Loading...
Minutes 08-09-11 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 AT 6:00 PM IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD., BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Jose Rodriguez, Chair Vivian Brooks, Executive Director Bill Orlove, Vice Chair James Cherof, Board Attorney James “Buck” Buchanan Woodrow Hay Steve Holzman Mark Karageorge Marlene Ross I. Call to Order Vice Chair Orlove called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. Pledge to the Flag and Invocation Mr. Hay gave the invocation and Mr. Holzman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll. Chair Rodriguez and Ms. Ross were not present for the roll but arrived at 6:00 p.m. and 6:02 p.m. respectively. 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 This closed-door session was requested by the CRA Attorney at the CRA Board Meeting held on July 12, 2011. Length of time – approx. 30 minutes Attorney Cherof recited the above information for the benefit of the public. 1 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Motion Mr., Holzman moved to recess for the closed-door session. Ms. Ross seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting recessed at 6:04 p.m. Motion Vice Chair Orlove moved to reconvene the meeting. Mr. Karageorge seconded he motion that unanimously passed. The meeting reconvened at 6:33 p.m. V. Agenda Approval A.Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Vivian Brooks, Executive Director, pulled item 14A to become Item 12A and then Item 12A would be renumbered to 12B. Mr. Holzman pulled Consent Agenda Items D and E. Mr. Hay also wanted to discuss Consent Agenda Item D. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Ms. Ross moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Karageorge seconded the motion that unanimously passed. VI. Informational Items and Disclosures by Board Members and CRA Staff: A. Disclosure of Conflicts for Items Presented to the CRA Board on Agenda Items None. B. Informational Announcements None. VII. Announcements & Awards None VIII. Consent Agenda: 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 A. Approval of Minutes – CRA Board Meeting July 12, 2011 B. Approval of Period Ended July 31, 2011 Financial Report C. Monthly Purchases Orders D. Consideration of Approval of Extension of Commercial Façade Grant to 710 Boynton Partners, LLC This item was pulled by Messrs Hay and Holzman. E. Consideration of Approval of Extension of Commercial Façade Grant to 416 Boynton, LLC This item was pulled by Mr. Holzman. IX.Pulled Consent Agenda Items : D. Consideration of Approval of Extension of Commercial Façade Grant to 710 Boynton Partners, LLC Mr. Hay inquired why the delay. Ms. Brooks responded the property owner had to redesign the structure with the architect which caused a 45-day delay. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion that unanimously passed. E.Consideration of Approval of Extension of Commercial Façade Grant to 416 Boynton, LLC Mr. Holzman questioned the 180-day extension and commented he had never seen such a long extension. He stated the request would tie up the funds for another potential user and suggested when the applicant was ready, they should return and make application. Ms. Brooks explained the applicant came in and had preliminary discussions with Planning and Zoning staff. The tenant was a Subway Store and there were already two located in the market area. She noted 180 days would be in the next fiscal year and the tenant could reapply. Chair Rodriguez thought reapplying could hold up the process for the business; however, Ms. Brooks clarified all they would have to do is re-date the papers. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Mike Simon , Development Director, clarified if the tenant applied, they needed to provide a copy of the lease. In this case, the owner applied for the grant too early, as he was not ready to start the improvements. If the plans were ready and in permitting, the request would be justified as the grants are applicant driven Motion Mr. Holzman moved to deny the request. Ms. Ross seconded the motion that unanimously passed. X. Information Only: . A CRA Policing Activity Reports B. Public Comment Log - None C. Update on Economic Development Business Database Chair Rodriguez noted the database had much information. Ms. Brooks pointed out the entire database was on the flash drive provided to the members which was not included in the meeting materials. They included as much data as the businesses will share. Staff classifies the business by the trade classification so they can assist new businesses and alert them of what businesses are already established in the area. The commercial vacancy rate was 16.5%, up from last year’s rate of about 12%. Staff would try to post the information on the website for realtors and businesses owners to use. Staff will refine the database, but it was complete. The information was added manually and was coordinated with the City using the Business Tax Receipt as the starting point. It was anticipated the coordination between the City and CRA would keep the information current. It was also noted Code Compliance pursues businesses that do not renew their Business Tax Receipt and continue to operate. A good working relationship has been established and thanks were extended to both Ms. Byrne and Ms. Springer for their assistance. D.Budget Meeting – August 23, 2011 E. Boynton Beach CRA-Delray Beach Summer Promotion Ms. Ross inquired if data resulting from the partnership would be provided. Margee Walsh , Marketing Director, planned to meet with the owners at the end of September to see how they did. The promotion was an example of regionalism and promoting the Marina. It was noted Delray does not have a marina, but has hotels whereas Boynton has a marina but no hotels. It was a symbiotic relationship. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Vice Chair Orlove asked if the promotion would conflict with anything in Delray Beach. Ms. Walsh responded it would not. XI. Public Comments: (Note: comments are limited to 3 minutes in duration) Sharon Brauer, 421 SW 7th Avenue, thanked the Board for voting for the new lights beginning on Seacrest, south of Boynton Beach Boulevard, and for the trees and shrubs. Libby Stroud, 132 NE 13th Avenue, thanked the Community Redevelopment Agency for their work in the City and advocated support for the Heritage Celebration. She acknowledged the poor economy, but requested some funding be set aside. The community planned to hold a Civic Day in November and raise about $6,000 from the event. They were also soliciting support from local businesses and received a donation from Chick-Fil-A. She thought more money could be raised than last year. She requested the Board consider funding the Heritage Celebration and Night of Joy in the future. No one else coming forward, Chair Rodriguez closed Public Comment. Mr. Hay congratulated the Community Redevelopment Agency staff on their webpage. He was glad to see local businesses featured who may not be able to afford advertisements and other marketing efforts. It was a nice touch to reach out to the small business community. XII. Public Hearing: A. Consideration of Approval of the Sidewalk Cafe Code Amendments Ed Breese, Principal Planner, requested this item be moved up and heard in conjunction with the Hurricane Alley item. Staff revisited the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance during review of the application. Engineering, Planning and Zoning, and Community Redevelopment Agency staff were involved in the review. The current Ordinance was about 10 years old and warranted review. Four areas were identified to be amended as follows: 1. Location. The Code limits the extent of the outdoor seating to the perimeter of the restaurant location. With the approval of the abutting property owners, this change would expand the perimeter to allow for more street life and nightlife. 2. Perimeter. Currently the Code requires one cannot enclose the sidewalk cafe. He suggested, if enclosed, it would better to define the pedestrian walkway. Hurricane Alley moved the tables in from the curb and provided the walkway closer to the street portion of the sidewalk. By doing so, it creates a clearer delineation to walk as opposed to walking through tables. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 3. Menu Board. Staff will be reviewing sign code amendments in the future and thought it would be beneficial if they changed language to be in conjunction with the sign code, as opposed to this ordinance. 4. Liquor License. The Ordinance currently reads outdoor seats shall not be counted towards the number of seats required for a liquor license. Staff thought it was outdated and seats should be allowed to be counted toward obtaining a liquor license. Mr. Hay inquired about the distance between the road and first table. Mr. Breese responded the Code requires a minimum of four feet. Between tables, the Code requires a five-foot width, and if at the perimeter or edge of the seating, a four-foot wide pedestrian aisle. The proposal by Hurricane Aisle was to put a fence at the four-foot line so no tables or chairs could slide out into the area. Mr. Hay applauded assisting businesses to be successful. Mr. Breese explained both the application from Hurricane Alley and the Code Amendment would be heard by the City Commission the first meeting in September. Vice Chair Orlove noted an article in the newspaper about a disagreement with a restaurant and the City where tables should be. He inquired if the amendment would avoid that type of situation. Mr. Breese clarified the seating arrangement depicted in the Sidewalk Café Application must remain as shown. If it changed, it needed to be approved by the Board. The property owners on each side of the establishment would need to sign a document, which would be submitted with the application granting their approval of the seating arrangement as reflected on the drawing. Chair Rodriguez inquired what would occur if there were a dispute between the property owners. Mr. Breese responded if the other business indicated the tables could no longer be in front of their property, staff would take it literally, and the table would be removed immediately. Attorney Cherof clarified nothing precluded the two property owners from entering into that type of agreement, but nothing compelled the adjacent property owner to any fixed period of time. Mr. Holzman inquired further about outdoor cafes and seating as it pertained to the liquor license. He inquired what the reasoning for it was, and if there was a concern on staff’s end counting the seats towards the liquor license. Mr. Breese did not know what logic was used. The individuals he spoke with had no recollection about why the provision was included. It was not following State law regarding liquor licenses, it was just a provision placed there. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Motion Mr. Karageorge moved to approve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Chair Rodriguez opened the floor for public comment. No one came forward. The motion unanimously passed. A. Consideration of Approval of Sidewalk Café Permit for Hurricane Alley Restaurant – 529 E. Ocean Avenue This item was discussed with the previous agenda item. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to approve. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion that unanimously passed. XIII. Old Business: A.Consideration of Approval of Development Agreement between the CRA and Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach Land Trust for Ocean Breeze West Site Mike Campbell , Habitat for Humanity, 181 SE 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, distributed a revised Development Agreement. The Agreement contained minor amendments, not reviewed by the CRA which Mr. Campbell reviewed as follows: The first change was to use the acronym for Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach County Community Housing and Land Trust Inc. (HFHSPBCCHLT) in the document. Section 7. If the property is returned in as is condition, any homes built would have to be deconstructed, and off the property. The additional language clarified accepting any lots which have been previously leased to homebuyers in accordance with the terms hereof would allow the homes constructed to remain. Section 9. Language was added to conform Sections 9 and 6 to the intent of transferring the property to the organization lot-by-lot. If the intent was to convey the entire project at one time, then Section 6 needed to conform to Section 9. Discussion followed the intent was to convey the property lot by lot. The current language in Section 9 did not specify that and was changed to reflect the intent. Section 14. Language was added to make the document Quid Pro Quo with Habitat for Humanity. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Section 15. Language deleted the word “Purchaser” and inserted the word “Habitat”. Section 18. Language was added, “the property is to be held by Habitat . . . . its accessors and or assigns.” Section 19. Added the language “its accessors and or assigns. . . . all lots shall remain the property of the a community land trust in perpetuity.” and capitalize the words “ground lease.” Section 21.13. A Force Majeure clause was added. Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to approve, subject to legal review. Mr. Holzman seconded the motion. Mr. Karageorge requested Attorney Cherof review Section 14 and what constitutes “unreasonable.” Discussion followed on the 21 lots, 11 lhomes would be constructed by Habitat for Humanity and 10 by the Community Development Corporation. Chair Rodriquez opened the floor for public comment. No one came forward. The motion unanimously passed. B.Consideration of Tenant Options for 211 E. Ocean Avenue Ms. Brooks explained this item was before the Board at their request for more specific financial information and what funds the tenant had for working capital. She noted the most difficult time for a business, especially a restaurant, was the first three years. The Agency has indicated a willingness to abate rent, but there was still gas, water and other provisions that would have to be paid. Most of the information was received; however, there was still information outstanding, which prompted staff to realize there did not appear to be enough working capital to support a 150-seat restaurant. The tenant’s response was distributed to the Board and indicated they have out-of-pocket owner investment funds, but that information was not provided to staff. The funds they did provide were from a different business. The working capital of $125,000 -$150,000 thousand was reflected, but working capital cannot come from cash flow, and should not be counted on. The Agency was willing to be a partner and make a major investment; however, the Board should feel, because of the significant public investment and the desire to make the street successful, that they are making the best choice. Restaurants have a very high failure rate, and the first business must be successful. Based on what was presented to-date, Ms. Brooks felt 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 they did not have enough funds to carry them through in a tough economy on a street that was an unproven market. Ms. Brooks recommended unless the potential operator had anything to add, the Board terminate negotiations. Mr. Holzman inquired about the way the RFP was issued and if the Board could go forward with the Executive Director’s plan and seek other potential suitors. He also inquired if the second RFP was not identical to the first, what the ramifications would be. Attorney Cherof explained the Board needs to first make a determination of whether or not staff engaged in good faith negotiations with the prospective tenant. Once the determination is made and factually based, the Community Redevelopment Agency’s position was strong. Absent the determination by the Board, the Board was in a weak position. Jordan Chussler , 5040 Ryan Boulevard, commented when they received the request for funds, it specified start-up and/or operating costs. They provided several documents for start-up funds, out-of-pocket information, including personal savings accounts and the business checking, which was a supplement to other documents. They were intending to secure a Small Business Administration (SBA) endorsed loan for the operating funds, but could not provide any documentation to staff because they did not have any agreement in place. In October, when he first spoke with the Board, he stated they would invest $50,000, which was one-sixth of the initial budget. He specified the business funds were not tied to the project at all. Mr. Chussler planned to submit the SBA application to Citibank as a limited liability corporation by the end of the week. Discussion followed the working capital would be secured through a combination of avenues. The loan would be $125,000. The $50,000 was already secured. Vice Chair Orlove inquired of the other options for cash, how much would it be. Mr. Chussler responded it would be an additional $25,000. The Agency gave one year of rent abatement of $2,800 a month for the first year. Given the location was not quite a visible spot, staff should allow time for the tenant to market. Ms. Brooks emphasized the best entity should be selected, who could carry it and has good restaurant management. She commented the Group has the knowledge and experience, but needed more money and she did not feel comfortable with the SBA loan. Ms. Brooks would feel comfortable if they had funds that were verifiable. They were working in good faith. She suggested giving them a few more weeks and obtaining the documents they sent to Citibank. It was important the Agency have a strong partner. She also agreed to meet with the banker and review the application. Discussion followed about the equipment costs. Mr. Chussler explained they were using refurbished equipment from Miami, which accounted for the much lower equipment budget. Additionally, if the Agency did not move forward with the Chussler 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Group due to financing, they would cease negotiations and legally notice the availability of the building for lease and the terms. Motion Vice Chair Orlove moved the Executive Director work with the Chussler Group in regard to their financial situation and come back to the Board at the next meeting with a status report. Mr. Holzman seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Tenant Options for Ruth Jones Cottage Ms. Brooks explained the prospective tenant was requested to provide financial information and did not provide it. As a result, Ms. Brooks had no way to ascertain whether the business could support itself during the first year and conduct a successful marketing campaign. Ms. Gagne was emailed and invited to attend the meeting; however, she was not present. Ms. Brooks explained, because the project was converting an old home to a restaurant, to create a commercial space that does not exist between Federal and Seacrest, the Agency must evaluate the situation. Ms. Brooks spoke with the prior respondents and new entities interested in the Cottage and pointed out the press and the existing restaurant near the location have provided positive press for the area. Ms. Brooks sought to cease negotiations based on the Agency not receiving the requested documentation to determine her financial ability to go forward with the project, and the Agency legally notice the availability of the property to take proposals, and bring them back to the Board. Ms. Brooks would structure the notice to be specific. She recommended a greater investment in the business on the part of the tenant be required and make it not so easy to walk away. Her recommendation was a five-year lease with the option to renew for another 10 years, have the first year rent abated, five dollars per foot for year two plus taxes and insurance, and others as outlined on the agenda item. The Agency would match up to 50% of the interior build out. If the tenant wanted to amortize their share, it could be done over time to make it more financially feasible. Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to accept staff’s recommendation. Mr. Karageorge seconded the motion. Ms. Brooks recommended a turnaround time of 45 days in time for selection of a tenant in October. How soon the business could operate was contingent on how soon the change orders were approved and whether the Agency received good responses to the notice. Ms. Brooks mailed the Site Plan and layout to all known interested parties and has not received any negative comments. Much thought had been given to the layout. The best-case scenario for operation was by the beginning of the year. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Discussion followed that because the Agency was requesting the tenant provide a greater investment in the project and staff wanted additional information, they could not go back to the original RFP respondents. The terms that were being requested were not in the original RFP because the Agency did not have the cost information. Discussion followed whether the Agency acted reasonably with the first RFP. Ms. Brook responded there was no RFP issued with legal notice. She was directed to obtain proposals. She was now recommending the Agency legally notice the projects. Chair Rodriguez expressed concern that in October, more information would be received. He suggested issuing an RFP complete with all the information or not issuing one at all. Ms. Brooks explained the Agency had no interior design plans when they started the project and they let the proposer drive the project based on the concept. Ms. Brooks was confident when staff issued the RFP detailing what documents would be needed, that the respondents would be financially viable respondents. Chair Rodriguez questioned the need to issue an RFP and instead seek out the former respondents. Attorney Cherof recommended the way this project has progressed and in this one instance, the Agency was in a better position to start over and issue the request on the street for proposals. Staff would make sure the prior respondents were included in the process. Chair Rodriguez again thought a letter of interest would be better than an RFP. The dilemma was the prior respondents were not aware of what they had to achieve and produce. This attempt would detail what the respondents had to produce so they would be qualified to operate the project. Attorney Cherof commented this action would put the Agency in a legally defensive position. He commented discussions would cease with Ms. Gagne based on her lack of a response. Vice Chair Orlove amended the motion to ask for staff to issue proposals from those who previously responded and to those who approached staff and for staff to bring back proposals, financial statements and a marketing plan for the Ruth Jones Cottage for the October meeting. Ms. Brooks clarified she would request a business plan to show the concept, personal finances, a marketing plan and proof of start up and working capital sufficient for that operation. Motion Mr. Holzman made a substitute motion to go out to RFP for the Ruth Jones Cottage with parameters set by staff and make a presentation to staff in October. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion. Kim Kelly , 529 East Ocean Avenue, reviewed the design and commented the CRA could make more money if they moved the structure back and add a wrap around deck. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 Additionally, a walk-in cooler was not necessary for a structure that small, and if the restrooms were placed by the railroad track, it would provide more interior space. Ms. Brooks responded there was an FEC easement and there was the possibility of having a patio area as pavers were planned. There was a vote on the motion which unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Future Construction for Ruth Jones Restaurant Conversion Project Al Phillips , REG Architects, 307 Evernia Street, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, commented there were change orders associated with the project. He reviewed when the firm works on historic, or old buildings, they try to utilize as much of the existing material as possible. Change Order No. 6 dealt with the window and doorframe. The original proposal contemplated using wood shutters as part of the design. Once the asbestos was removed, the framing was reviewed. Due to severe deterioration around the windows and doors, they could not keep what was there and meet the current wind-load codes. Accordingly, they developed a new design for the windows and doors. Change Order No 7 dealt with roof beams. The initial design contemplated a lower ceiling; however, due to the small space, high vaulted ceilings were preferred to create a roomier atmosphere. The original roof rafters are in good condition and will be used. The original design would be changed to remove the beams designed to support the lower ceiling. This structural change was for aesthetics only. Change Order No. 8 pertained to a rotten floor joist. During the initial inspection they were not able to examine the underside of the building. When the structure was relocated, they examined the floor and determined it needed additional support and a floor joist. It was anticipated there was about 20% of rotten wood that needed to be replaced. Change Order No. 9 related to structural sheathing. When the asbestos was removed, it was learned the existing siding had severe water damage and was not sound enough to support the new siding. Instead of patching the existing siding, they recommended removing that layer of siding and installing new plywood and new siding to it. Change Order No. 11 related to windows and was discussed with Change Order 6. It was determined it would be prudent to use hurricane windows and doors. Mr. Phillips explained the change orders were due to unforeseen circumstances and discussion followed about the definition of unforeseen circumstances. Chair Rodriguez acknowledged the building was old, but questioned if Kaufman Lynn made any 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 assumptions about wood rot and termites. Mr. Phillips explained the standard practice is to provide for a contingency. They could not make a bunch of assumptions about the structure and they bid on the documents. Chair Rodriguez commented Kaufman Lynn gave a guaranteed maximum price and it was up to them to have a contingency. Ms. Brooks clarified REG was called to correct design defects that were discovered by Kaufman Lynn. REG represents the Agency and has the designs. Kaufman Lynn then bids the design and determines if the bid is fair or not. Discussion followed REG had a similar situation in Lake Worth in reference to the casino project. Typically, historic projects are bid as Construction Manager-at-Risk projects. Once the change orders are compiled, they issue a main change order. Mr. Phillips explained they have a contingency, and when the change orders are approved, they are paid from contingency. He recalled other instances when a municipality paid for a change order using the Construction Manager-at-Risk methodology and discussion followed whether the change orders should be absorbed by Kaufman Lynn. Attorney Cherof clarified, as to the change orders and whether Kaufman Lynn should pay for them, the original draft Construction Manager at Risk Contract was not the final document. There was negotiation and part of that negotiation whittled down the pure concept of the Construction Manager being fully at risk. He expressed he was troubled by the conduct of Kaufman Lynn and REG Architects as it pertained to the change orders. He thought if the Board wanted to consider approving the change orders, they should do so on a contingent basis, without the Board waiving its right at the end of the project to do a “true up” and examine everything that was submitted and approved to date. Attorney Cherof further clarified he made the recommendation because currently, Kaufman Lynn perceived they were in a contract delay; however, Attorney Cherof disagreed with their perception. He also anticipated the Board would receive a change order for their construction delay, which was not the fault of the Board or the CRA. In anticipation of that change order, he recommended the Board preserve its right to challenge and conduct a true-up to determine if the guaranteed maximum price was exceeded or not. He pointed out it was possible the project could still come in under budget, but if it came in over budget, it was important to reserve the right to challenge each change order to determine whether REG, in their performance, properly examined the project, made the determinations and provided the base documents from which the Construction Manager based their project and proposals. Chair Rodriguez inquired if some of the change orders should be covered under the guaranteed maximum price. Attorney Cherof responded some should not, but he recommended approving them contingent on the right to challenge them on a later date when the contract is trued-up. This would avoid any claim by the Construction Manager that the Board engaged in conduct, which delayed the project, resulting in additional damages at the end of the true-up period. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 This was done the first time the Board approved a change order. Mike Simon clarified the motion was to deny the change orders and reserve the right to bring them back. Discussion followed the Board has the right to deny the change orders being requested but the contractor’s position will be they cannot continue without the Agency’s approval of changes in the work. The Board’s review cannot be completed at the meeting to determine if each change order was appropriate under the contract terms or appropriate under the facts. The Board should reserve their determination, but allow the project to go forward. He explained when the project reaches the guaranteed maximum price, less the change orders, the Board should stop approving change orders. Motion Mr. Holzman moved to conditionally approve the change orders subject to the reservation of rights by the Community Redevelopment Agency to challenge those at the close-out of the project. Mr. Karageorge seconded the motion. Chair Rodriguez opened the floor for public comment. No one came forward. Chair Rodriguez commented, one or two meetings ago, he expressed concern about the expense the Agency was incurring on the Cottage and that they could build two or three buildings for the price of the Cottage. He commented he could no longer support the project when they negotiated a guaranteed maximum price contract and the contractor explained he was absorbing all risk, and then came back with change orders. He did not think the Board was being fiscally responsible with tax dollars. There was a vote on the motion, which passed 6-1 (Chair Rodriguez dissenting). XIV. New Business: A. Consideration of Approval of the Sidewalk Café Code Amendments This item was heard earlier in the meeting. XV. Executive Director’s Report A. Project Status Update None. XVI.Future Agenda Items: 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 9, 2011 A. Renegotiate the Terms/Fees with the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics B. Consideration of Options for VIP Area at Public Events (Tabled 4/12/11) C. Consideration of Recommending to City Commission the Time Certain Creation of an Independent CRA Board (Per Board direction to be done in Oct. ) D. Consideration of Recommending to City Commission the Naming of Independent CRA Board Members at the Time of Creation of Independent CRA Board (Tabled 4/12/11 ) XVII. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Lf!t/ F-' IS. Ut;NLL} Catherine Cherry '" Recording Secretary 081011 15