Inside Baseball: Winter Park’s Heavy Hitters Negotiate a Stadium and Spoils of the Game

While Manatees, Rollins College & Developers Pursue Stadium-Related Revenues & Gov’t Subsidies, Citizens’ Group Petitions to Keep the Stadium Out of MLK Park

Inside Baseball: Winter Park’s Heavy Hitters Negotiate a Stadium and Spoils of the Game

A little more than a year ago Rollins College and (presumably) other baseball principals invoked a Florida statute that kept Winter Parkers in the dark about stadium negotiations with the city. In February 2014, the news blackout expired.

Winter Park Voice has filed numerous Freedom of Information document requests with the city asking to see baseball-related email and other documents. Last week, the city released documents and email to the Voice showing what appears to be a serious negotiation by baseball principals to secure funding for a stadium at Rollins’ Harper–Shepherd field located near Orange Avenue and Denning.

Rollins Document Blackout Request

If Harper-Shepherd Negotiations Fail, MLK Park is a Favored Alternative. Citizen Petitioners Claim that Stadium in MLK Will Increase Traffic/Noise & Affect Quality of Life

Recent public hearings and the city’s interest in Martin Luther King, Jr. Park as an alternative stadium location have motivated a group of citizens to mount a petition drive to keep the stadium out of the park. This citizen-led effort appears to have grown out of concerns voiced by citizens and neighborhood groups that new and proposed Denning-area development – including the prospect of an extension of Lee Road through to Denning Ave. – will choke northwest Winter Park with large buildings and traffic gridlock. As reported by the website HeartofWinterPark.com

 

“The Petitioners Committee contends that the loss of this park would not only be a loss to the entire city, but that the size and impact of a professional minor league baseball stadium in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Park will permanently alter the character of the neighborhood and bring traffic and noise which will affect the quality of life of the residents.”

City Manager Knight Responds to Voice Request for Clarification/Explanation of Stadium Negotiations

The Voice contacted City Manager Randy Knight last week asking for updated information, clarification of numerous points made in city emails and corrections (if any). Mr. Knight did not respond directly to any of our questions or provide any updates. He did, however, respond with a statement indicating that the ongoing negotiations are a “very complicated and fluid process” adding that he does not have “the authority to bind the city to any deal . . .” and that Jeff Eisenbarth of Rollins College “does not have the authority to bind Rollins to any deal.”

Mr. Knight also said that some of the information we gathered from city email (and questioned him about) was “outdated”, but did not offer any correction or update of the information. The full text of Mr. Knight’s response to Voice questions is shown at the end of this story. A key memo referenced by Mr. Knight is shown below.

Will Rollins’ Harper-Shepherd Field Get the Nod?

Documents provided by the city include a “Term Sheet” memo, submitted by the Manatees’ David Freeman on March 28 that spells out terms of a proposed deal “. . . under which City, Rollins, and Manatees will agree to jointly fund construction of a new baseball stadium to be owned by Rollins and a new parking garage to be owned by City, and under which Manatees will agree to relocate Florida State League professional baseball club to Winter Park in Spring 2016.”

On April 1, City Manager Randy Knight added his comments to the “Term Sheet” memo modifying and correcting various aspects of the terms proposed by the principals. Among the original terms put forward by the principals was a request that the city build a parking garage on land next to Harper-Shepherd field owned by Rollins College.

Proposed Deal Term Sheet

The projected cost to build the stadium garage (to be paid mostly by the city) is $6 million, $2 million of which will be paid by the Manatees baseball organization.

The principals indicate that Rollins will contribute Harper-Shepherd Field and adjoining land plus an additional $4.25 million for the stadium project.

The city’s total contribution could go as high as $6.3 million, most of which would be taken from city CRA funds – if Orange County officials agree to extend the life span of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency).

Baseball Principals Lean Heavily on Gov’t Programs Designed to Help Low-Income Communities

The proposed agreement counts on city CRA money and a $7.5 million federal tax break for the principals. The tax break comes from a program – the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) – set up by the federal government to encourage development in disadvantaged communities.

IRS guidelines describe the reason Congress set up the NMTC program as follows:

“This Code section permits individual and corporate taxpayers to receive a credit against federal income taxes for making Qualified Equity Investments (QEIs) in qualified community development entities (CDEs).

These investments are expected to result in the creation of jobs and material improvement in the lives of residents of low-income communities. Examples of expected projects include financing small businesses, improving community facilities such as daycare centers, and increasing home ownership opportunities . . .”

IRS NMTC Guidelines        Winter Park CRA Info        CRA Basics

Is Stadium Use of Funds Intended for Westside Development an Appropriate Use of CRA Money?

Commissioners who oppose use of city money to build the baseball stadium may find themselves in bind when a final stadium deal goes up for a vote. Those who espouse a “no city money” position may be forced to defend a deeply finessed definition of “city money.”

We asked Randy Knight to explain the justification for possible use of CRA funds for the stadium project. We also requested a clarification as to whether CRA funds are fundamentally the same as any other city tax revenues – except that they are earmarked for community redevelopment. Mr. Knight did not respond to these questions.

History of the Deal: City Didn’t Like Manatees’ Original Offer – Wanted to Avoid Perception that
“. . . the City is giving and everyone else is taking.”

The initial terms proposed by David Freeman in a March phone conversation with Randy Knight apparently did not include any upfront cash contribution by the Manatees. In a follow-up email to Freeman and others on March 17, Knight rejects Freeman’s offer saying “. . . I have given a lot of thought to the proposed deal David described to me on the phone last week and I do not believe I would be able to get the Commission’s vote to support it.”

Initial Terms Negotiation

Knight Outlines Objections to Team Owners’ Initial Offer:

“1) The upfront commitment from the professional team is not adequate to secure the County’s participation in extending the CRA. Based upon my conversations with County staff as well as with Commissioner Edwards and Mayor Jacobs, any commitment to extend the CRA would require “skin in the game” from the team owner. They understand that Rollins money is also private but the reason they would be involved with the deal at all is for MiLB and they want to have confidence that the team is committed. A long-term lease and no upfront commitment will not be enough to get it done. Without the CRA extension, the City’s $5M is not there.

2) The proposal does not adequately address parking in the short term and in the long term commits the City to fund a parking structure. If the City spends its funds on the stadium it will not have a source to fund the parking. Without the parking resolved upfront, I do not believe Planning and Zoning or the City Commission will approve a stadium at that location regardless of who is funding it.

3) Other than having MiLB (Minor League Baseball) and the resulting economic impact for the community, the City gets nothing for its investment. No recurring revenues, no new parkland and no ownership. While I appreciate not being on the hook for future costs or CapX there will be a perception that the City is giving and everyone else is taking.”

Knight then offered a counter-proposal warning “I don’t want to drag this out until August if this [ Freeman’s ] proposed deal is the best we can do. I offer the below proposal that I believe I can in good conscience recommend to the City Commission.”

Knight’s Counter-Proposal Paves Way for Current Deal

Knight Adds Deal-Sweetener. Freeman Responds.

Knight sweetened his proposed terms with an offer to share a projected $3.5 – 4 million funding shortfall, saying he “could support recommending that the City put in 1/3rd of the shortfall (with conditions that the parking garage is available during non-game times for other use) if Rollins and the Team find the other 2/3rds either up front or through shared revenues. Otherwise, I think this site is off the table and we need to focus on one of the two sites with developer participation to make up the shortfall.” The next day, Freeman responded:

“If you recognize the $5 million purchase price of the team, your NMTC increases by $1.25 million……and the guy writing that check doesn’t feel as slighted by the skin-in-the-game analysis.

It appears that the bottom-line is the addition of a $6M city-owned parking garage and the request for the team to contribute $2M of that $6M. Not an unreasonable request if the team can find additional sponsorship revenue to recover that outlay.

Below [ city counter-offer ] does not address a solution for the annual lost revenue that the club suffers as a result of smaller, cheaper stadium. Again, maximizing sponsorship revenue appears to be the most realistic path to recovering this foregone revenue.”

The Voice asked Randy Knight whether the city’s contribution of $1+ million “shortfall” money (additional to the $5 million CRA money) would come from the general fund – and, if not, where the city would find the money? Mr. Knight did not respond to the questions.

Path to Gov’t $$$ for Stadium Leads Principals to Tallahassee and Washington D.C.

Email exchanges among the principals over the past month indicate strong interest in tapping multiple government subsidies to secure the stadium deal. On April 2, team owner Tom Winters forwarded this news item to Mayor Bradley, Randy Knight and others:

“House opens the stadium incentive bill to rodeos, minor-league soccer, baseball . . .

TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to give tax subsidies annually to help finance a handful of professional sports stadiums got considerably more wide-open Tuesday when a House panel expanded eligible teams to include rodeos, minor-league baseball, and semi-professional soccer league with a team in Tampa.”

Stadium Tax Subsidy News Story

Rollins Hopes Congressman John Mica Can Help Rollins Seal Stadium Deal

In a 3/25 email to the principals, Rollins’ VP for Business and Finance Jeffrey Eisenbarth notes that Rollins may be able to tap its Washington connections:

“President Duncan mentioned again yesterday that John Mica would still like to do something for the College but it needs to be “transportation” related. A parking garage is transportation related so we should approach John from a combined City and College perspective and see if he can get us the $6M for the parking garage . . .”

The Voice asked Randy Knight whether principals are still pursuing the Mica “Transportation” funding option. Mr. Knight did not respond to the question.

3/25 Email: Rollins et al Explore Options

Without Mica, Who Will Cover Stadium $$$ Shortfall? Rollins’ VP: “We can do that.”

In the same 3/25 email, Eisenbarth concludes that Rollins can find the funds necessary to close the deal:

“. . . If that does not pan out then we still have your scenario where we can include the cost of the garage in the total project costs which puts us at $30M and 25% NMTC would be $7.5M and we are short $3.5M. David has indicated the value of the team ($5M) should also be included in the NMTC calculations which would get us another $1.25M and you mentioned that the City could cover 1/3 of the $3.5M which would leave about 1/3 for the College to fund. We can do that.”

If Rollins’ Harper-Shepherd Deal Falls Apart, Other Developers Ready to Move Forward

The Harper-Shepherd agreement, if ultimately approved, leaves developer Dan Bellows empty-handed – despite his two-year campaign to have the stadium built in Ravaudage. In Part 2 of this story, we will examine the long, colorful history of stadium negotiations between the city and other developers.

Full Text of Knight Response to Winter Park Voice

Shown below is the full text of City Manager Randy Knight responding to our questions asking for clarification, correction and updating of the information we found in city emails submitted to the Voice last week:

“As you can imagine trying to negotiate a three or more party deal is a very complicated and fluid process. The term sheet dated 4/1 was an attempt by Mr. Freeman to put down points for the purposes of discussion. It was based in part on the many negotiating sessions we have held and also included some new proposals from him. My response was part of the negotiation process. This term sheet has not been agreed to by any of the parties involved. These are working fluid concepts that are constantly changing. You must understand that I do not have the authority to bind the city to any deal. Jeff does not have the authority to bind Rollins to any deal. So we are trying to come to terms that we think we can, in good faith, recommend to our respective boards.

It takes a great deal of trust between negotiating partners that concepts floated to each other aren’t discussed outside of that process until there is some level of agreement. Although they are public records, to have draft term sheets or concepts pulled from emails published in the media that have not been agreed to will be a detriment to the process and our ability to propose ideas to each other for discussion purposes.

So while there are inaccuracies in your conclusions below as well as outdated deal concepts it would be premature for me to comment on them at this stage of the fluid negotiating process. When the parties have a deal in concept that we are ready to bring to our respective boards I will be in a better position to answer your questions regarding the issue.

If, and when there is an agreed upon deal concept amongst the negotiating members there will be several public meetings that include public input where different aspects of the deal are up for approval. Leading up to that process there will be ample time for all of the real deal terms to be shared with the public.”

[ Ed. note: This story has been corrected to reflect baseball principals’ interest in extending the life span of the CRA rather than geographical boundaries as originally reported. ]

 

Lee Road “Punch-Through” Travels a Long and Winding Road

Lee Road “Punch-Through” Travels a Long and Winding Road

In response to citizens’ questions about the planned extension of Lee Road through to Denning Avenue, the Mayor, Commissioners and City Manager maintain that the decision is “out of their hands” and will be decided by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

The Lee Road extension has languished on FDOT’s priority list since 2004. With developments popping up like mushrooms in northwest Winter Park, however, there is renewed interest in reconfiguring the intersection of Lee Road and 17-92 and extending Lee Road through to Denning Drive.

MetroPlan Orlando, City Officials, Experts & Citizens Guide FDOT Decisions

FDOT Public Information Specialist Jessica Keane was willing to shed some light on how this process works, explaining that the planning process begins not with FDOT, but with MetroPlan Orlando (MPO), the “metropolitan planning organization for Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties – the Orlando Urban Area — and provides the forum for elected officials, their staff, citizens, and industry experts to work together to improve transportation in Central Florida.” FDOT only adds projects to its priority list which are first recommended to them by MPO.

MetroPlan Website

The MPO Board is made up of 25 mayors, commissioners and various officials from transportation agencies. Serving on the current board are the mayors of Altamonte Springs, Apopka, Kissimmee, Orlando, Orange County, and Sanford. While Winter Park has no representation on the MetroPlan board, Mayor Kenneth W. Bradley, with City Manager Randy Knight as his alternate, sits on the 15-member MPO Municipal Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the MPO for their consideration.

MetroPlan Advisory Committee

Lee Road #10 on the Priority List

The MPO creates a Prioritized Project List for the FDOT. The current list, dated September 11, 2013, puts the Lee Road extension at #10. The components of the project currently unfunded include the preliminary engineering design, construction and right of way acquisition.

MetroPlan Project List

Frank J. O’Dea, P.E., Director of Transportation Development, Florida Department of Transportation, District 5, provided the Voice a copy of the 2004 Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E) concerning the Lee Road extension. The 2004 PD&E contains the history of this road extension proposal, and it makes clear that the City of Winter Park was a full partner in the decision to add this project to the priority list.

City Gave Thumbs-Up to Punch-Through 10 Years Ago

According to Mr. O’Dea, officials of any city are actively involved in decisions concerning a road project that will directly affect that city.

For example, the 2004 PD&E includes a June 2, 2004, Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Winter Park and FDOT, signed by then Mayor Kenneth Marchman, which states, “. . .the parties hereto mutually agree that the extension of Lee Road to Denning Drive and the improvements to 17-92 from Norfolk Avenue to Monroe Street, will benefit the traveling public and will enhance the transportation system in the area.”

City/FDOT Memo of Understanding

O’Dea explained, “Since the PD&E is several years old, the Department would need to update the traffic reports that formed the basis of the PD&E to see if the assumptions made at that time revealed the same conclusions. Since there is some renewed interest in this project, the Department is moving ahead with the traffic reevaluation.”

Large Turn-Out for 2003 Hearings

According to the 2004 document, public workshops and hearings were held to give residents and businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions. The first public workshop, held April 23, 2002, was attended by 41 people who expressed no opposition to the project. At a second Public Workshop on May 8, 2003, however, at which 81 residents were present, “Opposition to the Lee Road extension was voiced by several members of the communities located near and north of Park Avenue and Denning Drive.”

On November 13, 2003, a formal Public Hearing was held, “which approximately 85 persons attended.” Written comments were submitted as part of the official public record, but those were not included in the PD&E provided to the Voice by FDOT.

FDOT PD&E Report

Ms. Keane acknowledged that turnouts, respectively, of 81 and 85 people are significant for a Public Hearing for a road project.

Controversy “Minimized”

Despite residents’ dissent, the conclusion drawn in 2004 through the Public Involvement portion of the study states: “FDOT developed the proposed project with input and consensus from representatives from local government agencies including MetroPlan Orlando, and the City of Winter Park, as well as from the general community. As a result of this extensive public involvement program, potential public controversy was minimized.”

Ten years later, MetroPlan Orlando Executive Director Harold Barley wrote in an email, “We have a long-standing interest in addressing the traffic congestion on US17-92 between Webster Avenue and Lee Road. The current Webster Avenue-Lee Road configuration is the cause of the problem and earlier work concluded that the only effective fix was the Lee Road extension.

MetroPlan Director: New WP Development Is “Good Reason” to Consider Accelerating Punch-Through

“At the rate things are going with federal and state funding for projects such as this, it’s going to take a number of years to get to this one. I’m not aware of any current activity on the project — but the new development that’s underway on both sides of US17-92 in that area gives us a good reason to dust off plans and to bring some people together to see where things stand, how current development plans fit with earlier work . . . and to see if things might possibly be accelerated.”

Sprinkel Opposes Lee Road Extension

In a recent interview with the Voice, Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel stated, “I don’t support a punch-through. . . I don’t want to make it easy to have a big flow-through there [ at Denning ].” (See Video @ 14:00)

McMacken Calls for Public Workshop

At the March 24, 2014, Commission Meeting, Commissioner Tom McMacken said that FDOT had stated their intention not to conduct a new PD&E. McMacken called for the city, the city’s traffic consultant and FDOT to hold a public workshop to inform citizens about the status of the Lee Road extension and to provide a forum for their comments. The commissioners did not reach any decision on the subject of a public meeting.

UP Developer Will Help Pay for Punch-Through If Necessary

Asked whether he intended to donate right of way or funds to facilitate the process, UP Development’s Scott Fish wrote that his company “will provide any assistance necessary to provide proper access and circulation to this project [ UP Development at Webster and US 17-92 ] including the acquisition of ROW [ right of way ] and contributions to road construction cost.”

City Manager Randy Knight wrote that discussions with Mr. Fish about UP Development’s involvement in the road extension “are still ongoing.”

Will Winter Park Play Ball?

Possible Stadium Deal Has Potential to Fast-Forward Development of NW Winter Park – including Lee Rd. “Punch-Thru” to Denning Dr.

Will Winter Park Play Ball?

Minor League Baseball, in the form of the Brevard County Manatees, is being batted around the City Commission Chambers once again.

On January 21, the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) joined Mayor Bradley and city officials in an in-depth discussion of stadium-building and related development in and around Denning Drive and 17-92.

Included in the discussion was the possibility of a developer-driven revival of the Dept. of Transportation’s long-planned “Punch-Thru” of Lee Road to Denning Drive. Click video image below to see the “Punch-Thru” excerpt from the 1/21 EDAB hearing.

Mayor Bradley opened the discussion by characterizing the proposed baseball stadium as a “generational opportunity” for Winter Park. Mr. Bradley, City Manager Knight, Economic Development Director Stone, EDAB Chair Reicher and Chamber CEO Chapin were prominent participants in the discussion. Click the video image above to see the entire baseball discussion (parts 1 & 2).

The Manatees, or the “Tees,” as they are affectionately known, are currently using the 8,100-seat Space Coast Stadium in Viera, which is too large, both for the intimate nature of minor league baseball and for the declining wealth and population in Brevard County brought on by the withdrawal of the NASA space program.

The Manatees are an “Advanced A” or “High A” level team that is part of the 12-team Florida State League. Their major league affiliate is the Milwaukee Brewers.

The ‘Tees are now looking inland to greater Orlando which, according to the Madison Consulting Group, who prepared a Facility Assessment study for the City of Winter Park, “is currently the largest market in the country without regular season-affiliated professional baseball.” While the market area is Central Florida, Winter Park is squarely in the cross-hairs for targeting a stadium location.

Madison Group Stadium Facility Assessment

At the January 13, 2014, City Commission meeting, City Manager Randy Knight requested and the Commission authorized a 45-day period to further study the feasibility of bringing minor league baseball to Winter Park.

City Staff: Give Us Five Months to Negotiate Best Deal for City.

As the 45-day review period draws to a close, the Commission has scheduled a 4pm workshop meeting for Monday, February 17, to consider a newly-released staff report that recommends moving forward with negotiations. City staff envisions a 5-month evaluation process ending in August, at which time “staff hopes to be in the position to make recommendations that will include whether or not moving forward makes sense and if so, a ranking of the sites, how the stadium project could be funded, proposed deal terms/agreements and who should throw out the first pitch.”

Staff Baseball Stadium Analysis

Rollins’ Harper Shepherd Field Back in Play as Possible Stadium Site.

Earlier this year, Rollins College was negotiating possible equity partnership in the minor league baseball effort, but the Rollins Board of Trustees voted to withdraw because of the expense of reorienting and enlarging Harper Shepherd Field and because they felt unable to meet the Manatees’ schedule requirements of a 2015 opening. Rollins subsequently expressed interest in “becoming a tenant” if a new stadium is built. But now, Rollins has re-emerged as a possible partner to the City and the Manatees. The new city staff report acknowledges that “after discussion with Rollins representatives, the Harper Shepherd Field site was added back as a potential site.”

City “Tree Farm” on Lee Rd. Eliminated as Stadium Site.

While suggesting that “other sites could surface as feasible during the next phase of the study if we proceed,” city staffers reversed course on the tree farm – eliminating the city-owned property “as a potential stadium site at this time” explaining that “lack of good access, visibility and the neighborhood impacts led staff to remove that site from current consideration.”

Stadium Economics 101: What Are Costs/Benefits?

As of now, the current “short list” of sites includes Martin Luther King, Jr., Park on Denning, the Ravaudage development on Lee Road, the current site of the VoTech school on Webster & Denning and Harper Shepherd field.

The city staff report’s cursory financial analysis of each site indicates that the “Funding Gap” in each case – the funds needed to develop a site in addition to the dollars contributed by the principals – ranges from $11 million (Harper Shepherd) to $35.5 million (Ravaudage).

During the 1/21 EDAB workshop, Mayor Bradley commented on possible stadium “income streams” including ticket sales, naming rights, concessions, lease revenue and event revenue among others.

He summed up the project’s net benefit by concluding that “First and foremost, the economic benefit that comes from a place like this is outside the park . . . I think if most municipalities figure out a way to have some return and/or break even for the amenity, they probably are ahead of the game.” Click video image above to see EDAB discussion of potential stadium revenues.

Are MLK Park and Votech at Webster & Denning the Most-Favored Stadium Sites?

The “team” of major players that is beginning to coalesce around the Manatees’ relocation to Winter Park includes Manatees owner and local orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Tom Winters; Scott Fish, principal of Nashville-based UP Development – developer of the Lee Rd./17-92 Corporate Square site which will include the new Whole Foods Market; Tennessee native David S. Freeman, part owner of the Nashville Predators hockey team; Rollins College; and, the city of Winter Park.

In his January 30 email to Scott Fish, City Manager Randy Knight updates the developer on stadium funding progress and negotiations with Orange County concerning acquisition of the VoTech site:

“We have made some additional progress since our last discussion. We have explored a few different ways to plug our funding gap and while we don’t have it all figured out yet we have learned a lot. I have had conversations with the Orange County School board employee in charge of facilities and he has committed to me that he would let me know by the end of next week what the options would be to acquire the property as well as what the process would be.”

Knight/Fish Email

>>Click UP Development image below to see full site plan.

Will Developer Interest in Lee Rd. “Punch-Thru” Influence DOT Plans?

On February 12, Randy Knight responded to questions from the Winter Park Voice, explaining the City’s approach to UP Development and clarifying ownership of the Manatees – including Mr. Freeman’s possible involvement.

In his emailed response, Knight wrote, “I am the one who pitched the idea to Mr. Fish about considering a stadium as part of his development . . . Dr. Tom Winters continues to be the owner. A gentleman by the name of David Freeman has an option to buy a portion of the team from Dr. Winters.”

Dr. Winters and potential owner David S. Freeman appear to favor locating the stadium either in MLK Park or on the present Votech school site. Mr. Freeman wrote in an email to Mayor Bradley and City Manager Knight, “First, Tom is supportive and enthusiastic regarding the “school” site. Thus, as long as the City can acquire title to the site without any strings attached, we would be happy on that site.”

Freeman Email to City

Déjà Vu All Over Again: Predators & UP’s Scott Fish Partnered In Nashville-Area Stadium Project.

David Freeman and Scott Fish may have an opportunity to team up again if Winter Park chooses to build a stadium on the VoTech site next to Fish’s Up Development site. In recent years, Fish and investor David Freeman’s Predators worked together to keep the Franklin, Tennessee A-Game Sportsplex near Nashville afloat. Freeman also poured millions into the Predators hockey franchise. The Predators play at Bridgestone Arena in downtown Nashville, a few miles from the Grand Ole Opry.

As reported by Tennessean online news in April 2012, David Freeman “spearheaded the purchase of the team in 2007 to prevent it from being sold to a Canadian businessman intent on moving the Predators out of Nashville, [ and ] remains a member of the ownership group. Click to read Tennessean article.

Scott Fish’s WordPress blog describes his arena-saving investment in the A-Game Sportsplex as one of his “most significant accomplishments” explaining that the arena was “was losing around $30,000 per month. The 110,000-square-foot facility was on the verge of closing down, so I purchased it for $6 million . . . My daughter’s hockey team, along with a handful of others, was playing there. With the looming shutdown, all those players would have had to find a different home base. I also saw that the arena could be turned into something that benefited the entire community.”

Click HERE and HERE to read more about Scott Fish $6 Million A-Game Sportsplex investment.

UP Development’s Scott Fish Expands His Orlando-Area Real Estate Holdings.

Mr. Fish specializes in rehabilitating distressed properties and has acquired under-performing Orlando-area properties in recent years, including the Fashion Square Mall, Toys-R-Us and the Robb & Stucky store in Altamonte Springs – a property he recently sold to the Florida Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, who will relocate their Winter Park headquarters there.

UP Development’s website describes the company as a “premier retail developer focused predominately in the Southeastern United States. With over 20 years of experience. UP Development has positioned itself as a go to shop for developers, financiers, and owners with troubled assets that require creative and unique workout solutions.”

Click to see UP Development website.

Local Sports Enthusiasts See Minor League Baseball & Venue Events as “Affordable” Family Entertainment.

In an interview with the Voice, Bob King, Head Baseball Coach of Winter Park High School whose son Stephen has been playing in the minor leagues since 2006, observed that the minor league games provide affordable entertainment for families – often drawing crowds by including interactive events such as Bring Your Dog Night, or nights when kids in the audience are invited to come down on the field and run the bases. On off season evenings, minor league fields are often used for other cultural events, Coach King explained, like a symphony playing “Mozart on the Mound.”

Joey DiFrancesco, the Assistant Baseball Coach at Winter Park High, is also a big fan of minor league baseball. “As a teacher,” he told the Voice, “I am priced out of the Magic games for me and my kids . . . but if we had a minor league team, I would be the first in line.”

Winter Park Voice will expand its coverage of the UP development site on 17-92 and other Denning area developments – including the proposed stadium site search & negotiations – in future stories.

Baseball Stadium Plans Still Being Considered in Winter Park

Special Alert for WPV Subscribers Only

Baseball Stadium Plans Still Being Considered in Winter Park

Commission Stays in the Game. Rollins Benched?
 
On Monday night, the City Commission voted unanimously to give City staff 45 days to study potential sites for a new stadium and determine whether minor league baseball could be good for Winter Park.
The stadium has been under consideration for over a year now, but many details of the negotiations have been kept out of the the public eye. The news blackout was requested by Rollins College to protect the interests of the principals and — per the Rollins request — has been treated as “exempt” from public records disclosures by the City.
City Manager Randy Knight indicated that currently there are “four sites on the table” being considered. Ravaudage appears to have been resurrected as one of the sites — after being scratched from the list earlier this year. Martin Luther King Jr. Park on Denning Avenue is another site being considered.
Mr. Knight pointed out that bringing minor league baseball to the City may yield a multi-million dollar benefit to Winter Park. He also noted that the Orlando area may be the largest metro area in the U.S. “. . . that does not have some form of professional baseball.” Commissioner Cooper asked for a careful cost/benefit analysis by the City.
The Commission’s entire baseball discussion can be viewed by clicking the video image above.

 

Bradley/Leary Bid to Pave Meadow Parkland Fails 3 to 2

3 Commissioners Unswayed by Appeals from Merchants & Chamber Theatrics

Bradley/Leary Bid to Pave Meadow Parkland Fails 3 to 2

Story Update
In last week’s City Commission meeting, Mayor Bradley opened the hearing on downtown parking expansion by noting that three Commissioners had requested a review of City parking policy.It appears that those three Commissioners were the same three – Cooper, McMacken and Sprinkel – who, at the end of the two-hour hearing, voted against the “pave the meadow” approach favored by Mayor Bradley and Commissioner Leary.At the top of the hearing, Public Works Director, Troy Attaway stepped forward to explain how the parking expansion plan his department was implementing was put on hold due to “resistance” from citizens who were unhappy with the City’s plans (1:30 / Video, Part 1 — Also see Video, Part 2 below).Mayor Responds to Citizen Input: I Don’t Want City Run by “Email . . . Innuendo or Accusation” Early on, Mayor Bradley interrupted Mr. Attaway’s presentation in an apparent effort to make a point about halting demolition/construction plans in response to citizen complaints:

“I want to be clear on the process that we go through – since the City Commission instructed the staff to do all of this . . . what you’re doing [ halting construction ] is probably appropriate and proper . . . I’m just saying I don’t want to be run by a city of email or a city of innuendo or accusation because somebody doesn’t like something that’s happened” (1:40 / Video, Part 1).

Mr. Attaway continued with his presentation, describing plans to add 36 parking spaces (total) to both sides of Morse Blvd. between Virginia and New York, effectively reducing that segment of Morse to a two-lane road. Attaway also spoke of modifying New York Avenue to gain 5 additional spaces. Also mentioned was a prior attempt by the City to add spaces to Morse Blvd. during the building of the Park Place parking garage. That attempt was abandoned for several reasons, including citizen opposition. (8:00 / Video, Part 1).

In the follow-up to staff explanation of current parking expansion plans, a number of Commissioners, including Mr. Leary and Ms. Sprinkel, expressed opposition to narrowing Morse Blvd., citing concerns about pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Others, including Mayor Bradley, pointed out that pedestrian safety can be enhanced by a parking lane providing a buffer between pedestrians and moving automobiles.

Cooper: “We Have Lots of Angry Residents.” Bradley: “We Have Several Angry Residents.”

Commissioner Cooper noted that the intensity of public opposition to the City’s plan may have been due to the Commission’s failure to use a Commission hearing to publicly discuss the plan (instead of the Sept. 6 Strategic Planning Workshop where the plan was last discussed – a workshop that was attended by few city residents). (19:30 / Video, Part 1).

Ms. Cooper’s characterization of the strong opposition to the parking plan – illustrated by citizen outrage she encountered the weekend before Monday’s Commission meeting – was disputed by Mayor Bradley, who appeared to minimize the scope and importance of the opposition.

Cooper: “We have lots of angry residents . . . Bradley: “We have several angry residents . . . Cooper: “I had people at my house as well as many emails . . . From my personal perspective, until we have at least implemented the recommendations that came from the [ Parking Study ] consultant – which were to move employee parking – [ for us ] to start intruding into our parkland, or creating a bottleneck . . . or disturbing the beauty of a main blvd. unnecessarily – would probably be premature.”

The debate about the intensity and legitimacy of public response to the City’s parking plan quickly morphed into an intense debate questioning the legitimacy of claims and counterclaims made by the Commissioners themselves and the City’s own parking study.

Ms. Cooper and the others on the dais continued their discussion of alternatives including public parking on the site of the soon-to-be-demolished Public Works building, as well as nearby City properties including the Blake storage yard and the Swoope Ave. water plant parking area that is already paved.

Bradley & Leary Stand Alone in Support of West Meadow Parking.

Mayor Bradley introduced motions and amendments seeking to approve additional parking spaces on the Public Works site, New York Avenue and the West Meadow (including an additional “perpetual” no-parking buffer zone). Commissioner Leary seconded the motion. (21:30 / Video, Part 1).

However, in the face of continuing Commission opposition to Meadow parking, Bradley pivoted and offered an amendment denying any parking at all on the West Meadow, which would include elimination of the traditional use of the Meadow for temporary parking over 5 to 10 days for the City’s art festivals. (24:30 / Video, Part 1).

Bradley: “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is, Folks – Either It’s a Parking Lot or It’s a Meadow.”

This last amendment – seeking to deny any parking on the meadow if the Commission failed to approve Bradley’s bid to pave parking spaces in the meadow – was based on Mr. Bradley’s assertion that since the City currently allows parking/use of the meadow for “6 months out of the year” it should be willing to permanently pave the meadow. Sarah Sprinkel seconded the amendment as Bradley proclaimed, “Put your money where your mouth is, folks – either it’s a parking lot or it’s a meadow.” (25:00 / Video, Part 1).

The Mayor’s rationale drew a rebuke from Commissioner McMacken, who called Bradley’s argument “misleading.” McMacken claimed that parking on the meadow totaled no more than 6 days per year.

Immediately following the Bradley/McMacken exchange, Commissioner Cooper shifted the discussion from meadow parking to the City’s Parking Study that is used to justify the creation of more downtown parking. She questioned the methods used to determine the current supply of parking spaces and the current demand for spaces, remarking that “The devil’s in the details.”

Cooper Disputes City Parking Study: Why Did They Remove 141 “Honest-to-Goodness Parking Spaces from Their Count?” 

According to Cooper, “If you look at this Parking Study, the parking supply that they talk about us having is not the actual number of parking spaces. The first thing they did was remove 141 of real honest-to-goodness parking spaces from their count so they could talk about “effective parking” [ which enabled them to ] . . . reduce the count of the real parking spaces by up to 15%.”

Ms. Cooper asserted that “. . . the study reduced the real supply, then on the other hand the study increased the real demand” by looking at parking demand on the weekend during the Farmers’ Market in December – “at the busiest time of the year.” (29:40 / Video, Part 1).

Sprinkel: “I Don’t Think We Should Ever, Ever Go Over Any Green Space.”

Mayor Bradley countered that 80 spaces taken away from the City’s parking supply when the West Meadow was converted from a parking lot to green space a few years ago, have never been “addressed” by the current or past Commissions. “I’m for parks as much as the next guy, but . . . the heart of our city requires convenient and accessible parking.” (32:45 / Video, Part 1).

“I don’t think we should ever, ever go over any green space” said Commissioner Sprinkel, rebutting the Mayor. “. . . I don’t know that we’ll ever make everybody happy, but I do understand that if we’ve got some green space, I don’t really want to go on top of it with pavement.” (35:20 / Video, Part 1).

Leary: “I Don’t Have a Problem” with Proposed Meadow Parking.
Cooper: “This is Crazy – to Jeopardize Our Parks and Our Boulevards . . .”

After much discussion among the Commissioners, Mr. Leary appeared to vacillate in his support for paving part of the meadow, but reasserted his support after confirming with Troy Attaway how much space would be taken out of the north end of the meadow: “I don’t want to take over the entire West Meadow with parking, obviously, [ but ] this I don’t have a problem with . . .” (38:20 / Video, Part 1).

Commissioner Cooper responded strongly to the underlying assumption of the Mayor and others that merchant-requested parking could only be attained by paving the meadow and narrowing city avenues. Cooper pointed out that the “[ Parking ] Study says City employees and Park Ave. employees should be able to park 10 minutes from their workplace. There’s no place that we’re even talking about that’s more than 5 minutes. This is crazy – to jeopardize our parks and our boulevards because employees believe they are entitled to park outside their doors.” (41:00 / Video, Part 1).

Ms. Cooper noted that other employers (like Florida Hospital) use buses to transport employees to and from parking lots. “We own buses – we own golf carts . . . There’s no reason we can’t free up some of these parking places . . . the Park Avenue merchants are never going to voluntarily do it if they don’t see the City employees stepping up and doing their part.”

In the second half of the hearing, City residents stepped to the podium to offer comments on the City’s Parking Plan.

Public comments were roughly split between support and opposition to the plan. Various residents and merchants, including Vicki Krueger, Dan Bellows, Patrick Chapin, Ken Murrah and Forest Michael expressed a range of views regarding the issue.

Part 2 of the Voice video shows all public commenters, the remainder of the hearing and the final Commission vote.

Public Comment: Park Ave. Merchant Says We Can’t Tell Our Employees Not to Park in Best Spaces.

Brian Wettstein, co-owner of the Doggie Door on Park Avenue, was the evening’s first commenter. Mr. Wettstein responded to Commissioner Cooper’s assertion that merchant employees should park farther from the Avenue by claiming that merchants don’t have the legal right to keep employees from parking in nearby, publicly-available parking spaces (00:30 / Video, Part 2).

Mr. Wettstein was followed by Vicki Krueger, who presented the history of the West Meadow starting with its transition to green space in 2008. Ms. Krueger referenced City memos and other information from that period demonstrating the City’s intent to create park space – and the compromise made at that time to put 12 parking spaces on the West Meadow. According to Ms. Krueger, the spaces were intended to be temporary: “The Compromise was to put 12 temporary parking spaces on the West Meadow. ‘Temporary’ apparently was not defined, because now it’s 2013 and they’re still there.”

When Ms. Krueger’s 3 minutes of speaking time expired, she and the Mayor disagreed over whether Ms. Krueger should be allowed to speak longer. Ms. Krueger asked for more time after showing a handful of yellow “Speaking Requests” given to her by other citizens who had granted their time to Krueger. The Mayor agreed to give her an additional 15 minutes, but only if no one else in the chamber would speak in opposition to meadow parking. Ms. Krueger declined the Mayor’s offer and spoke for an additional minute during which she began a presentation of her own parking study that showed numerous empty parking spaces available during peak times of the day. (02:40 / Video, Part 2).

Citizens Challenge Mayor Amidst Gavel Banging & Chamber Theatrics.

As Ms. Krueger left the podium, others in the audience challenged the Mayor’s limitation of her speaking time. The challenge to the Mayor was answered by Chamber President, Patrick Chapin who sprang to his feet and rushed out the chamber door dramatically proclaiming that he would return with “twenty or thirty” signed speaking forms that would enable him to request additional speaking time, too. (8:00 / Video, Part 2).

A short while later, Mr. Chapin returned to the Commission Chamber and spoke for 3 minutes. He did not offer any additional signed speaking forms. Chapin urged the Commission to accept the Parking Study at face value, saying “If we’re really going to question the validity of that Parking Study tonight, let’s just all go home . . . Can we at least pretend that that study is legitimate? It should be – it’s done by professionals .”

Chamber President Chapin: Merchants “Passionate.” We Need 280 More Parking Spaces.

Chapin alleged a “deficit of 280 parking spots” and implied that the merchants he represents are still upset about parking that was lost when the West Meadow was originally converted to parkland. “Believe me – I’m holding a group of merchants at bay, because they’re passionate about their 80 [ West Meadow ] spots that were taken away . . .” (20:40 / Video, Part 2).

Forest Michael, an urban planner who participated in planning the West Meadow green space, spoke to the Commission and rebutted the view of Mr. Chapin and others who believe that turning the meadow to parkland resulted in the “loss” of downtown parking spaces.

Michael reminded the Commission that the City and associated planners all worked together to “relocate” the parking spaces from the meadow to the Park Place garage next to Panera. (29:45 / Video, Part 2).

After the City residents had their say, the Commission restarted their discussion of creating parking permanently and/or temporarily at various City properties located close to the downtown shopping district. Those properties include “Blake Yard” on Blake St. near City Hall, the Swoope Ave. Water Plant parking area and the Progress Point site on Orange Ave.

McMacken: Let’s Take a “Systematic” Look at Additional Parking Options in Future Hearings.

Ultimately, the Commission was unwilling to entertain any options beyond the originally discussed alternatives on New York Ave., Morse Ave., Public Works parking and the West Meadow. Commissioner McMacken summed it up by pointing out that entertaining so many ideas in a manner that was not “systematic” is “how [ we ] wind up in the mess we’re in . . .” McMacken asked the Commission to vote only on the original motion and amendments and to bring back the other alternatives for discussion and possible vote at a future hearing. (44:15 / Video, Part 2).

Mayor Bradley closed out the discussion by asserting that the City does, in fact, have a parking problem. Mr. Bradley indicated that he was open to many of the parking suggestions made by the Commissioners and twice mentioned the option of building a parking garage. Immediately following the Mayor’s comments the Commission voted on the original motion and amendments. (50:45 / Video, Part 2).

 First Amendment: Eliminate plan to build 12 parking spots in the West Meadow.

Amendment Passed

Commissioners Cooper, Sprinkel & McMacken voted “Yes.”

Mayor Bradley and Commissioner Leary voted “No.”

  Second Amendment: Eliminate all parking at all times in the West Meadow [ would eliminate current practice of parking in meadow during art festivals and special events. ]

Amendment Failed

Mayor Bradley and Commissioner Sprinkel voted “Yes.”

Commissioners Cooper, Leary & McMacken voted “No.”

  Motion: Approve Parking Plan to create additional parking in and around Public Works (after building is demolished) and on New York Avenue — but not on Morse Blvd. or in the West Meadow. Motion also includes a ”buffer” in West Meadow where no parking is allowed.

(Approximate size of buffer is same as area that was originally planned for new parking spaces.)

Motion Passed Unanimously.

Citizen Protest Puts West Meadow Parking Lot "On Hold"

City Residents Dispute Parking Plan Rationale & Parking Survey Analysis

Citizen Protest Puts West Meadow Parking Lot “On Hold”

On November 2nd, at about 8:00am, Vicki Krueger received an early-morning visit from her neighbor. “I was about to go to the Farmers’ Market when a neighbor knocked on my door. She informed me that her husband had just been at the Meadow and had noticed that a tree had been cut down on the edge of the park across from the Post Office.”Ms. Krueger’s condo, located across from Central Park, is a three minute walk from the Central Park’s “West Meadow,” the grassy green space south of the Post Office. In an interview with the Voice, Ms. Krueger confirmed that when she and her neighbor walked down to inspect the West Meadow that morning, they “saw the stump where a tree had been cut down“ and also saw that part of the West Meadow “had been marked-off with orange tape” next to the Post Office parking lot.

Ms. Krueger told the Voice that several days prior to her discovery of the marked-off area, she had learned of the city’s interest in paving part of the meadow, but mistakenly believed that no action would be taken before further Commission discussion.

Krueger Challenges City Surveyors and Public Works Official.

On Monday, November 4, at about 7:00am, Ms. Krueger again visited the Meadow parking site. Within minutes of her arrival, Krueger says that “two City employees arrived and began to survey the property.” Ms. Krueger questioned the surveyors, “I asked them whether there was a work order, who had signed it. They confirmed there was a work order but didn’t know who signed it.”

City Had Planned to Pave 12 New Parking spaces on West Meadow by Nov. 30.

Don Marcotte, Asst. Director of Public Works, arrived at the Meadow shortly after Ms. Krueger spoke with the surveyors and, according to Krueger, “Confirmed that the paving was going forward.” Ms. Krueger says she handed Mr. Marcotte a copy of an independent parking garage study and “after some discussion, he told us that the work would be stopped, at least for the day.“ Click the button below to view the Public Works memo discussing the Parking Expansion timeline.

Public Works Memo

Citizens Dispute City’s Parking Rationale – Conduct Their Own Parking Availability Surveys.

Over the last two weeks, several citizens – including Ken Murrah, Vicki Krueger and others – have written the City asking for reconsideration of the city’s plans to expand parking in and around Morse Blvd. and Central Park. Mr. Murrah and Ms. Krueger have each conducted independent surveys of parking availability near Park Ave. Their counts of available parking spaces over multiple days/hours/locations are at odds with the City’s own parking surveys. The City surveys are a key factor in the City’s decision to expand parking. Click the button below to view the City’s Parking Study.

Parking Study

The Voice contacted the City asking for comment from City Manager Randy Knight, Public Works Officials Troy Attaway or Don Marcotte on the delayed implementation of the City’s parking expansion. Clarissa Howard, the City’s Communications Director, responded with a statement saying , “The city did have plans to move forward, however, due to public input received, this project was delayed until after the City Commission had an opportunity to discuss further at their Monday, November 11 City Commission meeting.”

Did Commissioners and City Staff Agree to Meadow Parking Expansion Without Actually Voting on It?

We spoke with Ms. Howard at length about the City’s decision-making process – the process that led to the City’s initial decision to pave a section of the West Meadow by Nov. 30. We asked about the hearings, meetings, public notifications and votes that led to, and ultimately authorized, City staff to add 100+ parking spaces in and around downtown.

On Friday, Ms. Howard told the Voice that her research – done in the limited time she had to respond to our questions – indicated that parking expansion was discussed at several meetings including the June 24, 2013 Commission meeting (during which a consultant presented the City-commissioned Parking Study), and the Sept. 6 Strategic Planning Session. According to Ms. Howard, the Commission did vote to formally “accept” the Parking Study during the June 24 meeting – and asked City staff to come back with specific recommendations to expand parking.

Click the button below to view the staff Parking Study analysis.

Staff Parking Study Analysis

Ms. Howard indicated that in the Sept. 6 Strategic Planning Session attended by Commissioners and City staff, Public Works Director Attaway presented his suggestions for creating 100+ additional downtown parking spaces including making/paving new spaces in the West Meadow. However, it appears that since this meeting was a work session – not a formal Commission/Board meeting – no actual vote was taken regarding the West Meadow paving, nor was any formal notice given to the community that City staff would implement the paving/parking expansion administratively (without a formal vote by the Commission).

Parking Expansion and Paving the Meadow Will Be Discussed in Today’s 3:30pm Commission Meeting.

Multiple sources have told the Voice that even though City Commissioners will discuss the City’s Parking Expansion plan, they may or may not decide to vote on paving the West Meadow. Sources confirm that inaction by the Commission could result in City staff moving forward as planned to pave the meadow and implement the rest of the Parking Expansion.

 

City Hall Should Put the Well-Being of Homeowners First

As High-Density Development Accelerates, Our Quality of Life Suffers

City Hall Should Put the Well-Being of Homeowners First



Guest Columnist / Sally Flynn

Winter Park Citizen
Am I the only resident in Winter Park who still believes we should be a City of Homes? A city that cares for its residents first before big business and developers?

This was the vision of those who founded Winter Park and the reason my family settled here in 1961. We decided to make Winter Park our home because of the ambiance of this city – the eclectic architecture, the lakes, the green spaces, the tree canopy and the warmth of the people we met who shared our values.

Winter Park is changing – and faster than most people realize. It is becoming an urban, commercial city, not a City of Homes.

There is this constant urgency from our elected officials and those they have appointed to our Boards, to diversify our tax base. Our taxes are lower than some cities near us.

They say the portion paid by our residential taxes is too great but as a City of Homes, that is what should pay our taxes. If City Hall focuses on its homeowners, instead of commercial interests, homeowners like myself will be willing to pay the taxes that maintain our quality of life.

We say we are a City of Culture and Heritage but our heritage is disappearing and without a sense of history, we will be nothing.

High-Density development is increasing fast in Winter Park. This will hurt our quality of life, as traffic becomes more and more unbearable. In his interview with the Voice, Peter Gottfried clearly illustrated one downside of High-Density development when he admitted that “one of the biggest issues is traffic…Lakemont is now bumper to bumper.” Mr. Gottfried has seen for himself how part of our city’s charm is vanishing, noting that when he and his wife “drive down Park Avenue in the evening…it usually turns into a white knuckle drive – it’s not a pleasant experience anymore.”

Our city is changing. We now face a threat that our park land will be decreased and our city services reduced.

Change comes; change can be good but only if it enhances what we already have. Our home values will decline if we lose what we have always loved and treasured about Winter Park.

My hope is that there are enough people in Winter Park who are aware of what is happening and who will care enough to act before it is too late.

 

 

Open Letter to Mayor and Commissioners

Re: The Blueprint for Development in Winter Park

Open Letter to Mayor and Commissioners


Former Secretary State of Florida, Dept. of Management Services

Thirteen years ago, Nancy and I had our first dinner on Park Avenue. Interestingly, our server also worked as an appraiser. When I asked her why we should buy a home in Winter Park vs. somewhere else, she was quick and clear. This is a great community with good schools. Demand is steady for homes in Winter Park, even in down markets. Most important, we have a wonderful quality of life.

Turns out she gave us good advice. We quickly discovered that the quality of life we enjoy here is the result of the years of effort that went into developing and refining our Comprehensive Plan. Winter Park has a blueprint for growth that was put together with community involvement over a long time and is key to our success as a community.

We have the good fortune to be governed by a set of rules and regulations and that is both understandable and appropriate. Those rules, however, are being challenged by developers who are coming into our community with their eyes on the “big returns” and many of us feel we are not being adequately represented by those on the Planning and Zoning Board (appointed by the Mayor) or sitting on the City Commission. We are seeing a huge increase in density, for example, in the North Denning corridor. Large structures are being squeezed onto small pieces of property; and it’s not just one. We have seen the former Department of Motor Vehicles building lot stripped clear in preparation for another high-density structure.

Folks that brought us the Great Winter Park Land Swap of 2011 have a contract on a property on 17-92. It is apparently too small to build what they want, and they have had the audacity to request the city give them access to Winter Park property by the Rachel D. Murrah Civic Center to build a parking garage. Really? It is astonishing that such a request would clear the hurdle to make its way to the commission to be considered.

Does this bother you at all? Do you care what the citizens think about this?

I think we should have responsible commercial development that conforms to the Plan and to the rules we have. Any exceptions should be subject to close public scrutiny. If you attempt to sell us the standard party line, “We need to do whatever’s necessary to attract development to maintain, lower or keep taxes down,” . . . I say to you: “Show me,” and I will stand there until you do. We should NOT be making periodic changes to a plan we spent months almost years to complete. In the words of Mayor Bradley “In my four years on the council, I’ve found if we try to rush things, bad things happen.” (September 12, 2013 Winter Park Forum). I have to agree with the Mayor and ask why the urgent need to make changes and if there is a need why do so without appropriate due process including broad community input and involvement.

When a developer asks to increase density on a property, I believe board members and commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to demonstrate publicly how that will benefit the city or impact our tax base. If the impact is not significant, why would we say yes and have to live forever with the consequences?

As you know, our property tax bills are public information, so I will use ours as an example. Ours was $12,393.71 for 2013. Only $3,003.27 or 24% of that went to the city of Winter Park, and that included debt service of $224.01. State Law directed $3,724.40 or 30% to Public Schools, Local School Board assessed $2,313.03 or 19%, Orange County got $3,047.26 or 18%, St Johns Water Management District got $227.65 or 2% and there were Non-Ad Valorem Assessments of $45.79. So allowing multiple exceptions to our density rules will reduce my $2,965.99 in Winter Park taxes by how much? Please tell me I am waiting.

And why are you not asking us what we think?

Don’t assume you know what we want. Listen to us. Ask us, and above all have the intestinal fortitude to say no when no is the right answer.

When you ran for office, every one of you promised to represent the interests of Winter Park’s citizens. We believed you, and we elected you.

Many of us are now beginning to believe that our trust in you was badly misplaced. Please show us that isn’t so and do so before the quality of life we enjoy in Winter Park is negatively impacted.

Respectfully,

Jack Miles

 

WP Comp Plan/Codes “Impediments to Economic Development?”

Part 2 / Gottfried: Be Careful. . . Residents know there’s “a lot of construction going on.”

WP Comp Plan/Codes “Impediments to Economic Development?”

Story Update:
In the first half of the joint EDAB/P&Z workshop held on August 15, WRT consultant, Silvia Vargas, explained her study of Winter Park’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code — and the numerous changes the study proposes.
The City-commissioned study summarizes the purpose of the Comp Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) this way: “If the comprehensive plan is, essentially, the ‘what we want to do’ of the community, the LDC is the ‘how we are going to do it.’” Details of the study are published in the 8/15/13 Voice story that follows this update. Images below show some of the close-in commercial properties permitted and developed under the current Comp Plan and LDC.Orange County Development Codes : A Model for Winter Park Development?

The WRT study is seen by some city residents as laying the groundwork for elimination of City regulations that serve as a check on developer over-reach in the City. Others see the study’s recommendations as a road map to streamlining City codes that they believe are hindering economic development.

Peter Gottfried, a member of the City’s Planning and Zoning Board, illustrated the latter view by pointing out the development strategy pursued by developer Dan Bellows, who obtained less-restrictive building approvals in Orange County before having his Ravaudage development annexed into Winter Park: “The perfect example of that is a developer who decides to go develop a large piece of property and decides to go through the Orange County development approval process rather than go through the Winter Park process – and that’s Dan Bellows’ project at Lee Road.” Mr. Gottfried appeared to compare Winter Park’s approval process unfavorably with Orange County’s process, flatly stating: “. . . I think Orange County provides a fair and equitable [ process ] – even though you might not like their rules . . . I think as we move forward we need to decide how we’re going . . . to tackle revising some of these things that need to be revised . . .” (Video, Part 2 – 16:15)Another view of the contrast between Orange County and Winter Park development regulations is illustrated in an analysis written by P&Z board member, Pete Weldon – also a proponent of regulatory overhaul in the City. In his analysis of Ravaudage development (obtained by the Voice in a public records search), Mr. Weldon concludes that Orange County development regulations enabled Mr. Bellows to potentially build out Ravaudage at significantly higher density, “. . . Having accepted the terms of the annexation that include operating under Orange County codes and entitlements . . . the city approved Ravaudage densities somewhere in the range of 50-100% more favorable for the developer than would have been available under city code.” Mr. Weldon’s analysis can be viewed by clicking the button below. Weldon Ravaudage Analysis An increase in allowed building density as noted above is among the most hotly debated issues whenever significant changes to Winter Park’s land development regulations are proposed.Other regulatory policies – like the City’s “Conditional Use” standards that allow certain kinds of development if prescribed conditions are met and approved – were questioned during the hearing. EDAB board member, Steve Flanagan, criticized the standard saying, “. . . as a ‘recovering’ developer, I have to tell you it scares the living daylights out of me every time I think of it – because as a developer, you come into a community hoping that you can understand the rules and that if you obey them, you can get your project done.” (Video, Part 2 – 11:20)Mr. Flanagan also questioned use of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards – particularly in the Fairbanks corridor – asserting that development is “stymied” by current FAR regulations that limit bigger buildings on limited-size parcels.

Will High-Density Buildings Reduce “Sprawl” and Lower Residential Property Taxes?

Mr. Flanagan and others on the panel implied that allowing more in-fill development of larger and/or more numerous commercial buildings confers important benefits on the city that include prevention of “sprawl” and an increase in the City’s commercial tax base. (Video, Part 2 – 10:00)

Ms. Vargas appeared to question the use of sprawl as a rationale for higher density development, pointing out that “It’s just kind of difficult to talk about sprawl in a community that is mature, developed and land-locked the way that Winter Park is.” Vargas did agree that the sprawl rationale might be more appropriately applied to parking in Winter Park’s major corridors – an apparent reference to construction of “land-efficient” parking structures. (Video, Part 2 – 14:25)

Consultant: Purpose of Regulations is to “Provide Predictability” for Developers and Keep Factories Out of Neighborhoods. 

In response to questions about “Conditional Use” policy, Ms. Vargas stated: “I understand the nature of the Conditional Use . . . there need to be parameters . . . the whole purpose of your future land use map and your zoning map is to provide predictability – not just for the developer, but also for the residents – for someone who’s going to buy a house and can be assured that across the street there’s not going to be . . . a factory.” (Video, Part 2 – 14:53)

Conditional Use is a mechanism that has been used by the City to regulate the approval of businesses seeking to locate here. One example of this use is regulation of what types of businesses can locate on the Park Avenue.

P&Z Board Member Johnston: Are We Scrutinizing Rollins College Development Plans?

New P&Z Board member, Ross Johnston, asked Ms. Vargas about her view of the “public-private relationship” vis-à-vis education – considering Ms. Vargas’ prediction of 5,000+ new residents being added to Winter Park’s population in coming years. Mr. Johnston also asked Ms. Vargas whether she has analyzed the city’s interaction with Rollins College, pointing to the college’s interest in developing “. . . big chunks of land going to softball fields and lacrosse fields across different parts of the town now.” (Video, Part 2 – 8:30)

Ms. Vargas admitted that she did not look closely at the Rollins/Winter Park relationship, but did say that she recommends keeping education “concurrency” in City codes – a policy that that ties future development to increases in the City’s educational resources.

Toward the end of the workshop, the discussion turned toward questions of process – how the City plans to proceed in its review of the Comp Plan and LDC. Chamber of Commerce CEO, Patrick Chapin noted the phrases and characterizations used in the WRT study: “In Conflict”, “Highly Unusual”, “Contradictory”, “Onerous” and pressed the panel to consider the process: “I want to understand how this process – when this Comp Plan was developed – what was the mechanism? What was the plan? Did a group sit around the table like this?” (Video, Part 2 – 17:10)

P&Z Members Gottfried & Sacha: We Need Independent Facilitator to Get This Done Right.

Peter Gottfried responded with a brief history lesson – telling stories of past conflict, a Comp Plan committee being fired and a generally disjointed process. Mr. Chapin asked whether an arbitrator was used. Gottfried replied that the prior Comp Plan committees did not use the services of a professional facilitator, then pointed to Ms. Vargas as a person who could fulfill that role: “I think that’s what we have right here. I think that’s going to be a real value as we move forward . . .” Gottfried expressed confidence that Ms. Vargas could help keep the process “consistent” and “legal . . . I think that’s what we need.” (Video, Part 2 – 19:55)

After hearing expressions of support from the board for ongoing mediation, Ms. Vargas laid out her view of how the process could be effectively – and responsively – managed: “I very strongly believe that the community vision process is important . . . It doesn’t work for every community – not every community needs it – but, it seems to me that this community does.” Ms. Vargas acknowledged Mr. Gottfried’s statements concerning problems with past negotiations and offered a plan for a community-based process where “. . . the whole community could bring their opinion about the future – the aspirations for Winter Park twenty years from now, their concerns.” Ms. Vargas advocated a “consensus process whereby perhaps, not everybody agrees on every idea – but everybody agrees that at the end, these are things that are good for the whole community.” (Video, Part 2 – 20:25)

Following Ms. Vargas’ comments, P&Z board member, Tom Sacha, spoke up saying he “totally agreed” with Ms. Vargas’ approach, adding that Ms. Vargas could ”. . . bring [ the process ] to common ground . . . and facilitate us to where we need to be, going forward.” (Video, Part 2 – 21:40)

Consultant Vargas: We Need Lots of Public Input.
EDAB Member Caron Suggests “Smaller Group with Vision, Versus a Consensus-Type of Approach.”

Several other board members shared a mix of opinions, including remarks by Peter Gottfried – who referenced Winter Park’s political landscape: “You learn when you deal in the political world that there’s five Commissioners – or four Commissioners and the Mayor. You learn to count to three . . . that’s the reality of it.” (Video, Part 2 – 22:55)

EDAB member, John Caron, offered an opinion somewhat at odds with Ms. Vargas’ “public input” model – asking Vargas: “You have stated that ‘Vision is lacking’ . . . Who authors the vision? Where does that come from? . . . My sense is that usually it’s a smaller group with vision, versus a consensus-type of approach.” (Video, Part 2 – 23:20)

In response, Ms. Vargas reiterated her view that the City should ”. . . go to the community first – and we go to them repeatedly until we get it right . . .” Ms. Vargas countered Mr. Caron’s view with the assertion that “. . . when you have that vision that becomes the cornerstone of the plan – that comes from the residents . . . you are able to take the politics out of it, because this is the vision of the citizens.” (Video, Part 2 – 24:00)

As Ms. Vargas ended her statement, Dori Stone, Director of Planning & Community Development, stepped to the podium to wrap up the workshop. Ms. Stone spoke about her plan for advancing the WRT study through the City review process: “We are going to complete this study with Silvia’s recommendations.” Stone assured board members that they would have the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the Comp Plan and Land Development Code. (Video, Part 2 – 25:00)

Director Stone promised one public board hearing that would be part of an overall review process that will be finally decided by the City Commission. Ms. Stone estimated that the process could take as long as three months to complete.

Peter Gottfried asked Stone to consider allowing the boards to make more substantial recommendations – putting “more meat on the bones” – before the study is presented to the Commission. P&Z Board Chair, James Johnston, differed with Mr. Gottfried, arguing that the study already gets “the point across” – the point being that “There’s some inconsistency – there’s some problems – there’s some things that could be a hindrance on development . . . I think this report shows that.” (Video, Part 2 – 29:15)

P&Z Chair James Johnston: Current Regulations “Could be a Hindrance on Development.”
Gottfried: “Residents are going to say ‘What do you mean we have a hindrance to development?’ … We’ve got a lot of construction going on . . .”

Gottfried disagreed with Johnston’s characterization of the report stating that “If the premise of this thing is that there’s a hindrance to development – all you’ve got to [ do ] is look around [ in ] the city of Winter Park. We’ve got a lot of construction going on and . . . people, residents are going to say ‘What do you mean we have a hindrance to development?’ I think we have to be careful how we say that.” (Video, Part 2 – 31:00)

Patrick Chapin quickly jumped in supporting Gottfried’s point: “I really disagree with ‘the hindrance of development’.“ Instead, Chapin suggested his interpretation of the study’s message as promoting the “economic well-being” of the community.

As Dori Stone offered her final remarks and ended the meeting, it was unclear whether she intends to implement Silvia Vargas’ suggestion that the City should”. . . go to the community first – and we go to them repeatedly until we get it right . . .” Ms. Stone offered to include public and board comments sent to her via email at dstone@cityofwinterpark.org in her presentation to the Commission.

Consultant Vargas: We Need to Get Community Opinion and ”. . . go to them repeatedly until we get it right . . .”
EDAB/P&Z Director Dori Stone: “The City Commission will decide what the next steps will be regarding this project . . .”

We contacted Ms. Stone in the days after the workshop attempting to learn more about her interest in using Ms. Vargas as a continuing independent facilitator as suggested by some board members – and whether she will schedule – or ask city officials to authorize – multiple public meetings as suggested by Ms. Vargas.

Ms. Stone would not speak directly with the Voice, but ultimately did respond to multiple requests for comment. Her written responses are excerpted below:

In response to our question asking how the city plans to use Ms. Vargas’ services from this point forward — and/or whether there are any plans for significant facilitation by a person who is not a city employee, Ms. Stone responded:

“The scope of work associated with the contract with WRT included the preparation of and presentation of a review and evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan and LDC. Any new work that the City Commission may wish to pursue based on the recommendations in the study is outside the scope of this contract. Should the City Commission direct staff to implement any of the recommendations and staff decides consultant services may be needed, we would begin the appropriate process in creating a new scope of work for the required tasks, request Commission approval and follow the City’s process for hiring consultant services. This will be a decision of the City Commission and any recommendations by staff would be premature at this time.”

In response to our question asking how Ms. Stone sees the review process moving forward – and whether she is planning multiple public “visioning” sessions that would give Winter Park residents the opportunity to offer input on changes to the city’s Comp Plan and related development codes, Ms. Stone responded:

“At this point in time, the report with recommendations will be presented to the City Commission. The evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan and LDC substantially completes the scope of work outlined in the contract with WRT. The consultant intends to finalize the report prior to the City Commission presentation. Implementation of this study is not included in the scope of work and would need City Commission approval and direction.”

In response to our follow-up questions asking for clarification of her initial response, Ms. Stone responded:

“I have asked the City Manager to bring up the concept of a workshop to discuss the findings of the study. That is the remaining public meeting regarding this contract. The City Commission will decide what the next steps will be regarding this project . . . I have not formulated a staff recommendation to the City Commission yet regarding the next steps. I’m waiting to hear what direction the City Commission gives staff about the report.”

Winter Park Voice will update this story and provide continuing coverage of related hearings.

 

CNL’s Ask for Free City Land for Parking Garage is “D.O.A.”

Commission: Who’s Doing Who a Favor Here?

CNL’s Ask for Free City Land for Parking Garage is “D.O.A.”

Monday’s City Commission hearing did not go well for CNL. A fundamental disagreement between CNL and the City Commission was whether the City should expect some compensation in return for allowing CNL to build a large parking structure on the City’s Civic Center parking lot – a property valued at $1 to $2 million.The workshop started on a sour note – with CNL’s Paul Ellis standing firm on his position that CNL should pay nothing and that the City should be happy with the increased / accelerated tax and fee revenue it would receive when CNL develops the property.

CNL’s ask for City help – and the implication that prime 17-92 real estate might not otherwise attract significant developer investment – bore a striking similarity to claims made by Dan Bellows in his long campaign to share millions of dollars in City tax and fee revenues. The appearance of some strategic nexus between the two developers was further strengthened by the scheduling of “dueling workshops” held on the same afternoon on July 22.

In yesterday’s CNL workshop, Commissioner Cooper rubbed Paul Ellis the wrong way by referring to CNL’s controversial 2011 Progress Point land swap deal with the City.

Cooper complained about CNL’s current approach to the City, saying that ” . . .it is indefensible to me, to face other developers in this community and say to them ‘Yes, CNL is at the trough for a second time’ . . . My phone has been ringing off the hook . . . if we are going to give away City land to subsidize commercial development, it needs to be equitable and fair . . .” Click the video image below to view the workshop.

Commissioner Cooper was not the only Commissioner complaining to Ellis. At various points during the workshop, each Commissioner offered criticism of CNL’s offer. More about that later . . .

First, a bit of history on the project: In late July, as noted above, the usual end-of-month City Commission meeting was bookended by two separate workshops – held on behalf of CNL and Ravaudage developers – both of whom did their best to convince the City to hand over City treasure in return for enhanced development along the 17-92 corridor.

First up was Dan Bellows and Ravaudage CDD representatives, asking for City tax revenues and fee sharing to help build out $60 to 70 million in Ravaudage infrastructure – some of which would also serve areas beyond Ravaudage. As with past requests for taxpayer assistance, Mr. Bellows ran into skepticism on the Commission.

However, Mayor Bradley did indicate some interest in the proposal when he pointed out that some part of the millions required to create infrastructure in the area could conceivably be paid by the City anyway – if Ravaudage did not exist and that part of the city developed piecemeal over time. The Mayor offered his opinion that “…at some point, I think there is some responsibility for the City to do something.” Click the video image below to view the Ravaudage workshop.

Ravaudage CDD Attorney: City $$ Not Used Unless Builder Performs, But . . . Builder May Be Unable to Perform Without City $$ Guarantee.

After Commissioner Cooper pointed out that a key reason that CDDs are set up is to allow developers to raise their own infrastructure funding in the bond market, Dan Bellows and the Ravaudage CDD attorney, Jan Carpenter, countered that their funding request is “performance” based and that City dollars would only be spent as development of the land actually proceeds. Carpenter asserted that development of Ravaudage “won’t happen – or it won’t happen quickly” if the City does not agree to provide the millions of dollars in assistance being requested.

Commissioner Sprinkel: Giving Ravaudage City $$ “palatable to me because it’s all new money.”

Commissioner Sprinkel reiterated a point mentioned in past discussions that future City revenues shared with Ravaudage is “not money we would have had otherwise – so it’s new money that is coming to us to develop this area to make it better . . . it’s palatable to me because it’s all new money.”

Commissioner McMacken took a different tack – butting heads with Bellows, asking how the developer could come to the Commission asking for millions of dollars in assistance: “Dan, we’re working with your plan. This isn’t a City plan. This is a private developer that comes to the City and says, ‘In order to do this, I have a $63 million shortfall.’ McMacken confessed that he was “stumped” by Bellows request, considering the benefits and concessions Bellows and Ravaudage have already received, saying that “if CNL were here right now, they’d be salivating.”

Even though Mr. Bellows left the workshop less than satisfied with the Commission’s response, both he and Mr. McMacken were well aware that CNL was, in fact, waiting in the wings for their own shot at the City Commission that same afternoon. Mr. Bellows attended the CNL workshop, observing the proceedings from start to finish. Click the video image below to view the July CNL workshop.

Unlike Mr. Bellows, CNL’s Paul Ellis used his afternoon workshop time to ask for land – not money. Ellis’s bid follows on the heels of his successful pitch in 2011 that persuaded the Commission to swap a piece of CNL land on the Orange Avenue railroad tracks for the City-owned State Office Building at Morse and Denning.

CNL’s Paul Ellis: Our Parking Garage on City Property = More, Bigger, Better, Quicker Development + Extra Taxes and Fees for City.

This time around, CNL Commercial Real Estate has a contract to purchase the Mount Vernon Inn at Morse and Orlando Avenue and convert it into a mixed-use complex of multi-family apartments, restaurants and a 100+ room business hotel – if the City will allow CNL to build a large parking garage on the adjacent Civic Center parking lot. CNL is proposing a “Public-Private Partnership” to build the multi-story parking garage on the City-owned parking lot. Like Mr. Bellows, Mr. Ellis paints a picture showing the City largesse he requires being amply rewarded by bigger, better, denser and quicker development that will pour tax and fee revenue into City coffers – development he claims cannot proceed without City help.

The Mt. Vernon purchase contract is contingent on Ellis’s ability to win over the Commission one more time – and, according to Ellis, CNL needs an answer quickly. However, as confirmed by City minutes of the July workshop, “Mr. Ellis explained that at this time a final decision has not been made on the type of redevelopment that will take place on the Mt. Vernon site.“

CNL Wants Quick Answers. Promises $4.1 Million City Gain if Garage is Approved.

Mr. Ellis also was unable to answer questions concerning planned building density during the July workshop. CNL’s attorney, Becky Wilson, claimed that construction of the large garage could enable growth throughout the Morse Blvd./Orlando Avenue area and even potentially triple bookings at the Rachel Murrah Civic Center. As quoted by the City’s minutes of the workshop, Ms. Wilson laid out CNL’s proposed timing of the City approval process this way: “. . . CNL will have to submit a site plan and description by the middle/end of August to the Planning Department. The first week of September City wide notices will be sent out; the first week in October, CNL will present the project to the Planning & Zoning Board for approval; the fourth week in October, CNL will present to the Commission the request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning (first reading) and conditional use; it will come to the Commission at the second week in November for second reading.”

CNL’s proposal, which was explored again at Monday’s 2:00pm workshop, is illustrated in a PowerPoint presentation that can be viewed by clicking the button below.

CNL PowerPoint Presentation

The City’s Agenda Package includes a financial analysis that projects a $4.1 million (NPV) gain for the City if it allows CNL to use City land to develop the garage and Mt. Vernon site as planned. Questions posed by Winter Parkers interviewed by the Voice, workshop participants and by the Agenda document itself are shown below.

What is the increased value of the Mt. Vernon property if the garage is approved?

Is the current 356,472 square ft. project, as contemplated, appropriate and desirable for 17-92?

Does the City see benefit in using City land, already designated for parking, to enhance desirable development along 17-92?

CNL says that its proposed garage will enable significant new development throughout the adjacent area. If CNL controls use of the garage, will it have the power to influence nearby development?

Will the garage and increased project density enhance or degrade use of MLK Park and the Civic Center? How will it affect pedestrian and automobile traffic?

Commissioners Unimpressed With CNL Offer. Sprinkel: “Highly Disappointed.” Leary: “Less Than a Non-Starter.” McMacken: “Deal-Breaker.”

An in-depth analysis of these issues was, to some extent, sidetracked by the Commission’s strongly-voiced objections to the deal as currently constituted. CNL and its proposal were characterized as “presumptuous” by Commissioner Sprinkel who stated she was “. . . highly disappointed in this.”

Commissioner Leary called parts of the proposal “Less than a non-starter.” Commissioner McMacken agreed, saying he considered CNL’s cash-free offer to be a “Deal-Breaker.”

On The Other Hand, Here Are Some Ideas We like . . .

CNL’s vision of a high-end business hotel near Morse and 17-92 – and the possibility of a deal that might fund the refurbishing the “very dated” Civic Center proved to be a tantalizing prospect for the Mayor and Commissioners. Comments by officials on the City side of the table painted a clear path to a successful negotiation – if CNL is willing to tread that path and bring with them a strong package of incentives to sweeten the deal.

However, at the close of the workshop, Paul Ellis and his attorney offered no additional incentives and, in the Commission meeting that followed the workshop, CNL’s proposal was dropped from the agenda by unanimous consent.

Winter Park Voice will update this story and provide continuing coverage of the city’s hearings, if any, on CNL’s proposal.