Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 02/13/2018 Item #14B
02/13/2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), select a developer and authorize the publication of a thirty (30) day notice of intent to dispose of approximately 17.89 acres of CRA owned property owned in Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment area based on the review and selection of one of the two proposals submitted under ITN 17-7169. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the development of the 17.89 acre CRA property located in the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (BGTCRA) in order to generate positive economic activity, promote arts and culture, and continue the general revitalization of the Bayshore community. CONSIDERATIONS: On April 11, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), authorized staff to market and sell, through the Invitation to Negotiate process, the BGTCRA owned property identified as 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in accordance with Section 163.380, Florida Statutes as outlined in the Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan. The notice soliciting proposals from any party/parties interested in the purchase and development of the 17.89 parcel located on Bayshore Drive was published. The deadline to submit price and concept proposals on the ITN was August 31, 2017. Three proposals were received: Arno, Inc.; Banroc Corporation; and Minker Properties. The proposals were reviewed by the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board on October 5, 2017, and October 19, 2017. On November 3, 2017, Minker Properties withdrew their proposal. On November 14, 2017, the CRAB considered the two remaining proposals and directed staff to negotiate with both developers. Staff has met with both developers several times and the developers have revised their site plans and product mix over the last two months. Attachment A and Attachment B provide an overview of each proposal as revised and submitted by each developer. The Purchase and Sale Agreement Template outlines the draft terms and conditions for the disposition of the property. It is intended to be customized with developer name and project scope. In the event the CRAB wishes to select one of the offers as presented, the next steps are to finalize the Purchase and Sale Agreement and publish a 30-day notice. At the end of the 30-day notice, an agenda item will be scheduled and the CRAB may approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the selected developer, select any alternate proposal submitted, or reject all offers. Section 163.380(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that prior to disposition of any real property or interest therein in a community redevelopment area, any county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency shall give public notice or such disposition by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the community, at least 30 days prior to the execution of any contract to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property. Both proposers are proposing a mixed-use village with a cultural component on the 17-acre property, plus the option to purchase the adjacent 2.5-acre site bringing the total development to 20+/- acres. Both proposers will construct a pedestrian connection to Sugden Park and both are negotiating with cultural and performing arts entities to include a cultural component. Below is a brief overview of the proposals GAI Consultants, Inc. was hired to review and comment on the two proposals, examine cost issues generally, and identify other considerations and concerns. The final report is attached. Arno Inc.: 14.B.1 Packet Pg. 196 02/13/2018 Purchase Price: $3.5 million. 175 market rate units ranging in size from 700 to 920 sf with the majority initially available for rent if negotiations with Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CAPA)/Visual and Performing Arts Center (VPAC) is successful and the entity can raise the capital to construct and operate the facility. The developer is still interested in pursuing a reduction in residential unit size during the rezoning process. The maximum height required is 100 ft to accommodate the performing arts center. Approximately 36,000 sf of commercial space is anticipated. The total estimated investment is approximately $40 million. If the cultural entity is unable to perfo rm, the alternate plan is to develop an additional 69 residential units bringing the total residential count to 244 units. There will be a density bonus request ranging from 135 to 204 units depending on the development scenario implemented. The maximum density is not expected to exceed 244 residential units. Banroc Corporation: Purchase Price: $3.2 Million. 170 market rate units ranging in size from 750 to 1250 sf all for purchase. The proposal does reference 50 of those units as condo/hotels units to allow for short-term stays without the traditional daily hotel services if negotiations with a cultural and performing arts entity (Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CAPA)/Visual and Performing Arts Center (VPAC) or Phoenicia Festival of Voice Foundation) is successful and the entity can raise the capital to construct and operate the facility. The maximum height required is 90 to 100 ft depending on the final design of the performing arts center. Approximately 98,500 sf of commercial space is anticipated. The total estimated investment is between $65 to $84 million. If the cultural entity is unable to perform, the alternate plan is to develop 75 residential units plus an outdoor amphitheater (built and operated by developer), bringing the total residential units to 245. There will be a density bonus request ranging from 130 to 205 units depending on the development scenario implemented. The maximum density is not expected to exceed 245 residential units. FISCAL IMPACT: The sites was purchased in 2006 ($4,614,243 - 4265 Bayshore Dr.) and 2008 ($765,652 - 4315 Bayshore Dr.) for a total of $5.35 million. In 2017, it was appraised at $3,694,000. The disposition of the site will return it to the tax rolls and development of the site will further increase th e value of the site and result in additional tax increment revenues for the BGTCRA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Both projects will require a rezone and possible Comprehensive Plan amendment to achieve the density and intensity of the proposed development. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the October 19, 2017 Advisory Board meeting, the Board voted unanimously that Arno Inc and Banroc Corporation proposals move forward to the CRAB for review. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. - JAB RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), select a developer and authorize the publication of a thirty (30) day notice of intent to dispose of approximately 17.89 acres of CRA owned property owned in Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment area based on the review and selection of one of the two proposals submitted under ITN 17-7169. Prepared by: Debrah Forester, CRA Director ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Attachment A - Arno Inc - 02.05.18 Update (PDF) 14.B.1 Packet Pg. 197 02/13/2018 2. Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (PDF) 3. Attachment B - Banroc Corp - 02.05.18 Update (PDF) 4. Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (PDF) 5. CAPA Progress Report 02.01.18 (PDF) 6. GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (PDF) 7. Purchase Sale Agreement Template (PDF) 14.B.1 Packet Pg. 198 02/13/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 14.B.1 Doc ID: 4739 Item Summary: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), select a developer and authorize the publication of a thirty (30) day notice of intent to dispose of approximately 17.89 acres of CRA owned property owned in Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment area based on the review and selection of one of the two proposals submitted under ITN 17-7169. (Debrah Forester, CRA Director) Meeting Date: 02/13/2018 Prepared by: Title: – County Manager's Office Name: Debrah Forester 02/02/2018 8:50 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 02/02/2018 8:50 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Tim Durham Additional Reviewer Completed 02/02/2018 10:43 AM Budget and Management Office Ed Finn Additional Reviewer Completed 02/02/2018 2:23 PM County Attorney's Office Jennifer Belpedio Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 02/05/2018 10:58 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 02/05/2018 11:06 AM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 02/06/2018 7:31 AM County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 02/06/2018 5:06 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/13/2018 9:00 AM 14.B.1 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment A – Arno Inc Proposal 1 February 2, 2018 Project Overview Bayshore CRA ARNO INC. Project Scope: • Conceptual Site Plan – uses See attached materials Community Impact: • CRA Vision • Conceptual Plans - Visuals Mixed-Use Cultural Village based on Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles. Adjacent Parcels: 2.5 acres (4 units per acre + 8 additional units for Affordable Housing) 273 ft of additional frontage on Bayshore Dr. Shadley Property - option on property due within 30 days of PSA approval. (Incorporated parcel within the updated site plan. Site cost and improvements included in updated Pro Forma.) Sugden Park Connection: CRA Goal Boardwalk/bridges - 8 ft wide boardwalk and bridges included in pro forma. Per PSA – commitment to design and build. Parking Facilities: 2 garages: 1. Bayshore Drive Access - 320 spaces/4 levels 2. VPAC Garage - 168 spaces/2 levels plus 36 on- site = 204 spaces Village Condos (36 units) - 48 parking spaces under building. Shadley Property - 28 on-site spaces. Total provided = 600 spaces. Cultural Component: Estimated Cost $50M CAPA(Cultural and Performing Arts Center)/VPAC(Visual and Performing Arts Center) • Design - CAPA-900 Seat plus height of 85 to 90 ft depending on technology for acoustics. • Parking – 330 spaces • Private Fundraiser hired. • Dedicated 3-4 acres, May 2017 MOU included. Per VPAC, new MOU being negotiated as outlined in PSA. 14.B.1.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment A - Arno Inc - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment A – Arno Inc Proposal 2 Cultural Component: The site was rezoned in 2012 to the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore. The vision was to include a cultural component- a multi-use facility suitable for art, cultural, and performing venues as well as providing public access for festivals and other community activities. Land to be donated to CAPA/VPAC subject to funding and timeline performance criteria. Cultural Component Alternative: Additional 69 residential units - to bring total to 244 units. (20.4 acres x 12 units/acre) Maximum height- 4 to 5 stories. CRA Financial Request: No financial but density transfer requested. Current Zoning: Mixed Use PUD 40 dwelling units 48,575 Commercial 84,000 sqft of parking 350-fixed seat performing arts center 20 t setback from wetlands – deviation in current PUD Comprehensive Plan changes will be determined at pre- application. Possible deviations from code requested: 1.Increase dwelling units from 40 to 175 (with cultural component.) 2.No additional retail area requested. 3.Additional parking will be provided. 4.VPAC seating to be increased from 350 to 1000 seats. 5.No setback changes requested. 6.Fly tower height allowance to be increased to 100 ft. 7.Change to LDC required to accommodate TDU transfer. 8.Continued interest in a unit size below 700 sf. 9.Other Deviations from code to be discussed at pre-application meeting with Growth Management. Density: 40 units + 10 units from Shadley Property = 50 total units •316 available. Limited to 97 units per project. Value associated with Density Units – transfer is not allowed in Coastal High Hazard Area – Bayshore Density is unique – TDR in other locations valued at $12K to $13K per unit. All market-rate units: 175 units TDU Requirement: 125 units from BGTCRA Bonus Density with Shadley Property. 14.B.1.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment A - Arno Inc - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment A – Arno Inc Proposal 3 •Shadley Property – 2.5 acres @ 4 units per acre = 10 units 135 Units from BGTCRA without Shadley Property No Cultural Component: Maximum Density - 244 units TDU Requirement: 194 units from BGTCRA CRA with Shadley Property 204 units from BGTCRA without Shadley Property Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment required to allow TDU since amount exceeds 97 units. Residential Unit Size: •LDC – minimum size 700 sf 42 x 700 sf. two-bedroom units 78 x 742 sf. two-bedroom units 55 x 920 sf. Three bedroom units Total = 175 units Balconies on all units. Height – 4 stories = 72 feet Increase to 100 ft. – up to 90 feet required by VPAC Residential Price Points: All under $300,000 Assumes 48 Village Units will be sold and the remaining units will initially be rentals. Commercial Square Footage: 41 units Estimated total - 36,396 sf. Units can be combined. Restaurant proposed on Shadley site. Multiple eateries/bars are possible. Buildout 30 months from permitting Long term Maintenance- HOA HOA Price: (Appraisal = $3.6M) $3.5 million ($195,640 per acre) Purchase Terms: •10% down payment •Deposit – non-refundable 10% at signing of PSA Terms of deposit as outlined in PSA Final Payment At Closing as detailed in the PSA. Financial Capacity: Letter Provided Financial Commitment Next-Tier Capital and Creative Choice Group - $40M commitment letter Developer may request that some units fall below 700 sf. 14.B.1.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment A - Arno Inc - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment A – Arno Inc Proposal 4 Total Project Value •Construction Value Total Constr. Value = $31,333,654 Total Investment: $39,740,748 Assumes cultural component built by cultural organization. Impact Fees Fire and Water/Sewer are not included in pro forma Development Team Arno Inc. Creative Choice Group RWA Engineering 14.B.1.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment A - Arno Inc - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) View of the Village, Shadley Property and VPAC Center from Bayshore Drive to the East. 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) View of the Boardwalk and Bar & Grill on the Lake with the path to the Village Square beyond. 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Aerial View of the Village Development and VPAC Center 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Pedestrian Access to the Retail Shopping Street with Trees & Fountains that lead to The Village Square 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) The Shopping Street with Living Units & balconies above the Retail Units Above 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) The Boardwalk Bar & Grill on the Lake and M/U Units on the Shadley Property to the Left, are linked with a pedestrian path to the Village Square & Shopping Street to the Right. Above 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Conceptual Image of the proposed VPAC Center. Above 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Conceptual Image of the proposed VPAC Center. Above 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.bPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.bPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.bPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.bPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) ARNO INC.BAYSHORE ARTS VILLAGE & SHADLEY PROFORMA January 25th 2018 Land Purchase and Construction of Mixed-Use Buildings Construction of 1x Parking Garage (Ave) Estimated Development Cost Unit Area Total Cost/SF Cost/Unit Dev.Cost Sales Inc.Profit %#SF SF $$$$$ Land Purchase Land Cost of 17x acre parcel (8x buildable acres)3,500,000 Land Cost Shaley Property ( 2.5 Acres)910,000 Closing Costs ($17,762 & $5,075)22,837 Legal Setup 20,000 Legal PUD Ammendment 100,000 Site Development Plan 75,000 Property Taxes (36 months)65,000 Total Land Purchace Cost 4,692,837 Construction: Roads, Walkways & Utilities (6.5 acres @ $150k/acre)975,000 Village Commercial Units 41 36,396 75 2,729,700 Commercial Circulation Space 4,011 60 240,660 Village Residential Units 175 137,876 130 17,923,880 Residential Circulation Space 13,865 60 831,900 Residential Balconies 175 48 8,400 60 504,000 Parking Garages-1 (spaces)320 15,000 4,800,000 Boardwalk to Sudgen Park (Permatrak)8,000 60 480,000 General Conditions 0%0 Construction Cost 28,485,140 Builders Profit 10%2,848,514 Total Construction Cost 31,333,654 Impact Fees: Impact Fees - Parking Garages Commercial Units 41 340,000 Residential Units 175 1,850,000 Utility Impact Fees Sewer Water Total Impact Fees 2,190,000 Consultant Fees Architecture 3%854,554 Strucural & MEP Engineering 0.75%213,639 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Civil Engineering 1%284,851 Landscaping 0.25%71,213 Legal - Condo Docs Etc.100,000 Total Consultant Fees 1,524,257 Total Investment Cost 39,740,748 Sales Income Village Commercial Units 41 36,396 320 11,646,720 Sales Income Village Residential Units 175 137,876 320 44,120,320 Total Sales Income 55,767,040 Real Estate Commission 4%2,230,682 Cost of Money (not included) Total Income 53,536,358 Net Profit 13,795,610 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Arno de Villiers January 28, 2018 President Arno Inc. 5091 Tamarind Ridge Drive Naples FL 34119 Re: Bayshore Arts Village, Naples, FL Dear Mr. de Villiers: Pursuant to our recent conversations and correspondence Next-Tier Capital and Creative Choice Group have interest in partnering with you to capitalize and develop the Bayshore Arts Village Project. As you are aware, the Principals of Next-Tier Capital (www.next-tier.net) and Creative Choice Group www.creativechoicegroup.com have extensive experience in structuring and developing projects such as Bayshore Arts Village. In addition to our own investment capital we have extensive real estate debt and equity capital partners that we call upon as needed to fund a project like Bayshore Arts Village. As such, please accept this letter as confirmation that Next-Tier Capital along with its joint venture partner Creative Choice Group are committed to provide the $40 million necessary to buy the 17- acre parcel on Bayshore Drive in Naples and develop the Bayshore Arts Village as proposed by Arno Inc. in your submittal in response to the RFP by Collier County, Florida. Feel free to share this letter with anyone involved in the RFP decision process. In addition, if the committee needs further verification, I can be reached at 732.447.3411 and Dilip Barot, CEO of Creative Choice Group, can be reached at 561.627.7988 to alleviate any concerns regarding the funding capability for this development project . Sincerely, Uday Shah Managing Principal cc: Dilip Barot 14.B.1.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Arno Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment B – Banroc Corporation Proposal 1 February 2, 2018, 2018 – Project Overview Bayshore CRA BANROC Corporation Project Scope: •Conceptual Site Plan – uses See attached materials Community Impact: •CRA Vision •Conceptual Plans - Visuals Mixed-Use Cultural Village Adjacent Parcels: 2.5 acres (4 units per acre + 8 additional units for Affordable Housing) 273 ft of additional frontage on Bayshore Dr. Shadley Property – December 2017 Letter of Intent to sell property to Banroc if developer is selected, final terms to be negotiated. Sugden Park Connection: CRA goal See PSA – Developer will provide sidewalk and bike path along southern boundary. Developer will provide boardwalk from Arts Village into Sugden Park Parking Facilities: 350 space parking garage 250 space parking garage under Visual and Performing Arts Center 120 space hotel/ parking garage 80 surface parking spaces Off-site parking agreement required for special events Option A Alternate – 75 condos to include 75 under unit spaces and 62 surface parking spaces. Cultural Component: Estimated Cost $50M CAPA(Cultural and Performing Arts Center)/VPAC (Visual and Performing Arts Center) •Design - CAPA-900 Seat plus height of 85 to 90 ft depending on technology for acoustics. •Parking – 330 spaces •Private Fundraiser hired. •Dedicated 3-4 acres, DLR Group lead designer July 2017 MOU included. Per VPAC, new MOU being negotiated as outlined in PSA. 14.B.1.c Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B - Banroc Corp - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment B – Banroc Corporation Proposal 2 Cultural Component: The site was rezoned in 2012 to the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore. The vision was to include a cultural component- a multi-use facility suitable for art, cultural, and performing venues as well as providing public access for festivals and other community activities. Donation of Land to entity Two possible partners: CAPA/VPAC or Phoenicia Festival of Voice Foundation Banroc Terms: 50% of estimated cost raised within 6 months of signing of PSA. Full funding within 12 months or developer will proceed to alternate option plan. Cultural Component Alternative: 75 housing units plus outdoor amphitheater 45,000 sqft. - 1,000 seat outdoor acoustical Roman Amphitheater and performing stage and park. Estimated Cost -$3M to $5M to be paid by developer Letter of Intent with Phoenicia Festival of Voice Foundation partnership to facilitate weekly events to be managed by Maria Todaro and the Foundation to raise funds and operate. Additional connection – Paul Green, School of Rock – considering locating a school within BGTCRA CRA Financial Request: No financial but density transfer requested. Current Zoning: Mixed-Use PUD 40 dwelling units 48,575 Commercial 84,000 sqft of parking 350-fixed seat performing arts 20 ft setback from wetlands – deviation in current PUD Comprehensive Plan changes will be determined at pre- application. Possible deviations from code requested: 1.Increase dwelling units from 40 to 170 (with Cultural Component) 2.Additional retail area requested 3.Off-site parking agreements 4.VPAC seating to be increased from 350 to 950 seats. 5.Fly tower height allowance to be increased to 90 ft. 6.Change to LDC required to accommodate TDU transfer 7.Determination of Condo/Hotel as a use 8.Other Deviations from code to be discussed at pre-application meeting with Growth Management Density: 40 units + 10 units from Shadley Property = 50 total units •316 available. Limited to 97 units per project. Change to LDC required •Value associated with Density Units – transfer is not allowed in Coastal High Hazard Area – Bayshore Density is All Market Rate units: Option A: 120 units+ 50 condo/hotels = 170 units TDU Requirement: 120 units from BGTCRA Bonus Density with Shadley Property - 130 units from BGTCRA without Shadley Property 14.B.1.c Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B - Banroc Corp - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment B – Banroc Corporation Proposal 3 unique – TDR in other locations valued at $12K to $13K per unit. Purchase of Shadley Property – Additional 10 units available (4 du/ac) Option A Alternate: 195 units + 50 condo/hotels =245 units TDU Requirement: 195 units from BGTCRA Bonus Density with Shadley Property 205 units from Bayshore CRA without Shadley Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment required to allow TDU since amount exceeds 97 units. Determination of condo/hotel and density requirements to be discussed during pre-application. Residential Unit Size: •LDC – minimum size 700 sqft 750 sf – 60 condos – second floor 900 sf – 60 loft condos – third floor Option A Alternate: 75 units at 1,250 sf each Height – 4 stories = 72 feet 3 stories Commercial Village, up to 90 feet for VPAC Residential Price Points: $195,000 to $325,000 Assuming all condominiums Commercial Square Footage: 80,500 sf. first Floor - 6 restaurants plus 4 small retail shops and 75 offices and shops (includes common area) 18,000 sf. Second Floor office space (no common area) Buildout Estimate 2 years once permits are issued. Long term Maintenance- HOA? Proposing master HOA with sub HOA/Condominium Associations Price: (Appraisal = $3.6M) $3.2 million ($178,871 per acre) Purchase Terms: •10% down payment •Deposit – non refundable 10% deposit - 5 days after effective date of PSA Final Payment At Closing as detailed in the PSA. Financial Capacity: Financial commitment letter for deposit money. 14.B.1.c Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B - Banroc Corp - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Attachment B – Banroc Corporation Proposal 4 $5M in private equity to purchase land and obtain entitlements. Commitment letter 30 days from effective date of PSA. Financial Commitment Commitment Letter/s – 15 days from effective date of PSA. Potential Investors: •Avison and Young (Letter attached to proposal) •Forge Development (Letter attached to proposal) •East Coast Commercial Group •Florida Drywall •Nace Cohen PA •Matthews, Pierce & Lloyd •Marc Shuster- Berger Singerman •Steve Block MS Capital Total Project Value $65M to $84M Impact Fees Fire and Water/Sewer are not included in the pro forma. Timing •Milestones- Development Commitment See PSA Development Team DLR Group- Lead Architectural Design Firm Schenkel-Shultz Architecture – Local Architect of Record MHK Architects - Local Architect of Record Stantec – Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture Coldwell Banker - Marketing 14.B.1.c Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B - Banroc Corp - 02.05.18 Update (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Banroc and its development team have spent the past 12 months working together to respond to a public RFP set forth by Collier County to develop a 20 acre tract of land located less than 2.5 miles from central downtown Naples in what is known as the Bayshore Area. Aside from being close to downtown Naples, the 20 acre property has its own lakes and the entire east side abuts to the 100 acre Sugden Park making it a truly unique parcel of land in all of Naples. The RFP set forth by the County required the development of a mixed use village having an artistic theme along with a significant cultural component. After almost one year and many presentations to the public, to government agencies and the Collier County BOCC , Banroc is now one of two final proposers selected as a potential developer for the project. The final selection by Collier County is expected by the end of February 2018. If selected Banroc will start on the development of the project immediately and expects to complete it in 36 months. It will be a marque project for all of Naples and Banroc ‘s goal is to make it the “Central Park” of Naples. 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Banroc has created two development options for the 20 acre site and its intent is to seamlessly incorporate and connect the property with Sugden Park and make the property the “Central Park” for all of Naples. Option A -includes a mixed use village with 255 units , shops, offices, restaurants, condos and the construction of a 1,000 seat 75,000 sq. ft. Opera / Performing Arts Center Option A Alternate -includes the mixed use village with 330 units and construction of a 1,000 seat Acoustical Roman Amphitheater 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION FINANCING Avison and Young Project Funding Fairway Funding Group Funding and Buyer Mortgages Coldwell Banker Realty Sales and Marketing Florida Drywall Inc. Strategic Development Partner Primary Funding NON-PROFIT PARTNER VPAC Private Fundraising for PAC PAC Engineering Team DLR Group Fully Integrated PAC Design Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Fire Protection Structural Theater Technical, A/V, Acoustics Arts Village Engineering Team Burgess Brant Consulting Engineers Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Fire ProtectionSelect Structural Engineering Structural DESIGN DLR Group Design Architect Master Planning / Architecture CONSTRUCTION GATES Construction Manager DEVELOPERS BANROC Corporation | Forge Development Group Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Performing Arts Center (PAC) Local Architect of Record Schenkel Shultz Architecture Civil Engineering & Landscape Architecture STANTEC ENGINEERING Arts Village Local Architect of Record MHK Architects 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION THE DEVELOPER Banroc Corporation is a real estate development and marketing company whose core competency is assembling a team of experts that work a together to provide the capability to take any real estate project or property from initial concept to final owner occupancy. This includes conceptual design, feasibility studies, zoning and permitting, project architecture and engineering, general contracting, project management, project funding and finance and project marketing and sales. Banroc’s network includes Real Estate Attorneys, Land Planners, Architects, Engineers, General Contractors, Private Equity Funding Sources, Banks, Residential and Commercial Real Estate Brokers and Marketing Consultants www.BanrocCorp.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION THE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN ARCHITECTS The DLR Group is one of the worlds leading performing arts and theater design firms and provides in house capability for the complete exterior and interior architectural and engineering design for any performing arts center. •DLR has designed 250 major performing arts projects and has 175 design awards for performing arts projects •50 Years experience, with over 1,000 professional and support staff in 26 offices worldwide •DLR merged with Westlake Reed Leskosky in October 1, 2016 –the #1 rated firm in the United States by Architect (magazine of the AIA) in 2012 and 2014. •Ranked in the top 10 for Overall and Sustainability for the past 5 years •Over 30 multi-family housing projects; over 30 design awards for housing projects Significant experience with outdoor performing arts venues, including over 25 amphitheaters •Most comprehensive design services for performing arts projects in the United States, including architecture, engineering, acoustics, theater technical and audiovisual design services. •DLR is currently designing a complete new theater district for the city of Shanghai in China www.dlrgroup.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION THE ARCHITECT OF RECORDFOR OPERA PERFORMING ARTS CENTER •Over 59 years experience, with 29 Registered Professional Architects in Florida. •Located in Southwest Florida for 25 years, with 3 current projects in Collier County. •33 years of local design leadership in the community. •Schenkel Shultz design team members have completed 46 performing arts projects. •Signature Performing Arts Projects on the West Coast of Florida: •Venice Performing Arts Center in Venice,FL •Players Centre for Performing Arts in Sarasota, FL •Collaborative performing art center experience with DLR on the Sarasota Players Centre for Performing Arts. www.schenkelshultz.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION THE ENGINEERS •Infrastructure and civil engineering for major residential, mixed-use, and commercial developments •Work for public and private sector clients from diverse markets at every project stage –from initial concept and financial feasibility, to design, services during construction, and commissioning •Familiarity with environmental challenges for this project goes back to our previous work on Sugden Park •Previous working relationship with MHK Architects on the Baker Park planning efforts for the City of Naples •Over 60 years experience, with over 22,000 professional and support staff in 400 offices worldwide •Ranked #10 –Top 500 Design Firms –ENR May 2017 •Ranked #10 –Top 150 Global Design Firms -ENR June 2017 www.stantec.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATIONwww.gatesinc.com THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR •25 Years experience in Collier County and South West Florida •Multiple award-winning firm including: Contractor of the Year, Builder of the Year, Top Contractors in the 4-State Region, and Excellence in Industry •Extensive portfolio of landmark and award-winning projects •Extensive portfolio of Multi-family residential projects •Multiple Recreation projects including park and community centers •Multiple Arts projects -currently building a 154,204 SF Silver Spot Theater •Multiple successful projects with Schenkel Shultz Architecture •Multiple successful projects with MHK Architecture & Planning 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATIONwww.mhkap.com THE ARCHIECT OF RECORD FOR ARTS VILLAGE •Founded in 2009, MHK Architecture and Planning are a group of over 45 highly skilled design professionals and urban planners who are well versed in commercial, residential design and planning with offices in Naples, Ft. Myers, Palm Beach, and Greenville, South Carolina •Leader in the Southwest Florida design community with over 15 design and honor awards from the American Institute of Architects •2008 W.R. Frizell Medal of Honor winner from the American Institute of Architect’s Florida Southwest Chapter •Design experience specializing in the design of single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial office, mixed-use developments and master planned communities •Relevant project experience includes the City of Naples Baker Park, Naples Square mixed-use development, Mangrove Bay residential development, upcoming Eleven Eleven Central, and City of Naples Pier Reconstruction 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION THE SALES AND MARKETING TEAM •Coldwell Banker Naples via its agent Harry Bandinel will be the exclusive listing Broker for the Bayshore Arts Village •A dedicated Bayshore Arts Village website will be created with its own unique domain name / URL •The Website will have renderings, floor plans and full virtual tours of the Village and its commercial and residential spaces •AN extensive online residential and commercial marketing campaign will be implemented •Founded in 1906 Coldwell Banker has an extensive network of offices that cover all of Florida –provides access to buyers, investors and funding sources •Over 85,000 Agents Worldwide –725 Websites reach 16 million potential buyer daily Coldwell Banker Coldwell Banker Previews International www.coldwellbanker.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION www.phoeniciavoicefest.com THE ARTS AND CULTURE PROGRAM MANAGER •Founded by world renowned Opera Singer -Maria Todaro -the Foundation specializes in creating significant art and culture programs and events in economically depressed regions •The Foundation, under the direction of Maria Todaro, created the annual Phoenicia Festival of the Voice in the Catskill Mountains in upstate New York and in Charleston, South Carolina -both are three day musical festivals drawing over 7,000 spectators and world class artistic talent •The Foundation was just authorized to create the Naples Festival Of the voice In Sugden Park starting in 2019. •The Foundation has over 180 volunteers •The Foundation and Maria Todaro have signed a Letter of Intent with Banroc to provide a comprehensive weekly / monthly arts, music and culture program for the Bayshore Arts Village, for the PAC and for Sugden Park The Phoenicia Festival Of the Voice Foundation 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION The Bayshore Arts Village –6 waterfront restaurants, gourmet food shops, cafe, tea shop, bakery, deli, 35 stores and boutiques, luxury spa and salon, small office lofts and roof top condos 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Proposal 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Proposal 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency (BGTCRA) Solicitation 17-7169 Proposal View of Performing Arts Center from Arts Village Plaza 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 1,000 Seat Roman Amphitheater -Designed for optimum natural acoustics and requiring no amplification will make it unique and one of only a handful with this design nationwide. Located in front of the lake and directly across from the Arts Village surrounded by a parklike setting 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Proposal 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION UNIT BREAKDOWN 17 Acre CRA / 2.5 Acre Shadley Property OPTION A OPTION A ALT Residential Lofts and Condos 120 120 Village Offices 30 30 Village Storefront Offices 10 10 Village Shops 35 35 Condo Hotel Suites 50 50 Food Service -Coffee Shop, Ice Cream, Deli, Wine and Cheese 4 4 Restaurants 6 6 East Side Condos 0 75 Total Bayshore Village Units 255 330 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION ROI OPTION A Cash Investment Required -Initial Refundable Deposit for Land -$400,000 / Total Land Acquisition Cost -$4,000,000 Total Cost of Project 65,325,000 Developer Equity Needed (Approx. 25%)16,500,000 Projected Total Net Profit 21,595,000 ROI OPTION A ALT Cash Investment Required -Initial Refundable Deposit for Land -$400,000 / Total Land Acquisition Cost -$4,000,000 Total Funding Needed 84,412,000 Developer Equity Needed (Approx. 25%)21,000,000 Projected Total Net Profit 30,132,500 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION 1 -Collier County will make a final decision and award the project by February 24, 2018 2-Upon being awarded the project Banroc will sign a land purchase agreement with County for the 20 acres 3-Total purchase price for the 20 acres is expected to be $4,000,000 4-An initial refundable escrow deposit of $400,000 will be needed in March 5-Banroc will have a 6 months due diligence period to finalize site layout and secure funding for the project 6-During due diligence period Banroc will finalize an agreement for the funding of the Opera / Performing Arts Center -either with Opera Naples/ VPAC or with the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice Foundation 7-Due diligence period will be used to finalize design and project Proformas 8 –Banroc estimates timeframe for the project to be 36 months 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Banroc has the complete design, construction and marketing team in place to start the project immediately Banroc is seeking an equity partner to fund the $6,000,000 needed to purchase the land and do the preliminary site design, do the rezoning and create the PUD Once the land is purchased Banroc has a significant list of interested funding sources who would fund the development of the project. The option also exists for Banroc to partner in the project with one single investor or funding source. 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : DLR Group ADDITIONAL FOOTER INFORMATION Harry Bandinel Phone: 941 716 0720 E Mail: Harry@BanrocCorp.com 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : 1 | P a g e BANROC FORGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP Prepared By Harry Bandinel 550 Fifth Ave South Naples, FL 34102 Phone: 941 716 0720 E Mial: Harry@BanrocCorp.com THE BAYSHORE ARTS VILLAGE PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY PROPOSAL UPDATES FEBRUARY 2, 2018 RESPONSE TO COLLIER COUNTY ITN Solicitation 17 – 7169 Bayshore Gateway Triangle 17 Acre Land Purchase / Development Proposal 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 2 | P a g e BANROC CORPORATION 550 Fifth Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 February 2, 2018 Naples, Florida RE: BANROC FEBRUARY 2, 2018 UPDATES: Response to Collier County ITN Solicitation 17-7169 Dear County Commissioners, Bayshore CRA Staff and Bayshore CRA Board, Pursuant to Banroc’s meeting this past January 30, 2018 with the Staff of the Bayshore CRA and based upon discussions during the meeting Banroc has made the following modifications and updates to its original proposal for the development of the 17 Acre CRA Tract. Also please see attached Power Point presentation with updated site plans and project specifications. In making these latest changes and improvements Banroc has attempted to directly address the concerns and issues that it have discovered as Banroc and its team have progressed with the design and development of the project. Banroc also took into consideration concerns and ideas expressed by the Bayshore CRA Board, the Board of County Commissioners and the public at large. In light of these issues and discoveries herewith a “short list” of the specific modifications we have now included in our final proposal: 1- Banroc Forge is now not asking for any financial assistance or impact fee concessions from the County. 2- Banroc’s proposed purchase price for the 17 Acres remains at $3,200,000. 3- Given the issues with the rezoning required in Sugden Park and due to the reluctance/ lack of interest by the Bayshore CRA, the Board of County Commissioners and Collier County Parks and Rec Department to include Sugden Park in Banroc’s overall master plan for the 17 Acres Banroc has reluctantly discarded the idea of including any improvements in Sugden Park. However Banroc will still diligently pursue the incorporation and connectivity of Sugden Park and Botanical Gardens with the Bayshore Arts Village and Opera / PAC. 4- Banroc will also promote its Bayshore Village to the over 200,000 annual visitors of Botanical Gardens as this is a captive audience of clients / patrons for the Village. 5- In an attempt to create easy access to Sugden Park for all Bayshore residents and to provide connectivity between the 17 Acres and Sugden Park, Banroc will provide a sidewalk and bike path connecting Bayshore Drive and Sugden Park on all along the South boundary of the 17 Acres. It will also provide a boardwalk from the Arts Village directly into Sugden Park. 6- Banroc has addressed the general concern about VPAC’s ability to be able to raise the 30 to 50 million dollars needed for the construction of the Opera and Performing Arts Center. Failure by VPAC to raise the funds fo r the Opera and PAC. In light of this Banroc has provided a few alternatives. 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 3 | P a g e The first is that Banroc will require VPAC to provide proof of the funds and a financial guarantee to Banroc in a timely manner so as to not affect the development of the 17 Acres. The second alternative is that Banroc has also signed a letter of intent with the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice Foundation and its president, Maria Todaro, who has expressed a serious interest in purchasing and managing the Opera and Performing Arts Center. Maia and her husband are both internationally renowned Opera Singers and founders of the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice Foundation. They bring a level of professional experience far beyond any available in Naples and also have an extensive worldwide network of important contacts in both Opera and Performing Arts. They also have the network and capability of raising the funds needed for the construction of the Opera and Performing Arts Center. In the event neither VPAC nor the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice Foundation is able to raise the funding Banroc has created an alternative to the Opera and PAC. 7- To address this issue Banroc has created two development options – “OPTION A” and “OPTION A ALTERNATE”. Under Option A: (Assumes VPAC or the Phoenicia FVF are able to obtain funding for PAC) i. Banroc will give VPAC and Phoenicia FVF 6 months from date Banroc is awarded the project to raise 50% of the total funds required for the PAC ii. At the end of 6 months VPAC or the Phoenicia FVF must then provide Banroc proof of funds and a none-refundable deposit of $1,000,000 to be held in escrow as a guarantee VPAC will obtain full funding within 12 months. iii. If VPAC or the Phoenicia FVF obtains full funding within the 12 month period Banroc will proceed with its Option A - The Arts Village and the PAC. iv. (As per site plan - OPTION A) Under Option Alternate :( Assumes VPAC or Phoenicia FVF cannot raise funds for the PAC) v. IF VPAC or Phoenicia FVF fail to raise the funds as stated above Banroc will develop the 17 acres under its Option A Alternate vi. This substitutes the PAC for a 1,000 seat outdoor acoustical Roman Amphitheater and Preforming Stage and Park vii. Plus an additional 75 residential condominiums viii. (As per site plan OPTION A ALTERNATE). 8- The Amphitheater will be designed for “acoustical perfection” and not require electronic amplification making it a unique facility - there are only a handful of such Amphitheaters in the United States. 9- The Roman Amphitheater will cost less than one tenth of cost of the PAC and it will not require a perpetual endowment. Its maintenance cost is minimal. It is a facility that will allow a wide and diverse range of musical, cultural and entertainment events. In most cases these events will be much more affordably priced than any offered in the Opera/PAC and thus be accessible to a wider audience. 10- Banroc will design the Amphitheater so that it is fully and directly integrated with the Arts Village, thus providing a great enhancement to the Village. It will be created in a park like setting so that it will be an esthetically beautiful also. 11- Banroc has also signed an agreement to engage the expertise and services of Maria Todaro and the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice Foundation to help fund, create and manage an extensive musical, cultural and entertainment program for the Arts Village, the PAC or the Amphitheater and Sugden Park. This will mean weekly events in the Arts Village and at the PAC or Amphitheater and at least once a month festivals and concerts in Sugden Park. 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 4 | P a g e 12- Banroc has the Shadley property under a purchase agreement and feels this is a critical component to provide a “Village” that is large enough to provide the “critical mass” of residential and commercial units to assure the long term financial success of the Arts Village and any businesses that open shop there. It also doubles the 17 Acres base density and greatly enhances the direct street front exposure and visibility of the project along Bayshore Drive. Including the Shadley property in the Village increases the total frontage on Bayshore from 350 feet to 825 feet. The added land also allows enough space to build a true “Village”. This means multiple restaurants, several plazas and open squares, waterfront dining, many shops and stores. Anything less and all you have a is another small strip mall destined to be an economic failure due to lack of traffic. 13- Banroc Forge is committed to providing high quality beautifully designed workforce housing in the Arts Village along with affordable retail and office space geared specifically for small businesses. 14- Our design has incorporated a large central square along with several smaller plazas. These are designed to provide space for artists and musicians and to provide free / low cost cultural events and entertainment for all Village patrons. 15- We have also design space for 6 restaurants that all provide outdoor waterfront dining and 4 food service shops (bakery, ice cream shop, wine and cheese shop and a gourmet deli) all located in our various outdoor plazas. 16- A key component that will help insure the success of the Arts Village will be to encourage the over 200,000 annual visitors to Botanical Gardens to visit the Arts Village and Sugden Park. This will be accomplished via easy connectivity between all three facilities and cross promotion. 17- Banroc has added an important new member to our design team - local architect Matthew Kragh (MHK Architects) who will act as the local architect for the design the Arts Village. 18- Banroc has also increased the design and planning scope of the DLR Group - New York. DLR Group is now the lead architectural designer for the entire project, including the Arts Village and the Performing Arts Center. DLR Group is a worldwide leader in the complete design of cultural and arts facilities. The DLR Group has worked on 250 similar facilities worldwide. They have master planned a massive new cultural district comprised of multi performing arts centers in Shanghai, China that is currently under construction. DLR Group is currently the designing a new Arts Center in Sarasota, Florida in partnership with Schenkel Schultz Architects. This project is similar in size and scope to the proposed Bayshore Arts Village PAC. DLR Group is also working on the Straz Center for Performing Arts and Tampa Theater in Tampa. Unlike Fisher Dachs or other theater design firms that provide only “specialty theater consulting services” that are limited to the interior design of the PAC, the DLR Group provides the full and comprehensive spectrum of theater design services. This includes the building’s architecture, engineering, acoustics, theater technical audiovisual and interior design. DLR’S comprehensive capabilities ensure that Bayshore obtains a truly world class PAC designed and built by world class professionals whom provide the specialized expertise required for such a complex structure. 19- The VPAC group has engaged a professional fund raiser to provide the services to obtain the necessary donations for the PAC. Banroc has also put its extensive network of contacts and potential donors at VPAC’S disposal. Banroc will be working directly with Maria Todaro and the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice to raise donor funds for the PAC or the Amphitheater. 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 5 | P a g e 20- Regarding the funding of the 17 Acre project Banroc has a large network of funding sources. Given the scope of the project and the significant sum needed (estimated to be between 65 and 82 million dollars) for the full development of the project funding will come from multiple sources. Banroc plans to fund the project in three phases. These include: 1- Funds on hand ($400,000) (proof of funds letter available) for earnest money deposit available immediately. 2- Private investor funds to close on purchase of property and rezone ($4,600,000) available 15 days after award of ITN and upon final negotiation of PSA 3- A combination of private and bank loans to fund the balance of project ($40,000,000, to $50,000 mil 4- We also have three private equity investors who would find 100% of the project. 21- Banroc primary funding sources at this time are: 1- Four private high net worth investors 2- Avison and Young 3- Forge Development Banroc has several other interested funding sources, several who have expressed an interest to fund the complete project. However, to finalize any funding Banroc will need to provide proof it has been awarded the project and also show in detail the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement. 22- Included also are Banroc’s Summary Proforma for the Project. We consider this confidential information to be seen only by those to whom it may specifically concern. We have included both Options A and Option A Alternate. To finalize funding and proceed with the purchase of the 17 Acres Banroc will require a final and definite purchase contract with price, terms and conditions. Upon receipt of the final purchase contract Banroc will require 30 days to put up the 10% deposit. In closing Banroc hereby wishes to state that the above changes were made after further study with its development team and were made specifically to ensure the long term success of the project. Banroc has carefully designed the project to ensure it will be a great facility for arts, culture and entertainment. However equally important is that we design a Village that will also be a commercial success and promote the continued redevelopment of the entire Bayshore area. To that end Banroc has engaged the extensive expertise of the DLR Group to create the design, layout and mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and public spaces that create a successful village. Banroc’s Arts Village will be a mixed use village that promotes arts and culture; that provides an environment and experience that will draw visitors from far and wide; that will be a catalyst for the final redevelopment of the Bayshore area and that is accessible to all ages and all socio economic levels. As president of Banroc Corporation I am available anytime to answer any further questions. Sincerely, Harry Bandinel Harry Bandinel President Banroc Corporation 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) BAYSHORE ARTS VILLAGE - OPTION A and OPTION A ALT SUMMARY PROFORMA- REVISED JAN 2, 2018 UNIT BREAKDOWN PAC AMP 17 Acre CRA / 2.5 Acre Shadley Property OPT A OPT A ALT Residential Lofts and Condos 120 120 Village Offices 30 30 Village Storefront Offices 10 10 Village Shops 35 35 Condo Hotel Suites 50 50 Food Service - Coffee Shop, Ice Cream, Deli, Wine and Cheese 4 4 Restaurants 6 6 East Side Condos 0 75 Total Bayshore Village Units 255 330 Parking Provided OPT A OPT A ALT Ground Level Under Arts Village Parking Garage 350 350 Outdoor Village Surface Parking 80 80 Over Flow/ Event Parking On Bayshore Drive 2,000 Line Feet 100 100 Condo Hotel Parking Garage 120 120 Under Performing Arts Center Parking 250 0 Amphitheater Parking 0 200 East Side 75 Condo Units 0 112 Total Spaces 900 962 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) LIST OF APPROXIMATE TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF CONSTRUCTION IN VILLAGE Total Areas - 17 Acres Plus 2.51 Acre Shadley Property OPT A OPT. A ALT Approximate Total Net Buildable Land Sq. Ft.350,000 350,000 Proposed Construction Arts Village Buildable Footprint 80,500 80,500 Village Condo Hotel / Parking Garage Footprint 15,000 15,000 PAC Footprint 75,000 0 Amphitheater Footprint 0 45,000 East Side Condos Footprint 0 57,000 Remaining Open Space - Parking, Sidewalks, Plazas, Green Space 179,500 152,500 Total Construction Footprint Square Feet 350,000 350,000 Total Square Feet of Construction Proposed Village Construction Ground Floor Footprint 80,500 80,500 Proposed Village Construction Second Floor 72,400 72,400 Proposed Village Third Floor 62,100 62,100 Proposed Condo Hotel 50 Units 45,000 45,000 Proposed Open Area - Walkways, Plazas, Public Spaces, Elevators 100,500 100,500 Proposed Footprint PAC 70,000 0 Proposed East Side Condos 75 Units 0 108,700 430,500 469,200 VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SQ. FT. BREAKDOWN Commercial Village Ground Floor Unit Size Total Sq. Ft. Food Shops 4 - Each 1,000 Sq. Ft. 4 x 1,000 4,000 Restaurants 3 - Each 2,000 Sq. Ft. 3 x 2,000 6,000 Restaurants 3 - Each 5,000 Sq. Ft. 3 x 5,000 15,000 Storefront - 35 Small Retail Shops Each 1,000 Sq. Ft 35 x 1,000 35,000 Offices - 10 Store Front Office Space 1,000 Sq. Ft 10 x 1,000 10,000 Add Common Spaces, Hallways, Stairs, Elevators - 70,000 Sq. Ft x 15%10,500 Total Ground Floor Foot Print - 80,500 Sq. Ft 80,500 Commercial Village Second Floor Unit Size Total Sq. Ft. Office Suits 30 - Each 600 Sq. Ft. 30 x 600 18,000 Loft Condos Residential 60 - Each 750 Sq. Ft 60 x 750 45,000 Add Common Spaces and Hallways 63,000 x 15%9,450 Total Second Floor Foot Print - 72,450 Sq. Ft 72,450 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Commercial Village Third Floor Unit Size Total Sq. Ft. Loft Condos 60 - Each 900 Sq. Ft. 60 x 900 54,000 Add Common Spaces and Hallways 54,000 x 15%8,100 Total Third Floor 62,100 Sq. Ft.62,100 Condo hotel and Parking Garage Unit Size Total Sq. Approximate Land Total Sq. Ft. 140 x 190 26,600 Total Sq. Ft. Condo Hotel 750 Sq. Ft./ Unit x 50 Units 50 x 750 37,500 Add Common Areas, Lobby, Stairs, Elevators 37,500 x 20%7,500 Total Sq. Ft. Footprint 15,000 East Side Residential Condos Total 75 Units - Each 1,250 Sq. Ft. 1,250 x 75 93,750 Add Common Areas 15%93,750 x .15 14,950 Total 100 Units 108,700 UNIT COST / PROJECTED SALE PRICE Number Unit Rent Unit Sale Total Sale Vert. Const. Total VENUE AND APPROXIMATE SALE PRICE Units Ft. / Mo. Price Price Per/ Sq. Ft Cost Food Shops 4 @ rent 1,000 Sq. Ft. each /$24,000 annual rent 4 24 /2000 350,000 1,400,000 120 x 4,000 GS 480,000 Restaurants 3 @ rent 2,000 Sq. Ft. each / $48,000 annual rent 3 24 / 4000 640,000 1,920,000 120 x 6,000 GS 720,000 Restaurants 3 @ rent 5,000 Sq. Ft. each / $120,000 annual rent 3 24/ 10,000 1,600,000 4,800,000 120 x 15,000 GS 1,800,000 Shops 35 @ rent 35,000 Sq. Ft. / 1,000 Sq. Ft. 35 15 / 1500 240,000 8,400,000 120 x 35,000 GS 4,200,000 Office Storefront 10 @ 1,000 Sq. Ft Each 10 24 / 2000 320,000 3,200,000 120 x 10,000 GS 1,200,000 Second Floor Office 30 @ 500 Sq. Ft. Each 30 24 / 1000 160,000 4,800,000 120 x 18,000 GS 2,160,000 Village Lofts Condos 30 @ 750 Sq. Ft. Each 30 300 /1400 225,000 6,750,000 140 x 22,500 3,150,000 Village Loft Condos 30 @800 Sq. Ft. Each 30 323/ 1500 259,000 7,770,000 140 x 22,500 3,150,000 Village Loft Condos 60 @900 Sq. Ft. Each 60 313/1,800 298,000 17,880,000 140 x 54,000 7,560,000 Condo Hotel Units (20 WKS x $2,000/WK ) + (32 WKS X $1,000/WK) x 50% net 50 2,000 460,000 23,000,000 180 x 37,500 6,750,000 East Side Condos 75 Units 1,250 Sq. Ft. Each 75 316/2,000 395,000 29,625,000 150 x 93,750 14,062,500 Cost Common Areas and Hallways 10 % of Total Area 0 0 0 0 10 % / Total 4,700,000 TOTALS OPTION A TOTAL OPTON A 79,920,000 35,870,000 TOTALS OPTION A ALT TOTAL OPTION A ALT 109,545,000 49,932,500 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OPTION A AND OPTION A ALT OPTION A OPTION A ALT Land Purchase 17 Acres CRA 3,200,000 3,200,000 Shadley Property 800,000 800,000 Rezone and PUD 200,000 200,000 Site Clearing (OPT A 5 ACRES) (OPT A ALT 8 ACRES)100,000 150,000 Site Development (Option A 5 Acres) (Option A ALT 8 Acres)600,000 1,000,000 Project Management 500,000 600,000 Architectural Design 1,500,000 2,250,000 Engineering 500,000 750,000 Impact Fees (Option A - 200 x $20,000) Option A Alt 250 x $20,000)4,000,000 5,000,000 Permits - (Option A = 255 Units x 3,000) (Option A Alt 330 Units x $3,000) 765,000 990,000 Total Cost Vertical Construction 35,870,000 49,932,500 Public Areas / Plazas / Walkways 1,500,000 1,500,000 Under Village Parking 350 Spaces (14,000 Each)4,900,000 4,900,000 Condo Hotel Parking Garage 120 Spaces ($12,000 Each)1,440,000 1,440,000 Outdoor Surface Parking $5,000 x 100 500,000 500,000 Allowance for Construction Funding Costs 1,800,000 2,000,000 Contingency Fund / Misc Costs 1,000,000 1,000,000 Marketing Costs 150,000 200,000 Sales Commissions (Option A $80,000,000 x 5%) (Option A Alt $109,000,000 x 5%)4,000,000 5,450,000 Closing Costs $80,000,000 x 2%2,000,000 2,500,000 Total Cost 65,325,000 84,362,500 PROJECTED P&L OPTION A AND OPTION B ITEM OPTION A OPTION B Total Value of New Construction 79,920,000 109,545,000 Less Total Cost 65,325,000 82,412,500 Projected Profit from Arts Village 14,595,000 27,132,500 Add Projected Net Profit Performing Arts Center (50,000,000 x 8%)4,000,000 0 Add Sale of 150 Parking Spaces x $20,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Profit 21,595,000 30,132,500 ROI 27 36 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) ROI OPTION A Cash Investment Required - Initial Refundable Deposit for Land - $400,000 / Total Land Acquisition Cost - $4,000,000 Total Cost of Project 65,325,000 Developer Equity Needed (Approx. 25%)16,500,000 Total Net Profit 21,595,000 ROI OPTION A ALT Cash Investment Required - Initial Refundable Deposit for Land - $400,000 / Total Land Acquisition Cost - $4,000,000 Total Funding Needed 84,412,000 Developer Equity Needed (Approx. 25%)21,000,000 Total Net Profit 30,132,500 NEW TAX REVENUE CITY AND COUNTY - OPTION A Real Estate Taxes Option A (New Construction - 79 Million x 1.5%)1,185,000 Sales Taxes Option A ( From New Businesses) 45 Million Annual Sales 2,700,000 Total Taxes 3,885,000 New Jobs Created 250 NEW TAX REVENUE CITY AND COUNTY - OPTION A ALT Real Estate Taxes Option A Alt (New Construction - 109.5 Million x 1.5%)1,642,500 Sales Taxes Option A Alt ( From New Businesses) 55 Million Annual Sales 3,850,000 Total Taxes 5,492,500 New Jobs Created 300 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.dPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) FORGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP 840 W. HAMILTON STREET SUITE 620 ALLENTOWN, PA 18101 610-398-2988 November 10, 2017 It has been a pleasure working with you and the very impressive team you have gathered over the last few months and this letter shall serve as Forge Development Group’s commitment in co -developing, investing and assisting in the capital raise, for the project the Bayshore Arts Village Development Project. Our interest in teaming with Banroc on this project is a testament to your significant effort over the last year in assembling a world class group of investors, designers, and construction professionals and establishing a truly unique and significant project. The strong support from the various project stakeholders and the collaborative approach that has been exhibited is the team oriented environment we want to put our time, effort, and financial resources behind. As a bit of background, Forge Development Group is a full service real estate development and investment firm currently involved in industrial, medical, commercial, hospitality and multi-family development projects in both Pennsylvania and Southwest Florida. Our extensive experience with capital partners including institutional and individual investors will serve as the funding sources for the Project. Our executive team has a combined 70 years of development and construction experience managing construction, development and financing of a wide range of projects and will bring to bear this experience and commitment to ensuring the project’s success. We look forward to working with you in making the Bayshore Arts Village a successful and impactful project. Sincerely, Andy Baldo Forge Development Group LLC 14.B.1.d Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Banroc Final Proposal Updated 020218 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) CAPA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROGRESS REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 2018 Submitted by Bill Drackett, President CURRENT BOARD ACTIVITIES The Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CAPA) board of directors has appointed a new president and two additional influential board members and embarked on board fund-raising training. Developers and CAPA have traded MOU drafts, and our design consultants and legal counsel are reviewing and making recommendations. CAPA’s 2017-2018 concert season is underway with growing community excitement and a continually growing and dedicated audience base; and CAPA’s 2018 Gala on January 8 was the largest and most successful ever. Developers are providing visuals for CAPA to use in presentations to our donor base and other interested parties to enlist their participation and support. CAPA is working with financial institutions to update our existing Letters of Intent from these institutions that pertain to loaning 85% to 90% of signed pledges as a bridge loan for this project. FUNDRAISING MASTER PLANNING The Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CAPA) has retained Sally M. Woliver and Associates, Inc. (SWA) to conduct an independent analysis focusing on CAPA’s ability to successfully manage a mega comprehensive multi-million dollar campaign. Work on this analysis began December 1 and will conclude by March 2, 2018. A confidential report will be delivered to the CAPA board no later than March 23. SWA is focused on fundraising, strategic planning and organizational management. Sally Woliver has 38+ years of fundraising experience and SWA has worked with more than 100 non-profit organizations locally and nationally. SWA’s preliminary findings on CAPA have been very positive. SWA feels confident, even at this early juncture, in noting that CAPA has the “raw ingredients” in place to start a campaign during the second quarter of 2018. Beginning January 31, 2018, the CAPA Board began preliminary campaign preparations under SWA’s guidance. 14.B.1.e Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: CAPA Progress Report 02.01.18 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) DEVELOPER RELATIONSHIPS & PROGRESS CAPA and arts center design consultants are reviewing detailed theater plans developed in 2013. These plans will be updated to reflect current building costs, phasing to match construction timeline, funding availability and 2018 community and marketplace needs. To ensure the veracity of the VPAC requirements for the dedicated 3-4 acres, VPAC will require 51% control of all theatre design decisions. CAPA is engaging a professional Owner’s Rep for all aspects of the developer agreement, final MOU and transition to zoning and construction phases. Ongoing negotiations are going well. VPAC TEAM OF CONSULTANTS Theater Consultant Joshua Dachs, Fisher-Dachs Associates, Principal To conceptualize the project within County guidelines and create the design. Arts market & Consumer Research Steven A. Wolff, AMS Planning & Research, Principal To provide strategic initiatives for planning and development of capital facilities and arts market and consumer research. Acoustician Mark Holden, Jaffe Holden, FASA Chairman To collaboratively ensure a superior acoustic environment. Project Costing Stewart Donnell, Principal To establish and implement stringent cost-control techniques. Artistic Consultant Steve Monder, Executive Director, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra To advise on theatre operations and artist and employee contracts. 14.B.1.e Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: CAPA Progress Report 02.01.18 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS GAI Consultants, Inc. 618 E. South Street Suite 700 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 gaiconsultants.com February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 Ms. Debrah Forester, AICP Director, Collier County CRA 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102 Naples, Florida 34112 Collier County ITN Comments and Observations Bayshore Triangle CRA, Collier Florida Dear Ms. Forester: Based on our task authorization dated January 11, 2018, this letter summarizes our comments and observations related to proposals issued for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Area under the management and control of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Our analysis is based principally upon proposal materials originally submitted and available at the time of the above authorization. To the degree time has allowed, changes to materials provided shortly after the authorization date were also taken into consideration where noted in this letter. We understand the proposers continue to discuss and provide CRA staff with subsequent materials and updates as negotiations proceed. Because of the way in which further information may have been received, later changes were absolutely not given the same level of analysis or consideration as those in hand at the date the task order was officially transmitted to us. Regardless, under the basic terms of that authorization this letter comprises the complete record of our opinions based on information, material, or conversations as of this date. Should staff or County find it necessary, additional time or effort could be arranged. In selected cases, we have applied additional information gathered from sources available to GAI through previous work or experience or from other secondary industry sources. As the analysis relates to cost information in particular, it is understood our information should be considered relative order-of-magnitude only. The information is to aid comparisons between the proposals and to provide points of reference. Such information is certainly not sufficient to render a detailed opinion about either the value of the projects or cost related impacts other than generally. To the degree cost related information may be material to a final decision or a strategy regarding actual implementation, we will be glad to provide subsequent analysis. In any case, we believe the information we have used or relied upon is uniform and reasonable for the purposes described in this letter. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 2 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS It should be understood the overall information within the submissions either lacks detail or, by the notes of the respondents themselves, is preliminary such that we can only draw inferences and make assumptions about its intended meaning or relevance. In some situations, that kind of information is acceptable at an early stage of discussion but all parties to any decisions must absolutely acknowledge those limitations which can be material. INTRODUCTION AND UNDERSTANDING Several months ago, Collier County and the CRA issued an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN). As we understand the process, three submissions were provided to the county with one not sufficiently responsive to the ITN’s specifications mandating certain cultural elements. In the two remaining submissions, the cultural elements focused on the Visual Performing Arts Center (VPAC). We were asked to review the remaining two, comment on the concepts overall, comment on their content and uses, examine cost issues generally, calculate threshold property tax receipts made available to the County or CRA, and identify other issues or considerations associated with fulfilling the basic implementation strategy described. We believe it is fair to say that both submissions outline very exciting concepts. Both incorporate similar elements and land uses although their notion of how those uses might function or be priced is materially different as we understand the information provided by the respondents. Both have the promise of amazing transformation for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community. Even as we acknowledge changes which have occurred since we began our review, there could be additional enhancements or alterations to each submission as we prepare this letter. We believe it is also fair to say, while informative, the materials so far provided in the respective submissions are relatively basic in nature and require, in our opinion, significant refinement over the course of final selection and negotiation. This comment applies to both the older and newer information reviewed to date. SUMMARY In our opinion, two very exciting and probably transformative concepts have been described in the respective submissions provided by Arno and Banroc. We believe the staff and County would agree that both submissions describe very appealing, but ambitious plans, to be implemented on some 17 acres that would be sold to one of the parties. These plans necessitate a series of obligations from the respondents themselves, their funding sources, other third parties and the County to be fulfilled as represented to date. Accomplishing all of the steps necessary would be difficult under the best of circumstances by experienced developers but we see modest evidence that those skills are an integral part of the teams in play. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 3 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS We are not opining on the capability of either team. It would be a mistake for us to conclude neither party could fulfill the obligations described. It would also be a mistake not to recognize the need for oversight controls whichever respondent is selected. The absence of documented experience calls into question which person or parties will be responsible to the County and CRA to soldier the projects through all stages of planning, financial commitments, construction, the subsequent marketing of the vertical improvements, long term management, and coordination generally. Different people have been named but their roles are not solidly established that we can see. Given the unusual complexity of mixed use development, a theme in both proposals, much greater detail needs to be secured in subsequent rounds of discussion or negotiation to assure accountability and coordination. While the timetables in both are not unusual, they may be for only a moderately experienced team. The following points from each proposal are amplified over the next several pages. Arno: Strong design experience but no development experience addressed in the submission materials, especially as that experience relates to the complexities of managing mixed use projects such as the kind proposed. It is not clear that other parties mentioned provide additional needed skills or experience. - Construction costs need to be detailed although they may be reasonable for the residential components. We understand some costs have been raised in response to conversation with staff. - The small residential units described in the initial proposal are an untested concept regionally. Staff has advised us Arno now believes these units could be a challenge, and he has modified his plans to reflect bigger units. If we understand the changes, his price points will remain approximately the same although the cost of implementation clearly will rise overall. It is not quite clear how these added costs will spread though other aspects of the proposal at this point but we do believe increasing the size of each unit is beneficial compared to the concept initially described. - Provides for 20,000 SF to 30,000 SF of non- residential development which seems a practical level of inventory given the nature of the likely users to be attracted to the project. Level of non-residential development sufficient to add character and some shopping options without overwhelming the balance of the project functionally or financially. - Sales prices for both residential and non-residential product are very high. - Not clear how commercial or other parts of the project will be managed and operated, especially if there are major parts leased. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 4 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS - Parking seems limited, and the submission does not address how it will be allocated to the residential units if at all. - Should VPAC not be constructed, an alternative plan considers additional residential development which may, or may not be desirable. How this alternate strategy will be effected was not clear to us. - Funding and financing plans very tentative and not reflected in the financial analysis provided. Banroc: The team is identified in the organizational chart but it’s not clear that prior development or implementation experience is matched to the proposed mixed use concept. - Residential products appear relatively mainstream in size and price. - The plan calls for 80,000 SF to 90,000 SF of non-residential development which we believe will be challenging given the price structure and the nature of the likely users to be attracted to the project. At this scale, it could be a burden financially to the larger project. - Not clear how this major commercial element within the larger project will be managed and operated. - It is not clear whether portions are being developed primarily for sale or for lease. Both options appear possible but the choices have implications for operations and financing as well as valuation impacts that do not appear to be correctly recognized in the submission. - The non-residential components are less expensive than Arno but still seem at the very upper end of the market. If rented, they are well above the average rents achieved in the area generally. - Parking may be limited. In any case, the submission does not address how it will be allocated to the residential units if at all. - An alternative plan has been offered in the event VPAC is not implemented. How this alternative would be executed or managed is not altogether clear. - Construction costs need to be detailed although they may be reasonable. - Funding and financing plans very tentative and not reflected in the financial analysis provided. PRINCIPALS AND KEY PARTIES To be clear, we have not screened any of the credentials of those involved with either submission. Our comments here are not about their qualifications but rather about the means outlined to implement the particulars of each proposal. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 5 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS It is our expectation that the claims and information advanced by the respondents cast each team in its best light. In that context, we would be looking for backgrounds in redevelopment specifically, the implementation of mixed use projects which are the fulcrum of both proposals, coordination of complex projects, and extensive leadership in a redevelopment setting in Florida. Rather than an emphasis on those skills at this point, the submissions feature strong design commitments, great community sensitivity, and openness to evolving ideas. The latter is essential in any project largely in the public realm where community ideas, if not money, are part of the currency invested in the outcome. While it is wrong to conclude these respective projects cannot be done as outlined, neither party appears to have been engaged in a similar venture. It is not clear how the project’s various issues and challenges will be man aged absent very intensive effort from the County or CRA and its staff. At the very least, the limited documentation about relevant experience begs the question of who among the respective principals will the CRA and County hold accountable for immediate [agreement to basic business deal and terms] and longer term [coordination, construction, marketing, management] issues and needs. For these submissions, the limited experience could mean many of the representations outlined would not be achieved. We believe this is a serious enough issue that any agreements need to affirm the accountable and controlling parties are tethered to their specific responsibilities in some way. Arno: Strong design experience but no development experience addressed in the submission materials. Our concern is that the lead individual is sufficiently knowledgeable to have weighed the project’s many near and longer term challenges. While the lead’s experience should be reflected in the construction costs pivotal to the concept, the experience is largely for small residential properties and small commercial structures. We would want to understand the particular participation of White Lotus since the file correspondence intimates the company could participate as a joint venture partner which, by definition, is substantively more than a passive role. Other parties or companies are identified in this submission but, to emphasize, their participation can only be inferred from the file copies of correspondence, and those inferences in terms of their responsibilities and obligations to the project are not altogether clear. Banroc: Our comments are very much the same but in the Banroc submission, an organizational chart lists the various parties and firms which seem likely to be involved. These team participants may fill the experience void. Based on the various aspects of the proposal addressing costs, financing, timing, and contingencies for satisfying the project’s cultural elements, this group seems better positioned to deal with the overall venture. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 6 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS CONCEPTS AND CONTENT In both, we have very exciting concepts which might be deemed transformative. Each submission, however, has certain elements which are worth discussing, notably the kinds of housing, the composition and nature of the commercial spaces, the price points, parking, and the integration of the cultural elements. To the degree that construction costs are too low relative to proforma, these would cause the rents or sale prices to be understated. If the price points embedded in the respective submissions are necessary to their success, then the costs of implementation must be reasonable at this stage of planning. While projects costs could drop, our experience indicates this is rarely the case. The costs of building the product should be reliable at this stage given the experience of the competing parties, assuming the project is reasonably well thought out. By contrast, the market’s acceptance of any rent or price needed to cover the project’s cost is a speculative consideration. To place any reported construction numbers in context, we are working with another client involved in a 200 unit walk-up apartment being constructed for about $93 per SF inclusive of all costs. Means indicates the national average, including general contractor cost and profits, for 1-3 story apartment construction was $141 per SF in 2013 ($2017, $156) and about $154 per SF in 2013 ($2017, $169) for 4-7 story apartment concrete block construction. Because the former is based on Orlando conditions and the latter are national numbers - averages in any case - caution is needed in drawing a comparison. Still, whatever the actual costs for the concepts proposed, the differences point to reasons to get more detailed information. Without suggesting we have done any market analysis, we have looked at limited data including the Collier County Community Housing Plan which discusses the higher housing costs in this community compared with other parts of Florida. The information provided in that document generally reconciles to our own information. We believe, based on this information, the respective rents or selling prices seem on the higher end of the range for this marketplace for the products described. If construction costs are grossly inaccurate, then the resulting cost of occupancy for owners or renters, whatever the product type, will be similarly in error. If rents or sales price cannot be aligned, higher costs would tend to increase the risks of the project. While smaller units might indeed lower costs, the market for the smallest residential spaces is virtually untested in Florida which is historically a very affordable state compared to most others. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 7 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS Frankly, it is impossible to ascertain what is to be sold, rented, or managed from the way materials are summarized and presented so we don’t really follow how these processes might be incorporated in each respondent’s basic business model. The value of the various products has been estimated in different ways which is itself not a technical problem but drawing inferences about those parts of the project developed by the principals or others, then subsequently rented, or owned, impacts those calculations materially. The options need to be clarified to understand how the various interacting pieces will be funded, financed, and ultimately valued. Commitment letters are provided and it may be worth having further conversations with the issuers to understand the level and form of commitment intended. Not surprisingly, the letters are very general. That is not atypically the situation. That said, further information might identify what the basic size, terms, and needs are as the commitments are formalized. Any uncertainty about the overall concept, exacerbated by a potential gap between cost and pricing [rents or sales price], raises related questions about project feasibility in general, risk immediately, and the willingness of the capital markets, including those who submitted commitment letters, to actually engage. In our analysis, there are implications for the property tax receipts which could be generated. If every project component is rented, then taxable value is enhanced. If the various dwelling units are sold, then we should assume a portion of them will have homestead exemptions. If a measure now being considered by the legislature passes, a higher homestead exemption will further erode taxable value. For both submissions, addressing the cultural element is a challenge. Specific to the opera hall, its costs and uncertainty are major issues but do not appear to be a staging or sequencing issue on which the balance of the project depends in either case. For the opera hall, there are obvious questions about its implementation generally, timing, cost, and fundraising requirements. As the obvious last piece in either submission, the cultural element – whatever its final form – may never be implemented. Consequently, controls need to be directed toward that aspect in particular. It is reasonable to ask how failure to implement the cultural character of the project would affect the larger concept and the values or prices attributed to individual components. While one respondent has provided a cultural contingency plan, we don’t see the broader implications addressed in either submission. Both proposals integrate commercial uses on the first floor with some residential uses above. This mix is intuitively appealing and visually rich. Unfortunately, it is difficult to design and to finance. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 8 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS The design issues arise from spacing and structural conditions. The required depth and width of the commercial spaces rarely match those of the upper floors so it is not uncommon to have “excess” or dysfunctional square footage in the commercial space where the building’s retail value is retained at the front. The spatial dimensions of commercial space are moderately less challenging to a restaurant operation but these activities generate heightened service challenges, food smells, noise, and parking conflicts in certain hours. We encounter these design and management issues routinely. Because these conditions impose added risk, the financial markets are not especially enthusiastic about this kind of integration. At least in several markets we have studied, the challenge for commercial spaces on the first floor is that, as a regulatory requirement, it is a burden on a project’s overall financial performance. As a general matter, owner occupied units atop commercial spaces is more challenging than rental units. While the design issues could be more of an issue in the typical dimensions common to rental housing, the residents are free to terminate their leases if the setting is not acceptable. Parking is costly but needed infrastructure in each response. At this stage, we don’t know what the appropriate parking requirements are but we know they should vary materially by concept. For the financial community, more parking is better than less even if local governments are prepared to waive basic parking regulations. The necessity of parking is primarily a market consideration [what do my users expect?] and investment consideration [will the lender accept the risk of materially lower than average parking ratios?]. Parking is not exclusively a regulatory concern. We have seen both developers and lenders chafe at the idea lowered parking standards are functionally a beneficial incentive. Arno: Most of the comments above apply to Arno or his team which has limited experience with the kinds of issues being outlined. We are inferring the residential units are being sold to their residents, not rented, exacerbating the conditions described above. This plan appears to have about 20,000 SF to 30,000 SF of non-residential space which could be an appropriate scale for what are likely to be local, non-credit users. The scheme may allow individual spaces to be combined. Still, there are at least 32 commercial units and the market is untested for that number of investors or owner occupied work spaces which are priced at about $400 per SF. At this level, the economics of occupancy for the most likely class of users could be a challenge. In effect, the overall program pushes risk away from the commercial side by shifting a larger share of the project’s space to residential product. That may be an advantage when comparing the two proposals. We can identify 600 parking spaces in various locations, including about 200 generally connected to VPAC. How the total will be affected by phases or the presence of VPAC is not clear. We also do not know the allocation or assignment of these 600 parking spaces. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 9 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS Analytically, we have assumed 1.5 spaces [average] will be dedicated in some way to each of the 175 dwelling units indicated. This allocation would allow about 4.5 spaces per thousand for the commercial uses if all parking is built. On the other hand, about 320 spaces seem tied to the core development program. If only these 320 become available, the commercial ratio seems very limited, especially in the evening hours if the commercial space is occupied by restaurants. Prices appear to range from $337 to $380 per SF for most of the residential product which in the initial proposal is sized from 320 SF to 844 SF. Because of their small size, it may be difficult to lower the prices per SF which seem high even if the sales price per dwelling unit should fall below the current market. Based on the larger size of units we understand may be in play, as of several days ago, these cost and spatial dynamics would shift somewhat but remain at the higher end of the market in our opinion. Without regard to size of the units, it is not clear how parking is handled within the outlined pricing structure. These residential prices per SF can only become commensurately higher if the unit size is reduced just as the price per SF would decrease if the units were enlarged as may now be happening. Having made these price observations, it is also true there is greater elasticity for housing prices than for commercial space. If we understand the County’s basic incentive policy, density and units may have to be credited to this project. Staff has explained this can be a difficult process if the size of the units should fall below certain thresholds, triggering a need to address the land development code. While the overall timetable is not necessarily unreasonable, it may be moderately aggressive, especially if there are regulatory and incentive hurdles to address. These hurdles are reduced if the size of the units is increased as is apparently now the case. Staff has raised questions about construction costs and fees driving the Arno proforma. At $120 per SF, the costs for multi-family or condo units could be low for conventional multi-family construction, based on the kinds of finishes which might be expected. Although we don’t know what costs are being adjusted in the course of continuing discussions, we understand all costs are moving upward to reflect larger units and respond to staff comments. If the aforementioned parking spaces and their costs are reallocated to the residential units, construction costs per SF increase to a level more in line with other data. The cost for commercial construction is more difficult to pin down since the quoted $60 per SF may be exclusively for unfinished shell space. If so, we don’t see a figure in the budget which would address any tenant finishes or allowances. Fees (%) appear very low. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 10 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS Whatever costs are at this stage of discussion, the proposal is relying on a specific form of delivery and construction. The means outlined may bring the project’s costs in line with the information submitted. Specific to Arno, his team does appear to have experience with the system of building panels very briefly described in the submission. As for the fees, while low, Arno may be accepting these costs in his assumed role. If so, than they may not be unreasonable but the figures need to be explained and reconciled. Banroc: Most of the comments above apply to the Banroc team which also seems to have limited experience with the kinds of issues associated with implementing a mixed use concept. As with Arno, we are inferring the residential units are being sold to their residents, even though a rent option is listed in the financial information. While on the smaller side of what is generally produced in the multi- family market today, they are more mainstream in size, running about 800 SF to 900 SF. Selling prices are a good deal less than those of the Arno proposal, about $300 to $331 per SF for the 120 residential units included as Alternative A. Should they be rented, they would run about $2.00 per SF which is at the higher end of the range for a small apartment but necessary to recover the cost of structured parking. Rents in the regional market are generally much lower than this today. It is not clear how, if at all, the parking fits into the purchase price of the units. Again should the units be rented, it is not clear how management and operating costs effect the budget or the reported capitalized value of the units which properly stems from a net operating income figure, not a gross figure as appears done in the submission. We don’t understand how the condo hotel units will work as either rental or for sale product. Some capital costs (parking at the very least) flow into Option A as well Alternative A. These kinds of units are exceedingly specialized. There is no evidence the team can implement or manage this kind of product. The costs of management do not appear to be addressed. This plan appears to have about 85,000 SF to 90,000 SF of non-residential space which may be challenging, given the general issues with integrating this space into the overall mix and operation. Again, the tenants are likely to be local, non-credit users. Although rents for the office, retail, or restaurant spaces are, on their face, are not wildly out of line, they are definitely at the upper end of the market. If sold, the sales price seem high at this stage, $300 to $350 per SF. These figures are more competitively priced than Arno’s commercial facilities but it is unclear how tenant improvement costs or longer term management and leasing costs would be addressed. If not recognized, these costs would lower the capitalized value which has been reported in the submission. On balance, we believe this block of non-residential space is a challenge, given the square footage and the concerns about the interaction of commercial users with residents. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 11 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS It appears about 650 spaces are delivered net of those linked to the parking which might come from VPAC or an alternate cultural facility. We do not know the allocation of parking but have assumed 1.5 spaces [average] per dwelling unit. This allocation would allow about 180 of these spaces to be shared or dedicated among the 120 residential units. This would allocate the remaining 470, about five spaces per thousand, for the commercial uses. This might be tight but the loads would vary by day and evening usage. The submission does not easily allow us to isolate construction costs by component but approximately $36,000,000 appears to be associated with the major vertical spaces net of parking. These spaces total about 323,000 SF for the portions of the program associated exclusively with the residential and non- residential spaces comprising the initial elements to be sold or leased. Construction costs, net of parking, for these major spaces generally described appear to run between $110 and $120 per SF. This places these costs below the national data already reported. Obviously, there are many limitations to the estimate applied but the figures invite further discussion about tightening the figures. While the proposed amphitheater is no less speculative than VPAC, we are favorably disposed to an alternative cultural facility. It must absolutely be recognized that it is no more certain than VPAC but the approach is suggestive of strategic thinking. Finally, the respondent, in its latest submission, intimates no incentives or shared costs are being requested although a density bonus is likely needed if we understand the submission properly. We don’t know the County’s process to secure such a bonus once a condominium hotel is inserted into the mix. This kind of use might cloud an otherwise predictable zoning and review process. Again, while the overall timetable is not necessarily unreasonable, it may be moderately aggressive, especially if there are regulatory hurdles to address. FUNDING AND FINANCING Both proposals are vague and non-specific regarding their respective financing plans. Beyond representations each project should realize a profit, based on the data presented, the information provided answers no real financial questions. As already described in this letter, varied assumptions and varied information could materially alter that which could be possible or feasible for the project. We are guessing that no more than 50% to 60% loan to value would be available for the commercial space. That share would likely be more favorable for the residential portion of each project which generally appears targeted for immediate sale. These percentages point to the need for major contributions of equity and we simply cannot judge how those funds will be made available from the material provided. 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 12 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS TAX IMPLICATIONS The varied assumptions incorporated in each submission result in entirely different valuation calculations, leading to similarly different levels of tax receipts, as shown in the accompanying table. The basic differences stem from the reported sales prices and more intensive development outlined in the Banroc proposal. In effect, Banroc is representing that more than half of its program will be comprised of non-residential uses. The Banroc proposal also includes certain alternative uses which we have addressed separately in the table. Table 1.0: Collier County, Base Year Estimated General Fund Receipts (3.5938 Mills) Arno Submission Average or indicated prices Low Medium High Residential Units Studio 54 120,000$ 10,091$ 19,615$ 19,795$ 1BR 21 202,500$ 9,217$ 6,006$ 12,990$ 2 BR 40 285,000$ 27,636$ 34,644$ 34,824$ 1BR 36 194,000$ 14,865$ 21,155$ 21,334$ Subtotal 61,810$ 81,420$ 88,943$ Commercial units Small 32 250,000$ 24,438$ 24,438$ 24,438$ Restaurant 1 250,000$ 764$ 764$ 764$ Subtotal 25,202$ 25,202$ 25,202$ Total 87,011$ 106,621$ 114,145$ Banroc Submission Average or indicated prices Low Medium High Residential Units VLCondo 30 225,000$ 15,229$ 20,440$ 20,619$ VLCondo 30 259,000$ 18,345$ 23,556$ 23,735$ VLCondo 60 298,000$ 43,837$ 54,439$ 54,619$ Subtotal 77,410$ 98,434$ 98,973$ Commercial units Food shops 4 350,000$ 4,277$ 4,277$ 4,277$ Restaurants 3 640,000$ 5,865$ 5,865$ 5,865$ Restaurants 3 1,600,000$ 14,663$ 14,663$ 14,663$ Shops 35 240,000$ 25,660$ 25,660$ 25,660$ Store off 10 320,000$ 9,775$ 9,775$ 9,775$ 2nd FL off 30 160,000$ 14,663$ 14,663$ 14,663$ Subtotal 74,902$ 74,902$ 74,902$ ALT Uses Condo Hotel 50 460,000$ 70,259$ 70,259$ 70,259$ ESCondo 75 395,000$ 77,020$ 91,523$ 90,496$ Subtotal 147,278$ 161,782$ 160,755$ Total w/o ALT 152,312$ 173,336$ 173,875$ Total with ALT 299,591$ 335,118$ 334,630$ Low: All qualified homestead exemptions assumed and applied Medium: Half of qualified homesteads assumed and applied High: No homesteads applied 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) Ms. Debrah Forester Page 13 February 5, 2018 GAI Project No. A171466.00 © 2018 GAI CONSULTANTS If the larger units described in the Arno submission remain priced approximately as represented in the initial submission, we don’t believe changes to the estimated tax receipts are material. We have not reflected the additional units which could be built in the Arno proposal if VPAC is abandoned. CONTROLS Both proposals have issues or raise needs for control and guidance. While we want to see a detailed memorandum of understanding (MOU) to codify the planned program and basic deal structure, it appears disposition of the 17 acres will be effected through a purchase and sales agreement (PSA). We have not reviewed that document to understand how its terms would control the transaction, the planned concept or particular issues we are raising in this letter. From a quick scan, at least some are addressed. We would encourage a form of development agreement accompany the sales contract to provide needed detail. Some aspects to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: Plan and entitlements Respective rights and responsibilities of parties Roles of individuals assigned Detailed financial plans Continuing financial and operating plans Incentives, if any Impact of takedowns, phasing, and other developer controlled actions Rights of assignment and sale Timetable for performance relative to other standards Reporting procedures Remedies and penalties Sincerely, Owen Beitsch, PhD, FAICP OMB/bry 14.B.1.f Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: GAI Feasibility Report - 02.05.2018 (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals) 14.B.1.g Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Purchase Sale Agreement Template (4739 : BGTCRA 17 Acre Proposals)