BOOK 2 Page 986 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001, AT 9:00 A.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, Michael A. Connolly, City Attorney's Office, and Charles Siemon, Principal, Siemon & Larsen (S&L), City's Consultant for Request for Proposal No. 01-3H ABSENT: City Attorney Richard J. Taylor PRESIDING: Chairman Pillot Chairman Pillot called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 9:02 a.m. 1. OPENING REMARKS RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 01-3H FOR PALM AVENUE PARKING GARAGE DEVELOPMENT CONSENSUS TO ALLOW THE CITY'S CONSULTANT TO FIELD QUESTIONS FROM EACH DEVELOPMENT TEAM DURING THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND TO RECESS FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM VI TO ALLOW STAFF, / THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE CITY'S CONSULTANT TO FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE RANKING OF THE RESPONSES TO RFP NO. 01-3H (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0000) through (0615) Chairman Pillot stated that the topic of the meeting concerns selection of a response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H regarding the Palm Avenue Parking Garage. City Manager Sollenberger stated that at the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting, the CRA requested the opportunity to interview all the development groups who submitted responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that the Agenda for the current meeting will commence with opening remarks from the Administration and the City's Consultant; that presentations will be received from each developer; that the Administration and City's Consultant will present closing remarks; however, citizens' input will only be allowed after the CRA ranks first and second the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that the CRA may request input from Staff, the Administration and the City's Consultant; that citizens' input should concern only general issues related to RFP No. 01-3H. City Manager Sollenberger referred to a February 7, 2001, memorandum from Gregory Horwedel, Director of Development and Redevelopment Services, regarding a proposed motion and the appropriate procedures for the selection of the first and second development teams and continued that a proposèd motion was prepared by the City Attorney's Office and specifically includes a section to indicate the first- and second-ranked development teams; that 60 days will be allowed for negotiations; that a $10,000 deposit will be required of the first-ranked development team to commence negotiations and must be delivered to the City on or before February 20, 2001; that the City will proceed to negotiate with the second-ranked development team if negotiations with the first-ranked development team are not completed by April 9, 2001, and a 30-day extension of the negotiations is not granted by the CRA; that the City's Consultant would be instructed to conduct negotiations with the second-ranked development team according to the terms applicable to the first-ranked development team. Mr. Siemon stated that the City's Consultant, Staff, and the Administration considered each of the five responses to RFP No. 01-3H prior to the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting; that recommendations were prepared and submitted to the CRA following consideration of written responses to specific questions from and an interview with each development team; that two development teams were recommended to the CRA for selection; that additional information was sought regarding the two selected responses for consideration at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting; however, the CRA decided to interview all respondents to RFP No. 01-3H who were advised of the CRA's decision; that the three remaining respondents were allowed to provide supplemental information to original responses to RFP No. 01-3H as was allowed the two responses originally selected for presentation at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting; that analyses provided at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting were based upon the original responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that additional information will be received at the current meeting; that the Downtown Sarasota Redevelopment Property Summary Ranking Matrix (matrix) is included in the Agenda backup material and should be noted during the presentations of each respondent and during deliberations; that the information provided in the matrix may change if respondents revised original responses to RFP No. 01-3H. Mr. Siemon continued that a ranking table is also included in the Agenda backup material to assist the CRA's ranking and selection of the first and second responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that the CRA BOOK 2 Page 987 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 988 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. is requested to rank the presentations of the respondents according to an absolute score of one to ten; that a score of one will indicate the lowest-ranked score, while a score of ten will indicate the nighest-ranked score; that the development teams should then be ranked according to the scores; that a rank of one will indicate the highest-ranked development team, while a rank of five will indicate the lowest-ranked development team; that the respondents will most likely present additional information to the CRA which has not been reviewed by the Administration, Staff, or the City's Consultant; therefore, permission is requested to allow each respondent to field questions from the City's Consultant during the time allotted for questions and answersi that any additional information provided by a respondent may require interpretation or further explanation; that an additional recess should also be allowed following the conclusion of the presentations of the respondents to allow Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant additional time to prepare recommendations regarding the selection of a first- and second-ranked response to the CRA; that respondents are respectfully requested to leave the Chambers during the presentations of opposing respondents; that substantive communications between Staff, the Administration, the City's Consultant, and the respondents to RFP No. 01-3H have not occurred since December 14, 2001; that only procedural matters were discussed with respondents to RFP No. 01-3H. Member Quillin stated that allowing Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant additional time to prepare recommendations and a report to the CRA following the presentations of each respondent to RFP No. 01-3H is supported; that a Staff member from the Finance Department should provide advice regarding any additional financial information presented by the respondents; that the February 4, 2001, letter from the City's Consultant to the Administration addressed certain concerns raised by the CRA at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting and provided significant assistance during personal reconsideration of the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that allowing each respondent to field questions from the City's Consultant during the period allotted for question and answers is supported; and asked if a motion is required to allow modifications to the Agenda of the current meeting? Secretary Robinson stated that a consensus of the CRA to modify the Agenda is acceptable. Member Quillin asked if the CRA should recess following the presentation of the final respondent? Secretary Robinson stated yes. Member Cardamone asked if recommendations should be prepared for the CRA's ranking and selection of the first- and second-ranked respondents? Member Quillin stated yes. Member Cardamone stated that the Administration and the City's Consultant prepared recommendations concerning the selection of the first- and second-ranked responses at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting; however, the CRA decided to interview all respondents. to RFP No. 01-3H; that the original recommendation of the Administration and the City's Consultant should have been respected. Member Quillin stated that significant information was not provided to the CRA at the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting; that additional information was subsequently received and provided assistance in reconsidering each response to RFP No. 01-3H; that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant should prepare new recommendations for the CRA. Chairman Pillot stated that the recommendations prepared by the Administration and the City's Consultant for the December 15, 2001, Special CRA meeting were supported; that interviewing all responses to RFP No. 01-3H was not supported; however, the responsibility of CRA members at the current meeting is to listen objectively to the presentations of and any additional information provided by each respondent to RFP No. 01-3H; that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant possess particular expertise in adjudicating the responses to RFP No. 01-3H and further information which may be provided at the current meeting; that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant should prepare new recommendations to the CRA. Mr. Siemon asked if Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant should rerank the responses to RFP No. 01-3H based upon the presentations of the respondents at the current meeting? Chairman Pillot stated that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant should also listen objectively to the presentations of and further information provided by each BOOK 2 Page 989 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 990 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. respondent to RFP No. 01-3H; that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H should be reranked accordingly. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the CRA will each respondent allow to field questions from the City's Consultant during the time allotted for questions and answers and to recess following the final presentation to allow Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant to formulate recommendations concerning the reranking of the responses to RFP No. 01-3H. Chairman Pillot stated that the Administration and the City's Consultant should ask questions as necessary to provide further information to the CRA; and asked the appropriate procedures for CRA members to field questions from the respondents to RFP No. 01-3H? Mr. Siemon stated that each respondent will be introduced and will be allowed 20 minutes for a presentation; that Secretary Robinson will time each presentation and will inform each respondent when five minutes remain; that 20 minutes will be allowed for questions and answers; that the City's Consultant should be recognized at the beginning of the time allotted for questions and answers. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA will follow the schedule as set forth in the Agenda; and asked if the' time allowed for each presentation and questions and answers should be extended? Mr. Siemon stated that the times allotted in the Agenda should be observed. 2. PRESENTATION RE: : ARCADIA LAND COMPANY (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0615) through (2080) Thomas Cardinal, President, Cardinal, Carlson and Park, Architects, Inc. (CCP), William Tucker, Project Director and Director of Operations, Arcadia Land Company (Arcadia), and Jack Yardley, Design Principal, HKS Architects, Inc. (HKS), came before the CRA. Mr. Tucker referred to displayed computer-generated slides displayed throughout the presentation and stated that Mr. Cardinal is a member of the local business community; that Mr. Yardley represents HKS, which is based in Dallas, Texas; that the development team consists of Arcadia, CCP, and HKS; that Arcadia is the master developer and consists of three Principals: Robert Davis, who also serves as Chairman for Congress on New Urbanism, W. Joseph Duckworth, and Christopher Leinberger; that the Director of Operations is responsible for the construction, design, sale, and. financial feasibility of the project; that Arcadia is currently involved in a significant development project in Albuquerque, New Mexico; that the elements of the response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H are similar to the project design of the Albuquerque project; that Arcadia's project is named the "Palm Colonnata"; that a portion of the development profits will be. shared with the City and represents a significant change from the original response; that Mr. Davis developed and owns property in the City of Seaside, Florida, which is a leading New Urbanist community and was designed by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ); that DPZ designed a the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020); that Arcadia has collaborated with DPZ on a number of successful projects; that Arcadia has four primary development goals, which are to: 1. Collaborate with the best local design team and contractors, 2. Assure the project design has integrity and meets Arcadia standards, 3. Meet the needs and goals of the client, the City of Sarasota, and 4. Create a viable project with proper design and internal structures, and with minimal risk and adequate return for the City, equity participants, and Arcadia. Mr. Tucker continued that the project will anchor the City's arts district; that a significant number of Arcadia's investors support the arts; that the project design will serve as a further catalyst to the local arts community and is compatible with local architecture; that the project was revised significantly from the project presented in the original response to RFP No. 01-3H; however, the predominant concepts of the project design of the original response were preserved but simplified; that the previous project design was complex and included various commercial and residential opportunities; that the entrance to the parking garage was previously located on Cocoanut Avenue; that the project design was revised to relocate the entrance to the parking garage from the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues; that the residential units located over BOOK 2 Page 991 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 992 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. the parking garage were eliminated from the previous project design; that the parking garage will be embedded within the project and will not be viewable from either Cocoanut or Palm Avenues; that 120 residential units will be constructed; that commercial office space was eliminated from the project design; that only a parking garage, residential units, and retail opportunities will be contained in the revised project design; that retail space was appropriated for a large restaurant; that the project design is flexible and negotiable and could be redesigned to accommodate a larger number of retail units, a movie theater, or other opportunities desired by the City; that the previous project design was not as flexible. Mr. Yardley stated that the residential units will be constructed starting from the ground floor to conserve height; that retail units will be located around the perimeter of the project to form a pedestrian arcade; that the parking garage will be embedded within the structure; that all elements will be separate from one another in design but not appearance and will be economically viable and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Tucker referred to displayed computer-generated slides indicating the three major elements of the project design which are the pedestrian environs, the retail opportunities along Palm Avenue, and the variety and diversity of the residential units and stated that the previous project design offered only a few types of residential units; that five types of residential units are offered by the revised project design. Mr. Cardinal referred to displayed computer-generated slides indicating that the pedestrian activity zones of the previous project design which were maintained and stated that the pedestrian activity and the architectural design of the project interface significantly; that a courtyard was added to the project design at the entrance to the alley and will serve as a gateway to Downtown; that project design will link nearby architecture; that the location of the services depot was maintained; that the entrance to the lobby of the residential units was relocated to Palm Avenue; that 27,400 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail space will be constructed; that the elevated promenade was maintained; that the pedestrian scale along Palm and Cocoanut Avenues is aesthetically pleasing; that the ceiling height of all retail spaces is 20 feet; that live/work units will be built above each retail space; that the entrance to the lobby of the residential units from Palm Avenue will be located in the courtyard, which will serve as an aesthetically pleasing civic space with outdoor dining and group meeting space; that a covered archway will connect the project to neighboring buildings to further preserve architectural contiguity Downtown; that the alley will be improved; that the courtyard will also provide access to the proposed restaurant. Mr. Cardinal continued that the target prices for the residential units are $325,000 for live-work Palm Avenue lofts, $210,000 for side lofts, $240,000 for flats, $290,000 for condominiums, and $550,000 for penthouses; that the residential units are targeted toward young professionals working Downtown; that the majority of the residential units are affordable. Mr. Tucker referred to displayed computer-generated slides indicating the availability of parking for the Sarasota Opera House which is important to the City and stated that Arcadia discussed the provision of parking in the parking garage with representatives of the Sarasota Opera House, who expressed concern for storage and residential space; that 7,000 sq. ft. of unfinished space will be donated to the Sarasota Opera House, which may choose to design the space for residential, parking, or storage requirements were required; that the bulk and mass of similar projects was considered unacceptable in RFP No. 01-3H; however, the scale of the project design is contiguous with nearby building mass; that the height and density of the project were limited to the appropriate scale; that the maximum height of the project is 120 feet; that a significant concern of Arcadia is for the economic feasibility of the project; that the target prices of the residential and retail units correspond to the prevailing local market; that the City would be considered a partner in the project; that a portion of the revenues would be shared with the City, which is a significant revision to the original response to RFP No. 01-3H; that the parking garage will provide more than 725 parking spaces for public use; that the retail opportunities on Palm Avenue will be significantly increased; that the project design is flexible and can be adjusted to prevailing local market conditions. Mr. Siemon asked if all retail opportunities will be located in the courtyard? Mr. Yardley stated no; that the retail space will be provided in the courtyard and along Palm and Cocoanut Avenues. Mr. Siemon asked the height of the project? BOOK 2 Page 993 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 994 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Mr. Cardinal stated that the pedestal of the towers will be two stories of retail space; that the southern tower will be eight stories of residential units; that the remaining tower will contain ten stories of residential units. Mr. Siemon asked if the heights of the towers are 100 and 120 feet respectively? Mr. - Cardinal stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if the City will be required to appropriate Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues for the completion of the project? Mr. Tucker stated yes; that the City's appropriation of TIF revenues will be required for the capitalization of the project and are a fundamental element of the financing of the project. Mr. Siemon asked the estimated TIF revenues necessary for the project? Mr. Tucker stated that the information is unknown at the present time and cannot be provided until the financial requirements of the project are negotiated. Mr. Siemon asked the total number of parking spaces for public use? Mr. Cardinal stated that 450 to 500 parking spaces will be available for public use. Mr. Siemon asked if agreements were reached to construct covered archways to nearby buildings? Mr. Cardinal stated that formal agreements were not obtained; however, verbal commitments were obtained. Mr. Siemon stated that the presentation included a covered passage to the Sarasota Opera. House; and asked for clarification of the details of the proposed covered passage to the Sarasota Opera House. Mr. Cardinal stated that the proposed covered passage to the Sarasota Opera House refers to a pedestrian crossing from the parking garage to the Sarasota Opera House. Mr. Siemon asked if the covered passage will be built into the Sarasota Opera House? Mr. Cardinal stated no; that the covered passage will be built along the existing pedestrian way to the Sarasota Opera House. Member Cardamone stated that 20-foot ceilings are proposed for each retail space; that two floors of retail space are proposed for the first two ground floors of the project; that the residential towers vary from eight to ten stories, which are ten feet per story; and asked the maximum height of the building? Mr. Cardinal stated that each retail space has a 20-foot ceiling; however, that the retail opportunities are limited to a single floor which constitutes two stories; therefore, the maximum height is 120 feet. Member Cardamone stated that the presentation indicated more than 725 parking spaces would be constructed; and asked for clarification of the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Cardinal stated that 725 parking spaces are a definite number and a conservative estimate; however, a parking consultant was hired and indicated more than 725 parking spaces could be constructed. Member Cardamone asked the total number of parking spaces for public uise? Mr. Cardinal stated that no less than 450 parking spaces will be constructed for public use; that the parking consultant indicated 500 parking spaces will be available for public use. Chairman Pillot stated that a covered passage is proposed from the parking garage to the Sarasota Opera House; that Sarasota Opera House patrons are currently required to park in the City- owned parking lot on Palm Avenue; that patrons must walk along an unattractive alley to the front entrance of the Sarasota Opera House which is located on Pineapple Avenue; and asked the route of the covered passage from the parking garage to the Sarasota Opera House? Mr. Cardinal stated that the alley will be redeveloped and improved to increase the aesthetics of the passage from the parking garage to the Sarasota Opera House; that Sarasota Opera House patrons will have the choice to utilize either the covered BOOK 2 Page 995 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 996 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. passage or walk along the frontage of Cocoanut Avenue to Pineapple Avenue; that the aesthetics of the entire area will be significantly improved. Chairman Pillot stated that aesthetics of the retail frontage located on the alley is not controlled by the City; and asked Arcadia's plan to improve the aesthetics of the alley? Mr. Cardinal stated that the project design will increase the quality of services provided to the entire area; that new pavers will be installed in the alley; that assistance will be provided to existing area buildings; that the courtyard will significantly improve area aesthetics; that the City and nearby businesses will be encouraged to partner to improve the aesthetics of the alley; that businesses will be encouraged to install entrances from the alley to catalyze pedestrian use of the alley, thus necessitating further improvements and beautification efforts; that the local community supports the improvement of the alley and the project design; that a theater could be incorporated into the project design to increase night activities and use of the alley; that the City, the development team, and local property owners will partner to improve the alley. Mr. Siemon asked if the City is required to convey the Palm Avenue property to Arcadia? Mr. Tucker stated yes; that a formal agreement would be obtained whereby the City will initially convey the Palm Avenue property to Arcadia without cost; however, the City would be a partner to the development and would receive priority for the distribution of profits; that the Palm Avenue property is valued at approximately $1.8 million; that profits would be distributed to the City after the equity investors of the project are satisfied; that the City will be entitled to $1.8 million in profits prior to Arcadia; that subsequently, the City would receive 20 percent of profits following receipt of $1.8 million; that Arcadia would receive 80 percent of profits. Mr. Siemon asked if the City would receive profits from the operation of the parking garage? Mr. Tucker stated that responsibility for the operation of the parking garage has not been clarified; that the City should purchase and opera te the parking garage; that parking charges should cover the cost of operating the parking garage; however, revenues from the operation of the parking garage will not be sufficient to. fund the debt service of the project; that TIF revenues will be required to fund the debt service of the project. Mr. Siemon asked the average area of the residential units? Mr. Tucker stated that the average area of the residential units is approximately 1,400 to 1,500 sq. ft.; however, certain residential units are 1,200 sq. ft.; that significantly larger units will also be constructed; that the live-work and loft units will be slightly smaller than the average residential unit; that Arcadia intends to charge the lowest price per square foot feasible. Mr. Siemon asked if copies of the presentation and plans presented to the CRA are available? Mr. Tucker stated no; however, copies will be made and distributed to the CRA prior to the conclusion of the current meeting. Mr. Siemon stated that copies of the presentation. and plans are necessary for the deliberations of Staff, the Administration, the City's Consultant, and the CRA; that copies of the site plan and the prospectus are required. Chairman Pillot asked if Arcadia's response was revised to construct 120 residential units? Mr. Tucker stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if the proposed area for retail space is approximately 27,400 sq. ft.? Mr. Tucker stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if the proposed area for commercial office space is approximately 11,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Tucker stated no; that the original response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised to eliminate all commercial office space; that the 7,000 sq. ft. offered to the Sarasota Opera House constitutes a portion of the previous commercial office space. Chairman Pillot asked if at least 725 parking spaces will be constructed? Mr. Tucker stated yes. BOOK 2 Page 997 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 998 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Chairman Pillot asked if at least 450 parking spaces will be constructed for public use? Mr. Tucker stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if the maximum height of the project will be 120 feet? Mr. Tucker stated that the maximum height of the project will exceed 120 feet; that specifically, the northwestern residential towers will exceed 120 feet; that 12 stories of residential units and two stories of retail units will be constructed in the northwestern residential towers; that the maximum height will be approximately 140 feet. Chairman Pillot asked clarification of the term "FAR"? Mr. Siemon stated that FAR is an acronym indicating the floor- to-area ratio of a building to the square footage of the property and represents a measure of building mass; that the northwestern residential towers of the project will consist of 14 stories; that each story is ten feet; that the height of the roof structure should also be accounted; therefore, the maximum height of the project will be approximately 150 feet. Mr. Yardley stated that a penthouse may also be constructed as part of the roof structure of the residential towers; that the roof structure will also include elevator structures; that the maximum height of the project will be approximately 150 feet. Member Cardamone stated that the maximum height of the project will be at least 150 feet; that previous estimations did not include the height of a penthouse, which will be at least 10 feet in height. Mr. Yardley stated that the area of the elevator structure will be approximately 350 sq. ft. Member Cardamone stated that the area of the elevator structure is not a significant concern. Chairman Pillot asked for clarification of the FAR of the project? Mr. Siemon stated that greater FAR equates to greater building mass on a property; that the FAR of each response to RFP No. 01-3H varies significantly; that Staff, the Administration and the City's Consultant will calculate any changes to the FAR of each project,as presented. Mr. Cardinal stated that maximum height of the project is not more than 150 feet; that an artist was hired to provide an architectural rendering of the project, which indicates the northwestern residential towers as 14 stories in height; however; the revised project design indicates the northwestern towers will only be 12 stories in height and consist of only ten stories of residential units and two stories of retail units; that the maximum height of the project is negotiable; that the architectural rendering reflects the flexibility of the revised project design; that the CRA could choose to negotiate the number of residential units; that the maximum height of the project will be 120 feet. Mr. Siemon asked the estimated retail value of the project? Mr. Tucker stated that retail and residential units will be sold for approximately $20 to $22 per sq- ft. Mr. Siemon asked the total estimated value of the project? Mr. Tucker stated. that the precise total estimated value of the project is unknown currently. Mr. Cardinal stated that the total estimated value of the retail units is approximately $6 million. Mr. Siemon asked if the total estimated value of the project has declined due to the revisions. to the project design? Mr. Tucker stated no; that the total estimated value of the project will be greater than $40 million according to the revisions to the project design; that the previous estimated total value of the project was approximately $38 million. The CRA recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:12 a.m. 3. PRESENTATION RE: : MURANO URBAN VENTURE (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (2080) through #2 (0215) Richard Gillett, Principal, Gillett Associates, ARDT Group Inc. (Gillett), came before the CRA, referred to displayed computer- generated throughout the presentation and stated that the presentation concerns the response of the Murano Urban Venture BOOK 2 Page 999 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1000 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. (Murano) to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H; that the Murano project is named "Palm Avenue at the Opera"; that the concepts of RFP No. 01-3H are supported and were preserved; that the appropriate response to RFP No. 01-3H is to construct a low- rise structure; that the first story of the project consists of retail units and restaurants; that the remaining stories consist of residential units; that the project design is compatible with existing architectural styles Downtown; that the previous project design was revised to focus additional pedestrian activity along Cocoanut Avenue; that RFP No. 01-3H specifically requests residential and retail units in a low-rise structure; that the project design explicitly follows the guidelines set forth by RFP No. 01-3H and reflects the Mediterranean Revival style architecture which predominates Downtown, the Bayfront and the Cityi that hidden courtyards are incorporated in the project design; that the landscaping of the project design will further accentuate the Mediterranean Revival style architecture and will generate a pedestrian perception of a village; that the fundamental concept of the project is to catalyze growth Downtown; that the Murano response to RFP No. 01-3H is a modest and responsible response to achieve growth in the City; that Palm Avenue will not accommodate intense uses; that the project design provides retail and other economic opportunities without exceeding the growth capacity of the surrounding environs; that the proposed residential units will offer an alternative to the high-rise condominiums currently located at the Bayfront. Mr. Gillett continued that RFP No. 01-3H specifically indicates the project will be a Public-private partnership", that Murano is dedicated to initiating a public-private partnership to complete the project and generate growth and activity Downtown; that Murano's previous developments are indicative of a strong public-private partnership; that the CRA will be treated as the property owner of the project; that revenues will be shared with the City following completion of the project; that the City and Murano will each receive 50 percent of the revenues; that revenues will first be distributed to the City; that an initial or continuing investment from the City is not required; that the integrity of the original responses to RFP No. 01-3H should be maintained; that revisions to the original responses to RFP No. 01-3H should not be allowed; that the project was maintained as presented in the original response to RFP No. 01-3H; that mprovements are expected but should be discussed during final negotiations according to RFP No. 01-3H; that 600 parking spaces will be available for public use in the project's parking garage; that Murano will own and operate the parking garage; that fees will be charged to the public to cover the maintenance and operation costs of the parking garage; that the City will have the option to purchase the parking garage from Murano but will not be required to fund operations; that Murano requests the City convey the land to assist the project's construction and completion; that bonding will not be required. Mr. Gillett further stated that the retail units will be divided into two separate. structures; that each retail structure will consist of 21,000 square feet (sq. ft.); that an additional 3,800 sq. ft. of retail space will be located along the façade of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that the retail space will cost approximately $26 per square foot; that the Courtelis Company (Courtelis) will be a financial partner for the project and has significant development experience; that residential units will be constructed in three different structures; that Opera lofts will be constructed along Palm Avenue; that each Opera loft will consist of an area between 1,200 to 1,800 sq. ft.; that the second structure will be named "Pearl Chase," will consist of 20 residential units along Cocoanut Avenue and will be five stories high; that a number of the Pearl Chase residences will have views of Sarasota Bay; that the Pearl Chase residences will cost significantly more than the other residential units; that the third structure will be named "Bellasera" and will consist of rooftop units located over the parking garage; that private gardens will be constructed as part of Bellasera; that a private garden was constructed as part of the Florencia Condominiums (Elorencia) in the City of St. Petersburg by Murano; that the garden of Florencia was constructed on top of a four-story parking garage with little difficulty. Mr. Gillett stated further that Gillett will serve as the principal of the implementing organization; that Gillett will be responsible for conducting negotiations; that US Assets, Inc., will serve as a residential development consultant; that Courtelis will serve as the primary developer of the retail units; that InterShow, Inc. (InterShow), of which Charles Githler serves as Chief Executive Officer, will serve as project manager, has significant financial resources, and will manage project finances; that Gillett will manage the partnership; that the project design indicates five stories of residential units will be constructed on the property; that the Mediterranean Revival style architecture will predominate the residential units, which will have private two-car garages; that approximately 3,000 sq. ft. will be allocated for small retail BOOK 2 Page 1001 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1002 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. opportunities near the residential units; that 7,500 sq. ft. will be allocated for a restaurant, which will also contain a courtyard and outdoor café; that parking spaces and additional landscaping will be added to Palm Avenue; that a pedestrian linkage between Five Points Park, the Sarasota Opera House, and the project will be constructed and will pass through the existing alley; that 17 parking spaces are currently located in the rear of a number of the buildings abutting the alley; that the parking spaces on the alley will be eliminated as part of the budgeted improvements; that parking spaces will be made available in the parking garage for the affected businesses; that a goal is to improve and to increase pedestrian activity in the alley. Mr. Gillett stated that the project must be connected to the Bayfront and. specifically the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that First Street will be an important pedestrian passageway; that a pedestrian crossing at the intersection of First Street and US.4 41 should be installed; that the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) indicates similar improvements should be made at various intersections to increase pedestrian activity in the Cityi that another goal of the Master Plan 2020 is to connect the Bayfront and Downtown; that a significant number of high-rise buildings are located at the Bayfront; however, the majority of buildings located Downtown to the east of the Bayfront are not high-rise buildings; that the project is a low-rise building which will generate significant pedestrian activity. Mr. Gillett continued that approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of residential space will be constructed as part of the project; that approximately 45,800 sq. ft. of retail space will be constructed; that the project will generate $48 million in revenuei that project construction will cost approximately $25.5 million; that equity expenses will cost between $3 and $5 million and will depend upon the success of the pre-leasing of units and parking spaces; that parking fees will generate additional revenues and reduce the equity expenses for the project; that a significant number of local investors expressed interest in purchasing or leasing units or parking spaces; that the project will be constructed within 24 months depending upon the success of pre-leasing arrangements; that the City will receive 50 percent of the initial distribution of net profit for the sale of residential units and the capitalized value of retail units; that the City should earn approximately $4.7 million in profit; that Murano will receive the balance of the net profit after the City earns $4.7 million. Mr. Siemon asked if the revised financial analysis differs from the analysis provided with Murano's original response to RFP No. 01-3H? Mr. Gillett stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if the residential units will be sold or leased? Mr. Gillett stated that the residential units are for sale; that each residential unit will be pre-sold; that a local sales center will be opened; that units for each residential structure will be advertised for sale at the sales center. Mr. Siemon asked if the project will be constructed if the majority of the residential units are not pre-sold? Mr. Gillett stated no; that Murano is prepared to spend the necessary funds to construct the project; however, the majority of the residential units will be sold as designed during a nine- month advertising period; that the profiles and architectural styles of the residential units will be modified if pre-sales projections are not. obtained following the nine-month advertisement period; that the expectation is the majority of residential units will be purchased; that the local demand for residential condominium units is significant; that 70 percent of residential units should be pre-sold. Mr. Siemon asked the assurances provided to the CRA to ensure the project is completed as promised by Murano? Mr. Gillett stated that Murano's investment team possesses significant financial resources which will be presented to the CRA if selected; that the marketing program for the project will also be presented during negotiations if selected; that Murano will provide $500,000 to initiate the projeçt and will guarantee purchase of the property, which is valued at $3.8 million. Mr. Siemon stated that Courtelis and InterShow were mentioned as partners during the presentation; that the Administration and the City's Consultant previously expressed concern regarding the capability of the developer to execute the project; that the concern was expressed during the interview with Murano's representatives; that Gillett possess significant experience designing projects but does not possess substantial development BOOK 2 Page 1003 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1004 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. experience; and asked if Courtelis and InterShow will serve as equal equity partners with Gillett in the development of the project? Mr. Gillett stated yes; that Courtelis and InterShow will serve as equal equity partners with Gillett in the development of the project and will participate as partners during negotiations. Mr. Siemon asked if Gillett is willing to make selection contingent upon the participation of Courtelis and InterShow as equal equity partners? Mr. Gillett stated yes. Member Quillin stated that Murano's presentation indicates the City will not be required to provide financial assistance to the project; however, the financial analyses provided during the presentation indicate debt service will be required to finance the construction of the project; and asked for clarification of the financial assistance necessary to complete the project. Mr. Gillett stated that the financial analyses indicate the City could provide financial assistance for the construction of the parking garage; that the City is not required to provide financial assistance; that the parking garage will lose approximately $400,000 in funding without City assistance; that the parking garage will be completed; however, fewer than 600 parking spaces may be constructed for public use; that the City's parking necessities may not require 600 parking spaces; that any additional funds required to provide 600 parking spaces for public use could be bonded. Member Quillin asked the required bonding amount to provide 600 parking spaces for public use? Mr. Gillett stated that approximately $400,000 would be bonded; that the total estimated cost of the parking garage is approximately $8 million; that the City and Murano would form a public-private partnership to finance the total cost of the parking garage. Member Quillin asked if City funding is optional or required? Mr. Gillett stated that any financial assistance from the City is optional; that the development team intends to fund all construction costs; however, the development team may seek financial assistance from the City if additional benefits or revenues to the project could be achieved; that financial assistance from the City will not be required to complete the project as presented. Member Quillin asked the party responsible for the management of the parking garage? Mr. Gillett stated that Murano will be responsible for the operation of the parking garage; that parking management firms are being interviewed; however, Murano has not hired a parking management firm. Member Quillin stated that the City could share responsibility with Murano for the parking garage's operation and management; that the project design separates the residential and retail units from the parking garage; and asked if separate parking is provided for the retail and residential units? Mr. Gillett stated yes; that approximately 173 parking spaces will be provided for the residential units and will be separated from the public parking garage for privacy and security purposes; that the City and Murano could share the revenues earned from fees charged for use of the parking garage; however, the appropriate amount of parking fees in the City is not discernible according to the local market and must be determined. Member Quillin asked if parking fees would be waived for persons visiting the retail units or restaurants of the project? Mr. Gillett stated yes. Member Quillin asked the location of the parking garage's entrance? Mr. Gillett stated that the parking garage's main entrance is located on Palm Avenue near the intersection of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that an additional entrance to the parking garage will be located on the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues and will facilitate patronization of the Sarasota Opera House and other nearby attractions; that valet parking will also be available. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the project will include approximately 612 parking spaces for public use; that pre- leasing parking spaces to local businesses is supported and will allow the public to park Closer to local businesses Downtown; and asked the number of pre-leased parking spaces? BOOK 2 Page 1005 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1006 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Mr. Gillett stated that approximately 833 total parking spaces will be constructed; that approximately 612 parking spaces will be allotted to the City for public use; that the parking requirements of the Sarasota Opera House must also be considered; that the Sarasota Opera House will probably require approximately 200 parking spaces for each performance; that approximately 300 parking spaces will be required for general public use; therefore, Murano intends to pre-lease the remaining parking spaces; that approximately 300 parking spaces will be pre-leased. Chairman Pillot asked if Murano discussed local parking requirements with representatives of the Sarasota Opera House? Mr. Gillett stated that local parking requirements were not discussed with representatives of the Sarasota Opera House; however, discussions will be held if Murano's response to RFP No. 01-3H is selected. Chairman Pillot stated that the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues is not aesthetically pleasing; and asked the proposed improvements to the alley incorporated in the project design? Mr. Gillett stated that the alley will be. an important area for the project; that Murano intends to eliminate the parking on the alley; that the façade of the alley will be improved; that garbage collection will be relocated from the alley to a central services distribution area located near the parking garage and will be provided for local businesses; that $185,000 is budgeted for alley improvements; that financial assistance from the City could be used for landscaping and further aesthetic improvements to the alley, which is an important pedestrian passageway for nearby attractions. Chairman Pillot asked if the proposed improvements to the alley were discussed with the affected local businesses? Mr. Gillett stated that a discussion was held with the owner of a neighboring large business. Chairman Pillot quoted Murano's response to RFP No. 01-3H as follows: all remaining distributable proceeds shall be distributed 75 percent to City/CRA and 25 percent to ESQ [Muranol. Chairman Pillot stated that the presentation indicated remaining distributable proceeds would be 50 percent to the City and 50 percent to Murano; and asked for clarification of the remaining distributable proceeds to the City. Mr. Gillett stated that the first and second revenue distributions would be equal for the City and Murano; that the share of remaining distributable proceeds will be 75 percent to the City and 25 percent to Murano. Chairman Pillot asked the potential for the City to receive revenues from remaining distributable proceeds? Mr. Siemon stated that the City could receive remaining distributable proceeds if the retail and restaurant units are successfully leased; that remaining distributable proceeds are dependent upon the success of the project. Member Cardamone asked the number of on-street parking spaces provided on Palm and Cocoanut Avenues? Mr. Gillett stated that 24 on-street, diagonal parking spaces will be provided and will adjoin the project; that the design of the on-street parking spaces was obtained from the Master Plan 2020; that the streetscape of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues will also be improved. Member Cardamone asked if additional on-street parking will be provided opposite the project on Palm and Cocoanut Avenues? Mr. Gillett stated that an additional 24 on-street, diagonal parking spaces should be constructed opposite the project on Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that the City should construct the additional parking spaces opposite the project. Chairman Pillot stated that the potential partnership of Courtelis and InterShow is important; and asked if the. completion of the project is contingent upon the participation of Courtelis and InterShow? Mr. Gillett stated that Courtelis and InterShow will be full partners in the project; that the extent of the participation of BOOK 2 Page 1007 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1008 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Courtelis and InterShow as investors will be determined by the costs to complete the project as determined during negotiations with the City; that a significant number of meetings were held with representatives of Courtelis and InterShow concerning the elements and aspects of the project. Mr. Siemon stated that the capability of Gillett as a master developer is a concern; however, Courtelis and InterShow hold significant investment and development experience; that Murano's presentation at - the current meeting indicates Courtelis and InterShow will be full partners in the project. Mr. Gillett stated that is correct. Chairman Pillot stated that the contingent participation of Courtelis and InterShow should be clarified. Mr. Siemon stated that the contingent participation of Courtelis and InterShow refers to the ability of Murano to complete the project as presented if selected by the CRA; that the City should proceed to negotiate with the second-ranked response to RFP No. 01-3H if Murano is unable to complete the project as presented to the CRA; and asked if the potential City assistance requested will be conduit bonding? Mr. Gillett stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if Murano has experience in financing and constructing residential units atop parking garages? Mr. Gillett stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if Murano's response to RFP No. 01-3H includes approximately 163 parking spaces allocated for use by the Sarasota Opera House? Mr. Gillett stated yes; that approximately 163 parking spaces will be available on, the parking garage level near the Sarasota Opera House. 4. PRESENTATION RE: : MCGURN INVESTMENT COMPANY (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (0215) through (0315) Mr. Siemon referred to a February 7, 2001, letter from Gary Hoyt, representing the McGurn Investment Company (McGurn), indicating that McGurn is withdrawing the response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H. The CRA recessed at 10:54 a.m. and reconvened at 1:08 p.m. 5. PRESENTATION RE: : PALM WALK ASSOCIATES, LTD (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (0315). through (2280) Piero Rivolta, Rivolta Development Inc. (Rivolta) and Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk), Mark Kaufman, M.D., Sarasota Commercial Management, Inc. (SCM), and Bruce Franklin and Javier Suarez, AIA, the ADP Group (ADP), came before the CRA. Dr. Kaufman referred to displayed computer-generated slides of architectural drawings of the Palm Walk project design throughout the presentation and stated that Attorney Band was regretfully unable to attend the Palm Walk presentation due to a previously scheduled meeting; that the opportunity to present the project is appreciated; that the Palm Walk project is unique and fiscally responsible; that the project design reflects current architectural styles prevalent throughout the City; that a boutique European-style hotel, a catering and conference hall, community theater, office and commercial space and affordable condominiums will be constructed as part of the project; that abundant parking will be provided in the parking garage; that the 55-foot height limit was exceeded; that the appearance of the project will be dramatic and includes setbacks of taller structures to provide an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian perception; that the Palm Walk project will be a dynamic urban space; that development team members have proven records of successful local developments and are residents of the local community; that discussions were held with representatives of the Sarasota Opera House concerning parking and other space requirements; that the development team has significant expertise in the planning, financing, construction, leasing, and selling successful developments; that leasing and purchasing commitments were obtained for the project's office space, hotel, the banquet hall, community theater, the restaurant, and 60 percent of the commercial space; that the fiscal risk of failure is minimal. Dr. Kaufman continued that SCM previously urged the Administration to acquire and develop the Palm Avenue property prior to the issuance of Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H and also provided recommendations to the City regarding the use of the Palm Avenue property; that development team members were responsible for the restoration of the Crisp Building and the development of Kane Plaza and the Hollywood 20 Theatres; that Palm Walk is prepared to negotiate the project with the City if selected; BOOK 2 Page 1009 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1010 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. however, the City will be released from negotiations if the project cannot be completed as presented; that the interests of the City are important to Palm Walk; that all responses to RFP No. 01-3H are excellent in quality; however, the Palm Walk project is the best of a number of excellent choices. Mr. Franklin referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the Palm Walk project and stated that the opportunity to present the project to the CRA is appreciated; that the members of the development team are responsible for a significant number of successful local development projects such as Kane and Links Plazas; that the Palm Walk response to RFP No. 00-29H proposes a structure of smaller scale; that the Commission ranked Palm Walk's response to RFP No. 00-29H second and indicated a stronger residential component and an opportunity for significant tax earnings were desired in the project; that the response to RFP No. 00-29H was revised to incorporate a larger structure and residential components; that retail space was maintained along the Palm Avenue façade; that office space will be provided on the project's second level; that Rivolta will operate the boutique hotel, club, and catering and conference center; that Palm Walk's original response to RFP No 01-3H provided for the construction of 835 parking spaces; that development team members estimate an additional 50 parking spaces could be provided following revisions to the original project design; that 460 parking spaces will be available for public use; that the proposed theaters could be eliminated to provide further parking space for public use; that the available parking space for public use is negotiable; that available public parking spaces could be increased to approximately 510 spaces if necessaryi however, 510 public parking spaces may not be required; that shared and valet parking will also be provided. Mr. Suarez referred to computer-generated slides of architectural drawings of the Palm Walk project and stated that the project design is directly related to the current urban context of Downtown and nearby architectural styles; that the project will further enhance the streetscape of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues and will increase pedestrian activity Downtown; that the predominant concepts of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) were incorporated into the project design; that the concept of setbacks was specifically incorporated into the project design; that the taller structures of the project will be set back from the first four stories; that the scale of the project is similar to surrounding buildings; that the setback of the taller structures will provide a pedestrian perception of less urban intensity and enhance the character of the streetscape of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that a goal of the project is to respect the existing designs and architectural styles of surrounding structures and streetscapes; that the residential towers of the project could be 180 feet in height but will be set back from the first four stories; that the pedestrian perception will only be of four stories. Mr. Suarez continued that a recessed porte cochere was included in the project design of the original response to RFP No. 01-3H to provide an area for vehicles to drop passengers and was specifically incorporated to avoid the significant vehicular congestion occuring prior to performances at the Sarasota Opera House; that the çoncept of the porte cochere was perceived negatively; that the scale of the porte cochere was perceived as large; that the incorporation of the porte cochere in the project is negotiable according to the requirements of the City; that residential units will not be constructed to. face the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues; that the entrance to the parking garage will not be located on Palm Avenue; that locating the parking garage entrance on Palm Avenue would significantly disrupt pedestrian activity in the area; that significant vehicular and pedestrian congestion occurs at the Hollywood 20 Theatres during peak hours of operation; that the project was designed to avoid such congestion; that the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues is a significant concern; that an improvements program is provided in the response to RFP No. 01-3H; that a central services area will be provided on the Palm Avenue property for surrounding buildings to enhance the aesthetics of the alley; that refuse collection and management will also be provided for surrounding buildings. Mr. Suarez further stated that the project is predominantly mixed-use; that retail space will be provided along Palm Avenue; that 7,500 square feet (sq. ft.) of restaurant space will be constructed along Palm Avenue; that a banquet facility and community theater will be incorporated in the project; that a boutique hotel will also be included in the project and will be operated by Rivolta; that 20,000 sq. ft. of office space will be constructed on the second story of the project; that common garden and recreational facilities will be constructed for the residential condominiums and the hotel; that the residential tower only encompasses 11 percent of the surface area of the project property; that the width of the residential tower will not BOOK 2 Page 1011 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1012 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. significantly disrupt existing views of the Bayfront; that the entrance to the hotel will be located on Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Rivolta distributed a copy and read from a December 15, 2000, letter to the Commission indicating that the development team is locally based; that the members of the development team possess significant local development experience; that the majority of project facilities will be either leased or sold prior to the issuance of building permits if Palm walk's response is selected; that Rivolta endorses the project and serves as a full development partner; that the project will be successful and aesthetically pleasing; that Rivolta will manage and operate the boutique hotel, the club, and the conference facility; that the boutique hotel will incorporate operatic and musical themes in each room, which will be furnished uniquely and will be affordably priced; that the club and conference facility will not be a private club, will be similar to the Oaks Club, and is required Downtown; that the cost of each residential condominium was estimated according to the prevailing local market; that the property is not located on waterfront; therefore, the residential condominiums of the project must be affordable; that individuals desiring to purchase a residential condominium will be allowed to modify the standard design; that the project can be negotiated successfully in 60 days; that the project design is negotiable. Mr. Rivolta continued that the community theater was incorporated at the request of a local investment group but could be eliminated to provide additional parking; that the project is financially responsible and will be constructed if selected; that the intensity of the project will increase consumer interest in Downtown without creating significant vehicular congestion; that that the project will be aesthetically pleasing, will enhance the Downtown streetscape, and incorporates the design principles of internationally famous structures; that the perception of the community is important to the success of the project; that the local reputation of the development team will ensure the success and local community's use of the project; that approximately 460 parking spaces will be available for public use; that the value of a parking space is approximately $12,000; that the construction cost of a parking space is approximately $10,000; that the value of 460 parking spaces to the City is significant. Mr. Siemon asked if the parking space available for public use was increased from the original response to RFP No. 01-3H by 50 parking spaces? Mr. Franklin stated yes; that the original response to RFP No. 01-3H provided between 350 and 400 parking spaces for public use; that the revised project design will provide for approximately 460 parking spaces for public use; that an additional 50 parking spaces could be constructed if the community theater is eliminated from the project design. Mr. Suarez stated that the City's parking requirements are understood; that Palm Walk could negotiate the project design with the City to further increase public parking space. Mr. Siemon stated that the Palm Walk response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds should be used for alley improvements; and asked if Palm Walk's original response was also revised to provide further financial support for alley improvements? Mr. Franklin stated that the proposal to use TIF funds for alley improvements was maintained in the Palm Walk response to RFP No. 01-3H; however, the financing of alley improvements is negotiable; that impact fees generated from the project could be used for alley and other public improvements; that bond financing could be examined but is not proposed; that direct financial assistance from the City is not requested for the project. Mr. Siemon asked if Palm Walk requests the City convey the land on a fee simple basis? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Chairman Pillot stated that the concept of conveying land on a fee simple basis should be clarified. Mr. Suarez stated that the City is requested to convey the property to Palm Nalk; however, Palm Walk will assume all risks related to the financing and construction of the proposed development of the property. Chairman Pillot asked if the conveyance of the property will be fee simple? Mr. Siemon stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if Palm Walk will become the property owner? Mr. Siemon stated yes. Member Quillin stated that RFP No. 01-3H indicates the property will be sold or conveyed to the selected respondent; that Staff BOOK 2 Page 1013 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1014 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. appraised the property significantly less than market value; and asked if Palm Walk is proposing to equate the value of the property with the value of the parking spaces provided for public use? Mr. Franklin stated yes; that the value of the property is approximately $1.8 million; that the value of a parking space is approximately $12,000; that 510 parking spaces could be constructed; that the value of 510 parking spaces is approximately $6 million and significantly exceeds the value of the property; that the operation and management of the parking garage, refuse collection, and central services will be a significant benefit to the City; that the landscaping and streetscape of Palm Avenue will be maintained by Palm Walk; that the project will generate significant tax revenues for the City as well. Member Quillin stated that value of the property is significantly greater than $1.8 million and will be negotiated; that the benefits to the City for conveying the land in fee simple should be clarified. Mr. Suarez stated that the property has a maximum market value of $3.8 million; that the project could generate approximately $6 million in value in public parking spaces for the City without risk; that Palm Walk will also be responsible for the operation and management of the parking garage; that profit sharing is an option provided in other responses to RFP No. 01-3H; however, the potential for profit-sharing on the revenues generated from the operation of a parking garage is minimal. Member Quillin stated that the Palm Walk response also requests TIF funds be appropriated for alley improvements. Mr. Suarez stated that is correct; however, the alley is City property; that the City appropriated TIF funds previously for similar improvements for the Main Street streetscape. Vice Chairman Hogle asked the height of the boutique hotel? Mr. Suarez stated that the height of the boutique hotel will be approximately 120 feet. Vice Chairman Hogle asked the price range of the residential condominiums? Dr. Kaufman stated that the average price of a residential condominium will be $300,000. Vice Chairman Hogle asked if the parking garage will be managed and operated by Palm Walk? Dr. Kaufman stated yes; that Palm Walk will manage the parking garage, pay all applicable taxes, and fund repairs to the parking garage; that the parking garage would be open for night activities Downtown. Vice Chairman Hogle asked the estimated time for project completion? Mr. Franklin stated 24 months. Member Cardamone asked the total surface area of project consumed by the residential tower? Mr. Suarez stated that the residential tower occupies 11 percent of the surface area of the project; that the hotel tower occupies nine percent of the surface area; that the residential and hotel towers will be set back from the lower floors of the project. Mr. Franklin stated that the residential and hotel towers will be set back; that setback structures provide for a less intense and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian perception of tall buildings. Member Cardamone stated that the concept of setbacks for tall buildings is supported; and asked the height of the hotel tower? Mr. Suarez stated that the height of the hotel tower is approximately 120 feet; that the hotel tower consists of eight stories. Member Cardamone asked if the 120 feet is measured from the ground? Mr. Suarez stated yes. Member Cardamone asked the height of the residential tower? Mr. Suarez stated approximately 180 feet. Member Cardamone asked the capacity of each theater? Mr. Suarez stated that two theaters with a common lobby will be constructed; that each theater will have 200 seats; that the total area of the community theater will be 20,000 sq. ft. BOOK 2 Page 1015 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1016 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Member Cardamone asked if the two theaters could be joined to form a single, larger theater? Mr. Suarez stated no; that the investment group desiring the construction of the community theater requested two theaters. Member Cardamone asked the estimated construct cost of the project? Mr. Suarez stated approximately $36 million. Member Cardamone stated that tax revenues earned from each project should be clarified by the Administration and the City's Consultant during closing remarks. Chairman Pillot asked if the City will own the property and realize any annual revenues from the project? Dr. Kaufman stated that Palm Walk will own the property; that the City could own and manage the parking garage but will not earn any annual revenues; that the provision and management of public parking spaces are considered the benefit to the City from the project; that parking will be provided for a significant number of local attractions. Chairman Pillot asked if approximately 460 parking spaces will be permanently allocated to the public? Dr. Kaufman stated yes; that the parking spaces allocated for public use will remain as such. Chairman Pillot stated that Palm Walk will be entitled to any improvements but responsible for the management and operation of the parking garage; but asked if the City could own and operate the parking garage? Dr. Kaufman stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if the City would receive any revenues if the parking garage is purchased? Mr. Rivolta stated yes. Member Quillin asked the cost to construct the parking garage? Mr. Franklin stated approximately $6 million. Mr. Suarez stated that the cost to construct the public parking spaces is approximately $6 million; however, the parking garage will consist of a total of approximately 850 parking spaces; that the total cost to construct the parking garage is approximately $10 million. Member Quillin stated that the Palm Walk response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates a parking rental rate of $55 to $60 will be charged weekly; that a significant number of parking spaces would be leased; and asked the number of parking spaces available on an open basis? Dr. Kaufman stated that parking spaces will be leased at a rate between $45 and $50 weekly for day use; that the revenues generated from leased parking will cover the maintenance and operation of the parking garage; that' free parking will not be provided during the day but will be provided for local attractions at night. Member Quillin asked if the lower stories of the project consist of retail units? Dr. Kaufman stated yes. Member Quillin asked the location of the public parking spaces available for patrons of the retail units? Dr. Kaufman stated that patrons of the retail units will park in the parking garage. Member Quillin asked if patrons of the retail units will be charged parking fees? Dr. Kaufman stated that a ticket would be issued to patrons upon entering the parking garage; that the ticket could be stamped and validated at any of the project facilities; that parking for patrons of the project facilities is free if a validated parking ticket is provided to parking management. Member Quillin stated that 200 public parking spaces currently exist on the Palm Avenue property; that the City issues permits to park on the property; that the public is currently allowed to park on the property if a particular space was not permitted; that the City could no longer permit parking spaces if the Palm Walk project is constructed. Dr. Kaufman stated that Palm Walk would issue parking permits for the parking garage. Member Quillin stated that the parking spaces currently available on the property would no longer be free to patrons of local BOOK 2 Page 1017 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1018 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. attractions; that an intent of RFP No. 01-3H is to provide public parking for all nearby local attractions. Mr. Franklin stated that the public could park in the parking garage. City Manager Sollenberger stated that only approximately 80 parking spaces are currently available on the Palm Avenue property. Attorney Connolly stated that is correct. Member Cardamone asked if on-street parking will be provided for the project? Mr. Suarez stated yes; however, the number of on-street parking spaces is insignificant due to the proposed porte cochere, which is negotiable; that the number of on-street parking spaces could be increased significantly if the porte cochere is eliminated from the project design. Chairman Pillot stated that potential City revenues in impact fees from the project should be clarified. Mr. Franklin stated that the City funded a number of capital improvements as part of the development agreement with the Renaissance of Sarasota, Inc.; that the City and County agreed a portion of the revenues from the generated impact fees would be reimbursed to the City to cover the expenses of the improvements. Chairman Pillot stated that the City could improve public infrastructure near the project; and asked for clarification of Palm Walk's request for bond assistance? Mr. Franklin stated that the City can sponsor an industrial revenue bond through the County; that the City serves as financing conduit without assuming any risk. Mr. Siemon asked if Palm Walk will assume the construction costs for the parking garage? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if Palm Walk will own and operate the parking garage? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if approximately 460 parking spaces will be available for public use? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if the City would be granted or sold the right to own and operate the parking garage? Dr. Kaufman - stated that the parking requirements for the residential units of the project must also be considered. Mr. Siemon asked if Palm Walk is willing to convey ownership of and any revenues generated from the parking spaces for public use to the City? Dr. Kaufman stated that conveyance of the public parking spaces to the City could be negotiated. Member Cardamone stated that the potential for the conveyance of public parking space in the parking garage to the City should be clarified. Mr. Siemon stated that Palm Walk indicates a willingness to negotiate the conveyance of the parking spaces for public use to the City for ownership; that the City would be entitled to receive any revenues generated from parking fees earned beyond maintenance and operation costs; that Palm Walk will be responsible for the parking garage, which will consist of approximately 850 parking spaces; that 460 parking spaces might be conveyed to the City. Mr. Rivolta stated that the number of parking spaces conveyed to the City will depend upon the construction costs of the parking garage. Mr. Suarez stated that sufficient parking space must also be provided for the owners of residential units and the patrons of the project's facilities. Mr. Siemon stated that RFP No. 01-3H does not expressly indicate the City will receive a net economic benefit from any development; that subsequently, a number of the responses received to RFP No. 01-3H included a net economic benefit to the City; that Palm Walk offers two parking options and potential benefits to the City; that the first option is Palm Walk will own and operate the parking garage; that approximately 460 parking spaces will be available for public use; that Palm Walk will receive any net profits from the operation of the parking garagei that the second option is Palm Walk will convey a significant number of parking BOOK 2 Page 1019 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1020 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. spaces to the City, which will receive any net profits from the fees charged to the public for parking. Mr. Rivolta stated that the intent of RFP No. 01-3H is to provide a significant number of parking spaces for public use for a small fee; that the number of parking spaces for conveyance to the City would be estimated based upon the construction and maintenance costs of the parking garage to Palm Walk. Dr. Kaufman stated that other responses to RFP No. 01-3H offer net economic benefits to the City; however, the net economic benefits offered to the City involve significant risk and may never be realized; that the maintenance and operation costs of a parking garage are significant; that the potential to realize any significant profit is insignificant; that the conveyance of the parking spaces for public use to the City was not previously discussed but could be negotiated. The CRA recessed at 2:00 p.m. and reconvened at 2:11 p.m. 6. PRESENTATION RE: : THE PARMENTER COMPANY (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (2280) through #3 (0685) Darryl Parmenter, Project Leader, William Morris, Development Services, and Chris Brown, Public Sector Programs, the Parmenter Company (Parmenter), came before the CRA. Mr. Parmenter distributed a copy of and displayed computer- generated slides throughout the presentation and stated that Parmenter was founded in 1989, is an international urban development and investment company, and is based in Florida; that Parmenter developments are conceptually New Urbanist with particular attention on mixed-use development; that Parmenter is currently developing properties in St. Louis, Missouri, Palm Beach, Florida, Boca Raton, Florida, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia, currently owns approximately $1.5 billion in real estate properties, and possesses significant financial capabilities such as an available $100 million credit line with Deutschebank; that seats are held on the Urban Development and Mixed-Use Council of the Urban Land Institute; that significant experience is held with forming public-private development partnerships; that a renowned architectural firm was hired to design and plan Parmenter's response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H. Mr. Parmenter continued that Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised significantly, that the revised project will be fiscally feasible and commensurate with the scale of existing developments and structures Downtown; that Parmenter proposes to construct 35,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail units and cafes on the ground level of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that 93 loft apartments will be constructed above and set back from the ground level; that 155 residential apartments will be constructed above the loft apartments; that 84,000 sq. ft. of office space will also be constructed above the ground level; that the parking garage will provide approximately 700 public and 250 private parking spaces; that significant public parking space is required Downtown; that the name of Parmenter's project is "The Palm"; that the scale of the project is significant but corresponds to existing developments Downtown. Mr. Morris referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the project and stated that the opportunity to present the project to the CRA is appreciated; that the project is designed to correspond to the City's existing architectural styles and scale of development; that the proposed retail units will complement the existing businesses and attractions Downtown; that outdoor restaurants will. be established; that pedestrian activity Downtown will be enhanced; that the project design is negotiable; that the presentation is conceptual; that approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of retail space will be located along Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; that one or two specialty restaurants with indoor and outdoor dining will be established; that concepts of the project are similar to the concepts established in Mizner Park and the Smith Barney office complex in Boca Raton, Florida; that the project will incorporate, aesthetically pleasing landscaping, colonnades, and streetscape to enhance the pedestrian perception of the area; that three levels of loft apartments will be constructed above the ground level of retail units; that the loft units will be set back from Palm and Cocoanut Avenues and will not be viewable from the right of way next to the building; that all residential units will be leased initially but may be sold: in later years; that rental properties induce residents to live in the City during the entire year; that residents who own residential condominiums typically live in the City only for a portion of the year; that residents who live in the City for the entire year provide greater stimuli to the local economy. Mr. Morris continued that each loft unit will have high ceilings and open floor plans; that similar loft units were constructed BOOK 2 Page 1021 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1022 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. on Worth Avenue and at CityPlace, Palm Beach, and in the W. A. Knight Building, Jacksonville, Florida; that 155 mid-rise luxury apartments will be constructed, will be named "The Residences at The Palm, I and will be set back approximately 100 feet from Palm Avenue; that each luxury residential unit will have high ceilings; that two penthouse units will be constructed and will have 11-foot ceilings; that the luxury residential units and recreational complex will be constructed on top of the parking garage; that the project will be conceptually similar to Palmetto Place in Boca Raton, Florida, in which 255 residential units surround a parking garage consisting of 739 parking spaces; that the Palmetto Place parking garage is completely hidden from the street-level view; that the streetscape of The Palm will not be similar to Palmetto Place; that the buildings of The Palm will maintain a significant distance from Palm and Cocoanut Avenues to provide for pedestrian activity. Mr. Morris further stated that the office units of the project will occupy six stories and will be set back approximately 140 feet from the center of Palm Avenue and 75 feet from Cocoanut Avenue; that the office units will range in size from 1,000 to 14,000 sq. ft.; that the architectural style of the office units will be similar conceptually to the Merrill Lynch Building and Mizner Tower in Boca Raton, Florida, which were both developed by and are owned by Parmenter; that the parking garage of the project will consist of five stories and 950 parking spaces; that 700 parking spaces will be available for public use; that the remaining 250 parking spaces will be reserved for the residents of the project's rental properties; that the parking garage will have high ceilings, will be well lighted, will have wide drive lanes, and will be a continuous ramp style design; that meetings were held with representatives of the Sarasota Opera House regarding the availability of parking; that the parking requirements of the Sarasota Opera House during business hours and performances will be negotiated; that the improvement and beautification of the alley between Palm and Cocoanut Avenues will also be negotiated between the City, Parmenter, and the Sarasota Opera House; that the alley should become an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian walkway and should be well lit; that refuse collection will be managed for the alley; that a pedestrian passageway between the parking garage and the Sarasota Opera House will also be negotiated; that Parmenter constructed similar parking garages in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; that the City of Fort Lauderdale was provided 567 parking spaces for public use through Parmenter projects. Mr. Brown stated that Parmenter will purchase the Palm Avenue property for $2.5 million, which will be paid to the City at. the closing of the project; that Parmenter will construct the 700 parking spaces for public use and will manage the parking garage; that the City is requested to issue two CRA revenue bonds; that the first bond will be a tax exempt bond issue to fund the construction of the 700 parking spaces for public use; that the second bond will be a taxable bond issue which will fund the construction of the 250 parking spaces for private use; that Parmenter will pay the entire debt service of the taxable bond issue, 15 percent of the tax exempt bond issue to cover expenses for retail and office parking, and the operating expenses of the parking garagei that the CRA will receive 95 percent of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds generated by the project; that the significant City expense will not be required to complete the project; that guidelinès established in RFP No. 01-3H were maintained. Mr. Siemon asked the maximum height of the residential and office towers of the project? Mr. Parmenter stated that the actual maximum height of either the residential or office tower is approximately 140 feet from ground level. Mr. Siemon stated that Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates the City will be required to issue two bonds; and asked if the City will be responsible for 85 percent of the debt service of only one bond? Mr. Parmenter stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked Parmenter's estimate of the City's cost for the debt service while factoring potential TIF and parking garage revenues? Mr. Brown stated that the information is unknown at the present time and will be calculated and provided shortly. Mr. Parmenter stated that the project assumes the City will not charge parking fees to the public; therefore, parking revenues will not be earned from the parking garage; that the City will earn additional TIF revenues from the project. Mr. Siemon asked if the City will be required to fund the operation and maintenance for the parking spaces for public use? BOOK 2 Page 1023 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1024 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Mr. Parmenter stated yes. Member Cardamone asked if the project will be completed in phases? Mr. Morris stated that the project will not be completed in phases; that Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H indicated the project would be completed in phases; however, Parmenter's response was revised to complete the project in a single construction phase. Member Cardamone asked if Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised significantly? Mr. Morris stated yes. Member Cardamone asked if all residential units will be rental properties? Mr. Morris stated yes. Member Cardamone asked for clarification of the term "actual" maximum height. Mr. Parmenter stated that the term "actual" refers to the definite height of any structure from ground level. Member Cardamone asked if the tallest point for any structure of the project is 140 feet? Mr. Morris stated that the height of the office tower from ground level will be approximately 135 feet; that the height of the residential tower from ground level will be approximately 145 feet. Member Cardamone stated that Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H indicated the maximum height of the project would be 180 feet; that Parmenter's response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised significantly since the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting. Mr. Parmenter stated that Parmenter's response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised to reduce the scale of the project significantly. Member Quillin stated that Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates all residential units will be rental properties; that the luxury rental units will cost approximately $132,000; that the loft units will cost approximately $120,000; and asked the rental rate of all residential units? Mr. Morris stated that the rental rate of residential units will range from $1.60 to $1.85 per square foot. Member Quillin asked the monthly rental rate of all residential units? Mr. Morris stated that the residential units average 1,000 sq. ft. in area; that the monthly rental rate for residential units will range from $1,600 to $1,850; that average annual income of persons renting the project's residential units is estimated at approximately $150,000; that the residential units will be quality, luxury rentals. Member Quillin stated that a local project advertised rental residential units for lease initially; however, the developer decided to sell the residential units due to an inability to rent units; and asked if a contingency to sell the residential units is included in the project? Mr. Morris stated yes; however, all residential units will be leased initially; that residential units may be sold in the future to meet market demands. Member Quillin asked if representatives from the Sarasota Opera House were contacted concerning the leasing of residential units? Mr. Parmenter stated that representatives of the Sarasota Opera House were informed of the potential to lease residential units for visiting performers; however, a prearranged agreement to provide rental property to the Sarasota Opera House was not obtained. Member Quillin stated that permanent housing for visiting performing artists does not currently exist in the City. Chairman Pillot asked the rental rate of the luxury residential units? Mr. Morris stated that the rental of the luxury residential units is the same as the loft units; that the rental rate will range from $1.60 to $1.85 per square foot and will depend upon the amenities provided in each residential unit. Chairman Pillot asked if the luxury residential units will be sold? Mr. Morris stated no. BOOK 2 Page 1025 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1026 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Chairman Pillot asked if all residential units will be rental properties? Mr. Morris stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked if all residential units will cost the same? Mr. Morris stated yes; that the difference between the two types of residential units is primarily structural; that the loft units will buffer the parking garage and will have taller ceilings; that an additional intent is to provide a variety in the types of residential units; that a variety of floor plans will be offered. Chairman Pillot asked if all residential units will be leased on annual basis? Mr. Morris stated yes. Chairman Pillot stated that Parmenter's presentation indicated approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space will be constructed; however, the presentation also indicated only approximately 20,000 sq. ft. would be constructed; that the retail space offered in the project should be clarified. Mr. Morris stated that a total of 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space will be constructed; that approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space will be leased for restaurant space; that 20,000 sq. ft. will be leased for general retail use. Member Cardamone asked the height of the ceilings in loft units? Mr. Morris stated that the height of the ceilings of the loft units will be approximately ten feet. Member Cardamone stated that the term "loft" is generally used to indicate a ceiling height significantly greater than ten feet. Mr. Morris stated that the term "loft" is not used to refer to apartments with a ceiling height greater than ten feet; that an example of loft apartments with ten-foot ceilings can be found Downtown in Chicago, Illinois. Member Cardamone stated that loft apartments consist of two stories and include a balcony or loft. Mr. Morris stated that the ceiling height of a loft apartment could range from 9 to 18 feet; that the term "loft" is used generally to indicate a ceiling taller than eight feet. Member Cardamone stated that is not correct; that loft apartments should include a raised balcony or loft above the first story of living space. Chairman Pillot asked if a balcony will be included in each loft unit? Mr. Morris stated no. Mr. Siemon asked if Parmenter's estimate of the City's cost for the debt service while factoring potential TIF and parking garage revenues is prepared? Mr. Brown stated yes; that the TIF revenues generated from the project will equate to 110 percent of the anticipated cost of the City's portion of the debt service for the construction of the public parking spaces; that approximately $1.1 million in TIF revenues will be generated in the initial year of the project and will increase each year thereafter. Mr. Siemon asked if the TIF revenue estimation included the retail or assessed value of the project? Mr. Brown stated that the TIF revenue estimation included the estimated cost of the project. Mr. Siemon asked if the cost to construct the entire parking garage was included in the assessed value of the project? Mr. Brown stated yes. Mr. Siemon asked if approximately 15 luxury residential units will be constructed per floor of the residential tower? Mr. Parmenter stated yes. Mr. Siemon stated that Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates luxury residential units will be constructed on the sixth through ninth floors of the residential tower; however, the total number of luxury residential units would only be 60; that the number of luxury residential units in the residential tower should be clarified. Member Cardamone stated that the Downtown Sarasota Redevelopment Property Summary Ranking Matrix (matrix) is not correct concerning BOOK 2 Page 1027 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1028 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. the total number of residential units proposed in Parmenter's response to RFP No. 01-3H. Mr. Siemon stated that the information of the matrix was provided according to the original responses to RFP No. 01-3H; however, Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised significantly. Chairman Pillot asked if the approximately 155 luxury residential units will be constructed on the sixth through ninth floors? Mr. Parmenter stated that Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates the typical or average floor plan of each floor of the residential tower; that the size of the residential units may be modified. Mr. Morris stated that Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H indicates only 135 residential units will be constructed according to the provided architectural renderings; however, the architectural renderings provided in Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H are conceptual only; that additional floors consisting of luxury residential units will be constructed; that the total number of luxury residential units will be 155. Member Quillin asked if the conceptual architectural renderings provided in RFP No. 01-3H and the project design are negotiable if selected? Mr. Parmenter stated yes. Member Quillin asked if the intent is to construct the project as presented at the current meeting? Mr. Parmenter stated yes; however, the intent is also to meet the requirements of the City; that the project can be modified according the City's desires. Member Quillin asked the height of the retail units? Mr. Morris stated that the height of the retail units ranges from 18 to 20 feet. Member Quillin asked if two stories of retail space will be constructed? Mr. Morris stated no; that one story of retail space will be constructed; that the three stories of loft units will be set back from the retail units. Member Quillin asked if the office and residential towers will be set back from the loft units? Mr. Morris stated yes. Member Quillin asked if the office and residential towers will abut the Sarasota Opera House? Mr. Morris stated yes. Member Quillin asked if the office and residential towers will be located closer to the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenués than to Palm or Cocoanut Avenues? Mr. Morris stated yes; that the residential tower will be set back approximately 100 feet from the center of Palm Avenue; that the intent is to provide an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian perception from Palm and Cocoanut Avenues. Member Quillin stated that the pedestrian perception from Selby Five Points Park should also be considered; that the eastern faces of the residential and office towers will be viewable from Selby Five Points Park. City Manager Sollenberger asked the total of the construction costs for the parking garage the City would be required to finance? Mr. Brown stated that the City would be required to finance approximately $9.5 million for the entire parking garage; that each parking space will cost approximately $10,000 to construct; that the construction of the parking garage will be financed through CRA revenue bonds; that Parmenter would pay $2.5 million for the construction of the parking spaces for public use and 15 percent of the construction costs for the parking spaces for public use; that the City will only pay 85 percent of the construction costs for the parking spaces for public use. City Manager Sollenberger asked if the City would be required to pay approximately $6 million? Mr. Brown stated yes. Mr. Siemon stated that the height of the structures according to any response to RFP No. 01-3H is a significant concern; and asked if the residential tower will consist of nine stories of residential units constructed on top of the parking garage? BOOK 2 Page 1029 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1030 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Mr. Morris stated that the residential tower will consist of seven stories of residential units and two stories of penthouses constructed on top of the parking garage; that the maximum height of the residential tower will be approximately 145 feet. Mr. Siemon asked if the residential floors will be the sixth through fourteenth floors? Mr. Morris stated yes; that the parking garage will consist of five floors; that the residential tower will be constructed on top of the parking garage and will consist of nine stories of residential units. Member Cardamone asked if the maximum height of the residential tower from ground level will be approximately 145 feet? Mr. Siemon stated yes; that the architectural renderings provided in Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H are incorrect and should indicate luxury residential units will be constructed on the sixth through fourteenth floors of the residential tower. Member Quillin asked if the highest point of the residential tower will be 145 feet? Mr. Morris state yes. Member Quillin asked if the maximum height of the residential tower refers only to livable space? Mr. Morris stated that the maximum height of the residential tower refers to the ceiling of the top floor. Member Quillin asked if the elevator structure or air conditioning units might exceed the 145-foot maximum height? Mr. Morris stated yes. Member Cardamone stated that Parmenter's original response to RFP No. 01-3H was revised significantly; that Parmenter presented a new project to the CRA at the current meeting; and asked if Parmenter was prohibited from submitting the new project to the CRA prior to the current meeting? Mr. Siemon stated no; that Parmenter was not prohibited from submitting revisions to the original response to RFP No. 01-3H; that the City had requested additional information from the respondents to RFP No. 01-3H selected for presentation at the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting; however, at the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting, the CRA chose to receive presentations from all respondents to RFP No. 01-3H; that Parmenter was not selected to present to the CRA at the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting and was provided an opportunity to prepare additional information for the CRA's consideration at the current meeting. Member Cardamone asked if Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant will have sufficient time to consider Parmenter's revised response to RFP No. 01-3H? Mr. Siemon stated yes. The CRA recessed at 2:54 p.m. and reconvened at 3:35 p.m. 7. CLOSING REMARKS (AGENDA ITEM VII) #3 (0685) through (1392) Mr. Siemon stated that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant estimates the following approximate Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues earned annually by the City according each revised response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H: Respondent Estimated TIF Revenue Arcadia Land Company (Arcadia) $251,545 Murano Urban Venture (Murano) $301,854 Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) $226,390 Thé Parmenter Company (Parmenter) $333,297 Mr. Siemon continued that the estimated TIF revenues from the Parmenter response to RFP No. 01-3H do not include the City's construction costs for the parking garage; that the estimated TIF revenues were based upon current combined County and City millage rates multiplied by 95 percent; that information provided in the Downtown Sarasota Redevelopment Property Summary Ranking Matrix (matrix) was not altered significantly according to the revisions to the responses to RFP No. 01-3H presented to the CRA at the current meeting; that the Arcadia project was revised to construct 120 residential units and to eliminate commercial, office spacei the building floor-to-area ratio (FAR) was increased from 1.55 to 1.98; that the Arcadia project design was revised significantly; however, the mass and scale of the project were maintained; that the Murano project was revised to construct approximately 45,800 square feet (sq. ft.) of retail space; however, the Murano project remains unaltered from the original response to RFP No. 01-3H; that an additional 50 parking spaces for public use were added to the Palm Walk project; that 15 BOOK 2 Page 1031 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1032 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. residential units and 14,000 sq. ft. of office space were eliminated from the Parmenter project; that a small number of parking spaces for public use were added to the Parmenter project; that the basic goals and intentions of each response to RFP No. 01-3H were maintained; that the revisions to the original responses to RFP No. 01-3H were only minor adjustments; that the Administration reranked the responses to RFP No. 01-3H according to the following elements: 1. the direct cost of the project to the City; 2. the direct benefit from the project to the City; 3. the net public parking spaces provided; 4. the design character of the project; and 5. the capability of the developer to complete the project. Mr. Siemon further stated that the Administration the responses tof RFP No. 01-3H. as presented to the CRA at the current meeting were ranked into two groups; that the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects are similar in scale, design, and architectural style, compose the first group and typically consist of a large residential and/or office tower constructed upon a structural pedestal containing retail space and a parking garage; that the Murano project composes the second group and is significantly smaller in scale; that the development program of the Murano project also differs significant from the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects; however, significant differences do exist among the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects; that Arcadia requests the City convey the Palm Avenue property and provide TIF funds to support the construction of the parking garage; that Parmenter also requests the City convey the Palm Avenue property; however, Parmenter will pay the City $2.5 million to convey the Palm Avenue property; that Arcadia is unclear regarding the responsible party for the debt service of the project should TIF revenues fail current estimations; that Parmenter indicates the City will be responsible for approximately $6 million of the debt service to construct the parking garage. Mr. Siemon stated further that the Review Committee established to rank the responses to RFP No. 01-3H recognized Arcadia's development experience and the quality of the project design; however, Arcadia's development team did not appear cohesive; that Arcadia's presentation at the current meeting failed to alleviate the concerns of the Review Committee; that the Arcadia project design was revised to ensure the residential tower was not constructed on top of the parking garage which is economically cautious and sensible; that additional costs will be incurred if a residential structure is constructed on top of a parking garage; that Arcadia's representatives were unsure the exact height of the building during the presentation; that the revisions to Arcadia's response to RFP No. 01-3H did not significantly increase the ranking previously determined by the Administration; that the potential City profits from the project, the potential for revenue sharing, and the required TIF obligations to construct the Arcadia project remain unclear. Mr. Siemon stated that the Parmenter project will require the City assume debt service of 85 percent of the construct costs of the parking spaces for public use, which is a significant concern; that the Parmenter project provides for approximately 80,000 sq. ft. of office space; that the local economy may not provide the necessary clientele to lease the majority of the available office space; that a local office building was recently constructed; however a significant portion of the available office space has not been leased; therefore, the City's TIF revenues from the Parmenter project might be reduced significantly if the majority of available office space is not leased; that subsequently, the City may not be able to provide the required financial assistance to the Parmenter project. Mr. Siemon continued that the Administration ranked the Palm Walk project first among the responses to RFP No. 01-3H of the first group; that the Palm Walk development team has a well established record of successful local development; that the members of Palm Walk are members of the local business and residential communities; however, the CRA will be required to negotiate the status of the ownership, management, and operation of the parking garage; that the economic value of a parking space is too difficult to forecast; that providing financial assistance to a particular project based upon an estimated value of a parking space is not supported; that the previous rankings of the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter responses to RFP No. 01-3H as revised were not modified from the previous recommendations submitted to the CRA at the December 15, 2000, Special CRA meeting; that the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and. Parmenter projects are similar but propose significantly different economic benefits to the City. Mr. Siemon further stated that the Review Committee previously expressed concern for the economic feasibility of the Murano project; that subsequently, additional information was provided BOOK 2 Page 1033 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1034 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. and substantiates the economic feasibility of the Murano project; that the equity participation of the Courtelis Company (Courtelis) and InterShow, Inc. (InterShow), ensures the Murano project will be completed as presented and alleviates the concerns of the Administration; however, the equity participation of Courtelis and Intershow should be confirmed at the initiation of negotiations with Murano; that negotiations with Murano could proceed quickly if Courtelis and InterShow participate as promised; that the CRA should proceed immediately to negotiate with the second-ranked response to RFP No. 01-3H if Courtelis and InterShow do not provide the required equity participation; that the economic benefits proposed in the Murano project may not be realized by the City; that a significant concern of the Administration is Murano's requirement of substantial pre-leasing of the project's retail and residential units; that the Murano project proposes to treat the City as the property owner and an equity partner of the project; that the City's potential share of revenues from the project is significant; that subsequently, the risk of the project for the City is also significant. Mr. Siemon stated further that the CRA must choose the type of development desired for selection; that the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects are significantly larger in scale and mass than the Murano project; that either type of development will be beneficial to the local community; that all the responses received for RFP No. 01-3H are excellent in quality. Chairman Pillot asked the rankings of the responses to RFP No. 01-3H as revised? Mr. Siemon stated that the ranking is as follows: 1. Palm Walk 1. Murano 3. Arcadia 3. Parmenter Mr. Siemon continued that the Palm Walk and Murano responses to RFP No. 01-3H are ranked higher than Arcadia and Parmenter but represent significantly different projects in terms of mass, character, and development programs; that the CRA must choose the type of project desired for the Palm Avenue property; that the presentations of the Palm Walk and Murano alleviated many of the concerns held by Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant. Chairman Pillot stated that the' Murano response is the only project considered of moderate scale and hence ranked first. Mr. Siemon concurred. Chairman Pillot asked if Palm Walk is ranked first among the projects of large scale? Mr. Siemon stated yes. 8. DISCUSSION RE: : COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RANKING, SELECTION OF THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST RANKED RESPONDENT RANKED THE RESPONSES TO RFP NO. 01-3H OF PALM WALK ASSOCIATES, LTD. (PALM WALK) 1 FIRST AND MURANO URBAN VENTURE SECOND : AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A PUBLIC/ PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH PALM WALK (AGENDA ITEM VIII) #3 (1392) through (2740) Chairman Pillot asked if Citizens' Input should be received prior to or following CRA selection of a response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H? Secretary Robinson stated that the order of items on the current Agenda was discussed with the Administration; that the recommendation is the CRA should select a response to RFP No. 01-3H prior to receiving Citizens' Input. Member Cardamone stated that the intent is not to select a project which will be constructed significantly different than as presented to the CRA; and asked if the CRA should select a response to RFP No. 01-3H based upon the concepts of the project or a definite project as presented to the CRA? Mr. Siemon stated that the CRA should select a response to RFP No. 01-3H based upon both the development program and developer of a particular project; that each response to RFP No. 01-3H requires certain enhancements and revisions; that Staff, the Administration, and the City's Consultant will work with the selected developer to ensure the required revisions are completed and the project constructed as desired by the CRA. BOOK 2 Page 1035 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1036 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Member Cardamone asked if the intent is to select a project which will be constructed as presented to the CRA with minor revisions and enhancements? Mr. Siemon stated yes. Member Quillin requested restatement of the estimated annual TIF revenues to the City according to each response to RFP No. 01-3H. Mr. Siemon stated that the estimated annual Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues to the City according to each response to RFP No. 01-3H are as follows: Respondent Estimated TIF Revenue Arcadia Land Company Arcadia) $251,545 Murano Urban Venture (Murano) $301,854 Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) $226,390 The Parmenter Company (Parmenter) $333,297 Mr. Siemon continued that the estimated annual TIF revenues to the City were prepared by the Finance Department. Member Cardamone asked the estimated total construction cost of the Palm Walk project? Mr. Siemon stated approximately $36 million. Member Quillin asked the estimated total construction cost of each project? Mr. Siemon stated that the estimated total construction cost of each project is approximately as follows: Respondent Estimated Value Arcadia Land Company $40 million Murano Urban Venture $48 million Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. $36 million The Parmenter Company $53 million Chairman Pillot asked if the estimated TIF revenues are correlated with the estimated total construction cost of each project? Mr. Siemon stated yes. Member Cardamone stated that the heights of the projects are acceptable; that the public does not always support the construction of tall buildings in the local community; however, the streetscape proposed in each project is aesthetically pleasing; that buildings near the Palm Avenue property are of a significant height; that the height of Bay Plaza is approximately 147 feet; that the height of One Sarasota Tower is approximately 177 feet; that the height of Marina Towers is approximately 177 feet; that the Arcadia project incorporates the concepts of New Urbanism into the project design, which is appealing; that the tall buildings of the Arcadia project only occupy 20 percent of the total project area; that Arcadia possesses credible financial references and will eventually repay the value of the Palm Avenue property to the City; that the Arcadia project would allot 7,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of unfinished space to Sarasota Opera House, which may not require such space; that the equity participation of the Courtelis Company (Courtelis) in the Murano project is significant; that Courtelis is a renowned successful retail developer; that the participation of Courtelis would ensure the retail success. of the Murano project and attract significant retail business to Downtown; however, Murano's requirement to pre-lease the majority of the project's facilities to obtain financing is a significant concern; that the Murano project requires further local involvement for success. Member Cardamone continued that Palm Walk is proposing is an interesting, community-oriented project with significant public spacesi that the on-street parking proposed in the Palm Walk project is preferred; that the centralized refuse collection center is supported; that segregated parking for residents is also supported; that Palm Walk demonstrated active collaboration with nearby residents and businesses in preparing the project design; that the improvements proposed to the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues are important for the success of any project on the Palm Avenue property and are supported; that Palm Walk's request of the use of local impact fees by the City to provide financial assistance to the project is supported and further reiterates an understanding of local laws and procedures; that the Palm Walk development team possesses a significant record of successful local development in the Community Redevelopment Arèa; that the concept of a boutique hotel represents a continuing local desire and an affordable luxury alternative to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that the scale of the Parmenter project significantly exceeds the expectations of RFP No. 01-3H and is not desired; that Parmenter should have been prohibited from presenting a new project to the CRA at the current meeting; that the Palm Walk generates fewer TIF revenues the other responses to RFP No. 01-3H; however, the Palm Walk project offers the greatest number of BOOK 2 Page 1037 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1038 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. public amenities and attractions; that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are personally ranked as follows: 1. Palm Walk 2. Murano Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the Murano project may have been personally ranked first if representatives of Courtelis and InterShow had participated in Murano's presentation at the current meeting; that financial feasibility of the Murano project cannot be ascertained without the definite equity participation of Courtelis and InterShow; that the scale of the Parmenter project significantly exceeds expectations and is not desired; that a significant number of the elements of Parmenter project do not correspond to the concepts of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020); that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are personally ranked as tollows: 1. Palm Walk 2. Murano Chairman Pillot stated that the Palm Walk project is preferred due to the development team's significant experience of successful * local development and the established positive relationship of the members of the development team with the local community; that the Palm Walk project reflects existing architectural styles in the City; that the public will support and invest in the Palm Walk project; that Palm Walk's presentation included specific reference to the concepts of the Master Plan 2020; that Palm Walk's suggestion to use TIF revenues and impact fees for the improvement of the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues and other nearby public spaces and infrastructure is supported; that Palm Walk also received oral leasing commitments for the definite majority of the project's facilities; that the financial capacity and successful development record of Parmenter is significant; however, the scale of the Parmenter project significantly exceeds expectations; that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are personally ranked as follows: 1. Palm Walk 2. Murano 2. Parmenter Member Mason stated that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are personally ranked as follows: 1. Palm Walk 2. Murano Member Quillin stated that all responses to RFP No. 01-3H are excellent in quality; that the parking, office and residential requirements of the Sarasota Opera House were considered; that the parking requirements of the Golden Apple Dinner Theater should also be considered; that the selected response should also be revised to consider the pedestrian perception from Selby Five Points Park; that the height of the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects is a significant concern; that RFP No. 01-3H specifically stipulated the maximum height of the project should not exceed 55 feet; that a tall building located on the Palm Avenue property will overshadow Selby Eive Points Park and nearby areas; that the Arcadia, Palm Walk, and Parmenter projects incorporate the concept, of setbacks, which improve the pedestrian perception of the taller buildings and the scale of large structures relative to surrounding streetscape; that height of the selected project should be considered during negotiations to ensure Selby Five Points Park and the Sarasota Opera House are not overshadowed; that an architectural rendering of the pedestrian perception from Selby Five Points Park for the selected project should be presented to the CRA. Member Quillin continued that improvements to the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues were required by RFP No. 01-3H; that the City will be required to generate additional TIF funds to complete the improvements to the alley; that the public infrastructure of the alley will require significant improvement due to the intensity of the activities proposed by all responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that the TIF revenues generated for the City by each project and the impact of each project on the local community must be considered; that the concept of a Downtown boutique hotel is supported; that the provision of residential units for visiting performing artists and entertainers is a need of the local community; that the Murano project will provide 612 parking spaces for public use without cost to the City; that the number of public parking spaces currently required should be determined; that the required improvements to the streetscape of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues should be considered; that the parking requirements of Downtown businesses should be considered; that a significant number of Downtown businesses desire to construct BOOK 2 Page 1039 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1040 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. additional retail or office space but are prohibited due existing parking requirements; that the selected project must serve as a catalyst for Downtown development; that the City must consider the development needs of the entire City. Member Quillin further stated that the Murano project will provide the greatest benefit to Downtown and the City's residents and will serve as catalyst for Downtown; that the Palm walk project is also pleasing; however, the result of negotiations with Palm Walk is unclear; that the City's costs for improvements and enhancement of nearby public infrastructure should examined; that the Murano project will pose the least impact to existing public infrastructure and will generate significant TIF revenues relative to the City's costs for construction of a project; however, the City will gain significantly from whichever response to RFP No. 01-3H is selected; that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are personally ranked as follows: 1) Murano, 2) Palm Walk, and 3) Parmenter. Member Quillin asked the length of negotiations? Mr. Siemon stated 60 days. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the residential and hotel towers proposed in the Palm Walk project will occupy only 20 percent of the total building surface area; that the porte cochere of the Palm Walk project should be reduced to provide additional on- street public parking. Chairman Pillot stated that each CRA member personally ranked the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; and asked the appropriate action to proceed with tormally selection a response to RFP No. 01-3H? Secretary Robinson stated that a motion to rank responses to RFP No. 01-3H is required. Attorney Connolly referred to a February 7, 2001, memorandum from Gregory Horwedel, Director of Development and Redevelopment Services, regarding a proposed motion and the appropriate procedures for the selection of the first and second development teams and stated that the appropriate motion was provided to the CRA, provides for the ranking of responses to RFP No. 01-3H and stipulates the guidelines for the 60-day negotiation period. Mr. Siemon stated that CRA members expressed personal rankings of the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that the Palm Walk project received four first-place rankings and one second-place rankings and is subsequently ranked first; that Murano received four second-place rankings and one first-place ranking and is therefore ranked second; that the provided motion should be used. Attorney Connolly concurred. On motion of Member Cardamone and second of Vice Chairman Hogle, it was moved to rank Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) as the highest ranked respondent to RFP No. 01-3H and authorize Charles Siemon, as the representative of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), to commence negotiation of a Public/Private Partnership Agreement between the CRA and Palm Walk beginning on February 8, 2001, for a period of 60 days which shall expire on April 9, 2001, with a condition precedent to continuation of the negotiations, in conformance with RFP No. 01-3H, for Palm Walk to provide a non-refundable deposit with the City in the amount of $10,000 on or before February 20, 2001, and with a stipulation that if an agreement cannot be reached with Palm Walk by April 9, 2001, and if the CRA does not agree to a further extension of 30 days, the CRA's representative is instructed to commence negotiations of a Public/Private Partnership Agreement with Murano Urban Venture in accordance with the same terms and conditions pursuant to RFP No. 01-3H. Member Cardamone stated that all responses to RFP No. 01-3H are excellent in quality; however, attention should be refocused on the development of a unified project between First and Second Streets and Lemon and Orange Avenues. Vice Chairman Hogle concurred. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CRA TOPICS - ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A REPORT CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF PALM AND COCOANUT AVENUES, THE PALM AVENUE PROPERTY, AND THE ALLEY BETWEEN PALM AND PINEAPPLE AVENUES (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (2740) through (3005) BOOK 2 Page 1041 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 1042 02/07/01 9:00 A.M. Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), representing the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), came before the CRA and stated that the selection of a response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H is appreciated; that the development of the Palm Avenue property and additional Downtown parking space is required; that the City's Consultant is encouraged to negotiate the Public/Private Partnership Agreement as quickly as feasible; that all development and construction permits for the project should be approved and issued as quickly as possible; that the Downtown requires significant parking space immediately. Member Quillin stated that the City should issue an RFP for the development of a unified project between First and Second Streets and Lemon and Orange Avenues; that the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) and the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 recommend a unified project be constructed on the property; that the development of a unified project should be discussed with the property owner; that all responses to RFP No. 01-3H are excellent in quality; that responses for the potential development of a unified project on the property would be of a similar quality; that the CRA, the Administration, and Staff should discuss the preparation of an RFP for the property. Chairman Pillot stated that issuing an RFP for the development of the property between First and Second Streets and Lemon and Orange Avenues does not pertain to the subject of the current meeting; and asked if the current Agenda allows the remarks of CRA members? Secretary Robinson stated no. Chairman Pillot stated that the remarks of CRA members will not be allowed unless the subject of a remark pertains to RFP No. 01-3H. Mr. Siemon stated that negotiating a Public/Private Partnership Agreement with Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk), will not be difficult and will not require significant time; that complications are not anticipated; that all modifications to Palm Walk will be presented for CRA approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the CRA's selection of a response to RFP No. 01-3H is congratulated; that the Administration, Staff and the City's Consultant will work diligently to complete the project. Member Quillin asked if the Administration could present a report to the CRA concerning the status of the public infrastructure of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues, the Palm Avenue property, and the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will examine the status of the public infrastructure of Palm and Cocoanut Avenues, the Palm Avenue property, and the alley between Palm and Pineapple Avenues and will prepare a report for presentation to the CRA following the successful negotiation of a Public/Private Partnership Agreement with Palm Walk. 10. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (3005) There being no further business, Chairman Pillot adjourned the Special meeting of February 7, 2001, at 4:31 p.m. 1 GRlE GENE M. PILLOT, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: BILLY E. ROBINSON, SECRETARY BOOK 2 Page 1043 02/07/01 9:00 A.M.