BOOK 2 Page 920 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2000, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and Michael A. Connolly, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: : City Attorney Richard J. Taylor PRESIDING: Chairman Pillot Chairman Pillot called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Pillot asked if the meeting is being broadcast live? Secretary Robiison stated no; that the meeting will be recorded on: videotape and rebroadcast on AccessSarasota, Channel 19, at a later date. Chairman Pillot stated that persons addressing the CRA are requested to speak directly into the microphones at the Commission table to assure all comments are properly recorded. 1. OPENING REMARKS RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 01-3H FOR PALM AVENUE PARKING GARAGE - AGREED TO CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT AGENDA BUT TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) MEETING DURING JANUARY 2001 TO RECEIVE PRESENTATIONS FROM ALL DEVELOPMENT GROUPS IF NEITHER THE PROPOSAL OF THE MURANO URBAN VENTURE (MURANO) NOR PALM WALK ASSOCIATES, LTD. (PALM WALK) IS SELECTED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0040) through (1760) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H concerns the construction of a parking facility at the City-owned lot on Palm Avenue; that the City's consultant concerning the Palm Avenue parking garage project, Charles Siemon, Principal, Siemon & Larsen (S&L), is not solely responsible for ranking the submitted proposals; that all proposals were reviewed by a Review Committee comprised of City Staff and the City's consultant; that five proposals were received; that representatives of each development group were interviewed by the Review Committee; that the consensus of the Review Committee was to choose two of the five proposals for presentation to the CRA; that the City's consultant will explain the selection process; that the CRA is requested is to rank, select, and approve a proposal prior to receiving Citizens' Input according to the Agenda; however, the CRA may decide to allow Citizens' Input prior to ranking, selection and approval if desired. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that an explanation of the reasons for not presenting three of the five proposals to the CRA would be appreciated. Mr. Siemon came before the CRA, referred to a December 5, 2000, letter to City Manager Sollenberger concerning the Proposal Overviews and Assessments for RFP No. 01-3H, and stated that proposals were received from five development groups as follows: Arcadia Land Company (Arcadia), including Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks which submitted a proposal as a member of the Sarasota Development Alliance in response to RFP No. 00-29H concerning the same property McGurn Investment Company (McGurn) / which operates primarily in the Çity of Gainesville, Florida Murano Urban Venture (Murano) - : which has not submitted a proposal to the City previously Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk), which includes David Band, Esquire, of the law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford and Gordon, Chartered, Mark Kaufman, M.D., Sarasota Commercial Management, Inc., and the ADP Group The Parmenter Partnership (Parmenter), led by Darryl Parmenter Mr. Siemon referred, to the Downtown Sarasota Redevelopment Property Summary Ranking Matrix (ranking matrix) included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the objective was to rank the development groups responding to RFP No. 01-3H; that the quality of the proposals is exceptional; that all development groups possess the experience and financial capacity to develop the proposed project; however, the proposals differ significantly regarding the number of parking spaces offered to the public and the number of residential and retail units; that the McGurn and BOOK 2 Page 921 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 922 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. Murano proposals do not provide for office units; that RFP No. 01-3H is concerned foremost with provisions for public parking space; that the height of the proposed structures varies from 55 to 180 feet; that the following ranking criteria were established: 1. Qualifications and Experience 2. Financial Capacity 3. Preliminary Development Program 4. Technical Requirements Mr. Siemon continued that the design of the Arcadia proposal which was developed by Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks, as a member of the Sarasota Development Alliance was previously rated the most desirable during consideration of RFP No. 00-29H at the March 22, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and Commission; that negotiations with the Sarasota Development Alliance concerning the response to RFP No. 00-29H were not successful; that Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks has now teamed with Arcadia to submit the current proposal; however, a positive working relationship between Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks and Arcadia is not clearly evident; that the economic details of the proposal remain obscure; that the design questions and concerns posed to Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks and Sarasota Development Alliance during prior negotiations of RFP No. 00-29H remain unresolved; that the Arcadia proposal does not represent a significant departure from the previous design; that the proposals submitted by the other development groups demonstrate progress in complying with the design concepts requested by the CRA and the Review Committee; that the Arcadia proposal does not reflect the principles of the City of Sàrasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) and does not comply fully with the criteria established by the Review Committee. Mr. Siemon stated Eurther that the Review Committee ranked the five development proposals on three tiers with the first tier being the most desirable as follows: Tier One: Murano and Palm Walk Tier Two: Arcadia and Parmenter Tier Three: McGurn Mr.. Siemon further stated that Murano and Palm Walk complied directly with the criteria established by the Review Committee, were ranked in the first tier, and offer a definite prospect for the timely completion of the Palm Avenue parking garagei that the second tier of proposals consists of the Arcadia and Parmenter proposals, which demonstrate the potential for a successful project yet lack certain desirable qualities; that the Arcadia proposal lacks clarification regarding the economic relationship between Arcadia, the City, and the completed project, and also lacks significant progress from the previous Cardinal, Carlson, and Parks design; that the other proposals directly address the proposed economic benefit of the Palm Avenue parking garage project to the City; that the Arcadia proposal indicates funds from the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District may be required to fund the construction and maintenance of the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that the third tier of proposals is the least desirable and includes the McGurn proposal. Member Cardamone asked the proposed use of TIF funds according to the Arcadia proposal? Mr. Siemon stated that a letter of clarification requesting additional information was sent to each development group following review of the initial proposals; that each development group provided supplemental information based upon the letter of clarification; that interviews were conducted with each development group following receipt of the supplemental information; that each development group provided additional information during the interview; that questions were raised during each interview to further clarify the concerns of the Review Committee which was primarily concerned with the projected costs of the Palm Avenue parking garage, project to the City as proposed by Arcadia; that the Arcadia proposal requests the City contribute the land for the project and provide TIF funds for the construction and maintenance of the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that the other proposals are more economically favorable to the Cityi that the construction costs are similar among the proposals, ranging from $25 to $40 million; that the McGurn proposal will generate the least amount of funds for the Cityi that the Parmenter. proposal contains the largest proposed structure and will generate the most funds for the City. Member Quillin asked if Arcadia indicated the requirement for City TIF funds in the initial proposal or in the supplemental information? BOOK 2 Page 923 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 924 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Siemon stated that Arcadia referenced a project in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in which public funding assistance was provided, in the initial proposal; that the Review Committee inquired further concerning the Albuquerque, New Mexico, project; that additional information concerning the Alburquerque, New Mexico, project was provided by Arcadia in the supplemental information and during the interview process. Member Quillin stated that the supplemental information was not submitted to the CRA nor included in the Agenda backup material. Mr. Siemon stated that a letter providing supplemental information was received from each development groupi however, the letters did not significantly influence the Review Committee's ranking of each proposal. Member Quillin stated that all supplemental information should have been provided to the CRA. Mr. Siemon concurred and stated that the supplemental information was incorporated into the Proposal Overviews and Assessments for RFP No. 01-3H included in the Agenda backup material. Mr. Siemon stated the proposal submitted by McGurn, which is an experienced and successful developer in Gainesville, Florida, is an advanced development for McGurn in terms of the scale and complexity of the proposed structure; that the existing architectural qualities and characteristics of the City are not well represented in the design of the McGurn proposal, which is basic and does not comply with the redevelopment aspirations of the City; that the McGurn proposal does not possess a single significant failing; however, the overall ranking of the McGurn proposal according to the criteria established by the Review Committee is significantly less than the other four proposals; that Hoyt-DSW Architects and Planners, which developed the McGurn design, is familiar with the design character and preferences of the City and the design principles of the Master Plan 2020; however, the design character and preferences of the City and the design principles of the Master Plan 2020 were not incorporated into the McGurn proposal or subsequent revisions; that the McGurn proposal does not offer a direct economic benefit to the City, which is requested to donate the land for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that other proposals offer a direct economic benefit to the City. Mr. Siemon stated further that the design concept of the Murano proposal is exceptional and demonstrates familiarity and significant consideration of the architectural characteristics and qualities of the City and the design principles of the Master Plan 2020; that the Murano proposal was ranked in the first tier due to the design; that the Principal of Murano has served previously as a development consultant and designer; however, experience as a primary developer is unconfirmed; that the Review Committee notified Murano of the CRA's concern regarding experience as a developer; that the proposal provides the City a direct economic benefit of $2.5 million in addition to 612 public parking spaces. Mr. Siemon further stated that the proposal submitted by Palm Walk represents a modification of the original proposal submitted for RFP No. 00-29H; that a substantial increase in building density is proposed in the response to RFP No. 01-3H; that the original proposal focused on a concern for building height; that the new proposal modifies the original design based upon the deliberations concerning the Master Plan 2020; that the Review Committee expressed concern regarding the mass and design of the proposed structure; that the revised design of the building was considered insufficient; that the Palm Walk proposal includes a detailed survey of the architectural traditions and character of the City; however, the revised design ignores the existing architectural character of the Cityi that representatives of Palm Walk indicated the design was schematic and could be altered; that the Review Committee expressed specific concern regarding particular aspects of the proposed design such as access points to the proposed structure along Palm Avenue and the large portal and sign; that Palm Walk has significant experience as a developer and demonstrates an ability to resolve any conflicts or issues resulting between the proposed structure and the Sarasota Opera House; that the Palm Walk proposal is also included in the first tier of proposals. Mr. Siemon stated that the proposal submitted by Parmenter, which has significant development experience, includes a detailed fiscal impact analysis of the proposed structure on the local community as requested in RFP No. 01-3H; that the design of the Parmenter proposal requires further specification and clarification; however, Parmenter indicated the basic design of BOOK 2 Page 925 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 926 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. the proposal is not negotiable; that RFP No. 01-3H expressed specific concern for the design of the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that 263 residential units would be constructed according to the Parmenter proposal; that a superior design is required to construct 263 residential units; that the Parmenter proposal does not provide a sufficient design to accomplish construction of the proposed structure and was ranked in the second tier of proposals. Mr. Siemon stated that the Review Committee unanimously recommends the CRA choose either the Murano or the Palm Walk proposal, both of which are responsive to RFP No. 01-3H and could be accomplished by the development groups in a timely fashion; that the remaining three proposals do not possess the necessary qualities to assure the proposed structures could be constructed. Chairman Pillot stated that the schedule of the Agenda will be adjusted to compensate for the City consultant's presentation to the CRA; and asked if questions from the CRA should be entertained prior to proceeding to the next Agenda item? Mr. Siemon stated yes; that the CRA should decide if to proceed and hear the top-ranked proposals; that the Palm Walk and Murano representatives should be requested to exit the Chambers during the competing presentation. Member Mason stated that all five development groups should be allowed the opportunity to make a presentation to the CRA prior to the final selection of a proposal for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that the efforts of the Review Committee in ranking the five proposals are appreciated and respected; however, hearing a presentation from each development group would benefit the CRA members and the public. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the efforts of the Review Committee in ranking the five proposals are appreciated; that each of the five proposals was read and reviewed; however, all five development teams should be allowed to provide a presentation to the CRA. Member Quillin concurred and stated that the design criteria for the Palm Avenue parking garage project for RFP No. 01-3H were unclear; that the proposals are significantly diverse; that the CRA should be allowed to pose direct questions to each of the five development groups; that a recent appraisal of the property for the Palm Avenue parking garage project has not been but should be conducted prior to the final selection of a proposal. Mr. Siemon stated that RFP No. 01-3H proceeded under the guidelines set forth by RFP No. 00-29H and other previous RFPs; that the concerns of the CRA are understood; that the CRA should have received the supplemental information letters from each development groupi however, the letters do not provide significant information to merit re-ranking the development groups; that the CRA should decide if to hear the Palm Walk and Murano presentations or to hear presentations from all five development groups; that the CRA should not proceed with the current Agenda if presentations are desired from all five development groups. Chairman Pillot stated that the Review. Committee Eollowed the appropriate procedures in reviewing the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that significant expertise was devoted to ranking the proposals; that the CRA should proceed with the current Agenda. Member Cardamone stated that the CRA approved the guidelines for RFP No. 01-3H; that the Review Committee followed the appropriate procedures for reviewing the responses to RFP No. 01-3H; that development groups were similarly ranked for RFP No. 00-29H at the March 22, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the Commission and the CRA; that the CRA should select a development group to complete the Palm Avenue parking garage project at the current meeting; that the CRA should not proceed with the current Agenda if either the Palm Walk or the Murano proposal cannot be selected; that a Special CRA meeting should be scheduled to receive presentations from all five development groups; however, the CRA should proceed with the current Agenda and decide if either the Palm Walk or the Murano proposal can be chosen. Chairman Pillot stated that the time of the representatives of Palm Walk and Murano should be respected. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the CRA should proceed with the current Agenda and should attempt to select either Palm Walk or Murano to complete the Palm Avenue parking garage project; however, a Special CRA meeting should be scheduled to receive presentations from all five development - groups if the CRA does not find the Palm Walk or the Murano proposal satistactory. BOOK 2 Page 927 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 928 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA should receive presentations from all five development groups during a single future meeting if neither the Palm Walk nor the Murano proposal is approved at the current meeting? Attorney Connelly stated yes; that receiving presentations from all five development groups at a future meeting if neither the Palm Walk nor the Murano proposal is selected at the current meeting is legally supportable and consistent with RFP No. 01-3H; however, the CRA should receive presentations from all five development groups and not only the three development groups not included on the current Agenda if future presentations are scheduled. Member Mason stated that the current Agenda should be followed; that a Special CRA can be scheduled if the CRA cannot decide to accept the Palm Walk or the Murano proposal. Member Quillin concurred but stated that the CRA should be permitted to question each development group if one of the two proposals is not selected; that additional financial information should be provided by each development groupi that the Palm Avenue property should be appraised; that the language of RFP No. 01-3H regarding the disposition of the Palm Avenue property is ambiguous; that the CRA did not approve the language of RFP No. 01-3H; that clarification and further information are required to choose a proposal; that all development groups should be provided an opportunity to present proposals to the CRA due to the ambiguous language of RFP No. 01-3H. Chairman Pillot stated that the time and efforts of the Murano and Palm Walk representatives should be respected; that the CRA should not receive the Murano and Palm Walk presentations if the CRA decides all development groups should make presentations at a future meeting; that the CRA should hear and choose between the Palm Walk and Murano proposals or adjourn the current meeting and proceed with hearing all development groups at a future meeting. Mr. Siemon stated that the actions of the CRA should be definitive and unambiguous. . On motion of Member Cardamone and second of Vice Chairman Hogle, it was moved to continue with the current Agenda but to schedule a Special meeting of . the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) during Janyary 2001 to receive presentations from all development groups if neither the proposal of the Murano Urban Venture (Murano) or Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) is selected. Member Cardamone stated that CRA review of RFP No. 01-3H prior to distribution was suggested; however, a majority of the CRA agreed to allow the Administration and the City's consultant to issue RFP No. 01-3H without CRA review; that the City's consultant was hired to manage the process and allow the CRA members not to become involved until the final presentations are made; that any developer requesting access has been denied; that the CRA should proceed with accomplishing the work scheduled on the Agenda. Vice Chairman Hogle concurred and stated that the CRA could choose either the Palm Walk or Murano proposal at the current meeting. Member Quillin stated that a determination should be made if Murano and Palm Walk wish to continue with the current Agenda or to provide a presentation only with all five development groups. Mr. Siemon stated that the CRA's actions should be clear and definitive and based upon the wishes of the CRA members. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA will not hear the remaining proposals unless unable to choose among the Palm Walk and Murano proposals, which are exceptional, if the current motion is approved. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion to continue with the current Agenda but to schedule a Special Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting during January 2001 to receive presentations from all development groups if neither the proposal of the Murano Urban Venture (Murano) nor Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) is selected. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yesi Quillin, no; Pillot, yes. Chairman Pillot stated that laryngitis precludes continuing to preside over the current meeting and passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Hogle. BOOK 2 Page 929 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 930 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. Member Cardamone asked for clarification of the following phrase from the assessment of the Murano proposal contained in the Proposal Overviews and Assessments: assuming that the developer's pro forma is accurate. Mr. Siemon stated that use of the word "accurate" was intended not to indicate the Review Committee's intention to verify the accuracy of the financial information provided by Murano but to specify the probability of the completion of the proposed structure as presented to the CRA. Member Cardamone asked the certainty with which the CRA could determine the proposals will be constructed as presented? Mr. Siemon stated that the selected developer must meet certain threshold commitments which provide the CRA guarantees the project will be completed as proposed. Member Cardamone stated that the value of the Palm Avenue property should be appraised prior to the final selection of a developer. Attorney Connelly stated that the City only recently purchased a portion of the Palm Avenue property, which consists of previous retail property; that the balance of the property is two City- owned parking lots; that the City purchased the retail property for $1.8 million; however, the value of the City-owned parking lots is unknown. Member Cardamone asked if the City-owned parking lots constitute approximately half of the Palm Avenue property? Attorney Connelly stated that the City-owned parking lots constitute more than half of the Palm Avenue property. Member Quillin stated that the City paid approximately $3 million for the retail property; that approximately $1.5 million was donated to the City for the purchase of the retail property; that the value of the Palm Avenue property is greater than previously specified. Attorney Connelly stated that the appraised value of the retail property is exactly $2,381,000; that $581,000 was donated to the City. City Manager Sollenberger concurred and stated that the City purchased portions of the retail property at different times; that the value of the City-owned property at Palm Avenue has not been appraised. Member Quillin stated that the entire Palm Avenue property should be appraised; that additional financial information is required from each development group. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that a new time schedule for the presentations and deliberations should be established for the current meeting as significant time was devoted to the presentation of and questions to the City's consultant. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the time limits established in the Agenda should be maintained; that each development group is afforded 20 minutes for presentation; that 20 minutes will be provided for the CRA to ask questions of each development groupi that 10 minutes will be provided to each group for setup. Vice Chairman Hogle asked if the time limits will be monitored? Secretary Robinson stated yes. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the CRA should determine if to hold Citizens' Input prior to or following deliberations and selection of a proposal. Member Quillin stated that the public was not informed of the opportunity to speak to the ranking of the proposals. Member Mason asked if a public notice of the Agenda was properly posted? Secretary Robinson stated yesi that the Agenda provides for Citizens' Input following selection of a proposal by the CRA. Member Mason stated that Citizens' Input should be permitted prior to selection of a proposal. Chairman Pillot stated that Citizens' Input is allowed at any meeting of the CRA; that the public was properly informed of the opportunity to provide Citizens' Input to the CRA; however, BOOK 2 Page 931 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 932 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. Citizens' Input should be heard prior to the final selection of a proposal. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the consensus of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is to move Agenda Item VI, Citizens' Input, prior to Agenda Item V, Discussion Re: Community Redevelopment Agency ranking, selection and authorization to proceed with negotiations. 2. PRESENTATION RE: MURANO URBAN VENTURE - ALL PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A FUTURE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (1760) through (2228) Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the representatives of Palm Walk Associates, Ltd. (Palm Walk) should not be present in the Chambers while the CRA hears the presentation of the Murano Urban Venture (Murano). Richard Gillett, Principal, Gillett Associates, ARDT Group Inc., came before the CRA and stated that the CRA should not hear the Palm Walk and Murano proposals at the current meeting if all development groups will be allowed to make presentations at a future meeting; that the Murano and Palm Walk presentations should be postponed; that the design and financial properties of the proposals will be exposed to the benefit of the remaining development groups; that additional time should be provided to all development groups for the revision of the proposals. Mark Kaufman, M.D., Sarasota Commercial Management, Inc., representing Palm Walk, came before the CRA and stated that Palm Walk concurs; that the proposals are exceptional; that a bad selection cannot be made by the CRA; that the current meeting is being held to select a proposal; that the CRA should not proceed if a decision is not possible at the current meeting; that all development groups should be allowed to make a presentation to the CRA during a future meeting if a decision is not possible at the current meeting; that all presentations should be made during the same meeting. Member Cardamone stated that the original intent was to select a proposal at the current meeting; that the motion to continue with the Agenda of the current meeting and to hold a future meeting to consider the remaining proposals was offered as a compromise if making a final selection from the two proposals were not possible; however, the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano should be respected; that the intent remains to make a selection between Palm Walk and Murano unless both are completely rejected in which case an invitation would not be extended to make another presentation, which is not anticipated to happen. Chairman Pillot concurred and stated that the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano should be respected; that the remaining three proposals should not be reviewed unless a selection cannot be made; that the work of the Review Committee should also be respected; that the CRA should select either the Palm Walk or Murano proposal. Member Mason stated that the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano should be respected; that the efforts of the Review Committee are also respected; - however, all development groups should be allowed to offer presentations to the CRA prior to final selection. Member Quillin concurred and stated that significant questions should be asked of each development group; that RFP No. 01-3H was not conducted appropriately, that further information should be provided to the CRA; that all development groups should be provided an opportunity to make a presentation to and field questions from the CRA to ensure the appropriate proposal is selected; that a positive working relationship between the selected developer and the City must be established and carefully maintained; that the negotiations for RFP No. 00-29H failed; that the Palm Avenue property must be appraised prior to choosing a developer; that the financial information provided in each proposal cannot be verified until the Palm Avenue property is appraised; that the proposals are exceptional. Member Cardamone stated that the CRA should proceed as indicated in the Agenda and select either the Palm Walk or the Murano proposal; that procedures established for RFP No. 01-3H should not be altered during the process; that RFP No. 01-3H follows the same procedures as RFP No. 00-29H; that CRA members are not qualified to perform the functions of the Review Committee; that the CRA should choose a proposal based upon the prospects for a successful contribution to the redevelopment of the City. Member Quillin asked the date of the meeting at which the CRA set the procedures for RFP No. 00-29H? BOOK 2 Page 933 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 934 12/15/00 2:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City received seven proposals in response to RFP No. 00-29H; that the Review Committee presented the three highest ranking proposals at the March 22, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the Commission and the CRA; that the remaining four proposals were not presented to nor reviewed by the CRA and the Commission; that RFP No. 01-3H follows the procedures set forth in RFP No. 00-29H; that the Administration raised the matter of holding a future CRA meeting due to recent remarks published in a local newspaper indicating a desire to hear presentations from all development groups; that the CRA should respect the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that personal remarks published in a local newspaper were to hear only the two proposals ranked in the first tier and made prior to reviewing all the proposals and the rankings; that all proposals have been reviewed; that a developer could be selected at the current meeting. Chairman Pillot stated that the positions of the CRA members are respected; that the wishes and time of the representatives of Palm Walk and Murano should be respected; that the outcome of the current meeting is embarrassing; that a future meeting should be held to hear all responses to RFP No. 01-3H. On motion of Chairman Pillot and second of Member Quillin, it was moved to consider all proposals at a Euture Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Chairman Pillot stated that apologies are extended to the representatives of Palm Walk and Murano for not following the Agenda of the current meeting. Dr. Kaufman stated that Palm Walk and Murano are concerned primarily for the City's interests; that any final selection will be respected and supported; that representatives of Palm Walk and Murano will be available for any future meeting. Member Quillin stated that the responses to RFP No. 01-3H are exceptional; that a personal preference has not been and will not be decided until certain questions are asked of each developer; that the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano not to proceed will be respected; that the procedures for issuing and evaluating the responses to RFP No. 01-3H were not communicated properly. Member Cardamone stated that actions of the CRA at the current meeting may discourage the participation of the selected developers at a future meeting. Chairman Pillot concurred. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the motion to respect the wishes of Palm Walk and Murano will be supported. Chairman Pillot stated that apologies are also extended to the members of the Review Committee; that the efforts of the Review Committee should have been respected by all members of the CRA. Vice Mayor Hogle called for a vote on the motion to consider all proposals at a future Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. 3. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (2228) There being no Eurther business, Vice Chairman Hogle adjourned the Special meeting of December 15, 2000, at 3:00 p.m. + ALBERT F. HOGLE, VIE CHAIRMAN TTESTy BilE Robnsen BILLY E, ROBINSON, SECRETARY BOOK 2 Page 935 12/15/00 2:00 P.M.