Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/30/2002 S (w/CRA & CRA Advisory Boards)April 30, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NAPLES, FLORIDA, APRIL 30, 2002 Let IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: DONNA FIALA, FRED COYLE JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. JIM COLETTA TOM HENNING Page 1 April 30, 2002 ALSO PRESENT: Marlene Foord, Principal Planner Heidi Ashton, Asst. County Attorney Page 2 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA April 30, 2002 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (3) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOLD ANNUAL OFFICER ELECTIONS AND ELECT A NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. BRIEF ADDRESS (3 MINUTES EACH) FROM EACH ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN - BILL NEAL, BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND FRED N. THOMAS, JR., IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. 5. GENERAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) review the recommendation of the lmmokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board to allocate $15,000 of each Fund 186 and Fund 187, a total of $30,000, towards the creation of a new position for FY 02/03 necessary for facilitating the redevelopment incentives program. B. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the staff generated Bayshore/Gateway Triangle and Immokalee marketing brochures. April 30, 2002 6. IMMOKALEE COMPONENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS e Ao Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) review the recommendation of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board to allocate $10,000 of Fund 186 as seed money towards the surveying, design and construction of drainage improvements along 5th Street South between West Delaware Avenue and Eustis Avenue in the lmmokalee Redevelopment District. B. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) review and accept the proposed Immokalee Redevelopment Area FY 02/03 Budget. BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMPONENT AREA ITEMS REDEVELOPMENT A. Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. Be Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve both the Site Improvement Grant and Impact Fee Assistance Grant Programs recommended by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board; approve the attached budget amendment request for the two grant programs; authorize the county attorney and staff to draft any necessary agreements and ordinance or resolution language establishing both grant programs for adoption by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Ce Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) support the establishment of a fast track county permitting process for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; direct county staff to draft and develop a workable fast track permitting program for projects in the redevelopment area. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) review options for the Gateway "Mini-Triangle" Catalyst Project; consider the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Advisory Board's recommendation to notice the intent to advertise an "invitation to submit proposals" after a research period; approve an option for the "Mini-Triangle" Catalyst Project; and direct staff to proceed with a work program addressing the selected option. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency support the planning and development of an annual Art Festival to be located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area. Em Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) provide direction to staff and the Board of County Commissioners concerning the potential purchase of lands for sale by the Naples Botanical Gardens, Inc. on Bayshore Drive within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Ge Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) provide direction to staff concerning a professional services contract for creation of a zoning overlay for Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard in the Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 2 April 30, 2002 H. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) review and accept the proposed Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area work plan; approve the attached work program outlining general work program areas, budget expenditure items and amounts. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) support an evaluation of bonding potential for tax increment funds accrued in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 8. DISCUSSION MEETINGS CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTINE CRA 9. ADJOURNMENT INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE CRA'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 3 April 30, 2002 April 30, 2002 Item #2 AGENDA- APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would the meeting please come to order. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'd like to say good morning to our CRA board. Good morning, everyone. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is very nice to have everyone here this morning visiting us. And with that I would like to have Marlene Foord tell us of any additions, corrections, or adoptions to the agenda, please. MS. FOORD: Hi, good morning. Marlene Foord with the Planning Services Department. First off I would like to let everybody know that Item 7-G that was on one of the original drafts of the agenda referring to the professional services contract for zoning overlays has been temporarily put on hold. That will be on your next agenda. The reason for that is that we have some issues that we still need to discuss with the Bayshore/Gateway Advisory Board, so if you happen to have an old agenda, the first draft, Item G has been removed for those zoning overlays and we've moved up Item H to that one. Page 3 April 30, 2002 The second change in the agenda is Item 7-D. We need to move that up right beyond Item 4, if we can. And the reason for that is David Cardwell, the redevelopment attorney that's hired by the county for helping with the CRA, is only available for an hour via telephone. He just returned from a trip to Mexico last night and was not able to attend the meeting personally and is only available for an hour this morning. And I wanted to make sure that he was available for this item, so at the board's pleasure, if we can move Item 7-D up to just up beyond Item 4. David Cardwell -- just a couple of other housekeeping items -- will be available on the phone for the first hour at least, so if there are any questions of the commissioners or staff, please direct them to him stating his name, and we -- David, are you there? (No response.) David, can you hear me? (No response.) Okay. We'll get working on that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. MS. FOORD: David may also have some questions or comments, and if he does, he will mention my name or the chairman's name as appropriate as we get to that point. There are public comment cards in the hallway. If anyone from the public wants to make any comments, we are allowing three minutes for comments unless the chairman would like to increase the number of minutes that are allowed for public comments. The advisory board members, both Immokalee Advisory Board and Bayshore/Gateway Advisory Board for the most part are here this morning. And I'd just like to ask the Immokalee advisory board members if you could stand and be recognized by the CRA and the Page 4 April 30, 2002 Bayshore/Gateway Advisory Board members. Thank you. The last housekeeping item before we get started is -- I just would like to mention both the advisory board chairmen are here. And they will be making a few comments to start the meeting off. They are also limited to three minutes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other additions to the agenda that anybody would like to speak of here on the board? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval of the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign. Thank you. The agenda is now adopted. Item #3 COMMISSIONER FIALA ELECTED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN - APPROVED; AND COMMISSIONER COYLE ELECTED TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIRMAN- APPROVED Page 5 April 30, 2002 Next we're going to move on to the annual election of officers. We haven't done this yet for a while. I'm right now sitting in as the interim chairman. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: chairman. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. All in favor? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COLETTA: Aye. COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Coyle as vice-chair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. I'd like to nominate you for the Page 6 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? (No response.) MS. FILSON: Chairman Fiala, we have a speaker on the adoption of the agenda. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Being that that's passed, what is Robert's Rules? I'm sorry. I didn't realize we had a speaker. MS. FILSON: It's my fault. I apologize. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. FILSON: Mr. Thomas Stasko. MS. ASHTON: You can either reopen it and let him speak and then readopt the agenda, or you can just let him speak and see what he has to say. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Stasko, would you like to speak now? Commissioners, I would like to reopen the adoption of the agenda to hear this gentleman, and then we'll close again. MR. STASKO: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Thomas Stasko. I live in the Triangle, Airport, Davis, 41; property owner/resident since 1987. Since that time I have seen not only this commissioner, the Board of Commissions (sic) finagle -- I don't want to use the term "swindle," but there are some people --. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, I don't mean to interrupt you, but is this something --. MR. STASKO: Yes, it is, with this agenda, with this agenda. This agenda is slighted (sic) for the privileged and not given certain property owners the same rights. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this under a particular topic, sir? Page 7 April 30, 2002 MR. STASKO: It's the complete agenda. It's slighted (sic), and you don't even look at the issues or the items, you just do a count. There's two of Immokalee, and the rest have to do with the Triangle CRA. The CRA is the same board as the Collier County Commissioners. The Commissioners write the rules, the regulations. And all this documentation, one, if one didn't know, would say the CRA is different from the Collier County Board of Commissioners because that's how it is. So I'm just here stating this agenda, I believe, is somewhat bogus. As we get into the agenda and look at it in a little bit closer detail, I'm sure a lot of sensible men and women can see through the smoke. And just to remind you that if any of my civil rights are violated, I've talked to an attorney. And if they are, I will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for your comments, sir. Now we will close the agenda. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I see no need -- I didn't see addition to -- to me that was an opinion about versus factual evidence regarding the situation. Counsel, I don't know. Do we have to do anything different? MS. ASHTON: No. I don't think you need to do anything different, and just for record; the CRA is created a separate entity pursuant to the Florida statutes. So I don't see any problem with proceeding. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, you also have a speaker on Item No. 3, which is the election of the chairman and vice-chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Page 8 April 30, 2002 MS. FILSON: And that is Mr. Thomas Stasko. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You wanted to speak on Item No. 3, Mr. Stasko? MR. STASKO: Yes, I do. Good morning, again, Commissioners, Tom Stasko. Item 3, I'm a bit concerned about, again, the commissioners being the Board of Collier County Commissioners and also the CRA commissioners. Your interest as a board is countywide collectively. I do not see where it is in the property owner's advantage for this board to also be the board of Collier County Commissioners. Again, I must state that the commissioners write, create, direct staff, and ordinances, and there's supposed to be a certain amount of checks and balances to this, and this does not provide it. Once you five people make a decision, that's it. There's no input. There's input from me, but I'm one person. I'm not a group of five that are given all this power, and nobody else can put a checks and balances. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Stasko, might I interrupt you for a moment. MR. STASKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd just like to say that I go to just about every single Bayshore/Gateway Triangle meeting. I sit in not only as a commissioner on the advisory board, but I always sit in on the MSTU, and I sit in on all of the other meetings. I've never seen you there once, nor have I seen you apply to become a member of the advisory board. I would suggest that the next time there's an opening, as long as you feel so strongly, you might want to do that. Or at least come and sit in on some of the meetings to offer your opinion. MR. STASKO: I will be attending all future meetings and Page 9 April 30, 2002 bringing my VCR recorder and taping them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's fine. We already have one there too. MR. STASKO: At one time government was trustworthy; 80, 90 percent of the people were trustworthy, honest citizens. You pay them a fair wage. You wouldn't have to worry about government and what they do. In today's real world you have to. You have to cover your back and watch all the time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we welcome you to be there with us. Thank you. MR. STASKO: Thank you. Item #4 ADDRESS FROM EACH ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN- PRESENTED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, we shall move on to 7-D -- oh, no, I'm sorry, No. 4. No. 4 and that is we have three minutes from each advisory board chairman. Bill Neal is the advisory board chairman for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. Bill, would you like to come up and give us a small presentation. MR. NEAL: My name is Bill Neal. Good morning to you. I was hoping we'd get this meeting started off in a more pleasant manner, no criticisms meant. But we have so many opportunities and so many things to accomplish that I hope that this tums out to be a very constructive session. Not only am I the chairman for your Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA, but I serve as chairman of the Bayshore Page 10 April 30, 2002 Redevelopment Beautification MSTU. And you might want to note for some of the newer members on the board that I've spent a lot of time on your productivity committee as chairman. So I've walked through your halls in many cases and am familiar with your county, your staff, and a lot of the commissioners and look forward to working with you on this project. The advisory board is composed of seven members, and I might say they are representative of all the areas that could possibly include in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. We try to make sure that representation is balanced in that matter. We're about a year old, a little less. We've had ten meetings. We've had a number of subcommittee meetings and out of this, our job is to recommend to you projects or catalysts to get this program kicked off. The advisory committee has studied many, many opportunities, many facets of redevelopment in the area, including hotels and restaurants and office buildings and warehouses and redevelopment of the Gulfgate Plaza. And it's a rather cumbersome task because the CRA is a new thing to our count. This is a new program. This is the first, along with Immokalee, the first CRA that's been developed in Collier County. So we're plowing new ground at this time. And I'm sure that all of us are going to have to understand what we're doing a lot better as a result of some of the folks that are concerned about it. So as a result of being the first CRA and the advisory group, we really need your assistance in moving forward. In our many meetings and to look at the catalyst that we need to kick off this program, we have determined that the Mini-Triangle is probably the best area for us to begin working on. Now you have had meetings with the folks from the Mini-Triangle. You've asked for responses from them. We've had surveys etc., etc., and we've done Page 11 April 30, 2002 our homework, and we're going to bring to you today that recommendation. And being the first CRA, we have few models in the state to go by. And I understand we're the largest CRA in the state of Florida. This is the information the staff has picked up. So today I want to ask you for your cooperation and your help and your assistance. If you do not determine that the Mini-Triangle is the path we should travel, then I would hope you would look at some other paths and make your recommendations. And before sitting down, I'd like to commend the staff of the county that we work with because it's new to them, and all their programs have been newly developed, and they're doing a tremendous job. Thanks to them and thank you for your help. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thanks for all your work, Bill, we really appreciate it. And our next speaker is Fred Thomas. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Whoever has the cell phone, could they mm it off, please. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fred is like the mayor of Immokalee. Fred, welcome. MR. THOMAS: Good morning, folks. Unlike one of the previous speakers, I'm glad that I'm talking to the Community Redevelopment Agency, the agency that's responsible for the redevelopment of certain aspects of certain parts of Collier County. We in Immokalee have been working for many years trying to develop -- redevelop our community, trying to encourage industrial development and growth in our community so that we be less dependent on agriculture for continuing of our community. We have had an Enterprise Zone Development Agency for many years, and when this opportunity came up that you're looking for an advisory Page 12 April 30, 2002 committee for CRA, we thought it was in the best interest to have the same personalities serve both roles. And so our Community Redevelopment Agency is the same board, personalities, as our Enterprise Zone Development Agency, so we have that continuity. We have with us five of our members here today: Lucy Ortiz just came in, Clara Ayala, Lloyd Crews, John Kirschner, and Dora Vidaurri. They came all the way over from Immokalee to make sure you understood how important some of the things that are going to be happening today are to us. Some of the comments I'm going to make to you, the Redevelopment Agency, is to let you understand that in this county, which tends to be a no-growth county, didn't even try to get a university, good clean development, okay? You have a community, Immokalee, that's trying to compete with Spartanburg, South Carolina; Chattanooga, Tennessee, to bring industry here. In order to compete in that kind of environment to bring industrial tax revenues here for which they are only going to want 75 cents on the dollar back for services, we got to understand some up-front costs, which are being given freely and strongly by other communities. Five years of tax abatement to bring a 200-employee company is normal and has been normal for years. Making sure that you have courses in your technical schools to help train their workers, normal for years. Making sure you provide housing for the future employees and the management staff, normal for years. But in the last several years, these other communities have done things, like, provide support for relocation expenses to bring industry that brings jobs and brings vitality to your retail community. We need to be thinking about some of those kinds of things. We're just dealing with the basics right now in Immokalee, drainage problems, some spot clearance and redevelopment, some Page 13 April 30, 2002 transportation issues that we're trying to do. And there's several of those things we're going to be bringing to you. But the first thing we need to get you folks to do for us is to get our development services staff to be welcoming. How can we help you do what you want to do to help make this a better community, as opposed to, you can't do this because of this; you can't do this because of this; you got this regulation; you got that regulation; you got things; you got that other thing, okay? As the director of your Collier County Housing Authority, several years ago we were trying to develop a program that you-all said you wanted to do in developing Collier Village. We had to go through hoops and hurdles when I was just trying to help you-all do something that you thought was good for the community. We have to change our mind set with development services. We got to say to the folks that come to help develop the community, help come to broaden our tax base, this is what we can do to help you. One of the issues you're going to see in here is if you just give us some plans and specifications that will be immediately approvable (sic). You got folks up at development (inaudible) in our community, so anything we could do to help in the light to get that kind of new look, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Fred. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Thomas, you didn't mention about roads. Would you like some roads? MR. THOMAS: No, I mentioned roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I didn't think it would hurt to bring it up one more time. MR. THOMAS: No. We're looking for an industrial loop road, you know, to come into the town. We're looking to widen some of Page 14 April 30, 2002 our roads and, yes, we got a lot of transportation issues we want to deal with. And we need some better roads to get us from here, from Immokalee to Naples. Understand that economically folks in Immokalee relate to Fort Myers. It's quicker, easier to get to, closer. We got to change that around because we're taking tax dollars out of the county as opposed to keeping them in the country. CHAIRMAN FIALA: One of these days I'd love to have you sit down with me and explain to me what a loop road -- industrial-loop road -- is that what it's called? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't understand that, but I'm not going to take up the time now. MR. THOMPSON: Any time, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lunch, Fred, okay? MR. THOMPSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any other questions? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now we move on to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, I'd just say if this was a prayer meeting, I would have been saying "amen" about every sentence that Fred said. Item #7D OPTIONS FOR THE GATEWAY "MINI-TRIANGLE" CATALYST PROJECT- OPTION #2 OF CRA AS OUTLINED IN Page 15 April 30, 2002 THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think he missed his calling. 7--D is our next item, and 7-D is the recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency review options for the Gateway Mini- Triangle. And that's with the -- do you have the speaker on the phone? MS. FOORD: Yes. Madam Chairman, we have David Cardwell -- been trying to get on the phone again. We've been having some interference with the telephone line as we're talking to him so we're going to try again. Tom Tomerlin is one of our senior planners, and he has a brief presentation for you. As we go through these items, is there some direction from the CRA about how you would like us to present? We have only a three-hour time frame, and we have a lengthy agenda. So we can either give you a full presentation -- and I would recommend that on the Mini-Triangle item at least. On the other items, depending on time, leave it up to you maybe to let us know if you want us to give a full presentation, which we are prepared to do on each item, or just the brief points. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And this particular item, do you need an abbreviated version, or do you -- MS. FOORD: I think because of the history with this project and the decisions that have been in the pass that it would probably be wise to go ahead and have more of a fuller presentation that Tom has prepared, and I know we have some public speakers on this item as well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MS. FOORD: We should probably try to cover all the issues we can up front. Page 16 April 30, 2002 (Telephone interference.) MS. FOORD: David, are you there? MR. CARDWELL: Hello? MS. FOORD: David? MR. CARDWELL: Yeah. MS. FOORD: Hi, it's Marlene. We're here. MR. CARDWELL: Okay. MS. FOORD: We're getting started on Item 7-D now. MR. TOMERLIN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Tom Tomerlin. I'm a senior planner and have been with the county about six months and working with Marlene on the Community Redevelopment Area in both Immokalee and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. The Item 7-D before you addresses a property known as the Mini-Triangle area. On the visualizer is a map of the entire Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment area. And this is U.S. 41 (indicating), Davis Boulevard, and the Mini-Triangle is in purple. This map is a little more detailed and gives you an idea of the lot layout within the Mini-Triangle. The Mini-Triangle is a critical component within the redevelopment plan that was approved by the county. It is referred to as one of four catalyst projects. The four catalyst projects within the redevelopment plan for this area are the Mini-Triangle; a town center, which is basically the Gulfgate Plaza; an entertainment center, which will be located on Bayshore and Haldeman Creek; and flex-office warehouse in the area between the Mini-Triangle and Shadowlawn residential. The redevelopment plan gave special specific initial focus on the Page 17 April 30, 2002 Mini-Triangle Due to its location advantages such as the entry statement it can make into the entire redevelopment area, its high visibility, and its ability and likelihood of adding to the tax increment funds that feed this redevelopment area. Utilizing Community Redevelopment Area powers, an RFP was previously issued to redevelop this property as a unified- redevelopment project in November of 2000. One proposal was received from that RFP from F.P. Real Estate Investments for a proposal entitled, "In Concept, Bellevalagio," which provided for office, residential-retail, hotel lands uses. This proposal was rejected by the CRA board in favor of having Mini-Triangle property owners basically spearhead the property's redevelopment effort. More specifically, the CRA board requested that property owners and interested parties meet to decide on a course of action, including whether or not another RFP or need-to-change regulation might be warranted to have this property redeveloped. In pursuit of this directive, staff prepared a mail survey for property owners to complete and try to get some findings and a better feel for what property owners might be interested in pursuing. In general the survey instrument was very well received by property owners with 9 out of 14 owners responding. That's over a 15 percent -- I know there's a lot of noise. Am I still being heard? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Barely. MS. FOORD: David? MR. CARDWELL: Yes. MS. FOORD: We're having a lot of interference here. Is there any way you can hold down the paper movement? MR. CARDWELL: Okay. MS. FOORD: You might want to move the phone from your Page 18 April 30, 2002 mouth a little bit. MR. CARDWELL: MR. TOMERLIN: Okay. Okay. That's much better. And if you like me to repeat anything that I was saying earlier, please just let me know. In general, as I was saying, a survey instrument was prepared and sent to the 14 property owners that make up the Mini-Triangle. There was a response rate of over 50 percent, which is generally considered very good for mail surveys; 9 out of the 14 property owners did respond. Overall, the respondents were encouraged by the approach taken in the questionnaire, and we're looking forward to working out a plan for the Mini-Triangle area. Unfortunately, follow through with action has been lukewarm with only one to a few property owners participating in subsequent meetings that were scheduled with the property owners. Given the CRA's prior directive when it was activating the Bellevalagio submitted by F.P. Real Estate Investment, the board asked to re- explore redevelopment alternatives. Coupling that with some degree of frustration on the part of the advisory board, the advisory board did determine to provide a recommendation to you-all, the CRA board, with respect to the Mini- Triangle. So consistent with the redevelopment plan's objective to see the Mini -Triangle Redeveloped, the advisory board considered a range of possibilities to address this catalyst project. One was to continue and wait for property owner initiated redevelopment. One was to issue a new RFP. The third was development of a zoning overlay, which would eventually be followed by an RFP. Or always on option in these situations is to table the project indefinitely. Today the advisory board wishes to present to the CRA board a Page 19 April 30, 2002 rather unique course of action to address the Mini-Triangle. More specifically, the advisory board is recommending that a formal 30- day RFP be reissued; however, this would only occur after issuance of an intent-to-invite proposals that provides for a 90-day research period for interested parties to do their homework, basically, on the project. So basically the advisory board has a unique variant of the RFP option that David Cardwell was also involved in. Basically, they are seeking to publish an intent to eventually, within a 90-day period, issue a request for proposal to redevelop the property. A formal RFP is limited by statute to a 30-day period. A common concern with this RFP as outlined in the statutes is that it only allows 30 days for someone to do their research and come back with a defensible redevelopment plan. So the advisory board recognizing this sought to install this intent procedure or research period that would be published to let all interested parties know about the intent that an RFP would eventually be issued and then follow that through with a actual formal 30-day RFP. It is very important to note that this recommendation from the advisory board does not limit existing property owners from participating in the process. Equipped with the advisory board's recommended course of action, direction from the CRA board is now needed. Options available to the CRA board who you-all represent today to address this matter include the following, but are certainly not limited by the following: One, it's always an option to take limited action at this time. And subheadings under taking limited action would be steering efforts into other catalyst projects. There's three other catalyst projects. Or wait and assist property owner initiatives within the redevelopment area. The advisory board recommendation is also an option before you today, and it's to issue an intent to issue an RFP followed by an Page 20 April 30, 2002 actual RFP. Another option is direct issuance of a formal 30-day RFP without this research period. And the last option is an RFP for a consultant to prepare zoning overlay for the Mini-Triangle. And that's actually not a last option; anything that the CRA board after deliberation might think work is certainly -- and consistent with the redevelopment plan is certainly an option as well. It is important that the CRA board be aware that an RFP option, whether it be a direct formal RFP or a formal 30-day RFP proceeded by this intent. It is important to know that this option, which would call for unified redevelopment of the site, will likely require the CRA to use it's statutory powers to assemble property and develop other special incentives, such as infrastructure improvements. With that, I think I might certainly open the floor for you-all to ask me questions or proceed in discussing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have some. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I presume your recommendation is telling us that in order to proceed we have to be prepared to condemn property? MR. TOMERLIN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has sufficient study been accomplished to determine if there are adequate incentives to encourage people to redevelop this property before we take condemnation action? MR. TOMERLIN: I think, obviously -- and this board has expressed in the past from what I can gather researching through the papers -- I think this board is certainly wishing that if an RFP option were pursued, that this is certainly one of the tools available to you is Page 21 April 30, 2002 the power of eminent domain. However, whether or not this has to be used and whether or not is another question, which I'm sure David Cardwell might be able to give input on. However, that is something that it would only be safe for you to be prepared to use that power should you enter into this RFP. And with respect to your question of a study, no, I think really the question is, is the seller's willingness to sell price and willingness- to-pay price have to match. And what the CRA board would do in this case is act and use its powers in which case the developer couldn't meet the willingness-to-sell price to condemn that property. But I would defer that type question to David Cardwell who's the attorney with respect to eminent domain. MR. CARDWELL: Eminent domain is customarily used -- we always use as a last resort, but customarily it's most often used when there's a holdout. Say you've assembled part of a site, and you've got a holdout, or sometimes it can also be used at the request of the property owner to establish value, and there's also some tax benefits from selling property under threat of condemnation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I understand the eminent domain issue, and I agree that it should be the last resort, but there are zoning and planning principles which will encourage people to consolidate property and develop them without eminent domain action. And my only concern is that we assure that those kinds of zoning and planning actions be taken in a way which will encourage people to develop their property in a way that we would intend rather than threatening them with the seizure of their property if they don't do so. And my concern with the RFP is that it first should establish the principles of zoning that are essential in encouraging this kind of redevelopment, and I'm not hearing that we've actually gotten to that Page 22 April 30, 2002 point. We're not specifying any particular principles, which would be observed by the people who respond to this RFP. Is that a correct statement? MR. TOMERLIN: I think, basically, the options are before you today. The advisory board is coming to you today with a recommendation to pursue this RFP with the unique wrinkle that it would first be preceded by this intent. However, certainly the pursuit of some sort of zoning overlay that might encourage property owner initiated redevelopment is an option in front of you today. One thing I might note that the proposal set forth by the advisory board does have it merits in that it does not limit what kind of proposals could come forward from these property owners. And conceivably this could include, I would imagine it would, some zoning changes. And it does not prevent Mini-Triangle property owners from participating in the RFP project, obviously. I think there would be private redevelopers interested in it, but it certainly doesn't prevent or preclude the Mini-Triangle property owners from participating in that process. But in answer to your question, certainly zoning overlay is one of the options that are spelled out before you that could be pursued. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me, if you can, how that particular proposal differs from what you're recommending? MR. TOMERLIN: The zoning overlay versus RFP? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. TOMERLIN: An RFP option -- and take into account that there's two variants of it. One is a formal RFP, and the other is the RFP preceded by this intent, so it allows for a research period. But the RFP option could certainly include -- if this is someone's concept to redevelop the property and it just be zoning -- that could be Page 23 April 30, 2002 conceivably included under this umbrella. But a zoning overlay, the way I understand it, would basically set forth out zoning standards, flexible zoning standards, that might allow -- that address things such as setbacks, facades, and the like, which would prevent from a regulatory framework greater flexibility in developing this site. Now, whether or not zoning standards and still having the property and 14 property owners, whether that would eventually result or-- I think there's no real crystal ball to know if a unified redevelopment would go forward under that type of scenario, but it is certainly potential. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, certainly the easiest way to do this is just develop a plan and condemn the property and go do it the way we want to do it, but that's not the proper way to do it. I feel very strongly about private-property rights, and I would like to do something that encourages people to redevelop their property. I believe there are ways to do that, and I'm just asking you if that would be precluded in this RFP process MR. TOMERLIN: No, no. That wouldn't be precluded, and it's conceivable -- and David Cardwell, correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think it's certainly conceivable that the property owners could participate in this RFP process and come forward with a plan that's basically a zoning overlay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I've been through this a couple of times on this particular Triangle. There was one respondent, and the program was -- or the project was challenged by the property owners, again, for the condemnation process. We opened it, again, to allow the property owners under the direction, I believe, of Jack Conroy to see if they could come back with a unified agreement plan to do this. That failed. There could not seem to be Page 24 April 30, 2002 agreement among the property owners of what they really wanted to do. I see this as an umbrella that gives you a lot of opportunity because the others did not include zoning changes or overlay recommendations or anything. I think there's a couple of major players in there that were looking for what they could achieve out of this if they had to relocate. And perhaps this umbrella will bring forward an opportunity to explore those options where they might put those on the table in front of us versus going through -- and I'm like you. I don't want to take anybody's property, but I think this gives them the flexibility which we didn't have before. So I would support, too, because I think it is the umbrella, and everybody will have their opportunity to present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm more in favor of a zoning overlay than the RFP process with some latitude of-- for the redevelopment and having rezones for, let's say, fixed use or whatever. And that way, the individual property owner, has the ability to develop their property in the overlay to the standards that we set forth in the overlay. Commissioner, I agree with you that we only had one bid on it. The citizens could not or the willingness or whatever could not bring a unified plan forward. And this redevelopment area's been going on for years, and it's sitting dormant. I don't know how that benefits the property owners today. MS. FOORD: Commissioners, Commissioner Coyle asked a question earlier about the difference between this RFP process and the zoning overlay. And I think just the basic difference is the time. Page 25 April 30, 2002 Zoning overlay is something that we would put in place, and when a structure is demolished or new owner buys the structure or the current owner has a structure and wants to make changes, then they would have to comply with that new zoning overlay, but not before one of those changes is made. So the timing, this could last for years. The difference with the RFP process is that we have an opportunity to get it going a lot quicker and being that it is one of the major catalyst projects in the redevelopment area, I think that's where the advisory board was coming from. They wanted to see it get going a lot sooner. One recommendation would be if you are leaning towards the RFP process, there is a draft intent to invite proposals in your packet. What we could do in there, which is not currently in there, is indicate in writing the idea of the proposer coming forward with an idea for an zoning overlay as well if that is needed for this particular individual or group or group of property owners that comes forward with a proposal, they would be able to recommend that as well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really do need to clarify that a bit so I can understand where we're going. What do you expect to be the outcome of RFP as you proposed it putting aside the zoning overlay? What would you expect the outcome of that RFP to be or the proposals? MR. TOMERLIN: Initially -- and I just might -- I think Marlene's point was excellent that, basically, I don't think that anyone here believes that this property some day down the road will eventually redevelop. And that's just the way the market works. I think a great deal of what this CRA does is it tries to push the time line along. It tries to push the time line forward and see the future Page 26 April 30, 2002 come a little quicker in terms of redeveloping the entire area. And I think the instrument of the RFP was basically -- that's in theory -- that's what it tries to do. It tries to push this time line in such a way that the entire site is under unified redevelopment with the project. There was a previous market study done in conjunction with the redevelopment plan that was accepted. The redevelopment plan said there was adequate demand in the community to meet a hotel and restaurants on-site. I think they talked about maybe two, three out parcels or restaurants, and I think there was a 250-room hotel, although I'm not certain on that. So to piggy-back on the time line-type concept, I think what the RFP option tries to accomplish is to push this time forward in such a way that it does result in unified redevelopment of the project site. The zoning overlay could eventually do that, and it would allow the flexibility for individual property owners to redevelop and in a nice manner; however, whether or not it eventually results in some sort of unified development is anybody's guess. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I certainly agree. Sooner is better than later, and anything we can do to move it along the better off we are. But I'm still unclear. If someone responds to this RFP, are they going to give you a proposal for a development? They are going to specify what is going to be built there and what it's going to look like and where it's going to be without regard for the private property owners' interest? MR. TOMERLIN: Well, one of the stipulations in the RFP would be some accounting for how property would be assembled, and as David Cardwell mentioned, obviously, the power to assemble these properties is something that is very, very last resort. But this is something a developer and whatever he wishes to pursue for that project site, he would need to know that that CRA is a Page 27 April 30, 2002 partner, a partner of last resort to condemn property and to assemble it. I don't know if I answered your question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I'm getting closer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I jump in here for a minute? And just to -- for the audience as well -- just by way of a little bit of history. Many years back East Naples Civic Association jumped into this thing -- upon request actually of a few of the people in the Triangle -- saying, "Can you help us do something about improving our quality of life in this area, helping to promote economic development, etc." We then in turn as East Naples Civic Association requested the county as well as the EDC -- the Economic Development Council -- to work with us and see if we couldn't come up with a plan. And we began to meet. We began to identify some of the problems. Things moved on, and we realized there was a terrible flooding problem. People wanted to do something in the area, but couldn't because there was no money available. Meanwhile as they were tearing apart the bridges over the Gordon River, they were taking all of the construction debris, and instead of taking it to the landfill, they were dumping it into the lake on the property, which then caused further flooding problems. Also, to compound that problem, when they paved over Davis Boulevard they forgot that there were storm drains there, and they paved over the storm drains. And on top of that, where they were putting in the new storm water pipes to go out to the Gulf, they put a block in so that they could put the pipes in, and they forgot to take the block -- the state forgot to take the block out, and we found that a couple years later. So that's all attributed to the flooding problems. The community said we want to do something, and that's when Page 28 April 30, 2002 the CRA was established. And the CRA was supposed to help guide this thing, help give it some funding to correct some of the problems. The sidewalk on Lynwood is another problem. Anyway, there was a fellow that came in with an RFP. He felt a unified development would look great. The BCC rejected that claim. Meanwhile, the property owners, the 14 property owners were vehemently opposed to it. They said that they wanted to put our own thing together. We said go ahead, and we gave them a year. And they didn't come back with one. And, meanwhile, some of property owners have just really stated they really want to sell the property. They want to get rid of the property. They're not going to do anything with it anyway, but they are just waiting for the right opportunity to come along. There's a couple that would like to stay, and I think that that's one of the problems; it's in the air. The only person that's done anything is one guy's painted his Laundromat. And that's the only improvement that's been done in all of these years in that area. So I think we need to assist them, and maybe this is why the advisory board has suggested that they would like this to be presented for a unified development for an RFP. So with that background, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chairman Fiala, I couldn't agree with you more. We should have a time line on this. This thing has been going on long enough. If we can't bring this thing -- come to an agreement on it, let's just label the whole area as blighted and forget it until a future commission comes along who want to be progressive enough to make it happen. I think what we're going to have to do is agree to go forward with this or end it, one or the other. I believe what you say about the property owners. The property owners we're talking about are Page 29 April 30, 2002 business property owners and have quite an investment, I grant you, and I want their rights preserved. But I also believe that they are looking for us to be the guiding light to them. In other words, to give them a set of particulars that we can go with. We're going to try to reach 100 percent of acceptability right across the board, we may as well forget it now and walk away from it and spend our time in more productive issues than this one here. I'm for going ahead on this particular issue in moving forward in such a direction as has been recommended by staff that we try first the zoning overlay, but also end up if we have to go to condemnation. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I move that we adopt the recommendation of the CRA for Item No. 2 incorporating the overlay possibility in that document as was suggested by Ms. Foord. That way it gives you the umbrella that accomplishes everything that you and Commissioner Coletta and Coyle and Henning, I think, have articulated this morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion? All those in favor? MS. FILSON: We have a speaker. MS. FOORD: I'd also like -- before we get to public speakers -- to ask if Mr. Cardwell has any additional comments related to this issue and the recommendation being made. David, are you still there? MR. CARDWELL: Still here, nothing to add. MS. FOORD: I know you have to leave pretty soon, so is there anything else that you need to interject here at this point? Did you Page 30 April 30, 2002 hear the recommendation? MR. CARDWELL: I'm sorry. MS. FOORD: Did you hear the motion that was made? MR. CARDWELL: Yes. MS. FOORD: Is there anything that you would like to mention at this point? MR. CARDWELL: No, I don't think so. MS. FOORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Speakers. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mr. Thomas Stasko, and he will be followed by Cynthia Hubbard. (Mr. Henning and Mr. Carter leave meeting.) MR. STASKO: Should I return when the other board members return? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They have the sound on in the other room, sir. MR. STASKO: They've got the earphone in? CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can hear it in -- we have microphones. MR. STASKO: Okay. Good. My name is Thomas Stasko. I live on Connecticut Avenue. I'm a residential property owner and a business person. I've been in business here since '87, and in the D.C. Area for about ten years prior to that, Washington, D.C. Excuse me - (Speaker telephone interference.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm so sorry. MS. ASHTON: David, could you turn your mute button back Page 31 April 30, 2002 on, please? MR. STASKO: Thank you. Been a residential property owner since 1987 here. I, not unlike my neighbors, not only on Connecticut Avenue but on other streets in, I'm sure, throughout the whole Triangle. I know in my neighborhood, in the surrounding two or three streets, we owners don't know what to do. We don't know whether or not to paint, plant shrubbery, beautify our homes, remodel, put money into it. (Mr. Henning returns to meeting.) Some of the landlords that maybe are called "slum lords," they don't know what to do. They are saying, "Why should I put $5,000 more to make it pristine and nice when somebody's going to come along and say it's blighted. We're putting up low-income housing or whatever." The business people in this area feel the same way. Why should I put in any money? Why should I do this? And that's the result. Who would -- who -- you know -- I'm going to go ahead and do what I need to for more my own piece of mind. You know, I'll put in another five or eight thousand dollars in addition to the sewer. When the sewer went in, the cable came across the telephone poles. Where was the county when I called the county and said, "Hey, this isn't good for the neighborhood? Everybody's going buried cable, and you're going from buried to aerial cable." The sewer backs up every time it floods. So now does the CRA correct that problem, and it comes out of that fund? But anyhow, this issue has to do with the Triangle and the property owners. Property owners, has anybody come up with a square foot? How many square feet in there? How much a square foot. I mean, really, if everybody wants to be satisfied in there, you Page 32 April 30, 2002 sell it to the Indians and have them put up a casino and a great, big convention center, and then everybody would be happy. They'll get their money. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wouldn't that be awful? Mr. Stasko, I don't think --. MR. STASKO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that affects this area. I think we're hoping that all of the neighbors on your street as well as your surrounding neighbors would indeed do just as you did, make your property look good. I know there's a lot of people already doing that. Nobody's trying to get into that area, force anybody out or take that over. That's supposed to stay residential, and we need homes for people that are of an affordable rate. So I think that that's admirable that you're doing that, and I hope your neighbors will do the same thing. We're just talking about commercial in the Mini-Triangle up there. But your neighborhood, we're hoping to just salvage you from all of this flooding and storm water damage, and we should be able to improve that as we continue to work on this storm water improvement as well as put some sidewalks in and possibly even some street lights. And by the way, overhead lines, boy, do I agree. I just hate them, but we were trying to see if we couldn't bury them, and FP&L gave us $250,000 per mile or something like that. It was just overwhelming, and that's why they are still up there. Anyway, thank you, sir. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Cynthia Hubbard and she will be followed by Jack Conroy. Page 33 April 30, 2002 MS. HUBBARD: Good morning. My name is Cynthia Hubbard. I'm here on behalf of Tony Piers and Chris Lombardo who couldn't be present today. (Mr. Carter returns to meeting.) We represent several of the property owners in the Mini- Triangle area, and I just wanted to address first before -- address the issue today about the participation on the property owners that's been talked about. And I think that today with the agenda item being switched, even though there's a valid reason, there's been things like this happening a lot that's been preventing or hampering with property owner participation. There were going to be several property owners here today that weren't expecting 7-D to be switched up. So that's why. There's also the issue of the notice of this meeting. According to your own agenda item in No. 8, there's supposed to be ten-days notice, but this notice was of the 28th, which is a two-day notice of the meeting. So I think there have been several situations like this that have hampered property owner participation. There's also -- previously there was talk about several different options. One was to continue to wait for the property owners to be involved in this, and the property owners have come to the table, and they have been basically shut down and turned away. There have been property owners that have submitted permit requests that have been turned down. There have been code enforcement inspectors like they've never seen before out there trying to find something wrong with these properties. There have been other properties -- it's been mentioned that some want to sell, and they have been able to find buyers that are Page 34 April 30, 2002 interested in developing that property. When those buyers go through the due-diligence period, they've been told sometimes by the county that those properties are going to be condemned. So what buyer is actually going to through with the purchase of a property that is almost -- they've been guaranteed that it's going to be condemned. There's a chilling effect going on in this area that the property owners can't take the initiative to develop, and they can't sell to somebody who wants to develop. They've also -- there's been no zoning overlay done, and the property owners are in favor of that. They would like to have the zoning overlay done so that they can move forward with their own incentive. There's been talk about condemnation, and the willingness-to- sell price, and I think that the county will be really surprised if they actually -- think of their willing-to-sell price, multiply that by ten, and that's what these property owners would probably actually be willing-to-sell their properties for. They want to develop this area. They want to take it on their own initiative. They've just been shut down on several different areas. There's been a previous RFP from Mr. Pioli (phonetic) at F.P. Real Estate, and we feel that was just an illusory contract. There were so many conditions that it would have been impossible to complete it all, so even though there was this proposal, it was rejected by the property owners as something that couldn't be possible. They've been trying to do what they can, and they haven't been successful. And we would like to go back to the original option instead of opening this for another RFP -- can I continue? Thank you. They would like to be able to get these permits that they've applied for. There's several property owners including some of the big ones that would like to develop their property more. They'd like Page 35 April 30, 2002 to build buildings, expand buildings. They'd like to redo the facades. There's also sellers and buyers on the table right now that if they can be assured that the properties won't be condemned, and they can actually make it through the due-diligence period, they can sell them to somebody who will, again, redevelop those properties. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Mr. Jack Conroy. MR. TOMERLIN: Commissioners, I might just add that letters were sent out to all 14 property owners making them aware of this meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Of this meeting? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: When were they sent, please? MR. TOMERLIN: They were sent about a week-and-a-half ago. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we talk about the public notice in an advertised public hearing; whoever's in charge of that? MS. FOORD: We, for the newspaper, did put the ad in the newspaper the same day that the Board of County Commissioners' meetings are advertised prior to the meetings, which is -- your bylaws indicate that you'll follow the BCC advertising and notice requirement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it meets the requirements? MS. FOORD: As far as I know. We also did send it to the Public Information Office for their distribution, the blast facts from the notice. And it's also been noticed on the county web site, on the Page 36 April 30, 2002 first page of the web site. And we also have an e-mail list of all the individuals that have contacted us from either Bayshore/Gateway or Immokalee that we've compiled. Now, we just compiled that list last week and did get that agenda and the agenda for the Bayshore/Gateway meeting that's coming up also sent out to everybody. And we'll continue to do that and be adding to that e-mail list as well. But as far as the notice, we followed the Board of County Commissioners' notice requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess we need to ask from our legal staff if that is sufficient for this CRA meeting. MS. ASHTON: I'm going to have to take a moment to review what the requirement is so if you can -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we go ahead with the speaker, Ms. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Jack. MR. CONROY: Good morning, Commissioners. Jack Conroy of 636-15th Avenue South in Naples. I'm one of the property owners in the Mini-Triangle, unfortunately. I was one of the guys who said, "Well, let's see if we can't get all of property owners together, and we'll come up with a plan." I'm convinced that that's an impossibility. It's never going to happen for a series of reasons. One of which is that at least two properties are allegedly, quote, under contract, unquote, with the developer that had submitted a proposal to you, Dan Pioli. And, as a consequence, there's not a community of interest. It's just never going to happen. Secondly, I'm one of those whose property is on the market, and who would like to sell to someone else. At least one person got to the point of due diligence where he went out to the county or the building department to discover exactly whether he could expand the Page 37 April 30, 2002 restaurant by 1,000 square feet, what it would take. He came away with the information that the property might be condemned, and as a consequence, our negotiations at that point terminated. He said, "Can you guarantee me that it won't be condemned." How can I guarantee that it won't be condemned? We even offered that maybe we could even guarantee that you won't lose money on it. "Yeah, but can I make money." So all of a sudden the negotiation terminated, and I'm still exactly where I stood before. My belief is that we have here an unfortunate law of unintended consequences. The CRA acted in good faith attempting to do something beneficial for the area. What it has, in fact, done is precluded exactly what it intended in the first place because people who want to purchase individual parcels have got no assurance that they are not going to be deprived of their property through the condemnation procedure. And, secondly, the condemnation procedure is one, which relies upon past sales in order to establish values, and everyone knows that the East Trail has been in a state of economic depression for the last 13 years. So a person who is interested in making money is simply not going to purchase. It is, in fact, the case that we had asked for a set of land-use regulations that we could rely upon. What is the new zoning? What exactly is going to be acceptable? This hasn't existed. We have been to the staff a year ago saying, "Please put these in place so we know what we can do." When someone doesn't know what he or she can do with their piece of property, they can't do anything if they are rationale. So, unfortunately, we've got ourselves in the worst of all possible conditions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks. Are there any other speakers? Page 38 April 30, 2002 MS. FILSON: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I just want to echo what Mr. Conroy said about uncertainty. We went through this same process in trying to redevelop the 41 area in the City of Naples. And the uncertainty really did create unfortunate circumstances. My remaining problem with this approach is that it appears not to provide the opportunity for property owners to develop their property in accordance with desirable zoning regulations, which we might establish, and appears to give the person who responds to the RFP the sole right to make that determination. I hope I'm mistaken because I think what would be best for this area -- and I mean to move quickly -- is to develop what we want this area to look like and do it quickly. Solicit RFPs; do an overlay; but provide the opportunity for the property owners to develop portions of the property that they might wish to develop to meet the zoning requirements we have established as opposed to having an entire area that is pretty much given to a single developer, the one who is awarded the proposal. That's the troubling point to me. I believe that certainly awarding the property and the rights to development to someone who responds to an RFP is the fastest way of doing it. I'm not sure it's the right way to do it. MR. TOMERLIN: Yeah, if I might respond to that. I think with this project there's just such a complex set of cost and benefits associated with any action you pursue. But as I understand the motion that is being considered right now, it's basically an option to - - with adding the potential of-- one of the RFP proposals could potentially be a zoning overlay that would be the actual product of Page 39 April 30, 2002 the RFP. Of course, there's issues of what kind of incentive then-- how does that incentives (sic) private redevelopers to come up with their own if they are competing with that type of project? But in any event, I think the RFP option does not have to be limiting and that it can include Mini-Triangle property owners, and it can simply be a zoning overlay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if the Mini-Triangle property owners, those who could actually get together and come up with a proposal, they could respond to this RFP, and then we could make a decision based upon doing it all by awarding it to a single responder, or we can do it in segments letting the property owners do the development on their property as long as it's consistent with the overall zoning? And the other responder or responders to the RFP could develop the remainder. That would give us a rapid response opportunity and essentially motivate the owners to reach some decision about what they're going to do with this. And if they really truly want to develop their property, it would remove the uncertainty. It would give them the zoning. It would be predictable, and then they would have a fair shot at bidding on or proposing a development on their own property. MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we can do that under the process that has been proposed. Is that a correct statement? MR. TOMERLIN: I don't see why not. If David Cardwell's still on the phone, he could certainly add his input on it. But one thing I might want to note is that the advisory board's recommendation to begin with this intent concept, that's basically a research period. It's noncommittal. It's basically submitting the concept out to the Page 40 April 30, 2002 community that we are going to follow this up with an actual request for proposals, but here's 90 days to do your homework, meet with property owners, and come back with a defensible plan. It's adding 90 days for the development community and market to try to decide on a course of action, and that's certainly what we would like to see. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the people who bid on the RFP would have an opportunity to work with the property owners, perhaps even partner with the property owners under certain circumstances? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. Obviously, yes. And I think even the one proposal we received from F.P. Real Estate Investments; I think there was some degree of working with property owners in that situation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: And, yes, that's an obvious, yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you feel comfortable with that, Commissioner Coyle --. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I'm okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- because I really understand where you are, and I'm always thinking ahead that the property owners could develop a proposed overlay that just doesn't preclude them from doing that. They could really be interactive in this, and I've always been a believer in the free enterprise system. If you want to get it done, go do it. And I think we've given you the big blanket to do it. And if you choose not to take the initiative, then I don't know what else to tell you. But I think there's enough entrepreneurial stuff out there that Jack and his group will probably be very active. Page 41 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Carried. Thank you. Thanks for a great presentation. MR. TOMERL1N: Thank you. Item #5A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD TO ALLOCATE $15,000 OF EACH FUND 186 AND FUND 187, A TOTAL OF $30,000 TOWARDS THE CREATION OF A NEW POSITION FY 02/03 NECESSARY FOR FACILITATING THE REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM- APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we'll go back to our original agenda. We have 5-A. (Ms. Fiala leaves the meeting.) Page 42 April 30, 2002 MS. FOORD: Commissioners, Item 5-A is an item where the advisory boards -- each of the advisory boards are recommending that the Community Redevelopment Agency allocate $ ! 5,000 of their budget so far from the tax increment funds that have been collected the last two years for use to contribute to a position in the planning department. The position they've defined as an urban design planner. This would be an individual that would assist in the implementation of the redevelopment incentive programs for both Bayshore/Gateway and Immokalee that would also help all the individual projects that come through the community development and environment services -- yes, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion approved, but first I want to hear from the county attorney to find out if this meeting is legal. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have public speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes? MS. ASHTON: Yes, this meeting is legal. I reviewed the Article 5 of your bylaws, Section 236 of the code of laws and also the statutes governing the CRA and could find no requirement for a ten- day advertising period. So there's no problem with the meeting. We've complied with the Sunshine Law. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Heidi, I think there are different governing laws of the CRA that the Board of Commissioners adopted. MS. ASHTON: That's correct. have reviewed, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are the bylaws that I Okay. Thank you. And, Commissioner Henning, you Page 43 April 30, 2002 had made a motion. Would you prefer to take public input first? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second. And we'll take public input then. MS. FILSON: Okay. The first speaker is Mr. Thomas Stasko, and he will be followed by Fred Thomas. (Mr. Carter leaves the meeting.) MR. STASKO: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, my name is Thomas Stasko. This part of the agenda deals with a new position, and I just look at this logically and say, "Hold it. We've got a new agency here. The government's involved, and now we need somebody to help us with the county to assist the county in doing their job." (Ms. Fiala returns to the meeting.) Who do they answer to? The Planning Commission? How is their time accounted for? Or do they just fall into the undermanagement some place, and their time, whether they spend 15 minutes a day on this project or an hour a day. Where's the accountability? Not only that, does that mean every time -- any place in the CRA -- any time we need assistance in the county, now we have to hire an individual to do that? Where's the county's responsibility end and the CRA begin? Because the CRA was formed, now we're a separate entity where the county doesn't supply any services anymore? Does that mean eventually we're going to have to hire garbage pick up? We're going to have to pay for that? This is how it starts. Where does it end? There's no accountability. I'd like to see accountability if this individual is hired in 15-minutes increments or 30-minute increments that says that on this date during this time I worked on this. Otherwise, they are just Page 44 April 30, 2002 going to fall in and management -- management is going to take over, and who governs management? The board. So who's their loyalty to? The CRA? If we are paying for that person, then we should have access for that person to that person, and they should be loyal and responsible to us. (Mr. Carter returns to meeting.) (Mr. Henning leaves meeting.) I'd rather see you hire an attorney to explain to us homeowners - - us homeowners because we don't have an attorney yet. If I have to go through the expense of hiring one, I will for my own sanity just to understand what's going on so I'm not swindled, so I don't wake up one day, and you've got 30 days to get out of here. I'd rather see you hire a part-time attorney, or in addition to this, a part-time attorney to look out for our interests because no one is. This board certainly is not. You say it's the last thing you want to see is condemnation and the property taken over. Well, if you keep us informed, we can come in here and keep you folks informed too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Stasko. MR. STASKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Fred Thomas. MR. THOMAS: Contrary to the previous speaker, and I want this person to know that I'm accountable because (inaudible) Immokalee. Okay? Because this is one step toward getting what we're trying to get is easy access to quick approvals in the development services department. Because with that staff person we can develop some standard kind of floor plans, site plan, and what have you, so that a person can come in who's wanting to do something and says, "What can I do?" Page 45 April 30, 2002 Well, if you do this on this piece of property or this kind of a property with this kind of access, you can get your building permit tomorrow. And then they can take those, go find that situation, invest in that situation, and know that it's not going to be any delays or slow downs or what not. Okay? And we just want to make sure that we in Immokalee who are putting up half the money for this position will be working on these issues forever who have been short changed forever, get our fair share and high priority on getting things done in Immokalee. Because if we can get that done -- we've got a lot of people that want to develop things, want to fix things, want to do things in Immokalee. I don't think you-all realize how much you're losing. Two years ago we did a study between -- for an 18-month period, and we had 77 families who were renters in Immokalee getting utilities from Lee County Electric Company that bought homes in Lehigh where you get a lot for $5,000, and the impact fees are $400. We're losing that resource, folks. Eighty percent of our schoolteachers do not live in Immokalee. Half go toward Lehigh, the other half go to Golden Gate. Ninety percent of our retail management level does not live in Immokalee. They go primarily toward Fort Myers. We're losing that resource. We're losing it. And we have to try to somehow turn that around. And the big stumbling block-- I guarantee you-- the big stumbling block is development services and getting things done quickly. This might be a step toward helping that. Thank you. Oh, and we don't need no more attorneys involved in nothing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good show, Fred. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that motion. (Mr. Henning returns to the meeting.) Page 46 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are there any other speakers. MS. FILSON: He was the final speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Chairman, can I speak without signing up? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. That would all right. This is Bill Neal and he's the chairman of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment. MR. NEAL: I didn't prepare to say anything about this particular issue, but having heard the speaker before Fred, I don't think he understands the amount of time that the volunteer workers on the committee spend analyzing how we spend our money. And I have to tell you that I totally support this position. And I'm the last person who likes staff having come from the executive world in running businesses. But in order to accomplish what we need to do, we absolutely need this help in this position. And if some of the folks who don't understand where the CRA advisory committee is coming from, I encourage them to please come to the meetings and see the hours and the dedication that folks have in trying improve our community. I don't think that there's a person in the committee that has any ulterior motive at all other than improve our community. And, yes, I agree with Fred. We have enough lawyers. So I just wanted to make sure that you understand that I support the staffs recommendation for this position. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. FOORD: Madam Chairman, just one comment. The position would be budgeted in the next budget year '02/'03, and this allocation of the $30,000 would be contingent upon the approval of Page 47 April 30, 2002 that individual in the next year's budget. We did consider this to be the third of the position where Immokalee would be paying for a third of the position -- a bit little less than a third of the position -- Bayshore/Gateway about a third of the position, and the rest would be paid for out of the general fund within the Comprehensive Planning budget. So this individual would also be doing some of the community planning functions having to do with Naples Park Community Plan, possibly with the 41 East corridor planning, some of the other communities that have come forward as well. So they would be not just focusing on Immokalee and Bayshore/Gateway, but a good portion of their time would be on those two areas. And it would be our responsibility as senior staff people to ensure that they are spending their time on these areas. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? Carried. Thank you. Item #5B Page 48 April 30, 2002 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE AND IMMOKALEE MARKETING BROCHURES - APPROVED MR. BLAIR: For the record, Aaron Blair. The next topic is going to be in regards to our staff generated marketing brochures, which are the colored copies. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I would move for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Any discussion? All in favor? CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: convincing. that. this opportunity. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Opposed like sign? Carried. Aaron, great presentation, very MS. FILSON: We have a speaker. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. I keep forgetting to ask I'll try to remember. MS. FILSON: Mr. Thomas Stasko. MR. STASKO: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for I had really only one comment to make in regards Page 49 April 30, 2002 to the brochures. Staff has placed some information in here. (Mr. Coletta leaves the meeting.) I don't know if it's a filler just to pick up space or what. But they used the consensus (sic) findings for Collier County. And we all know that a lot of the folks that own property here put their residence down, and they sign up north. So this is about their income and some of them are a little bit or could be misleading. And I'm saying that if any information is in here, it should be contained to the respective areas. In other words, fine. There's 250 families here. The average income is for this CRA part or for Immokalee. Just a little bit more better defined than using the whole county because it's not, you know -- I'd just like to see that. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Do you understand the purpose of this information, sir? MR. STASKO: The purpose of the information? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The statistics. MR. STASKO: To give an individual to know how many people there are in Collier County, that are living here -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is for redevelopment, a business owner who is interested in redevelopment to know the community, and it's not just one area. It's the community. So that is good statistics for somebody that might be interested in redevelopment, and you're not opposed to redevelopment; correct? MR. STASKO: No. That's very true but, again, we're back to square one. Somebody wants to buy or redevelop, they have no guidelines. Why should they do that? If it's going to be condemned, and that's not included in this brochure. So I'm after, you know, keeps what's true. Let's not -- thank you very much. Page 50 April 30, 2002 MR. TOMERLIN: Just a quick note on the statistics. Basically, that is 2000 data countywide from the Bureau of the Census. However, income -- they define income in very different ways. This is, I believe -- meeting household income. The census also defines families and so forth. And this is directly from the Bureau of the Census, just for your clarification where the data comes. It's at countywide level. And there is some potential there to maybe look at census tracks that might make up the actual study area, the actual redevelopment area. I guess that potential's there. We'd have to explore if that's something that the CRA board might find to be useful. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE' I second Commissioner Henning's comments here. This information is designed for developing an area and doing business in an area. Having the data for the specific neighborhood accomplishes nothing because the business owner certainly wants to draw customers from far beyond the specific neighborhood. In fact, it would be misleading for a business owner to narrow that data to just the neighborhood of the Triangle that we're taking a look at. So I think the most honest information we can provide is one of a regional basis, which would be most applicable to business owners or people who want to provide services in this area. MR. TOMERLIN: I think that's a very good point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to also mention just something that I found to be a little misleading even though I'm all for putting this brochure out, on the Immokalee brochures where it shows community features, it says (as read): "Strategic central location to Florida's coastal urban areas," and somehow to me that's just a little Page 51 April 30, 2002 misleading as well as "minutes away from the Gulf Coast." And I thought possibly that's a little bit misleading -- I see Fred Thomas getting up here -- and then in the Bayshore/Gateway it also said (as read): "Several quality hotels are in the area," and I was at a loss for naming one hotel in the area but.. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can tell you one right down on Fifth Avenue. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I thought we were talking about Bayshore/Gateway. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's six minutes away. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that what you're referring to? MS. FOORD: We're referring to the region that this area's within. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So those were just a couple of the questions that I have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Thomas is probably happy to know that he owns Gulf-front property. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS' I've got to ask a question. I'm having a real problem here. I know that according to the U.S. Census and the HUD figures, the median income for a family of four in Collier County is $69,800. How does the household income drop? I'm trying to understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2000 census. MR. TOMERL1N: Yeah. Like I said, there's at least two ways that I'm aware of that the Census Bureau measures income. One is median household income and one is family income. And there is a distinction there in terms of-- I don't know what the distinction is, Page 52 April 30, 2002 but I think a household doesn't have to have a nuclear family or what not. It could be just a group of people living together. So it tends to be a little lower than what is usually referred to as family income. I don't know the exact -- the distinction --. MR. THOMAS: I have a real concern about that because even back in the 2000 census, our median income was way up in the $50,000 for a family of four. And I'm just trying to figure how you put a family of four in a different household configuration and lose $20,000 worth of median income. That has a major impact on the kind of attractions you get for certain industries. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I make a suggestion? Get together with Mr. Thomas, and if there's something that needs to be corrected, correct it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I revisit the statement about minutes away from the Gulf coast for Immokalee? Do you want to revise that to 59 minutes away from -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: How about a short distance, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I really think that is misleading, and I think it would be appropriate to find another way of describing that. MS. FOORD: A short distance? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Closer to Naples than Miami. MS. FOORD: We'll find a way to word that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. There were just a couple little things there to tweak, right, and we'll readjust those figures. Maybe - - although the board has motioned and seconded for approval, you might want to take these revisions back to the advisory boards for Page 53 April 30, 2002 their approval. MS. FOORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Item #6A Opposed like sign? Approved, 4-0. RECOMMENDATION OF THE IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD TO ALLOCATE $10,000 OF FUND 186 AS SEED MONEY TOWARDS THE SURVEYING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 5TM STREET BETWEEN WEST DELAWARE AVENUE AND EUSTIS AVENUE IN THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT- APPROVED COMMISSIONER CARTER: Next item, Madam Chairman, looks to me like an information and unless the Commissioners have specific questions on it, I would move for approval as it will be revisited again during our budget conference. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve and second Page 54 April 30, 2002 on the recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency review the recommendation of the Immokalee local redevelopment advisory board to allocate $ ! 0,000. Is there any discussion or any speakers? MS. FILSON: We have two speakers. The first one is Mr. Fred Thomas, and he will be followed by Thomas Stasko. (Mr. Henning leaves the meeting.) MR. THOMAS: We in Immokalee understand that in order to get the things we need we have to pay extra for it. We have several MSTUs. If you look at the millage rates in the several taxing districts in Immokalee, we have a millage rate, three years ago when I checked out, was like 15.8 and countywide, the millage rate was like 14.6. So we didn't mind spending money to get what we need. We need some drainage improvements urgently. Need them to be done within the next two years. So that's why we've agreed to put $10,000 worth of seed money to get that project going. But we need to know that we have the support of the Community Redevelopment Agency to make sure that happens so that we can begin to solve some major drainage problems. And like I said, we're willing to spend money to make it happen, okay? Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Thomas Stasko. MR. STASKO: Good morning, again, Commissioners. Tom Stasko. The only comment I have is with respect to this is that, again, where does what the county is supposed to provide end and what the CRA funds are supposed to start paying for. (Mr. Coletta returns to the meeting.) I would think that the surveying and design had been done by Page 55 April 30, 2002 the county for years. They all have drainage and maps that depict where the water's going to go. As far as construction, you know, maybe the money is needed there. (Mr. Henning returns to the meeting.) But I'm saying, again, where's the line drawn? When do we have to start paying for everything? Thank you very much. Oh, in regards to the brochures, I just said discretion, and it's the mythology and the intent. I didn't want to nitpick. It's just the intent. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a Opposed like sign? Thank you. That's passed 5-0. Item #6B REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT AREA FY 02/03 BUDGET- APPROVED And now we're on 6-B. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm a little ahead of myself, Page 56 April 30, 2002 Commissioner. This is more of an information item that will be reviewed again or may be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in the budgetary process, and I would recommend approval unless other commissioners have questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have Mr. Thomas Stasko. He may just want to sit in the front row. (Mr. Coyle leaves the meeting.) MR. STASKO: Tom Stasko. In regards to the budget in finding some information over at the office of budget I -- and also on the budget itself, not only for Immokalee, but also include this in regards to the Bayshore Triangle, the budget is based upon a 10 percent increase for the next year. Now, in research, the majority of homes are on the Save our Home, which is limited to 3 percent. In addition to that, the sale of commercial property is almost at a stand still. So I don't see where a 10 percent increase in tax funds -- revenues is really a good dollar amount. And alls I ask is that you Commissioners be aware of that when you review the budget as county commissioners. Okay? Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Stasko, would you please stay up front because I'd like some exercise, too, and I'm not getting any here, and I'm glad you are. MR. STASKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: second. All in favor? Let me get my papers. We have a motion on the floor and a Page 57 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? Passed 5-0. (Mr. Coyle returns to the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does our stenographer need a break? REPORTER: I'd love a five-minute break. Thank you. (A break was held.) Item #7A RESOLUTION 2002-219, APPOINTING CHUCK GUNTHER, WILLIAM C. MEARS AND DEBORAH L. RUSSELL TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, we'll move on to 7-A, appointment of members to the Bayshore Triangle Redevelopment. I'd like jump in there with a couple of them, if I may. I'm sure that Commissioner Coyle would like to help me on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I'd like to throw in a couple names, if I may. Deborah Russell has served on this committee, and she's been a vibrant and moving part of the committee. And I would like to nominate her to stay on. Page 58 April 30, 2002 And the second person -- I think we need another Gateway resident in here because we would like a fair balance, and our Gateway resident who has applied is Chuck Gunther, so I would like to nominate him as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would like to nominate Mr. William Mears. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's three nominations for three positions, do we have any -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: MS. FILSON: We do. Very good. Any discussion? Do we have a speaker? We have one speaker, Mr. Thomas Stasko. Oh, I'm sorry. We have two speakers. MS. FILSON: Go ahead, the next speaker is Chuck Gunther. MR. STASKO: Commissioners, it's just that I still don't understand the concept where the Triangle was blighted, and we have certain physical descriptions of that blighted area. And then once the CRA was formed, Wind Star was brought into that. And the majority of information, the movement has come from people that live in a gated community dealing with people that don't live in a gated community. And alls I'm saying is there should be more representation to the people or of the people that are immediately affected by this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We only had one application, and that was Chuck Gunther-- MR. STASKO: And that is because of the form of notice. You'll notice -- if you know, the people in the area are working Page 59 April 30, 2002 individuals. They don't have the luxury of sitting around until 9 or 9:30 in the morning with their cup of coffee reading the newspaper or in the evening or whatever. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, sir, we've done what we could with what we have received. Thank you. MR. STASKO: We do now have e-mail, and the list is getting bigger and bigger. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. Thank you. And the second speaker? MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Chuck Gunther. MR. GUNTHER: I just had a silly -- a clarification something on there. I need -- the sheet here has -- I believe it's district. Most of the people on here are from District 4 it says. Is this a misprint, typo, or have the Commissioner's lines been changed again? When Pam Mac'Kie resigned, all of a sudden, our lines were changed where we were in District 1 before we're in District 4. I believe -- I think most of the people in the Triangle would still like to be in District 4. I'd like a clarification. What district are we actually in? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It depends on where you live. MR. GUNTHER: No, no, it doesn't. The Triangle is in one district, period. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It wasn't in District 1 before. District 1 ended at Airport Road. Then it was in District 4, but I believe it's now -- the Triangle portion, not Bayshore -- the Triangle portion is in District 1 now, and the Bayshore area is in District 4. MR. GUNTHER: Okay. They got everybody in the Triangle (inaudible) District 4. So I guess it should be District 1. Page 60 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. MR. GUNTHER: I just want to make sure we're not getting lines criss-crossed back and forth because typos are what the people in the neighborhood are afraid of. They don't like seeing the county make typos that are beneficial to the county and not to the people. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think this just changed on the 1st of April, and possibly this was prepared before the 1st of April, Chuck, but thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. We have a motion on the floor for -- Marlene? MS. FOORD: Just wanted to clarify that you have three vacancies, an at-large member, a Bayshore resident, and a Gateway resident. So those are the three areas that you need to file. Your at- large, if you're talking William Mears, he would probably be your at- large representative, and Chuck Gunther would be your Gateway resident, and them Deborah Russell would be the Bayshore resident. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. MS. FOORD: Also wanted to clarify that we do have an existing member that is an at-large representative currently that would like to be reappointed, and that's Mike Hoy just to make sure that's clear. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a conflict between the categories? Can a Bayshore resident be considered an at-large representative? MS. FOORD: Yes. An at-large can be anybody within the district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Duly noted. AUDIENCE: Can I ask a question? Page 61 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can't ask from there. You have to come up to the microphone. MS. KING: My name's Kim Bennett King. I just wanted a clarification as to how many residents in the area actually applied to be considered for the position. Am I to understand you only had three positions and three applications? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven, I'm sorry. MS. KING: Okay. That's what I was clarifying. MS. FIALA: You were one of them, I believe. MS. KING: Exactly. That's why I wanted to clarify that point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? Thank you. Motion carried 5-0. Chuck Gunther, Williams Mears, and Deborah Russell are appointed to this committee. Thank you. Item #7B Page 62 April 30, 2002 SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED BY THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - APPROVED We move on to 7-B. MR. TOMERLIN: Tom Tomerlin for the record, planner in the Comprehensive Planning. 7-B addresses two grant programs that the advisory board has been working on, and before proceeding it's worth noting that these two grant programs are largely a product of a subcommittee that the advisory board formed that met quite routinely, worked a great deal to produce these. And we think they did a real good job in coming up with these two grant programs. On the visualizer is a brief break-out of the two grant programs. One is a site-improvement grant. One is an impact fee-assistance grant. The purpose for both is basically to provide incentive to rehabilitate and improve properties in the area. We're trying to baby step our way through this. This is our first grant program, and we're allotting 20 percent of the tax increment funds that we accrued in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to the site improvement grant, and 10 percent of fiscal year 2000, 2001, tax increment funds that we accrued into the impact fee-assistance grant. We expect the grant amounts will run 50 percent of the cost up to a maximum grant amount of $4,000 for the site-improvement grant and the impact-fee-assistance grant could go up to 50 percent of the total impact fees for a project. In the interest of keeping it brief, I'll just end it there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? Page 63 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chairman Fiala, thank you. Impact-fee-assessment grant, where's that grant coming from? MR. TOMERLIN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the grant coming from for impact fees? MR. TOMERLIN: The impact fee would be -- the grant funds are actually the tax increment funds that feed the CRA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's coming out of the CRA? MR. TOMERLIN: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would move for staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion? We do have a speaker. MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Ms. Chairman, and that is Thomas Stasko. MR. STASKO: Good morning, again, Commissioners. There were a couple of things in here. It says (as read): "All residential properties within the Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment overlay are eligible for site improvement grants." However, it says back here -- let me back up -- all projects will be -- let's see -- where does it say? (As read): "Landscaping installation improvement, commercial and multifamily residential projects only." The way that this is written, it is written to support Bayshore Page 64 April 30, 2002 Drive again. It's not written for any of the properties, let's say, north of 41. It's almost specific drafting to benefit that area. And as long as it's accepted as such, and everybody understands that, then fine. I have no objection, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. TOMERLIN: The only thing I might say is that if you notice here, eligibility, residential property is eligible throughout the entire Bayshore/Gateway area, but we are limiting site-improvement grant funds to the commercial within the Bayshore Drive mixed-use zoning overlay. The zoning overlay exists along Bayshore Drive. There's a blow-up of it on the visualizer. Basically, the intent to limit site- improvement funds within this area is that there's a zoning overlay in place, and there is some degree of flexibility and control in seeing that the funds are expended in an area in which the development standards meet the plan's objectives. But once again, residential properties are eligible throughout the entire area, but just the eligibility for the commercial site improvement funds are restricted to this mixed-use zoning overlay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that. MS. FOORD: And that's only for the first round this year. If we find that we have new zoning overlays in the future, and we find that we can expand the grant program even further, then we could also consider including the additional areas where we have new standards in place. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So each year we can apply again and reconsider. MS. FOORD: Right. Each year we will take a look at the overall grant program and see how successful it's been, and where we Page 65 April 30, 2002 need to make improvements and changes. And if that's one of the changes we need to make, then we'll do that. As Tom said, we're trying to take baby steps at this point and limit the number of grants that we offer and the funds that we use because we do have other areas that we need to focus the funds on. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. STASKO: Excuse me. May I just say one thing? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. MR. STASKO: (As read): "Grant funds may be used for the following improvements: Painting, all colors must be approved." Does that mean that if anyone receives a grant for improvements, which also includes painting, does that mean five years from now when he wants to repaint that he has to come before the board or somebody and say is this color all right? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know that, but maybe you could talk with our staff-- MR. TOMERLIN: Staff sure doesn't want to get into that. MR. STASKO: It's very, very ambiguous, and if you folks approve that, then here we go again. MR. TOMERLIN: I might clarify my last point. With respect to this grant program, it is certainly not staffs intent to address that, but there are LDC requirements that may or may not affect that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Land Development Code requirements that will affect it. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor, a second, we've heard from our speaker. And is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Page 66 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? (No response.) Item #7C ESTABLISHMENT OF A FAST TRACK COUNTY PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA- APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you passed 5 -0, and we're on to 7-C. MR. TOMERLIN: Tom Tomerlin, senior planner, Comprehensive Planning for the record. 7-C addresses basically the advisory board for the Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment area has been thinking about incentive programs, and as the previous item suggested, two of the ways that they are addressing it is through grant programs. In the same spirit, they wish to explore the capability of extending some sort of fast-track permitting program within the redevelopment area and this item is basically to receive your support of such a program. Obviously, there's lots of things to be evaluated such as development services, staff resources, and so there's certainly limiting criteria there, but the item's just for exploration of that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Tom. We have a motion to Page 67 April 30, 2002 approve and a second. REPORTER: Excuse me, who made the motion to approve? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve Commissioner Henning, second was Commissioner Coletta. REPORTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of points of clarification because I'm relatively new here with respect to this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can't claim that too much longer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know. Time's running out, isn't it? I wasn't in on the initial phases of the Bayshore planning and that sort of thing, but I want to make sure that you have all the overlay zoning that you need to permit a fast-track permitting approval to be effective. Is the zoning approval there? MR. TOMERLIN: I don't-- unless I can get clarification elsewhere, I don't think the fast track permitting is linked too closely to zoning. It is linked-- as the Economic Development Council administers it -- is linked to qualifying industries. So that's something that right now we're kind of in the research and development phase of this fast-track permitting programming. And that's something that would have to be evaluated as what kind of limiting criteria would we have to establish for such a program, but in terms of zoning, there is -- we are looking into a zoning overlay for two linear corridors, one for Davis and one for U.S. 41. And I think that was removed from the agenda as Marlene mentioned earlier. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you want to have fast track in order to get permits approved for the kinds of development you want in the area. Do you feel comfortable that you have the zoning that will assure that you get those kinds of developments in the area? Page 68 April 30, 2002 MR. TOMERLIN: I see what you're saying, yeah. I think zoning is one avenue in which we could tackle the fast-track permitting program. Couch it in terms of only applying in certain zoning districts. Also, the way it has been historically here is that it's been couched in terms of target industries and also for affordable housing projects. So that is a very good point, and that's something that we would have to hash out and think about a little bit more. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me take you one step further. We're asking for an RFP for the development of the Triangle area, and I understand that you obviously expect some zoning overlay as a result of that too. What happens if we establish a fast-track process now, and somebody comes in with an industrial development that is consistent with current zoning but would not necessarily fit in with the overlay zoning that you would expect from the RFP? What do you do with that? It's fast-tracked. It meets the current zoning requirements. Are you going to go ahead with it? MR. TOMERLIN: I don't believe we have industrial zoning in that Triangle area. We do have commercial -- I think there is C-5 areas within that area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's C-5 area in that area. MS. FOORD: I think your concern is valid, and when we start looking and researching as this is giving us the authority to do -- try to limit it as Thomas said to certain areas. Maybe to the areas that we currently have a zoning in place, and then maybe to the new areas that have new zoning overlays in place is one way of limiting it. As he mentioned, the EDC currently limits fast track permitting to certain targeted industries. So we would have to have some kind Page 69 April 30, 2002 of handle on who will qualify for the fast-track permitting unless it's the desire of the board to just open it up for all residential and commercial. And possibly, as you mentioned, industrial. There are some C-5 zoning districts in there that would permit very heavy commercial, which in some cases is considered industrial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Now, the question I have for you: A fast-track zoning process does make sense, and I think it's great to get things moving along. But wouldn't you want to limit it to the kinds of development that you're trying to encourage here, and if so how -- or could you make the fast-track approval process effective upon the receipt and/or approval of the response to the RFP for the Triangle area and make it effective with reference to the zoning overlay that you have for the Bayshore area, so that you don't fast track developments that meet current zoning when they are not consistent with your future plans. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that make sense? MR. TOMERLIN: I think your points are very well taken. One thing to note, though, is that we're just asking for the board's approval to try to pursue the research and development of such a program, and there's all kinds of things we need to take into consideration. And your points about the zoning and whether or not this type of program, how it might segue into the RFP for the Mini-Triangle are all valid points. At this point we're just asking in concept to direct staff to go ahead and walk that road to try to explore how we might work this thing out. But these points give us some more -- realizing that it's going to be quite an effort to develop this fast-track permitting program. And there's all kinds of things we'll have to evaluate to get it working. Page 70 April 30, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, I just need to explain for a minute. The fast-tracking piece is really an approval of the concurrent review process, meaning both the site development plans and then the building plans are reviewed concurrently. We do not do that now. We stopped that probably at least six months ago. The only fast- track incentive -- well, the only incentive we provide for fast tracking is for affordable housing and any EDC type -- nominated type of industry or other commercial use. So those are the two fast-track type of programs. But you are absolutely right. What you're saying makes sense. Where do we want the overlay to be, and to make sure that whatever we fast track or whatever approve or what we entice, whomever we entice to come in, will be in compliance with what our future vision is for the area. And that makes sense. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great point. MR. TOMERLIN: And I might also add that you-all will be seeing this again once we work out the details and iron out the wrinkles. Hopefully this item will come before you again. And it may be that an evaluation of the resources prove that we'd have to limit it a great deal or dispel it. But in any event it's something that you will all see again. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Commissioner Coyle. Do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Ms. Chairman, that's Thomas Stasko. (Mr. Carter leaves the meeting.) MR. STASKO: Thank you, Commissioners. Thomas Stasko. Page 71 April 30, 2002 Just one comment, I thank the commissioner for bringing up that point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I was just concerned that other commissioners have made mistakes and if somebody makes a mistake, it's just going to be bigger and quicker. So thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? (No response.) Item #7E SUPPORT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANNUAL ART FESTIVAL TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT AREA- APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And now we move on to 7-E. Aaron. MR. BLAIR: For the record, Aaron Blair. We're just trying to get your support for a local Bayshore resident that would like to bring an art festival to the area. His Page 72 April 30, 2002 projections for next year -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got my support. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me too. MR. BLAIR: The only thing he's asking from the county is he would have to have on Bayshore -- one side of the road along the bridge would have to be closed to hold the event. But that's the only thing he's asking at this time from the county. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We wouldn't be using general fund revenues to promote this? MR. BLAIR: No. He holds the art festival in Cambier Park now. He said that it's basically self-supporting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, was that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you need a motion or support, either way. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's just make it a motion and Commissioner's Coyle is a second. MR. SCHMITT: Just make it a matter of record that the applicant has to make sure that they apply for a right-of-way permit so it goes through the process, and certainly if they wanted to ask for a waiver of that, then that has to go to the board for your approval. But there has to be a permit for this to be done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And staff will do that? Thank you. Any discussion on behalf of the board? (No response.) Page 73 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a speaker? MS. FILSON: We did, but he cancelled. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine, thank you. (Mr. Carter returns to the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion has been completed. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: to 7-F. Opposed like sign? Thank you. Motion carried 5-0. Now on Item #7F PURCHASE OF LANDS FOR SALE BY THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. ON BAYSHORE DRIVE WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA- APPROVED MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning father-to-be Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator and father-to-be. Page 74 April 30, 2002 This item is kind of an Abbott and Costello item of the day. When I came over to public services in January, there was some discussion. We had had a follow-up meeting regarding previous board direction. Taking you back to the budget cycle of last fiscal year, during the first hearing of the board meeting, county manager had recommended not funding a $500,000 acquisition of property adjacent to Sugden Regional Park. The board had offered direction to go back to the CRA advisory board for Bayshore and see if they would be interested in doing a cost-sharing of the project in the acquisition -- Marlene, do you have the -- This is where it starts to get a little bit interesting. The board had directed staff to acquire or look at acquiring this property right here (indicating), which is otherwise known as the Stel property (indicating), lots 105 and 106. At that point in time, we had thought that the property was valued at about $500,000 -- at least that's through our initial discussions with the Botanical Garden where we had estimated that amount. With CRA funding 50 percent of it, we were looking at a $250,000 fee to the parks and rec impact fees, another $250,000 to the CRA. The CRA advisory board had approved that unanimously with the exception of-- they thought that we were actually talking about the property to the north, the Chlumsky property. So when they made their recommendation, they looked at that property and said that we would support that property instead of one to the south -- well, they didn't say "instead," but that's what the intent was. The whole concept behind the scheme was to provide an additional access to Sugden Regional Park off of Bayshore Drive. And from the CRA advisory board's perspective, also be able to address the storm water element of the community. Because one of the problems with storm water in this area is you look across the Page 75 April 30, 2002 street on Bayshore Drive (indicating), which I'm going to poim to you right there, there has been a lot of water with storm water in this community. That property, if we had acquired it, would allow us to create some drainage into this holding pond right here (indicating) and further one of these outflow areas for storm water. Robert Wiley's here to answer any questions. At this point in time we're looking for further board direction on this issue because we were looking at one property, the CRA advisory board had recommended another property, and to add a little bit more, I guess, confusion to the matter, the Botanical Garden has recently contracted the Stel property as of last week, and I believe -- Tom Berger's here in case you have any questions. Additionally, since the time that the board has provided direction, the commercial frontage (indicating) of the Chlumsky property has been sold as well to an industry locally. At this point in time, if staff were to make a recommendation, I believe we would be recommending that you ask your storm water department to get appraisals for this back parcel right here (indicating) as a storm water element with the understanding that parks and rec could provide an easement through there and still create an access to the park. The only catch to this is, is previously the board had given direction with it being parks and rec impact fees as being the only contribution from the county. If it becomes a storm water project, it would actually be general fund. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The whole project or just-- in other words, the road that would be connecting that, would that come from parks and rec? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, from our perspective, you would be Page 76 April 30, 2002 probably limited, and we'd have to go in and do a site analysis with the real property department. But you'd be limited to what kind of parking you could put at that location. And it would be our recommendation that you would not be able to use parks and rec impact fees to create a sidewalk access to the park because there's very little regional benefit. It mainly benefits the community. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we're talking just about a sidewalk, not -- when there's no parking at the end? Is that what you're saying? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, there is a little potential on the back side as I point to you right here (indicating) to do a few parking spaces. But there, again, we'd have to go in and do further site analysis. If the board were to pursue this project, we would probably ask that you give that direction to the storm water department because the main benefit of this acquisition would be for storm water retention for the community, and it is badly needed. And Mr. Wiley can elaborate on that, but from our perspective, parks and rec impact fees, you would be limited in what you could use. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, Mr. Dunnuck. My question is: Would the whole area be used for storm water retention or just part of it? Would the rest of it possibly be a passive park that could be put in addition to the park that exists now, or would the whole thing have to be totally off limits and fenced in? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, when all is said and done, it would be lake. It would almost be a lake feature connecting into the outfall area with very limited -- other than the access point to the main regional park. We couldn't do any other features other than that. You could probably do a few park benches along that lake, and look at it from that perspective. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we should we hear from Page 77 April 30, 2002 Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: Robert Wiley with the storm water management of transportation, engineering, and construction management. We have been reorganized so we're no longer a department, just in case you didn't know that. The issues we're looking at here is this parcel of land is the Old Lake Kelly. It is a fill pit. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the Chlumsky property? MR. WILEY: The Chlumsky parcel that you're looking at there, that portion is not already set up for sale to another entity. Basically what you have left is you have a small area of (indicating) that you can see. You've got the small area there, which is upland areas, and just to the east of that, you have a large cluster of Australian pine trees. The rest of what you see there is floating masses of vegetation. It's a hole in the ground. So basically what we're looking at is if we're able to utilize that basically for somewhat of a regional storm water system, again, we're very preliminary in the assessments. Will elevations even allow it? On the west side of Bayshore Drive is very low lying. I can't stand here and tell you if I even know what elevation differences between the two parcels. What we are doing right now, just your last board meeting that you had as Board of County Commissioners, you approved the purchase of some drainage easements from Botanical Gardens, which would be along the parcels through here (indicating). We're in the process of doing a major overhaul of that ditch going up through there. It will come all the way from Thomason, go up north and connect into Haldeman Creek (inaudible). That in combination with getting into the lake itself and doing some herbicide application to Page 78 April 30, 2002 clear up some of the vegetation (inaudible) to go physically through the lake, should provide some initial improvements even as soon as this summer, assuming we can get the construction started that fast. Since we are now just closing on the easements, we are a bit delayed in that process. The acquisition of the parcels for storm water purposes, it would be a multiyear project for us to undertake it. As Mr. Dunnuck mentioned, it would be strictly through general fund taxes because that's how storm water capital is funded. We have looked at it from the standpoint of our cost, and just ball parking, we figure we'll spend more cleaning it up than we'll pay for the land in the first place because it is heavily encumbered with a lot of vegetation. I mean, you got trees floating on islands of vegetation out there. So it would be something that would take several years to clean up. It is possible. We think in the long run it would serve as a very good storm water feature for the area. We had NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System coming at us. It is a federal permitting program that is coming to us rapidly. We submit our application in 2003, and at point, we have to be showing how we're cleaning up storm water throughout the county. This would give us an option in this portion of the county for some storm water improvements. So there's a lot of issues that are out there that look potential, but I just want to remind everybody that we are unfunded right now for this. This is not something in our current program. We can take it on at the commission's direction. So we wait for your direction here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Old Lake Kelly used to be fairly clear and provide for reasonable flow way through the entire area. Page 79 April 30, 2002 It's grown up over the years and become substantially clogged as you've pointed out. Not only would we have to clear it now, but we would have to commit to maintaining it; otherwise, the same natural growth would appear there periodically and continue to clog up that area. So we have to commit to continuing to keep that area clear. MR. WILEY: That is correct. I would advise you that what we would anticipate doing initially is going in and clearing a flow way through it. And then over the course of a number of years gradually going in and removing it even to the point of not just herbiciding, but physically removing the materials because if you herbicide them, they drop to the bottom and decompose and you have a water quality problem. The side slopes on the lake do not meet current code. One of the issues we're trying to work out with Botanical Gardens even now is as we do our channel excavation along the Lake Kelly ditch, can we place the excavated fill material along Lake Kelly to help start that process to get the lake where it has good slope for shelf planting to begin that process for water quality improvement. So we're working towards the goal working with them. We're just waiting for some good clear direction here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I provide some? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Tom Dunnuck's recommendation is a good one that we provide direction to storm water department to take a look at ways we can improve storm water drainage in this area to include cutting a path through Old Lake Kelly and clearing that out. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should spend the money, but at least we could investigate it and try to determine how much it's going to cost and what improvement will Page 80 April 30, 2002 likely occur. Is that sufficient guidance for you? MR. DUNNUCK: The only thing I would try to piggy-back on there is maybe to have real property give us an analysis of what the cost of the acquisition could potentially be. That will go a long way in helping Mr. Wiley do an assessment of the property itself. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you talk about "limited support," how much are we talking about? MR. DUNNUCK: I think we typically talk about $500 for an appraisal, so you're talking limited up to $10,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be willing to make that motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second from Commissioner Carter. Marlene? MS. FOORD: I just want to clarify that sitting on the CRA, you'll be making that motion to spend CRA funds, not general fund money. That would have to be done during a regular county commission meeting that's advertised as such. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have a speaker? MS. FILSON: We have three speakers, Madam Chairman. The first one is Thomas Stasko, and he will be followed by Thomas Berger. MR. STASKO: Good morning, Commissioners. Thomas Stasko, resident of Connecticut Avenue, Naples, Florida. What you're doing is asking to buy a park -- undeveloped property primarily -- that was almost given away. The engineer from Page 81 April 30, 2002 the county stated he doesn't even know what the elevation is. Common sense would tell you that the elevation, watershed if you will, is toward the Gulf and not across a paved highway two or three feet above the street. And, of course, with all the development around Moorehead Manner, they're boxed in so the water doesn't flow anywhere. Now, your taking funds, I believe, $10,000, you first and seconded it, of the CRA money for the purchase of undeveloped -- waste land, basically. Nobody can develop that. They'd have to sink pilings down in there 200 foot long. And then they'd have water underneath there for years. And that is something that the county commissioners should be doing. It's a regional park. It's regional water-- if you want to use it for retention water, fine. But it's nothing to do with the CRA other than it just happens to be in that neighborhood, and I mean across the street from the neighborhood. What better way to make a park and look out at a park instead of buildings? But how can it be a park? It's all water. How are you going to do that? And the on-going maintenance, who's going to pay for that? The CRA? You already appropriated -- from my understanding $10,000. You haven't voted on it. You just spent it. Let's find out. Why doesn't the county spend the money? The majority of it, they are the big brother. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Thomas Burger and your final speaker will be Chuck Gunther. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought that's what we did. The CRA didn't approve $10,000 for anything. MS. FOORD: No. That's correct. You would have to do that at Page 82 April 30, 2002 the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'd have to bring it back to the Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners would have to vote on it. MS. FOORD: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So nothing has been approved for any purpose whatsoever. MS. FOORD: Correct. I would like to point out, however, that you could, as the CRA, pay for the $10,000 to do this assessment. You can pay for the whole thing as long as it's identified in the redevelopment plan, which it is, storm water management, storm water improvements, and provisions of parks connection -- direct mention in the redevelopment plan is connection to Sugden Park. That will provide for that as well. So as long as the issue is identified in the redevelopment plan in some form or fashion, the CRA could spend those funds. But I don't think that's what the request is today. I think you would bring us back, and the Board of County Commissioners would consider to spend the $10,000 from the general fund for purposes of real property doing the assessment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the procedure I'd like to follow is take it back to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I understood your motion, Commissioner, and that's what I seconded. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for that clarification, both Commissioners. Next speaker. MR. BERGER: Good morning. My name is Tom Berger. It's B-E-R-G-E-R. I'm the vice president and chief operating officer of Botanical Garden. And unlike Mr. Dunnuck, I'm already a father. Page 83 April 30, 2002 I just wanted to let the commission know that we have been in contact with Mr. Wiley on the issue of the herbicide. They've requested a right-of-entry, and the Garden's attorneys are working with the county attorney right now to get that wording in place. And then we will look at the wording and the necessary documentation on the second piece that Mr. Wiley had requested, which was to be placing the materials that they excavate from the drainage canal that they are doing to reslope the banks of Lake Kelly. So we are in support and working as we can on a private/public basis with storm water to affect what they've been talking about earlier. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Our last speaker? MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Chuck Gunther. MR. GUNTHER: The only problem I had with this is the way it was presented to the advisory board originally. It was said then that it would bind the property -- almost look like our little maps here where you were buying two pieces of property, not just a one. I had a little conflict because I felt that the Botanical Gardens had too many people involved with the advisory board or with the commission. And I think they should have stepped back (inaudible) and take it real careful with this. The other thing was I couldn't see CRA funds being used for this because of that and because of the fact that the Triangle, which I'm involved in heavily -- this doesn't help the Triangle at all. One of the things that was being told to the advisory board was by the county buying this property with the CRA, they were asking CRA money to go in with it (inaudible) with the CRA. The CRA can't really partner with the county because everything reverts back to the county in the end. Whatever the CRA owns by their bylaws goes back to the county. And you can't partner with yourself. That was something I didn't like. I think that was a big sticking point. Page 84 April 30, 2002 It sounded like a good sales thing, but to me it had a lot of holes in it. It sounds like what you've done is the right thing. You're going back to the county commission and you go into it and it's good. But I think what Marlene is saying also is true. The CRA was based on water. It's a state program, but CRA is water. It's based on water, wastewater, stuff like that. So you could actually put the money in there for that. But I think the better way is through the county commission with the general fund. Thank you. I think you did the right thing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I have some questions, and I'm not sure if it's of benefit to go back and forth with speakers allowing continuing speaker, that's my opinion. Let me clarify which property we're talking about. We're talking about Chlumsky property? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that's the correct property is out of the picture. MS. FOORD: This part right here (indicating). There's a contract for the south part right now --. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The contract has been accepted? MR. BERGER: Yes. Tom Berger, again, Botanical Garden. Yes, we had an offer on that property. It's been accepted. I'm waiting for the paperwork to land at my desk today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And did we do a cost benefit in between the two properties to see if we're getting the bang for the buck? Page 85 April 30, 2002 MS. FOORD: That hadn't been done yet, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because I see a lot of potential on the other property for storm water storage where you're limited on the other one because you already have lakes. Am I wrong about that? MR. DUNNUCK: Mr. Wiley will probably be better able to answer this. For the record, John Dunnuck; public services administrator. This property is wet as well and is more limited actually from a cost-- and he would have to go in and dredge the property in order to have additional storm water benefits. This already has the lake there, and he could do with the restoration of the lake as he indicated to county code and also connecting to the flow way area that runs along side between Sugden Park and these properties. I believe it would be more cost effective to do it that way. Additionally, the value on the purchase price of the property is going to be much less on the Chlumsky property because it is a lake property, and I believe it's zoned for additional mobile homes. But the only really dry area on this property is this area right here (indicating) where we'd be looking at any kind of parking. And for that reason -- we estimated this one at $800,000. This back parcel right here absent the commercial frontage is probably worth much, much less. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, thanks for clarifying that. I feel a lot better about the motion. Just one last question, and it is customary for storm water drainage to come out of the general fund countywide? Storm water drainage enhancements or maintenance comes out of the general fund county-wide ? Page 86 April 30, 2002 MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, sir, it does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I feel comfortable. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, we're ready to vote unless it's something -- MR. BERGER: I just wanted a clarification. I did not understand Mr. Gunther's comment about the Botanical Gardens' involvement in the CRA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's right back there, sir. You can go ask him. MR. BERGER: We attend advisory board meetings as any member of the public, and we obviously have an interest because of our location. CHAIRMAN FIALA: the hall. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You guys can talk about that in Opposed like sign? Passed 5-0. Thank you. Item #7G REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA Page 87 April 30, 2002 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET EXPENDITURES We move on to 7-G. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's on hold, I believe, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's on hold? MS. FOORD: No, the current 7-G that's in your packet today is not pulled. It was the 7-G that was on the first draft of the agenda, which I understand that some people did get a copy of. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Very good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we're back to 7-G? MS. FOORD: Correct. 7-G is the recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency to review the proposed Bayshore/Gateway work program and budget. This is very much like the one for the Immokalee area only in this case, Bayshore/Gateway advisory board has created a work program where they are allocating funds into certain areas. That's the site-improvement grants and the impact-fee-assistance grants that Tom referred to earlier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have a question, Ms. Chairman. It looks -- I'm comfortable with the recommendations. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a second and another second. Second from Commissioner Coyle. Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Is there any discussion from our board? Page 88 April 30, 2002 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a speaker? MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mr. Thomas Stasko. MR. STASKO: Good morning, Commissioners. I've got a question. It says here (as read): "Approval of the attached work program," and I cannot find an attached work program. And I could not find it in the executive summary. MS. FOORD: What was the question? MR. STASKO: It says (as read): "Note. Approval of the attached work program," and I'm saying where's the attached work program. MS. FOORD: The work program is a spreadsheet that looks like this. MR. STASKO: Okay. Thank you. That was covered earlier. MR. TOMERLIN: It's on the visualizer as well. MS. FOORD: The actual budget sheet is the legal-size sheet that you'll see again as the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. MS. FOORD: Madam Chairman? Do we have any further discussion? Page 89 April 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN FIALA: I haven't said "opposed" yet. Do you want to speak on this subject? MS. FOORD: Just wanted to let you know that the Lynwood Avenue project, the community development block grand funds will be paying for-- as the CRA, a few months ago you authorized us to submit that grant for CDBG funds. And part of the approval was to spend up to $70,000 of the CRA funds toward that project as a match. When we started to look at the grant itself, the requirements and the cost that it would be to do this improvement, we cut back on the funds to $50,000, so now as the Board of County Commissioners, you have approved that CDBG grant to go forward to HUD. We will be just adjusting the budget and work program to reflect that $50,000 that's part of that match. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's going to help us with storm water management as well, isn't it? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Carried 5-0. Thank you. Thanks, Marlene. Item #7H SUPPORT OF EVALUATION OF BONDING POTENTIAL FOR TAX INCREMENT FUNDS ACCRUED IN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA - APPROVED Now we move on to 7-H. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval. Page 90 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I'll second it for discussion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion by our board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Obviously, you're going to bring this back to us before any bonding is approved. Generally, what percentage do you apply for bonding the revenues? What would be your expectation with respect to how many of the revenues would be utilized for bonding? MS. FOORD: Unfortunately, that's a question I can't answer at this point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If would presume that staff will bring that to us. But we can just make a note that they would inform us about percentages that you're using and forecast their using as well. MS. FOORD: Sure. What we would do is with this direction, prepare an entire bonding package along with assistance from the county's financial advisor, and part of that would be that analysis as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do we have any Registered speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have one, Mr. Thomas Stasko. MR. STASKO: Good morning, Commissioners, again, Tom Stasko. The objective is to find out, I believe, what the cost would be and how much. How much funds or revenues would be available. Page 91 April 30, 2002 Am I correct in stating that? MS. FOORD: Correct. MR. STASKO: Okay. We have a new agency now, the CRA, that has cash on hand. They will have more cash next year and the ear after. Yet, evidently, the powers to be, whomever, I guess the board, says that that's not enough money, so let us go into debt. (Mr. Coletta leaves the meeting.) Now, if the CRA goes into debt, who is held liable and responsible? Are the property owners? If the whole -- everything takes a big dive, and there's very little money out there, very little, who comes knocking on the owners' door and says that you owe us money? For another government entity to operate out of a balanced budget, it's just beyond belief that you say, look it, we don't know what we're going to do yet, but we're not going to have enough money. So we might as well go out and figure out how much money we can get. Without -- if you folks up and move, you are not in the Triangle. No one's going to say, "Hey, pay this tax bill," when you go to sell your home. And this agency or the county commissioners couldn't make a demand upon the property owners like that, even though the ordinance isn't on the books at this time. I think they could somehow. So when I go to sell my home for one-hundred-fifty, two- hundred-thousand, somebody could say that you got to clean up this tax bill for $75,000 because we built all these things. And we did something great for you. Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the assumption, sir, is that we're going to do it. What it says is we're going to support an Page 92 April 30, 2002 evaluation of bonding potential, the costs and benefits -- double underlined in my book -- of bonding, and prepare these recommendations to the CRA. No one's made a decision about spending a nickel. And, bonding, when you do that, there isn't an organization that provides funds in that process that would ever go at risk if you didn't have the revenue stream to pay it back that made some sort of reasonable sense to do it. So I think we have leaped to conclusions that are not taking place. Therefore, I support my motion in that I want to find out information. That's my job. That's what I was elected to do to explore everything, and if I don't do that, then I have failed to do what I was challenged to do when I took and swore this oath of office. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I speak, please? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning asked to speak and I'm so sorry. Please forgive me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, Commissioner Carter, if we had a lot of assumptions that taxes were going to take a nose dive and took that under all the considerations, we wouldn't get anywhere in this county. Page 93 April 30, 2002 This discussion that I would like to have is just CRAs in general throughout the whole county. As you know, we're anticipating assessed values increasing in Collier County for building the infrastructure. CRAs, and that's exactly what that is, is the increased assessed values go into the CRA. It's my opinion that I hope that we can go into sun setting CRAs and go into a taxing unit by a signature of the majority of the residents in the benefit area. It's not fair for other communities, such as Naples Park or Golden Gate or any other place that has areas that they want to redevelop and one of the tools is CRA. And we must keep in mind that we made a commitment to build the roads in Collier County using increased assessed values. So if we need to get into a discussion about that in the furore, I think that it would be a healthy one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just revisit the issue of my earlier question, which is a consideration of the percentage of that tax income that would be used for bonding purposes, that's exactly what it's designed to do. It's designed to protect you from a circumstance where your taxes don't increase to the extent that you expect them to. So there's a far greater risk if you're going to bond 95 percent of your tax revenue rather than bonding 50 percent of your tax revenue. And that's why the financial analysis is essential, and I'm sure if we're going to make a mistake, we're going to error on the side of caution with respect to that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Page 94 April 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign? Passed, 4-0. Item #8 DISCUSSION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTINE CRA MEETINGS - OPTION #4 AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: And on to our last item, which is schedule. No number but schedule. It's Agenda Item 8. I'm sorry. Thank you. And this is to establish a regular meeting schedule. MS. FOORD: Correct. When we came to you a few weeks ago with the request to have this CRA meeting, we talked very briefly about the need to establish regular CRA meetings. And that's what this agenda item is about today. There was a mention at that meeting of possibly holding CRA meetings on the same day that the MPO meetings are held, not necessarily each month but maybe each quarter or even as necessary, as required, depending on the number of recommendations coming from the advisory boards and so on. There are other options for other days for meetings, but that's the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning and then Page 95 April 30, 2002 Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners is the Board of Zoning Appeals and holds the same meeting on the day of our meeting. If we have this much material to review and to vote on and for discussion, I can see a need for a separate meeting besides the regular Board of Commissioners. So if we have a short agenda that is -- that we might consider in the future, why don't we put it on the regular board meeting? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understood that recommendation, Commissioner Henning. Are you saying that we do it on the same day as our board meeting? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would recommend that the board consider Option No. 4 for this reason. The Board of Commissioners' regularly scheduled meetings are unpredictable as to the duration. We have been here at sometimes till nine or ten o'clock at night. Although that is not normal, it's almost impossible to forecast exactly when it would occur, when the end of the meeting would take place. And that way it would leave the CRA members in the position of not really knowing when the meeting was ever going to start unless we had a time concern like you've suggested here at five o'clock. And then we have to break the Board of County Commissioners' meeting and have that move into the evening, which inconveniences people there. On the other hand, the MPO meeting is generally relatively short. And in many cases, we can predict that it's going to be over by 12 noon. And if we wanted to take an hour or two-hour break to give us some leeway there, we could start this meeting at two o'clock Page 96 April 30, 2002 following the MPO meeting. But certainly not to do it at the same frequency as the MPO meeting, but rather do it on a quarterly basis merely to follow the MPO meeting. that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree. coincide with the MPO meeting if I had my druthers. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm really open. And that's my input concerning I would much prefer to have it Commissioner If it was one item to go on a regular agenda on the Board of Zoning Appeals or tied into that meeting, I could support that. However, I agree with Commissioner Coyle, it's totally unpredictable how long this board will sit through any board meeting. And so I would be more inclined to tag on to the MPO process, which is generally a two-hour session and CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marlene. MS. FOORD: Yes. We would, depending on your decision today, if it changes the language in the bylaws, we would need to come back to you with an amendment to the bylaws, I would think, with a resolution to amend the bylaws. But the bylaws now do indicate that you can have CRA items on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda. So that would not preclude you from -- if there was an issue that had to be taken care of right away, and there wasn't an MPO meeting coming up, and we didn't have more than one or two critical items, then we could still put those items within the board's agenda as a CRA item, BCC sitting as a CRA. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just would like to revisit Commissioner Henning's suggestion and make sure that I understood it. If we do it concurrently with the Board of Zoning Appeals, do I Page 97 April 30, 2002 understand that this meeting could be advertised at the same time and be merely another item on the agenda for that same day? Was that your recommendation? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And if we have a short -- we don't have too many things to deal with, but Friday's okay with me. We can try it. I think that's a great suggestion. Let's give it a try, and if we find that we can spend our time more wisely, then let's revisit it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Because I'd be willing to go either way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we have a unanimous recommendation to use No. 4. MS. FOORD: Would they be quarterly meetings then? No. 4 doesn't specify that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You may have to decide that for us. If you have some things that are very timely or an abundance of issues, you might want to have it every other month, just depending. I mean, we probably wouldn't want it to stack up this much. Of course, I realize this is a whole year's agenda. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps we can schedule it quarterly, and then if you wanted to call a meeting -- a single meeting more frequently than that, you can call it. And then we can deal with the business at hand. MS. FOORD: That works. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I would also suggest that if it's a very short item or just a couple of items, we could meet at 8:30 on Friday and be done by 10 and go right into the MPO. So we have flexibility. You need to tell us. We've got one item, two items, whatever we need to deal with. Page 98 April 30, 2002 MS. FOORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, board members. Are there any comments from our attorney.`? MS. ASHTON: No. I don't have any comments at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments from Marlene Foord or Joe Schmidt? MR. SCHMIDT: No comments. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments from our board members.`? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: to thank you very much for electing me as your new chairman. appreciate that. Meeting is adjourned. Good. I have one comment, and I want I There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. Page 99 April 30, 2002 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT&, BROCK, CLERK - .,>,...: .~.~.',,,~ · ~~~~. P~PA~a ON B~HAUF OF ~ONOVAN COU~ ~PORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, COURT ~PORTER These minutes approved by the Board as presented ~ or as corrected . Page 100