Loading...
Minutes 02-16-07 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL NEGOTIATION SESSION CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, INTOWN DEVELOPMENT, AND THE CRA FEBRUARY 16, 2007, 8:30 AM FIRE POLICE TRAINING ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FL CITY REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT: Kurt Bressner, City Manager Jim Cherof, City Attorney COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Lisa Bright, Executive Director Tara Duhy, Esq. Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. INTOWN DEVELOPMENT: Samantha Simons Richard Baron Kurt Bressner, City Manager, opened the meeting at 8:42 a.m. Self-introductions were made. A complete list of those individuals present is available in the City Clerk's Office. Jim Cherat, City Attorney, announced they would be working from the draft document the CRA prepared. He requested Intown explain the sequence they should be reviewed in and then review their comments section by section. Mr. Bressner and Attorney Cherof reviewed what had occurred to date and they would discuss the review later on. They did not agree with the font, but welcomed Intown's thoughts and comments on how to reach agreement. At the conclusion of the meeting another meeting would be scheduled to finalize the document. They suggested that be an open-ended meeting, possibly on a Friday morning, or if necessary, even a Saturday or Sunday. Attorney Cherof requested the parties clear their schedules to accommodate the meeting and to present publicly to the City Commission what was available, including the draft and all revisions. He anticipated this meeting and one more meeting under the timetable the City Commission and CRA indicated. They would like to conclude the transaction. Richard Baron, Baron McCormack Salazar, explained they tried to retain the substance of what was developed by Attorney Spillias, to simplify the document. From Intown's perspective, there was a lot of language about remedies, and they had issues that should be discussed. Those issues were density, inclusion of retail or office space in the project, a timetable for the acquisition of the land and how to accomplish that jointly. He was unsure what other substantive issues remained unresolved. Attorney Cherof agreed with Mr. Baron and they consolidated the points he discussed to a single page document. There was boilerplate language in the document, but the business Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 points they reviewed could be addressed on one page. Mr. Baron's only concern was they would get lost in the language and not focus on the pertinent issues. Mr. Bressner indicated the key issues the City had were similar to Intown's. The City distributed a one-page document summarizing their issues in the order of interest they were seeing in communications with staff, the Commission and the community. He repeated the issues were density, the land acquisitions phase, which was the timetable to determine whether the project could go forward, what the City's and CRA's roles in the acquisition were, and what would happen if they could not move forward. Attorney Cherof indicated there were other issues previously discussed such a relocation costs. The City felt there should be a limitation about who would be required to relocate. There was a lot of language in the draft document about the City plans and permit processes. The City would provide Intown with a guide to move through the system that would be dedicated to the project. He reviewed the sequence of development, and noted there was a lot of reference to conceptual documents and proposed documents. Attorney Cherof explained the City's Code begins the process with a master plan and includes a timetable. Attorney Cherof reviewed the funding process and agreed the funding aspect tied in and had a direct link with density goals. He acknowledged there was a need to provide monetary incentives to achieve those goals. Attorney Cherof asked for Intown's version of the document. Samantha Simons, Intown Development Group, explained they referred to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Study (TCRPCS) about the density, and acknowledged market conditions have changed. She indicated that based on those studies, the density was set at 20 dwelling units per acre (DUAs) as a possible guideline for a developer. Their RFP, stated 35 DUAs was a feasible density with 10-13% workforce housing. She reported they increased their workforce housing to 20% and need a minimum of 40 DUAs or a blended 40 DUAs throughout the site to make the project feasible and balance the equation. They reviewed the visionary practicalities of the area with the SFEC line and their objectives, but they would need a fairly dense neighborhood. They needed to review the retail component, which would be consistent with the neighborhood needs and services. Their land costs were much too high for 20 DUAs and she indicated when you buy down the site, the subsidies would be out of control. She advised they were pretty firm on feasibility of the site and the density being 40 DUAs to create a balance of workforce and market rate housing and keeping the prices compatible with the needs of the citizens of Boynton Beach. Mr. Baron was not sure where the 20 DUAs per acre came from, but thought from a planning perspective and from work Torti Gallas did, having 35 to 40 DUAs per acre and designing handsome communities with green space was not overwhelming. He advised 20 DUAs was not something they could accept as a practical matter. Attorney Cherof advised they read the same study. He did not see language that indicated the project would be impossible to develop. He explained what drives the issue of density was the community. He advised 20 DUAs represented double what the community wanted when they were polled. He indicated the subsidy offset, whether it was impossible or unacceptable was up the CRA and the City Commission. He pointed out with respect to the 20 DUAs, that could be 2 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 allocated across the entire parcel, with the exception of the west side of the property. They could have a high rise on the east side and some of Intown's needs could be accommodated there. Mr. Baron explained there was a variety of housing types that did have heights, depending on location. They were willing, within the framework of higher density, to accommodate the community, but the practical approach was something they could work on together with the City. He indicated that trying to strike a balance of 20 DUAs was not feasible. He thought this issue needed further exploration, but they could not agree with 20 DUAs as part of the development agreement. They responded to the RFP at 35 to 40 DUAs from a design and architectural approach. The project would be very handsome in a scale people would find acceptable. Ms. Simons said with land costs a $1.1M, at 20 DUAs, they were at a 5.6% profit. The study did not take infrastructure costs into account. She advised when they looked at the site, they were looking at a range of $20M of infrastructure, or less. They were also trying to provide space to the community. If they build a unit from 800 sf to 1,000 sf, there would be 11.8% profit. If they went to 1,400 sf, they would be at a -9.8% profit, which was at 20 DUAs. She advised based on 1,200 sf, there would be 2.6% earnings. She pointed out the sales prices recommended for market rate units were $235,000. They were presently purchasing homes for $250,000. Ms. Simons reported if you go back to the community, the HOB Plan was a good plan seven years ago; however, the market changed. The individuals they polled in the community understood they needed market rate to balance and increase the workforce component. Then, they would have the amenities they needed which were jobs and housing. At 20 DUAs, it was a visionary project for any community. Attorney Cherof acknowledged development was a business and they expected a profit to be realized in the transaction. However, profit is taken from a project and there was a quality of life issue for the community. For the immediate moment, the City's commitment remained to the quality of life in the community. He indicated Intown may be able to overcome the City's concerns through design standards, but they would need to educate the City as they moved through the process. Mr. Bressner had not weighed in on the density issue and they would need to speak with the CRA. The City's perspective was based on two points of reference. First this was what the Development Department was looking at in terms of a density proposal, and secondly, this was identical with the draft ordinance that the City Commission, the CRA and others reviewed and passed on for public hearing. It was also consistent with the language in the CRA's RFP document, which referenced both the City's and the TCRPC documents. The documents indicated 20 DUAs in the RFP. He announced they were reflecting the information they received from policy discussions on the City Commission level, and detailed staff discussions when the Affordable Housing Ordinance was prepared and submitted. He announced the Ordinance got very good reviews. Attorney Cherof explained they know by looking at the qualifications and experience of the Intown team, they could build anything. He repeated, however, the end result should be a 20 DUA project they could make a profit from. 3 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Ms. Simons wanted to discuss the quality of life issue. She indicated their dedication was to look and hear from the community. There was a clear understanding that the HOB Plan was designed for 10.8 DUAs, and an overlay to change in the Comprehensive Plan to change that to 20 DUAs. She explained there was a clear understanding in the neighborhood the residents want to improve the quality of their lives and what the Commission feels they want in their downtown area. When they spoke about retail, entertainment, restaurants and grocery stores, they want a little downtown. They understood that rooftops equate to people and suggested having single-family homes mixed with townhomes. They were trying to create more of a neighborhood core area to service the neighborhood needs. The neighborhood felt they needed people and they could provide a higher quality of life with more people in the area. They did not want the area to be a still area, and reported at 20 DUAs. Ms. Simons did not think in the realm of 400 to 500 units it would be an issue. Ms. Simons explained when they spoke with the Palm Beach County Commissioners, they were trying to encourage density. Looking at the site across the street, they were trying to make that a lower scale, lower density gateway to provide for some of the single-family homes. She thought the construction costs and land costs were not what they were. She advised there was also an income component that needed to be increased, so a balance could be obtained She explained that could be accomplished with blended density. She indicated areas on the edges would be very soft. She agreed quality of life was an issue, but did not think it could be achieved at 20 DUAs. They would provide a gateway with the Ocean Breeze site, which would be 20 DUAs. Attorney Cherof asked for the heights of the project under the 40 DUAs blended concept. Ms. Simons responded starting on the west side with three or four stories, then up in the middle to 75 feet, and down again. The edges around the project would be three or four stories. There was no study, but Ms. Simons indicated there would be height on the east side because there were views. She proposed utilizing the vision of the Transit Oriented Development and using Park and Ride to take up parking opportunities, then go up from there to 75 feet on the east side. She indicated in their conversations with Palm Beach County, they had a company looking to come into an area wanting a mixture of workforce housing and market rate units, and they wanted to bring their company to Boynton Beach. They asked if they could build office space to suit them with a certain number of units in the community. She explained that was what they were looking to construct on the east side in order to increase the median income of the area. She advised they wanted to go to 12 stories on the east side. She thought it would provide a gateway to the community. They would make the buildings very attractive and provide workforce units. Around the buildings they would have townhomes with lofts, condominiums and office space. Mr. Baron thought this was a policy issue and did not think it was something they could define at this time. He did not know how to bring closure to the 20 to 40 DUAs issue. This led into the whole land acquisition issue, Tax Increment Funding and infrastructure costs. He thought they could not make representations in a Development Agreement before they could really understand how this could be accomplished. 4 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director, indicated the board was not interested in entertaining the idea of 12 to 15 story buildings. She indicated they generally agreed to 35 to 40 DUAs and possibly considering a lower Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) so there was no height. The board made it very clear they did not want five stories. The public outcry about having five stories without having a charrette was clear. The CRA was looking for the developer to tell them what they need to do the project. Attorney Cherof was not looking to extend the life of negotiations but to bring closure to them. He asked if the City and CRA acquiesced to the 40 blended DUAs, whether the land acquisition would be completed by July 1, 2007. Mr. Baron did not think it was feasible. The mechanics to do it were not there. Mr. Baron thought with all parties working together, perhaps by the end of the year. He thought it was more important to discuss phasing, where to start, financing and how the infrastructure costs could be handled. They would have to sit with the City and County and discuss it and the workforce housing. If they could get the land assembled for the first phase then they could see the absorption and schedule a timeline on the balance of the project. Ms. Simons thought the first phase of the project was about nine acres on the west side. She reported it was the CRA's idea to work on the west side because it was close to Cherry Hills and there were some nuisance businesses that needed to be addressed. She advised the neighborhood does not like those businesses and there were vacant property owners that were part of the self-assembly group that perhaps the CRA could assist. She wanted a phasing basis. Attorney Cherof requested clarification of Phase I, which was the east end of Sea crest. Patrice McGinn, Intown Development Group, explained the east end of the project could be changed. Attorney Cherof wanted to know exactly what properties needed to be acquired. Ms. Simons reported they could get that information to him. She also indicated the first phase could be made to stay within a small scale if it was less than 10 acres. She advised if they did that, they could get going with the beginning phase of the project. Attorney Cherof asked if Ms. Simons saw each phase as a stand-alone project, and if the inability to acquire properties for Phases II and III would result in not moving forward with those phases, resulting in the project's end. Mr. Baron explained the question was, in looking at the entire area in the MLK corridor, how the infrastructure would be built out and if infrastructure could be stopped at Phase 1. He explained there was an overlay of the big picture. He pointed out having an idea how to get that done and bring it back to a phasing strategy was an issue that goes beyond just codifying it in a legal agreement. It could become an addendum, based on more meetings with the City, and Torti Gallas to see how it would be financed. Ms. McGinn thought some of the funding requirements for the project would require them to delineate a phase relative to the tax credits program. Ms. McGinn reported they would review the master plan and the requirements of the infrastructure for the target area and scale it back to manageable construction chunks with financing as needed. 5 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Mr. Baron thought regardless who the developer would be, the City would not want to be in a position where once the infrastructure was installed, it created a more valuable site. He was not sure everything could get resolved as far as how to work out an agreement. Land was the issue at the heart of the conversation and the infrastructure would need to be sorted out. Attorney Cherof asked about Phase I and indicated it seemed 20 DUAs was achievable in that area. Ms. Simons indicated the first phase always had a lighter density. She was not sure of the boundaries, but the pro forma, with the mixed equated to 229 units. They thought there was about eight acres. Ms. Bright asked what the percentage of affordable units was and the price point for the market rate units in the target area. Ms. Simons responded they would provide at least 20% workforce housing units. Ms. Bright asked what the offset was in a general range. Ms. Simons thought a market rate unit, at about 1,100 sf would be about $300K. Fannie Mae has a new mortgage with a higher income to debt ratio of up to 65%. Mr. Baron responded they thought they would be close on the density side of the first phase. He indicated if the Ocean Breeze project became part of the development and the first phase of the MLK side, the density would be more toward 20 DUAs and would increase as they moved further into the site. Mr. Bressner asked about the 229 units in Phase 1. Ms. Simons responded it could go to 30 DUAs in Phase I or it could be less such as 25 to 28 DUAs. They wanted to keep some flexibility because of where they wanted the workforce and market ratios to be. Ms. Simons responded it was the same acreage, but they were trying to put in more units because of the workforce housing units. It was noted the pro forma was increased from 118 units to 229, based on Intown's assumptions of the 40 DUAs range with a 40 - 20 split. Ms. Simons confirmed they were diligently trying to get above the 20% workforce. Mr. Bressner advised they did not have the new pro forma. Attorney Cherof requested Intown clearly define what the eastern boundary of the project would be at the next meeting. Intown agreed to the request. Mr. Baron conferred with Ms. McGinn and elaborated they needed an understanding on the Utilities portion of the project. Mr. Bressner asked for a punch list of items of information they needed from Utilities and he would obtain the information for them. Attorney Cherof asked what the strategy was for dealing with holdout property owners in Phase 1. Mr. Baron explained one option was design and build around them. Another option was see if the CRA had a better way to get it or overpay. Attorney Cherof suggested not counting on the use of eminent domain because the City does not use it. He also noted what was shown was a conceptual plan and Phase I showed completion by the third quarter of 2009. The start date 6 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 was the third or fourth quarter of 2006. Ms. Simons indicated they still anticipated each phase to be approximately two years. She hoped they could get the land acquired in Phase I within a three to six month period. They wanted to secure the remainder of the site, with the City and CRA available to assist with holdouts. Mr. Bressner spoke about the eastern demarcation line of Phase 1. Using NE 1st Street where it intersected with NE 9th Avenue as the southern boundary line between Phase I and II, he noted the City owned four parcels and the CRA owned nine parcels, leaving about 10 parcels including the Jesus House of Worship site. He noted they were two-thirds of the way there for Phase 1. Ms. Simons commented one property there was under a life-estate issue, but thought the assumption was pretty accurate. The opportunity to move forward was greater there. As the project moved more toward the center, there would be institutional land uses that created a variety of opportunities and challenges. Ms. Simons explained the first phase was more challenging. On the east side, it was easier than the other sides. They felt once the first phase was under control, the momentum in the community may help the acquisition process move forward. Attorney Cherof asked as a business partner, what was their concept of how much money was too much money to pay over appraised value for property. Ms. Simons indicated it depended on how the piece fits in and how significant it was. She indicated if they assembled all the land for Phase I except for three owners, there should be a confidential meeting of the minds to determine the price. She had spoken with two appraisers and one did not feel the appraisals would magnify until all the land was assembled. On a unit-by-unit basis, the values would be significantly lower. Mr. Bressner thought the TCRPC study might have reflected property prices were starting to come down. Mr. Bressner pointed out they specifically asked in the request that the developer come up with a price of what it would cost the CRA, City and County to achieve a density point of 20 units to the acre. His perspective was land prices were coming down, and they probably would not see $1.1M per acre. Some of the assumptions in the study may need to be re- evaluated. The study did include analysis based on variable pricing so it does give valuable information in terms of end profit and deliverables for housing at various densities. From the City's perspective, they were at 20 DUAs. Ms. Simons agreed land prices have come down, but they were not always paying appraisal prices, which were coming in at $72K a lot for most of the non-conforming lots. The appraisals were not being accepted. The HOB did not come down on the land prices. It should have been, as contained in the TCRPC, $650,000 per acre. She did not feel that, from a price standpoint, they could make the project pencil out at 20 DUAs without unproportional subsidizes, which would take away from the project in other areas. Attorney Cherof announced the issue of units per acre was moot if the property could not be acquired. He agreed what was paid for the property was part of the art of negotiation. He explained there was a bright line they could not pass when it came to the expenditure of publiC funds by the CRA and it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the expenditure of publiC dollars 7 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 over a certain point. The City thinks they know where that point is, how it could be identified and thought it was appropriate to say no to individuals on the other side. Mr. Baron explained they have been in situations in other communities where they could not agree and they indicated the property would have to be built around. Then down the road, the property becomes available and is acquired. Attorney Cherof spoke about the relocation cost concept. He asked whether Mr. Baron agreed with the policy point that no funds should be spent in relocating someone from a residential or institutional property if they paid over 10% of the appraised price and if the payment over the appraised value addressed the relocation costs. Ms. Simons responded it was a balance and indicated they needed to be assertive. As it pertained to the institutional properties, she agreed with the City that the relocation costs should be limited to properties acquired at appraised value plus 10%. Mr. Baron thought as a goal, it was the right thing to do, but there should be discretion to the parties in the program. Attorney Cherof announced the City and CRA would convey land they own to Intown in escrow. If they closed on the last piece of property, there would be a contemporaneous release of City and CRA property in Phase 1. Correspondingly, if Intown were unable to acquire property, the land Intown owned in the area, the City and CRA would have the option to acquire. He indicated the City and CRA would stand down and encourage others to stand down with any effort or activity associated with land acquisition in the area. Ms. Simons asked whether the disengagement included the CDCs. She advised she heard comments from a board member of the CDC that he would start buying property in the HOB. Attorney Cherof reiterated the point they were trying to make was they would disengage from the process entirely, and they would encourage those under their influence to disengage from that process. Mr. Bressner thought the CRA and City Commission would need to make an official policy decision to disengage. This would result in there being no question, from a policy perspective, that there was no authorization for staff to encourage or engage in any acquisition during this time period while the developer is assembling the property. Attorney Cherof explained they want every property owner that sits down with Intown regarding acquisition to know Intown is their last and best opportunity to sell their property. Absent a property, the landowner would be looking at devaluation of property. Attorney Cherof explained they would send every signal necessary to make that clear to everyone who approaches them directly or indirectly. Jacqueline Grellinger, Coldwell Banker and Consultant to Intown Development Group, asked if there would be a moratorium on information going out to the public. She explained there have been a number of occasions that arose where individuals called the CRA for a price, were told the price and they received that price. 8 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Mr. Bressner asked for the names of the individuals who provided that information and he would address it. Attorney Cherof clarified they would make certain they communicate to all interested parties, directly or indirectly, that the developer represents the last and best opportunity to sell their property. Mr. Bressner explained that would be the specific direction to the City staff, once the City Commission makes that policy determination. He thought if the CRA board did the same thing, Ms. Bright would give the same direction to her staff. Ms. Bright indicated that scenario had already occurred and the item would be placed on the March 13, 2007 agenda and had already been confirmed by the board. Ms. Simons spoke about building permits for individuals wanting to build on their land. Attorney Cherof explained at the moment, the City has a legal obligation to process the permits that come in and that was a policy decision that has neither been discussed or endorsed. He explained the issue was something that could be considered but was an issue the City Commission has not made a policy determination on. Ms. Simons thought there should be a moratorium for a period of time for the area and suggested the City consider the issue. The meeting recessed at 10:01 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:17 a.m. Ms. Simons asked about the Nuisance Abatement Law and asked if the issue could be revisited in Boynton. Mr. Bressner asked for specific actions she would like to see and how to process it. He asked if they had a special master. Ms. Simons wanted to speak about density and the retail. She explained Bob Gibbs would be doing the planning with Torti Gallas. She invited all to view his website and announced he was very creative in these types of matters. She reported Mr. Gibbs reviewed the CRA Chesapeake Study of the entire CRA area. She explained they were looking at neighborhood services such as bakeries, small neighborhood stores and others. They would do what was needed to have the CRA and City comfortable. Attorney Cherof inquired if the concept would be a destination location for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Ms. Simons responded it would be a mix. Mr. Baron responded there would be small professional offices, dentists, lawyers, small stores, and groceries. There would be no national chains, but it would be designed as an urban scale environment with angled street parking. Attorney Cherof asked if they were willing to rule out entertainment space, even as an accessory use. Ms. Simons responded they wanted perhaps a blues or jazz bar. Mr. Baron did not feel it was an issue for them, but they did not want to have it excluded entirely from the development, with no opportunity for retail. He explained they do have the opportunity to use the New Market Tax Credits to help write down the cost. It would not compete with any of the City's efforts for retail opportunities elsewhere. These were uses such as barbershops, and services the neighborhood needed. 9 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Mr. Bressner inquired about the Chesapeake Study. He asked if there was any congruence with the study. Ms. Bright explained comments were made that Sea crest Village was going to be 175,000 sf of retail. Ms. Simons explained they did not want to box themselves into anything. She indicated in the RFP, they included 108,999 sf of retail, and if you deducted the grocery store, then there would be 70,000 sf of retail. Those figures were inserted into the document, as 175,000 sf commercial and retail combined and 1,052 units. Attorney Cherof discussed the City planning and permits process. There was language indicating they would have an expedited permitting process in place, but he commented it takes the same amount of time as the manual process. He proposed assigning someone to Intown to ensure any questions or problems would be dealt with immediately. He explained the sequence of development was set forth in the Land Development Regulations and begins with the Master Plan. They inserted a Master Plan submission date based on the property acquisition, but acknowledged the date may be changed. Ms. Simons explained 240 days would be appropriate to allow Mr. Gallas to design a phased process, including the engineering of the infrastructure and all else involved. Attorney Cherof explained they were attempting to bring the language of the agreement to conform to the language of the Code, and then it could be followed sequentially. Ms. Simons spoke about the large-scale land uses, for perhaps Phases II or III. Mr. Bressner confirmed if Phase I was under 10 acres, they would not have to do a land use amendment. Ms. Simons explained DCA requires the majority of the land to be owned, which was 51%, and they do not require a full landscaping or full site plan, just a bubble plan or traffic analysis. She explained the City ordinance requires a full site plan, 100% site control and a full landscaped plan, which goes back to the original HOB plan. The plan was designed to work with the developer and receive administrative relief. She asked if there could be a special ordinance. She indicated they would be ramping up to the City's needs, while the DCA review was ongoing and would take about nine months. Attorney Cherof advised they have experience in quick ordinance adoption to facilitate concepts of that nature and there was a model to accomplish that. He explained staff cannot deviate from the model. Mr. Bressner noted they needed specific modification about where the issues were in the Code and the thresholds that conflict with their threshold requirements. That aspect was being reviewed by Torti Gallas. Attorney Cherof discussed the issue of funding, to enable Intown to achieve the 20% workforce-housing target and the 20 DUAs. Ms. Simons explained they were in the process of speaking to individuals about different layers of funding. She hoped to have a substantial answer by final contract. Mr. Baron added they were looking at ways to increase the workforce housing and they were meeting with the County and talking with the State on the issue. Their hope, whether it was codified now, was the project could be a State demonstration program of how to do a mixed 10 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 income integrated program with workforce and market housing. He explained they were trying to obtain a very specific understanding of what they needed to do in order to tie into the programming they started. He hoped over the next week or two, they would have a better understanding. They would need the City, County and State working together to enact the initiative. He explained part of the conversation related to what the City was going to do and that related to specific conversations about TIF and infrastructure. He explained they needed to understand it by phase and have some expectations about the project in order to obtain a sense about how they would approach this. Ultimately, they would like to have a way to reconvene with all parties to discuss the project. Their expectations were this would be a prototype project for the State and it would offer opportunities to increase the workforce component of the program and use what they did in other areas to alleviate pressure for the workforce housing units. They indicated they would need to meet again to develop budgets and receive feedback on how the project could be implemented. Mr. Bressner explained they were not in a position to hash out the price for the 20 DUAs threshold. Ms. Simons explained that was why they left the CDD option open. She elaborated they did so because they mayor may not need it for the corridor. It would assist with the pricing and maintenance of the infrastructure. Mr. Bressner commented he thought the measure would be counter intuitive. He elaborated in order to achieve affordability with housing, the establishment of a district would expect that subsequent owners and interests would pay for the infrastructure. Ms. Simons explained they were not here to effect the affordable component; they had to work backwards to make the project feasible. Mr. Bressner understood the comment but pointed out they should not single out a CDD because that added a cost. Mr. Baron explained they did not want to preclude the ability to have it and expressed they would work with the City to determine the implications. Mr. Bressner indicated he was okay with exploring the issue, but thought the end result may have the unintended consequence of pricing housing out of the range of affordability. Ms. Bright explained typically CRAs pay for infrastructure, but the board was also concerned about passing that cost on to the residents. She thought the issue could be revisited. Mr. Baron thought as they moved on in the process, it may be they would remove it from the table. They just did not want it omitted. Attorney Cherof asked if, in the documents provided to the City, there was anything special they needed to point out or required special attention. Ms. Simons explained with the TIF funds over a 15-year period at 90% with the City and County share, they did not know whether the funds would be up-front, installments or on the back end. They preferred the funds up- front. Mr. Baron advised when they sit with the City, County and State, they would be much smarter about the right way to do this, and they would all agree on an approach that was fair and 11 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 reasonable. Attorney Cherof indicated when they meet again, it was imperative that they know exactly what they need to ask for. Ms. Bright had questions about the document as it dealt with the City. She explained the CRA board would want more information. Mr. Bressner asked the document be reviewed for items they would ask the City to consider on a financial basis. Ms. Simons addressed developer commitments in the document and indicated they did not want to box themselves in. They made changes subject to that and pledged to comply with the Codes. It spoke about a Public Safety Building. Neighborhood Services would want to come into the community and they would provide youth programming through Urban Strategies. She explained "Pedestrianism" was the urban scale of the community and they would like to incorporate some history back into the community and have street signage naming the matriarchs. The fitness center would be incorporated into the Gang Violence Youth Program. The gateway was standard but they would want to review the SFEC feature and the Federal Highway side. They would want to incorporate Torti Gallas' strengths, which were the urban smart growth design and the sustainable features of the community. They were looking at making the community a demonstration project for the County and the State and it would have unusual positive design features. The community center would not be a replication of the Wilson Center, but it would offer workforce training and educational features, mentoring, and senior programming. The Community Trust Fund would provide for the establishment of programs for the Community Center. They would like to establish a scholarship program for Seacrest Village for high school graduates. The Revitalization of Sara Sims Park was important. They would provide up to $150,000 for that. They changed the language of the 20% workforce housing, to no less than 20%, so they could increase it if possible. The workforce housing exteriors would be no different architecturally than the others. Ms. Simons spoke about the CRA contributions of Transportation Development District (TDD) for land acquisitions, infrastructure and financial assistance for demolition of existing structures. They would need assistance with the relocation of the churches, other than the Deliverance by Faith Church. The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) time period was elongated because of the size and scope of the project. Normally it was 10 years but it may be changed to 15 years. The commitment from the City has to be determined. The original HOB Plan provided for assistance with the impact fees and capital costs of water and sewer installation. Mr. Bressner requested they put some figures together and provide him with a shopping list of issues, and they would calculate the fees and bring it down to a per unit basis. The building fees would be difficult and there was discussion if the fees were based on the value of construction, and utilities being based on use and density. Nancy Byrne, Assistant Development Director explained it was based on number of bedrooms and the retail was based on use. Mr. Bressner asked for as much specificity on their projections as possible. He thought they could be given a 90% range. 12 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 Ms. Simons expressed the parking was based on the Uniform Land Institute (ULl) codes. Ms. McGinn announced they would probably be looking for assistance there. Ms. Simons explained they were trying to be over-parked as opposed to underparked. They were looking at parking decks in Phase II and III and flat parking in Phase I. She advised that was subject to change, but that was what was contained in their pro forma. Mr. Bressner indicated that issue would drive some of the infrastructure costs. Ms. Simons explained they were looking for assistance in the relocation of the Deliverance by Faith Church and for relief with zoning and building codes to assist with the ongoing development of the project. Ms. Simons clarified her statement meant there were four more churches to relocate. Intown had spoken with some of the churches about areas they liked but the big issue with churches was parking. Mr. Bressner suggested consolidation of Relocation Assistance Procedures to ensure it tied specifically with relocation issues. Ms. Simons agreed and commented they removed some of the environmental issues at the end of the document Ms. Bright requested Intown put together numbers so they could calculate what their expectations would be. Ms. Simons explained they tried to reduce redundancy in the document and that Carl Wheeler assisted in creating the document. Mr. Bressner indicated past discussions leaned towards a tripartite arrangement for land acquisition, and the City was off that position. He asked if this agreement reflected what was presently being discussed. Ms. Simons indicated they would work on the land acquisition until they come to a halt. They want to acquire the site and have a strategy using appraisal methods and holding good negotiations to get the job done. When they reached a stumbling block, they would communicate it to the City. Ms. Simons indicated they increased the workforce housing to 150% Average Median Income (AMI) starting at 60% AMI. She indicated the County liked that idea because it included the lower income category and balanced it with the higher income one providing for a good mix. The HOB Plan being amended was already discussed. This information was contained on page 8, and was redlined Article 21.B. The current plan density needed to be changed. Mr. Bressner pointed out the way it was worded was not consistent with the HOB Plan, on its face. He clarified the approved HOB Plan for that area speaks about commercial at each end of the street and R-3 zoned property at 10.8 DUAs in the middle. Ms. Simons advised their plan consistently overlayed what the community wanted and brought the HOB Plan from 2001 into 2010 and 2014. She explained they were doing the same with the TCRPC plan and were bringing some consistencies and some changes due to market changes and feasibility. She elaborated when they started, they were at 10% to 13% workforce and now they may be at 30% workforce units. Mr. Bressner reiterated it was not an accurate statement. He suggested not including the language. He clarified the plan that was approved was a policy document by the City Commission and the CRA and was the 2001 HOB plan with commercially zoned property at both ends and the R-3 zoning in the middle. He announced there was a conflict. He acknowledged 13 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 there was earlier conversation about an amendment process for the HOB project. He pointed out, whether it was in concert with the language or part of that, he cautioned he would be very careful in terms of a tripartite agreement because it was not consistent with the HOB plan. Attorney Cherof suggested the language read, it would "be consistent with a HOB plan.", not "the HOB plan". After further discussion, Attorney Cherof would take a look at it. Mr. Baron requested reviewing the remedy side about the City's options on land repurchases if the project did not go forward, and declaring default. He did not want to get into language changes because within the next week or two, he thought the issues would be clear. Ms. Bright asked about Mr. Baron's Joint Venture Partnership Agreement and how it would be presented. She asked if it would be available to the CRA board and elaborated representations were made at the last City Commission meeting that the partnership would be available. Ms. Bright also requested confirmation whether the project would break ground by the end of the year. Mr. Baron responded it would not. Attorney Cherof commented on the changes in the process and complimented the way the meeting was held. The City perceived the process as being very transparent. There were minutes being taken by the Clerk's office and he thought the process was good. He explained the documents are public records, and their review would expedite their explanation. He appreciated the cooperation. Attorney Cherof advised the City would review the documents and felt they did not need to meet again to discuss the comments. Rather, they would be sent. He clarified those comments would become a public record when they are received by the recipient. He expressed due to the concerns of the City Commission, CRA and the public, this negotiation phase of the project needed to come to a conclusion. Mr. Baron announced they had been working toward the March 13th deadline. Mr. Lang was available to discuss any legal issues, but he felt the only real issues were density and some acquisition matters. He indicated they would be a lot better informed about financing issues in the next 10 days. Attorney Cherof suggested they review the comments, review the notes and discuss the issue with their Commission and contact them about scheduling another meeting. He suggested the next meeting be held in the morning on a Friday and the parties should be committed to stay until the document is completed. The City would make individuals available to work through the day and night to get the document done, even over a weekend. Mr. Baron asked when they got to the issue of the CRA and City in terms of TIF contributions, who else needed to be present for the work session. Attorney Cherof advised the individuals present on the City side were the individuals who would be present. He explained when they came back to the table knowing what their authority was; the mechanics of approval of the agreement by the Commission would be a ministerial task. They would know their bottom line. Ms. Simons had a question and explained they still did not have 100% information of what they needed as far as how the Direct Incentive Funding Agreement (DIFA) worked with a rental 14 Meeting Minutes Special Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, FL February 16, 2007 component. She asked if they took 85% of the construction costs of the rental units and if that was the value of the increased assessment. Ms. Bright responded that was correct, and it could be very marginal if the rental program was small. She pointed out it might not have much of an impact on the TIF. If the rental program was huge, it could be a much larger amount. She also advised if the rental program was larger, it could decrease the TIF. Kevin McCormack, McCormack Baron Salazar, asked about assessing taxes, and if they would be based on fair market value or construction costs. Ms. Bright explained they would be assessed only on the rental portion. The rental program was generally based on 85% of construction value, so for each unit it was slightly reduced. Mr. Bressner closed the meeting at 11:04 a.m. c ' C1wy -c4 JJ.iJWYVrJAZ Catherine Clierry-Guberman Recording Secretary 15