MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF MAY 3, 2001, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chair Albert F. Hogle, Vice Chair Carolyn J. Mason, Members Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chairman Hogle Chair Hogle called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 2:34 p.m. 1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: SARASOTA COUNTY ISSUES (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0000) through (1567) City Attorney Taylor stated that special legal counsel is present to review community redevelopment activities and the CRA's authority; that a County representative is present in the audience and could be recognized to clarify the County's position if necessary; that no formal structure to involve the County in the presentation has been established at this time. David Cardwell, Attorney, Holland & Knight, LLP, special legal counsel concerning redevelopment issues, came before the CRA and stated that the Legislature does not adjourn until May 4, 2001; however, no amendments affecting the City's CRA appear likely to pass this legislative session; that only one provision regarding CRAs is under consideration; that the provision only applies to counties with a population in excess of one million and is being considered primarily for the benefit of three southeastern counties; that the Legislature is also discussing the funding mechanism for the Florida Marlins Pro Player Stadium, which is located on a brownfield and is therefore arguably a redevelopment project.. Attorney Cardwell continued that the establishment of a CRA is authorized under Chapter 163, Part III, Community Redevelopment Act, Florida Statutes Redevelopment Act), which was enacted in 1969 and amended in 1979 to provide for tax increment financing; that the Redevelopment Act initiated redevelopment in Florida by providing a funding mechanism for projects; that the origin of redevelopment in Florida was downtown, retail-oriented BOOK 2 Page 1051 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1052 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. redevelopment; that most cities which began redevelopment in the 1970s relied upon downtown development authorities created by a special act of the Legislature; that the case of State V. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency, 392 So.2d 875, decided on December 11, 1980, upheld tax increment financing, allowing CRAs to take over from downtown development authorities; that attention in Florida has remained on downtown core areas and on retaining or bringing back retail or entertainment such as restaurants, bars, and clubs; that Florida CRAS became interested in office, commercial, and housing development only in recent years. Attorney Cardwell stated further that the process for establishing a CRA is provided in the State Statutes; that a finding of necessity must be made by a governing body such as the Commission; that the finding of necessity is based upon evidence presented to the governing body of conditions of slum or blight as defined in the State Statutes; that the definition of slum is severe and difficult to meet; that the definition of blight includes any area with inadequate infrastructure; that the entire State may qualify as a blighted area based upon a recent report of the Growth Management Study Commission. Attorney Cardwell further stated that a CRA may be created once a finding of necessity is made; that the CRA can be either: 1) the governing body sitting as the CRA, 2) the governing body plus two appointed members which is allowed by an amendment to the Redevelopment Act requested by Hollywood, Florida, and is referenced as the Hollywood Amendment, or 3) a separate, appointed board; that the next step is to develop a redevelopment plan which serves as a guide for redevelopment in the community redevelopment area; that the redevelopment plan is not a land use regulation, a comprehensive plan, or a binding, obligatory document but rather a guide; that the redevelopment plan must be adopted by resolution and must be found consistent with the city's comprehensive plan but does not replace the city's comprehensive plan; that the redevelopment plan should have implementation provisions either through zoning changes, land use changes, or adoption of codes; that the redevelopment plan does not proceed through the land use regulatory adoption process; that the redevelopment plan is reviewed by the local planning agency for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan; that the redevelopment plan can only be adopted by the governing body after notice to the public and any taxing authorities such as the County and a public hearing. Attorney Cardwell continued that the next step would be to adopt an ordinance which creates a redevelopment trust fund which is funded with tax increment revenues; that tax increment revenues are not a direct allocation of ad valorem revenues in Florida; that in California, the tax collector delivers the tax increment revenues directly into the redevelopment trust fund; that in Florida, every taxing authority receives the ad valorem revenues and appropriates the tax increment revenues into the redevelopment trust fund; that school boards, State agencies, and water management districts are exempt from paying the tax increment. Attorney Cardwell continued that the calculation of the tax increment has been controversial and inconsistent across the State; that the determination of the tax increment, as well as many aspects of State government including elections, is decentralized; that by State Statute, the tax increment is equal to 95 percent of the increase in ad valorem tax revenues of the current assessment roll over the assessment roll prior to enactment of the ordinance at the current millage rate. Attorney Cardwell stated further that controversies arise over interpretation of the method of calculation; that the first question is which tax roll to utilize in the calculation; that the majority of CRAs utilize the preliminary tax roll prepared by the property appraiser with property values as of the preceding January 1 and delivered to the Department of Revenue no later than June 30 of each yeari that the preliminary tax roll is used by cities as notice as to revenues available for budgeting; that the budget is therefore based upon the millage rate applied to the preliminary tax roll. Attorney Cardwell further stated that an Attorney General's opinion has been issued indicating the final tax roll should be utilized for the calculation; that the opinion is three pages long; that two and a half pages indicate the conclusion will be to utilize the preliminary tax roll; that the last paragraph includes the phrase "but however"; that a legal opinion is complicated if the phrase "but however" is used; that the conclusion is the final tax roll rather than the preliminary tax roll should be utilized for the calculation; that utilizing the final tax roll does not fit with the timing of the Redevelopment Act, which provides the tax increment is to be appropriated by the taxing authority between October 1 and December 31 and a late penalty will be assessed after January 1; that a so-called "final" tax roll may not be finalized for months; that some counties have so-called "final" tax rolls which were not finalized for years; that tax BOOK 2 Page 1053 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1054 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. increment revenues would never be received if waiting for a final tax roll; that use of the preliminary tax roll is necessary. Attorney Cardwell stated that another issue concerns the 95 percent calculation; that confusion concerning which tax roll to utilize existed during the late 1980s at the time amendments to the Redevelopment Act were being considered; therefore, the Florida Redevelopment Association requested the Legislature provide a cross-reference to the preliminary tax roll to eliminate the confusion; that the request was reasonable; however, the House Finance and Tax Committee of the Legislature Committee), which was considering the request, did not believe in cross-references; that instead the Committee indicated the final tax roll is generally 95 percent of the preliminary tax roll based upon the tax history across the State due to defaults, discounts, reassessments, etc.; therefore, a provision included in the amendments was the tax increment is 95 percent of the tax roll, which the Committee believed would clearly indicate the intent was to utilize the preliminary tax roll; nevertheless, two or three Attorneys General opinions have been issued and several lawsuits have been initiated concerning the method of calculation to date; that the question of which tax roll to use has not been resolved; that the preliminary tax roll is a better choice. Attorney Cardwell continued that another provision in the Redevelopment Act provides for the use of tax increment revenues; that the provision was implemented at a time no bonds pledging tax increment revenues had been issued; that bond counsels were nervous as to the possible use of tax increment revenues; that a list of certain uses, which was not intended as an exhaustive list, was incorporated in the Redevelopment Act; however, some confusion exists; that some believe the list is exhaustive while others do not; that the list is not exhaustive in his opinion; that the list provides for use for capital projects, certain operating expenses, and debt service; that a provision also allows designating funds for particular projects sO the funds are not lost at the end of the fiscal year; that unused or uncommitted tax increment revenyes are rebated back to the taxing authorities on a prorated basis at the end of the fiscal year. Attorney Cardwell further stated that Chapter 163.380, Florida Statutes, concerns the disposition of property and provides a process for acquisition and disposition of property for redevelopment purposes; that the CRA or city which owns the property must publish a notice in a local newspaper; that 30 days are allowed for receipt of proposals; that an agreement is developed after proposals are accepted; that another 30-days notice is placed advertising the proposed agreement; that disposition of the property can be by sale or lease at fair value which is different than fair market value; that fair value can take into account the need for redevelopment, uses of the property, restrictions on the property, etc., all of which can be memorialized in a development agreement; that a fair value at less than fair market value is often referenced as a "write-down" of the property, which is an historic use of a CRA. Attorney Cardwell stated further that Chapter 163.400, Florida Statutes, the Public Cooperation Section, provides that cities, counties, the State, and the Federal government can accomplish tasks together for redevelopment purposes and waive any governmental requirements desired if for redevelopment purposes; that the same provision applies to CRAs; therefore, for example, property can simply be given by the City to the CRA; that the Public Cooperation Section provides for a broad range of governmental cooperative action to effectuate redevelopment and a broad grant of authority for local governments to work together. Member Quillin asked if the State or the County can give the CRA property? Attorney Cardwell stated that the State or County can give otherwise unrestricted property to the CRA. Member Quillin stated that for example, a park could be donated to the CRA; that the City's CRA does not own property; that generally property is given to the City; and asked if property owned by the City is governed by a different State Statute? Attorney Cardwell stated no; that property can be donated to the City for redevelopment purposes. Member Quillin stated that property can be given to the City or the CRA. Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct. Member Quillin asked if donating property to the CRA instead of the City provides an advantage? Attorney Cardwell stated that donating property to the CRA may provide advantages; that one advantage is the CRA is not subject to any restrictions of a city's charter; that some cities have many restrictions concerning the use of city property which may hinder intended redevelopment; that additionally, the CRA may be BOOK 2 Page 1055 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1056 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. able to dispose of property received for resale more easily than a city as the city's charter may require appraisals and selling at full value; that the CRA is only subject to the State Statutes in disposing of property. Member Palmer stated that the City was previously involved in negotiating the sale of property in the community redevelopment area; and asked if different advertising rules apply if the City is selling property in the community redevelopment area? Attorney Cardwell stated that different rules only apply if the City acquired the property with tax increment revenues for redevelopment purposes and is disposing of the property for redevelopment purposes; that property can be sold as any surplus property if the City owned the property for years and the property is declared surplus; that the provisions of the Redevelopment Act must be followed including the 30-day notice for proposals if the City acquired the property for redevelopment with tax increment revenues. Member Palmer asked if the Redevelopment Act must be followed if the City had the property prior to the creation of the CRA and is selling the property for redevelopment purposes? Attorney Cardwell stated that a response depends on if the proposed use of the property is included in the redevelopment plan. Member Quillin stated that the City rather than the CRA is disposing of the property. City Attorney Taylor stated that for example, the City owns a parking lot adjacent to a vacant building; that interested purchasers of the building require parking to make the building viable for office use and wish to purchase the City parking lot; that the sale of the parking lot has little to do with the implementation of any redevelopment plan; however, the sale will contribute to the revitalization of a dead building. Attorney Cardwell stated that the property is no longer required by the City; therefore, the sale of the parking lot would not be affected by the Redevelopment Act. Member Quillin stated that however, the City has insufficient parking Downtown. Attorney Cardwell stated that the redevelopment powers granted by the Redevelopment Act go to the County if it is a Charter County; that the Charter County may delegate the powers to any municipality within the Charter County; that a discussion was held with the City Attorney for Miami Beach, Florida, who worked on the provision while serving in the Legislature; that the provision was added to the Redevelopment Act in 1969, prior to the institution of Home Rule; that the 1968 State Constitution was in effect; that in 1969, only one Charter County existed in the State which was Miami-Dade County; that all municipal powers flow from the County to the City pursuant to the Miami-Dade Metro Charter; therefore, an issue arose as to if the Legislature could directly grant redevelopment powers to cities in Miami-Dade County; that a provision was included to provide that Charter Counties delegate redevelopment powers to the cities; however, no cross-reference was made to the State Constitution; that the Statutory Charter provisions of the current Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, did not exist; that the misconception was the provision would not affect other counties; that the provision should have been amended; that currently a number of Charter Counties exist including Sarasota County; that the City of Sarasota had to receive a delegation of powers from the County of Sarasota prior to proceeding with a CRA. Attorney Cardwell continued that a grandfather provision was added to the Redevelopment Act in the 1980s as Tampa, Florida, was in the process of expanding a community redevelopment area to include Ybor City; that Hillsborough County was considering adoption of a County Charter at the time; that the Redevelopment Act was amended to provide a County Charter does not affect a previously adopted CRA; that the meaning of the phrase "shall not affect the Community Redevelopment Agency" and the legislative intent of the word "affect 1I have been the topic of significant discussion throughout the State; that a question is if the grandfather provision only applies to an agency sO the agency may continue to act as desired without returning to the County for a delegation of authority; that the delegation may also extend to the governing body of a city as all redevelopment powers in a Charter County flow to the city rather than the CRA; that the city could then delegate lesser powers to the CRA if desired. Attorney Cardwell further stated that for the past three years, an effort has been made in Broward County to enact legislation restricting the ability of existing CRAs in Broward County to expand or change redevelopment plans even if grandtathered; that any CRA created in Broward County at this time would be subject to the Broward County Charter; that the debate in Hillsborough County BOOK 2 Page 1057 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1058 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. is if the Tampa City Council can take action or if the Tampa CRA can act under the grandfather clause; that a current lawsuit involves Polk County which is concerned as Bartow, Florida, has doubled the size of the CRA; that the original CRA was created prior to the County Charter; that Polk County's position is a significant change in the size of the community redevelopment area or a significant increase in the amount of tax increments collected would invalidate the original creation; that the lawsuit is currently in Circuit Court; that the hope is a decision will be returned within the next few months. Attorney Cardwell stated further that the Chair of the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the County Administrator sent the City correspondence concerning the City's adoption of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the County raised certain questions; that information is currently being provided to County Staff; that a point at which all issues are crystallized and placed in writing has not yet been reached; that the City Commission will be holding a joint meeting with the BCC in July 2001 at which time the issues will be more apparent; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 received significant attention and is called a bold document by some; that the County is a large contributor to the CRA's redevelopment trust fund and will probably desire additional information concerning implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Member Quillin stated that advice in establishing a CRA Advisory Board and adding members to the CRA Board would be appreciated; that direction concerning the CRA Board and a CRA Advisory Board should be determined prior to the July 2001 joint meeting with the BCC so the County is aware of the City's plans; that the County should receive more information concerning the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the manner in which the CRA Advisory Board is established will have a significant effect on any redevelopment area. City Attorney Taylor stated that several meetings have been held with County Staff; that the County indicated concern about not being specifically involved in the update process and would like clarification regarding the implementation and cost of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which has a capital improvements section; that the County had not previously seen the capital improvements section of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the County was just recently provided the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which details the projects, funding, and timelines of the capital improvements included in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the County appreciated receiving the information; that legal issues, grants of authority, and removing grants of authority have been discussed; however, a crisis is not foreseen; that the County is proceeding in a conservative manner and has directed the County Attorney's Office examine issues on a friendly basis with the City Attorney's Office. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a discussion was held with the County Administrator; that the plan for implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 including the CIP was provided to the County; that City Staff will meet with the County to explain the manner in which funds will be applied; that the County is interested in discussing projects which are jointly beneficial to the City and County; that the County is also interested in an exit strategyi; that the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) District could have a 60-year life which is undesired by the County; that the County would like to discuss the end of the TIF District; that any resolution might be memorialized in an enforceable interlocal agreement; that discussion and resolution of any problems is in the best interest of the City and the County; that the community does not desire a lawsuit between the City and the County; that the County contributes two dollars for every one dollar contributed by the City to the TIF fund; that a sound basis exists for an open dialogue with the County; that a mutually beneficial agreement can be achieved. Member Quillin stated that the CRA, not sitting as a legislative board, can take actions necessary to encourage redevelopment; that an interlocal agreement could be developed between the County and the CRA or the County and the City; that the City could limit the CRA's ability to work on a redevelopment plan; that a number of concerns exist. Attorney Cardwell stated that the County supports many City redevelopment activities; that the County would like to improve communication and have some input; that an interlocal agreement providing a joint statement of cooperation could be developed; that determining the best platform to cooperatively move forward is the focus; that the County would like to ensure the City and County are in agreement concerning a future direction. Attorney Cardwell continued that he previously communicated the redevelopment plan would be in effect until 2025; that changes were being made to the Downtown Master Plan 2020 just prior to adoption; that the. original concept was to have a 20-year plan with an additional five years available; that the CIP references BOOK 2 Page 1059 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1060 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. 20-year projects and not 25-year projects; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted in 2001 and references 20-year projects, which extends the date to 2021. Member Quillin stated that the current redevelopment plan, the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan), expires in 2016; that significant funds were spent to extend the date of the redevelopment plan by four years. Attorney Cardwell stated that the redevelopment plan was extended based upon the content of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that updating redevelopment plans by CRAs is common; that some CRAs update redevelopment plans as frequently as every four or five years; that often redevelopment plans are updated without an extension while some are extended for as long as 30 years. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the purpose of updating and revising the redevelopment plan was not to provide for an extension; that a last-minute development was the Downtown Master Plan 2020 resulted in an extension; that the thought was the extension would require discussion with the BCC; however, Attorney Cardwell advised the BCC through the delegation of powers to the City and through the mechanism of the 20-year CIP portion of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would extend the life of the redevelopment plan; that the original intention was not to lengthen the term of the redevelopment plan; that the County may be of the opinion the extension of the redevelopment plan was an underlying motive of the City which was not disclosed to the County; that the hope was discussions concerning extension or expansion of the TIF District would flow out of adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Member Palmer asked if the 2021 date instead of the 2025 date will still hold? Attorney Cardwell stated yes. Member Palmer asked if the delegation of authority by the BCC to the City provides the authority to extend the date to 2021 based upon the CIP portion of the Downtown Master Plan 2020? Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct. Member Palmer asked if the County agrees? Attorney Cardwell stated that discussions were held with the County; that the County has not thoroughly accèpted his opinion; that some views were expressed but have not been placed in writing; that some issues concerning the delegation of powers and the manner of the delegation to the City or CRA have been raised; however, a firm position has not been established. Member Palmer stated that the concern raised by the County regarding cooperation is legitimate; that the County is concerned the City has not sufficiently included the County in the planning process; that the County was invited to the Duany Plater-Zyberk, Inc., charrette sessions; that the amount of County Staff's direct involvement is not known; that blame is not cast; that the County has some frustration due to lack of participation; that the frustration can be healed; that the City can request participation by the County in forming a CRA Advisory Board; that the hope is to receive more participation from the County. Attorney Cardwell stated that the Redevelopment Act has certain requirements such as notice to the taxing authorities, etc.; that eventually some taxing authority may indicate lack of knowledge even though multiple notices were sent; that concerns are often expressed once the product is complete; that the situation is not unusual and can be repaired. Chair Hogle stated that a conversation was held with the County Administrator; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 can provide an opportunity for the BCC, the City Commission, and the CRA to work together to resolve the Downtown parking problems; that no negative concerns were raised. Member Quillin stated that discussions have been held with several County Commissioners who believe the City's initiative to update the redevelopment plan is exciting; that updating a redevelopment plan results in reevaluating funding allocations; that the CRA Master Plan was to expire in the year 2016; that few bonding companies will enter into a contract with a life of less than 15 years; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is to expire in the year 2021; that the expiration date is not a negative; that the County is interested in the Downtown area and has many facilities Downtown; that the City of Sarasota is the County seat; that the City should determine the composition of the CRA Board and the advisability of a CRA Advisory Board. Chair Hogle asked if the Commission and the CRA would consider meeting with the BCC on July 25 or 31, 2001? Çity Manager Sollenberger st'ated that the Administration recommends the Commission and BCC meet on July 31, 2001, if BOOK 2 Page 1061 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1062 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. possible; that more time would be available for discussion; that budget workshops and a heavy workload are in the near future. Vice Chair Mason and Members Quillin, Martin, and Palmer stated that the July 31, 2001, date is preferable. Chair Hogle stated that the July 31, 2001, date is selected unless otherwise advised by the City Auditor and Clerk. 2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: EXPANSION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CRA BOARD (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (1567) through (2323) David Cardwell, Attorney, Holland & Knight, LLP, special legal counsel concerning redevelopment issues, came before the CRA and stated that an option currently being considered by the CRA is the addition of two members to the CRA Board; that a provision in the State Statutes, reterenced as the Hollywood Amendment, provides a governing body may add two other members to a five-member CRA Board; that the two new members would be required to reside, have a business, or own property in the Community Redevelopment Area; that a question is if any elected or appointed public official can serve in one of the two positions; that caution is required due to the dual-office holding prohibitions in the State Constitution; that placing a current member of government in one of the seats raises the concern of dual-office holding and might be prohibited; that a County could nominate a person to hold a seat; that Punta Gorda, Florida, has a five-member City Council which acts as the CRA Board; that Punta Gorda added two members pursuant to the State Statutes and allowed the Charlotte County Commission to nominate individuals for the seats; that the Punta Gorda City Council appoints the members; that in other instances, the two members come from the CRA Advisory Board or other redevelopment- related groupi that some "Main Street" communities which still have Main Street Committees designate a member of the CRA Board from the Main Street Committee; that generally the resolution provides members must meet specific qualifications; that some cities have no restrictions and allow anyone to apply for or be nominated to the two seats. Attorney Cardwell continued that some discretion concerning appointment is available; that no two CRAs are alike; that development of a CRA depends upon the local community, the commitment to redevelopment, the issues raised, and local politics; that the two members added to the CRA Board would become full-time CRA Board Members; that the CRA Board Members from the Commission are busy with, other matters; that the two additional CRA Board Members often spend more time considering CRA issues than the other five members, which could have positive and negative effects; that the Commission has a significant amount of work; that the two additional members are not distracted with other City matters and can keep the CRA focused; that the biggest advantage of a CRA is focus; that CRAs have a target and are committed to the goal; that a multi-level board with many goals will juggle items and establish priorities; that the CRA may or may not be the top priority at any one time; that the two additional CRA Board Members could keep the CRA focused and volunteer to engage in additional fact-finding activities; that a concern is to select CRA Board Members who are committed to redevelopment and who will not create conflicting agendas; that similar experiences in the State have been favorable; that no CRA experienced a negative impact from the addition of two members. Attorney Cardwell further stated that the amendment allowing two additional CRA Board Members is referenced as the Hollywood Amendment; that Hollywood, Florida, established a CRA in the early 1980s, with the Commission serving as the CRA one year and an appointed board serving the next year; that the switch was made each year; that the appointment of two additional members to the Commission was viewed as a compromise; that Hollywood currently has one of the best CRAs in the State; that the Hollywood CRA organization was stabilized. Member Palmer asked if a County Commissioner can serve as a member of the CRA? Attorney Cardwell stated that the question should be answered by the County Attorney; that having a member of another governmental board serve on the CRA Board has been a concern in the past and has been avoided. Member Palmer stated that the issue of dual-office holding is understood; that personally serving on the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees was a concern if also serving on the Commission; that Chapter 163.356, Florida Statutes, concerns creation of CRAS and establishes terms for CRA Board Members; that a possibility is to create a CRA Advisory Board and have the Chair and Vice Chair serve on the CRA for two years before rotating; that the consistency of a two-year term would be achieved; that the State Statutes indicate a four-year term; and asked if the Commission has some Elexibility in assigning terms? BOOK 2 Page 1063 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1064 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. Attorney Cardwell stated that the four-year term refers to an appointed CRA Board. Member Palmer asked if an appointed CRA Board with four-year terms is logical? Attorney Cardwell stated that most municipalities appoint CRA Board Members for four-year, staggered terms. Member Palmer asked if any jurisdictions have the Chair and Vice Chair of the CRA Advisory Board sit on CRA Board? Attorney Cardwell stated that such an instance is not recalled. Member Quillin stated that the CRA Advisory Board would be working on basic issues; that taking two members from the CRA Advisory Board to serve on the CRA Board might be a conflict of interest; that the two members added to the CRA should be working with the CRA Advisory Board, should have no vote, and could examine both sides of issues; that the concern for the City is the CRA has no staff; that Delray Beach, Florida, has an excellent CRA and CRA Staff. Attorney Cardwell stated that the majority of CRAs rely on City or County Staff; that several CRAs have a separate staff; that Delray Beach has a CRA separate from the City with staff paid by the CRA; that Delray Beach also has a Downtown Development Authority which sometimes overlaps with the CRA; that some cities have CRA staff which are city employees but specifically designated as CRA staff; that a contract generally exists to specify the relationship of the city and the CRA; that separate CRA staff evolved with CRAS during the process of implementing a new plan or due to the many projects which could detract from other projects if added to existing staff responsibilities; that CRA staff is customarily funded by the city. Member Quillin stated that a separate CRA staff should be considered; that the CRA could contract with the City concerning certain projects; that a separate CRA staff is necessary for the City. Member Martin stated that a CRA Advisory Board was mentioned; that the number of expanded CRA Boards which have a CRA Advisory Board is interesting; and asked if only CRA Board Members appointed pursuant to the Hollywood Amendment are required to own property in the City? Attorney Cardwell stated no; that the requirement comes from the State Statutes; that the two additional CRA Board Members would be treated the same as the current CRA Board Members and would be required to meet the same qualifications. City Attorney Taylor stated that the additional CRA Board Members would be voting members unless specifically indicated otherwise. Attorney Cardwell stated that the additional CRA Board Members would be voting members and count toward a quorum according to the State Statutes. Member Palmer stated that many elements will be examined as the City's budget is developed for next fiscal year; that some processes must be changed if a decision is made to add members to the CRA Board and establish a CRA Advisory Board. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the budget being prepared for fiscal year (FY) 2001/2002 anticipates redevelopment staff would be in the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services and would serve the CRA; that an interlocal agreement between the CRA and City could delineate services and appropriate compensation. Attorney Cardwell stated that having an agreement to clearly define the delegation of duties is necessary if City Staff is utilized; that Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, designates the City Manager as the CRA Director; that a CRA Manager runs the daily operations and reports to the City Manager/CRA Director; that some cities have CRA Staff reporting directly to the CRA; that other cities have CRA Staff who are city employees and report to the City Manager or Department Head; that the delegation of authority should be addressed; that most cities utilize a contract or interlocal agreement. 3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: CREATION OF AN ADVISORY BOARD COMMISSION WILL HOST THE JULY 31, 2001, JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION AND SARASOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (2323) through #2 (0380) David Cardwell, Attorney, Holland & Knight, LLP, special legal counsel concerning redevelopment issues, came before the CRA and stated that most CRAs in the State, particularly CRAs with large or diverse areas, have a CRA Advisory Board; that a court decision in Lee County, Florida, in the 1980s determined cities can only BOOK 2 Page 1065 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1066 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. have one CRA; that many cities had created multiple CRAs, one for each redevelopment area; that the court ruled cities can have multiple Community Redevelopment Areas but only one CRA; that CRA Advisory Boards were initiated to encourage citizen participation; that a variety of different approaches exist in terms of size, duties, level of authority, and roles. Attorney Cardwell continued that no correlation exists between the size of a Community Redevelopment Area, the size of a city, and the size of a CRA Advisory Board; that the guide is to ensure all major stakeholders are represented on the CRA Advisory Board; that the average size of a CRA Advisory Board in the State is 10 to 12 members; that one CRA Advisory Board in the State has 30 members of which only half attend meetings; that a list of the covered stakeholders should be developed; that the criteria of the stakeholders should determine the size of the CRA Advisory Board. Attorney Cardwell further stated that CRA Advisory Boards have three primary functions: 1. To establish priorities CRA Advisory Boards should create a list of priorities at the beginning of the year to submit to the CRA, especially if the governing body is sitting as the CRA Board sO the governing body can be reminded of goals by the CRA Advisory Board if busy with other matters. 2. To review the redevelopment plan periodically to recommend updating and adjustment. 3. To review specific redevelopment projects and make recommendations to the CRA for projects concerning which the CRA has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP). Attorney Cardwell stated further that duties are carried out in different mannersi that some CRA Advisory Boards Eunction as self-starters and do not wait for direction but rather make recommendations autonomously; that CRA Advisory Boards in other jurisdictions wait for the CRA to provide priorities, modifications, and direction for a project; that a CRA Advisory Board may be more comfortable working autonomously; however, the CRA Board may not know the schedule determined by the CRA Advisory Board for presenting information; that the CRA should clearly indicate who is working with the CRA Advisory Board, who is the Staff contact, and the chain of command; that anyone serving on an advisory board must feel the experience is worthwhile or will drop off the board; that the board will never be filled if members believe input is not being received or a function is not being served; that a commitment must be made to ensure the CRA Advisory Board is not a temporary experiment; that some cities approve everything recommended by the CRA Advisory Board; that most cities consider the recommendations of the CRA Advisory Board; that CRA Advisory Boards can work well if a good relationship and communication is established; that in some cities, the Chair of the CRA Advisory Board is not a member of the CRA Board but will attend CRA meetings and has speaking not voting privileges. Member Quillin stated that the process of establishing a CRA Advisory Board should begin; that forming a CRA Advisory Board and beginning community redevelopment has been desired for many years; that the CRA should take the burden of Downtown redevelopment from the Commission; that a visit was made to Delray Beach to view the CRA; that Delray Beach has been aggressive and proactive in community redevelopment. Attorney Cardwell stated that some cities have a separate budget for CRA Advisory Boards so the CRA or Commission is not constantly consulted for funding; that the CRA Advisory Board must return to the CRA or Commission if the budget is exceeded; however, the CRA Advisory Board members can go to conferences or take field trips if resources permit. Member Quillin asked if Attorney Cardwell is the special legal counsel for the CRA? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Gregory Horwedel, Director of Redevelopment and Development Services, came before the CRA and stated that a number of the issues which were previously raised are being addressed; that a presentation will be returned to the CRA by June 15, 2001. Chair Hogle stated that expansion of the CRA Board by two members is supported; that criteria for the selection of the additional CRA Board Members is open; that the creation of a CRA Advisory Board is also supported; that some groups which should be considered for representation are the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA), the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), and possibly one member appointed by each CRA Board Member. Member Quillin stated that the area being discussed is the Çommunity Redevelopment Area; that the meaning of a Community Redevelopment Area should remain the focus; that residential units in the Community Redevelopment Area are predominantly BOOK 2 Page 1067 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1068 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. condominiums; that the City also should consider the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA); ; that a list of potential members for the CRA Advisory Board should be developed to ensure diversity is achieved; that a 30-member board is excessive; that members of the CRA Advisory Board should be representatives of stakeholders such as housing, etc., to tie elements together. Vice Chair Mason stated that the concept of a CRA Advisory Board is supported; that the CRA can build on past methods to create a CRA Advisory Board; that the CRA Advisory Board Chair and Vice Chair could serve as the two additional members to the CRA Board; however, a conflict of interest may be created; therefore, the two additional members should be appointed to the CRA Board but should not be, appointed from the CRA Advisory Board. Member Martin stated that the addition of two members to the CRA Board and the establishment of a CRA Advisory Board are supported; that the number of stakeholders requiring representation on the CRA Advisory Board should be considered; that the CRA Advisory Board should be small rather than large; that seven to ten members is preferred; that the Rosemary District should be represented on the CRA Advisory Board; that reviewing the formation of the past CRA Advisory Board would be beneficial. Member Palmer stated that the past CRA Advisory Board was not created in the manner currently being discussed; that individuals were appointed based on talents, backgrounds, and experiences rather than from an organizational perspective; and asked if an even number of members on the CRA Advisory Board could create potential problems in tie votes? Attorney Cardwell stated that most advisory boards do not take formal votes but rather reach agreement by consensus; that the CRA Advisory Board of Ft. Lauderdale has never had a vote which was not unanimous; that problems are resolved within the CRA Advisory Board; that personal assistance was given to Lee County in establishing two advisory boards; that odd numbers of members were selected and roll-call votes taken. Chair Hogle asked if other CRAs select members for the CRA Advisory Board based on expertise or organization affiliation? Attorney Cardwell stated that other CRAS tend to select members of the CRA Advisory Board by organization; however, some seats may be set aside for specific expertise such as an architect, banker, or real estate professional. Member Palmer stated that the stakeholders in the Community Redevelopment Area should be considered; that the codes affecting the Downtown area and the adoption process are being reviewed; and asked the relationship between the CRA Advisory Board, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), the CRA, and the Commission in the process of adopting codes for the Community Redevelopment Area? Attorney Cardwell stated that CRA Advisory Boards which examine codes or zoning typically do so at the request of the CRA; that one city requires the CRA review zoning applications which is a cumbersome process; that the city's commission sits as the CRA; that approval must be granted from the CRA prior to proceeding to the planning and zoning boards; that the approval process therefore involves the commission sitting as the CRA, then the planning and zoning board, then the commission; that a provision could be added to the resolution to allow the CRA Advisory Board to review and make recommendations concerning proposed codes or zoning; that the roles of the PBLP and the CRA Advisory Board should not be confused; that the CRA Advisory Board reports to the CRA and not the Commission or PBLP. Member Palmer asked for clarification of the manner in which codes are adopted? Attorney Cardwell stated that new codes or land use regulations affecting the Community Redevelopment Area must be approved by the Commission; that the recommendation to adopt the new codes or land use regulations is received from the PBLP as a requirement in the process; that approval of the CRA Board or CRA Advisory Board is optional. Member Quillin stated that theoretically the CRA Advisory Board is supported; that the CRA should charge the CRA Advisory Board with processing new information and advising the Commission or PBLP; that the CRA Advisory Board should provide more than a technical review which is a charge provided by the Commission; that a good, working CRA Advisory Board will ensure the Commission is completing developments in the Downtown as envisioned. City Attorney Taylor stated that to provide clarification, the Commission is currently sitting as the CRA; that the CRA has special legal counsel; that the City Attorney regularly relies on outside legal counsel but still retains the role as City Attorney; BOOK 2 Page 1069 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1070 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. that a clear definition of roles would be helpful for the future; that the CRA Board can deal directly with special legal counsel if desired; that sitting with the CRA as the City Attorney rather than the attorney for the CRA can be awkward. Member Quillin asked if assigning a member of the legal staff from the City Attorney's Office to serve as the CRA's attorney would be easier? City Attorney Taylor stated that any wish of the Commission is acceptable. Chair Hogle stated that input from both the City Attorney and the special legal counsel to the CRA is valuable; that limiting advice is not desired. City Attorney Taylor stated that advice should come from the special legal counsel to the CRA if present; that often the CRA meets without the presence of the special legal counsel to the CRA; that the capacity of the City Manager is also unclear as a CRA Director has not been designated. Secretary Robinson stated that additionally, research failed to reveal a resolution appointing the City Auditor and Clerk as the Secretary to the CRA; that the Secretary is recognized at the State level; that the Secretary should be officially designated. Member Palmer stated that the administrative aspect of the CRA and the interaction of the CRA with the Charter Officials should be evaluated as the addition of two members to the CRA Board and creation of a CRA Advisory Board is being considered; that the Commission and the CRA are separate entities; that the matter could be referred to Staff; that individual CRA Board Members can provide input to the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services; that waiting longer than necessary is not desired; that the addition of two members to the CRA Board and creation of a CRA Advisory Board is important and should be moved forward. Member Quillin agreed and stated that a listing of stakeholders for the CRA Advisory Board should be created; that the process should be moved forward as quickly as possible; that applications should be received and reviewed soon; that some input may be received from the Downtown business owners. Mr. Horwedel concurred and stated that a list of the various stakeholders organizations will be circulated for review as a starting point for consideration; that the organizations can be requested to develop lists of possible members for a CRA Advisory Board; that the level of interest from the organizations can be gauged quickly; that the Commission would appoint the members to the CRA Advisory Board. Member Quillin stated that the CRA Board would appoint the members to the CRA Advisory Board; that the criteria for selection of members to the CRA Advisory Board should be established; that a list of stakeholders should be developed; that a list of possible members to a CRA Advisory Board should not be sought from the stakeholders at this time; that the criteria and expectations of the CRA Advisory Board should be developed and can be expanded as more projects evolve; that criteria and expectations are key to the success of a CRA Advisory Board. Attorney Cardwell stated that examples of criteria and resolutions can be provided. City Attorney Taylor asked if the CRA would like to solicit interest from the County in an individual serving on the CRA Board? Member Palmer stated that appointing a member from the County to serve on the CRA Board may cause a problem. Member Quillin stated that the value of appointing an individual from the County to serve on the CRA Board is appreciated; that the County has a CRA in Englewood, Florida; that the County may wish to appoint the County's CRA Director to the City's CRA Board. Secretary Robinson stated that any member appointed to the CRA Board must reside in, own property in, or have a business in the Community Redevelopment Area. Member Quillin stated that the County owns property in the City. Secretary Robinson stated that a County employee could be eligible to serve on the CRA Board if owning property in the Community Redevelopment Area. Member Palmer stated that the concept initially raised was the possibility of appointing a County Commissioner to the CRA Board; that the prohibition against dual-office holding eliminates the possibility; that the possibilities of adding two CRA Board BOOK 2 Page 1071 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1072 05/03/01 2:00 P.M. Members should be examined; that criteria should be established for the addition of two CRA Board Members; that the CRA will probably receive many applications from residents of the Community Redevelopment Area; that a determination will be difficult without established criteria; that the areas of stakeholders should be examined rather than individual talents except in cases which require individual talents or experiences; that specific skills rather than organizations were sought in the past; that the criteria and responsibility should be established prior to consideration of individuals for the CRA Advisory Board; that the County should recommend individuals who are living in the City for appointment; that the County should be involved, is a major contributor, and should be included. Member Quillin stated that the CRA Advisory Board should be formed as quickly as possible; that the addition of two CRA Board Members may not be necessary. Member Palmer stated that Staff should examine all possibilities; that the addition of two CRA Board Members is a good idea to separate the identities of the CRA and the Commission; that the selection of two CRA Board Members will assist in separating the identity of the two bodies. Chair Hogle agreed. Member Martin stated that the separation of the CRA and the Commission is important; that the CRA would meet separately from the Commission, adding clarity. Member Palmer asked the timetable to make a decision concerning any change in the CRA's organizational structure? Chair Hogle stated that mid-June 2001 may be the appropriate timetable to return the information to the CRA. Mr. Horwedel stated that the discussion began on February 20, 2001; that some Commissioners expressed interested in obtaining additional information; that the information is being gathered to provide options from which the Commission or CRA can choose; that a single precedent does not exist for the approach; that time is required to complete the data gathering and present the data in a format which allows the Commission or CRA to make good, judicious, informed decisions. Chair Hogle stated that the CRA's consensus is two members should be added to the CRA Board who are not from the CRA Advisory Board and a CRA Advisory Board should be created with the number of members to be determined; that input will be received as to the composition of the membership. Mr. Horwedel stated that is correct; that positives and negatives and considerations for establishing the qualifications for individuals will be identified for each option. Member Palmer stated that the relationship of the CRA with the City Auditor and Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager should be established. Mr. Horwedel stated thât the relationship is unclear at this time. Chair Hogle stated that legal guidelines for formatting the CRA Board and the CRA Advisory Board would be beneficial. 4. OTHER MATTERS #2 (0360) thru (0380) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) offered to host the July 31, 2001, Joint Meeting of the Commission and BCC; however, the meeting may be an opportunity to display the newly remodeled Commission Chambers. Chair Hogle stated that having the Commission host the joint meeting between the Commission and BCC is an excellent idea. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (0380) There being no further business, Chair Hogle adjourned the Special meeting of May 3, 2001, at 4:14 p.m. 14 > SOTA ALBERT F. HOGLE, CAR Bp l. n A a * 33 4 xwise ROBINSON, SECRETARY 9 BOOK 2 Page 1073 05/03/01 2:00 P.M.