Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Apopka CRA board approves reallocation of redevelopment funds, directs staff to finalize resident grant rules
Summary
The Apopka Community Redevelopment Agency approved a package of project allocations including a $305,000 residential façade repair program and a series of park, trail and pedestrian projects, and directed staff to return with program criteria and timelines amid state-level uncertainty over proposed CRA legislation.
The Apopka Community Redevelopment Agency voted unanimously to approve a reallocation of CRA funds at a meeting that reviewed a proposed list of park, pedestrian, trail, land-acquisition and residential-improvement projects.
The action, moved by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Smith, adopts the list staff presented and directs staff to return with finalized grant criteria, contractor agreements and a timeline for allocating the funds at future CRA meetings.
Staff said the package is intended to reflect the CRA’s 2017 redevelopment plan and to move money into projects that the board and residents prioritized during recent workshops. Bobby Howell, interim executive director of the CRA, said the list includes a residential façade repair grant program budgeted at $305,000, design work for the Downtown Apopka Trail Central Avenue portion ($125,000), signal and pedestrian upgrades at Fifth Street and Central Avenue (design $77,658; construction at Fifth and Park Avenue $242,760), upgrades at Alonzo Williams Park (pavilion $83,713; basketball court rebuild $135,000), and an Apopka Action Sports (skate/pump-track) package (about $242,600).
Cliff (staff member) told the board the timing of the Legislature could affect the CRA’s ability to spend. “This changes hourly,” Cliff said, summarizing reports that the state Senate and House were circulating very different proposals for governing CRAs. He warned the board that a more restrictive House package—reported in the meeting as an amended “strike-through” version—could limit spending options but that the Senate’s version would be less restrictive.
Board members and staff flagged two near-term constraints: $131,000 the CRA had already obligated on earlier projects, and uncertainty about the contents and timing of the state bills. Howell reported the CRA’s available funding as about $4,000,004 (staff’s presentation showed line-item obligations and redlined amounts for already-expended funds) and walked the board through the proposed project list and the estimated costs for each item.
The board debated details of the residential façade program at length. Several commissioners and staff said they want a program design that both helps homeowners and reduces the city’s exposure to contractor-related problems. Cliff and other staff advised a pair of contracting tracks: one that uses city-selected/approved contractors with city-prepared contracts and draw schedules, and a second that allows homeowners to use their own licensed contractors subject to city review and certain contract protections (warranty language, agreed draw schedule and lien-waiver requirements). "The contractor contracts will be between the contractor and the applicant," Cliff said, describing a model in which the city prepares the contract template and disburses funds on an agreed draw schedule.
Several residents asked the board to shift more money to direct resident assistance and to prioritize repairs in historically underserved neighborhoods. Public commenters also pressed for improved transparency and for the CRA to consider buying the property at Eighth Street near Loaves and Fishes for a small resource center for people experiencing homelessness; the board and staff discussed legal limits on CRA expenditures for general social services and noted that acquiring and rehabbing a building inside the CRA might be defensible under redevelopment rules but advised seeking an Attorney General opinion before committing CRA funds for a resource center.
Other public questions focused on Alonzo Williams Park, where vendors and community members asked the board to add water and electrical hookups for events, and on oversight of contractor selection for past housing rehabilitation grants. Resident Leroy Bell said he wanted “answers” about how past grants and contracts were chosen; Sylvester Hall urged the board to address long-term disparities in spending within the CRA.
The board set near-term next steps: staff will circulate an updated project list, return with draft grant agreements and contractor-selection language at the CRA’s next scheduled meeting (staff referenced a May 7 meeting time in the discussion) and plan a follow-up in August to finalize expenditure deadlines so unspent funds can be reallocated before the end-of-year requirements. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to propose a cutoff date for obligating and approving grants so the CRA can meet required timelines for spending.
A motion to approve the amended CRA reallocation carried unanimously; the meeting record notes the vote as "motion carries unanimously," but the transcript does not record a roll-call tally of individual votes.
The board’s action formalizes the staff-recommended project list and starts a process to create a residential grant program and contractor procedures. Staff emphasized the proposals remain contingent on evolving state legislation affecting CRA powers and will require final contracts, program rules and, in some cases, additional construction funding sources to complete design-to-construction transitions.
