Will the downtown Sarasota CRA survive?

County Commissioner Christine Robinson is a vocal critic of the current administration of the Sarasota Downtown Community Redevelopment Area, but even she isn’t ruling out the possible extension of the tax district beyond its 2016 sunset date.

“I’m interested in seeing the city of Sarasota fix the current CRA before we talk about extending it or a new one,” Robinson said. “If I don’t see steps in that direction, coming to an agreement about a CRA is next to impossible.”

As the City Commission prepares to make the case for continuing the downtown CRA — a mechanism city officials see as a vital tool for the urban core — questions remain about how they’ll get their counterparts in the county on board. The county has shown a reluctance to embrace the extension of the CRA, but as Robinson indicated, the door is still open if commissioners hear a compelling case.

Even before it can approach the County Commission, the city is finding merely drafting a case may prove difficult. At Monday’s City Commission meeting, the board was divided when it discussed the future of an extended CRA, with multiple residents urging the city not to cede too much control in an attempt to keep the district alive.

Andy Dorr served as chairman of the Downtown Community Redevelopment Area Extension Study Committee, an advisory board jointly appointed by both commissions to report on a potential extension. After unanimously recommending a 30-year extension and several changes to the Community Redevelopment Agency in April 2014, the committee’s report has gained little traction.

On Monday, Dorr spoke before the City Commission. Along with city staff, he offered his advice on how the city might get the county to agree to the extension of the CRA. The group outlined a series of recommended next steps at the meeting, suggesting two members each from the city and county commissions should work with staff over the next 14 months.

That team would identify a number of crucial points: potential projects that could be funded with CRA money, a new management structure for the CRA, new boundaries and a new split of tax money diverted for CRA use. In 2014, the CRA extension committee endorsed changes to all of those aspects of the district.

“I think we’ve found common ground — recommendations that were unanimously gathered by that 10-person body, which will improve the CRA,” Dorr said. 

Structural Damage

Robinson said that since at least 2007, the city’s management of the CRA has been a problem. Dating back to 1986, the percentage of tax money spent on actual brick-and-mortar projects has declined, while administration costs have risen. Dating back to the early 2000s, county officials have complained that CRA funds weren’t being spent on their intended purpose.

"The fact that it hasn’t been fixed tells me that we have a problem in understanding what CRAs are intended for." — Christine Robinson

“The fact that it hasn’t been fixed tells me that we have a problem in understanding what CRAs are intended for,” Robinson said. “We’ve lost many capital dollars as a result of pouring money into other things.”

Right now, the Community Redevelopment Agency — the governing body overseeing the CRA’s operations — is the Sarasota City Commission. Throughout the state, Deputy City Manger Marlon Brown said, counties have expressed an interest in having a greater degree of control over their CRAs.

The CRA extension committee recommended a new Community Redevelopment Agency board comprised of two city commissioners, two county commissioners and three citizens appointed by the city. On Monday, however, City Commissioner Susan Chapman balked at the idea of “ceding control” to the county, expressing a fear that the majority opinion of elected city officials could be overruled under a new system.

Chapman made an unsuccessful motion to rule out completely the “ceding of control to Sarasota County” when it came to the structure of the Community Redevelopment Agency, an idea that was endorsed by three members of the public speaking at the meeting.

Vice Mayor Suzanne Atwell was on the other end of the spectrum, offering her endorsement for a system of shared governance. In making its case for the extension of the CRA, city officials have argued it’s vital not only for the city but for the county and the entire region. With that in mind, Atwell suggested a more regional governing body made sense.

“Why shouldn’t the county be involved?” Atwell said. “Why does the city have to have total control over this?”

Within her own comments, Commissioner Liz Alpert gave credence to both sides of the argument. She shared the concern regarding unwanted projects moving forward over the objection of city commissioners, but she did not want to rule out restructuring for fear of alienating the county.

“I don’t see how else we get the county to go along with extending it,” Alpert said.

Dorr said he understood the concern and that he originally supported keeping the City Commission in control of the CRA, a minority opinion on the extension committee. Still, if the governing body of an extended CRA were to work on a new plan to help guide its next 30 years or so, it would involve significant public input and vetting. Through that process, Dorr said, a cohesive, widely supported vision would be established.

When it came down to it, he was confident other issues would sort themselves out. Above all, his priority was keeping the CRA itself afloat.

“I felt it was more important to do the heavy lifting in the community than it was to squabble over it,” Dorr said.

Update: This article has been changed to correct the breakdown of a suggested management structure for the CRA. The city, not the county, would be responsible for appointing three citizen members.