01/29/1993 - Joint Meeting CRA & DDB DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BOARD & COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
January 29, 1993
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:
Downtown Development Board:
Dennis Dean Member
Phil Henderson Member
Lillian Trickel Member
Alan Bitman Member
Helen Wheelis Member
Community Redevelopment Agency:
Rita Garvey Chairperson
Sue Berfield Member
Richard Fitzgerald Member
Arthur X. Deegan, II Member
Mayme Hodges Member
Also Present were:
Michael J. Wright Executive Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 12:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.
ITEM II. - Presentation regarding proposal for Residential Development on East End Property
The Executive Director summarized the duties of the Downtown Development Board (DDB) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and explained the funding mechanism for the CRA. He
indicated the CRA and DDB boundaries 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 investments. He stated last April
the RFQ/RFP process was begun and a presentation was made to the Commission on August 24. He said the project will be a gateway to downtown and will help to energize the downtown area.
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 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 buy out 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.
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 buy out the CRA as
soon as possible. He stated any refinancing proceeds would be shared with the CRA with half of it credited toward the buy out. There will be a limitation on refinancing and they can
not finance more than 80 percent of the appraised value.
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
appraised 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 CRA borrow $2.5 million and use $1 million it 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 CRA 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 land.
He stated he believed the taxable value would be $8 million and the CRA will receive $80,000. He stated based upon the analysis, at year ten of the agreement, the property becomes an
asset to the CRA, 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.
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 CRA. 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 point, 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 CRA after that as well as the CRA would also receive the portion of the 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
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.
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. In 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. The Executive Director indicated there are several monthly customers
that would probably be lost as this will become a short 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 will not be as wide.
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 could 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.
Member Deegan moved to start the process for demolition of the building immediately. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Executive Director suggested that direction be given to pursue Alternate 1 with a slight variation as far as landscaping with the site plan to come back for approval with lighting
fixtures the same as in Station Square Park. The consensus of the boards was for staff to pursue this.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.