Loading...
Minutes 09-12-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair (arrv'd. 7:25 p.m.) Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev. Lance Chaney Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order In the absence of Chair Tillman, Vice Chair Norem presided and called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. II. Pledge to the Flag The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, followed by an Invocation led by Reverend Chaney. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. IV. Agenda Approval Lisa Bright, CRA Director, announced requests had been received from legal counsel for The Promenade and 500 Ocean projects (Agenda Items IX-D & E respectively) to table the items until the October meeting. The board expressed frustration about the delay but after discussion, decided to listen to the status reports from staff. Ms. Bright also mentioned a request from the agent for the Peninsula project, Agenda Item VII- D, to postpone their site plan time extension item to October. Several notices mailed to property owners within 400 feet were returned due to insufficient postage for Canadian addresses. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. V. Public Comments Acting Chair Norem opened the floor for public comment on any item not on the agenda, and closed it when no one came forward. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 VI. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Minutes Savage Creatures Workshop - June 22, 2006 B. Approval of the Minutes MLK Corridor RFP Meeting - June 22, 2006 C. Approval of the Minutes CRA Board Meeting - August 8, 2006 D. Approval of the Minutes CRA Budget Meeting - August 24, 2006 E. Approval of the Monthly Financial Results - September 30, 2006 F. Approval of FY 06/07 Budget Amendment G. Approval of Events - 4th Quarter Schedule Ms. Heavilin pulled item VI-C. Mr. Myott pulled item VI-G. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. VII. Public Hearing Attorney Spillias explained the quasi-judicial hearing procedure and swore in all who planned to appear as witnesses during this meeting. Attorney Spillias then asked the Board members to disclose any ex-parte communications they might have had with anyone other than staff regarding any of the matters on the Public Hearing agenda. Ms. Horenburger had spoken with Herb Kahlert, a resident, and his son, Hans Kahlert, on the Boynton Bagels project, VII-A & B. Mr. Norem had spoken with Hans Kahlert on the same items. Old Business: None New Business: A. Annexation Description: Boynton Bagels (ANEX 06-007) Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants Peters 3377 N. Federal Highway LLC 3377 North Federal Highway (east side of Federal Highway, south of Turner Road) Request to annex subject property 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: B. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning Owner: Boynton Bagels (LUAR 06-020) Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants Peters 3377 N. Federal Highway LLC 2. Project: Agent: 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Location: 3377 North Federal Highway (east side of Federal Highway, south of Turner Road) Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial High with underlying Medium Density Residential of 5 dulac (CHIS) (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC); Description: and Request to rezone from General Commercial (CG) (Palm Beach County) to Community Commercial (C-3). Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented for staff, stating her intent to present the Annexation and Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning concurrently. The property is small with only 3,342 square feet. The site is a parking lot for a parcel formerly occupied by All Flags bike sales and repairs. The proposed use for this project is a Boynton Bagels takeout restaurant. The subject property would remain as a parking lot. A site plan application had been filed and was currently under review by staff. Ms. Zeitler displayed a depiction of the subject property, a parking lot. The remaining property for the proposed restaurant was already in the City. Staff reviewed the annexation and land use amendment and rezoning and found them to be consistent with the objectives of the City and with the current designations in the unincorporated area of the County. Staff found the project would not create additional impacts on infrastructure that could not be accommodated by the City, and the requested change would help further provide economic contribution as well as make a non-conforming situation less non-conforming. Staff recommended approval of the annexation, land use and rezoning of the parcel. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, agent for the applicant, Doug Peters, declared the parcel where the building now existed was already in the City and the parking lot was not, so in order for the redevelopment to occur, the parcel had to be brought into the City. The land use being proposed was the LRC land use that was consistent with what the County land use of CH. The proposed zoning, C3, was consistent with the CG zoning presently in place under the County designation. Mr. Myott asked if the site plan that was in process included another parcel, and Mr. Miller responded it did. The parcel seemed very small to Mr. Myott and he asked if, when added to the other parcel, the site would meet the criteria for a lot area in a commercial C-3 zoned site. Mr. Miller noted a different agent was processing the site plan, but he thought there might be 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 some legal nonconformities involved with the building situation. Ms. Zeitler responded the required minimum square footage would be 15,000 square feet and she did not think the proposed site plan would meet it. If a variance were to be required, it would come before the board along with the site plan. Mr. Myott inquired whether there was other land to the south that could be attached to it to make it conforming, either in the City or the County. Ms. Zeitler explained the existing building was on Lot 9 and a portion of Lot 10 and was in the City already. Lot 8 (the parking lot) was the property to be annexed. It appeared to Ms. Horenburger that the property had been annexed into the City without the parking lot, and Ms. Zeitler agreed. Ms. Horenburger believed the annexation, site plan, land use amendment and rezoning should have come to the board at one time, they way they usually did. Ms. Zeitler responded this was because the site plan was under the control of a different agent and Mr. Miller's request was completed first. Ms. Zeitler displayed a copy of a site plan that was under review. It included the building and a proposed canopy extending from the front of the building where there would be outdoor seating on a limited basis. The seating was limited due to the small amount of parking. Ms. Horenburger inquired how far the canopy would be from the adjacent residential uses. Ms. Zeitler responded the site plan did not show the dimensions, but she estimated the canopy was approximately twenty feet from the residential. Mr. Norem agreed with Ms. Horenburger's desire to hear the projects in their entirety, but he felt there was no reason to deny annexation into the City in the absence of a site plan, since the site plan still had to be presented for approval. If they were annexed and failed on the site plan or a variance, it was still in the City as a source of tax revenues. Ms. Heavilin did not see any reason to hold off on the annexation of the subject property. Mr. Myott felt the annexation made the likelihood of a site plan working more likely since the lots would be joined to each other. It also cleaned up the County pockets, a Comprehensive Plan goal. Mr. Norem remarked this was what the City had wanted to happen in this area for years. Ms. Horenburger asked Mr. Spillias if the board would be granting anything by annexing the property in relation to the business that wanted to establish itself on this property. Mr. Spillias responded the board was being asked to do two things: 1) annexation, and 2) a land use and zoning change that would make it consistent with the City's zoning regulations. Beyond that, the present use could continue if they chose to continue. If they chose to come through with a new site plan, consideration would be given at that time. The board's annexation decision should be based only on annexation principles. The land use and zoning decision should be made only on zoning. The site plan was no consideration at all for the board's decision. Ms. Zeitler remarked the only thing that was triggering a new site plan in this case was a change of use. If it remained retail and a new business went in as a retail use, it would not have a change of use and would not require a site plan to be approved. Rev. Chaney confirmed with Attorney Spillias the action of the board would be to recommend annexation to the City Commission. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Vice Chair Norem opened the floor for public comment, reminding the speakers of the three- minute limitation on speaking. Tamara Lane, 3216 Palm Drive, Boynton Beach, resident of the Tradewinds subdivision adjoining the subject property, spoke against the annexation. Her property was behind what was being called the "parking lot." She clarified that it had never been a parking lot until Hurricane Wilma. The property owner took that opportunity to take down a huge banyan tree on that property, wiping out a whole eco system and paving the area quickly. Since it was in the County, there had been no permits. She showed the board some pictures to illustrate her point and those pictures were made a part of the record. The parking lot pavement abuts her property and her neighbor's property. Their fence line was about three feet away from the paved area. There was no drainage. The parking lot was done in a shoddy manner. The annexation was up to the City, but they needed to have engineers take a close look at it. There was no easement. Right out front was where the children waited for the bus. It was a busy corner. After 9-11, no one came in that lot because the owner had it chained up and the fence was there. It had always been chain linked and closed. It had never been a parking lot. The City had been given false information and would be approving something on false information. She questioned the integrity of the developer because of this. In the aerial photographs Ms. Lane provided to the board, it could be seen that prior to Hurricane Wilma, there was no paved parking lot at this location. Mr. Norem responded Ms. Lane would have to inquire about the permit situation with the County Zoning Department, since it was currently in their jurisdiction. The board was considering the annexation of the land itself and a site plan would still have to come forward for approval. What was there now may not necessarily be allowed to remain. If they wanted that to be a parking lot in conjunction with what they had on the other property, they would have to meet all kinds of landscaping, setback, and other requirements. Patricia Kahlert, another Tradewinds resident, spoke in opposition to the annexation and proposed bagel restaurant. She provided the board with a box of donuts and a bag of bagels from the Dunkin Donuts shop across the street from the subject property. She felt having a bagel shop across the street from Dunkin Donuts would be redundant. Dunkin Donuts was open from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and they did not have enough business to stay open past 9:00 p.m. She felt a bagel restaurant would not thrive at the proposed location and would be quickly replaced with another business. She was also concerned about the devaluation of the residential properties abutting the subject property if this site had a takeout restaurant on it. Ms. Kahlert owned three 50-foot lots adjacent to the subject property. She referred to an appraiser from Callaway and Price who was appraising her property. He advised it would make a big difference if the adjacent property were "retail or takeout." Ms. Kahlert was a neighbor of Ms. Lane to the south and she echoed everything she had said. She referred to a small business on Federal Highway called Ralph and Rosie's that stayed open late. She knew the City had good intentions, but wondered how the City could have ever allowed a business like the barlnightclub across the street from subject property to be placed in a mall, which she had watched die since that had taken place. Mr. Miller confirmed for Mr. Myott that the ownership was the same for both sites. Mr. Miller noted that by annexing the property, the City would have more control over what happened on 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 it and it would be subject to the City's Code of Ordinance requirements. The City had no control over it at present. Mr. Sims agreed it would be better to have this property under the control of the City. He appreciated and understood the remarks of the two residents who spoke. The parking lot situation did make him wonder and he thought that should be investigated. Ms. Heavilin also appreciated the feelings of the residents who spoke. She asked staff what would be allowed under C-3 that would not be allowed presently. Ms. Zeitler responded if it were to remain in the County, it could be residential or it could be high commercial, which would allow more intensive uses to locate there. The general commercial zoning on the property now was consistent with the City's local retail commercial zoning district. Conditional uses were also possibilities. Mr. Miller added that under the County zoning, a cocktail lounge would be a permitted use but it would not under the proposed zoning change. Ms. Zeitler noted it was the applicant's intention to bring the property up to Code as much as possible. There would be a six-foot buffer wall and landscaping on the east property line to buffer the adjacent residential and bring it up to as many of the Code provisions as possible. Mr. Norem asked how many stories would be entailed with the project and Ms. Zeitler responded the C-3 district allowed for heights of 45 feet. Mr. Miller declared the building would remain as a one-story building. Ms. Zeitler noted they were working with the agent who was bringing the site plan forward to make some architectural improvements to the building, including painting and sprucing up in general. Ms. Horenburger inquired whether another zoning category might actually fit the proposed use. Ms. Zeitler responded C-3 most closely fit the zoning the property now had in the County. C-2 was neighborhood commercial but that was not typically found on Federal Highway, and C-3, community commercial, was more common. It could not go in C-1 since that was an office district. Ms. Horenburger asked if restaurants and outdoor dining would be allowed in C-3 or if they were conditional uses. Ms. Zeitler was not certain. Ms. Horenburger felt there were some unanswered questions and she wanted to see it come back to the board when the questions were answered. Mr. Miller stated that in the C-2 zoning district, restaurants were permitted uses and the minimum square footage was SK square feet. Ms. Horenburger inquired whether a restaurant would be a conditional use in C-3. Mr. Miller stated the Code talked about sidewalk cafes within the CRA area as an accessory use. Ms. Zeitler said a restaurant would be a conditional use in a C-3 district. Mr. Myott remarked C-2 was frequently adjacent to residential uses. Ms. Horenburger asked why it would be problematic for the applicant to go to C-2. The proposed use might be more suited to C-2. Ms. Zeitler responded the adjacent parcel was already zoned C-3, so it made sense to have the same zoning; otherwise, they would have to bring in the other parcel and rezone it as well. If it were to function as one site, it had to be zoned the same. Ms. Horenburger did not understand why the board was not being asked to rezone this to C-2, since it did not fit in the C-3 zoning category. It would require a variance. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, stated although there had been quite a lot of transition along this portion of the corridor to residential, the predominant land use had been retail/commercial, and C-3 specifically. Even though it did not seem to fit that parcel, there were a lot of parcels in the area that were smaller and perhaps non-conforming. As far as use and the predominant zoning district in the area, it was more C-3. It was correct that it was seen more often in neighborhood areas, and not on the major corridors. There was not a perfect fit. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to annex the subject property. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 5-1, Ms. Horenburger dissenting. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to rezone the subject property from General Commercial (CG) (Palm Beach County) to Community Commercial (C-3) in the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Sims seconded the motion. Mr. Spillias noted it would also include the Land Use Map. Mr. Myott changed his motion to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial High with underlying Medium Density Residential of 5 dulac (CHIS) (Palm Beach County to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and to approve the request to rezone the subject property from General Commercial (CG) (Palm Beach County) to Community Commercial (C-3) in the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Sims agreed to the addition to the motion. Pat Kahlert asked to speak again. Mr. Norem advised her the public hearing portion of this item had been closed. When asked again to allow comment, Mr. Norem deferred to the Board Attorney. Mr. Spillias indicated it was up to the board whether they wished to reopen the public hearing. At the beginning of the discussion, he believed it was mentioned the item was being handled jointly. With a request from Ms. Heavilin not to allow comments that had already been covered, and with the board's consensus, Mr. Norem reopened the public comment portion of this item. Craig Ritchie, 3910 Palm Drive, Boynton Beach, resided right behind the proposed project and was concerned about the noise from food prepping in the early morning hours, emptying of the dumpster, and the possibility of rats near the residences from the dumpster. The proposed project would only be about ten feet from the property line of the residences. Hans Kahlert, 3210 Palm Drive, Boynton Beach, was concerned about lighting levels and hours of operation. Although he did not want to undermine his neighbors, the redevelopment of the area was important and there could be far worse uses for the property such as a bar. If it were approved, he hoped the board would require limited hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. A six-foot wall might not be high enough to buffer the residences from the site lighting. Also, there was not much room for landscaping. The awning extending from the southern portion of the building would be extremely close to their property line. He owned a restaurant at one time and hoped the board would be sensitive to such matters when considering the project. He also hoped they would consider some architectural upgrades to the building. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Ms. Horenburger suggested Mr. Kahlert meet with the agent for the site plan. Mr. Norem closed the floor to further public comment. The motion passed 6-0. C. New Site Plan Descri ption: Baywalk (NWSP 06-017) Carlos Ballbe, P.A. Southern Homes of Palm Beach V, LLC West side of Federal Highway, north of Miller Road Request for new site plan approval for 40 townhouse units on a 2.26- acre parcel in an IPUD zoning district. 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the staff report. This project had previously received approval for a land use amendment from LRC to SHDR in 2004. It was also rezoned at that time from C-3 to Infill PUD. Site Plan approval was received in 2004 for the Oceanside project. However, that site plan expired and the applicant was presenting a new site plan for a slightly different project. It had previously been approved for 45 townhomes and it now proposed 40 townhomes for a lesser density of 17.7 du/acre. Currently, the property had a modular sales office and a billboard on it. That would all be removed. The site plan showed one entrance from Federal Highway with some drives off to the side, and a road going through the center with a roundabout at the end. The proposed project would have condominium style ownership. The roads would be private. The landscape areas, roads, parking spaces and driveways would all be common area except for the units themselves, which would be owned individually. Twenty-four of the forty units would have one-car garages and the remaining units would have spaces located throughout the development in front of the units. Also included was a recreation area with a community pool and pool house, with its own parking. Perimeter landscape buffers ten feet in width were proposed along the north, south, and west property lines. There would be a six-foot masonry wall along the north, west, and south property lines. There would be a metal fence with individual gates leading out from the Federal Highway frontage. Chair Ti//man arrived at 7:25 p.m. The smallest unit, Unit A, would have 1,189 square feet under air. The largest unit was Model D with 1,688 square feet under air. All the buildings would be two stories and range in height from 24 feet to 28 feet, four inches. The open space requirement was 200 sq. ft. per unit and that was met and exceeded with the open space area provided. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 The project had neo-Mediterranean design with Spanish tile roof and neutral color palette. There would be an arched entry feature. It was similar to the Coastal Bay development. Staff reviewed the project and it met concurrency for traffic and schools. The Fire and Police Departments reviewed it and felt current staffing levels would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services. It met Code as far as access, circulation, streets, parking, landscaping, buildings, height, and setbacks. The architecture was what staff liked to see. Staff recommended approval with 61 conditions. Most of them pertained to permitting requirements that were Code requirements. Mr. Norem asked Ms. Zeitler if the 61 requirements were mostly "boilerplate," things that would automatically be in there. Ms. Zeitler stated there were some specific conditions such as the removal of the billboard, doing a unity of title, and some related to minor revisions that had to be made for the final construction drawings. Carlos Ballbe', P.A., agent for Southern Homes of Palm Beach IV, LLC, appeared. He offered to answer questions and stated he was excited about the project. They had scaled down the project to more accurately reflect current market conditions. The original project had three stories and no garages. This project had two stories and about half had garages. They reduced the density also. Mr. Norem opened the floor for public comment and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Ms. Heavilin asked if there were renderings of the elevations as seen on encountering the project going north or south on Federal Highway. Ms. Heavilin noted the elevations were very plain, so it could not be determined whether there was any landscaping or not. She liked Southern Homes' other projects and wanted reassurance the buildings would not appear so plain. Mr. Myott responded condition #55 called for additional architectural treatments/requirements. Mr. Myott asked Ms. Brooks if she approved this and she did. Mr. Myott thought they might want to give consideration in the future to limiting the number of units in a continuous line. Such projects appear monolithic and he believed the 12-unit building was pushing it. It was very long, without any breaks in building style or landscaping. Mr. Sims asked the applicant about the bedroom dimensions. He noted in the backup it said there were two and three bedrooms and Ms. Zeitler had stated they were all three-bedroom, two-bath. Ms. Zeitler agreed she could have spoken in error. Mr. Ballbe' confirmed there was a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom units in the project. Mr. Ballbe' stated in Unit A, the master bedroom was 14 feet wide by 15 feet. The second bedroom in that unit was 14 feet by 12 feet. That was the smallest unit. The same dimensions were true for Unit B. In Unit C, the bedroom was 18 feet wide by 15 feet. The smaller bedrooms were 11 feet by 12 feet. Rev. Chaney asked Mr. Ballbe' for the selling price of the units. Mr. Ball be' referred to a colleague to answer this question. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Tom Pagnotta, Director of Operations for Southern Homes of Palm Beach V, LLC, indicated they hoped to bring the A model units to the market in the high $200s, and $3S0K for the rest, subject to final site plan and architectural approvals. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request for new site plan approval for Baywalk's 40 town house units on a 2.26-acre parcel in an IPUD zoning district. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Mr. Myott asked to add, "subject to all conditions of approval" and Ms. Heavilin and Ms. Horenburger agreed to the addition. The motion passed 7-0. D. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Peninsula (SPTE 06-07) Tom Yianilos Waterbrook Development, LLC 2649 North Federal Highway Request for a six month Site Plan Time Extension for site plan approval granted on July 5, 2005, to extend site plan approval from July 5, 2006 to January 5, 2007. The board agreed to postpone this item to its October meeting at the agent's request. VIII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items .:. Consent Agenda Item VI-c' Aporoval of the Minutes CRA Board Meeting - August 8, 2006 Ms. Heavilin wished to make a correction on page 17, fourth paragraph down, where it said Ms. Heavilin would continue to meet with the City Commission for information purposes. It should have read that Ms. Bright would continue to meet with the City Commission for informational purposes. Attorney Spillias noted on page 10 of the same minutes, last paragraph, end of second line, it read "while contracts were ongoing" and it should read "while contract negotiations were ongoing." Ms. Horenburger referred to page 8 in the paragraph beginning, "The CRA was interested in learning whether a market analysis..." and stated she had expressed interest. In another instance on page 9, it said the CRA expressed concern about school funding, and she had been the one to express it. She was interested in the lack of attribution and the generalizing of these statements and asked Attorney Spillias his opinion of what should be done. Mr. Spillias responded that in some cases, the Recording Secretary might not have caught who asked the question and it could also be that after an item was discussed, there appeared to be consensus among the board. Mr. Spillias indicated the minutes should reflect as accurately as possible 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 precisely what was said and who said it but sometimes, the written minutes could not be as exact as the tape. Mr. Norem asked Ms. Horenburger if she wanted to make any specific changes, but she did not. On a related matter, Ms. Heavilin noted she had received her copy of the June minutes at the September meeting and she hoped that was an isolated instance. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the August 8, 2006 minutes as amended. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. .:. Consent Agenda Item VI-G, Aoproval of Events - 4th Quarter Schedule Mr. Myott apologized for not being able to attend the budget workshop, but praised Mr. Reardon on the fine job he had done on the Reference Booklet that supplemented the budget. It was broken down in such a way it was very easy to understand. He inquired whether the Pirates of the Intracoastal event would be held on the same weekend the board was going to Stuart. Margee Adelsperger, Marketing and Communications Manager, responded it was, but Ms. Bright believed they should be finished by noon and could be back in time for the Pirates event. Mr. Myott asked about the $164K allocated for the Holiday Fest event. Ms. Adelsperger responded the bulk of it would go towards securing a top-name entertainer, someone who would draw crowds from outside Boynton Beach. They were considering a country theme. Ms. Bright thought a ballpark figure for the entertainment would be $7SK. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve Consent Agenda Item VI-G, Approval of Events - 4th Quarter Schedule. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 7-0. IX. Old Business A. Discussion of Ocean Breeze Ms. Bright reported she had received e-mail from Larry Finkelstein apologizing for not attending this meeting, but due to the rain, it was almost physically impossible for him to attend. Staff had been working with him and she pointed out the board had approved a Direct Incentive Agreement with Boynton Associates in December of 2005. Due to market conditions and changes, staff had been working with Mr. Finkelstein over the past three months to come back to the board to discuss possible alternatives. At the August 8 meeting, the board supported a draft of an HOB Work Program, which they were implementing, and Ocean Breeze was one of the key projects. Ms. Bright asked Attorney Spillias to address the status of the lien with Ocean Breeze and the options for the board to consider in relation to it. Attorney Spillias pointed out the staff summary indicated the CRA attorney was recommending an assistance package and a list of terms, and he made it known that he was not yet at the point of recommending anything. What he was making a recommendation on was the issue of how to deal with the demolition lien and waiver. They had completed their contracts with the 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 City in terms of the assignment of the lien to the CRA. The assignment was recorded and the lien was recorded. One of the incentives the board agreed to provide the developer was a waiver of the costs of the demolition lien. As the minutes reflect and as he recalled, that was part of the incentive package that the board proposed to provide to the developer. In an exchange of e-mails between staff and Mr. Finkelstein, Attorney Spillias saw one of Mr. Finkelstein's requests was an immediate release of the lien and waiver of the funds. Direction from the board was needed as to how to address this in preparing a development agreement and finalizing the incentive package for this development. Attorney Spillias advised if the board were to release the lien immediately, as requested, and the project ultimately did not go forward or did not go forward in the manner in which it had been agreed with the developer, the board would have forgiven a $340K to $360K debt and received nothing in return. On the other hand, the developer was suggesting having the lien in place was hampering his financing arrangements. Mr. Spillias looked to the board for direction about whether it wanted him to try to negotiate with the developer some means of providing security to the board in the event the obligations in a development agreement were not met. He advised the security could be in the form of a bond, a surety, a subordinate mortgage to the construction loan, or some sort of inter- relationship with other incentives. He did not know all the details about how the developer intended to finance the project. Mr. Spillias asked the board if the CRA would want to waive the lien if it did not get the product. Chair Tillman responded that in his opinion, the intent of the action to waive the demolition lien was to move the project forward. He did not think this CRA board or any other CRA board would want to give that kind of money up without seeing a project come forward. The difficulties of the developer in obtaining financing with the lien in place could be an issue. However, that was not for the CRA to determine. If that was the case and the developer wanted the demolition lien to be forgiven, he should agree to some sort of guarantee in the form of a bond that he would cover the amount of the lien if the project could not go forward. Chair Tillman did not understand why this project had not progressed and why it seemed to be "stalling out" in spite of the CRA's best efforts to be accommodating. He remarked if the developer did not want to participate, he should step back. Mr. Sims thought it was taking a long time to do anything on this particular site. He wished to remind the board that this was an "open wound" to a lot of people in that area and the longer they just saw dirt, that wound got worse. He felt it would be a tremendous mistake to do anything that would delay the commencement of a project that should have been started a long time ago. He inquired whether it was advantageous for the board to give another developer an opportunity, even if the CRA had to acquire the property. He felt prolonging this situation would be doing a disservice to a great many people. In his opinion, if there were no firm agreement language with this developer that would include a timeline to get the project started by the October meeting, the eRA needed to move on. This was ridiculous. People were talking about it every day. People who had not met the developer felt he was untrustworthy, lacking in credibility, and did not care about the community. They were not seeing any more happening at that site than they had two years previously. If nothing was coming forward, they needed to discuss an alternative plan to get it started. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Ms. Horenburger indicated staff had asked for financial details, as would be expected from anyone asking for this type of incentive, and the principal had refused to produce the information. She went online and it appeared the property had been acquired and not purchased. There was no change of ownership in the Property Appraiser's records and she was told that basically, the liability of the corporation that owned it formerly was purchased and so it did not actually change hands. Also, she understood there was bond indebtedness of $6.SM on the property. Her concern was that as they moved forward, the applicant might come back for more money to cover some of that debt. She did not know what it would mean if the CRA exercised the lien in terms of acquiring the property and whether the CRA would be liable for that debt if the bond indebtedness were true. She would like to know more about that and did not know how to go about getting that information if the principal refused to provide it. Attorney Spillias did not know the details, but if the CRA were going to engage in negotiations for a development agreement and modify or firm up an incentive package, those financial issues would have to be disclosed and addressed. Ms. Horenburger thought it was incumbent on the board to take a vote to ask that the applicant produce that information or come to the board next month and discuss and decide the CRA's options at that time. It seemed to Mr. Norem staff was asking the board to authorize staff and legal counsel to draft a development agreement on this site and bring it back to the board in October. If it did not come back, the board would know where it had to go. He thought the consensus of this board would be to include that indebtedness, even if they had to subordinate to a construction mortgage. At least, let the CRA see something come out of the ground before doing anything else. That might be one of the ways to do it. If they just did what staff was recommending, it would set the time line. The developer had to come to the table, or the board would move on. Ms. Bright responded CRA staff had spent several months working with Mr. Finkelstein, but the board had asked to hire a TIF consultant to do modeling and forecasting and they had now hired Greg Oravec for that purpose. Staff had asked Mr. Oravec to evaluate all their current incentives. He was present to answer those questions, but he had come to Ms. Bright and after many conversations and e-mails, his recommendation was originally for the CRA to buy the parcel to move on with this project. Staff had worked with Mr. Finkelstein to convince him to come back to the table to try to make the project work. She realized there was consensus that it was time to have a firm development agreement or move on. Greg Oravec, Senior Project Manager at Culpepper and Terpening, Inc., provider of redevelopment consulting services to the CRA, appeared. Mr. Oravec stated the bottom line was that in the next 30 days, they should make this happen. He had been excited about reviewing the underlying controlling regulations, the Heart of Boynton Master Plan, and the property itself because of how it was strategically situated in the Heart of Boynton neighborhood. It had the potential to be much more than just a townhome development and a special townhome development in its own right. In conjunction with the improvement of Seacrest Boulevard, it really had the ability to start in earnest the renaissance of the Heart of Boynton area. It could create a main street with a real streetscape that improved the quality of life for the residents and rolled out the red carpet for additional redevelopment. It could create a real opportunity for the people of Boynton Beach to live in Boynton Beach with homeowner occupied housing. He felt this was one of the board's best opportunities to start the renaissance for real. The community had heard a lot of talk, but it had not been backed up. They wanted to 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2006 come back to the board in 30 days with a plan that could be carried out. It was time to make it happen. Mr. Oravec took his excitement and his experience in forging publiclprivate partnerships to the representative of the owner. The owner was Boynton Associates, Ltd. Larry Finkelstein was the representative as had been presented and as he had determined. However, the actual ownership structure was one of the fundamental questions. The earliest record he could find of Boynton Associates, Ltd. on the record was in 1997. In 2004, they had a new co-general partner, The Partnership, Inc. In October of 2005, Larry Finkelstein became the registered agent of the corporation and they had a new general partner called Affordable Housing, LLC. Affordable Housing, LLC was an entity also controlled by Larry Finkelstein. There was no record of the property changing hands or an acquisition, as would normally be determined on the Property Appraiser's Web page or public records of Palm Beach County. Because the interest in the property was purchased and not the property, they had no way of identifying the means by which the property had been acquired. That was problematic, because when Mr. Oravec began evaluating the actual deal with Boynton Associates, Ltd., the request for an additional incentive to the original Direct Incentive Funding Agreement (DIFA) was based on a pro forma in which one of the large assumptions was the purchase price of the property. There was a lot of uncertainty and the request for information from the developer was not met. In addition to the troubling business aspects, there were planning deficiencies. Mr. Oravec declared when the CRA invested the taxpayer's dollars in the district, it had an obligation to them to receive the most it could for that money. There was more to be had with this project. Over the course of the next 30 days, they could: . Come up with a timeline to which the developer could agree. . Have the CRA consider acquisition of the property. The acquisition of the property would be done through an arms-length transaction with the owner, identifying specifically what the board and the community wanted to see on the property (a conceptual site plan). Then, the CRA would go out for RFP to find the best-qualified developer/vertical builder who could get the job done. Chair Tillman applauded staff for bringing in a competent individual to take an in-depth look at the Ocean Breeze issue and redevelopment in the Heart of Boynton, so they could take action on this site. He felt the timeline was critically important. He did not want to see anything different than what had already been approved in terms of the site plan. He asked staff to come back to the board in 30 days with whatever was necessary to get this redevelopment effort moving. Ms. Bright noted if directed by the board, staff would work diligently with Mr. Finkelstein to resolve this in the next 30 days. Staff believed a comprehensive plan had to include the developer's plans for the property across the street from the Ocean Breeze site on the west side of Sea crest, so they could have a unified plan. If purchase were an option, she did not think it would be a long-term process. Staff based this opinion on some of the recommendations made in the Treasure Coast Planning Council to include smaller one-bedroom units and villas and the fact that during the RFP process for the MLK Corridor, many developers had the interest and the ability to participate in this project. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to authorize staff and legal to draft a development agreement for the review and consideration of the board at the next scheduled meeting in October, incorporating all the comments, requests, and consensus arrived at during this discussion. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin noted the board had considered the Ocean Breeze project to be a "seed" project for the Heart of Boynton area. She confirmed with Attorney Spillias that the expiration of the existing site plan approval for this project would not occur until December, although Mr. Finkelstein could request an extension. It seemed to her that legally, he had until that time to perform. Ms. Bright responded Mr. Finkelstein was amenable to revising the site plan. Staff was actually asking the board to approve the CRA purchase of property adjacent to Ocean Breeze, under New Business. Mr. Finkelstein was aware that going into the next level of negotiation, he would have to modify the site plan and that cost. Ms. Heavilin clarified she had been speaking of the 30-day deadline for Mr. Finkelstein to come to the table and come to agreement, as discussed at this meeting. Ms. Heavilin believed Mr. Sims' comments were a little harsh about nothing happening on this project, since they were seeing the same thing on two larger projects. Ms. Heavilin did not believe anyone developer could be held totally accountable for the drastic changes occurring in the market today. She thought the board had to be cognizant of that. Ms. Horenburger disagreed, saying the CRA was giving the developer $3.381M to start doing this project, and he had refused to provide financial information that was required of all applicants for incentives. She did not think Mr. Sims' comments were harsh at all. The motion passed 7-0. B. HOB Residential Improvement Grant Program Guidelines Vivian Brooks, Planning & Development Manager, concurred with Mr. Sims' comments that the community had to put up with quite a bit over the years. When she put together the HOB Work Program, one of her goals was to think of the people who had lived through the decline and waited for improvements to come. The HOB Residential Improvement Grant Program Guidelines represented the implementation of one of the line items in the Work Program. This took the place of the old Residential Fa~ade Grant Program that had not been used at all during FY 2005-06, possibly due to an onerous match of 50%. Also, it only covered things like painting of exteriors and not the things people really needed such as wiring and bringing their houses up to Code on safety issues. Ms. Brooks proposed making a concentrated effort in the HOB to work with existing residents and property owners to bring properties up not just on the outside but inside, allowing them to stay in their homes and not sell them if they did not wish to do so. There were a lot of elderly residents on fixed income who could not re-roof their homes, for example. Many had their homes paid for. They did not always have insurance. A concentrated effort in the community to use these grants could allow people to bring their houses up to Code. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Ms. Brooks proposed partnering with the Faith-Based Community Development Corporation who would administer the program by doing intake and marketing. An allotment of $2SK a year was recommended for their administration of the program. The program would be available to residents and owners of rental structures. Ms. Brooks thought the board might want to consider requiring a match from the owners of rental property . Each individual application would have to come before the board for a funding decision. The purpose of this program was to make a difference in the community. Ms. Horenburger thought if the rental property owners were included, there should be protections for the existing residents such as signed affidavits to the effect the rent would not be raised over the Consumer Price Index for a period of time and perhaps lien power if violated. She also thought there could be something like a five-year, no-obligation mortgage that was not paid back, but went away after five years. Rev. Chaney inquired whether the family income not exceeding 120% of the median household income was based on the renter's income or the property owner's income, in the case of rental property. Mr. Brooks responded this was concerned with the property owner's income. They did not intend to enrich anyone who was already rich. She declared there were a number of residents in the Heart of Boynton who owned income property, were elderly, and on a fixed income. In Palm Beach County, the median household income was $64K and the median household income in the Heart of Boynton was $20K. She did not think the program would exclude those who needed it or allow in those who did not. Ms. Horenburger inquired whether the money would be an outright grant or a case of paying the bill once the work was done. Mr. Brooks responded the money would be paid to a contractor after it had been permitted and completed. Rev. Chaney thought a provision should be included for rental property owners where if they had enjoyed the benefit of the program and then sold the property, some money would come back to this program. Ms. Brooks liked the idea, saying perhaps they could do a soft second mortgage similar to the HAP program where if they sold within so many years, the CRA would get its money back. There was consensus on this point. Ms. Horenburger was the most concerned about the owners of rental property raising rents after improvements had been made. Ms. Bright declared they could mandate a one to two year non-increase in rent as part of the matching grant. Vice Chair Norem believed the board could let the program be flexible at the beginning and allow staff to come back to the board when they actually had an application. Ms. Bright agreed, saying if the board did not agree with a particular grant, they could just not approve it. Rev. Chaney asked if there were a financial consideration for the CDCs to be partners in the program. Ms. Brooks said in the Work Program approved at the August meeting, there was a line item for administration for this program. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Mr. Myott thought the program should focus on homeowners rather than rental property owners. He saw rental property as commercial property and they had always asked for a match from this kind of owner. He thought the landlords would jump on it. The board might consider capping the amount of rental property that would be allowed. It may take longer for the regular homeowner to become aware of the program. It would add to the bottom line of the rental property owner. He did not understand how any homeowner could get the work done without any money up front. He could not imagine a contractor who would draw up plans, go through weeks of permitting, buy materials up front, do the work, and then possibly get paid months later. Ms. Brooks noted these were small projects and they could also do draw downs if necessary. When contractors dealt with a government, they felt more comfortable about getting paid. She had spoken to builders and they did not see a particular problem with it. Most of the applications would be for things like replacing a door or window, a kitchen, electrical wiring, and similar repair items. Mr. Myott inquired who would sign the contract with a builder or contractor, but Ms. Brooks responded that had to be worked out with legal counsel. Ms. Bright commented they had a similar program in Delray Beach for the West Settler's area and three to four contractors wanted that work very much because they knew it was guaranteed work. The big general contractors would probably not be involved. There was even commitment at the general contractor level of wanting to give back to the community. That program was a matching grant and at times, they did have to come up with close to $2SK up front so the general contractor could get going, in the case of a complete renovation. Mr. Myott thought projects requiring that could be identified and the decisions and recommendations made early on as the applications came in. Ms. Brooks agreed, saying it would depend on the job. Ms. Brooks' experience with a similar program in West Palm Beach was they offered the same deal to rental property owners and no one took it. She did know why, but it c6uld have been the required match. Mr. Sims would rather see every dollar go to the homeowner with an evaluation at the end of the year to determine whether there had been sufficient interest. If not, they could consider broadening it to include rental property owners. He suggested favoring applicants with multiple needs. There were many homeowners who would be thankful to do certain kinds of work, but needed help with other kinds. Mr. Sims was trying to understand the administration part of the program for the CDC. It seemed the CDC would take the initial application from the homeowner or landlord. They would process the application, bring it to staff, and send it on to the board for a vote. After that point, it would be up to the CDC to get the contractor to do the work and be the project managers over that construction site. Mr. Sims inquired whether there was a component built in for a report back to the board. He inquired whether this is what the $2SK was meant to cover. Ms. Brooks replied that this was what it was for. An agreement had to be drafted between the CDC and the CRA and it would include the methods of maintenance and monitoring of the program. Progress reports and pictures would be included. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Mr. Sims asked whether the CDC had an experienced person on board who could serve as project manager or whether that person would have to be hired. Ms. Brooks responded for new home construction, they used a general contractor. A lot of work would need a permit so there had to be a general contractor to do that. The general contractor would pull the permit and the City would have to sign off on the work when completed. If the City signed off on it, she was comfortable the work had been done correctly. Some houses would need more than $20K and there would be oversight of the work. Ms. Horenburger asked who the key person would be. David Zimet, Boynton Beach Faith-Based Community Development Corporation, stated that right now, they had Jerome Powell, Deputy Director and Project Manager on most of their single-family production. When they rehabbed one house, they had an engineer come in who wrote up specifications and got bids. They also had draws on rehab work as they did with construction. Ms. Horenburger asked whether Mr. Zimet planned to oversee this program and he responded affirmatively, but Mr. Powell would probably do the day-to-day work. As far as intake was concerned, they currently did intake for the SHIP Program. Ms. Heavilin thought it was a good and necessary program. She had a problem with the lack of a match and did not believe in "giveaway" programs. She wanted to see some kind of sweat equity from the homeowner for purposes of pride and self-esteem and a personal stake in the results. It did not have to be a monetary stake. Ms. Brooks commented the median income in the Heart of Boynton was $27K annually. She mentioned the monitoring that would be required with keeping track of sweat equity. Ms. Heavilin thought the $2SK for administration at the CDC should be restructured as a fee for the marketing of the program. Chair Tillman mentioned they would want to think about liability. He did not think the CRA should be in the business of keeping track of sweat equity and trying to determine if they pitched in or not and if it was enough. There were other groups who did that. The CRA was trying to upgrade some housing stock. They were even doing debris pickup and there was no sweat equity on that. The job got done and the community looked better. They would contract with the CDC to do the work, monitor it through staff, put the money in and get the job done. The Residential Fa<;ade Grant program did not work. He thought it would be to the benefit of the community to put the money right up front to fix the properties and increase property values. He wanted to see something meaningful move forward. Rev. Chaney agreed with Chair Tillman. He was concerned about the administrative side and thought they could possibly pay the CDC for the number of applicants they qualified instead of a flat $2SK. Mr. Zimet responded they did not know how much work there was going to be in the end. $2SK might be too much or it might be way too little. If they had to replace a roof, do wiring, painting and cabinets in one house and there were 20 such houses, $2SK would not be nearly enough. Ms. Horenburger thought if they did a percentage of the actual budget for the improvement, that could work. Rev. Chaney said there should be an incentive to make it 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 happen in the community so the money would not just sit there. If the administrators had an incentive, that would help move the program forward also. Ms. Bright asked the board to recall when staff drafted guidelines for a Homebuyers Assistance Program. They dropped a mailer on this to every residence in the Heart of Boynton as an initiative. It did not do them any good if they had a program they could not draw down. That was the reason this new program was being introduced. Their key goal would be to create a marketing plan with the CDC about how the word would get out and how it was going to be drawn down. The actual administration of the budget would be a separate budgeted item and she was sure it would be more than $2SK. Ms. Horenburger thought this should be looked at as a pilot project for six months to see what they could get going. If it worked, they could approve further funding. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the HOB Residential Improvement Grant Program Guidelines as written and presented. Ms. Horenburger asked to add the exception they were removing rental property owners. Mr. Myott did not agree to that. He intended there to be a 50% match for rental property owners. Mr. Myott commented they wanted to have as many properties improved as possible and there could be benefit to having the landlords improve their properties. Ms. Brooks noted Mr. Oravec had suggested amending the guidelines to say the people with rental properties would have to bring in copies of their leases, so the rent was known. A comment was made that many of them did not have leases and many of the multi-family dwellings were boarded up. Mr. Norem seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin wanted it to be known she was in favor of the program. She had not previously considered the pOSSible nightmare of administration of an equity program or the liability aspects. However, she asked that her sweat equity idea to be considered in future programs. Ms. Horenburger introduced a substitute motion. Motion Ms. Horenburger made a motion incorporating the entire motion on the floor but also adding the provision that an affidavit be signed by owners of rental properties, with said affidavit being created by staff and legal counsel, and that there be some manner of assurance that people in the rental properties would not be affected immediately by improvements or have their dwellings made unaffordable. Mr. Myott removed his original motion and seconded the substitute motion. 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Rev. Chaney stated Mr. Myott's original motion was as written, and then he said there would be a 50% match for owners of rental properties. "As written" did not include that proviso. Mr. Myott then realized the 50% match was not included in the original guidelines, as written. The motion passed 6-1, Rev. Chaney dissenting. Attorney Spillias needed to make a disclosure and ask direction from the board. In developing an agreement with the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC, his firm did work on occasion for the CDC such as real estate closings and so forth. He had checked with Mr. Zimet and his firm was in the process of representing the CDC on an item. If the board wished Mr. Spillias' firm to represent the CRA in the negotiation of the contract, he would need to get a waiver of that conflict from the CRA and from the CDC. He had spoken to Mr. Zimet, who had indicated he would not ask his firm to represent the CDC in this negotiation. The other option would be for his firm not to represent either party and for both parties to get separate counsel. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to waive the conflict outlined by Attorney Spillias in the case of negotiating an agreement between the CRA and the CDC. Mr. Sims seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Revisions to Homebuyers Assistance Program (HAP) Ms. Brooks reported this item was before the board due to changes in the residential market. The City was receiving $600K for SHIP funds, but the City required that SHIP funds be used in the following ratios: 30% for moderate income, 40% for low income, and 30% for very low income. The reality was that the discrepancy between wages and housing prices ($202,228 in Boynton Beach) made very low homeownership a thing of the past right now. Low was pretty close to being out of the picture. Given that, the people the CRA could help now were those in the moderate-income category. They really only had 30% of $600K for 2006-07 from the Community Improvement Department's budget. The Community Improvement Department already had clients in the pipeline. The problem was the Homebuyers Assistance Program had been written to be an additional layer on top of SHIP funds. The Legislature, finally responding to the housing crisis and its severity, had come out with a pilot program geared towards Essential Workers. That program had not been formally rolled out and it would be managed by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which did the tax credits. The CRA needed to look for ways to leverage its dollars. If they could not be leveraged very much with SHIP, they needed to be open for other means of doing this. Coincidentally, the CRA had been approached by The Cornerstone Group (TCG) who were building The Preserve, formerly known as the Barr property, the trailer park on the west side of the tracks on 4th Street. They were building 180 units in an IPUD. They were selling their 3 BR/3BA, l-car garage units starting at $280K and they were having a hard time in this market. Staff asked the board to consider removing the requirement of the SHIP match from the current Homebuyers Assistance Program and say it could be used alone, with income guidelines, or with other funds such as the CWIP, Community Workforce Innovation Pilot Program, through 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, including homebuyers who were teachers, City workers, firemen, and nurses. Cornerstone proposed a Phase One DIFA of $1.SM, to put 50 of their units into a program, which would get the price marked down $30K. The developer had agreed to write down the cost of the units another $30K. The Community Housing Assistance Program would come in on the buyer's side for up to $SOK (depending on the gap), and then they could get 50 homes at $170K in the Preserve. The developer had also agreed the 50 units would be in the same ratio as the 180 units. They were not going to get all the two-bedrooms like they had received in a prior DIFA. There would be a mix of units, with a majority being 3BR/3BA units. TCG was planning to apply for CWIP, which would be Phase Two. They would apply for $SM, which would write down the cost of another 50 units by $100K, from $280K to $180K. Buyers could then come in for HAP. A check was for gap funding, not a check for $SOK, and depended on the gap and what the applicant could afford for a mortgage. They could get Phase Two prices down to $130K a unit. Ms. Bright had spoken to the City Manager, who felt strongly this would be a wonderful opportunity for the CRA to take advantage of the Essential Worker model and consider it for the workers at Bethesda Hospital, teachers, firemen, and City workers. The developer and his counsel were present. They had been very amenable in their discussions and were willing to look at a second phase of the program to possibly build one-bedroom units, as recommended by the Treasure Coast study, to try to get the $40K a year workers into a $100K product. They had a lot of flexibility to work with them with the money the CRA was sanctioned to spend by June of 2007. Staff asked for board input on the proposal. Ms. Heavilin thought it was an exciting program and the CRA needed all the partners it could find. Ms. Heavilin inquired whether the mortgage costs as given in the presentation were based on the mortgage. Ms. Brooks replied they were not and they were included to show how they came up with the debt ratio. Ms. Horenburger stated if a $170K mortgage were calculated at 6% principal and interest over 30 years, the payment would be a little over $lK. If the applicant qualified for a payment of $1,282, they could not afford to pay taxes and insurance. She wondered how realistic the numbers were. Ms. Brooks said they had to calculate taxes and insurances and HOA fees in the real world. That meant the amount of mortgage a person could qualify for would go down. That was why the HAP program was good. The taxes and insurance had gone up significantly. Most of their projects in the future would have HOA fees. Ms. Heavilin said with a conservative HOA monthly fee of $2S0/month, she did not see how people would be able to qualify. Ms. Brooks stated they could go up to 120% of median household income. If TCG and the State were willing to write down the cost, and they had a DIFA, hopefully, the buyers would have some money for a down payment. Ms. Heavilin believed most people thought the housing price was the issue, but really, taxes and insurance were the primary concern. It was a great program and she hoped it would work. Ms. Brooks agreed and hoped the Legislature would look at that. Mr. Sims thought this was a great program and he wondered how the information could be disseminated when it was in final form. Ms. Bright stated if they went forward, the City Manager agreed they wanted to do some kind of marketing tool with their Public Affairs Department, sending it out carte blanche to the residents. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2006 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve staff recommendation on the revisions to the Homebuyers Assistance Program. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Discussion of Promenade DIFA Ms. Bright pointed out the highlights of the staff report. Staff had been working with CRA counsel since June 28 to find out the status of this project. They were unsuccessful in obtaining response on the status, on a counsel-to-counsel basis. At the August 24 budget workshop meeting, staff advised they were looking for direction about how to move the project forward. Staff was still very committed and believed there was an opportunity with the lapsing of the agreement for the board to provide direction about how to help the developer make this project go forward, if that was the board's desire. Attorney Spillias responded the issue was a mix of law and policy. From the legal standpoint, in the DIFA, there were certain milestones and requirements on the developer. One requirement was that the developer must apply for a permit for vertical construction no later than July 20, 2004. Eventually, the developer received a one-year extension form the City until July 20, 2006. Under the contract, commencement of the project had a specific definition, which was:"commencement of construction of the project as required under the contract." Attorney Spillias' firm contacted the City to find out the status of the permits. Quintus Greene, Development Manager, declared a foundation permit had been issued before July 20, 2006. Attorney Spillias asked whether a foundation permit was considered a permit allowing vertical construction. Mr. Green replied it was not, although it was a prerequisite. On July 18, an application was filed for a building permit, and if it had been appropriate, would have met the deadline, since it would be a permit for vertical construction. However, the file review fee attached to the vertical construction permit was not paid on July 18, and was still not paid to the present, according to Attorney Spillias. Mr. Greene did not consider the permit had been applied for since the fee had not been paid. Mr. Greene said the City was holding it in abeyance until the fee was paid. A strong argument could be made they did not meet the deadline called for in the incentive agreement. The incentive agreement was not tied to site plan extensions. The approval of a site plan extension by the City or the CRA did not mean the incentive agreement was extended. It must be extended separately, if the intent was to extend it. The other issue was that the funding agreement had been based, at least in part, on commitments to construct a certain amount of affordable housing and to advertise for it. They had been asking for months for them to provide the marketing materials to show they did indeed advertise the requisite number of units at the affordable prices to which they had committed. They had received e-mail correspondence from a prospective buyer, who went to The Promenade and asked about one of the affordable units and was told there were not any. There was some question as to whether or not this obligation under the DIFA had been met. The board had choices. The board could make a determination they had done enough to continue with this particular DIFA. If the board chose to do that, he suggested formally amending it to provide for any extended period of time or other waivers of conditions that the board might wish to waive. The board could also determine that the DIFA was now terminated and let the developer know, if they were still interested in an incentive, they could apply for one 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 under the current program guidelines. It was ultimately a policy decision. Attorney Spillias felt he could defend, from a legal standpoint, that the DIFA was terminated. They could also create the necessary documents to extend the DIFA under the terms, as they existed today, if so directed by the board. Ms. Horenburger asked if there had been any response to a letter dated June 28, 2006 from Attorney Amy Dukes. Ms. Dukes responded there had been no response. She confirmed staff had also tried to contact the developer. Ms. Bright responded when staff gave counsel direction to draft a letter on June 28, staff felt this could possibly lead to the scenario that was now taking place. Therefore, Ms. Dukes placed a subsequent phone call to let them know the CRA was still interested but had not received the marketing materials. Ms. Horenburger wanted to know what, if any, kind of response they had received. Ms. Bright had received a letter from Mr. D'Arelli at 5:30 p.m. today requesting this item be removed from the agenda. The letter stated they had paid Palm Beach County impact fees, but had not paid the City of Boynton Beach $336K in permitting fees, although that was in the process of being paid. She confirmed the vertical construction permit had not yet been paid. Attorney Dukes worked with staff to draft the June 28 letter. She did not receive anything in writing, via e-mail or letter, from Mr. D'Arelli. The next communication she had with him was actually a phone call 4-6 weeks after that letter, which had been precipitated by a quote in the Palm Beach Post dealing with new Direct Incentive guidelines coming into play. Apparently, Mr. Krinsky was upset about that and contacted Mr. D'Arelli, who then contacted Ms. Dukes to ask if this were true, that the CRA board was revoking the incentive. He actually began that conversation by saying, "I know that I have not gotten back with you on the affordable unit issue. I'm still waiting to hear from my client." Ms. Horenburger noted this was the second item the board had heard at this meeting where the CRA had asked for information that was key to what was being done, and it was being ignored. She did not care how bad the economy was, or the real estate market, they should tell the CRA what was going on and what they were doing. She was frustrated about this and felt it reflected poorly on the City, the CRA, and the responsibilities of the CRA to the people they served. Rebecca Salguero, appeared on behalf of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. The lead attorney, Paul D'Arelli, received notice this morning of the discussion on the agenda. She reiterated the Executive Director's remarks that they had requested postponement. They had sent a letter explaining the building permit was filed on July 18, 2006 and after it was filed, were told of the fee and were in the process of paying it. They respectfully requested this postponement and Ms. Salguero stated Mr. D'Arelli would be present in October to address this matter, depending on the final decision today. Ms. Horenburger expressed skepticism about a builder applying for a building permit and not knowing about the file review fee associated with it. Ms. Salguero responded that was all the information she had. Mr. Myott was incredulous that an attorney would not respond to another attorney's letter that said something like that. That looked bad for Greenberg Traurig's operation. The Promenade 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 was a real nice project, but the CRA was not being treated fairly and was offering big money to help the project materialize. Rev. Chaney agreed with much of what Mr. Myott had said, but fundamentally, thought the incentive needed to be revoked and let the developers reapply under new guidelines. Attorney Spillias said they had not asked for any specific action today and the burden was on the developer to convince the board of whatever they wanted to convey. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to place reconsideration of any incentive to the Promenade on the October agenda. Ms. Bright added the onus would be on the developer and his counsel to work with the CRA. Mr. Norem said it would either get them there to talk about this or it would be reconsidered. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion. Ms. Horenburger commented she was sure the client told Ms. Salguero to come to say what he wanted the board to hear. Ms. Horenburger asked for the name of the owner of the project and Ms. Salguero responded, Panther Real Estate Partners. Ms. Horenburger also asked for the names of the principals, and Ms. Bright responded, Jeff Krinsky, Danny Sterling, and one other. Mr. Norem restated the motion as follows. Motion Mr. Norem moved that at the October meeting, the reconsideration of the incentive for The Promenade DIFA be placed on the agenda. Rev. Chaney repeated his second of the new motion. Ms. Heavilin proposed since they had not complied with the affordable housing component of the DIFA, staff should be asked to renegotiate the incentive agreement. She did not believe affordable housing was appropriate at The Promenade in any case. Ms. Bright agreed that was the direction staff needed to go, if that was the will of the developer. Ms. Heavilin thought a decision should be made now, rather than waiting for October to get this going. She thought they all wanted to see the development take place, but the market had changed for both parties. Ms. Heavilin just wanted assurance there would be negotiations during the 30 days between this meeting and the October meeting. Ms. Bright agreed and indicated she expected a call from the developer on the day following this meeting. The motion passed 7-0. E. Discussion of 500 Ocean (FKA:The Arches), August 16, 2006 Site Plan Extension and DIFA Ms. Bright stated the board had viewed this as the key, catalyzing, cornerstone project for the downtown and in view of that, had granted a $2M incentive. When Ms. Bright inherited the position of Interim Director, she met with Ryan Weisfisch fairly often. Then, a new development 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 partner came into the picture, and that convoluted the mix with different attorneys. When the budget was being prepared, Ms. Bright asked for another meeting with the developer, and it was made clear at that time they were not going vertical at that point. The situation was similar to that of The Promenade in the lack of response. One of the challenges for The Promenade and 500 Ocean projects was that the community, the board, and City Commissioners asked Ms. Bright for answers on key projects and she felt very foolish not being able to answer their questions. This particular developer interpreted the DIFA totally differently than the CRA. He was very candid in saying to Ms. Bright that he did not want to explain it any further, and that the site plan extension automatically carried over to the incentive agreement. She tried to explain to this developer that the CRA board governed the DIFA. Communication had been a challenge. When staff asked the board to revise the DIFA it approved last month, they now had to give project timelines and benchmarks and the onus was on them to communicate with the CRA. Ms. Bright deferred to legal counsel for interpretation of the particulars of the DIFA with 500 Ocean. The CRA thought this was an incredible project and certainly wanted to work with the developer, knowing the new timeline of the project. Chair Tillman commented this was about protecting the interests of the board. Attorney Spillias commented it was another mixed question of law and policy as addressed in the previous item. The DIFA was signed on November 19, 2003 and a part of that was the Advanced Funding Agreement, the one where the City would advance the developer $2M of the incentives. The effective date was important with regard to this agreement because he read what commencement of construction meant. The definition in this agreement was, "Commencement of construction of the project means the issuance by the City of the permit required for the commencement of vertical construction and the commencement of such vertical construction." It was not just the application; the permit had to be issued. The date of construction was also set out, and that read, "The developer agrees to commence construction of the project within 180 days of the developer pre-selling 70% plus one other unit, but no later than two years from the effective date of this agreement. The developer shall have the right to extend the commencement date by up to six months on a showing by the developer to the CRA that they have diligently pursued the project." So, under the original agreement dated November 19, 2003, they needed to have their permit and begin construction by November 19, 2005. In the meantime, in January of 2005, the developers came to this board and to the City Commission for a site plan extension. In reviewing the minutes of that meeting, Mr. Fenton moved for approval of the site plan extension until December 15, 2005, said motion being duly seconded and approved by the board. Then, Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of the incentive plan to run concurrently with the extension just approved to December 3, 2005, as duly seconded and approved by the board. So, as of the January 11, 2005 board meeting and subsequently with the City Commission's approval, they had an extension of the site plan and the incentive agreement until December 3, 2005. In August of 2005, the developer came in and asked to modify the site plan. At that time, the question arose about whether the major site plan modification rendered the incentive agreement terminated or whether because the value of the project did not go down, whether the incentive agreement remained in effect. The board's position, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, was to approve the request for the site plan modification. Ms. Horenburger added to her motion that the original incentive agreement would remain in effect, based on the taxable value of the property being increased since the agreement was made. Mr. DeMarco, the seconder, agreed to the addition and the motion passed. There was nothing in the minutes indicating there was any additional extension of the 25 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 incentive agreement beyond the December 3, 2005 date. Basically, the way the motion read in the minutes was that the incentive agreement remained in place "as is." "As is" meant they had to start construction by December 3, 2005. The CRA got a letter from the developer's counsel where he laid out some of these same dates and provisions, but he attached a letter that was sent to Ryan Weisfisch by the former Director, Doug Hutchinson, on January 11, 2005. The extension in January of 2005 was until December 3, 2005, as approved. The letter from Mr. Hutchinson read, "Congratulations. On January 11, 2005, the CRA board voted unanimously to approve your DIFA and Advance Funding Agreement extension request. As per the extension request, the new effective date of the agreements will be December 3, 2005." The argument of the developer's counsel was that because of Mr. Hutchinson designating the new effective date of the agreements as December 3, 2005, the extension would be in effect for two years from that date. Attorney Spillias' position would be that Mr. Hutchinson did not have the authority to grant any further extension than what the board had granted. The minutes were pretty clear the extension was granted until December 3, 2005. Attorney Spillias believed from a legal standpoint, they would be on fairly firm ground to say they did not start construction by December 3, 2005 or ask for any other extensions. The CRA could declare the DIFA and the Advanced Funding Agreement terminated. Or, from a policy standpoint, if the board wanted to keep the terms of the present or previous DIFA and Advanced Funding Agreement in place, that would be a policy decision. In that case, Attorney Spillias recommended an amendment to both agreements, retroactively extending them until whatever date the board chose. Ms. Horenburger mentioned this reminded her of the case of the marina in West Palm Beach where the Mayor assured the developer of something in a letter and it went to court and the developer lost. However, it cost the City a great deal of money. It was held that the Mayor's letter to the developer did not "hold water." She believed that if there were to be a lawsuit, the CRA could win, but at a cost. She believed this board had a decision to make about declaring the Hutchinson letter incorrect as far as the board's policy decision, or make it right. She thought those decisions would have to be made based on the probability of a lawsuit and the probability of costs and further delays to the project. Motion Mr. Norem moved to place reconsideration of any incentive plan for 500 Ocean on the agenda for the October meeting. Ms. Bright asked whether Mr. Norem was expecting dialogue to take place between the developer and the CRA. Mr. Norem thought this would bring the developer to the meeting and he hoped staff got together with them to come up with a new plan that worked for everyone. Ms. Horenburer did not think the situation was the same as The Promenade because of the letter from Mr. Hutchinson. She believed Mr. Hutchinson's statement to the developer in the letter made this issue less simple than the issue of The Promenade. Attorney Spillias pointed out that the developer and his counsel were present at the January 11, 2005 meeting at which the board took action on the site plan and incentive agreements. They 26 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 heard what the action of the board was, as opposed to a situation where a decision might have been made while they were not present and a letter was intended to convey what happened. If they chose to litigate, there would be costs. The amount of damage there would have been to them by virtue of their reliance on that letter, thinking they had until December of 2008, was speculative. Commissioner Bob Ensler appeared and was given permission to speak. He declared the first CRA had been established 25 years ago. It did not have the same mission as the CRA did today. This CRA was established about five years ago. Mr. Tillman and Ms. Heavilin had been on it from the very beginning. The objective was to do what could be done to make Federal Highway and the Heart of Boynton what they should be. He listened to the discussions today and what Mr. Sims said and he was absolutely right. They needed to do something to make things happen. All of the discussion tonight had been counterproductive, in his opinion. They were there and he was there to try to make the City move forward. They all wanted to see a renaissance of Boynton Beach, but were having great difficulties. People who owned these kinds of properties were having difficulty. He did not think that having legal discussions was what was necessary today. He thought the lawyer should be quiet and have the businessmen step forward and say what could be done to try to make these projects go forward. It was not easy for the developers and it was not easy for the CRA. He could ask the board to try not to "hammer" the developers because it would not do anyone any good. Everyone had put a lot of time and effort into these projects. The developers had spent millions of dollars. The City had spent significant amounts of staff and CRA time and Commission time on all of these projects. He asked that something be done in a positive way. They were there to grow the City of Boynton Beach and he asked the CRA to find a way to do that. Chair Tillman responded for the CRA Board that the CRA had a mission and that was what they were up there to carry out. Part of the mission was the procedures and processes that were in place so this board could be a viable and credible one in terms of what they did. This was true whether they were taking action downtown or in any other community under their auspices. There had to be a credible organization that had some leeway in order to do business. He thought in order for them to carry out their business, it became necessary at times to follow in the directions they had to follow in. As Chair Tillman sat on the dais and participated in meetings and workshops, it was never easy, but part of the job was making sure what the agency did was seen to be credible and worthwhile. He believed in what was taking place at this meeting and what they were doing was necessary in order to carry out the procedures necessary to make this project work if, in fact, it was going to do so. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion on the floor for discussion. Ms. Horenburger hoped this motion would bring them to the table, but she did not want to get into a lawsuit position. Ms. Bright said it had been challenging for staff not to be present when the site plan extension took place and having to deal with two different attorneys. She heard about the site plan extension from the Director of Planning & Zoning, who called her that it was filed at the end of the day. She certainly needed to know what the timeline was and she had always worked with Mr. Weisfisch. Her job was to manage fiscally and responsibly the public's money. If the timeline meant they were not going to be able to get this off the ground, Ms. Bright had to 27 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2006 come back to the board to say she did not want to set aside the $2M for the next year and use that for other projects. But, not having the personal dialogue about the intent of the developer to build the project, she could not give the board an informed decision about what was right. She appreciated the opportunity to go back to the developer. Some parameters had to be set, though, about how that communication was to go back and forth so the Commission felt a level of comfort the CRA was doing its job. Mr. Sims agreed with Ms. Bright's remarks. He thought they were being flexible and trying to give this developer and others every opportunity to come before this board to give them the facts about why this was not moving forward and the details of a timeline. If the developer did not show up to the October meeting, that would tell him all he needed to know. The motion passed 7-0. Peter Sayer, representing Maxwell Real Estate Group, one of the partners involved with Boynton Ventures I, responsible for the development of 500 Ocean Plaza, asked to speak. He thanked Attorney Spillias for conveying the case correctly. They were very excited about the project. They appreciated the board's involvement. He had been at lunch and dinner meetings with Ms. Bright and looked forward to building a relationship with the board members he had not yet met. Obviously, the developers wanted this project to move forward and they had spent millions of dollars already to push it forward. They had been hampered by a six- month delay due to hurricanes. They had sent out an e-mail last week to that effect with some pictures of the fortified conduit they spent money on for Bellsouth. They had also relocated the FPL lines. They recently completed the buildout and construction of the sales center, for which they did receive a Certificate of Occupancy. The reason why he was there was to have representation at this meeting. They only found out about this being on the docket this day. Otherwise, Mr. Weisfisch would have been present. The same was true for Bonnie Miskel. They did send an e-mail and communication to the CRA board and the Commission and the Mayor last week. Also, the letter to Mike Rumpf to Planning & Zoning in the City did go out August 15. Ms. Bright advised staff had just received the letter at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Sayer's point was that if they had been given adequate time to present at this meeting and have legal counsel, they certainly would have done so and looked forward to the opportunity to do so. Attorney Spillias wanted to be clear that he was not advocating any course of action. He was giving the board its legal options and whatever choice it made, he would try to find a legal way to work it out. Mr. Sayer clarified he was not legal counsel and that legal representation for this project was by Bonnie Miskel and Bill Bloom. They looked forward to resolving this in the near future. The board indicated they also looked forward to that. F. Consideration of Donating Land to the Boynton Beach CDC Ms. Brooks mentioned staff had direction from the board in July, specifically board member Horenburger, to work with the local CDCs to help to redevelop the community, leveraging the 28 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 CRA's resources, manpower, and dollars. The CRA purchased some property on Seacrest as part of the zoning change from commercial to residential. They informally called it the Parker properties. They proposed to split them into three lots, and the City supported that decision. Staff brought an RFP to the board and issued it. However, the legal notice that was published was inconsistent with the date of the actual RFP. Legal advised them they would have to go back to RFP to select a developer. One of the things the CRA could do was donate property or give it away, with notice. It had to be publicly noticed. In line with the board's request to work with the CDCs, Ms. Brooks indicated the CDCs built affordable housing and that was their expertise. The Faith-Based CDC's expertise was mostly in affordable housing although they did some youth programs as well. They were a SOl(C)3 organization and a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), which meant they were qualified to do housing. They had done infill housing in the HOB and had three homes they were building in Cherry Hill right now. They had 100 clients they had gotten qualified through the SHIP program, the County and the City. They had over 200 clients in the pipeline who were either going through credit counseling or credit repair. They had ten individuals who were ready to buy homes, but the supply of homes for low-income to moderate-income individuals was rather limited. Ms. Brooks showed the sites to the board. She was talking to the property owner on the south end to complete it, but the three houses almost covered the whole block on which they were located. It would have a big impact on that one block to have three new homes there. The Faith-Based CDC had experience with low to moderate infill housing, obtaining SHIP dollars the clients needed to buy the homes, and working with a number of banks having special mortgage products. The Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC was proposing three homes on Seacrest of 1,500 square feet, one-car garage, CBS, standing seam metal roof, drive, turnaround, and hurricane windows to help the homebuyers with their insurance. This was completely in line with the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan. The essential workers would be targeted. They planned to distribute flyers, hold an open house, place newspaper ads, and work with buyers who were already in the pipelines. The homes would be sold for $224K if the land were free. There were two variables in housing: the land and the cost of construction. They could not do much about the cost of construction, but they could do something about the cost of the land. CRAs did it every day. Ms. Horenburger asked how much the land cost the CRA, and Ms. Brooks replied, $390K. Ms. Horenburger asked what the construction costs would be and Ms. Brooks responded they would be from $8SK to $110K. Ms. Heavilin asked if anyone else had applied, and Ms. Brooks responded yes, Habitat for Humanity and she was meeting with them soon. She would talk to Mr. Campbell, the new Director of Habitat for Humanity, about possibly partnering on another lot Ms. Brooks wanted to bring before the CRA. Ms. Heavilin liked to see as many partners as possible for affordable housing. David Zimet of the Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC stated construction and predevelopment costs were roughly $200K. 29 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Attorney Spillias pointed out a change to the staff report above Fiscal Impact. It spoke of having to advertise the intent to dispose of the land for 30 days prior to any transfers. It should say, "At least 30 days prior to any transfer." If the board moved forward with this, there would have to be a contract between the CRA and the CDC and the board would have to consider granting a waiver of conflict of interest for Mr. Spillias' firm, since it was engaged in business with the CDC on other matters. Mr. Myott asked if the homebuyers were assisted with any other down payment reductions in addition to the land. Ms. Brooks responded the buyers could use the HAP program. In affordable housing, the developer and the buyer both had to be subsidized because the gap was so large. Mr. Myott addressed a remark to Mr. Zimet about whether they could get that same house on all three lots. Mr. Zimet replied that according to the general contractor, who applied the footprint to the surveys, it could be done. Motion Rev. Chaney moved to approve the donation of the land to the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Ms. Horenburger wanted assurance the motion covered the whole recommendation. Ms. Brooks indicated they would be bringing back a draft agreement for the board's approval. G. Adoption of the CRA FY 06-07 Budget Mr. Reardon proposed the board make a motion to adopt the budget as presented. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to adopt the CRA FY 2006-07 Budget as presented. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Mr. Reardon reported he attended the Palm Beach County Board of Commission meeting and in their agenda, there was a record of the $2M grant the CRA had received from the County for the marina. Congratulations were given to Mr. Reardon for the hard work he put into this. H. Review of Executive Director Performance Appraisal Dr. Linsey Willis reviewed the Executive Director's Performance Appraisal results and made recommendations. Due to technical difficulties, the consensus of the board was to skip to New Business and return to this item shortly. X. New Business A. Purchase Agreement for Vacant Lot Adjacent to Ocean Breeze Ms. Brooks mentioned this was the parcel she had spoken of previously. It fronted on Seacrest and was a commercially zoned lot. It cut into the west side of the Ocean Breeze site plan, meaning he could never have the full frontage of Sea crest. Staff recommended buying this property, regardless of the ultimate developer. They thought it would provide Seacrest 30 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 frontage, corner to corner, on the west side. The property was appraised for $470K. Mr. Peters, the owner, had agreed to sell at that price. Ms. Horenburger asked how large the parcel was, and Ms. Brooks responded it was half an acre in size. Last year, the owner was asking $SSOK, so this was a better price. Ms. Brooks commented this property would be held as an incentive to help develop the Ocean Breeze project. Motion Mr. Norem moved to approve the entering of a purchase agreement with Peters Boynton Terrace, LLC for $470K. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Purchase Agreement - A Parcel Located in Cherry Hill Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of this item. Mr. Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Consideration of Resolution No. 05-15 Per Diem Travel Reimbursement Motion Mr. Norem moved to approve Resolution No. 05-15. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion that passed 7-0. H. Review of Executive Director Performance Appraisal (Continuation) Dr. Linsey Willis, consultant, distributed copies of a presentation entitled Executive Director, Annual Performance Appraisal (2006): Individual and Final Overall Competency Scores. Dr. Willis addressed the Sunshine Law in relation to this project, saying she had been the only person that had seen what she had just distributed to the board. The first page of the report was a compilation of staff's independently derived scores. The second page was the Executive Director's self-appraisal. The third page was the Board of Directors' independently derived scores. The final page was a performance summary. None of the employee raters were able to see any of the other employee's scores. The final overall consensus score across six raters was 4.4 on the Leadership Sub-Component Individual ICompetency Scores. Any dashes that appeared in the score sheet were attributed to an employee who did not feel a rating could be given due to a relatively short period of acquaintance with Ms. Bright. According to Dr. Willis, Ms. Bright's highest score was in the category of adaptability. Ms. Bright's final score was 5.55 and a final score of 4 to 5 "will/should/may" result in a 7% increase in salary. Dr. Willis recommended a 7% increase. Chair Tillman asked Dr. Willis to elaborate on the basis of the percentage of increase as compared to the scoring. Dr. Willis responded salary increases of 3-4% were the current industry average, although they barely kept up with inflation. The numbers were based on a 31 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 pay for performance kind of system, since the board did not have anything else. They had no stock options, for example. Ms. Horenburger commented Ms. Bright had done an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances and she would definitely support at 7% increase in pay. Further, she would like to see the board grant Ms. Bright a one-time bonus for the period of time that she had spent restructuring the CRA organization. Rev. Chaney inquired if this would require amending the budget, and Mr. Reardon responded the 7% increase would only take effect from August 14 through September 30, 2006. The new salary would then go into effect. No budget adjustment would be necessary. Ms. Bright commented when they revised their plans in January after the salary survey, the board made a decision CRA staff should not lead or lag the market in salaries. Ms. Bright was willing to stay at the bottom of the scale for a time. However, she would be disappointed if she were not making what she supported for her contemporaries and colleagues. This was why they came up with $l1SK. That was the midpoint range of what had been approved. Although she had chosen to take a reduced income for the last eight months, the expectation was that somewhere along the line, she would be paid in the middle of the range. Rev. Chaney and Mr. Myott expressed support for a 7% increase. Mr. Norem praised Ms. Bright for her performance and looked forward to a continuance of that performance. Mr. Myott agreed with the praise he had heard for Ms. Bright and the job she had done. He thought the consistency of the staff's ratings was impressive. He supported going to the mid- range of what was common for a person in this position since Ms. Bright was obviously performing at that level. Mr. Sims commented that a common thread in the evaluations from staff seemed to be a need for staff to receive feedback from Ms. Bright for the job they were doing day-to-day. He was pleased to see Ms. Bright had recognized this in her self-evaluation. Mr. Sims asked how the board member comments were handled. He had made comments and he hoped Ms. Bright would receive his comments. Dr. Willis suggested if board members had comments they wanted to transmit to Ms. Bright, they should put them in writing and send them to Dr. Willis, who would compile them in a final document she would share with Ms. Bright. She encouraged the board members to submit written feedback, which she believed was more informative than just scores. Mr. Sims expressed support for the 7% increase in salary for Ms. Bright. Ms. Heavilin was glad to see the staff ratings were positive, since at the time Ms. Bright came on board, morale was at an all-time low. She expressed appreciation to Ms. Bright for the job she had done to turn the organization around. Ms. Heavilin asked if 7% would bring Ms. Bright to the midpoint, where she needed to be. Mr. Reardon commented he understood from the board's comments that Ms. Bright would be given a 7% increase from her current salary from August 14, 2006 through September 30, 2006. As of October 1, the new fiscal year, the budget figure would take over. Ms. Heavilin asked what the gap would be between the 7% increase and what happened in October. Mr. Reardon said it was about the same amount, 7%. Ms. Bright stated this is what she tried to explain earlier. In January, the board wanted to keep Ms. 32 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12,2006 Bright's salary where the former director was, evaluate her performance in six months, and that was where it ended up. Chair Tillman was glad they had used Dr. Willis' instrument because it allowed everyone to comment and provide input towards the final result. Now, the board had a valid instrument they could use instead of the former method. He felt it was important to close the gap in Ms. Bright's salary. Chair Tillman was pleased about where the CRA stood today as an agency. He felt the board needed to approve the 7% and cover the gap, with whatever number was necessary to do that. Ms. Horenburger stated Ms. Bright's performance had been even better than anticipated and under very challenging conditions. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve a 7% increase in salary for Ms. Bright, effective retroactively to August 14, 2006 and a one-time $SK bonus to cover the last eight months of very challenging work. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion. Mr. Reardon confirmed his understanding there would be a 7% increase from August 14, 2006 through September 30, 2006 on Ms. Bright's current salary. As of October 1, 2006, the salary in the budget would take effect. He would pay Ms. Bright $SK before the end of September, because it was in this year's budget, but not in next year's budget. Attorney Spillias asked if the motion included the reason for the increase was that during the last eight months Ms. Bright had performed beyond expectations when she was hired at the low point of the salary range. The motion was approved 7-0. Ms. Bright appreciated the board's vote of confidence with the raise and the praise she received from staff and the board. XI. Comments by Staff Ms. Margee Adelsperger, Marketing and Communications Manager for the CRA, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension and Promenade project. She related the good news that Gail Hamilton, the current President of the FRA, contacted Ms. Adelsperger to congratulate the board for winning this year's Roy F. Kenzie award for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade Park project. The Kenzie award program was designed to honor the best capital projects and beautification projects in Florida Redevelopment. This year's FRA Conference would be held from October 17 to the 20th and the award luncheon would be on Wednesday, October 18. This would provide great local and national news exposure for the Boynton Beach CRA. XII. Comments by Executive Director Ms. Bright noted some board members would be attending the IDA Conference and they would not be present for the October meeting. Because of this, she asked the board to confirm having 33 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2006 October 25 as the official date of the board meeting, since she had gotten consensus on this date from five board members. The next CRA board meeting would be held on November 14. Ms. Heavilin and Rev. Chaney commented they would not be able to attend the October 25 meeting due to prior commitments. Ms. Bright asked the board if they wished to combine the two meetings on November 14 and have a really large agenda. The Chair asked the meeting to be held on October 25. Ms. Bright declared there had been another response from Detective Gitto regarding the Luchey case. Mr. Tillman sent Mr. Luchey a letter letting him know the CRA was not purchasing the property from them. When Detective Gitto closed out the case, Ms. Bright would be able to bring the matter back to the board in October. XIII. Comments by Board Attorney Attorney Spillias noted a family member had sent him an article from The Washington Post newspaper reviewing the movie The Boynton Beach Club. The Washington Post loved it and referred to Boynton Beach as "the famous South Florida resort town." The Boynton Beach CRA was making a mark. XIV. Comments by CRA Board Ms. Horenburger inquired whether all the way-finding signs were up and Ms. Bright responded they were. XV. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (091306) 34