Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/13/2003 S (w/CRA & CRA Advisory Board)June 13, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Naples, Florida, June 13, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas Jim Coletta Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Sue Filson Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA June 13, 2003 8:30 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 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. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". 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 RECEIVE UP 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 1 June 13, 2003 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) FROM THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN - BILL NEAL. BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS Ae TO APPROVE THE ADDITION OF TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND ALL NECESSARY BY-LAWS AMENDMENTS. TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. TO APPROVE THE CREATION OF AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION TO MANAGE THE BUSINESS OF THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. ADJOURN 2 June 13, 2003 June 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're three. We're going to call this meeting to order. I'm ready to call -- we have four people. Would you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance.) Item #2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA-APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any proposed changes to the agenda this morning. He's signed as a speaker. You're the only person who is mentioned on the -- you want to make -- you want to make that as a changed agenda? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to amend? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then, you're now on the -- then you've amended it. Are there any other changes to the agenda? Hearing none, is there a motion to move the agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Now, we have a brief-- it says -- it says brief address, Bill, from you. MR. NEAL: Are you admonishing me before I get up there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm just reading -- I'm just reading what it says -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- it says brief address from Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Chairman Bill Neal. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, before he starts, just a point of order, if you would have the commission vote on the motion, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Vote on which motion? Page 2 June 13, 2003 THE WHITE: The one you just made. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's on the agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we can't do it by acclamation? right. Could I have a vote on the approval of the agenda? MR. WHITE: I apologize, but thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right. All in favor, aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed. Likewise. Okay. It is approved. All Item #3 BRIEF ADDRESS (5 MINUTES) FROM THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN- BILL NEAI~-PRESENTED MR. NEAL: Good morning, Commissioners, or, I'm sorry, B -- CRA. Now, the reason I'm a little confused because the name tags up there show Donna Fiala as Vice-Chairman and Fred as Chairman, now, we're speaking to the CRA and I think Frank Halas is the Vice-Chairman, is that right? I'm looking at the name plates up here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your name? MR. NEAL: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're exactly right. I should've done that. I'm starting off the morning confused and I'll tell you why later. Good morning. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't confuse us. Page 3 June 13, 2003 MR. NEAL: You've got me confused after that. I'm Bill Neal, and I'm Chairman of your Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board, and I'm happy to be here with you once again, but, again, in case somebody was out there, there is confusion about the name tags on the set up. I'm just making a point. Do you understand, Donna? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We understand. MR. NEAL: Okay. Thank you very much. This morning we're going to discuss a couple of-- two executive summaries, and then, again, it, maybe four executive summaries, because there is some confusion about all of this issue today, and, well, it should be. But maybe after our comments you'll understand the reason for this. First, some background to understand that the recommendations from your advisory committee comes with some experience in this matter. Your advisory committee is made up of seasoned professionals, so I hope you will consider that, if you hear some disagreement from us with the County staff. Here's some background that should explain what I'm saying. Nearly seven years ago Bayshore created a private initiative to redevelop the Bayshore area, because County funds were not available and County Commissioners did not have the time to look at a blighted area. I'll skip a lot of the details, but through the effort of the Bayshore MSTU, the CRA was born. The MSTU proposal included the right to form a CRA in the area, because, again, it was a complete blighted area, the County Commissioners really didn't have the time to administrator it or manage it, and so they wanted to turn the management over to someone who had the best interest of the area concern. There were no Collier County CRAs at that time. And County staff advised us that this County was not ready for a CRA, and that Page 4 June 13, 2003 they would be unable to get BCC Commission permission, sorry. So we pursued our goal, anyway. And when it became apparent we would get permission, staff asked us from the Bayshore area to include Davis Triangle and Highway 41 in the proposal for the CRA. Hence you have what we have now the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA. This history is important because I was involved in that entire process. And as Chairman of the Bayshore MSTU, I bring some years of experience, and was asked to bring that same experience to help chair the CRA Advisory Board. The CRA, I've served as -- two years as your Chairman. I've served -- by the way an aside, four years as Chairman of your County Productivity Committee. So, I've walked through your halls many, many hours and many volunteer times. I mentioned this primarily because later it would be obvious how important it is that we have continuity for the CRA to succeed. Now, let's look at why we have some organizational problems and why it's somewhat confusing. Aaron, if you'd put the chart up for our folks, please. Now, here's a cart, I think you can see on your screen there, the organization as it exists today. A very important point in question is at what level does staff become a part of the process, or should I say, a partner in the process. If you'll notice that the Bayshore/Gateway reports to the CRA. Does the County staff report to the CRA, or does the County Staff report to the BCC? And, on the other hand, does the BCC control what the CRA is doing if it's not in the best interest of the CRA, or there's some controversy, or has the BCC put themselves in a position of trying to wear two hats under this organization. So your committee's question that we're going to talk about today, has brought up this confusion with the organization of the CRA. Now, we're trying to work with staff at the committee level, so we can bring good sound proposals to the CRA, but at the BCC level, Page 5 June 13, 2003 there may be -- they may be in a position that's not in their mind that's best for the Planning Department. In essence, they are putting on two hats also. They're trying to wear hats to represent the BCC. And as I said in between there, they're also trying to work with the CRA planning group. This is a difficult position to put them in, and, yet, the effective administration of the CRA by you seems to me to be even a greater problem. You were given this manual to look at when this CRA was organized. It's a highly technical document and full of a lot of do's and don'ts. With all of the things you have on your platter being County Commissioners and CRA, it's hard to understand how you could really get into the meat of all that's going on here. How can you be assured whether staff or the advisory committee is leading you in the best interest of the CRA, if you're wearing your BCC hat. As the BCC, do you support the CRA or staff recommendations. Is there a conflict here, because I'm just asking questions that have come up before our committee. Now, if you say that this problem is solved because the CRA and the BCC are one in the same, this causes a problem of how the CRA is supposed to function. As I understand the State of Florida statutes about CRAs it's supposed to be a combination of elected officials and working with representatives from the private sector. In our CRA, we have all elected officials. It is a problem with the BCC looking at what is in the best interest for the CRA, or best for the County, and I say that not as criticism, but as observation. The CRA was formed, again, because of a blighted area, and commissioners did not have the time to develop that particular area. So they delegated that authority to a CRA. In essence, they delegated the same authority that they didn't have the time to do to themselves. These questions are the same and germane to both Immokalee and the Bayshore/Gateway area. And Page 6 June 13, 2003 by the way, I'm sympathetic to the workload you have, and I can't speak for the Immokalee area, but I can say to you that I know time is a problem, because only one of the CRA members has had time to meet with the CRA Advisory Board. And in these early planning stages for this organization, it's important that everybody understand the mission, the goals and objectives that are in the best interest of the CRA. Now, please don't be surprised at my remarks. I'm not here to cause controversy, and I hope you don't think these remarks are critical. This is constructive -- constructive remarks, based on having worked through Bayshore MSTU, and now working over two years through the CRA. The operating manual that I just showed you was written by County staff, and by the way, no criticism again, but they had very little experience with CRAs, if any at all. And unfortunately they did not include anybody from the private sector while they were writing this manual. So, therefore, we're having to look at the manual again and try to interpret what is best for the CRA, and not necessarily for the County, because it was written under the auspices of the Planning Department, which reports to the County. Had the private sector been a part of this process, you'd probably would have seen an organization set up initially that looks like this. Aaron, please, would you put up that other chart. You'll see in this organization, where, as we look back to make it most effective, how it should be set up. Just a suggestion, and not a criticism. You have the BCC and you have two separate CRAs, one for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle and one for Immokalee. I hope you guys, folks will agree with me that we have totally different objectives in Bayshore/Gateway than the Immokalee folks have. That's their game and we're playing our game. Totally different. So had we made recommendations from the private sector we would've Page 7 June 13, 2003 included-- we would've included private representation to be a part of the CRA. And this is a proposal just for you to look at, it shows Bayshore/Gateway with Donna Fiala, Fred Coyle, Frank Halas as a mutual member, and two redevelopment area members, and there's a big circle there, just to give you an example, and I don't -- I don't want this to be self-serving, I think my name is there, and the Vice-chairman of the Advisory Committee, but two people from the private sector, is my point. The same thing with Immokalee. Now, this would create an organization, if you just take a few moments to glance at it, that would make it a lot clearer about how CRAs should be effective in our County. It would give the BCC the opportunity to make the big decision from their fiduciary responsibility of spending the tax dollars, having had the CRA make recommendations to the BCC. It would eliminate the apparent conflict of interest between the BCC and the CRA. This would give an organization that creates more time from the commissioners involved to work in their particular areas for the success of their CRA. Not that I don't appreciate that you're trying to work for the whole thing. So I know that you are aware that the CRAs have two different objectives as I said earlier. I hope you'll think about this, and as we bring up the two issues that are involved today, I hope you will remember some background information I've given here. This says five minutes. So I've stayed within my five minutes, and I left out a lot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's pretty good. MR. NEAL: But thank you very much. Item #4A CRA RESOLUTION 2003-217 APPROVING THE ADDITION OF TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY Page 8 June 13, 2003 TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND ALL NECESSARY BY-I~AWS AMENDMENTS-ADOPTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: A question from Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the way -- your presentation was excellent, and I think what the County Board of County Commissioners is really trying to do is, yes, we have a heavy workload, and I think what we're trying to do is delegate this responsibility down, and I think what it needs to have be done here is a combination of staff working with the CRA, and the staff, basically, giving you the proper direction so that we're in within the legal bounds, and then I would think that the CRA would, then, report back after they had a buy-in from staff, but you people are basically the leaders of this, because we've delegated that responsibility to you. Once we're in compliance with everything, then I think it's -- that should be the responsibility of the CRA to report back to the County Commissioners, what your findings are, and then from there we take on that other responsibility of voting in what needs to be done for your CRA. Do you believe -- do you -- MR. NEAL: No, I appreciate your remarks, however, to give you an example of a problem that comes with that, we have a statute, an ordinance that sets up the advisory committee, and it's pretty clear about the set up, where the members should come from, and yet, I don't know whether it was the BCC or the CRA that made modifications to change that, which there is something within your minutes that says that. There was no consultation with your Advisory Board on whether or not we should modify the ordinance that exists for the Advisory Board. Now, if you're going to use your advisory board for the purposes that you're talking about, put the workload on us, and let us bring you that analysis, then I agree with what you're saying, but if the CRA or Page 9 June 13, 2003 the BCC, which we're never-- we're never sure which one is doing the action, interjects themselves, we'd like for them to give us the courtesy to bring that information to us, so that, so you use your advisory board, otherwise, doing that continuously, you render your advisory board useless. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that's what we do, is try to empower you to assist in -- in finding the answers in working with staff, and, then, hopefully you'll bring the end results. I would think that's the way we want to go. MR. NEAL: It is not working that way, in all due respect. That's why I'm making my point. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. NEAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that's okay. I'm finished. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Neal, the -- your comments are well taken, and I think what we tend to forget is the government structure has changed over the years, and how do we get it back to where the direction comes from the people to the representatives, instead of government delegating to the people. And the organization chart that you're presenting to the Board of Commissioners -- or the CRA is -- I'm not sure if it's legal, so we have to abide by certain statutes. But the CRA Advisory for the Bayshore/Gateway, really should be on the top. And you really should be telling us what to do, and we'll tell you whether we feel that you're correct in your analysis, and I guess for my perspective, it would be, you know, funding requests we might not dis -- we might not agree on those items, but as far as how you do it, I would really want for you to tell me how you want to do it. MR. NEAL: Commissioner Henning, thank you very much for your comments about the change in the structure of the thinking of the commissioners, and God bless you, and I know you sincerely Page 10 June 13, 2003 mean that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. MR. NEAL: This CRA was formed under a totally, totally different mode of thinking, as far as how things should be run in the County. At the time this was formed the Commissioners had the opportunity to form this committee just exactly the way I'm showing it to you this morning. The statutes gave them the opportunity -- am I right about that -- MR. MEARS: Yes. MR. NEAL: The statutes gave you -- them the right to do that. However, and I don't mean to sound critical, it's just a professional observation from business experience, the control was wanted to be left with the County Commissioners at that time. They did not want to delegate that authority, as you just -- you and Mr. Halas have suggested. I'm not being critical. I'm making, I hope, constructive observations about that. And thank you very much for your remarks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we just need to find out if under the statutes, you know, what's legal and what's not legal from the County Attorney. MR. NEAL: Mr. Chairman, what I -- I'm sorry, what I'm trying to do is fill out something today that wasn't really on the agenda, but it addresses the frustration that your advisory committee is going through, and try to do a little research to give you something to think about this, you know, if you -- if you send this back to us and say, okay, Bill, we're interested, give us all the ramifications, we'll do that research for you. So you won't have to do that. And, hopefully, at that time we will designate where the Planning organization really works with us, and we'll probably end up doing that before the day's over. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta. Page 11 June 13, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I also would like to thank you for the time and effort you put into this. I think you're making a good product. I can't speak for the Bayshore/Gateway CRA, but I do know the Immokalee CRA and their meeting I've attended a number of them, and I like the process. I sit there as more of an observer than as a participant, because I'd like to have it come from a grass roots level for the people that are actually experiencing the conditions out in the field. And I very much appreciate the fact they allow me to sit in their meetings, of course, I don't think they'd refuse me, if I -- but I do appreciate the fact -- when I sit in there, I get to pick up the tempo of what they're talking about and get the feel of it. But I try not to interfere because it should be coming from a grass roots movement, at least in Immokalee it seems to be working well. I'm sorry I haven't made one of the Bayshore/Gateway ones yet, the advisory meetings, but I'll see if I can. MR. NEAL: Mr. Coletta, I'm not surprised. Again, you're looking at my second chart. You guys have a lot of responsibility. Appropriately, it would be very, very apropos if Ms. Fiala and Fred Coyle came to our meetings, and certainly I'm not being critical, but Donna has been an active participant with this CRA, and by the way, the Bayshore MSTU, from the very beginning too. So she can attest to all the background information I'm giving you is true. But we had to work very hard to get these things going, and I'd hate to see the CRA bogged down into a slow kick off, because of people not understanding what the organization is all about -- all about, and please, no criticism, your County staff, the experience is not there. And we'll talk about that a little bit later. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that a CRA should be set up so that the citizens who live in that neighborhood -- the citizens who live in that neighborhood direct how they want their community to be redeveloped, and I think this is very important, and I think that's Page 12 June 13, 2003 probably one of reasons that you were chosen to be on the advisory, because you have the leadership qualities, and you and the rest of the staff take input from the citizens in regards to how you want your community to look at the end result. And I think it's very important that the -- that the CRA advisory committee have a lot of input and are delegated to take on that responsibility. MR. NEAL: Well, maybe it's appropriate at this point, Aaron, that I bring in Bill Mears, who's also on our advisory committee, to talk about that organization set up, because we've just hit on several salient points that will answer some of your questions about what you can and cannot do as a CRA. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That'll be fine, Bill, but I'd like to make a couple of observations and perhaps Bill Mears can incorporate some answers into that when he gets up to make his presentation. In my opinion, the structure of the organization is less important than its content. I don't see that it serves your objectives to create a CRA that is still dominated by County Commissioners. You got three voting members on there, and you've got two at large -- I mean, two from the private sector. It doesn't change anything. It's unusual, in my opinion, to have an advisory board dominated by County Commissioners. We don't do it with the TDC. We don't do it with the other advisory boards that we have. There is representation, even all of the horizon committees that we have established and the Commissioners have a representation there, but they are in the minority. They do not control it. In this particular case, even though you rearrange it or reorganize it, you still have control by County Commissioners, and I don't think that's what you want. What you need, I believe, is a liaison with the County Commissioners. I quite frankly believe there's a problem with having an advisory board dominated by Collier County Commissioners who then come to the Collier County Commissioners and make recommendations about expending funds. Page 13 June 13, 2003 I think there's a fundamental conflict of interest there, and if I believe -- believe that having three on there, on the board is bad, having five is even worse. So I think you should give some thought to whether or not you want anyone, other than a liaison, on this board. It's your money. It's your neighborhood. The County Commissioners will have final authority to approve expenditures anyway, so that they can -- they can satisfy their fiduciary duty, and in absence some -- some statute that requires us to be the majority on a CRA, and I don't think there is a requirement for that. I don't see any need to have a majority of County Commissioners on a CRA, quite frankly. MR. NEAL: Thank you, Mr. Coyle. By the way, I was going to bring this up later, but I attended a meeting of the Florida Redevelopment Association which constitutes about 125 CRAs across the state, and when we get to the executive director issue, I'll -- I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself, but I did pick up a lot of information. I went there and spent three days to try to learn how we could really make our CRA effective, and quite frankly they are set up a myriad of ways. But primarily, the ones that are most successful have the far greater weight towards the private sector than they do the elected officials. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't surprise me. MR. NEAL: And those are the ones that are successful. I was throwing something out this morning to get you thinking about let's look-- let's rethink this whole process of how we're doing it, because your committee, your advisory committee feels like we're at a crossroads, and we're stumbling and trying to get something accomplished and make sure that we present the best to you folks, and, frankly, we're failing in that. So this is a plea for you to look at this as a suggestion. I think if I may, Bill, don't you have the answer to the question about the set up -- unless -- this will fit right in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala has a Page 14 June 13, 2003 question she'd like to ask before we do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. I think where this all arose from was at one of our board meetings the subject came up as to who we would include, and we had a nice list of people to include on the CRA board-- advisory board, and then it came to be that we discussed maybe including somebody that didn't live or work in the area, and there was nobody there to represent the advisory board, and so in our enthusiasm and eagerness to please this advisory board we -- we changed the rules for them. And, of course, those weren't the rules they wanted changed, but we had no way of knowing what they would want or not want. So I think that that's what stimulated this whole process in the first place, and maybe there's a way for us to solve that problem by your suggestion, Commissioner Coyle, of having a liaison, and -- and I'm there enough, you know, I did not know, I could've spoken up for them, except I didn't know that they didn't want somebody from outside the area. So we should've just put that on the back burner until we consulted with them. I know that all of us here place heavy weight on the advisory boards and their needs. We don't want to go in and tell you what to do. We want you to suggest to us what you need to have done and then we want to support that effort. MR. NEAL: Well, thank you, and may I comment on that. We were not trying to be contrary with your recommendations. If you read the Florida statute about the purpose of CRAs, it definitely says, in so many words, confine the management of it within the barriers -- boundaries of the CRA. To make it effective that the folks should -- should come from that area. So we weren't trying to say -- we were going back to what it says. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it was our fault. MR. NEAL: I know and I'm not -- yeah, that's okay. But, again, that created some of the confusion that I addressed to you earlier why we're here and why we're discussing this. Page 15 June 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to ask the staff if they have any comments in just a moment. But I would like to make one observation about that. There certainly is good reason to have control within the boundaries of the CRA itself, and it shouldn't be done otherwise. But there's a good argument for saying there should be some opportunity to add to that group, not controlling influence, but add to that group people who have experience in achieving results in similar circumstances. Right now if there is no one in your -- within your boundaries that has not previously managed a CRA, participated in a CRA, has a track record in redevelopment, we have little opportunity to do that. And when we have the capability to add someone who might be a resource to you, I think -- I think we're doing the right thing. Now, to try to add people who would dominate it from outside the boundaries would be totally wrong, and I don't think that the board has attempted to do that. MR. NEAL: Fred-- excuse me, Fred, your committee has done some research on that and, again, I keep referring to Bill, this is a part-- he and I work as a team on this, and he does address that issue. There is an amount of flexibility that we have. I just didn't want to take -- go into all of the details, unless you wanted to ask the questions, so-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MR. NEAL: -- I hope you'll give Bill some time to explain his position. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give staff a chance to see if they have any questions or comments. MR. BLAIR: One of the things -- Aaron Blair, for the record, Urban Design Planner in the Community Redevelopment section. Again, with all the confusion, one of the things, this whole amendment that you got, and we apologize that this got to you last Wednesday, but most of this whole packet that came to you last Page 16 June 13, 2003 Wednesday is because -- is from the fact that -- of when you guys asked to change the membership of their board, so we had to throw this together to support your member -- your request coming down from you, so that's where this came down. I didn't want you to think that we were trying to confuse you because we weren't. We were just trying to follow your direction. But for everything else, we don't disagree with anything that's being said so far, and we think everything is going in the correct direction. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Bill Mears. MR. MEARS: Good morning. My name is Bill Mears. I'm a member of the Bayshore/Gateway, Triangle Gateway CRA Advisory Board. And let me -- I'm supposed to be talking about the composition of the advisory board before we get into some of the earlier interests, so I'll take some of my material and use it outside them. The -- the Florida statutes includes two sections that deal with the organization of a CRA. Now, that's got nothing to do with the advisory board. The advisory board is strictly a recreation of the Board of County Commissioners at the time that this super CRA was developed. Under section 163.356 the creation of a community redevelopment agency essentially calls on the Board of County Commissioners or the governing body, whatever the oversight body is, to appoint a CRA consisting of citizens and they're to be citizens of the affected area. It gives the number of citizens and various other rules, but that's the first option for forming the CRA itself, not an advisory board. Second comes -- is 163.357, and this is the governing body as the community redevelopment agency. And this provides that the governing body or the Board of County Commissioners is free to appoint itself to be the CRA, and I would point out that this section also provides that the governing body can then appoint two additional members to the CRA who would be residents or business Page 17 June 13, 2003 owners in the affected area. And the law is very clear on that restriction that the Board itself is to retain -- is to comprise only individuals in the affected area. It also provides that you're free to hire technical advisors or bring in advisors who are used to county services or other government services, but the CRA and its unique staff are supposed to be focused strictly on the blighted area as it's called. So, anyway, I think that answers that question. The advisory board itself appears to be a creation of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to attempt to straddle the line to keep the control with the Board of County Commissioners, but to still have local -- strong local input in the process. But, in the bylaws of the advisory board in the first section of it, actually section three, sorry, of article one, it says that each advisory board is intended to be the primary source of community input, and then goes through a number of other items, but closes by saying for the area of operation of the advisory board. So those are my comments. Now, my purpose on the agenda is to talk about the issue of the number in composition of the actual advisory board, which is separate and distinct from what we talked about earlier. What we're talking about earlier is the makeup of the CRA board, the actual authority over the redevelopment area. Now, we're going to talk about our advisory board which advises you as the CRA board. Now, our advisory board recommends expanding its membership to nine individuals from seven by amending article two, section 5-G of the amended advisory board bylaws to read three at large representative who reside or engage in business or both in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area. The purpose of this change is to permit greater community participation in our deliberations and recommendations and to provide greater continuity of membership. Page 18 June 13, 2003 One of the problems that's been noted is right now people come on and go off, and if not annual, it's certainly biannual, and there's a long learning curve that's involved in getting used to all of these issues. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here, you need a glass of water. MR. MEARS: Yeah, I'm getting choked up by this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You want some, Bill.'? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, that's going to encourage him to talk some more. MR. MEARS: Now I'll be able to talk faster. Membership in the advisory board was discussed at our April and May meetings, and the board recommended the changes here as a result of our inability to recommend for membership on the board, I've forgotten whether it's one or two of our area residents who duplicated filled roles that are in the bylaws. And so we could not recommend them for membership. So what we did was to suggest that we add two additional members at large from the CRA area, and then that would permit us to, you know, just basically have more people in the process. Now, on May 13th, the CRA took action to open the membership in the advisory board to individuals who are not-- who are neither residents nor owners in the redevelopment area, and we understand the motivation for it, which we can appreciate, but it's our belief that the advisory board is a community based source of advice for the CRA, not a technical professional board of advice. The makeup of the committee is recommended to include different professions, which is a good idea, but our purpose is to provide community input and community opinion, rather than technical expertise. And we have a number of reasons for doing that. First of which is that the one that I've already noted in article one, section three, if that's the purpose of the board, is to provide community input from the area of operation of the advisory board. Page 19 June 13, 2003 Secondly, the -- we exist strictly for the benefit of our local area, and you will note that this orientation is reinforced in article two, section three of the bylaws, which point out that the advisory board members are to be appointed by the CRA board member for the applicable area. Again, this specialization and focus on the area comes in. Section 163.3352, which is the first sort of, I guess, the introductory section of the CRA chapter notes the importance of the cooperation, voluntary actions of the owners and tenants of property in the area as one of the foundations of the program. And then, finally, is the point that I've already covered, which is under the -- that there are two organizing statutes that could be followed, and in each case all of the appointed members of a CRA, whether it's under section 163.356 or whether it's the two additional members under 163.357 are required to be members who reside or are engaged in business within the area. And so that's it for that agenda item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished, Bill? MR. MEARS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions from staff?. MR. BLAIR: No, if you're ready, we can move down the agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What I'd like to do is ask our attorney if he agrees with the assessment of the statute requirements? MR. WHITE: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the presentation is accurate with respect to what the statute sets forth. There's some detail that may be germane to the discussion as we move along, but we'll have to wait and see what direction you'd like to go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Is the public input appropriate to this particular issue, or one of the other agenda items? MS. FILSON: Well, they're wishing to speak on A, B and C. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well. We'll Page 20 June 13, 2003 move to 4-A, which is a proposal to approve the addition of at large members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Advisory Board and all necessary by-laws amendments. This goes directly to the issue that was just discussed by Mr. Mears. Any comments from the board? Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve the addition of two additional people on the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That live within the area? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That live within the area, yes. 'COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is not the proposal. We would have to modify that proposal, but if-- okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just wanted to say, excuse me, that the reason that I added and Commissioner Halas agreed with that these people live within the area is exactly what this advisory board is asking they want the people to live within the area. And so I think that we should follow their recommendations. This is their board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion. MR. WHITE: Just for the purpose of clarity, Mr. Chairman, we would revise the bylaws and present you with a slightly revised resolution adopting those bylaw changes, the nature of which would be to add, to create three at large members within the Bayshore/Gateway. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is three? MR. WHITE: There's one already -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's one already and then you have Page 21 June 13, 2003 two others that they want to add. MR. WHITE: Okay. You're desire -- I guess the point of clarification from my perspective is to increase the membership by two more, or to just allow the existing membership to be compromised of three at large members, if that's -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe the intent of the motion was to accept the recommendation of the advisory board members and their presentation today to expand it by an additional two to give a total of three, and that's in modification of the -- of the proposal that is before us this morning, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. WHITE: That was always the key issue is the total number, and it's nine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor -- MS. FILSON: Do you want to hear from the speakers before you call the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's hear from the speakers. MS. FILSON: Chuck Gunther, and he will be followed by Sharon King. MR. GUNTHER: Chuck Gunther. Living in Freedom Triangle here known as the Bayshore or Gateway Triangle. When this CRA began, before it began, there was a lot of talk like this and that. One of the things that came up was that Debra Pressnet was very strong that the CRA should be elected officials. And we -- at first I thought this was the worst thing I ever heard of. I says why should we have County Commissioners also as a CRA. Now there's one board answering to another board. It would just be a rubber stamp. Since then I think I've almost kind of swayed back and forth on that in the way it works. Comprising the advisory board, I think the composition of the advisory board is up to the CRA. It's the way I feel, and I think it's the way the 1633 says, and that's a state resolution that kind of lays that out. It could be comprised any way. Page 22 June 13, 2003 I think the one thing it should have, though, it should be people from the area that's affected. And that's what we're trying to do. What we had suggested -- I had suggested when we said if we took somebody from outside, I said, fine, but that would be as a technical expertise, maybe, as you're saying. But if we did that, make them a non-voting member; that is, they can sit on the board too, fine. I think the main thing we have to remember with this, though, is an advisory board is just that, only an advisory. And I think it has to stay that way. The dog, or the tail should not wag the dog. And in the same point of view, though, I don't want to see this CRA, if it ever were to happen, it's strange when it's the same board. I'd hate to see the CRA turn around and go against what the board would want and the BCC. As the same people, that's hard to happen. That's where diversity kind of helps in a way. That's what I was afraid of in the beginning. But sometimes diversity is good, because that gives the attention back and forth to where things work out. A lot of this right now, I think, is working things out. This is still a new process. I think even in the state it's still a new process, even though there are a lot of CRA's around now. It's still basically a process -- it's a working process that's going on, and it's a learning process for everybody, and nobody knows a definitive yes or no to anything. We're working to see what, basically, what we can get away with, what we can't get away with. When this all started the triangle did not want to be in it. We were told at first we'd be separate. We should be a separate CRA from anybody else. When it was finally formed, without us even knowing, without us having any say at all, we were included with Bayshore. We didn't want that. We still don't want that. That's the way it happened. I guess we have to live with it. Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing just split off and be separate, but that's -- it's history now. As far as new members for the advisory board, I think no matter what you have as long as there's an unequal amount, it's fine. It's just Page 23 June 13, 2003 like any other board, you don't want to have equal -- you don't want to have, like, an even number, because you don't get a good vote then. I think if we do have more members, I think the amount set for a quorum should be set differently, if you have more members. I think that's important. A quorum should not be held down low when you have more members. That's not the idea of more members in a board. That's a good way to stack a board, and that's -- we don't want that. We want it to be even. One of the problems that the Triangle sees with at large members is if we have at large members, how do we evenly place them so that we have Bayshore members and triangle members. That's going to be a hard part, because it's going to be real hard to do, at large means at large. So that's going to be a little hard to kind of delineate there. As far as -- we went to the breakdown of the CRA, I see a problem no matter which way it is, whether it's the same members as the BCC or different members. I think no matter what it is, there's going to be some contention here and there, everywhere. Fine. That's government at work. We're going to have fights back and forth, and that's why we have people that get up and will work on advisory boards. That's basically what I have to say. I'd like to see it all work out, but just make it fair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one comment, and that is, as far as the composition goes you wanted to make sure it doesn't swing too heavy on one side or the other, what we've done as a board is that we asked you, or we are asking you whenever there are people that apply to give us your recommendation. We don't want to tell you what you're going to do. We want your recommendation, and if, for instance, there's one position open, three people apply, and the board -- your advisory board feels that none of them qualify, you can Page 24 June 13, 2003 also give us that recommendation, so that we go back to the drawing board and readvertise, because we do want the board to -- the advisory board to represent the people you want. MR. GUNTHER: Yeah, we had one member -- one non-member right now has stated he'd like to become a member. We figure by the set up we have now would be -- well, we're short one member for a business member on Davis Boulevard, but we have a member that's -- or we have a citizen who's not -- doesn't have a business on Davis, he has a business actually on Linwood. He owns property all over the Triangle. We could say -- and what it says in our bylaws is it doesn't really have to be from that, it's either that -- that's the best case scenario is to have somebody from the business, you know, in the Davis Boulevard area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we'll look to you guys to give us a recommendation. MR. GUNTHER: Yeah, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Next speaker. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Sharon King. MS. KING: Sharon King. I'm a member of the CRA advisory board, and also live in the CRA area. My comments were to support the CRA advisory board recommendation on item 4-A. I support the motion made by Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Fiala, and feel no other comment is necessary. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, we were in the middle of a vote, weren't we. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we were. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Aye. Aye. Page 25 June 13, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, like sign. Unanimously approved. I have a question that I'd like to see if the members could answer for me, either now or sometime in the future, how do we allocate time and resources between Bayshore improvements and mini Triangle improvements. But the biggest impediment so far to beginning the Triangle improvement has been trying to do something with the mini Triangle, and that hasn't moved anywhere. And I would like to have an understanding of whether one of the reasons for that is that -- that there might not be equal emphasis on both, and so the question -- the question then is -- do you want to split out from Immokalee? Do you also want to split out the triangle development from Bayshore. And I don't think that's a question, unless you've got all of the answers right off the top of your head right now, it's not a question we might not want to get into today. But it would be very important to me in understanding the ultimate organizational structure for the CRA, and since we're leaving the organizational issue on the agenda, that is, we're leaving the agenda item that relates to organizational issues, I would like to see if the board is interested in providing staff, both legal staff and planning staff, with guidance to work with Mr. Neal and members of the advisory committee to develop an organizational structure that clearly places the CRA under the control of the residents and takes it out of the area of domination by County Commissioners. Is there an interest in the board to do that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Fred-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What I'm really saying is Mr. Neal has made the proposal that we reduce the membership on the CRA from essentially five Commissioners to three Commissioners, and my proposal is why have Commissioners on it at all, and why not let the community decide how they manage it, what recommendations they wish to make to the board. We'll get our shot Page 26 June 13, 2003 when it comes to the board. So, I mean, it's exactly the same way that we do almost every other advisory board. We don't dominate any advisory board to my knowledge. I could be mistaken. But we don't have majority vote on any of the advisory boards, and if we're not required to legally, Mr. White, then I would propose we not do so. MR. WHITE: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of small points that are important for you to understand as a body and that is that the BCC as the governing body in the County under 163.356 3-C, must determine the CRA members, and you can appoint them as anyone who otherwise meets the test, generally anybody who does business or owns property in the CRA areas, but the Board of County Commissioners must determine from those members who the Chair and Vice-chair of that CRA will be. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. WHITE: That's probably it. The rest of the things are more discretionary under the statute, but certainly one way that the BCC could control the events that take place from the CRA is through the appropriation of funding, at least in its initial set up and as it moves through time for various projects. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. So in summary and for clarification, I'm not proposing that we try to add something to the agenda and make a decision on the fly right now. I'm merely suggesting that we ask the staff and the CRA advisory board, absent our direct involvement, to give to us recommendations about the ultimate organization of the CRA itself, so that it is not dominated by a majority of Collier County Commissioners, and that way, I think, it will remove us from what I perceive to be a potential conflict, and put us in the role we really should be in, which is oversight and final fiduciary responsibility with respect to approval and allocation of funds. Is there -- do I see three nods? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got a nod from me. · Page 27 June 13, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How is this different from what we're doing right now? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, right now we all are the CRA, and what I've heard the members say is that they think that they're probably too many of us here, because we're the CRA -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I understand that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we turn right around and we're the board, and it's a duplication of responsibility, I guess, and what they are suggesting, and what I'm suggesting is we don't sit on the board, maybe we have one person sit on this CRA, and the CRA, then, becomes community representative, plus maybe a County Commissioner's liaison, can be voting or nonvoting, but I still have a bit of a problem with that, because I'm probably alone, but I still see a sunshine law problem with respect to involvement in a committee that is recommending decisions to be made to themselves. And I really have a problem with that, and I, quite frankly, would like to be extracted from it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Did I answer your question, or did I just confuse it more? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I get what you're saying. The only thing is is we've got two unique situations, two different boards, and Immokalee is working fine. There isn't a problem in the world. They like what they got. I don't want to upset the apple cart. I think if the problem just exists with this one, maybe we can revamp the board so it will meet the needs. I'd love to leave Immokalee out of this one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I think we have to because we haven't asked them yet. But I'm just dealing with this one right now, and I wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, whatever you think is best for that particular one, because you work for them, I'll go along Page 28 June 13, 2003 with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to get caught in the same problem we're in right now by making a decision about Immokalee without asking them about it. So I would suggest we not do anything different with Immokalee until such time as we wish to ask them for their input. COMMISSIONER Coletta: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one fast question that I have a little confusion on, would the CRA advisory board have different buffers than the CRA. There's where my confusion lies. If the CRA advisory board also becomes the CRA, then they're just the same -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: It duplicates their function. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it would have to be five different people than the CRA advisory board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're talking about having it one in the same. You'll have to come to the microphone, Bill. MR. NEAL: Excuse me. To clarify and certainly to help Mr. Coletta, this would essentially eliminate the necessity of an advisory board. Your CRA would be the one that reports to the BCC. The CRA would hire the necessary people to make it function properly. It would be a totally different organization, which is not unsimiliar to a lot of the other CRA's. So, in answer to your question, the advisory committee goes away under the scenario that you're talking about. It's more than we could've hoped for that you would address this morning. We were trying to include the balance with the County Commissioners, maybe that was self-serving, and I hope not. But what you've seen is the big picture of what is really necessary for the proper function of a CRA in this area. Page 29 June 13, 2003 And we all do appreciate that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's just that we're so perceptive. MR. NEAL: Well, I will tell you, it's the information that you get that makes you so perceptive. MR. MEARS: Commissioner Coletta, try and understand what you're -- the fact is that functionally under this setup the Immokalee operation would be exactly the way it is. It's just that when it came down here to report to somebody, it would report directly to the BCC, cc rather than to the BCC as the CRA. Your committee would be the CRA. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Mr. White is there -- is this doable? MR. WHITE: I've looked through the statutes, Commissioner, and I certainly know that it's possible to create one CRA board, other than the Board of County Commissioners, between five to, I believe, seven members. I'm not sure, though, that you can have more than one CRA board in the county. I've worked with CRA's in other jurisdictions but, of course, that wasn't an issue. So I'd like the opportunity to look at it a little further, but certainly what's being discussed is that, at least as I understand it, there'd be the need to have apparently two CRAs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. MR. WHITE: And I'm not sure that that's entirely permissible. It may very well be, but I'm reviewing the statute on-line as we talk, but it's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Opposed to one CRA that would be working in combination with everything. I'll tell you what, in Immokalee, they appreciate the ability to be able to act on their own. If you start scrambling it together, and they have to travel 40 miles. Attend to a meeting here, uh-uh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the reason I'm suggesting Page 30 June 13, 2003 this be sent to staff and that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll go with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's merely a direction to the staff and to the lawyer and to the CRA's themselves to give us recommendations on how they'd like to see this done, and then we can iron out those legal details to see if it's even possible. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If we can improve upon what we've got, I'm all for it, but I'll tell you right now, it's working very well in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. I think I had three nods on this issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Everybody understand? Okay. You have a question? MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen, community redevelopment manager. I just wanted to concur with Mr. White, as well. In my experience with CRAs, I have similar concerns, and I feel it's best that we go back and plannirig staff meets with legal. And I'd also recommend that the advisory board place it on their agenda at one of their next regular meetings and we can discuss it there, as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. . COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last note, if I may? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we get down to the point that we're agreeing to go with one CRA, at that point in time, I think it's only fair that we hold half of the meetings in Immokalee. Just to make you aware of the fact, if I'm going to ask them to do this, and they're going to travel 40 miles, it's only fair at the next meeting you travel the 40 miles. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm just trying to give you Page 31 June 13, 2003 a blessing. You're going to love Immokalee. We've got great restaurants. We've got a lot of entertainment. MR. NEAL: My focus is on Bayshore/Gateway, and I really don't know -- I'm sure you guys do a wonderful job. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm sure you do, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much. You're speaking on the next topic, right. MR. GUNTHER: The topic under discussion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You already did that? MR. GUNTHER: No. I spoke on 4-A. This motion -- this discussion is included under 4-C. MR. WHITE: We're not to that yet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're registered for this item? MR. GUNTHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The upcoming item? MS. FILSON: He's registered for all three of them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Please come to the podium. MS. FILSON: Okay. Sharon King. MS. KING: Okay. Sharon King. Thank you for allowing this. Also a member of the CRA advisory board, the discussion that you're having and that Aaron has suggested and Randy has suggested that we have in our advisory board meeting, we have held those discussions. Let me comment with Bill that we're really happy that you're also having these discussions at this time. This is something that we have felt the need to respond to for some time. I'm in agreement with Commissioner Coletta that I do feel that there should be two separate CRA, boards, one for the Bayshore/Gateway and one for Immokalee. Also, we had discussed in our meetings in the advisory board that the two Commissioners that represent the CRA district should be possibly included in the CRA, but it would not be a requirement, as Page 32 June 13, 2003 you see there could be some conflict there. But that the CRA board be made up of people from that area, and then the CRA board would come in front of the Board of County Commissioners, rather than duplicating, as you said, the issues that we're currently duplicating. You're hearing them at one sitting, and, you know, they should be brought to you at one time from the board's recommendations. And then I also agree with Bill Neal that with the addition of this CRA board comprised of community people, this would no longer be the need for the advisory board. The CRA would answer, make recommendations directly to the board. And that's the discussions that we've held in our advisory board, and that's basically the conclusion that we've reached and because of that, you're going to see an item on the agenda, 4-C come up before you that represents this reflection and input that we've had at these board meetings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that the last public speaker on this -- that item? MS. FILSON: Mr. Gunther, did you wish to speak on this item? They're all registered for all items. MR. GUNTHER: The only thing I have to say there is if we do away with the advisory board, one of the reasons for the advisory board is to have input from the neighborhood that's involved. If you make an advisory board the board, it's not going to make people in the neighborhoods very happy, because I think you're talking about gentrification here and people don't like. That's as simple as it is. And that's the way it's going to happen. It's the way it's going to sound. It sounded that way all along, nobody likes it. I think you should keep it, basically, the way it is right now. I think it will work that way. There's going to be some bumps and some little hurdles to go over. I think it'll work out, though. That's all. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. No more public Page 33 June 13, 2003 speakers on this item? MS. FILSON: No, sir. Item #4B SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGI~E RFDFJVF, IJOPMFNT ARF, A-APPROVFD CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we will move to item B to approve and execute the site improvement grant agreements between the community redevelopment agency and grant applicants within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. Aaron. MR. BLAIR: It's pretty straight foreword, and I'm guessing we kind of got to hurry because I think you have another meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. BLAIR: But that's pretty straight forward. It's just agreements that we have between our site improvement grant applicants, which you've already approved all that. We just have to execute the agreements between them so that we can make sure that they get their funding that's needed for their improvement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to make a motion to approve, being that the advisory board and Planning Services Department all recommend the same thing. I offer a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in Page 34 June 13, 2003 favor, aye -- I'm sorry. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move it along. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor say, aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye No discussion. Item #4C CREATION OF AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION TO MANAGE THE BUSINESS OF THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA-CONTINUED TO THE NEXT CRA MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THE SECOND WEEK IN SFPTEMlqFR-APPROVFD CHAIRMAN COYLE: And opposed, like sign. Unanimous approval. Item C, to approve the creation of an executive director position to manage the business of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area. MR. BLAIR: Okay. This one has -- we added an amended executive summary in the packet that you got on Wednesday, if you don't have one, I got a bunch of them here. They're basically Planning Services made a recommendation in the first executive summary that you got last week, but after more discussion within our Planning Services Department, there was a decision made that these are policy issues, that really it would be best -- it would serve you better if we would layout some options for you to make the decision on how to serve the redevelopment area, and that's within this executive summary, if you don't have it, again, I'll turn it to the page and bring it to you. And, basically, you would just look through the Page 35 June 13, 2003 four options, and I'm sure they want to speak on this issue, also. MR. WHITE: I'd just point out, Mr. Chairman, that under the statute it appears that the executive director position would be employed by the CRA, not one of the local redevelopment advisory bodies, such that they would, in essence, under our present structure work for this body, the CRA, and it would be an executive director that would work not just solely for Bayshore/Gateway, but could also work for Immokalee, as those are the two areas we have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's my problem with making a decision on that today, we haven't decided what the organizational structure is going to be yet. We haven't decided if we're going to be able to split one out from the other. We haven't decided whether or not we can have one CRA or two CRAs. I think it is premature, although I like the concept, to make a decision today on an executive director for an organization structure that we -- of which we are uncertain. And that's my observation. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the position -- proposed position coming out of the CRA, or ad valorem taxes? MR. BLAIR: For options two, three and four, would all be funded from the Bayshore/Gateway CRA funds. Option one, which remains status quo, which they fund one-third and Immokalee funds one-third of the position, which is actually my position, for work involved with their products. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a third and a third, and the other third is? MR. BLAIR: It comes out of the -- from the regular County Commission funds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would come from general fund County-wide MSTU, parks and Rec, Sheriff's department. Good. Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a suggestion for the board Page 36 June 13, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we should put this on continuance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: to suggest. Yes, exactly. That's what I was going COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we continue this -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a motion to continue it by Commissioner Halas. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any disc -- you have speakers. Okay. Then we have speakers on this item. MS. FILSON: Mr. Gunthei'. MR. WHITE: And while the speaker is coming up, Mr. Chairman, if the motion maker would consider a time certain, whether it's the next CRA meeting, or whatever, that will help. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, if the speakers are opposed to the action the board is going to take, please come forward. But we're going to hear this in another CRA meeting. So it's your choice to speak now or later. MS. KING: I would speak later. I was just going to show support once again for separating the CRA from Immokalee to the Bayshore/Gateway. And then also support the addition of an executive director. At this point, you know, we're trying to remake the same that we're doing now, and an executive director would be helpful to us during this period as a CRA, because we could use his expertise and his ability to present probably a bigger picture and better picture and a more thorough -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think where we're going right now is we're going to -- we're going to postpone that decision until such time that we can decide upon the organizational structure. MS. KING: I'm in agreement. Page 37 June 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then at that point in time, we can debate that issue. MS. KING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: And Mr. Gunther. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Chuck, I don't think-- Chuck's waving. MR. NEAL: I cannot disagree with your decision. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Name for the record, sir. MR. NEAL: Thank you. My name is plain old Bill Neal. Still your same chairman. Still trying to get acquainted with all you-all. We struggled for nearly two and a half years to try and get our CRA kicked off. We've talked about an executive director at every meeting. We've concluded it is necessary under whatever format we'll be able to discuss. The only thing I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to do is to ask staff and the legal department to help us very quickly form this organization the way we've talk about. So we can get on with our business. I don't want to be critical, but every time we get involved in one of these things to decide, it takes six, eight months, a year to ever get something done. So if you just encourage staff and legal to have it like a 90-day project, or something like that, I'm not putting it -- but this is a matter of importance for us to get this thing working. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's the purpose of the suggestion that this be a time certain. So when is the next proposed meeting of the CRA? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next year. MR. BLAIR: They come up whenever necessary. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's make it September. Okay. Is that okay. First or second meeting in September? How much time do you need? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, actually we do it before the MTO meeting, right? MR. BLAIR: Right. Page 38 June 13, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So that would be, what, the second week in September? CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll do it the second week in September, and we'll expect to have those recommendations for organization and all that sort of stuff worked out at that time so we can make a final decision. Okay. Any further discussion on that item? Okay. All in favor please signify by saying, aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed by like sign. Carried unanimously. Is there any other business to be brought before us. No public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Then we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time. Page 39 June 13, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:41 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Fred Coyle, Chairman DWIGHT'E. BROCK, CLERK Attest a~ ~ These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DAWN MCCONNELL Page 40