01/29/1993 - Joint Meeting
F,>\' '.."'~'
I. ' J
. ,.
.,
, .
'~. \ '.
.'
, '
'.
:i~';' ,
'i)l' L .;.: .' ~"r... '." .
. ,. ", . . . ,
. .... .
>' ..
" : ~ . . , .
, .!
'. ",':'::;"::'"'<;:,:/::':>,,,~::"",":i;'
.' / ,.
; . I !', ~ .'
':<;:,~.;
January 29, 1993
.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BOARD & COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The City Commission, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, together
with the Downtown Development Board, met Friday, January 29, 1993 at 12:01 P.M., with
the following members present:
!
I
I
'I
Community Redevelop!'!1ent Agency:
Rita Garvey
Sue Berfield
Richard Fitzgerald'
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Mayme Hodges
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member.
Member
Downtown Development Board:
Dennis Dean
Phil Henderson
Lillian Trickel
Alan Bitman
Helen Wheelis
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
t'.
. '
"
...
Also Present were:
Michael J. Wright
, Cynthia E. Goudeau
Executive Director
Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 12:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.
ITEM II. - Presentation reaardinq proposal for Residential 'Development on East End Property
The'Executive Director summarized the duties of the Downtown Development,Board
(DDS) and the Community Redeveiopment Agency (eRA) and explained the funding
'mechanism for the CRA. He indicated the CRA and DDB bound~lries are co-terminus. He
outlined how the ad valorem millage is divided among the taxing agencies stating the school
board taxes are not affected as they get their full allotment.
.In response to a question, he indicated that approximately $433,000 from ad valorem
taxes goes to the General Fund per year from properties in the CRA district.
Rich Whaley, MAS Properties, stated they are a presence in downtown Clearwater and
have invested over $30 million in the area with anticipated further inve;stments. He stated last
April the RFQ/RFP process was begun and a presentation was made to the Commission on
AU9l:'st 24. He said the project will be a gateway to downtown and will help to energize the
downtown area.
(
'~'''' ..'
minDDCR1.93
. 1
1/29/93
, I
C"
He stated the proposal has been crafted to not place the City at risk. The proposal
requires the property be transferred to the CRA and that MAS would then lease the property
from the CRA. He stated the property to be purchased for $2.5 million which results in a cost
of $11 ,000 per unit. He stated that while the property is not currently worth this, the values
will be there once, the residents are in the community.
He stated there will also be an increase in value of surrounding properties. There will
be a schedule of lease payments to the CRA at $25,000 for the first five years and that ,
payment would then step up in five year increments. There would be a share in a portion of
the cash flow and an option to purchase with the purchase price starting at $2.5 million but
tied to an index of local consumer price indexing. The buyout would step up every five
years. ,He stated there will be reserves to take care of items that may come up such as
environmental issues or ADA requirements.
": .' t " ' . <4 .}'
I....: . ,I
\', ~ . ' .
~. .;.
;. .,
, '
. '. . '"" '\. ~ ".. c i.
~
He stated the proposal is financially responsible and a joint public/private effort. They
bring to the table a demonstrated ability to develop, to understand markets and to carry the
project through. He stated there are risks to the developer, in the construction there are
delays, market and financing. Mr. Whaley indicated he will guarantee $8 to $9 million
personally. There is exposure to litigation, environmental laws and changing building codes.
He stated the company has the ability to address these risks. '
Jim Carswell, MAS Apartment Company. stated he has been pleased to work with
staff to, refine the proposal. He stated the focus now is just on the annex portion of the
property as they were required to move away from consideration of retail. The site plan has
been redefined and there are 236 units with an average of 987 sq.ft. He stated there are
actually five floor plans, 7 with 1300 + sq. ft. The rents will range from $500 to $825 per
month and he believes there is a market for this type of apartment development.
He stated 100 percent of the cash flow for the first three years will be placed in
escrow and 50 percent in the years four and five and then 20 percent every year that after.
He stated they are not taking money from the front end as they view this from a long term
perspective and they will hold the property for a long time. They would attempt to buyout
the CRA as soon as possible. He stated any refinancing proceeds would be shared witll the
eRA with half of it credited toward the buyout. There will be a limitation on refinancing and
they can not finance more than 80 percent of the appraised value.
j
!
He stated they believe this will be an exciting front door to downtown Clearwater and
redevelopment of the East End will bring a second activity core to the downtown. They feel
that over time there will be growth in the area and there will be a coming together with the
downtown core.
The Executive Director reviewed the history of the land stating it consists of 14.8
acres which have been acquired from 1974 to 1991. He stated in 1992 letter appraisal on 22
acres fl ppraised the land at $10 per square foot. In recent negotiations in downtown,
properties have ranged from $6.50 to $7.00 per square foot. That would result in a value of
the land at $4.3 million for commercial development. It was indicated that for residential
development, the property was appraised at $1,850,000. He stated if the decision is to
pursue the proposal, he would recommend the eRA borrow $2.5 million and use $1 million it
~
minDDCR1.93
2
1/29/93
I,
, , '
.' .
" '
.. ; .',
, .
, \
, .
., ,
; ,
c'
has in cash and purchase the property from the City for $3 million and that the additional
$500,000 be'used to clear the site. He said the impact on the'City would be that it would
have to move the Annex employees which would cost approximately $100,000 and that 'rent
.to house them would be almost $900,000 for two years. The central counter would need to
be in a separate building which could create inconvenience and that would be an additional '
cost. He stated there would be a savings in not having the operating cost of the Annex.
He stated the $3 million would cover what the City paid for the property plus the
relocation costs. The CRA would then enter into a 30 year lease with the developer but
negotiate up front that" at some point the City would repurchase the property from the CRA
for the money the eRA owes. The City ,would then sell the property to the developer at a
predetermined cost'. He stated the property will escalate in value as the debt goes down. In
essence, he said the City would sell the property twice and the City would benefit from the
increased value of the lan'd.
He stated he believed the taxable value would be $8 mlllion and the eRA will receive
$80,000. He stated based upon the analysis, at year ten of the agreement, the property
becomes an asset to the eRA, versus a drain, and the CRA will then have money available to
do other things.
He stated the General Fund will pick up $30,000 in utility taxes. In response to a
question, it was indicated the City's financial people have looked at the proposal.
(,
.f~., '
A question was raised regarding what happens to the rest of the property the City has
acquired in the East End area. The Executive Director indicated he would recommend
acquiring additional' properties as they become available at a price that is advantageous and
hold that property as it will increase in value and then market it as another redevelopment
site.
A question was raised regarding what liability there was to the eRA. The Executive
Director indicated there was some degree of liability and there would be points to be
negotiated regarding how to protect the CRA from foreclosure.
In response to' a question regarding what was to be done at this polnt. the Executive
Director stated that no action was being requested today but merely information provided.
The next step would be to direct staff to go forward.
'In response to a question regarding revenues to the City. the Executive Director
indicated the City would still get taxes for the value of the property as of 1992. Any increase
in the value would go to the eRA after that as well as the CRA would also receive the portion
of tIle county taxes on the property.' '
ITEM III. - Alternative Designs for Parking Lot on Kravas Property
The Executive Director reported that when the property was purchased from Mr.
Kravas, he had directed staff to design a parking lot that would require no variances and that
aesthetically was like the treatment in Station Square Park. He stated the current lot is solid
l~,
minDDCR1.93
3
1/29/93
~.'~::":): '"
.".
, ,
, '
:.. .
, ;
I'
. '....' .
I'
~ asphalt. It was his belief that the, major purpose of the purchase was to preserve the parking
~,'. and to have Cleveland Street visibility of same.
'"Jp' .
A concern has been raised regarding a design of the parking which would result in
fewer spaces than currently exist. Bill Baker, Public Works Director, stated the current lot has
75 spaces. He presented 8 alternatives for the design of the lot indicating that Alternate 1
was staff's recommendation as it does not trigger the higher landscape and space requirement
standards and results in a total of 79 parking spaces. It was stated that the design that had
caused concerns triggered all 'the higher landscape and space size requirements currently in
the code and would have resulted in only 53 spaces.
In response to a question, it was indicated there are over 1400 parking spaces in the
vicinity of the proposed parking lot.
An opinion was expressed that while it was important to have visible parking, the
attractiveness was also important.
Mr. Baker indicated that Alternate 1 will have front green space but little peripheral
landscaping. He stated the current spaces are not as wide as the current standard. tn
response to a question, he indicated this Is allowed and is legal for any developer to pursue if
they do not completely redesign the parking lot.
"(':
A question was raised regarding revenue from the lot and it was indicated the lot
currently is not being fully used. Tbe Executive Director indicated there are several'monthly
customers that would probably be lost as this will become a sho'rt term parking lot.
In response to a question regarding access from Cleveland Street, it was' indicated this
would be a right-in only from Cleveland with an exit in the back.
In response to a question, it was indicated the front part of the lot will look basically
the same whether Alternate 1 or Alternate 8, the one which most of the parking spaces are
lost, but it will be in the back of the lot where there will not be additional landscaping and the
parking spaces and aisles wilt not be as wide.
,I
In response to a question, it was indicated the retention pond will be a dry pond which
addresses both quality' and quantity. It was suggested that Alternate 1 could be pursued at
this point and if it was found the lot was not used, the design of Alternate 8 could be
implemented.
It was suggested that additional landscaping could be added by using 1 of 2 parking
spaces and landscaping some islands.
An opinion was expressed that there should be no loss of parking spaces no matter
what the cost. There were concerns that a dry retention pond cOl;lld become unattractive.
It was stated that at previous DDB meetings, the purchase had been supported in order
to make more parking visible but also more parking. Alternate 1 does provide slightly more
'parking.
(.....,i
minDDCR 1 .93
4
1/29/93
~i':'lnW-;;!'~l'#...~HW["t;~"'~'J'" .' ""':\';',',
~l~"'\r~\~."':N':!..:\.I':': ,;~ ",'" '. ,
~"~i'{I;\~, ,-;.,'/''''/''.1' ,'" "", "
?i;~:?:~~/~,j<\\:?,~~/:: ."'-;, :,"" "
'.
.,. T"
~ .! ",,:', '
,'J; ,j'
". ~T
.' ,
:: I >.
',,'I
\:. }.~./~..~)~..~.. /:' :, \~.
., ':. I . Ie:,
'. ~, :
. '. \ f.
...'1,i,
" f...' ~ I . r , ): I . \ <., ~ I '+. <. .
~~ _r >- '. ..., . I I. . l' . \.
~~.."I:;;,. ,'." ~"\."~L.\":' I L: ,~.'. " ',.'
l.'L{:;'f':tt;",~~;~tf~~...~ l.l~~>-.~.:-; ',:.'''';-f--:''' :.:'~ 1'}J".).\L~,..::, t~. '" ".." t \' I
~:".~'i,d.....,\:-~1~t~;"'~ M\-JVllf ' "~Iy .t'\'!fa/.d.~..;t.j.......l~..F"""~~::~~' ,"!....!\ ",' "
, '.',.' i'
.': ~ .'
" .
"
"
'\
,I
c~\ f
, ),!-
" .
; )
j,
, "
"
....
",
1'(
".r, J
)'
'I',
:'.
. ~.
"
,
,"I
I
"
.'/
.'
; t .
<' ~.
"
"
'"
~ . r J
'"
..'
, ,"
o
, t . "'.
Member Deegan moved to' start the ,process for demolition of the building immediately.
'The motton,was duly seconded and carried unanimously.'
~ . j , .
: l ~
.The Exe9-utive Director suggested that direction be given to pursue Alternate l' with a
slight variation' as far as lands'caping with the site plan to come back for approval with lighting
fixture::; the same as in Station Square, Park~. The consensus of the' boards was for staff to
pursue, this. ' ,
"
"
"J
The meeting adjourned at 1,:4~'p.m.
'f'
J,
;,
I~ :
'"'
"
, i.
.:\
,I,
:,J
" ~v;' ,
c:6:1 ~
,,;.'~' + <
{~':J : :- '
c~:~.:~ ':~~;_ I.
~t'::'I" .
, '
\:~,", .'.' ,
~t',
I., "
"
> ,
~ . ~
i. .
, ';;J'
. '/, ~
,'(:
".
"
~:..: 1\"1' ..
~'{'.~~,;. '~'..
~;.~~::~t .
.~. . .
"
..,
f,<'~,'
\' W
~t:. '
"
" ,
, i
"
'j
". f
" I
'. '
"
,'"
'. '
. \,'
"
1.,',.
"
I -
,; ~
j
C"
. ,
, ' ;
"
minDDCR 1.93
'5
1/29/93
. : ~
" ,