Loading...
06/03/1996 - Joint Meeting CRA & DDB JOINT MEETING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER June 3, 1996 Present: Rita Garvey Chair/CRA Trustee J. B. Johnson CRA Trustee Robert Clark CRA Trustee Ed Hooper CRA Trustee Karen Seel CRA Trustee Elise Winters DDB Chair David Stone DDB Member Buzz David DDB Member Glen Warren DDB Member Dwight Mathney DDB Member Roger Woodruff DDB Member Judi Hackett DDB Consultant Kathy S. Rice Interim CRA Director/Deputy City Manager Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager William C. Baker Assistant City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter Absent: Ron Ricardo DDB Member The DDB Chair called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #1 - Legal Issues The City Attorney said the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and DDB (Downtown Development Board) cannot merge. However, the DDB can be reconstituted to include the City Commission as members and the DDB can be designated as the CRA. As the County set up the CRA, they would have to approve reconstituting the DDB. She expressed concern the statue specifically states the entity needs to have been established as of 1977. An argument could be raised that the reconstituted DDB did not exist then. It was stated if the reconstitution is successfully challenged, all actions taken could be invalidated. The City Attorney said no precedent has been established regarding this issue. The DDB currently operates pursuant to the ordinance. In answer to a question, the City Attorney indicated the County is not the only party that can challenge the reconstitution. The City would decide which powers, such as condemnation, the new board would have. She said the City would delegate CRA authority to the DDB following its reconstitution. She said the CRA could have 10 members as long as the DDB is the CRA, otherwise membership would be limited to 7. The City Attorney said the board's composition could be challenged as differing opinions exist regarding the City's authority over the DDB. She said the legislature could act regarding this issue but noted the legislature no longer is involved with special acts for special districts. Most challenges would be eliminated if Pinellas County and downtown property owners consent to the reconstitution. In answer to a question, the City Attorney said a successful challenge's results would depend on board actions that could be invalidated. An outside risk exists that the board could lose its taxing authority. In answer to a question, the City Attorney said her comfort level would increase if the County Commission approves the plan. It was suggested the CRA, DDB, and City jointly request County approval. The City Attorney reported the City will not lose any millage. In answer to a question, she felt the DDB could return to its current form if the reconstitution is challenged successfully. Concern was expressed the suggested reconstitution could risk DDB's taxing authority. The City Attorney did not think that will occur but agreed it is an area of concern. She recommended proceeding cautiously regarding anything affecting the ordinance or taxing authority. It was questioned if the CRA could return to its original form if the reconstitution is successfully challenged. The City Attorney said that would depend on the reason for the challenge. The County has the authority to designate the CRA and would decide that issue. The City Attorney indicated staff had not confirmed with bond counsel if this proposal would impact City bonds. ITEM #2 - Budget Issues Interim CRA Director/Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice reviewed the CRA's budget. This year, the CRA's income was $345,521. Next years' revenues will be lower. She reported $157,250 was allocated for parking agreements. She said the CRA holds a three-year lease they can sublease but cannot break. The CRA may have some liability as a result of a pending lawsuit regarding the Park Street garage. As the lawsuit is in discovery, its resolution cannot be predicted. DDB Chair Elise Winters said DDB's assets are cash, including $125,411 in revenue, which includes some carry over. This year's budget is $237,813. Continuing liabilities include operating expenses, parking garage costs, and contractual obligations. She expressed concern regarding DDB's continuing tax liability to the CRA. In answer to a question, Mr. Rice estimated the combined incomes for both organizations would be $525,000. CRA revenues include the tax increment and relatively small amounts of rental and interest earnings. Regarding the Park Street garage litigation, concern was expressed the outcome could result in a serious problem for the existing CRA or combined entity. The City Attorney agreed the problem is unresolved. She was not able to discuss the case. Ms. Rice said the worst case scenario would be for the judgment to be greater than the combined assets of the CRA and DDB and the reconstituted board would not have funds to operate. ITEM #3 - What Do We Hope to Achieve Concern was expressed too many groups work independently to accomplish things downtown. It was felt downtown property owners have little to say regarding what happens. It was felt downtown property owners provide revenues and deserve a say in what happens. It was suggested reconstituting the DDB to include the CRA would create a true public private partnership and result in efficiencies, sharing power, and a coordination of activities. Administration costs would be halved. An opinion was expressed that the role and powers of the DDB have been diminished. It was suggested the reconstituted board focus on economic development. It was suggested sharing staff would be the simplest way to work together. It was suggested the board focus on giving property owners more of a voice, creating efficiencies, sharing resources, and overcoming past problems. It was suggested the six separate bodies working on downtown functions combine and work as a team. It was stated the groups need to work together. It was recommended the DDB be reconstituted if the issues can be worked out legally. It was suggested work on downtown can go further and faster if one entity is addressing downtown issues. It was stated neither group wants to do anything that risks their taxing authority. If the reconstitution is successfully challenged, the two organizations will be difficult to untangle. It was suggested staff, space, and interlocal agreements be shared while both groups maintain separate voices. Concerns were noted that some feel the DDB will lose power if it is reconstituted. It was suggested if members of both organizations commit to making the reconstitution work, it will work. It was pointed out a reconstitution will take time. It was suggested joint processes and budgeting be established now. The importance of continuing to promote downtown was noted. DDB Member Stone moved that the DDB pursue merging with the CRA. The motion was duly seconded. DDB Members Stone, David, Warren, Mathney, and Woodruff voted "Aye"; DDB Chair Winters voted "Nay." Motion carried. CRA Trustee Seal moved that the CRA consider a merger with the DDB. The motion was duly seconded. CRA Trustees Johnson, Clark, Hooper, and Seel voted "Aye"; CRA Chair Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. DDB Member Stone moved to reconsider his previous motion. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. DDB Member Stone moved that the DDB work toward merging with the CRA provided all issues of concern can be resolved and the CRA feels likewise. The motion was duly seconded. DDB Members Stone, David, Warren, Mathney, and Woodruff voted "Aye"; DDB Chair Winters voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #4 - Structure and Staffing In answer to a question, the City Attorney said the County's position on a reconstitution is political, not legal. It was suggested the City Manager contact the County Administrator. The City Manager said it also would be appropriate for the boards to forward a letter expressing their opinion regarding this issue. Consensus was to send a combined letter to all County Commissioners. ITEM #5 - Problems & Solutions - None. ITEM #6 - Where Do We Go From Here? Establishing a common budgeting process was suggested. The October DDB election was noted. It was felt it is important to inform downtown property owners to be informed of board discussions. It was suggested a referendum be included on the ballot. Concern was expressed property owners are not the only downtown stakeholders. Tenants also have concerns. Property owners vote. It was recommended that all structure inequities be reviewed. The City Clerk stated DDB's voting method has changed over the past few years. She said an equitable solution has not yet been reached. It was suggested other communities be researched regarding this issue. It was felt things should happen quickly and stakeholders be asked if they support the reconstitution. The equity issue can be addressed at another time. The City Attorney referred to the need to be careful not to describe the proposed reconstitution as a "merger." ITEM #7 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Chair Community Redevelopment Agency _________________________________________ Chair Downtown Development Board  Attest:   Board Reporter