Loading...
Minutes 07-11-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Alexander DeMarco Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Lisa Bright, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Absent: Steve Myott Guarn Sims 1. Call to Order Chair Tillman called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. III. Pledge and Prayer Vice Chair Norem led the Pledge to the Flag and gave the Invocation. IV. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to add the Request to Extend RFP for Boynton Beach under Old Business, Item B. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion for discussion. It was noted the purpose was only to add the item to the agenda. Ms. Horenburger had no objections to the addition. Vote A vote was taken and unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that unanimously carried. V. Public Comments There were no public comments received. VI. Consent Agenda: A. CRA Board Minutes - June 13, 2006 B. CRA Financial Results - June 30, 2006 C. Fa<;ade Grant Reimbursement - Main Street Car Wash - $15,000 D. CRA Budget Amendments - June 30 2006 Motion A motion was made by Mr. Vice Chair Norem to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously carried. VII. Public Hearing Old Business There were no public hearings for this Item. New Business A. Boynton Industrial Park North Zoning Code Variance Descri ption: Boynton Industrial Park North (ZNCV 0-008) Merle Denbesten Boynton Industrial Park POA, Inc. West of 1-95 and north of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Strip of land two feet wide by 1,705 feet in length located west of the 60 foot right-of-way of West Industrial Avenue, opposite lots 118 of the Laurel Hills Subdivision (3rd Addition) through lots 165 Laurel Hills Subdivision (4th Addition), which are located north of NW 8th Avenue. Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.L. buffer walls, to allow a six (6) foot steel privacy fence along the west property line of Boynton Industrial Park North, in lieu of the required six (6) foot stucco Project: Owner: Location: 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 masonry buffer wall required to separate an industrial zoning district from an abutting residential zoning district. Attorney Spillias announced these were quasi-judicial hearings. He asked whether the board members had any ex-parte communications on Items A, B or C. There were no communications disclosed. Attorney Spillias administered the oath to all persons wishing to speak on the items. Ms. Kathleen Zeitler, Planning and Zoning presented the request. The property was located on the western limits of the industrial park. The plat indicated a two foot limited access easement along the western property line of the industrial park. She explained this was platted for maintenance of the required buffer wall. On the opposite side was an FPL Utility Easement and a 60 foot right-of-way for West Industrial Avenue. Staff reviewed the request and indicated it met the criteria for variance approval. Due to the two foot width of the property, it was not possible for the existing masonry wall to be replaced with a new masonry wall because of the footer requires three feet in width. FPL, in a letter, indicated no encroachment into the easement would be allowed. The City Engineer reviewed the request and recommended utilizing the steel fence in lieu of the masonry wall. Staff recommended approval. Vice Chair Norem had questions about encroachment of the easement, and asked whether FPL would have approved the request if the footer were underground. He also asked if the original request to FPL was to encroach three feet into their easement. Ms. Zeitler responded the letter asked to be allowed to encroach and the response was no. Mr. John Phillips, owner of lots 4 and 5, explained the issue was longstanding. The footer needed for a masonry wall was 36 inches. The association owned 24 inches, requiring a 12-inch encroachment. The letter asked for three feet and FPL denied any and all encroachments. There was a short discussion regarding follow-up. Ms. Zeitler added FPL was aware the encroachment would be an underground encroachment and had a concern their ability to repair their poles would be impaired. Mr. Phillips explained the total FPL easement was six (6) feet, of which two feet was a limited access easement. He thought if they moved into the easement even one foot, with the poles there exceeding 40 or 50 feet in height, he thought FPL's concerns centered around the conflict of those footings and the liability for the wall. There was also a short history of the existing masonry wall that needed to be replaced. Ms. Horenburger explained it was her experience if a meeting were held with FPL, sometimes accommodations could be made. Ms. Zeitler explained at the time the original wall was constructed, the Codes were different. She clarified the choices were to ask for either a variance for setbacks or encroach into the easement. She clarified the applicant has opted for the steel fence which meets hurricane wind load standards, and does not require a large footer. She elaborated because the fence could meet the two foot setback requirement, a variance for the setbacks was not required, only a variance for the materials of the fence. The steel fence met the intent to screen the industrial portion of the area from the residential. The variance criteria, specifically the "Hardship" aspect was discussed. Chair Tillman asked for public comment on this item. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Mr. Arthur Forester, a resident of Laurel Hills, which abuts the industrial park advised the existing fence was in shambles and in some sections, was missing. He was looking for strong sturdy fencing to keep animals, vagrants and truck noise out. He thought the fence was of good design and a suitable replacement offering security, aesthetics and safety. All property owners within 400 feet were noticed. Ms. Zeitler clarified the two foot limited access easement was within FPL's six (6) foot utility easement. The western edge had a two (2) foot limited access easement and to the east of that was the remaining four (4) feet of the FPL easement. A neighborhood homeowner agreed with the comments made by Mr. Forester. She expressed her home was broken into in February and the fence needed to be addressed. Ms. Bonnie Altadonna, a resident for 31 years, expressed concern with the dilapidated condition of the fence and pieces of the fence were falling down. She asked where the liability rests . Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.L. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Heritage Club Site Plan Time Extension Project: Agent: Location: Heritage Club (SPTE 06-006) Michael S. Weiner, Esquire and Jason S. Mankoff of Weiner & Aaronson, P.A. New Century Companies, LLC Northwest corner of the intersection of Federal Highway and Gulfstream Boulevard Request for a one-year Site Plan Time Extension for approved site plan and height exception granted on August 2, 2005, from August 2, 2006 to August 2, 2007. Description: Ms. Zeitler, Planning and Zoning, presented the request. The project was approved for 6,544 square feet of office, 9,494 square feet of retail, 3,500 square feet of restaurant, 70 townhome units and 96 multi-family units on 8.3 acres. The applicant received a land use amendment from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Special High Density Residential, a rezoning from Community Commercial to PUD and a new site plan and height exception. The applicant was requesting a time extension of one year. The site plan was originally approved on August 2, 2005. Ms. Zeitler explained if the applicants did not have their building permit by the expiration of the one-year time period, they would need to apply for an extension. The request, if granted, would change the new the extension to August 2, 2007 and would include their concurrency certification. Staff recommended approval, subject to the 71 conditions of 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 approval. The environmental report has been approved for remediation of the dry-cleaners and the Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $30,120.55 has been paid in full. Ashley Vargo, Weiner &. Aaronson, 209 N. Sea crest Blvd., representing the co-applicant, New Century Companies, LLC, agreed with staff and the presentation. She clarified New Century Companies LLC was the contract vendee and co-applicant with 3,600 Holdings LLC who was the actual owner of the property. Ms. Heavilin asked for the basis of the request. Ms. Vargo indicated the hurricane slowed them down as did the remediation approvals for the dry-cleaners. Ms. Horenburger inquired why the client had not acquired the property and thought by this time, the property would have been acquired. She also announced they had previously discussed the site plans they see on a regular basis that cannot meet the one year deadline. She wanted to make a motion the CRA formally ask the City Commission to have site plan approvals last for 18 months as opposed to one year. This concept would be discussed later in the meeting. Ms. Vargo also responded the closing was set for October. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public hearing. There were no comments received. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to extend the site plan for six months to make the request an even 18 months. If the City Commission entertained what they would be discussing later, it would be consistent. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin was not comfortable with the six-month extension. She felt the approval should be consistent with other site plans they have approved for 12 months. Ms. Horenburger explained this would be a starting point. Mr. DeMarco agreed with Ms. Horenburger. Ms. Zeitler explained the Code had regulations for increments of one-year time extensions. She also pointed out there were two staff conditions of approval attached to the request, one of them being the Utility Reservation Fee. Attorney Spillias indicated if the six-month extension was not in the Code, it would, in effect, constitute a denial. Ms. Zeitler read from the Code which indicated the extension could be made for up to 12 months. Ms. Vargo requested the extension for one year. Ms. Horenburger responded they could come back in six months for an extension. Vote A vote was taken on the motion. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Heavilin dissenting. C. Federal Highway Corridor Plan Ms. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director announced the plan changes were a result of various studies conducted resulting from the 20/20 Plan. This request would make the Federal Highway Corridor Plan consistent with the consensus of several joint and City workshops. They were also updating the corridor plan with comprehensive plan changes made as a result of the adoption of the plan, which took place a few years ago. The document was the marked up draft, 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 so the board could see what was changed and where the plan was amended. She also recommended the last chapter be deleted. There were projections for ad valorum and TIF funds in the chapter and she explained that type of information would not be an appropriate chapter for a corridor study. The document was not a redevelopment plan and she asked the motion delete the chapter from the document. Ms. Horenburger spoke about the summary paragraph and the four bottom bullets. Ms. Brooks explained the new south end of Planning Area Four would be the south boundary of Sunshine Square Plaza and the Winn Dixie Plaza. The four corners of Woolbright and Federal would now be similar in development scale which was Mixed-Use Low 3, which had a 75 foot height limit and a 40 unit per acre development density. Chair Tillman asked for public comments on the item. There were no comments received. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The motion included staff's recommendation to delete the chapter containing information on taxes and TIF revenues. VIII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items: There were no items pulled. IX. Old Business: A. Discussion of CRA Real Property - 308 NE 10th Avenue Ms. Lisa Bright, CRA Director, presented the item and explained in 2005 there was a contract for the property at 308 NE 10th Avenue that was assigned to Mr. Andrew Luchey. On April 12, 2005, the CRA approved a purchase contract for two lots on NE 11 as well as a vacant house on one of the lots. At the time, the home itself would cost the CRA $225,000. It was vacant and would be used to expand church activities. Fifty thousand dollars was included in the purchase price for the renovation of the home. On July 12, 2005, the CRA approved a land swap and exchanged lease agreements for these properties. In 2006, it was learned the house had not been meeting Code standards and nothing had changed. The $50,000 that had been appropriated had not been utilized for the renovation of the home as originally intended and outlined in the lease. CRA staff issued a letter to the Greater St. Paul AME Church questioning why renovations were not made and asking what had transpired. Subsequent to that, the CRA learned the current pastor of the church had no knowledge of the requirement or the funds for the renovations. The transaction had transpired under the previous pastor. The item was brought to the City Manager who authorized the police to conduct a forensic investigation. Ms. Bright requested CRA legal counsel provide the board with any options or actions available. Ms. Bright announced Mr. Luchey sent a letter to the board requesting to buy the property back. In light of the decision to undertake the MLK Corridor RFP, she did not entertain any discussion with him and was requesting the board provide direction on whether to proceed or not. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Attorney Spillias explained the issue was complicated. He reported based on file correspondence and reviewing the investigative report conducted by Investigator Gitto, there were several options. The ultimate issue, as it appeared from the interviews contained in the investigation was the original intended purchase price for the property was $175,000. The transaction was part of a larger program to create a land swap. Part of the issue involved the church's purchase of the property from Mr. Katz and then the sale to the CRA. The ultimate contract was for $225,000 and that purchase price arose out of a side agreement between Pastor Reed, Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Luchey. Mr. Luchey had purchased the property for the church because the church did not have the funds to do so. The idea was to increase the purchase price with a commitment from the church to use the $50,000 to upgrade the structure and rent the unit from the CRA or the City, for $10 per year until the City and/or CRA was ready to use the property. Attorney Spillias explained they did not prepare the original real estate contract. They reviewed the original Florida Bar contract and were asked to make some legal changes to it. The deal points were negotiated separately. He added they were also asked to do the same thing with the lease and changes were made to the lease agreement. There was no $50,000 provision subsequent to the legal issues being resolved. The deal points included increasing the house to $225,000 and $50,000 of that to upgrade the property. The closing occurred. Pastor Reed signed the lease by the church and over time, nothing occurred. The CRA sent a letter requesting the $50,000 back indicating the lease had been breached and they were told the church never received the $50,000. The real estate contract did not specifically say the $50,000 was to be used for renovation and restoration of the property. The lease specifically said the church did receive the $50,000. There seemed to be a consensus that the $50,000 never occurred was never received by the church. The question remaining was, was the CRA misled for paying more money for the property than it otherwise would have paid. Another complication was the real estate consultant, the Urban Group. Mr. Lazarus had been interviewed by the investigator, who indicated the $225,000, irrespective of any side deals, was a fair price for the property. The documents were the only items that could be used to determine what the deal was. Oral agreements were not enforceable. Mr. Spillias saw three options. 1. Sue the church for $50,000 on the basis they signed a lease acknowledging receipt of the $50,000. The original deal contemplated $50,000 of the purchase price would be given to the church for that purpose and the CRA relied on those representations to enter into the lease. The church could pursue Mr. Luchey or bring him into the lawsuit on the basis that the church is being charged with breach of a lease and a requirement to reimburse the CRA that was his obligation. Mr. Spillias highlighted an issue that could be encountered was the CRA was not out $50,000 because it was not given and the real estate contract does not indicate $50,000 of the purchase price would go to the church. The CRA could argue that even though the side deal was oral, the entering into the other two contracts (purchase contract and the lease) with the lease reflecting $50,000, constituted writings that confirmed the oral agreements and therefore avoids the Statute of Frauds. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 2. If the CRA believes the information shows the CRA was defrauded, and the action was intended from the beginning by Mr. Luchey or others, a lawsuit could be filed against them. Attorney Spillias thought there were some indications that a side deal was made, Mr. Luchey received the monies pursuant to the side deal and whether it was ever intended the funds would go to the intended use needed to be ascertained through the discovery process. Mr. Spillias indicated fraud is difficult to prove and requires proof the intention existed from the onset and that misrepresentations were made. He added fraud is a cause of action based on an intention to make misrepresentation and have a party act on those misrepresentations. Mr. Lazarus indicates the property was appropriately priced. An argument would be full value for the property was paid and the issue was the lease. 3. Waive the breach of lease and move forward with the land swap agreement, which was entered into by both parties. This agreement could be enforced. Mr. Bressner authorized the investigation to determine whether there was any indication of criminal fraud and the determination was made that there was not enough information. Mr. Bressner has indicated it is a civil matter. The board had questions on the contract. The board had voted on a contract that stated the price was $225,000. The contract presented to the CRA had a clause that did refer to the $50,000, which was whited out. Ms. Bright also indicated the items were presented to the board were presented as consent agenda items. Mr. Spillias had not seen the closing statement, and to the best of his knowledge, the closing statement did not separate out the $50,000. Mr. Spillias explained when they came on board, the Urban Group used Florida Bar Contracts and the closings took place through a title insurance company. At some point in time, the process was changed and the CRA was drafting the contracts. They do not use the Florida Bar Contract, which allows us to cover covered issues more specific to the needs of the CRA. Mr. Spillias did not see the CRA as liable; historically the CRA has paid more than market price for property and the CRA has the right and authority to do so. The board discussed the property had changed hands several times, each time the property increased in value. There was no evidence the $50,000 was actually received by the church. Mr. Reardon could not find evidence the $50,000 payment was issued by the CRA. The $50,000 was supposed to be put in escrow. This led to the investigation being initiated. Mr. Spillias advised the investigator ascertained the side deal took place, which reflected the increase in price to $225,000 and that Mr. Hutchinson was quoted as saying he heard Mr. Luchey comment he would be able to receive a bigger tax break by making the donation to the church. Ms. Bright advised Mr. Luchey's title company was the closing agent and his mother handled the transaction. Mr. Luchey came forward and advised he was not participating in the investigation and to clear his name he wanted to purchase the property back. Mr. Reardon verified the funds were not issued and the church verified they did not receive the funds. It appeared the money was included in the R.E. contract. Ms. Bright indicated Mr. Luchey has faxed over some construction documents but she had not reviewed them. The investigator indicated when Pastor Reed signed the documents, he was unaware part of the funds were supposed to go for the purposes of renovation. The 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 only check issued was for $225,000 to Mr. Luchey's title company. Mr. Spillias indicated the CRA does not have to allow the church to continue using the property. Since the land is part of a land swap, the CRA should determine when it would be ready for the land swap. This could resolve the issue. The board discussed the quickest way to put the matter behind the CRA. Ms. Horenburger indicated $50,000 is floating around and was intended for someone who never got it. She expressed she thought the Church and the CRA had been seriously misled. She announced in a memo to her, Mr. Hutchinson indicated he regularly used his personal laptop for CRA business and he claimed at the time, that was how he got his personal business mixed up with the CRA business. She wanted to make sure the CRA had all the public records the CRA was supposed to have. She wanted some assurance that if they are requested, that they have received all the public records that were on his laptop, especially in light of the investigation. She did not know if the investigation included the examination of records or just the contract itself, but it should have included communications between the CRA office and the other parties in the matter. She indicated it appeared the investigator took what was said at face value. She announced the report indicated the investigator spoke to the CRA board members. She reported she was not contacted. She would like to know why and would like the report to be revised to reflect there was no attempt to contact her. Vice Chair Norem was not contacted and he requested he be added to the report. She explained the former director placed the item on the consent agenda and it was pulled by the board. She intended to make a motion that property transactions never be placed on the consent agenda and all major transactions and contracts be signed off by legal counsel before being presented to the board for a vote. This would be pro forma. She announced she was never told there was a separate transaction increasing the sales price to accommodate the upgrading of another building. She announced she would not have supported such a transaction and would have asked the two be separated as the lease and the purchase contract. The investigators report indicated the former director was aware of an individual who was attempting to receive a federal income tax break through manipulation of the purchase of the church property. She believed a full and real investigation of the matter should take place. She did not concur the matter was a civil matter and felt the CRA needed to be assured there were no violations of the law in any of the transactions. Mr. Spillias had a copy of the HUD Statement and the Deed, which showed a price of $225,000 going to Mr. Luchey. The original contract price of $175,000 with a special clause for a $50,000 build-out from the CRA signed on March 28, 2005 by the seller. On April 29, the Chair signed the contact for $225,000 with the special clause whited out. Chair Tillman indicated there were more questions unanswered than answered. Part of the issue was recordkeeping and accounting. He explained it was important to determine what caused this. He stressed the CRA operates in full public view and it was paramount the public know the CRA operates for the betterment of the community. Ms. Bright had the full verbatim minutes of the meetings pertaining to the items. There was no in-depth discussion or identification of the item. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to ask the State Attorney, Barry Krischer, to investigate the matter. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously carried. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Mr. Spillias suggested he draft the letter for the Chairman's signature. All the data, documents and investigator reports would be forwarded to Mr. Krischer for his review. Vice Chair Norem asked if this would be the appropriate time to negate the lease and rescind it. Mr. Spillias suggested deferring the item to the next meeting. There were no objections to the deferral. B. Request to Extend RFP Ms. Bright explained an e-mail was circulated. A pre-proposal meeting for the MLK RFP took place on Friday with several members of the community. The group requested a time extension. She explained a CRA meeting was scheduled for August 17, 2006, which was nine days different than the published RFP schedule. She explained if the board took action on the item, the map and project area would need to be clarified. The original packages were due to the CRA July 28, 2006 with the presentations being held at the CRA board meeting on August 8. The development community also expressed they would like additional time. Ms. Bright asked the board to consider dedicating the August 17, 2006 meeting for the presentations. The Old High School RFPs would be heard. Ms. Bright thought a special meeting might be needed. She requested clarification on how much time would be allotted for the MLK RFP presentations. Some requests were made for an hour. There were 13 requests and a total of eight have asked for additional time to respond to the RFP. Two more requests were received earlier in the day. Mr. Spillias advised there were no negative legal impacts with extending the notice. He advised if a selection were made on August 17, 2006, the meeting would have to be a special meeting, not a workshop. Ms. Horenburger wanted to clarify her original motion for the RFP. She explained the original motion had a typo. This was noted by Mr. Katz at the last meeting. She pointed out the issue because she did not see his comment reflected in the minutes. The original motion directed CRA staff to draft a basic RFP for a master developer of the MLK Corridor between U.S. 1 to the east and Sea crest Boulevard to the west and from S.W. 9th to S.W. 11th Avenues. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved the correction on the original motion for the RFP was supposed to be NE 9th to NE 11th. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion. A vote was taken and unanimously carried. Mr. Spillias asked if she was including the lots on both sides of the streets. Ms. Horenburger responded she was not. This included the area to NE 9th and to NE 11th, from one avenue to the next avenue (the south side of 11th and the north side of 9th). Vice Chair Norem asked if the board was correcting the minutes. Mr. Spillias responded the change did not work its way into the RFP description. Ms. Horenburger explained she gave the incorrect motion in writing and she corroborated for the record it was a typographical error in her reading and it was corrected by a member of the audience and not reflected in the minutes. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Ms. Bright indicated the CRA would be taping the proceedings so the motion would be heard by staff when they are on a timeline until the City Clerk can deliver the actual minutes. She indicated it takes two weeks for staff to receive the minutes. Ms. Bright also requested clarification on properties west of Seacrest - that they would not be included in the published map. Those properties should not be included in the RFP description area. Ms. Horenburger spoke about a news article that indicated the director attended a meeting at St. John's Missionary Baptist Church that indicated there would be no buildings higher than four stories. She expressed that policy decision has not been made. Ms. Horenburger explained that may be in the plan but the board might make a policy decision based on a great plan submitted. She added there might be some density and height issues relating to costs and other things and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Study mentioned that. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to extend the RFP deadline for submittal for the HOB to August 7, 2006, at 4 p.m. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Motion A motion was made by Ms. Horenburger to change the special meeting to consider the proposals to August 17, 2006. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that unanimously carried. There was a short discussion on the time frame for RFP presentations. Motion A motion was made by Ms. Horenburger to limit the RFP presentation time to 20 minutes of PowerPoint presentation plus 10 minute question and answer session. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that unanimously carried. x. New Business A. Consideration & Approval of HOB Single-Family Infill Development RFP Ms. Brooks presented the request. The properties were purchased in May and were located at 603 and 607 Sea crest Avenue, also known as the Parker properties. These were two of the properties, formerly zoned C-3 and rezoned per the HOB to single-family residential. The two homes on the properties were in very bad condition and slated for demolition. An asbestos study was currently being conducted. One of the lots was quite large and staff was initiating splitting the two lots and making them three lots. They were proposing an RFP to develop the three lots with three single-family homes, which was consistent with the adopted HOB plan. The City Surveyor wrote a letter to the Property Appraiser indicating he had no problem subdividing the lots. The CRA attorney requested this be done and the change would occur with the next taxing cycle. Ms. Brooks anticipated non-profit housing developers would respond to the RFP because they requested affordable housing occur on the lots. Two of the lots will have entrances and exits on Sea crest and one will have it on 5th Street. She explained they paid $380,000 for the two parcels and she indicated, depending on the proposals, the CRA could recoup some of the money. She noted the CRA would certainly recoup dollars due to the taxable value of the new homes. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Ms. Heavilin spoke about the requirements on page three that she did not feel were necessary for this type of housing. She felt some of the upgrades should not be required. To keep it feasible for the developer and affordable for the family, the basics should be given. This was in keeping with Habitat for Humanity, which offered good quality basics. There should be less rigidity with the requirements. Ms. Brooks responded the items are not that costly. She explained it was implied the CRA would subsidize the cost of developing the homes with the cost of the land. The developer would not be paying full market price for the lot, and because of that, the CRA would expect something greater in return. The developer was being asked to do something special because these homes may be the first in the project. The replacements should be better than what existed. With other homes being affected, they did not want to continue non-conforming behaviors; rather they wanted to create a "Wow" factor. Chair Tillman explained they should put in the best quality possible so residents would not have to be concerned about shoddy workmanship or substandard housing. Wherever it was possible the CRA could ensure the quality of materials was up to par, they should do it. Ms. Bright indicated she attended a neighborhood meeting at St. John's Missionary Baptist Church. One resident was very distressed about three homes built by Habitat for Humanity. They made it clear that from their perspective, the homes did not meet Code, or setback requirements. People were parking on the street. The residents wanted garages, a driveway and they wanted it to look like every other home. She agreed affordability needed to be balanced, but the CRA was using the land and would look to the developer to develop a product in the $180,000 to $200,000 range for a three bedroom, two-bath home with a single car garage. She discussed the matters with the CDCs. She explained this was important. The CRA was freeing up the land and would be the bank that controlled the product. Ms. Horenburger asked why the three homes had to be affordable. Ms. Brooks replied that was the intention of the HOB Plan and the targeted cost for the product was what the market could support. This was also contained in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Study. Chair Tillman inquired if the driveways could be circular driveways. Ms. Brooks responded that was her goal. Motion A motion was made by Ms. Heavjlin to approve the RFP and approve permission for staff to negotiate a contract and bring it back to the board for final approval. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Norem and unanimously carried. B. Consideration of a Purchase Contract for an 8,000 sq. ft. waterfront parcel, Fuel Docks and 70 Marina Village Garage Parking Spaces. Mr. Robert Reardon gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the location of the project and the fuel dock. Staff was bringing the purchase to the board to mitigate a parking problem that arose from the purchase of the Two Georges Marina. The Related Group's conceptualization of the project was proposed as a restaurant. The restaurant sits on 8,000 square feet, (sf) with an additional 12,000 sf (approx.) of easement from the Army CORP of Engineers and the easement from the Tower Association on both sides of the building. The parking constraints arose from two vendors on the Sea Mist property, those vendors being the SeaMist itself and a 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 jet ski operator. Those vendors accounted for at least 40 or more people per day and 20 to 30 cars. Although a small portion of the marina area, this accounted for most of the parking load. The CRA does not own that property. In the building the CRA does own, there were two dive shop operations. The first dive shop had a capacity for 8 divers and there were two additional boats owned by the second dive shop operator upstairs, also having a capacity for eight divers. The parking that was originally afforded to the boat owners and guests was now delineated as a 15 minute loading zone. After 6 p.m. it reverted to Two Georges Restaurant. The parking on the north side was dedicated to Two Georges Restaurant by easement. There were also four commercial fishing boats. The CRA, in the purchase of the Two Georges Marina, promised to keep the public involved in the waterway. In addition to accepting a $2M grant from the County, the CRA has to provide an easement for the County that stipulated the CRA would always keep the property a public use. This included agreeing to eight commercial licenses. The parking could not accommodate any more than the eight licenses. The SeaMist, the jet ski operator, the three dive boats and the four fishing boats accounted for about 70 to 80 cars. The parking was eliminated because of the Two Georges Restaurant easement. There was a loading zone only, which was enforced by police presence. In addition to the pad purchase and the 70 parking spaces, the CRA was looking to purchase the fuel dock. The County has an interest in providing funds for the purchase of the fuel dock. The arrangement had not been solidified yet. Mr. Reardon was working on obtaining the $2M first. The fuel dock consisted of two pumps and an approximate 8,000 - 10,000 gallon tank that was located within the circle at Casa Loma Boulevard. There was a temporary fuel dock at the Dock Master Station, which the CRA would receive and would take steps to make a permanent building. The use of the building could be increased to also serve as a concession/supply store for the marina. Mr. Reardon indicated along with the purchase of the pad, they were proposing to put in a park. The pad purchase would include 70 parking spaces. The CRA currently owns 70 parking spaces within the Related Group's garage. Thirty-five spaces belonged to the CRA and remaining spaces belonged to Two Georges totaling 70 spaces. Staff was proposing to increase that 70 by another 70, totaling 105 spaces dedicated to the CRA which would provide more than ample parking for the public. The park would mirror the amenities installed at Promenade Boulevard Park. Staff recommends going forward with the purchase and thought it was a great deal. The pressure on the marina, through the loss of the parking spaces, has hampered their ability to provide the public with adequate use of the dock. The 70 Marina Village Parking spaces being considered for purchase were part of the mixed-use program for the Related Group. Ms. Bright explained there was a lot of dialogue between the City and the Related Group to have the City accept this as a better use of the 70 parking spaces. The 70 parking spaces were dedicated to the restaurant. They were going to be valet spaces and the public could not use them. There are 23 slips, and as part of the rent, they could dedicate the parking space to the boat owners. Ms. Heavilin advised the proposal was predicated on receiving the grant. She inquired if the CRA could move forward without receiving the grant. Mr. Reardon responded they could. In bond number 1, there was $3M left and $1,570,000 could be used for the down payment. The Related Group was willing to float a loan of $2M over four years at 5%. If the TIF grew from 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 the actual assessed valuation increase from the Towers, Mr. Reardon explained with a no penalty early payment clause, the CRA could pay it off in one year. Ms. Horenburger commented the recommendation in the item was presented as directing staff to enter into a purchase contract. She announced staff was asking the board to negotiate a purchase contract. Mr. Carlos Rosso, VP, the Related Group, indicated the total sales price the CRA would inherit in terms of assessments of the project was about $150M. In terms of TIF, he did not know what the project would generate. He clarified the Related Group has not asked for TIF funds to finance the project. The CRA would inherit the project when it was completed. He thought it was a great solution for a number of problems. The additional amenities would be for everyone. It would be a public park, and not a private restaurant with private valet parking for everyone else. Mr. Rosso announced they have been negotiating with the CRA about the possibility of transforming the property from a restaurant into a park. There are a few nuances the board might not be aware of. When they entered into the development of the property, there was a mediation agreement signed between the Related Group, Two Georges and the City that established a number of parking spaces for the restaurant. They have an excess of parking spaces for their condominiums so they thought more parking spaces for a restaurant would be needed for them to operate properly. Two Georges initially indicated they would be interested in negotiating with The Related Group for more parking spaces. The Related Group decided that instead of giving more parking to Two Georges, to ask the CRA if they could use the parking spaces, which they could. Ms. Heavilin inquired where SeaMist was parking. Ms. Bright responded, part of the reason the CRA was negotiating the issue was the SeaMist was constantly in Code Enforcement. The CRA was trying to secure parking so their business would be viable. SeaMist was informed after the budget year the CRA would approach the board to purchase property to assist them. At any time the City could pull their license and ask them to leave. The two things they needed were parking and public restrooms. The CRA made a commitment to them to acquire them through the purchase of this parcel, to get the 70 spaces, to assign some to the boat slip owners as well as the renovation including public restrooms. The SeaMist was very agreeable. Chair Tillman had issues pertinent to how the CRA operated and this purchase. When he became aware of the issue, it was in a newspaper article. He indicated the CRA was making every attempt to conduct their business in chambers before using the press. Chair Tillman thought in the long run the purchase might be a good idea but he did not think it was appropriate for right now and had the following questions: 1. Chair Tillman spoke about the Fueling Dock and indicated that it did not enhance the image for the CRA. He asked where the language in Bond 1 was that provided for making purchases for profit, such as the fueling dock. He wanted to know how the bond read and how it would enhance or delete from the bonding capacity if funds were used for that purpose but the money did not exist for that purpose. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 2. The item was not budgeted. He thought the CRA needed to clearly think about line item budgets, and because this would be a huge financial undertaking, especially at the end of the fiscal year, he announced an issue this size needed to be well thought out for any pitfalls. He reported he would elaborate some of the pitfalls. 3. The CRA did not have a commitment from the County at this time. If the County grant fell through, what would the financial overload on the CRA be, especially going into the budgetary cycle. He emphasized the issue needed to be planned for and well thought out. 4. Poor timing of the initiative. The CRA was trying to remove itself from land ownership, i.e. MLK HOB parcels. This project seemed contradictory at most. This article was in the newspaper and put in the public view. It had not been dealt with in chambers by the CRA. He announced that was wrong. 5. A parking study presentation for the downtown area was requested. If the CRA would be providing parking, it should not be done haphazardly. The CRA needed to move forward with the directives in place and asked for staff to respond to the directives in a timely manner. The parking study has not been done and it would be arbitrary to move forward. He questioned where this left the CRA, in lieu of gaining funding to provide for downtown parking. 6. In considering Item 5, did this represent getting the best bang for the CRA buck? 7. In reference to Mr. Rosso indicating the restaurant needed more parking, and he approached the CRA first, if businesses need additional parking, then they need some type of relief. Is the CRA in business to do this? 8. Off site parking may be the best feasible alternative. Had that aspect been explored? Chair Tillman spoke about the dive shop building providing restrooms. He recalled in terms of what the building was used for when he was a child, that would not be necessary. He suggested looking at the use and space for the building. He explained there might be other opportunities that may be gained from using that site to provide some relief for individuals needing restrooms. 9. What would be the liability to the City and CRA of providing the fueling dock for the public. Insurance costs, fuel costs, spillage costs and permitting fees had to be considered. Had other environmental factors been considered? 10. What were the future costs arising from this initiative if the ball were dropped on the item and have those concerns been considered and addressed. Chair Tillman stressed the items were major issues that needed to be examined before moving forward. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to direct staff to negotiate an agreement to purchase the waterfront parcel, 70 garage spaces and fuel docks, subject to being awarded the County grant and subject to Chair Tillman's questions on negotiations and to come back to the board for approval at a later date. Negotiations should include consideration for TIF, we will lose. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Reardon explained the CRA had the option of deleting from the proposal, the purchase of the fuel dock. The Related Group has had several offers to purchase the fuel dock. Ms. Bright indicated she discussed this matter with the City Manager and she already addressed, on the staff side, Chair Tillman's concerns. She suggested addressing them in written form. Ms. Horenburger explained with satisfactory answers to the questions, they would consider voting on a contract. She was not prepared to vote on one now, only to enter into negotiations. Ms. Bright explained there was offsite parking, the roadway construction was underway, and staff would do a better job communicating the progress. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to direct staff to negotiate an agreement to purchase the waterfront parcel, 70 garage spaces and fuel docks, to come back to the board for approval and subject to negotiations in consideration of lost TIF and being awarded the County grant, and answers to all of Chair Tillman's questions coming back to the board. Ms. Horenburger emphasized final agreement would be subject to a number of issues raised at the meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. DeMarco thought it was premature to follow-up with what Ms. Horenburger was trying to do. He wanted more information about environmental issues, particularly regarding the fuel docks. He also indicated there was an old survey, and thought a new survey needed to be made. Ms. Bright and Amy Dukes, Esq, confirmed a survey, a Phase I Environmental Study was done for Two Georges. Mr. DeMarco spoke about three parcels that were used to give an idea of property values similar to this property. He did not see any information or facts about those three parcels. The appraisal did not have the information and did not contain the information he wanted to see in the appraisal. He thought there was nothing wrong with proceeding with the research. He did not know what the timetable was for completing the project. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Bonnie Miskel, Esq, The Related Group, was present and indicated her clients have waterfront property that has generated a great deal of interest from restaurants in leasing. There have also been some offers for the pumps. Although the situation was a win-win situation, it was not an item that could sit on the table indefinitely. The Related Group had no objections to due diligence being conducted but they needed some understanding, by the next meeting. Otherwise the Related Group would entertain some of the other offers they received. Ms. Horenburger asked how close was a decision on the County grant. Mr. Reardon responded they were very close to coming up with an easement that was consistent with the posture the CRA developed for the marina. The fuel dock could be deleted tonight because a commitment for the $570,000 was not close to being made. The board discussed having staff bring information on alternate funding sources as well as providing specific legal information and descriptions regarding appraisals back to the board. Chair Tillman suggested tabling the matter until staff could conduct due diligence and then bring the item back. Attorney Spillias suggested negotiating a Letter of Intent as the CRA moved forward in trying to obtain information. Mr. Carlos Rosso, VP, The Related Group, 377 Arlington Ave., Miami, indicated a Letter of Intent would be satisfactory. He specifically was looking to determine if they should pursue a restaurant or a park. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to direct staff to negotiate a Letter of Intent with the Related Group, while at the same time doing all due diligence in determining whether or not this was a feasible project for the board to pursue. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of City/CRA Interlocal Agreement for Events Ms. Bright explained she had been working with the City Manager for about eight months, to create an events position. She explained, in the past, City events and CRA events have competed and the CRA was not leveraging resources effectively. She explained this would be modeled after Delray Beach's marketing cooperative and she further announced the Chamber of Commerce was not interested in participating. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve staff's recommendations. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. It was clarified this agreement would be forwarded to Mr. Spillias to develop an interlocal agreement to be presented to the City for action. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. Ms. Horenburger was not present for the discussion and abstained from voting upon her return. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 XI. Future Project Preview Town Center at Waterpoint Park and Ocean Pointe Tower Bonnie Miskel, Esq., was present and gave a PowerPoint presentation. She spoke about Centennial Park (Bicentennial Park), the dog pound and an automotive shop. She explained her client had those properties, which would comprise 90,000 sf of office space, 20,000 sf of retail and about 131 residential units, under contract. This was a conceptual plan that did not include the automotive shop. The project was on approximately 1.6 acres. She explained the item was being brought before the board to discuss the potential for the CRA to acquire some additional property to expand the park and possibly locate a parking garage behind the site. Parking would be incorporated into the building, which would be a five story parking structure. She indicated her client was interested in contributing monies to the park with extensive water features, a water wall running along the railroad tracks with fountains and a large central water feature in the center of the park. Ms. Miskel noted Boynton Beach does not have an area for large gatherings. They have submitted a letter to the board. Her client was interested in contributing monies towards the extensive water features, and also offered to be the developer for the parking garage if the CRA was interested in acquiring a site and constructing a parking garage on it. She explained they have had many discussions with CRA staff regarding the need for multiple parking garages downtown. She explained the venture would be a joint partnership. The developer would construct the garage, which would save in costs of construction. Her client was also prepared to lease spaces from the CRA, thereby creating a stream of revenue. The benefit would be the developer would construct the garage and use that parking between standard hours of 9-5. Also the parking would be completely wide open anytime on evenings and weekends. If the board was interested in the proposal, she requested the CRA direct staff to negotiate the acquisition of the parcels and then enter discussions regarding the development agreement for construction of the parking garage, and the particulars. This was a preview of the project. She announced it was her understanding all of the parcels were for sale and would be used for public/private use. The board discussed the issue and had no objections to pursuing the issue to the next level. Mr. Spillias would need to draft a letter to determine where to locate the dog pound because it was located in the project area. There were no objections from the board to proceeding to suggest the dog pound be moved. XII. Comments by CRA Staff Ambit Marketing: Logo Presentation Margie Adelsperger, Marketing and Communications Manager for the CRA, introduced Stan Brown and Kathy Koch to unveil the new CRA Logo. She advised the two principals brought over 20 years of strategic and advertising public relations with them. Mr. Brown served as Chair of the Ft. Lauderdale CRA Advisory Board for eight years and was a member of the Ft. Lauderdale Economic Development Steering Committee. He was a former Trustee of the Urban Land Institute and Chair of the Publications Committee. Ms. Koch served as President and Creative Director of Ambit, was awarded Corporate Business Woman of the Year from South Florida Business Journal, and Woman of the Year from Women in Communications. Ambit had 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 worked closely with the CRA to put the focus on Boynton Beach, staying ahead of the competition and setting Boynton Beach as the destination of choice. Ms. Koch gave a PowerPoint presentation and highlighted Boynton Beach needed a logo. The process involved re-branding the goals, the mission and the vision of the CRA. Ms. Koch indicated they also researched logos of other CRAs and their slogans. The Boynton Beach CRA was viewed as being a step ahead of its counterparts. The caption for the logo read "Boynton Beach East Side, West Side, Seaside Renaissance." Ms. Koch had some stationery she distributed and announced the new brochures and other marketing materials would be distributed. XIII. Comments by Executive Director Ms. Bright announced she would be on vacation next week and would be unreachable. She advised Mr. Reardon was in charge during her absence. XIV. Comments by CRA Board Attorney Mr. Spillias had no comments. xv. Comments by CRA Board Chair Tillman asked about the HOB bond monies. He expressed if the funds were not used, they would be returned to the general fund. He requested some type of organized description for the plan to utilize those funds and to ensure the funds would be used for the purpose they were earmarked for in the first place. He indicated that would make him feel comfortable. Vice Chair Norem announced he was on vacation since the last CRA meeting. His home burned down. He thought it would be nice to have a minister give the invocation, or rotate the invocation among the members. Ms. Bright indicated she was working on the invocation with the City Clerk and would do her best for the next meeting. Ms. Horenburger indicated if something could not be worked out, she would be happy to do it. Mr. DeMarco announced his term was up June 20th. He advised he enjoyed serving on the board and thanked all the members, including staff. He expressed he was disappointed about the press article involving one member of the board. He indicated it made the rest of the board look bad. He advised he would drop in from time to time. Chair Tillman thanked Mr. DeMarco and indicated it was great working with him. Ms. Heavilin thanked Mr. DeMarco. She indicated at the last meeting, the CRA approved $1,000 for a promotional event at Ocean Plaza. She invited all the members to the event on Friday, July 31st from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. There would be a green market, a doggie parade, fashion show, live entertainment by AI Johnson, blood mobile, and face painting. The event was 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 anticipated to be a nice event and the intent was to promote the businesses and alert the public to their existence. She appreciated the support of the CRA and Ambit Marketing. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to have all contracts signed off by legal before they were brought to the board. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Spillias clarified anything staff could approve within the $10,000 does not need to go before the board and anything over $10,000 should. Those items would be delineated with a line on the contract itself or a line on the agenda item indicating the item was approved for legal sufficiency. Ms. Horenburger indicated that was part of her motion. Vote Motion passed unanimously Ms. Horenburger announced the CRA does not have a designated representative on the Florida Redevelopment Association (FRA). Ms. Horenburger indicated she did not know whether there was anyone else interested in serving and requested she be considered for the position. She explained the CRA pays dues but does not have a relationship with the organization or know what was occurring. She also advised when she was at the Florida Association of Counties, there was legislation passed that affects CRAs. She advised the CRA was not informed about this through FRA or through the City's lobbyist. She reported she learned there was a cap on TIF, about 24 years out which would not affect any current obligations. She indicated the problem was, that once the legislation was out there, it could easily be amended. She thought this should be monitored. She said there could be a City Commission in the future that wanted TIF funds. She thought the CRA should have their own lobbyist and requested this item be heard at a future time or perhaps during budget. Ms. Horenburger suggested now that the MLK RFP was approved, the board should consider directing staff to begin to draft a plan for infill housing and housing rehabilitation for the rest of the Boynton area, in partnership with the CDCs. She thought the board would not see a large percentage of affordable housing proposed for the MLK RFP responses. She advised the flU Study indicated there was a great deal of affordable housing in the HOB but the aging of the housing and the conditions were a problem. She asked the board, as part of the plan, to partner with the CDCs to assist homeowners in the HOB with sprucing and cleaning up when qualified residents were not capable of the upkeep. She recently read there were teenagers who organized to provide this type of community service. She indicated the program could operate under the supervision of the CDCs, who would be accountable to the CRA staff and board. This would also forge partnerships with trade professionals such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians for more skilled help for qualified residents and would give precedence to the trade professionals who actually lived in the HOB. The youth could be paid a stipend for community service, which would help with college costs, and the professionals could be paid for their services through the CRA partnership. The HOB community could be kept informed through the CRAs newsletter. She noted some CDCs were attempting to team up with others to respond to the RFP in the hope of becoming the master developer. She indicated the scope and cost of the project, with the commitment to purchasing the land the City and CRA owns, and today's building costs would be large hurdles to overcome when it came to having the 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 financial ability to compete. No developer of a project this size would give away a large percentage to development agencies that did not have considerable financial capabilities of their own. She announced the HOB was a large area, and not just the MLK Corridor. She thought the CRA needed to budget funds to encourage CDCs to produce more infill housing and make the repairs needed to rehabilitate existing housing. The Treasure Coast Study advised CRAs were designed to take TIF funds from projects in the areas developers were more eager to develop higher end projects for and use those funds to make improvements in the HOB area. Ms. Horenburger asked for some consensus to have CRA staff look into this idea. She advised the CDCs provided a valuable service. Mr. DeMarco announced he strongly supported the 20/20 Vision. This should be addressed during August and September. Ms. Bright announced she was asked to serve on the steering committee and she would be attending her next meeting on Wednesday. She will forward an e- mail or memo advising of any progress. The American Assembly Group would be selecting the assembly group. She was not certain of the date. Ms. Horenberger thought the board should consider putting together a program and plan for a partnership with the CDCs. Ms. Heavilin thought there was a plan already in place. Chair Tillman agreed a full comprehensive plan to deal with this specific issue was needed. Ms. Horenburger explained the CRA would be selling some of the properties in the MLK corridor, which would free up some funds. She went online to the Property Appraiser's Website to find what properties the CRA owned. She reported there were some errors on the site. She had a list of properties the CRA owned. One, she noted, was missing from the site, and there were several properties on NE 11th that did not have addresses. One had an address, the others had separate property numbers and no street address. There was a property on the NW corner of NW11th, that was listed as NE 11th on the Property Appraiser's website. She declared the CRA needed to review and correct those records. XVI. Future CRA Workshops Budget Workshop - August 17, 2006, Senior Center - 6:00 p.m. Ms. Bright announced the Budget Workshop was cancelled. Ms. Bright requested clarification on Ms. Horenburger's comments. The clarification was the CRA would develop a timeline to spend the bond monies and the types of programs and partners the CRA would work with to make the infill happen in the whole HOB area. Ms. Horenburger explained there were various programs such as programs for assistance, similar to the kind of thing utilized by Delray Beach. XVII. Adjournment A motion was made by Ms. Heavilin to adjourn. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 11, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 1 (I , / ' /1 ,n j(V ~{ Catherine Cher -Guberman Recording Secretary 071206 22