Loading...
Minutes 04-10-07 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007, AT 6:30 P.M. Verbatim Excerpt Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev. Lance Chaney Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, Executive Director Ken Spillias, CRA Board Counsel Item N - MLK Corridor Update Mr. Sims: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have two questions and certainly some follow up comments. My first question is, has there been, I've been reading the correspondence back and forth. Uh has their been a deadline date established for a development agreement and I know, it seems like things have stalled according to the correspondence. But has the joint the tri partnership established a deadline date for this agreement to be signed and delivered. Ms. Bright: Not to my knowledge. I believe the last correspondence that I sent to all the board today was from the City Manager that the City Commission will be discussing it this upcoming Tuesday night. Um, I believe and maybe somebody if they know, in the audience, that's wrong, the September date that was requested by Vice Mayor Rodriguez for the extension was for acquisition of Phase I properties. I don't believe that applied to the development agreement, so I know we were at, today is seven weeks, since we had our, our joint meeting on February 16th. And I can't tell you today, there's been no response. Mr. Sims: So that means as of today we're still working with an invisible time frame. Ms. Bright: Correct Ms. Horenberger: Well. . . .did . . . Mr. Sims: Follow up. Follow up question. The second is about the partnership between Intown and the financial backers. That's been an invisible document. Said some have seen it. I know the attorney mentioned their correspondence he was going to request to get it. Is that a living document, signed, sealed and delivered tonight. Attorney Spillias: Mr. Sims: Attorney Spillias: Mr. Sims: Attorney Spillias: Mr. Sims: Unknown: Attorney Spillias: Mr. Sims: Ms. Horenburger: Rev Chaney: Mr. Sims: There is a living document signed, sealed and delivered. It is a joint venture agreement between uh, Intown Partners and McCormack Baron Salazar. Um, but it is only, it only goes to the, what we would call the pre-planning, the planning and predevelopment aspects of their endeavor. In other words it is not a joint venture agreement addressing the actual development of the project: So there has, as you sit there and share that, so I take it there has not been a meeting, a joint meeting to respond to that. Correct? I'm not sure what you . . . . You are saying a pre. . . , that covers a pre planning or pre whatever Right and I'm not sure that is acceptable. I'm not sure is that what we were I looking for. Its not what we were looking for. Yeah, I mean I'll, I'll, I'll, I can read to you the business purposes and uh, the Purpose is, "The purpose of the venture shall be to function as an overall development manager and master planner for the proposed Seacrest Village. The venture shall provide development management and master planning services for the area over an approximately six month period. Such services to include master planning, financial feasibility studies, market studies and related real estate plans for the area." And then the third item, "the venture shall identify and subject to the approval of the city", um, and this, the, the grammer is wrong, there was a misprint or something "Shall be the developer of one or more phases of development," wait a minute, um, "of the area to a separate partnership or partnerships in which both of the venturers or their affiliates shall participate directly or indirectly as general partners." So this is as I said, predevelopment agreement for planning and doing the feasibility studies and all that, and they contemplate a separate partnership to actually do the development. Unbelievable. Um, let me make a comment and I'll turn it over, this is just unbelievable. Um. Yeah and no financials. inaudible. . . none of my questions. My concern, and I did speak with the Executive Director, um on a couple of things. There are currently property owners that are waiting to sell property and I do understand we have made a commitment not to uhf tamper with purchasing property from property owners as a fear what Intown, to address their concern, but I am really not sure this is in the best interest, that strategy or practice is not in the best interest of the Chair Tillman: City and CRA, particularly when property owners have said continuously, they will not sell, under any circumstances, to Intown. So this draws back to when there was the eminent domain discussion. About how we waited to long we waited to long, we dragged our feetf we dragged our feet, the opportunity was there. Here it is again, the biggest problem that people are talking about is your paying to much for property. But why should we wait and risk something to happen to prevent what is a good opportunity right now to purchase property because it has already been said over and over again, we were not purchasing property to stockpile property we are purchasing property for redevelopment and we will convey property over to a dev . . . a master agreed upon master developer. So I cannot continue to support and I don't understand why we would sit back, particularly after this just seems to be dead in the water now, and how long when we were dealing with an invisible time frame, how long are we going to site back and wait and wait and wait and create a situation when now its time to buy, now something has happened, now something has happened where it makes it impossible, or you know the market is funny again, we were paying too much. This is incredible and I think we need to re explore this issue again and, and make some ways to get this done. Cause there are some opportunities. This is not what we have people approaching the CRA saying I want to sell my property on MLK, but we seem to be stuck in what seems to be almost the inevitable now, is not going to happen. Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims you are absolutely right. I think everybody that sits up here is the dais is the choir. I think we have 100% backing in your position right now and you know, its appalling it really is. But you know what? You know what, we have made a commitment and we're going to stay with the commitment. Right now, I think where the CRA is moving, and this is me personally talking, but right now the way the CRA is moving we purchased land for Ocean Breeze and we have irons in the fire and that lands going to be there and you know something Mr. Sims? You know, if nothing happens and we got this project we're going to do Ocean Breeze it will be right there sitting for us, waiting for us to do something with it. I mean you know, what's going to happen is gonna happen anyway, you know. And you know, we sat there a long time and this thing had to play out. It had to play out. You know there's some, you know, people were meddling with it, and politically and it, it just had to play out and the thing about it is that you know, it I'm glad that its played out and its playing out because ultimately it was going to hurt those people in that community. People were just going to be overrun. And um, that I don't think that's what we're up here and that's what we are not about. You know, governing, you know you are supposed to be at this job to help people not to hurt people. And um, I take that seriously and I think everybody up here takes that seriously and that's what we have been trying to do. That's what we have been saying all along. You But this thing had to play out, you know. It ultimately had to come to the point where everybody could see what was really going on, you know. That's what happening. Let's just, let's, let's just tell it like it is you know and this is sickening for the city to have to have gone through this but I'm just terribly upset it. I am, you know because I love Unknown: Chair Tillman: Mr. Sims: Chair Tillman: Mr. Sims: Ms. Horenburger: Attorney Spillias: Boynton, and that you know, to have had to have went through this mess, to drag the City through this mess. . . Publjcally . . . its unconsciousible. It really is. The City of Boynton Beach shouldn't take this, the people shouldn't take this, you know because we're supposed to be better than this. As public servants we were supposed to be better than this than to let this type of thing happen. And its notf its not gonna happen again. No not while I'm on my watch. We were supposed to be here to protect the interests of the citizens of Boynton. That we have tried to do that. It had to play out this way and it shouldn't have had to play out that way because the CRA was doing its job, but it played out that way. I think we don't get a free pass and I appreciate your words Mr. Chairf If I agree with everything you're saying but I, I think, I know we remain committed. I sat up here and talked about once we commit to something it's important that we see it through. Right Cause that speaks to integrity. But I don't know. You know, this is not a marriage. I mean when you're in a marriage you don't think time frame, you think forever and this seems to be, we were trying to stick to a marriage with no time frame, I mean there's no ending and I don't think at the end of the day when it all clears up we don't get a free pass because we sat back and waited and waited. I know we can't seem to see eye to eye with the City Commission right now, but uh, somebody needs to wake up and, and, and say enough is enough and we move on. We don't get a free pass cause there are still people out there holding the CRA accountable although they know some things were out of our control in terms of how it did play out. But we just don't get a free pass at the end of the day and there needs to be someone, some group, some entityf to convince people, the decision makers that it is time to move on. It is time to move on for the best interest of the city and these communities. And here we are again, the ones who are paying the most, the biggest price are the unfortunate. Some of the have nots. And that is just appalling. I'll save, I'll save my part two to board comment. I would like to ask the board attorney a question. Would it be inappropriate urn, or are we able to legally, to, once again, establish our own deadline for conclusion of these negotiations or is that up to the City now that they have the negotiations under their wing. This process is moving forward under an RFP process that was initiated and approved by the CRA. Um, any agreement that would be entered into is going to require the agreement of the CRA and the City. So I would say from a legal standpoint, you have the flexibility to either create a deadline of make the decision at any time you think its appropriate. Uh, you recall the original motion was to negotiate a master development Ms. Horenburger: Attorney Spillias: Vice Chair Norem: Ms. Horenberger: Vice Chair Norem: Attorney Spillias: Ms. Horenburger: Attorney Spillias: Ms. Horenburger: Vice Chair Norem: Chair Tillman: Rev Chaney: Chair Tillman: Mr. Myott: agreement with Intown and if an agreement could not be reached, you left yourself the option of going to the number two. You're not required to do that. I mean you have that option or you can start all over again. You have the, you have the control over your participation. Um, and uh, my next question is, um. . . under, I understand we do, you know have that authority, but I guess I'm trying to figure out between the Treasure Coast Study that's due in May and our next meeting being early in May, you know, can we set our own deadline tonight. I don't know what the mood of the rest of the board is on that, but um, for um, you know we're gonna be going on to a year once we get to the summer on this and um, so I would like to see us have a deadline. Once the Treasure Coast Study comes out it will tell us where we are within the marketplace and so forth as to what can be reasonably developed there in the MLK Corridor and I would like to set a motion that um, That the board determine that these negotiations be concluded uh by our June meeting, in June 2007, whatever date that is. Does anyone know what the date is7 The June 11th . . . at the calendar June 11th7 By the June 11th meeting, that they be declared concluded one way or another. Either we have June 12th. It's June 12, 2007, if its a Tuesday. June 12th. Uh, do I need to . . Mr. Attorney is there anything else that should be included in that motion that we determine by June 11th, if there is not an agreement, uh the 12th, to approve or disapprove on the table, uh that negotiations be considered concluded as of June 12th, 2007. you could either make it automatic, or you could say that at that time you will make a determination. I want to make it automatic. I'll be happy to second that. Motion made and properly second. Question. Question. Mr. Myott had a question first, then you Mr., uf, Rev. Chaney. Uh, I think that's a little too soon. Uh, the question that uh, I know Kurt Bressner is looking to get answered right now is how much money thef Intown and uh, Baron McCormack need from the City and from the CRA Ms. Horenburger: Mr. Myott: Ms. Horenburger: Mr. Myott: Ms. Horenberger: Ms. Bright: Chair Tillman: Ms. Bright: Chair Tillman: Ms. Bright: etcetera. And that's a big question because It going, I think its going to be a lot of money. And I think to, just to go through those numbers could take a couple of months by itself and I can understand why its taking them so long to calculate that if indeed that's what's happening cause its a big question. So I think, I think June's a little, a little soonf Uh but, you know, I've um, because I think its just that big a question. I, I . . . . The other item I'd like to mention that relates is the land being available. I was wondering whether the developer might support the umf you know the, that the CRA would consider buying land and then letting the City hold it, something like that, id um, because I think the acquisition needs to go on regardless. I'm not I'm sorry to get off the subject of your motion but I wanted to say that while I had the chance. No I appreciate that comment. And let me just comment why I'm making the motion. My reason for making the motion is two strong reasons: We still don't have the financials. And we still don't have a real partnership agreement. Two things we have asked for, for six, more than six months. I mean this is fish or cut bait time. And uhf I think, that my motion actually is generous in that it allows for the Treasure Coast Study to come and be digested. It allows for the City staff and the City Commission and all of us to digest what's out there as to the cost and who is gonna pay for what, and you know, the Treasure Coast Study might come in with something completely different and need a little more analysis beyond that, so I think that June is generous, uh, but uh, if it were up to me today, I would say the negotiations are over. They have not complied with simple requests that we have made of them. Mr. Chair, if I could um speak to Mr. Myott's concern, when we were, had our February 16th meeting, where the City became the lead negotiator, we' were in second position, at that time, statements were made, both by principal Samantha Simons of Intown Partners, and Richard Baron. That was, at that date they said they only needed three more weeks to ascertain their funding. And basically then CRA staff and City staff worked diligently to create that spreadsheet with the cost expectation was What date was that"? February 16th is when they said they only needed three more weeks to ascertain their funding sources. And today's date is? What's today's date? April what? 10th Chair Tillman: Unknown: Chair Tillman: Ms. Bright: Chair Tillman: Ms. Bright: Chair Tillman: Rev Chaney; Mr. Sims: Ms. Heavilin: Mr. Sims: Ms. Heavilin: How many weeks? Four How many weeks? Eight I would expect. All right. Keep moving on. And, then I, (inaudIble)... Now I ... lost my train of thought. Then I wanted to say that um, I know that CRA staff and City staff worked to create the spreadsheet that showed that, our expectation of cost was $110M. Since that time, and that was received as well as Attorney Spillias worked with through, Attorney Cherof, February 28th there was a response to the development agreement so those are the timelinesf but I know last week we did receive a phone call from the principal to Vivian Brooks, asking if we were going to go through the land development regulation changes and we are like, you know we can't respond. SOf there's been no response and I think Mr. Bressner, and I made sure all of you had those emails, he is diligently working toward that, and that was why possibly, it became an agenda item for next week so, um, may, we will know more after next weeks agenda meeting um because he has asked for a very specific request. Thank you. Uh, next turn, Rev. Chaney Thank you. I think we have been playing this back and forth game for a long time and I would have to concur with board chairman, I mean board member Sims about this invisible date. But the reality is we have set a deadline in the past, and they have missed that deadline. Because now we have a City partner, what good is it all of a sudden we set another deadline. If our other partner is not in agreement its in vain. We're just constantly spinning our wheels and finding ourselves more and more frustrated. And so from my opinion absolutely we should terminate it and move on to another developer. But if we have a partner, then we need to possibly submit a request to that partner to say we are requesting a deadline instead of all of a sudden demand now, demanding a deadline because otherwise, to me, its just going to be in vain again, cause if the City decides no we were not going to have a deadline, what good is our vote to put a deadline out there? That was my thought. I have . . . Go ahead, I'm sorry. No, I have to agree and I was going to bring that up. I would rather we ask the Commission to set a deadline that we can both agree to. You are Rev Chaney: Ms. Horenberger: Chair Tillman: Rev Chaney: Ms. Horenburger: Chair Tillman: right, otherwise its a mute point. We keep. I've voted how many times. We have asked for the financials, we have not gotten it. We have asked for real partnership agreements, we have not gotten them. We set a deadline for the development agreement, that has not happened and it has been going on, excuse after excuse, half information after half information, partial information for months. And now it appears the exact same thing is going on with the City. And so it would behoove us to go to the City and say, lets set a deadline and get this thing done. Um. I'll change my motion. Okay, yeah, but from the Attorney's standpoint, from legal standpoint, I think you could go at it from either angle. I think the emotion here, from the CRA is that the CRA is now willing to terminate its involvement in this matter. I think, if that's the language you want to send, and you would like the Commission to agree to that, then I think a motion like that should be in order. But still, from what I'm hearing is that the CRA is ready to end the relationship of trying to negotiate with these people, because its not going anywhere. And I think, you know, and this is what I'm saying, then I'll be finished with it. You know the lesson we learned from this is we need to set out internal deadlines and stick with them. From the beginning this thing was haphazard, its going to take a long time for the agreement to be hashed out, so lets not set a deadline. It's going to take a long time to do this and let's don't do that. And all we did, all we did was allow the beast to grow. So, it really, it just, you know, you learn something here. And that is when we do these RFP's set a deadline and stick to them. When the agreements supposed to come, do it and move on. Okay and then we won't have these haphazard situations because we kind of created this, part of the blame is on us, okay because we created this thing. So if you want to rescind that motion and resaid it, I think that will be . . . I would partner with the City Yeah we are eight months into these negotiations since we voted in August and um, two more months will be ten months. The community has waited what, seven years since the plan Heart of Boynton plan has been done, its just, its a big enough project that you can't do it overnight, but ten months is a long time, to even get to the point of just being able to say, yes you are our partner. They're not our partner. Umf After I, Um amend this motion and this motions voted on, Mr. Chair I'd like the floor to make another motion. Um and Um, so I will amend my motion to be a request to the City Commission to consider a deadline of June 12, our next, two meetings from this one, with the other language was that in the original motion. Seconder do you agree with this? The seconder agrees. The motion has been amended. All in favor. Mr. Sims: No. Question. Just, just does the request mean that or could the request in practical terms mean that the Executive Director and or the Board Chair present this to the next Commission meeting as a formal public request that we are requesting a deadline or are we talking that this will just be in the paper. You know I would like to Ms. Horenberger: I, I will. . (Talking over one another) Mr. Sims: I know we were going to get that one Ms. Horenburger: I, I will include in my motion that Mr. Sims: I know we would get that one, however, I would like to see a strong statement from the board at the Commission meeting that this is absolutely what we need, what want, and what we demand, nOf not demand. Ms. Horenburger: I will amend my motion to include again, to include that the Chair make the presentation to the Commission and in the absence of the Chairf the Vice Chair with the assistance of the Executive Director. Ms. Heavilin: This is real important that this. We need to make sure the Commission understands there has to be . . . Unknown: Closure. Ms. Horenbureger: close to this. Our hands have been tied in terms of what we can and can't do in the Heart of Boynton for eight months. We need to be able to move on, do what we were supposed to do. What we were chartered to do, and be done with it. Rev Chaney: I'm still part of the question and I agree we do need to make that presentation, either Chair or our Director. But as part of that presentation, to go back again, present the history, the timelines and it would behoove us as an entire board to show up and support that presentation. Chair: All right, Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chair Norem: I would just like to, since Intown is a potential partner of ours and has been for the last several months, I would like to know if there is anybody here from Intown that would like to comment on our discussion. Chair Tillman: Good point. Is there anyone else on the board that has a comment to make7 Hearing none, we had a motion and a second. All in favor. Board: Aye. Chair Tillman: Any opposed, motion passes. Mr. Myott: Chair Tillman: Ms. Horenberger: Rev. Chaney: Nay. Oh we have one nay, Mr. Myott. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Horenburger. First I would like to say we could always reconsider if things are moving along wonderfully by that June meeting so, um and I'd like to, in light of all of this discussion of the MLK corridor and the discussion about the land issues. I think um, Mr. Sim's comments about this being probably being a good time to be looking at what we have been charged with doing and what we are responsible to the community for, I think that we need to reconsider our ability to move forward and purchase land in the MLK corridor project area, understanding that any purchase we make is in the public interest and in the interest of redeveloping this corridor. Uh, and so I would like to make a motion that we change our stated policy and uh allow staff to examine the potential purchases along the MLK corridor, defined corridor. Second. Motion and vote is in the regular meeting minutes.