Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/19/2003 W (w/CRA & CRA Advisory Boards)March 19, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 19, 2003 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 9:20 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Tom Henning Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA March 19, 2003 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 (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED 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, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA e BRIEF ADDRESS (5 MINUTES EACH) FROM EACH ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN - BILL NEAL, BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND FRED N. THOMAS, JR., IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. March 19, 2003 4. GENERAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Am RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOLD ANNUAL OFFICER ELECTIONS AND ELECT A NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMPONENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS A. STAFF UPDATES AND REPORT Be RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) BOARD REVIEW THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED FOR THE GATEWAY "MINI-TRIANGLE" CATALYST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RENDER A DECISION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL. 6. IMMOKALEE COMPONENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS A. STAFF UPDATES AND REPORT Be RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF $200,000 FROM FUND 186 TOWARDS UTILITY AND ROAD PROJECTS IN THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Ce RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO FUND UP TO $49,000 FROM REDEVELOPMENT FUND 186 TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE STUDY FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA. De RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL $5,000 OF FUND 186 AS SEED MONEY TOWARDS THE SURVEYING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 5TM STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 7. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE CRA'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 March 19, 2003 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN FIALA: The meeting of the CRA board, please come to order. And although we've said the pledge of allegiance once, I think it's in order to say it again today. All rise, please. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Tom, did you want to take over from here? Item #2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA- ADOPTED MR. TOMERLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. We-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name for the record, sir? MR. TOMERLIN: My name, for the record, is Tom Tomerlin. I'm a principal planner in the planning services department and community development environmental services. The first item on your agenda is basically the adoption of the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Item #3 BRIEF ADDRESS FROM EACH ADVISORY BOARD Page 2 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN- RONNIE FOWL FOR BILL NEAL, BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND FRED N. THOMAS, JR., IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - PRESENTED And now comments. Did you want to -- I don't know if you wanted to handle this part of the board? Shall I just move it forward? We're going to be talking about the brief addresses from Bill Neal and I didn't know how you wanted -- MR. TOMERLIN: I think it might be more efficient if you just saw it through up until the point where we have to elect a new chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: Then we'll see what happens at that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Then I would be happy to do that. Okay, I guess we should have coordinated before we sat down here. Okay, we have a brief address, which is about five minutes, from each advisory board chairman. Bill Neal, is he here? Oh, Ronnie Fowl is going to be speaking for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board. MR. FOWL: My name is Ronald Fowl, with the CRA Advisory Board. This I had to pick up quick on. I wasn't asked to do it in the beginning. Tommy just asked me. The CRA has grown quite a bit since our infancy now. It's over three years ago that it started, and believe it or not, we're up over $800,000 in tip funds that we've accumulated. We have an incentive program that was advertised in the newspapers, and I believe there were about 35 responses from people who inquired about applications. And it was the impact fees and for Page 3 March 19, 2003 improvements in the area, whether it was painting, touch-up or everything else. The improvement fees were up to $4,000. Out of that so far we've only had two people who have come back with a completed application, which we will start working on. We had it advertised, there were a lot of people who responded, but a lot of people who did not fill out the applications. Maybe we were too lengthy with them, we're not sure. We'll try to tweak it so we get more. We issued a new RFP for an overlay for the district again. There were two people that responded to it. It's a short list. This the CRA will be paying for out of our funds, but we respectively want to come back to you and submit it for future reconsideration of you paying for the fund. We did this to fast-track it to make sure it wasn't stalled, so we could keep moving on it. We had a $50,000 matching grant that we did with the CDBG for sidewalks on Linwood when the drainage was going to be put in. This has been worked on with stormwater management for about three years, and we got a kick in our teeth when the engineers come back and said that it was only good for a three-year rain, it wasn't good for a 1 O-year rain. At the last meeting, I understand the county is looking again for outfall pipes so we can hope to get this to move in. That would be nice to have a sidewalk on that busy street, because it's about 3,000 feet long and an awful lot of traffic going through it. In the CRA district, the Gulf Gate Shopping Center is doing a lot of discussing about what they want to do. (At which time, Commissioner Coletta enters the boardroom.) MR. FOWL: Nothing specific or formal yet. The comer property on the comer of Shadowlawn and 41, the motel has been knocked down, and we understand that CVS or some other company is actively pursuing that. There's been a very active group within the triangle, led by Page 4 March 19, 2003 Chuck Gunther, who's been trying to keep it clean. When you drive through there, there's a lot of people just getting out, cleaning up their swales and putting a little bit of effort back into the area. The committee itself has recommended that the board accept Dan Pioli and give him the developmental rights to the triangle. We know that's your decision. We hope you consider it. And I know there's two options that have been given to you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ronnie, before you leave, are there any questions from the board members? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I have one, but I think the county manager is going to have to get involved in this. Is he still here? No? Maybe Joe Schmitt then. In reference to the selection of the contractor, and I understand you're going to be paying for it, but you would like to have us -- MR. FOWL: Resubmit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- resubmit at some later date. My question really is whether or not we get into any legal trouble with respect to providing funding for an RFP that we -- I presume you're talking about the board -- did not approve. Did we actually get involved in approval of that selection? MR. FOWL: Tommy? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We did. MR. TOMERLIN: The -- I think what Mr. Fowl is referring to is the -- a study to basically install a new land development overlay. Basically almost a stand-alone LDC for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle areas. And the CRA board did meet on September 30th of last year and approved issuing an RFP and proceeding with that project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But then the money is being paid from what source? MR. TOMERLIN: It was staff's understanding that that would Page 5 March 19, 2003 be financed out of the tax increment funds gathered for this redevelopment area. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: And so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is not now financed, or it's not now being paid for from that source? MR. FOWL: Not yet. We haven't awarded it to anyone yet. MR. TOMERLIN: It has not been awarded yet. This -- The CRA board will see a short list of-- it's a short list, but only two firms submitted proposals. But there was a selection committee formed, and a firm was selected, and the next step is to have the short list approved by this board and then contract negotiations for the fee amount could be negotiated at that point. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so there really is only one source of funding here. MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct. It would be tax increment funds accumulated since the year 2000 for this district. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I guess I had gotten the impression that somebody else was going to be paying for it initially and then we were going to be reimbursing them later on, but that's -- MR. FOWL: It's our money going out, but we would like to request to get it back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. FOWL: What you did with Naples Park and everything else. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I understand. Thank you very much. MR. FOWL: Any other questions? Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I have a question, Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did we do in Naples Page 6 March 19, 2003 Park? We-- MR. FOWL: I think with -- what's the development? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Naples Park. MR. FOWL: Up at the north end of town. I'm trying to think, Camp -- it's not Camp Dressier, it's -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Dover-Kohl? MR. FOWL: Dover-Kohl. And I believe that the county did pay for that, for the -- for that monies that were expended to Dover-Kohl. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Plus some extras, didn't they? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, Dover-Kohl was contracted for the Naples Park study, clearly outside of the jurisdiction of the CRA district. But the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract, I believe the dollar amount was around about $250,000. MR. SCHMITT: 239, I believe it was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, just so I understand your statement, you're saying the changes to this overlay, you would front it, but you want the Board of Commissioners to reimburse you through the general fund? MR. FOWL: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And didn't we also, with the Naples Park, as we gave them the money to do it, didn't we advance them some of the money that would have been going toward -- was it this project or the U.S. 41 east corridor project? MR. TOMERLIN: I think the project that it was put in juxtaposition to at that point in time was actually Golden Gate and Golden Gate City, more in particular. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: This -- the CRA districts are a little bit of a unique beast, because they have their own financing source. The assessed values are frozen in a base year since the year 2000, and everything that -- as the assessed values appreciate, this is what goes Page 7 March 19, 2003 into the coffers to expend on special projects. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that there are -- a lot of communities want to redevelop their community: Immokalee, Golden Gate City, Naples Park. I understand your request. How long is the advisory board going to allow the commissioners -- or what's the request of payback? Five years, 10 years? MR. FOWL: We haven't discussed that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. FOWL: We haven't discussed that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I understand your request, I really do, but there's a lot of wishes out there. MR. FOWL: There's a lot of wish lists from up here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you. MR. FOWL: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning's question clarified the issue. There really are two sources of funds we're talking about here, which is what I originally thought we were talking about, not just one. There's tax increment financing in the CRA, and then there's talk about getting that replaced by contributions from the Board of County Commissioners from the general fund. Now, that raises my original question all over again, that although we also are the Board of County Commissioners, when we act as a CRA board, we're not acting as part of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So my question to you still is, the Board of County Commissioners did not approve a contract, and if the Board of County Commissioners did not approve a contract, then Page 8 March 19, 2003 how do we transfer money out of the general fund to pay for this? This is purely a technical legal issue. I'm not debating the subjective nature of this thing. I just -- I am concerned that we might be creating a legal issue here. Are we? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. At this point factually there is no contract, per se. However, at today's meeting this board could choose to make it necessary for any contract that may be authorized by the CRA board to have that affirmed by the Board of County Commissioners and I think resolve that potential legal issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I just wanted to make sure we address that. Because it does sound to be a fairly complex process if we don't do it that way. MR. WHITE: You'll never hear our office be concerned about the commissioners' recognizing the distinction between when they act as the CRA board and the Board of County Commissioners. It's always helpful to us when you make that distinction and recognize which hat you're wearing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments from the board members? Thank you. Thank you, Ronnie, I appreciated your presentation. And now Fred Thomas, from the Immokalee local redevelopment advisory board. MR. THOMAS: Good morning, redevelopment board members. I'm here to -- Fred Thomas, for the record, the chairman of the Immokalee Advisory Board for the CRA. What I first proudly tell you, that your board has been very active out in Immokalee. We've pulled together for you input from every organization that's represented in Immokalee, whether it's the weed and seed, the environmental (phonetic) alliance, does not matter. We've gotten information from all these various organizations so that we can recommend to you the kinds of projects Page 9 March 19, 2003 that would help develop Immokalee, okay? You will see on your agenda later on today to be funded out of our tax increment funding three projects: One project helps to develop more middle income housing, we'll talk in more detail about that a little later; the second project is -- and I need to stop a minute. I need to say something else before I say that. I think your economic development council and your staff did an outstanding job in the workshop presentation they brought you on economic development within Collier County. I think they did an excellent job, I was very proud of what they said, and how they approached it. And they went a long ways. But in Immokalee, because of our distance from the glamour of Naples, we need to look at some other issues. And we had partnered with the Immokalee Community Development Corporation to put a study together that we recommended you funding that would look at not only economic incentives, residential incentives, and what are some of the deterrents. Why did the Wal-Mart Distribution Center go to Wachula instead of going to Immokalee, where it was closer to the interstate? Those kinds of issues we need to have answered so as we develop a package -- a tool kit for Immokalee, we'll at least look at everything that the outside businesses are looking at when they look into our community. And lastly, you'll see an issue that was brought to us by our weed and seed group that deals with safety issues and working with a project that's existing out there in trying to speed up clearing up a major safety problem. But we'll deal with those in detail later on. But I'm letting you know that we have tried to serve to coalesce all of the redevelopment concerns in Immokalee through this committee from the various other committees that are looking at various aspects of Immokalee. If you have any questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from the board members? Commissioner Coletta? Page 10 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Henning was first. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine. Mr. Thomas, I'm glad we're looking at-- or the advisory board is taking a look at middle income housing. And if you really want to pick up Immokalee, my opinion is, try to spur that middle income. We've done tremendous with the lower income. I'm not sure if we did it in the right steps. So thank you. MR. TOMERLIN: Well, I can tell you here, we have a representative -- no, we don't have a representative. I thought he was there. But we've got a representative -- we have two organizations right now; one that's represented here now that's going to be doing some things in Immokalee to develop housing for our school teachers, housing for our deputy sheriffs, things of that nature, okay? We have jubilation (phonetic) that's coming out of the ground doing tremendous. I mean, we're talking condos, zero lot line villas and custom lots. I mean, these things are beginning to turn around. The more of our middle class owners, working middle class that we have in Immokalee, that live in Immokalee, the better the overall development, services, less impact on roads, as I pointed out to you before we would have. So any -- that's why we're looking at it, since it's not only for economic residential incentives also. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? Oh, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just wanted to also echo on what Fred Thomas said. It's been a community effort. I sat in on some of the meetings and I was very impressed with the community participation. And I want to thank this board personally for all they have done for Immokalee. Some of the economic incentives that are coming forward are absolutely tremendous. I think that this projection -- Page 11 March 19, 2003 well, you're going to be getting into it and we'll get in more discussion, and hopefully, Fred, you'll come back up to answer questions. But when it comes to a Lesser study, we're seeing a new avenue approach where we can see -- open up a new series of toolboxes that we might be able to give consideration to when the time comes. But one of the things I did want to mention, there is a concern over the amount of distance that you do have to travel from Immokalee. I guess we're fortunate that we have the biggest county in the State of Florida, but we're also unfortunate in the fact that Immokalee is so far removed from Naples. One of the things that will take place tomorrow at the planning commission meeting, working with Mark Strane (phonetic), I see where there's an enabling ordinance, part of the enabling document for the planning commission that states that when the planning commission's going to meet about Immokalee, items that concern Immokalee, that we'll give due consideration to holding the planning commission meetings in Immokalee. And they'll be coming up tomorrow. And if any of you can make that, to come back and show support for that, we might be able to start moving government a little bit closer to Immokalee. MR. THOMAS: I don't know why they changed that process. I was on the planning commission for 11 years. When I was on it for 11 years, whenever there were a number, they tried to group the Immokalee issues on one agenda, and we'd have that meeting in Immokalee. I don't know what caused that to change, but we need to get back to that kind of a package. And also, Commissioner Coyle, all the money we're asking for here is tax increment money. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. That's the way it ought to be. MR. THOMAS: No general fund, just tax increment money. Page 12 March 19, 2003 And hopefully by doing these things, we'll increase the amount of money coming into the general fund. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Fred Thomas, for an excellent job. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Item #4A ANNUAL OFFICER ELECTIONS AND ELECTION OF A NEW CRA CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN- COMMISSIONER COYLE ELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER HAIJAS EIJF, CTED AS VICE CHAIRMAN- APPROVED Okay, now, we hold an election to elect a new chairman for the CRA and a new vice chairman. Do I hear any motions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The vice chair is? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm chair right now and Commissioner Coyle is vice chair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to take Mr. Coyle and move him up to the chair position and Commissioner Halas for the vice chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that. Any comments? All those in favor? Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks a lot. I'm going to delegate this to the vice chair. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to sit in this seat? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'll sit here until later, if you don't mind. Page 13 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at all. Item #5A STAFF IIPDATES AND REPORT- PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, our next item on the agenda is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle component redevelopment area items. MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, 5(A) is staff updates and report. And we basically have three updates we want to share with you. The first one is something that was alluded to by advisory board member Ron Fowl earlier, the land development overlay plan. That is in progress. As I mentioned, on September 30th, the CRA board did authorize that staff proceed with seeking proposals from planning consultants to try to develop a set of land development standards that would codify the whole host of things that an LDC typically does with-- in terms of having land development go through. The -- we have gotten two proposals back. There was a selection committee formed, basically by the advisory board, and they are recommending a short list of consultants that will be coming to you at a subsequent date, hopefully sometime in April, for you to approve that short list, and then negotiations for the fee amount could occur at that point. I think it's worth noting at this point that really, this has been approached procedurally from the point of view that tax increment funds are the main source of revenue. And that was an excellent line of questioning that Chairman Coyle had about if we do indeed go back to trying to request this reimbursed out of general funds, then we need to reexplore that, but-- And the next two items -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, there's a question by Page 14 March 19, 2003 Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have 5(B). I don't see 5(A) in my agenda packet. And the pages are numbered on the lower right-hand side -- MR. TOMERLIN: I apologize, there's not an actual executive summary form for them. These are meant to be extremely informal, letting you know what is in progress, but not at any point where a decision needs to be made. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I like those items. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would just like to add, I appreciate your update. One of the things that we recognize -- I visit the advisory board a lot, and it was brought to our attention probably two years into the process, that even though they had an overlay and they thought they were moving forward, the reason we weren't going anyplace was we never had a plan. We never had a plan in place. Peter Van Arsdale brought that to our attention, actually. And we had to step back a minute, take a look and realize the reason our wheels kept spinning was we had no plan to follow. So this is now being put in place. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? I have one question. When do we expect the land development overlay to be completed for the mini-triangle? MR. TOMERLIN: We expect that sometime in April you will approve the short list. Our purchasing department will begin negotiating the contract price. And given the LDC cycle expanding at least six months, we're talking about something that -- I don't see how it could be conceivable it could be done until calendar year 2004, in terms of being on the books. The process is certainly -- the wheels are spinning with respect to it. But actually having it on the books sometime calendar year -- Page 15 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: We had a lot of people even applying -- even had trouble getting people applying for this, didn't we? MR. TOMERLIN: There was -- I think there was in excess of 80 notices sent out to various planning firms throughout the state, and response was fairly lukewarm. I think the read we're getting is that these places are rather over-worked and they just might not have the resources to devote to a project of this scope at this point in time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, proceed. MR. BLAIR: For the record, Aaron Blair, planning services. I'm going to update. We -- Ron updated about our grant program that's in the Bayshore area, which is the site improvement grant, impact fee assistant grant. So I don't think I need to go in greater detail. But those besides -- that we did, the two applicants, and they're in the review process right now and will be coming back to the board for approval of these grants for those people to fix up their properties. The other update would be the Bayshore Drive mixed use zoning overlay Phase II, which also at our last meeting the board told us to go ahead and proceed with the Phase II of our current zoning overlay, which is on Bayshore Drive, and that is going through the LDC amendment process right now as we speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is independent of the land development overlay that we're talking about -- MR. BLAIR: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- here? MR. BLAIR: This one's already in place on Bayshore. We're just expanding. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) Page 16 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, who's next? MR. TOMERLIN: The next item is 5(B). Before we get to that, I just -- I think it's worth noting that as Commissioner Henning pointed out, there was no executive summaries. These are just updates that -- there's no need for a decision at this point, so I didn't want anyone to get confused about the lack of executive summaries, because there's -- it's at a preliminary stage. But we want to provide you with kind of an update on how things are progressing with respect to these. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understood. Did you? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I got it. Item #5B REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL AND DECISION FOR THE GATEWAY "MINI-TRIANGLE" CATALYST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT- PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDATION #2 APPROVED MR. TOMERLIN: The next item is 5(B), it's revisiting the mini-triangle catalyst project. And the way we were going to approach this this morning was that I'm not going to spend probably more than one minute just giving you a background on how we got here today. Then I want to hand over the reins to Dan Pioli, who is the petitioner and the single response that we got to this request for proposals. As you know, this is the second go-around that the CRA Bayshore/Gateway Triangle local CRA has had with this particular project. Back in (sic) April 30th of 2002, there was a lengthy discussion with the CRA board about what to do with the mini-triangle project after the advisory board decided to bring it back to the forefront of attention, because they felt there was a lack of Page 17 March 19, 2003 activity within that area. At that meeting date, the commissioners -- the CRA board members decided at that point to go forth and issue a request for proposals to redevelop the mini-triangle, but it was made very clear by this board that one of the products that could come from this type of RFP would be zoning standards and property owner initiated type products. And so I think that was kind of the tendency that staff felt the board was leaning towards saying well, let's do this in an RFP context, but we sure want the RFP to have an umbrella big enough to include property owners' submitted projects. And basically this is the result of that go-ahead on April 30th. It's almost a year later, but the reason it was drug out a little bit further than usual is because the board agreed to issue an intent first, because there's recognition that there may be a flaw here in just having 30 days someone come up with a defensible proposal to develop such a large project. So there was a 90-day research period installed into the whole process. We tried to have the development community do their homework, or property owners do their homework to submit something in response to this. We're here today to listen to the single proposers. So what that means is that the property owners did not submit something in response to this RFP. And with that, I'll handle any-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Tomerlin, the executive summary was written by staff?. MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: At a certain point during -- after the presentation by Mr. Pioli, I do have some questions on that, so we'll hope you provide the opportunity for me to do that. MR. TOMERLIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: So at this point, if there's no further Page 18 March 19, 2003 questions, I'll just mm the reins over to Dan to let him share this project. MR. PIOLI: Thank you, Tom. Good morning, Commissioners. I'd like to first thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We've put a lot of time and energy and work into this, both at the staff level and at the private level, as well as various meetings with each of you. So hopefully today is the culmination of a lot of work by all of us that will take us in a very positive direction for East Naples. I see Kady's already switched us over to the monitor, so if I could direct your attention to that screen in front of you. My name, for the record, is Daniel Pioli, my company is FP Real Estate Investments, LC. And I'm here today on behalf of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment District and Collier County government responding to an RFP for the mini-triangle project. Community redevelopment is a public/private partnership, as you know, whose objectives are to achieve urban renewal, create a landmark gateway in a mini-triangle, in this particular instance, and catalyze further redevelopment. This particular project is proposed to be a mixed use redevelopment plan that would include retail, residential, hotel and office uses as part of the plan. There are five key elements that need to be noted with respect to redeveloping the mini-triangle. They are land acquisition costs. As you know, there are a number of existing operating businesses within the mini-triangle, all of which either have to be compensated for the liquidation of those businesses or relocated. When you have that element that becomes a part of the cost associated with acquiring the property, that raises the cost of the property pretty significantly. Additionally, having tagged this property for redevelopment, Page 19 March 19, 2003 that also creates the impression that the property should and would be worth more. So we have a very, very high land acquisition cost as an element of this. There are some transportation management improvements that are going to be needed in order to properly service this particular project, as well as the surrounding commercial and residential areas as well. There's anticipated to be a pretty considerable -- considerably high level of environmental contamination, both in the soil and groundwater that will have to be addressed most likely by remediating or excavating the site. Additionally, as many of you know, there used to be a lake in the middle of the property that I understand was previously there for stormwater management, which has since been built in with road and bridge construction debris from the Gordon River. And likely that is not suitable for development and at the very least would have to be excavated as well. Stormwater management is a problem that's plagued that area for many, many years. When it rains heavily, basically the streets and the businesses are closed and the residences are infringed upon by this sheet flow that accumulates across Commercial Drive back through the industrial area into the residential neighborhoods, and eventually releases across Davis and into the canal and out into the river. This is a problem that everyone knows about. I have proposed and given the county the opportunity, as the public participant in this project, to use the excavation for environmental repair as an opportunity to install an underground storm or a vault system that could resolve at least substantially, if not entirely, this problem for the area. When you have this many costs that are involved with simply acquiring and preparing a site for redevelopment, obviously you have -- you have to achieve a certain density. We've discussed that. Page 20 March 19, 2003 That's been something that's been a known issue for some time. In order to achieve that density level, how are you going to park as many cars as you need to park in order to service all of those uses? So parking becomes an issue that we have decided that will have to be structured within the buildings. No parking garages, very few if any cars parked on the ground. There may be some interior parking around the core area of the development and there may be some perimeter parking, particularly along Commercial Drive for street level businesses, but the parking will principally be within the structures, and they will access that through an internal street environment that would get the cars off of the main roads and into the facilities where they can meet the parking. What must happen for mini-triangle redevelopment to occur? Predevelopment, the county must first award the development rights. That's why we're here today. We must then negotiate a developer agreement -- and forgive me, that's a little bit far away, my eyesight's not that good. The CRA, your body -- which I cannot do, you as a CRA have to do, must apply for grant monies that are administered by the state, federal grant monies that are administered by the state, and available to do a Phase I and a Phase II site assessment so that we can determine exactly what the level of contamination is in this site and determine then through an engineer's report exactly what has to be done to remediate the site. That will enable us to establish the costs associated with that remediation. We need to complete certain transportation system improvements, I believe that's what that says, and that involves the four-laning of Commercial from Davis down to 41. That four-laning will be essential, not only because of the traffic impact created by this project, but there will continue to be businesses operating east of Commercial Drive, plus all of the residences south of 41 are having to use that as a means by which to access their neighborhoods, since Page 21 March 19, 2003 they lost that left-mm lane from Davis onto Sandpiper. I can tell you that as I mentioned last year, that the Florida Department of Transportation has issued a letter of support for the signalization of this intersection. I think everybody's preference would be that it be realigned. I don't know that we're going to be able to achieve that, but at the very least it needs to be signalized. And there will need to be some median modifications that have to occur as well. Again, just a little bit out of my view. Okay, I've asked the county to establish -- oh, there we go -- a fast-track review process. I have begun to attend the EDC and staff meetings that are designed specifically for this purpose, and it clearly appears that they're on the right track. I think, though, what this particular project is going to need, though, is to have certain staff members, preferably department heads or senior planning people, assigned to this project so that -- who have a dedicated team, particularly reviewing this plan and this SDP. Where this becomes extremely important is that in order for the development entity to go out and negotiate contracts with the property owners, we're going to have to negotiate a time specific contract in order to achieve plan review and approval within the base period, or maybe one or two extension periods of that contract. We've got to know that there's a fast-track review set up. It's going to take quite a bit of time for us to work through all of the predevelopment planning stages that are involved with this. And once we get into the process of formally planning the project, we need to know that when we come out of that, we're able to expedite the review and approval process. And lastly, prior to development, probably, although I don't know the legal issue that has to be addressed here, but either as a CRA or as a Board of County Commissioners, you'll have to agree to make case-by-case zoning review considerations for any businesses Page 22 March 19, 2003 that choose to relocate out of there. And that some properties today might presently be grandfathered under a C-5 that's in there, but we don't have a C-5 site available for them where there are compatible use. And in order to accommodate the transfer of all of their presently vested rights, we need to ensure that those rights are portable through making the zoning enhancements that are necessary, if we're able to find a site for them to relocate to. At or by the start of development, I'm asking you to grant the impact fee waivers -- or credits, rather -- for all existing uses within the redevelopment area, within the mini-triangle area. I've had meetings with staff, we've discussed this, we're putting numbers together, we're specifically identifying exactly what these will be. But you have existing uses in there, impervious site areas and water and sewer meters, all of which have already impacted the area. And it's usual and customary when you have redevelopment to credit those existing uses against the impact fee bill for the proposed project. I'm then asking you to grant a deferral for up to 10 years for the remaining impact fee balance. Now there again, that raises another legal issue. I don't know if you're presently legally entitled to grant deferrals for up to 10 years. I know you've done six and seven years. Mr. Tomerlin has referenced in his executive summary that there may be comp. plan amendments necessary to set the stage for some of these particular issues. I'm also asking you to waive miscellaneous fees, such as permit application fees, review fees, inspection fees, things like this that add up to several hundred thousand dollars. And these are the kinds of administrative contributions that you can make that create an economic incentive for this project to be successful. I'm also asking you to fund a $3 million advance against the tax increment financing. And these essentially are bonds that would be issued by the CRA at some future date. And your advisory board has Page 23 March 19, 2003 agreed to allow the proceeds of those funds, when the bonds are issued, to repay the county's general fund for that $3 million advance. I'm not asking for any more money than what would be produced in the form of bond proceeds by just the mini-triangle. I'm not asking for funds that would come from tax increment revenue from any other redevelopment activity within the district. I'm asking you, if you agree to install the underground stormwater vaults, that must be initiated at or by the start of development, as well as the acquisition of any necessary easements, if staff determines that a dedicated outfall line is necessary. And lastly, we need to begin construction of the transportation improvements. Post-development, I'm asking you to abate real estate taxes. There again, that might be another legal issue that has to be addressed at some future date. Why redevelopment in a mini-triangle? Well, first and foremost, community support. Your own local redevelopment advisory board has endorsed this project. The East Naples Civic Association has issued a letter of support for this project. The Royal Harbor Homeowners Association, the Oyster Bay Homeowners Association, the Brookside Homeowners Association, all have issued letters of support. These are all the neighborhoods who are most directly impacted by this development, and their support has been on record for some time, all of which are in the form of letters that have been provided to each of you. Secondly, well, jobs. 2,500 estimated during construction and 2,000 permanent jobs. That's quite a significant amount ofjob creation. Impact fees. After the credits for the existing uses of the deferral, estimated at roughly $3 million to the county. Ad valorem tax revenue. Presently those properties are only producing about $72,000 in total revenue, and that was the amount that was the frozen rate, with anything that's resulted in an increase is Page 24 March 19, 2003 going into the TIF account now. But I anticipate that this project's going to generate about a million and a half dollars of revenue. That's a pretty significant return on your investment. Additionally, purple properties in the area will also rise in property value, which are going to produce additional funds to the county. Other tax revenue would include sales tax and bed tax on an annual basis. Just to review the project capitalization for you; the county contributions I'm asking for are TIF advance; the impact fee credits and deferrals; capital project costs participation; I'm asking you to apply for the EPA grants; I'm asking you to waive permit and other fees, other county fees; and I'm asking you to abate the real estate taxes. These are a package of incentives that will go a very, very long way toward ensuring the success of the project. The mini-triangle redevelopment is a unique opportunity, there's nothing else like it in the county, to lay the foundation for the future, meet the needs of a growing population and prepare for the day that the growth turns around and comes back down 41. Having concluded that presentation, I'd like Aaron to put in front of you a summary of some very brief comments that I've prepared in response to staffs executive summary. I'd like to go through those really very quickly with you, because I think they're important as you review and discuss this matter today. I'll start quickly with Item No. 1. Under the consideration section on Page 2 of the executive summary, paragraph two, I offer the following corrections: Among the items being requested, not only is the deferral of impact fees requested, but also a credit for all existing uses and meters that have already impacted the site area. Further in that paragraph, and in reference to the $3 million Page 25 March 19, 2003 advance, these funds are contemplated to come from the county's general funds and later repaid with proceeds of the TIF, as I described just a moment ago. Regarding Item 2.b in staff's ES, it is not feasible or practical to achieve redevelopment in the mini-triangle with the zoning overlay. Due to irregular lot sizes and shapes, the inadequate transportation management at the Davis/Commercial intersection, the history of severe stormwater management problems, and the anticipated levels of soil and groundwater contamination, the properties within the mini-triangle cannot and will not be redeveloped individually. Solutions to these impediments to redevelopment can only be best achieved by unification of those properties. Within the final paragraph of the options section of the ES, staff recommends that the petitioner obtain a property interest before entering into negotiations of a developer agreement. I need the full commitment of your agency to begin negotiating contracts with the property owners. They're standing in abeyance waiting for you to make a decision. I continue to hold the contract -- I'm sorry, anything less than that will not sufficiently persuade them to negotiate. If you make a formal award today, modified only by the provision that certain investigative reports be acquired, then there should be sufficient evidence of your commitment to move forward with this redevelopment process. I have discussed the investigative reports further in Section 5 below. Under planning service recommendations on Page 3 of the ES, recommendation No. 1, staff recommends entering into negotiations after the petitioner obtains a property interest. I continue to hold a contract for the purchase of a property within the mini-triangle, thereby establishing a property interest. Actually, this negotiation should be entered into before the petitioner obtains a property interest for the very same reasons as defined in Section 1 above. Further, the Page 26 March 19, 2003 time-line for the entire predevelopment process will be so lengthy that contracts entered into with property owners at that point in the process would expire prior to plan approval. And then lastly, No. 5, under the same section as referenced in No. 4 above, staff suggests that various investigative reports be obtained in conjunction with a predevelopment agreement. They cite a market study as chief among them. It is impractical to obtain a market study at this stage of the process. We will be undertaking a considerable planning process at a later date that will more accurately and completely define the mix of uses and the total densities currently proposed. What has been proposed has been well thought out, but has been through -- has not been through the planning process. This normally and typically comes at a later stage in the process. Once We complete the planning process and we have a more refined plan for redevelopment, we can then obtain a market study that corresponds to the plan. Any plan obtained prior to this would be ineffective and rendered useless by changes to what is proposed today and would have to be redone at additional cost. The very same concern applies to a traffic impact study. I therefore request that these studies be deferred to an appropriate point in the planning process and will agree that they be required as a condition of the final developer agreement. Further, staff recommends a thorough assessment of the site with respect to soil and groundwater contamination. The proposal before you today asks for you, the CRA, to apply for grant monies to pay for these reports. I respectfully request that you make such applications as necessary to obtain the funds available to pay for and then undertake the Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. The developer will assume responsibility for the cost of a market study and a traffic impact study if done at the appropriate Page 27 March 19, 2003 stage of the development and planning process. The developer will assume responsibility for the cost of having engineers determine the costs associated with making transportation improvements, stormwater management improvements and environmental remediation of the site area, precedent to entering into a formal developer agreement negotiations, if done so under the format described herein. And with that, I conclude my comments and welcome your questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: There's a lot of unknowns here that I think the board should get some answers before proceeding with this. Is one, we don't know if this is going to be a DRI, PUD, we don't know the traffic impacts, we don't know the environmental stuff, we don't know what it's going to cost the taxpayers. And there's just so many questions. And I'm concerned about proceeding with that until we get the questions. But in the executive summary, fiscal impact, I'm seeing see attached. I'm trying to find the attachment so I could find out what the -- MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, the attachment looks like this. It's a table with three columns. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page? MR. TOMERLIN: Page 9. It's a very simplistic approach, because we -- quite frankly, I don't think we have our hands around what the true fiscal impacts would be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- correct. And that's my concern. Let me look at that table and then I'll have some more questions. MR. PIOLI: Commissioner, if I may just respond very quickly. I know staff has reviewed the proposal and I've had an engineer Page 28 March 19, 2003 review it with respect to a PUD or a DRI, and it is not presently calculated to be a DRI. It will be a PUD, though, so that will be a rezoning matter that comes before the BCC. As far as determining -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pioli, can I stop you there. You said not presently. MR. PIOLI: Right, it will not be a DRI. We do not have any intention whatsoever of taking this outside of your jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're removing that word presently and just saying -- it will not be -- MR. PIOLI: Correct. I misspoke. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a DRI. Thanks. MR. PIOLI: If I may, though, quickly, just to finish your comments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. MR. PIOLI: The unknowns that you referred to, what we have come to an agreement on, both with the staff level, as well as my team, is that we do need to go through this pre-developer agreement period to complete these investigations. We would come out of that stage of the predevelopment process with definition of the costs that would be incurred for this redevelopment to happen. Now, what costs we will then come to the county with and say these are the numbers that we have estimated as the costs for the county's contribution, and those numbers would then become part of the negotiating process for the developer agreement. So we have actually established a preliminary phase here in this project where we would answer the questions such as these unknowns you're referring to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, how many jobs did you say that this was going to generate? And can you tell me exactly about what this pay scale would be for these jobs? Page 29 March 19, 2003 MR. PIOLI: Well, the estimated number of jobs during construction is 2,500, and the estimated permanent jobs -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm interested in. MR. PIOLI: -- is 2,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you estimate the-- MR. PIOLI: I estimate the pay scale for the office product to be that of a professional standard, probably somewhere between 30 and 60,000, somewhere in that area. I estimate that the retail jobs will be typical normal retail jobs that would pay anywhere from minimum wage on up, depending on the level of management and skill and expertise. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you expect the hotel -- and how many beds were you going to have in the hotel, 200 beds? MR. PIOLI: We're anticipating 200 rooms -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rooms? Okay. MR. PIOLI: -- in the hotel. And there again, that will be operated by a proven existing hotel operator under a flag arrangement with the corporate entity. One of my primary objectives in a hotel is that I don't want a franchisee coming in and then later having financial problems and not being able to stand behind the hotel. I want the corporate flag on the product; that gives us the assurance that the company is going to stand behind keeping those doors open. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you want us to do is basically build this hotel for this person? MR. PIOLI: No, no, I'm not asking you to do that. That developer will do that, as part of the overall development process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, with the $3 million upfront money, are we going to get a return on our money as far as interest, if we decide to -- MR. PIOLI: Well, one of the things that I anticipated negotiating with the county as part of the developer agreement was Page 30 March 19, 2003 securing that money with some sort of a position behind the financing provided for the development of the project. Now, that could accrue interest for you, that's entirely likely, but your ultimate repayment will either come from the issuance of the tax increment funds or the sale of the property. So you have two forms of security there for repayment. And if I need to factor in securing that $3 million with a lien position on the property behind my primary financing, that's obviously something I have to be able to negotiate with my lenders, but would presume, given that this is public redevelopment, that I will be able to achieve that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you -- and what are you proposing to do about the properties that may not be willing to sell to you? Are we going to get involved in eminent domain there? MR. PIOLI: Well, we don't know that yet, because we haven't been put in a position of having to go out and negotiate contracts. I can tell you that I expect there to be some difficult negotiations, I expect there to be some property owners who are initially anyway going to express an unwillingness to sell their property. I believe, though, that given the right price, the right terms and conditions, that the property can be acquired. I can tell you that there's one corporate entity in there, though, that has made it very clear to me that they're just not -- their policy is just not typically to relocate stores and that it will require at the very least the county issuing a letter establishing the threat of doing an order of taking so that the process of eminent domain is at least initiated to get them to the table to have these discussions. Now, whether or not they'll continue to hold that position, I can't tell you, because we haven't actually gotten into contract negotiations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to take on that responsibility and not have the county involved in this? MR. PIOLI: I can't assure you that I won't have to come back to Page 31 March 19, 2003 the county and ask you to apply your powers of eminent domain to do that. That's part of the whole process. And I can tell you that if it's necessary, because some particular property owner won't sell under any -- for any price, that under those circumstances I would have to come back to you, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So basically you want us to basically give you upfront money of $3 million, waive all the impact fees, waive all the other fees involved in this whole project. MR. PIOLI: I'm not asking to waive the impact fees, I'm asking for credits for existing uses, water and sewer meters, and then a deferral for the balance. And what I would do with my project proceeds is to acquire zero coupon treasury bonds that would be placed in an escrow account for payment to the county when those bonds mature at the end of the deferral period. So you're assured of having been paid those funds when those bonds matured. And the advance is being repaid to you either through the sale of the property or the issuance of the tax increment funds. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couple questions, if I may. The -- if the owners protest, and I assume that they will, and we get into a lengthy court battle, who covers the cost of the court battle? MR. PIOLI: Well, as I understand the situation, it's the developer's responsibility to cover the legal costs. I also understand that if a particular litigation goes as far as a jury trial, that if a jury awards that property owner anything less than what he's been offered, that he then becomes responsible for all legal expenses. So the county is not being put in a position of having to pay for legal when we get into the eminent domain process. Now, I can tell you that there have been a couple of sales within the mini-triangle recently, and those are actually a very good thing, because they establish a market rate for the value of the properties within the mini-triangle. Page 32 March 19, 2003 With that, and having offered each of these property owners' prices substantially in excess of that market rate, their incentives should be in place to negotiate, knowing that a jury likely would not award them anything more than a market rate price. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the second part of my question, and this will be the last part, is the money that we're talking about taking out of the general fund, I know that we're going to be going into a very, very tight year. Is there any way possibly that there might be some sort of special bond that we could get where we actually can keep the money in place and there would only be an interest to pay into that point in time that, you know, you would be ready to repay it? Is there some way that could be done? MR. PIOLI: There may be. I know with other redevelopment projects throughout the state they've used, they pledged utility revenue and the likes for collateral to the issuance of bonds for specific projects. So I would anticipate there might be other options we could explore as an alternative -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I'm getting-- MR. PIOLI: -- that have not been explored to date, though. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm getting a little bit hung up with the amount of money that we would have to tie up from the general fund into this with a payback sometime in the future. We're going into a very tight year. MR. PIOLI: Well, this could become something that we could address and identify during our preliminary investigative period. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one of the other things I wanted to ask was with the TIF funds, now, you had asked to, what, for 10 years bond those things out. Does that mean then that the TIF funds that accumulate over those 10 years cannot be used for any other purposes within the triangle? For instance, stormwater Page 33 March 19, 2003 management or-- I know we have a tremendous flooding problem in the area. And will they not then be used for anything else over that 1 O-year period? MR. PIOLI: Well, from my understanding, and I'll defer this to Tom in a second here, once you reach a point, whereas the CRA you decide to issue the bonds that will be secured by the pledge of the tax increment funds, you're going to establish -- you're going to have established a seasoned history of that tax increment. And that seasoned history will be the revenue that you pledge as collateral for repayment of those bonds. Now, once you have established that point in time from there forward, if other funds accumulate in the TIF account -- I'll defer to Tom as to whether or not he would know you'd be able to access those funds for other purposes. But what that TIF revenue will do for you is it's going to create a substantial, millions and millions of dollars, a substantial amount of money that you would then be able to use. These are your bond proceeds. You will then have those proceeds to go out and do the very projects that you're contemplating. It's going to generate a substantial amount of money for the CRA to then use throughout the redevelopment district for any kind of municipal improvement that is appropriate for these kinds of funds. MR. TOMERLIN: Yeah, if I just might add, I'm certainly not a bonding expert, but you would incur significant debt service burden with this. And whether or not the area has shown very good promise with how assessed values appreciate through the short history we have, and you certainly expect it to do that, but a significant portion of the revenue stream that comes from property taxes would have to be diverted to this debt service burden. Whether or not it would put a severe damper on other redevelopment efforts throughout other areas, we can't say at this point. It's my feeling that no -- the debt service burden wouldn't be so overwhelming that it would prevent other Page 34 March 19, 2003 things from occurring with those tax increment funds, but it's a valid question and quite frankly I don't have the expertise to give you a solid answer on that. But nonetheless, you would incur a debt service burden. MR. PIOLI: And that debt service comes in the form of the tax increment monies, the annual revenues going into the tax increment account. That is your debt service. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just so the public understands where we are, we have six public -- MS. FILSON: Seven. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seven public speakers who will be speaking on this issue. Right now we are obtaining answers from the petitioner and we will not engage in any debate among the commissioners until such time as we have heard the public speakers. But there are a number of questions that I think are relevant to address to you, Mr. Pioli. If we accept this proposal -- we, that is the county -- is obligated, under this proposal, to do all the things that are being suggested. I need to understand how the land development overlay we're currently involved with, that will not be completed for perhaps another year, will affect your design concept. MR. PIOLI: Actually, I've been rather adamant with staff and the advisory board about the importance of my development team being part of the process of crafting and creating that overlay. And the reason is because we can establish certain integration between the mini-triangle and the rest of the redevelopment district so that there is a sense of continuity throughout the entire redevelopment district. So I've been rather adamant on that point, that we should and need and want to be involved and are prepared to be involved in that process. Now, the mini-triangle itself does, and I can't be any more emphatic about this, does need to be treated differently or outside of Page 3 5 March 19, 2003 an overlay. And the reasons for that are numerous. One, the contamination that needs to be remediated within the site; two, the transportation issues that need to be resolved; three, the stormwater solutions that are necessary for that area; four, you have a collection of irregularly shaped and inconsistent lot sizes that are such that individually they simply can't be redeveloped. There is literally not much if at all that can be done with many of these sites. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are currently involved in consideration of land development code changes on the county commission concerning things like densities and heights. Your architectural rendering here seems to indicate a building that is at least eight, perhaps 10 stories high, eight stories high, with a spire on the top. What happens if we decide that that height is not acceptable? How do we deal with that? MR. PIOLI: Well, one of the things that we have to be able to evaluate is whether or not the end product achieves sufficient density to provide a rate of return on the capital that even merits the developer going forward with the project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how do we do that at this point in time? MR. PIOLI: Well, at this point in time what I've proposed to you is a mix of uses and an aggregate density that achieves an adequate rate of return, given the risks associated with redevelopment, okay? Now, if we have to pare that back or reduce the overall height, we might be able to mitigate the loss of height with a little bit more horizontal height. What I've tried to do is design this in such a way, at least for the preliminary proposal, so that we don't have buildings going straight up in the air. We don't want -- we wanted that character and distinction to create an overall charm in its appearance that can be accomplished with its architectural design so that we don't have Page 36 March 19, 2003 buildings just going straight up in the air. You have the different height elements throughout, and you're able to do things with your architectural style that will be able to accent those changes in height as you go from floor to floor. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that we can have some greater comfort with how this thing would likely turn out -- MR. PIOLI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- can you point to other developments you've done so that we can see generally what those look like and how those have turned out? MR. PIOLI: Well, I'm the sponsor of the proposal. My development partner will in fact be able to demonstrate those past experiences for you. And unfortunately, we're in negotiations, and I'm not able to disclose at this time who those potential parties are. But I can assure you that every potential partner is one that brings a history and a level of skill and expertise to the table that will assure us very competently of being able to complete this project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I believe you stated that the legal costs of condemnation would perhaps be borne by the county. I think we understand the implications of that. What grant money -- we're obligating ourselves to apply for grant money under this agreement. What happens if the grant money is not made available? MR. PIOLI: Well, then it would certainly become a development expense. But I'm told by the office in Fort Myers, who I've spoken with as recently as several months ago, that the funds are there and available, and that we need -- there are cycles for the application. Marlene Ford at the staff level has been put in charge of this, and I've given her copies of everything that I had with respect to these grant applications and the process involved, and I think that we were just simply waiting for some direction from the CRA as to whether or not to proceed with those applications. But my Page 37 March 19, 2003 understanding is the monies are there and available. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if they are not for some reason, that would be an expense -- MR. PIOLI: It would have to come under development expense. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And not a county expense, right? MR. PIOLI: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have any purchase options at all -- MR. PIOLI: One. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- on this property? MR. PIOLI: Yes. But the property owners, given the false start that we had last year, the property owners have been reluctant to negotiate until the CRA established a firm direction in which they wanted to go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- you're proposing that traffic impact studies and feasibility studies really be done toward the end of the project. What happens if a traffic impact study is conducted at that point in the project and we find that it exceeds the level of standards that are acceptable? What do we do then? MR. PIOLI: Well, I've spoken with Don Scott of your transportation department, and he indicates that we do not currently have any concurrency issues. And he, I would assume, has done an assessment of what from his point of view the impact would be from this particular project. One of the things that I will have to ask you for, either as the CRA or as the board, is a vested certificate of traffic impact concurrency. And the reason for that is that if we are to successfully go forward with this project, we need to know that there can't be other projects that come on line east or southeast that would impact this intersection and throw us out of concurrency. We need to know that we remain in concurrency. And I'll be asking you for a vested Page 38 March 19, 2003 certificate of traffic impact concurrency. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have questions? COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Yeah, I do, but I think -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to wait? COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: -- in an appropriate -- no -- appropriate time we need to give the court reporter some -- a break here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, now sounds like a good time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Than you'll come back to me? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, then I'll come back to you. Let's take -- what do you need, 10 minutes? Okay, no more than 10 minutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ask for an hour. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll be back here at 23 minutes before 11:00, okay? (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're back in session. And Commissioner Henning had some questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess more general statements. I don't know where the other board members of the CRA sit. I know where I sit as the county commissioners (sic). I'm not going to vote for condemnation on any redevelopment that I see coming in the -- what's being proposed or anything that I can see in the future. So I think it's fair to you to know that upfront. And I guess the rest of the board should address that individually. The vesting on concurrency, Mr. Pioli, what needs to happen there is those impact fees need to be paid upfront before any vesting, your project or any other projects is to be vested. Therefore, the Board of Commissioner (sic) has, if it's not the development in this case, the Board of Commissioners is going to have to pay that upfront. Page 39 March 19, 2003 And just looking at the numbers of commercial and retail is going to be substantial. It's going to be millions of dollars. So that's going to be on top of the $3 million request. On top of the transportation improvements and what you're asking, and the deferrals of the impact fees, we don't have a mechanism for us to defer those for these types of jobs. Now, looking at what the redevelopment is going to be is retail, hotels, professional offices, the only thing that I can see that's deferrable is the professional offices, and it depends on how many jobs those professional offices are going to be. Now, let's take a lawyer's office. The lawyer's going to make $60,000. His support staff is going to make $25,000. I'm not even sure if that's going to meet the criteria for the deferrals what (sic) the board hasn't quite voted under the economic development council. But the design that we're talking about is a wedding cake theory. I'm not sure the board has discussed this in the past as to whether that fits the growth management plan. I know that we stated floor area ratio doesn't fit the growth management plan. But I needed to be honest with you where I stand and I need to be honest with the rest of the Board of Commissioners and the citizens on the CRA committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Would you like to go to public comment or do you need to ask the petitioner -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to ask a couple of questions in regards to compatibility and harmony with the existing community that's around there at the present time. And I'm concerned that once we start a large development of this magnitude, that we're going to end up displacing a lot of people from that particular area. And that's a very big concern of mine. Because I'm concerned that we're going to end up with something that's going to be of such large magnitude and the property values of surrounding Page 40 March 19, 2003 areas -- of the area that we're talking about now is going to put such a burden on those people that we -- for the amount of jobs that we're going to create and everything else, that it's going to offset the problems that it's going to generate for the people in this particular area. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Are we ready for public -- MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have seven speakers. The first one is Peter Morkunas. He'll be followed by Ken Drum. MR. MORKUNAS: It's a pleasure to address the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, sir, could you spell your last name? MR. MORKUNAS: My last name is spelled M-O-R-K-U-N-A-S. Morkunas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. MORKUNAS: It's Lithuanian, not Greek. I came to Naples about 22 years ago, and I came from a new car store, trying to buy an existing dealership in Naples. I was not successful. But anyways, I wound up in the mini-triangle. And I leased the property for approximately about 10 years before the owner had passed away, and then had an opportunity to purchase the land. I do own three parcels in mini-triangle: Lot number one, 19, and I think it's lot 65. Only one of those lots is actually zoned for C-5, as Mr. Pioli mentioned over here. I'm one of the gentlemen that's grandfathered in to have a used car lot on that comer. When that lot was developed originally by Collier Motors, it was a piece of dirt. There was nothing there. And actually, Davis Boulevard wasn't even paved. And at that point, the used car lot basically involved -- it was Collier Motors for five years, until I came to Naples. Now, my biggest problem that I have on that comer is the water Page 41 March 19, 2003 problem that we have there. It's not been solved by the county, it's not been solved by me. Every time it rains, I flood. In fact, two days ago my property flooded again. But I've lived for 22 years with that problem. I can tell you one thing, that I could not redevelop my piece of property or improve my piece of property until the county does something about the waste -- I mean, not the waste, but the water problem that we've got over there, okay? That's including the residents and everybody else that's around over there. But I take the brunt of it because we are the lowest ones on that comer of that mini-triangle. And before the county can do anything, whether this project gets approved or doesn't get approved, you've got a big problem there at the mini-triangle. It's a water problem. And I can't solve it. I don't think any of the other 14 property owners can solve it. They're not going to solve it, they're not going to improve their properties. And we can clean up and paint our buildings and do everything else to make it look aesthetically clean, and I've done that with my piece of property, but yet in mm, I've suffered with this water problem. And nothing has been done about it. Everybody's been speaking about it. I've written letters to you guys over here and nothing has been accomplished on that fact. And when the lake got filled in, I don't know whether that actually solved the problem -- it didn't solve anything as far as flooding is concerned, because the water has no place to go. The sewers are basically impacted with debris, and there's nothing that can be done about it. But I would be willing to support Mr. Pioli's project only because it would enhance the city of doing something about that mini-triangle over there. And the other owners will probably feel the same way, because they can't do anything with that piece of property. The only way you can get out -- to do anything over there is first of all, solve the water problem, okay? There is some contamination as far as the -- some of the land has been contaminated with oil, not Page 42 March 19, 2003 from my business, because we don't change any of the oils, okay? But there's a gas station next door that they had a problem with contamination of fuel. My property got contaminated because down the street over there somebody had an underground tank that spilled over and all that oil came onto my property, which I had to clean up. So these are some of the problems that I've inherited by being there. But yet I'm a successful businessman, I've been here for 22 years, I've paid my taxes, okay, and my wife was on TV and she said well, we actually own our property. Yes, we do, we actually now own the property. But my biggest concern, and I would not be opposed to even selling my property, as long as I could either get relocated or get compensated for the land values that should actually be commanded by market values, not by eminent domain. I don't want to see anybody take anybody else's property by eminent domain. And I commend Tom for taking that position over here. But these property values, before you guys proceed on there, should -- you should have all the property owners agreeing to sell their property for a fixed price on there that would be comparable to market values before you guys proceed to do anything else and putting in $3 million of the taxpayers' money or anybody else's money on there. My property's going to be valued at today's market or maybe in 10 years it would probably be worth more, even 10 times more, okay, because it's on the comer. And property values is only worth what somebody will pay for it. So by taking property by eminent domain is completely out of the question. I mean, I wouldn't be -- I would oppose that. If somebody wanted to do that to me, then I would go to court. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir. I would like to inform you that the eminent domain process requires fair market value. It's not a seizure of property. Just so you Page 43 March 19, 2003 know, it is a process that we have to go through when people decide to do that. I am not in favor of eminent domain seizures under any circumstances, but when it does happen, it happens at fair market value. MR. MORKUNAS: Okay, thank you. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Ken Drum. He will be followed by Bruno Penzo. MR. DRUM: I have a resolution to pass out first. MS. FILSON: We can do that, sir. MR. DRUM: My name is Ken Drum, and I'm here as president of the East Naples Civic Association. There's a resolution being distributed that was adopted by our board of directors which says that we applaud Mr. Pioli's efforts in trying to assemble a property within the triangle. And we also believe that this would be a dramatic improvement for the area. If you compared the East Trail, there's nothing really there that you could call a centerpiece. Maybe the Towne Center, if it were redeveloped. But this gives us the opportunity to have a centerpiece for future development along the Trail. I know that in redeveloping any property, it's frightening if you are the decision makers. Because essentially what's going to happen if you're going to be a partner in the project; whereas, if somebody develops new construction, it's just a case of zoning. In this case, it is actually -- you're becoming a partner. The problem is, is that we can't get real redevelopment just through what happens in the market. A good example is in Towne Center. Miami Subs went broke, the building sat empty, and now we have a Cuban restaurant. Who knows whether that will succeed or not. We had a gas station on the comer of Bayshore and 41. That morphed itself into a Dawoo dealership. Then that folded. And so Page 44 March 19, 2003 redevelopment in sort of a hodgepodge fashion that's taking place on -- all up and down 41. We think that mini-triangle would give us a boost, as well as Towne Center, if it were redeveloped, so that it would spur a lot of other development along the Trail. And we have many, as you know, vacant properties. They're basically tombstones of failed businesses that for one reason or another sit idle. And our community does not have the options that other communities have. Our options aren't something closes and something better takes its place. What our options are are what's going to be there after a business fails or -- or several shopping centers have vacant stores. So we feel that this would be a boost to the area. We're not supporting any particular details of the plan, other than Mr. Pioli's efforts to assemble the property and to try to redevelop a good portion of East Naples. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruno Penzo, he will be followed by Chahram Badamtchian. MR. PENZO: Good morning. My name is Bruno Penzo, I'm one of the owners in the mini-triangle, and I'm here to support Mr. Pioli's project, simply for one reason: I'd like to see East Naples spruce up a little bit. And I think this will be a gate to East Naples. It will start cleaning up Davis Boulevard. Davis Boulevard looks so lovely from Airport Road all the way to Santa Barbara and on, all the way to 951. It looks wonderful, thanks to the efforts of Commissioner Fiala, who put all this landscaping in and all that. But between 41 and Airport Road, it's a disgrace, really, if you look at the businesses. Tattoo parlors, body piercing and pawn shops. And I have the feeling that Mr. Pioli would open up the gate to East Naples. You come down from Naples and you cross that bridge and then you see the rundown buildings. The other nice thing with the mini-triangle, I don't think it's a much condensed area with a lot of buildings and all that. So it would Page 45 March 19, 2003 be very economical to purchase that piece of land. Because most of it is -- there are big lots and no buildings on it. So I think it would be very economical. That's all I can say. I'm for it. And the only concern I have, are we ready for this development at this time? I mean, we look at that beautiful medical building that was built across Lakewood and there's only two offices built. The rest of it is still vacant. Are we ready for this development to build it and then for it to sit empty? Because if it doesn't build the revenue, then I think we'll be in trouble. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chahram Badamtchian. He will be followed by Peter Van Arsdale. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is Chahram Badamtchian, I'm from Antaramian Development Corporation. We own a 15-acre property across the street from the mini-triangle area. It's called Rupino (phonetic), also known as Sandpiper Plaza. We are at the site development stage. We are ready to start construction, probably by June or July. We cannot do the site work. We are in the process of negotiating with the county to donate -- to grant an easement for drainage which will help the area with the drainage problems. We are also willing to do the permitting for the county, to get the permitting taken care of. The only problem we see is the county -- the storm management -- the stormwater management department doesn't have the adequate funding to build the drainage this year. And we are seeing that the CRF fund has $800,000 sitting there. But the county's reluctant to spend any money because they think like $3 million is needed for Mr. Pioli's project and they don't want to touch that fund. And we believe that you should not put all your eggs in one basket. There's a drainage problem, we are willing to give the land, we are willing to permit it. It's just that funding issue. And I think the CRF funds should help with the drainage issue there. That's Page 46 March 19, 2003 basically my comments. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Peter Van Arsdale. He will be followed by Bob Murray. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the community redevelopment agency, my name is Peter Van Arsdale. I reside at 123 1 lth Avenue South, in Naples. To give you a little bit of my background on CRA's and redevelopment, for about six years in the Nineties, I was the chairman in the City of Naples CRA. We were largely responsible for the redevelopment efforts of Fifth Avenue. I think that was a very, very good success. I'll also comment that everything that happened on Fifth Avenue happened without one dime of government money for incentives. I'd also, before I start speaking, say that I am in discussions with a property owner in the mini-triangle area. I hope to get a contracting job out of that. But the comments that I'm going to make on the plan right now of what's before you are really similar to what I made last summer in August when we were talking about the need for a plan of the whole Davis/Bayshore Triangle area, and then the appropriate zoning that allows the property to redevelop. The problem right now with all these areas, and mini-triangle frankly is no different than the 41/10 area and not much different than Fifth Avenue South. It doesn't mean they'll be the same as they redevelop, but they were platted and developed, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago when standards were different, when what it took to make a viable business were different, and the zoning's still the same. And it's the same zoning that's in place that's frankly keeping the type of buildings and the type of operations that are there from redeveloping. And so what I discussed last summer was the need for a very detailed comprehensive redevelopment plan for this entire area. The main concern I have about this effort, besides the notion of eminent Page 47 March 19, 2003 domain and even the notion that it has to be assembled -- the properties have to be dissembled for anything positive to happen is that it doesn't even deal with the rest of the redevelopment area. In other words, what happens on the other side of Commercial, what happens further down on Linwood and Kirkwood, and what happens down on Shadowlawn, and then what happens on either side of 41 as -- all of these areas that Mr. Drum stated that need help. And we need to spend the time and effort, and the county's doing that. Like in Naples Park. And it's not an easy effort, and not everybody jumps on board, but it has to be a very comprehensive detailed visioning process that gets the community on board in terms of understanding what it can be. And the plan also, if it's well done, will make it so even the smallest property owner can sort of ride that tide of added value that comes with a good plan. On Fifth Avenue South, a person with a 50-foot wide lot by 150-foot deep did very well in the redevelopment. And just by having been there for 20 years. And that person shouldn't be taken out of the picture, because -- and the market values on Fifth Avenue South increased tenfold in probably about four or five years. And what would happen here, I don't know. But certainly give those small property owners the opportunity to, like I say, rise up with that tide and take advantage of the good planning process. But my main comments right now are to get focused on the plan. Maybe Mr. Pioli's project will come out of that plan, but let it work on a private basis. Government doesn't need to get involved. And if it's meant to be, it will happen. But we need to get a plan. We haven't had one. Up to now we've had just some zoning overlay studies that haven't done much to define what we want the place to be. So I think it's really important, and what I understand, you know, the CRA advisory board and the staff are behind hiring good Page 48 March 19, 2003 planners to come up with what we need to define the direction of this entire area. And so this is sort of a little bit of putting the cart before the horse. In fact, I believe this meeting was set up last April, and the advisory board decided to seek the new planner last summer. So I really think this should, if nothing -- if I was making a decision I'd say, you know, we're just not going to get involved with this redevelopment. And the truth is you don't have to. But if nothing else, certainly put it off and let them work within the process of planning this area. And the only other comment I'll make in closing is an aside, the notion of getting reimbursed, the CRA being reimbursed or the TIF funds being reimbursed through ad valorem taxes is not the way that's supposed to work. In other words, TIF funds are ad valorem taxes that didn't come to the county. So there should be no reimbursement that's substantially different than what's happened in North Naples. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Peter. Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me, when the redevelopment started to take place on Fifth Avenue and you said there was no government involved in that, right, it was only a private venture, were there any incentives offered? Or what would -- what would inspire the redevelopment of an area if you didn't have government dollars involved? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, let me say, there were no financial incentives given out. Government was very involved. In fact, government led the planning effort. And that's frankly what we do. You do it in Collier County, we did that in the city. The only incentives that we had to -- the major incentives that were created were the change in the zoning. We rationalized the parking, we made sense out of the parking that right now requires -- Page 49 March 19, 2003 you know, it used to in the city require that all parking be on-site, totally ignoring all the right-of-way and parallel parking that were on the street. So we made -- the plan just made sense of that. In fact, the capital that we used to effect much of the redevelopment from the public's side was just frankly reallocating this parking that was being unused. It was very simple, but there were no dollars involved. All the TIF money for Fifth Avenue went for landscaping improvement. And frankly, they're funding much of the infrastructure improvements in the rest of the 41/10 area. But like I say, we wrote not one check to subsidize someone to come in and do it. But it was a huge change in zoning. Like right now, the parking in this district for a restaurant is so ridiculous. It assumes that every table's going to be full, and it requires parking for every table to be full and that people only come two in a car. So for example, the parking requirement on Fifth Avenue South is three per 1,000. Here for a restaurant it's like -- it's 60 per so it's about 13 per thousand, so it's four times more, and you're going to say -- not that this is Fifth Avenue, but you have the same problems here that the development code is so onerous and so restrictive that nothing can happen. And it's not that it shouldn't be proper, but right now it's irrational. And the study would deal with that. In other words, that's what Andre Suwanee (phonetic) did when he came to Fifth Avenue. He said what you people do -- he's quite direct in how he says things, but he said what you're doing is just crazy. You're having people -- you're having everybody required to have a parking place on-site to redevelopment their property, even though they might come down and park their car in a public space and walk to three shops. But three shops have a parking space for you and you're parked on public property. He says, isn't that crazy? And we were smart enough to agree with him. Page 50 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me, did you defer any impact fees or waive any type of fees at all? MR. VAN ARSDALE: No. I think the waiving of impact fees is -- we could have done it on some of our sewer and water, but no, we didn't at all. It just wasn't necessary. I mean, it happened with a good plan, it happened with a good implementation of a good plan. And that's all we have to do. And this area is ripe for it. I mean, it really -- the beauty is that it has a strong road network, it has small parcels, it has a lot of things that can go towards making a very nice essentially moderate urban environment, rather than suburban. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this piece of property has got a lot of potential here, but I don't feel that the government should get involved into -- it's almost like buying into a wildcat well here. And maybe the property owners that are presently there, they might like to get involved, basically what you said, they should also reap some of the benefits, so maybe they ought to buy shares in this whole area, and that's one way that they could come up with the financing to redevelop this area. But as far as the county basically footing the whole bill, I feel very, very uncomfortable about this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions of Mr. Van Arsdale? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just comment, their shares are their property, and their involvement has to come in the planning process. It has to be a very comprehensive all-inclusive building process that creates a vision. And then on Fifth Avenue, some people just sold their land and left, some people came in and bought land and developed, and some of those existing owners redeveloped. It was a remarkable process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Bob Murray. He will be followed by Tom Selleck (phonetic). I wish. Page 51 March 19, 2003 MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bob Murray. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's hear from Tom Selleck first. It's Tom Selck. MS. FILSON: Selck? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. MURRAY: But we know where Ms. Filson's mind is going, and that's good. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. I represent the East Naples Civic Association, and as the chairman of the economic development committee, and we got involved with Mr. Pioli's project when he made a presentation to us, giving us an overview and answering our questions. And we -- we're enthusiastic to see that there would be something that could happen to the mini-triangle. And we are applauding the fact that he is attempting to do that in response to an RFP process from your CRA. I almost feel conflicted here, because I must say at the outset that when first I visioned to take on the project that you know as corridor 41, in my ignorance I was unaware that the piece of the triangle was already a CRA. And so we are very much interested in that property, although we don't get involved directly with it. As you know, we begin at Airport Pulling and go down. But ours is a free market approach. It's a master plan overlay. A CRA is already in place and that's the methodology, so we don't have a problem with that. The key question is, I listened carefully to Ken Drum, our president of the civic association, and his focus is somewhat more on the negative than I can allow myself to be. Economic development, I see our gateway as an urbanization process. The mini-triangle, followed by the Towne Center, followed by ultimately down to Lely as we see growth in the years ahead. I know that there are desired efforts, if you will, on the part of people like Mr. Pioli to make a plan that can bring something into Page 52 March 19, 2003 being immediately. And perhaps in your wisdom you'll determine to do that. For my part, I would advocate the working in the free market. I would hope that you would help him to the degree that you can, but working in the free market is where we would like to be. We will help him if he can bring the resources to bear, but I think it's reasonable to expect that whomever it is that's going to redevelop that area should be able to a assemble those resources. And so I appear to be in conflict, perhaps, with what Mr. Pioli wants to do. No, I'm not. I'm enthusiastic that he accomplish it, if he's capable to do that. And with your appropriate help, I think that would be a good thing. Towne Center, which Mr. Van Arsdale just mentioned, and below, he's concerned for the little guy, as it were. As you know, I've stated it many times, will again, we're very much concerned for the little guy. We want to see that everybody who's been in this area for a long time can take advantage of the upcoming boom. And so we would like to think that they can express their vote through their ownership interest. I would hope that Mr. Pioli would look at that process that he's now looked at and revise it some. And with that, I will conclude, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Selck. He will be followed by Craig Woodward. MR. SELCK: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is disappointed. MR. SELCK: I know, a lot of people have been disappointed by my appearance. I'm an architect here in Naples. I have a bachelor's degree in architecture, a master degree in city planning. I was a practicing city planner for many years. I served on the PAB in Naples for almost five years, and I have a deep interest in what happens here in Naples. I think that redevelopment is inevitable, that this area will Page 53 March 19, 2003 redevelop. My company is working on a redevelopment project. In there now we've had a pre-ep (phonetic) conference with the planning department, we've met with the traffic people and so forth, so the project is moving forward. So I think redevelopment is inevitable. I would encourage you to take the high road. I agree completely with Mr. Van Arsdale, you're embarking on an RFP to master plan the whole area overlay and so forth and develop standards that you want for the area, not what a developer wants because it's good for his pocketbook. I've been involved in a number of redevelopment projects all across the country. One of the most successful approaches, going -- turning now to something more positive, one of the most successful approaches that you might want to consider is declaring the whole triangle a PUD. Do negotiated zoning for each development that goes on in there. Right now the process to redevelop property in the triangle is onerous, it's time-consuming, it's irrational, and it's not responsive to what it takes. What kicked off the development and redevelopment of Fifth Avenue was getting rid of the irrationality that was there, allowing businesses to go and expand, and just the simple business of changing the parking standards to something more reasonable kicked it off. They had a cap, or a number of parking spaces, and those were allocated on a first-come basis, and when those were done, there weren't anymore, and development slowed down a lot. So it's a process that works, but it was a process where the government nurtured the redevelopment. Right now there is no nurturing of any redevelopment in the triangle area. It's just the opposite. I represented an owner of a property there who had to bring an old building up to the current architectural standards, even though it meant redesigning the whole facade of the building. That's irrational. Page 54 March 19, 2003 So there it sits fallow again. Anyway, that's all have I to say. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Selck, Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were saying that you're working on a project now? MR. SELCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that within the mini-triangle -- MR. SELCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or the greater triangle? MR. SELCK: No, within the -- it's down at the end. It's the old Burger King property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Craig Woodward. He will be followed by your final speaker, Chuck Gunther. MR. WOODWARD: Hello, I'm Craig Woodward. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I believe previously my partners, Tony Pires and Chris Lombardo have appeared before you on this issue. And they couldn't be here and they asked me to handle it. This law firm represents Robert and Rebecca Taylor, owners of land within the Gateway mini-triangle area. On numerous occasions, we and our clients have appeared before you and before the County Commission to express serious concerns and reservations about the method, manner and procedures utilized in the county's efforts to force revitalization and redevelopment of the properties within the mini-triangle area. I have this in a letter and I'll give it to you all. We have consistently expressed the sincere belief and opinion that the best way for redevelopment to occur would be through the implementation of creative and innovative zoning overlays, which I think you've just heard from other speakers. This would provide incentives and flexibility in the development and redevelopment of Page 55 March 19, 2003 the properties in this area. Unfortunately, to date, the efforts of the county appear to be designed to discourage investment and redevelopment, other than through the forced redevelopment envisioned by dated redevelopment studies. We strongly urge this board to adopt Option 2-B, as outlined in your staff recommendation, as the course of action that will more efficiently lead to the successful redevelopment of this area. The concept of developing zoning standards and incentives to encourage redevelopment of the mini-triangle is on Page 3 of your executive summary, in Option 2-B. And it's also the planning services' recommendation, number two. This we feel is a positive course of action that implements good planning principles, concepts and works with the property owners. We urge the board to reject Option 1, which is outlined in your planning service recommendation, for three reasons: First, this Option 1 not only places the county in a position of working against current property owners, but it also requires the taking of property owners' lands and businesses. Secondly, your county staffs own language concedes that the studies upon which the proposal is based are stale and dated. To quote from that executive summary, it says, quote, a number of unknowns remain that would affect any mini-triangle property redevelopment. Chief among these unknown factors is the need to conduct a market study to assess whether sufficient demand exists for a proposed mix of uses. In other words, the proposal which has been submitted by FP Real Estate Investment, LC appears to lack any market-based reasons, and thus, consideration of any redevelopment proposal other than the zoning overlay is premature. Thirdly, and I think importantly, Option 1 attempts to hand the redevelopment of this area over to an organization that first doesn't own a piece of property in this area; secondly, has no stated history Page 56 March 19, 2003 or track record of involvement, much less success and adventure of this type and magnitude; and third, we've checked and according to the records of the Florida Secretary of State, this entity was formed in July of '98 with an initial capital of $2,000, and then it was administratively dissolved October 4th of 2002. Now, it was reinstated on October 28th of 2002, but it doesn't have a track record. For all of the above reasons and for the reasons expressed at prior hearings and meetings, we urge that you reject the proposal by FP Real Estate Investments, LC and reject Option 1. We feel again that planning services' recommendation No. 2 and Option 2-B is the best way to go. And I do have a copy of this, along with the documentation from the Secretary of State's office on the status of that LC for you. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Chuck Gunther. MR. GUNTHER: Hello, I'm Chuck Gunther, 2448 Bayside Street, in the triangle. Not the mini-triangle, but the old triangle. We call it the freedom triangle. I'm here representing myself, because I'm also a member of the advisory board here. I left today and I came back, because I had a couple of things that was bugging the heck out of me. We've heard this proposal from Mr. Pioli a few times. We've heard the word variables, a lot of variables. The variables to me are unknown. There's so many of them that I can't see anybody ever voting for something like that and saying yes, we'll do this. You're not talking about one plan, you're talking about taxpayers' money here. Something was said about who would pay for it if there's condemnation or something like that. The developer's not going to pay for that. He said he would probably bear those costs. The developer does not exact condemnation, the CRA or the county commission does. They bear the price. Nobody else. That means the taxpayers pay for that. We don't want that. Page 57 March 19, 2003 There's a lot of things in that area that have held back development. The big thing right now is we're basically a condemned area. We haven't been condemned, but we've been told we're a blighted area. We can't do well. The prices, by setting prices -- Mr. Pioli said the price is set by the two sales we've had recently in the mini-triangle. That doesn't set prices. This was set as a catalyst area, the mini-triangle. Right now we have Mr. Antaramian with Sandpiper Village across the street, that's probably the best catalyst area you could have in this whole area. If that proceeds, the mini-triangle has to jump. It does not need to be developed by anybody right now. That's going to go by its own market forces. These two recent sales have not set any prices. As soon as Antaramian comes out of the ground, those prices are going to skyrocket. So I think what we have to do is we have to sit back and say let's take our time, be patient. The plans that are coming up, we just had a thing about the -- the short list we have about the planners of this whole area. We'll come out with a planner for the whole area that will deal with different zoning things. Then you can start talking about the unified plan. Not until then. You can't say here, you play with it, you make your own ball and you make your own court, you do what you want. It's not going to work that way. I think that neighborhood, the whole neighborhood, needs something that it doesn't have right now. It needs pride, it needs a backbone. It needs somebody to stand there and say yes, you are a neighborhood. The mini-triangle has been separated. Everybody's been telling them, do this, do that. How many sales does Mr. Pioli have in there? Contracts? We don't know. We think there might be possibly one that's not a contract. We think it's probably just an option. An option doesn't mean anything. We're dealing (sic) a lot of things that are not too concrete. I Page 58 March 19, 2003 can't-- you know, as an individual, I don't like this, as an individual taxpayer, I don't like it. Our neighborhood association, the freedom triangle association, we're dead set against this. We'd like to see this area develop as the market forces push it. And they will push it. This area has been trying to develop for years. We've seen good things go in there, we've seen things go out. We want it developed, but we want it developed in a reasonable, smart way. Don't jump into things and say let's do it just to develop it. It's going to fall flat on your face; you know, it's going to happen. We don't want to see that happen. We want to see it work. If you go patiently, do it logically, it's going to work. That's all I came to say -- well, no, one other thing. There's a lot of variables. Let's throw another one in there right now. Our economic times are not what they are yesterday (sic). As of 8:00 tonight, they might be a whole lot different. We're not talking about just money, we're talking about war. That can make a development just right out the window. We have to use our heads and think about what's going to happen. I don't think you can plan for tomorrow right now. I think what you've got to do is turn something like this down and say let's go back to the drawing board. I really question, if you try to develop an area, if only one developer comes forward, doesn't that throw up a flag? Doesn't that mean that-- you know, we have a lot of really good developers in this area. To me that throws up a flag that says look, these other guys don't want to touch it. There's something here that might be wrong. I think it's up to you guys to vote, and I hope it's responsibly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your last speaker, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. MS. FILSON: -- for this item. Page 59 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: motions. Motion to reject the proposal. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. anything else in that, or-- Members of the board, any questions, I'll make a motion. Actually, it should be several Are you going to incorporate COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said several motions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there's several to come. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Take them sequentially? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs recommendations. One is there being special redevelopment efforts by the mini-triangle, that will be incorporated in the motion, then we need to give direction on what we need to give staff direction for -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: To look at Option B? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Option B, yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To look at Option B. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion proposes that we reject the proposal and also to direct the staff to abandon any special redevelopment efforts for mini-triangle property; is that what you have in mind? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask, did you say abandon any efforts-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I'm-- Commissioner Fiala, what I'm looking at is -- Page 60 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: look at Option B is I think what we're looking for. Abandon Option A, basically, and To make sure that MR. WHITE: If I may assist, Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are you? MR. WHITE: Commissioner Henning, it may be appropriate to just make a motion to accept staff's recommendation 2-B, which includes in it the rejection of the proposal and the direction to the staff. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I amend my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion's been amended. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I amend my second, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. I'll call the question -- or is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a little bit of discussion. If we're talking about abandoning this, I think -- of course now I'm talking about an area in my district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Understand. I think we all realize that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think it's vital -- and I think we all agree, I don't think we're in disagreement here, that redevelopment is necessary. And this area will be a catalyst to our redevelopment. So if we abandon this, I would like us to see if we couldn't do something. We've had many suggestions here, like declaring it a PUD, making sure a plan is in place, fix the flooding. With the TIF funds I would guess we would use to fix that flooding. But I think that we need to be moving forward. If this plan is rejected, we need to be moving forward to encourage some type of redevelopment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that is the intent of the motion. Page 61 March 19, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is, that is the intent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you have something to add? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just -- I just want to clarify that for Commissioner Fiala is we want a master plan for that, and for staff to develop that with public input of East Naples. And I hope Mr. Van Arsdale is involved in this. With his experience, long-term commitment to the City of Naples and Fifth Avenue, it would be very valuable. That is what I'm looking at. But the particular motion is exactly what you want to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other thing -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, and the other thing I believe we need to look at also is the fact that when we look at the triangle, we look at the whole concept of the neighborhoods and everybody else, then get everybody in agreement of how we want to direct growth in that area and redevelopment. I think it's very, very important. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I kind of hope that we'll be able to look at the possibilities of forming an MSTU there for drainage. It will address one of the biggest issues. And I think that would be a good turning point for them also. That's not part of the motion, I'm just suggesting that as a side issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed. Page 62 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I said aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay, carries 4-1, Commissioner Fiala dissenting. MR. TOMERLIN: From staff's -- just to clarify, I think what we're doing is we gave you a set of options, and then planning services' recommendations. We're looking at planning services' recommendation No. 2, which is really one in the same, but expounding on Option 2-B, which was given further up the page. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. TOMERLIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have two different 2's. We have a 2 here and a 2 here, but both on Page 3, right? MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Top of Page 2 it says 2, reject the submitted proposal with a number of sub-options, and sub-option was B. MR. TOMERLIN: Sub-option B. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we on the same sheet of music here? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's on the top of it. MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. And that coincides precisely with the planning services recommendation No. 2. MR. SCHMITT: On the bottom of that-- MR. TOMERLIN: On the bottom of that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the bottom, okay. MR. TOMERLIN: -- very same page. Yes. Sorry, that's a little confusing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's confusing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where do we go from here, Immokalee component redevelopment area items? Page 63 March 19, 2003 Item #6B ALLOCATION OF $200,000 FROM FUND 186 TOWARDS UTILITY AND ROAD PROJECTS IN THE IMMOKALEE RFDF, VF, I,OPMFNT DISTRICT- APPROVF, D COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept staffs recommendation on Item 6(B). CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that, but I hope we can hear the speakers also -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment, we have public speakers. How many, one or two? MS. FILSON: For 6(B) we have two. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two. Who are they? MS. FILSON: The first one is Fred Thomas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to talk us out of this? MR. TOMERLIN: No, I heard your motion, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's the other speaker? MS. FILSON: The other speaker is Raymond Holland. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You waiving? Okay, good. So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I understand there's going to be some fundraising as a part of this on any other things to come up in this planning. Please invite the commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now Mr. Thomas is going to get up and -- Page 64 March 19, 2003 MR. TOMERLIN: I didn't hear what you said, sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand there's going to be fundraisers for any additional monies. I'm just asking please invite the commissioners and let us help you get the word out to any fundraising for these efforts. CHAIRMAN COYLE: One question, clarification. Commissioner Henning, did your motion include all three recommendations? And is it necessary that we have separate motions or can we group those together? MR. WHITE: Assuming they're all going to be for approval, I guess you could do 6(B), (C) and (D) together. I'd certainly prefer we do them separately, but -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's go with 6(B) business. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I assume your motion was for 6(B); is that okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's already been seconded. So we'll now vote. All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Carries unanimously. Item #6C PROPOSAL TO FUND UP TO $49,000 FROM REDEVELOPMENT FUND 186 TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE STUDY FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA- APPROVED WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THE CONTRACT BE Page 65 March 19, 2003 AWARDED We'll now go to 6(C). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a speaker on 6(C). Fred Thomas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred's gone. MS. FILSON: No, he's here, he's waiving. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion? No discussion, call the question. MR. GOIN: Randy Goin (phonetic), redevelopment community manager for Collier County. I just wanted to clarify something under Item 6(C). The recommendation from the advisory board was to fund the entire amount of the study in the amount of 49,000. The planning staff recommendation for that was for half that amount. At that point in time, when that recommendation was made, we had not been privy to a contract entered into between the Immokalee CDC and the Lesser group. Mr. Thomas has a copy of that contract with him, which indicates the -- that particular group has actually entered into that contract. And as a result of that, I think we'd like to modify our recommendation accordingly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to modify your recommendation to fund the entire amount or only the $24,500? MR. GOIN: I think it would be appropriate to recommend the entire amount, consistent with the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I still need a clarification on an issue of contract award that wasn't made by this board, and the legality of us agreeing to commit funding for it. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe that since the funding source is 186, that you're entitled Page 66 March 19, 2003 to make those distributions. And with respect to whether there'll be a subsequent contract that's entered into for the performance of the work, I think that's something that certainly could go before the board for approval, perhaps as a consent agenda item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I think that would be proper technically to do that. If we're going to authorize expenditure of funds, we need to make sure that we also authorize the awarding of the contract, I believe. MR. WHITE: Well, certainly you could make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the contract would be approved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would that be incorporated in your motion, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would, but I do have one question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred, I was wondering, what happened to the money that's already been collected from the general public towards this Lesser study, and how much was it? MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas for the record, chairman of the Immokalee redevelopment project group. In order to get this study started, the Immokalee community development corporation, a non-profit corporation concerned about economic development, spurred by our chamber, signed the contract with the Lesser group of 49,000, knowing full well that the scope of the project would have to be increased to include Ave Maria and the overall impact in the future of value of these impacts in terms of future taxes and what have you. So we know that extra money we have is going to be used to pay for those extra costs. If the county could take care of the 49,000 on the front end, we could finish the rest of it and make sure our good city comes back to you mid-April. Page 67 March 19, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker, Bill Klohn. MR. THOMAS: While I'm at the mike still, I want to ask the attorney something. We have signed a contract and we're asking the Immokalee CDC to be reimbursed the $49,000 they put out for that contract. Does that make it more complicated or less complicated? MR. WHITE: It certainly makes it more complicated, but I don't know that it makes it so complex that we can't resolve it either through taking it back to the board. But I'd have to look at both contracts in order to know. MR. THOMAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: we? Okay. MR. WHITE: MR. KLOHN: Thank you, sir. We'll sort our way through that, won't Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. For the record, my name is Bill Klohn, K-L-O-H-N. I would like to thank Mr. Coletta for spearheading this effort out in Immokalee. Naturally it's his district and he -- it goes to his heart. But he was really the catalyst for the group that is now known as the Immokalee community development corporation. From this catalyst came the business leaders of Immokalee to really put the time and effort in to do what you requested us to do back in November and that is create an economic incentive toolbox which is comprehensive for your consideration at a board meeting. So I think that the study that is being done by Lesser, who as you may know also was heavily involved in the Ave Maria study, I think that they were a perfect firm. And we interviewed a number of firms that are in the business of these types of studies. So I'd like to thank Commissioner Coletta for beginning this effort and providing the catalyst and for your consideration today. I think that the monies Page 68 March 19, 2003 that will be hopefully approved today are very appropriate for community redevelopment, which is the motive of our group in the study. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I would just like to clarify the motion on 6(C) and that is that it will provide CRA matched funds up to the entire amount, not to $24,500. Is that the intent of the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and the seconder? Second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're working on 6(B), aren't we? 6(C)? CHAIRMAN COYLE: 6(C). COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Carries unanimously. Item #6D ADDITIONAL $5,000 OF FUND 186 AS SEED MONEY TOWARDS THE SURVEYING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 5TH STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE IMMOKAI~F,F, RFJDF, VF, IJOPMF, NT DISTRICT- APPROVFD 6(D), Delta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 6(D), I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by Page 69 March 19, 2003 Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. And we have a-- MS. FILSON: One speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: One speaker who has -- MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- just waived. MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion? Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Carries unanimously. Any further business to come before the board? MR. TOMERLIN: That will be it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're adjourned. Page 70 March 19, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:37 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL FRED COYLE, C ATTEST: DWIGHT ,~.~ttI~O( ~,K, CLERK ~a~~~.m~¢s a~ved by the Board on presentea .... ~.,.'.'" or as co~ectea TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 71