Loading...
Minutes 02-08-11 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 AT 6:30 PM IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Jose Rodriguez, Chair Vivian Brooks, Interim Executive Director Marlene Ross, Vice Chair James Cherof, Board Counsel Woodrow Hay Steve Holzman Bill Orlove I. Call to Order - Chairman Jose Rodriguez Chair Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Pledge to the Flag and Invocation Chair Rodriguez gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll. A quorum was present. IV. Legal: None. V. Agenda Approval: A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Mr. Holzman added a discussion of the February 17, 2011 workshop to New Business, Item H. Chair Rodriguez requested hearing Old Business, Items C and D pertaining to the Kaufman Lynn Items in the reverse order. B. Adoption of Agenda 1 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Motion Vice Chair Ross moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. VI. Informational Items by Board Members & CRA Attorney: Mr. Orlove attended the Movie on the Avenue on Friday. He loved movies and complimented Ms. Biscuiti on her choice of films. In keeping with the Boards wishes, he was pleased there was also a local restaurateur and vendor on site. Mr. Hay also attended the Movies on the Avenue and the ceremony at Bethesda. He commented it was good to see families come out and support a great event. VII. Announcements & Awards: A.Ocean Avenue Concerts – February Kathy Biscuiti , Special Events Director, commented Strictly Business, a local rhythm and blues band that played for the CRA a few years ago, would be performing on February 18. The next concert in March will have a Caribbean theme. Beer and wine will be served. Attendees should bring chairs and blankets. Beer and wine will be available from the Community Caring Center and ribs will be available from Tom's Ribs. No pets are allowed. B. Movies on the Ave – March Movies on the Ave will feature the film, Social Network. The event starts at 6 p.m. and local vendors will be on site. Ms. Biscuiti did not have the information to announce about the Heritage Fest. She was aware February 18 was the Night of Joy and next day was the full event at the Sims Center. Many children's activities were planned. Willie Aikens , 726 NE 1st Street, provided additional information regarding the Heritage Fest. The Night of Joy will be held at the Ezell Hester Center on February 18th. There will be bands, drum lines, gospel singers and more performing. Saturday is the big celebration. It will be a great time and all were invited to attend. Chair Rodriguez commented Ms. Biscuiti was working on the Mayor’s Walk. This year the event will be expanded to include a 3K walk, a 3K run, and chalk drawing contest. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 The event will be held on March 19th. Last year, there were about 400 participants and he anticipated more would participate this year. Information would be forthcoming as details were finalized. VIII. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes – CRA Board Meeting January 11, 2011 B. Approval of Period Ended January 31, 2011 Financial Report C. Monthly Procurement Purchase Orders IX.Pulled Consent Agenda Items : None. X. Information Only: . A CRA Policing Activity Reports – New Format B. Public Comment Log C. Metropolitan Policy Program-The Brookings Institute- “Turning Around Downtown: Twelve Steps to Revitalization” XI. Public Comments : (Note: comments are limited to 3 minutes in duration) Victor Norfus spoke as the new manager on behalf of the non-profit Community Gardens and asked for a $450 donation. He had a prepared statement he read, which is attached to the minutes. Mr. Norfus explained they have had much success in growing fresh produce for local residents and churches. They also donate boxes of fresh produce to charitable organizations. The garden needed tools, seeds, seedlings and top soil, among others. There are three gardens. The garden on 6th had soil that was depleted. The MLK Garden was doing well, but it also needed supplies and they were working on a third site. Chair Rodriguez inquired if he kept track of the labor and produce they grew. Mr. Norfus explained they do. The land is owned by Ms. Girtman and the water is provided by the City. He spoke with Public Works to economize on the water and clean the property up. Mr. Norfus was trying to involve participants of the Youth Violence Prevention Program to grow and paint signs. He was also trying to get owners of Habitat for Humanity homes involved. One gardener assists two or three older gardeners with their plot. The produce is grown for the individuals to eat or it is donated to churches. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 At one time, Palm Beach County was involved with the gardens, the 4-H Club and the Woman's Circle was involved as well as the Heart of Boynton. Mr. Holzman suggested it would be much easier if the organization was a 501 (c) (3) corporation and it would be helpful to meet with the City to formalize the organization so they could apply for grants. Mr. Norfus explained he just took over the task from Sister Lorraine and he was trying to organize it better. He agreed to pursue Mr. Holzman’s suggestion Mark Karageorge, 240A Main Boulevard, thanked Ms. Brooks for including the information from the Brookings Institute. He commented the information addressed what the Board was working on in 2001. The paper explained what Rick Gonzales contained in his report on the Old High School and it reinforced what was in the downtown plan. It provides a 12-step process. At the last City Commission meeting there was discussion about putting together a Special Events Advisory Board. He pointed out they have a great special events person, Kathy Biscuiti. At one time her wages were split between the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency because she handled special events for both entities. The Board had acknowledged she does a great job. He thought adding an advisory committee would muddy the water. He suggested, “If it ain’t broke don't fix it.” She has added events based on the input of the City Commission and Community Redevelopment Agency and was looking to add more events. He also hoped the tabled items are heard as he wanted to comment on those items as well. Chair Rodriguez closed the public audience. XII. Old Business: A.FY 2009-2010 Presentation-Audited Financial Statements Susan Harris , Finance Director, pointed out the Audited Financial Statements for the year ending September 30, 2010 were included in the meeting materials. She reported they had a very good audit. The audit partner, Richie Tandoc was present for the presentation. Mr. Tandoc explained he was the partner in charge of the audit and was from the firm of Sanson Kline Jacomino & Company, LLP, for year ending September 30, 2010. He thanked staff for a great audit and their assistance to timely complete it. He pointed out the documents were well organized and clean. He explained his responsibility under the general auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards. The firm’s responsibility is to express opinions on the Agency’s financial statements based on the accepted standards. The standards are designed to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 mistatements. The firm is required to report to the agency on its internal controls, financial reporting, non-compliance and other matters. However, providing assurance if the internal controls and compliance with provisions, laws, regulations, contract and agreements, was not the objective of the audit and the firm does not express an opinion on it. Mr. Tandoc reported there were no material weaknesses or non-compliance issues found. The principles selected by management were consistent with the standards. The audit resulted in a clean unqualified opinion issued. No internal control deficiencies were found. There were no audit adjustments. There was a strong balance sheet. The cash position remained strong, and the rollover of $200,000 for project financing must be expended within three years. An objective and scope of the audit was not to identify fraud. There is always a risk it may exist and not be detected. During the course of the audit, he was not aware of any fraud by management. There were no disagreements with management or major issues. There was no relationship between the CRA and the City and the firm is independent according to AICPA rules. There were non-audit services during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. The firm issued a management letter in accordance with the Auditor General of the State of Florida dated November 18, 2010. There were no new observations for the current year. Motion Mr. Orlove moved to accept the report. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The audit is available on the website for viewing. B.Review and Approval of Letter to Boynton Waterways Investment Associates, LLC Re: DIFA (Promenade) Ms. Brooks explained there was a revised letter included in the meeting materials advising Boynton Waterways Investments that they have an audit due to the Community Redevelopment Agency on February 28, 2011. Staff has to review the audit to ensure it is consistent with the DIFA agreement and attached application they submitted. If any problems are found, staff notifies them that they have a 30-day cure period. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the letter. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. Vice Chair Ross inquired what changed in the letter. Attorney Cherof responded staff listed a request for copies of documents and information that lined up with the requirements and contingencies contained in the DIFA agreement. There were eight specific requests for documents or information so they can work with the developer to ensure there was full compliance with the DIFA. They were also asked to attend the next meeting to give an update on the progress. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 It was noted the letter should read February 1st. The motion passed unanimously. D.Continuation of Construction Manager at Risk-Tabled 1/11/2011 & 2/1/2011 Mike Simon , Development Manager, provided an overview of the process and options that staff felt may be helpful. Mr. Simon reviewed the item was tabled on January 11th and again on February 1st to this meeting. On September 14, 2010, staff was given approval to issue the RFP for a Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR) for three projects. There was a required pre-bid meeting and 16 potential companies responded. At the bid closing date, two responses were received. The Morganti Company bid of $1,266,000 and the second bid of $1,068,650 from JMW Construction was received. The responses were reviewed and deemed to have met the requirements. Staff re-issued the tower feature drawings to allow the respondents to analyze the drawings and make changes to their proposal. After two weeks, staff received a statement of no impact from Morganti Group who did not change their total maximum price. JMW had an upward adjustment bringing their total price to $1,263,250. The totals were noted in the chart in the meeting materials. The two proposals were evaluated by the Community Redevelopment Agency’s continuing contractors who provided their recommendation and analysis. Compared to the CRA estimate, there were deficits established based on the two respondents. Staff’s recommendations and options were contained on the agenda item, which Mr. Simon reviewed. Chair Rodriguez inquired about the other continuing services contractor besides Kaufman Lynn and if they were given an opportunity to bid. Mr. Simon responded the other two continuing contractors were Hedricks Brothers Construction and Burkhardt Construction and they were not provided with an opportunity to bid on the project. Mr. Simon explained they rotate contractors. They used Hedricks Brothers for a project associated with 211 East Ocean Avenue and for the residential improvement program. Staff did not involve Kaufman Lynn with those projects. Burkhardt Construction was deemed primarily as a road and streetscape contractor, not a structural contractor. Kaufman Lynn fell in the rotation and staff was familiar with their work in relationship to what the projects were. Hedricks Brothers assisted in a similar way, initially with the office design for value engineering for the 211 project. Kaufman Lynn also assisted with the 211 project. Mr. Orlove inquired if the other two firms were adept with CMAR projects. Mr. Simon responded Hedricks Brother was familiar, moreso than Burkhardt Construction. Design build is different than CMAR; however, the Board could choose to involve the other two firms. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Mr. Orlove recalled Kaufman Lynn made a presentation and advised they were doing so because of their experience in the field. Additionally, they provided CMAR service-type work for the Community Redevelopment Agency in the production and value engineering for the three projects. They did the preconstruction services for the projects. To bring Hedricks Brothers or Burkhardt Construction in at that point would be like starting the CMAR process again. By virtue of their work with the project, they would be the continuing contractor of choice based on their involvement with the projects so far. Chair Rodriguez commented staff was not really rotating work. They did the estimate work for $7,500 for preconstruction and value engineering. The next job would go to the next continuing contractor. Mr. Simon clarified he would not consider the job was the preconstruction services only. Hedricks Brothers was originally considered to continue to construct the 211 project. When staff stopped the 211 project, that project for the contractor essentially stopped. Chair Rodriguez recalled on the date the presentation was made, the Board decided they did not want to award the work under continuing services and wanted to issue an RFP. Mr. Simon explained there had been concern that there was no way to ascertain that Kaufman Lynn was competitive in its pricing so the Board decided to go out to RFP. Chair Rodriguez commented Burkhardt Construction could have partnered with someone. Hedricks Brothers were contacted about the RFP being issued and was non- responsive. Kaufman Lynn did not respond at that time, nor did Burkhardt Construction. Staff commented during the RFQ process to be a continuing contractor, Burkhard was selected based on their experience with streetscapes. Hedricks Brothers was selected based on their experience with historic structures and Kaufman Lynn had a strong background with the CMAR program. Burkhardt did not respond to RFP because that was not the type of work they do. Hedricks could have, but did not. Mr. Holzman thought for future work, Hedricks has some experience and they should be included. Ms. Brooks commented they were added to the RFP list. Chair Rodriguez felt all three continuing contractors were not precluded from responding, but none of them responded. At the time staff issued the RFP, staff had already issued a work order to Kaufman Lynn to provide staff with value engineering. They had 30% plans from the architects and staff needed to know how to make the project more efficient. Kaufman Lynn was already involved, but they were not an apples to apples comparison. Mr. Hay understood in June 2010 Kaufman Lynn responded to the RFP for services for the three projects and they came back with a guaranteed maximum price. Mr. Hay explained when reviewing the figures of the other companies, the Board had to be mindful of the taxpayer. The Board would have to find $183,388 for Kaufman and Lynn 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 if they are selected, $309,000 if JMW is selected, and an additional $312,000 if Morganti was selected. He thought the Board was making things complicated and dipping into next year’s budget for monies for the projects. Mr. Hay felt the vendors were under contract, they came back with the best bid and staff should go with them. Vice Chair Ross’s understanding is the Board went price shopping and now the continuing contractor provided a price. She thought it was simple. All the firms did great work and had excellent reputations. She recommended leaving it at that. Mr. Orlove inquired about emails about the task order with Kaufman Lynn, and how they reviewed it and the changes. He inquired if those changes have remained or changed further since the last meeting. Ms. Brooks explained the requested changes came from Kaufman Lynn, not from staff. There is a contract form behind Kaufman Lynn and the task order is under the continuing contract. There are issues. Attorney Cherof explained the last email from Kaufman Lynn rejected the form of the task order. There was discussion how the Board could award a contract, but have the task order come back with a figure that was not for these tasks. Attorney Cherof explained Kaufman Lynn has not signed anything that was binding. They would have to execute a task order agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency. Chair Rodriguez inquired who was bound by the maximum guaranteed prices. The two responders are and Kaufman Lynn is not. Kaufman Lynn rejected the format and some key components of it. Mr. Hay pointed out the total budget amount from Kaufman Lynn was for $953,388 and it was a guaranteed maximum price. Chair Rodriguez commented the attorney believed it was, not Kaufman Lynn. Mike Kaufman , 2494 S. Ocean Boulevard, Boca Raton was present and confirmed the estimate he gave at the last meeting was a hard number, and the price would not go further than the estimate provided. Mr. Orlove commented since then there were questions about the task order and he inquired in what way would the changes or questions affect the price. Mr. Kaufman explained the typical process at CMAR is based on qualifications. The contract for preconstruction is awarded. The preconstruction service process is completed and the parties enter a construction phase contract based on the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP.) The contract negotiations follow the GMP setting. Typically, in CMAR, once the GMP is identified, contract negotiations begin. If the parties can't agree to the term, it goes to the next firm ranked in the sequence. Contract negotiation is a logical next step after GMP. With the task order, they identify a scope of 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 work in the task order that outstretches the normal bounds of the terms of the contract. Some tasks were not included in the bid, nor were they asked for in the bid. Attorney Cherof commented Kaufman Lynn used a different route and came because they have continuing a contract and were prepared to provide continuing services under the guise of a task order. That was very different than responding to an RFP or a bid proposal. Kaufman Lynn explained the process in preconstruction is lengthy from inception all the way to completed documents. Kaufman Lynn updated their pricing each time the documents come out. Each time the estimate becomes more detailed. With the scope that was reviewed with staff, they identified line items, specifically like the cost of a Building permit. They were instructed by the CRA that they would not be required to pay for the Building permit, so the task order is to include the cost of permits, but they were instructed previously during preconstruction not to include those costs. Kaufman Lynn identified it in the task order and asked for it to be removed. There was also an overreaching statement that no contractor or construction manager would ever agree to because it was an inequitable request. This was the “Work Extras Resulting for Unforeseen Conditions.” Mr. Kaufman commented it is impossible for a construction manager to assess risk on a project for unforeseen conditions that nobody could anticipate. He commented no contractor would agree to it, but it was part of a contract negotiation and it would be brought forward and explained when they sit down with staff and work those items out. Kaufman Lynn modified the task order and executed it, if they would like it tonight. They removed the items but they still need to discuss it. He assured them the GMP number is in accordance with the direction given by the CRA over the last 10-12 months and it is not overreaching towards the City in the scope of work. Chair Rodriguez questioned if the items removed by Mr. Kaufman were specifically included in the RFP. Ms. Brooks responded not the unforeseen conditions provision. The Community Redevelopment Agency paid the permit fees and they were not included in the RFP. Mr. Orlove commented about the task order and noted there was back and forth going on and understood that was what normally occurred with a CMAR project, but the number was still the number. Attorney Cherof explained it was only partially true. If it were a bid or an RFP there would be rankings. If unable to reach an agreement, the Board would move on to the second ranked respondent, then third, etc. Once the agreement was reached, there is no other respondent ranked if contract language is worked out after the fact. The Board’s bargaining position was weak. If dismissed, there is no backup plan and they have to start over. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Discussion turned to what other items were rejected in the task order. Mr. Kaufman suggested following through with the process of having a meeting with CRA staff and legal and review each line item in the task order. It was Kaufman Lynn’s commitment to come to conclusion with what was communicated to them and getting the project built. It was something that could come after or before, but the process was so disjointed in certain ways, and it had taken a course of its own. The number they provided was their number and they are committed to building the projects the way the City wants them built. Mr. Kaufman assured the Board they would come to a reasonable conclusion on the task order. There was a question on the estimate. Some of the dates on the estimates differed. Mr. Kaufman responded the estimates were based on the same documents, plans and work order in the RFP to the other two respondents for the bid. Chair Rodriguez asked if Mr. Kaufman would agree the other respondents gave estimates for free. Mr. Kaufman answered they did not. The preconstruction process takes 12 months to create drawings and cost $7,500. The estimates provided by the respondents took two weeks and it was a different process. Ms. Brooks explained the plans were submitted to the City. The work portion is no longer there so the respondents did not have to do that work. Two projects have construction permits and staff had 100% construction drawings. The process was a bit convoluted. It started with Kaufman Lynn and then the other two respondents became involved with the RFP process after they did the design and value engineering portion. James Auld, representing the Morganti Group, explained they viewed the opportunity as a relationship builder. They viewed it as very important project for the CRA and Boynton Beach. He responded that the documents are not the same. He explained there is a contract that Kaufman Lynn is under; no contract with the RFP. There was no contract specified and there is a multitude of documents associated to the contract they did not respond to such as Addendums 1, 2, 3 and 4. As to the selection criteria, he requested the members review the RFP issued. Sixty- five points out of 100 were on qualification and it was not circulated around the price. The Morganti Group did not know they were being used as a comparison tool. From what they understood, Morganti won on qualifications, won on the local participation part of the RFP, the Minority participation and staffing plan, and approach. He asserted they won on each criteria in the RFP. If they award the contract to Morganti, the City wins. Morganti gave a guaranteed maximum prices. In the presentation they had a slide listing 20 projects and the initial price was up to $500,000 more. The normal process is to the bring the price of the project down. Staff costs were reimbursable and if they did not use staff, they do not pay for it. They gave the maximum price for the project. Mr. Auld respectfully requested the Board move forward with the RFP. If not satisfied with 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 their performance the Board could move on to the next respondent. The comparison was made the week before that Kaufman Lynn was getting $100,000 more than Morganti on fees alone. Morganti won in all areas of the RFP and respectfully requested they be awarded the contract. The City of Boynton Beach would win because 75% of the time the price is less than the maximum price. Mr. Auld reviewed projects the firm constructed showing the reductions from the maximum price. Mr. Orlove noted some of the variances in price were not as great. His concern was about the bottom line. Morganti is not able to say they can bring the price down to the same level, only that they can try to. Mr. Auld responded the Board should look to see what is included in the estimate given by Kaufman Lynn. He expressed the Board could not compare it. Mr. Orlove differed and commented if he obtains estimates from quality firms, and one firm bids less than others, and they are known to be a quality firm, why would they questions their pricing. They may have different vendors. At the end of the day, what is the price? The Board holds the public's trust and they want the best price. He had no doubt all the firms were quality firms. When one firm has a better price that may be a better option. Mr. Auld explained the Board does not have the bottom line from Kaufman Lynn based on another contract. Kaufman Lynn had a list of items they want to discuss with the attorney. He requested the Board look at the selection process, follow through with it and award the contract to the winning proposer based on the criteria. If the Board did not feel they were receiving a quality deal they could still move forward with the next respondent and have Kaufman Lynn as the final contractor. If the Board opts to go with Kaufman Lynn, they do not have a back-up plan and they will lose the confidence of the construction industry. Kamal Cooper , Morganti Group, Project Manager, promised Morganti was a company dedicated to time, money, staffing and due diligence. He commented that was reflected in the estimate Morganti provided. He was confident that if given the chance to work, they will be like their other clients - happy and content. One project in Clearwater had a guaranteed maximum price of $5 million and was constructed for $2 million. As project manager he would ensure no money is spent that is not needed. Mr. Simon reiterated all three firms were the cream of the crop. He reviewed the criteria and commented Morganti’s price was not the lowest. JMW’s price was the lowest based on the numbers provided. REG ranked JMW as higher and VHB ranked Morganti as higher. Staff did not rank any of the proposals. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Motion Mr. Orlove moved to reject both responses and withdraw the RFP and approve and work with Kaufman Lynn on the task order based on the Agency’s continuing contract. Vice Chair Ross seconded the motion. Attorney Cherof suggested two motions be made because there were two separate agenda items. Motion Mr. Orlove moved to reject both responses and withdraw the RFP. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Orlove inquired if the Board was legally within its right to make the motion as stated. Attorney Cherof confirmed it was. Mr. Holzman thanked all for coming and for their hard work and their presentations. He announced he felt differently than some of the other Board members. He felt when three reputable firms, two of which responded to an RFP and one did not, and when one firm is so much lower than the other two quality organizations, that one would question what they were getting. He indicated Kaufman Lynn was getting $100,000 more and he questioned where the money was coming from and the difference in the estimates spoke to the actual items the Agency would be receiving, so the services could not be the same. Additionally, when he reviews the actual numbers, several questions caused him to think: have you ever moved a historic building? The answer was no and that was a major project. Kaufman Lynn, when asked about using local contractors responded local contractors were not used and most were coming from Jacksonville or Miami. When the question was posed about the maximum guaranteed price with the local contractors, the response was the firm would strive to get to the number. Mr. Holzman had a hard time dismissing the RFP and he could not support turning away the companies when the Board did not know what they would be receiving. Exactly what was used in the RFP was not certain, but the estimate was exactly the same as the RFP. Chair Rodriguez opened the floor to public comment. Victor Norfus, 261 N. Palm Drive, commented the Board issued an RFP and they should not dismiss the firms because the Board wanted to use someone who did not respond to the RFP. The other issue pertained to local contractors. It did not seem to be part of the project for Kaufman Lynn. Moving a historic building is a much bigger task and it also requires experience. When Kaufman Lynn stated they could accomplish the task at a lower rate, his first thought was they have an apprentice. It would take longer to accomplish the task with an apprentice than an experienced firm and it indicated to him they did not have the experience for all of the tasks required. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Dismissing the RFP dissuades others from responding to RFPs but it also sends a signal to others already involved with the City that they would not necessarily have to respond to an RFP. They could wait and then undercut the process. There were instances when the City went with the lowest bid and it fell through when the details were ironed out, such as the Police facility. Throwing the firms out should not occur. He suggested the Board investigate the matter further and it appeared it was not a possibility. He did not think the RFP respondents should be thrown out for following the process. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, commented the bottom line is $300,000 and the Board needs $300,000 saved. He sat through meetings and Kaufman Lynn was contracting out the cottage to an experienced firm. Morganti had indicated their moving costs were higher due to local contractors while Kaufman Lynn used a Jacksonville firm. He believed in using local contractors when it was a small amount. All three firms were highly qualified. Kaufman Lynn proved their qualifications when chosen as a continuing contractor. He suggested rejecting the RFP and using the continuing contractor. Barbara Ready , 329 SW 13th Avenue, commented she did not hear a guaranteed maximum price from Kaufman Lynn and inquired what recourse the Board would have if the price increased to $1.4m. As to the historic cottage, the Board should consider it gets what it pays for. The cheapest bid from an inexperienced mover may not be the best. Victoria Castello , 406 S. Seacrest Boulevard, commented when this item was discussed and someone checked on some of the items and stated a contractor was not contacted, she felt the process was too open ended. They had reputable firms and it was the Agency’s reputation. To do a project really well and to give it to someone who would do it half well did not make sense or speak well of the Agency. Mark Karageorge agreed with Mr. Buchanan’s comments. They use continuing contractors. All three were quality firms. He felt Mr. Orlove’s motion was in order and he supported it. Chair Rodriguez closed the public comments. Mr. Orlove commented about moving the historic home and Kaufman Lynn had pointed out there were only three contractors in the State that are certified to move historic homes and they would use one of them. The comment about the cottage being moved by an inexperienced builder was untrue. The $300,000 could be used to improve a lot of areas. The projects, individually may not be significant but together the projects reflect a step in the downtown development. If the Board opts to use Kaufman Lynn at the rate they were providing, and it was a hard bid and a firm number, the Board could use other monies and resources to further the downtown. The Board was at the point it could move forward with these three project and possibly others. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Vice Chair Ross agreed it was imperative to move forward. She felt Kaufman Lynn gave an excellent presentation. The representative’s answers were on spot and reasonable and she was satisfied with the information they provided. She indicated it was important the Board recognize the firm was its continuing contractor and the Board could place its trust in them. The $300K was a factor, but she did not think the Board was selling itself short. Chair Rodriguez thanked JMW and Morganti for going through the process. He commented the Board has much to do in Boynton Beach and hoped the process has not seared them too much. Chair Rodriguez commented he will support who the Board selects. The downtown is important and $300,000 is a lot of money. He wanted to make it very clear what occurred was not typically the way he wanted to do business in Boynton Beach or in the future and the Board could avoid this in the future. He expressed concern over issuing an RFP, then having a back door kind of approach and then dismissing vendors. Sixteen firms attended the preconstruction meeting and he was very concerned about how the Board would do business in the future with the construction community. Hoped the price given will fulfill the obligation set forth in the bid process. There was a vote on the motion. The motion passed 4-1 (Mr. Holzman dissenting.) D. Kaufman Lynn, Inc. Construction Manager at Risk Presentation-Tabled 2/1/2011 Chair Rodriguez suggested the motion should be framed around a number in his work order. Mr. Orlove restated his motion to have the Community Redevelopment Agency staff work with Kaufman Lynn to work on the three projects they described and that are in the RFP, and that Kaufman Lynn holds firm the price of $953,388 and work with staff to come up with a task order. Vice Chair Ross seconded the motion. Mr. Holzman suggested it be stated that the number is associated with every single item delineated in the RFP. There was discussion that the number described by Kaufman Lynn be specific to the RFP that was issued. Attorney Cherof explained if the motion passes, staff would prepare a task order that spins off the continuing contract for a guaranteed maximum price of $955,388, and it will, to the extent possible, mirror the items that were required to be conducted under the RFP to construct the three projects. There was agreement the wording was appropriate. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Chair Rodriguez opened the public comment. Victor Norfus, 261 Palm Drive, inquired if they would require Kaufman Lynn comply with the figures they put in the RFP. Chair Rodriguez responded no. They are requiring Kaufman Lynn to perform the duties and functions described in the RFP at the maximum guaranteed price they provided. Chair Rodriguez closed the public comment. There was a vote on the motion, which passed unanimously. XIII.New Business: A. Consideration of Proposal by Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach to Build 21 New Homes at Ocean Breeze West Ms. Brooks reviewed the history of the property as contained in the agenda item and commented this item would be heard by the City Commission on February 15. There were 21 lots on the former site of Section 8 housing which were problematic properties, and homes that were destroyed by hurricanes. The CRA purchased the parcels and met with a number of contractors. The issue was a developer cannot develop single-family homes for the current price to build a home and still make a profit in this economy. Once the home was constructed, it would appraise for less than it cost to build. Staff wanted to build a model home on site. Staff has had a productive partnership with Habitat for Humanity and Habitat for Humanity wanted to speak to the Board to build and sell the units. The homes would be for first time low-to-moderate income buyers. Staff intended for a model home to be situated on the site and then develop a process to work and sell the units. There would a prequalification process and there was a lot of labor that goes into bringing a home to closing. It could be a year before the homes were constructed and sold. There are other non-profits in the community that do this, but staff thought perhaps the process can be streamlined. Staff was aware there had to be an RFP process, but wanted the Board to consider including working non profits into the RFP because they have a pipeline of buyers. Staff had a $100,000 line item in the budget for it and direction to staff was needed. Mike Campbell, Habitat for Humanity, 181 SE 5th Avenue, Delray Beach had reviewed the Heart of Boynton plan. Mr. Campbell was hired in 2006 by Habitat for Humanity and the organization had constructed 26 homes in the Heart of Boynton since 2006. The homes were on lots purchased by Habitat for Humanity or were purchased by the CRA. They moved at least six of the homeowners from a low or very low-income status to a moderate-income status. When they look at homeowners they work hard to ensure homeowners are successful. If they are not successful, they remove the homeowner from the home, rehab it and place a new homeowner in the home. Habitat has a support partner program to help keep the people in the homes. The quality of home is strong and good and they take pride in the homes. They are currently constructing LEED 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 certified homes and combining well systems where they can. One well can serve five homes which conserves City water and use the well water for irrigation. They are working on the NW section that will share a common well pump. The homes on SW 6th Avenue will also have common stormwater drain and water retention system. With their pipeline, Habitat can build the homes, put individuals in a home and have a quality environment. The elevations change a bit and reflect more of a Spanish style. They mirror the NW 11th Avenue home they built as a model for Cherry Hill which they seek to make a mixed income community. They also made a smaller scale home at the request of the Palm Beach County Housing Authority. Mr. Hay applauded the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and was concerned about the long-range plan. He noted the 21 homes are in a strategic location that will anchor the development in that area. The original plan called for a mix of homes for different income individuals. Twenty-one Habitat for Humanity homes sends the wrong message. He did not want to deny anyone a home, but did not want to wind up like they did before when they had a cluster of low-income homes. The value would not be what it should be. Mr. Campbell commented they would put Homeowners Associations in place to require the owners maintain decorum. Habitat for Humanity also increased the building opportunity for homeowners who are at 80% median income 50% of the project. Poor homes and a poor environment create a lesser environment. Habitat for Humanity holds the mortgage for 30 years and the families will not fail. Mr. Campbell explained that was why they do not want all of the lots from Cherry Hill. They want to place 12 strategic homes that are new, inviting and vibrant so others will look at the communities. He expressed they wanted to work with the Faith Based CDC to reach that goal. At this juncture, community input had not been solicited, it was strictly a discussion item with staff and the Board. Chair Rodriguez thanked Mr. Campbell for the presentation. Staff has tried to shop the site around to developers. The choice was to build something of this caliber or wait until the market improved. Developers cannot develop the project and turn a profit on the sale. Mr. Campbell explained Habitat for Humanity’s International standard is applicants having 60% or below the average median income of the subject community can be eligible for Habitat homes. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, they now allow 50% of the housing stock go up to families having 80% of the average median income. They limit the home to 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Discussion followed that average median income is not low income. Sixty percent of the average median income in Palm Beach County is $48,200 for a family of four. Eighty percent is about $58,000 which is not low income. Mr. Hay requested the Community Development Department speak on the issue. Ms. Brooks confirmed the numbers are correct. What was previously at the site was very low income, Section 8, badly managed properties that were blighted and known as 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Boynton Terrace. Ms. Brooks clarified the Board did not have to have just low income, they could have a mix of incomes which they did not do before. Staff wanted direction and could staff work with Ms. Sherrod on crafting an RFP to look for a non-profit development partner, which would help keep the cost down. Staff can craft any percentage of the 21 homes as low or moderate. In order to meet the requirements of the Neighborhood Stabilization Funds, the Board would have to meet the minimum number of homes in the low-income category, but staff would craft the remainder to be a mix. This is a new product for the area. It is a subdivision that the neighborhood did not have for 30 to 40 years. The neighborhood was improving and huge strides have been made. The area has two excellent schools, a new community center and a new streetscape. Ms. Brooks felt the community would not attract doctors and lawyers in this go round, rather it would occur as they cleaned up the neighborhood. Mr. Hay preferred staff work with Ms. Sherrod on the project. Chair Rodriguez expressed the feedback he received from the community was the elevations of the homes being constructed by Habitat for Humanity would stand out. At some point, the project will go to RFP and it was suggested staff work with the community and homeowner associations to develop a concept appealing to the community as it pertained to the housing elevations. If they went with another non-profit they could build larger homes. Ms. Brooks commented larger homes could not be constructed on the west side. It is a single-family neighborhood. Although the size could change, the lot size met the minimum development standards for the City. It came down to price. People who would purchase there are working families. They have jobs and have to pay a mortgage. They can only afford so much house because typically there are children. In the past, staff dictated, through the development agreement, what size the house could be, the minimum number of bedrooms, baths and garages and staff approved the final design. The houses on Seacrest were the homes staff worked on with the CDC. Not every Habitat house had a metal roof or was interesting looking. Mr. Hay wanted to fully review the matter before they took action. Ms. Brooks did not want to create a future problem. Discussion followed the median income used was the Palm Beach County median income. Staff was installing the infrastructure for the neighborhood. The timeline would be seven homes a year and all the homes would be completed in three years. Also a community misconception is that Habitat for Humanity builds stick houses. Ms. Brooks clarified the homes are concrete/block/stucco (CBS) homes having hurricane windows, not shutters, 100% wood cabinets, all brand new appliances and LEED certified to keep the expenses of the home down. All the features could be specified in an RFP. The Faith Based CDC could assist in the development of the area. They work with individuals up to 120% of median income. The Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC operates within the City limits, but there were other entities within the County that could respond to an RFP. Staff must issue a RFP consistent with CDBG regulations. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Motion Mr. Holzman moved to instruct staff to establish an RFP to include non-profits for this specific property. It was clarified the RFP would be open to non-profit organizations within the County. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. Chair Rodriguez suggested part of the RFP include a community meeting that engages the community in soliciting ideas and suggestions. Gertrude Sullivan , 201 NE 6th Avenue, respects Habitat for Humanity, and commented the community was waiting 20 years for it to be developed. They do not want Habitat on that side of town. The community wants decent houses and does not want Section 8. The residents pay taxes and want the respect. She requested the Board be fair with them. As to building 21 homes, she inquired why the Board could not establish businesses on MLK and put people to work. Then individuals can afford to purchase a home. She requested letting the community come back to where it was. They were tired of begging. They want a building on MLK to put people to work. Habitat for Humanity homes are constructed with free labor. She requested in the future, the Board should bring the matters to the community first before discussing it at the Board level. She requested meeting the community halfway instead of just giving the community anything and expecting they would be satisfied. Keturah Joseph , Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC, commented that considering what she witnessed regarding the RFP process for the previous agenda item, she was not sure she had confidence in the staff's RFP process. She announced she loves Habitat for Humanity and believes in what they do. She supports everything they do and they should not be discredited. She did point out; however, that Habitat has a model that works nationwide that works for a certain group of people The nationwide model is to serve individuals that are 60% and below of the median income. Fifty percent is considered very low according to HUD standards and she if 50% was very low, she inquired what was 60%? Ms. Joseph clarified 60% is considered very low. Habitat builds very good homes for individuals in that income bracket. She agreed with Mr. Hay. The community waited 20 years for something to be constructed. This was the first project that would be built in the community, but they do not want to anchor it around all the Habitat homes. It would not be fair to the community to have only Habitat homes. The Habitat model nationwide is mixed income. Since 2008, Habitat for Humanity tweaked the model to go to 80% and she inquired how many homes were constructed at the 80% ratio. She reiterated the community has waited for a very long time for something to be constructed in the community. She requested they purposely design a project for that community that will please all. They will bring back all very low, low and moderate income individuals. They would not be able to attract professionals if development was anchored around low income. She expressed the Board’s RFP process had no credibility to her based on the actions taken earlier in the meeting by the Board. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Mr. Orlove asked what the community was looking to put there and how do they think the Board should proceed. Ms. Joseph commented there is a role for Habitat to play and they could well serve the very low-income people. She would like to see a mixed income project. Habitat can build for very low-income individuals. The rest of the homes could be constructed by others based on individuals who could qualify for mortgages. Victor Norfus did not support the RFP especially when discussing the Habitat homes and the number of homes for the infill area. The RFP should be about the type of homes. The residents want someone to develop the area. Staff explained the RFP would include non-profits because they can bring in the buyers and do the prequalification. The RFP would be for a mix of incomes. First they would need to meet NSP requirements and then have a mixed income environment. Mark Karageorge , 240A Main Boulevard, supported the motion and Ms. Brooks’ comments. There should be a partnership. There are three entities that could respond who were, Habitat, the CDC, and Mr. McNamara. Those three can achieve the mixed income desired and the diversity of the homes. This item has gone to RFP three times. If they put out an RFP in the normal process, if the entities partner, the development will occur. Dr. Martha Meeks-Light , 225 NW 6th Avenue, did not support issuing an RFP without first soliciting input from the community. She supported the need to have the subject parcels be a mixed income area. She also pointed out most of the residents have four children and if they are living off $37,000 a year, something would suffer, and usually it will be the lawn, the house, car, furniture, children and the neighborhood. Chair Rodriguez pointed out the RFP will be developed with feedback from the community. Dr. Light agreed Habitat for Humanity was doing a great job, but they do not want to be surrounded by those with less. There was a vote on the motion that passed unanimously. B. Consideration of Funding a Portion of Community Entry Sign for Coquina Cove Ms. Brooks explained representatives of Coquina Cove came to them for assistance with a neighborhood sign on Federal Highway. The subdivision was part of the INCA Coalition. Their neighborhood is not directly on Federal Highway so one would need to know where they were going in order to find it. Jonathan Keith , 641 Shore Drive, a resident of Coquina Cove explained the property is located behind Yachtsman Plaza. The residents were trying to enhance the appeal of the neighborhood and help the property values. Some aspects of the community have 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 not been maintained the way they should. A committee was created that put together construction drawings for a sign wall and entrance lights to the community. They were also fundraising. He appealed to the CRA to help them achieve the goals in matching funds if possible. Chair Rodriguez had brought a similar proposal to this Board in the past, but it failed. He suggested if the Board did not support all communities, it could not support just one. He wanted to put the item as a discussion item in the budget. Mr. Hay agreed. This type of work is not covered under any other grant programs and he could support it for all communities in the CRA area. Mr. Orlove also concurred. It was a matter of allocating funding. Mr. Orlove thought it would be helpful to direct staff to look into a possible program to fund signage, and agreed it would be throughout the CRA District. This would be for next fiscal year. Mr. Keith commented the community was moving forward. He requested the Board look at the shopping center owner. Their home values are being diminished because the Shopping Center owner was not maintaining it. The residents would like to have the opportunity to come back and be reimbursed down the road, if the CRA opts to move forward with the program. Chair Rodriguez explained that would be a board decision at that point in time. Motion Mr. Hay moved to deny funding for the signage. Motion Mr. Orlove moved for staff to come back to the Board for the next fiscal year with an item regarding signage in the CRA district, for communities and neighborhoods. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Draft Lease Terms for 211 E. Ocean Avenue Mr. Simon presented the item as noted above. Mr. Holzman inquired how long it would take for this business to become profitable. Mr. Simon responded about three years. Mr. Simon’s opinion was leaning more towards three to five years. Mr. Hay left the dais at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Holzman inquired about the impact on taxes Ms. Brooks responded when they leased the sales trailer at the corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway, it was $600 a month. The taxes were between $8,000 and $12,000, exclusive of the commercial valuation. Mr. Holzman suggested the Board should provide them the first 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 five years free and have a one-year re-opener each year so they could readjust the rent in case the restaurant is wildly successful. Mr. Hay returned at 9:08 p.m. George Chussler, 5040 Ryan Boulevard, stated they were prepared to pay rent at the flat rate. Forty-five percent is the industry-wide percentage of sales that is added to it. They would be more than willing to accept the lease. They were agreeable to the one- year reopener and opening their books to the Agency every year. They pay sales tax, and the Agency would review that report to determine gross. Staff should assist the restaurant to be more successful. Mr. Simon commented starting two new businesses was new to the Agency. They have inherited tenants with existing leases and tried to be flexible with the market conditions and how to negotiate terms based on the previous lease and current circumstances. This was their first interaction with a new start-up business. Staff could look at the initiative as the beginning of a model. Mr. Orlove wanted to know if the lease would set a precedent for other potential businesses in the future. Ms. Brooks responded staff would look at the existing conditions as they came forward. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to instruct staff to discuss entering into a “lease agreement with the tenant” for a five year no lease with one-year opener every year. It was clarified by Ms. Brooks it was “no rent” and triple net with no rent for five years with a yearly opener during that five-year period. Mr. Holzman wanted Ms. Brooks language included in the motion. The motion was duly seconded. There was no public comment on the item and the motion passed. Mr. Simon requested clarification who was responsible for interior/exterior improvements. The Board was amenable to the provisions set forth in the agenda item. The Board agreed to giving the tenant the first right of refusal or a lease to purchase option. Staff would bring back a Memorandum of Understanding when they have a full budget. Staff was planning to have a tenant in the premises in August/September 2011 but the tenant did not have a contractor selected for a design scheme and the City was still addressing the zoning overlay and alleyway abandonments. They hoped to be open before January 2012. Mr. Holzman left the dais at 9:19 p.m. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 D. Consideration of Supporting the Circle of Hope Gala This Item was the Woman’s Circle annual fundraiser. Chair Rodriguez was not available but Messrs. Orlove and Hay planned to attend. Vice Chair Ross also could not make the commitment. Mr. Holzman returned at 9:19 p.m. After further discussion it was agreed the members could attend on their own. Mr. Holzman was not available. Messrs. Orlove and Hay will pay for their tickets. When asked if the Agency assisted this organization in the past, it was explained the Agency donated $100,000 to purchase the property on 4th for them and holds the mortgage. If the property was sold, the monies would be paid back to the Agency. E. Consideration of Renewal of Lease with Jesus House of Worship Mr. Simon presented the renewal agreement and read the summary of the agenda item. The tenant was maintaining the property and the Agency spent $1,800 for additional security lighting. The tenants were doing a great job. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the lease renewal for Jesus House of Worship for the property located at 100 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. There was no public comment on the item. Ms. Brooks commented the church is a positive influence: they serve the community and no imminent project was pending. There was a vote on the motion and the motion passed. F. Report on TIF Agreements Status Ms. Brooks explained this item was for information only. They have three DIFA agreements and she reviewed the summary of the agenda item. As projects present themselves, staff tries to work with the developer to create public assets within private projects. They are truly public/private partnerships and they leverage the dollars to obtain a benefit they might not normally have obtained. There is a TIF agreement with the Promenade, the Preserve and the new WalMart. The public benefit at the Promenade was public parking. At the Preserve, the benefit was affordable housing and WalMart offered 180 full-time jobs. The spreadsheet in the meeting materials laid out the deliverables. The Promenade is completed and on the tax rolls, not as individual condominium units, but as a vacant multi-family building. 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 The Preserve agreement contemplated the project would be completed but it was half completed. The agreement was amended three months ago. Ms. Harris explained the agreements are 10-year agreements once they start drawing down the fund. Cornerstone was triggered by the developer approaching staff. He has the ability to draw down and he has not called on the DIFA. Mr. Holzman thought it was a mistake to give a developer the ability to determine when they want to draw down funds. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to accept the report. Mr. Orlove seconded the motion. The motion passed. Chair Rodriguez left the dais at 9:26 p.m. th G. Consideration of Purchasing the Cherry Hill Mini Mart at 1213 NW 4 Street Chair Rodriguez returned to the dais at 9:39 p.m. Ms. Brooks explained this area was a problem in the community. The property was located in the middle of a single-family neighborhood and was a non-conforming use. The bank indicated the property would go to foreclosure. An appraisal was needed, costing about $1,200 - $1,500. Vice Chair Ross left the dais at 9:33 p.m. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to approve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed. H. Discussion of the February 17, 2011 workshop Vice Chair Ross returned to the dais at 9:36 p.m. Mr. Holzman commented when the workshop was scheduled, it was supposed to be a handoff to the incoming board and to decide how to move forward. Since the existing Board will remain and the two individuals added have been to every meeting he did not see the need for a workshop because they should all be on the same page. Presentations could be made at the regularly scheduled meetings. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to cancel the workshop. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 Mr. Orlove explained they had a teambuilding session when the City Commission was put together. From that the two issues the community felt strongly about were the downtown area and preserving the Old High School. The Board is trying to move forward with projects in the downtown. There is going to be a presentation by a group that he solicited that he thought would bring something major for the downtown and the City. For the individuals on the Board to flat out not want to listen, have a workshop, or a hard discussion about the matter made him question the Board’s desire to move on the downtown. He strongly urged the Board not to cancel the workshop. The City Commission said they want to move forward with the downtown and this slams the door. Chair Rodriguez commented he brought the item forward and the intent was to get the City and Board together and for them to make leadership decisions about what paths to take. Then they discussed an independent board on the tail end, it was not the driver of the workshop. Chair Rodriguez commented this is a critical path about where to put City Hall, infill spaces and the Old High School. This is what they have been wanting to do. We should be prepared and proceed. The Board does not have to take action on any item at the workshop which the Interim Executive Director and City Manager have been working on. If the Board was not happy with it, they can make a decision then. Vice Chair Ross explained she was getting phone calls about the workshop. She inquired how did the workshop get to the point of having three presenters and she was not asked if she had someone she would recommend to speak. Chair Rodriguez explained the way it happened, folks approached him about presenting and he said yes. Other Board members may have been approached. There is no limit to who participates. Vice Chair Ross thought staff was mainly presenting. She did not know they could make suggestions on who to present. Chair Rodriguez explained she could still have someone speak if she wished, if they approached her about the issue. The Board approved the agenda. Mr. Orlove responded to the Vice Chair’s questions it was something that came out of the budget meetings. He was approached by an organization about bringing a proposal for the Board to hear to determine if they may want to pursue it. He spoke with Ms. Brooks and the City Manager about it. He was working on it since August and thought it was the appropriate time to bring it up. Mr. Holzman contended any member of the Board couldbring up a proposal or project at any scheduled meeting. He stated for the record the meeting was specifically set up to hand over the Community Redevelopment Agency to the new board. He did not see the need to spend time or money on individuals lobbying who want certain projects in 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL February 8, 2011 the downtown with funds from the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City. They can make a presentation at a regular meeting and he would be more than happy to listen. Mr. Hay commented he has a major conflict. He explained he was not trying to block anything that would move the City forward. He has to be at a convention and he would not be available to 7:30 or 8 p.m. He would like the two new members to be involved in the Board at the discussion and would arrive late to the meeting. There was a vote on the motion to deny. The motion failed 1 -4 (Mr. Holzman dissenting.) Mr. Holzman announced he would not be listening to presentations made by individuals interested in lobbying the City. XIV. Interim Executive Director's Report A. Project Status Update Ms. Brooks commented she added estimated completion dates to the update. As to the estimated date for the Holiday House, they received comments from the Building Department, addressed them and resubmitted. Ms. Brooks estimated they were two to three weeks out from the permit. As to the new information, it will be added and it will be amended XV. Future Agenda Items: A. Discussion Regarding Process for Replacement of Executive Director — Tabled 10/12/10 B. Consideration of Options for VIP Area at Public Events C. Discussion of Ideas for "G.A.L.A. type" Event Discussion XVI. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:48 p.m. (11 ' ' N tilkibL-1U-- i_ Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 021411 25