Loading...
Minutes 11-09-10 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2010 AT 6:00 PM HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FL PRESENT: Jose Rodriguez, Chair Marlene Ross, Vice Chair Woodrow Hay Steven Holzman William Orlove Vivian Brooks, Interim Executive Director James Cherof, Board Counsel I. Call to Order - Chairman Jose Rodriguez Chair Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. Pledge to the Flag and Invocation The invocation was given by Mr. Hay followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, led by Mr. Orlove. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll. A quorum was present. IV. Legal A. RECESS FOR CLOSED-DOOR ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION Pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Florida Statutes in the Case of Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency adv. Splashdown Divers, Inc. - Case No. 502010CA012453XXXXMB Attorney Cherof explained he requested the Closed-Door Attorney/Client Session at the CRA Board Meeting held on October 12, 2010. Approximately 30 minutes was needed. The session pertained to a lawsuit regarding Splashdown Divers, Inc. The attendees at the meeting would be the Board members, the Interim Executive Director, Vivian Brooks, Attorney Cherof and a court reporter. Chair Rodriguez announced the recess for the closed-door session and advised the regular meeting would commence at 6:30 p.m. The meeting recessed at 6:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:27 p.m. 1 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9,2010 V. Agenda Approval: A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Vice Chair Ross pulled Consent Agenda Item 8H. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Vice Chair Ross moved to approve less the item pulled. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion that unanimously passed. VI. Informational Items by Board Members & CRA Attorney: Vice Chair Ross attended the Habitat for Humanity event for the Bollert Family. She congratulated the family and noted this item would be heard later in the meeting. VII. Announcements & Awards: A. Holiday Extravaganza Kathy Biscuiti, Special Events Director, announced the holidays are quickly approaching. On December 4th, the CRA will host the Holiday Parade at 5 p.m. The parade will travel between 12th and Ocean Avenue, then down Ocean Avenue to Seacrest Boulevard. There would be a tree and Kwanzaa lighting event. As a special bonus, the Dimensional Harmony Choir will be performing before the concert begins and will be the Grand Marshall for the parade. The invitations to the hospitality area were on the dais for the Board members. Ms. Biscuiti would contact the members about the matter at a later date. B. Holiday Boat Parade The following Friday is the Boat Parade with Delray Beach and Boynton Beach. The parade would commence at the Inlet and travel down the Intracoastal Waterway to the C-15 Canal. There would be live entertainment, food, drink and fun activity for the entire family starting at 6 p.m. at the Marina. Ms. Biscuiti requested the Board members be the judges for the Boat Parade. Ms. Biscuiti explained Southern Waste Systems donated $1,000 towards the Holiday Extravaganza and she inquired if they could accept the donation. She explained they donated last year towards the event. After a brief discussion, it was ascertained there would be no conflict. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 Motion Mr. Orlove moved to accept the donation of $1,000 for the Holiday Extravaganza from Southern Waste Systems. Mr. Holzman seconded the motion. The motion passed. VIII. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes - CRA Special Meeting, August 17, 2010 B. Approval of Minutes - CRA Special Meeting, August 31,2010 C. Approval of Minutes - CRA Board Meeting, September 14,2010 D. Approval of Minutes - CRA Special Meeting, September 21,2010 E. Approval of Minutes - CRA Board Meeting, October 12, 2010 F. Approval of Period Ended October 31,2010 Financial Report G. Monthly Procurement Purchase Orders H. Approval of Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement between the CRA and Habitat for Humanity for Four Vacant Lots in the Heart of Boynton This item was pulled by Vice Chair Ross. IX. Pulled Consent Agenda Items: H. Approval of Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement between the CRA and Habitat for Humanity for Four Vacant Lots in the Heart of Boynton Vice Chair Ross wanted the public to be aware there were four vacant lots in the Heart of Boynton associated with this project. She attended a blessing ceremony two weeks ago and there was a great turnout. She understood South Palm Beach County Habitat for Humanity was the only respondent for the RFP. Motion Vice Chair Ross moved to approve. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 x. Information Only: A. CRA Policing Activity Reports B. Public Comment Log C. Complaints - Re: The Preserve, Rental Units D. Publication: The Role of Elected Officials in Economic Development E. Florida Fishing Academy Newsletter Thanking Supporters F. CRA Holidays for 2011 G. Community Caring Center's Harvest Moon Ball Invitation XI. Public Comments: (Note: comments are limited to 3 minutes in duration) The following individuals spoke in opposition to the Community Redevelopment Agency amending its contract with the Preserve: ~ Joseph Elkins, 1850 NE 5th Street ~ Erica Poag, 1759 NE 6th Street ~ Jennifer and Pedro Lopez, 1851 NE 5th Street ~ Sasha Lagano, 1990 NE 5th Street ~ Dawn Osowsky, 1751 NE 6th Street ~ Teasha Thomas, 1763 NE 6th Street ~ Lauren Gotten, 1819 NE 5th Street ~ Nyasha Nedd-Wright, 1726 NE 6th Street ~ Steven Wright, 1726 NE 6th Street ~ Laura Weinstein, 1835 NE 5th Street ~ Crissy Gallagher, 1843 NE 5th Street ~ Roxanne Burey, 1942 5th Street The above individuals expressed individually and/or collectively that they desired the Board to reconsider their October 12, 2010 decision allowing 100 units at the Preserve to be rented. The basis for their sentiments was they purchased in an affordable community based on the CRA's vision of quality housing and the use of community funds for professional individuals with moderate incomes who could use assistance. Some of the purchasers used the CRA subsidy and SHIP funds, and some did not. Due to the CRA's involvement, residents believed they could trust the builder but there are complaints. Misrepresentations and broken promises were made by the developer to the residents. There were issues with Chinese drywall. Some of the speakers asserted the developer 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 used the Homeowners' Association (HOA) to arbitrarily neglect services, allow insurance coverage to lapse and use the clubhouse for a sales office. The homeowners pay separately for services that were supposed to be included. The Homeowners' Association fees doubled, cable service was not provided and the community's upkeep and amenities decreased dramatically. The residents wanted the community to be completed but felt what the management presented to the Board was underhanded. The rules prohibited the residents from renting their units and the value of their homes was significantly reduced. Several of the residents reported the value of their home was one quarter of what they paid. For individuals who received subsidies that desired to sell, the subsidy would have to be paid back which prevented them from leaving, thereby forcing them to remain in a community that would be low-income. Units would be rented for less than the mortgage payments of some of the homeowners. Some of the members expressed they would like to be bought out of their mortgage, or that Cornerstone should buy them out at cost. In this way they could repay their loans. Other speakers complained at prior City Commission meetings and contacted the former CRA Executive Director, Lisa Bright, about the developer's lack of response to their complaints. It was pointed out Cornerstone developed other rental communities. The Community Redevelopment Agency invested $850,000 in the Preserve and should not turn their back and walk away from the residents' situation. Approximately 20 of the current residents received down-payment assistance. The owners purchased in the Preserve based on the Community Redevelopment Agency's commitment to the community. One of the speakers indicated they purchased at the Preserve but their unit was not yet ready. They tried to back out of the deal but were unable to do so. The speakers pointed out they researched their decision to locate at the Preserve and the developer's plans would negatively impact them, thereby attracting an undesirable element to the community. All of the speakers expressed the developer made misrepresentations to them and the Board, and subsequently, the Board should reconsider their decision. Greg Kino, Attorney with the Law Firm of Casey Ciklin, 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, advised the issue was an emotional issue for the residents who were affronted by the lack of notice. He advised he was retained by some of the homeowners. He referenced a Community Redevelopment Agency Preserve pamphlet which reflected the Community Redevelopment Agency pursues opportunities to create affordable housing in the community by removing obstacles. He asserted this situation was in the reverse. Mr. Kino expressed he felt the City would not have entered into the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement if it were known this situation was the development plan all along and he maintained the scheme of development was not what was promised. There would not be a big resale market at a later date and it was unfortunate Cornerstone was faced with the current market conditions. The Cornerstone website advertised they have 10,000 apartments in their portfolio and the Preserve was the 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 developer's largest project. To the homeowners; however, it was their largest investment. To put the burden of the developer on the homeowners was wrong. He asserted the developer could absorb this since at the last meeting it was mentioned they closed units in the past month and the market appeared to have stabilized. It did not mean they should shift the burden to the homeowners. The people living in the units purchased them for the long-term. He explained Roberts Rules of Order permits, at the next regular meeting, a person on the prevailing side of a vote to make a motion to reconsider the matter. Mr. Kino requested this be done so the residents could have an opportunity to be heard. A comment had been made that a newspaper article reflected Chair Rodriguez had visited the Preserve. Chair Rodriguez responded he had done so but not in relation to this issue. Regina Waterhouse, 19 Aspen Court, spoke as the Chair of the Community Relations Board (CRB) and advised her remarks were prepared for the special meeting last week but no public comments were permitted. She announced the mission of the Community Relations Board and advised the trolley issue came to the attention of the CRB in August. The October CRB meeting included a presentation from the trolley operator. The CRB believed the trolley provides a critical service to the residents and she announced the Community Relations Board strongly urges reconsideration of support for the trolley. Chair Rodriguez closed the public comments. The Board discussed the matter of the Preserve. Approximately 20 units were subsidized. Five buildings were complete and the subsidized units were a small portion of the development. Chair Rodriguez understood there were restrictions about renting because the Board advocates for homeownership. There were owners there who did not receive a subsidy who were renting the units. When the issue was heard it seemed like a win-win. The developer spoke about the challenges of keeping the HOA fees low. There was discussion about completing a project that would increase the tax base. Chair Rodriguez advised it was difficult for him to hear the residents did not receive any response from the developer. He offered to mediate and encourage communication between the parties and to have a mutually satisfactory resolution for all parties. Mr. Hay expressed his compassion and acknowledged the emotions articulated by the speakers. He was saddened to learn the residents were not notified and he was led to believe they were. He agreed he wanted the project to be win-win for all. The CRA has made a substantial investment and he acknowledged purchasing there was a major investment for any family. He indicated upon learning no input from the residents was sought, he would definitely support a motion to reconsider. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 Vice Chair Ross had inquired at the last meeting if the residents were notified and she thought it was unfair that they were not. She agreed it was an unfortunate situation with the market conditions and Chinese drywall and that more discussion was needed. She announced she would advocate as much as possible. She also commented she had received a telephone call about the matter, and apologized she was unable to return the call. Mr. Orlove inquired what the ramifications would be if the Board reconsidered the matter at this juncture. Attorney Cherof advised Roberts Rules of Order dictates, under this situation, a motion to reconsider was not appropriate and was not permitted on a vote to approve a contract after the other party to the contract was put on notice that it was approved. That occurred in this situation. If there was an issue with respect to misrepresentation, there may be independent grounds to vacate it, but the procedural device, a motion to reconsider, under the Board's specific facts was not appropriate. The Board could use its resources and position to persuade the developer to step back from and agree to rescind the amendment to the contract and start over with proper notice and participation of the residents. The Board could make a motion to vacate the contract based on possible misrepresentations made to the Board; however, it should be put on the next available agenda so the appropriate review of the record could take place to see what the representations were and if any of them were false. Chair Rodriguez expressed caution should be given to find a balance and he requested the Board allow him along with the CRA Attorney and Executive Director to have discussions with the Board at the Preserve or their designee. He suggested Attorney Cherof may be able to prepare a report on those discussions. Mr. Orlove expressed there may be a larger issue which was there was misrepresentation from the beginning. He had followed the matter in the newspaper and understood, as an observer, that the community was upset not just about the action taken last month at the meeting, but from the beginning. The information supplied by the homeowners was they were given a raw deal and they were living in a situation they thought they would not be living in. The matter was beyond the market. His concern was there were certain issues raised by the residents, such as HOA dues, cable, and maintenance which speak more to the issue of whether the developer reneged on its promises to the homeowners and maybe to the Board regarding what they would be responsible for. He inquired if legally that was the route they could take in terms of preparing something for the next meeting. Attorney Cherof responded it would be appropriate and they could undertake that level of contact and research for the next meeting. Mr. Orlove also agreed with Chair 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 Rodriguez's suggestion to meet with the parties, but was unsure it would be helpful in any regard. Chair Rodriguez expressed there was no harm in bringing the parties to the table. Mr. Orlove wanted to ensure this item was on the next agenda and that they conduct due diligence in regard to Cornerstone possibly violating or breaching their contract with the homeowners and their representations to the Board. Chair Rodriguez agreed the two efforts can be undertaken concurrently. Mr. Hay agreed with Mr. Orlove. Vice Chair Ross expressed the Board needed to advocate for the residents. Motion Mr. Orlove moved that the CRA staff and CRA Attorney investigate possible misinformation that was given to the Board and the residents of the Preserve and come back at the next CRA meeting with a report regarding their research. Mr. Orlove restated his motion and moved the Chair and Acting Executive Director and CRA Attorney if need be and someone representing the Preserve meet within the next month with the developer of the Preserve and along with that, the Board, the CRA staff and Community Redevelopment Agency Attorney investigate a possible breach of contract or misrepresentation that the developer may have presented to the Board and homeowners of the Preserve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Holzman urged caution in ensuring the Board was not stepping into potential litigation between the homeowners and the developer. He suggested the review should be limited to the comments made by the developer to the Board, not the homeowners. It was not the Board's responsibility to be judge and jury. It was their responsibility to ensure the developer spoke before the Board truthfully and to make sure the decision they made at the last meeting was based on information that was properly provided to the Board, not between the homeowners and developer. Mr. Orlove wanted to make it clear for the motion and record that his feeling was it seemed there was more of a problem than just what was dealt with at the last meeting. There have been ongoing issues with the development which shows that there may be issues with misrepresentation made to the Board because he felt sure it was the same misrepresentation that was made to the homeowners. He explained last week at a City Commission meeting the Commissioners made a judgment decision on a towing contract involving two vendors and they had to make a decision about a third vendor. They had to ensure the vendor was given proper information the way it should have. Based on staff's recommendations, they sat as judge and jury and made a decision. Mr. Orlove commented if the Board was given certain comments, promises and information by the developer that were also made to the homeowners, it speaks to the heart of the issue. If this Board heard the developer make certain promises or agreements and now in 2010 they did not come to fruition, i.e. Chinese drywall, 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 promises about cable, and maintenance issues, it appeared, based on comments from the community, that there were misrepresentations made and he felt it was a misrepresentation made to the Board. Mr. Holzman explained the comments and motion were two separate things. The comments are representations to the Board but the motion was to review comments made by the developer to the homeowners. Attorney Cherof explained his understanding of the motion was to authorize him and staff to undertake an investigation to determine if there were any misrepresentations to the Board that would provide grounds to rescind the amendment to the contract. The residents may be the beneficiary of the investigation but it does not mean the Board was advocating for the residents at this point. Motion Mr. Holzman amended the motion to direct staff and the Attorney to comments made by the developer to this Board and ask the Chair to meet with the Executive Director and the developer. The Community Redevelopment Agency's obligation is the agreement between the CRA and the developer. The citizens have a separate agreement with the developer. The CRA's role was to research whether the developer made misrepresentations to the Board. Mr. Orlove clarified he wanted to know if the developer said "A" to the Board and "B" to the residents. If so, the developer would not have been totally honest regarding building the Preserve. Attorney Cherof explained the scope of Mr. Orlove's comments was too broad at this time. It may be appropriate to merge the interests of the residents with their own interests at some point but not at this juncture. He added that was the appropriate scope until the next meeting and it was acknowledged Attorney Cherof's comments were closer to the motion made by Mr. Holzman. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. Vice Chair Ross explained over the last two years, homeowners from the Preserve appeared in front of the CRA and City Commission. She thanked Mr. Orlove for bringing the concerns to the forefront. Vice Chair Ross explained as a long-time Board member, she was very concerned and there was reason to be concerned. The motion passed unanimously. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 Chair Rodriguez passed the gavel to Vice Chair Ross at 7:30 p.m. and left the meeting as he had the flu. Discussion followed about what would happen to the homeowners should a finding be made that the Board was not mislead by the developer. Attorney Cherof explained the residents may have different rights with the terms of the agreement with the developer when they purchased. It was possible the homeowners may have a better case in regard to representations made to them, than the Board would have. Nothing the Board would do to determine if their contract was appropriate would diminish their right to enforce their own interests. If it was found the Board was misled, one option could be to negate the contract. Hypothetically, the Board did not invest with the developer. They provided down- payment assistance to some of the buyers living there, and Ms. Brooks explained they were a mortgagor on many of the units. Attorney Cherof agreed and explained they may have a unified interest with the property owners at some point. It would be a mistake to signal to the property owners that the Board has more authority than it legally does to act on their behalf because it could restrict them from retaining individuals to act on their own behalf. Mr. Kino commented if the developers say there was no misrepresentation because they did not say they notified the residents, the underlying issue was the residents should have been present. The Board heard the matter last month, but if they had heard from the residents at that time, the Board likely would not have unanimously given them what they requested. It was noted the Chair skipped over Informational Items. Vice Chair Ross highlighted Item D - Publication: The Role of Elected Officials in Economic Development. She explained the publication was excellent. There was a list of ten items to consider regarding economic development and their role in the City. Ms. Brooks explained this topic was coming to the forefront. She included the information in preparation of the upcoming workshop of how elected officials can and need to be part of the economic development process. The publication was a League of Cities publication. The International Economic Development Council also created the document. Vice Chair Ross commented the Board recently approved not funding an Economic Development Planner position. It was a listed position that was unfunded for three years. The Economic Development position was taken on by the Executive Director and staff. The workshop was scheduled for January 6. Another item of note was Item G, the Community Caring Center's Harvest Moon Ball invitation. Sherrie Johnson had included an invitation to the members to attend the event on Friday at Benevenuto Caterestaurant. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 XII. Old Business: A. Consideration of Amending Public Records Portion of CRA Administration Policy Manual Vice Chair Ross commented this item had been discussed a few months ago. Mr. Orlove indicated he appreciated the effort to make the policy more understandable and clarifying everyone's role. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to approve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed. B. Consideration of Approval for an Alternate Location for the Temporary Fish Catch Display Board at the Boynton Harbor Marina Ms. Brooks explained the item was before the Board because the members had previously approved the location for the sign. Then the captains wrote saying they preferred another location be used for the sign. Staff inspected the new location and agreed the change was satisfactory. Mr. Holzman's concern was the location of the sign was on the other side of the walkway from the parking lot. He inquired if there were any issues in terms of cleanliness as it seemed out of the way. Mike Simon, Development Director, responded travel down the Marina walkway could potentially expose boaters to additional fish entrails. He thought either location would be okay. The sign was bright and colorful and looked more like a piece of art rather than a sign. It did not obstruct Two Georges sign or access to the restaurant. It was thought the sign would not have a negative effect. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to approve. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. The motion passed. (Chair Rodriguez was not present for the vote.) Mr. Hay spoke about the presentations made last month for the Ruth Jones Cottage on Ocean Avenue. He requested the item be brought back for reconsideration due to his obtaining new information and advised he would like to change his vote. Restaurateur Christine Francois had submitted a presentation but was not in attendance at the meeting. She requested she be permitted to make the presentation at the next meeting. Attorney Cherof suggested the item be placed on the next agenda for discussion. It could then be determined if it fell under the same rules as the item heard earlier in the meeting, having to do with reconsidering an item associated with a contract. There was consensus this item would be added to the December agenda. XIII. New Business: 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 A. Consideration of Color Palette for Buildings within the Community Redevelopment Agency This issue was revisited at the request of a Board member. Ms. Brooks advised in 2005, Commissioner Ensler brought this issue forward. The Planning and Zoning Department conducted a comprehensive analysis of color palette and combinations and how other municipalities handled the issue. The matter also was heard by the City Commission and an in-depth discussion followed. Color palette guidelines are usually found in gated communities and historic districts. Boca Raton tried it for a while but no longer have the provision. Cities such as Lake Worth require color samples be provided for certain areas. Currently, any new project other than a single-family home goes before the Planning and Development Board and then to the City Commission for approval. Part of the site plan approval is to identify the color combinations and often a member makes a comment if they do not like the color. There already is control over new projects coming forward, but for someone wanting to paint an existing building, there is no requirement. The issue at hand was enforcement. Ms. Brooks compiled a list of issues if policy direction would be given. She inquired if they wanted the provisions for any project within the CRA or just on the main thoroughfares. Vice Chair Ross noted the City focuses on major thoroughfares such as Federal Highway and Congress Avenue. Historic buildings may be more difficult because there are a number of architectural styles and those colors do not work across the board. The Board has, through the grant program, indicated if they do not like a certain color. Mr. Holzman brought the item forward and expressed when the City reviewed the color palette scheme, they made a mistake to not move forward with it because now they have a problem in the downtown with projects like Las Ventanas. It does not provide any benefit to the City to allow owners to paint any color and he did not want, each time someone comes to the CRA for a grant, to have to make that determination. He referenced the color of the awnings on the Oyer building. Having a broad color palate for the City would provide an opportunity to have an identity and there should be some sort of cohesion so it would alert individuals that they are in the Community Redevelopment Agency area. A color palette is not a problem for business owners and it would make it easier because residents would find themselves in a community of visually-appealing buildings. The Historic Preservation Ordinance would come before the Board and the provision would only pertain to commercial buildings. He felt the CRA should put together a palette. Mr. Orlove explained he would consider it for historic preservation if the City Commission moved forward with it. Past decisions aside, he thought creating a color palette for an entire area that was broad in terms or architectural styles and in terms of the purpose of the buildings was not feasible or possible. The expense for those individuals and Code Compliance to ensure owners used the correct color was a 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 detriment and sent a bad message to individuals or businesses who may be interested in moving into the City. He was not in favor of it. Mr. Hay would support some type of palate for the business corridors, and major thoroughfares. He expressed residents should have flexibility. The matter should be open for Historic Preservation. It would not be a hardship for Planning and Development to review what comes before them and make a determination on what is passed on to the City Commission. He thought they should fine tune the issue with a broad palette for major corridors such as Federal Highway, Ocean Avenue and MLK Boulevard. He agreed they needed to address the color schematics, but not for the entire area and not for historic buildings. Mr. Orlove inquired if the idea was to go back to buildings on Federal Highway and tell the owner to repaint. Mr. Holzman clarified if a property owner was going to repaint they have to obtain a permit and they could use a color within an approved color palette at that time. Vice Chair Ross commented she did not dislike the colors used by Las Ventanas and noted Las Ventanas was 80% occupied. The color was not keeping families and individuals from moving there. Mr. Orlove commented he lives within a homeowners association because he likes an area to look and feel a certain way. He did not see how one could achieve a similar look of things because everything is subjective. The owners do not care about the color of Las Ventanas. If requirements are imposed on other buildings in the area to be different or similar, he could not agree with it. Mr. Holzman commented while Mr. Orlove likes a certain look and feel of a homeowners association, he lived in the Community Redevelopment Agency district and the buildings are all different. A large and broad color palette would not create a hardship on anyone. It just created identify. Mr. Orlove disagreed and explained color does not identity a community. He explained Homeowners' Associations are one thing. Their Association has a loose policy about what color they could paint their house If it was imposed on the City or part of the City, staff would become the paint police. Mr. Holzman explained the Planning and Development Board already reviews paint color. Mr. Orlove agreed and the colors were already approved or disapproved. Mr. Hay reiterated he did not feel that strongly on the matter but did feel the color of Las Ventanas might not have been the best choice. He thought they could have a broad enough palette where it would not be an issue. He also liked a certain look and feel of communities. He thought it was worth looking into. He agreed the Board made some decisions on colors based on aesthetic purposes and staff was already reviewing colors. He thought the objection was to the policy and he thought the palette could be made so broad so it would not be an issue. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 Mr. Orlove inquired what the point would be. People looking for a grant to repaint have a color in mind, but not all the members would agree. If a broad palette was laid out then there would be no point. Mr. Hay suggested dealing with the requests on a case by case basis. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to instruct staff to come back to the Board with a broad color palate to impose on commercial property along Federal Highway, Ocean Avenue and MLK Boulevard. The motion died for lack of a second. Barbara Ready, 329 SW 13th Avenue, explained the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee discussed the color palette and studied what other cities with successful Historic Preservation Districts have. They do not restrict colors and the committee decided they did not want to be the color police. The Arts Commission also discussed it and they were not in favor of a color palette. Personally, she had no problem with the color of Las Ventanas, but she commented she did not like the color of the Library. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, commented there was one weak spot. He suggested having an ordinance requiring if an entity was within the Community Redevelopment Agency District defined by the major corridors or has a commercial establishment, and they want to repaint the building a color that is different than what exists, they should appear before the Board and have the new color approved. Currently, someone could open a beautiful restaurant on Ocean Avenue and if someone else opened a business next door and painted it lime green with orange, there was nothing that could be done. In this way, it avoids having a color palette and offers some degree of control. Ms. Brooks explained the Code requires a permit for a commercial repaint. She also commented they have large residential projects such as Sterling Village and Colonial Club that should not be excluded. The Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan encourages the creation of residential districts and that should be considered as well. If the Board desired to address the issue, those projects should not be excluded. B. Consideration of Salary Adjustment for Interim Executive Director Ms. Brooks explained City policy dictates when an employee serves as an interim director in the absence of the director, they are paid that salary commensurate with the work they are doing. Ms. Brooks distributed a handout listing the source of funds. The increase would be $22,544; however, she would prefer to receive $9,419 and the difference of $12,909 be divided between the other employees towards their retirement because they gave it up. The average employee did not forego their retirement and she thought it was important for staff morale. A maiority of City employees did not foreQo their retirement benefits and she thoUQht it was important for CRA staff morale to Qet 14 ..__......... ..n.......""e Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9, 2010 some type of compensation since they did qive up their retirement benefits for this fiscal year. Attorney Cherof advised the Board had the authority to grant the request so long as there were funds available. He noted there are other issues on the table with potential claims that were still unresolved that may need funds. Mr. Holzman thought it was a wonderful idea but commented they received a potential lawsuit and they may need to bank the funds now. Once that matter was disposed of, he would be very happy to accommodate the request. It was a timing issue and he thought there was a possibility they will need the funds in the short term. Mr. Orlove commented there were funds in the contingency account totaling $75,000. He thought it was commendable. Ms. Brooks was doing a great job and she was thinking of her staff and what staff gave up. He agreed with Option 2. Mr. Hay supported Option 2. Motion Mr. Orlove moved to increase the salary of the Interim Executive Director by $9,419 and give a cost of living adjustment for remaining staff equaling $12,909 dollars. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed vote 4-0. (Chair Rodriguez was not present for the vote.) B. Consideration of Resolution NO.1 0-02 Amending the CRA Budget in the Amount of $52,824 for Trolley Expenses Motion Mr. Holzman moved to approve Resolution 10-02 amending the fiscal year 2010/2011 budget in the amount of $52,824 for trolley expenses. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed. Attorney Cherof had provided the members with a copy of a letter received earlier in the day from an attorney representing Molly's Trolleys asserting their position that they have an enforceable contract that would run until September 30, 2011. He had no other comment on the matter. XIV. Interim Executive Director's Report A. Project Status Update Ms. Brooks announced the update would be included monthly so the members had an idea of major projects and activities they undertake. She pointed out the members may \ 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL November 9,2010 not see much in the outcome column because there is a lot of work that occurs beforehand. Mr. Orlove appreciated the information. Vice Chair Ross also was impressed by Item 15, Promotion/Implementation of Economic Development programs. xv. Future Agenda Items: "Where the locals go....." (see above - Interim Executive Director's Report - Project Status Update) Discussion Regarding Process for Replacement of Executive Director - Tabled 1 0/12/1 0 XVI. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 8: 19 p.m. '1. /[ L:O-t*-tlU/\LC 0J-t))Jj/ Catherine Cherry r Recording Secretary 111610 16