BOOK TWO Page 1296 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2003, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chair Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Chair Richard F. Martin, Members Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, Executive Director Michael A. McNees, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and Attorney David Cardwell, CRA Special Legal Counsel ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chair Palmer Chair Palmer called the Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 2:30 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED CD 2:30 through 2:31 Chair Palmer presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Approval Re: Minutes of the Special CRA meeting of September 15, 2003, per the request of Secretary Robinson. Chair Palmer stated that the Minutes of the Special CRA meeting of September 15, 2003, will be placed on the Agenda of the next CRA meeting; asked if the CRA had any objections to the Change to the Orders of the Day; and hearing none, stated that the Change to the Orders of the Day is approved by unanimous consent. 2. BOARD REPORT RE: : COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD' S REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 = RECEIVED REI PORT; ; AGREED CRA ADVISORY BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION DURING CRA DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PALM AVENUE PROPERTY (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:31 through 2:51 John Tylee, Chair, CRA Advisory Board, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that three non-substantive matters were discussed at the September 23, 2003, CRA Advisory Board meeting: process, communications, and the work program; and continued by presenting the following item from the September 23, 2003, CRA Advisory Board meeting: Draft Request for Proposals for the City Owned Palm Avenue Property CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the City owned Palm Avenue property was discussed; that Staff recommended including a requirement for 290 parking spaces in the draft RFP; that the CRA Advisory Board voted unanimously 9 to 0 to accept the recommended 290 parking spaces as appropriate; that after a lengthy discussion regarding affordable dwelling units which would be occupied year round by Downtown working people, the CRA Advisory Board voted 8 to 1 to recommend the following language be included in the RFP: as an element of the project, provide dwelling units which lower the cost to users relative to those currently being provided in the Downtown. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee further stated that the flow of the evaluation process of RFP responses was discussed; that the feeling was the CRA Advisory Board should be more involved in the evaluation process; that CRA Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend including the following language in Section D(2), Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals, of the RFP: . The Evaluation Committee will rank the proposals and forward its recommendations to the CRA Advisory Board. Subsequent to receiving recommendations from the Evaluation Committee, the CRA Advisory Board will determine CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated further that the concern discussed regarding communications is the CRA's message is not being disseminated; that an effort should be made to increase the information concerning the CRA's past and future activities; that regarding the work program, the CRA Advisory Board must have a significant amount of information to provide the CRA good BOOK TWO Page 1297 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1298 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. advice; that Staff provided the CRA Advisory Board a Work Program and Schedule; that priorities have not yet been established but will be in the near future; that the CRA Advisory Board has a significant amount of work to do in the future. Member Servian asked if the CRA Advisory Board and the Administration have coordinated to develop a response to the September 15, 2003, Sarasota Herald-Tribune article entitled "A sweet deal,' T critical of the Whole Foods Market Centre project or a recommendation to address the issue? CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the CRA Advisory Board is willing to assist; however, the feeling is the CRA should address the negative publicity. Chair Palmer quoted from Agenda Item III-B regarding the draft RFP for the Palm Avenue property of the minutes of the September 23, 2003, CRA Advisory Board as follows: that a 290 to 300 parking space range will suffice for the daytime needs in the Palm Avenue area; that unfortunately, the parking spaces are not available in the evening. Chair Palmer asked the manner in which the 290 to 300 number was determined? Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the CRA and stated that the consultants preparing the Downtown Parking Master Plan determined 290 parking spaces are required for the daytime business hours for the area near the Palm Avenue site; that evening hour activity requires 411 parking spaces; that many privately owned facilities are closed in the evening and allow no public parking. On motion of Member Servian and second of Member Atkins, it was moved to accept the report of the CRA Advisory Board's Regular meeting of September 23, 2003. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Chair Palmer stated that that the CRA Advisory Board should be involved in the evaluation process for RFP responses for the Palm Avenue site as the CRA Advisory Board has relevant expertise; that the Chair and Vice Chair of the CRA Advisory Board could participate in the CRA's review; that representatives of the CRA Advisory Board could be voting or non-voting members during the CRA's deliberations. Member Atkins stated that appointing a representative from the CRA Advisory Board to assist with the evaluation process is important; however, identifying the Chair and Vice Chair is not recommended as the CRA Advisory Board members have expertise in various areas. Chair Palmer stated that the CRA Advisory Board can recommend two members to sit with the CRA. Member Servian stated that from a broader perspective, the CRA Advisory Board has not had clear direction as to the CRA's intent in development of the Community Redevelopment Area; that development of a strategic plan for the Community Redevelopment Area may be required. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the CRA Advisory Board discussed the need for an economic strategy at the June 24, 2003, meeting; that at the time, the CRA Advisory Board recommended receiving public input concerning two draft CRA policies: the draft CRA Policy concerning Development in the Public Rights-of-Way and the draft CRA Policy concerning the Use of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Funds; that the documents are interim in nature; that more work is required; that the CRA Advisory Board is of the opinion more work is required to develop a global strategy. Chair Palmer stated that Staff is involved in considering a more long range and more focused direction for the CRA Advisory Board; that the CRA must determine the involvement of the CRA Advisory Board in the evaluation process for RFP responses for the Palm Avenue site. Executive Director McNees stated that a perception should not be the City is trudging blindly forward with the CRA processes without a framework; that the Commission adopted the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) which is the redevelopment plan governing the CRA; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 may require some revisions; however, redevelopment strategies are not being made up as situations arise. Chair Palmer stated that the CRA is aware of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, the public must also be made aware the BOOK TWO Page 1299 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1300 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Downtown Master Plan 2020 is the basis for redevelopment activity in the Community Redevelopment Area. Member Bilyeu stated that involving the CRA Advisory Board in the evaluation process for RFP responses is supported. Chair Palmer stated that the CRA Advisory Board can make a recommendation to the CRA concerning the specifics of CRA Advisory Board participation in the evaluation process for RFP responses. Vice Chair Martin stated that no objections exist to having the CRA Advisory Board participate in the evaluation process. Chair Palmer stated that a determination should be made as to whether the CRA Advisory Board members are voting or non-voting members if sitting with the CRA during the evaluation process. Member Servian stated that no objections exist to the participation of the CRA Advisory Board in the evaluation process; that having the CRA Advisory Board members offer opinions and advice is good; however, having the CRA Advisory Board members as voting members on a selection committee may not be a good idea. Member Bilyeu stated that the CRA Advisory Board could provide advice according to the disciplines of the members; that the CRA Advisory Board members were appointed by the CRA; that the CRA Advisory Board could provide additional, valuable information. Mayor Palmer stated that the CRA Advisory Board suggested reviewing the RFP responses prior to presentation to the CRA; that the hope was to have CRA Advisory Board representation at the time the CRA considers the RFP responses. Attorney Cardwell stated that the composition and voting status of a selection committee is within the CRA's discretion; that the CRA Advisory Board is part of the evaluation process; that an appearance may be created of serving in a dual capacity if also sitting as a voting member at the time the CRA makes the final evaluation and selection; therefore, the recommendation is the CRA Advisory Board be non-voting members if sitting with the CRA to avoid any appearance of serving in dual capacities. Chair Palmer stated that the participation of the CRA Advisory Board should be discussed by the CRA Advisory Board and Staff and a recommendation returned to the CRA. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the assumption is Staff will present written documentation concerning the issue and the CRA Advisory Board can make a determination as to an appropriate course of action. Chair Palmer stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the CRA Advisory Board will make a recommendation as to appropriate representation of the CRA Advisory Board during deliberations by the CRA concerning responses to the RFP. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WRITTEN POLICY STATEMENT TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA WHEN SUCH PROJECTS UTILIZE TAX INCREMENT FUNDS AND/OR WHEN THE DEVELOPERS OF SUCH PROJECTS WISH TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH THE DRAFT OF THE PRESENTLY UNADOPTED DOWNTOWN CODE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 2:51 through 3:16 Chair Palmer opened the public hearing. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA and stated that the proposed Resolution is an interim measure as developers are required to encroach in the public rights-of-way to complete projects which comply with the unadopted City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code); that the purpose of adopting a policy is to address projects which will include development in the public rights-of-way in the interim period prior to the adoption of the Downtown Code; that the proposed Resolution was presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and the CRA Advisory Board for review; that at its July 15, 2003, meeting, the CRA Advisory Board recommended adoption of the proposed Resolution; that at its July 16, 2003, meeting, the PBLP recommended adoption of the proposed Resolution with minor language changes; that the fundamental purpose of the Resolution is to facilitate and provide incentives for private development Downtown consistent with the proposed Downtown Code including encroachments in the public rights-of-way; that the primary purpose of the proposed Downtown Code is to provide high quality and walkable street frontages; that major encroachments will add value for the developer and property Owner; that arcades provide significant developable area; that the added value creates an incentive for high quality street frontages and increases the ability for Downtown sites to compete with suburban sites which BOOK TWO Page 1301 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1302 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. often have lower development costs; that development Downtown increases the City's tax base and decreases suburban sprawl; that the proposed Resolution allows the encroachment of building foundations into the public rights-of-way; that the proposed Resolution will apply only to developers voluntarily complying with the proposed Downtown Code or developers seeking assistance by the CRA from the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) fund. Vice Chair Martin asked the definition of the term "galleries"? Mr. Burg stated that a gallery is similar to an awning but with columns outside the cantilever; that porte cocheres are not conducive to walkability and, therefore, are not recommended; that an exception is a porte cochere can be allowed for a hotel of 100 or more rooms; that development over alleys is a significant use and can provide significant space for parking. Member Servian asked if awnings must be permanent structures? Mr. Burg stated that awnings can be made of fabric. Member Servian asked if awnings can be retractable? Mr. Burg stated that the type of awnings, i.e., permanent or retractable, is not addressed in the proposed Resolution. Member Servian stated that retractable awnings should be allowed; that a concern is permanent awnings will not allow for areas for people to walk in the sunshine during the winter. Mr. Burg stated that the implication is awnings are permanent; that the CRA may consider changing the definition. Chair Palmer referred to the Section entitled Development over Alleys, Location and Limitation on Use of the draft CRA Policy for Development in the Public Right-of-Way and stated that the Zone Districts indicated are not yet in place; that relating to unadopted Zone Districts is difficult. Mr. Burg stated that a draft map with proposed Zone Districts can be included with the proposed Resolution. Chair Palmer referred to the Section entitled Development over Alleys, Operational and Other Standards of the Draft CRA Policy for Development in the Public Right-of-Way, and asked for clarification of the following: A revision of all rights to the City in the event that the building ceases to exist or the owner does not meet contractual obligations. Executive Director McNees stated that few buildings in the City will be useful in 100 years; that the underlying City right-of- way must be preserved. Chair Palmer stated that the concern is the reference to the owner's failure to meet contractual obligations. Executive Director McNees stated that the City retains ownership if the City enters into a contract to construct on City property but the construction does not occur or the contract is not fulfilled. Chair Palmer asked the manner by which a building can be confiscated subsequent to construction? Executive Director McNees stated that preserving the City's rather than the developer's interest is paramount; that the possibility of revision of all rights to the City is the City's leverage if a developer fails to perform; that the City should never relinquish a right-of-way or easement if the developer builds a structure but does not meet all obligations. Chair Palmer asked for clarification of the phrase "revision of all rights to the City..." T in the Section entitled Development over Alleys, Operational and Other Standards of the Draft CRA Policy for Development in the Public Right-ot-Way. Attorney Cardwell stated that the phrase is defined as a reverter provision, which is a méthod by which to repossess property; that a structure may exist on the repossessed property; that permission was given to encroach on City property; that permission can be revoked and regular encroachment violation procedures can occur; that developers perceive reverter provisions may cause difficulties with financing which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; that reverters are not necessarily always problematic. Vice Chair Martin asked the responsibility for liability on public property which is being used by a private entity? BOOK TWO Page 1303 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1304 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Cardwell stated that the recipient of public property will indemnify the City against any claims. Chair Palmer asked if previous experience with liability and reverter provisions exists? Attorney Cardwell stated yes; that addressing liability is a learning process; that often liability issues do not occur until approximately two years from the initial operation of business. Chair Palmer asked if the reverter provision is problematic? Attorney Cardwell stated that the reverter provision as a policy statement is acceptable; that implementing the policy will address details regarding indemnification, reverter rights, and reverter triggers. Chair Palmer stated that reverter rights will be established on individual approvals based on criteria and an agreement between the developer and the City on a case-by-case basis. Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct; however, the criteria would be applied to each case; that the CRA may determine a requested encroachment on a right-of-way may not be necessary; that nothing in the policy requires the CRA to grant an encroachment; that the CRA must retain the discretion to evaluate encroachment requests on a case-by-case basis. Member Servian asked if the liability issue has been addressed for current encroachment agreements? Chair Paimer stated yes. The following people came before the Commission: Drew Smith, representing Casto Southeast, Inc., for Whole Foods Market Centre, 401 North Cattlemen Road, (34232), stated that the proposed Resolution is a positive move for the Cityi that the CRA should retain flexibility regarding arcades, galleries, and awnings, which is important; that the visibility and orientation of an arcade may not be appropriate for some businesses; that an awning or gallery may be appropriate; that the proposed Resolution does not preclude flexibility; that the strong desire to bring arcading into the City to create massing is understood; that flexibility is necessary for storefront requirements; that the City may consider vacating a right-of-way while maintaining a reversionary provision under certain circumstances. Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that the Plaza at Five Points is being developed in accordance with the proposed Resolution including an Encroachment Agreement with a liability waiver and reverter provisions; that retaining flexibility is good; that vacating property with reverter provisions may be appropriate in certain situations; that the reverter provision is sometimes a negative issue regarding financing; however, most sophisticated lenders understand the process; that a message must be sent to the community regarding public/private development; that the successful redevelopment of the City has been accomplished with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds; that characterizing the CRA program as a developer grab or developer payoff is: 1) demeaning to the partners the City is attempting to solicit and 2) a false characterization; that a false perception is the residents outside the City of Sarasota such as those in Englewood, Florida, are helping to pay for the redevelopment of the Downtown, which is absurd; that the legal aspects of the function of the CRA, the definition of the TIF District, the source of funds, the value differential, and the manner in which the CRA and CRA Advisory Board systematically evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis to incentivize redevelopment must be communicated. Chair Palmer stated that Englewood has a CRA; that the City is helping to pay for the Englewood CRA. Chair Palmer closed the public hearing. Secretary Robinson read the proposed Resolution by title only. On motion of Member Bilyeu and second of Member Servian, it was moved to approve the Resolution adopting the policy regarding private development projects in the public rights-of-way for developers wishing to utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Funds and/or wishing to voluntarily comply with the draft of the presently unadopted City of Sarasota Downtown Code. Chair Palmer requested that Secretary Robinson proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WRITTEN POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING THE USE AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING WHICH RESULTS IN THE MOST EFFICIENT AND BOOK TWO Page 1305 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1306 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BENEFICIAL USE OF SUCH FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 3:16 through 4:24 John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA and stated that the proposed Resolution is to adopt a policy for use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds; that the three categories of TIF funding addressed by the policy are: Public-Private Partnerships on Private Property - Development on CRA or City Owned Property Public Improvements Mr. Burg continued that a public-private partnership on private property is the most difficult situation as the City must determine the degree to which the City will be a partner and the appropriate amount of TIF funding assistance; that development on CRA or City owned property is undemanding as a Request for Proposals (RFP) can be issued; that competition among proposers results in the City's receiving the best value for the TIF funding provided; that TIF funds are used for public mprovements; that mechanisms are in place to provide for efficient use; that the best mechanism for efficiency is carefully designed projects with priority determined through the capital improvements budgeting process and competitive bidding for construction; and further stated that the purpose of the policy is to: Guide the CRA and Staff in preparing analysis and recommendations regarding the use of TIF funding and negotiating contract terms with developers; Provide a framework within which the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA can evaluate and compare uses of TIF funding; and Inform the development community and the public of the City's positions concerning the use of TIF funding and the process utilized to make decisions. Mr. Burg stated further that the redevelopment objectives are to: Implement redevelopment projects which meet, further the objectives of, and are consistent with the principles and goals in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020). Provide an array of housing types which are affordable to a broad range of household income levels. Expand the Downtown economic base to create increased employment, property tax assessments, and economic diversity. Mr. Burg stated that the Commission has designated the Office of Housing and Community Development as the lead in developing policies for affordable housing and housing at different levels. Mr. Burg referred to Section III, General Guidelines in the Use of Tax Increment Financing from the draft Policy concerning Public- Private Partnerships on Private Property and stated that the guidelines are: 1. Tax increment financing will only be used when a clearly defined redevelopment objective is served and only to the degree necessary to accomplish that development objective. 2. Tax increment financing will only be used to assist private development when it is demonstrated by both the developer and City staff analysis that "but for" the amount of tax increment assistance being requested by the redevelopment project as a whole, or the portion thereof directly related to the redevelopment objective, would not occur. 3. Tax Increment Financing will only be used in cases when: (i) the CRA has the financial capacity to provide the needed project financial assistance; (ii) the CRA deems it fiscally prudent to provide such assistance; and (iii) the developer can clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CRA that the proposed redevelopment project will be able to meet the financial and public purpose commitments outlined in the redevelopment agreement between the CRA and the developer. 4. The CRA and the City will recapture the amount of the project financial assistance to the maximum extent feasible after allowing the developer a reasonable return. Mr. Burg referred to Section III of the draft Policy concerning Development on CRA or City owned property and stated that the guidelines are: For projects involving the sale or lease of City or CRA owned real property, a competitive RFP process shall be used to determine the project that best meets City BOOK TWO Page 1307 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1308 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. redevelopment and financial objectives. At a minimum, the competitive RFP process shall comply with the requirements of Section 163.38, Florida Statutes. An exception to the RFP process may be pursued if a proposal is made that combines the publicly owned property with adjacent private property and the resultant project better meets City redevelopment and financial objectives. Chair Palmer stated that an RFP process was pursued for the Whole Foods Market Centre Whole Foods) project. Mr. Burg stated that is correct; that the Whole Foods project is an excellent example of the public-private process. Executive Director McNees stated that a public-private project does not require an RFP. Attorney Cardwell stated that a statutorily required 30-day RFP process must occur if public property is conveyed by the CRA to a developer. Member Bilyeu asked if private property adjacent to CRA or City owned property can be developed through an RFP process with the property owner's permission? Attorney Cardwell stated yes; however, under the Redevelopment Act of the Florida Statutes, permission is not required and acquiring control of the property is necessary. Mr. Burg stated that Section III(C), Public Improvements of the guidelines in the draft Policy indicates public infrastructure improvements developed by the City with TIF funds will be prioritized using the City's annual capital improvements budget processi that criteria for evaluating proposed projects include: 1. The project's priority ranking within and consistency with the Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020; 2. The project's cost/benefit ratio; 3. The project's strategic importance, i.e., the need to proceed prior to the implementation of other high priority projects; 4. The project's ability to leverage other public funds and/or private investment; and 5. The projects need to begin sooner because of its long lead-time. Mr. Burg referred to Section IV, Economic Analysis and Risk Assessment Process of the draft Policy which indicates the proposed uses of TIF funds will be subject to rigorous economic analysis and risk assessment conducted by Staff including the Departments of Finance and Planning and Redevelopment as well as consultants if necessaryi and stated that analysis and assessment reports to the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA will include: 1. The public purpose served by the requested financial assistance to the project; 2. A demonstrated need for public investment or subsidy, i.e., (the "but for" test; 3. Sources and uses of all funds available to the developer; 4. Developer's financial capacity and experience; 5. Risks associated with the project; 6. Impacts on the CRA capacity of the Redevelopment Trust Fund, taking into account current and future demands on money in the Fund; 7. Impacts, positive or negative, on other private sector developed projects where Tax Increment Financing has been or is being provided or committed; 8. Consistency with City redevelopment objectives, the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the latest draft of the Downtown Code, the Sarasota City Plan, the Zoning Code, and other relevant regulations; 9. Ratio of the amount of public financial assistance to private investment; 10. Other significant factors that should be taken into account in evaluating the application for project financial assistance; 11. Whether there is a need for additional consultant services and the type and level of those services; and 12. Action to be taken by the CRA Advisory Board and CRA recommended by Staff and consultants. Mr. Burg stated that developers requesting TIF funds in excess of $1 million may, in the discretion of the CRA Executive Director, be subjected to a more extensive review and evaluation, including appropriate market analysis and pro forma testing and continued that Section V, Evaluation Criteria, of the draft Policy provides: A. All projects must be consistent with and further the objectives of the Sarasota Downtown Plan 2020 and be BOOK TWO Page 1309 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1310 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. in compliance with the then current version of the Downtown Code including statements justifying the public purpose of any proposed adjustments from the Code. B. The need for public assistance must be demonstrated and documented by the developer to the satisfaction of City Staii, the CRA Advisory Board, and the CRA and must demonstrate that "but for" the amount of TIF funds requested, the redevelopment project would not occur C. A redevelopment proposal requesting TIF funds must maximize the ratio of private investment to public assistance and will be compared to other redevelopment projects of similar scope and magnitude in the Downtown redevelopment area whenever possible. D. The length of the term of the TIF funds assistance shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the desired result and shall be fully documented and presented to the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA. E. The direct and indirect benefits of the proposed redevelopment project shall be determined and quantified to the extent possible and may include employment, i.e., the number of jobs retained or created, percentage of jobs held by City residents, wage and salary information, etc., the tax base effect, i.e., estimated market value of new development, new property taxes generated, etc., housing stock created or enhanced, i.e., the number of new rental or ownership units, sale price or rental rates of units, etc., and other benefits relating to the CRA's and City's redevelopment objectives. F. The CRA's goal is to recapture all, or a portion, of the assistance from the TIF fund through long-term ground leases, subordinated loans, sale and/or refinancing provisions, equity participation to the extent permitted by law, and other methods as applicable. Mr. Burg referred to Section VI, Documentation of Tax Increment Financing Assistance of the draft Policy which indicates TIF funding will be provided only through and in accordance with a Redevelopment Agreement between the developer and the CRA; and stated that any participation will be subject to and governed by an interlocal agreement between the City and the CRA; and continued by referring to Section VII, Fees and Costs, of the draft Policy which provides for: 1) a negotiation fee which must be paid prior to commencement of negotiation of the terms and text of a redevelopment agreement and 2) reimbursement of costs which shall be paid prior to the execution of the Redevelopment Agreement. Mr. Burg continued that the policy may be changed or waived only by the CRA; that the CRA Advisory Board reviewed the Guidelines and recommends approval; that Attorney Cardwell reviewed the Guidelines and also recommends approval. Member Servian stated that no provision is made for an expert opinion by a real estate development; and asked the manner of determination of the "but for" test? Mr. Burg stated that an expert opinion by a real estate development expert is necessary; that Staff will utilize outside consultants and rely on the expertise of the CRA Advisory Board; that a draft of a detailed application has been prepared; that developers must provide items such as a pro forma, the number of jobs, the number of living-wage jobs, the public-private assistance, etc; that an analysis must be performed sO a recommendation can be made to the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA. Member Servian stated that the pro forma should be in the same form as delivered to the lending institution providing financing as a variety of methods exist to prepare pro formas; that the pro forma offered for financing will determine if the "but for" test is valid. Executive Director McNees stated that pro forma information is important in an analysis; however, if the pro forma is regarded as limiting the developer's return on the investment, the developer will ask if the return on investment is guaranteed; that the most important issue to the City or the CRA is not the developer's return on investment; that the City and the CRA desire to ensure the developer is not unduly enriched; that the City's return on investment is the most important issue to the City and the CRA. Member Servian agreed to the extent the CRA's responsibility is to ensure a good financial return; but stated that as the policy makers, the CRA must ensure the perception is not a 20 or 30 percent return on an investment can be made with assistance of the City. Executive Director McNees agreed. BOOK TWO Page 1311 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1312 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Member Bilyeu stated that a maximum rate for assistance to developers should be established; that appraisals should be performed on properties sold by the CRA although appraisals are not statutorily required. Chair Palmer stated that the Policy for use of TIE funding has been ongoing for some time; that the draft Policy is not a reaction to recent criticism; that the proposals for recent projects were the subject of rigorous analysis; that the CRA has not taken a lackadaisical attitude toward financial assistance for projects; that the CRA is attempting to learn by experience and have a definitive focus; that a major redevelopment objective of the City and the CRA is to provide an array of housing types which are affordable to a broad range of household income levels; that land costs should be offset as land costs are exorbitant; and asked for clarirication of the plan for affordable housing. Mr. Burg stated that subsidizing housing and maintaining affordable housing are complex undertakings; that the CRA should collaborate with the Office of Housing and Community Development to develop a program. Chair Palmer stated that a County task force to address affordable housing has been created; that the CRA should have some involvement with the task force; that the County is considering methodologies to address affordable housing; that the hope is initiatives can be developed to provide affordable housing; that the land costs are putting affordability out of existence. Executive Director McNees stated that significant economic analysis is required; that buying down the value of some land in the Community Redevelopment Area would never make economic sense. Chair Palmer asked the plan with which redevelopment must comply? Mr. Burg stated that redevelopment must comply with the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020). Chair Palmer stated that the Interlocal Agreement with the County concerning the TIF District will expire in 2016 which must be addressed; that ensuring the Policy clearly indicates the TIF District and CRA will no longer exist is paramount; that subsequent to the dissolution of the TIE District, property taxes based on the full increased assessed valuation of the area will go to all taxing bodies. Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct; that the CRA cannot obligate funding beyond the time the revenue is available. Chair Palmer stated that the minutes of the September 15, 2003, CRA meeting seemed to indicate the revenues generated in the Community Redevelopment Area would always go back to the Community Redevelopment Area which is not possible; that the community must be aware the TIF District and the Community Redevelopment Area ends in 2016. The following people came before the CRA: Cathryn Girard, 1501 Main Street (34236), stated that the proposed Resolution should not be approved; that the Resolution is poorly drafted and should be revised; that the damage done by the negative Sarasota Herald-Tribune article cannot be repaired; that the impression has been left with the public that the Whole Foods project was a give-away; that a prior speaker indicated the CRA program has worked well in the past and a negative perception must be avoided; that the use of TIF funds and the policy are ill-understood by the public; that the Administration's response to correspondence was the policy only applied to using TIF funds in partnership with development; that the response was not quite correcti that if separate policies will be developed for evaluating housing in the future and expansion of the Downtown economic base, the objectives should be removed from the policyi that Sections IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Policy only apply to development with partnerships such as the Whole Foods project; that the Policy is a poorly drafted document and difficult for a lay person to understand. Richard Thomas, 2322 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that his interest is to assure the CRA's actions at this time will not preclude the use of TIF funds to finance a trolley, a shuttle, and a circulator as the County is attempting to withdraw from the transit business; that some capital improvement funds could be spent on trolleys; and submitted for the public record a map displayed on the Chamber monitors with a suggested route for a Downtown trolley and shuttle. BOOK TWO Page 1313 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1314 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Chair Palmer stated that Staff of the Planning and Redevelopment Department can be contacted to answer any questions if desired. Drew Smith, Casto Southeast, LLC, 401 North Cattlemen Road (34234), stated that Staff indicated the Whole Foods project must follow the general process of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the proposed Resolution documents objectives which are currently in place, provides documentation for a better written record process, and is a good step forward. Allen McReynolds, 426 Partridge Circle (34236), stated that a proposed prototype addresses the "but for" test and moderate income housing; that the proposal could open the door for the presented prototype and other types of development which are necessary for the Downtown. Mr. McReynolds referred to drawings of a proposed building on City owned property at Central Avenue and Seventh Street displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that three properties included in the proposal currently have short term obligations; that the proposal is to create 26 moderate income units in the Rosemary Park area and for the City to contribute the land with the developer selling the units; that the developer will control the application and sale of the units to individuals working Downtown; that a personal objective is to find an opportunity to provide affordable housing for families who are struggling and working Downtown but living in other parts of the County due to the high cost of Downtown housing; that the proposed units contain two bedrooms and two baths; that "but for" the City's participation of contributing the land, a developer could not provide affordable housing in the area; that a market driven proposal would most likely see the units selling for $300,000 to $500,000 due to the cost of the land; that with the City's participation, the units can sell for approximately $130,000 to $140,000; that hopefully, the prototype proposal will open doors to encourage developers to follow suit. Member Bilyeu asked if the proposal is for City owned land? Mr. McReynolds stated yes; that part of the test included in the proposal is the adjacent developer owned parcels will be brought to the development. Kerry Kirschner, Executive Director, The Argus Foundation, 2033 Main Street (34239), stated that the CRA has created competition for Morton's Gourmet Market with the Whole Foods project; that the criteria of "but for" which allows government assistance for a developer to make money is a concern; that TIF funds were always intended for capital improvement projects and for well defined public purposes; that committing funds which will no longer be available at a future date is a concerni that providing TIF funding is fine if the public need and public objective are fulfilled; that for the CRA to decide who should be the participants in the free market economy of Sarasota is a concern; that public funds should not be put at risk for private ventures; that TIF funding is fine if the private venture includes a public benefit such as public parking; that many people live in affordable homes in the Cityi however, the homes are beginning to deteriorate; that a stabilization fund can be established to assist residents; that the CRA must establish criteria for eligibility for affordable housing. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that all requests for TIF funding should receive extensive review and evaluation, not just requests in excess of $1 million; that the hope is the CRA is familiar with the arts of war and negotiation and is not injudicious regarding financial requests. Mr. Burg came forward and stated that Staff must communicate clearly; that the proposed Resolution can be reformatted for more ease in understanding; that the guidelines currently do not address the use of TIF expenses for operating funds which may be addressed in the future. Executive Director McNees stated that clarification of the application of the Guidelines is necessaryi that * eliminating the objective of providing affordable housing is not recommended to allow for flexibility; that the "but for" test applies to projects which meet specified City redevelopment objectives and would not occur without assistance. Vice Chair Martin asked the reason for an exception to the RFP process for development on City owned property? Mr. Burg stated that circumstances may exist if property is adjacent to a City owned property and CRA development objectives would be met with a public-private project and may be preferable to the RFP processi however, competition generated by an RFP for City owned property makes sense. BOOK TWO Page 1315 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1316 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Chair Palmer asked if a property owner adjacent to City owned property has a better opportunity for selection with an RFP process? Mr. Burg stated yes; that the criteria should be structured to allow flexibility. Chair Palmer stated that the desire for flexibility is understood; that the concern is if a property owner of property adjacent to City owned property can offer a bid rather than follow the RFP process? Mr. Burg stated that the Whole Foods project is a good example as the property owner owned two-thirds of Lemon Avenue; that the property owner made a compelling case a good project could be developed with the City's assistance. Chair Palmer stated that flexibility is being allowed; that the CRA Advisory Board can determine if an RFP is necessaryi that the CRA should not offer assistance arbitrarily solely because a private property owner is interested in City owned property. Attorney Cardwell stated that an RFP is more detailed and involved than a public-private venture; that 30 days' public notice is required for public-private projects; however, a lengthy process such as an RFP is not involved. Vice Chair Martin asked if all public-private projects require 30 days' notice? Attorney Cardwell stated yes. Member Servian stated that the issue of obtaining an appraisal for City owned property must be resolved; that justifying the value of a project is difficult if the CRA does not know the value of the City owned property; that an appraisal will provide a level of comfort in conveying property. Attorney Cardwell stated that care should be taken regarding appraisals, as appraisals on large projects may take several years; that the recapture of the TIF funds is calculated on the value of the property for tax purposes at the time the CRA enters into the agreement with the developer; that an appraisal could raise property to a higher fair market value, in which case the Property Appraiser could raise the assessed value to the fair market level which would adversely affect recapture projections; that the tax increment does take effect until the tax year subsequent to receipt of Certificate of Occupancy; that caution should be exercised regarding a requirement for appraisals. Member Servian stated that the CRA should attempt to determine the fair market value at the time of issuance of an RFP. Attorney Cardwell stated that the consultants of the Whole Foods project were asked the fair market value of the project based on comparables in the Downtown; that a report rather than an appraisal is suggested as a report will not result in a higher taxable value. Executive Director McNees stated that nothing precludes the CRA from ordering an appraisal; however, the negative results of making an appraisal mandatory are lengthy timing issues and cost as an appraisal on a Downtown property may cost $5,000 to $10,000. Member Bilyeu stated that all TIF expenditures are through the CRA. Chair Palmer stated that anything regarding TIF revenues will be through the CRA, either in the form of budgetary approval or approval for specific proposals. Member Bilyeu stated that City owned properties outside the Community Redevelopment Area are appraised prior to sale of the property; that the ability to request an appraisal on property in the Community Redevelopment Area is comfortable. Attorney Cardwell stated that the Policy is a work in progress. Secretary Robinson read the proposed Resolution by title only. On motion of Vice Chair Martin and second of Member Servian, it was moved to adopt the proposed Resolution approving the Community Redevelopment Agency policy for use of Tax Increment Funds. Vice Chair Martin stated that the proposed Resolution is a work in progress and documents guidelines; that informing the public of the methodology of financial assistance is important; that the proposed Resolution is a positive product. BOOK TWO Page 1317 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1318 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Member Servian stated that the confusion of the public regarding the use of TIF funds may be alleviated by conducting town hall type meetings; that significant confusion exists with the public; that significant misconceptions and criticism can be eliminated in a broad based public format; that informing the public projects seeking TIF funds undergo a definitive examination process and the TIF funds are utilized judiciously is important. Member Atkins stated that the public must realize the CRA is an evolving process; that 18 years ago, the Commission was pleading for development Downtown; that the situation has evolved to the point of being selective regarding development; that 18 years ago, Commissioners could never imagine the City at the point of turning away developers; that the public must understand the City required redevelopment in 1985; that mistakes may have been made in the past; however, the CRA has performed for the betterment of the citizens of Sarasota; that the CRA members need not apologize for the CRA; that the CRA can never successfully refute the Sarasota Herald-Tribune or the Pelican Press; that a town hall meeting to justify living is not necessary. Chair Palmer stated that a positive change has occurred in the Downtown since the 1983 Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study; that the vibrancy and vitality of the Downtown are being increased; that the City has a good opportunity for redevelopment; that the City is moving with alacrity to adopting redevelopment codes and policies; and thanked the CRA, the CRA Advisory Board, and Staff for working hard to move redevelopment forward. Chair Palmer called for a vote on the motion and requested that Secretary Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Atkins, yes. 5. APPROVAL RE: : REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF CITY OWNED LAND FRONTING ON PALM AVENUE AGREED TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE CONCERNING ASSEMBLAGE OF PROPERTY; APPROVED TO: 1) ATTACH A COPY OF THE CRA POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF TIF FUNDS TO THE RFP, 2) HAVE STAFF AND CRA LEGAL COUNSEL REVISE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING LOWER COST HOUSING TO INCORPORATE THE CRA'S CONCERNS, 3) ADD LANGUAGE TO THE PROVISION CONCERNING ASSEMBLAGE OF PROPERTY TO INDICATE "BY THE DEVELOPER" (AGENDA ITEM V) CD 4:24 through 4:53 John Tylee, Chair, CRA Advisory Board, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Burg referred to the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for redevelopment of City owned land on Palm Avenue included in the Agenda backup material and stated that at the September 23, 2003, meeting, the CRA Advisory Board voted to recommend approval of the draft RFP to the CRA; that subsequently, Staff met to discuss some additional issued raised; that CRA legal counsel reviewed the draft RFP and recommended appropriate references to the "City" or the "CRA" which have been incorporated into the RFP; that the most important portion of the RFP is Section B, City/CRA Objectives; that the first four Objectives as revised are to: 1. Provide a minimum of 300 public parking spaces which will accommodate the required spaces for the Sarasota Opera and for surrounding businesses; 2. Be in compliance with Development and Design Standards of the April 2003 draft Downtown Code and the existing CCBD zoning; 3. Include an arcade extending into the public right-of-way in accordance with the draft CRA Policy for Development in the Public Right-ot-Way; 4. Be of exemplary architecture with high-quality active street frontages along Palm and Cocoanut Avenues; Mr. Burg stated that the Objectives are the requirements being asked of the developers; that criteria are included in the RFP and reference back to the Objectives; that the developer will be evaluated on success in achieving the Objectives; that the Objectives are key. Mr. Burg referred to the introductory paragraph to the Objectives as follows: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) desire [sic] to enter into a redevelopment partnership with a qualified developer to develop a mixed-use project in a 10-story (maximum height inclusive of parking) structure Mr. Burg continued that the 10-story maximum height is from the proposed City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code); that BOOK TWO Page 1319 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1320 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Objective 1 expresses the desire for 300 public parking spaces, which is slightly different from the 290 public parking spaces recommended by the CRA Advisory Board; that the Development and Design Standards of the proposed Downtown Code and the requirements of the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District will be included with the RFP to further illustrate Objective 2; that the CRA Policy for Development in the Public Right-of-Way will be included with the RFP to further illustrate Objective 3. Mr. Burg Eurther stated that the CRA Advisory Board recommended the following Objective: 5. As an element of the project, provide dwelling units at a lower cost to users than those currently being provided in Downtown Sarasota. Mr. Burg stated that Objective 5 was not included in the RFP prior to the review of the CRA Advisory Board; that Staff was concerned about the meaning of the Objective proposed by the CRA Advisory Board and the source of the revenuei that subsequently, the Chair of the CRA Advisory Board clarified Objective 5 as not requiring publicly subsidized units but rather lower cost units by design; and distributed a Staff recommended addition for clarity to Objective 5 as follows: 5. . This objective should be pursued through the use of lower-cost, smaller housing units, rather than public subsidy to the units. Mr. Burg stated that Objective 5 as clarified by Staff is an alternative could be adopted by the CRA; that the additional Objectives are to: 6. Provide the public parking, as specified in Objective 1 above, and any other public amenities, at a cost to the City or the CRA that does not exceed the appraised market value of the property to the developer; and 7. Include an agreement for operating and maintaining the public parking spaces at a cost that does not exceed revenues generated by the parking with provisions for control of the parking by the City and for the City to share parking revenues in the long-term. Mr. Burg stated that Objectives 6 and 7 concern the financial implications of the project; that additionally, Engineering Staff recommends adding the phrase "and traffic circulation" to Section C(5), Transportation System of the draft RFP, to read as follows: The Redevelopment Property is subject to transportation concurrency and traffic circulation review as required by Florida Law Mr. Burg stated further that the CRA Advisory Board added review by the CRA Advisory Board to Section D(2), Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals of the draft RFP; that the suggestion is the CRA Advisory Board will review the RFP responses and make a recommendation to the CRA; that the CRA may wish to determine if one or two members of the CRA Advisory Board should sit with the CRA during the evaluation of RFP responses. Mr. Burg referred to Section D(6), Schedule, of the draft RFP and stated that if the schedule is approved, the RFP will be advertised on October 26, 2003; that the final recommendation will be presented to the CRA in early February 2004. Mr. Burg referred to Section E, Evaluation Criteria, of the draft RFP and stated that responses including adjacent properties may be received; therefore, Staff recommends adding the following language to address the possibility of assemblage of property: Projects will be considered that include assemblage of other adjacent parcels and will be evaluated on the same basis as other proposals. Member Servian asked if additional points will be awarded for assemblage? Executive Director McNees stated that individual projects should stand on the basis of individual merit; that the mere fact of assemblage does not make a better project; that better projects will receive more points for the criteria regardless of assemblage. Attorney Cardwell stated that the provision regarding assemblage should include the language "by the developer" to clarify the CRA will not assemble other properties. Member Bilyeu stated that the City has eminent domain poweri that exercising eminent domain can assist in redevelopment; that the BOOK TWO Page 1321 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1322 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. City has not previously used eminent domain to encourage redevelopment. Attorney Cardwell stated that several changes must be made to the RFP if the CRA will participate in assemblage and use eminent domain. Vice Chair Martin asked the number of parking places required for responses to the previous RFP concerning the Palm Avenue property? Executive Director McNees stated that approximately 500 spaces were required. Vice Chair Martin stated that requiring 300 parking spaces is more reasonable; and asked the impact of including lower cost housing in the criteria for the selection process of a developer? Mr. Burg stated that the developer providing lower cost housing could receive a higher ranking for the criterion concerning lower cost housing. Member Servian stated that dictating the market is difficult; that building lower cost housing units in the Palm Avenue area is highly unlikely; that buyers will demand larger units; that the overall objective is to increase affordable housing in the City; however, Palm Avenue is not the proper location for affordable housing. Mr. Burg stated that the comments are similar to the comments by the members of the CRA Advisory Board; that a balance between financial feasibility and alternatives for less costly housing must be achieved. Member Servian stated that inclusionary zoning providing, for example, ten percent of the units must be affordable or a contribution to a trust fund, may be appropriate; that inclusionary zoning would work for the Palm Avenue site; that the method to determine the proper market for the Palm Avenue property is not known. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that neither inclusionary zoning nor public subsidiary was the basis for the recommended Objective 5; that the desire is some units would be occupied year round by people who work Downtown; that a stronger retail base will exist if working people live Downtown; that the intent of the CRA Advisory Board is a developer providing reasonably priced housing will receive a more favorable consideration; that the term "affordable" raises concerns and was therefore avoided. Chair Palmer stated that market-driven projects must be obtained; that providing dwelling units at a lower cost than are currently available is desirable; however, including reasonably priced housing as an Objective of the selection process implies a requirement; that a response to the RFP may include no residential uses but rather only retail and office uses; that additional points could be awarded if the project includes housing which is more reasonable than currently on the market; however, housing should not be required; that market forces will drive the project; that requiring housing may result in a loss of interest by some developers; that the hope is to have members of the CRA Advisory Board sit with the CRA during the selection process due to the members' expertise. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the difficulties being expressed are the same as expressed by members of the CRA Advisory Board; that the desired outcome was clear; however, determining the appropriate wording was difficult. Chair Palmer stated that the wording of recommended Objective 5 should be revised for clarity. Executive Director McNees referred to Section E, Evaluation Criteria, of the draft RFP as follows: 3. Additional points will be given to proposals that provide more than 300 public parking spaces, provided that other objectives are also achieved. Executive Director McNees stated the following language could also be included: Additional points will also be given to projects which provide a percentage of project dwelling units at a lower cost to users. Executive Director McNees stated that the language eliminates the perception of a mandate. Attorney Cardwell stated that the suggestion is good; that an incentive is generated by giving additional points. BOOK TWO Page 1323 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1324 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Member Bilyeu stated that the price of land has increased in the Community Redevelopment Area; that less costly housing is necessary in the Downtown; that the suggested language is supported as an incentive. Chair Palmer stated that CRA legal counsel should work with Staff to revise the language regarding lower cost housing recommended by the CRA Advisory Board and incorporate the Commission's concerns. Chair Palmer continued that the language regarding assemblage of property is appropriate; that hearing no objections, the language concerning assemblage will be included in the RFP. Chair Palmer stated that a need for parking in the evening exists to assist the Sarasota Opera and the uses in the Theater and Arts District; that private parking is available but cannot be utilized by the public; and asked for clarification concerning the parking which will be provided during the day and the evening. Executive Director McNees stated that the significant parking requirement of the previous RFP for the Palm Avenue site resulted in the project's not being economically viable; that the economic viability of parking must be considered; that the size of a property dictates the amount of parking which can be provided. Member Bilyeu asked the height of the proposed building for the project which was the successful response to the previous Palm Avenue RFP? Mr. Burg stated that the height of the proposed building was approximately 180 feet. Member Bilyeu stated that a good development opportunity was missed in restricting height for the Whole Foods Market Centre project. Member Atkins stated that the CRA should encourage Downtown organizations to cooperatively consider the parking areas in the Downtown; that organizations and businesses should allow unused parking lots for parking in the evening to continue to generate the Downtown energyi that the community should not be held hostage to asphalt which is unused; that a solution can be reached; that a parking lot which is chained off in the evening is incongruous; that the CRA is encouraged to begin the dialog for parking cooperation again as soon as possible. Chair Palmer agreed. Member Servian stated that refusing to share parking does not make sense. Member Atkins stated that working out a parking arrangement is less expensive than building another parking garage. Chair Palmer stated that individuals and groups have indicated to the private property owners the costs of insurance and liability for shared parking will be covered; however, no cooperation has been received. CRA Advisory Board Chair Tylee stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., conducted research concerning shared private/public parking; that few cities have had success with shared public/private parking; that another point is the trolley system will never work as long as parking is free Downtown; that an infinite demand for parking will always exist. Chair Palmer stated that any development on the Palm Avenue property must comply with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the proposed Downtown Code, which must be included on the record; that the Palm Avenue property is owned by the City; that the City can assure adherence to applicable design standards. Attorney Cardwell referred to Section F(4), Minimum Contents of Proposal, of the draft RFP as follows: f. any proposed contributions by the City or the CRA, including but not limited to, the use of tax increment funds. Attorney Cardwell stated that the CRA has adopted a policy regarding use of TIF funds, which should be attached to the RFP so a respondent will know from the beginning the allowed use of TIF funds. BOOK TWO Page 1325 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1326 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. Chair Palmer stated that three changes to the draft RFP as presented have been suggested which are to: - Attach a copy of the CRA Policy regarding the use of TIE funds to the RFP; Have Staff and CRA legal counsel revise the language regarding lower cost housing to incorporate the CRA's concerns; Add the phrase "by the developer" to the provision concerning assemblage of property. On motion of Member Servian and second of Member Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the draft Request for Proposal for Redevelopment of City Owned Land Fronting on Palm Avenue with the three changes as discussed. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 6. REPORT RE : LEGAL OPINION ON TAX INCREMENT FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, COMMUNITY POLICING, AND VARIOUS OPERATIONAL ITEMS - REPORT PROVIDED; REFERRED TO THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN AND THE ALLOWABLE USES OF TIF FUNDS FOR A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING EXPANSION OF THE USE OF TIF FUNDS AND A RE-EVALUATION OF THE PLAN (AGENDA ITEM VI ) CD 4:53 through 4:57 Attorney Cardwell stated that the language of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) limits use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds to certain capital projects and public improvements but also includes a general reference to financial assistance for public-private partnerships; therefore, the City is currently limited to the use of TIF funds as indicated under the section entitled Implementation and Management in the Capital Improvements Plan matrix of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which is the only place specifically reterencing TIF funding. Chair Palmer stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 can be amended. Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct; that attordable housing and community policing are specifically authorized in Section 163.387(6), Florida Statutes; that the list of authorized uses in the Florida Statutes is not exhaustive but rather inclusive; therefore, the City could allow other uses for TIF funds; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted two years ago; that considerable experience has been gained since; that a review of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 could be conducted to consider expanding the allowed uses of TIF funds. Chair Palmer stated that an update to the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the use of TIF funds should be referred to the CRA Advisory Board. Attorney Cardwell stated that one purpose of the CRA Advisory Board is to recommend updates to the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Chair Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the Downtown Master Plan and the allowable uses of TIF funds is referred to the CRA Advisory Board for a recommendation concerning expansion of the use of TIF funds and re-evaluation of the plan. Member Servian asked if TIF funds can be used for landscape maintenance of the Community Redevelopment Area? Attorney Cardwell stated yes, if specified in the redevelopment plan. Vice Chair Martin stated that TIF funds can be used for liability and maintenance costs of shared parking areas. Attorney Cardwell stated that is correct, as Section 163.387(6), Florida Statutes, includes an inclusive rather than exhaustive list of allowed uses. Member Servian stated that the interest is to assure the parameters are known. Member Atkins stated that the interest is in accomplishing some desired projects without spreading the use of TIF funds too thin. Member Servian agreed. Attorney Cardwell stated that projections must be updated if the use of TIF funds is expanded to determine if sufficient funds are available for the additional uses. Chair Palmer stated that the projections are continuously updated to assure adequate funding is available. BOOK TWO Page 1327 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK TWO Page 1328 10/09/03 2:30 P.M. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD (4:57) There being no further business, Chair Palmer adjourned the Special meeting of October 9, 2003, at 4:57 p.m. aa - AbU ANN R. PALMER, CHAIR ATTEST: BILLY E. ROBINSON, SECRETARY