Community Redevelopment Agency - 08 Sep 2022

Eustis · 2022-09-08 · More Eustis meetings

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT

SOURCE TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.

These are YouTube's auto-generated captions, not a human transcript — expect occasional errors, especially with names and technical terms.

[0:05] [Laughter]

[0:13] i would say we need it but we know

[0:16] 40 days

[0:18] you know about round lake school where

[0:20] they

[0:21] walk did you see the flooding there

[0:23] oh my gosh

[0:35] [Laughter]

[0:38] um

[0:55] you're ready

[1:02] good evening everyone welcome to eustis

[1:05] city hall this is a community

[1:06] redevelopment agency meeting it is 5 15

[1:09] thursday september the 8th

[1:12] 2022.

[1:13] christine sarah porn proper notice been

[1:15] given yes thank you so much uh before us

[1:18] we have the approval of minutes from our

[1:20] july 21st

[1:22] 2022 community redevelopment agency

[1:24] meeting what's the will of our meeting

[1:26] our agency

[1:28] thank you a second thank you any

[1:30] discussion

[1:32] not hearing any roll call please vice

[1:34] mayor lee aye commissioner hoop smith

[1:36] aye commissioner cobb aye commissioner

[1:38] hawkins mayor holland all right all

[1:40] right and then we've got cra items with

[1:43] board discussion tom is that you or yes

[1:45] all right well thank you um

[1:50] this need this evening we have for you

[1:53] kind of the next step in the former

[1:55] waterman site rfq process

[1:59] so a little bit about where we are

[2:02] we did issue a request for

[2:03] qualifications

[2:05] as you know

[2:06] the city or the cra purchased this

[2:08] property in september of 2020. we

[2:11] initially did an rfp process and opted

[2:14] not to move forward with that process

[2:16] and then issued the request for

[2:18] qualifications

[2:20] this through this process interested

[2:23] parties were asked to submit

[2:25] information on their experience past

[2:27] projects and their general

[2:29] qualifications

[2:30] um

[2:31] the the difference between the rfp and

[2:33] rfq process is rfq really is about

[2:38] qualifications and selecting the best

[2:39] team it is not about site specific

[2:42] information

[2:43] and so

[2:44] we did not ask for site specific

[2:47] information and the solely uh the

[2:49] selection uh is solely based on the team

[2:52] and their qualifications and then the

[2:55] goal is um the next step is to turn the

[2:58] best team loose on the design

[3:01] uh and the engagement and so

[3:05] we asked as part of the rfq we asked for

[3:08] a detailed description of the responding

[3:11] development team's qualifications and

[3:12] experience

[3:14] a description of at least three

[3:15] representative projects

[3:18] that the development team has worked on

[3:20] a demonstration of the responding team's

[3:23] ability to secure financing and a

[3:25] description of the proposed process

[3:28] where the team will develop the concept

[3:32] so we did form an evaluation committee

[3:35] that consisted of myself

[3:37] the economic development director

[3:39] development services director public

[3:41] works director finance director and it

[3:43] was facilitated by the purchasing

[3:45] manager

[3:46] the evaluation committee met in a public

[3:49] meeting on august 22nd 2022

[3:52] to discuss the responses

[3:54] you do have hard copies of both the

[3:58] g3 c2 response and the kagan response

[4:02] uh you should have also received a link

[4:05] i'm not sure if those links worked for

[4:07] everybody

[4:08] but you should have received an email

[4:09] with electronic copies and now you have

[4:12] hard copies

[4:14] overall

[4:16] the

[4:17] evaluation committee felt that the g3 c2

[4:20] proposal more fully responded to the rfq

[4:24] especially in the process for designing

[4:27] the concept

[4:29] i i think the

[4:31] both teams

[4:33] had put together

[4:35] qualified teams had experience with

[4:37] previous projects

[4:39] but the g3 c2 project really went above

[4:43] and beyond related to describing the

[4:45] process to engage stakeholders engage

[4:48] the commission

[4:49] and develop a concept that everybody

[4:51] could be proud of

[4:53] so the

[4:55] selection

[4:56] or evaluation committee unanimously

[4:58] recommended moving forward with g3 c2

[5:03] and so what are our next steps we're

[5:05] looking

[5:06] for

[5:07] consensus from the cra board to allow

[5:10] staff to negotiate a master plan

[5:13] agreement

[5:14] with g3c2

[5:16] in parentheses there i wanted to point

[5:18] out we had gotten direction from the cra

[5:21] board in the city commission previously

[5:23] to involve uh outside counsel in that

[5:26] negotiation and so i just wanted to

[5:27] remind you i think the discussion was

[5:30] that we would

[5:31] engage gunster who were using for some

[5:34] land use items

[5:37] so the um

[5:39] everything though has to come back to

[5:41] the cra board in the city commission and

[5:43] so what you're authorizing uh us to do

[5:46] is to negotiate an agreement that will

[5:48] then come back to you for review

[5:50] uh definitely to the cra board and then

[5:53] potentially to the city commission

[5:55] uh if the city commission or if the city

[5:57] is involved in that agreement at all and

[5:59] that's i think that's still to be

[6:00] determined if the city has a role in

[6:03] that agreement or if it's purely with

[6:04] the cra

[6:07] after that g3 c2 engages with the

[6:09] commission staff the public and

[6:11] stakeholders to develop a concept

[6:14] and then after that we would move toward

[6:16] a purchase or potential lease agreements

[6:19] and that's all to be determined and

[6:21] negotiated as a separate agreement

[6:23] following concept development

[6:27] so the recommendation would be to

[6:29] authorize staff to negotiate a master

[6:31] plan agreement with g3c2

[6:33] and i'd be happy to answer any questions

[6:36] you might have

[6:37] any questions was there any discussion

[6:40] about only receiving two

[6:42] responses

[6:44] i know the big deal with the last one

[6:46] was that we only received one okay we

[6:48] doubled it but was there any discussion

[6:51] with the committee on that

[6:54] there wasn't i mean there was extensive

[6:56] discussion on

[6:58] the content of the two proposals but

[7:00] there

[7:01] i don't think we had any substantive

[7:03] discussion on the fact that it was two

[7:05] proposals

[7:09] was there any discussion that

[7:12] that g3

[7:14] c2

[7:15] name was only done in july of this year

[7:19] the

[7:20] so g3

[7:22] has an extensive history and background

[7:24] as does c2 or construct 2

[7:28] but the two partnered and created their

[7:30] entity uh very recently and

[7:34] um

[7:35] i again i don't think there was a lot of

[7:37] substantive discussion about the

[7:39] partnership having just been formed

[7:41] um because the the two principal

[7:44] components of the partnership

[7:46] have have a long history

[7:49] so um i think the answer to your

[7:51] question is

[7:52] the committee did not have substantive

[7:55] discussion about how recently created

[7:57] the partnership was

[8:00] anything else that's my recollection

[8:02] anything else vice mayor anything

[8:06] really

[8:07] do we have any idea how long this this

[8:09] process will end up taking

[8:12] with g3 c2

[8:14] i i don't

[8:16] just because we need to we need to

[8:18] engage them and we haven't been able to

[8:19] do that

[8:20] because the the rfq process is very

[8:24] strict on

[8:25] communication

[8:27] and even amongst the committee members

[8:31] we

[8:34] once the rfq process begins the

[8:36] evaluation committee members can't even

[8:38] discuss the project outside of a public

[8:42] meeting

[8:42] and so we've not engaged with g3c2

[8:47] on their their

[8:49] expectations moving forward because we

[8:51] kind of have to

[8:52] resolve this rfq process first

[8:54] um i

[8:57] will again will the plan is to engage uh

[9:00] outside counsel

[9:01] um they are pretty responsive

[9:05] um i

[9:07] i it would be unrealistic for me to tell

[9:09] you this is exactly how long i think

[9:10] it's going to take

[9:14] a clarification

[9:15] the g3 2 c2 that's the two comma that's

[9:19] their combined name

[9:21] correct it is it is um g3

[9:25] and construct2 okay

[9:29] anything else willie

[9:31] man

[9:32] i'm ready to proceed will you proceed

[9:35] tom anything else from you no that's it

[9:37] anybody in the public like to speak on

[9:39] this

[9:41] not singing i'm looking for a motion

[9:42] from the cra board um to authorize and

[9:46] to to negotiate a master plan agreement

[9:49] with g3c uh g3 c2 and llc regarding the

[9:55] former waterman's site

[9:57] so moved thank you

[9:59] thank you ma'am any further discussion

[10:02] not hearing any roll call please vice

[10:04] mayor lee aye commissioner the hope

[10:06] smith

[10:07] commissioner cobb hi commissioner

[10:09] hawkins aye

[10:10] mayor holland aye

[10:12] thank you tom anything else

[10:14] uh

[10:15] the the only other thing would be um

[10:18] related to horace jones previous

[10:20] presentation there was some discussion

[10:22] about pulling together some cra

[10:23] financials

[10:25] i will share that with the i've pulled

[10:26] that together

[10:27] i just want to make some finishing

[10:29] touches and then i'll get it out to

[10:30] commission tonight or tomorrow morning

[10:32] beautiful thank you okay thank you all

[10:34] right

[10:35] not hearing anything else we'll go ahead

[10:36] and adjourn the cra meeting for now and

[10:39] then we'll come back at six o'clock with

[10:40] our regular city commission meeting

[10:54] you