Community Redevelopment Agency
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013 @ 6:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall
February 25, 2013 -- Community Redevelopment Agency Page 1 of 7
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Farley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Boardmembers Present: Chair Jim Farley, Vice Chair Mike Gudis, Boardmember Paula Wheeler; Boardmember Ken Brown; Boardmember Robert Holmes
Boardmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: Andy Houston, CRA Administrator; George Angeliadis, City Attorney; Carol Harrington, City Clerk; Deanna Rowe, Finance Director; Jackie Gorman, Planning Director; Dave Burnell, Public Works Director
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion to adopt the Agenda was made by Vice Chair Gudis; seconded by Boardmember Holmes. Motion carried on a 4/0 vote. Boardmember Wheeler was out of the room.
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes for February 11, 2013
Motion to approve the Consent Agenda was made by Boardmember Holmes; seconded by Vice Chair Gudis. Motion carried on a unanimous vote.
6. PUBLIC INPUT
There was no public input offered.
7. CRA ATTORNEY
8. CRA ADMINISTRATOR
A. February Update Report on the Riverwalk Project
Background: [Agenda Sheet Requested Motion: None Required – Status Update Presentation
Summary: The concept of a Riverwalk along the commercial portion of Kings Bay was first introduced in 1989 as part of a visioning process for the waterfront/downtown area. Since that time, the Riverwalk project has been advocated both as a means of improving public access to the waterfront and for generating economic activity within the Community Redevelopment District (CRD). A community visioning process conducted in 2008 identified the proposed project as the best way to improve public access to the waterfront, and 94% of respondents who voiced an opinion at that time on projects being undertaken by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) voiced support for the Riverwalk project. The Visioning Plan ultimately developed through the 2008 community visioning plan incorporated the proposed Riverwalk project as the key element in connecting the waterfront and expanding public access (see attachment).
Portions of the Riverwalk have been constructed along NW 3rd Street and behind two businesses located on the western end of the proposed waterfront route. A study performed in 2011 looked at potential alignments to complete the Riverwalk from its current terminus behind Crackers Restaurant to Kings Bay Park (NW 3rd Street), with routes identified on a parcel-by-parcel basis along both the waterfront and landside in anticipation of the potential that not all affected property owners would agree to participate in the project at the outset. The projected cost of the project developed through that study was $2.362M, exclusive of any provisions for parking, stormwater, or other related factors. Based on those projected costs and the lack of interest voiced by the property owners along one stretch of the proposed route, it was determined that the continued pursuit of the project would be focused on extending the project from its current terminus point to vacant property between NW 1st and 2nd Avenues being considered for development.
Tentative buy-in to the project has been received from the five (5) property owners who would be impacted by the project as currently proposed, with certain caveats stated by those owners as conditions to moving forward. Staff was instructed to explore those caveats and to report back on the cost of those caveats and the potential impact of the caveats on the feasibility of the project.
Property owners requested that their seawalls be rebuilt/repaired prior to the installation of a Riverwalk along them, as was done at the time the existing portions of the Riverwalk were done. Staff has gotten an estimated cost of $178,700 to have this work accomplished. It should be noted that it is unclear as to what the intent was with respect to the City’s responsibility for future repairs for the two sections previously constructed, and it would be necessary to clearly define that for the new sections if the project moves forward.
Property owners also requested that parking be provided for this project. Staff has determined that there would be a one-time cost of $65,000 and ongoing annual costs of $12,000 (for the lease of property) to satisfy this request.
There was also a request that the City provide assistance in meeting the stormwater treatment requirements for the overall project area, given the limited physical area west of Highway 19 and the high cost of land in that area. Staff identified two potential options for addressing stormwater issues, with costs ranging from approximately $700,000 to roughly $1,400,000. It should be noted that the request for assistance did not anticipate that the City would cover the entire cost of the project; that would need to be addressed as the project went forward. It should further be noted that there would be permitting challenges involved in developing a master stormwater treatment plan for the overall site of this project since the property is not under common ownership.
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the Riverwalk project as currently envisioned represents the single most significant opportunity for the City to expand public access to the waterfront and attract additional people to the waterfront/downtown area as a generator of economic growth. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that successful development of the project will be considerably more complex than simply building a walkway along the waterfront area. In order for it to be cost-effective for private development to occur along the waterfront, there must be recognition that flexibility in terms of stormwater treatment, parking, intensity of development, and other aspects of master site planning will likely be needed.
At the risk of over-simplifying a complex issue, staff believes that development of the Riverwalk project represents the greatest potential catalyst for drawing people to the downtown/waterfront area, thereby driving future growth and investment, but at a cost that will consume 65% or more of the remaining resources of the CRA and thereby limit other public investment within the CRD. Given that high reward/risk scenario, staff believes that it would be premature at this point to make any final decision on the Riverwalk project, and that such a decision should be held in abeyance until the following can be accomplished:
1. A determination needs to be made as to what geographic area will be defined as the waterfront area, since it may make sense to expand such an area to the south from where the Riverwalk is currently planned to go to encourage future redevelopment and strengthen connection to the downtown area.
2. The City needs to determine the best mechanism for moving forward with a master site development plan, to address the identification of both necessary site-common improvements (i.e. parking, stormwater) and related funding strategies.
3. The City needs to decide what financial incentives, if any, it is comfortable with offering to encourage future redevelopment; this decision may need to be part of a broader discussion that also considers the Highway 19 commercial corridor.
4. The City should have some type of market data that supports the expectation that the Riverwalk project would in fact generate significant additional public interest in Crystal River as a destination point; that data may start to be available this summer as the results of the current Tourist Development Council study are released.
Staff understands that there is a desire to get to a point of decision on the Riverwalk project, given the length of time that it has been discussed and the impact that such a decision would ultimately have on other projects that could be funded with CRA resources. Until the actions described above are accomplished, however, it is staff’s belief that insufficient information exists upon which to make a decision that involves such significant long-term implications.
Funding Information: It has been projected that the CRA will generate approximately $2,700,000 in available revenue over the remaining term of its existence (2018), taking into account current fund balances, pending project commitments, and future tax collections. End of Agenda Sheet]
Mr. Houston explained that he is not recommending that the Board make a final decision tonight about whether or not to move forward on the Riverwalk. He believes there are some additional things that should be done prior to a decision.
He looked at the 1989 Waterfront Plan. He noted that there has been very little done since that time. On the drawing they did back then, there is multi-family residential around several of the places that just has not happened. Where they show public parking on the sketch, they also have tourist accommodations. There is also additional parking shown that does not exist. They show a marina which also has not happened.
Mr. Houston explained that the conclusion he has come to, is that the Riverwalk can be one of the greatest catalysts that we could come up with for the Downtown Riverfront District. At the same time, he does not think that the Riverwalk, by itself, would make a large significant difference. Just extending a Riverwalk along these properties will not guarantee re-development of these properties. If we can come up with a strategy to encourage development in these properties consistent with this plan, then the Riverwalk can be a key component.
He stated to Council that depending on how much of this project they decide to do, it will take anywhere from 65% or more of the funding to be generated by the CRA District to do the Riverwalk. He noted that it is a high-risk, high-reward situation. If it is built and the property around it develops, then it would be money very well spent. If it is built, we will be limited in other areas of the CRA. If it is built and development does not take place, we will have lost the greatest opportunity to do something in the CRA for the remaining time we have.
He has spoken with several people in trying to come to a point of recommendation. He pointed out the Hampton property and the Fish Plant property. If you look at the Hampton property on its own, you have to meet all the stormwater requirements, all the parking requirements and all the set backs as they stand now. Is it economically feasible to develop that property? If a decision is made to try to redevelop the Fish Plant, you would still have to meet all those requirements. Would this property be economically feasible to develop? He believes the answer to both of these questions is that it would be very difficult.
In order for the Waterfront District to work, we have to find a way to start at Best Western and come around to what is now the commercial fishing operation and ask how can we make that viable.
He explained that we would have to have a combined solution for stormwater, parking and would have to look differently at setbacks. We should consider if within this part of town there could be some flexibility on heights. This property is considerably more expensive than other commercial property and it has a higher set of issues because it is right on the bank and abuts a Florida Outstanding Water. What is it going to take to attract development or redevelopment that we want? If we see that kind of development, then the Riverwalk can be a critical connection to all of this. If we can get this lot immediately north of Kings Bay Lodge redeveloped, that will give us the connection to Citrus. Absent successful development of that lot, he is not sure that people will walk through that lot to access the Riverwalk.
Mr. Houston stated that what he is recommending is that we step back and take a look at the entire water-front district all the way down to the fishing operation. We need to have someone that knows more than we do about this and provide recommendations on what we need to put in place so that it can ultimately be successfully developed or redeveloped. Once we have that kind of a strategy, we then have to decide how we will can help solve the stormwater situation. There are two options on the agenda material.
We need a formal mechanism to work this out. Going property owner by property owner will be difficult. We need a committee or a board to make this work.
He would ask a consultant for information on what would be reasonable for set backs from water, density, height, what fits into our area, what would be the best draw when the economy does improve.
Council Discussion:
Mayor Farley stated that he agrees, it is time to get a firm with the expertise to come in and do a study and make those types of recommendations to us.
Councilmember Wheeler also agrees. See would be ready to make a motion to authorize the City Manager to do just that. She asked for Mr. Houston to bring forward at the next CRA Meeting a format that she can make a motion on to bring someone in to set this up. She asked if he is looking for a firm to tell us what would best suit our circumstances. Are you looking at the whole package as to what it would take to make this more viable?