Loading...
Minutes 01-13-04MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMUNITY REDELEVOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Larry Finkelstein, Chair Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney James Barretta Susan Vielhauer, Controller Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Charlie Fisher Henderson Tillman I. Call to Order Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chairman Finkelstein welcomed Commissioner McCray. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the ^.qenda Chair Finkelstein asked to move the following to the Consent Agenda: New Business (E) Consideration of Health Insurance for CRA Staff 2003-2004 and (F) Recommendation for Contract Change to Add Additional Services for Legal Contract and Legal (A) Report on the Agreement with the Director for the Repayment of the $9,000.00. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Mr. Fenton had a question about why the Wheels Weekend had been removed from the Future Agenda Items. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to reconsider the previous motion. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Chair Finkelstein suggested that Wheels Weekend be added under New Business as (H). Mr. Fenton agreed. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida 3anuary 13, 2004 Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the agenda as amended. motion that carried unanimously. IV. Consent Agenda C. D. E. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the Approval of Minutes December 9, 2003 and December 17, 2003 Joint City Commission/CRA Meeting Financial Report Motion to Accept Audit Report for 2002-2003 Consideration of Health Insurance for CRA Staff 2003-2004 Recommendation for Contract Change to Add Additional Services for Legal Contract Report on the Agreement with the Director for the Repayment of the $9,000.00 Vice Chair Heavilin asked that Item (D) from the Consent Agenda be removed for discussion. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that carried unanimously. (D) Consideration of Health Insurance for CRA Staff 2003-2004 Mr. Hutchinson reported that staff had reviewed the Health Insurance options for the Boynton Beach CRA, which renews its health insurance on March 1, 2004. Staff recommended retaining the current HMO system for $15,881. Vice Chair Heavilin suggested that the POS1 for $19,650 might be more useful to them, since it would allow occasional out-of-network visits. Ms. Vielhauer stated that POS1 would have been staff's choice except that they wanted to stay within the budget. They could, however, pull the extra money from an account that was not going to be used. The Board agreed that this would be acceptable. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the POS1 health insurance for CRA staff beginning on March 1,2004. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Chair Finkelstein welcomed Vice Mayor Ferguson, Commissioner Ensler, and Commissioner McCray to the meeting. Later in the meeting he welcomed Commissioner McKoy and Assistant City Manager Dale Sugerman as well. V. Public Audience Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .lanuary 13, 200~ Chairman Finkelstein announced the Public Audience, but closed it when no one came forward to speak. VI. Public Hearing Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Old Business: A. Conditional Use Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynton Delray Academy (COUS 03-008) Marty Madura Keith D. Kern Northeast corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Railroad Avenue Request for Conditional Use approval for a Primary/secondary Charter School Eric Johnson, Planner, reported that this project had been reviewed and tabled the previous month to give the applicant time to improve the aesthetics of the building, to address issues of stacking and parking, and to allow the applicant time to meet with the School Board to find out whether the CRA and/or the City could have the right of first refusal on the property in the event that the School went out of business. The dumpster location and student drop-off area were at issue as well. The Board did not feel that the design that was presented was in keeping with the Floribbean concept that they wanted to have at this important, eastern gateway to the Heart of Boynton Corridor. Mr. Johnson stated that staff had provided the applicant with a number of comments and he did not believe that they had been addressed. The plans in front of the Board were the same plans that were brought a month ago. Staff met with the applicant today and saw some revised drawings and elevations and some new site plans, but those plans should have been presented weeks ago and staff did not have enough time to review them. Therefore, their recommendation remains the same as in the staff report they provided for the last meeting. Mr. Johnson stated that the only issue that the project had was that the applicant had not submitted a traffic impact statement for concurrency review. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use contingent on satisfying all the Conditions of Approval. Chair Finkelstein wanted clarification that the issues of the dumpster, stacking, right-of-way, sidewalk, and so forth were addressed. He stated that that the Board had an additional rendering package. Mr. Hutchinson stated that CRA staff, in conjunction with the fagade grant, was to work with the applicant to improve the elevations and work on the site plan and they did so, expeditiously. Ms. Hoyland helped with this effort. A set of revised drawings went to the Board and to the City at the same time. He did not know why the package was not distributed to the Planning and Zoning Division. Chair Finkelstein confirmed with Mr. Johnson that the concerns about the project had been detailed in the Staff Report Conditions of Approval. Chair Finkelstein asked the applicant if they had anything new to add, and whether they agreed with all 40 Conditions of Approval. Meeting IVlinutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 Marry Madura, Advanced Modular Structures, agent for the applicant, stated that he had been working with Mr. Hutchinson regarding the elevations and with Ms. Laurinda Logan in the City's Engineering Division about the dumpster relocation. Ms. Logan seemed satisfied with that issue. Later in the meeting, the applicant stated that Item #$0 in the Conditions of Approval pertaining to the facade was a problem due to the difference of opinion about the proposed design. Chair Finkelstein opened the floor to public comment and hearing none, closed it. Mr. Fisher asked for status on the traffic impact study. Mr. Madura stated that it had been in the process for the last six weeks and he hoped that it would be finished by next week at the latest. Mr. Fisher then raised the issue of the CRA's desire to have the right of first refusal on the property if the School were to be approved and then dissolved at some point in time. Currently, the property ownership would revert to the School Board if the School were to stop functioning. Joe Green, Executive Director of the Boynton/Delray Academy, stated that their Board did not have a problem with the right of first refusal, but wanted to trade it for 12 feet of City property on the southwest border of the property. Quintus Greene, Development Director, stated that the 12-foot parcel in question was a City- owned parcel and as such, if the City decided to dispose of it, the City would have to put it on the open market. They could not give anyone first right of refusal. Only the City Commission can dispose of City property. If the applicant wished to pursue this, he suggested that he direct a letter to Mr. Greene's attention and/or the City Manager, copying Mr. Greene, and the matter can be brought before the City Commission to determine if it wishes to put that property on the market as surplus. Chair Finkelstein called for a motion to take this issue off the table. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to remove the Boynton/Delray Academy item from the table. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Mr. Tillman expressed concern that the proposed property was not in keeping with the redevelopment plans for the Heart of Boynton that had been the subject of studies, discussions, and meetings with the community. He was concerned about the precedent that accepting this project would set. In the Heart of Boynton, commercial development is the primary concern of the Board and this project is not in keeping with that. He did not want to see hodge-podge development and thought this project would be an example of that. He was sympathetic to the community need of educating its youth but did not think it was proper to establish a school in this place at this time. Mr. Barretta agreed with the Board comments made thus far. He inquired whether design guidelines had been set up for this particular area yet, and Chair Finkelstein commented that the design guidelines were just being formulated for that area. However, he said there was an approved Heart of Boynton Plan that depicts the preferred style of architecture (Floribbean) for the area. Mr. Barretta noted that the style of architecture proposed for the Boynton/Delray Academy was not at all in keeping with that. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 Quintus Greene, Development Director, pointed out that this was a private property transaction between the Charter School and a private landowner at the eastern end of the MLK strip that has been proposed for redevelopment. The Phase 1 redevelopment of the MLK Corridor will be occurring at the western (opposite) end of that block at Seacrest and will only go up to N.E. 1st Street and would not be impacted by this project. Redevelopment of the street will require property acquisition, clearance, relocation, and a number of activities that could take at least two years to accomplish. He posed a question to the Board, '~Nhether or not, because we are proposing to do a redevelopment project at the western end of that block, we should try to impose or deny a private real estate transaction from occurring at the eastern end of that block at this particular point in time." He stated that the school itself was not inconsistent with the Plan and was an allowable use in this district. For these reasons, staff questioned whether it was justifiable to deny the school the opportunity to develop at that location. Chair Finkelstein believed that the Board was not in opposition to the concept of a school in this location; however, he was not seeing the type of design that he had hoped to see and what he thought the majority of the Board wished to see. Chair Finkelstein said he believed after the last meeting that the applicant would go to an architect that was familiar with the Floribbean style and camouflage the modular appearance of the proposed building. He recalled giving the applicant an example of another modular building on South Federal Highway that had done a magnificent job of covering it up. He thought that a two-story facade might be appropriate. He was not opposed to a school at this location, but was not seeing the facade he had hoped to see at that benchmark entrance to the Heart of Boynton area. Since the Board was considering the applicant's $15K facade grant, they had hoped to be presented with an architecturally significant structure. Mr. Green commented that they had tried to satisfy the CRA's requirements. They met several times with Board members and made several revisions to the project that had cost them close to $100K so far as a result of these requests. The applicant believed that they had satisfied the majority of the Board members regarding the revised elevations. They also stated that they had gotten different directions from staff and from the CRA representatives. Mr. Fisher stated that this was an institution that wanted to provide a service for the at-risk youth in this community and it has limited funds. He felt that the Board should weigh the critical service that would be provided against plans that were several years away in making its decision. Mr. Barretta did not think it was within the responsibility or expertise of the City staff or the CRA to design a project or tell someone how to design a project. He said the CRA had some rather significant visions and guidelines in the developmental stages that clearly set forth what the CRA is looking for in Boynton Beach. He suggested that the applicant obtain the services of a good architect to review the project and come up with a design compatible with those visions and guidelines. In his opinion, the service aspect of the project was not a reason to abandon the CRA's design guidelines. Chair Finkelstein echoed Mr. Barretta's comments. He commented to the applicant that the Board had suggested that they use an architect instead of a planner. Although he understood the financing restraints, he did not believe the proposed design was what the CRA wanted, especially for one of the gateways to the Heart of Boynton Corridor. He supported the use but not the design. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 200~, Chair Finkelstein confirmed that the CRA was a recommending body to the City Commission and that the City Commission could overturn any denial that this Board might make. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to deny the Conditional Use approval of the Boynton Delray Academy. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 4-3, Vice Chair Heaviiin, Mr. Fisher and Mr. DeMarco dissenting. Chair Finkelstein stated that there was a volume of information available to the applicant about the CRA's design preferences for that area and he would be glad to give the applicant his input. He was sorry if the applicant had been misled by anybody about the revised elevations. New Business: A. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Fire Station #4 (NWSP 03-024) Engineering Department City of Boynton Beach 1919 South Federal Highway Request for New Site Plan approval for a fire station on a 1.90-acre parcel in a PU zoning district Ed Breese, Principal Planner, gave the highlights of the Staff Report. The parcel is currently occupied by the Hayes Clinic, which will be demolished as part of this project. The City proposes to construct a one-story, 8,200 square foot fire rescue station to better serve the southeast area of the City. The project consists of approximately 4,500 square feet of operations, office and living space and nearly 3,700 square feet of apparatus bays to house the trucks and equipment. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) has reviewed the request. Staff recommends approval, contingent upon all comments indicated in Exhibit "C", Conditions of Approval, and contingent upon the approval of the Community Design Appeal (CDPA 03-003) for Overhead Doors associated with this project, which is the next item on the agenda. Mike Flaherty, of CH2mHill in West Palm Beach, stated that they were in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval. Chair Finkelstein opened the floor for public comment, closing it when no one wished to speak. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the request for New Site Plan approval for a fire station at 1919 South Federal Highway. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously. B. Community Design Plan Appeal Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Fire Station #4 (CDPA 03-003) Engineering Department City of Boynton Beach 1919 South Federal Highway Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .]anuary 13, 2004 Description: Request for an appeal of the Land Development Regulations Chapter 9, Section II.J, to permit overhead bay doors to face Federal Highway for Fire Department apparatus bays. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated that this was related to the Fire Station that was approved in the previous item. Based on the analysis contained in the Staff Report, staff recommends approval of this request to locate the overhead bay doors facing Federal Highway. Chair Finkelstein opened the floor for public comment but hearing none, closed it. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the request for an appeal of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 9, Section II.J, to permit overhead bay doors to face Federal Highway for Fire Department apparatus bays. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that carried unanimously. VII. Director's Report Chair Finkelstein asked that the Board remove agenda backup pages 4477 and 4478. (Later in the meeting, Commissioner McCray stated that these pages were not shown on the agendas provided for the audience and that the public needed to know what item was being removed. Chair Finkelstein responded that the item was a request from a cruise line who wanted docking rights at the Marina, something over which the CRA has no control.) Mr. Hutchinson provided the Board members with an Update report in their agenda packets. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the new survey for businesses downtown was given to the Board. The survey was staff-generated. Staff will be asking for the Board's direction in February to send that out. He asked for input from the Board. The logo and Website are underway. Staff sent out some additional logo revisions and will contact the Board members for their direct input. Ms. Vielhauer distributed copies of e-mail from The Urban Group (TUG), who are working on the MLK acquisition with Dale Sugerman. Mr. Hutchinson related that this E-mail was given to the Board for purposes of information and that it outlined the process, as understood by TUG and Dale Sugerman. Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board members to let him know if they needed clarification or more information on this process. Ms. Vielhauer also distributed a copy of a Press Release about the Development Regions Grant Program that the CRA had taken over from the County. This is a once-a-year cycle. A line item for a match is already set aside. Nothing will happen unless an application comes in. The intent of the press release was so that the media could get the word out. He encouraged the Board members to spread the word as well. The application "window" is from January 21, 2004 to February 24, 2004. The Board members were also given an update from Jonathan Ricketts on the initial review for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension, Promenade, and Riverwalk Projects. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .January :~3, 2004 In regard to the logo issue reported on earlier, Vice Chair Heavilin asked if the logo and the wayfinding sign would be the same. She believed that consistency would be appropriate. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the logo on the wayfinding represents the City's logo and is not necessarily that of the CRA because it was anticipated that the sign program would be used throughout the whole area. Mr. Hutchinson stated that a topic of discussion and input was how closely the CRA's logo would mimic the City's. Vice Chair Heavilin asked about the Genesis Business Program. According to Mr. Hutchinson's notes, the CRA is considering the Chamber, the CRA and in-house services, and Vice Chair Heavilin wanted to know what Mr. Hutchinson considered the Chamber's involvement. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this was being worked out right now. They were rewriting the Genesis narrative. Rough drafts have been done and it will be before the Board in February. The first step is the survey that has to be sent out in order to collect the information. Staff is working with the Chamber about how mentors get put in place and similar topics. Mr. Fenton brought up the topic of the scarcity of space in the current CRA offices. He wanted to see the CRA work with the Chamber to use the Chamber's conference room. He thought that if the CRA staff eliminated its current conference room, there would be much more room. Mr. Hutchinson stated that they do use the Chamber's conference room but still need a room where staff can work on things in a quiet setting. Chair Finkelstein stated that he would not be opposed to having partitions and walls put up. Vice Chair Heavilin commented that they probably needed to look for more space. Mr. Fisher acknowledged that the CRA office was too small but did not want to get into a large investment because he felt it would only be temporary. He encouraged staff to work out a schedule for the use of the Chamber's conference room and the City facilities also. Mr. Fisher referred to the Multicultural Winter Carnival, saying that it was nice to see BODA members selling tickets and to see the partnerships between City staff, the CRA, and community members. He mentioned that the Sun Sentinel had worked with the City on many of its events. He could not find anything about this event in the Palm Beach Post, with apologies to Gariot Louima from the Palm Beach Post, who was in attendance. Mr. Fisher suggested that the CRA partner with entities like the Sun Sentinel who had put forth a lot of effort for the City. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Sun Sentinel was a major contributor to the Heritage event. Mr. Fisher referred to project management or GANT flow charts in the Director's Report Update and wanted to make sure that each issue had a name associated with it, for purposes of accountability and so that the public would know whom to call. This would help identify any bottlenecks. VIII. Old Business A. Consideration of the Ocean District Plan (Tabled 12/9/03) Motion Mr. Tillman moved to remove the Ocean District Plan from the table. seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Vice Chair Heavilin Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida 3anuary 13, 2004 Chair Finkelstein asked Planning & Zoning staff the status of the Board's request for staff to work with RMPK on aligning the various projects due to the overlap in the Boynton Beach Boulevard Study and the Ocean District Plan. Margelly Beltran, Urban Designer in the Planning & Zoning Division, stated that she had made the changes that the Board had requested at the last workshop for this topic. In regard to aligning the overlapping districts, she had spoken to the consultant at RMPK, who said that a hold had been put on the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor Effort. Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that due to the amount of work that had been done on the Ocean District Plan as a whole, and the fact that taking part of it out could really not be done cleanly, he thought it best to adopt it and make any necessary amendments later, after more progress had been made on the Boynton Beach Corridor Study. Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify the issue for the public and Chair Finkelstein did so, saying that the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor covers the area from 1-95 to Federal Highway but due to a misunderstanding, Phase 1 of that Corridor Study only went to Seacrest Boulevard. The Board gave direction to the consultant to continue the Corridor all the way to Federal Highway, making it one Corridor. A portion of the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor happens to overlap a portion of what was previously called the Ocean District. Chair Finkelstein agreed with Mr. Rumpf about waiting to make these and possibly other boundary changes later. Mr. Hutchinson commented that an overview had to take place that made sure that all the areas were tied together. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to approve the Ocean District Plan to update the CRA Master Plan. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked for and received confirmation that when the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor Plan was completed, it would supersede the portions of the Ocean District Plan that were in conflict with it. The required boundary changes will be made. The motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion of Disciplinary Action for the Director Chair Finkelstein stated that the Board had been given a letter that the Director and his Attorney offered to the Board to settle the dispute. It is a written reprimand suggesting that it be put into Mr. Hutchinson's personnel file. Mr. Hutchinson stated that as a point of clarification, the letter of reprimand had been generated, per the minutes of the meeting, by the CRA's attorney and checked back and forth between the CRA's attorney and Mr. Hutchinson's attorney. That was the direction that the Board gave the Board Attorney. Attorney Payne stated that she had worked on the original draft and then it was negotiated back and forth. Chair Finkelstein did not recall reading anything in the minutes that the Board directed this. He thought that was merely a motion for a discussion on disciplinary action. Mr. Hutchinson stated that it also said to bring back ideas for that and this letter of reprimand was an idea. Chair Finkelstein clarified that the CRA Board had not generated the letter of reprimand. Chair Finkelstein said that the discussion would be whether this letter of reprimand was what the Board wanted to accept as its disciplinary action, or whether there was another direction in which the Board wanted to go. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 Chair Finkelstein commented that one of the Board members had asked about the attorney's fees involved with this and they amount to $5,000. Vice Chair Heavilin said that she had asked for this during the discussion of the repayment. Mr. Barretta stated that he found the proposed letter of reprimand to be an acceptable solution. Chair Finkelstein stated that he would rather see some kind of probation period be added to it. Mr. Tillman referred back to the motion at the December 9 meeting of the CRA. He read the motion and in it, Ms. Hoyland had stated that the Board would consider disciplinary action at its January 13 meeting, after they had an opportunity to review the manual as to how the procedure was to be handled, and that the Board Attorney would assist by providing options. In the first place, there was no administrative procedure or manual to cover this. Mr. Tillman thought that an administrative procedure with directions to follow had to be put in place. In reference to a probationary process, where does that process come from? In the absence of such a procedure, Mr. Tillman felt that the Board should move forward with an amiable solution in terms of the letter of reprimand. Also, the Board needs to move forward to cover themselves in the event that something like this happened again and so that the Board did not have to make any arbitrary, capricious moves toward anyone. He felt that the Board had gone too far in its previous meeting on this topic and that to move further in that direction would be to create a situation in which the Board would have liability. Mr. Tillman then addressed a need for a standard of decorum for the way in which the Board members conduct themselves during their meetings. Chair Finkelstein stated that Mr. Tillman's comments about the lack of a manual did not coincide with Chair Finkelstein's understanding of the matter. He believed that the Board had a variety of options available to them since Mr. Hutchinson is a contract employee. Chair Finkelstein asked the Board Attorney to comment on this. Attorney Payne stated that the manual was the Human Resources Manual, which is in existence. That does not apply, however, to Mr. Hutchinson, since he is a contract employee. Many of the provisions of the H.R. Manual were incorporated into the contract but not all. The ones pertaining to discipline were not incorporated into the contract. Therefore, the Board is not restricted by those limitations. She believed that this was the manual that had been referenced. Mr. Fisher stated that some of the issues that had been discussed by the Board at its previous meeting would not be in a manual. There are guidelines in the laws of the State of Florida and the Sunshine Law, which are not in the CRA Handbook because they supersede it. It is a contract employee issue. It is understood at this time where some of the mistakes were made. He did not excuse them, but thought that since Mr. Hutchinson was to some degree an at-will employee because he was under contract, any kind of probation would not work in his case. If the Board wanted to make different choices it could. He suggested that the Board take the backup information from the entire issue and include it in Mr. Hutchinson's personnel file for future reference if need be. If the problem continues, the Board can bring it up at a later date if desired. Other than that, the two choices are: 1) accept the letter and nothing in the personnel file, or 2) approve the letter, include the backup in the personnel folder, accept the repayment from the director. His recommendation would be to include the backup material in thera so in the future, there would be reference in the folder as support. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 200~, Chair Finkelstein clarified his request for a probationary period. He stated that there were clauses in the contract for misconduct. If that is not identified in the letter and a probation period given based on that misconduct as defined in the contract, while he may be an at-will employee, there is still the risk of severance pay. If the contract clause for misconduct were used, severance would not be an issue. If this type of conduct were to happen again, it would be the second time and there would be no issue as to whether it fell under that clause of the contract. He did not make it up or pull it out of the air. It is to follow a procedure that is commonplace in Human Resources issues so that there is a written warning in addition to the reprimand and, therefore, a probationary period. If something like it happened again, there would be cause for termination without severance. Mr. Fisher asked the Board Attorney about his suggestion of having the backup material included to cover the issue so if at a future date the Board should want to be specific to whatever is in the contract, the Board would have this as backup information. He asked if that would work or whether they needed to be more specific as Chair Finkelstein had suggested. Board Attorney Payne said that the two concepts were different. The Board could include the rest of the backup material with the written reprimand, or it can be put in as is; however, anyone seeing the letter would surely want to see the rest of the backup information. It makes it a little stronger to put it in there but she believed that Chair Finkelstein was thinking of another concept of probation. Mr. Fisher said that to put a probation period on it means that it can be done after the 90 days. He wanted to have the backup information included for possible use in the future. Board Attorney Payne said that this backup information could be included in the Personnel file. She did know that it made it any stronger for the Board to refer to it because they all knew what happened and saw the backup. Mr. Fisher said that Boards change and that he wanted to get as much information in the file as possible. Vice Chair Heavilin thought that a written reprimand was in order but that the wording on the proposed one was a bit weak. She wanted to see some things added. Where the proposed letter says "embarrassing position," she wanted to add the words, "at risk." It could have been more than embarrassing. She also wanted it to say that it would serve as a written reprimand for serious misconduct. Chair Finkelstein said his only goal was to protect the CRA. It was the Board's job to manage its employees and protect the CRA. The contract affords the Board options all the way from termination to doing nothing. He suggested using the letter as a basis but thought it could have been worded a little stronger. His reason for the probation period was a little different than Mr. Fisher's concept and that was to protect the CRA from having to be forced to pay out funds for severance pay in case there were to be a termination for another reason later on. He referred to the comments about not having the policies in place. He stated that they did. When a person is hired and given the rules and regulations, and when public documents are signed and faxed to someone and not kept, that is a violation of those laws. That has nothing to do with policies that might be in place. It is simply the law. That is what somebody at this level of employment and this type of employment in a public agency should know and certainly those types of documents are given to you when you come on board. They all got their Ethics rules, the copies of the CRA laws, and the public records laws. He would agree with the letter if the language were made stronger. To him, it 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January ::1.3, 2004 was a serious issue. It cost the Board taxpayers' money. He felt there was misconduct involved. He was not pointing fingers. The Director stepped up and agreed to repay it and the Board had agreed to the Promissory note. He wanted to move on but a letter needs to go in the file and it needs to be a little stronger in order to protect the CRA, not to hurt the Director. Mr. Fenton disagreed with almost everyone. He thought the letter was too strong. He thought there had been a lot of misinformation. He thought it had been a press-driven issue involving sloppy reporting, and inflammatory reporting. When he looked at the reports, he found that the woman had taken the papers from the CRA office without authority and if there is any reason for investigation he would think that would be one. He found it very hard to believe that a man with Mr. Hutchinson's experience would have signed that form. If he had seen the front page of the factoring form, I cannot believe that he would have signed it and basically, that is what we are talking about. Hearing it from other sources than the Director himself, he would not believe it. He thought that by reacting to the press, the Board had created a lot of the embarrassing position. He was willing to accept the letter as it is but did not want to make it stronger because he did not think it was warranted. Mr. DeMarco said they were getting involved with the past. He understood it was a mistake. It was not a matter of someone being guilty of something. He did not think anybody really knew that. He believed the Board should put the issue behind them. The Board was moving in the right direction and was the most aggressive CRA in Palm Beach County. Mr. DeMarco credited Mr. Hutchinson, his staff, and the Board with a lot of accomplishment. They were all going in the right direction. If the Board wants to adopt new rules legally, that would be fine. He did not agree with making the letter any stronger and did not understand that. He stated that the Board was going in the right direction, he loved Boynton Beach, he loved the City Commission and that was why he was here. To drag this matter out was incomprehensible to him. Mr. Barretta echoed Mr. Fenton's and Mr. DeMarco's comments. He was willing to accept the letter just to put this behind the Board. He felt the Board had more important things to do as a Board. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the letter of reprimand. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion. Vice Chair Heavilin stated that she thought it was important, as stated by the Chairman, that to protect the CRA, the reason for the written reprimand should be stated and it was not in the current wording of the letter. She asked if Mr. Fenton wished to include that in his motion. He responded that he did not. The motion passed 4-3, Chair Finkelstein, Vice Chair Heavilin, and Mr. Fisher dissenting. IX. New Business A. Presentation of Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor Plan Mr. Hutchinson apologized because the consultant did not come to the meeting to make this presentation; he did not know why this occurred. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January ~.3, 2004 Chair Finkelstein stated that he was willing to wait until the second half was completed before hearing another presentation. When they receive the draft that includes the second half, the Board could have a workshop on the entire Corridor and see how linkages fit together, make comments, and finalize the Plan. Mr. Hutchinson thought the consultant had done a great job so far. He also felt that some issues needed to be resolved because the Study could not be acted on by anyone with the issues that were in front of the Board on the right-of-way issue. He agreed that it would be prudent to wait until the second half of the Study was completed before reviewing it again. Mr. Hutchinson also put in writing the request for a new scope of work for the different segments of the Plan along with a timetable. He will find out why the consultant did not appear at this meeting. B. Consideration of Way Findin,q Contract Mr. Hutchinson stated that the contract that was before the Board for signature had been cut down to a bare minimum of 16 signs. The budgeted amount of $51,847 was $10,223 short of the contract price of Not-to-Exceed $62,071. Staff has identified a line item in Miscellaneous that has funds if the Board wished to do this without going into the Reserve. He stated that the Board was looking at a go or no go on the sign program and the Board needed to pick the color for the Boynton Beach Boulevard district. Richard Golber of Guidance Pathway Systems, Inc. offered to answer any questions. A life- size sign with the actual proposed material (except aluminum) was displayed on foam board in the Chambers. Interchangeable "tops" with different colors were shown as well. The life-size sign will possibly be displayed at City Hall so that the public can become aware of it. The color chart that they provided was a result of a request of the Board to come back with a palette of colors that would be complementary to the colors in the logo. He stated that the sailfish logo was as fine a logo as he had seen anywhere in the State of Florida. Chair Finkelstein thought there were a couple of signs that could be eliminated to ease the cost/budget disparity. He was a little concerned about consistency because there were a few places where they were using Town Square and others where they were using Civic Center and Library and Museum as opposed to Town Center. One sign leads people down to the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade to the Marina area that would be premature, as people would now have to drive down a dead-end road. He suggested that eliminating the 1-95 to the Beach sign could save $2,500 in the contract price. He was in favor of starting the contract. Bob Trescott of Guidance Pathway Systems, Inc. stated that he was aware that the legends were not 100% complete and that it was not unusual that the legends needed to be fine-tuned. Mr. Hutchinson said that this family of signs was comprehensive and the City could piggyback on it and take it throughout the entire City. Jeff Livergood, Public Works Director, and Laurinda Logan of Engineering have been part of the process and making comments. It was not just a CRA proprietary issue but uses the City logo and colors to have consistency. Vice Chair Heavilin asked if the City could handle the installation to get closer to the budgeted figure. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this may be an option, but he thought that the Board wanted a turnkey deal. He believed that the Board did not want to impose on City staff and its 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 200,I schedules. He thought that the project should remain within the oversight of the CRA. Vice Chair Heavilin thought that made sense. Mr. Fisher wanted confirmation that the removable plate on the signs for interchangeability would be seen in the final product. Mr. Hutchinson spoke to Mr. Livergood and Mr. Livergood stated that the process they went through with the blanks was such that City staff, with City equipment, could do this. He will verify this to make sure. Mr. Fisher also asked for and received confirmation that the CRA was purchasing the design so that it could, if it so desired, outsource to another company later on. Mr. Fisher'noted that it was a pilot project and suggested that the Board stay within the boundaries of the budget for that reason. It will change and evolve later on. He would rather see the contractor provide 14 signs instead of 16 if that would keep it within the CRA's budget. Mr. Golber stated that if the Board capped the dollar amount, the contract could be written that way and when they gave the CRA the signs to review, the Board could decide at that time which ones to leave in and take out. Mr. Hutchinson reiterated his earlier comment that since the sign company had not spent all of the Phase 1 budgeted amount, there was a carryover. The Chairman has the budget plus the carryover funds and the contract could be capped at that amount if the Board so desires. Chair Finkelstein said he had that document but he brought it up because the contract has a larger dollar amount that does not match what is in the budget. Chair Finkelstein asked the contractor to give the Board the numbers of the five colors that they were recommending: 1) PMS201C, 2) PMS2685C, 3) 471C, 4) PMS343C, and 5) PMS462C. The original blue, which is the one they did not have an insert for because it was in the original sign, was 072 Blue. This is also the same blue that is in the structure of the signs. Mr. Fisher asked Chair Finkelstein and Mr. Hutchinson if the contract price exceeded the amount that had been budgeted, including the part not spent in Phase I. Both responded that the contract price was higher. Mr. Fisher said that for a pilot project, he did not want to borrow from another account. He wanted the contract to match what they intended to spend up to this point. The sign contractor suggested that they make the contract price the budgeted amount and get as many signs as they could up to that dollar amount. This would mean that they could take action tonight. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to approve the contract with Guidance Pathway Systems, Inc. for a price not- to-exceed the budgeted amount, and that the director remain in contact with the company so that we may be able to eliminate signs as necessary according to the needs of the Corridor. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Mr. Hutchinson asked to have the budgeted amount called out in the motion, stating that the balance of the budgeted amount was $51,847.36. Mr. Tillman and Mr. DeMarco agreed with adding this figure to the motion. Mr. Barretta asked if it would be possible to get all sixteen signs for the budgeted amount. Mr. Golber stated that there were some areas pertaining to permitting and installation and so forth where there might be some flexibility and opportunities to save money. Mr. Golber stated that if 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 they could find ways to save money and produce more signs for the same money, they would definitely do so. The motion passed 6-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. A RECESS WAS DECLARED AT 8:50 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:02 P.M. C. Consideration of Facade Grant for Boynton Delray Academy Chair Finkelstein suggested tabling the item in case they wanted to come back to the Board's next meeting. Vice Chair Heavilin asked what would happen if the City Commission approved the project next week. Chair Finkelstein stated that the Board had not heard this item and the applicants had left the meeting. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to table the Consideration of a Facade Grant for Boynton Delray Academy. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Vice Chair Heavilin noted that there were no fa(;ade improvements detailed in the package. Chair Finkelstein stated that since it was a reimbursement grant, there was no outline of the exact fagade items for which the grant would be used. Mr. Fenton asked whether facade grants could be made to non-existent structures and non- profit organizations. Chair Finkelstein did not believe there was an exception for non-profits in their guidelines, so it would be appropriate to grant money to a non-profit organization. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was noting in the guidelines that said whether the structure was new or existing. D. Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Application for Weiss Memorial Chapel Chair Finkelstein believed that the fa(;ade grants were intended to address facades that were run down and in need of improvement. He said that was not a factor in the case before the Board. They were splitting the cost of an awning to a good-looking, renovated building and he was not sure that this was the intent of the program. Mr. Fenton inquired whether it had been approved by the City since he knew that the City had a problem with awnings. Vice Chair Heavilin pointed the Board's direction towards the Facade Grant guidelines on page 4498. It does say the purpose of the program is encourage commercial property owners to upgrade their properties by improving the external appearance of the business. It does not say that it must be due to deterioration. If the Board wished to change that, they would have to be more specific in the wording in the guidelines. Mr. Fenton stated that the applicant would not be spending money if he believed the appearance of the building was satisfactory. Mr. Tillman stated that if two requests were side-by-side and one was for a building that was deteriorating and run down and the other was for an upgrade, then the Board would have to decide which one to choose. He thought this needed to be tweaked in the guidelines. He did not see any reason not to grant it at this time. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the Facade Grant Application for Weiss Memorial Chapel. Tillman seconded it and it passed unanimously. Mr. E. Consideration of Health Insurance for CRA Staff 2003-2004 (Previously addressed.) Recommendation for Contract Chanqe to Add Additional Services for Legal Contract (Previously addressed.) G. Consideration of Releasinq an RFP for an Architectural Model of the CBD Mr. Hutchinson stated that the CRA had been looking for this since it was created. They went out for a test to various companies and they found that depending on the level of detail, the prices ranged from $18K to $36K. They did not send out a scope of work, which they have proposed in the RFP, so this will be better defined. Mr. Hutchinson thought that this model would be very useful. This would be a scaling model, which means it would be done in block forms for the most part and not have a lot of architectural details. There were a lot of issues coming up in the guidelines, scale, how much public area, where the parking garage has to be in relation to other things. Staff recommends going out for an RFP that will be brought before the Board. When they look at the change from 45 feet to 168 feet and in particular when you have a construction crane of over 200 feet coming in, people need to be reassured that these setbacks will make sense and leave a lot of open street space so that Boynton Beach will retain some of its existing character. Also, when a new project comes in, they could say they did not want any design clash. Mr. Fisher asked why the City's GIS system could not be used. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this would be the base mapping and the layout for the model. Normally, this would be $50-60K. They had high-resolution aerial photos on GIS right now for the downtown. They will be used as the base map and the model builders will put the model on top of that. They will get the scaling and heights from GIS. Mr. Fisher did not want to have a separate system but would work with the City. Mr. Hutchinson agreed. Chair Finkelstein stated that they would be doing an actual model and would show size and massing, as opposed to GIS or an aerial photo, which are just flat pictures. Mr. Fisher said there was a lot of different data that he did not want to see in two different systems. Chair Finkelstein was not convinced that they needed it but would agree to going out for an RFP to see how much it would cost. Also, he asked if they had done an analysis of how big that model would be when made out of wood. Mr. Hutchinson stated that in the RFP that goes out, they would look at an option that goes all the way to Seacrest. It is about four foot by six foot in the Central Business District at a 50 - 1 scale. Part of that is they could only estimate it because their mapping paper at the City has boundaries to it. Part of what they would be asking for would be to provide a base and a transportable model and the ultimate size. The size affects the scaling and the price. Vice Chair Heavilin asked if it could be made available on disk so it could be sent out and distributed. Mr. Hutchinson said they were two different things. He also stated that lots of people said to go digital. When he looked it up on the Website, it was on a screen and he could not relate to it. Our GIS system does not take road level and show a building being up so high. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 200'1. Mr. Fisher asked if there would be an option that could be added to the existing software to do that. Mr. Hutchinson said no. Mr. Fisher said that what he was asking for does exist and could be purchased as desktop software. Mr. Hutchinson said that the City's GIS mapping did not have contour or height software with it right now and it would cost about $200K to add it to the current system. Mr. Barretta said that they should do a computer model, which would be much less expensive than the physical model and give some advantages. You could actually park yourself on a particular street and see what the base of the building would look like in relationship to its surroundings, something that cannot be done with a physical model. He thought this would be a few thousand dollars. Mr. Hutchinson stated that it was between $30-40K for a level that matches. Chair Finkelstein said he would be glad to investigate this further and this option should be included in the RFP. Chair Finkelstein stated that the new CAD has flyby, 3D, and so forth. He agreed that it should be in the RFP. Mr. Fisher stated that the information should be taken out of the City's GIS system and imported back and forth. Mr. Barretta said that while you could not mandate that a person give you a physical model every time they do a new project, you could request them to give you a digital file. Mr. Hutchinson said there were some issues about proprietary designs. Everything is not done in CAD so it is simply a matter of whose rendering program you are using alongside your CAD. They could do that. Staff's point is that this RFP should go out. They had informally interviewed about eighteen firms so far. The budget line item for this is Miscellaneous Projects and it has ample funds for the program. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve release of an RFP for an Architectural Model of the CBD and to include digital as an option. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that passed unanimously. H. Wheels Weekend Mr. Hutchinson explained that the reason this item was not on the Future Agenda was that the CRA does not create these events by itself, but joint ventures them with other entities. When BODA's new slate of officers is in place in February, they will discuss this. BODA may wish to partner with the CRA and the Chamber may wish to partner with the CRA. Mr. Fenton asked if the previous event had been profitable. Chair Finkelstein thought that this was an event in which the Chamber was a large participant. Mr. Hutchinson said that there were two issues. Mr. Fisher requested that Ms. Diana Johnson give the Board the Chamber's point of view on this. Diana Johnson, President of the Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Wheels Weekend began as a Chamber event with a single day's car show. She believed the second year it was expanded to include a second day with downtown events that tied into and complemented the car show event. The third year (last year) was successful. April 3 and 4 this year is slated to be the fourth year of the event. The Sunday car show will be at Bethesda Health City where it was the first two years. The Saturday event is planned for Ocean and Federal with a car cruise. She knew that the City's Recreation Department, to complement their 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .lanuary 13, 2004 event and Wheels Weekend, moved their big annual truck rally show to that Saturday, April 3, to be a third partner in the Wheels Weekend event. This helps on advertising and crowds. The truck rally would be on the west end of Ocean Avenue by the Civic Center and the Children's Museum and they thought the downtown event would be on the 500 block of Ocean as it had been, tying Ocean together for an all-day Saturday event. Mr. Fisher said, "Are we not participating with them?" Mr. Hutchinson said that the CRA event on Saturday has been in conjunction with the Chamber, but each has a standalone budget and manpower. We do not take ownership of the Chamber's event. We got BODA in and cross-advertised so that the Chamber did not get money from us and we did not get money from them. We held events in cooperation with one another so that we did not deplete the funds of the Chamber and vice versa. Ms. Johnson said they partnered. Chair Finkelstein stated that those events were moving forward but a decision was being made as to where the third part of the event, the downtown portion, is going to happen and we are waiting for BODA to see if they are going to sponsor that portion. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this was correct. Mr. Fenton was glad it was brought back up and he believed it was successful. He liked to see the three different organizations working together to create a fun opportunity for Boynton Beach. He saw Kim Kelly of Hurricane Alley in the audience and asked her to come up and speak. Kim Kelly, owner of the Hurricane Alley on Ocean Avenue, stated that she was not currently a BODA Board member but was seeking a place on that Board and would encourage BODA to partner with the CRA. She believed that she was seeing the City of Boynton Beach, BODA, the Chamber, and the CRA working together for the first time. The goal was that all four entities would work together to hold events so they could be successful like Atlantic Avenue and Clematis Street. If the events were taken away, it would be a ghost town. They need to keep the events going and the events need to be combined because this is what makes it special and recognizable. Even if she does not make a lot of money during the special events, she gets something else of value - publicity. She wanted to see the Commissioners, the Mayor, the CRA Board members, and the Chamber Board members at the special events because everyone needs to support each other to bring about a thriving downtown. Mr. Fisher suggested that by consensus this Board direct staff not to take a "stand back and wait and see what happens" stance, but continue to work to bring the four entities together for this event. Chair Finkelstein said it sounded like there were three willing partners but two of them have their own events and the missing event is the downtown and the CRA is not in the event business. If the merchants really want it, they need to step up. The CRA has been participating and giving money right along. Mr. Fisher said that it would help with the new BODA Board members coming in to know that this Board was behind the event. He wanted to make it clear to BODA that this Board wants to do the event again but needs BODA to do it. It sends a better signal to BODA because our staff will be saying, '~/e want to participate again. Are you ready?" Chair Finkelstein said that he thought the Board had already said that and budgeted for it. Mr. Fisher said he believed they needed to reiterate it and direct staff to make sure, at the next BODA meeting, that the point comes across to BODA that the CRA has budgeted for it, is behind it, and wants to work with BODA on it. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hutchinson if he understood this and he responded that he did. Ms. Johnson thanked the Board for this consideration and reinforcement. X. Commission Action 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 None. Xl. Board Member Comments Promote Mars Spirit Lander/Boynton Beach Hiqh School Project Mr. Fisher spoke of the Boynton Beach High School and the Mars Spirit Lander that had received a lot of notice in the newspapers recently. The high school is working with a high school in Gainesville on the Mars Lander project. Students in the CRA area have accessed information and actually worked on the project with NASA. Mr. Fisher wanted to see if there was an opportunity here for the CRA to promote the downtown area or something with science in the educational realm. There are not a lot of places in the United States that are currently working on this. Chair Finkelstein thought that the high school might wish to have a booth at an event. Chair Finkelstein asked about the HeritageFest and whether they might want to have a booth there. A comment was made from the audience about another possible venue for this, the upcoming South Florida Parenting Block Party being held in Delray Beach. Analyze Cash in CRA Account Mr. Fenton said that the Board approved a CRA financial audit and he thought it would be prudent to have the financial advisor, Huff and Company, do a financial analysis of the CRA's excess cash to see if the CRA could generate more income, while preserving liquidity. Chair Finkelstein that that the Board should take a look at all the funds such as the Promenade and Riverwalk, do some rearranging, and then see how that changes the financial picture. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this is why staff had prepared the cash flow analysis - to see what funds would be available and when. Mr. Hutchinson commented that Mr. Fisher had asked for an analysis of who was working on what project. He will have the cash flow and project analysis to the Board in 3 or 4 days. A discussion of this will be included on the March agenda. Mr. Hutchinson suggested having the financial advisor at the Board's February meeting, give him direction, and then in March the Board would be ready to take action on his recommendations. Xll. Legal Report on the Aqreement with the Director for the Repayment of the $9,000. (Previously addressed) Xlll. Other Items None XlV. Future Agenda Items Consideration of Special Pilot Program for Police Patrol in Heart of Boynton and the CBD (February B. Consideration of CRA Logo and Stationary (February) C. Consideration of Securing CBD Surface Parking Rights (March) 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 13, 2004 D. Consideration of Pilot Program for Trolley Service in the CBD (June) XV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (011504) 2O