Loading...
Minutes 08-30-05 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUGUST 9, 2005 MEETING CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005 IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chairperson James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger (arrv'd. 6:36 p.m.) Steve Myott Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III. Public Hearing Old Business A. Code Review 1. Project: Agent: Code Section: Description: R-O-W Widths in PUDs (CDRV 05-024) Staff-initiated Part III Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Development, Section 9.F Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5, Section 9, Internal PUD standards, paragraph F. RIGHT OF WAY to allow secondary roadways within a PUD to be approved with right-of-way widths of less than 40 feet. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, said this was a staff-initiated code review item dealing with rights of way in PUDs. A statement in the zoning code says the minimum right-of-way in a PUD is 40 feet. Staff found a one-way street with an eleven-foot pavement width still required a 40-foot right-of-way. It was the opinion of staff that the City Engineer needs the discretion to accept a narrower right-of-way when it would not endanger the health, safety, or service delivery systems. Mr. Fenton asked if this would apply to all PUDs going forward and Mr. Hudson responded that it would. Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Staff asked the CRA to recommend this Land Development Regulations change to the City Commission. Chair Heavilin opened the floor to the public to speak, but closed it when no one came forward to do so. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to recommend approval of the request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5, Section 9, Internal PUD standards, paragraph F. RIGHT OF WAY to allow secondary roadways within a PUD to be approved with right-of-way widths of less than 40 feet. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Chair Heavilin welcomed Mayor Taylor and his wife to the meeting. IV. Pulled Consent Agenda Items V. Old Business These items were addressed during the August 9, 2005 portion of the meeting. VI. New Business A. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for the Old High School Adaptive Re-Use Mr. Hutchinson had discussions with the City concerning the CRA heading up the renovation of the old high school. The CRA would form partnerships, submit a plan for the City's ratification, and underwrite some seed money for matching to move the project forward. The Board Attorney had drafted an agreement between the CRA and the City and the members had a copy. A provision was included in the contract that would allow the CRA to turn the building back over to the City if it decided to do so. The funding for this was changed from $750K down to $550K in anticipation of an adjustment to the CRA budget. If the budget changes this, the agreement would be amended to follow the wishes of the board. Mr. Fenton thought this item should be postponed until the budget was passed. Mr. Hutchinson responded that there was no mention of eliminating this project at the budget workshop, but he would do so if the Board wanted it. Chair Heavilin commented that the first year only called for an expenditure of $50K and Mr. Hutchinson confirmed it. She thought the item did not need to be postponed because that was available in the budget. She would prefer to go ahead and get started on it. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to defer consideration of the City/CRA Agreement on the Adaptive Reuse of the Old High School until after the budget is passed. Ms. Horenburer seconded it for discussion only. Ms. Horenburger asked Mr. Hutchinson about the $50K for the project. Mr. Hutchinson stated that $50K was the amount allocated to start the project in the current budget year. Staff felt this was all that could be done for this year. During the next budget year, staff was proposing an expenditure of $500K. Ms. Horenburger asked if this would come out of bond proceeds or the 2 Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 regular funds. Mr. Hutchinson responded that it would come from T.I.F. revenue and that the agreement only provided an outline. If the board decided not to go ahead with the $500K, the reverter clause would return the building to the City. The board would not be bound by this agreement if they decided not to do so after considering the budget. Attorney Spillias commented that the contract provides that each annual commitment made is subject to monies being budgeted and the board was not required to budget it. The consequence of not budgeting it and expending the monies agreed to was that the property would revert back to the City. Mr. DeMarco asked whether the board could approve the $50K now and disapprove it at a later budget workshop. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the board was being asked to approve the interlocal agreement with the City to move forward on the project. The $50K would come back to the board when the consultant was put in place. The $500K would not come before the board until there was a bid to move forward on the work. Ms. Horenburger noted that since the $50K was for this current budget year, a vote for the contract at this meeting would be an automatic approval of that expenditure and Mr. Hutchinson concurred. Chair Heavilin called the question on Mr. Fenton's motion to defer this item. Ms. Horenburger offered a substitute motion. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the City/CRA agreement to transfer the property known as "The Old High School" in order for the Boynton Beach CRA to facilitate redevelopment of the structure. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. Attorney Spillias recommended that if the board wished to proceed on Ms. Horenburger's motion to approve, that they make the motion subject to the final dollar figure being determined at budget and that would be what was ultimately submitted to the City. Ms. Horenburger amended her motion to incorporate the comments made by Attorney Spillias. Mr. Barretta, who seconded the motion, agreed as well. Ms. Horenburger asked about insurance coverage. Mr. Hutchinson said this was built into the 2005-2006 budget and the quote was for $13,000, in addition to the $550K. The motion carried 7-0. B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for the Boynton Beach Promenade Proiect Extension Mr. Hutchinson said the CRA had been working with the City on this since the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade Extension and Hall property acquisition were undertaken to put the project together. This is the formal agreement covering those activities. He explained the history behind the project including the court arbitration and the money that had to be set aside. The bond issue 3 Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 done in 2004 has funds specifically set aside for funding this agreement. The formal agreement contains easements, exchange of rights-of-way, maintenance, and other provisions in order to move the project forward. Mr. Fenton inquired how much money had been spent to acquire the Hall property, and Mr. Hutchinson responded, $1.6M, the amount settled on in the court arbitration action. Ms. Horenburger asked how this related to the Consideration of the 4th Street Project Upgrades, the next item on the agenda. Mr. Hutchinson said there was no relation between the two items. Vice Chair Tillman asked where the money would come from to fund the additional $200K for the mitigation in Jaycee Park. Mr. Hutchinson responded that it was part of the bond issue and was accounted for in the numbers already approved for the Promenade project. Ms. Horenburger thought agenda items should specify the source of funds: T.I.F., general fund, or bond funds. Mr. Hutchinson will specify this in the future. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved approval of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Boynton Beach and the CRA regarding the Boynton Beach Promenade Project Extension. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Consideration of 4th Street Project Uogrades Mr. Hutchinson declared that the 4th Street Drainage project was about to commence. CRA and City Planning staff had been meeting to design streetscape components into the drainage project. Staff recommended the CRA provide $200K in design costs for fiscal year 2004-05, and $750,000 in construction in fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Mr. Hutchinson commented that this would cover over 4,000 lineal feet. The City is picking up about $164K of the total design cost and will contribute about $lM to the construction itself. Vice Chair Tillman asked the benefit to the CRA of spending this money. Mr. Hutchinson said that the result of not spending it was a street with no sidewalks and a bar ditch down the middle of the road. To come in and retrofit this would call for another $lM of taxpayer money. If the CRA had to do this on its own, it would cost several million dollars more. He felt it was a good partnership between the City and the CRA. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of item VI-C, 4th Street Project Upgrades. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. D. Consideration of the Promenade Direct Incentive Agreement Extension Request Mr. Hutchinson explained that Boynton Waterways Investment Associates had been working diligently to negotiate with a general contractor to complete the project, but due to the intense demand for contractors, had not reached a point where they could apply for a building permit. Mr. Hutchinson felt they were making a lot of progress and did not believe there would be multiple requests for extensions. The City Commission granted a Development Order approving 4 Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 the site plan for the Promenade project on July 20, 2004. The extension was routine, but the agreement called for board review and consideration of approval for extensions. Mr. Myott thought that greater consideration should be given on the front end for a realistic time line in which the site plan could be acted upon and in some cases, even two years would be more realistic. Ms. Horenburger said it appeared the site plan expired on July 21, 2005. Mr. Hutchinson explained that when an applicant asked for an extension while the site plan was still in effect, the site plan was held in abeyance until the board and City Commission were able to hear and rule on the item. Jeff Krinsky, Panther Real Estate Partners, 155 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, said they had put in the request for extension prior to July 20. They did not want to change the project. Some of the major delays had been due to having to negotiate with over 10 retail tenants to vacate their leases. They also had to deal with site contamination from a dry cleaner that did business on the site in the 1960s and 1970s. They were now in a good position to move forward and expected to start construction in the next quarter. There were no issues with the South Florida Water Management District and they were in the process of finalizing an agreement with Florida Power & Light to bury the lines out front in conjunction with the lines the CRA was laying for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension. Mr. Myott asked if the project would be done in phases. Mr. Krinsky responded it would all be done at one time. Mr. DeMarco asked Mr. Krinsky when they had submitted the request for extension and whether they had included a progress report with it. The board remarked that the date was July 8 and that it was in the packet. Mr. Krinsky stated that the letter referred to progress. Ms. Horenburger asked for information about the site plan modification that was part of the agenda item title. PaulO' Arelli, attorney with Greenberg Traurig, spoke on behalf of Panther Real Estate Partners. There was an administrative site plan modification on the number of rooms in the hotel changing from 68 to 77, with physical change to the building and no increase in square footage. They included it in the letter in case the board had to ratify the administrative approval given by staff. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request for extension by the Promenade to July 20, 2006, giving them a full two years. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. VII. Board Member Comments Ms. Horenburger missed the budget workshop meeting since she was out of town. She inquired whether the Urban Group contract discussed at the prior meeting was on the budget workshop agenda. Mr. Hutchinson responded that it was not. Mr. Horenburger noted it was also not on this 5 Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 agenda. Mr. Hutchinson said he thought the board needed to decide whether it wanted to move forward with certain acquisitions in the Heart of Boynton and this would have been outside the budget discussion. He apologized if he had misunderstood the board's desire to have this on the agenda for this meeting. Mr. Barretta asked if the CRA could pursue a program for property owners displaced by development, as happened in the trailer park. He and Mr. Hutchinson had spoken of, 1) offering the owners new units as part of their compensation or sales price and 2) creating a tax deduction or abatement for such owners using T.I.F. funds, so the owners did not have to suddenly jump into much higher property taxes. Mr. Hutchinson responded in the affirmative, saying this would be addressed in a September workshop as part of the affordability impacts. They were also exploring at the County and State level exempting or holding the tax increment as it goes up. VIII. Director's Report 1) CRA Liaison to Arts Commission Mr. Hutchinson commented the Arts Commission had asked the CRA to appoint a board member as liaison between the two boards, to foster communication and get early input on CRA matters. The liaison would serve a one-year term beginning in April of 2006. Mr. Barretta offered to be the liaison. The consensus of the board was to appoint Jim Barretta as the liaison between the CRA and the Arts Commission, to be ratified at the special meeting following this meeting. 2) Chamber of Commerce Advertisement on the CRA Mr. Hutchinson reported that a board member had suggested the CRA increase its ad size from 2/3 of a page at $1,876 to a full-page ad at $2,255. He asked the board for direction on this and the consensus was to increase the size of the ad. Mr. Hutchinson will put this item on the Consent Agenda for the board's next regular meeting. Ms. Horenburger asked about the Community Real Estate Trust item and the steering committee. Mr. Hutchinson said the steering committee was comprised of about a dozen people from the community, city staff, and community leaders. This will be sent out to the board members with an ordinance at the end of this week. Ms. Horenburger observed that the Savage Creatures project was coming up in October and she thought this was being put "on the back burner." Mr. Hutchinson said it would probably be considered in November. IX. Legal Attorney Spillias distributed a memorandum on the Fac;ade Incentive Grant program based on questions that were asked last month. He suggested the board members review it and present any questions at the next meeting. He also distributed a PowerPoint presentation made at the 6 Meeting Minutes Continuation of August 9, 2005 Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Florida League of Cities Conference on CRAs and some of the challenges with counties that were coming up. X. Other Items - None XI. Future Agenda Items A. Workshop Meetings to be held on the following dates: 1. Thursday, Sectember 22nd. at 6:30 p.m.. Suite 107 · Consideration of Human Resource Policy Recommendations · Consideration of CRA 20/30 Plan, Design Guidelines & CRA Land Development Regulations (LDR) 2. Thursdav. November 1ih at 6:30 C.m, Suite 107 · Consideration of the Feasibility of an Attraction Complex B. Future Project Review - September 15, 2005 1. In-Town Development Group - Samantha Simon (invited) 2. Ocean Breeze Townhomes - Larry Finkelstein (invited) 3. HOB Self-Assembly Group - Frank Chirkinian (invited) XII. Future Project Preview - None XII. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:28 p.m. A ten-minute recess was called before the start of the next meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~arl~J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (083105) 7 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, AUGUST 30, 2005, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, AT 7:20 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chairperson James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared the entire board was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Ms. Horenburger wished to add approval of James Barretta as the liaison to the Arts Commission as item IV-E on the Consent Agenda. Also, she asked to add item IV-F for consideration and approval of a full-page ad for the CRA in the Chamber of Commerce directory . B. Adoption of the Agenda Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes, August 9, 2005 Meeting B. Consideration of Revised Financial Report - June 30, 2005 C. Consideration of Server Technology and Integrated Accounting Software D. Consideration of an Event Partnership with City of Boynton Beach for the "Pirates of the Intracoastal" scheduled on 10/22/05 and 10/23/05 E. Approval of appointment of James Barretta as liaison from the CRA to the Arts Commission F. Approval of full-page CRA ad in the Chamber of Commerce directory Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. V. Public Audience Chair Heavi/in opened the floor for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda. David Zimet, Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC, 2191 North Seacrest Boulevard, stated that as the Heart of Boynton came closer to beginning, the community needed to be involved in any changes that occurred in the plans. This should also include some input on the developer chosen to implement the Heart of Boynton Plan. He did not believe that the Community Real Estate Trust would cover all bases. Mr. Fenton asked why Mr. Zimet thought people who did not have a vested interest in the development, but would benefit, should have a say on the developer. Mr. Zimet responded this was, in part, due to the intention of the State law that created CRAs, which was to make sure that people who are in the community are involved with the process. It was more for redevelopment than recreation, to the extent possible. The City was not going to raze everything and get rid of the people. It was for community development. Mr. Myott suggested that Mr. Zimet and interested parties should attend the Heart of Boynton Plan preview at the September 15 CRA meeting. Mr. Zimet had a conflict on that evening, but would see that people were informed. Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9th Avenue, spoke of the decision made during the continuation meeting to move forward on the Old High School after budget review by the board. As Vice President of Cultural Center, Inc., he spoke in favor of including the Cultural Center, Inc. as part of the planning process, which he did not think had been the case. If Cultural Center, Inc. was going to be any kind of partner on the Old High School renovation, somewhere along the line they should have the opportunity to sit down with the CRA and/or the City and help plan what it was going to look like and what would be in it, especially when it came to the City's vision and the final "look" of the Town Square. The Cultural Center, Inc. wanted to have an opportunity to sit down with the CRA and the appropriate parties before the CRA or the City decided to spend a lot of money. He thought it was important to answer the question, "What are you looking for?" They had some ideas and wanted to share them. Ms. Horenburger responded that until the agreement was in place, nothing would happen on the planning front. Mr. Hutchinson said that the reason they had not heard anything was they just got the agreement to move forward. VI. Public Hearing New Business A. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 1. Project: Agent: Description: Arches (LUAR 05-008) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southeast corner of the intersection of Ocean Avenue and SE 4th Street Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use (MX) to Mixed Use Core (MX-C); and Owner: Location: Request to rezone 0.S8-acre of property from Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed Use-High Intensity (MU-H). Proposed use: Addition to an approved mixed use development proposed to include a total of 378 dwelling units and 38,599 sq. ft. of commercial space. Attorney Spillias asked the board to divulge any ex parte communications with any of the applicants on the Public Hearing agenda. If a board member disclosed such communications at the August 9, 2005 meeting, the period of time in question would be from that meeting to this one. There were no such disclosures. Attorney Spillias then explained the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings and swore in the people who planned to speak during the public hearing. Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, stated that the name of the project was the Arches Addition. The project is located at the southeast corner of East Ocean Avenue and S.E. 4th Street. Staff recommended approval of the requested land use amendment and rezoning for the following reasons: 1) It is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and with the Federal Highway Community Redevelopment Plan, 2) It meets the criteria required for consideration of the land use amendment and rezoning, and 3) The addition of the property will provide the applicant with a redevelopment project encompassing two entire City blocks, serving to make a more complete project and will allow several small parcels to have a greater development potential than either would have if they came in separately, because of their small size. Chair Heavilin asked for and received confirmation from Dick Hudson that these two parcels were purchased after the land use and zoning were approved for the rest of the site. Bonnie Miskel, 222 Lakeview, West Palm Beach, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She stated the site plan was not being phased- they were trying to unify the site zoning and land use. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak, closing it when no one came forward. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Mr. Barretta felt he might have trouble supporting this because he thought title to this property might have been transferred improperly. Half of the property was in foreclosure at the time of the title transfer. Chair Heavilin asked if a closing had taken place on the subject property, and Ms. Miskel stated it had been owned for some time. There was no title dispute and no actions or claims filed against it. They had title and title insurance to the property. This is the first time they heard of this. Mr. Barretta said his comments derived from the fact that he had a foreclosure action against the property. Ms. Miskel asked to see Mr. Barretta's recusal, since he had potential interest and should not vote on the matter. Chair Heavilin asked Mr. Barretta if he wished to recuse himself, and he responded that he did not. Ms. Miskel objected to this, for the record. Attorney Spillias' opinion was sought. He stated that the issue of conflict came up in quasi- judicial matters in two possible contexts. The standard conflict was where a board member stands to gain or lose, especially financially on their vote. Under State law, CRA board members are exempt from that conflict of interest provision. They are permitted to vote on matters that could inure to their special gain or loss. This is an exception to the general rule. There are other conflict of interest provisions that do apply. In all quasi-judicial matters, the issue of bias is one that may be raised and it is why they passed the Resolution in the recent past removing the presumption of prejudice by virtue of ex parte communications. If it can be proven that there is a bias, through ex parte communications or otherwise, the issue of impartiality can be raised. Generally speaking, when board members are acting in their role as board members, making policy, deciding on most issues in a non-quasi-judicial context, bias is irrelevant. They could be biased. In the quasi-judicial context, courts have said they were sitting in somewhat of a judicial manner and, therefore, bias was an issue. It was up to Mr. Barretta to indicate whether or not he believed he could make an objective, unbiased determination in this case. Ultimately, if there were a challenge, it would be up to the fact-finder to determine whether the facts established it one way or another. Mr. Barretta believed he could vote in an unbiased manner. Ms. Miskel noted for the record that Mr. Barretta said he could not support this because he had a claim against this property, so she believed he had demonstrated with his testimony as evidence that he was biased and they were noting that and their objection to his participation in the hearing. Mr. Barretta responded that this was not what he said. He said he did not believe he could support this. Ms. Miskel stated that the record would reflect his comments. Ms. Horenburger said if a person appeared to be biased in any way other than if he stood to gain financially, it could be a problem, but it sounded like if a person stood to gain financially, it was all right. She did not understand. Attorney Spillias said that this was correct. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request to amend the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning request (LUAR 05-008) for the Arches on the southeast corner of the intersection of Ocean Avenue and SE 4th Street. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Abandonment - Street 1. Project: Agent: Description: Arches (Street) (ABAN 05-004) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southeast corner of the intersection of Ocean Avenue and SE 4th Street Request for abandonment of a forty-foot wide right-of-way known as Southeast 1st Avenue between Federal Highway and Southeast 4th Street in connection with the proposed Arches development. Owner: Location: Ed Breese, Principal Planner, displayed the Arches site plan, showing the location of the area for the proposed abandonment. There was no objection to this abandonment on the part of any City Department. The utility interests such as Florida Power & Light, Bellsouth, Florida Public Utilities, and Adelphia Cable also have no objections, but do have conditions referring to the provision of additional easements to assure proper location of the utilities. Staff recommended approval since this right-of-way falls wholly within the Arches development and the City did not believe it had any further use for it. Bonnie Miskel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, stated that they accepted all the conditions. Chair Heavilin asked if anyone in the public wished to address this, and closed the floor when no one came forward. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request for abandonment of a 40-foot wide right-of- way known as S.E. 1st Avenue between Federal Highway and S.E. 4th Street in connection with the proposed Arches development. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Abandonment - Alley 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Arches (Alley) (ABAN 05-005) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southeast corner of the intersection of Ocean Avenue and SE 4th Street 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Description: Request for abandonment of a portion of an alley (Southeast 1 st Place), located immediately east of SE 4th Street, in connection with the proposed Arches development Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated this abandonment was the rest of an alley that had been partially abandoned when the Arches first appeared before the City. He did not believe the City had any further use for this alley and staff recommended abandonment of it. The Utilities Department recommended approval with conditions. All the other utility providers are recommending approval with conditions. BellSouth will be retaining their utilities in place and a 12-foot wide utility easement will be dedicated to BellSouth for their underground conduit, which is slated to remain in place, and a fifteen-foot access has been provided in the site plan for the Arches. Bonnie Miskel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, stated they were in agreement with all conditions. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak, and closed it when no one came forward. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of an alley known as Southeast 1st Place located immediately east of S.E. 4th Street, in connection with the proposed Arches development. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Abandonment - Sidewalk 3. Project: Agent: Description: Arches (Sidewalk) (ABAN 05-006) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way that abut the Arches at Boynton Beach along SE 2nd Avenue, SE 4th Street, Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway and that are improved for public sidewalks Owner: Location: Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reported that this item represented the sidewalk portions of the rights-of-way that border the project. According to the applicant, "The requested vacation of the sidewalks will allow the development effort to include widening of the pedestrian amenities with plazas, covered arcades, and expanded pedestrian ways. These pedestrian-oriented facilities could not otherwise be improved within the public right-of-way. The requested vacation will not prevent other property owners from access to and from their property, will not restrict pedestrian access along the subject roadways, and will not adversely impact other 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 properties." Staff looked at this request and the Engineering and Planning & Zoning Departments recommend denial of the request. Engineering indicated that attempting to create any partial roadway abandonments such as these would set an extremely bad precedent for the City and be difficult to justify. Planning & Zoning believed, from discussions with the applicant, that one of the reasons they want the abandonment is for the additional density they would gain by having control over this property. Staff calculated the applicant would have 20 additional dwelling units if the abandonment were granted. Also, staff looked at the applicant's reasoning as to why they were looking for this abandonment: to improve pedestrian amenities, plazas, and so on. Those are items that can be done with an agreement with the City. Improvements can be made within the rights-of-way that would not necessitate abandonment. When staff looks at right-of-way abandonments, one of the things it looks at is whether the underlying purpose of that right-of-way is still to be served or is no longer viable. These are sidewalks that would rim the project and staff believes that the purpose for that right-of-way is still to be served. Staff recommended denial of the request. The utility interests have no objection, with the same conditions as heard on the previous two applications. Bonnie Miskel, attorney for the applicant, agreed that the applicant would lose 20 dwelling units if this request were denied. She iterated that the request was to take certain publicly dedicated sidewalk property and convert it to private ownership. This request was not unorthodox and in many other jurisdictions, sidewalks are dealt with through sidewalk easements. There are two different ways of approaching it: one is a platted or public dedication through a plat or a deed, and the other is pursuant to an easement. Ms. Miskel said a sidewalk easement could provide the City with everything that a deed would do. A sidewalk easement would also do some things that a public dedication would not: 1) It would put liability on the part of the abutting owner, so they too would be liable for problems with the sidewalks such as flaws, or if someone fell and got hurt; and 2) A sidewalk easement for the public, ingress and egress, would put the burden of maintenance on the landowner, the developer. A public dedication typically would not do that. Usually, roads that are rights-of-way are the responsibility of the local government. They were not simply asking to convert public property to private property. They were asking to convert a public sidewalk to a sidewalk with an easement. The same rights the City would have with a deed would go with the sidewalk easement. Ms. Miskel looked into the functions, powers, and duties of the CRA and read for the benefit of the audience: "The CRA Board shall have the authority and duty to consider and recommend upon applications as hereinafter set forth, after first considering the recommendations of its staff and after a determination of fact that the application before it would do the following: 1) contribute to the reduction and slum and blighted conditions, and 2) enhance the tax base, and 3) implement and further the intent and purpose of the City's redevelopment plan." What the applicant was asking for would do all three of these things and to deny it would be inconsistent with these objectives. Ms. Miskel believed there was general agreement that this project would reduce blight and slum, since they were taking less productive, dilapidated property and creating a 39,000 square foot commercial mixed-use development on five acres. The expansion of the tax base as a result of this project was not in dispute. Approving this request would give the City an opportunity to expand square footage, add twenty dwelling units, and further enhance its tax 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 base. It is done in many other jurisdictions and would give the City all the same rights it had presently. Ms. Miskel referred to staff's comment that granting this would create a dangerous precedent. She reminded the board of the action it took in Marina Village, for example. This project has public parking spaces located within a private parking garage. Instead of saying we want you to take a piece of your property and put 80 spaces on it, that would come off the tax map, we now have spaces in a private parking structure that stay on the tax map. They were asking the board to do the same thing here. " Instead of making it public property, leave it on the tax rolls and get tax benefits. " Chair Heavilin gave Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, an opportunity to speak, apologizing for not giving her the opportunity prior to this. The board had just instituted a change in the procedures to allow this. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, concurred with City staff that this was not a good idea. It did not meet the criteria for abandonment. The intent is for additional density, which is not consistent with the Federal Highway Corridor Plan or the zoning. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak. Robert Brown, 701 S. Sea crest Boulevard, spoke in favor of the abandonment for the tax base enhancement and the potential of using the $50K to $60K a year that the 20 additional units would provide to the City to offset benefits and/or bonuses for the employees. Mr. Brown mentioned the lifeguards who were being paid $10.60 an hour to save lives and other issues with the Police and Fire unions. Dave Kelley, Assistant Director of Public Works, City Engineer, and the City's surveyor and mapper, declared he had written a memorandum to the Planning & Zoning Division saying the abandonment procedures of the City followed Chapter 336.093 through .12 of the Florida Statutes where any public right-of-way abandoned is divided equally between the two adjacent property owners. If a ten-foot sidewalk were divided in half, five feet would go to one owner and five feet to the existing City right-of-way. This would mean that any abandonment would only take place on half of what had been requested, even if they reg ranted it back as a public easement for sidewalk purposes and whatever might be underneath it. This creates a potential nightmare throughout all rights-of-way in the City because there were many people watching to see what happened with this application. The City believed that granting this request for abandonment would hamper its ability to follow the abandonment procedures required by Florida Statute. The Department of Engineering expressed opposition to this request for abandonment and requested the board's consideration of its findings. Ms. Miskel did not dispute what Mr. Kelley stated about Chapter 336, but believed his interpretation was incorrect. The interpretation was based on taking a right-of-way, an entire street, as they did with S.E. 1st Place, or S.E. 1st Avenue, and abandoning the entire right-of- way. He was correct if it were platted in such a way where the right-of-way did not end up all on the perimeter of a plat (at which point it would all go to one owner). If it were in the center of a plat with properties on each side, which is the case here, then it would be divided in the 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 center and half would go to one landowner abutting the right-of-way, and the other half would go to the other owner. But, the City's holding of a street as right-of-way was not the same as an abutting owner who owns in fee simple. The City is not considered, under the law, as an owner as would be the case if a private property owner owned on each side. This was true because, 1) the City typically did not pay consideration if done by plat for the street, and 2) right-of-way is not considered the same as fee simple title. Mr. Kelley's interpretation was incorrect and she wanted to state this for the record. Chair Heavilin closed the floor for public comment since no one else from the public wished to speak. Ms. Horenburger asked to hear Attorney Spillias' opinion in the matter. Attorney Spillias commented on abandonments in general, saying the board had a policy decision to make. It had heard information presented by the City indicating its factual basis for saying no, and information presented by the applicant indicating a factual basis for saying yes. They were really dealing with two issues. The first was that abandoning a right-of-way should only be done if there is no further public need or purpose for the right-of-way. Staff says there is a public need and purpose for the right-of-way. The applicant is saying the City would not lose that. In regard to the benefit to the applicant, the opinion is that abandonments should not be done just to favor one particular property owner. The applicant expressed the belief that there were benefits beyond the benefits the applicant would receive, benefits that would further the purposes of the CRA. The board had enough information to provide the basis for going either way in this matter, once it decided from a policy standpoint what it wished to do. Attorney Spillias agreed with Ms. Miskel about the general law. While generally land goes one half to one abutting property and the other half to the other owner, it depends on the plat. If it were platted with the right-of-way on the border of the plat, it could all go back to the original property owner abutting it on the one side. He had not looked at the plat and did not know how the right-of-way was conveyed to the City, whether by dedication or deed, and such issues could impact the way this would be divided. The City Attorney could be asked to opine on this before the matter gets to the City Commission, once the board made a determination on whether it believed that for all other purposes, it should or should not be abandoned. The board's decision would depend on which information they gave the most credence to in the role of board members. Chair Heavilin said the background information stated the sidewalks were dedicated for perpetual use by the public. Attorney Spillias said he would need to see the plat to make a determination and he did not have enough information to give a definitive answer in regard to the statutory reference in this case. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way that abut the Arches at Boynton Beach along SE 2nd Avenue, SE 4th Street, Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway and that are improved for public sidewalks. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Mr. Myott stated approving this would change the engineering standards of the City and affect the right-of-way width that had been consistent with the City grid, change plat maps, and plans for many things in the future. It would also set a precedent for allowing other people to ask for whole streets. He disagreed that the board should set such a precedent. He also believes that a lot line is never big enough for a developer and they always want more. The board had been very, very accommodating to this developer. He thought the City might have a right to the sidewalk, but perhaps an individual citizen would not, because it was private property. He thought that the City would have enough units by the time the town was built out. Vice Chair Tillman agreed with Mr. Myott. He tried to determine whether the applicant had a hardship, but did not see a hardship. He was not prepared to set a precedent that would overturn submissions and what was platted for the City of Boynton Beach. He especially did not want to set a precedent that would have a major impact on what would be asked in subsequent projects in the future. Mr. Barretta supported the abandonment because there were other properties in the City where the property line was adjacent to the curb. He had done renovations on such properties in the City of Boynton Beach and it would give the architect a little more design latitude. He did not think that it took anything away from the City or the citizenry and did increase the tax base. Ms. Horenburger stated they had been abandoning alleyways all over the City to benefit development, and she did not see how this was very different. If the sidewalks were abandoned to the developer, and the owner got the additional units and had ownership of the sidewalks, could the owner restrict or put barriers up or fences to prevent people from walking on the sidewalk? Attorney Spillias responded that this would not be the case if the City had a perpetual easement. Ms. Miskel responded that part of their offer was that there would be a perpetual easement for the benefit of the public. The City would have the same scope of action it had otherwise. Ms. Horenburger said since there was some question about how this was platted, and so forth, whether the board could vote to pass this without a recommendation to the City Commission until a legal opinion could be obtained on the platting and related legal issues, and leave it up to the City Commission. Attorney Spillias said the board could do that, but it should keep in mind there was a policy aspect of this decision and a narrow issue that he could not provide an answer to that the City Attorney would have more time to research. Ms. Horenburger did not feel the board had enough information to say it would not set a precedent, since there was no legal opinion on it. Chair Heavilin did not recommend it. Chair Heavilin did not see a public need for the abandonment. Most of the abandonments the CRA had done were going through properties and this application included four major streets, including Federal Highway. She saw the increased tax benefits, but hoped the CRA was never driven by economics, but by the good for the people, public use, and quality projects. Mr. Myott said at least three City staff departments recommended denial. They were experts in their fields of utilities, community redevelopment, planning and zoning, and the depth of the 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 history and the comprehensive plan for the City. He thought this was a very strong recommendation for denial. Ms. Miskel said a subsequent letter had been given to staff removing the Federal Highway portion of the request, so this request was for S.E. 2nd Street, S.E. 4th Street, and Ocean Avenue. For the record, on S.E. 4th Street, a portion of the sidewalk that was already located on 4th Street was private property, and belonged to her client. They would offer to give an easement over that as a condition to this approval. Right now, it was not subject to any dedication or easements. Mr. DeMarco hoped to find compromise. He understood it did not provide the public with access to the area. He thought the board had acted on a similar abandonment with the Gulfstream project. He thought the increased revenue for the City would be a good thing and wanted this to be resolved between staff and the applicant. Mr. Fenton asked for and received confirmation that the applicant was looking for abandonment of the sidewalk to the north, south, and west, and not Federal Highway. Ms. Miskel agreed. Mr. Fenton asked Ms. Miskel to elaborate on her earlier comment that this was not unusual. Ms. Miskel stated that West Palm had many sidewalks subject to a sidewalk easement versus platted dedications. Another location where it had been done was in Wellington particularly as it relates to residential properties where sidewalks are located within the resident's property with swales on each side. It is most common in that regard. Lake Worth also has sidewalk easements, because she had done one there. Mr. Myott referred to the Ocean Avenue Improvement project where the City planned new sidewalks, light fixtures, landscaping, tree grates, curbing, parking, and so forth. If the City wanted to redo Ocean Avenue, this would have an affect because the City would not be working on its own land, but on the developer's land. He felt the ability to have control of a whole side of a street for one whole block would be taken away if this were passed. "If you don't own it, you can't control it." Ms. Miskel said that the City could control it because two of the easements she had prepared provide the City unilateral discretion on whatever it chooses to locate in the area. The City could proscribe whatever it wanted in the way of size of sidewalk, building material, landscaping, green area, and so forth, providing the City's own legal standards were met. Ms. Miskel said the approved site plan showed the improvements that were planned for the sidewalk areas. They had agreed to all conditions of the site plan as it related to location, size, materials, landscaping, and so forth. Staff mentioned if the City still needed the sidewalk, the purpose was still there. However, when purposes could be achieved by other measures, the purpose did disappear. To her, the question was, "Do you have to have a sidewalk by virtue of a deed or a plat, or can you have one by virtue of an easement?" She was before the board to say it could be done by easement in exactly the way the City desired. It did not need to be by deed. She believed the purpose of a dedication or plat disappears when the purpose can be served in some other way. They were offering that way. She agreed with Mr. Myott that someone could come along and request abandonment of a street in the future; however, the board had the discretion to decide whether or not it wanted to do it. Her client was willing to 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 accept the responsibility of someone tripping and falling on a sidewalk, but would not be willing to accept the liability and responsibility for a road where car accidents could occur. Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Barretta if he would consider amending his motion to remove the reference to Federal Highway, and Mr. Barretta agreed to do so. Mr. DeMarco agreed also. Mr. Barretta added a comment that while the request might seem highly unusual, as Ms. Miskel said, it was not unusual and happened all the time. He had worked on many projects where the sidewalks were conveyed by easement as opposed to dedication. They were not creating something that had never been done, just something people were unfamiliar with. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, responded that Mr. Barretta's comment was one of the three points that staff had brought forward - the fact that it could happen elsewhere and they could have haphazard right-of-way lines. Also, taking public land for private gain and purpose did not sit well with staff and a lot of other people. Mr. Barretta called the question on the motion on the floor. The Recording Secretary called the roll at the request of Chair Heavilin. The motion passed 4-3, Chair Heavilin, Wee Chair Tillman, and Mr. Myatt dissenting. VII. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, S:~1tt't (;LJt~J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (083105) 12 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S BUDGET J WORKSHOP MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, AUGUST 30, 2005, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, AT 8:37 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chairperson James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the budget workshop to order at 8:37 p.m. Preceding this meeting, the continuation of the August 8 meeting was held at 6:30 p.m., followed by a special public hearing meeting. II. Budget Discussion Mr. Hutchinson referred to the handout that showed three budget forecasts with three different scenarios: Yellow, representing minor adjustments to the Workshop Budget as directed by the board; Blue, representing major adjustments, taking out all new grant funding and no new bond issue as directed by request; and Green, representing a proposed compromise budget, removing all new grant sources but proposing new bond issue. The various scenarios were discussed. Summary of Board Member Concerns Vice Chair Tillman stated that early on, the CRA had hired a real estate administrator, which he was totally against at the time, though it now seemed the CRA was moving in that direction. The board had to assess what The Urban Group (TUG) does and whether it could get someone to do a better job, especially in terms of the Heart of Boynton. He though it was important to address some issues before putting the numbers in place. It seemed that approving the budget in the absence of that was like putting the cart before the horse. He felt TUG should have been dismissed long ago. The CRA had to decide what its priorities were and let the budget reflect it, per the CRA statutes and having done so, everything else would fall into line. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the mission statement of the Boynton Beach CRA was entirely in line with what the Legislature, Planning Departments, and Treasure Coast were going to be requiring of the CRAs in the state. This CRA is seen as one of the first CRAs in the state to take the load that was soon to be expected of CRAs, as evidenced by the FYI's he sends the board members on a regular basis. Secondly, TUG had nothing to do with any of this. The CRA was looking at acquiring 17 properties in the Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Heart of Boynton and then they would be finished. The only thing TUG would do would be to help the CRA through the process of the City taking over to secure the properties. The problem was that with the funds set aside (they were about $3M into the item), the property values were close to $7-8M, a 41% increase over a number of years. It was not the case that priorities had changed. The bond issue was to underwrite getting the rest of the properties assembled. Mr. Hutchinson said that Vice Chair Tillman had been correct when he asked about affordability issues. Mr. Hutchinson said, "Are we going to look at affordable issues? Are we going to look at quality of life issues and investing in the community such as mangroves, historic restoration? " There were tough choices. The Blue scenario was "B" for bleak - it gets the CRA down to a point that they would have to live with. Ms. Horenburger strongly felt that they had to base their decisions on well-considered information. She believed the board should pass the Blue budget initially, workshop the budget/program issues, and revise the budget accordingly. Vice Chair Tillman wanted to clarify that he was not talking about going slow on the Heart of Boynton. Ms. Horenburger was not talking about that either. He stated there was a plan in place and that plan should be activated and moved along with deliberate speed. He felt there was speculation in the Heart of Boynton because TUG had "dragged its feet," allowing it to happen. In Vice Chair Tillman's opinion, the CRA needed to set a specific, deliberate plan of attack of what it was going to do in the Heart of Boynton. The City's Heart of Boynton Plan had to be understood in relation to the CRA's Heart of Boynton Plan - do the two plans jell? Do they mimic each other? Is the CRA supporting the City's Plan or is the City supporting the CRA's plan? What is the goal? What is the direction here?" Mr. Hutchinson said they were very much on the same page. Vice Chair Tillman said that the action supporting it had to be there. He had not seen that and that is why people were still coming in to say they could do this and do that - because the CRA did not have a plan. Mr. Hutchinson responded that eight weeks previously, the CRA had voted unanimously to forward a Resolution and Agreement on this to the City Commission, who had put it on hold. Ms. Horenburger stated a philosophical discussion was in order because times change - plans are not etched in stone. This board has not revisited it. Some people say there is a plan and that it has to be adhered to, others disagree. If the private sector is willing to step up to the plate, she did not think government should be competing against them, philosophically. Mr. Fenton stated this had been argued when TUG was brought in and the philosophy of the prevailing side was to get the City, not the private sector, involved in the purchase of the properties. Mr. Fenton asked for and received clarification of the $125K interest income in the budgets. Mr. Hutchinson explained that this was restricted to pay down the bond issue 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 and had to be accounted for up front. They would have to make up in cash whatever they did not make in interest. Mr. Fenton was concerned about going with the Yellow budget. because they had not discussed the $450K request for the Police. He had been strongly in favor of this at the beginning and still wanted to have the four Police officers currently on board - he just did not want to see the program expanded. Mr. Hutchinson said it would only be for six months, but Mr. Fenton was still not in favor of expanding it. Ms. Horenburger inquired whether the CRA employees had independent health insurance or the City of Boynton Beach's programs. Mr. Hutchinson explained that it was through an independent agency and this was mandated to them when the CRA began. He was now revisiting this with the City. Ms. Horenburger said the CRA could piggyback the contract of any local government agency, including the Palm Beach County. Mr. Hutchinson was looking into this but some plans had restrictions; for example, at the City of Boynton Beach, it is necessary to be on the payroll to be included in the insurance program. The objective was to increase the benefits and reduce the cost to the CRA. Mr. Hutchinson clarified that if the Green budget were chosen, bonds would be required. The Blue budget is without. Ms. Horenburger asked about the "trash system" in the Green budget for $4K. Mr. Hutchinson responded that this was an effort to get public trashcans in the MLK Corridor and other areas in the CRA to assist in the cleanup effort. The trash collectors are under contract and charge special rates if they have to hand-empty the trash bins. Staff is investigating a new system of trash containers that could be emptied by the regular truck, but have a nicer appearance. This would be a trial effort in areas where trash had been an ongoing problem, to determine if the containers were effective in addressing the problem. The City will pick up the trash at no cost if the CRA purchases the trashcans. Mr. Fenton believed that commercial trash pickup in the CRA should be opened up to bid by SF! or some other firms. Mr. Hutchinson explained that if this were done, the residential rates would be raised considerably, since the commercial trash pickup subsidizes the residential trash pickup in Boynton Beach. Ms. Horenburger did not want to approve programs or directions by approving the budget, and that is what they would be doing. Chair Heavilin said most of the programs had come before the board previously and been approved, although the board may wish to look at them to decide if it wanted to continue them. Chair Heavilin felt that regardless of what happened on property acquisition, the most pressing issue facing the CRA was affordable housing. She felt the bond money would be required for this and that the CRA would need to support work force and affordable housing in the Heart of Boynton. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Ms. Horenburger asked to see statistics on the amount of affordable housing in Boynton Beach and an analysis of Boynton Beach in comparison to adjacent cities. One of the elected City officials pointed out to her that the City had a great deal of affordable housing already. Mr. Hutchinson said they had a good stock, but were considering various ways of doing affordable housing. Instead of the bond issue going into buying properties, for instance, it may go for buyer vouchers so they can buy a house. To get enough money to do this, they would be looking at the numbers staff suggested. As the CRA's policy is set, the funds that are set aside may be more or less for acquisition, as the situation develops. This was being worked on in workshops with the City. Mr. Hutchinson strongly believed that CRAs would soon be mandated to address slum and blight through affordable housing programs. Ms. Horenburger thought it would be better to go for a smaller bond now and a bigger one next year, since the suggested bond would take the CRA to its maximum bonding capacity. Mr. Hutchinson said without the bond, a lot of programs would have to be stopped and started. Chair Heavilin did not agree with going out for several bonds, since the bond issuing costs were prohibitive. She favored doing the bond issue to have the money to do the things that needed to be done. She did not want to pass a budget and fine tune it later, and hoped they could get as close as possible to the finished budget before October 1. She was in favor of the grants and the bond. Mr. Myott said the CRA had started many programs and had to give them a chance to work. The land acquisition issue in the Heart of Boynton was an unknown, but the CRA had to be prepared to help it happen, and this is what the bond issue would do. Mr. Myott gave the board feedback on a presentation he had seen from a private developer for the Heart of Boynton area. The proposed project was much more dense and higher than anything the CRA had ever envisioned for the area. Since the CRA wants to see less density, it would have to be able to help that happen. He felt the CRA had to take risk to try to make the Heart of Boynton happen. That was, he felt, their job. Ms. Horenburger said that philosophically, CRAs are charged with clearing blight and changing communities. She understood taking the initial steps to try to make something happen because no one else was, but did not agree that taxpayer money should be spent to redevelop the Heart of Boynton when someone else was willing to spend their own money, to do it. Mr. Hutchinson said the CRA was not developing the Heart of Boynton. It was assembling properties for the private sector to come in with design plans. Ms. Horenburger stated, "Why should we assemble properties for private developers and in the process drive the price up?" Mr. Hutchinson responded that there were properties that cannot be bought. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Mr. Hutchinson was concerned about getting many developers to look at the assembled properties, and not give it all to one private developer who was willing to pay for it. The CRA should make sure that the ultimate development team is one that is top notch and has worked together before. He did not think the private developer would get any further with the unwilling sellers than the CRA has. If the properties are turned over to a private (jeveloper, the taxpayers need to understand the process the CRA went through to get input from many different sources and options from developers. Due process had to be followed in the coming up with the lead developer in the private sector. The question was raised about eminent domain in relation to the Kelo decision in Connecticut in regard to making the case that the development was for a public purpose if the assembled properties were turned over to a private developer. Attorney Spillias said that in the CRA's enabling statutory framework, there had to be a determination of blight and there was a lot of debate at present about how strict the criteria was on blight. He had seen one definition of blight as an area of excess traffic, for example. Attorney Spillias will look into the matter and render an opinion. Basically, he seemed to agree that the CRA could turn the property over to a private developer as long as the process to do so was fair and open and that they were not doing it to favor a particular developer for a particular reason. Mr. Fenton wanted information from the source of the financial information for the bond. Mr. Hutchinson stated the bond was broken down into two areas: affordable housing issues (land or subsidies) and streetscape projects. In reference to affordable housing, Ms. Horenburger stated that they had to decide not only whether to do it, but how much of it to do. Boynton Beach needs more expensive housing for the tax base also. She wanted to see the statistics on affordable housing before making a decision on this. She thought it was probably available in the Comprehensive Plan. CRA staff mentioned that the consolidated plan from the Housing Authority called for 1800 new units through 2007. Mr. Fenton understood that if they did the bond, the CRA would have no borrowing power left at all. Mr. Hutchinson responded that there was another $lM in reserve and in 11 months, they could go to the bond market again. Mr. Myott asked where the acquisition project stood today in the Heart of Boynton. Mr. Hutchinson responded there was one proposal that the board had seen on a group of properties and then it would be finished. TUG and staff were not doing anything. Mr. Myott asked if this were based on the moratorium. Mr. Hutchinson responded that staff and TUG had come to their limit - they had negotiated all they could. Negotiations are finished. The next step would be eminent domain. Mr. Myott felt this could not just be left alone - the CRA had to develop a position about assembling the land. He felt when the CRA decided on a direction, it should stick to it. Commitments were made to the 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 Police and for the trolley. He felt it was important to give those programs a chance and support them. Ms. Horenburger agreed, saying this was why they needed a legal opinion on the eminent domain question before they take such a position. Mr. Myott felt they were already on solid ground and that it was not going to be a "sweetheart" deal. Developers would make proposals and ultimately, it would be obvious that it was for the public good. He did not want to see the land acquisition effort stop, eminent domain or not. Chair Heavilin agreed, saying that every day the moratorium went on, it was costing the CRA more money. Developers say it is costing them $lK a day for every day they are not on the ground. Costs are rising very fast. A discussion ensued about mixing up the capital and operating budgets in the presentation. Mr. Fenton said he would not object to the Police if it could be funded from the $6M operating budget. Mr. Hutchinson felt that was in direct contrast to former direction from the board to keep the programs out of the operating budget. Ms. Horenburger felt that travel and events should possibly be in programs as well. Mr. Myott stated they could not start work on the bond issue or vote on whether they wanted to go after it. Mr. Hutchinson said the point was that the board needed to give direction now because on October 1, he would have to layoff the police dept and cancel the trolley. Mr. Myott said that would be a waste. At the end of the discussion, a straw vote was taken on the budget scenarios based on the above color scheme with the following result: Don Fenton - Blue; Steve Myott - Yellow; AI DeMarco - no vote; Marie Horenburger - Blue; James Barretta - Yellow; and Jeanne Heavilin - Yellow or 3 for Yellow and 2 for Blue. Vice Chair Tillman had left the meeting before this point. Since the dissension was primarily from Mr. Fenton and Ms. Horenburger, Steve Myott suggested they meet with Mr. Hutchinson to see what compromises, if any, could be made. Vice Chair Tillman and Ms. Horenburger left before this discussion was resolved. The consensus among the remaining members was that since there were philosophical differences on the board, and it did not seem likely that people would change their philosophies, it would be better for Mr. Hutchinson to present a revised budget at the September 15 meeting and allow the board to vote on it. Mr. Hutchinson said the October 1, 2005 deadline was statutory and it was necessary for the CRA to file a budget. He invited dialogue with the board members who had problems with certain budget items and offered to get more background on the bond matter, since that seemed to be a "sticking point." Chair Heavilin felt that Mr. Hutchinson's numbers were conservative in terms of the bond being based on last year's T.I.F. and that the grants he was projecting were conservative. She was totally comfortable with the Yellow budget scenario. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Budget Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida August 30, 2005 III. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully subm itted, (J /_'/Y!~ ~~H ~J::1:>tllJ Susan Collins Recording Secretary (083105) 7