Loading...
Minutes 04-13-04 (2)MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chair Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Larry Finkelstein Charlie Fisher Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney :[. CALL TO ORDER Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III, AGENDA APPROVAL A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the Agenda. B. Adoption of the Agenda Motion Mr. Finkelstein moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chair 'lqllman. The motion passed unanimously. TV. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Finkelstein did not feel the item had to be pulled from the Agenda, but wanted to make a correction to the minutes of March 9, 2004 on page 12 (Agenda page 4917), second paragraph. The words "a report" should be deleted and replaced with "the Baker Leisure Group Scope of Services," and the rest of the sentence remains the same. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 A. Approval of Minutes of March 9 and March 18, 2004 B. Financial Report Consideration of Payment of $1,139.00 for the Fa;ade Grant Application for Weiss Memorial Chapel Consideration of Burkhardt Construction Work Order Number Five for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Design/Build Contract 14otion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 7-0. VI PUBLI'C AUDI'ENCE Chair Heavilin asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak about any item that was not on the agenda. Hearing none, she closed the Public Audience. V?. PUBLZC HEARZNG Old Business Board Attorney Payne administered an oath to ali/nd/v/duals who planned to speak on any of the Public Hearing items. A. Code Review Project: Agent: Description: Mixed Use Code Review (CDRV 04-002) (Tabled) City-initiated Request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.F. Mixed Use Zoning District Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, distributed an updated Exhibit A to the Board members. He stated that the item was tabled at the Board's March 9 meeting at the suggestion of staff. Staff received a letter from the Executive Director dated February l0 and one from the ]~nlet Cove Association dated March 26 with several suggestions to consider for inclusion in the Code. Staff considered these requests and tried to incorporate them in the Code. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Buck Buchanon, 807 Ocean Tnlet Drive, Boynton Beach, president of the Inlet Cove Association also known as :INCA, came to the podium. He felt that iNCA's concerns had been at least partially addressed by Mr. Hudson's presentation. ]~NCA had asked that Single-Family Residence be retained as a permitted use in Table 6F-1 instead of changing it to a conditional use. He believed that the ratio of lot frontage to depth had been addressed. One of :INCA's fears was that someone could assemble property, go back deep and wide and end up surrounding single-family homes. He was not sure this was completely addressed and if not, :INCA would like it to be considered. iNCA wants to have the ]NCA residential areas excluded from the Mixed Use category. Although he realized that it was not germane to the issue at hand, he wanted iNCA's request to be on record when the LDRs and other documents and procedures were adopted. He stated that their request was not without precedent and that another residential area just behind U.S. #! on the east side of Federal Highway had been excluded. He thanked staff for all of its good, hard work on this Code Review. Mr. Hudson stated that considering the size of frontages along Federal Highway, the distance any development could go back was limited. Tf they tried to limit it too much, redevelopment opportunities to the south would be hindered. Mr. Hudson noted that it was strictly for properties rezoning from single-family to mixed use and that there would be another opportunity for concerned citizens to speak when it goes before the City Commission next week. Hr. Fisher asked how this related to the Commission's decision two years ago to exclude ]:NCA from the rezoning. Mr. Hudson said that the intent had been to classify everyone in the area as Mixed Use-High or Mixed Use Low and after considerable opposition was expressed to this idea, the Commission decided not to rezone anyone. Any rezoning would only be done by request. Nothing was being rezoned at this time. Chair Heavilin stated that she had received a call from Mr. David Zimet, Executive Director of the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC, asking how the Code Review would affect the Heart of Boynton. Mr. Hudson stated that there was an adopted Redevelopment Plan in that area that specifies multi-family residential on MLK with two commercial nodes at either end. They need to go back in and amend the Plan to show where the Nixed Use would go in that area. Chair Heavilin asked if that would become an extension of this Mixed Use Policy or a separate Plan. Mr. Hudson said that a MAP amendment needed to be made to the Heart of Boynton Plan on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Motion Mr. Finkelstein moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of the City's request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.F. Mixed Use Zoning District, with the following requested additions by the Board: 1) Make Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 "Performing Arts Theater" a conditional use in the MU-L district as it is now in the MU-H district; 2) Add "Fine Arts Auction House" as a permitted use in the MU-H district; 3) Reduce the minimum parcel size for a Hotel from 3 acres to I acre; 4) Reduce the average size of minimum living area for "All other Residential" from 1,000 square feet to 850 square feet. Staff will draft standards and a definition for "Fine Arts Auction House." Mri DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Zoning Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Mariners Way (ZNCV 04-001) (Tabled) K. P. Hislop Mariners Way Homeowners Association 800 Mariners Way Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A., Requiring a minimum front yard setback of forth (40) feet, to allow for a variance of thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10) feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to remove the Mariners Way zoning variance from the table. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Mr, Maxime Ducost~-Am~d~e, Planner, presented this item. Staff recommended denial of this request because: 1) There is a lack of traditional hardship. Relief is not necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land; 2) The special conditions and circumstances are a result of actions taken by the applicant (e.g. design and layout of the proposed improvement); and 3) The proposed bathroom addition could be alternatively placed so as to maximize the setback and therefore minimize the magnitude of, or need for, a setback variance. The basis of the variance request was a tiki hut that encroaches into the setback. As a sub-request, the homeowners are asking that a bathroom be built adjacent to the pool area. This item was heard by the Board and tabled at the March 9, 2004 meeting, to give the parties time to find an alternative location for the bathroom and/or the tiki hut. Mr. Ducost~-Am~d~e stated that staff still recommended denial for the reasons previously stated. Staff had met with the applicant and they had not been able to arrive at a mutually agreeable location for the bathroom. He displayed a picture showing the portion of the site in question for the benefit of the public. Chair Heavilin invited comments from the public on this item. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Steve Black, President of Mariners Way Homeowners Association, distributed photographs to the Board of the area in question. The first picture showed where Mariners Way wants to put the bathroom. The second picture showed where staff suggested the bathroom could be located. Mariners Way did not think the ten feet of grassy area around the site proposed by staff could accommodate a person in a wheel chair going between the bathroom and the pool area. They still think their proposal is the best place for the bathroom. Mr. Black stated that no one had objected to the placement of the bathroom, only to the tiki hut. Regarding the tiki hut, he thought that Mariners Way and Mr. Barry Hurwit could come to an agreement on the height of the tiki hut before the City Commission meeting, thereby eliminating any objection to any aspect of the project they wished to undertake. Barry Hurwit, :1.038 Sandalwood Lane, Weston, explained that he had spent about a half hour after the March 9 CRA meeting with Mariners Way representatives. He was anxious to seek a mutually satisfactory agreement with them regarding the height of the tiki hut. He asked Mariners Way to contact him to discuss this further but no one did so. He contacted them on the day before the meeting and Mariners Way talked about lowering the height of the tiki hut by one foot. Although he thought this might work, he would have to see it first in order to know. He had no objection to the location of the proposed bathroom. Staff was asked whether the issues could be separated and staff responded that the request was for setbacks. If the bathroom setback were to be approved, the setback for the tiki hut would automatically be approved as well. Mr. Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, stated that if there were another postponement, additional advertising in the form of a legal ad would have to be done for a change in the variance. Mr. Fenton asked if Mr. Hurwit would accept a ten-foot height limitation on the tiki hut. Mr. Hurwit responded that he would have to see how that would look. There are 20 feet between his property line and the water and when he was under contract to buy the property, he asked the City if anyone could construct anything back there. He was told that this could absolutely not be done, and that if so, it would have to be 40 feet from his property, placing it in the middle of the canal. Mr. Barretta said that during the initial review, he did not feel that the petitioner had explored all of the possible options. There were at least half a dozen options about where either structure could be placed without violating any City ordinances or setbacks. He had drawn up a sketch that detailed one option. If the cul-de-sac were to be cut in half, allowing single vehicles to get in and back out, the entire east half of the cul-de-sac could contain four tiki huts and six bathrooms. Mr, Hurwit suggested the same thing to Mariners Way the day before, He was told that people with boats and trailers and possibly the garbage trucks could not navigate in an Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 area that small. Mariners Way spoke of having a very limited parking area and Mr. Barretta told them that if they did not put a circle in the parking lot, parking could be there and a bathroom and a tiki hut could be put where the bottom of the circle is now, and the pool deck could be enlarged. David Hemingway, a Hariners Way resident who lives at the far western end of the community, stated that the site of the proposed bathroom was about one quarter of a mile away from his home. He stated that even a construction site requires a restroom. To put the restroom where they wished would not affect the view of anything. A fire truck could not get around the parking lot if there were only half a circle. There was no more room and their request was not unreasonable. Robert Narducci, 658 Mariners Way, Boynton Beach, asked Mr. Rumpf if a municipality had to protect a homeowner's view, under Florida Statutes. He then commented that Mr. Hurwit had been allowed a variance to go to within ten feet of that property line, the same property line that was in question. What hardship did Mr. Hurwit demonstrate in order to have his variance request granted? There were 32 Boynton Beach residents that believed there was a hardship involved in not having shade or a bathroom at their pool. Mr. Rumpf said that in looking back into the records of the Planning & Zoning Division, unless a strict hardship is proven, staff has consistently recommended denial of variances. He stated that Mr. Narducci would have to ask the City Commission why Mr. Hurwit's variance was granted because staff recommended denial of that variance. Aoila Waldon, 844 East Drive, Boynton Beach, stated that she did not live adjacent to this property and was not concerned about the view but was concerned about the noise factor from the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was up in its normal state, a party was held and the noise from the party held there was outrageous, because it is so close to the property line. She was against the tiki hut on these grounds. Ken Hislop, Vice President of Mariners Way Homeowners Association, agent, asked if there had been any citations from the Police Department due to any parties they had held there. Chair Heavilin stated that he would have to determine this with the Police Department. Chair Heavilin closed the Public Hearing when no one else came forward to speak. Mr. Fisher asked the Board if it would be willing to separate the tiki hut and bathroom issues or do a motion with only one item in it. Board Attorney Payne stated that if they wished, they could make a motion with only one item in it and possibly another person would make another motion. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Mr. Fisher recalled that logistically, because of the pipe, it was easier to put the bathroom where Mariners Way wanted to put it. He asked if there were a financial hardship involved in moving it to the place that staff had suggested. Mr. Black said that the biggest problem was that the neighbors to the south did not want the bathroom in the place that staff suggested. That location was in the middle and on the edge of the water. Mr. Barretta responded to Mr. Black saying that although they believed there would be more objections, it would be within the Code and would not require a variance. Chair Heavilin was disappointed that no agreement had been reached between now and the meeting in March. She felt that as long as there was a place to put the bathroom that was within Code, there was no hardship. Motion Mr. Barretta moved that the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A, requiring a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet, to allow for a variance of thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10) feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district be denied. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher preferred to separate the tiki hut issue from the bathroom issue since it appeared that a compromise could be reached between the neighbor and Mariners Way regarding the tiki hut. Mr. Barretta stated that his motion was to deny both. He did not feel that all the alternatives had been explored and preferred that Mariners Way find alternate locations that would be in compliance with the City's Codes. The motion passed 6-1, Mr. Fisher dissenting. New Business A. Code Review Project: Owner: Description: Vehicles for Hire (Code Amendment) (Tabled) City-initiated Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Part ]:T. Chapter 24, "Taxicabs," to rename it "Vehicles for Hire," and add needed definitions and provisions for other modes of transportation consistent with downtown redevelopment efforts. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to remove Vehicles for Hire from the table. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Mr. Rumpf explained that broader regulations would allow for alternative modes of transportation, including trolleys and non-motorized vehicles that would be appropriate for the downtown redevelopment purposes. The principal changes include: 1) omitting requirement and provisions for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which includes City Commission approval; 2) exemptions added and stated; 3) removing annual safety inspections by the City Public Works staff and replacing it with overseeing the process to insure that vehicles are properly maintained per Florida Statutes through the County system; 4) removing requirements regarding such service operation hours; 5) excluding non-taxi advertising; 6) providing documentation on the license process and requirements; and 7) consolidating and expanding the Dos and Don'ts section. Staff recommends approval of this request. Chair Heavilin asked for comment from the public on this item, and hearing none, closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Tillman asked whether this change would affect the method by which people would have to be licensed. Mr. Rumpf said that it would not affect the license process, but would just remove the extra step of going through the City Commission approval process. Motion Mr. Finkelstein moved to approve the request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Part ]:I. Chapter 24, "Taxicabs," to rename it "Vehicles for Hire," and add needed definitions and provisions for other modes of transportation consistent with downtown redevelopment efforts. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Conditional Use Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Dunkin Donuts (COUS 04-001) Ronald L. Uphoff Roderick H. Cushman 1317 South Federal Highway Request for Conditional Use approval for a 2,474 square feet drive-through restaurant on a 0.43-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning district. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Eric Johnson, Planner, reported that staff recommended approval of this request for conditional use, subject to satisfaction of 29 conditions of approval. Staff recommended that a period of one year be allowed to initiate the project. Ronald L. Uphoff~ Agent, came to the podium to answer any questions from the Board or the public. Vice Chair Tillman asked Mr. Uphoff if his client was in agreement with all 29 conditions of approval, and the response was affirmative. Mr. Barretta sought and received assurance from Mr. Uphoff that no rooftop equipment would be visible above the parapet. Mr. Uphoff also confirmed that the lighting would not be offensive to the neighbors, although there were a few accent lights to illuminate the walkway that were directed downwards. Mr. Barretta asked staff if the coolers in the back were permissible under the Codes. Mr. Johnson stated that he believed they were going to be concealed. Mr. Uphoff stated that the coolers would be contained within a pre-fabricated structure that would be painted and finished in the colors of the building. :It would only be accessible to the people working in the facility. Mr. Barretta complimented Mr. Uphoff on the design of the project. Chair Heavilin invited comments from the public and hearing none, closed the Public Hearing. l~otion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the request by Dunkin Donuts for Conditional Use approval for a 2,474 square foot drive-thru restaurant on a 0.43oacre parcel in a C-3 zoning district, subject to all staff recommendations and conditions of approval. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Site Plan Time Extension Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Coastal Bay Colony (SPTE 04-002) Carlos Ballb~, Keith & Ballbe, :[nc. Southern Homes of Palm Beach S.E. 23rd and South Federal Highway Request for a one (1) year time extension of the site plan approval granted on February 18, 2003, from February 18, 2004 to February 18, 005 Maxime Ducost~-Am~d~e reported that staff recommended approval of this time extension, but would not look favorably on a second extension. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Carlos Ballb~, 2201 West Prospect Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida and agent for property owner, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, came to the podium and stated that they were ready to break ground in a week or two, and that the extension would just be a formality to keep an active file. Chair Heavilin invited comments from the public and hearing none, closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any development incentives in this project, and was advised that there were not. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve Coastal Bay Colony's request for a one-year time extension of the site plan approval granted on February 18, 2003, from February 18, 2004 to February 18, 2005. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Chair Heavilin gave special thanks to the Planning Department for the streamlined manner in which their reports were presented. VII. Director's Report In consideration for the/nd/v/duals who had come to the meeting to part/c/pate in a discussion of non-administrative items, Air. Finke/stein suggested moving the Director's Report to the end of the meeting. The Board agreed to this suggestion. VIII, Old Business A. Consideration of Fac;ade Grant for Delray Boynton Academy (Tabled 3/9/04) Motion Mr. Finkelstein moved to remove the Delray Boynton Academy Fac;ade Grant from the table. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Susan Vielhauer, CRA Controller, reported that staff had done further work with the Delray Boynton Academy on its application and that the estimates were in. Staff recommended approval of the fac;ade grant. Motion Mr. Finkelstein moved to approve the Fac;ade Grant for the Delray Boynton Academy as presented by staff. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 IX. New Business A. Consideration of Burkhardt Construction Work Order Number Six for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Design/Build Contract Mr. Hutchinson stated that the water and sewer utilities for the Marina Village Project extensions would be fully reimbursed by The Related Group to the CRA as a pass- through, at an amount of $266,990. This figure is larger than the $225,097100 shown in the agenda report due to last-minute additions by staff. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the real decision was to choose between the two options in Work Order #6 for the FPL electric utilities along Boynton Beach Boulevard and the Promenade area - underground or overhead. The underground option cost is $952K, and would cover the entire area from the tie-in location on the west side of Federal Highway to the l~ntracoastal. The above ground option replaces the substandard overhead poles with decorative units, keeps the lines overhead, and costs $150K. Mr. Finkelstein commented that it had been understood that The Related Group had offered to pay for the cost of putting the electrical utilities underground on the portion of their project that abuts the Promenade, but had now decided not to do it and to have overhead utilities instead. It seemed to some Board members that the CRA was being asked to share The Related Group's share of the cost for the underground utility option. Mr. Hutchinson responded that The Related Group's portion of the cost for "their part" of this would have been $155K on the high side and as Iow as $78K on the Iow side. Mr. Hutchinson also referred to future projects coming forward in the area, stating that Marina Village was not the only project that would be served or improved by this effort. If the CRA chose to place the utilities underground and The Related Group did not do so on Marina Village, there would be a mixture of the types of utility configurations. In general, the Board did not believe that having this mixture would be aesthetically appealing in the CRA's premier project. The proposal options represent doing the electrical utilities along the entire length of the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension/Promenade, including the portion that abuts Marina Village, in an underground or overhead manner. The total cost of Work Order #6 including the water and sewer utilities and the underground option is $1,:~50,097.00 and $375,097.00 for the overhead option. Mr. Hutchinson also asked that the Board authorize Larry Finkelstein to sign the water and sewer agreement between The Related Group and the CRA, Mr, Finkelstein asked for and received confirmation from the Board Attorney that it would be legal for him to sign the water and sewer agreement. 1! Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 The general tone of the comments from the Board was that if the CRA expected developers to produce a first-rate product, the CRA would have to set an example in this project. The feeling was that this project would be around for a long time and that it should be done right the first time. Mr. Hutchinson spoke of the 'fIF revenue that would be generated by this project and how that would pay dividends to the entire City for a long time to come. Mr. Fenton inquired if The Related Group would be getting incentives on their project. Mr. Finkelstein said that the CRA had bought some parking spaces for the public, at a cost of $1,050,000. Mr. Finkelstein continued, saying that the parking spaces had been for the Promenade. Dale Sugerman, Assistant City Manager, noted that The Related Group has enjoyed about $:L45K worth of incentives that were paid by the City on behalf of the previous owners, so money went into the project and into the ground, which was then transferred and sold to The Related Group. While they did not get a direct incentive, there was some incentive money paid into the project, which they now enjoy. I~lotion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the pass through contract with all utilities going underground. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. I~lotion Mr. Fisher moved to give authorization for Mr. Finkelstein, the CRA Director, and Board Attorney Payne to conclude the contract and for Mr. Finkelstein to sign the contract with The Related Group for reimbursement to the CRA regarding the pass through. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. Mr. Finkelstein noted that he was leaving the country on May 7. Mr. Fisher amended his motion to reflect that if Mr. Finkelstein were not available, that Chair Heavilin would be the signatory for the CRA on the subject contract. Mr. Barretta seconded the amendment. The motion passed 7-0. Consideration of The Urban Group Task Authorization No. CRA 03-02 Proposed Scope of Work, Relocation Services for Phase ! MLK Property Acquisition Mr. Hutchinson stated that this Task Authorization concerned the Heart of Boynton and the Uniform Relocation Act task on which the Board had previously decided to go forward. The Task Authorization relates the fees from The Urban Group for the work necessary to accomplish the relocation aspects of the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) act, the Uniform Relocation Act. Staff is also requesting approval of a total of 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 $36,500 for the initial appraisals on the 30 parcels in question. Staff also asks that the Board approve the contract so that the acquisition of the 30 parcels can move forward. Lastly, the Board is asked to write a letter of request that a Resolution of Need be passed by the City Commission in support of this project to begin the HUD process. Board Attorney Payne added to the latter statement that this was so the City Commission could take whatever legal steps were necessary to acquire the property. Mr. Sugerman introduced t4r. Howard Steinholz, the President and C.E.O. of The Urban Group~ who answered questions about this effort. Mr. Fisher asked for more detail on the $221K cost of relocation services and wanted to know why it was necessary. He thought that with a willing seller, it would not apply. Mr. Sugerman said even though the individual might be willing to sell, they still had to be put on notice of their rights and offered all of the benefits and entitlements under the Act. Mr. Fenton believed that the City was supposed to pay for the relocation costs. Chair Heavlin asked if the Uniform Relocation Act related to commercial as well as residential properties. Mr. Steinholz said there were four categories: Residential Relocation, Business Relocation, Sign/Personal Property Displacement, and Landlord Businesses. Landlord Businesses would be people who had tenants in their properties and were claiming a Business category. Chair Heavilin asked if this were a HUD requirement and Mr. Steinholz responded that it was part of the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act. Mr. Sugerman stated that The Urban Group's proposal was to do a Needs Assessment Survey and Cost Estimate as a first step in this project for a cost of $9,631.94. They would complete that and make available to the Board a full and complete report of what they estimate total costs of notice, relocation, and anything else to which the CRA would be exposed in terms of costs. Mr. Fisher thought the cost was estimated to be $221K and Mr. Sugerman stated that this amount was actually The Urban Group's fee for doing the Uniform Relocation Act guideline administration. Tt did not include relocation costs. The actual costs associated with relocation would be in addition to this, but the Board would have a better idea of what those costs would be at the completion of the first phase (the $9,631.94 Needs Assessment and Cost Estimate.) Mr. Sugerman explained that The Urban Group had to literally go and knock on doors and find out how many people were living inside a particular unit, because the guidelines have different thresholds of relocation expenses, depending on what is inside that unit. The Types of Displacements and the costs associated with administering the 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 200't Uniform Relocation Act guidelines are listed in the Scope of Work underneath the Needs Assessment Survey and Cost Estimate. Mr. Finkelstein asked how they arrived at a relocation services fee without doing the Needs Assessment Survey. Mr. Steinholz stated that they had estimated the work effort for a typical unknown type of relocation. Mr. Sugerman addressed Mr. Finkelstein's concern, saying that The Urban Group contracts were based on milestones. :If they incur an expense they will bill for that expense and if they do not incur an expense, they do not bill. The $230.9K is an upside limit, and it will come in less if a particular milestone is not triggered. He said the $221.3K relocation services cost represented the worst case, totally exposed scenario. Mr. Finkelstein asked Mr. Steinholz if he agreed that this was the worst-case scenario, and Mr. Steinholz responded that it was. Vice Chair Tillman wanted to see some examples from other relocations in which The Urban Group had participated. He asked Mr. Steinholz to explain the types of things that he would do to generate expenses of $221.3K. Mr. $teinholz explained what The Urban Group would do in depth. He also commented that in The Urban Group's quote was a Scope of Work that outlined this. Vice Chair Tillman still wanted to see the results of a relocation effort that The Urban Group had done. He was having a hard time understanding spending this much money to tell eight people that they had to move. He asked that The Urban Group bring back examples so the Board could understand this item. Mr. Steinholz stated that he could provide the Board with the administrative costs from a project they had just completed on Southern Boulevard in West Palm Beach where there were 232 persons displaced from residential and mixed-use environments. A lengthy discussion ensued about the various issues that arise during relocations and examples of costs that might be incurred. During this discussion, Mr. Finkelstein asked Mr. Steinholz again if he would be willing to stand by the $221.3K estimate for administrative relocation services. Mr. Steinholz said he was not willing to state that that was the only dollar amount that it could be. Mr. Fisher asked if everyone on the list was eligible for these benefits. Mr. Steinholz said that not everybody would be entitled. One eligibility requirement was ninety-day tenancy, for example. They have to have lived in the location at least 90 days prior to the notice that is provided to them. They also have to demonstrate and prove income and the fact that they have lived at that location. There was a whole process involved with establishing eligibility. Chair Heavilin confirmed that there would be no relocation costs on vacant land. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Chair Heavilin asked if a person already had his or her property up for sale and wanted to retire and go to New York, whether the CRA would offer a relocation package for them. Mr. Steinholz said if they wanted to move to New York or Chicago, the only calculation The Urban Group would provide them was movement within the local housing market. Mr. Fisher said that it did not seem that an individual owning seven parcels and living in one, and not at the poverty level, would qualify. Mr. Steinholz said if they were an owner, The Urban Group would calculate replacement housing for them, based on the one home that he or she lived in. Mr. Sugerman said that the landlord's tenants might have rights, though. Mr. Steinholz reiterated that the landlord may have rights as a Landlord Business, but they may not have rights for all the houses that they own, as an owner, but their tenants might. Mr. Finkelstein confirmed that if an owner had a "For Sale" sign, they would still have the ability to request a relocation package. Mr. Sugerman said that they did, but they could waive it after they had been given proper notice. They were entitled to notice and were entitled to know what their rights are. If a willing seller is pushed to sell and is willing to waive their rights, they may do so. An example of someone who might do this would be someone who did not plan to stay in the area. Mr. Steinholz stated that The Urban Group would also request that people donate properties to the CRA. Mr. DeMarco asked to hear from Mr. Quintus Greene on this topic. Quintus Greene, Development Director, came to the podium. He realized that the Board was having difficulty with the amount of work and cost involved in this process. He shared his experience as a Development Administrator for another agency. The agency had 300 people working in it and approximately 50 to 70 of them worked in real estate acquisition and disposition. Tt involved the acquisition of property, the relocation of residents, and the disposition of property. From this personal experience, he knew that there was a lot of staff time involved in this kind of effort. A number of other communities have gone through urban redevelopment projects before but this was the first time for Boynton Beach. He assured the Board that what The Urban Group was requesting for their services was not unusual and was actually quite reasonable. Mr. Finkelstein was concerned about the bottom line and the fact that the cost could be many, many times higher than the $221.3K quoted. He thought that Mr. Steinholz had said that it could be double or triple that, and Mr. Steinholz stated that he had not said this. Mr. Finkelstein thought that he could support the Needs Assessment Survey and Cost Estimate work so that they could get a better idea of what the total cost could be. Chair Heavilin commented that of the 30 properties under consideration, 14 were vacant properties. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Steinholz if he would be willing to do the relocation work for the price quoted on a not-to-exceed basis. Mr. Steinholz said if the Board agreed to the unit price that they estimated, they could live with the unit price. They would not agree to a fixed fee now without knowing what the work would be. He would agree to a unit fee per type of relocation, but that would not give Mr. Fisher a not-to-exceed fee. Mr. Sugerman stated that Mr. Steinholz had already agreed to the unit fee because that was in the contract. He said the hourly rates were from the contract that had already been negotiated, and it was a matter of how many hours would be involved. Board Attorney Payne did not think this was what was said - she stated that Mr. Steinholz had mentioned a fee per type of relocation, as listed in their quote, "Hourly Basis for Unit Rates." Mr. Steinholz said they arrived at the unit fees based on the rates in the contract. Board Attorney Payne asked Mr. Steinholz if he were talking about an hourly rate or a rate per type of relocation, like a fiat dollar amount. Mr. Steinholz said he would agree to the fees stated in the Hourly Basis for Unit Rates quote, under the various categories of Displacement because that was a fair rate per parcel. Vice Chair Tillman interjected that he was a little taken aback by the relocation circumstance. Over the previous three years the Board had asked for a reasonable Scope of Work for properties they were going to purchase in the MLK Corridor. Now, they were talking about paying somebody fees for relocating people and not one piece of property had been purchased. He wanted to know if properties were available where they would not have to go through the relocation process. He was frustrated over the delays, the additional fees, and the fact that no property had been purchased. How did HUD get involved? Who was responsible for that? Mr. Sugerman stated that they had known from the beginning that there were some willing sellers. Working with CRA legal counsel, they drafted up a simple purchase and sale agreement where they could have gone to a front door, knocked on it, and had the party sign it. The one error that they made was that they did not make the link that the redevelopment project, not the acquisition, would be using Federal grant monies, which dictates that from the beginning of the project, when the first door is knocked on, that special language has to be included in the agreement. Vice Chair Tillman asked if the CRA would be using Federal grant monies for this project? Mr. Sugerman asked for clarification, and Vice Chair Tillman stated that he meant for making the purchases. Mr. Sugerman did not believe that the CRA would be using any Federal dollars for making the CRA purchases. Mr. Sugerman said the next question would be, "Are there going to be any federal HUD funds used anywhere in this project, and the answer was yes, at the back end of the project. Once the parcels were bundled, there would be HUD funds that would be used for the removal of slum and blight in whatever the new project was going to be. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Therefore, HUD's rules say that if you are going to use their money, even at the end, you have to start right from the beginning using their rules and regulations, which include the concept of the Uniform Relocation Act. ]:t is the law. :If we fail to do so and spend HUD funds, all the HUD money has to be paid back with penalties and interest, and jail time is not out of the question. Mr. Greene interjected that the City of Boynton Beach gets approximately $650K a year in Community Development Block Grant Funds. Boynton Beach is a HUD entitlement community. Mr. Fenton asked why. Mr. Greene responded that the Heart of Boynton area, the target area, in terms of demographics and income, is considered an area that is eligible for CDBG funding. Mr. Sugerman said we choose to accept those grant funds. Mr. Greene said the City was spending $650K, primarily in the Heart of Boynton area. On top of that, the City has an application in to HUD for $2.5M, a Section 108 loan, that is payable over a period of 20 years from the proceeds of the $650K a year we get from HUD. in effect, the City uses HUD's money to pay HUD back, but it is a loan that it is getting in advance on its Block Grant. The point was that there was HUD money involved in making the Heart of Boynton project go forward. Although the CRA was not using HUD money per se, the project was using HUD money. Given the fact that the project is using HUD money and the City made an inquiry as to whether they could make a distinction between the CRA and the City, the response was no, because the project was using HUD money. When using its money, the HUD insists that its rules be followed. So, the rules have to be determined. One of them is the use of the Uniform Relocation Act. The City of Boynton Beach does not have a real estate administration department and has never had one. For this reason, someone was hired as the Real Estate Administrator to do the property acquisition, disposition, relocation, and all of those things that a Real Estate Development Department would otherwise do. The Urban Group is, in effect, that department. For that privilege, it costs $230.9K on this project. Vice Chair Tillman understood Mr. Greene's comments, but thought that there were certain areas where the CRA could do work where the HUD guidelines would not have to apply. Mr. Finkelstein clarified this, saying that a link was made that the CRA was part of the City. Therefore, since the City was doing other projects in the area, like the Cherry Hills project, where they were using HUD monies, the City and the CRA were "in the same boat." Mr. Sugerman agreed. Mr. Fenton asked if a distinction could be made between what the CRA was trying to do and what the City was trying to do so the CRA did not have to go through this. Mr. Sugerman said that staff had gone through this scenario also. They thought that 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 perhaps they could just do streetscapes, curb and gutter, water and sewer lines, plantings, and so forth - everything but the actual acquisition of the buildings. The thinking was that if the buildings were not acquired, there would be no one to relocate. But, HUD says that: If ANY kind of improvement is done in a project area where HUD funds are going to be used for ANY act/v/t/es, even if properties are not being acquired from peop/e who i/ye in them, the Un/form Re/ocat/on Act is st///triggered. Mr. Fenton thought they could go back to not having land banking by the CRA and let a private developer go in there and buy the properties. Then there would be no relocations and there would be no relocation cost. Mr. Sugerman said that this could be done but he thought this decision was made last September. He recalled asking the question, "either you are going to buy the 30 parcels and bundle them or you are not - it is an all or nothing kind of deal." Mr. Fenton said that the CRA could change its mind. Mr. Fisher said the question was that when staff was directed to purchase land, it was thought that a house could be bought for $50K. Essentially, it would now cost $100K because relocation and other costs would have to be paid. Mr. Fisher commented that a large number of the homes in the subject area were not paying any ad valorem property taxes. A year ago, the question arose as to whether the CRA was going to initiate redevelopment in the area or wait and hope that a developer came in and did it. Mr. Finkelstein said it went back three years and the CRA did mandate that it would contribute to that area and purchase real estate. They directed people to do that and none of it had come to fruition, so he would not say that this discussion was new. Chair Heavilin said that the CRA had approved going forward with the HUD guidelines. Board Attorney Payne stated that this decision had not been based on legal grounds. Using the Uniform Relocation ACt was approved because staff said it did not want to have two different sets of rules for property owners, not because it was legally required. Once this was approved, they had to bring this task back for those relocation services to be provided. She stated that she had never gotten an answer from HUD, and when the CRA approved it regardless, she no longer pursued the answer. Mr. Hutchinson stated that they were very concerned that a definitive answer from HUD may not be obtainable and that it was taking a very long time. Board Attorney Payne worked on it for four weeks and did not get anywhere. The Board had been emphatic with staff to get the properties bought. In conferring with the Board Attorney, City staff, and the consultants, everyone said it could be months and the same answer could come back. Meanwhile, properties are changing hands and values are going up. Mr. Fisher said that the Return on Investment had also changed. Instead of having a 5- year ROZ, they were looking at an 8-year RO! on a lot of the parcels. Still, he asked if the Board felt that it would take the CRA to initiate change in that part of town. He 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, FIodda April 13, 2004 believed that it would take this Board to do it, because nobody else had stepped up to do it on their own. Chair Heavilin said they had been advocating it for the last three years and it was time to move. Mr. Finkelstein said they were just trying to understand the costs of the program. Mr. Fenton wanted to approve the Needs Assessment Survey and Cost Estimate before going ahead with the relocation services fee. That would give the Board a better picture of the dollars involved. Mr. Sugerman suggested that the Board authorize the Needs Assessment Survey & Cost Estimate; authorize the appraisals because contracts could not be offered without them; and authorize a recommendation to the City Commission to go forward with a Resolution of Necessity. Those three actions would get the project underway to enable them to begin getting properties under contract. Mr. Fisher said they could approve it tonight and if it got too astronomical in price, say no at that time. Mr. Sugerman agreed. Mr. Finkelstein said that going ahead with offers to purchase was not listed in the Scope of Work and he wanted to make sure that this would get into the motion. Mr. Sugerman said that this was in his base contract. :In the original contract, where The Urban Group was directed to go out and buy 30 parcels, the cost was $134K to get the parcels. This one tonight is the add-on for the relocation services. They already have instructions and the CRA has approved a contract for them to go knock on doors. They just did not have the right contract in hand to knock on doors. The attorney has finished the contract with the right language. Some of the appraisals will be in within a week or two and the contracts will be taken to the willing sellers who are ready to sign. Mr. Sugerman told Mr. Steinholz that the Board was asking him to be a little bit at risk with notification under the Uniform Relocation Act, because they were not giving The Urban Group approval for notification. Mr. Steinholz said the CRA had approved the use of the Uniform Relocation Act, so when they make an offer, the offer would be accompanied by the notice that would identify the owner's rights under it. Mr. Sugerman said The Urban Group would not be getting paid for providing that notice because that was in the bottom half of the Relocation Services quote. Mr. Steinholz said they would submit this as part of the contract requirement, but they had to have that notice and the appraisal in hand when going to the seller. Mr. Fisher said as part of the contract requirement he would include it in there so when he gets Parcel A, it would have a bottom line total. The Board can decide to pay or not 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 pay for it. It has to come before the Board and the services will be itemized. If the service is too much, we say no. Mr. Steinholz said that unless the Board approved the relocation services, they would not do any of the calculations or make a presentation of the benefits of selling. All they would do was make an offer, and include the necessary notice to owner, and that would be part of the presentation of the contract. They would not go any further than that unless the Board approved going ahead with relocation services. Mr. Hutchinson said that to clarify, the appraisal task must be authorized for $36K. Also, an additional appraisal, called an independent review appraisal, is required as part of the relocation process. Part of the notice to the owner is that they are entitled to two appraisals, an initial appraisal and an independent review appraisal, for which the CRA pays. A quote is not yet available for the Board on the cost associated with the review appraisals. Mr. Steinholz took some bids and they came in higher than he thought was appropriate so he is negotiating better rates on the review appraisals. A quote is expected by the next meeting. Chair Heavilin said she had some issues with the contract and did not want to belabor them. She asked the Board if it would be acceptable if she just relayed them to Legal Counsel. The Board and the Director agreed that this would be acceptable. Mr. Hutchinson asked if the Board had to officially approve the contract as well, and Board Attorney Payne said they did not. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the initial DeMarco seconded the motion. appraisal cost for a total of $36,500. Mr. Mr. Sugerman suggested adding to the motion that this was for appraisal work that would be done by the Florida Coastal Appraisal Services Company of Fort Lauderdale, Florida for thirty parcels. Mr. Sugerman wanted it made clear that it was not The Urban Group that was doing the appraisals. Board Attorney Payne stated that they did not have to include it in the motion because the CRA would be paying The Urban Group, per terms of the contract. Mr. Fisher said that the motion was intended to include all 30 parcels, and Mr. DeMarco agreed to add this to the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Needs Assessment Survey & Cost Estimate by The Urban Group in the amount of $9,631.94. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Mr. Finkelstein wanted to make sure it was for the same 30 parcels. Mr. Fisher added this to his motion and Mr. DeMarco agreed. Mr. Steinholz clarified that this was not for the vacant land. They would not be doing a Needs Assessment on the vacant land. There was no one to relocate. He suggested adding, "if required." Mr. Fisher stated that the motion should be for 30 parcels, as required. Mr. DeMarco agreed. The motion passed 7-0. Motion Mr. Fisher moved that the CRA request that the City Commission proceed with the Resolution of Necessity for property acquisition. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Heavilin recognized the presence in the audience of Mayor Taylor and his wife, and welcomed them to the meeting. C. Consideration of Youth Community :Improvement Grant Program Mr. Hutchinson asked that the Consideration of the Contract for a Centra/ Bus/ness D/strict filassing I~lode/ be heard before this item. The Board concurred. Consideration of Contract for Central Business District (CBD) Massing Model (heard out of order) Mr. Hutchinson stated that he was very pleased with the response received from the CRA's Request for Proposal. He thought that having an actual, physical model of the CBD would help people visualize what heights and massing would do on proposed developments. The area covered will be from the ]:ntracoastal to Seacrest Boulevard, which will include Boynton Beach Boulevard, Town Square, and the Central Business District, and will show how those buildings will relate to one another. For the price quoted, the CRA is able to obtain a digital model in addition to the Plexiglas model, so when the Website is up and running, the CRA will have a digital model. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April :~3, 2004 Mr. Fisher confirmed that the data input software would be compatible with the City's G.I:.S. system. Rafael Tapanes, President of Reelization, Inc., 100 Madeira Avenue, Suite 2, Coral Gables, Florida, came to the podium. Mr. Fisher asked who would own the digital modeling software once the unit was built. Mr. Tapanes confirmed that the actual model would belong to the CRA. He also said that they had 3-D modeling software licensed by Discreet and when they provide their rendering images, there are 'I']F files that can be incorporated into a Powerpoint presentation or printed in large format, and he will furnish the disc with the final rendered images to the CRA. Mr. Fisher asked if in a few years the City wished to maintain the system themselves, rather than having a perpetual renewal contract, would the CRA own the data? Mr. Tapanes said the CRA would own the data but not the license for the software. Mr. Tapanes would provide the software manufacturer and the price, when necessary. Mr. Tapanes said all that Reelization asks is that they have the right to use the images created and the pictures taken of the model for their own marketing purposes. Everything else would belong to the CRA. Mr. Fisher said if they decided they wanted to market it, they would not have to pay royalties to Reelization, and Mr. Tapanes concurred. Mr. Finkelstein stated that there was only one approved new project and he wondered why a massing model of the existing buildings was necessary when it would have to be changed as new projects came in. Mr. Hutchinson said that they were doing it to show existing relationships to single-family and other projects, so that when they come in, it would be obvious how an individual project would impact the neighboring properties. could be left in there or replaced. As projects come in, the CRA would ask the applicant to explain or add to the CRA modeling so the Board could see the impact of their project. He said Mr. Finkelstein was correct in that a lot of the base model would be replaced. Also, with the digital model, there could be forecasting on the corridor plans. Much of this would be plug-ins that would replace old sections as new projects were put in. Chair Heavilin commented the model would be very helpful to the Board, the developers, and the public. Mr. Finkelstein suggested doing more work on the drawdown schedule, relating the fee more to individual tasks and not a lump sum. After discussion, the parties mutually agreed to relate the drawdowns to the tasks delineated in Exhibit A, F, Summary, page :L1 of the RFP. 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Massing Model of the Central Business District, an area extending west to Seacrest Boulevard, with the base, standard Plexiglas cover, and the digital model for a total of $17,345. The drawdowns will be according to the accomplishments in Exhibit A, with 10% of each remaining and paid upon completion. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion with the clarification that Exhibit A is identified as Exhibit A of the booklet entitled CRA RFP #2004-1 issued ]anuary 13, 2004. Mr. Fisher accepted the amendment. The motion passed 7-0. Consideration of Youth Community Improvement Grant Program (heard out of order) Annette Gray, CRA Administrative Assistant, presented this program. It was initiated through a request from Board Member Charlie Fisher, and is targeted towards the Youth of Boynton Beach. It encourages the young people of the community to get involved in the revitalization of their neighborhoods and the projects created would assist in the refurbishing of areas that are physically and visually challenged. The program would operate only within the CRA boundaries and would be available to non- profit organizations having 5 or more Youth participants. Youth is defined as under the age of 18. Each grant has a funding limit of $2,000. Grants for $1,000 or less would be funded up front, while grants for the maximum of $2,000 would require matching funds. Mr. Fisher stated that he had worked on a lot of community projects with the Youth while he was on other Boards and it was a case of the Youth providing sweat equity. He expressed the belief that when the Youth feel a sense of ownership in a place, they do not destroy it. He pointed to the garden at the corner of Seacrest Boulevard and N.E. 10m Avenue as a prime example of this philosophy. The garden had been in place for a long time and it had not been damaged in any way. Vice Chair Tillman was in favor of the idea but wanted to see more definition by way of examples of projects. He thought there should be a list of some 10 or more potential projects that could be undertaken because children need to have some kind of idea about what they might be able to do. He also wanted to see information on how it would be managed. He asked for and received assurance that the grants would be reviewed and not just given to everyone who applied. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Board would review each application. Vice Chair Tillman thought that this would put a lot of pressure on the Board, favoring instead including a scope designed by the CRA, and not by the applicant. Mr. Fenton believed that it exceeded the mandate of the CRA. He also believed it would violate the tenets of volunteerism. He was under the impression that the children would 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 be paid to donate their time. It was explained that the grant was meant to be used for supplies only, and not to pay anyone for their labor. Mr. Finkelstein noted that the package stated, "Immediately upon approval, grant program documents will be prepared in the CRA Attorney's office." He hoped that some pre-prepared documents could be devised that would not have to be sent to the Board Attorney. He also commented on Program Guideline (2) on page 5094 of the agenda package, which says, "Eligible exterior improvements for this program include: Any property or project site that has high public visibility." He understood this to be anything that was outside that the public could see the benefit of and within the CRA boundaries. Ms. Gray agreed. Mr. Finkelstein was not having an issue with it, but agreed with Vice Chair Tillman that it would be helpful to have some examples, to avoid being deluged with an avalanche of applications from people who did not understand what the program was about. Some overall, global view of the program should be in the Scope of Service. There are still activities and funding available through the Advisory Board on Children & Youth, the Commissioners' discretionary funds, and other programs. Some examples that were discussed were murals, community gardens, painting an elderly person's house, and Paint Your Heart Out. Chair Heavilin did not want it to be so restrictive that it would negate a really creative idea that had not been considered. Chair Heavilin did not want to interfere with the City's CDBG grant program under the management of Ms. Octavia Sherrod. Mr. Fisher said it would assist that function. Chair Heavilin liked this idea but was concerned that it was only available to Youth and favored opening it up to neighborhood organizations and other small organizations that did not have the funds to pay for this type of thing. College students or senior citizens should participate also, for example. Mr. Fisher said that a lot of the problems occurring in the CRA area were due to Youth. He wanted this program to give them opportunities to participate, for the reasons he stated previously. Chair Heavilin responded that there might be portions of the CRA where Youth were not creating a problem. The other Board members wanted to proceed with the program for the Youth and take another look at it later when they had more experience with it. They could always come up with a more general one later. Mr. Fenton asked if the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and YMCA would qualify for these grants, and was told that they would. Notion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Youth Involvement Grant Program with the addition of providing six examples, directing it to not include any salaries or administrative costs, 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 2004 and a not-to-exceed $12K for this budget year. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 6-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. VII. Director's Report (heard out of order/ Town Square Task Force Mr. Hutchinson reported that the City Commission was forming a Town Square Task Force and staff is looking for a volunteer to be appointed to the task force from the CRA Board. Mr. Fenton volunteered and the Board concurred. Tours of Boynton Beach Historical Sites on May 13-15, 2004 The Florida Trust for Historic Preservation's 26th Annual Conference is being held in Delray Beach on May 13-15, 2004 with tours planned to Boynton Beach (Woman's Club and the Old High School) and Lake Worth. The organization has asked each city to be a Silver Sponsor in the amount of $:~000. The City has asked the CRA to contribute one half of the sponsorship, which is $500. Motion Mri DeMarco moved to approve an expenditure of funds to be split with the City in the amount of $500 towards Silver Sponsorship of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation's 26th Annual Conference being held in Delray Beach on May 13-15, 2004, which includes a visit to the Old High School and the Woman's Club. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Police Car and Uniform Loqo Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board members to review and comment on the proposed logo for Police cars and uniforms, which would be included in the contract for patrol officers in the CRA area. CRA Office Renovation Mr. Hutchinson advised that staff had gathered quotes to put up some walls, the design for which was in the agenda packets. The quotes range from $6 - 10K. He commented that the CRA office was too small; however, he asked for another month to explore acquiring office space. Some properly is left over from the Relax l~nn, and he hoped that when a project came into the Bank of America block, a trade for office space could be negotiated in the new project. He noted that as matters stood at present, when the model for the CBD was delivered, they would not be able to keep it at the CRA office, but would have to loan it to the Library or to City Hall. Mr. Finkelstein suggested that 25 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Ageno/Regular Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida April 13, 200q Mr. Hutchinson look at acquisition but also at leasing if a larger space could be located. Mr. Hutchinson said they were in 1,200 square feet now and hoped to find something with 1,700 to 2,000 feet. X. Commission Action Notice to Study Mixed Use High and Low with Moratorium on Sinqle Family Conversion - not addressed XI. Board Member Comments Mr. Hutchinson complimented the new Chair, .leanne Heavilin, on doing a really good job of familiarizing herself with the volumes of information to be learned. Mr. Finkelstein asked Mr. Hutchinson if he had spoken to the Attorney about the land trade issue. Mr. Hutchinson said that the answer was yes and next month he would come back with the Attorney to seek direction from the Board on several projects on which they are working. There are several Interlocal Agreements such as Police, Parks, and Construction. XII. Legal - not addressed llII. Other Items - not addressed XIV. Future Agenda Items Consideration of Pilot Program for Trolley Service in the CBD (May) B. Consideration of Securing CBD Surface Parking Rights (3une) XV. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:45 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (041404) 26