MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF MAY 1, 2002, AT 1:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chair Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Chair Lou Ann R. Palmer, Members Richard F. Martin, and Mary J. Quillin, Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chair Mason Chair Mason called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 1:01 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. On motion of Member Servian and second of Chair Mason, it was moved to change the Orders of the Day to hear Agenda Item No. III, concerning the Palm Walk Project, prior to Agenda Item No. II, concerning options for the Palm Avenue property. Secretary Robinson stated that a two-thirds vote, i.e., an affirmative vote of four members, is required to change the Orders of the Day. Vice Chair Palmer asked the rationale for changing the Orders of the Day? Member Servian stated that an opportunity was not presented to hear from the Palm Walk Group, L.L.L.P. (Palm Walk), concerning the Palm Walk Project at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; that a logical step would be to hear from Palm Walk prior to reviewing the available options for the Palm Avenue Property; that a clearer picture would be presented. Vice Chair Palmer stated that the options should be heard prior to making a final determination. Member Quillin stated that the action taken at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting was to terminate the agreement with Palm Walk for development of the City-owned Palm Avenue property; that Palm Walk's interest in making a presentation is understood; that one of the options could be to rescind the CRA's prior action to terminate the agreement with Palm Walk and continue with the Palm BOOK 2 Page 1205 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1206 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. Walk Project; that the response of Staff to the option is not known; that the Agenda is confusing since the CRA's last action was to proceed with other options for development of the Palm Avenue property. Member Martin stated that the options can be discussed with Staff, at which time the CRA can consider postponing a decision and hear from Palm Walk. Member Servian stated that the intent is not to make a decision concerning the agreement with Palm Walk but rather to hear Palm Walk's presentation prior to reviewing the other available options. Chair Mason concurred. Chair Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed (3 to 2): Martin, no; Palmer, no; Quillin, no; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 1. APPROVAL RE: MINUIES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2002 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 1:03 through 1:05 Chair Mason asked if the CRA had any changes to the minutes. Chair Mason stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the April 8, 2002, Special Meeting of the CRA are approved by unanimous consent. 2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: PALM AVENUE PROPERTY OPTIONS (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 1:05 through 0:00 Karen Hartman, Director of Downtown Redevelopment, came before the CRA and stated that on April 8, 2002, the CRA took action to terminate the Agreement for the Disposition and Development of Property for the Palm Walk Project (Agreement); that options for the CRA's consideration for the City-owned Palm Avenue property have been developed and are: I. Contact and commence negotiations with the next ranked respondent to Request for Proposal (RFP) #01-3H, which is Murano Urban Venture (Murano) II. Reissue Request for Proposal (RFP) #01-3H III. Defer the RFP process until the findings of the Downtown Parking Master Plan are completed IV. Issue a new RFP Chair Mason asked the time required to complete the Downtown Parking Master Plan? Ms. Hartman stated that the scope of services has been developed and circulated for Staff review. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the CRA and stated that the funding is not available until October 1, 2002; that all the preparatory work will be completed prior to that time; that shortly thereafter, the recommendation will be brought to the Commission for awarding the contract, assuming funding is approved in the fiscal year (FY) 2002/03 budget; that the study will take three to four months. Member Quillin asked the cost of the Downtown Parking Master Plan? Mr. Daughters stated that the cost will be between $150,000 to $300,000. Ms. Hartman stated that $150,000 was estimated in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); that an accurate amount cannot be determined until responses are received to the Request for Proposal. Member Quillin asked if the scope of services has been completed? Ms. Hartman stated yes; that the study can begin as soon as funding is available. Member Quillin asked if funding is available through the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) fund? City Manager McNees stated that TIF funding was designated in the CIP for the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the CRA and stated that is correct. Member Quillin asked if any funds are available at this time? Mr. Mitchell stated no. BOOK 2 Page 1207 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1208 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the CRA could borrow the funds from the City and reimburse the City once the funds are available in October 2002. Vice Chair Palmer asked if the Downtown Parking Master Plan will only consider the Downtown area? Mr. Daughters stated that the Downtown Parking Master Plan will review the parking requirements in the Community Redevelopment Area. Osama Freija, Transportation Engineer I, Engineering Department, came before the CRA and stated that the study area is bounded by Sixth Street to the north, Mound Street to the south, the Bayfront to the west, and School Avenue to the east; that the CRA previously indicated Southside Village should be but is not currently included in the scope of services. Vice Chair Palmer stated that TIF funds can only be used for projects in the Community Redevelopment Area; that other funding would be required if other areas are considered. Ms. Hartman stated that another option is: V. Sell part or all the property and use the proceeds to develop various public parking locations Ms. Hartman stated that the option includes developing the back section of the property into a public parking area and selling the front section of the property; and continued that other options are: VI. Initiate City development of the property VII. Do nothing Ms. Hartman stated that the considerations of Option I are: Negotiations could begin quickly. Staff supported the development proposed by Murano. Murano may not be available or interested any longer. Three CRA members did not participate in the previous RFP process. Ms. Hartman stated that the considerations of Option II are: The RFP is prepared and ready for distribution. The CRA could select the most desired development. The RFP could require updating. Ms. Hartman stated that the considerations of Option III are: The public parking formula for Palm Avenue was based on an out-of-date parking plan. Waiting would allow for a conclusive finding as to strategic parking requirements and locations. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is scheduled for completion in approximately 8 to 12 months. The property would remain undeveloped for a period of time. Ms. Hartman stated that the considerations of Option IV are: Changes such as including new urbanism guidelines could be included in a new RFP. Staff time would be required to develop the new RFP. Member Martin asked the time required to develop a new RFP? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office did not prepare the original RFP, which was prepared by a consultant; that the time required to prepare a new RFP should be less than required in developing the original RFP; that nevertheless, preparation of new language would be required; that once prepared, the RFP would be advertised and advanced as quickly as possible. Ms. Hartman stated that the considerations of Option V are: Selling the property would allow funding to spread public parking throughout the Downtown area. The back half could be developed into a parking garage and the front half sold in accordance with urban design principles. An appraisal of the property would be required to determine the sale value. BOOK 2 Page 1209 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1210 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. Funding would be required but has not been allocated for the development of the public parking. Ms. Hartman stated that the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 identifies strategic locations for parking which are not concentrated in one area; and continued that the considerations of Option VI are: The City would have full control over the development. The City is not a developer. - City funding for development has not been allocated. Ms. Hartman stated that the viability of Option VI are not known; and continued that the considerations of Option VII to do nothing are known to the CRA. 3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: : PALM WALK PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 1:24 through 2:24 Bruce Franklin, President of the ADP Group, Javier Suarez, Partner for the ADP Group, Piero Rivolta, Principal, Rivolta Group, Mark Kauffman, Partner, Palm Walk Group, L.L.L.P. (Palm Group) came before the CRA. Member Quillin asked the length of the presentation? Mr. Franklin stated that the presentation will be approximately 10 to 12 minutes. Mr. Riovolta stated that the opportunity to present to the CRA is appreciated; that development of the Palm Avenue property while providing 450 parking spaces for the City is difficult; that the land is encumbered by an easement held by the Sarasota Opera; that initially, discussions were held with the City's consultant who is no longer working on the project for the City; therefore, Palm Walk had to begin discussions again with other City representatives; that Palm Walk has attempted to comply with all the City's requirements; that the City has a new City Manager who had to become Eamiliar with the project; that Palm Walk spent significant funds to clarify the situation; that the City and Palm Walk have probably spent approximately $.5 million; that the project will provide the City 450 free public parking spaces as well as significant tax revenues and new jobs; that Palm Walk never sought relief from any permitting requirements and paid all required fees; that the composition of Palm Walk has changed; that certain members have left Palm Walk to focus on other endeavors; that Palm Walk has a new corporate attorney. Mr. Rivolta stated that Palm Walk previously requested the City provide assistance in gaining access to funds at lower interest rates; that the proposed garage will have a negative cash flow for many years; that the effort was to reduce the cost of the project by reducing financing costs; that financing costs could have been reduced by the City's sponsoring low interest loans; however, the process for the City to sponsor low interest loans is difficult and complicated; that some efficiencies in the project were identified; that the condominium hotel was reconfigured; that the parking elevator was reconfigured, resulting in additional parking; that another ramp of parking was added; that more no-interest capital was identified; that some of the capital can be invested in the parking garage, reducing the required mortgage; that an agreement has been developed with the Opera; that only technical questions remain unresolved; that the request is to allow continued discussions with Staff; that Palm Walk must present to the CRA an agreement which is acceptable to Staff; that Staff has not had time to evaluate the revised proposal; that Palm Walk worked diligently to revise the project but presented the revised proposal late; that Staff cannot be requested at this time to provide a recommendation concerning the revised proposal; that time should be taken sO the City and Palm Walk can reach an agreement; that a business rather than an emotional decision should be made; that the project generates enthusiasm; that the City needs the project; that many problems have already been resolved; that the project should be provided an opportunity to proceed; that the reconstituted Palm Walk team understands development; that the request is to allow additional time to reach an agreement with Staff. Mr. Franklin displayed on the Chamber monitors the revised site plan and stated that a previous question was if the project had fundamentally changed from the project originally submitted to and approved by the CRA; that the response to the question is the project has not fundamentally changed; that the contract was for 450 parking spaces which will be supplied in the revised project; that the original project was for 72 residential and 72 hotel units; that the revised project has 68 residential and 60 hotel units; that the hotel units were enlarged as suite-type BOOK 2 Page 1211 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1212 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. units; that 4,000 square feet less of office/retail/restaurant use and banquet facility space is provided; that the revised projects meets the requirements of the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) and the commercial/residential parking requirements in accordance with the recommendation of the City's consultant; that a primary concept of the original project, i.e., centralized waste management and collection for the owners along the Main Street retail alley and the Opera and theater alley, was maintained; that the project is different by contract with the City than any other project in the City; that the project is a public/private partnership utilizing a public asset; that the process was: the CRA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), a number of responses including the Palm Walk response were received, the responses included a conceptual plan addressing the scope and criteria of the RFP, the CRA selected Palm Walk, and the CRA and Palm Walk entered into contract negotiations which led to a contract, an attachment to which is Palm Walk's response to the RFP; that provisions in the contract required Palm Walk to conform to the project as originally proposed and accepted; that the developer authorized the development of schematic architectural and engineering plans; that the developer prepared and submitted the site plan application which was reviewed by the City's Development Review Committee (DRC); that the process has concluded except for agreement concerning the required parking; that an amendment to the agreement was requested; that the hope is the CRA will authorize another amendment to the agreement; that Palm Walk can work with Staff to finalize the details; that the site plan must be submitted to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for approval; that if the CRA authorizes the development of an amendment to the agreement, the developer will authorize the preparation of the design and development plans; that typically, the City does not review design and development plans; that generally, the developer prepares a construction plan and obtains a building permit once the PBLP approves the site plan; however, Palm Walk agreed to submit the design and development plan for Staff review and CRA approval to assure the CRA's agreement; that the request is to extend the deadline for submission of the design and development plan to September 30, 2002; that a foundation permit is required as an intermediate step after approval of the design and development plan; that completed construction contract documents will be developed and a fixed contract construction cost determined sO final financing commitments can be obtained; that the City is protected as title to the property is not transferred until Palm Walk bonds the project; that the bond cannot be obtained until the final construction cost is determined; that Palm Walk is prepared to submit for a building permit by December 2002 or earlier; that significant progress has been made sO the project can be executed by the end of 2002; that the investment by both Palm Walk and the public is substantial. Mr. Franklin continued the benefits accrue to both the developer and the Cityi that the City will receive tax revenue, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenue, impact fees, tangible personal property tax, etc., as well as 450 parking spaces at no cost, new jobs, revitalization of the alleys and Palm and Cocoanut Avenues, and a formula for sharing in the net operating income of the public parking after the term of the mortgage; that the benefits to the public are substantial; that Palm Walk is aware of and sensitive to the CRA's frustration which heightens the commitment of Palm Walk to move the project forward. Mr. Kauffman stated that with the changes in Palm Walk, energy will replace inertia and efficiency will replace delay; that the architects worked feverishly with the City to finalize the parking issue prior to April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; that instead of being lauded, the efforts were deprecated as the submission was late; that Palm Walk has worked hard on the project; however, delays have occurred; that the request is for another two to three weeks to work with the City. Mr. Kauffman referred to the analysis of the economic benefits of the parking garage attached to the April 25, 2002, letter from Mr. Franklin to Commissioner and Member Servian included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the profits from the parking garage will be given to the City for the first 20 years; that the expenses of the parking garage were calculated; that the shared expenses were deducted as Palm Walk owns part of the parking garage; that the cash flow is close to zero without a mortgage; that the profits from the condominiums will be used to pay down the cost of the mortgage for the garage with the hope the garage will produce an income; that after 20 years, the mortgage should be paid off and the parking garage should have a positive cash flow; that after that time, the City will receive 50 percent of the income; that the proposal has been discussed with Staff; that the agreement pursuant to the RFP is the developer can mortgage the parking garage; that encumbering the parking garage with a mortgage does not provide for an allocation of land cost; that another issue is the 18 valet BOOK 2 Page 1213 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1214 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. parking spaces; that the City's consultant suggested counting the valet parking spaces toward the project's parking requirements, which would result in one more parking space than the required 450 spaces; that the 18 valet parking spaces are public parking spaces as workers in the buildings will not use valet parking; that the request is to include the 18 valet parking spaces in the required 450 parking spaces; that Palm Walk is also requesting extending the deadline for submission; that the project is too important to overly restrict deadlines; that the request is to allow resolution of the final details; that the agreement with the Opera will be signed in the next 24 to 48 hours; that the parking issues can be resolved with Staff; that DRC approval can be obtained; that Palm Walk can present milestone dates at a future CRA meeting; that the project should not be rejected due to a requirement for an additional two or three weeks to resolve outstanding details; that Palm Walk is making a commitment to move forward with efficiency; that the City has spent a substantial amount on the project; that Palm Walk has also spent substantial time and money on the project; that issuing another RFP or using another developer will delay the project by one to two years during which time the City will lose the income and parking benefits of the project; that the CRA is requested to rescind the prior vote at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting and allow Palm Walk another opportunity to perform. Member Servian asked for clarification of the statement that all City departments have signed off. Mr. Franklin stated that the information provided by Staff is all City departments have signed off. Member Servian stated that clarification from Staff would be appreciated. Member Quillin stated that Staff will be presenting at the conclusion of Palm Walk's presentation. Member Servian referred to the minutes of the February 7, 2001, Special CRA meeting as follows and asked for clarification: Mr. Siemon stated 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. Mr. Franklin stated that the consultant was retained by the City to facilitate the RFP and selection processes; that the consultant with the assistance of the City Attorney's Office negotiated the agreement with Palm Walk on behalf of the City; that the consultant did not continue after the contract was negotiated; that Palm Walk's initial understanding was the consultant would continue as the facilitator advocate on behalf of the City's interests as the process proceeded; that Palm Walk has not been in contact with the City's consultant since the agreement was negotiated; that Palm Walk will be in contact with the City's consultant if a benefit can be derived. Chair Mason stated that the recollection is the consultant was engaged for the RFP and selection process only. Member Servian stated that the minutes are specific; however, the contract with the consultant has not been reviewed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City and the consultant had a contract, which is controlling. Member Servian stated that an understanding of the contract would be helpful. Member Quillin stated that the February 7, 2001, Special CRA meeting was attended; that the contract was to include the consultant's negotiation of an agreement with the successful respondent to the RFP; that the consultant was to negotiate an agreement with the second-placed respondent if a contract was not successfully negotiated with the first-placed respondent; that the consultant's contract was for the RFP process and successful negotiation of a contract; that the consultant's job was complete once a successful contract was negotiated. Member Servian stated that a review of the contract would be beneficial. Chair Mason stated that a review of the contract with the consultant would be beneficial and requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Karen Hartman, Director of Downtown Redevelopment, Department of Redevelopment and Development Services, and Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the CRA. BOOK 2 Page 1215 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1216 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. Mr. Hoglund stated that the DRC reviewed the most recent plan preceding the plan presented at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; that the DRC did not review the plan presented at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; however, the plan reviewed was approved by all departments with the exception of the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department due to the parking issue and the Planning Department which is the final approval authority for the DRC; that the Planning Department will not sign off if any issues remain; that two City departments have not provided final DRC approval. City Attorney Taylor stated that the DRC is not the regulatory authority of the City which determines if a project complies with the various City codes and can be built in accordance with a particular site plan; that the DRC facilitates a review of the preliminary documentation; that DRC approval is not a regulatory approval sO a building permit can be issued. Mr. Hoglund stated that departmental comments can be provided through the DRC review process if issues should be brought to the attention of decision makers; that all City departments have an interest in planned projects; that Staff should be aware of, for example, accessibility of fire emergency equipment, police accessibility, etc.; that the value to the decision makers is to know if the basic requirements are met or issues are outstanding; that all City departments were satisfied with the preliminary drawings except for the Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement Department due to the parking issue of counting the 18 valet parking spaces. City Manager McNees stated that DRC approval is not regulatory approval. Member Quillin stated that all City departments have not signed off on the project; that the issue at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting was the developer was in default of the contract; that creative solutions should be developed to move the project forward at a faster pace; that the City could advance the funds for the Downtown Parking Master Plan which could be repaid from TIF funds at the beginning of the new fiscal year; that at the same time, Staff could develop a new RFP; that the RFP was issued prior to the adoption of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the RFP should be updated; that Murano Urban Venture (Murano) was personally supported as the preferred respondent to the original RFP; that Murano could be contacted to determine continued interest; that the respondents replied to the RFP over a year ago; that the CRA could decide to proceed under the original RFP or cancel the original RFP and develop and issue a new RFP; that the ideas are presented to engage CRA discussion; that the current meeting is to explore alternatives; that the City had a contract which was in default; that an amendment was approved to cure the default; that the default should have been cured; that discrepancies should have been brought to the attention of the CRA; that the motion to terminate the agreement with Palm Walk was made at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; that the vote was taken as the City must progress; that the developer worked hard on revising the project; however, the developer should have worked hard on returning the project to the CRA for review; that concerns should have been addressed; that additional changes and timelines are being presented at the current meeting. On motion of Member Quillin and second of Member Martin, it was moved to proceed with updating the Request for Proposal in concert with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for the City to advance the funds for the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for the CRA to reimburse the City from TIF funds at the beginning of fiscal year 2002/03, and to have the Palm Walk property appraised. Chair Mason asked if the motion is one of Staff's alternatives presented? Member Quillin stated that the motion is a combination of Staff's presented alternatives; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has been adopted since the issuance of the original RFP; that a new RFP could incorporate information from the Downtown Parking Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan 2020. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a member of the public has signed up to speak; that a Commission Workshop is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.; that the CRA Special meeting should be recessed, the Commission Workshop be called to order and recessed and the Special CRA meeting reconvened to hear public input and continue deliberations. The CRA recessed at 2:00 p.m. and reconvened at 2:01 p.m. BOOK 2 Page 1217 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1218 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. R.K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street, (34237), came before the CRA, and stated that doing nothing, which is an alternative presented, does not address the range of possibilities for the sole remaining, unbuilt, unpaved, unmolested land mass within the limits of Downtown; that relinquishing the aesthetic island of sand and trees to the citizens who own the property as an amendment to the beautifully landscaped, sculpture-laden, yet inadequately small parkland at Five Points should not be described as "doing nothing"; that no mention was made of use of the land for anything but development; that a park should be considered and would involve no cost to the City; that the project has dragged on for a long period of time; that consideration of the project is costing time and money; that the citizens and posterity of the City would be enriched by creating a minimally sized park amendment to Five Points Park; that the Preservation 2000 Program explicitly expresses the demands of the citizens of Florida to preserve undeveloped land as a priority. Member Quillin stated that the speaker requested to address Item III on the Agenda; that the speaker may not address other topics. Mr. Mattern stated that Item III is being addressed. Member Quillin stated that preservation is another matter. Mr. Mattern stated that Item III leads to the preservation of the property which is publicly owned; that the City is spending significant funds to purchase property not already owned and should consider using land already owned for greenspace. Member Quillin stated that the Palm Avenue property was purchased to develop a parking garage. Mr. Mattern stated that the property is owned by the citizens of the City; that a personal opinion is being offered; that no ballots were presented for parking lots, paving, and the expenditure on developers and profiteers of the dwindling public resources entrusted to the local government by the people; that the attention of the CRA is appreciated. Chair Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restate the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as for the City to proceed with updating the Request for Proposal with specifics in concert with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, to determine if the City can advance the funds for the Downtown Parking Master Plan, and to have the property appraised. Member Martin stated that knowing the value of the property is essential if another RFP is issued; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted since the development of the original RFP and establishes certain design guidelines which should be incorporated into a new RFP; that the existing RFP is not sufficient; that a review of Downtown parking and parking distribution is important and may result in a less intense project than currently proposed and dictated by the previous RFP. Member Martin continued that the Palm Walk project was approved prior to his tenure on the Commission; that the Palm Walk team is respected; that the intensity of the Palm Walk project has been a continuing personal concern; that an effort has been made to keep faith with the Palm Walk project; that initially, design standards were requested but not incorporated into the project; that 100 percent of the TIF funds generated were being devoted to the project, which may be appropriate but is a concerni that the public parking spaces which was most important to the City seemed least important to the developer; that the City was required to fight for the public parking spaces; that the developer has now indicated the public parking spaces will be delivered; that supporting the project has been difficult; that the City Attorney's Office, the Department of Downtown Redevelopment, and the Planning Department have encountered difficulties; that trust has been breached rather than built over time; that the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting was another missed deadline and the final consideration; that the contract was in default; that changing the Palm Walk team was probably a good and right decision; that the RFP was developed; that the contract was awarded; that the subsequent changes were of concern to the CRA; that the information presented has been reviewed; that discussions were held with Staff; that difficulties have been encountered at each step; that the motion is supported. Vice Chair Palmer stated that the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting at which the vote to terminate the agreement with Palm Walk was taken was not attended; however, the information provided was reviewed; that the developer responded to many BOOK 2 Page 1219 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1220 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. personal questions; that the meeting at which the presentations of the respondents to the original RFP were made was attended; that personal concerns previously existed; that each member of the Palm Walk team is respected for the many contributions to the community; that the concern is responses to City questions were slow or not forthcoming; that during personal conversations with the developer, the indication was any information requested by the City would be provided; however, the second amendment proposed by the developer indicated only certain information would be provided. Vice Chair Palmer referred to an April 18, 2002, letter from Member Quillin to John Harshman, President, Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc., which identified many of the concerns regarding the Palm Walk project; and stated that a previous question concerned design standards; that Staff indicated Palm Walk agreed to adhere to the design standards of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, nothing was confirmed in writing; that attempts were made to adhere to design standards; that opportunities were presented for Palm Walk to resolve the issues with the City; that the final consideration was the parking; that the City requested a parking study to assure the parking calculations were accurate; that the developer would not pay for the parking study; that the City spent $3,500 to hire a consultant to perform the parking study; that the results of the parking study were the project was deficient in parking; that the developer made an effort to resolve the deficiency and provided information; that the information was presented late, despite working all weekend; that the parking study should have been done by the developer earlier to assure the parking requirements were met; that the Palm Walk team is respected; however, the City should move forward; that circumstances have changed since the initiation of the project; that the motion will be supported; that some additional considerations should be incorporated in the motion; that regrets are extended; however, the City must move forward. Member Servian stated that the item was placed on the Agenda at her request as Palm Walk did not speak at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting; that the concern was terminating the agreement based on a technicality; that subsequently, the belief was terminating the agreement was the incorrect action based on the taxpayer funds spent to date; that bringing forward reconsideration of the action was based on the funds spent by the developer; that the developer has been making an effort to comply with the City's requests; that reconsideration of the CRA's action would be worthwhile; that two years and significant effort have been invested; that CRA support is not present to rescind the previous vote to terminate the agreement with Palm Walk. Vice Chair Palmer stated that bringing forward reconsideration of the action was appropriate to address any reticence by a CRA member; and continued that the CRA will be appointing a CRA Advisory Board, which will be vital to the City's moving forward; that the motion should include direction for involvement of the CRA Advisory Board. Member Quillin stated that the intent of the motion includes involvement of the CRA Advisory Board. Vice Chair Palmer stated that the CRA Advisory Board will be vital the success of Downtown redevelopment; that input from members of the community is important. Member Quillin stated that the hope is for a successful project and assuring everyone is working toward a common goal. Member Martin asked if Staff believes an appraisal of the Palm Avenue property should be performed and if funding is available for the Downtown Parking Master Plan? City Manager McNees stated that funds for the Downtown Parking Master Plan can be advanced; that the Palm Avenue Property should be appraised; however, the appropriate time to order the appraisal should be considered; that an appraisal can be accomplished quicklyi that the appraisal should be performed at the most relevant time. Vice Chair Palmer asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager McNees stated that the CRA indicated the RFP should be updated, which is the direction Staff requested; that the Administration can return with a Special Appropriation for the Downtown Parking Master Plan; that a time schedule and plan can be developed based on the CRA's direction. Chair Mason called for a vote on the motion for the City to proceed with updating the Request for Proposal with specifics in concert with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, to determine if the City can advance the funds for the Downtown Parking Master BOOK 2 Page 1221 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1222 05/01/02 1:00 P.M. Plan, and to have the property appraised. Motion carried (4 to 1): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, no; Mason, yes. Vice Chair Palmer asked if the CRA Advisory Board will be involved and is inherent in the motion? Member Quillin stated yes; that establishing a CRA Advisory Board has been advocated for years. Member Martin agreed. Member Quillin stated that hopefully Staff has adequate direction to develop schedules; that the CRA will be making appointments to the CRA Advisory Board in the near future. City Manager McNees stated that Staff will undertake the work; that the CRA Advisory Board will be included in the process once appointed. Member Martin asked if applications have been received? Secretary Robinson stated that applications have been received and are being distributed to the CRA at the present time. Member Martin stated that the CRA members should be recruiting applicants. 3. RESCISSION RE: : ADOPTED MOTION OF APRIL 8, 2002, TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY FOR THE PALM WALK PROPERTY (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 2:24 through 2:25 Secretary Robinson stated that an action to rescind the motion adopted at the April 8, 2002, Special CRA meeting to terminate the Agreement for Disposition and Development of Property for the Palm Walk Property is moot based upon the CRA's action in the previous Agenda item. 4. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CRA TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) CD 2:25 There was no one signed up to speak. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 2:25 There being no further business, Chair Mason stated that adjourned the Special meeting of May 1, 2002, at 2:25 p.m. Conlpeq 1/ asa CAROLYN J. MASON, CHAIR 5 BELE Rabenson BILLY ECFROBINSON, SECRETARY BOOK 2 Page 1223 05/01/02 1:00 P.M.