BUSINESS & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
January 16, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the
Business & Cultural Development Board was held on January 16, 2008 at the
City Hall Annex,
Chairperson Anderson called
the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
John Anderson None City
Manager Bennett Boucher
Dianne Marcum Council
Member Shannon Roberts
Joanne Muncey Recording
Secretary Kim McIntire
Darrell Peterson Steve
Shirtzinger, Resident
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
AND VICE CHAIRPERSON
Moved by Mr. Anderson,
seconded by Mr. Peterson to nominate Ms. Muncey as Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Anderson thanked the
members on their efforts and said the board had accomplished quite a few initiatives,
including the Redevelopment Plan. He
thanked Mayor
Ms. Marcum thanked Mr.
Anderson for his direction and leadership.
Mr. Anderson handed the gavel over to Chairperson Muncey.
Moved by Ms. Marcum, seconded
by Mr. Peterson to nominate Mr. Anderson as Vice Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
1. Regular Meeting of December 6, 2007
Moved by Mr. Peterson,
seconded by Mr. Anderson to approve the minutes of December 6, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the difficulty
associated with transcribing minutes and commended Ms. McIntire.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Status Reports
Business Survey: Mr. Boucher was expecting to
receive a final draft from Dr. Wright the week of January 21 and to “go live” in
mid-February.
Ms. Marcum said the board had
previously talked about the possibility of members administering the survey
personally to some of the City’s larger, more prominent businesses and asked if
these businesses could be removed from the telephone survey. Mr. Boucher responded that UCF would utilize
their existing database and, most likely, would not be able to remove those
businesses. He recommended that the
board follow up with the larger businesses after UCF had performed the
telephone survey in order to avoid any duplicity.
Ms. Muncey asked if Ms.
Marcum’s “green business” question had been included in the revised
survey. Mr. Boucher responded that this would
fall within a question of how could the City reach out and assist the
businesses in becoming part of a green business strategy. At this point in
time, this was a relatively new concept for the City. Ms. Marcum recommended
the following wording for the question: “How
important is it to you that the City pursues a green business strategy?”
Marketing Video: Mr. Boucher reported that he
and Ms. McIntire had met with CCI. Staff
emphasized the “live, work, play” theme of the video. Staff selected the “Trolley Driver” concept
as presented by CCI. An actor would take
a trolley ride with workers and tourists making unique stops within the City emphasizing
from a business prospective why someone would want to relocate to the
area. The video would also include
interviews with local business leaders.
Mr. Boucher told members he drove the production crew around the points
of interest within the community and they understood what the City was hoping
to accomplish. Staff expects to receive
a draft script in two weeks.
BCA Frame Project: No
report. City has not received any
feedback from the BCA.
2nd Annual Images in Art: Ms. McIntire
reported that Terri Rudzitis of TNT had received 20 applications to date. Due to the economy, exhibitors were
experiencing a rough time, with the exception of the jewelry exhibitors. However, she felt we were at a good point. Ms. McIntire reported she would be meeting
with Ms. Rudzitis on 1/22 and asked members if they had any issues that should
be brought up.
Members remarked on the need
for additional seating; City to work closely with the fire department regarding
inspection of the tents; the need for more signage; check list from last year.
Mr. Anderson reminded members
of the current uncertain economic climate and the possibility of inclimate
weather on the days of the event. He did
not want anyone to be disappointed if these factors affected the art festival
and attendance was down from last year’s event.
Ms. Marcum reported that Jim
Duroscher, Owner of Space Coast Kayaking, had offered to take groups out on the
day of the event and asked the city manager if this would be appropriate. Mr. Boucher responded that he would need to
investigate the insurance requirements. He reported that the City of Cocoa Beach has
had problems with commercial kayakers bringing in busloads of people who were leaving
debris at the end of the day. Ms. Marcum
did not feel that Space Coast Kayaking was one of the problem businesses and
stated that Mr. Duroscher gave environmental presentations throughout the
county. In response to Mr. Peterson’s
question, Mr. Boucher said there were no launching facilities at
Ms. Muncey felt kayaking
would help attract people to the festival if the insurance requirements were
met and asked members if they had any other ideas for activities that would
help generate traffic into the park. Members
suggested a children’s activity and some type of “give-away”.
Ms. Marcum mentioned she
would be attending the next sales action team meeting of the Space Coast Office
of Tourism and would request that the event be included on their website. If there were event flyers, she would be
happy to provide them to the Space Coast Office of Tourism.
Mr. Boucher expressed if the
weather cooperated and there was sufficient pre-event advertising, the event
would be a success. He said there would
be road signage along A1A the week prior to the event and the City would work
on media coverage. Mr. Boucher expressed
that the event would be on the Brevard Cultural Alliance calendar. He recommended that the board shy away from
any type of “prize gimmicks”. He
suggested, as possible added features, a stage with live entertainment, local
dance troupes, and choruses which would attract families.
2. City of
Ms. Marcum reported that she
had met with Mayor Randels and Mr. Boucher.
October, 2012 was the 50th anniversary of the vote to become
a city and March, 2013 was the 50th anniversary of when the State
passed the law. Three potential levels
of celebration were discussed:
Ms. Marcum mentioned that
acquisition of Carver’s Cove came out of the meeting. The City has not purchased this property due
to some issues regarding the funding application and general budget concerns. Ms. Marcum reiterated that part of the
Redevelopment Plan mentioned a heritage/community center and the acquisition of
green space as only 7% of the City remains undeveloped. Because this was such a piece of prime
property, Ms. Marcum asked if there would be a value if the board reaffirmed
its support of the City making every effort to acquire the Carver’s Cove
property in light of the long term objectives within the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Boucher said it all came down to money
and availability. He said there were no
federal funds available and voiced his concern with the cuts contained within
the State’s budget which was moving forward.
Even if the grant program to acquire properties survived, the process
was extremely competitive. He said the
City would have to wait until February to evaluate the fall-out from the
January 29 referendum. Mr. Anderson
asked if the outcome of the January election was such that the City Council felt
more comfortable with the City revenues, would the City be in a position to
move towards the acquisition of Carver’s Cove.
Mr. Boucher responded that the council needed to decide on their
priorities and there were many capital items on the wish list, of which
Carver’s Cove was one.
Mr. Boucher explained the
proposal from the Trust for Public Land (TPL) would be for the City to purchase
the property upfront ($3.5 million) and reapply for the grant hoping that an
advance purchase would give the City enough points to receive the grant and be
reimbursed for half the purchase price.
Mayor Randels acknowledged
that one-half of the funds had been set aside and if the City had made the cut,
the City was committed to moving forward with the purchase of the property.
In response to Mr. Anderson’s
question regarding any action by the board that would be constructive or useful
to the City Council, Mr. Boucher responded that, yes, the board could certainly
recommend to the City Council that the City pursue the acquisition of Carver’s
Cove, if feasible. The City would need
to look at financing and revenue options.
The TPL was pushing the option of the City purchasing the property
upfront because they have the land tied up under contract and it is off the
market.
Mayor Randels remarked there
was another option of the TPL carrying the note for another one or two years to
extend the payment out another two-three years.
Mr. Boucher affirmed for Mr.
Anderson that the board might recommend an item within the Redevelopment Plan
that required capital cost that would compete against another recommendation.
Mayor Randels remarked he had
spoken with Commissioner Nelson regarding the City’s interest in obtaining
Mr. Boucher remarked that
revenues were declining making it difficult to expand. TPL was aware of this and would be coming to
a future City Council meeting to discuss acquisition of the property and board
members would be notified.
Moved by Mr. Anderson,
seconded by Ms. Marcum that the board reaffirms to the City Council its support
in the acquisition of the Carver’s Cove property, if practical. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Anderson assured the city
manager that the board recognized the uncertainties that the City Council was
facing and fully understood the regional, state and national economies and the
significance of the January 29th referendum.
Ms. Muncey asked if the City
were to pay the full amount for the Carver’s Cove property in advance, what
would that actually equate to per resident.
Mr. Boucher said he looked at whether or not the City could afford the
mortgage payment; not in terms of cost per resident. Ms. Muncey felt every resident of the City
would want to make a donation if the cost were not too extreme. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it would have
to be a trade-off; i.e., would residents want the City to take money away from
something else that they were currently receiving as a public service.
Mr. Peterson reminded that
the goal of the board was to bring business into the City to help pay for
services and not be the “spending” board.
Ms. Marcum pointed out that
the BCA and EDC would be reporting on Friday night on the impact of cultural
and historical elements and how those were critical elements that bring
businesses into the community. Mr.
Boucher said this item was included on the video.
NEW BUSINESS
1.
View:
Mr. Boucher said the council
viewed the DVD last evening and they understood the need for redevelopment and
the issues that needed to be evaluated. The
video stirred a lot of debate and laid the foundation as to why the City had to
change its focus to redevelopment in order to have a sustainable community by
growing property values and attracting new businesses. He said money had been appropriated for a
Community Development Director, but the council had concerns about the organizational
restructuring of the Building Department. Mr. Boucher’s recommendation was to hire a
seasoned professional Community Development Director to head up the department
with the building official second in command and all remaining personnel
underneath.
Mr. Boucher reminded council
that the B&CDB worked very hard on the Redevelopment Plan to make sure that
that information was available when the EAR based Comprehensive Plan amendments
were coming due. These amendments were
now being reviewed by the DCA and, hopefully, by April the City could start
working on the amendments. Mr. Boucher
said the whole crux was to have the board’s input available for council and,
hopefully, have a staff person on board researching and evaluating the issues
and guiding the City through the process.
He stressed to council that with the City being approximately 93%
built-out, it was important to put into place practices that would help
revitalize neighborhoods and avoid blight. Mr. Boucher told council he wanted to bring in
a professional to look at the Redevelopment Plan, the EAR, evaluate the needs
and path of the city and make recommendations.
Mayor Randels acknowledged (a)
there was unanimous council consensus for the recommended position; (b) council
approved the budgeted amount; (c) the City spent more last year than what was
projected for this year, (d) the reorganization and name of the new department
was approved when council adopted the budget in September, (e) council
understood that enforcement of codes and inspections would be performed
internally and council understood the need to have an external individual to
bring in the developers, and (f) there was agreement that the new individual
would be assigned to the Building Department.
He acknowledged there was concern, and council was unable to reach a
consensus, regarding the internal chain of command within the Building
Department; i.e., who was the new person going to report to.
Mr. Anderson asked if the
administrative issues were resolved, was it the mayor’s sense that the council
was in favor of proceeding with the creation of a Community Development
Department. Mayor Randels affirmed. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it was very
common to have separate functional and administrative reporting
relationships. He pointed out the
vulnerability of the
Mayor Randels asked that this
item be placed on the next City Council agenda to achieve finalization of the
Community Development Department.
Ms. Marcum remarked that one
of the responsibilities of this new staff person would be to research
alternative funding opportunities. As
the City faces difficult times, the timing of this new position was extremely
critical.
Mayor Randels pointed out
that the city manager had provided council with a comprehensive list of
responsibilities for the building official and responsibilities for the new
position and they were clearly distinguishable.
The mayor summarized the current organizational structural and the
proposed organizational structure. He had
recommended having the new person report directly the city manager; however,
the council could not reach a consensus.
Mr. Boucher pointed out that
under State law, building officials issued technical permits; however, building
officials did not have the training or expertise to work on zoning issues or
site plans. The new person would have a
master’s degree in planning and would have the ability to guide developers
through the process. Once the upfront
portion of the development process was completed, it would then be handed off
to the building official for permitting.
At the end of the process, the Community Development Director would
ensure that everything had been built as per the approved site plan. Mr. Boucher remarked that council could not
reach a consensus regarding the organizational structure and felt the City Council
should approve the reorganization and allow the managers to manage. The purpose of the City was to serve the
community and a one-stop permitting function with everyone on the same page
sharing information was a win-win situation. He acknowledged that people were
apprehensive about change.
Ms. Marcum pointed out that a
good leader did not need to know the job of everyone reporting to them. She
remarked that the relationships of the responsibilities and departmental tasks
defined the organization, not the people.
She also stated that in most companies, the board of directors did not
tell the CEO how to organize.
Mr. Anderson opined that the
City Council should (a) give the city manager their goals for the year together
with their desired specific outcomes, (b) approve the budget, (c) establish
standards and measures for achieving the goals, and (d) let the city manager do
his job and monitor his performance periodically, if necessary.
At this point, members viewed
the DVD.
Ms. Marcum asked Mr. Boucher if
there were local examples of CRA’s. He responded
the City of
Ms. Roberts encouraged
members to attend the February 5th meeting as well as other council
meetings when these types of issues were on the agenda.
OPEN
Mr. Peterson asked the board
to consider space tourism as a way to brand the City. He noted there was an astronaut who was
involved in this and had flown several times and taken a space walk. He said there was a group headquartered in
Mr. Boucher shared with
members that Canaveral deputies recently apprehended a sexual offender who had
been on the lam and was featured on the TV show, “
Ms. Marcum remarked that
April 13-19, 2008 was National Library Week and the Cape Canaveral Library had
expressed an interest in having activities that would bring traffic into the
library during that week. Ms. Marcum proposed
a one day writers book fair on April 12 to kick off the week and recognize another
area of culture within the community. She
remarked that Ms. Escapa had reserved the meeting room and Ms. Marcum was
requesting input from the board. Members
were in favor of the proposal. Ms.
Marcum, along with Ms. Muncey, will research and bring back a project plan and
budget to the February meeting.
Mr. Anderson recognized Ms.
Marcum’s recent book signing at Barnes and Noble.
Mr. Boucher reported on
Burger King’s site plan and said it would be located on the out-parcel in front
of the Residence Inn.
Ms. McIntire reported that
four schools were participating in the 9th Annual Student Art Show
being held on February 2nd, 11 am to 1 pm; posters were being
distributed; ribbons had been ordered; Ms. Marcum and Ms. Muncey were the
judges; Mayor Randels would recognize the participants at 12 noon.
Ms. Roberts encouraged board
members to attend the 1/31/08 Sign Code Workshop.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
Approved this _______________
day of _____________, 2008.
________________________________
Joanne Muncey, Chairperson
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kim M. McIntire, Secretary