THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR PORT ORANGE TOWN CENTER
CITY OF PORT ORANGE
1000 CITY CENTER CIRCLE
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY was called to order by Chairman Allen Green at 7:05 P.M.
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation – Silent
ROLL CALL: Present: Bob Ford
Vice Chairman Bob Pohlmann
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. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Redevelopment Project in the Riverwalk Area
Mr. Parker advised Council that Margaret Roberts, City Attorney continues to look at the Request for Proposals (RFP) to ensure that the desires of the City match legal terms. She has made some changes but nothing that changes the substance of the RFP.
Donna Steinebach, Assistant to the City Manager gave background regarding the RFP. Ms. Steinebach believes that the RFP is ready except for some minor tweaks from legal, CRA Board and City Council. She reminded the Board that the distribution list was included in their Agenda packet, but that it is just a starter list, more can be added.
Member Kennedy asked if there has been any interest shown and if we are targeting anyone in particular. Ms. Steinebach said no we are not targeting anyone in particular, in fact, she advised that it is a very broad RFP at the request of the Board and City Council members. She has eliminated the dollar figures, size requirements, etc. and advised that proposals may be in competition with each other because there are no boundaries. Member Kennedy further asked if there are any preconceived ideas for what we are looking for. Again, Ms. Steinebach confirmed that the Board and City Council members did not want it to be specific but requested that it be open and broad. The only specifics would be as to permitting options and requirements. This RFP specifically advises that the City/CRA are receptive to changes to previous development concepts and advises that the CRA Board is ready for new ideas. The RFP does not obligate the CRA or City Council to accept the proposals or the changes.
Member Pohlmann asked to verify that we are building a pier. Ms. Steinebach confirmed that there is a pier in the Conceptual Plan, but nothing requires the City/CRA to build a pier. Member Pohlmann asked Mr. Steinebach to confirm that it is broad and not targeted to a specific audience, which she confirmed.
Ms. Steinebach advised the Board that the Yorktowne property is included in the RFP as an option because it could come into play to exchange, sell, trade, etc. with development in the Riverwalk.
Member Pohlmann asked if it would be nationally advertised. Ms. Steinebach confirmed that it would be, and the timeframe is April for proposals to be submitted.
Member Pohlmann asked what would happen if no proposals come in and if we extend it the RFP, which Ms. Steinebach confirmed they could do.
Member Burnette has concerns about the advertising timeframe and that the list includes mostly local groups. The CRA Board and Council want national exposure. He really doesn't think there is enough time to get good proposals. He would rather see us extend the time frame now rather than redoing it in a month. He asked why Yorktowne is included in the RFP. Ms. Steinebach explained that it can be a resource, a “pot sweetener”.
Member Burnette was glad to see the option to have other city properties included in the RFP.
Ms. Steinebach explained that the inclusion of Yorktowne or any other city property does not obligate the CRA or City Council to include it in a deal.
Member Burnette expressed concern that the attached pages are not clearly marked that they are just examples and not necessarily what we are looking for. He feels it might give the idea that we are looking for condos. He would like to see an additional label on those maps. Ms. Steinebach said that would not be a problem to add.
Member Burnette is concerned with saying yes to the RFP now and then the Attorney getting into it and saying it's not doable.
Attorney Roberts advised that the information she provided in January included title exceptions, removing references, & buy back incentive. There are a few items she thinks need to be included or changed for clarity.
Member Burnette wants to make it right before it goes out.
Member Ford believes March 8th is too soon for a mandatory meeting. He recommends that there should be a motion to remove the conceptual plan. He has thought a lot about the length of time, and wants to wait for a good project. He also wants it to be open ended. Member Ford asked if the CRA is under any time constraints due to the proposal from January. He would like to see the RFP read that it is open ended until the CRA finds something they like.
Attorney Roberts will check into whether or not we can do that, statute is not written well. The statute reads that we will advertise and "within 30 days proposals shall be submitted” She will research it and get back on timeframes.
Mr. Parker advised that the CRA has to act regarding the RFP because the CRA owns property, and then City Council has to act because the City also owns property.
Member Ford feels the RFP needs a sizzle that this is the best real estate opportunity to help attract developers.
Member Talluto asked if the new project developer would work with the City or the previous developer, Buddy LaCour.
Ms. Steinebach advised that the new developer would interface with the City and the CRA. She advised that LaCour would have to submit a proposal to the City and CRA same as any other interested party. There is no contract between LaCour and the City and the CRA.
Member Talluto asked what happens if a project falls over several properties that are not only owned by the City and the CRA. Ms. Steinebach explained that the City and the CRA can only offer property owned by the City and the CRA. The interested party would have to work with other owners if their project includes other properties.
Member Talluto feels there may be problems with that because of the buy back options. Ms. Steinebach explained that some of the properties have restrictions and a developer will need to do their research to see what will work on the property. Member Talluto says it seems anyone coming in will have to work with the City and Mr. LaCour. Ms. Steinebach agrees but it depends on which property they are interested in. Member Talluto doesn’t understand why we can’t put a sign up on the property.
Mayor Green says we are not ready and he recommends that we set up a special meeting to revisit this subject.
Member Kennedy agrees that a special meeting is a good idea, we are not ready. It’s a shame we can't send out an IAI, Is Anyone Interested. Can we advertise that we have property rather than do an RFP?
Attorney Roberts will look at when we can advertise.
Mayor Green believes it will take a company more than 30 days to put in a good proposal and allow them enough time to do due diligence.
Member Burnette also agrees it’s a good idea if there's any way for us to go out and say we have this property and look for the RFP to come. He would like a heads up for the community.
Ms. Steinebach confirmed that she understands the CRA’s request is to have a marketing piece regarding Riverwalk rather than just advertisement with an RFP. She advised that we should be able to do that as long as we are not including property transactions.
Member Ford would like to leave the Chamber building alone. He doesn't want to move it.
Member Talluto would like to see a sign go up on the property.
Green asked if the CRA would recommend that
for a sign ?
Member Ford made a Motion to make a proposal to the City Council for additional $7500 for signage on the property, and seconded by Member Pohlmann. Motion carried by unanimously by roll call vote.
Mr. Parker advised that the RFP is set to run in the newspaper tomorrow.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:43 P.M.
Chairman Allen Green