Loading...
Minutes 11-08-06 (2) Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Requested by Wilfred Hawkins XII.C-3 Legal Proposed Ordinance 06-087 amending Ordinance 05-060 to provide that the art fee does not apply to projects which had applications pending on or before 10/5/05 and providing that the art fee is payable as a condition of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Attorney Cherof read Ordinance 06-087 by title only. Mayor Taylor: This is the first reading of Ordinance 06-087. I believe there are some members of the Arts Commission who would like to address the Commission on this, so go ahead. Suzette Urs: Good evening. I am Suzette Urs. My address is 611 Northeast 7th Avenue. My business address is 802 North Federal Highway. I own and operate an art gallery. I'm a professional artist. I currently am the Vice Chair of the Arts Commission. The Arts Commission is a seven-member group that has been assembled to behave as your advisory group to insure a successful public arts program. I am speaking on behalf of all the members who are not here tonight. We are unanimous, after several meetings that we've had, pertaining to the change in the Ordinance. That we feel it would be a crippling effect on future progress of the arts program to change the Ordinance so that there is a delay in payment of fees until they get their Certificate of Occupancy. You can't get an artist to go ahead and create art until they are paid. If the fees aren't put up front, there won't be any art at the time Certificate of Occupancy occurs. The other issue about not having the members or the projects that were asking for extensions be involved in art, public art for the City of Boynton Beach, we feel that instead of taking them off the hook, it is your obligation to put them on the hook so that we do not have more projects in the City of Boynton Beach that don't have art involved in them. That is what you asked us to sit together as a citizen's committee and advise you. That is our advice. Thank you very much. Barbara Ready: Good evening. My name is Barbara Ready, 329 S.W. 13th Avenue, Boynton Beach. I am kind of a new member on the committee, but we have addressed this issue several times already and we strongly urge you not to amend the Ordinance. It is a bad idea. At your recent Assembly, you pointed out you want to create attractions to draw consumers to the downtown area. That is what public art is for. Why would you go against that? You want to encourage community involvement and neighborhood refurbishment to promote community pride? That is what public art is for. We need to have that fee collected at the time of permit or you are going to decimate our budget. We have projects planned. We'd like to have The Avenue of the Arts proceed. We can't do that without money. If you amend this money, we will not have money for our FY 07 budget. Thank you. Rick Beau Lieu: Chair of the Boynton Beach Arts Commission. I was here a couple of months ago and we were told we were going to let this go for a year and now I'm wondering what we're doing back here again. I'd like to know if the City Commission is representing the people of Boynton Beach or the developers of Boynton Beach. Can anybody answer that question for me? Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Mayor Taylor: Both. I think we represent both. Rick Beau Lieu: O.K. Christine Moeller: I am an alternate on the Arts Commission and I'm just surprised that so soon out of the gate from approving the Ordinance that you are changing it already. And it's hardly getting a chance. And public art is such an enhancement to a City and draws people in to the City's businesses. In Boynton, we want it to be enhanced. That is all of our goals. But if you....Essentially it will "defund" the program if you put that Ordinance, change the Ordinance the way you want to. I just want to encourage you not to change it and to consider/reconsider as to how much time was spent into the original Ordinance and thought and the fact that you did approve it and it shouldn't be so quick to be changed. Mayor Taylor: O.K. I'll come back to the Commission for any comments or input. Commissioner McCray: Ready for us? Mayor Taylor: Yes. Commissioner McCray: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to say to the Arts Commission, you know, that is that we as elected officials, we look to you all for guidance. I am one of those that said, when the Ordinance came before us, that I was in favor of the way the Ordinance had been written. I am still in favor of the way the Ordinance has been written. I am not in favor of the changes or the amendment, just for the record. Thank you. Commissioner Ensler: I think Rick's question was really a good one. Who do we represent? And, we really have to represent everybody. We have to consider everything, all the needs of the developers, all the needs of the citizens of the community, you know, with the guidance of the Commission hopefully, come to the right kind of a decision. I've asked, not only dealing with this, but another item on the agenda, for the City to look at all fees. The reason for that question was to make sure that when we have a fee that's paid, whether it's being paid in a way to cover our costs or whether its being paid too late. So, if, for example, we have a big development program but then it never goes to permit, does the City lose the money invested in that program? By the same token, should we be asking developers to pay fees early when those fees are not really required until later on? And this is not just an art fee question, but it is the art fee we are talking about now. I'll give you another example because I do have another problem with this Ordinance that we have in front of us. The request here was to change the payment of the fee not at permit but at C.O. However, many of the projects of the future are going to have multiple buildings and as I read the Ordinance right now, and as I understand the Ordinance, if we have a developer who's going to put in a whole series of buildings, once he gets the C.O. for the first one, he has to pay the fee for all of the buildings, even though at some point in time, he may have to delay those and it may be delayed for years. And I don't think that is fair to development. I don't know if my understanding is correct but that is my understanding because the reason I say that is we got a chart from the City Manager's office and in that chart, it showed a whole series of residential buildings and it showed the art fee all payable in the beginning when the first building goes up, when the first C.O. goes, is issued for that. I guess I should ask that as a question. Is that information in that chart that was given to us correct? 2 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Debby Coles-Dobay: Public Art Administrator for the City. I'm not exactly certain of what chart you're referring to. Commissioner Ensler: It's a chart that was put together by Carisse. Kurt Bressner: that. Mr. Bucklew is here, the Building Director, and I think he can respond to Commissioner Ensler: O.K. William Bucklew: Building Official and yes sir, that chart is correct. I worked with Nancy Byrne, the Assistant Director of Development, to put that together and that chart is correct as it stands now. Debby Coles-Dobay: But the original one, the one the budget was made against I believe that is what you are referring to. Right? Kurt Bressner: are paid. No, we are not talking about the fees. We're talking about when the fees Commissioner Ensler: So here we are and let's take a large developer. If a developer was going to put up $200M buildings, you know, and he decides because of the economy to go ahead with only one of the buildings, which is something we were told just recently. Well, he pays the art fee, not just for the first $100M building, but for the two buildings, for a total of $200M, and I don't think that's fair to the developer. Debby Coles-Dobay: Well, I think the concern is on that issue is making sure that the public art is implemented into the project and the process that we had talked about in the past of refunding the money along the way, once its starting the process, just as they do with contractors they have in their projects. One of the suggestions I had made here on this agenda request form was to still look at the 70%, which was really the bulk of the monies you are talking about that they're gonna get refunded anyway, and doing that part of it at the Certificate of Occupancy but the 30 of the 1 or the .03 of the 1% which goes to the program to put art elsewhere in the City, that that part of it be paid at time of permit so that we have some funds in our budget to move forward with some public art in our City for the season of 2006, I'm sorry, for the 2006-07 budget year. Commissioner Ensler: Again, to me it's a question of fairness. Let me lay it out for you. Here is our $100M building. One percent is a million dollars. So at the time of the permit he pays us a million dollars, but he still has to go ahead, he wants to go ahead and put in public art. So what you are saying is he now has to spend $700K for public art and after he puts it in, then we will refund his money. So that is not fair. That is truly noL.... Debby Coles-Dobay: What I'm suggesting.... Commissioner Ensler: Hold on. I got the microphone here. That is truly unfair to the developer. Truly unfair. You can't make him double pay and have him come back and get a rebate from us. If he's going, and I agree, you need to work with him. If he's going to work with you and say, "Yes, I'm going to put public art in," that is one thing. If he says he is not 3 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting going to put public art in, then that may be another issue to be addressed. But, my understanding from listening to most of the developers, they all want to use the money to make their project look better. And I think they'll all want to put the money into their project and it's just not fair to the developers to ask them to make all these large payments in advance of any money coming in. They've got to borrow the money and it is the same problem I had with some of the other development fees except I don't know yet when those are due. Debby Coles-Dobay: Well. Again, my suggestion to move forward isn't to have all of the 1% due at time of permit; it's to go with your recommendation of having the 70 of the 1 evaluated at Certificate of Occupancy, but at least have the .03 of the 1 collected at time of permit again, to do other projects, which we're going to collect anyway to do projects in our City. That is what I am suggesting. It is splitting up the money. The money they're going to put back into the project. Work with them yes and go ahead and give that to them at the time of C.O.; just evaluate it then. Not get any of that up front. Commissioner Ensler: Can I get your comment on the other question I raised? A developer is going to put up multiple buildings. Should he pay for the entire fee for all of the buildings, even though he is only going ahead with a C.O. for one of the buildings? Debby Coles-Dobay: I think what we're looking aL.. Commissioner Ensler: Not a C.O. I'm sorry. A C.O. or permit, either way. Debby Coles-Dobay: I think what we're looking at now is at Certificate of Occupancy. We're looking at it at the first building phase. Commissioner Ensler: All of the fee for the entire project or just for that building? Kurt Bressner: The entire project would be due and payable at the time of the first occupancy permit for the first building in a phased development. Right now, it was due and payable at the time that the building permit for the first building in the phase is due. This would move it to the occupancy, but it would be the entire - the entire "boat" would have to be paid for at that point in time. Debby Coles-Dobay: But I think what we're talking about right now.... Kurt Bressner: table. No. I understand what we're talking about. This is the issue that's on the Debby Coles-Dobay: Right. O.K. What I was just going to say.... Kurt Bressner: No. We've got the floor here. Mayor Taylor: Well, let me just say the issue that I see here before us is the fact that this does not apply to the projects that were pending prior to October 5, when we actually passed the art fee Ordinance. That was one of the key things here. Kurt Bressner: That is correct. 4 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Mayor Taylor: Right. We did that because a lot of these people had financed their projects way ahead of time before we ever came up with the art fee thing and then we said guess what? Now we're going to nail you. And they would have to go back and come up with, in this case, another million dollars, which wasn't right. That was number one. Then the other one was, and while we did the art Ordinance, let's face it - the market changed. The market changed big time and people are struggling to get their places financed and get them on the ground. I want to be a big proponent of the art program. I want to be very supportive of that. I think it's exactly what you say what needs to be done. We need to bring art into the City. I guess in my mind it's a little bit of what comes first - the chicken or the egg here. Because its o.k. and I believe they need to build art into their buildings, but when you tell me that if we do this and don't collect it up front that you're not going to have The Avenue of the Arts by April of 2007 or whenever, I'm telling you that doesn't matter to me because they aren't going to have anything downtown in March or April of 2007 because we're talking a year or two years away. So, I don't know whether putting a bunch of artwork along Ocean down there and some statutes or whatever the artwork might be, why that's going to draw anybody down there - to what? There is nothing down there to draw people to right now. I need to build this downtown. I need to see these projects on the ground and then have the art there if that's what will bring the people down and that's what will keep them there. So, I guess to me, I'm struggling with that. I don't see that being ahead of the development itself. I'm trying to bring them in together, make them work together. And I do believe if I'm building a $100M project and I know that if I don't put any art in there when I get my occupancy I'm going to have to give you a million dollars guess what? I'm going to make sure I got at least $700K worth of art in my project or as close as I can get to it, because otherwise, I'll have to hand it over to you. So, that's why I feel like its o.k. at occupancy. Now your point is can you collect the other 30% up front so that you can continue your art project. I probably could give on that because now you're talking the guy instead of - for a million dollars that leaves at least $300K he would have to put up front because he is going to pay that anyway, no matter when it happens; he is going to pay that because that continues the City's project so, I'd be willing to compromise on that. I guess that's where I'm at. Any other? Vice Mayor McKoy: What's your feedback on the compromise the Mayor offered (to Debby Coles-Dobay)? Debby Coles-Dobay: That's what I'm suggesting. That was my recommendation. Mayor Taylor: front I think that was her suggestion, that we let them pay the 30% at least up Debby Coles-Dobay: At time of permitting. Commissioner McCray: And that's spelled out in this Resolution? Kurt Bressner: No. The text of the Ordinance does not have this compromise language in it at all. The matter would have to come back to you with revisions. The 30% that would be the public art education component that would be due and payable at building permit schedule, would have to be folded back into the Ordinance with the remaining 70% paid at first occupancy. So, unfortunately, this Ordinance has evolved as a conversation and we're always like one version behind you as you discuss this item. We're trying to be anticipatory, but this is 5 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting - we're like one edition old in the packet. So, we would have to come back to you with some specific language in the Ordinance that would enable what this emerging compromise might be. Mayor Taylor: Well, as it's written right now, they would have to pay the 30% at Permit of Occupancy right? Kurt Bressner: That's correct. Mayor Taylor: So, that's there right now, so now you're saying just a matter if we want to change it to the first permitting versus... Kurt Bressner: That would move that obligation up in the schedule to the time when the building permit is issued for the 30% and hold the 70% back to the Occupancy permit. Commissioner Ensler: I have four items. I'll try to summarize this to try and drive it to a conclusion. The first is that the art Ordinance only apply to projects after approval of the art Ordinance originally. Anything that was in the pipeline before that, it would not apply to. Mayor Taylor: That's what this says, yes. Commissioner Ensler: The second is, and I'm just talking about the changes, 30% of the art Ordinance would be due at the time of permit, but only on the amount to be permitted. In other words, if it was going to be a larger project, it would only apply to what's in the permit. The other 70% would be applied to the C.O., but only to that part of the C.O. that has been built. So if there are multiple projects, there'll be multiple permits and multiple C.O.S and at each time they come through, they would each have an art fee. I've added that last part on myself. That was my concern. Mayor Taylor: O.K. Commissioner Ensler: So, the fees would only apply to the items in the permit or the items in the C.O. and not to the entire project. Mayor Taylor: All of them? Commissioner Ensler: That's it. Mayor Taylor: How is the other Commission on this? Vice Mayor McKoy: I could support that. Kurt Bressner: I have some comments on that. Mayor Taylor: Go ahead. Kurt Bressner: I think staff would not support that, only because administratively it was going to be very difficult to track these incremental payments. Our preference would be to stick with the compromise that was originally proposed that the 30% be paid at building permit and 6 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting the remaining 70% be paid or credited in the form of the on-site art at the time of the Occupancy permit was issued. So, we would prefer to keep it a little simpler. Commissioner Ensler: two $100M buildings. Well, how would we take care of the problem I raised, which is Kurt Bressner: Bring them on. I think that's great. Commissioner Ensler: But only one is going forward. Mayor Taylor: Well, no. William Bucklew: They would only get a permit for one if only one went forward. Commissioner Ensler: What I'm hearing is that although they only get a permit for one, they would have to pay the fee for both buildings. Kurt Bressner: At occupancy. Commissioner Ensler: And the C.O. also at the first building. Kurt Bressner: No. At occupancy, the amount due and payable based on a balance of $200M would be due and payable - the 70% - the entire 70% or a credit for the art that is actually installed would be done at the occupancy permit. Commissioner Ensler: Of the first building? Kurt Bressner: the gate. Yes. The whole "boat" is due when that first occupancy permit goes through Mayor Taylor: But how would you know at the first one? You have no way of evaluating how much art is going in that entire project if only part of it is built. Kurt Bressner: Right. In all probability, what will happen is that first building will have a public art component in it, which can be credited. The balance is paid at the time. And if the other buildings are built, they integrate public art into the project and that money is basically returned to them. But you have the money, it is collected, it is made available as part of the program and we're able to book the revenues. Commissioner Ensler: Can we take this one item at a time and vote on it? To try to put as much as we can behind us. For example, the first item is: It only applies to projects after approval of the art Ordinance. Are we in agreement with that. Mayor Taylor: Is that already there? Kurt Bressner: It's really reaffirmed in the Ordinance. I mean it really underscores it because there was some question of interpretation in the first draft. I think Commissioner McCray had some comments. 7 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Commissioner Ensler: But its not voted on. Mayor Taylor: Well, let me ask this first. Let me ask the City Attorney. Is that in the Ordinance right now that it only applies to projects after the Ordinance was written? City Attorney Cherof: No, it is not. Mayor Taylor: that. O.K., so we need a vote on that then, about whether we are going to do Commissioner McCray: My comment is I cannot understand how we started out with something so simple and it got so complicated. For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out. We have the horse and the cart and now we don't have either. One is one place and one is another place. Mayor Taylor: It's not quite as simple as you said and I think we've tried to discuss that here. We've run into a market here where people are having trouble financing their projects. It is very simple. Just go out there and ask them. They are not financing them. People are not laying the dollars out right now and I want to see something come out on the ground. That's my job, to make it happen. Commissioner McCray: Right. That's my concern too. Mayor Taylor: And it hurts them. We're laying another couple of million on them. Commissioner Ensler: If we can't get Federal Highway developed to get the extra tax money, we won't have the money that we're going to need to redevelop the Heart of Boynton. It is as simple as that. We need the tax money from Federal Highway and we need to do everything we can to make that happen. To make the developers understand we're working with them so they help us with the work we need to do. Mayor Taylor: And we're not backing off on telling them they've got to put art in there. We want them to put that million dollars worth of art in there. If they don't have it there, we're going to charge them for not having it there. But it's a matter of when we charge them for it. Mike Rumpf: Just a reminder that when a multi building project is permitted, each building gets a separate permit so you could essentially assess the 30% fee for each building permit, but when the first C.O. was issued, you would have to get that other 70%. Commissioner Ensler: Why? Mike Rumpf: That's the way I believe the Ordinance is. Commissioner Ensler: I'm not worried about the Ordinance. We can change the Ordinance. Why couldn't we do the same thing for these two buildings I keep talking about that at the C.O. for the first building, it is 70%. At the C.O. for the second building, it is also 70%. What is so difficult about that? 8 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Mike Rumpf: come in. Kurt Bressner: Other than the accounting. That is where the nightmare would probably I've given my recommendation. Don't go there. But, that's your choice. Commissioner Ensler: O.K. We need to encourage the developers. Mayor Taylor: O.K., I think we need to....let's go ahead and take up the first item about whether or not it does not apply to people that were in the system prior to the Ordinance being passed. Is there a motion to that effect? Commissioner Ensler: So moved. Commissioner Rodriguez seconded the motion. Mayor Taylor: O.K. I have a motion and a second and the motion is that this Ordinance does not apply to applications that were pending before the art Ordinance went into effect. All in favor of that. (Vote). I believe it was unanimous. Mayor Taylor: What was the second item? Commissioner Ensler: It was 30% at permit and Bill Bucklew suggested 30% of the value of the permit rather than the application, so it would be 30% due at the permit for the item that is in the permit. Mayor Taylor: Kurt Bressner: But they claim that is going to be a bookkeeping nightmare. No, no - that's fine. Mayor Taylor: That was all right? O.K. Is there a second to that? Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Mayor Taylor asked all in favor? All opposed? Mayor Taylor declared the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Taylor: That leaves us with the final. Commissioner Ensler: on the items in the C.O. Which is 70% at C.O. And my recommendation that it be based Mayor Taylor: O.K. Is there a second to that item? (No second was heard.) O.K., if we don't go there, what is the other option? It goes 70% of the whole thing? Kurt Bressner: Mayor Taylor: Kurt Bressner: The entire 70% is paid at occupancy. When the first building is occupied? Right. That is correct. Mayor Taylor: Then the whole 70%, even though, I guess my problem with that like I say. Say we're building some multi, multi projects. We're not talking one or two buildings. We're talking in some cases two blocks of buildings. Let's say that I get my first part built and it is a building or two buildings and you say O.K. I've got to evaluate you and you were supposed to 9 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting do 70% of this total. I can see 20%, so you owe me the other 80% of that. How do you know how much art - you're saying paying it up front and then I'll give it back to you if you get it in there, is what you're telling me. Kurt Bressner: That's correct. Mayor Taylor: Right. Yeah. All right, well that's where it stands right now. It stands right now that you would pay the whole 70% at the first thing of occupancy. Commissioner Ensler has offered a motion that is different from that, saying that you would only pay the 70% of whatever was permitted for occupancy. Commissioner Rodriguez: I'm going to second Commissioner Ensler's motion. Mayor Taylor: O.K. I have a motion and a second that would only be for the 70% of what was permitted at occupancy. Vice Mayor McKoy: Versus? I'm a little unclear on that. Mayor Taylor: O.K. Versus what it is right now or what we would pass right now would be that you would pay the 70% for the entire project whenever the first building is occupied. Kurt Bressner: The second option that Commissioner Ensler was talking about in essence is installment payments based on the amount being brought to bear as individual occupancy permits for a project come forward. Mayor Taylor: Mr. Greene. Did you want to comment? Quintus Greene: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Quintus Greene, Development Director. The concern that we have is if in fact the art is for the entire project, then if you are going to have art for "the project" as opposed to one component of the project. It is one thing to permit the project - issue a building permit for particular component if you have say three components. You can permit each component separately. All right? But if the artwork, and you can charge 30% to each one of those components because that is built into that permit fee. But if, in fact, you start C.O.'g the project and the art is for the entire project as opposed to any particular component, we have to collect the fee at the first C.O. Commissioner Ensler: Not if the money has been spent. Kurt Bressner: Or credit it at the first occupancy for the art to reflect the value of the art that has been put in for the entire...And I think what Mr. Greene is saying is that this speaks to art as, basically, an amenity for the entire development. You may have a situation - I'm thinking of East Berlin here now - block by block by block of these rows of buildings that all look the same with "Stalinesque" architecture and each of them have art attached to them. I don't think that's the intent here. The intent is to have something that flows with the development and I think what Mr. Greene is suggesting that by having it paid on the installment plan, that may serve as a detriment to achieving that effect. So, I think from a stylistic point of view and a delivery perspective, having it paid in total or credited in total at the time of the first occupancy permit may be a way to encourage a collection of art that benefits the entire development rather than a building coming on stream. 10 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Commissioner Rodriguez: Wouldn't that then encourage the developer to try to get all the art done in that one building so it is complete versus trying to scatter it through multiple buildings? Kurt Bressner: It could occur that way, but if you're talking the order of magnitude of the value of the projects, the numbers we've been throwing around, that is going to be a hell of a lot of art for one building. Commissioner Rodriguez: I guess if I was a developer and I had to pay you X-million dollars, I'd try to work it into that one building. Kurt Bressner: No, no. I mean that may be an unintended consequence of that. Commissioner Rodriguez: And then the art itself, the results we're looking for from an art standpoint, we're not going to get. That's just my thinking. Kurt Bressner: As part of the development review process, the role and function of the Arts Administrator, is as the site plans are being developed to be working with the development community to avoid those types of situations. It is not an absolute guarantee that a developer can say, "Hey, you know what? The letter of the law says I do it this way, and its all going in Building A." There's no way you can probably legislate against that, but as a practical matter, the dialogue that occurs at the staff level with the developer, I think would mitigate against that. Commissioner Ensler: Let me ask another question if I may. Let's take the Heart of Boynton. We have a geography if you will. You know the development phase the CRA has selected InTown for, that incorporates many, many blocks. I'm not sure how big the area is. And if the developer were to go forward with the first part of that being MLK by Seacrest, with the rest to be done over another year or two years or whatever it may be, are they going to have to, under the way its written now, pay the entire 70% at the time of that first C.O. for the area that is right on MLK? Quintus Greene: Commissioner, let me see if I can put it this way. It depends on how the project is developed. In other words, for example, if you do a project and you have it done in four phases and you say well, we want art reflective in each of those four phases then fine. As far as we're concerned, you've got four projects, permitted separately, and C.O.'d separately. That's not a problem. O.K. You've got art in each one of them. If, on the other hand, you say well, we have one project and we're going to be doing each one of these components in this one project, then we can say, well o.k. - just to give you an example. The Marina project. The Marina project is one project. O.K. It was permitted as one project. But it is C.O.'d by floor, going up, so the point is, do you collect for the art on Floors 1 through 5, 6-10, 11-15, or do you collect it on the first C.O. for the project? That is the kind of thing we're talking about. Commissioner Ensler: I think you've come up with a basis for a compromise. The compromise being that you work with the developers in a case of the example I gave and I'll give you two examples. One example is two buildings, each $100M and that we call them phases and that you work with them so that they can be listed as phases so the 70% would be due at C.O. for the phase. In the case of the one that was the spreadsheet prepared by staff to 11 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting show when fees are due, it showed a residential community of 20 individual homes - I think it was 20 - maybe that in the future could be done by phase to help with his money flow, but it means staff would have to work with the people so they could schedule the phases so that the fees don't become excessive as they go forward. Because I can see it now. There is a community across from where I live where they have not gone forward with a number of the buildings. They have not gone forward because of the real estate market. And to come in if they were involved with this and say, I'm sorry, you've got to pay for all of those buildings - that might be a terrible burden on them. So, perhaps the use of the word phases can be a way to find a middle of the road on this. Commissioner McCray: For clarification, the Heart of Boynton is supposed to be done in phases, not all at once. Commissioner Ensler: Maybe that's the solution then. Kurt Bressner: Well, just whatever you do put it in the ordinance so we don't have interpretation issues down the road because it is getting too murky here. Commissioner McCray: Yes. Commissioner Ensler: So, can we do this by phase? 70% of the c.o. for each phase? Kurt Bressner: Commissioner, the staffs recommendation is to pay it at occupancy permit. We are not, at least from my perspective, and I know there are two motions. There is a second motion on the floor to do it based on individual occupancy permits. We feel that is open for interpretation problems. It is open for administrative issues. It is open to basically accounting problems. We don't think it makes good business sense to go in that direction. That is my recommendation and I know there is a different motion on the floor that has to be considered. Commissioner Ensler: 111 withdraw the motion if we can somehow word that to use what staff has talked about, that they're going to use for the Heart of Boynton, that is by phase. Can we do that by phase? Kurt Bressner: If the building permits are issued, they are issued by phases, possibly they could be issued by phases anyway so the operative activity is an occupancy permit for a particular building permit, so it mayor may not embrace a phase - it depends on the project. So, the occupancy permit is an occupancy permit, whether it is in a phased project or whether it is a singular building, it is still an occupancy permit. Commissioner McCray: Let me just make my final comment. And that is that we look to, we have the policy decision-makers of the City, but we look to staff for guidance and I'm just saying, whatever we do, I want to do the right thing and I want to say that this has been done and I don't want down the road to come back two months down the road and say, oh, we've got another change. That's why I'm saying I thought the first amendment was done and now we've got some more and it is getting murky. It's getting to the point where I'm almost confused sitting up here. I don't know really what I'm voting on. Commissioner Ensler: I'd be glad to tell you what you're voting on. 12 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Commissioner McCray: No, you don't have to tell me, sir. You're the one that got it confused. Mayor Taylor: Well, we're here and trying to decide now where you want to pay the, whether you want to insert the word that the 70% would be due on certificate of occupancy by phase. Commissioner Ensler: I'd like to make that addition. Mayor Taylor: Which I think makes sense when you're talking about huge projects like the Heart of Boynton. Can you imagine paying the art fee for that entire thing? It would be almost astronomical. Commissioner Ensler: Does the seconder accept the...? Vice Mayor McKoy: So the motion is for it to be in phases? Commissioner Ensler: In phases. Mayor Taylor: That it would be a C.O. in phases. Vice Mayor McKoy: Wasn't there a second on that? Commissioner Rodriguez: Collect in phases. Kurt Bressner: Right. And that was seconded. Commissioner Rodriguez: I seconded it. But that is where the City Manager is saying we're going to have some administrative challenges. Kurt Bressner: I've got a little heartburn, that's all, on this one. Commissioner Rodriguez: Can I make a motion to table this thing till we get it all straight. I'm like Commissioner McCray. This has gotten way bigger than I anticipated it would get. And maybe throw all options on the table for next meeting and - that is my motion right now. Kurt Bressner: I think staff would like to... Commissioner McCray: I'll second your motion. Kurt Bressner: See if we can come up with some language on phases buL Mayor Taylor: I do think we need to look at it a little different because we've thrown out some different examples here and no one definition seems to cover so we need to be a little more clear. Vice Mayor McKoy: Can we put it to sleep if we vote to table to the next meeting? Will we have everything in place to put this to bed? 13 Verbatim excerpt transcript from November 8, 2006 City Commission Meeting Kurt Bressner: I just leaned over to the City Attorney and I said, "Good luck" in terms of drafting Ordinance language that would cover the four corners of what we're trying to talk about. It's easy to figure out on the occupancy permit that everything is due and payable. That's easy to do. The devil is going to be in the details of figuring out some appropriate language that will provide the necessary flexibility you're looking for to the development community and yet provide a mechanism whereby we're going to be able to collect this money or verify the art has been put in but not in a disingenuous way that kind of skirts around the Ordinance, you know, they're not really serious about doing the art. So I've got some concerns about how we address that, but give us a shot at it. Commissioner Ensler: Motion to table. City Attorney Cherof: Could I suggest that it not be tabled? Just take it off the agenda, because the Ordinance is drafted. The title will have to change, which means we have to start over anyway, so just delete it from the agenda and we'll bring it back for first reading next time. Vice Mayor McKoy: So moved. Commissioner Rodriguez: Second the motion. Mayor Taylor: To remove from agenda. Vice Mayor McKoy: Yes. Kurt Bressner: When are we going to get this back? City Attorney Cherof: I'm going to have 30% of the amendments ready at the next meeting, and 70% at the meeting after that. Mayor Taylor: Very good. Kurt Bressner: Now you've got 30% of that figured out so. Mayor Taylor: We're going to take a five-minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m. END OF PUBLIC ART ITEM. ~~~ Transcribed by Susan Collins, Recording Secretary 14