Loading...
10/19/1992 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Goal Setting Meeting October 19, 1992 The City Commission, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, met in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, Monday, October 19, 1992 at 9:00 A.M., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Chairperson Lee Regulski Member Sue Berfield Member Richard Fitzgerald Member Arthur X. Deegan, II Member Also Present were: Michael J. Wright Executive Director Jerry D. Sternstein Economic Development Director Milton A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney (arrived 9:15 a.m.) Cynthia E. Goudeau Secretary The Executive Director indicated that over the years the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has generated approximately $5 million in revenue and has had expenditures of $4.8 million. He stated however there had been no established measures of success for the CRA. He stated two years ago there was consideration of sunseting the Downtown Development Board (DDB). However, the DDB and the CRA began working together and the sunset provision was deleted. At that time, there was a decision to hire an Economic Development Director. Upon the hiring of the Economic Development Director, concentration was on what has become commonly called the East End project. He further reported that at that time, the City did not own the Maas Brothers site and the second MAS-ONE building had not been constructed. He stated the Economic Development Director pursued the City Commission's direction to do something on the East End property with the possibility of a new City Hall being included. The CRA reached an agreement with the DDB that the DDB would do the main marketing activity. He stated a series of events resulted in the receipt of two proposals to the RFQ for the East End project. He stated the purpose of today's meeting is to gain future direction from the CRA and to get guidance from them regarding what incentives, if any, they are willing to consider in order to encourage development in the downtown area. Discussion ensued regarding what has been accomplished by the CRA and the fact that there needs to be a concerted, coordinated effort by all the various groups in order to accomplish what is needed in the downtown area. Concerns were expressed that when ideas are brought forward, they are examined to find out what is wrong with them instead of what is right with them. It was also stated the view of the citizens needs to be taken into consideration as most of them are here, not because of job opportunities but view the community as noncommercial/industrial. Discussion ensued regarding the need to establish a public/private organization that would have citywide representation in order to provide the coordinated efforts needed. It was also emphasized financial incentives need to be provided in order to encourage development in downtown. Information regarding Florida Progress's economic development group, an economic development group that had been put together by former Mayor Kelly and the goals and objectives of the Main Street program was requested. Discussion ensued regarding developing a revolving loan fund that would be handled through local banks but guaranteed by the CRA. Reference was also made to the general appearance of the downtown area with a suggestion being made that funds could be provided to assist people in improving the appearance of the buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the need to encourage better upkeep of property, including city-owned property. It was indicated the DDB sent out letters to property owners requesting they "spruce up" their properties. A question was raised regarding the role of the Church of Scientology in the downtown area and it was suggested they be requested to make a contribution in lieu of taxes. Concerns were expressed that this issue is in the courts and the tax assessor would need to be consulted or the tax assessor's position be taken into consideration when making a decision regarding this. Discussion ensued regarding what the CRA wished to accomplish. It was indicated the Downtown Plan should be used for the basis of discussion. If the development veers from that plan, it is not successful. A concern was expressed regarding setting goals without first having formed the public/private organization and including them in the goal setting. Discussion ensued regarding a suggestion that the S.R.60 designation be removed from Cleveland Street and be redesignated to Drew and Chestnut and that parking be allowed on Cleveland. It was stated that if the S.R. designation was changed to Drew Street, it might provide greater incentive to the State to accelerate the Drew Street improvements. Concerns were expressed regarding accomplishing the redesignation prior to the Drew Street improvements being completed and there was concern that too much traffic would be eliminated from the Cleveland Street corridor. It was also suggested the traffic impacts throughout the area would need to be considered prior to making a decision regarding this. Concerns were expressed that there is already a perception that the transportation link to downtown is horrible. A question was raised regarding future plans for the Memorial Causeway Bridge and the Executive Director indicated the FDOT has no plans regarding this facility at this time. It was also stated that information regarding the ultimate transportation plans including mass transit need to be incorporated into this decision. The meeting recessed from 10:34 a.m. to 10:41 a.m. Discussion returned to how mass transit and the ultimate transportation system would impact the downtown corridor. It was stated PSTA needs to expand its terminal and will need a new location in downtown Clearwater. It was also stated that studies done in the past have indicated that removing the S.R.60 designation and installing parking on Cleveland Street would negatively impact traffic patterns. It was stated these studies were done prior to the improvements to Drew Street being considered. A concern was expressed that if the S.R. designation is removed from Cleveland Street, downtown would need to be a destination point. It was also stated the merchants in the east portion of the downtown corridor have reported the signs indicating the beach route to be on Court Street have been detrimental to their businesses. Discussion ensued regarding the need to slow down the traffic on Cleveland Street and it was suggested strict speed enforcement be implemented. A concern was expressed that parking would not regenerate retail on the Cleveland Street corridor. It was indicated a package of things are needed. It was also stated if a destination is popular, the lack of parking is not a deterrent. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not parking would assist in the revitalization of downtown. It was the consensus there be enforcement of the speed limit on Cleveland Street with additional signage and publicity regarding the enforcement. This enforcement is to begin at Fredrica Street to the Bayfront. The Executive Director indicated he would request the Traffic Engineer go over the traffic ramifications with the CRA and it was also requested this include traffic patterns to points of employment. Discussion then turned to the use of the Kravas property with a suggestion being made that it be used on a short term basis until the parking lot could be constructed. The Executive Director indicated staff was moving quickly to do the parking lot with the only hold-up being the FDOT permit for the curb cut on Cleveland Street. He stated the tenant, whose lease needs to be addressed, is willing to move out with some financial assistance. Jerry Sternstein, Economic Development Director, indicated he has been speaking with Mr. Flowers, the leasee, who has indicated he will move as soon as possible but is requesting $5,000. There was concern regarding the $5,000 being excessive and consensus was to offer him $2,500. It was stated that if the City does not require Mr. Flowers to move until July, there will be no obligation to assist him financially as the lease will expire. A suggestion was made that a trade requiring the S.R.60 designation be done without a decision regarding parking in order to assist in getting the curb cut on Cleveland Street. A question was raised regarding planned improvements to the Greenwood/Court intersection which, if traded, would become a State responsibility. The Executive Director indicated he would discuss this with the State at a staff level. Discussion turned to suggestions that less restrictive ordinances for the downtown area be adopted. These ordinances would allow such things as vendors, sidewalk sales, clowns, etc. It was also stated there needs to be follow-up regarding Chamber recommendations for the downtown area. It was stated staff is working on these responses. It was stated sidewalk sales had been authorized for weekends and a concern was expressed that these types of activities can not be on city rights-of-way. It was also stated the preference was to allow these activities by existing businesses and not by outside entities. Discussion ensued regarding how to accomplish this. A general direction was that existing businesses be permitted to extend the services provided inside the business to the outside area. Staff will develop a proposal. Further direction was provided that this activity be limited to the downtown core area and that a one year sunset be included. Discussion ensued regarding the need to provide support for independent activities such as the "World of Clearwater" and the artist colony programs. Concerns were expressed that the CRA could not predict what the downtown area will be and the need to establish parameters regarding this. It was stated direction had already been provided to the Executive Director. Discussion turned to the need to improve signage to direct people to the parking areas. There were concerns that there is enough signage in downtown and that larger signs would not be beneficial. It was requested a decision regarding this wait until after the Kravas lot has been developed and a sign be placed on the Kravas lot to say where the other parking areas are. Questions were raised regarding the inventory of available property being done by the DDB. The Economic Development Director indicated this is in the final stages. Mary Vaughn indicated this should be completed by year's end and at the next meeting of the DDB, they will discuss what to do with the inventory once it is completed. A suggestion was made that the DDB be encouraged to hire a part-time marketing professional. Ms. Vaughn indicated this too would be a topic of discussion at the next DDB meeting. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the CRA should be making a recommendation as this is a DDB decision. Discussion ensued regarding what this individual would do with suggestions being made that they would follow-up on leads and recruit people to move into the downtown area. Some concerns were expressed regarding using tax dollars to move businesses from one area of the City to another. Further discussion ensued regarding the responsibility of this individual and there was no consensus to formally encourage the DDB to hire such a person. Discussion then turned to incentives to support relocation and retention of businesses in the downtown area. Staff indicated they do work with businesses in an effort to retain them in the downtown area and to have them moved into the area but there are times where the needs of the business simply can not be accommodated. It was also stated currently staff is working with at least two businesses regarding locating in and staying in the downtown area. A suggestion was made that Enterprise Zone incentives be used. It was indicated these are basically employment incentives with the incentives being for hiring people in the Enterprise Zone and also the provision of sales tax exemptions. In response to a question, it was indicated the Enterprise Zone and the downtown area are not coterminous. A question was raised regarding whether or not the Enterprise Zone should be and could be expanded to include the entire CRA district. It was also stated that retail needs to be focused upon and there need to be local targets versus national advertising. An opinion was expressed that use of money generated by the downtown area could be used for relocation rather than tax money. Staff will report back regarding the process needed to expand the Enterprise Zone. The Executive Director requested direction regarding the incentives the CRA would be willing to consider. Various opinions were expressed with it being stated the CRA would have to look at what the development would contribute in regards to taxes, jobs and what return on investment would be provided to the CRA. The Executive Director indicated a dilemma is created when a business does not wish to go public as soon as they approach the City regarding their plans. Discussion ensued regarding the CRA philosophy on land purchases with it being indicated the CRA could buy land and essentially "bank it" to the future at which time it could be sold at the purchase price rather than at the current value of the property. There was concern regarding a precedent that the policy was to buy land at a high price and sell it for a lower one. The Executive Director indicated he was requesting general guidelines to use in negotiating with potential downtown businesses. He indicated that in some cases, the potential business is willing to purchase the land however they are looking for considerations regarding drainage problems, landscaping or the payment of impact fees. Further discussion ensued regarding the incentives the CRA would be willing to consider with concerns being expressed regarding buying additional lands which would be sold at a lower price. There was also discussion regarding the previously used five year return on investment rule, with it being stated this would be considered for property already owned by the CRA but would not be always considered the best incentive. Concerns were expressed regarding giving a flat yes or no to any of the incentives proposed. It was stated that a general rule would be that the CRA would not buy land and turn around and sell it at a discounted price. It was stated that if someone is looking for property and can not find it at a price they can meet, then CRA properties would be looked at, incentives considered would be potential write downs on the property, participation in Enterprise Zone incentives and other items such as exemption from sales tax. The meeting recessed from 1:15 p.m. to 2:22 p.m. Discussion returned to the types of incentives the CRA would consider in order to encourage people to locate or develop businesses in downtown. The Executive Director indicated there may be requests for assistance in such things as infrastructure, construction and impact fee payments and he asked if these sort of things would be considered based on a cost benefit analysis. There was concern that waiving of fees would negatively impact the General Fund. General consensus was that as a general rule, the CRA does not wish to underwrite land purchases but it is willing to consider underwriting impact fees and infrastructure requirements and that a five year return on investment was a reasonable guideline. Discussion then turned to the need for residential development in the downtown area. In regard to the proposal for residential development on the East End property, it was indicated this will be a City Commission item. A suggestion was made that affordable housing be encouraged on the Bilgore property. Concerns were expressed that the Bilgore Property may not be appropriate for residential development due to its proximity to the railroad tracks, the Police Station and an auto repair facility. It was indicated this proposal is for affordable housing, not subsidized housing. Suggestions were made that there may be better locations for residential development in the downtown area. Mary Vaughn, Ex-Officio Member, indicated the Bilgore property could be included in the DDB's property inventory and marketed through that facility. It was stated that all CRA property should be included in the inventory. Further discussion regarding residential development in downtown with it being stated that the East End proposal is for residential as there is not enough Cleveland Street frontage for retail. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of responses on the East End project and it was indicated the economy had changed, there was a lack of land, as the original proposal had been for 40 acres and only 25 was assembled, and that many of the people requesting the RFQ indicated they were looking for more flexibility and offers of more economic inducements in order to develop the property. Discussion returned to the need to encourage residential development in the downtown area and it was indicated it was felt a mixed use proposal would be the best route to take. Further discussion ensued regarding mixed use and it was the feeling this should be pursued if possible and to start with the Bilgore property being targeted for marketing as a mixed use development. Discussion ensued regarding targeting other properties in the downtown area for residential development and there was some concern regarding limiting what could occur on privately owned property. The Executive Director indicated he saw the Cleveland Street corridor as being mainly office buildings with supporting retail and if there is to be a destination retail area, it will be developed on the bluff. A question was raised regarding whether or not an outlet concept had ever been considered. It was indicated this had not been marketed. It was requested the Economic Development Director look into this possibility. The Chairperson stated that there is a goal that there be affordable housing in the downtown area but not tied to specific sites. It was stated that for office and commercial development, a goal regarding City Hall has been set. The incentives for office and commercial development would be essentially the same as those for the retail/entertainment develoment which was previously discussed. Discussion turned to recreational development in downtown with Pinellas Trail being the topic of discussion. It was indicated that alternate routes would be brought to the City Commission after King Engineering, the County's Contractor, has finished the Preliminary Engineering Study. It was stated there are safety concerns regarding the trail being along the railroad tracks and there is concern regarding barriers and closing of streets to accommodate the trail. It was indicated there is a statement in the Downtown Plan regarding connecting the trail to the parks in the downtown area. It was indicated downtown property owners have been notified of the deadline to submit comments regarding their concerns regarding the trail. A recommendation was made that there be a campaign to spruce up downtown properties. There was some concern that City-owned properties are not being kept up properly. It was suggested the DDB implement a downtown pride program. It was stated the City needs to take a positive stand and publicize the efforts to clean up downtown. It was also recommended the DDB be assigned the responsibility of designating buildings and property needing to be brought up to standards. There were questions regarding if properties are not voluntarily brought up to standards, whether or not these could be mandated. Staff will look into this. Another suggestion was that the DDB become more of a promotional board than an advertising board. Ms. Vaughn expressed concerns as the DDB may not have the appropriate staffing and it was stated this could be considered but it would be a DDB decision. The possibility of The Church of Scientology making a contribution in lieu of taxes was readdressed and it was requested the City Attorney be asked to follow up on this suggestion. Discussion then turned to the CRA's rules of procedures. A suggestion was made that the CRA budget be publicized and adopted at a public hearing in the same manner as the City's budget and that quarterly financial statements also be prepared. Some concerns were expressed that some of the members saw no problems with the current procedure. A concern was expressed regarding public accountability on the budget. It was stated there had been no complaints regarding this and there was some concern that its because the public is unaware of the CRA. Concerns were expressed regarding the need to do the same amount of advertising and holding two public hearings in order to adopt the budget. Staff was directed to develop proposed language regarding budget adoption for the CRA and it was to include quarterly financial reports. A question was raised regarding whether or not the advertisement of a public hearing for the budget would be directed only to property owners in the CRA district. Staff will develop a proposed rule regarding this. Another suggestion was made that a list of goals be prepared for each fiscal year and these be approved prior to the submission of the annual budget and quarterly status reports be provided. Some concerns were expressed that quarterly reports may be excessive. General direction was to include this in the CRA procedures. A third suggestion was made that the Executive Director of the CRA be a full time position filled by a non-city employee reporting directly to the CRA. It was stated the reason for this suggestion was it was felt the City Manager had enough to do in running the City and that in order to accomplish the Downtown Plan, a full-time person was needed. A question was raised regarding the Economic Development Director and there were concerns that perhaps his efforts should be for the whole City and the Executive Director of the CRA exclusively for the downtown area. A concern was expressed that by doing this, two people would be responsible for the same thing and it would complicate matters. Some concern was expressed regarding a possible conflict of interest with the City Commission serving as the CRA and it was indicated the City Commission could appoint private citizens as the CRA. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the General Fund should be reimbursed for all staff time spent on the Downtown Plan and the CRA. Concerns were expressed regarding the amount of time to be put into the plan with some concerns being expressed that in order to make the plan work exactly as proposed would require site specific zoning. The general consensus was that a separate employee was not needed to be the Executive Director of the CRA. Discussion ensued regarding the scheduling of meetings of the CRA with concern being expressed that CRA meetings are not regularly scheduled. Some opinions were expressed that the CRA meets when needed and that regularly scheduled meetings are not necessary. A concern was expressed that in order to implement the plan there needed to a more regularity of meetings. The Chairperson stated that some members needed to leave and that the issue of the rules of procedure would be taken up at another meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:28 P.M.