Loading...
Minutes 01-09-07 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007, AT 6:00 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev. Lance Chaney Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney 1. Call to Order Chair Tillman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 11. Pledge to the Flag The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Rev. Chaney gave an invocation preceded by a moment of silence in remembrance of Vice Mayor Ensler. 111. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and determined a quorum was present. IV. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Ms. Bright asked that item VIII-D, MLK Corridor Development Agreement Update, be moved up on the agenda. It was decided to have this discussion as the first item under Old Business. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. V. Public Comments Gertrude Sullivan, 201 N.E. 6th Avenue, Boynton Beach, thanked the CRA on behalf of the residents for replacing the sign at Boynton Terrace. It was much appreciated. VI. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meeting - December 12, 2006 B. Approval of the Financials - December 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 C. Resolution No. 06-03 (Set limits for check endorsements) D. Purchase of a CRA Table - MLK Celebration E. Proposed 2007 Event Schedule F. Human Resources - ILA approval G. Aleksander Group Consulting Agreement H. Update on Dive shop Lease I. Progress Report on the HOB Work Program J. RFQ for General Contracting or Construction Management Attorney Spillias asked to pull Item A. Mr. Sims asked to pull Item I. Rev. Chaney asked to pull Item G. Chair Tillman reminded the board they had previously agreed to consider the Consent Agenda items at the time of Agenda Approval. When the agenda was approved earlier, he thought there was agreement to the Consent Agenda as well. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Consent Agenda, removing Consent Agenda Items A, G, and I from the earlier approval of the agenda. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Since there was no longer a Pulled Consent Item on the agenda, Attorney Spillias recommended consideration of the pulled consent agenda items. A. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meeting - December 12, 2006 (pulled from Consent Agenda by Attorney Spillias) Attorney Spillias commented on page 11, fourth paragraph, first line, the word "perimeters" should be changed to "parameters." On page 12, in the second paragraph from the bottom, the word "staged" should be changed to "phased." Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve item A as amended. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. G. Aleksander Group Consulting Agreement Rev. Chaney preferred allowing more than one individual to speak to the lobbyist, but others thought having more could lead to confusion. Ms. Bright responded there could be more than one. After discussion, it was decided to bring the item back for approval at the next meeting, changing the name of Ms. Bright to Executive Director or designee. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve Item G as amended. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Rev. Chaney dissenting. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 1. Progress Report on the HOB Work Program Mr. Sims mentioned he had received inquiries from people who owned some of the governmental properties who were interested in selling. He asked if the CRA had received calls from such individuals. Ms. Brooks responded it depended on the location and that he should refer the calls to her office. VII. Public Hearing None VIII. Old Business A. Approval of an Agreement with the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC to Administer the Residential Improvement Grant Program Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve item VIII-A. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Approval of Administration Agreement with the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC for the Community Improvement Grant Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve item VIII-B. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Approval of a Purchase and Development Agreement with Habitat for Humanity Rothman Property in Cherry Hill Ms. Brooks reported the CRA had purchased a vacant lot on N.W. lth Avenue in the Cherry Hill neighborhood with the intent of creating a single-family affordable home. Board direction was to work with the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity. The board members were provided a proposed agreement defining the development timeline, Habitat's responsibilities, and the development standards required by the CRA. The houses would be built with more stringent requirements and more amenities than the usual Habitat for Humanity home. Habitat for Humanity had agreed with all the terms and conditions in the Purchase and Development Agreement. Rev. Chaney wanted assurance the agreement had provisions for a higher grade of house than normally provided by Habitat for Humanity as he was viewing some pictures that did not represent that. Ms. Brooks assured Rev. Chaney the CRA was mandating a standing seam metal roof, storm windows, several appliances, tile in hallways, bath and kitchen, a master bedroom, and a larger minimum square foot size, none of which were normally provided in a typical Habitat for Humanity home. Habitat for Humanity was willing to do this since the land was being provided to them free of cost. Also, she assured Rev. Chaney Habitat for Humanity would have to bring a design forward for the CRA's approval before beginning construction. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Habitat for Humanity agreed to conform to the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan and its Design Guidelines. Joe Santorella, President of South Palm Beach County Affiliate of Habitat for Humanity, declared they welcomed the opportunity to work with the CRA to provide housing for low-income wage earners. He reiterated the upgrades already mentioned by Ms. Brooks. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve VIII-C. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. D. MLK Corridor Development Agreement Update Ms. Bright advised the board members of a three-hour, face-to-face, meeting held at the City between herself, the City Manager, Planning & Zoning Director Mike Rumpf, Assistant Development Director Nancy Byrne, and a team from the developer who presented at the CRA's August 17, 2006 meeting. Present on the development side were Samantha Simons, President of Intown Partners, LLC and Barbara Rudd, also of Intown. Richard Baron, Chairman and CEO of McCormack Baron Salazar and Patrice McGinn, Executive Vice President of Torti Gallas & Partners, were also present. Ms. Bright asked Attorney Spillias to bring the board up to date on the project, followed by comments from the City Manager and the developers. Attorney Spillias declared at the December 12, 2006 meeting, representatives of Intown Partners, particularly the principal, Samantha Simons, and Attorney Lee Worsham of Ruden McCloskey, appeared. Mr. Worsham answered questions from the board and discussed the status of the project. At that meeting, the board directed Ms. Bright and Attorney Spillias to obtain information from the developer they considered critical to move the project forward. The board requested documents demonstrating: 1) the level of property control achieved by Intown Partners; 2) the continued involvement of McCormack Baron Salazar and Torti Gallas & Partners; and 3) the continued capability of Intown Partners to move forward with land acquisition and the ultimate development of the project. Confidentiality was to be maintained by the developer showing the documents to Attorney Spillias, who would then report to the board on the status of their requests. Until this morning, the CRA had not received any of that information. In the interim, the City Commission directed the City Manager to have a meeting with the developers and CRA staff to see what could be done to move the project forward. Attorney Spillias declared at the joint meeting, the City and CRA were given documentation meant to address the board's requests. Ms. Bright provided these documents to the board. One of the documents was an opinion letter from Turnkey Title of Fort Lauderdale, which was accompanied by a survey of the MLK Corridor and a sketch and description showing the lots in the project with legal descriptions for the entire corridor. The opinion was given that including the CRA and City-owned property, Intown had control of 40% of the properties in the project area. Control was defined as any of the following: 1) Actual custody and control of a subject parcel within the project area (which meant ownership, presumably); 2) executed contract for the purchase and sale of a subject parcel; 3) an option to purchase, lease, occupy or improve a subject parcel or 4) an executed letter of intent from the owner of record. Attorney Spillias expressed concern about the letter of intent, since letters of intent ran the gamut from letters that had specific obligations to documents that said, "We would be interested in buying the property should the time come." The developers would have to answer that. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Two other documents were letters from Torti Gallis & Partners, signed by Mr. Gallis, Mr. Torti, and Patrice McGinn, indicating they remained committed to being a part of this project and moving forward with it. Also presented was a letter from McCormack Baron Salazar indicating their commitment to the project and identifying themselves as co-developers for the Sea crest MLK East Corridor. They were not the partnership agreements requested by the board, per se, but were confirmations from the other partners and they could speak and answer specific questions from the board. Attorney Spillias had recently received documentation containing another draft of a contract. He explained that Mr. Worsham informed him an attorney for McCormack Baron Salazar was going to take the lead from this point forward in negotiating the contract and was working on another version of the contract, in response to the comments the board made November 30. Attorney Spillias had another marked-up copy of the agreement, and some things had been revised. He had not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly, but in perusing it, some of the things they asked to be changed had been changed. They also provided explanations or questions on items they had not changed. A development timeline was provided, as asked for in the contract. Also, they addressed the issue of the relocation program. At the joint meeting, they worked from an agenda prepared by City Manager Bressner containing the following items: 1) development agreement format and content including goals of the CRA and the developer; 2) obligations and responsibilities of the City with respect to land use and zoning; 3) obligations of the developer as to responding to the CRA/City's requests for information; 4) disposition of the religious and institutional buildings on MLK Boulevard - school and churches; 5) land acquisition by the developer, CRA and City and how best to proceed; and 6) the conveyance of the City and CRA-owned land to the developer. This last item was a primary issue Attorney Spillias had raised in December, that the CRA transfer its properties over to the developer without consideration at this point in time. Attorney Spillias noted Mr. Bressner would recommend to the City Commission City representation on the negotiating team along with the developer and the CRA. This was referred to throughout the meeting as a tripartite arrangement. Attorney Spillias thought this would be appropriate because: 1) the City would be a party to any agreement, and 2) it would be more appropriate for a City representative to report back to the Commission on progress rather than having the City Commission contact Ms. Bright or get their information from the developers or CRA staff. Mr. Bressner had sent an email to the Commission indicating he would be the point person. City Manager Bressner felt better about the project after the joint meeting and was encouraged by the direct participation of all members of Intown's development team in the project discussions. He was pleased the developers and the CRA had given the City's team the necessary information to perform a quick analysis of the situation, with an eye not to history, but to results. Mr. Bressner declared the project had to be a tripartite arrangement from this day onward. The City had the resources available to move things along and he offered that. The City's team would be made up of himself, the City Attorney, the Planning & Zoning Director, and the Assistant Development Director. Mr. Bressner spoke of a credibility problem in the community. The citizens of Boynton Beach were asking the same questions as the City Commission about this development - what was going to happen and when. Should it be phased? These were important strategic discussions 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 that had to take place. The CRA offered to facilitate a community meeting, and he encouraged them to do so. He emphasized, however, that it had to be a meeting between the community, the CRA, the City, and the developers. Mr. Bressner expressed the opinion the CRA and the City needed to get back into the land acquisition mode for this development area, but in a way that was not viewed as a conflict or competition. They would have to take a great deal of care to provide fair and equitable prices with appropriate relocation assistance and meet the needs of the sellers, within reason. The developer understood there were individuals in the community who would not talk to the developer, but they could talk with the CRA or the City. To assume the developer was going to be capable of acquiring all the property within the development area was not realistic. They also had to face up to the reality that there were going to be some out parcels that would have to be worked around and this could be done. He thought the tripartite arrangement should be given a trial. Chair Tillman asked Mr. Bressner and Attorney Spillias whether there were any legal ramifications to changing the scope of the original RFP. Attorney Spillias responded they would not be going beyond legal bounds, even if they changed the scope of the project as originally described. However, the ultimate development had to meet the requirements of the Heart of Boynton and CRA Redevelopment Plans or, if deemed appropriate, those Plans could be changed. Mr. Sims asked Mr. Bressner if he felt confident a development agreement could be finalized within 30 days. Mr. Bressner did not know, but stated substantial progress could be reported back to the Commission in 30 days, if they continued the same level of energy and collaboration evidenced at the joint meeting. The Commission was looking at a report card of the progress of the project, Mr. Bressner's performance, and the performance of the team. A decision would have to be made about deliverables and progress in the next 30 days. Mr. Sims was in total agreement with the tripartite arrangement going forward. If there were a concern from the developer, would it be appropriate to wait until the face-to-face meeting to discuss it among all three parties, or would it still be acceptable to go to one party to discuss it? This last was something he saw as leading to confusion. Mr. Bressner stated they had spoken of having bi-weekly meetings and it would be his expectation he would be involved in those meetings. His opinion was that if it could wait for the face-to-face time, it would be more productive. Mr. Bressner stated he was willing to allocate his time and talent, and City staffs time and talent, to the project. Assistant Development Manager Byrne and Planning & Zoning Manager Rumpf had offered significant insights at the joint meeting. Mr. Bressner generally preferred face time to emailsforresolutionofissues.Mr. Sims agreed with that approach, but hoped the emails would continue, as they kept people informed. Mr. Sims was glad to hear a community meeting was in the offing and felt that should be a priority. He wondered if it would be appropriate to have a separate meeting with property owners, since he did not think their concerns would surface in a general community meeting. Mr. Bressner was amenable to a spin-off meeting dealing with property issues, but declared it would also require the tripartite approach. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Richard Baron, Chairman and CEO of McCormack Baron and Salazar, could see no real impediment to working out a development agreement. He was committed to putting staff in the area and to attending the bi-weekly meetings. They looked forward to meeting with the community and the property owners as well. Mr. Baron expressed a desire to create a project of which everyone could be proud. They were committed to workforce housing, were doing it in other places, and hoped to do the same in Boynton Beach. Patrice McGinn, Senior Partner in Torti Gallis and Partners, was encouraged by the unified force that would be part of a tripartite approach. She firmly believed in the integrity of Samantha Simons and Barbara Rudd of Intown Partners and that of Richard Baron of McCormack Baron and Salazar and was committed to working with them. Mr. Horenburger asked Mr. Baron and Ms. McGinn what their role was in the project. She stated some saw them as investment partners. She inquired whether they were bringing any money to the project, other than the money they had spent to come here and design the project. Were either of their firms investors in this project? Mr. Baron responded they would be investors, but were co-developers, which meant they were to manage the design for the development and the ultimate structuring of the financing. Going forward, they would be putting equity into the project. Torti Gallis & Partners would be responsible for the design of the development. They would be co-venturing the development with Intown, but would be the managing partner in terms of driving the development, putting staff in the area on a regular basis, being part of the bi-weekly meetings, and moving the project along. Ms. Horenburger inquired if they would be paid for those services and Mr. Baron stated they were not being paid. They were developers, but the manner in which they would be structuring their overhead had not been determined. Ms. Horenburger inquired if they were partners in the acquisition of properties. Mr. Baron responded that the whole of issue of property acquisition would have to be revisited. Ms. Horenburger asked if they were still comfortable with their statement about the percentage of property under their control. Mr. Baron did not know that there was anything different between what they represented in August and what the title company now certified. Ms. Horenburger was not reassured by the title company's opinion on the issue. She stated the board had asked for documentation on the amount of property under Intown's control and she did not believe they had received it. Rev. Chaney thanked the Commissioners and the City Manager for facilitating such a progressive meeting. Rev. Chaney asked Mr. Baron to elaborate on his taking on a greater leadership role in the project. Mr. Baron responded they would be working on the project on a regular basis. They had not believed they had any "status" since the August meeting in terms of actually being the master developers for the project. He understood Attorney Spillias was going to furnish a letter to him to that effect. When Mr. Baron spoke of taking a lead role, he meant he would be taking the lead role in working through issues with the community, Intown, the CRA, and the City. Attorney Spillias recalled an earlier request that the CRA Board provide a letter, signed by the Chairman, that Intown Partners was the master developer of the project. They informed Intown they could not do that because until there was an agreement, they were not the master developer. If the board chose to go forward, he could draft a letter stating what the status was. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Rev. Chaney asked Mr. Baron if they expected to invest in the land acquisition aspect of the project. Mr. Baron responded they were not investing in the land. What they would ultimately do would depend on the result of the conversations held at the bi-weekly meetings. Vice Chair Norem asked Mr. Baron to elaborate on his involvement in the structuring of the financing. Mr. Baron responded there were several firms that provided equity for this type of development. One of the problems they had experienced was that without a development agreement and an understanding of the status of the partnership, it was difficult to get firm commitments from financiers. Ms. Horenburger felt until there was a master development agreement, the six items on the City Manager's agenda, such as zoning, were somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. The board was waiting for factual information on which it could rely. She felt the CRA had to be very cautious about the development agreement process and judicious about the economic capability of the party to whom the partnership deal was given. Ms. Horenburger asked if a study had been done to see if the project made economic sense? Ms. Bright responded the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council had done a feasibility study, but not a viability one. Ms. Horenburger felt financial checks should be made of all potential developers to see if the developer could make a project work. She questioned whether the project could be built if the CRA did not convey property to this developer? Robert Reardon, CRA Assistant Director, stated his recollection of the proprietary financial statements given by the Intown Partners, which included Torti Gallis & Partners and McCormack Baron Salazar. The original letter from North Mark Lenders stated they would be the financial backers for Intown Partners. Both parties had the wherewithal to produce the project; however, in the North Mark letter, there was a statement to the effect that the only way they would finance Intown Partners was if three conditions occurred: 1) $3M input of infrastructure from the CRA or the City; 2) $3M input of a parking garage; and 3) speedy resolution of zoning and density issues. They proceeded from August with the understanding that Intown Partners would finance the project through North Mark. Financially, Mr. Reardon was concerned that in the interim, the board had allowed CRA staff to promulgate projects, earmarking the funds borrowed in Bond #2. They owed $1.6M to the City for 4th Street. They had set up $4M for acquisition in HOB, which was the only thing they could actually give. They set aside $2.5M for a low-income housing initiative or workforce housing. When he made the statement about the financial capability of Intown, it was based on North Mark's letter and the $60M in tax credits. He never expected to be asked at one meeting to fund the Jefferson properties and to underwrite, in case they did not make the mortgage payments. They did not have those funds, without revisiting and canceling projects on which the board had already voted. Vice Chair Norem asked Mr. Baron if they could still claim they could fund the entire project without any assistance. Mr. Baron stated they could, subject to getting a development agreement in place. Vice Chair Norem made a comment about up front funds and Mr. Baron stated it was a question of how this worked out in terms of the land acquisition process the City Manager had described earlier. Vice Chair Norem asked if the developers would be asking for any of the parcels owned by CRA or the City to use as collateral for some of the startup funds. Mr. Baron stated he did not 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 believe so, but they would need to have control of the site to satisfy the requirements of the funders. Vice Chair Norem wanted the developers to know the CRA did not want to be an equity partner. Mr. Baron understood that, saying Intown Partners had already invested an enormous amount of money in this land. Vice Chair Norem asked about the amount of parcels under the control of the developer. Ms. Simons declared after developing 145 projects successfully and getting them financed across the country, their position was supported. Intown had one of the funding companies attend the joint meeting and he stated that a development agreement was necessary to provide the funding for this project. She did not think having property under contract option was an unusual situation. The CRA expecting them to close on all the properties was an unrealistic and unfair expectation. Vice Chair Norem did not think it was unrealistic and unfair since the developer had been bringing projects to the CRA for which they wanted funding before they even had a development agreement. At the CRA's last meeting, Intown's attorney said the CRA would have a development agreement by the end of the year. The CRA had not seen that. He agreed with the City's involvement in the project. The developer had asked the CRA to help them out on buying a piece of property. They asked the CRA to give them property so they could get some money from it. As fiduciaries looking after the public's funds, they could not do that. The CRA wanted to know where the equity was other than what they were asking the CRA to give them as equity. Mr. Baron stated they had been involved and had spent hundreds of hours in communications. He was arranging for an attorney in St. Louis to do the development agreement. Attorney Spillias had his contact information. Chair Tillman commented this would be the third attorney they had worked with in six months. Mr. Myott asked if the three developers had contracts with each other. Mr. Baron responded they had an oral understanding, but it would not be hard to codify. He referred again to the fact they had no indication of their status from the CRA since the August meeting. Mr. Myott did not understand why the developer let it go so long and did not get its attorney involved earlier. He would be looking for a great deal of progress by next month. He was very happy about the City involvement. Ms. Heavilin concurred with her fellow board members and thanked the City. She asked Attorney Spillias if he had seen the contracts referred to by Mr. Myott, and Attorney Spillias responded he had only seen the letter from the title company. Ms. Heavilin suggested it needed to be done within a stated period of time. Ms. Heavilin asked whether phasing the project could affect the original RFP. Attorney Spillias said it would not because they were still talking about a master developer agreement that would address the total package, including phasing. That was more the developer's call since they knew what they could do from a financial and market standpoint. It had always been understood that as the agreement was negotiated, an understanding would be developed about how the project would proceed. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Ms. McGinn stated in terms of the RFP response, they had provided a phasing strategy. On a development effort of this size, though, they would be doing due diligence on the entire 26.4 acres. Ms. Heavilin agreed with Ms. Horenburger about being cautious about the developer's financials. She wanted the comfort of knowing what the real contracts were and that financial viability was there. She felt more comfortable knowing the partners were more involved. Mr. Sims was more comfortable the CRA would get what it asked for with the tripartite arrangement and that there would now be forward movement. The developer now seemed to understand the urgency of getting things moving. Mr. Sims did not want to rush to the point of making mistakes, however. Ms. Heavilin asked the developers if they would provide the documentation the CRA had requested in the next 30 days. Mr. Baron stated they would talk to Attorney Spillias about it and he was sure they would come to an understanding about viewing the contracts. He wanted to talk to his counsel about it as well. His understanding was that the gentleman who furnished the letter from the title company was also a lawyer. Mr. Sims had heard similar promises before and declared providing the documentation absolutely had to take place. Mr. Baron understood and stated he had not seen the information that had been sent out. The important thing was to develop an understanding about how individual owners would be approached. There had to be an understanding about what fair market value would be and what was going to be offered. When those things were ironed out, with the assistance of Attorney Spillias, he did not think there would be any problem with the board seeing the contracts. Attorney Spillias stated the only purpose the board had was for him to verify to them the level of control that the developers had over the property. The plan was to have meetings with only Attorney Spillias and the attorney for Intown. Attorney Spillias would not keep any documents, but would review them, calculate how much acreage was involved, and report back to the board. Given that setting, if the information about the nature of the contracts got out into the community, there would only be two responsible people. Mr. Baron understood, saying the admonition was very clear. Chair Tillman stated to give the developer an opportunity and be fair, the board should request the response in 60 days. He would ask Attorney Spillias to bring back anything he could in 30 days, including what the board asked for in December and what it asked for at this meeting. The latter could be ascertained through a review of the minutes. He hoped the board would support him in a motion to that effect. Chair Tillman was concerned about a lack of equity. He could not see the CRA offering some sort of funding to allow a developer to flip it and make an enormous amount of money and pay their cronies. When the City entered into the operation, it should do so because it supported the CRA and was part of it. Up to this point in time, they had not heard any positive answers to questions about finances. To come to the board with the same information or lack of information did not say much about the organization before the board. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Chair Tillman asked the board to allow the City Manager to lead the negotiations to provide information to the CRA's Executive Director for dissemination to the board at its meeting in March of 2007. He called for a motion to that effect. Ms. Horenburger offered a substitute motion. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved the CRA continue to ask for contractual agreements between the partners and documented evidence of financial capability and have these presented at the CRA's next regular meeting. Ms. Horenburger also moved to have the officials view the contracts or find an alternative that satisfied this board and its attorney that the property was under control 21% rather than 57%. The CRA staff and attorney would only be authorized to spend time discussing matters relating to the development agreement at meetings until the next board meeting. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Vice Chair Norem agreed with the motion but would accept 60 days. He directed a question to Attorney Spillias, Mr. Bressner, and the developers as to whether they believed the CRA could be voting on a development agreement at its March meeting. Mr. Baron, Mr. Bressner, and Attorney Sp9illias all agreed it was possible. Vice Chair Norem believed having a draft development agreement at the CRA's February meeting would help to insure they would be ready to vote on it in March. He inquired if this were part of the motion made by Ms. Horenburger. Ms. Horenburger stated she could amend the motion to include the three requested documents would be given to the satisfaction of this board's legal counsel and staff by the February meeting and an actual development agreement would be furnished in 60 days. Vice Chair Norem agreed to that change to the original motion. Rev. Chaney asked if the continued discussions would be inclusive of all partners. Mr. Bressner suggested the CRA Board ask the City Commission to direct that the City Manager, City Attorney (or his representative), and appropriate staff be engaged in the discussions, officially. Attorney Spillias mentioned the importance of meeting the dates of which they had spoken. Originally this was conceived as the CRA leading the negotiations and keeping the City Attorney apprised, which they had done. However, he thought it would take 60 days just to work out whatever they needed with Intown. Adding the City's review time to this would mean it would not get done in 60 days. The City Commission should understand that while their goal was to get this done in 60 days, for it to be feasible, the active participation of the City Manager and the City Attorney was required. Rev. Chaney asked if the developers would agree to tripartite, face-to-face meetings. All three parties agreed. Ms. Horenburger pointed out they needed to focus and concentrate on the development agreement and the other issues were not part of that. She hated to see a lot of expensive staff time going on something that might break down. She did not think there should be more people than were needed at the bi-weekly meetings. Ms. Horenburger stated she would amend her motion to request that the City Commission permit the City Manager and/or his designee and the City Attorney to participate in the face-to-face meetings until such time as they had the information they had requested for the development agreement. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Mr. Bressner advised it would be his responsibility to determine who was on the City team and allocate the resources necessary to get the job done. Ms. Horenburger agreed, but said the CRA was not authorizing its staff to insure or discuss anything relating to zoning, and so forth. Mr. Bressner thought the process would be hampered by adding those constraints on the conversation. There had been a very free-flowing, inclusive conversation at the joint meeting that brought to bear some very valid concerns regarding the perception of this project in the community. He did not view this as a sequential process. He viewed it as something that would require attention to a variety of details. Ultimately, the development agreement had to come very quickly within the 60-day period. Land acquisition was an integral part of the deal. Attorney Spillias declared it should be understood that while they would not be putting specific zoning densities and so forth into a development agreement, the agreement would discuss the procedure that would be undergone to go through the zoning process. It also would discuss issues such as what kind of infrastructure would be needed and who was going to be responsible for it. He agreed the resources of the City ought to be made available. Ms. Horenburger stated if they spent a great deal of time with this potential master developer and negotiations broke down, they would not be the master developer and they would have been spinning their wheels. Mr. Bressner declared it was a risk. Ms. Horenburger stood by her motion to only have staff discuss matters relating to the development agreement at the next few face-to-face meetings until the board's next meeting and to request that the City Commission allow the City Manager and City Attorney and whoever they deem appropriate to be involved in these discussions, meetings, and so forth. Rev. Chaney seconded the amended motion for discussion. Vice Chair Norem asked Attorney Spillias if he believed that would unduly hamper their part of the negotiations. As Attorney Spillias understood the motion, at the bi-weekly meetings they were to focus solely on the development agreement. He did not think that should hamper them because there were other things that might be going on. The developer would have to be doing certain things and land acquisition was part of the development agreement. Mr. Bressner disagreed. He felt it was important and necessary to address all six items. Attorney Spillias sawall of the six items as part of the development agreement. Rev. Chaney thought the discussion was broad enough to reach this agreement and that it would be inclusive of all the issues mentioned. Vice Chair Norem asked if he believed Mr. Bressner's six agenda items were included in what they were saying in this motion, and Attorney Spillias stated they were. Ms. Heavilin stated she would support a motion for 30 days on receipt of the documents they had requested and 60 days for the development agreement, with no restrictions. She would not support the restrictions on the City's team or topics of discussion. Mr. Sims agreed with Ms. Heavilin. Then, Ms. Horenburger withdrew that part of her motion. Vice Chair Norem withdrew his second. Ms. Horenburger summarized the motion, saying the board wanted the three pieces of information requested: 1) contractual agreements between the partners, 2) documented evidence of financial capability to be presented at the CRA's February meeting, and 3) have the officials view the contracts or find an alternative that satisfied this board and its attorney that the property was under control 21% rather than 57%. By the March meeting there would be a 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 development agreement upon which the CRA could vote. Also, the CRA requested the City Commission allow the City Manager and the City Attorney, and whoever else they deemed necessary, to be part of the negotiating team. Mr. Myott asked for and received clarification the restriction had been removed from the CRA staff about what they talked about. They could talk about whatever would help get it done. Ms. Bright asked Ms. Simons whether North Mark was still the financier? Ms. Simons stated they were a capital lending company, but added the development agreement needed to come with the financing. Ms. Bright stated there had been significant organizational changes in the developer's organization and she wished to be apprised of the identity of the participants. They were expecting North Mark to appear at the meeting and another financier appeared. Ms. Simons stated North Mark was still involved as a subjective broker, who brought in capital financing companies. Ms. Bright asked for Ms. Simons to declare what Intown's relationship was with David Katz and the representations he made to the public regarding the CRA in his capacity or any role, paid or unpaid. Ms. Simons confirmed Mr. Katz was not a member of the development team, paid or unpaid. His profession was that of lobbyist and resident of Boynton Beach. She believed he made one public comment and after listening to the transcript, she did not hear the same things others had represented to her. She confirmed Mr. Katz was not on the development team. Ms. Bright stated Mr. Katz was entitled to his opinions, and wanted to hear from Ms. Simons that Mr. Katz was not part of Intown Partners. Ms. Bright asked for and received confirmed the seventh item from Mr. Bressners agenda, the Public Works complex, had been removed. Ms. Horenburger initiated a lengthy discussion concerning perceived discrepancies in the amount of land actually under control by Intown and an apparent diminishment of that control. In August, the percentage of control was given as 57%. In December, it was given as 29%. Now, it was being given as 21%. Ms. Simons clarified at the August and December meetings, the percentage of land under control was given as 29%, although she believed she had actually stated 26%. Ms. Rudd stated they were at 40% control, combined with the CRA property, and they naturally had ups and downs. Chair Tillman interrupted the discussion, calling for a vote on the motion on the floor. He felt the issue of how much property Intown controlled could be discussed in the bi-weekly meetings. The motion passed 7-0. IX. New Business A. Consideration of a Purchase Agreement with Nathaniel Robinson for N.E. 4th Avenue 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Ms. Brooks explained this was part of the adopted Heart of Boynton Work Program and represented the actual acquisition of the piece of property necessary to partner with the CDC to develop workforce townhomes. The parcel was almost 3/4 of an acre and the seller had agreed to a price of $475K. She recommended the board approve the agreement. Mr. Myott recused himself since he had provided pro bono services related to planning for this parcel. Form 8B is attached to the minutes. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve the Purchase Agreement with Nathaniel Robinson for N.E. 4th Avenue. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that was approved 6-0, Mr. Myott abstaining. B. Consideration of Expanding the CDC Town Home Project Located at N.E. 5th Avenue Ms. Brooks stated the site for the townhouse project was somewhat landlocked, having one small access area off of N.E. 4th Avenue. All of the units were going to be affordable, for sale units. The Robinson property would be sold to the CDC, but not prior to their getting funding for construction. The title would transfer when the CRA was assured they would have the ability to do the project. The current project had 24 units. An opportunity arose to expand the scope of the project and obtain prominent frontage on N.E. 5th Avenue. They would get an additional 16 units. The CDC had agreed to pay 50% of the acquisition costs for this particular property. It was a 2.5-acre site near the Parker site. With this purchase, they would be building some velocity in the Heart of Boynton. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to direct staff to begin negotiations with the property owners for the additional parcel. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Mr. Myott recused himself for the same reason as he had on the Robinson property. Mr. Sims inquired why they would have language in the previous proposal that it was contingent on site plan approval and not have it in this one. Ms. Brooks explained when it came back as an agreement, it would have the same language. The motion passed 6-0, Mr. Myott abstaining. C. Consideration of Residential Improvement Grant Request in the amount of $14,318 for Erica Cohen-Hammond. Ms. Brooks stated this was the first residential improvement grant under the new Heart of Boynton Work Program. Ms. Cohen-Hammond was a single mother with a moderate income. The City originally processed Ms. Cohen-Hammond's application but ran out of its moderate S.H.I.P. moderate funds until August and asked if the CRA would be interested in funding it. It fit into the CRA's criteria and Ms. Brooks recommended they work with Ms. Cohen-Hammond to fix her hurricane-damaged home. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request for a residential improvement grant for Ms. Erica Cohen-Hammond. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. X. Comments by Staff Mr. Reardon thanked the board for authorization to endorse checks $900 and under. He made it clear they would still be presented to the Chair or the Vice Chair for review. XI. Comments by Executive Director Ms. Bright announced she had a good conversation with Mr. Finkelstein. They had a strategy with one or two options that she would bring to the board in February. The third option would be zero, so both parties were anxious to end the damage. Ms. Bright also stated Arthur Slavin of the 500 Ocean project was coming in to meet with her, at which time they would have a very realistic discussion about the market changes and how it affected that project. She hoped to bring the results of that conversation to the board at its February meeting also. Regarding the Ellipse project, Ms. Bright was meeting the potential new developers next week. Woolbright Development was buying it from Ram Real Estate, and she would bring an update to the February meeting. XII. Comments by CRA Board Attorney None XIII. Comments by CRA Board Ms. Horenburger expressed thanks to Mr. Myott for graciously helping the CRA with his own time and talent to develop the plan set out in items IX-A and IX-B. Ms. Horenburger spoke of the shooting incident at the Boynton Beach Mall where her daughter was shopping on Christmas Eve. She looked for consensus from the board to have staff ask the City Commission or write a letter asking about a gun buyback program in Boynton Beach. Several board members responded their experience with the program was that it did not work. Ms. Horenburger suggested they look into initiating a choir for kids. It would need a dedicated, gifted musician and a social worker. The music director would deal with music and the social worker would listen to the kids, keep them in line, try to help with their problems, and encourage them to stay; in school. Ms. Heavilin remarked the Children & Youth Advisory Board could look into this. Rev. Chaney thanked the City for helping facilitate the discussions with the development partners about integrity issues and information. He was thankful to see the participation of the CRA Board at the funeral services of Vice Mayor Ensler also. Rev. Chaney recommended that since youth violence had an economic impact on the City, the CRA should be included in meetings to develop strategies to address the violence in the 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 9, 2007 community. Ms. Heavilin wanted to include the Community Relations Board, the Education and Youth Advisory Board, and the Children & Youth Advisory boards at such meetings. Ms. Heavilin noticed there was a line item for signage and she wondered what had happened to the way-finding signage program. Staff responded the signs were finished and up, except four of them were designed to go on private property and the owners had declined to have them. The people either expected payment for the right to have the signs on their property or just did not want the signs on their property at any price. Chair Tillman thought the CRA could come up with a policy statement about safety. He had heard about singing groups and midnight basketball and if they were only talking about some wayward kids in need of a little attention, those things might work. They were, however, talking about gangs that were made up of dangerous individuals who meant business and wielded guns. This was not going to be an easy situation, but the City would have to find a way to deal with it. He had recently seen where even law enforcement was in denial about the increase in gang violence in the City. He heard the RICOH law pertaining to organized crime was coming to bear on the situation, which would involve the FBI, and he was glad to hear it. There probably had to be some first-level meetings to determine what type of involvement and how much involvement would be required. He would support any movement in that direction. Ms. Bright mentioned the CRA owned the building across from the St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church, and she had asked at the joint meeting if the group would be willing to let the CRA renovate the building to make a home for Neighborhood Services. While it did not address the larger problem, it put folks in the neighborhood and in MLK with some youth resources and conversation with the residents. There appeared to be overwhelming support at the City level to create that. If that came back, she wanted the board to know staff was acutely aware that the gang situation affected economic development. XIV. Adjournment Motion Mr. Myott moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Respectfully submitted, ~c2M ~J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (011007) 16 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS OF BOARD, COUNCil, CO MISSI ITY, OR COMMITTEE o /2.. 1> Cf WHO MUST FILE FORM 8S. , . 4 r _'\- '. _ '._~.,,\ '. '_c. .....l' _ '.. .: ~r-,'..,~ ' , Thi;~otll1 is for use by any person se[Ving at t~aCflVOfy, city, or other local level of government on:an,appointed or eleete~ 6otllti, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. . '. ~ . Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES erson holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which 'es to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- ~ which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the 1 . ~ ,. parent organization or subsidia'Y, ~f",..c~rpQr~te._p[iAC!pal ~,w~iP.h-~ Oot.,she 16 retai~~ to !he W~ial ~'1lt~gainl.!~ IO~$' ota rel~~v~; or to the special private gain or 16ss 'ofa huaine$./ssociate. toltllhi$io~ii~ of comrfluhiWr~deveb"menf.i:t!3eri'cies.;tridiJ',Sec. 163:356 or 163.357, F.S., and offi~.~Qfjl)~e~~l1fIent.sP'!~ij/ ~x dist~~lec!Qd~? jl ~~~-~c[e, pn~vot~ ~?~rs; ~re ~t~prohi~itl~ tr9~ ,\oti~,i~~at capacity. .. . _.f., -.4..\ " . , . t · .' , ;. ". r",. ~'. ' .". ~ ;; I . .:: '" , , l~)1 ,lo. .) , ~ , For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, iltusband, wife, brother, sis!er, father-in-law, mother~in-Ia~, son-in-law, and daughte~-i~-Iaw. A "business associate" means an):''P~~n.()F entity enQl!l~e~4~_~r,.c'fJYi~g onla,~sin~ss enterpnse WIth the officer as a partner, JOInt venturer, coowner of property, or corporate sMrel\ofder (where the shares of the ~rportlbon are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . ~, ., .,. ,:. ~ ..... >; ........4. ..'~ ..~" ..- * .. * * . .~ '" ,. * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTE~ THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responliib!e.for rerording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorpo~te the form in the minutes: ..'" .; '. '. l . . * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made b .u or at your direction. If >U INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAr\r:::N: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 r-"'- r.' _~~"~__:=_~:-:---:=:::::"",_~__'~~_~"","",~_'._'_=::"~____ APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. ~ ",,-'", ~ .... 4. ,,,.,..-.,/ ~ .~ " -' ,"-".*- ~ It."-' "'~;."'f."" . The form must be reacti:>upli(jly atlhe n~,J ffieElting !3~r the f~m is filed. ' " .. ' ~. "', i.,' , · IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSIQ~ AiTHElMEETft>l~~t r;, ,J:' . '.' ... ... . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the me.asure' before participating. , ..... " .,:. "l.,..':e ~ ~",~. <' ~ ~ , . ..~ '.. ~.1 ~ ,,-f," ~ -. .)"...~.... ....... ,; '..\' '" .( i :l,), h. \ " -.f You must ci>rdplet~ thtt'fonn ~nd filJ it Within 1 s.<1ayt aftEir tl1e vote occurs with the person responsible for recordi'l9 !h~ min'4es of the meeting, who must incorpol'ate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the ot~er m~lfrs of !he agency, and the form mustobe read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST '5-h1V€ ~ ,he"byd~"",thaton JAN j (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain or loss; I, ,20 QI : inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom 1 am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: HI f!~ ~1l7 pp.c\ljPEW ~ ~ ~i~s ~--(I\Je:; .fO tHe fV~f-Jt-t 'N~ OP {'HIS p,6fL61..." N~OJ ~lfJ~ j>(e\L{~ :rx=- A ~ JK. ~ , by ,which [-1.01 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 2