Loading...
Minutes 10-11-05 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Lisa Bright, Assistant Director I. Call to Order Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared the full Board was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chairperson Heavilin requested adding under New Business Multi-Cultural Carnival as Item C. and Heritage Fest as Item D. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes for the August 9, 2005 Meeting continued to Tuesday, August 30, 2005 B. Approval of Minutes for the CRA Budget Workshop August 30, 2005 C. Approval of Minutes for the CRA Special Meeting August 30, 2005 D. Approval of Minutes for the CRA Board Meeting September 15, 2005 E. Approval of the September 30, 2005 Financial Report Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 F. Approval of reimbursement for expenses relating to an Assembly and Redevelopment Incentive Grant to the Railroad Avenue Self-Assembly group in the amount of $1,935 G. Approval of Fa9ade Grant in the amount of $15,000 to Hudson Realty H. Approval of Completed CRA Promenade Projects Plans I. Approval of Completed CRA Boynton Beach Boulevard, Extension Plans J. Review and Approval of CRA's Boynton Beach Boulevard Lighting, Irrigation and Landscaping Plans West of US 1 (30% finalized) K. Review and Approval of MLK Streetscape Plans (30% finalized) L. Review and Approval of Sea crest Boulevard Streetscape Plans (30% finalized) Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and unanimously carried. V. Public Audience None VI. Public Hearing Attorney Spillias asked Board members to reveal any ex-parte communications they may have had with anyone regarding any of the items being considered under public hearings. There were none. Attorney Spillias explained the procedures and requirements involved in quasi-judicial proceedings. Old Business A. Chow Hut Maior Site Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Chow Hut (MSPM 05-007) George Brewer Anthony J. Mauro and Doug Peters 558 East Gateway Boulevard Request for Major site plan modification to construct a 598 square foot addition to an existing 702 square foot building (1,300 square feet enclosed) and a 1.248 square foot covered porch on an 8,060 square foot parcel zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). Kathleen Zeitler of the Planning and Zoning Division presented the item on behalf of staff. The project is located on the south side of Gateway Boulevard, west of Federal Highway 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 and the railroad tracks. Currently the building is vacant and had been previously used as a beauty salon. A change of use is being requested to a take-out restaurant. In addition, the applicant intends to add a 598 square foot addition to the current building to increase the size of the building to 1,248 square feet. The Board previously heard this request at its August 9, 2005 meeting and the item was supposed to go before the City Commission on September 6, 2005. However, at the August 9th meeting, the applicant requested to table the item in order to revise the plans. Ms. Zeitler reported the increase in square footage is minor and only impacts the size of the proposed building footprint. The locations of the chikee hut, parking, landscaping and signage have not changed. The site is zoned C-2 and is comprised of 8,060 square feet. Parking is comprised of eight (8) spaces in front of the building and six (6) spaces in the rear of the building. The applicant is requesting a change in use of the building from personal services to a take-out restaurant with outdoor seating only. There will be no drive-thru window or indoor seating. The building addition will house a freezer-cooler, public handicap accessible restrooms, kitchen storage area and an ice cream counter. Covered outdoor dining areas would be located on each side of the building that would look like chikee huts for a total seating of 32 seats, including the service bar area. Members of the Miccosukee or Seminole Indians will construct the thatched chikee huts and are exempt from building permit requirements. The operation will be open for breakfast, lunch, dinner and late night meals. Even though a service bar would be included in the outdoor dining area, it is anticipated that a majority of sales would be from food, not alcoholic beverages. All sales of alcoholic beverages must be consumed on the premises and a license is required. If at any time the sales of alcohol exceed the food sales, conditional use approval for a bar would be required. There will be no amplified music played indoors or outdoors. Currently, the site is non- conforming for landscaping and ADA requirements. The site improvements will bring the property up to code as much as possible that include a screened dumpster and other items enumerated in staff's report. Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic concurrency statement. Ms. Zeitler pointed out that since the plans were revised and the square footage has increased, the applicant must apply for a revised traffic concurrency approval prior to permitting. This has been added as condition #27 to the conditions of approval. The existing parking spaces will be re-striped to provide eight (8) spaces in the front to include one (1) handicap space that would be van accessible and five (5) spaces in the rear. However, one space in the rear will be deleted for dumpster use. Next reviewed was the landscaping for the project that staff reported exceeds landscaping requirements. This will provide a more tropical outdoor setting for dining. The proposed landscaping will be placed along the east and west sides of the building adjacent to outdoor dining and to screen the dumpster. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Attorney Spillias at this point administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying or had testified. Ms. Zeitler pointed out the main difference from the plan presented tonight and the previous plan is the additional square footage being added and a small change in the parking. Staff is recommending different colors for the building than the applicant had requested. Ms. Zeitler noted this had been raised at the previous hearing. The applicant proposed that the building would be painted dark orange with dark brown trim and sign. Staff would like the building and sign to be a lighter color and more festive to blend in with the Harbors project across the street. Ms. Zeitler presented sample colors and the conditions that staff was recommending for the project. Mr. Fenton asked what staff's reasoning was to change the colors so drastically. Ms. Zeitler pointed out when the palm fronds dried out they would be the color staff was recommending. Mr. Barretta thought that when palm fronds dried out, they were gray in color and that did not appear in staff's rendering of the buildings. Ms. Zeitler pointed out the roof color has a gray tone. Mr. Myott inquired if the color changes were based on the City's color code. Mr. Myott was informed the City does not have a color code. Ms. Zeitler explained the colors were based upon the design guidelines in the LDR that require the building to harmonize with surrounding development, which in this instance is beige. Staff recommends approval with the recommended conditions that include obtaining a revised traffic statement prior to permitting and revising the building and sign colors. Ms. Zeitler reported there are 27 staff conditions for approval of the project. Mr. Barretta asked the CRA Planning Director for her opinion of the color selections. Ms. Brooks concurred with the City staff's recommendation for the colors and she also approved of the project. Mr. Barretta questioned if the surrounding colors were beige, why was staff recommending mustard yellow for the building. Ms. Zeitler explained the colors did not have to be the same; similar colors were recommended. Mr. Barretta felt the colors the applicant was proposing would be more harmonious than the colors staff was recommending. Vice Chair Tillman inquired how the City would determine when liquor sales exceeded food sales. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, said this would be determined by licensing and yearly inspections by the City. He pointed out the City had the right to look at the receipts to make certain this is happening. Since there was limited bar seating, most of the business would be table dining. Tony Mauro, 2611 Lake Drive North, Boynton Beach, one of the two owners of the project said they agreed with all staff conditions, except for the colors. They requested to remain with the original colors they presented. Mr. Mauro felt their colors were more vibrant and would complement the atmosphere they are trying to achieve. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Discussion took place regarding the colors of the building. Mr. Fenton felt the location of the applicant's project was in no way related to the Harbors. Mr. Barretta also did not favor staff's color selection and felt the applicant's colors were much more coordinated and pleasing. Mr. Myott felt thought the architect of the project should have been present to give his views on the colors he selected. Mr. Barretta pointed out the color ordinance was turned down by the City Commission. Mr. Mauro noted at the last meeting their architect was present to address the colors that were approved and they did not feel color was an issue at this point. Mr. Myott also preferred the applicant's colors over staff's recommendation. Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept staff's recommendation to approve the Chow Hut, subject to all staff conditions, except condition #24 would be eliminated, and the existing colors would be allowed to stand. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott. Mr. Barretta recused himself from voting on the project and completed a Form 8 provided by the Recording Secretary. Mr. DeMarco inquired about the types of alcohol that would be served. The applicant stated it would be beer and wine. Mr. DeMarco also inquired if a space would be reserved for pick-up of food, in the event all spaces were occupied. He recommended setting aside one space for pick-up and one space for handicap. Ms. Zeitler commented that customers would park and get out of their car to order at the front window. The pick- up counter is on the side of the building. She felt the parking was sufficient. Mr. Mauro anticipated that a majority of their business would be pick-up and delivery, even though there would be outside dining. Mr. Breese said that condition #25 would have to be eliminated because this dealt with the color of the sign recommended by staff. Mr. Fenton amended his motion to include the elimination of condition #25. Mr. Myott amended his second of the motion. The motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Barretta abstaining). Chairperson Heavilin recognized Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor McCray, Commissioners Ensler and Ferguson and City Manager Kurt Bressner in the audience. New Business A. Spotts Abandonment Abandonment 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Spotts Abandonment (ABAN 05-007) 805 North Federal Highway Daniel Spotts Daniel Spotts 805 North Federal Highway 1. PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: Request for abandonment of a portion of a 20- foot wide right-of-way west of North Federal Highway abutting the Florida East Coast Railway. Kathleen Zeitler of the Planning and Zoning Division presented the item on behalf of staff. The location of the abandonment was pointed out, which is located on the west side of North Federal Highway and abuts the FEC tracks. Currently the property is unoccupied and was previously a consignment shop. The alley is 20' wide by 50' in length and is unimproved and runs north and south adjacent to and parallel with the railroad. The survey incorrectly states the right-of-way is 25'; it is actually 20' wide. Staff met with the applicant on July 7th. The applicant indicated the alley was overgrown and attracted vagrants and crime. He requested the City abandon the property so he could maintain it. It was later determined the applicant would be using the alley for additional business parking. Mr. Spotts was informed that instead of seeking an abandonment of the property, he could request a revocable license agreement with the City. This license agreement would allow the applicant to lease the land from the City. In accordance with State law Statute 9336-12, each adjacent property owner would receive one-half of the abandoned property. Any live utilities in the alley would require an easement dedication. If the applicant desired to use the property for additional parking, it would require a City-approved site plan modification that would comply with all land development regulations. Staff was unsuccessful in contacting a representative of the FEC Railway and did not receive any comments. Staff is not certain if the 10' would be sufficient for additional parking as intended by the applicant. The applicant could try to purchase the other half from the FEC Railway for this purpose. Since staff has determined the public alley no longer serves any public purpose, staff has no objection to the abandonment and supports it by either a dedicated easement or a revocable license agreement. The public utility companies were notified and no objections to the abandonment were received. There is a live sewer line located within the 20' alley. Therefore, 12' of alley would have to be retained as a utility easement. The applicant was informed if he wanted to go with the revocable license agreement, he would have full use of the entire 20' alleyway. The applicant has indicated he would rather own the property, since he would be paving it for additional parking. Staff is recommending approval with the condition for an easement and the applicant has agreed to this condition. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Mr. Myott inquired how the FEC has dealt with owners in the past requesting transfers of their easement property. Chairperson Heavilin responded the Railway would consider selling the property at market rate. Ms. Horenburger has had experience with the FEC Railway and they sell their property at market value. Ms. Horenburger also pointed out the City pays the Railway for every crossing in the City and she did not think it was fair to give them something for free when they charge the City to cross their tracks. She recommended the applicant accept the revocable license agreement. Ms. Brooks, CRA Planning Director, reported that the properties on both sides of the applicant have received abandonments. Therefore, this abandonment would be consistent with the adjacent properties and she is recommending approval. Mr. Barretta inquired if the abandonment had to be split between the applicant and the railway. Ms. Zeitler responded State law required it be abandoned equally between both parties. Daniel Spotts, owner of Miami Aqua Culture, reported he had several meetings with the City regarding the abandonment. He noted that the City has abandoned property in Resolutions No. R98-130, R98-145, and R98-56 that pertain to property immediately north of his property and in each case, the City Commission gave the entire amount to the applicant. He pointed out that there is no proof that the FEC Railway owns the adjacent land; the only thing the Railway has is a right-of-way. He determined this because he was required to notify all property owners within 400' radius of his property of his application for abandonment and the Railway did not come up within this radius. Mr. Spotts also went to the County's abstract department to determine if the Railway actually owned the land, and they could not determine this because it dated back before the plat of 1925. Mr. Spotts has spoken to a representative of the Railway in charge of real estate and he could not confirm they owned the land. The Railway was contacted about this hearing, but chose not to be present. Mr. Spotts main reason for wanting the property was to properly maintain it; he was not certain whether it would be used for parking. He did not want to maintain it if he did not own it. He also pointed out the FEC Railway told him if they received the property, they would not maintain it. Mr. Spotts pointed out the Railway does not pay taxes either. Mr. Barretta asked about the three resolutions cited by Mr. Spotts and asked if the entire property was dedicated to the Railway or to a property owner. Mr. Spotts stated the entire property was given to the applicants. Mr. Barretta requested staff address this. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, said staff would be agreeable to research this, but it would require additional time. Mr. Rumpf did not have those resolutions in hand, but acknowledged the City has processed abandonments in this manner. Mr. Rumpf said the City Engineer interprets State planning law for staff and could not confirm what Mr. Spotts reported. Mr. Barretta felt the City should research this to determine if the entire abandonment could be given to the applicant. Mr. Spotts brought this to the attention of City staff previously, but no action was taken. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Chairperson Heavilin recommended staff review this and asked the applicant if he would agree to have his application postponed, pending further review. Mr. Spotts had no objection. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to table the item to provide staff an opportunity to research it. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman. Chairperson Heavilin thought the case should be continued, instead of tabling. Mr. Spotts inquired if he would have to give notice again at his expense since it is on the Commission agenda for November. Attorney Spillias reported that if the item were continued to the Board's next monthly meeting, it would not be necessary to re-notice. Mr. Spotts asked about the notice for the November City Commission meeting. In this event, Attorney Spillias thought the item would have to be re-notified because the item could not go before the City Commission until the Board has taken official action. Attorney Spillias pointed out that staff assumed that State Statute ~336-12 applied in this instance and the property would have to be split both ways. This mayor may not be the case. He noted this statute applies when there is nothing else in the chain of title to provide otherwise. The Board discussed this same subject some months ago. At that meeting Attorney Miskel recited the law and Attorney Spillias informed the Board at that time that what Attorney Miskel recited was accurate that if the abandonment were a dedication and the dedication was on the edge of the plat, it would not necessarily go 50- 50 and the entire 100% could go to the adjacent property owner within the same plat. Attorney Spillias pointed out that rights of way could be owned by a City several ways and if they owned the deed, the City could dispose of the property any way they deemed fit. In that case, ~336-12 would not apply at all and it would depend on how the plat read. Another determination is what is the nature of FEC's right-of-way and is it a right-of-way where the Railway does not own the underlying fee title, but has a right-of-way by plat or an easement or some other dedication. The next question would be who the other owner is. He questioned if the Engineering Division was the proper source to determine this and he recommended utilizing a real estate lawyer to look at the plat and chain of title to determine who owned the property originally and how it was platted. Mr. Spotts already spoke with a real estate attorney who sent him to the abstract department of the County and that agency informed him that he would need to hire a specialist. Mr. Spotts questioned if he should bear the expense for all this to prove if the Railway owned the land; he just wanted advice on how to proceed. Ms. Horenburger doubted the true ownership of the FEC property could be determined. Mr. Rumpf recommended if the Board postponed the item to a date certain, the City Commission would do the same thing. As a result, the notice would still be in effect when the item went to the City Commission and the postponement would be announced. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Attorney Spillias said if the City could do this, then they could proceed as recommended by staff. Mr. Barretta amended his motion to state the item would be continued to the Board's next regular meeting. Vice Chair Tillman amended his second of the motion. Mr. Myott pointed out since the applicant would be benefiting by receiving this land, he should pay for the research and not City staff. Mr. Spotts inquired that since the City would not perform any further research, he would report on his findings at the next meeting. Mr. Rumpf explained that staff would confirm what the applicant brought out regarding the three prior abandonments. Also staff will speak with the City Engineer to see what his experience is with the FEC Railway. Mr. Rumpf felt this same issue must have been looked at in the past. Vote The motion unanimously carried. B. Majestic Gas Zonina Code Variance 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Majestic Gas (ZNCV 05-007) Rajesh Patel, Raj Properties, Inc. N/A 302 West Boynton Beach Boulevard DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4-L, requiring a six (6) foot solid, stucco masonry wall, to allow a six (6) foot vinyl or wood fence in a C-2 Neighborhood district abutting an R-1-A Single Family Residential neighborhood. Kathleen Zeitler from the Planning and Zoning Division presented the item on behalf of staff. The applicant is requesting to build a 6' wall along the south property line in place of the required 6' stucco masonry buffer wall required to separate commercial from abutting residential. The property is located east of 1-95 on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard called Majestic Gas Station and is located in the Boynton Heights Subdivision. The applicant intends to modify the existing site that resulted in the requirement of the solid masonry wall, painted on both sides and at least 6' in height shall be located within the side and/or rear yards except on corner lots. In that case, the wall is only required on interior lot lines and must be located at least 2' from the rear property line. A wall is not necessary on the western boundary of the site because it abuts commercial. The wall is only required along the south property line. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Ms. Zeitler recited the regulations that apply to the construction and location of the masonry walls. There is an existing 3' FP&L easement located along the entire south property line. Commercial properties are required to provide additional buffering to minimize land uses when located adjacent to residential districts. This would include dense vegetation, berms, and buffer walls. The existing gasoline station is a non-conforming use due to its location and is not in compliance with current code requirements. The requirement of a buffer wall became a requirement in connection with the applicant's future request for a major site-plan modification. The existing gas station will be remodeled by eliminating the automotive repair and the garage. In its place, the convenience store would be expanded. The applicant is prohibited from adding onto the building or increasing the building's square footage because this would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. There was a concrete/louver wall along the side and rear property lines, but the applicant removed it after it was damaged. There are photographs dating back to 2003 that show the site was densely buffered along the side and rear property lines. The current site conditions do not include any buffers and the gas station is now very visible from adjacent residential properties to the south and southwest. The applicant would be permitted to locate the wall 3' from the property line so it would be outside the easement. The applicant's justification for the variance request was due to special conditions that are atypical to the subject parcel. Staff does not agree with this statement. The existing foliage is unhealthy and interferes with the power lines and should be removed when the site is redeveloped and new landscaping planted in its place. The buffer requirements between commercial and residential require buffer depth of 5'. Staff is recommending that the wall be moved in 3' and shrubs should be planted on the outside of the wall in accordance with FP&L guidelines. Trees and shrubs should then be introduced along the interior of the wall to provide the required buffer. Staff is recommending the applicant coordinate tree removal within the FP&L easement with FP&L in order to protect the power lines. Also the applicant should strive to be a good neighbor by buffering the gas station for the adjacent residences and to bring the property up to code as much as possible. When the applicant applies for a major site plan modification to remodel the gas station, he would be required to bring the non-conforming site up to code, including landscaping. Staff recommends denial of the request, since the applicant has not demonstrated the code requirement presents an undue hardship or is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the property. Mr. Barretta inquired if the applicant's actions in removing the wall and vegetation resulted in any code violations. Mr. Breese responded that the applicant had been cited by the Code Compliance Division for having a damaged wall. The applicant then removed the wall in anticipation of complying with the citation. However, a wall needs to be put back in place of the one that was removed. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Ms. Brooks, CRA Planning Director, also recommended denial of the applicant's request. Mr. Rajesh Patel, 302 West Boynton Beach Boulevard, owner of the property, acknowledged Code Compliance cited him for having missing wall sections. When he was cited, he telephoned City Hall to inquire if he could replace it with a wooden fence. He was informed that this was allowed and he needed to obtain a permit. When he applied for a permit, he was informed that a masonry wall was required. He said when he purchased the property it was littered with trash and he tried to clean it up and that resulted in his being cited. A new masonry fence would cost approximately $70,000. Mr. DeMarco questioned if the applicant could install a metal wall because he saw a new metal wall that was recently installed along Golf Road and it looked very attractive. Ms. Zeitler informed Mr. DeMarco that the code required a masonry wall. She pointed out the existing wall had been completely removed. Vice Chair Tillman acknowledged that the applicant has recently improved the property and putting in a new wall would add to the appearance of the station. Mr. DeMarco inquired if the underground tanks had been replaced. Mr. Patel reported new tanks were installed that cost approximately $250,000. They are currently working with an architect to remodel the gas station. The public hearing was opened. Claudia Ocampo, 222 NW 1st Avenue, Boynton Beach would like to have a masonry wall built to buffer the residential area from the gas station. The gas station abuts the houses immediately to the south where children live and it is very unsightly. She noted there was garbage strewn about and vagrants hang out in the area. Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, did not think that there should be any compromise for this property since it is located in the Boynton Beach Boulevard redevelopment area. He recommended that staff inform the applicant about the plans for this street. Mr. Edwards felt that the gasoline station should be a shining star to carry out the vision for Boynton Beach Boulevard. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Fenton inquired what kind of wall could be placed on the site. Ms. Zeitler explained that a 6' minimum masonry or stucco wall would have to be installed and not a louver wall. Mr. Fenton felt a steel wall would be sufficient with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Barretta pointed out that there are several masonry wall products that are pre-cast concrete that would be an alternative to a block wall. He did not think that a metal or wood fence would be acceptable. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Mr. Myott noted most buffer walls were pre-cast and he thought this should be added to the code. However, since this is commercial property separated from residential, Mr. Myott did not envision any kind of substitute for a solid masonry type wall. Mr. DeMarco recommended giving the applicant 30 days to find an alternative for the masonry wall. Mr. Barretta pointed out the applicant is applying for a chain link fence and he would recommend that this be denied to allow the applicant to come back with something else. Mr. Patel stated his request was for a wooden or vinyl fence. Chairperson Heavilin informed the applicant about the Fa<;ade Grants that the CRA has available and recommended that he apply for a grant to offset some of the costs. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve staff's recommendation for denial of the petition. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and carried 6-1 (Mr. DeMarco dissenting). C. Waterside Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Waterside (SPTE 05-004) Keith & Ballbe, Inc. Southern Homes East side of Federal DESCRIPTION: Request for a six-month time extension for a new site plan approval granted on July 20, 2004, from July 20, 2005 to January 20, 2006. Kathleen Zeitler presented the item on behalf of staff. The property is zoned IPUD for 113 townhomes. The applicant is requesting a six (6) month time extension. The City Commission approved the site plan on July 20, 2004 and it is good for one year from the date of approval. If the request were approved, the expiration date, including concurrency certification, would be extended to January 20, 2006. Since the request for a time extension, the applicant has formally submitted building permit drawings to the Building Division. The traffic concurrency was approved by the County with a build out date of 2005. Therefore, if the applicant does not receive the building permits by the end of this year, a revised traffic study with a new project date would be required for approval by the County. This has been added as a condition of approval. Ms. Zeitler pointed out that the original 68 conditions of approval would still apply and there are no new land development regulations that would affect the project. Staff recommends approval of the six (6) month extension to January 20, 2006. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Ms. Horenburger pointed out that January 20, 2006 is only four months away. Ms. Zeitler noted the applicant applied for the extension on July 19, 2005 because at that time the applicant was not ready to submit the applications for building permits. They have since been submitted, but the applicant is still going through the permitting process and has not received their permit. Ms. Brooks, CRA Planning Director, recommended approval of the time extension. Carlos Ballbe, representing Southern Homes, agreed with the conditions of approval. He pointed out they received a permit to reconstruct the seawall around the perimeter of the property, but still decided to apply for an extension of the site plan approval. If possible, Mr. Ballbe requested some additional time beyond the six months because they applied in July and would only have until January 2006 for the remainder of the extension. Mr. Ballbe was also agreeable to doing a new traffic concurrency study. The public hearing was opened. Joseph Puleo, 917 Turner Road, Delray Beach, has resided in the City since 1991 and commended the City Commission for all the development taking place throughout the City. Mr. Puleo resides within 150' of the southern perimeter of the Waterside development. He pointed out the dirt that has been generated from the development that is all over his house, cars and boat. The request for an extension would cause a great deal of harm to the community and is depriving him of his ability to enjoy his house. It is impossible to open doors and windows because of the dirt flowing off the applicant's property. He has complained to Southern Homes and the City, but has seen no results. Their trucks and equipment go through his development and the residents have complained about this. As a result, Southern Homes posted a guard at the front of his community, but the guard has been of no assistance whatever and the trucks continue to go through his community. Mr. Puleo was opposed to any time extension for the project. He would like to see the project finished as soon as possible. Arthur Shilling, 818 Chukker Road, Delray Beach, only received the notice of the time extension two weeks ago and felt many other people would have been present, but they are still up north. Mr. Shilling questioned the number of stories in the development and Chairperson Heavilin explained that the Board is addressing a site plan extension, not the height of the buildings. Mr. Ballbe had met with Mr. Shilling several times and the elevations were pointed out to the entire neighborhood. Mr. Shilling was against the time extension because they were told Chukker Road would only be used for emergency purposes and the trucks using the road have created a lot of dust. He noted that all the mango trees and a large Ficus tree were torn down. He was concerned about the wells being destroyed. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the applicant was still using Chukker Road since a utility road had been installed. Mr. Shilling said it is still being used, but not as much before the utility road was installed. Mr. Shilling complained that the workers begin work at 6:30 a.m. and 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 disturb the neighborhood. He questioned whether this was allowed and said they have no peace in their community. Mr. Barretta inquired if there were ordinances dealing with erosion control and the time when workers could begin work. Mr. Rumpf responded the City has construction practice requirements and he will follow up on these complaints with the Engineering and Building Divisions to make sure the developer is adhering to those requirements. Mr. Rumpf would insure that the applicant is held to the hours of operation permitted. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to accept staff's recommendation to grant an extension, but would add an additional two (2) months. Ms. Horenburger asked the maker of the motion if he would agree to a condition to the motion that Chukker Road would no longer be used as an access road to the construction site. Mr. Barretta felt this was an issue between City staff and not this Board. Mr. Fenton agreed to second the motion if Mr. Barretta was agreeable to add an additional four (4) months instead of two. Mr. Barretta agreed to this recommendation and changed his motion to ten (10) months. Motion seconded by Chairperson Heavilin. Ms. Horenburger made the following substitute motion. Motion That a condition be added to the original motion that the developer not use Chukker Road. The motion died for a lack of a second. Chairperson Heavilin would like the alleviation of dirt being blown around and was aware that there were requirements regarding this in the code. Mr. Rumpf said he would follow up on this. Chairperson Heavilin noted most site plan extensions have always been for 12 months and asked if the Board wanted to consider a 12-month extension. Mr. Barretta did not think the applicant required a 12-month extension since he is in the building permit stage. Mr. Ballbe stated that ten (10) months would be satisfactory. Vote Motion carried 6-1 (Ms. Horenburger dissenting) VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 None VIII. Old Business A. Interlocal Agreement with City and CRA for HOB Phase 1 Project Assembly Ms. Brooks pointed out this item was previously before this Board, which is to fully implement Phase 1 of the Heart of Boynton Plan. They have gone through the voluntary acquisition part of the project as far as possible. Ms. Brooks reported they own 40% of the property in Phase 1 and in order to proceed, they need to acquire, through eminent domain proceedings, the remainder of the properties. Attorney Spillias had some corrections to the document as follows: (1) In Paragraph 2.3, on page 9178 of the agenda (page 2 of the document), the third word in the second sentence should be "described" and not "descripted." (2) In the Paragraph 3.3, there are two references to Exhibit E. The Exhibits should actually be Exhibits C and D. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that members were provided an Exhibit E tonight that was inadvertently omitted from the package. Ms. Brooks confirmed that Exhibit E was, in fact, distributed tonight. Attorney Spillias inquired if Exhibit E was correct in Paragraph 3.3 and was informed that it was. Mr. Fenton pointed out that the 5th Amendment prohibited governments from condemning private property, except for public use. He felt the taking of these properties was an economic use and, therefore, he was opposed to the Board authorizing any eminent domain proceedings. He asserted that eminent domain proceedings was government's attempt to over rule the individual homeowner and he was opposed to putting people out of their homes through eminent domain. People should be allowed to remain in their homes and any development that occurs in the Heart of Boynton could be built around those homes. Vice Chairman Tillman referred to the positive direction that the CRA had taken that began over five years ago. He noted there is a plan and the Board is charged with seeing this plan through and as a result, major development would be coming into downtown Boynton Beach. The land the CRA would be purchasing would be redeveloped so that people would have new homes; no one is being displaced. Further, Vice Chair Tillman felt that not moving forward with the plan was sending the wrong message. He noted how hard this board has worked to make Boynton Beach a better place and he was opposed to taking a "back seat" in the Heart of Boynton area. Vice Chair Tillman urged members to proceed with what they started out to do. There is a plan in place for the downtown and the Heart of Boynton; it was incumbent upon the Board to continue what it started. Mr. Barretta echoed Vice Chair Tillman's comments. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Chairperson Heavilin pointed out the properties that would be taken by eminent domain were not private single-family homes and the CRA is not planning any eminent domain proceedings against any single-family residences. The CRA has already purchased over two-thirds of the properties needed and she felt this was long overdue and should have been done years ago when the Heart of Boynton Plan was been originally drawn up with community involvement. Mr. DeMarco also agreed with the comments made by Vice Chair Tillman and asked that Mr. Quintus Greene address the Board. Quintus Greene, Development Director, noted that Vice Chair Tillman's comments were on target. He pointed out that the Supreme Court in the past two months ruled in New London, Connecticut that economic development is, in fact, a public purpose. Therefore, this issue has been settled. The intent is to assemble a parcel that could be developed and the residents themselves noted that the corner of MLK and Sea crest is a problem corner in that community. Activities have been occurring on that corner for years that have resulted in a great deal of police activity. Those activities have been a concern of that community for a long time and the eminent domain action is necessary to alleviate some of the conditions that the residents have been complaining about. Mr. Greene requested that the Board move forward with this action so it could be brought before the City Commission. Kurt Bressner, City Manager, noted the CRA Board recommended to the City Commission in 2001 that Ordinance No. 01-59 be adopted and was subsequently adopted by the City Commission on December 4, 2001. This Ordinance approved the redevelopment plan for the Heart of Boynton. Prior to that, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 98-33 that established the HOB as a qualified redevelopment area pursuant to Florida State Statute 163.360. The necessary legal steps have been established by legislative act of the City Commission. Mr. Bressner pointed out that the HOB is in compliance with the statute as a qualified redevelopment plan and official policy has been set by the City Commission based upon the adoption of both Ordinances. Therefore, the City feels the plan is ready to go. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the lnterlocal Agreement between the City and the CRA for the Heart of Boynton Phase 1 Project Assembly. Motion seconded by Mr. Barretta. Ms. Horenburger recalled that the Board's attorney furnished the Board with an opinion on eminent domain and it appeared that the CRA would not do the eminent domain; it was the City that would be doing the eminent domain. Chairperson Heavilin confirmed that the CRA does not have the power of eminent domain. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Ms. Horenburger referred to Paragraph 3.4 of the agreement that the City would be liable and will indemnify the CRA, its agents and servants from liabilities and damages. Ms. Horenburger was informed that there was no Paragraph 3.4 in the agreement. She pointed out if the hold harmless language was deleted, the CRA would be liable and would have to pay some of the costs. Mr. Bressner responded if the City Commission authorized eminent domain, the City is responsible for carrying that forward. Attorney Spillias noted the document does not have any indemnification either way. Vote Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Fenton dissenting) B. Grant Reimbursement - Delray-Boynton Academy Motion Ms. Horenburger moved for approval. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried. IX. New Business A. Executive Director's Evaluation and Contract Consideration Chairperson Heavilin announced that the Executive Director, Doug Hutchinson, submitted his resignation effective this morning. Therefore, no discussion of his evaluation was necessary. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out they need to authorize someone to sign in his place and asked members for their opinions. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to appoint Lisa Bright Interim Director and to give her full power and authority of the Director until such time as a permanent Director is appointed and to request that Mr. Hutchinson serve as a consultant to the Board until the Board determines that his services are no longer needed. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman. Chairperson Heavilin questioned if there should be two separate motions. Mr. Barretta wanted them combined. Ms. Horenburger would like it stated that Mr. Hutchinson be available to the Interim Director for historical purposes and she will state this in a separate motion. Mr. Fenton pointed out it needed to be determined what salary Mr. Hutchinson would be paid and how long he would serve. He agreed on the motion to appoint Ms. Bright Interim Director, but he felt Mr. Hutchinson's involvement should be a separate issue. Mr. Barretta noted Mr. Hutchinson has served the Board for a number of years in a satisfactory manner and has brought great vision to the City. He would like to see this 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 continued to the extent possible. Mr. Barretta recommended that Mr. Hutchinson serve as a consultant to CRA Board for an indefinite period, at his discretion with the Board's approval. He would recommend that Mr. Hutchinson receive a salary pursuant to his current per diem rate in accordance with his contract. Amendment to Motion: Mr. Barretta amended his motion to include the per diem equivalent salary rate. Mr. Myott seconded the amended motion. Ms. Horenburger offered the following substitute motion: Motion Ms. Horenburger moved that Lisa Bright be named Interim Director, until such time as the RFP is completed, and that 90 days be extended to the former Executive Director for consulting for the City through the direction of the Interim Director as needed since he has such historical knowledge and that the Board compensate him for his unused vacation and unused sick pay and any COBRA costs. After 90 days, this would be re- evaluated to determine if it should be extended. Mr. Barretta recommended these issues be handled separately. Mr. Myott thought that some of these issues were addressed in Mr. Hutchinson's employment contract. Chairperson Heavilin called for a second on the substitute motion. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Barretta requested that Chairperson Heavilin call the question on his motion. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if a second was necessary to call the question. Attorney Spillias explained a second would only be needed if there were opposition to calling the question. Chairperson Heavilin thought other Board members would like to offer comments. Mr. Barretta recommended calling the question and then Board members could offer their comments. Attorney Spillias announced if there was objection to calling the question, the Board could be polled to determine whether or not to move forward with the vote or continue discussion. Chairperson Heavilin called the question and it failed. The floor was open for discussion. Mr. Myott opined that Mr. Hutchinson did an excellent job and he was unaware of how his sudden resignation came about. He referred to the Director's evaluation on tonight's agenda and a new Employment Contract that the Board would be considering. Mr. Myott was in favor of providing Mr. Hutchinson with some salary and benefits for a certain period of time. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Mr. Barretta concurred that Mr. Hutchinson's benefits should be continued. Further, Mr. Barretta felt that all Board members were aware of why Mr. Hutchinson resigned, but he felt members did not want to say what led up to Mr. Hutchinson's resignation. Mr. Fenton thought Mr. Hutchinson's resignation was due to the irregularities that surfaced in the Agency's financial audit. There were many discrepancies in the audit and he sent e-mail to Chairperson Heavilin regarding them. He asked the auditor to be present at tonight's meeting to name names in the audit because it was unclear in the audit who was responsible for the discrepancies. Not only did Mr. Fenton ask the auditor to be present tonight, but he also asked the Chairperson to request that the auditor attend tonight, and Chairperson Heavilin was opposed to having the auditor present. He felt this action was inexcusable and if the auditor were present tonight, the auditor could answer many of the questions that members wanted to ask. Mr. Fenton held Chairperson Heavilin fully responsible for not having the auditor present tonight. Chairperson Heavilin explained that she spoke with the auditor prior to Mr. Fenton's request. She pointed out the audit was a draft, but the auditor was willing to discuss it over the phone with any Board member. Since staff had not received the audit until this morning, Chairperson Heavilin did not think the audit should be discussed publicly until everyone had an opportunity to review it. She took responsibility for this action. Mr. Barretta did not think that the content of the audit actually had anything to do with Mr. Hutchinson's resignation. Further, the items referred to in the audit were actually routine discrepancies that occur when an organization is undergoing the growth that the CRA is going through. He pointed out that many of the "infractions" resulted because the Board had not yet set policies to address them. He concluded that this was why the auditor referred to the discrepancies as "infractions." Mr. Myott also spoke with the auditor and when the conversation concluded, the auditor informed him that some housecleaning regarding the Board's policies was necessary. He asked the auditor if what occurred was uncommon in a new and growing board, and the auditor informed him that this was not unusual in this case. Mr. Barretta thought members should have been afforded an opportunity to review the audit so that their questions could be answered. He felt these issues had to be addressed under any circumstances. Chairperson Heavilin pointed to the growth that the CRA has been going through compared to other CRAs and she felt that Mr. Hutchinson has done an incredible job in getting the CRA where it is today. Even though his performance was not perfect, she highly praised his vision. Chairperson Heavilin thought he would be greatly missed. She was in favor of having him remain as a consultant to the CRA and recommended drafting an agreement and bringing it back to the Board for approval. She recommended the agreement be negotiated between Legal and Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Barretta considered Ms. Bright to be an excellent choice for the CRA Executive Director position. In addition, with Mr. Hutchinson's consulting status to the Board, this 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 should prove to be an excellent arrangement. Ms. Bright could pick up the management skills lacking by Mr. Hutchinson. In the long run, he felt this Board and the City would be stronger with this new structure. Vice Chair Tillman fully concurred with Mr. Barretta. During the interview by the Board of Ms. Bright for the Assistant Director position, he determined that she was confident and could fill the role as the Executive Director at any time. With regard to Mr. Hutchinson's resignation, Vice Chair Tillman felt that the audit was the catalyst that caused him to resign. Mr. Hutchinson confided in Vice Chair Tillman that "underhanded" things were going on and Mr. Hutchinson felt he could not deal with the audit. Vice Chair Tillman said that the CRA must move on and he was in favor of keeping Mr. Hutchinson on as a consultant. He respected Mr. Hutchinson's visionary talents, but acknowledged that he lacked human resource skills. Vice Chair Tillman felt that Mr. Hutchinson has done a tremendous job for the community and the CRA. Chairperson Heavilin commended Mr. Hutchinson for organizing a tremendous staff and she was confident that they would carry on regardless of what happened. Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Barretta to clarify his comment that the audit was not the defining moment for Mr. Hutchinson's resignation and to expand upon that comment, since Mr. Fenton felt the audit resulted in Mr. Hutchinson's resignation. Mr. Barretta requested that Mr. Fenton direct this question to Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Barretta requested Chairperson Heavilin to call the question on his motion. Attorney Spillias asked for clarification on the consulting portion of the motion and what the Board was contemplating Mr. Hutchinson's role would be. Would Mr. Hutchinson continue working as a consultant on a fulltime basis under the current payment terms of the contract or would he be paid on a per diem or hourly basis based upon services provided? Attorney Spillias would like direction in negotiating a consultant's agreement that would be presented to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Myott thought that this was something the Acting Director could address since she would know how much of Mr. Hutchinson's services would be needed. Mr. DeMarco was opposed to try to second guess what could happen and he was unaware of the issues that members brought forward. He felt that members should have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Hutchinson on an individual basis to learn what happened. Further, Mr. DeMarco pointed out that Mr. Hutchinson may not want to remain with the CRA and this needs to be determined. He was opposed to this Board taking any action except appointing an Interim Director. The Recording Secretary played Mr. Barretta's motion back for the benefit of the Board. Mr. Barretta noted he amended his motion. The intent of the amendment is that Mr. Hutchinson would be paid at his existing rate set out in his contract. Mr. Hutchinson would serve as he and Ms. Bright deemed appropriate. If they cannot agree on this, it 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 could be brought back to the Board for discussion. Also, the Board could address and approve any specific issue of the contract being drafted by the Board Attorney. Mr. Myott thought a special meeting maybe necessary before the Board's next regular meeting. Ms. Horenburger asked if Mr. Barretta's motion would include Mr. Myott's comment that the Interim Director come back with a recommendation. Attorney Spillias thought that Mr. Myott's comments were that Ms. Bright in the interim would make the determination of how much of Mr. Hutchinson's services were needed while the consultant's contract was being developed and brought back to the Board. Mr. Barretta concurred with Attorney Spillias' comments and requested those comments be included in his motion. Mr. Fenton inquired if Ms. Bright determined that Mr. Hutchinson's services were no longer needed, she would not have to hire him. Mr. Barretta said this would only apply until the Attorney came back with an agreement for discussion. For clarification, Mr. Barretta's motion gave Ms. Bright the full and absolute power of the current Executive Director, and Mr. Hutchinson would be hired as a consultant. However, Ms. Bright would determine the exact amount of time and duties. Vote Motion carried 6-0 (Mr. DeMarco abstaining). Mr. Fenton inquired if Mr. DeMarco could abstain and was informed he could not. Ms. Horenburger recommended granting Mr. Hutchinson two month's pay, his unused sick and vacation time, and two months of COBRA payments. Mr. Barretta felt this was premature. Mr. Fenton pointed out Mr. Hutchinson's contract stated if his employment was terminated by mutual agreement, and in this case it has, he would receive his base salary, plus a payment of 90 days salary. Attorney Spillias said the Board first needed to determine if Mr. Hutchinson would accept the consulting arrangement. He may wish to go elsewhere and to take the severance. package in his contract. Attorney Spillias requested they speak with Mr. Hutchinson to determine what he wanted to do and then report back their findings. Once all this is known, a decision on the severance issues could be properly addressed. If he does accept the consulting agreement, Attorney Spillias would try to balance the employment agreement with the consulting agreement. He felt all of this was subject to negotiation. Members thought a special meeting might be necessary. Attorney Spillias recommended speaking with Mr. Hutchinson to determine his plans, at which point the Chairperson would be contacted and a special meeting could be called. Mr. Barretta did not see the need to set a date for a special meeting at this time. Attorney Spillias inquired if the Board wanted to continue Mr. Hutchinson's benefits in the interim until such time he got back to the Board with a negotiated agreement or no agreement. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Motion Mr. Barretta moved to continue all of Mr. Hutchinson's current benefits. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman. Ms. Horenburger did not think the insurance company would continue to provide health insurance to Mr. Hutchinson who was not technically employed. Robert Reardon, CRA Controller, pointed out under COBRA regulations, Mr. Hutchinson could be offered COBRA tomorrow, but he would have to pay for it himself. He pointed out, however, that Mr. Hutchinson's health benefits have been paid through the end of the month. Attorney Spillias felt the issues would be resolved prior to the end of the month. B. Approval of Loan Resolution No. R05-04 Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency authorizing a modification to the Agency's Promissory Note dated September 11, 2001, in order to reduce the interest rate thereof; and providing for an effective date. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve Resolution No. 05-04. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried. C. Multi-Cultural Carnival D. Heritage Fest Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that these two items were added to the agenda because of time constraints and members had been presented with a handout regarding these two new items. Lisa Bright, CRA Interim Director, thanked the Board for their vote of confidence and said she would work very hard to fill Mr. Hutchinson's shoes. In addition, Ms. Bright acknowledged the great CRA staff. Ms. Bright thought that staff had not discussed with the Board an events package that they would like the CRA to focus on. Ms. Bright requested that the Board continue its support for Heritage Fest. She and Margee Adelsperger have been working hard on improving the cultural events in the City. Heritage Fest would be one such event and the CRA originally agreed to support the festival with a concert. Staff is recommending this commitment be approved, but staff would control the direction of the concert. For clarification, Chairperson Heavilin pointed out the CRA would run the concert for the benefit of Heritage Fest. Ms. Bright pointed out the CRA staff would be working in conjunction with the Heritage Fest committee to develop an overall theme for the 2006 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Heritage Fest. Ms. Bright pointed out events take place for an entire month. A venue for the concert still needs to be determined, but she would like the Board to commit to the CRA's support for the event. Motion Mr. Barretta moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco. Attorney Spillias pointed out that one of the items in the agenda memo includes a request from Heritage Fest that his law firm, on a pro bono basis, assist them in applying for their 501 (c)3 status. Attorney Spillias said there was an attorney in his office that has offered to do this. He inquired if the Board felt there might be a conflict in following through with this in view of his firm's relationship with the CRA. Chairperson Heavilin thought if they did this for one entity, others might also request the same treatment. She pointed out that she has done this herself and it is not difficult or expensive. To avoid a conflict, Vice Chair Tillman inquired if Attorney Spillias could recommend another firm that might provide this service. Attorney Spillias will work with Vice Chair Tillman on this. Angela Girtman, the Chairperson of Heritage Fest, inquired if the CRA would be selecting and booking the talent for the concert. Ms. Bright confirmed the CRA would be doing this, but would work with the Heritage Fest Committee to select an appropriate group and venue. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that this was a partnership venture that should be adhered to. Vote The motion unanimously carried. Mr. Bright pointed out that in past years the event had a multi-cultural holiday carnival that took place in conjunction with the City's Holiday Parade. Staff appropriated $10,000 for a holiday carnival to take place the weekend of November 19th and 20th Staff would also like to hold a holiday concert with a budget of $15,000 in its place. City staff was not in favor of the holiday carnival, and, as a result, Ms. Bright is recommending that the carnival be cancelled. She did not feel this was a cultural event and based her decision on comments made by the police and the problems that occur with running a carnival. A decision needs to be made tonight, because she has to sign the contract tomorrow. She felt the money could be used more wisely by holding a jazz concert in front of the Old High School. She has already spoken with a jazz trio that plays a full holiday set and other musicians. Also local high schools and gospel groups would be invited to participate. By eliminating the carnival, staff could focus on one premier holiday event that would be a better utilization of staff's resources and funds. This is budgeted at $15,000. 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Mr. Myott reminded Ms. Bright not to forget the children. Mr. Bright reported she has spoken with the Director of the Schoolhouse Children's Museum and she will be bringing these events back to the Board. Chairperson Heavilin asked about the remaining $10,000 if the carnival were eliminated. Ms. Bright responded the money would go back into the events' budget. Chairperson Heavilin noted for clarification the jazz concert would take place during the weekend of the tree lighting, which Ms. Bright confirmed was the weekend before Thanksgiving. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to eliminate the carnival and to go forward with the holiday concert that would include children events. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried. X. Board Member Comments Mr. Myott pointed out in his packet there was a draft RFP for the Heart of Boynton that he has marked up and he offered to share his comments. Chairperson Heavilin recommended he provide those to Ms. Brooks. XI. Director's Report Mr. Barretta requested the reading of the Director's Report be waived. Ms. Horenburger asked about the status of the Savage Creatures. Attorney Spillias recalled this item was going to be deleted from the report until staff would be making a presentation. With regard to the interim audit, Chairperson Heavilin reported that once staff has reviewed the report, arrangements would be made for the auditors to come before the Board to answer questions and then they could proceed with the final audit. With regard to the interim audit, Mr. Reardon informed the Board they could accept it as presented, or the Board could review it by line item. Mr. Reardon noted he is charged with devising a mitigation plan point-by-point and he will begin this process. He just received the draft today at 3:30 p.m. and has not reviewed it. Mr. Barretta recommended they allow Mr. Reardon an opportunity to review the audit completely and then he could bring a recommendation back to the Board. Chairperson Heavilin agreed with this process. Mr. Reardon will have a report by the end of the week and will bring his recommendations to the Board. Chairperson Heavilin asked Mr. Fenton if he still wanted the auditors to come before the Board. Mr. Fenton felt it was no longer necessary. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the draft audit was public information. Attorney Spillias pointed out it has been disseminated to all Board members. 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida October 11, 2005 Ms. Horenburger noted there was an inaccuracy in the report that she clarified with the former Controller. Ms. Horenburger wanted the press to be aware that she confirmed with the former controller that Ms. Vielhauer did not leave the employ of the CRA until May 1ih XII. Legal No report XIII. Other Items XIII. Future Agenda Items A. Workshop Meetings to be held on the following dates: 1. Mondav. October 24th at 6:30 p.m. Library Proaram Room . Joint Workshop with City Commission 2. Thursdav. November 17th at 6:30 p.m. (TBD) . Consideration of the Results of the HR Study XIV. Future Project Preview XIV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .A<<c.6u(,,- iiA.. IYL(l.id!~ Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (October 12, 2005) 25