MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1997, AT 4:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Mollie Cardamone, Vice Chairman Gene Pillot, Members Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, Secretary Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chairman Mollie Cardamone Chairman Cardamone called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. REQUEST RE: APPEAL DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT SUBMISSION OF REOUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFO) FOR THE MISSION HARBOR SITE = DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF RFOS EXTENDED THREE WEEKS (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0019) through (0000) Chairman Cardamone expressed appreciation to the Members for attending this special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and stated that this item is a request to appeal the decision not to accept the response by The ADP Group, Inc. (ADP), to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of organizations interested in developing the Mission Harbor site; that a letter from ADP explaining the request is included in the Agenda materials; and asked for clarification of the RFQ process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the issue is the extent of the CRA's authority regarding the request from ADP; that the RFQ reserved the CRA's right to accept or reject any proposal as deemed in the best interest of the CRA and the City; that the RFQ also reserved the CRA's right to waive any irregularities; that the four-minute tardiness of ADP's response falls within the language in the published notice; that the CRA can accept ADP's proposal by waiving the irregularity of the submittal if deemed in the best interest of the CRA and the City. The following persons came before the CRA: Judy Jones, Planner with The ADP'Group, Inc. 149 Cocoanut Avenue stated that apologies are extended; that the letter from ADP describes the circumstances; that Mr. Bruce Franklin, President of ADP, extends his apologies for not being present as a Board of County Commissioners' meeting in Venice has delayed his arrival. BOOK 1 Page 339 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 340 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. John Meshad, representing Synergistics, Inc., 1900 Ringling Boulevard (34236) deferred from speaking. William Merrill, Attorney, Law Firm, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., representing The Wynnton Group, Inc. 2033 Main Street, and John Harshman of Harshman & Company, Inc.. and Real Estate Consultant and Agent for The Wynnton Group, 2620 South Tamiami Trail (34239). Attorney Merrill stated that The Wynnton Group, a real estate management and leasing company with a project portfolio valued at over $400 million, is one of the RFQ respondents with a timely submittal; that no disagreement is expressed with the opinion of the City Attorney; however, objections are raised to waiving the RFQ response deadline; that his firm has represented over 50 local governments in ten different states; that numerous RFQs and Requests for Proposals (RFPS) have been submitted; that the established deadline has never been waived in his experience; that the ability to meet the established deadlines is important and has a purpose, showing interest, responsibility, and reliability; that The Wynnton Group is of the opinion that the development of the Mission Harbor site is so important that all deadlines must be met; that a 4:00 p.m. deadline was emphasized in the RFQ in numerous places; that a representative of The Wynnton Group contacted the City five days before the deadline to obtain an extension, which was denied; that the RFQ indicates no extensions will be considered and no response will be considered if received after the established deadline, unless unavoidably delayed through no fault of the respondent due to delays of the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial overnight courier, provided that the respondent can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the response was timely submitted to such courier on or before such courier's published deadline for delivery in the City of Sarasota before the 4:00 p.m. deadline; that only two exceptions were recognized and neither is a consideration in this case; that the proposal of the party requesting waiver has not been reviewed; however, fair play dictates that objections be registered and the request be denied. John W. Meshad, representing Synergistics, Inc.i 1900 Ringling Boulevard (34236) stated that the injury to the private sector should be weighed against the potential benefit to the public; that clearly the other parties cannot demonstrate an injury; that the CRA should grant the request if a benefit to the public can be perceived; that in his opinion a successful respondent who brought in an attorney because another respondent was four minutes late would be struck off the list; that dealing with such a potentially litigious respondent could be problematic. Robert A. Morris, President of Synergistics, Inc. Two North Tamiami Trail (34236) stated that the CRA has the choice; that Synergistics, which was four minutes late in submitting, has a well documented, sincere interest in the City of Sarasota and has expended effort in contributing to the City's gateway; that to interpret delivery of the RFQ response to the wrong office and, thereby, being four minutes late as lack of interest or as evidence of a possibility of not proceeding in a professional way for the benefit of the community is not valid; that the decision of the CRA is awaited and will be supported. Bruce Franklin, President of The ADP Group, Inc.. and representing Synergistics. Inc.i stated that his employee was misdirected, which was an unfortunate but honest mistake with no intent to gain any benefit; that the RFQ response has remained unchanged and at the City; that a clear finding can be made of greater benefit to the City considering the number of RFQS distributed and responses received; that the CRA is requested to grant the waiver. Member Merrill asked if anyone else is proposing the same type project? Mr. Franklin stated not to his knowledge; however, the other RFQ responses have not been reviewed; that the centerpiece of Synergistics' proposal is a conference center facility with other possible residential and commercial ancillary uses; that the purpose of the RFQ response to indicate clearly the respondents' interest was achieved. Chairman Cardamone asked if any other RFQ responses were received after the deadline? Secretary Robinson stated no. Chairman Cardamone asked for clarification of the request by The Wynnton Group for an extension. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the CRA and stated that a request for an extension had been received; however, Staff responded that permission had not been granted to extend the deadline. Chairman Cardamone asked if the deadline was emphasized? Ms. Robinson stated that the March 19, 1997, deadline as well as probably the 4:00 p.m. deadline were emphasized. Chairman Cardamone stated that the three RFQ responses received prior to the 4:00 p.m. deadline have been reviewed; and asked if the fourth proposal is a different type of proposal? Ms. Robinson stated that The Folsom Group propose a mixed use development; that The Wynnton Group and the American Land Housing Group propose a residential use development. BOOK 1 Page 341 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 342 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. Member Patterson stated that an RFQ generally refers to the qualifications of the development team rather than a specific proposal and asked if a developer can change the proposed concept when a response is made to the RFP? Ms. Robinson stated that Siemon, Larsen and Marsh (SL&M), the consultants for the process, would have to be consulted; that the RFQ included a requirement to provide a proposed developmental concept. Member Merrill asked acceptable concepts of public harm as a result of a delayed RFQ response? City Attorney Taylor that none come to mind; that those complying with the process may see a competitive harm; that the idea of allowing someone to proceed through the competitive process and ultimately to submit a proposal would be in the public good. Member Merrill stated that the public good versus the interests of the RFQ respondents has to be evaluated; that greater priority should be placed on the public good rather than competitive interests; that such an evaluation leads to one conclusion, which is to accept the late RFQ response; and asked if the CRA can legally accept the late RFQ response? City Attorney Taylor stated yes, in his opinion. Member Merrill stated that no tangible public harm can be established; that some public benefit by having another competitor may accrue; that the other side of the argument is difficult to envision except from a competitor's view. Member Patterson stated that the City's best interest is served by looking at as many and as varied proposals as possible; that the only issue is the precedent to be set; that a clear distinction has been made between actions of the CRA and the City Commission; that traditionally the City has deadlines on RFPS and RFQs; that the issue, heard with less than delight, poses the interesting dilemma of the amount of concession, if any, to be allowed from a deadline; that Chris Tatum of SL&M indicates in a memorandum included in the Agenda material that two reasons may explain the few proposals received: the price of the land and the shortness of the deadline; that the smartest answer may be to extend substantially the RFQ response period; that the greatest public good is served by having the greatest number RFQ responses; that her instinctive response, as reinforced by Ms. Tatum's memorandum, is to extend the deadline. Chairman Cardamone stated that SL&M knew the price of the land in advance and established the RFQ response deadline; that her personal response to the request to waive the deadline was negative; that a comment should be made that the individual requesting the waiver was also late for this special CRA meeting; that four Members, the City Attorney, the City Auditor and Clerk, and other Staff are being inconveniericed by the missed deadline; that another example is a special meeting recently held for second reading of an ordinance to accommodate a petitioner. Member Merrill stated that too many meetings are held. Member Dupree stated that the RFQ deadlines were very specific; that two reasons were provided to accept a late proposal; that another group was denied an extension of time; that guidelines should be taken seriously. Member Merrill stated that SL&M has indicated some mistakes occurred in the process, specifically the price of the land is too high and the deadline was too short; that the process should be conducted correctly; that failure to produce a proposal which works for the location will be an embarrassment considering the funds expended; that criticism of the process and the hiring of an out- of-town consultant has been forthcoming; that how many RFQ responses constitute the correct number is a matter of conjecture; that SL&M indicated a major decrease in the number of organizations between the RFQ and the RFP process; that the end product rather than the adherence to rules will be judged; that the good of the public should rule; that the final product must work; that he is skeptical of a proposal for a conference center; that his preference is for housing and a grocery store, for example; however, a commitment has been made to a process; that a good end product is the desired result even if rules have to be bent; that $100,000 should not be spent without obtaining a viable proposal. City Attorney Taylor stated that the two reasons for allowing an extension of time is in the same section as the language reserving the CRA's right to accept or reject any submittal as deemed to be in the best interest of the City and to waive any irregularity; that his opinion is that the CRA has the authority to waive the deadline if in the best interest of the City. Chairman Cardamone stated that SL&M recommends continuing with the interview process as scheduled and deciding at that time whether to reopen the processi and asked the criteria to be used. City Attorney Taylor stated that the CRA has the right to reject all proposals at each step of the process. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that his understanding is the consultants intend to conduct interviews with RFQ respondents; that a determination can be made if adequate substance exists to proceed to the RFP; that a suggestion could be made that the RFQ process be reopened if enough responses with substance are not received. BOOK 1 Page 343 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 344 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. Member Patterson stated that three, possibly four, responses have been received which is disappointing; that the criteria for determining whether to proceed to the RFP is unknown; that the opportunity to receive more responses is preferred; and asked the time period for submittal of RFQ responses? Ms. Robinson stated that the RFQS were distributed on February 28 and responses were due on March 18, 1997. Chairman Cardamone asked if two weeks is a normal amount of time? Ms. Robinson stated that the City has not done an RFQ previously; therefore, SL&M was engaged. Member Patterson stated that the primary issue to be considered is whether the interest of the represented body is best served by allowing a normal amount of time for an RFQ response; that SL&M was engaged partially because of their national contacts and the anticipation of a resulting large number of responsesi that three of the RFQ responses are from local organizations. Chairman Cardamone asked if Staff has any knowledge of delivery of the late response to the wrong office? Ms. Robinson stated no; that the courier could be contacted. Member Patterson asked if anyone from the Planning Department spoke to the courier? Ms. Robinson stated that the support Staff did not speak to a courier; however, an inquiry was not made of all Staff. Member Patterson stated that the policy idea of changing a deadline under certain circumstances is not agreeable; however, the best interest of the City is served by having as many responses as possible; that her inclination is to open the response period for three additional weeks. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the two weeks provided is generally enough time for a normal RFQ response as the request is primarily for already available background data; however, the project conceptual information requested in this RFQ is more time consuming; that a tight time frame was established. Member Patterson asked the reason for doing so? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that SL&M suggested the schedule. Ms. Robinson stated that a letter could be sent to those previously solicited indicating the deadline has been extended. Member Patterson asked the next step in the process? Ms. Robinson stated that SL&M will analyze the responses and prepare a ranking matrix, which wiil not be provided the City until after the CRA interviews; that the RFQ respondents will have another meeting with the CRA for an open exchange, to ask questions, etc.; that the RFQ indicates the CRA will interview all respondents; that a short list would be recommended on the basis of the interviews and the ranking matrix. Frank Folsom Smith, F.A.I.A., President of The Folsom Group, 330 South Pineapple Avenue (34236) stated that a "blame game" is not of interest; that no problems exist with either SL&M or the tardy response of local people with integrity and a good background; that waiving the deadline is a CRA policy decision; that a lot of money was paid a fine firm which is clueless about Sarasota, the location of the property, etc.; that the RFQ could have been sent to thousands of organizations and few responses would have been received; that the location was portrayed as dangerous and in transition; that the values, standards, and quality of Sarasota were not represented in the RFQ; that the track record of Sarasota scared away people; that the tardy respondent spent a considerable amount of money in preparing responses to local governments' previous RFQs/RFPs for projects which did not proceed; that two weeks is adequate time for response to an RFQ, although requesting the respondents' intentions is slightly unusual; that no designs or details were requested; that a great deal of money would be spent in redoing the process; that the RFQ indicated two to five respondents would be selected to be given the opportunity to submit an RFP; that three clearly qualified responses have been received with a fourth if the deadline is waived; that three, possibly four, respondents have expended a great deal of time and effort and substantially met the deadline; that time is of the essence and allowing time to slip by would be a mistake; that the CRA has an opportunity to interview the three or four respondents who will have an opportunity to demonstrate their planning and financial background and their vision; that a determination can be made as to whether to proceed to an RFP; that the CRA/Commission/elected officials and not the consultants should be making the decisions; that SL&M called many people before the RFQ was distributed; that money will be wasted with another RFQ. Member Patterson stated that the meaning of the term "track record" is not known; that in her 6-year tenure on the Commission only one RFQ which was for a residential property has been distributed and no responses were received; that the City did not distribute the RFQ for the conference center. Mr. Smith stated that the County distributed - the RFQ for the conference center; however, several respondents went to some trouble, did outstanding drawings, and spend some money for a BOOK 1 Page 345 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 346 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. project which did not move forward for political and other reasons beyond the control of the respondents; that an RFQ was distributed for the development of Centennial Park prior to the current Commission; that ADP spent $30,000 in preparatory costs and was selected but the project did not proceed for other reasons. Chairman Cardamone stated that the reference is unknown. Member Merrill stated that the reterenced event probably occurred the late 1980s. Mr. Smith stated that no blame is intended as the proposal was some time ago; that Sarasota, the City, and Sarasota, the County, are often confused; that RFQS and RFPS have been disseminated, time and effort expended, and projects not moved forward. Member Patterson stated that the purpose of the RFQ was so responses could be submitted with a relatively small investment. Mr. Smith stated that the interview process is a two-way process as the next step will require a greater investment. Chairman Cardamone stated that SL&M was hired in part due to their knowledge of Sarasota from their work with Sarasota's Land Development Regulations (LDRS); that receipt of only three on-time RFQ responses was disappointing; that the anticipation was of a great deal of interest and numerous responses; however, she is delighted with the interest of local people in responding to the RFQ. Mr. Smith stated that several local people have always been interested in a project for the Mission Harbor site; that his recommendation is not to reopen the process; that waiving the deadline is a CRA policy decision; that no personal objections are raised to waiving the deadline and accepting the fourth response. Member Merrill stated the comments are respected and appreciated. Member Patterson asked the expense to reopen the RFQ process? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City has a contract with SL&M; however, any provisions relating to a reopening of the RFQ process are not recalled. Ms. Robinson stated that the involvement of SL&M is not known; that letters would be distributed and responses received. Member Patterson stated that no involvement by SL&M may be necessary. Ms. Robinson stated that the time frames would simply be extended. Chairman Cardamone asked if the process can begin again if none of the RFQ responses are acceptable? Ms. Robinson stated yes. Member Patterson asked if a decision would have to be made that none of thé RFQ responses are agreeable or if a decision could be made that more options are desired? Ms. Robinson stated that the proposal as written gives the CRA whatever authority is desired. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language in the RFQ is an option to reject and readvertise. Member Patterson asked if the City normally has the authority to waive an RFQ deadline? City Attorney Taylor stated that the option is not specific to the CRA; that the option was written into the RFQ under discussion. Member Patterson asked if the City has previously waived an RFQ deadline? City Attorney Taylor stated that irregularities have been waived previously; that waiving a deadline is not specifically recalled. Secretary Robinson stated that waiving a deadline at the CRA table is not recalled; that deadlines may have been waived administratively. Member Merrill stated the effort should be to obtain the best result for the community; that the end product is the concern. On motion of Member Merrill, it was moved to accept the proposal of The ADP Group submitted in response to the RFQ. Motion died for lack of a second. Member Patterson stated that several options are available: 1) not waive the deadline, 2) forgive the four-minute lateness and accept the proposal of The ADP Group; 3) open the process in an effort to obtain additional responses, or 4) establish a policy concerning deadlines; that she is disinclined to agree to Option 2 as to do so is specific to The ADP Group; that having the most RFQ responses makes the most sense for the community good. Member Dupree stated that the need to waive the deadline does not equate to doing what is best for the community; that the decision is whether to accept the proposal, late or not. On motion of Member Patterson and second of Member Merrill, it was moved to open the RFQ response period for an additional three weeks from the date a letter so indicating is distributed. Motion BOOK 1 Page 347 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 348 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. carried (3 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, no. Chairman Cardamone asked if letters will be distributed only to organizations on the list already developed? Member Patterson stated yes, unless SL&M has additional organizations to add to the list; that SL&M should be contacted and told of the CRA decision. City Attorney Taylor stated that SL&M should be contacted to determine the next step; that the RFQ was an advertised process, not just by invitation only. Chairman Cardamone asked if the RFQ must be readvertised if the list is kept the same? Member Patterson stated that the latitude should be afforded to develop whatever is appropriate; and asked the cost of advertising? Secretary Robinson stated that the advertising was done by SL&M; therefore, the cost is unknown. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that some additional cost may be incurred; that additional negotiation may be necessary with SL&M who signed a contract for specific tasks; that the City Manager may be able to negotiate a minimal cost; however, extra time by SL&M will be involved. Chairman Cardamone stated that the requirement for additional time by SL&M is not understood. Member Patterson agreed. Chairman Cardamone stated that SL&M, who brought in only one RFQ response, did not deliver the number of RFQ responses anticipated; that the message from the City should be that the CRA is disappointed with what SL&M has produced, wants the RFQ process reopened, and is not willing to pay SL&M additional money. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that no disagreement is offered. Member Patterson agreed; and stated that her perspective on the process was influenced by the memorandum from Ms. Tatum who indicated the shortness of the deadline was a contributing factor to the poor RFQ response; that the Chairman is correct; that SL&M is faulting a deadline they established. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the message will be conveyed. Chairman Cardamone stated that the video tapes of the last two presentations by SL&M should be sent to them to see the quality. Mr. Smith returned to the CRA table and asked the disposition of the RFQ responses received? Member Patterson stated that those RFQ responses have been accepted by the CRA; that the CRA is grateful for having received them, would be disappointed if they were withdrawn and looks forward to reviewing them. Chairman Cardamone stated that revisions could be made if desired. Mr. Smith stated that RFQ responses are public record; that no respondent will want others to review their proposal. Secretary Robinson stated that copies have already been distributed. Mr. Smith asked to whom? Secretary Robinson stated that the newspapers have requested copies. Mr. Smith stated that the vote to reopen the process when four respondents have put their reputations and names on the line is highly irregular; that the respondents' work is now part of the public domain and the CRA has decided to reopen the RFQ process. Member Patterson stated that SL&M made the suggestion to reopen the process at the conclusion of the interview process when more of the thought process and expertise would have been revealed. Mr. Smith asked about the fourth respondent? Secretary Robinson stated that the response from The ADP Group has not been distributed. Member Patterson stated that the RFQ responses have not' been reviewed and asked the specificity of the responses? Mr. Smith stated that the principle of having the work of at least three respondents with timely submissions distributed to the public through the press is the issue; that his RFQ response is not extremely specific; that more study as to the feasibility of development on the site is suggested; that return is requested of the copies of his RFQ response as production is costly. Secretary Robinson stated that RFQ respondents provided 10 copies. Mr. Smith stated that proposals may be changed with the availability of three additional weeks; that one proposal will have BOOK 1 Page 349 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 350 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. been made available to the press and a new proposal will be submitted; that his organization labored and did the job on time; that the fourth respondent did the job on time except for four minutes; however, more thought will be given to the proposal with the additional time available. Chairman Cardamone stated that the CRA's action can be rescinded. Secretary Robinson stated that the vote can be reconsidered if someone on the prevailing side so moves. Member Patterson asked for a suggestion if the vote is rescinded? Chairman Cardamone stated that she cannot make a motion to rescind the vote as she was not on the prevailing side; however, a motion to rescind would be supported; that the RFQ response received after the deadline could be accepted. City Attorney Taylor stated that the CRA has the legal right to reject all RFQ responses and readvertise if so desired; that no RFQ response would have any legal significance as the initial RFQ respondents would have to resubmit. Chairman Cardamone stated that this discussion would not be necessary if all RFQ responses had been received on time; that hopefully, a lesson has been learned about being timely and asking for consideration. Member Patterson stated that she is unwilling to vote to rescind; that the position of the timely RFQ respondents is understood; that fairness dictates adherence to deadlines and disqualification of a late submitter which is regretted;. however, the concern is not the deadline or fairness to the respondents but rather the greatest opportunity to consider the greatest number of high quality proposals possible; that this concern is the reason for her vote; that the perceived advantage may not come to fruition; that the CRA would have three RFQ responses not four if fairness were the paramount concern. Member Dupree stated that his vote may have been different if the fact that the RFQ responses had already been given to the press were known; however, he is not willing at this time to rescind. Mr. Smith asked if Staff could obtain the RFQ responses and return them to the respondents. Secretary Robinson stated yes; that the newspaper will also be asked to return the copy previously provided. City Attorney Taylor stated that the documents are still public records; that all copies cannot be destroyed. Chairman Cardamone stated that all copies but one can be returned. Member Patterson stated that Staff can produce a copy for the public record. 2. DISCUSSION RE: SCHEDULING A SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) MEETING TO SHORT LIST REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFOS) - SCHEDULE TO BE ESTABLISHED WITH NO DELAYS (AGENDA ITEM II) Chairman Cardamone asked how long readvertising will take? Secretary Robinson stated that the answer is unknown; that publication deadlines would have to be met. Member Patterson asked the legal ramifications if the RFQ is not readvertised? City Attorney Taylor stated that the process can be administered as the CRA chooses; however, a potential legal problem may exist if the RFQ responses submitted to date are accepted and the deadline extended to receive additional responses without readvertising; that notification of the changing rules should be given in the same manner as the initial notification; that the issue should be reviewed with SL&M; that no advertising may have been done. Ms. Robinson stated that SL&M will be contacted on March 26, 1997; that SL&M should write the letter to advise of the additional time available; that a new schedule must be developed. Member Patterson stated that reopening the process would not have been considered except for the memorandum from Ms. Tatum. Chairman Cardamone stated that the quickest possible schedule with no delays should be developed. 3. OTHER MATTERS (AGENDA ITEM III) Chairman Cardamone: A. stated that an item will be placed on the Agenda of a future regular City Commission meeting to consider drafting a letter to developers' representatives who regularly appear before the Commission that deadlines and requirements as to completeness will be enforced; that items are received late or incomplete and subsequently Staff is criticized for uncooperativeness; that the message should be conveyed that the City operates on deadlines and only extraordinary circumstances such as a delay in the U.S. Postal Service will be considered valid to waive a deadline. BOOK 1 Page 351 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 352 03/25/97 4:00 P.M. Member Patterson asked the result if another proposal is four minutes late? Chairman Cardamone stated that the proposal would be too late. Member Patterson stated that her understanding of the existing policy of the City is that adherence to deadlines is required. Chairman Cardamone stated that the City is very forgiving; that the analogy is arriving at work on time; and asked if items are received late or incomplete? Secretary Robinson stated yes. Chairman Cardamone stated that consideration of items received in an incomplete or untimely manner can be delayed. 4. ADJOURN The Community Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 5:36 p.m. harci CCar 6 MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, CHAIRMAN - CL Ler bna a BILLYE. - ROPENSON, SECRETARY 35