Loading...
Minutes 06-25-04MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2004, AT 5:00 P.M. Present Jeanne Heavilin, Chair Henderson 'lqllman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Quintus Greene, Development Director Lindsay Payne, Board Attorney Absent Marie Horenburger I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. She announced that the Board had been called together to consider the purchase of the Kelley property at 129 N.E. 9th Avenue in the Heart of Boynton. II, Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. Mr. Hutchinson announced, for the record, that he had received notification that Board member Larry Finkelstein had resigned effective 2:00 p.m. on the date of this meeting. III, Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. DeMarco, and unanimously passed. IV. New Business Consideration of Contract for Kelley Property in the Heart of Boynton Area Mr. Hutchinson explained that there were deviations from the standard contract and that this was why the Board had been called to this special meeting. The first deviation was that the property was occupied and the renters would have to be given a short-term /ease, since the CRA wished to act quickly to acquire this property, in order to forestall a foreclosure. Also, under the Uniform Relocation Act, the renters would be eligible for a relocation entitlement of $6,307.12. Meeting Minutes Special Community Redevelopment Agency MeeUng Boynton Beach, Florida June 25, 2004 A third deviation was uncovered in a title search inquiry that the Kelley property was inextricably associated with an adjoining vacant lot by IJn/ty of 77tie and must be included in the purchase, if the Board wished to proceed with acquisition of the Kelley property. Ms. Barbara Matlack, Senior Realty Specialist at The Urban Group (TUG), came to the podium to answer questions. Contract for Kelley Property Chair Heavilin said that in reading the contract, there was a 90-day assurance period. She asked how this related to the lease, and the response was that the lease was for 90 days. Ms. Matlack said if approved, TUG would be presenting Sam Kelley, Jr. and his son with a Statement of Eligibility for relocation and they would be issued a 90-day letter at that time, either on the day of closing or before. Chair Heavilin confirmed that this was only being done as an exception and because of the short timeframe. She did not want to start offering leases on the property acquisitions. Ms. Matlack said that this would not be an issue in the future. Short Term Lease The Board expressed some concerns about the lease situation and the fact that they had not seen the lease. I~lr. Hutchinson stated that it included all the usual items such as the necessity of providing insurance, rental amount, and so forth. The Board Attorney had reviewed the lease and found it acceptable. Chair Heavilin stated that she hoped there was a substantial security deposit involved in case they did not vacate in time. Ms. Matlack said that a security deposit was not normally required on this kind of lease. TUG would be issuing a 30-day notice to vacate 60 days after the 90-day letter was issued to remind the tenants. TUG would prepare eviction proceedings should that become necessary. She assured the Board that the property would be vacated. Mr. Hutchinson stated that by conforming to the letter of the law in regard to the Uniform Relocation Act, the rights of both sides would be protected. Ms. l~latlack confirmed this. Chair Heavilin was concerned about extra costs to the CRA if the property were not vacated expeditiously, and Ms. ~latlack stated that TUG was prepared to vacate the property at the expiration of the 90oday period. I~lr. Hutchinson commented that this was a service for which the CRA paid TUG. Relocation Costs for Renters Mr. Fenton did not understand why the CRA would be paying relocation assistance to tenants who had not been paying rent. Ms. Matlack responded that the tenants did pay costs associated with living at the residence. Since they were not owners, they were considered tenants under the Uniform Relocation Act, and were eligible for relocation payments. Mr. Fenton asked for and received confirmation that the payment was based on comparables. Ms. Matlack said that when an actual rent was not available, they established an economic rent and compared it to available housing in the area. The difference over 42 months equaled the amount of the replacement housing payment. Meeting Minutes Special Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Boynton Beach~ Florida ~lune 25, 2004 Chair Heavilin asked for clarification of the 42 months comment. Ms. Matlack said that the Uniform Relocation Act specified supplementing any difference in rental costs and utilities for a period of 42 months. Chair Heavilin rephrased this in a question, saying that the CRA would have to supplement the rental costs of the current tenants for 42 months, and the response was affirmative. However, Ms. Matlack commented that this supplement equaled the $6,307.12 relocation assistance total, which could be paid in a lump sum. Chair Heavilin was concerned that this would set a precedent, where everyone would come forward saying that their property had tenants so they could get these relocation costs. She asked if there were a qualifying mechanism that would protect the CRA from paying unnecessary costs. Ms. Matlack stated that this would not happen again. Among the properties slated for purchase, there was only one more owner/occupant of a residence, Effie Adams - Parcel 130. Otherwise, they would be dealing with tenants of properties and whatever the household configuration was, and only if they could provide verification of 90 days previous occupancy prior to initiation of negotiations. Mr. Hutchinson commented that this was projected in the Needs Assessment Study that was done and in regard to the budget, was in line with the findings of the Needs Assessment. Mr. Hutchinson also did not want to pay more than the CRA's fair share. Chair Heavilin asked Ms. Matlack if Ms. Kelley required the full 90 days to relocate, and Ms. Matlack responded that she might not. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the lease had to cover up to 90 days because she was entitled to "up to 90 days" under the terms of the Uniform Relocation Act, Mr. Fenton asked when the check would be cut for the relocation entitlement. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the CRA would be billed for that by TUG. Ms. Matlack said they had to locate replacement housing that was "decent, safe, sanitary, and inspected by TUG." At that point in time, verification of their housing costs would be made and compared to the entitlement. Mr. Hutchinson elaborated that this was a maximum amount. They had to prove their expenses up to that amount. Tf it were over that, it was up to them. If it were less than that, the CRA would get money back. Ms. Matlack elaborated on this, saying that the No. i comparable was Los Mangos at $850 plus utilities or $1,050. The $1,050 was the threshold and they had to meet this expenditure requirement in both rent and utilities and if they did not, it would be deducted accordingly. Purchase of Adjoining Lot The appraised value of the contiguous vacant lot was $12K. Mr. Barretta asked for and received confirmation that the two purchases were contingent upon one another. Chair Heavilin inquired about the dimensions of the lot. Ms. MaUack advised that the lot encompassed 5,775 square feet and the dimensions were 50 lt. x 115 ft. The secondary contract was distributed to the Board members. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Unity of Title issue had only come to light in a title search that morning. Chair Heavilin expressed dismay about the Unity of Title issue not being discovered much earlier. She felt that staff and/or TUG should have been aware of this. Mr. Hutchinson Meeting Minutes Special Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida June 25, 2004 said that the bulk of the properties that CRA planned to purchase were non-conforming, with very few residential properties, and the titles had been set up with the non-conforming properties in mind. While they hoped this would have been identified earlier, this was an unusual provision in an unusual closing. Chair Heavilin stated that before she wrote a purchase contract, she checked public records and documents to make sure that there were no surprises. She thought it was sloppy and she trusted that it would not happen again. Ms. Matlack said that they had a blanket order for title searches on all the properties. Mr. Hutchinson commented that this was a unique, first-time situation and that they had put a provision in place that would not allow this to happen in the future. Mr. DeMarco asked if there were any other hidden costs of which the Board was unaware. Mr. Hutchinson had a meeting with TUG and he believed that the elements that had been presented to the Board were the only elements that would adse. The survey, phase one environmental, and appraisals were all done in blanket fashion. In the future, when each of the projects came before the Board, they would be packaged with the Acquisition Offer, the Relocation Elements, the Moving Elements, and any other pertinent information. By the Board's July 13 meeting, there would be additional packages presented for review and approval. Chair Heavilin asked how making the two properties contingent upon each other for title reasons would affect the timeframe and the 3une 29 deadline with the mortgage holder. Mr. Hutchinson stated that if the Board approved it at this meeting, Attorney Payne would double check the documents and be ready to move forward immediately. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the purchase of the Kelley property for $135K to TUG plus $6,307.12 for the relocation entitlement and $12K for the adjacent lot. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the 90-day lease for the tenants currently occupying the Kelley property. Vice Chair 'l'illman seconded the motion. Chair Heavilin asked what the tenants would be paying for rent under this lease. Ms. Matlack stated that they had come up with a nominal rent of $350 a month in order to make sure that the relocation occurred on a timely basis. This figure was also chosen so that they could include the cost of renter's insurance and liability insurance, including the liability coverage for the City and the CRA, along with utility payments and maintenance on the house. Chair Heavilin asked for an estimate of the tenant's total expenses, and Ms. Matlack did not have a figure off hand. Ms. Matlack commented that the rent had been set to facilitate the relocation. Chair Heavilin was still concerned about setting a precedent. Vote The motion passed unanimously. Meeting Minutes Special Community Redevelopment Agency MeeUng Boynton Beach, Florida 3une 25, 2004 V. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (062804) 5