Loading...
Minutes 10-25-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 25, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev. Lance Chaney (arrived 6:34 p.m.) Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chair Tillman called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. II. Pledge to the Flag The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. IV. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda. Attorney Spillias added a request for an Attorney Client session with the board regarding Jesus House of Worship litigation to be heard under, XIII. Comments by CRA Board Attorney. He would explain the item further when the item was addressed. He also indicated there was a request by the attorney from InTown Development Group for an action item regarding the property and financial assistance with an upfront property purchase. This would be added as Item 9E. There were no other changes to the agenda. B. Adoption of Agenda. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda with the addition of those items. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 D. Presentation By Board Chair Henderson Tillman, of the Florida Redevelopment Association (FRA) Roy F. Kenzie Award - 2006 Capital Projects/Beautification Award - The Boynton Beach - Boulevard Extension Waterfront Promenade. This item was heard later in the meeting. V. Public Comments Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. Ms. Lynn Simmons, owner of Splashdown Divers was present. She recently received correspondence from the CRA notifying her she must vacate the premises by December 31, 2006. She had been in business for 24 years and she and her husband owned property at 652 South Road. Her dilemma was she must have a written lease, as required by her suppliers, in order for her to remain a dive shop. Without the lease she would be out of business. She understood the building would undergo renovations and requested meeting with the board to work out some arrangement to allow her to remain in business. She thanked the board. Mr. Warren Brown, a resident since 1978 purchased a home in Boynton Heights and restored it. Eighteen months ago, the CRA had fa~ade grants for the area he lived in. He obtained an application, but when he went down a few weeks ago to turn it in, he was told the grants no longer existed. The grants were online but the dates indicated 2004/2005. He requested the grants be available for the area he resided in, which was Boynton Beach area, and he wanted the CRA to reconsider offering the program to residents in the area who were upgrading. He felt the residents in Boynton Beach deserved to have the program available, and the opportunity to make the redevelopment area the town it should be. There being no other comments received, Chair Tillman closed the floor to public comments. D. Presentation By Board Chair, Henderson Tillman of the Florida Redevelopment Association (FRA) Roy F. Kenzie Award - 2006 Capital Projects/Beautification Award - The Boynton Beach - Boulevard Extension Waterfront Promenade. Chair Tillman joined Mayor Taylor at the podium and presented him with the 2006 Roy F. Kenzie Beautification Award the CRA had received for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Promenade project. He presented the trophy to Mayor Taylor and indicated he was proud, as Chairman of the CRA, that the project was recognized as an outstanding redevelopment capital project. He reported the award was a direct result of the strong leadership and collaboration between the parties. It was an honor for Boynton Beach to be recognized by the Florida Redevelopment Community. He thanked the Mayor and the CRA board for their efforts. Mayor Taylor accepted the award on behalf of the City Commission and City staff. The Promenade was only the first of many projects. He announced as partners, they could make the effort happen. 2 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 VI. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meeting - September 12, 2006. B. Approval of the Financials - September 30th, 2006. C. Review and Adoption of Mortgage, Note and Agreement for the Homebuyers Assistance Program (HAP). D. Selection of proposal for the maintenance of the Boynton Beach Blvd. Promenade. E. Selection of proposer for the regulatory monitoring of the mangrove mitigation area at Jaycee Park. F. Selection of proposer for the maintenance of the mangrove mitigation area at Jaycee Park. G. Selection of proposer for the creation of a geo-database for the CRA. H. SE 4th Street Improvement Project Design Change Recommendation. 1. Uniform Retirement Percentage for CRA Employees. J. Palm Beach County TCEA and Incentives Compliance. Ms. Heavilin pulled Item A. Mr. Sims pulled Items F & H. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Consent Agenda, less Items A, F and H. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. VII. Public Hearing Old Business None. New Business: A. Public Notice of Intent to Dispose of Real Property located at 607 & 609 Seacrest Blvd. Ms. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, announced the properties were known as the Parker properties, and they were recently burned down. The CRA received authorization from the Property Appraiser to reconfigure the two lots to three lots. This item served as notice of the board's intent to dispose of the property by donating it to the Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC, who would construct three new single-family affordable housing units. Staff anticipated 3 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 bringing a draft development agreement to the board by November. This notice was a statutory requirement needed to dispose of the property and was also part of the Heart of Boynton (HOB) plan to construct single-family homes on the west side of Seacrest. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve staff's recommendation as written. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. There were no public comments received. Mr. Myott explained the board does not typically see Site Plans for single-family homes. He asked, since the lots were non-conforming whether a Site Plan would be provided and thought they would be helpful. Ms. Brooks responded the Site Plans would be a deliverable in the development agreement along with a timeline. Vote Motion unanimously passed. Attorney Ken Spillias explained the remaining agenda items were quasi-judicial proceedings. He asked the board if there were any ex parte communications. There were no communications reported. Attorney Spillias administered the oath to all individuals who would be testifying. B. The Office at Bamboo Lane/ZNCV 06-011 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Michael Hanlon, HNM Architecture, LLC Jaime Mayo, Nigel Development, Inc. 3847 N Federal Highway (SE corner of N Fed. Hwy. and Bamboo Lane) Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C.3, requiring a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, to allow a minimum lot area of 11,578 square feet (a Variance of 3,422 square feet) for a proposed professional business office building within the Community Commercial (C-3) Zoning district. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request. The lot was situated in the County and was considered a valid non-conforming lot by Palm Beach County regulations. Ms. Zeitler read the background and the requirements contained in Section 121.1.c.8.a of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant was requesting a Variance and staff recommended approval without conditions. Michael Hanlon, the developer, HNM Architecture LLC, was present and agreed with the staff report. The property was never platted, and should have been platted with an additional piece of land, that being the 30' of right-of-way. 4 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments received and Chair Tillman closed the floor. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve the Variance. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. It was clarified the presentation and motion was just for the Variance. Ms. Heavilin requested hearing the next two items, the Annexation and Site Plan together. There were no objections from the board. The Office at Bamboo Lane - Annex 06-008 and LUAR 06-021 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Description: Michael Hanlon, HNM Architecture, LLC Jaime Mayo, Nigel Development, Inc. 3847 N Federal Highway Delray Beach, east side of Federal Highway, south of Bamboo Lane, west of Palmer Road To Annex the 0.265-acre parcel, to reclassify its land use to Local Retail Commercial (LRC), and rezone to Community Commercial (C-3) to construct a professional business office. Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial High with underlying Medium Density Residential (PBC CH/5) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC); and Request to rezone from Commercial, General (PBC CG) to Community Commercial (C-3) This item was addressed with the New Site Plan below. The Office at Bamboo Lane/NWSP 06-023 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Michael Hanlon, HNM Architecture, LLC Jaime Mayo, Nigel Development, Inc. 3847 N Federal Highway (SE corner of N Fed. Hwy. and Bamboo Lane) New Site Plan Kathleen Zeitler, presented the request for the Annexation and Land Use Classification Change and the staff report. The request was consistent with the objectives of the City's Annexation plans as well as Palm Beach County's plan. There were no impacts on the existing infrastructure or level of services. The change would require a Future Land Use Map Amendment showing a change in density. Staff supported the request. The Site Plan proposed a profeSSional office building with the first story having 555 sJ. of space consisting of an elevator, lobby and stairwell. The second and third story had 3,471 gross sJ. of space. There would be 3,234 sJ. of air-conditioned space. The applicant was required to 5 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 provide 25 parking spaces and had complied with that provIsion. They obtained traffic concurrency and both the Police and Fire Departments approved the request. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the 29 conditions associated with it. Mr. Hanlon, the applicant, agreed with all of the conditions. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments received and Chair Tillman closed the floor. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve the Annexation and New Site Plan. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Attorney Spillias advised the requests should be approved separately. Motion Vice Chair Norem amended his motion to be for the Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Reclassification and Rezoning. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. The placement of the various colors was discussed for clarification. Vote Motion passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the New Site Plan subject to all recommendations from staff. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion. Mr. Myott asked whether the pervious areas would be landscaped or if pavers would be used. Mr. Hanlon answered it was landscaped. He also asked about handicapped accessibility to the elevator lobby. Mr. Hanlon explained the clearances were all 44' minimum. Ms. Heavilin asked if there were any comments from the surrounding residents. Mr. Hanlon explained they had an office two lots down from the proposed site. The residents were aware of the plans and had no objections. Vote Motion unanimously passed. C. Country Inns and Suites/NWSP 06-026 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Robert Currie of Currie Sowards Aquila Architects Anand Patel, LLC (Anand Patel, Managing Partner) 2201 S. Federal Hwy New Site Plan 6 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Ed Breese, Principal Planner, presented the request, which was located at the former Denny's location. The Denny's would be removed to construct the hotel. There would be a three-story structure constructed. Staff had requested dormers be added to the roofline to create visual interest and recommended approval of the Site Plan and the Height Exception. Staff did not believe there would be any injurious actions as a result of that roofline addition. It provided the look the City was developing. The structure was designed in the Old Florida style. Mr. Bob Currie, Currie Sowards Aquila Architects, and Anad Patel, the owner, were present. Mr. Currie gave a PowerPoint presentation of the project that encompassed aerials of the location, and the Site Plan with parking in the back and underneath. The elevation and public art, which was a fountain proposed for the corner of Federal Highway was also shown. This hotel would have a pool on the second floor, and would be comprised of suites and doubles, having a total of 62 rooms. The structure replaced an existing abandoned property and would create employment opportunities. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments received and Chair Tillman closed the floor. Mr. Phillip Gordon, owned property next door to the proposed site. He and others present represented the board of Fairfield. They were concerned about the property behind the proposed site being owned by the same person and they reported the property had not been managed. They did not want the same type of problems to exist on the site. In the past there were over 284 calls to the Boynton Beach Police Department for activities occurring on the property behind the proposed site. Additionally, the residents reported when they painted their homes, they painted all four sides out of consideration for their neighbors. Mr. Gordon reported the applicant only painted the front and he could attest to the issues with the Police Department. Ms. Nancy Lynn, of Fairfield, was concerned about the hotel and if it did not succeed. She noted Ramada Inn, located on Federal Highway closed down, and the property was turned into an assisted living facility. She wanted to know what would happen if the hotel did not stay in business. Cathy Volpe, an alternate on the Fairfield Board, reported there were incidents on the property. She advised the owner tried to put a laundry room on the premises without permits. Fairfield residents were trying to increase the value of their properties. If the applicant could not fill his rooms, she wanted to know if he would lower the price of the rooms and let the clientele that presently frequented the property have access to the hotel. She explained the Police have been there numerous times and a back window was shot out. She wanted a guarantee that the owner would clean up the premises. She explained the residents were afraid. Mr. Currie explained the Inn was a franchise and there were requirements and standards involved in its operation. It was a monitored facility and it would be a better alternative than the Denny's. 7 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Mr. Anand Patel, 648 Riviera Drive, was present and explained the property in the back was owned by his cousin, and he would speak to him about it. Ms. Volpe contended Mr. Patel was associated with the hotel in the back. There was a Golden Sands Hotel sign in the Denny's window. Mr. Patel responded he has no control over how the hotel in the back was managed and commented he would take the sign down. Ms. Horenburger asked how Mr. Patel would attract a good clientele with the other clientele existing in the back. She expressed concern about Fairfield and had previously brought the matter to Code Enforcement because there was an issue with discarded furniture in front of Fairfield. She thought the whole area needed to be cleaned up. The Inn was a good step towards doing so. Mr. Myott asked about the ground floor, which was for parking with the exception of the lobby and about the reception desk. He disagreed with that aspect of the plan and thought it was not a high quality type of Inn. He did not think the way the plans were laid out were appropriate for a redevelopment area. Ms. Brooks explained the project was a franchise that came with a certain design box. When staff first reviewed the original plans, they were lacking. Staff worked with the architect and the applicant, going through three reviews to make it acceptable, and making it more urban and street friendly. The applicant complied with everything they asked for. As staff, she reported, they cannot make a determination of whether they like a certain brand of hotel, only whether it meets the Code and CRA plan guidelines. The applicant had gone above and beyond those standards. Ms. Horenburger asked whether there was a real lobby and if it had adequate parking. Mr. Currie showed her pictures of the lobby, and there was adequate parking. Mr. Myott was surprised that the Police Department had no comments. There would be security cameras and clear glass on both sides of the lobby. Originally, there were comments from the Police Department, but each time the plan was reviewed, the comments were addressed. Motion Rev. Chaney moved to approve the Site Plan with all conditions. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion. The Secretary called the roll. Motion passed 5 - 2, with Messrs. Myott and Sims dissenting. Country Inns and Suites/HTEX 06-008 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Robert Currie of Currie Sowards Aquila Architects Anand Patel, LLC (Anand Patel, Managing Partner) 2201 S. Federal Hwy Height Exception 8 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the height exception. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion which passed 5 - 2, with Messrs. Myott and Sims dissenting. D. Neelam Business Center/SPTE 06-010 Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Anand Patel, Managing Partner of AA, LLC AA, LLC 924 N Federal Hwy - SE corner of NE 9th Avenue and N Federal Hwy Site Plan Extension Mr. Breese presented the request and explained Mr. Anad Patel had purchased the subject property. Mr. Breese read the staff analysis and announced staff was recommending approval of the six-month Site Plan extension subject to all conditions of approval. Sanjay Parag, the agent, parag Construction was present, and indicated the FDOT permits were obtained. The only outstanding item was the utility review. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments received and Chair Tillman closed the floor. Ms. Heavilin asked when construction would commence. Mr. parag responded it would be about three weeks and definitely by year-end. Mr. Myott asked whether the building still looked the same and Mr. Parag responded it did. Ms. Horenburger asked whether the same individual who owned this project also owned the Country Inn and Suites. Mr. Parag responded it was. Rev. Chaney asked about the occupancy plans. The first floor would be retail, with professional office space above. It had not been determined exactly what retail there would be. It was originally designed for an attorney. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve the six-month time extension. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion for the discussion. Ms. Horenburger asked if there was another request that had been approved for one year, and then this was asking for a six-month extension. Mr. Breese confirmed it was. Ms. Horenburger indicated they had discussed at a prior meeting, changing approvals from one year to eighteen months. Mr. Breese explained when the Land Development Regulations are rewritten, that change would be included. Vote A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed. 9 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 E. The Peninsula at Boynton Beach (SPTE 06-007) Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Tom Yianilos with Waterbrook, Inc. Waterbrook Development, LLC 2649 N Federal Hwy Site Plan Extension - Six Months Ms. Zeitler presented the plan and explained the applicant requested a six-month time extension. The plan was approved as an infill PUD development for 30 town homes and 40 condominium units. The original plan called only for town homes, but during the process it was changed to include condominiums as well. The Site Plan was designed by an architectural firm that specialized in homes and town homes. They needed to retain a second architectural firm for the permit drawings for the condominiums. The extension would move the deadline to January 5, 2007. There was one condition of approval, that the Site Plan time extension was still subject to the previous conditions. Ms. Kim Glas-Castro, Attorney with Ruden McCloskey, was present on behalf of Waterbrook. She added the applicant had applied for their permits and second review, and had addressed the technical comments. They obtained their State and Federal permit approvals for the seawall, and had been negotiating the wording for the letter of credit. Once the letter was completed, it would be submitted to the City and the permit could be obtained. The seawall had to be completed first before they could pull the permits to start vertical construction. The seawall would need up to four weeks to be completed. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments received anc Chair Tillman closed the floor. Motion A motion was made by Ms. Horenburger to approve the request subject to all staff conditions. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion. Rev. Chaney asked about the time extension and asked whether that was enough time. Mr. Tom Yianilos, with Waterbrook was present and explained all permits were processed and ready to be issued. They were mobilized for construction and just waiting for the letter of credit. My Myott thought including the letter of credit with the list was very helpful and encouraged applicants to include it with the backup materials for the project. Vote A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed. F. Las Ventanas (fka Gulfstream Lumber) SPTE 06-009 Agent: Owner: Kyle Riva with Epoch Properties, Inc. Epoch Properties, Inc. 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Location: Description: NW Corner of Federal Highway and Woolbright Rd. Site Plan Time Extension Mr. Breese presented the request asking for a one-year time extension. The project was formerly approved as Uptown Lofts of Boynton Beach. He reviewed the background and analysis information of the staff report and announced the project had 43,361 sJ. of retail, had 404 apartments units, 20 town homes and 70 lofts. The applicant purChased the property, received interim and equity financing for the project, demolished the existing structures, and received FDEP approval. The only outstanding issue was the coordination of the relocation of the traffic signal with the Sunshine Shopping Center. Staff was recommending approval of the time extension. Ms. Bright reported she received correspondence from Bonnie Miskel of Ruden McCloskey, indicating they would be coming before the board next month. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. Ms. Nancy Hogan, 37 Hibiscus Way in Ocean Ridge, was present. Ms. Hogan was a Commissioner in Ocean Ridge, but was speaking as a private citizen. She thanked Epoch properties for clearing the property that had dilapidated structures on it prior to the demolition. She reported building runs more efficiently when the process was streamlined. She requested the board consider when coming over the bridge to Ocean Ridge and Briny Breezes, the shrubbery be cleaned up. She thought it looked a little shabby and thought between the developer and the City, it could be cleaned and could look a little nicer while the process was ongoing. Mr. James Vitter, Kimley Horn, was present and indicated he read the staff comments and agreed with them. He had a PowerPoint Presentation that they had made when the original request was made to the CRA. The board waived seeing the presentation. Mr. Vitter reported they hoped to commence vertical construction by March of 2007, but were still working out some of the transportation issues. The building plans would be submitted in about three to four weeks. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request with the conditions. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. G. Mixed Use Zoning Districts - Code Review - (CDRB 06-002) Agent: Description: City Initiated Request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.F Mixed Use Zoning Districts for conversion of Mixed Use-Low (MU-L) to Mixed Use-Low 1 (MU-Ll), amendment of Mixed Use-High (MU- H), and establishment of the Mixed Use-Low 2(MU-L2) and Mixed Use- Low 3 (MU-L3) zoning districts. 11 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, announced this request was discussed at CRA, Planning and Development, and City Commission meetings. The request represented a transition of the current mixed-use district system, which was a two-district system, to a four- district system and continued the implementation of the various redevelopment plans. It also instituted the allocation of the mixed use district onto the streets into the different areas and it implemented new positions on large grocery stores, gas stations and automotive service businesses. He reviewed the staff report and advised the grocery store text changes were in connection with the Sunshine Square project, which was in the review process. It had come back from DCA and the City was preparing to adopt it. (Vice Chair Norem left the dais at 7:46 p.m.) Mr. Rumpf distributed an update to the handouts and pointed out the changes. (Vice Chair Norem returned to the dais at 7:50 p.m.) The Mixed Use High District abutting single-family residences would have an n/a mark because that scenario was unlikely. Ms. Horenburger asked whether the City Commission reviewed the changes and whether the amendments came about from issues the City and CRA encountered. Mr. Rumpf responded it had not been before the City Commission but the amendment was made from issues raised at the CRA and City Commission meetings. Mr. Rumpf pointed out automotive fuels sales and service had footnotes on the handouts. There were provisions to preserve mom and pop operations, which had been done elsewhere. The changes gave the opportunity to incorporate service type businesses. The Shared Parking Table referencing the old Urban Land Institute (ULl) standards were removed and references to ULl document were inserted. More extensive definitions were added. Staff was recommending the CRA support the changes. This represented the first version of new Mixed Use Districts and staff would be scrutinizing them very closely over the next year to see how they were working. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public comments. There were no public comments received and Chair Tillman closed the floor. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the changes. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Ms. Heavilin commended CRA and City Planning Staff. She thought the quality of Site Plans and projects coming into the City were greatly improved. Having good design guidelines in place helped. She thought both staffs did a great job. 12 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 VIII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items A. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meeting - September 12, 2006 Ms. Heavilin noted page 21, third paragraph should read, "Ms. HereASur€ler Heavilin stated $170K. . ." Attorney Spillias commented on page 22 under discussion of the Promenade, 3rd paragraph, 2nd line, the date should be July "2005" as opposed to 2004. There were no other changes. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the minutes as amended. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion that unanimously passed. F. Selection of proposer for the maintenance of the mangrove mitigation area at Jaycee Park. Mr. Sims asked if it were possible for staff to provide an analysis, capturing the pertinent points for these items. Ms. Brooks indicated this particular item was fairly minor and was a straightforward contract. In the future, staff would put the information on an Excel spreadsheet outlining the applicant and what was being proposed. Ms. Horenburger asked whether there was a policy that when a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for over a certain amount, the board would see it before it was sent out. Ms. Bright responded they do not have a policy. Attorney Spillias explained the standard purchasing policy covered expenditures up to a certain amount of money and could be approved administratively by Ms. Bright without the approval of the board. Ms. Horenburger would like to see a list of what was going out. Attorney Spillias advised sometimes the cost was not known until the RFP was actually issued. Ms. Horenburger thought the board should see anything over $50K. Motion A motion was made by Mr. Sims to approve the item. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. H. SE 4th Street Improvement Project Design Change Recommendation. Mr. Sims was able to obtain the information he needed and had no further questions on the item. Motion A motion was made by Rev. Chaney to approve Item H. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 13 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 IX. Old Business A. Ocean Breeze Update - Incentive Recommendations Mr. Robert Reardon, Assistant Director, provided the board with a talking pOint analysis. He explained they were at an impasse with the Ocean Breeze project. They had originally met several times with the developer and came to a final analysis of a DIFA (Direct Incentive Funding Agreement) with indirect and direct contributions amounting to just under $4M. One such indirect contribution included the demolition of Boynton Terrace. Other contributions made were the purchase of the Peters property and additional land, which served to increase the density of the project by allowing the CRA to assemble land and add it to the Ocean Breeze project. A DIFA was established, which was an agreement the CRA would give back "X" percent of taxes to a developer who included workforce housing or public amenities. Those incentives were presented to the developer, and after several meetings, they could not reach an agreement as far as the percent of profitability that the developer needed to move forward with the project. Staff felt they had exhausted their efforts and offered to buy the property back from the developer. The developer then provided an appraisal for $8.2 million, and the CRA then informed them that pursuant to board policy, they would need to obtain their own appraisal. The CRA's appraisal came back at $6.4 million with a difference of $1.8M. Mr. Reardon noted the developer was present at the meeting. The CRA was trying to institute a workforce housing project with 20 units in the HOB. Mr. Larry Finkelstein, 114 N. Federal Highway, Suite 202, was present. Mr. Finkelstein explained he did not see the issue the same way Mr. Reardon did. It was Mr. Finkelstein's understanding the issue was the board's preference to purchase the property. Mr. Finkelstein stopped trying to develop the property in anticipation of selling it to the CRA. Mr. Finkelstein advised the CRA he would obtain a third party arms length appraisal, ordered by his lender under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). This was a United States Federal law enacted in the wake of the savings and loan crisis in the 1980's, which established new regulations for real estate appraisals and was a true third party appraisal. The value established was similar to the price the CRA has been paying for small pieces of land in the HOB that were contiguous to the parcel he had. The Treasure Coast Planning Council Study indicated that the value of assembled land was $1.1M per acre, which was greater than their appraisal. Mr. Finkelstein had not had an opportunity to review the CRA's appraisal. The CRA wanted to spur redevelopment in the HOB, and noted it was the area with the highest crime statistics in the City. Forty percent of crime in Boynton Beach occurred in less than a half mile radius of the property. Mr. Finkelstein indicated the project area was a depressed market within a depressed housing market. The highest and best use of the property would be as a high-density tax credit rental property, however the City, the CRA and the community residents wanted to see homes there and they worked for 1.5 years to make that happen. The property was the largest amount of assembled land in the HOB, was ready to be developed, and was cleared. They had clean environmental reports, current surveys and elevations, and a title 14 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 commitment that could be converted to the CRA as a buyer. Acquisition of the land would have a significant impact on the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Boynton Terrace was considered the second largest impediment to redevelopment of the HOB. Cherry Hills, the number one impediment, was not visible to the rest of the HOB area and did not front a major thoroughfare, as Boynton Terrace did. There were no other properties, other than Boynton Terrace that could produce 140-160 homes. It would be easier for the CRA to develop the property because they do not require a profit and because they would not have the restrictions by the lenders that he had. The CRA could put units in the Community Trust, work with local CDCs, etc. and had many other options. The property would help attract and keep employers in the area. It was Mr. Finkelstein's understanding the zoning was still not in place to increase the density. Mr. Finkelstein did not have a timeline for the options and issues he raised. He was told it was the board's preference to purchase the property and based on that premise, that was how he moved forward with the property over the last couple of months. Chair Tillman pointed out crime was down Citywide by 22%, and down 27% in the area Mr. Finkelstein held. Mr. Reardon announced the CRA had requested a title search be conducted and learned there was a foreclosure action on the property. Attorney Spillias confirmed there was an action on the property, but it did not prevent negotiation for the property. There would need to be a negotiated price that included all the costs of the foreclosure, and housing bonds issued through the county. It was a foreclosure on bonds that were issued years ago as a $5.25M bond issue. There were some issues regarding the foreclosure he was still not clear on and needed to review. There was a restriction on the use agreement with the county, which expired in approximately 2008. It was not known whether the CRA plans were consistent with the county's requirements, or whether the county would waive those requirements for the CRA as a redevelopment agency. To work out a purchase agreement, the bank would need to be brought in, a conclusion be reached about the minimum amount needed to pay all the obligations, and what contractual obligations would remain or be waived. Attorney Spillias announced he could not say what a fair price would be. Mr. Finkelstein advised the property would be purchased subject to clean title. The foreclosure was not a new development; rather, it was ongoing even prior to his purchase of the property and the City was notified as a party to the action. The land use restrictions expired for various reasons and those reasons would culminate upon payoff of the bonds, which would occur at closing. Mr. Finkelstein and his attorney had all the background information available and announced the contract would state that they would have clear title. Ms. Horenburger commented the Treasure Coast Planning Council assumed $1.1M value for property values along MLK. She noted that value was for the purpose of feasibility, and that it was based on an amount the CRA overpaid for property along MLK without appraisals. It did not indicate that was the value of the land in that area. She further asked whether the cost of foreclosure on the bond would affect the purchase price but not the title. 15 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Attorney Spillias advised the foreclosure might not affect the purchase price, as long as it included the indebtedness, including the additional cost of attorney's fees. Then, clean title would be given, the bank taken out of the picture, and the CRA would own the property. Mr. Finkelstein advised whatever number was decided upon would be a net number and would cover all of those items. Rev. Chaney thought the CRA should move forward with acquiring the property and he suggested staff should be authorized to negotiate. Vice Chair Norem thought the issue should be turned over to the attorney to work on a purchase. Mr. Myott agreed the CRA should purchase the property. He suggested the parties meet in the middle of the two appraisals. He thought the City Commission should kick in the $900K difference to make the project happen. Ms. Heavilin thought this was to be the seed project. She thought the CRA would be disappointing the community if they did not move forward. She thought a review appraisal should be considered and agreed with Mr. Myott that it was a good idea if the City Commission contributed towards the purchase. Ms. Bright explained in September, the CRA wanted to see a purchase agreement and they went back with an offer for the incentive program; however, they could not reach an agreement so they just went to purchase agreement negotiations. This was the first time they have had an appraisal that was significantly different or lower than Mr. Finkelstein's. The CRA needed direction and that was why the matter was brought to the board, compounded by the foreclosure action and county requirements. Ms. Bright thought that was what the board wanted and what should be done. Ms. Heavilin pointed out lender appraisals tend to be on the conservative side. She reiterated a review appraisal should be done. Mr. Sims wanted to direct staff to do what was necessary to move forward with the project. Ms. Horenburger asked about the attorney's advice, which was that any effort to purchase the property be based on appraisals obtained by the CRA and negotiations with Boynton Associates and the bank, concurrently, which would establish a purchase price in or around the appraised value of the property. If such negotiations were not successful, then allow the foreclosure action to run its course and re-evaluate the situation once the ownership of the property and authority to transfer it has been clearly established. She asked about the timing of those issues. Attorney Spillias reported the attorney for the bank (trustee) indicated the foreclosure action would probably be resolved in about six months, but cautioned that could always change. 16 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved another appraisal be obtained and that negotiations take place with Boynton Associates and the bank concurrently, that would establish a purchase price in or around the appraised value of the property when the two appraisals that the CRA did come together. Mr. Sims seconded the motion. Rev. Chaney suggested if there were an impasse that they then take the attorney's recommendation and wait to find out what would happen with the foreclosure. Motion Ms. Horenburger amended her motion to add Rev. Chaney's comments to her motion. There was no second to Ms. Horenburger's amended motion. Attorney Spillias recommended keeping the motion as originally stated and obtaining another review appraisal. His opinion was not intended to say the CRA's current appraisal was final. The original motion would give parameters to work within. He would speak with the bank and obtain payoff figures and if they could not come to an agreement, one way or another, the matter would be brought back to the board in the form of a proposal or as notice they cannot bring forward a proposal. All negotiations would include all issues needed to obtain clear title. Vote A vote was taken and the motion unanimously carried. Mr. Myott asked if the results would be received by the next meeting. Ms. Bright advised there was not enough time to do so, but the information could be received as a handout and not an agenda item. B. Reconsideration for the DIFA on 500 Ocean Plaza Ms. Bright announced at the previous meeting, the board directed staff to meet with the developer and the new managing partner, Mr. Arthur Slaven of Centrum Properties. In their conversations, they discussed how the market conditions were impacting the project and they considered DIFA to include workforce housing. Ms. Bright had asked him to make a presentation with a timeline and they would come back to the board after counsel and staff had an opportunity to discuss workforce amenities and public parking. Mr. Slaven, Centrum Properties, and a joint venture partner in Florida, MCZ Development also based in Chicago, was present. Mr. Slaven explained they became the managing partner of 500 Ocean Plaza last October. They invested $26M in the property. They spent a lot of money on the site and were committed to seeing the project built. He invited the board members to visit the sales center showing vignettes of what a typical interior would look like. The project was a cornerstone of redevelopment in Boynton Beach. Mr. Slaven advised when he met with staff, he did not open the project to the public because he did not want to have a false start. When the project did open, he wanted it done properly. 17 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Given the state of the market, Mr. Slaven advised they went back to the architects and asked them to prepare the plan so they could build the project in two phases. Currently the project anticipated 352 units and was contemplated to be for south to north construction. Now they were looking at building the north tower first, which comprised the retail plaza. The change would require modifications to the plan. They hoped to open later this winter or early next year and were trying to hit the market at peak time, which was generally the beginning of the spring. He planned on meeting with staff to discuss issues of benefit not only to the City but to them as well. They started the preliminary plan review process and they were ready to go. Chair Tillman was glad Mr. Slaven appeared to keep the board updated on the project. Mr. Myott reiterated Chair Tillman's thoughts. He thanked Mr. Slavin for apprising the board on the progress of the project. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved the DIFA continue on the 500 Ocean Plaza project. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin suggested a timeframe on the matter. Ms. Bright thought it would be reasonable to give staff 90 days to bring back any changes. Ms. Bright indicated Mr. Slaven was considering adding additional components or was considering changes to what was originally proposed. Attorney Spillias explained the legal position was that the DIFA had expired. Mr. Bloom, the attorney for the project, was not aware of the fact the CRA had revised the Direct Incentive Programs to make them more flexible. The changes may provide a greater ability for the CRA to assist the project rather than sticking to the precise terms of the previous agreement. To get the most flexibility, he suggested the CRA be charged with the responsibility of meeting with them and looking at what the needs were and what they thought was a good recommendation of the board. If it were under the existing DIFA, they would evaluate it that way, or if it were under the new application, it would be brought to the board. Attorney Spillias advised he did not think there needed to be any action other than continuing negotiations with the developer. Ms. Horenburger withdrew her motion, but thought the direct incentive should run with the Site Plan or expire at the same time. Staff would bring this matter back to the board in January. c. Reconsideration for the DIFA on the Promenade Ms. Bright reported she met with the developer and his partner, Mr. Krinsky, to discuss the affordable units, the marketing of them, the project timelines, the 111 parking spaces that belonged to the incentive agreement and two leases for Margies and a Chinese restaurant. One item Ms. Bright did not have was the spirit of the board's intent when they drafted the incentive agreement, in terms of what was actually required in the advertising. The advertising was defined by Mr. Krinsky and his attorney, and their understanding was they had met the requirements of the DIFA. Attorney Spillias had advised previously that this DIFA had lapsed. 18 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 She explained Mr. Krinsky advised in the project timeline, he was close to obtaining his construction permit and the board needed to determine whether the incentive would go forward or whether the board wanted other action. Paul D'Arelli, Attorney at Greenberg Traurig, was present on behalf of the project. He was unsure what action was being requested but he wanted to provide the board with an update on the project and the permitting, and have the opportunity to answer any questions. Mr. D'Arelli reported the client was working very hard to bring the project to fruition. The project had been moving through the channels and had some setbacks. A building permit for the building foundation was issued on July 18, 2006. The County Impact Fees were paid, and he reported the permit application for the full building structure was submitted in July 2006. He indicated they felt they have complied with the obligations of the agreement to obtain a building permit and hoped they did not have to get into any issues and that the board would not dispute the issue; rather, he hoped the board would acknowledge the project was in compliance with the agreement. He expressed hopefully, the project would move forward and the parties would not be in an adversarial position over technicalities and other issues that were previously discussed with the board attorney. Mr. Krinsky was present to answer questions. Chair Tillman requested confirmation that the timing on the incentive had expired. Attorney Spillias first advised there were legal issues and policy issues and the board would have to decide on the policy issues. He announced upon review of the contract, there were two issues where it could be said, from the CRA's perspective, that they may have breached the contract. One issue was the deadline for obtaining a permit to allow vertical construction. The developer received a foundation permit within the time period and presented to the City an application for a building permit. The City advised the foundation permit was not considered by them, as a permit that allowed vertical construction. While the foundation permit would be necessary for vertical construction to occur, it was not the permit that allowed that. The permit they applied for was a permit that would allow vertical construction but when they submitted the application, they did not pay all of the required fees. Attorney Spillias explained this was a definitional issue. It was the City's definition he was looking for and the City advised him they would not consider an application where the fee had not been paid as having been applied for properlt. Arguably, the developer did not meet that deadline. Attorney Spillias explained if the CRA wanted to allow the DIFA to go forward, they had the ability to either not accept that interpretation, accept their interpretation or extend the commencement of the construction time period. This issue did not have to be a bar to the project moving forward, if that was the decision of the CRA. The second issue was the affordable housing issue. The basis for the amount of the incentive was the commitment to hold open for sale, a certain percentage of units at workforce housing levels ($280K or less). Attorney Spillias advised there was no language in the agreement how the units were to be advertised and how to alert people to them. Every contract has within it, 19 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 an implied Covenant of Good Faith, which was the party would act in good faith to accomplish the goals of the agreement. This second issue was a factual determination of whether or not the developer took the steps to effectively hold out the units on a workforce level. The CRA was advised the developer placed a sign in the sales office. Attorney Spillias explained if someone did not know to go there looking for it, the sign is not any good. The developer also indicated they had provided a list of units to Mr. Hutchinson, the former CRA Director. It was unknown to Attorney Spillias what Mr. Hutchinson did with the list. In either event, there were two potential issues for saying the incentive agreement was not complied with. Neither issue was clear cut, and this matter was a policy issue the board needed to determine, indicating under what circumstances the CRA would want to move forward in light of the difference of opinion on whether the agreement was breached or not. Chair Tillman opened the floor to public comments. Ms. Thea Lerner, resident of Delray Beach, provided a synopsis of her experience with the Promenade. Last April, she read an article in the Sun Sentinel about plans for the housing complex construction. She sought additional information from the Internet that indicated there were 16 affordable access units available. She thought this would be a viable possibility for her daughter and her fiance. Her future son-in-law was employed in Palm Beach County at the South Florida Water Management District. Ms. Lerner advised the price of decent housing in Palm Beach County was becoming increasingly unobtainable. Both individuals were professionally employed and Ms. Lerner thought it would be a shame to lose their talent to another area or state because of the cost of living in Palm Beach County. In early April she contacted the sales office of Panther Real Estate Partners to ask about the 16 affordable access units, and was advised the units had already been sold. Shortly thereafter, she spoke to Panther Real Estate in Miami and explained her frustration regarding the 16 units. They were unable to answer her questions but would get back to her the next day. Two days later, she called again who was told stated someone would return her call. Two weeks later after having no response, she contacted Panther Real Estate, and advised the 16 units were not available, she was also advised that Panther Real Estate's only obligation was to advertise the units for 120 days and she would not respond as to whether or not they had been sold. Ms. Lerner wanted verification of the name of the newspaper, the start date of the advertisement, and if it were a seven-day per week ad and the termination date for the ad. She said it was obvious the ad would have appeared in a Palm Beach County newspaper. She reiterated it was a shame that young professionals are unable to continue to live in Palm Beach County. It would result in a loss of young talent but also a greater loss to the high tech corporations moving into the area. She asked where the hi tech companies coming to the area were going to find the talent to enhance their operations and what enticements could be used to attract high tech corporations to base their businesses in the area without keeping young professionals in the community. Mr. D'Arelli sympathized with Ms. Lerner. He did not have the facts to dispute her experiences. He knew the agreement did require the units to be advertised which was not defined in the agreement, and which needed to be taken care of as the process was refined. He indicated the board was given a picture of the sign, which was prominently placed and there were articles in 20 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 the newspaper. He reported individuals did have information about the units being available. He reported one person came forward and put in a reservation and commented that may shed some light about the viability of this type of incentivising of the project. He indicated there might be a more effective way to deliver housing. He disputed there was an intention to not have people come forward. He reported after the time period had lapsed, at Mr. Hutchinson's request, Mr. Krinsky provided him with a list of the units and the prices he would circulate to some of the local housing agencies, but advised nobOdy came forward. Mr. D'Arelli advised they believe they have met the obligation under the agreement. He requested the board acknowledge they had met the obligations for the permit, the affordable access units and they move forward with their ability to deliver the project to the City of Boynton Beach, which would provide additional revenue to be able to do things in the CRA. Ms. Bright announced as the board moved forward with their decision, the CRA needed to work hand in hand with defined benchmarks and target dates of construction loans and permits. In the new DIFAs that information is outlined. For this and future issues, Ms. Bright was requesting assistance from the board. Chair Tillman was concerned with the original benchmarks regarding the permitting process and did not understand, if one of the marks was the City's permitting process, why it was not recognizable. He was concerned about the board setting a standard, sticking by it and not backing away from it. Mr. Sims indicated he would like to move forward under the new DIFA and it appeared they met the minimum requirement. He thought developers were using the communication tool to their advantage. The same issue, putting a sign up, might cover the minimum requirement, but he thought it was deceitful to people. Mr. Sims added whether or not that was the reality of the matter, it certainly was the perception. Mr. Sims thought sooner or later, developers would be called on it. He was not comfortable with moving forward under the same rules because it did not specifically define what developers must do to satisfy the board under the DIFA agreements. Mr. Sims thought perhaps developers looked for loopholes and the CRA needed to close those loopholes. He further thought re-establishing a standard defining the way developers communicate and work with the board was necessary and they should stand firm on that. He was in favor of moving forward under a new agreement and did not want to be involved in old agreements that were not to the CRA's advantage. The cost and consequence is the perception the City and community were being deceived, especially when it came to affordable housing. Ms. Heavilin advised this project was one of the first two DIFAs they offered and the CRA learned a lesson on not being clear on setting the timeframes and guidelines they needed. She thought the requirements would be difficult for a developer to follow if the agreements were vague. Ms. Heavilin was in favor of proceeding whether the DIFA needed to be approved retroactively from the expiration date, or by just redoing the DIFA. She asked the developer if they would be willing, under more concrete guidelines, to remarket those affordable units. She reported she was in and out of that office many times and never saw the sign. She thought the sign would have caught her eye. 21 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Mr. Krinsky thought the CRA was taking one piece of the picture. He stressed the sign was present and reported the entire list of the units, with the prices, were delivered to Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Krinsky reported Ms. Bright was on staff at that time and that she confirmed to him that the delivery occurred. Mr. Krinsky advised he had no knowledge of what happened to the list after he gave it to Mr. Hutchinson. It was Mr. Krinsky's understanding that Mr. Hutchinson would go out to agencies that were there. Mr. Krinsky also reported he understood the affordable housing program, as it was put in place, had problems and that it had nothing to do with him getting through loopholes. The project was a $200M project with 780K feet of building space. In order to build it, he had to evict tenants, clean up dry cleaning contaminations from the 60's and 70's, and he then opened a sales office with a full time sales staff. In February of 2005, he sold out all the units. Then construction costs went up 35%, and he had to cancel the reservations. He got sued. They were non-binding reservations, so he cancelled them because he could not provide the units for that price. He re-offered the units to the individuals who first made those reservations, and when they said no, the units were offered to the public. He had not sold anywhere near all of them again because the market changed. The lawsuit was summarily dismissed. He has a loan and he selected a contractor, which was Coastal Construction. Assuming he could get through the permitting process on the main permit, he was looking forward to starting construction in January. Now he has sales contracts and not reservations, which would aI/ow him to take down his financing and move forward. He advised he could not do that if the DIFA was not active. The DIFA he would receive would not provide Mr. Krinsky with any funding up front. He would not receive it until he obtained his certificate of occupancy. Beyond the 16 affordable housing units, he had 111 parking spots that would be open to the public free of charge during the entire term of the agreement. There were two local tenants that needed 2,500 s.f. of space which he made available for 50% of the market value and he was only required to provide 1,900 sJ.. Mr. Krinsky needed the commitment of the DIFA. Mr. Krinsky disagreed with Attorney Spillias about the foundation permit and thought he was splitting hairs. He expressed that issue was not something the CRA or he wanted to have a judge decide. He had other issues to contend with and he was ready to commence construction in January. Mr. Krinsky did not want to open up the affordable units again because he needed to know where his sales were. He repeated Ms. Bright confirmed he provided Mr. Hutchinson with the requested information and that he opened the units up a second time. Mr. Krinsky reported many people inquired about the units, but it was not that the units were not available; they did not like the deal. He indicated at $280K or less, for an extra $25K they could purchase the same unit at the market rate, without restrictions. With the restrictions, the buyer could only sell to someone else who qualified and the buyer would only realize 3% profit per year. The rest of the money was turned over to the county. He indicated most people indicated they would rather buy the market rate unit and receive the market rate increases. Mr. Myott asked whether he paid the plan review fee. Mr. Krinsky reported he paid the County, the permit fee for the foundation permit. The $300K fee, which he needed to pay a portion (30%), was not paid because he needed to finalize his agreement with his contractor. He 22 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 explained he did not know he needed to pay 30% of the total fee upfront because it covered the cost of staff reviewing the plan. He advised he would pay it soon. Mr. Myott asked whether he was changing the design of the building. Mr. Krinsky responded the project envelope was not changing, but the pool may be shortened. He was looking at any kind of value engineering that could be used without changing the plan. There was nothing they could do to the plan that would be considered a major change. They had already sold units. Mr. Myott asked whether the affordable units were available, not available or sold. Mr. Krinsky indicated the affordable housing units were no longer available; the window closed and it was extended an extra 180 days. He explained there was a timeframe in which they marketed them and there was one taker under reservation and when they went to move to contract, that reservation backed out. Mr. Myott thought Attorney Spillias and Ms. Bright should keep the matter moving along with a list of rules going forward. One of them would be to always return the boards calls and to communicate regularly. He requested guidelines be provided, in letter form, how things would be going from this point forward. Mr. Krinsky reported he had never, not returned phone calls. He also announced he was alerted to the last meeting, the day of the meeting. Vice Chair Norem indicated last month, the CRA became aware of that and moved to reconsider the items, so the developer could be present and provide answers to questions they had on a timely basis. He elaborated individuals were contacting various people about the project and the CRA needed to be able to apprise them of updates. The CRA was responsible for public funds and the project needed to move forward, but the developer needs to work with them. Rev. Chaney acknowledged the City wants the project and there were issues with the marketing of the affordable housing units. He questioned whether it should have been the CRA's responsibility to market the units. He felt the CRA wanted to provide the DIFA for the project, and there should be guidelines, deadlines and benchmarks incorporated into the agreement. He felt the CRA should consider operating under the new guidelines. He also asked about the possibility of incorporating less than 16 units for affordable housing units into the project. Ms. Horenburger requested confirmation that the City's rules regarding permits are that a foundation permit, in and of itself, and an application for a permit that is not paid for, did not meet the test for these types of agreements. Attorney Spillias responded, for this specific agreement, the definition of commencement of construction, that was correct. The definitions were being tweaked to make sure there were no future misunderstandings. Ms. Horenburger asked whether that was the City's standard as well. Attorney Spillas responded the definition of commencement of construction for this agreement was they would have pulled a permit that would have allowed for vertical construction. Under the City rules, you need a final building permit to do that. The City considers the permit applied for when the application is submitted and the fees are paid. In this instance, the fees were not 23 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 paid. The application was submitted before, what the CRA considered, the deadline, or lapsing of the agreement. Attorney Spillas advised the actual written application was turned in before the lapse, but not paid for. Ms. Bright indicated that was the information Quintus Greene, Director of Development, explained to Attorney Spillias. Ms. Horenburger asked if the CRA would technically be violating its own agreement and the principals the City operates by, if they went forward with the old agreement. Attorney Spillias explained the City has nothing to do with whether the deadline was met or not, except the City does not consider the application to be valid unless it was paid for. The application was not complete. Mike Rumpf, Director Planning and Zoning, explained this was an apples and orange issue and it would depend on how the agreement was worded. To them, if a permit application is not paid for, then it does not continue along in the process of being processed. Ms. Horenburger asked whether it was considered the permit application had been made and completed or not until it was paid. Mr. Rumpf responded if something is not paid for, it is not processed. That was the essential ingredient in that submittal. Ms. Horenburger explained she had serious concerns about the old agreement and the previous public testimony that at least one person advised her that the developer's only obligation was to advertise the units were affordable. It was also stated indirectly they were not required to provide them, just advertise them. Ms. Horenburger indicated this was a $6M incentive to not only prOVide parking spaces but to provide affordable, attainable workforce housing. She thought it was disingenuous to say that the card was the advertising they provided in their office. She suggested tightening up the requirements and advertising in a paper of mass circulation. She could not imagine an individual looking for affordable housing in a project on the Intracoastal. She acknowledged information obtained via the Internet could be considered a form of advertising. She questioned the 111 parking spaces would be made available for free during the term of the agreement. She asked about the term of the agreement. Attorney Spillas explained the term regarding the parking was during the term of the DIFA payout, which was ten years. Ms. Horenburger thought it was a lot for a developer to receive $6M without any affordable housing units included. She agreed the permit for construction was not actually fully issued and implemented and that it was not completed. She indicated the DIFA should be adjusted or recreated with more serious responsibilities, in return for receiving a $6M incentive. Mr. Myott explained since this project was approved, there were new programs developed for down payment assistance. He hoped there might be more than one program that might work in the building. Some programs provided funds for down payment assistance. Mr. Myott was in favor of staff looking to assist individuals to find a way to purchase a unit in the project even if it was not the "old" way. 24 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to declare the DIFA that was in place was lapsed and directed staff to, as expeditiously as possible, redo another DIFA with the developer that incorporated some amount lesser than 16 units for affordable housing. The agreement would require that advertising be conducted in a newspaper of mass circulation, that some amount of affordable units be sold or some of the funds be returned and that staff return the agreement to the board as quickly as possible so the developer could continue with the project. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin asked for clarification about the affordable units if they were not sold and returning a portion of the funds. Ms. Horenburger felt they were giving an incentive to the developer to provide affordable homes. Ms. Horenburger stressed the obligation should not be to just advertise the affordable units, and not be required to sell them. She clarified the CRA had to ensure affordable housing was provided. Ms. Heavilin was unsure that requirement could be added. Ms. Horenburger explained it was not really an incentive if they do not have to provide the units. Ms. Heavilin thought the issue should be left to staff. Vote A vote was taken on the motion, which unanimously passed. Ms. Heavilin left the dais at 9:24 p.m. Rev. Chaney left the dais at 9:24 p.m. Chair Tillman left the dais at 9:24 p.m. D. Approval Revisions of Purchase Agreement for Peters Parcel at Ocean Breeze Ms. Brooks, CRA Planning Director explained this request was coming back to the board. The seller had some issues with the contract. Essentially, the changes concerned the seller did not want to warranty the property as far as environmental issues. Attorney Spillias advised the changes were reviewed and approved to be incorporated into the contract. They would not negatively impact the CRA. He advised the seller was selling the property as is. The CRA was concerned about environmental issues; however, he announced the Phase I and II Environmental Reports came back pretty clean. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve. Mr. Myott seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. (Chair Tillman, Rev. Chaney and Ms. Heavilin were not present for the vote) E. MLK Master Developer Agreement Update. Ms. Heavilin returned to the dais at 9:26 p.m. Rev Chaney returned to the dais at 9:27 p.m. Chair Tillman returned to the dais at 9:28 p.m. Ms. Bright reviewed the agenda request and explained on September 27, 2006, a draft development agreement was forwarded from CRA legal counsel to InTown Development 25 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 counsel. A chronological timeline was given, since the business terms were beginning to change significantly, and the requests from InTown changed and were different from the policy that was established at that meeting. The CRA was still awaiting deliverables from them and Ms. Bright did not have the draft response that staff requested from the developer. Attorney spillias was contacted by counsel for InTown and had an action item for the board to hear. Attorney Marvin Rosen, Real Estate Partner for Ruden McCloskey was working with Bonnie Miskel on the InTown Development Project along the MLK Corridor. Mr. Rosen's land use and zoning partner, Lee WOfS€:1geiFfl Worsham, was working on the development agreement for the project to be called seacrest Village, provided InTown, the CRA and the City could reach a mutually agreeable development agreement. The parties met earlier and reviewed their concerns and focused on action items being brought before the CRA. Mr. Rosen expressed their feelings the development agreement was getting off the ground and was confident it would. Mr. Rosen reported InTown had stepped up its efforts to assemble the properties needed to launch the project. The land assembly was the most ambitious phase of the entire project, in the early stages, because there were 103 separate parcels of land involved in the process. Land assemblies now take place in a very different legal environment because the state has prohibited condemnation even for redevelopment in blighted areas, by private parties. He reported this created a challenge for projects. InTown would be closing on 19 separate properties next week, with three of them owned by the Estate of Doris Jefferson, which had a total of 10 properties, (seven of which are outside the project zone and three inside). He reported they have a contract for all ten parcels because the Estate must liquidate all ten and would not split them up. The closing was October 23, 2006, however, they extended the closing until October 31, 2006. Mr. Rosen explained InTown had lenders lined up and a lead lender identified. In order to close, financing must be arranged for the 10 Jefferson parcels and the 16 other parcels in the zone. He explained they learned lenders were not willing to underwrite the seven Jefferson parcels outside of the zone. Those parcels were not in the development agreement, were not part of the Sea Crest Village and would have to be purchased and then sold. Lenders were only interested in underwriting just the three parcels, and InTown could not close on the three parcels because of the seven parcels outside the zone. One of the action items was for the CRA to consider buying those seven parcels for the price InTown was committed to buying the parcels, plus the transactional costs that get added on such as documentary stamps, title insurance, attorneys fees, etc. The action would not be a grant. It would be the purchase of an asset, which the CRA may have been interested in for some time. Inside the zone there were seven parcels owned by the CRA and the City. Those properties were contained in the proposal that InTown made and was accepted on August 17, 2006. InTown agreed to pay approximately $3.5 in the proposal. Mr. Rosen asked those properties be conveyed to InTown now for $1 as a price deferment, because the lender needed the value of those properties to underwrite the loan. The $3.5 would go into the account. Repayment would be made either in cash, pursuant to the development agreement, or in-kind pursuant to the 26 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 development agreement, with improvements and programs the CRA was seeking to provide for the project. The issue was a timing issue. Another issue was the lender advised that since there was no development agreement, and if the bank made the loan, when it matured, their collateral consisted of postage stamps and scattered lots, and there would be no project. InTown finally developed the action item that at the end of the term of the loan, which would have the longest maturity date they could get on the loan, if InTown had not assembled all the property they needed, repaid the loan, or replaced that lender, InTown requested the CRA repay that lender. It was not a guarantee because the lender would essentially sell its loan documents, mortgage, etc., and the CRA would hold the mortgage on the lots. InTown would go forward with the development pursuant to the development agreement. Mr. Rosen acknowledged he was asking a lot, but those were the three principal action items. He repeated them as the purchase of the seven properties outside the zone for InTown Development's price plus the transactional costs. Conveying the land the CRA currently owned for $1 with InTown's payment of their pro rata share of the price to be paid later and in accordance with the development agreement, and to provide the lender with comfort would be a credit enhancement. He explained if the CRA were ever called up, the CRA would assume the shoes of the lender. Chair Tillman indicated he thought the request was bad business. He reviewed the August meeting and indicated promises were made with $60M in tax credits and direct financing, and InTown could finance the project through their own efforts as was told to the Vice Chair. That was in August and the CRA moved forward. Chair Tillman indicated he was embarrassed about his vote. Chair Tillman put a statement on record about public/private partnerships as follows: "Public Partner Responsibilities must identify development goals and resources, including commitments for inducement and incentives for prioritized projects in the plan. Under the public participation spectrum, the role is to inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower the public by utilizing these tools to increase the level of public impact. Managing expectations through the establishment of a schedule clarifies the expectations of public decision makers and is essential to public/private partnerships. For Private Partner responsibilities, it is essential the private partner needs to be prepared for a transparent process. Obviously that has not occurred here. Although parts of the process exist in which certain information is not disclosed; however, the developer must be prepared to make its numbers, its name and itself open to public scrutiny. The recognition and acceptance of this basic tenet should precede all other steps that the developer will take. If such transparency is not acceptable, the developer should walk away from the project. All parties need to articulate and agree upon the process to be followed. Agreement on the process helps ensure that partnerships establish effective policies and implement them efficiently and collaborative/y. More importantly, a documented decision-making process increases transparency and facilitates the sharing of information about the project. 27 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 The next step is the most important step - create a road map - a road map for decision making with a timeline to schedule project implementation. Chair Tillman indicated there was no sense in going there because, obviously, we are not at that point. The roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in public private partnerships. In this instance, the entity known as the CRA has stepped up from the beginning and made every effort to become a true partner in the process. The entity known as InTown has not. (The written statement made by Chair Tillman is attached to the minutes)." Chair Tillman indicated he thought the CRA had done what it set out to do in terms of trying to move the project along. He thought now the CRA should be moving along and seeking the services of number two. That was a matter for the board to decide. He thought clearly after tonight, after listening to what was presented, he was definitely not in favor of dealing with InTown again. Vice Chair Norem concurred with much of Chair Tillman's comments and asked how many parcels InTown actually owned, closed on and had title. Mr. Rosen responded they had one title to property. Ms. Samantha Simons explained they had 26 parcels going under hard contract and closing next week. Some of those were under contract for a year and some in recent months. Vice Chair Norem explained the contracts were supposed to be given to staff to show what was available. He elaborated InTown indicated they had control of 19% of the project area. Ms. Simon indicated she had the contract and to-date, they had never been asked to show any of the contracts to the CRA staff. Ms. Bright explained when the CRA and Ms. Simon met on September 20, 2006 and Ms. Simon first asked for additional financial support to secure the properties on the MLK corridor, the CRA requested a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet would list the PCN number, the appraised price, the persons asking price, how many times the individual was contacted, and other information. Ms. Bright asked Attorney Spillias whether they had received any of those contracts, which were deliverables. InTown had initially portrayed they controlled 19% of the project area, as well as their asking for additional assistance beyond the 19%. Ms. Bright was trying to define the project area and the total value of what the incentive package would be. At that meeting, Ms. Simon asked for a list of the churches and it was discussed that one of the issues was relocating the churches. They had spoken with most of the churches and there were a few telephone numbers they still needed. Ms. Simon reported the phone numbers prOVided by the CRA were dead and not in working order. Ms. Simon apologized for not providing the information and indicated she had no problem sharing the information on the contracts they currently had. Vice Chair Norem indicated InTown went into an agreement to purchase property but they had to purChase the entire package. Ms. Simon clarified there were actually 15 lots in the estate, with eight in the area and seven outside the area. He asked what equity InTown had in the project. He expressed InTown was asking for things without an agreement and for things the CRA would not do for anyone else. He announced the CRA was not a bank. He recalled InTown had indicated to them in August they had all the money available to do the project as a 28 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 standalone. Vice Chair Norem explained the CRA held the public's trust and the deal was not an arms length transaction. The CRA was responsible to the City of Boynton Beach. He did not see InTown's equity. He asked where the equity was in the project and the money they said they had. He thought InTown should be collecting the properties with that equity. He explained the CRA could not sell the property to InTown at less than market value, especially without an agreement. He thought there were things they could do with the incentives, but he announced that was not the original deal. Ms. Simon clarified the 15 properties they were purchasing were from Ms. Jefferson's Estate. Last August, the estate was contacted aggressively by the CRA staff. The estate holder contacted InTown and told them if the CRA continued to contact them, they would increase the price. InTown went into contract with a full intent to buy the estate. When the lender saw there were parcels outside of the estate, they wanted to aggregate land. Ms. Simon explained normally, when a RFP was issued, the land had already been aggregated and assembled. She appeared before the City Commission and the CRA asking them to stop bidding against the developer who has been around for four years trying to assemble the properties. When they began to assemble the land, they looked at paying approximately $8M dollars for approximately 26 acres of property. Since that time, the property values increased from $8M to $28M in the HOB in an area that has the highest crime in the City. She announced InTown has put $2M of equity into the project fighting every stumbling block over the past three years. They were trying to compete with government to do the project. InTown went out and purchased lots because they were told to. She indicated, normally a developer takes options. Vice Chair Norem expressed some of these types of issues were brought up at the Florida Redevelopment Conference. The panel advised attendees not to give the incentives up front, it comes as the development goes along. Transferring the land before a development agreement was made could not be done. Vice Chair Norem did not support the request. Attorney Marvin Rosen explained the transactional costs would be needed and the contract was assignable. InTown was obligated to close. The Jefferson Estate went into contract in mid- September. Ms. Bright explained the night of the event, the board made it very clear to staff, that if they chose an entity, that the CRA became their partner. She explained she directed Ms. Vivian Brooks to call Ms. Simons, to partner as part of the infill housing program. It was Ms. Bright's understanding there were eight properties outside the project area and seven inside and they wanted to partner and help close the loan on the property. She received an e-mail asking the CRA to back off. Also, the project area was expanded. Now they were at a juncture where the CRA was being asked to participate in something staff already foresaw was excellent for the HOB. She clarified it was the personal representative or guardian of the estate, who tried to play InTown off of the CRA in terms of the price. The CRA backed off. She clarified now that InTown was asking for assistance, InTown could get their project off the ground and the CRA could begin their infill housing program. Rev. Chaney was under the impression there was $350M to do the project and they would not looking to the CRA for assistance. One question he had was why it took so long for InTown to come to the CRA to work on the agreement. He thought to convey the land without a 29 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Rev. Chaney was under the impression there was $3S0M to do the project and they would not looking to the CRA for assistance. One question he had was why it took so long for InTown to come to the CRA to work on the agreement. He thought to convey the land without a guarantee for the CRA, then to purchase land they negotiated the price on and did not have the option of negotiating the price of the property, was unreasonable. Guaranteeing the loan puts the CRA dollars in jeopardy. Ms. Horenburger wanted to know if the contract for the estate was assignable. She thought it was important for the board to acquire those properties. As far as other issues regarding the partnership, she explained they do not have one yet. The CRA had not received comments back on the first draft of the development agreement. Attorney 'l.'ers€:AeiA'l Worsham responded the agreement called for a lot of specifics. Most projects start with the developer and/or the CRA owning the parcels. The first thing needed was to get a handle on the property. The transaction being requested was no risk to the CRA. InTown wanted to move forward as quickly as possible to assemble the properties. He had not submitted the agreement because he had various questions such as how could he submit a Site Plan when they did not know what parcels they would be dealing with. He thought there could be an interim agreement. Ms. Horenburger explained what the CRA was seeking to accomplish by naming a master developer or beginning the process, was to stop the speculation. She explained the issue about eminent domain was not entirely true. There had been discussion that the Site Plan would have to be flexible to accommodate a hold-out. The project could be redesigned to create public parking or a public space of some kind, and using condemnation as a tool. Ms. Horenburger thought if the City had been allowed to go ahead and negotiate for the whole Jefferson property, this would not be an issue. She was not sure if the CRA had legal ground, other than trying to obtain the Jefferson Estate, to convey anything to InTown. Ms. Horenburger expressed the parties needed to approach each other and deal with each other in more professional ways. Any agreement developed needs to be very clear and specific about deadlines, deliverables, requests and who communicates to who and how. Ms. Horenburger announced she was not happy with the communication and the way the project was handled over the last two months. Mr. Myott thought the development area was too big and it would be too difficult to accomplish anything in a timely manner. He thought the project should occur in an evolutionary manner. He thought it might have been a mistake linking Phase I and II. Ms. Heavilin thought the CRA and the community was sold a bill of goods. With the pOSSible exception of acquiring the Jefferson parcels for the CRA's own use, she could not support any of the other requests. She questioned repayment of the monies by cash or in-kind services. She noted InTown promised many items to the community such as programs, relocation packages, and others. Even if the CRA did acquire properties, appraisals would have to be done. Ms. Heavilin did not support conveyance of the properties as a pass through and then InTown holding themselves out to the community as providing the land. She thought putting the item before the CRA a few days before the deal would transpire was unreal. 30 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 were not privy to InTown's financials. It appeared what was presented was financially solvent. They put the cart before the horse and now the lenders were not giving a vote of confidence. He expressed he was not in favor of the request. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to attempt to get the contract for the Jefferson Properties assigned to the CRA if purchased by InTown. Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Tillman did not think that action was proper. The board was being presented with additional items pursuant to what they voted for in August. There were additional parameters and the CRA was being asked to intervene. Chair Tillman gave the sequence of events. He indicated they now see the developer lacked the effort and equity to be able to do what was asked of them. He indicated the CRA was trying to move away from driving up land costs. He asked if the CRA entered the picture as purchasing property whether it would open up another round of speculation. He thought what was initially voted on in August should not be altered. If the CRA did that, the CRA's word was no good. Ms. Horenburger thought the CRA should buy the assignment from InTown and secure the lots. That request needed to be considered at this meeting. Mr. Sims explained the CRA routinely deals with issues with developers and were very forgiving of those issues and giving second chances. He wanted to know what InTown would do without the CRA support for the land acquisition and whether the project would be over. He thought the CRA would be disappointing the public if they did not use InTown. Rev. Chaney agreed with Mr. Sims. Nothing had been decided on and incentives could not be given without the agreement. Chair Tillman thought discussion on the item should take place at another time and they did not have the back-up for the item. He reminded the board to be ready to move and set definable parameters. Vice Chair Norem asked what was the contract price for those 15 properties. The contract price was $3.387M+. An InTown Associate advised the only information that was relayed to the CRA was the price of the land would be raised. This was relayed to InTown through a broker. The purchase price for all the lots was $3.387M, which was not assignable, so the property would need to be acquired and then sold to the CRA. Vice Chair Norem asked whether the monies were available in the budget. Mr. Reardon explained the board was instructed to negotiate with Ocean Breeze. There was a $10M bond to work with. The board adopted the affordable housing plan and land assembly. Going through those programs and the bid with Ocean Breeze, the CRA did not have the money. The CRA had 31 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 no appraisals and Mr. Reardon was curious why the parcels the CRA would have to purchase constituted two thirds of the price. Attorney Spillias reviewed the structure of the transaction that was a complicated one because there was an intervening contract on the estate, which was being flipped to InTown. The CRA was under a legal obligation to provide 30 days notice any intention to transfer land before the transaction. If this were part of a master development agreement, there would be 30 days notice requirement of the CRA's intention to adopt the agreement. That requirement prevents the CRA from going forward on the land transfer and the commitment of any funds at this point. He clarified if Ms. Horenburger's motion was to give staff direction to seek to work out an assignment, that would be one issue; but there could not be any commitment of funds tonight. Ms. Horenburger spoke about partnerships. Her observation was the CRA and InTown were being played against each other. She did not think that was a good partnership and she would like to see that partnership changed. The entities need to be holding hands for the partnership to truly work, especially the CRA who was charged with protecting the public's trust. Motion Ms. Horenberger moved to ask staff to look into getting the assignment of those 15 properties so they would not be lost and speculation would not occur to the point they would be financially unable to acquire them in the future for the CRA's needs in relation to the MLK project and other affordable housing issues outside the M LK. Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Tillman thought the immediate matter should be addressed later. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved the CRA delay all other matters under consideration until such time as the CRA has a development agreement in place, other than the 15 lots. Motion died for lack of a second. There was discussion the two attorneys should be speaking with one another on a daily basis until the development agreement was worked out. Rev. Chaney asked what action the CRA could take. Chair Tillman responded the parties could come to an agreement based on the August agreement, and he further expressed hope a first draft would be ready before the next meeting. Attorney Spillias explained he had previously advised a development agreement would take three to six months. What was presented to InTown was a very, very rough first draft. He asked staff to direct the parties to give a report and a full update. He noted the moment he turned over a document, it becomes public record and the CRA was trying to avoid trying to negotiate the agreement in the public. Attorney Spillias would provide monthly updates on the 32 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL comparative analysis of the projects to determine which would be better. the large park. October 25, 2006 The CRA preferred Ms. Bright asked whether the board was still interested in holding a one-day board governance workshop perhaps in the first quarter. The board wanted to hold that workshop. XIII. Comments by CRA Board Attorney Attorney Spillias advised the CRA was involved in litigation with Jesus House of 'Norle;l9if3 Worshio, which was a lawsuit for specific performance. The case was on the docket for trial in April. This was one of the properties for purchase in the HOB and Attorney Spillias would be meeting shortly with opposing counsel to settle the case. He was looking for guidance from the board regarding settlement strategies, settlement amounts and the cost of litigation. There would be an Attorney/Client meeting, which is closed to the public. Notice would be given and the meeting would be held November 14, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. just prior to the regular meeting. For the record, the case would be heard in the 15th Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Case Number 502005CA 004252XXXXMB. The only individuals authorized for discussion would be the board members, the executive director and himself. The meeting would last one half hour. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to authorize the closed session meeting. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that unanimously passed. XIV. Comments by CRA Board Ms. Horenberger invited the members to her home on October 29, 2006, between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. for Mayor Taylor's and Adam Hasner's campaign. Ms. Horenberger requested the CRA start take the lead and start finding a location for the Boy's and Girl's club. Those clubs were discussed at the Assembly and would likely be located in the redevelopment district. She also requested the CRA work with the City on some of the east/west roads from Federal Highway to Seacrest for the lOW-key collector roads. She requested signs be put in different neighborhoods to start giving them identities. Ms. Heavlin thought the Neighborhood Services Department could provide the signs. Ms. Bright would contact Neighborhood Services about the request. Rev. Chaney requested an update on the youth program funding in the HOB with the CDC. He reported the CDC was looking to receive those funds. Ms. Bright responded the CRA approved the concept and about one week ago, the CDC proVided her with the written information for the program. The program would be on the November agenda. There would be deliverables and timelines for the program. Rev. Chaney announced sometime during the Summer of 2007, his church would be bringing in between 5K to 7K people for their Congress of Christian Education. He thought this would be a 34 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 status of the development agreement. He advised from a legal standpoint, InTown is not precluded from continuing to go out and trying to assemble land. There was no further discussion on the issue. X. New Business: A. Renewal of Molly's Trolley's Contract Ms. Bright reviewed the item and advised the CRA would like to keep the current operator. They piggybacked a contract with West Palm Beach and Attorney Spillias approved the contract. This contract would be for the next three years. The CRA thought the operator was doing an excellent job. She explained the CRA must have the operator as part of the traffic concurrency exception area (TCEA). The CRA was also falling short in the affordable housing area. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve renewal of the contract. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion. Ms. Heavilin rode the trolley for an event and heard nothing but rave reviews. Ms. Bright also advised she worked in some trolley curb appeal into the contract. Ms. Horenburger asked about verbiage. She wanted to ensure the driver had an appropriate appearance. Vote A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed. XI. Comments by Staff None. XII. Comments by Executive Director Ms. Bright advised she did not have a response from the members if they wanted to support the City Commission, who was amending the Art in Public Places Ordinances. She advised the change helped her quite a bit and grandfathered in some projects. Some developers were interested in in-lieu fees. She asked members to provide her with their input. Ms. Bright reported for the Water Pointe Park Project, staff was authorized to pursue parcels to expand the park. Ms. Bright asked whether the board was interested in seeing a large park and an office building on the premises, or the potential for another project to go on the site. Ms. Horenburger wanted to see a large park. Ms. Bright explained the properties were not competing with one another. The City Commission had asked City staff to conduct a comparative analysis of the projects to determine which would be better. The CRA preferred the large park. 33 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2006 Chair Tillman reported he was glad to participate in the Assembly process. He thought the CRA needed to work on the branding and marketing of the core downtown area. Ms. Heavilin asked whether Ms. Lynn Simmons could be put on the November agenda. Ms. Bright explained there was a whole packet of information given to businesses who had to relocate. Ms. Heavilin pointed out Ms. Simmons had a waterfront business and asked whether the project could be phased, or if there were any place they could put her. Ms. Heavilin requested the CRA work with her or put a trailer on the dock site for her. Ms. Bright explained FEMA trailers were not allowed there and the process could last five or six months. Ms. Heavilin reported the pump station needed to be addressed. Ms. Bright advised she had already spoken with the City Manger about the issue. Mr. Sims thanked the board for the opportunity to attend the FRA conference. He learned a lot and thanked staff as well. xv. Adjournment There being no further business, Ms. Horenburger moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c . 1 Jet.. 1. A Ivrrl1(,' Catherine Che ry-Gub rman 1 Recording Secretary 102606 35 Best practices in creating Public/Private Partnerships: Public Partner Responsibilities: Must identify development goals and resources, including commitments for inducements and incentives for prioritized projects in the plan. Under the public participation spectrum the role is to inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower the public by utilizing these tools to increase the level of public impact. Managing expectations through the establishment of a schedule clarifies the expectations of public decision makers and is essential to publiclprivate partnerships. Private Partner Responsibilities: It is essential that the private partner needs to be prepared for a transparent process. Although parts of the process exist in which certain information is not disclosed; however, the developer must be prepared to make its numbers, its name and itself open to public scrutiny: The recognition and acceptance of this basic tenet should precede all other steps that the developer will take. If such transparency is not acceptable, the developer should walk away from the project. All parties need to articulate and agree upon the process to be followed. Agreement on the process helps ensure that partnerships establish effective policies and implement them efficiently and collaboratively. More importantly, a documented decision-making process increases transparency and facilitates the sharing of information about the project. The next step is the most important step Create a road map - a road map for decision making with a timeline to schedule project implementation. The road map delineates a plan of action maintained throughout the process, particularly during the implementation of entitlements, deal terms, financing, design and planning. This step formalizes joint actions and party commitments to the project, consequently promoting the sharing of information, such as studies and plans; resulting in more rational decision making. Define roles & responsibilities: Typically the public partner defines the expectations for private partners, particularly in their role and capacities. If the proposals are clear and accurate, they provide a strong framework by which parties can jointly implement a publiclprivate partnership. Entities should assign project leaders and "go to" people to handle specific tasks. To ensure collaborative decision making, dispute resolution mechanisms should be incorporated into the process. Formalizing the public's role in the process also reduces the likelihood of insurmountable opposition to the partnership and its project. Create checks & balances: Public/Private partnerships must create and use mechanisms to allow continuous assessment of the effectiveness of decisions and implementation procedures. Moreover, it is essential for the partnership to incorporate new information and reassessed goals into the process, parties must allow for incremental "baby step" decision making.