Loading...
07/07/1992 - Joint Meeting CRA & DDB DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BOARD & COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 7, 1992 The City Commission, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, together with the Downtown Development Board, met Tuesday, July 7, 1992 at 5:31 P.M., with the following members present: Downtown Development Board: Mary Vaughn Chairperson Sarah Caudell Member Dennis Dean Member Phil Henderson Member Carol Horne-Warren Member Lillian Trickel Member Absent: Walter Powell Member Community Redevelopment Agency: 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 Milton A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Jerry D. Sternstein Economic Development Director Cynthia E. Goudeau Secretary The meeting was called to order in the Chamber of Commerce Conference Room at 5:31 p.m. The City Manager opened the meeting by stating that two years ago the Downtown Development Board (DDB) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) agreed the DDB would provide marketing for downtown while the CRA would provide money for bricks and mortar. He stated today's meeting is to determine where to go from here. It was stated there was a difference of opinion among the DDB members regarding whether or not to have a recruitment program and how to split the budget. In response to a question, Tina Wilson, City Budget Director, indicated the DDB's current year revenue was $156,212 and their total budget, $162,443. A question was raised regarding whether the CRA could assist the DDB in paying incentives for people to relocate to downtown and it was stated the CRA can not spend money on relocation. The City Manager indicated there are some incentives for which the CRA can pay, however, he did not believe rent subsidies was one of them. In response to a question, he indicated he did not know if the CRA could expend funds to renovate or remodel buildings if it does not own them. Discussion ensued regarding what the DDB members wished to do now. It was requested joint quarterly meetings with the CRA continue. There was an opinion expressed that the boundaries should not be expanded as nothing has been accomplished in the current ones. An opinion was expressed that things have been accomplished by the CRA in the downtown district. It was requested some short term goals be established. Concerns were expressed regarding the Pearson/Thomas proposal for the recruitment program not having a better follow-up program. Concerns were also expressed regarding "Anti-Fun" ordinances and that the codes were not being enforced to maintain property standards. In response to a question, it was indicated the Economic Development Director reports to the City Manager and his salary is reimbursed by the CRA. Discussion ensued regarding what the DDB should be doing and what has been accomplished in the downtown district with differences of opinion being expressed regarding accomplishments. It was stated all things done by Pearson/Thomas have been approved by the DDB and there is now a full information package available for use by people wanting to recruit downtown businesses. It was indicated there is alot more to offer now than two years ago and there was a need to continue with an outreach program. In response to a question regarding what the CRA would be doing now, it was indicated this would depend on how the revisions to the Downtown Plan proceed and the decisions regarding a new City Hall. A question was raised regarding the responses to the Chamber's suggestions. It was indicated progress has been made but the exact status would have to be followed up upon. It was indicated the DDB is looking to the CRA and the City Commission to determine direction as it is felt downtown is at a crossroads. It was also indicated the Downtown Clearwater Association is asking for funds from the DDB. Again it was stated the "Anti-Fun" ordinances should be repealed. Discussion ensued regarding what was needed in downtown and it was stated the stores needed to be filled. Discussion ensued regarding how to accomplish this. It was stated it was felt a weak link in the recruitment program was the lack of follow-up. Further discussion ensued regarding the need to follow-up on contacts with it being suggested the downtown owners form a committee to assist in this. In response to a question, Mr. Sternstein reviewed how he handles inquiries, indicating he does follow-up but that if the contacts are a result of the information packet that has been produced, these contacts are handed over to Ms. Jean Sherry with Pearson/Thomas. He indicated there is no inventory of vacant property and this is needed. Discussion ensued regarding contacts and it was indicated there are approximately a dozen with which the Economic Development Director has actually sat down and talked to. Ms. Sherry indicated she had about 150 general leads. In response to a question, he indicated he could not think of any of those that he had talked to that additional community contact would have helped. It was indicated people did not relocate due to the price of the property. It was indicated that when it comes to negotiating price, that is turned over to the private sector. Further discussion ensued regarding a committee working with private property owners and it was indicated that if the committee is formed by the DDB, they would be subject to the Sunshine Law requirements. It was also indicated there needs to be some caution regarding leads as many of them need to be maintained in a confidential nature until the party is ready to make their plans public. A suggestion was made that the Chamber form a group of people to act as ambassadors for the downtown. In response to a question regarding other CRA/DDB relationships, it was indicated there was no other community in which this type of arrangement exists. In response to a question, it was indicated not all property owners are cooperative in trying to negotiate price for properties in downtown. The City Attorney left the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding the need for the inventory of vacant properties as there is a need to know what is available in order to know what direction to proceed. It was indicated the City needs to get the material to the people making contacts and the follow-up is the missing link. It was suggested the CRA could act as a facilitator. It was also indicated the City is attempting to develop a downtown plan that allows maximum flexibility. Further discussion ensued regarding the need for the recruitment program with it being indicated that space inventories are needed and there needs to be a tenant mix with the owners of property being brought into the plan. A question was raised regarding spending money outside of the districts and it was indicated there are times this is necessary. It was indicated the question now is how to spend the monies to promote and develop downtown. It was indicated monies could be spent outside the district if it were for the purpose of promoting downtown. In response to a question, it was indicated most of the monies invested in the East End property was city money. Discussion ensued regarding the need to establish methods to measure whether or not the efforts are successful. The need for a marketing flow chart was expressed. It was also stated the CRA needed to come up with some incentives. A question was raised regarding whether or not the Economic Development Director could do the inventory and it was indicated there are ongoing projects in which he is involved. It also depends on the City Commission's decision regarding a new City Hall and the Downtown Plan. It was stated the Downtown Clearwater Association is requesting $40,000 from the DDB. It was questioned whether or not this should be done. Discussion ensued regarding the need for downtown businesses to take advantage of events that are occurring in downtown such as Jazz Holiday and concerts in Coachman Park. An opinion was expressed that the recruitment program was needed and then monies could be spent on promotion. Questions were raised regarding the CRA and downtown districts and where those actual boundaries are as there are several maps that do not seem to coincide. It was suggested the City once again investigate a one-way street system. It was indicated this was addressed several years ago with it being found that the streets are too far apart to have an effective one-way plan. It was suggested another joint meeting be established and both boards were thanked for their attendance. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.