That thirty thousand dollars, just because uh, as we're looking to kind of finalize terms for some of the upcoming homeowner innovation programs, there's just a lot more kind of legal things to work through in terms of like when we're getting into higher cost projects, there's more things that we have to figure out in terms of how we kind of make everything uh work in compliance with uh various regulations that we might be subject to.

So we're leveraging to the extent possible additional kind of um services that we have available in-house through the city.

Um, but want to make sure that we're kind of fine and a balance of being able to work efficiently and kind of stay on track with timelines for some of those other program terms.

So, I think that's a good idea.

I think we'll probably have a little bit more information uh within our next meeting.

So keep us posting.

All right.

So we need uh a motion for this resolution, correct?

Yep.

We'll entertain a motion.

I'll second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, carried.

All right, let's move on to our operating budget.

All right, so um item number three is a request to amend the fiscal year 25 operating budget, um, not specific to legal services, but to a couple other costs.

Um so what we had previously discussed at uh the finance committee meeting a couple weeks ago.

Um we were just adjusting the amount that was in our uh total line items for directors and officers and liability insurance.

Um the uh final amount that came back was about 175 different than uh what we had budgeted for originally.

Um so we just reduce that from our uh another one of our administrative lines through licensing and uh fees to make that adjustment.

Um there is a copy of the budget that was reviewed uh at our meeting two weeks ago, as well as a second copy of it.

So um, for those of you that were at the meeting, I um had mentioned that just based on where we were at with um projected spend for block challenge applications received so far to date that probably within the next month we were going to need to bump that line up to be able to accommodate those applications.

And as of this morning, we have doubled the amount of applications that we have in hand from where we were at two weeks ago, um, which is great.

Uh we're up to a total of nine applications, 42 participants total, but we're within about uh uh less than $10,000 cushion of what was originally authorized for the program.

Um so we were looking to just kind of bump that amount up.

Obviously, we don't want to approve any applications that would be in excess of the total amount for the program that the board has authorized.

Um we do want to make sure that we're able to kind of turn around reviews of those for people expeditiously as we're receiving them.

So uh rather than uh waiting uh another month, I think we're making a recommendation that we bump up that line for that budget um $50,000 to the direct services line, so it uh works out to about a $55,000 difference total, accounting for the additional admin costs that would be um kind of under the umbrella of the agreement with home headquarters that we would have.

So correct, yeah.

Um and I think that uh as we continue to kind of work through some of the programmatic terms for um what homeowner renovation programs look like.

I think the way that this is broken out now, it contemplates a minor exterior program.

Uh I think that there's some uh room to deliberate the warrants of having a separate distinct exterior program separate from the block challenge program, kind of understanding that we did bump up the budgeted costs a little bit.

Um so I think that those lines are going to kind of continue to uh shift as we work through what program structures look like, but um at the end of the day it's still working out to the same amount that's going to direct assistance to homeowners.

So I think that's that's what we want to see.

I think the applications that we have that are coming in for every dollar that we're putting in so far, we're leveraging about a dollar and forty cents for anticipated spends.

So I think that's that's good.

It's showing that we're getting money off the sidelines, which is what we're kind of trying to accomplish.

So Michelle, forgive me, I just want to make sure I'm following.

So the there's two changes.

One is relative to DNO and liability insurance, right?

And so that's uh adding an additional one seventy-five uh and that is across both insurance lines on the budget.

I'm looking at the budget here.

Yes.

Okay.

And that and that those funds get taken from where?

Uh licenses and fees.

Thank you.

You did say that.

Okay.

Um, and then going up to uh the uh which is not included in the summary, but the um the last page in your packet is reflected on that budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Marked is uh version reviewed 922 25.

Um so that just shows kind of where we take those additional.

Thank you.

Where the heck is mine?

In here somewhere, I'll look at yours.

Okay.

Oh, you know what?

It's probably on the butt.

Uh I brought the one that was printed out from earlier.

So it's probably right here.

There it is.

Thank you.

Bear with me, folks.

I'm gonna make sure I understand this here.

Okay, so okay, so that's what I was missing.

So up from 73695 to 123,695.

Got it.

And again, um that is being drawn from the administrative program administration.

It's coming out yeah, so homeowner expenses direct costs.

Uh so it's specifically coming out of a projected line of the of a minor exterior program.

Um again, I think that that's kind of where we'll it's quite possible that we might end up fully folding minor exterior costs into either block challenge or homeowner renovation, but we can kind of continue to work through that over the next couple months.

I think the biggest thing is that like I said, we don't want to be in a position where we're approving applications in excess of the anticipated amount that the board is authorized for the program.

So well, I know I recall when we first looked at this, folks, including the counselors anticipated we'd have had high demand on this, and we do.

So this is a good problem to have.

And so I'm certainly supportive.

Any other questions on that?

I will entertain a motion.

I'll move it.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, carried.

All right.

Let's keep moving.

Uh got some block challenge program amendments.

Yeah, so um, as you all will recall, um, as we've kind of discussed uh the current terms for the block challenge program um as authorized, or that we have the ability to do uh administrative approvals so long as the applications that we're receiving are uh in compliance with the terms of the program as adopted by the board uh in the event that there's any uh um applications that would come before us that would be considered kind of a a waiver deviation from those adopted policies, that would be at the point that we would need to bring them to the board.

Um so I think the items that we have here are just kind of uh indicative of uh as we've been working through applications received so far, just some things that we want to kind of clean up a little bit from a language standpoint to make sure that uh everything kind of is consistent across um I think what has been discussed with the board thus far, but otherwise is a little bit uh kind of gray in the the wording of the policy as it currently states.

So um these were all things that we discussed at the most recent committee meeting, uh but just to kind of review them again for folks who were not uh in attendance at that meeting.

I think the biggest one of those is um uh clarifying um eligibility waivers for line of site proximity.

Um so right now the current terms of the program state that uh at least uh every team member member must be able to see at least one other team member from their front door uh as we have uh kind of stated our team's really committed to making sure that we're working with people to find ways to accommodate that if um that is not able to be met for whatever kind of practical purposes.

Um so I think we just want to uh amend the guidance uh there that um that is something that can be um uh determined administratively without that piece of it coming back to the board.

I'm totally in favor.

Okay.

All right.

Looks like uh we'll just keep going with the amendments.

Okay.

Are we moving on them one by one or is one resolution?

Um I think it's probably best for us to do them one by one only because I think that uh there's a couple of these that we actually don't want to move.

So uh all right, so I will entertain a motion uh uh to approve amendment number one motion.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye, posed, carried.

Okay.

Thanks.

Um so the next one uh was eligibility for participation based on deviations of property occupancy or use.

So um the current terms state that uh any uh participating team members must be uh residential use of a property.

Um so we've had a couple instances uh both in the Tip Hill neighborhood where there's um some uh commercial businesses as well as a church that have uh we've received inquiries as far as their ability to participate uh on a team with other uh residential members.

Um I think what was discussed at the committee meeting, I think that it was everyone was in clear agreement that uh any churches or religious uses are um would be ineligible for this program, just kind of understanding separation of church and state and other kind of um things that we have to be considerate of in terms of uh obligations under uh public authorities law that that's one that we can't accommodate.

Um I think there was some additional discussion and uh kind of a uh split opinion amongst the members of the uh board who were at the committee meeting around um applicability of commercial uh uses.

I think where we ultimately landed was that at this time we want to keep it residential, was my uh recollection.

So um how does that fit in with mix you?

Uh I think that for mixed use there is that that would be considered kind of having a residential dwelling component.

So our thought is that that kind of complies with the terms as they exist.

So if there's a residential um kind of first floor commercial upstairs apartments, something like that, that would meet what we're looking for.

Okay.

I also owned a property that was residential with a use variance or commercial.

How does that apply?

I think we would kind of uh divert to if it is being used as a residential structure.

Um even if there was a variance on it, I think we would have to kind of uh take a look closer at those, but off uh face value, kind of if it still has the ability to have uh residential dwelling there based on building code, we would consider that application.

Um so I think it as it is uh contemplated here, what we're talking about is a structure that is strictly operating as a commercial business, no mixed use component whatsoever.

I think in the examples that came before us, they were for um a couple uh kind of like neighborhood bars that are uh along Avery Av um situations where it's like you have that commercial use directly next to strictly residential uses.

Um so I think that from a uh kind of neighborhood cohesion standpoint, there is an argument to be made for uh there being some value add there of having kind of the that relationship between the business owners and uh surrounding neighbors.

We've certainly had any number of instances and when those types of relationships are not in good order, that also causes problems.

Um but I think the um I think the stance of the board as it was discussed uh in the most recent committee meeting, um, I think folks were kind of feeling like the purpose of this program is meant to be residential, and at this point we want to keep it that way.

Generally comfortable with that?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so I don't think that there's anything that uh necessarily needs to be voted on there because based on the way that the terms are currently written, but I think we just wanted to kind of reflect that.

So moving on.

Um so next one that we're looking for here uh would be uh reimbursement maximums for a project with a shared component.

Um this the impetus of this was that we received an application for um from two neighbors that had a situation where they have a legally shared driveway based on their property plans kind of as adopted, and so they were inquiring as to whether or not in that situation uh they could both be eligible for a reimbursement or if it was limited to one because it's effectively one driveway.

Um I think we're uh asking that we would be able to approve uh an application that would have such a situation if uh the team were to meet one of the two uh requirements, so they would either add an additional participant to their team uh or they would also uh in addition to that shared project component, each of those uh individual applicants would uh pursue another add-on item to their project scope just to kind of ensure that the work that they're doing sort of meets the spirit of what everybody else, the minimum kind of threshold that everyone else would be being asked to do.

Um and I believe that there was a recommendation also in that very specific example, understanding the driveway that we make sure that they um uh if it is not already in place that there's a um a shared use agreement, there was a technical.

Driveway shared driveway agreement, it should be filed with the deed.

Otherwise, you're gonna have insurance issues and everything else.

Right.

And you might want to deal with the fact that frequently they aren't shared driveways, they're two abutting driveways.

Yeah, they're talking to each other.

Yeah.

Sometimes they don't even talk to each other, right?

So I think you ought to make a distinction that if there are two abutting driveways, this would not go into play.

Unless there was an agreement signed with the neighboring owner.

Any questions or comments about the reimbursements for shared projects?

Do we need action on this one, Michelle?

Um I think yes, um, that we would pursue the they would either need to have four more participants or add another project component.

Okay.

So moved.

Second.

Any further discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Carried.

Excellent.

Um last one that we have for block challenge amendments.

Um, so would looking uh be looking to amend the terms to uh allow us to make accommodations that would essentially um give participants a little bit more flexibility in how they are pacing out their project costs over their maximum allowable uh participation round.

So the current uh rules of the program state that a homeowner may participate up to three times in a five year period.

And so kind of currently the structure of the program is you for every dollar you spend, you get a 50% reimbursement up to $2,500.

So whether you spend $5,000 or $10,000, you will only currently be reimbursed up to that $2,500 amount.

So I think what we're looking to kind of clarify is that in the event that a homeowner once they hit that $5,000 threshold, we would allow them to consider documented project costs in excess of 50,000 of that 5,000 to be a contribution towards their future homeowner match.

So I think the example that is given within the executive summary packet.

So if you were to do a $10,000 siding project for your first round application, you would be reimbursed $2,500 that first time.

But then you could uh turn around a second application.

Uh, if you were doing say $3,000 of work that next time, we would reimburse you $2,500 the second time without you having to demonstrate new match because you've already met your match requirement on the first round.

So I think it just kind of helps homeowners a little bit uh uh gives people I think a little bit more incentive to maybe do some larger projects that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Um I think it also kind of creates a little bit of additional incentive to make sure that people are kind of doing work fully all the way.

I think the way that this was kind of put to us originally was I want to do a $10,000 siding project, can I do half of it now and half of it later?

And the answer is no, you can't.

Um we do need you to do kind of a full scope of work.

Um, but it does kind of um at the end of the day, it doesn't put us out any more money.

Uh, and I think it just makes it a little bit easier for homeowners to kind of juggle uh projects.

So to be clear that the subsequent asks are for separate projects.

Correct.

It would be for a new project component, but we would be allowed to consider previously documented expenses.

Obviously, we're gonna have a record of their receipts that they incurred for that project component.

Um, so it's pretty easy for us to be able to verify what was actually spent.

And that just so just to clarify a little tidbit stuff that wouldn't say like I got my house painted this first round and I didn't like the paint color, I'm gonna change it.

And correct.

We would not allow you just to uh kind of change it that way.

We would yeah, it would need to be a demonstrably different project component.

All right.

Okay.

Umless are any other questions, I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye, opposed, carried.

All right, that covers new business.

Let's get into old business with some updates.

Yeah, so I think we uh kind of actually ended up touching on a decent amount of this just with um in discussing kind of the budget for the block challenge program.

But um, so far we've had great participation and interest.

Uh we've had well over a hundred inquiries to our office with the applications that we've received so far.

Um I think we're we're seeing that uh what has come in is uh having kind of the anticipated impact that I think we would like to have.

So um continuing to kind of work through different uh community outreach items, um, doing the neighborhood meeting circuit, um public events and things like that.

Um but I think the words getting out there, so all in all, I think things are going well with that.

Um as far as kind of additional next steps, I think included within the packet, and we talked about this a little bit at the committee meeting as well.

Um this just kind of breaks out the uh timeline of uh what we would be asking the board to kind of work through uh in the coming months uh at um over the course of kind of different committee meetings.

So uh obviously uh in July we authorized the terms of the block challenge program, got applications open uh in September.

I think what we want to kind of try to do for looking to um larger renovation programs is sort of uh get ourselves to a place within the next two months where we have kind of a I would consider it like a 80% uh draft terms that we would kind of work through.

I think our thinking is that we'll take a pass at kind of reviewing the program guidelines that have been established for similar uh organizations that we've been looking to model off of, work through them with the board and kind of identify um using that as a uh a baseline, kind of where the things where everyone's in unanimous agreement that we think that they make sense make a list of the items that we feel like are gonna uh if it requires, I would say more than about 10 minutes of discussion at the time, that becomes something that we kind of want to table, use that as things that we're getting feedback from uh people uh over the course of kind of some focus groups and things like that that we want to be doing.

Um but we want to kind of try to find a balance between having something that the board is at least comfortable with kind of in concept, use that to shop around a little bit to uh residents and homeowners in the uh context of some focus groups, and then we can kind of work through the areas where there might be some sticking points.

So just making sure that we're kind of um being able to do some due diligence and uh obviously at up to any point in time we can come back and make adjustments based on feedback that we hear.

Um, but that uh we think would probably put us in a good position that we could kind of work through the both kind of adoption of what those terms look like, related outreach, come back and have a final uh set of program terms uh buttoned up by January, uh, and then would be looking to uh get applications open for the larger home renovation programs in February of 2026, um which would give people enough time to kind of take advantage of a full weather construction season and all that good stuff.

That's great.

Good.

Um Michelle, forgive me if you mentioned this.

I know the last meeting we had, we talked about where the applications were coming from for the BCP, and at the time they were uh we had applications from Tip Hill, but not yet Salt Springs.

Can you just give us a quick breakdown?

Yeah, so um where we stand as of today uh of the nine applications that we've received, seven are from Tip Hill, one is from the far west side, and one is from Salt Springs.

Um I expect that just based on feedback that we've heard from residents, there's several larger teams in Salt Springs that are working to assemble their applications, and we expect that we'll be getting those in within the next couple weeks.

So ultimately, I'm at this point.

I'm not necessarily concerned about kind of distribution of resources across the neighborhoods.

That's something I think we can certainly kind of keep an eye on.

Um, but in terms of kind of total number of participants, I think that uh there's just been a lot of folks that have reached out looking for teams.

We've um neighbors have been great about accepting additional team members, and so the larger the group, the more stuff there is to wrangle.

So I think they're just um taking a little bit longer to get them in, but I don't think that that will at this point ultimately be reflective of overall participation.

So I have heard that I heard that there was like a group convening um in that area that um that will be submitting, maybe yeah.

Yeah, if it if at any point you do you are concerned, just let us know.

Otherwise we'll uh current uh record team size is about nine, uh, but from what I understand of several of the Salt Springs teams, I think they might be pushing the to beat that record.

So there of how many people no, there's not a max.

Uh like I said, the kind of the more the merrier.

Uh, if we get to a point where it becomes unwieldy, then maybe we'll look to implement one.

Um, but I think people have been uh doing a good job of kind of working with their neighbors to pace that according to their capacity.

So any other business to come before the board.

Um I think the only other thing that we just kind of wanted to make a note of, um, and this is in a similar vein of kind of some policy amendments, understanding the timeline that we just kind of talked through for uh finalizing terms for some of the larger grant programs.

I think we have received several inquiries from people who have projects that are lined up that are like very substantial rehabs, kind of north of 100,000.

Um, and so there has been uh expressed interest uh that we have heard loud and clear from folks about kind of applying a similar concept of future homeowner match to some of those larger renovation programs.

Um I think the guidance that we would be looking to give those folks right now uh is that uh tread cautiously, understanding that we don't have any programmatic terms fully adopted at this point.

Um but I think uh what was discussed uh at the most recent committee meeting was essentially that the board feels that we can figure out a way to bake in some guidelines into what is ever ultimately adopted for the homeowner um larger substantial rehab programs that would accommodate that same principle and would kind of set a timeline of you know July 2025 when we started doing programming uh anyways that uh if you have evidence of kind of significant project expenses that you would incurred and I think we would also kind of put like a three-year cap on it if you want to kind of uh jump ahead of wherever you would otherwise be for some of the smaller geographies that we would work with you to do that again, um, understanding that we want to we don't want to discourage people from investing in their properties sooner rather than later.

So makes sense.

So I don't think that there's any action needed on that, but just kind of reflecting that we've had that discussion and no one is opposed to that idea.

Yeah, hope to help them but proceed at your own risk.

Right.

Yep.

Okay.

Everybody good motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Second all in favor?

Aye opposed meeting is adjourned.

Thanks everybody.

Happy Monday