THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

FOR PORT ORANGE TOWN CENTER

CITY OF PORT ORANGE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1000 CITY CENTER CIRCLE

JANUARY 11, 2011

 

THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR PORT ORANGE TOWN CENTER was called to order by Chairman Allen Green at 5:31 P.M.

 

Pledge of Allegiance

 

Invocation Ė Silent

 

ROLL CALL:†††††††††††††††††††††††† Present:†††††††††††††††††††† Bob Pohlmann

Dennis Kennedy

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Ben Talluto

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Don Burnette

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Bob Ford

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Chairman Allen Green

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

Also Present:††††††††††††††††††††††† Kenneth W. Parker, City Manager††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Margaret Roberts, City Attorney

Donna Steinebach, Assistant to the City Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Robin Fenwick, Deputy City Clerk

 

4.†††††††† Approval of Minutes Ė September 28, 2010

 

††††††††††† Special Town Center CRA Meeting

†††††††††††

Motion made by Dennis Kennedy, seconded by Bob Pohlmann, to approve the September 28, 2010 Minutes.† Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

 

5.†††††††† Approval of Minutes Ė October 19, 2010

 

Motion made by Bob Pohlmann, seconded by Dennis Kennedy, to approve the October 19, 2010 Minutes.† Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

 

6.†††††††† Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Redevelopment Project in the Riverwalk Area

 

Donna Steinebach, Assistant to the City Manager, gave a short background and explained the statutory requirements regarding CRA and the advertising requirements. Ms. Steinebach advised that if the Board is interested in selling, leasing, or renting properties within the Riverwalk, the advertising must be done. This request is for authorization from the Board to issue a Request for Proposals. The model being used is from Delray Beach since they have experience. This step is only needed if properties are going to be sold, leased, or rented. This item is being brought before the Board at this time because there have been parties interested in presenting proposals to the CRA. Staff is trying to follow all statutory requirements relating to public notice. The proposed RFP is not in final form and Ms. Steinebach said there would be changes based upon tonight's meeting and instructions from the Board. The Cityís Purchasing Agent will also have input. Ms. Steinebach asked the Board what they would like to do and requested the parameters for the RFP.

Chairman Green asked if we are only talking about our property. Ms. Steinebach confirmed. Chairman Green asked if we can exchange property without going through this process. Ms. Steinebach said no.

Member Kennedy believes we need to get something moving, asked when we started this project? Ms. Steinebach advised that there were many years of talk, but they actually adopted the CRA in 1999 (or maybe 1998). Member Kennedy pointed out that to date we are not turning any dirt, and if we entertain RFPs now, what affect will that have on the most recent development plans? Will it created problems with our master developer? Ms. Steinebach explained that in 1999 when the RFP was issued it was for a master developer; however, this RFP is for a development project. The May, 2005 MOU outlined the expectations, goals, and objectives of both the City and the master developer; however, it was not adopted and never reached a formal agreement. Member Kennedy asked if we own a good deal of property, with the remaining 35 acres owned by the master developer and others, what do we need to do to begin bringing our land into development? †There are a lot of plans and a lot of money tied up but nothing happening. Weíve displaced lots of people, lots of money tied up in land; do we have anything moving ahead? Ms. Steinebach advised that we need to identify a financially feasible project, need to find a project that will survive in this economy, and thatís why we need to do the RFP. There is no specific property listed in RFP, it's open for offers. The release of any of the CRA property is at the CRAís discretion. You are not obligated to accept any of the proposals that may come, but this is what we have to do to get those proposals to see if thereís a plan out there that you may be interested in. Member Kennedyís concern is that in the past we've looked at the entire 35 acres as one project, will this allow that to change? Ms. Steinebach confirmed that it's not required to develop the entire 35 acres; we can do smaller projects as long as they are consistent with the overall project. The CRA Board may need to refine the project as a whole. Member Kennedy believes we need to look at something outside of our original plan; all we have now is dirt that costs us a lot of money. He is very interested in the RFP if we can get someone to give us a proposal and is not adverse to looking at something that is no longer within the constraints. Member Kennedy believes we need to move ahead now. Ms. Steinebach indicated that thresholds can be changed. Member Kennedy also advised that he doesnít want to give anything away.

Chairman Green agrees with the RFP and believes it's going to be hard to piece meal the project. Ms. Steinebach advised that 30% master utility plans have been accepted. There is a framework for the proposals.

Member Kennedy says letís get moving.

Member Pohlmann confirmed we have 17.25 acres and asked about the master development agreement. Ms. Steinebach explained that there is not a master development agreement. There were discussions but nothing materialized from those discussions. Member Pohlmann questioned whether there are other legal hurdles they should be aware of, Ms. Steinebach answered no, none that she knows of. Member Pohlmann asked about the time frame for the RFP. Ms. Steinebach said with clear direction from this Board and the ok from the City Council, the RFP could go out in early February. Member Pohlmann asked about the price listed in the RFP. Ms. Steinebachís opinion is that itís reasonable, but need to remember it's a piece that has to fit into the whole puzzle, and suggested that the Board be careful with cherry picking the properties to develop first. Ms. Steinebach also suggests that the CRA has some thresholds and the proposal should show the financial capability to carry out the project. Member Pohlmann shared concerns regarding not having a hold harmless agreement. Ms. Steinebach agreed and cautioned the Board to not release the primary land until the project is done.

Mr. Parker advised that CDD money can only be used for infrastructure. Ms. Steinebach explained further.

Mr. Parker explained that we are here because of a statute change. The intent in 1999 was to work with a master developer. When property leaves the City's hands, this process must be done. Discussion was held regarding the advertising process for the RFP.

Chairman Green asked why are we talking about south of Herbert St. only? Ms. Steinebach says it's not just south, just suggested that. The RFP can be wide open. Chairman Green believes we need to make sure it's clear that the whole Riverwalk property is available and we will review proposals for any of the property, not just south of Herbert.

Member Talluto believes we started this project when he was a Councilman, before we bought the mobile home park. We bought the land to help Port Orange east of the railroad tracks. The idea was to have little shops, etc., small not huge. There was a change in the developer several times and at no time have we had our feet on the ground to get anything done. We own the land and we need to move forward or get rid of some of the properties and get rid of some of the bills we have. Member Talluto believes we need to make it small, itís too big now. We need to make some decisions.

Chairman Green explained the process up to this point, bought some property, can do away with the Riverwalk, park, etc., but you need to understand what you want to be able to get what you want.

This is the next step to get rid of the properties, whether it's exchange, sell, lease, etc., people with the big bucks are not there anymore. We need to carve pieces into doable steps.

Member Talluto asked if we own the property at the corner of Dunlawton and US 1. Chairman Green said we own part of it, but the businesses still there are not going to sell and we need to build around them. Member Ford stated he is overwhelmed by the complexity of this project and is concerned about going out for bids and RFPís right now because of the market. When you advertise for this type of project, can we put out an RFP in Europe, New York, etc.? We need to get people outside of our area. Ms. Steinebach advised itís the way you shop the proposal. There are several options for advertising the RFP, and remember the statute requires the CRA to go through this process, but does not require them to take any one of the proposals.

Member Fordís concern is he doesnít feel a consensus with the Board and feels the project has obviously changed but what is it that we want? He doesnít think we can do it as a single project, believes the mobile home area is a prime piece. Ms. Steinebach clarifies that the Intercoastal Villas is not in the project area and is not in our control.

Member Ford asked if the adopted plan has any legal standing. Ms. Steinebach answered yes, absolutely. Member Ford asked how we can advertise for something different if the adopted plan is legally binding. Ms. Steinebach replied that as long as it is in the RFP that it will be different, you are ok. City Council also needs to approve it. The Board can make the decision to state that you are willing to entertain changes from the master development plan. Member Ford asked what our commitment is to our master development planner. Attorney Roberts advised that it is controlled by the agreement entered into. There are no long term commitments that she is aware of. Member Ford confirmed that we could entertain any type of project. Ms. Steinebach confirmed that and would ask for direction regarding the minimum size of property. Ms. Steinebach explained the repurchase clause regarding the Galbreath property, which was renewed and extended. Member Ford believes that narrows who we can do business with.

Member Talluto asked if there are any more contracts with the repurchase clause. Attorney Roberts answered yes, Florida Community Trust has some restrictions and Volusia County has an interest in the property at the chamber and has expressed a willingness to work with the City to release that interest. There may be other interests but those are the main ones.

Mr. Parker advised that the Florida Community Trust properties are set aside for open space.

Member Burnette asked if the adopted plan is the vision for the property. Ms. Steinebach answered this is the official vision. Member Burnette doesn't believe there is a vision. Ms. Steinebach says the RFP will drive the vision as well as the vision drive the RFP.

Chairman Green clarified that there was a vision and it can be changed. There are obviously economic issues now.

Member Burnette feels the original vision is about 100% impossible to follow and we need a new vision. The new vision needs to be included in the RFP. He would like to see some residential inventory but not condos. The adopted plan is so far out of the scope of reality. Member Burnette asked where we are at with the sign on the corner. Ms. Steinebach advised that the sign is on hold, property was prepped but sign is on hold until we have more definition on how to proceed. She clarified that the original vision hasn't changed in the basic fundamental regarding public access, parks, the water access, mixed use for the community. There are infinite ways to make that work. The original plan did not include high rise condos. Ms. Steinebach showed old pictures of Town Center options. They may be out of scale to what we can do now. Member Burnette advised that he knows of a few businesses that have moved or opened their businesses in that area because the City is going to do something on Riverwalk. Member Burnette asked what ideas are being discussed now. Ms. Steinebach advised that there are discussions of a mixed use for family entertainment, residential, office spaces, they like the water front property. Member Burnette would like to see Community Development involved in the plans. Mr. Parker advised that they are the regulatory side; comprehensive planning, zoning, etc. are all handled by that department and they will be very involved with these plans as they have been in the past. They were also actively involved in the planning of the parks, etc. Ms. Steinebach confirmed that they have been involved and we would expect them to continue to be involved. Member Burnette asked if we can mesh a smaller project with a larger project. He believes the key to momentum is getting buildings up. We need to make things happen since there are people out there who want to get it moving. Ms. Steinebach again advised that there is no way the Board can accept a proposal until this process of publishing the RFP is done.

Chairman Green believes this opens it up to everyone. We need the new Economic Development Director to come and speak with the CRA Board. Ms. Steinebach advised that Volusia County has pledged to help as well as others. Requesting specific direction regarding the RFP: should it be left open ended without square footage and dollar figure. Consensus with all.

Member Talluto asked for clarification regarding the repurchase clause. Mr. Parker explained the process of the purchasing of the properties. The provision was in the contract when it was assigned to the CRA for purchase. Discussion was held to clarify the repurchase clause between Member Talluto and Mr. Parker.

Chairman Green stated that the Board needs to give Staff directions.

Final comments from Members:

Member Kennedy stated that we all know something needs to be done and hopes that this will lead us to get that something done.

Member Pohlmann believes this is a living, breathing, changing piece of property and we need to practice flexibility. There will be amendments, but we need to get the ball moving. The vision of the basic framework is still the same.

Member Burnette expressed serious concerns, but agrees that flexibility is a must. We need to advertise so we can see who's interested. Agrees we have got to take the first step.

Member Ford also has major concerns and wishes that the RFP be in no way influenced by the current plan. Advised that he is completely against a public parking garage unless the builder pays for it completely themselves. Doesnít want to prejudge anything that might come in but is also concerned about parking issues.

Ms. Steinebach advised that the CRA plan is still the original plan. There is nothing binding regarding a parking garage or a marina.

Chairman Green believes there are people who like different things and hopes that we will get different ideas. He wants the RFP to be open so there is flexibility. Ms. Steinebach confirmed #1: itís ok for her to proceed, #2: be flexible with the RFP, let them be creative and bring us their ideas, and #3 look at the network before you put it on the streets.

All agreed.

Chairman Green asked Ms. Steinebach if there was anything else she needs from the Board. Ms. Steinebach said no, she will have Staff retool the RFP and bring it back in final form in early February.

Member Pohlmann advised that feasibility studies were done for the parking garage idea and the marina and the ideas were shot down so they are not in the plan.

 

ADJOURNMENT: 7:06 P.M.

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Chairman Allen Green