Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 01-08-08 regular agenda — reading text

support of the project. As there was no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. The City Attorney requested that Council state for the record who they have spoken with regarding this project, and the content of their conversation. Mr. Holmes advised he spoke with Mr. Veach from Landmark, who called to ask if he had any questions; and that he received phone calls from Jim Tucker and Bob Campbell who voiced their feeling on the project. Mr. Holmes stated he also spoke with the CDS Director and Ken Wright of Landmark. Mr. Miller informed he spoke with Ken Wright from Landmark and discussed some of the issues he brought up this evening. Mr. Reeves stated he spoke with Mr. Lee McDonald regarding the outcome of the Municipal Planning Board meeting when this issue was discussed; he spoke with Ken Wright of Landmark who called to see if there were any questions; he spoke with Ted Corcoran from the Chamber of Commerce; and he spoke with the City Manager and Finance Director earlier today. Mr. Garvie stated Ken Wright called him and they discussed the financing options, and he received a phone call from Jim Tucker who relayed his thoughts over the phone. Dr. Pullen reported he spoke with Jim Tucker; the tax appraiser's office regarding the taxation issues on the project; and with Darryl White,- Municipal Planning Board member, about the letter Mr. White sent to Council. Dr. Pullen informed he has not spoken with anyone from the Landmark since the project was discussed in August. Mr. Hartwell stated he has not spoken with anyone from Landmark since the first time the project was discussed. Mr. Minich stated he spoke with Ken Wright, the CDS Director, the City Attorney, the Finance Director, Ted Corcoran from the Chamber of Commerce, and Darryl White of the Municipal Planning Board. The Mayor advised he had conversations with Ken Wright, listened to input from Jim Tucker, and discussed the issues with his neighbors and individuals from the Chamber of Commerce. He stated he also spoke with the City Manager and the City Attorney. The City Attorney responded to several questions asked by Council that were of a legal nature, including the question regarding taxation and calculation of taxes, and advised from a legal standpoint the City will continue to own the parking lot and lease it to Landmark, and what would be taxed are the improvements made to the parking lot and how they are taxed is defined by the tax appraisers office. Regular Council 12/ 11/ 07 253 LANDMARK CENTER (CONT) In regards to the question regarding any changes from retail to residential in the development, the City Attorney responded that depending on how many units on the second floor would change, and the overall complexion of the residential units, that "may require an amendment to the site plan. However, she continued that at this time four units are approved as residential, and that may not be significant enough for a site plan amendment. The City Attorney continued that since this is a public /private partnership, this agreement has a lot of issues that will come back to Council, such as the condominium documents, easement issues, and the maintenance agreement. She stated that because the Parking Deck Condominium Board is composed of the City Manager, one member of Council, and a member of City staff, the Board will have a continuing relationship with the developer for a long time. The City Attorney advised that all permits required by the Development Order are required to be applied for by the developer, per Section 42 of the Agreement. She clarified that in addition to parking spaces that will be available to the general public the parking deck will contain spaces that will be used by the commercial businesses of the Landmark Center. The City Attorney advised that the language contained in Lines 391 and 392 of the Development Agreement, dealing with the performance bond, was kept in there to offer protection for the City, if a future Council wanted to change the funding of the project. In addition, the City Attorney advised that development agreements do have a definite time frame for completion, and if there was a delay in the project it would come back to Council for an amendment, and should be read in concert with Paragraph 36C which states `no failure by the City or Developer to insist upon strict performance or remedy will waive any other default of the agreement. The City Attorney also discussed termination of the agreement, and informed that the Code limits the agreement to five years, but State Statute allows for a long time period and explained if the property-was not purchased or options were not exercised during that time, it would come back to Council for an extension of the termination date. Mr. Miller asked how the arrangement of the composition of the Parking Deck Condo Board could be amended. The City Attorney advised there is a line that states `or as set forth in the Condo documents', and suggested to leave it as it is so the City has latitude to do what it needs to do in the condominium documents. Dr. Pullen expressed concern regarding the legal notice that appeared in the newspaper on December 1, 2007, where it mentioned 198 parking spaces. The City Attorney stated she did not review the notice and asked that Staff respond. The CDS Director advised the notice was to inform the public of the Development Order, and although the 198 parking spaces was not the total amount of spaces, the rest of the notice was accurate and gave additional information over and above what was required. The City Attorney advised that notice along with all other requirements in the Code have been met and satisfied. Dr. Pullen also questioned whether the issue of the developer providing security in the parking garage is in the agreement, and wanted it stated in the record the developer stated at a previous meeting they would be responsible for security. The City Attorney responded that would be included in the maintenance and operations agreement for the parking garage. She also informed that paragraph 29 states, . . . the Developer and its successors and assigns shall manage, operate, and maintain the entire parking garage facility in perpetuity. There were no additional questions from .Council for the City Attorney.  12/ 11/ 07 Regular Council 254 LANDMARK CENTER (CONT) record. As there were The City Manager advised the Staff Report needed to be entered into the no objections, the Staff Report was entered into the record. The Finance Director asked for the. opportunity to provide clarification regarding a comment made earlier by Lee McDonald regarding conversations between himself and the Finance Director. The City Attorney gave the oath to the Finance Director. The Finance Director gave clarification regarding comments made earlier by Mr. Lee McDonald. She informed that he had asked to speak with her on November 15, 2007, prior to the Municipal and asked if she knew Planning Board meeting where the Landmark would be discussed, anything aboutShe the stated Landmark agreement that was on the Municipal Planning Board agenda for she told him she could not comment on it as she had not been briefed that evening. McDonald again on the issue. The Finance Director continued that today she spoke with Mr. and he asked if she had seen the agreement and she replied she had and she was fine with everything. Mr. Minich moved to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Fort Mr. Walton Beach, Florida, and Ft. Walton Development Partners LLC, as presented. Garvie seconded motion. Members of Council expressed their excitement and the excitement of the public over the and the downtown; that the Landmark project; that it will be an economic engine for the City developer has bent over backwards and has agreed to alternate financing than what was previously agreed to; and that this is the right project, and the right process, for the City to do. Dr. Pullen stated he feels the Landmark is a good project but he will vote against it because he is not in favor of the parking garage and feels the developer should provide parking for the development. Mr. Reeves advised he is in favor of the project but went on record stating he will continue to work on underground utilities for Eglin Parkway, which had to be delayed in order to fund the Landmark. Condominium Mr. Miller moved to amend the motion to delete Line 292 of Paragraph 25, Documents, which states, ..' and one department director designated by the City Manager..' and replace it with ..' City Financial Director.' Dr. Pullen seconded motion. Mr. Miller explained this is a long -term board and positions should be appointed with longevity in mind. amendment because the City Attorney has Minich he did not support the Mr. stated recommended leaving the Board as is and the issue can be discussed when the condominium documents are addressed. Mr. Hartwell informed he did not agree with the amendment and feels the time to discuss it is when the condominium documents are addressed. The Mayor called for the vote on the amendment and it failed by a vote of 3 to 4 with Miller, Garvie, and Pullen in favor and Holmes, Reeves, Hartwell, and Minich opposed. O Mr. Miller advised this is a good project and he will vote for it, and complimented the developer for working with the City on the financing.  n Regular Council 12/ 11/ 07 255 LANDMARK CENTER ( CONT) Mr. Holmes stated his support of the project but also the importance of continuing with plans for undergrounding the utilities on Eglin Parkway, and commended everyone for their hard work on the project. Mr. Minich wanted to clarify that his comments that the undergrounding of utilities on Eglin Parkway is important and that should be the next project in the CRA area. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried by a vote of 6 to 1 with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Hartwell, and Minich in favor and Pullen opposed. RECESS The meeting recessed at 9: 00 p. m. RECONVENE The meeting