[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