I think we would certainly see some value from having someone at 7.9% for meetings and things moving over it.

Obviously, uh, we do have capabilities kind of with the technology of uh being able to be remote much on the half of um that's something that would be press kind of just out of curiosity how many um quite the use of response.

RFP for services were the same for ever since every few years we get an engagement.

Uh but our government policy like this one, I think, allows us to none that are okay.

Just because um Michelle point I suspect it's a fairly small rule, but um see so we can work next month.

You said something about not seeing the amount of budget for the first year.

So this would cover everything.

That's a little bit of prediction with the end this year, should we need it based on kind of timing of each response that we get back on the third?

Just clarifying calendar year versus fiscal year calendar year instead of the year for you.

So when we say fiscal year 25 and calendar year 25 different those, so okay, all right.

So just to be clear, uh the movie uh waiver competitive.

So we're reviewing it as as the finance slash governance committee.

Are we expected to um to vote on it to recommend it to the board or what's the I don't think that there's I'm looking at our future?

Yeah, is it council for uh procedural uh uh opinions otherwise, but uh I'm not sure that there's necessarily anything that requires committee in order for it to be voted on in the board meeting.

I think the role of uh how we're kind of leveraging committee meetings is to just talk through some of the other policy things.

Um it probably kind of hurt to get a thumbs up now, but uh I think the more critical thing probably is the board resolution.

So however it makes no sense other than some of this.

We see that just what I heard there.

Okay, all right.

So just for the purposes of reporting out to the board, um we all you know, any one monitor extra any significant concern counselor only talked about potential conflicts, and we need to make sure we run that through any other concerns about support.

Yeah, in this case we've already heard this piece of choice.

So that's an important point.

Uh again, no, and I was assuming okay, all right.

So I think we're we're comfortable advancing uh the waiver two board uh let's move on to our budget.

Um so the second item here is just uh amendment of the fiscal year 25 operating budget adjusting the total dollar amounts for uh directors, officers insurance and liability insurance.

Um so the uh estimate map that we had had there was about a uh 175 dollar difference.

So we we've uh took those charges if you look uh on the last page of your packet um the items in the red kind of show what the changes are, but we basically just uh subtracted the difference for the board that had been previously budgeted and uh licenses and fees.

Well licensing user we think for uh for our uh this whole what's the name of the quick books, thank you, quick books and stuff like that.

So I suspected that might be a little bit of an over budget.

I was uh approximating based on what sector was paying for simple stuff.

I didn't realize we have to have our significance.

Other questions or concerns yeah, okay, good.

All right, uh so that was technically under the ummittee the this joint meeting, so let's talk about governance community.

All right, so uh just wanted to kind of talk through uh how we've been working to roll out the log town program about three weeks in now.

Um perception of the program has been really positive so far.

We've got a lot of uh engagement out at neighborhood meetings, haven't had well over a hundred uh phone calls with emails that have been sent into the office that are calling about it.

Um have had great response at uh neighborhood meeting turnout.

We had some kind of open house last night, and again, it's all screening would be on your thing to pill.

We've got a few uh kind of pop-up office hours type things where people could just kind of drop by and people out of their applications.

Um we have received a total of four applications at this point, uh, which include about 16, oh 18 properties total, um, which is really exciting um from a budget standpoint in terms of where their painted scopes are, that does put us about halfway through our um uh mouth that is currently budgeted.

So I think we'll continue to keep an eye on that based on applications received.

Um, I think uh certainly from a participation standpoint, obviously part of the reason that we're doing the block down program is to kind of check our map and advance a rollout of some of the larger programs.

And so I think we would want to uh minimally ensure that we can accommodate uh budget-wise everything that we received through the end of this calendar year.

Right.

Um, so we'll amend those as needed, but um they even split over the generals or uh so right now the applications that have come in, they have all been for TIP Hill, but we're aware of several teams, large teams that are putting in salt screen.

So uh I expect that we will continue to be getting those in uh the coming days.

So how do we handle um the vision of resources between the emergency?

There is nothing in terms of our current budgeting that requires us to do anything one way or the other.

Um so I think that that's the kind of thing we would continue to monitor.

I do expect is based on kind of communications that we've had with different teams so that they're gonna end up relatively close, but we can uh kind of adjust things.

They have to assume about the committees that our goal would be to make sure the resources are fairly equitably distributed pending domains.

I think that C C B had recommended specific dollar amounts per neighbor, but so we've got to make sure we're at least somewhat in line with their recommendations.

I think their recommendations were more about budgeting standpoint.

What do you expect if it's going to cost based on capacity to pay?

Uh so I do uh and I think some of that kind of comes down to uh cost and share.

So I think we'll get into that a little bit more with some of the larger programs.

Obviously, this is across the board a 50 cost share.

Uh, I think that there's certainly much room for discussion around uh some kind of graduated uh or tiered cost share based on homeowner income, perhaps that you can put in this place where if you're a certain income, it's 50% match.

If you're at a lower income, you get a slightly higher match.

Uh so we can kind of continue to work through that, but I think that was where their baselines were coming in.

And I actually think that typical because of the number of uh two and three unit properties that they have there, the map ended up actually being relatively close for season meetings as it was with Salt Springs.

So just because of density of we missed.

Are they all looking?

Are they all trying to vote for?

Um, so far a lot of people are, yeah.

Um, there's a handful that are uh some smaller dollar amounts, like just want to get some scoring orders or things like that, um, smaller landscaping, but cool.

All right, other updates.

Uh no, I think that kind of covers the updates.

I think the um items remaining items that we have as far as kind of policy clarifications are all things that have just kind of come up in the context of uh outreach and rollout that we have done to date.

So a lot of our people all recall the current uh stipulations for the program are such that uh what was reviewed and adopted by the board.

Um, we can administratively approve anything that complies with those guidelines, and then in the event that we have situations that do not comply with this guideline, it's we need to be able to either bring a waiver or amend the guidelines.

So uh there's a couple of those that I think we did just want to clarify um all for the purposes of things that I think kind of fall um the uh most critical of them is the line of sight proximity uh one, which I think this is really a function of just ensuring uh they can turnaround and uh applicant responsiveness, obviously, as we talked about uh at our last board meeting.

We are working uh very hard to ensure that there is a way that everyone can get on the team one way or the other, even if they don't fit line of sight.

So uh the words that are currently in the packet uh are such that we would just like to amend the words uh to give administrative discretion for what that means.

Um so uh in the event that we cannot find an immediate line of sight, we would work to find the next closest neighbor or that's not here.

So I think based on our previous conversations, I know there was some concern about the viability of being able to get line of sight every time.

So understanding that's uh that's the goal, and that's the spirit of it.

Um we don't want to not necessarily exclude otherwise interesting participants, so uncomfortable with this discussion.

Okay, okay, else that would be um second one is eligibility based on uh property occupancy and use.

So this uh is based out of some peak worries that we've got specific in uh TIPHL.

So um understanding there's a little bit more kind of commercial uh adjacent residential uses next to each other uh in that particular neighborhood more so than you see in Salt Springs, but um questions as to whether or not a commercial business can participate on a team if they otherwise need line of sight, so they can kind of like stay stone area um could have been participating on a team of homeowners.

Um I think as a kind of recommendation um for commercial businesses.

I think it's a reasonable thing that we could consider accommodating um right now the time terms of the program uh state that it is limited to residential.

Um so if we were to uh make an adjustment for it, um I think we either need to invent the guidelines or we could uh at the point that that application comes in, we anticipate it's coming in in the next uh couple weeks here for you with that, but yes, it does for rule or something.

Do you think it's line stuff?

Uh warning stone or why the adjacent bars further down the street, I think uh the learns was one that was stopped in the neighborhood that's part of the neighborhood.

Exactly, right?

Yeah, yeah.

But except any curve appealed commercial.

I'm just concerned to begin with direction, really slippery slope, slippery slope, and the commercial application could be for more money in typical residential.

I just don't know if I agree with they would be an eligible question.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily because they have the housing as part of the switched use, yeah.

It's not a mixture spirit commercial and five large stones.

Well, interestingly, I don't believe it's already stone but the next use.

Well, now the market on top right well, not any more, yeah, expandable.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah, the uh so I mean they're totally and I agree.

And this would be the first.

I agree with you one.

I think the commercial I mean, it's so lessons and we thought it's gonna make it easier to answer the second question about the legislates.

What's the source of these ones?

Yeah, city uh right through Sarah.

So I think the way that the language and SERA is written is such that it does allow kind of the the blight or vulnerability to blight if left unattended, and I think applies from kind of a whole block whole area, but we'll see a million where the months come from the from this program city dollars, just to be served, yeah.

There's so many stipulations over, but it's like right just to me.

That's part of the reason why I think that's a kind of a non-starter either way.

Um, I also think that there's uh we looked at the number of possible cases.

It's like 10 out of 500.

So I think they're also gonna sort of a discussion of what's commercial, what's uh kids?

I mean, it's there isn't anything to say that at some point in the future we've been established in a commercial program, but right, and I think that that was something we had kind of contemplated uh just based on uh similar structures from the we would CSM.

Um there were I think we would just for those purposes of time and efficiency uh didn't carve it out as a separate program um so that we can kind of focus on this.

So um again, I think even if you think about the overall numbers of commercial businesses, particularly in the two neighborhoods that we're focused on right now, it is a relatively limited number of cases in which we're gonna see a lot of these.

Certainly, there's there could be some on uh uh West GC Street, but um, from a kind of adjacent residential commercial teams that are working together.

I don't know that it's going to be a ton of instances in these two neighborhoods.

Um again, it's a precedent to say yes, yeah.

I agree with that.

I mean, there's a controller, so you should read this guy's stage and use some environments, yeah.

Well um I just residential.

Um I personally, in the case of the commercial businesses, if you are a commercial business that is otherwise participating on a team of surrounding residential structures, I think that there could be some value added to that in terms of business relationship with the adjacent computer.

I think particularly the the is a case that we're kind of thinking of here, like have some of those neighbor connections is probably a good thing.

Um but I also understand kind of the president setting and uh for that nickel of it.

And I think that they're we could just as easily address it through kind of a separate scope.

In the rest of the team of residences, we're not gonna help them into their team.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah.

I think from uh in terms of kind of dollar amounts, we would not change any other rules they would have to compile the same other kind of adjacent line of sight and things of that nature, but you know, something in our east would a lot of the local businesses support the labor association does and both those relationships.

They're looking at that structure, yeah.

We're relevant to people that are logged by it.

Stanford, for example, yeah.

Maybe a future program, yeah.

Yeah, you go to these one especially.

I can see some of the public saying, oh geez, this was also appropriate.

This is just from these funds, it's just we need to vote for listening.

Yeah, so at this point, uh that application, I think they were looking to assemble their team and has not yet been received, so we don't have to.

I think what we were trying to do is just be efficient and kind of responsiveness answering the question.

Um, so I think we can kind of send in that guidance accordingly.

Um census here.

Um so you don't want to bring that one to us say it doesn't respond to the guideline.

Yes.

I would say if it's uh if the it is currently a split vote, then yes, uh, if it were to be a kind of or no from everyone right now uh across the board, then I mean but I don't know uh if our counselor did you kind of want to double down um on your opposition.

I mean that I can see both sides, but I do think that you know I makes you said it's easier.

Um, but you know, if we have two example, two homeowners that uh wanted to do something with their neighborhood establishment on the car generally comfortable with that, but I understand about the precedent.

Um so you know we can certainly keep holder the possibility we miss it as a report, but I think that's a great guess the preferences to this is going to be residential, but have perhaps Michelle is there applications from like the agreement?

Avery, I think was the uh the folks that were looking to put an application together.

They have there used to be a living space involved here.

I don't think yeah, and so I think kind of uh I guess we have also had uh questions about mixed use and uh with any residential structures if there's apartments upstairs.

I think from a staff perspective, we were considering that to have a residential, a sufficient residential component uh that I was not necessarily going to ask for a deviation, but it's it turns out that folks feel strongly otherwise, we can rethink that yeah.

Right, yeah, just that space.

Yeah, no, and I think as it's contemplated here, I was speaking kind of strictly commercial only.

Um so I think we can pick it for now and that works.

Um okay, so this one uh is a question that was kind of raised.

I think in general, there's a lot of uh people that are kind of trying to figure out they uh have quite a bit of work that they want to do when they are trying to figure out how they might be able to most appropriately pace their three participations over a five-year period um to be able to kind of maximize work that they're able to get done.

Uh so I think the way that the question was raised originally is a an easy answer.

Um, I think what the um actual question had been was can I if I want to do like my siding that's gonna cost 10 grand, can I just do half now and half later?

I think that's a pretty straightforward no, you cannot do that.

But I it does beg the question um of is there a way in which we could consider if you're going to take some investment above and beyond in one component now and allow for subsequent participation for new projects.

If you're already going through the process to kind of get those expenses documented, is there a way in which we can accommodate um easily from an administrator standpoint and is the board comfortable with us kind of considering uh any extra cost that you're incurring above your 5,000 to go towards a future match in a different route for a different component.

Um in terms of kind of overall dollar amounts.

I think um it doesn't change the total amount that the board would actually be contributing in any way, shape, or form, and if anything, it does uh incentivize people to do a little bit more work than they might otherwise do.

So it's oh my god, sorry, thank you.

Okay, um, hopefully you can pay them fun, but yeah, I think it's gonna make things easier administratively, but yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, they do have to turn in receipts, and so I think from a kind of case bio management standpoint, I feel comfortable with how we're went into kind of people's packets together and check it uh easily enough.

So um, since I did accidentally skip shared driveway, it's gonna make a little bit more sense if we go down towards uh substantial homeowner rental rehabs just for a moment um because it's effectively the same concept.

So um, this is kind of coming from uh kind of multiple uh people that have inquired about kind of substantial home renovations that they want to do.

Um people that have been a part of the steering committee meetings to kind of understand the fact that um when we get to the larger programs, we're going to be uh kind of likely starting in some smaller subclusters of the neighborhood.

We're not necessarily going to go with full spread of the neighborhood from day one, like we are with this program.

So um they have projects teed up, they're ready to go, and they want to know can I do work now?

Can I use that in some way to kind of get credit for future projects that I might want to do for you guys my neighborhood?

Um I think again, kind of in a similar vein.

We uh there's no reason for us to delay people who want to invest in their properties.

Um, I do think that with the larger programs, it does kind of open up a slightly different can of learners understanding that we don't have all of the terms of that program fleshed out yet.

So I think what we're asking at this point is just a little bit more of the temperature check from people about how we might give people guidance kind of in the interim.

Um I think uh we would be looking if the board felt like that's kind of a regionally reasonable concept.

I think the guidance that we would give in response to that is a most likely yes, but tread cautiously at your own risk.

There is no way that like it'd have to have something that actually says this is no way guaranteed.

Correct, yeah.

So basically we would have them kind of submit a proposed code.

We would kind of spell out yeah, absolutely.

So clearly not going back to work on correct.

It would be just from I would say July 2025 to the future.

And I would also suggest that we would even put in kind of like a three-year forward timeline on it of like if we are actually gonna get to you for seven years, yeah.

So let's shortly straight.

So uh I'm in one of those neighborhoods.

Um at this very moment, I'm calculating license.

I'm anticipating based on the conversation that there will be some program that may be supportive of that.

I reach out and share that information with you and say, hey, I would love for this investment to be counted towards some future match or some future, right?

Right, and then we would for something to write and say guarantee, but based on our understanding of your scope of work, your anticipated time frame for the eligible for two step is matching on the support of future work.

Yeah, so if you come back in three years and say now I want to do my kitchen and basement and yeah, because I have I actually did your company session.

That very case that you have a big project that they're about to trigger on and they're participating, but they wait, a lot of weight, but they're clearly they're they're being encouraged, uh they're feeling like encouraged to make that investment based on what we're doing.

So which is exactly what we want, I think it's the name.

So yeah, so that's my state.

So somebody puts in one or smaller preparation, given credibility to go later on or something like that.

This would be for kind of bigger projects that people would be looking to do.

I think if anyone has smaller investment, uh like I want to do a roof, I want to do a full exterior situation.

Um, we've had one person that said that they want to do a full gut rehab, they have like 115,000 worth of work that they want to do.

So if they get started on some of that now, oh I see when they come back to do the second half of it, second half of the right.

Okay, so I think people are also kind of trying to anticipate a little bit just the nature of the contracting environment.

It takes a while if you're doing that kind of large of a work to uh kind of get in the pipeline.

So but they don't know, like we don't necessarily know where the barrel or two record area is going to be that we're focused in this.

Correct.

And so that's where number one is uh uh anyone that would be pursuing this as an option would be very clear that this is a try to cautiously kind of adding your own risk.

I do think we can make some calculated guesses.

So I think we would uh certainly steer anyone who we know is really far out of the ballpark of us from pursuing that at this exact time.

So that would be kind of you would need to talk directly through bus for us to have a review scope and make sure we're not setting anyone down that and then you talk to you when it is yes, yeah.

We would need to clear their scope and um I think want to set kind of the basic uh parameters of at minimum it it's expected that you're pulling permits.

Um, I think the combination of kind of total development costs on your permits as well in your receipts that you're your you're keeping that is how we will then substantiate match that was a curve.

So we don't have receipts down the road, there's no way that we can prove your your match occurred.

So it's just communicate recovery price and participatory.

I think they should just should not do the project if they're only doing it with the specification.

Right, right.

Yeah, I just I think yeah, more so they example that side you're gonna make the right mask, um but they want to get some credit for it if something helps along that so it's about in this, yeah.

Um in some ways it's testing in your property for limiting that so it sounds like what we're here against people are comfortable with us taking that provision it and this we should finalize, yeah.

Great, uh okay going back to the reimbursement maximums for a shared project component.

So um this is one where uh we have a team of folks and to kill that have a shared driveway between the two of them, they're essentially asking to uh whether the driveway itself is that considered one reimbursement or two separate reimbursements, and so I think we're bringing this to you all just understanding kind of from an auditing standpoint, be some type of clear justification and provision, I think, kind of to point back to in some way of like uh if we were to allow them to both claim some type of credit for this, you know, to substantiate that we weren't paying twice for the same work, basically.

Um, I think what we would kind of propose as a handling the scenario is the way that we or that I look at it is if we had two neighbors who just had their own driveways that were to apply for this program and you get your own driveways done, we wouldn't think a bunch of that on that is fine.

So um in this case, um, I think what we would maybe just ask to ensure that they're kind of still meeting the same participation threshold if you would as um other teams would be would be that they would either add another participant to their team, so that we're getting a non-conditional participants, or that they would and or um that they would also pursue another project component besides just the driveway.

I don't have the problem with the gist as a and so this is one of the biggest problems we have with shared triangles because nobody has an equal drive shared driveway agreement.

It's a nightmare, but absolutely it's closed.

So I would have a component in there that if this is truly a shared driveway as opposed to two buddy driveways that it would be required to legal shared driveway would even sign by the property owners that would be uh yeah, it's a great idea with the number of these room, yeah.

But it should be needed, yeah.

it's real close is so i would have a component there then if this is truly a shared driveway as opposed to two buddy childways that it would be required yeah we could share a driveway would even sign by the property owners that would be uh yes yeah it's a great idea with the number is group of the template but it should be yeah or that would yeah and I think in this case uh the people that weren't required by the state so that you helpful but we'll encourage you help them a lot yeah but yeah yeah um policies I think uh only other item that we had on our brother today just wanted to kind of go through what the timeline looks like for putting together additional programs um I think uh obviously we're in August at this point so uh management has uh uh roll out of the block challenge program um I think if what what we have been communicating to residents that all of our outreach and engagement is that they can expect it to think it will be opening applications for programs in early 2026 uh so I think just uh in order to kind of pace that out make sure that we've gone through all the legal reviews we get to a place where the board feels fully comfortable with terms I think we're kind of expecting that uh we're gonna need between now and uh January by the end of January we should look to kind of have terms rolled out uh to be able to go black list and applications in February um which would then kind of set people up well to be able to pursue projects that they might be looking to do kind of concentrate um I think we are suggesting that we would kind of break out into two chunks um kind of focus on one package of parameters that is for uh any owner occupants um as one set and then a uh kind of second layer of any substantial rental rehabs for any property owners that are already owning an existing property is a rental so when it necessarily uh allow for any kind of purchase acquisition at this stage but if you are an existing landlord whatever investments you want to make um I think what our takeaway from kind of some of the block challenge rollout is um do you think that it would be advantageous for us to get to kind of like a mostly baked uh or three quarters of the way baked a set of provisions to shop around uh to residents kind of in the context of some focus groups so um I think what we would want to do within the next two months uh is bring forward templates for what those programs might look like to kind of run by the board I think I would approach this exercise from kind of a the goal of it is to get a temperature check of where people are feeling at about different provisions within them I would say anything that is gonna take more than 10 minutes worth of discussion is kind of an automatic table and use that as a kind of focus group an additional consideration item that we work through um but we get it uh a baseline set of provisions that people feel comfortable with to give us the shop around to the residents um we can then continue to work through any kind of loose end that we use all that good stuff kind of towards the end of the year um and then any final last or meeting items want to have nicely kind of by changing right so we can go by great I can kind of have single family developers maybe rename it to just new residential development well if you have a house what about 80 news that sounds great yeah I think I think we could also consider AD news under um it's an interesting idea unfortunately using a lot of correction I I've had a conversation with this with a few uh residents that I think um part of the reason I can audit fraction on it is just that the map doesn't math but I think if we're able to bring some additional resources to mayor to help um uh pursue that that would be great um I do think that we are looking to see if we can also um there's another round of state funds for the ADU dollars I think we would look to pursue additional resources through that uh through the city so that we can also maybe try to pair some of those resources like the state is a specific program for AD use um and I said funded yes they've done three rounds of it so far um I think when it was first uh black for one we can aware and uh the global review would be just weren't able to kind of end it work uh but I think at this point I've ever wanted to a subsequent round which it sounded like from the last uh uh update that I heard uh our state partners should be improved towards the first year any other questions or concerns that any last reason um I will uh motion adjourned that would I was adjourned thanks any you know mayor I wanted to say one thing I want to manage in the team the other

funded yes they've done three rounds of it so far um i think when it was first uh black for our the analytics web uh the global ready would be just more angle kind of make it work uh but i think at this point i'd be going to do a subsequent round which it sounded like from the last uh uh update that i heard uh our state partners should be towards the first year that will be good question any other questions or any last reason um uh motion adjourned seven game is adjourned thanks everyone you know mayor i wanted to say one thing i want to manage to reach out to two i mean you guys have been very one of the grant that helped me to find some help if you're going on so we're home school was just if you I will let you make you come home so it's bringing up please do policy right uh yeah