if the $100,000 is enough for this programs budget. She asked about “double dipping”. For example, someone who has received funding from FEMA, can’t also get money from this grant. Ms. Cornwell thinks this will be a great program. Mr. Colon will look into the wording in the document to help prevent “double dipping”.

 

 Mr. Williams questioned if someone who receives the CDBG grant will also be eligible for this grant. Mr. Colon responded that these may not be the same individuals applying because the CDBG grant has an income limit. With this grant, you have to have the money up front to pay for the project. Mr. Williams would like it to be disclosed on the application if they’ve applied for or received other funding.

 

 Mr. Jones questioned the amount of estimates an applicant must get. Mr. Colon responded that they can get three like quotes. This is discussed at a meeting before they start their project. Mr. Jones clarified that the CDBG grant is income based.

     

 

3.       RECREATION CENTER RELOCATION CONCEPT DISCUSSION (X.COLON)

 

Mr. Colon discussed relocation of recreation facilities. He briefly explained the history of this discussion. He highlighted the conceptuals which were included in the record. He mentioned the details of each conceptual, highlighting changes that would be made to the current location, and what would be added. The concepts show that the basketball courts would be redone and relocated at Lamb Park, and new pickleball and tennis courts would go in at the 17^th St. Park. He reiterated that these are just concepts. He is not asking for a decision at this time. Mr. Colon would like the Board’s feedback. He also noted that any trees that would need to be removed, would be replaced with new trees.

 

  Ms. Cornwell really liked the ideas which were presented. She thinks it’s great that the new pickleball and tennis courts would be so close to Palmetto High School. She believed it would be very useable. She stated that the lighting is good, and they can be mindful of the direction of the lights. She also loved the pavilion idea. She questioned if the existing bathrooms would stay. Mr. Colon responded that he believes they would. They would add additional bathrooms by the pickle ball courts, which would also have water fountains. Ms. Cornwell opined that putting the basketball courts in that area of Lamb Park wouldn’t have much of an adverse effect on the Women’s Club. She likes that it’s closer to the new police department. Mr. Colon reiterated that the courts would be lit but they would try to avoid washout into neighboring homes. Ms. Cornwell questioned the building that was torn down. Mr. Colon answered that with the removal of the current courts, the potential new Celebration Center could be placed near the bathrooms and playground on Sutton Park in the future. Ms. Cornwell reiterated how much she liked the concepts.

 

  Ms. Mathews agreed that the 17^th St. addition is extremely exciting. She thought the tennis courts and pickleball courts will be well used. She really liked the concepts.

 

  Mr. Jones asked how they are going to place the two pavilions at 17^th Street. He doesn’t think they need additional bathrooms, but they do need water fountains. Mr. Jones didn’t believe they could fit everything from the conceptuals at that location.  Mr. Colon responded that the conceptuals used real maps to come up with the locations. Mr. Jones reiterated that he doesn’t want the additional bathrooms. Mr. Colon mentioned that in the future they could monetize the facility for pickle ball tournaments, and they would need additional bathrooms and a concession area. Mr. Jones would like to keep the entire green space as it is at Lamb Park.

City Commission/CRA Workshop

December 5, 2022

Page 4 of 4

 

 

He thinks the basketball courts should be moved over to Sutton Park. With the renovations of the Women’s Club, he doesn’t think the basketball courts should be at Lamb Park. Mr. Colon mentioned that they were steered away from using Sutton Park as the location of the basketball courts during their last discussion.

 

The conversation was continued to the 7:00 pm CRA Board Meeting.

 

Mayor Bryant adjourned the meeting at 6:01 pm.