Minutes 07-31-07
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
ON TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, AT 6:30 P.M.
Present:
Jerry Taylor, Chair
Jose Rodriguez, Vice Chair
Mack McCray
Carl McKoy
Ron Weiland
Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director
Jim Cherof, CRA Board Counsel
I. Call to Order
Chair Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and explained the special meeting
was convened to address two issues. The first issue was whether the CRA wanted to
continue the former rule for a Request for Proposal (RFP), requiring a Code of Silence.
The rules specified individuals or entities that submit RFP's cannot speak to board
members. The second issue was whether or not when two RFP's come back, if the
board wants a selection committee to rank the proposals before the board would see
them.
II. Pledge to the Flag and Invocation
The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director, explained at the July 10th meeting the original
process for the Ocean Breeze site was not selected. It was her understanding the RFP
was to be re-issued and there was a question on the timeline to do so and if it could be
moved forward faster.
Ms. Bright explained since that time she had received some emails from board members
who were interested in changing the Code of Silence and some of the processes. Ms.
Bright discussed the matter with Attorney Cherof and brought the matter to the board.
She was not comfortable making substantive changes to the agreement without the
approval of the board. She explained the only change in the copy contained in the
meeting backup materials was under process #8, the elimination of the CL T
(Community Land Trust). She sent correspondence to the board on July 19th
explaining the cost of doing a CLT in this market would be cost prohibitive. They tried
to partner with Delray Beach and Northwood, but they were struggling. She pointed
out the County CLT Initiatives have stopped. She left any changes up to the board
prior to re-issuing the RFP.
1
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Ms. Bright explained the purpose of the silence with the RFP was it is a Florida
Redevelopment Association best practice. She did not recall in her experience or tenure
with the City having the requirement broken or changed. This was a policy decision.
The provision requires all questions to be directed to staff. Typically a selection
committee makes a recommendation and the board was ultimately responsible. She
explained last month, since there were only three proposals, she thought the board
might hear all three proposals.
Attorney Cherof explained the RFP contained language that described a two-phased
process. The first phase began with the announcement of the RFP, and indicated there
would be no communication with the board during the submission phase. Any
questions would go to CRA Director and the staff.
Phase II allowed the proposer to communicate with members of the board, but only in
compliance with the City's Lobbying Ordinance. This phase began when the proposals
were open and ended with the selection of the plan. Attorney Cherof explained this
would require the board members to also disclose any contact with proposers.
Board Member McCray explained he did not see Public Comment on the issue on the
agenda. He explained the agenda was not approved, nor roll call taken.
III. Roll Call
The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present.
IV. Agenda Approval
A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda
B. Adoption of Agenda
Motion
Board Member Weiland moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair Rodriguez seconded
the motion.
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked at what point could they add future items to the agenda.
Chair Taylor explained that should be done at the next regular CRA meeting.
2
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Vote
There was a vote on the motion that unanimously passed.
V. Old Business:
A. Discussion and Approval of Re- Issuance of Ocean Breeze RFP
Board Member McCray had concerns he wanted address. He explained the City and the
CRA has a selection committee to make even trivial decisions. He believed breaking
policy for a $7M land deal does not make sense. He explained the board was
eliminating 14 days from the process by holding a special meeting and another 10 days
by canceling the selection committee. He asked if the 24 days were needed so a month
could be saved in time for election. He also asked if Mr. Katz picked up his forms for
re-election and if he was still a lobbyist for Auburn.
Board Member McCray explained current CRA members negotiated directly with Intown
Principal, Richard Baron on a development agreement, which did not occur for the MLK
corridor. He asked what guarantee they had that breaking the Code of Silence would
guarantee an executed development agreement with the selected party. Shortening
the process only gave the current respondents the opportunity to meet the deadline,
but thought it would preclude others that did not meet the deadline. Eliminating the
selection committee did not guarantee an expedited process. He explained last year a
former CRA Board member demanded the selection committee be removed to expedite
the MLK corridor process, which failed, and the City was starting all over. He thought
the project was being rushed under the new CRA Board. Single member districts serve
the needs of their own districts and he questioned why there was so much special
interest. He questioned whether the issue was about protecting the public interest or
politics. He felt it was the board's responsibility to set policy and direct staff and
consultants to do their jobs.
Vice Chair Rodriguez supported the two-phased process Ms. Bright described, and
thought it was probably the best process. He felt this instance was unique because the
board had already opened up discussions with developers. His intent was to have a
level playing field for all developers to submit and then they must allow other
developers to have the same privileges.
Board Member Weiland agreed. He felt once the submission deadline had passed, it
was very important for the board members to be able to sit down and have questions
directly answered. He believed having three presentations made at the meeting limited
the board's ability to digest all the information right away. He thought it was important
to adhere to both processes.
3
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Board Member McKoy was concerned. He received email from staff indicating the
developer was requesting a meeting with only two board members. He did not know
why they would not want to meet with all board members. He felt if the Code of
Silence was removed, who would determine whether those dialogues would be held.
Board Member McKoy felt the issue was more far reaching and had an indirect impact.
Ms. Costello informed him there was an email or some type of communication that a
developer wanted to meet with only two board members.
Board Member McCray also announced he was contacted by Ms. Costello and informed
a developer wanted to meet with him, which he declined to do. He agreed with Board
Member McKoy and wanted to know who would police and ensure the board members
did not meet with developers during the Code of Silence. He wanted to know what
measures were in place.
Attorney Cherof explained each member was responsible for conducting themselves in
accordance with the standards and ethics set by the State and the Ordinance. For a
board member to meet with a proposer, the issue could be addressed by adding
additional language to the RFP. He suggested adding that at the commencement of the
meeting when the board meets to rank the proposers, that all board members shall
disclose any communication with any proposer, setting forth the name, date and time
of the communication. Attorney Cherof explained by instituting those requirements, all
the board members have the responsibility to disclose to the public and other board
members that they have done so prior to ranking the proposers. Attorney Cherof
explained the code of silence is a term to guide conduct in certain respects. Some
members might want to meet with a proposer beforehand to ascertain information that
they believe would not come out at a public meeting.
Mayor Taylor explained if a member believes another member has met with a developer
inappropriately, they could file a complaint.
Ms. Bright explained if the October 9, 2007 time line was acceptable to the board, there
was the opportunity to have a 30 day response time and all the presentations could be
heard at the September 11th, CRA Board meeting. The Code of Silence could be broken
for the next meeting and the board could make the decision on October 9, 2007.
Vice Chair Rodriguez explained the board had exposed themselves to one developer.
He had questions on liability and if that one developer had an advantage. He also
questioned whether they had an obligation to open it up to other developers during
Phase II.
4
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Attorney Cherof was not sure there was liability based on a few isolated facts. As long
as there was proper disclosure and equal opportunity to meet with developers, and as
long as the developer complied with the City Lobbying Ordinance, he thought that
would be a fair way to approach it. He emphasized the past was thrown out and the
board was starting new. It could be equally argued that the one developer was tainted
by earlier communications, so it may not necessarily work in favor of that developer.
Herb Suss from Quail Run, commented there was a cloud over the board and the Code
of Silence must be kept. He thought the CRA Board members should resign
immediately.
Woodrow Hay, 427 NW 5th Avenue, suggested adding language to the verbiage
recommended by Attorney Cherof that when members disclose their meetings with
developers, they also disclose the nature of the discussions.
Samantha Simons, 826 Estuary Way, explained the Code of Silence was broken in a
prior RFP that was released. She read an excerpt of it into the record as follows:
"It is expected that there will be no communication with parties other than those
specifically noted herein and such communication shall be exclusively for clarification
regarding procedures and objectives. The CRA prohibits communication to or with any
department, bureau or employee during the submission process. Communication with
any parties for any purposes other than those expressly described herein, may cause an
individual or firm to be disqualified immediately from participating in the development
solicitation. All questions or inquiries should be directed to Lisa Bright with her email
address given. It will be necessary for parties responding to comply fully with the
general terms and conditions outlined in this document if they are to be considered."
She asked why the board was entertaining this process and the Ethics Ordinance and
felt the discussion were a farce. She had several questions and asked for answers.
Attorney Cherof responded most of the questions posed by Ms. Simons did not go to
the issue on the agenda, which was prospective in nature and not retrospective.
Ms. Simons wanted to know about liability in the future and did not see how the Code
of Silence could work regardless of which Phase I or II was used. Attorney Cherof
responded all prior RFP's have been rejected and the board was in the process of
beginning anew. The board was discussing the Code of Silence prospectively.
Barry Silvers, Attorney for Ms. Simons, explained if there had already been
communications with the board by a developer, it gives them an unfair advantage and
he thought the entire picture needed to be examined. He explained the Ocean Breeze
5
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
RFP was specific in that it disqualified proposers who had communications with the
board. He announced these were rampant violations of the Sunshine Law. He
expounded an individual cannot meet with two board members, and people needed to
be told of it, otherwise the same thing would happen as did in Palm Beach County with
Masoliti and Newell.
Attorney Cherof explained Mr. Silvers comments were a misstatement of the Sunshine
Law. He informed Mr. Silvers that there were forms he could use if he wanted to make
a complaint.
Frank Chirkinian, 625 Casa Loma Boulevard, representing American Realty was
present. He explained American Realty was one of the three bidders and was very
disappointed the board members had been lobbied. He explained it was very clear in
the language that lobbying should not take place. It was his opinion that Auburn Group
broke the rules and wanted to know why they were not disqualified. He indicated the
integrity of the process was breached and he did not feel it was a level playing field.
He advised he was not sure the company would resubmit and thought there was an
issue with credibility of the board at this point.
Vice Chair Rodriguez noted when communications and questions are received from a
developer, the other developers are not copied on the questions. He thought that
should be done to keep a level playing field.
Attorney Cherof explained it was common practice in the bidding process so that each
proposer had the same information and same interpretation from staff. There was
agreement to implement that practice.
Motion
Vice Chair Rodriguez moved to implement the proposal of a Phase I with no
communications except with the Executive Director and a Phase II, which was post
submission communication available if requested. Board Member Weiland seconded
the motion which passed 3-2 (Board Members McCray and McKoy dissenting.)
The board discussed whether they wanted the proposers to first present to the
selection committee or go straight to the board.
Board Member Weiland thought if there were more than three proposals, he would
recommend a selection committee narrow the field down to three. If they received only
two or three proposals, he would prefer to review and rank them himself.
6
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Board Member McKoy believed the process should start with an independent selection
committee and a recommendation made to the board for approval.
Vice Chair Rodriguez explained he read all the proposals and believed the remarks
made by American Realty Group indicating that the process was bogus and not credible,
spoke to the experience level of the individuals ranking the proposals. He explained he
evaluated and ranked the three proposals and compared those to the ones made by the
members and two were on target and the others were way off. He explained the CRA
staff were qualified and professional, and they should be doing the evaluation and
rankings. They are advisory in nature and he suggested leaving the process the way it
was written.
Board Member McCray recognized there was staff and also read the proposals but he
did not have the advantage of speaking with a developer. He did not understand the
urgency to rush the project. He thought regardless of how many proposals were
received, they should be reviewed by the selection committee. He believed the only
credibility the board had was they were elected officials.
Mayor Taylor agreed CRA staff was excellent, but he explained he was not comfortable
with using individuals that were not accountable to the public. He wanted to get the
best deal for the City based on the presentations and recommendations of staff.
Board Member McKoy explained there are about 20 advisory boards, and they rely on
recommendations from them. He did not understand why they could not rely on a
recommendation for this issue; he did not see the difference. He was referring to
recommendations from the residents of the City.
Woodrow Hay indicated he was one of the individuals on the committee, and he had
not yet seen the results of that evaluation.
Ms. Bright explained the rankings were private and they used a weighted average.
Sergio Casaine, 13 Meadows Park Lane, announced he believed there were qualified
individuals in the community and they could be selected properly. He was in favor of
compiling the necessary expertise and opinions from the affected area of the
community to be part of the committee.
Victor Norfus, 261 North Palm Drive, agreed there was a cloud over the Commission
and CRA Board. He agreed the community residents should be part of the process. He
noted the majority of the board was not from the community. He pointed out the
committee makes a recommendation which the board is not bound to the
recommendation, but it was bound to listen to the community. He was in favor of
7
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
keeping the selection committee and including affected community residents. He
conveyed the community does not feel they are well represented in this area and there
should be more than three individuals. He asked the board members to decide if there
would be representation from the community aside from the board members. The
community feels the board members are making decisions behind their back.
Mayor Taylor explained he represents the entire City and feels a total responsibility to
the community.
Ms. Simons thought if there was a selection committee with individuals representing
other important individuals, it was important those people knew what a Community
Land Trust was. She thought as an advisory committee, they may want to decide if a
Steering Committee was warranted. An advisory board, however, may not be a good
idea if the individuals selected for the committee were not familiar with the issue. She
suggested the board may want to consider putting the project out for open bid.
Chair Taylor explained the process will be open to the public and the board would hear
from as many people who want to speak that night in the open and in public. They
would all get to hear and see the proposals. He thought there would be a lot of input.
Board Member McCray disagreed. He indicated the community feels they have no input
and why should they bother trusting the board and commenting because the board
already met and decided to do what they want to do. He also advised the community
thought the board members should be out of office. Board Member McKoy explained
he was concerned with what was happening in private.
Dr. Martha Meekslight, 225 NW 6th Avenue, explained she was a lifelong resident of
Boynton. She thought having the immediate neighborhood involved in the process
would have a significant impact. She explained there were residents with the expertise
who could be an asset. She emphasized the board does not live in the neighborhood
that could serve on the nominating committee. She implored the board to show that
they care and have a nominating committee.
Mr. Silvers agreed with Dr. Meekslight's comments, and also agreed with Ms. Simons
suggestion to put the project out for bid in order to avoid any type of problems. He
pointed out whatever committee that would accept or reject certain proposals, would
be subject to the Sunshine Law. He cautioned that if the wrong individuals were having
communications with developers, it could cause much heartache and cost the City much
money. He announced he had spoken with different municipalities in the past and
alerted them to situations that ultimately caused much hardship and money. He urged
the City Attorney to bring the Sunshine Law to the board and read it and explain it. He
explained the City Attorney was incorrect and was going to cost the City much money.
8
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Mark Karageorge, 240A Main Boulevard, felt strongly the selection committee
concept should remain in place.
Mr. Suss explained when individuals were involved in the process, they felt better about
it. He explained he did not feel the type of community representation being requested
presently existed on the board and to not have an advisory committee was a slap in the
face to the City.
Motion
Board Member Weiland moved to delete the selection committee and direct the CRA
Executive Director to work with her staff as she sees necessary to formulate a panel to
review the applications and make a recommendation to the board.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion
Board Member McCray moved to continue with the selection committee and for the
member who did not turn his rankings in, he be replaced and they get fair
representation from District II. Board Member McKoy seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Rodriguez announced he was going to second Board Member Weilands
motion, but wanted to add the language as stated by the Attorney, to the motion.
Board Member McKoy wanted to know what process there was to revise the current
CRA process for RFP's. He questioned the dialogue that predicated the request to
change the process. Specifically, he wanted to know if anyone requested Ms. Bright
change the process without bringing it to the board. Ms. Bright responded she had two
communications from board members that wanted changes in the communications and
the request prompted her to approach the attorney before it went to the full board.
Ms. Bright explained what predicated the issue was Vice Mayor Rodriguez had made
comments to the press about it and Board Member Weiland called her about it. After
she informed the City Attorney, the issue was brought to the board.
Motion
Vice Chair Rodriguez made a substitute motion to implement an advisory committee,
but start from scratch with totally new members. Ms. Bright explained in the past,
those members were approved by the CRA Board via consent agenda.
9
Special Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, FL
July 31, 2007
Attorney Cherof pointed out the language in the previous RFP explained the committee
was a five member committee composed of CRA staff, City staff and selected members
of the HOB community who would conduct the initial evaluation based on certain
criteria.
Board Member McCray announced the citizens of District II were in no rush to get the
project done.
Vote
Board Member Weiland seconded the motion that failed 2-3 (Chair Taylor, Board
Members McKoy and McCray dissenting.)
Vote
The board voted on the original motion to keep the selection committee, replace one
member and have representation of District II, which unanimously passed.
The board agreed staff would choose the members of the selection committee. The
timeline was also agreed on and was flexible should a change need to be made.
VI. Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
C (!lH)'JJ. ~~rY'()//'(
Catherine Ch~rry-Guberman
Recording Secretary
10