Loading...
Minutes 08-13-13 MINUTES OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013, AT 6:30 PM, IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FL PRESENT. Jerry Taylor, Chair Vivian Brooks, Executive Director Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Jim Cherof, Board Attorney Buck Buchanan Joe Casello Mark Karageorge David Merker ABSENT: Mike Fitzpatrick 1. Call to Order Chair Taylor called the meeting to Order at 6:30 p.m. II. Invocation and Pledge to the Flag Vice Chair Hay gave the invocation followed by the Pledge to the Flag led by Mr. Merker. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken. A quorum was present. IV. Legal: None V. Agenda Approval: A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Karageorge seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 VI. Informational Items and Disclosures by Board Members and CRA Staff: A. Disclosure of Conflicts, Contacts and Relationships for Items Presented to the CRA Board on Agenda Items B. Informational Announcements Mr. Karageorge had no conflicts to disclose, but wanted to add to Informational Items the passing of Pastor Lance Chaney. Pastor Chaney's legacy will continue through the Back to School Health Fair. One week after the funeral, the Fair was held. Over 2,000 backpacks were given away. Free school physicals and health screenings were given to 3,000 people. He attended the ribbon - cutting ceremony with Vice Chair Hay and Messrs. Casello and Fitzpatrick for the Seabourn Cove Eco Walk, and Phase I is 100% occupied. He also attended with Vice Chair Hay and Mr. Fitzpatrick, the ribbon - cutting ceremony for Prudential Florida Realty's West Boynton Office. He congratulated Chair Taylor's daughter on her upcoming birthday. The Chamber of Commerce has a program planned at Benvenuto and he encouraged all to attend. Vice Chair Hay disclosed he spoke with Rebecca Shelton and David Camalier. He echoed Mr. Karageorge's comments and advised he visited the Ezell Hester Center and observed 250 to 300 youth involved in various programs. Mike Byrd, the Director, indicated they needed financial and community support. Vice Chair Hay was impressed with the activities and expressed if the youth were not engaged, they would be on the street. He hoped the Community, Community Redevelopment Agency, City and citizen organizations would assist them. In prior years, the PAL Program, held by the Police Department, engaged the youth, but the program is no longer in existence. The community rallied and they still have activities. He hoped, as the City reviewed its finances, they could help in some manner. Mr. Merker had no comments or disclosures. Mr. Casello announced he was looking forward to the Chamber meeting the next day to honor special first responders. Mr. Buchanan had no comments or disclosures. Chair Taylor advised he would be attending the Florida League of Cities Conference in Orlando, and he disclosed he also spoke with Ms. Shelton regarding the downtown development. 2 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 VII. Announcements Awards: A. Expansion of the Boynton Beach Haunted Pirate Fest with the Mermaid Splash Vivian Brooks, Executive Director, explained the City used to have an event called the GALA which is long gone. The CRA wanted to create a signature event known throughout the County and beyond as an event to go to, called the Haunted Pirates event. Last year, between 5,000 and 6,000 people attended and this year the Agency wanted to expand it. Ms. Biscuiti and Ms. Smith -Coffee were working with merchants to attract a new crowd to Ocean Avenue. Kathy Biscuiti, Special Events Director, explained the event will be the second annual Boynton Beach Haunted Pirate event and they are adding the Mermaid Splash. The event would be on Saturday, October 26th from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Sunday the 27th from 10 am to 5 pm. The Pirate Fest will encompass Ocean Avenue from Seacrest to First. The Pirates Fest will have 75 interactive singers. There will be three stages, continuous music, entertainment at the amphitheater, food, a dining tent and the Schoolhouse Children's Museum will hold their Haunted House. An interactive pirate ship called the Avenger will be on the program. The members reviewed photos of the End of the Day Sing with the actors, smaller stages with continuous acts, and a compilation of different scenes from throughout the day. Captain Jack Sparrow will also return. Tracy Smith- Coffee, Business Development Specialist, explained she wanted to wrap local business into the event because the Pirate Fest is by Seacrest Boulevard. She wanted to continue the event down Ocean Avenue, over Federal Highway to the Marina and Ocean Plaza. The Mermaid Splash will commence after the Pirates sing their farewell song with a kick -off Mermaid Parade. All are invited to participate in the parade which will include most of the pirates. The route was down Ocean Avenue, over Federal Highway to the Marina, back around and back onto Ocean Avenue. A steel drum band from Lake Worth High School will lead the parade and there will be two stages. One will be at Dewey Park and one at Ocean Plaza. There will be continuous music, local dance performers from Boynton, bands and MC's throughout the night. A mermaid pageant will also be held. The Marina will host a Black Sparrow Pirate Ship for families to board and tour, and Ocean Plaza will have a stage and host art vendors. On Ocean Avenue, by Dewey Park the local eateries will have their own tents sponsored by Corona. There will be live mermaids in tanks and it will be a fun night. By creating this and embracing business in the area, the event becomes a total community event. She thought it was a perfect fit with the Pirate event. 3 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 Ms. Smith -Coffee viewed slides of the Save the Date ad on Facebook. She also ran an ad in the Boynton Forum for the Save the Date for the Pirates Fest as well. The members viewed slides of examples of the art from the art vendors that will be present. The art vendors will be at Ocean Plaza and on Third and Ocean. One new business, the Glass Mermaid opened and the owner will take photos of the mermaid for people to take home. There will be food. On the main stage, a Beach Boys Cover Band called the Shindigs will perform. The event will be a lot of fun. Last year the fee for the Haunted House was $5 and it helped the Schoolhouse Children's Museum raise $8,000. It was anticipated the fee this year will be $5 as well. Chair Taylor commended all for the great job. Mr. Karageorge expressed his appreciation and also appreciated including the local businesses. VIII. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes — CRA Board Meeting, July 9, 2013 B. Approval of Period Ended July 31, 2013 Financial Report C. Monthly Purchase Orders D. Approval of Rent Reimbursement Grant to Pugh Pools, LLC E. Approval of Commercial Construction Project Incentive Program to Global Project Boynton Beach SW, LLC (Sherwin Williams) Motion Mr. Karageorge moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. I. Pulled Consent Agenda Items: None. X. Information Only: A. Public Comment Log B. Quarterly Report from Interior Build -Out Grant Recipient Stage Left Theatre There were no comments or questions on these items. 4 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beac F L August 13, 2013 XI. Public Comments: (Note: comments are limited to 3 minutes in duration) Mr. Geoff Pugh, 35 Harbor Drive, North Ocean Ridge, was present and thanked the Community Redevelopment Agency for their consideration of his Rent Reimbursement Grant. He has been a resident of Ocean Ridge since he was four and been in the pool business for 34 years. He had an office in Lake Worth for a long time and moved to Boynton Beach. He lives 4.5 minutes to his new office. He is in the perfect spot and he thanked the members for the Agency's assistance. Chair Taylor welcomed him and wished him success. No one else coming forward, Public Comments was closed.. XII. Public Hearing: None. XIII. Old Business: A. Approval of Issuance of Request For Proposal and Qualifications for Legal Services for the Community Redevelopment Agency Ms. Brooks explained it was announced at the June 11 meeting this item would be brought back. The RFP was gleaned from Satellite Beach as it was clear and concise in its deliverables. If it meets with the Board's approval, staff would issue it and the proposals would come back to the Board at the October 8th meeting. The Board will interview the respondents because they will work for the Board, not the Agency. Then the Board would compile a short list for the Board to negotiate. Motion Mr. Karageorge moved to approve issuance of an RFP /RFQ for legal services for the CRA. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Merker inquired, depending on how many proposals were received, whether they would hold a special session to review them. Chair Taylor responded if only a few, it could be handled at a regular meeting. The motion unanimously passed. B. Consideration of Terminating the Request for Qualification for Professional Services Mike Simon, Development Director, explained this item was a request to terminate the request issued for design and engineering services. The Board had approved the issuance of the RFQ in May. The response deadline was June 24 at which time they 5 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 received 42 response and another six or seven from firms representing multiple design professions, for a total of about 50. During the budget process and reviewing the upcoming projects, staff no longer felt the need for these firms. They appreciated the responses and the firms' interest in working with staff. Many firms may qualify for City projects needing engineering and design services, which they would be happy to pass on. Staff worked with Tim Howard and feels comfortable proceeding this way. Staff can issue RFQs for specific projects as they arise that exceed their procurement guidelines. At this juncture, the Board was requested to terminate and reject the proposals. It was not something staff could do administratively. Motion Mr. Karageroge moved to terminate the Request for Qualifications for Professional Services. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Karageorge favored moving forward in this manner as it gave the Board more flexibility. He appreciated staffs due diligence and the responses received. The motion unanimously passed. XIV. New Business A. Consideration of Planning and Development Board's Condition of Approval for Two Additional Handicap Parking Spaces for CRA's Public Parking Lot at NE 1 st Street and 1 st Ave. Mr. Simon explained the item was heard by the Planning and Development Board on July 24, 2013, and a recommendation was made to consider a change in the design of the project which staff had to bring back to the Board. The recommendation would alter the existing plan and site plan for a parking lot project on NE 1 st Avenue and 1 st Street, across from the City Hall parking garage. City staff's conditions were relative to easements, lighting and other applications required for permitting. The Planning and Development Board added a condition to replace two of their EV stations with handicap spaces. The requirement for the parking lot and staffs review is three spaces which were included. The Planning and Development Board requested the Community Redevelopment Agency discuss or change the plan to add two additional handicap spaces. Mr. Simon brought the condition to the Board for direction and recommended the Board reject that condition of approval because additional spaces in an outlying parking lot did not provide direct access to a building or use. It did not change the overall amount of parking spaces, but if losing spaces, it would be a concern. 6 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 Motion Mr. Merker moved to accept the item for consideration. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Karageorge commented when the item was presented to the Planning and Development Board, the Board is in a quasi-judicial setting, but Mr. Simon did not have any legal representation to reinforce the regulations under the City's Ordinances and Resolutions. Under the Land Development Regulations, the request was in compliance. Mr. Karageorge thought having additional handicap parking in this location does not make it easier for those that are handicapped. He thought the lot next to the amphitheater is where the additional handicap spaces should be located and he would like the City to make that accommodation. It is more accessible if it is adjacent to the venue as opposed to coming off 1 st. Additionally, sometimes drivers do not slow down and he did not want to see handicapped individuals struck by motorists. He favored additional handicap parking on the side lots of the Civic and Art Centers, or near the amphitheater. Not on the lot they are trying to build and complete before 2014. Vice Chair Hay noted the area is a small area. There would be 58 total parking spaces including three handicap spaces. Next to the three handicap spaces, are two electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. He understood that if they were not being used, handicapped individuals can park in either of the two, so in essence there would be five. Mr. Simon explained they could modify the existing plan to add more than the requirements, not less. The handicapped can park anywhere on the lot, but the two EV stations would have to be converted to handicapped spaces if the recommendation is approved. Mr. Merker suggested instead of trying to alter the plan, they go forward with the recommendation and if there is an issue, they change it. There is a purpose of why the lot was designed the way it was. If logic is what they are being asked to follow, he thought it would be logical to keep the status quo and if it does not work or there is confusion, change it to add more parking spaces. He thought the plan should be kept the way it was planned. Mr. Casello requested clarification if the request was to change and add another handicap spot, they would lose the EV station. Mr. Simon explained it was to relocate the EV station. Mr. Casello inquired what the capacity of the lot was, if it would be filled daily or would be used for overflow. Mr. Simon explained it was an incentive to businesses interested in opening on Ocean Avenue. It can accommodate overflow parking for events or concerts, future development or large City Hall meetings. It is not designed for overnight parking for the residential units to the east of the lot. He had photographs when Weiss Funeral Home had a large service and 42 cars parked on the 7 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 grass. The lot was identified in the Downtown and Master Plans to help facilitate parking for existing businesses on Boynton Beach Boulevard if needed. Mr. Simon did not anticipate much activity there at all during the week. When staff issued the RFP for 211 East Ocean Avenue, whenever they met with potential developers, the first question was about parking. This lot, ideally, is around the corner from Ocean and can have a valet use. It ties in with the sidewalk from 1st to Ocean. It would hopefully assist in the qualification of a site for a restaurant or retail use. He thought the Planning and Development Board's thoughts for more handicap spaces, in general, was supportable as long as it is applied throughout the review process in a consistent form. If that is the City's desire, perhaps assistance in development of the additional spots that were thought to be required could be enacted in a type of form revision for any type of use that accesses stores. Mr. Casello understood that as the area is redeveloped, they can reassess the need and add more handicap parking and currently, the lot is for overflow and special events. Mr. Buchanan commented the situation is indicative of a larger problem which the CRA addressed six to eight months ago. The Board recommended and unanimously approved carrying the recommendation forward to the City Commission to change the approval of CRA projects back to this Board. Right now, CRA staff was going to the Planning and Development Board. The way it used to be, when the CRA Board approved projects, City staff worked with CRA staff, bought the item to the Board and approved it. The process was much more streamlined. He gave the example with the Sherwin Williams paint store. The project conformed to the Code, but CRA staff had other considerations. With Sherwin Williams, the Board did not like the way the building looked, and since they were applying for funding, they had the opportunity to require changes. Another example was the CRA's current building. The original configuration met with the CRA design guidelines. When the owner started to reroof, it went to Planning and Development and it met the Code. But it looked like a Dunkin Donuts. There are other aspects in that when Planning and Zoning reviews a project, their review does not include the Agency's considerations. The Agency may want to add appearance codes for areas such as the Cottage District and Mr. Buchanan thought the CRA Board should have the knowledge and say so to do it. There are also larger issues with Tax Increment Financing and utilities. Mr. Buchanan thought it was imperative the CRA Board approved the projects within the CRA District. The Executive Director is familiar with this and he requested the Board's recommendation to carry to the City Commission that approval of CRA projects come back to the CRA Board. David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, explained he was not representing the Planning and Development Board, but was appearing as a member. He advised he requested the 8 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 additional handicap spots, which was unanimously approved as a condition of approval. He expressed disappointment that aspect was "couched" in the presentation. In the backup during the meeting there was discussion the lot would be used as overflow for events. He thought five handicap spaces was a more appropriate number. At first, his recommendation was to eliminate the EV spots, but he wanted to recognize the City's green initiatives, and said just add two more. He did not think the City or staff should hide behind the Land Development Regulations which require three spaces that were included, but at this time, the only process to add more was at the Planning and Development Board level. If it could be included at the time the site plan was approved, that would be great. He pointed out there are many people with handicap placards in the City and not many individuals with electric vehicles he was aware of. He thought the Agency should not reject those individuals that needed a spot guaranteed to them to be able to attend events. He clarified that was the only reason for his request. The purpose is for overflow. He only requested two spots and not the elimination of the two electric vehicle spots. He responded to Mr. Buchanan's comments, respectfully, he was not sure the CRA Board had any more expertise and oversight of the site plan than the Planning and Development Board. He thought there was nothing wrong with an additional level of input and oversight, and new ideas that may not have been considered could arise. He agreed with streamlined government, but not in this case. Mr. Katz contended that Mr. Simon, in his backup, explained the plan was supported by the Planning and Development staff, and they had agreed the cost of EV stations was about $2,000 each, which was not the cost to create a handicap spot. To come back later and eliminate the EV spots would involve a cost that was already expended. He did not expect the EV spots to go anywhere once installed and he agreed they should be installed for the future. Mr. Simon had also indicated in his backup that members of the public that were in attendance recommended the same. Mr. Katz explained the only individuals from the public in attendance was the owner of the funeral home, who would benefit the most from it, and would not incur any cost with its installation. The owner of Unit 305, No. 207, hoped the Police Department would use the lot to provide additional security for the nearby apartments and requested additional landscaping. The third person who spoke was the unit owner at 205 NE 3 rd Street No. 203, that lives in Greenacres who was concerned about the relocation of the dumpster. Those individuals were not for or against the project. Mr. Katz did not think there was overwhelming support for the proposed plan. He requested the Board agree to the creation of two additional handicapped spots because he did not think the word should go out that the Board turned their back on handicapped individuals who needed to have a closer and a guaranteed parking space. He commented there are not enough in the City in spite of the Land Development Regulations. 9 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 Mr. Merker explained he was hearing "I" and all "I's" have opinions and sometimes there are no specific right and wrongs. When he heard that Mr. Simon was "couching ", he tried to listen to where Mr. Simon "couched ". He was not disagreeing, but as a Board member they are being asked to override what they are being requested to do. He uses the CRA or counsel as an advisory opinion. He respected what Mr. Katz said, but he also couched what he said and it was personal, regardless whether it is right or wrong. He commented in the future, he will follow Mr. Simon's recommendations because that is what he does professionally and he accepts his statement. Vice Chair Hay noted the backup material listed the parking area with three handicap spaces and inquired if it meets City and State Code. Mr. Simon and the Chair responded it did. Mr. Casello inquired what the cost would be if the Board voted to add additional handicap spaces or redesign the lot. Mr. Simon responded the easiest solution is, because the size of the two electric vehicle spots are the same size as the handicap spot, to move the EV spots on the site plan to the first two spots on the southeast corner of the lot and there is a civil engineering cost to redraw the plan and a cost to resubmit. Chair Taylor did not want to start over again, and thought the project should move forward. He was satisfied with the three required handicap spaces. Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to reject the recommendation by the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Casello and Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Chair Taylor clarified the motion was to reject the Planning and Development's recommendation to add two spots. The motion unanimously passed. B. Request for First Amendment to Direct Incentive Funding Agreements, Phase I and II for Seabourn Cove to Correct an Error Motion Mr. Merker moved to approve to correct. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Request by Harvey Oyer, III to acquire a Portion of CRA Property located in the NE 4 th /5 Ave Block in the Heart of Boynton Ms. Brooks explained this was a project they were working on for some time. The block was platted in an odd shape back in the 1920s. The Agency has been acquiring lots in that area for about seven years because the land was platted with a strange block in the middle. Staff had received inquiries by Mr. Oyer, III, and Ms. McIntosh for pieces of the 10 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 Agency's properties for different reasons. Staff wants to fix the problem so the block can be used by the Agency to build a for -sale, moderate - income cottage district, with street lights and create a neighborhood. Mr. Oyer, Ill's, request was for 20 feet on the south end of his property for a driveway as he does not have a formal driveway. Ms. McIntosh wanted to acquire the property behind her property. Someone, at some point, sold off a portion of that lot. Ms. Brooks explained, because there was still some acquisition needed and they did not know how they would fix all of this, that the Board not make a decision on the item at this time. There was no motion needed as the Board was only considering the item. D. Consideration of Request by Valrie Brown- McIntosh to acquire a Portion of CRA Property in the NE 4th /5tn Ave Block in the Heart of Boynton This item was similar to the previous item and no discussion took place. No motion was needed. E. Consideration of Amending the Development Agreement between the CRA and HFHSPBC CLT, Inc. for Ocean Breeze West Ms. Brooks explained this item was brought to the Board because Habitat for Humanity has almost completed their homes. The agreement and proposal submitted was for Habitat to construct 11 homes and the CDC construct 10 homes. The deadline for commencement of construction of all 21 homes is December 2013. Ms. Brooks explained the deadline was imposed by the City and HUD, but Habitat was concerned the CDC will not meet the deadline. The CDC has 3 of 10 houses finished. Habitat would like to amend the agreement to be released from the program when the Habitat homes are finished because they do not want to be responsible for not meeting the deadline; however, Ms. Brooks has not received any clear response from HUD that she was comfortable with to allow them to extend the deadline indefinitely. She pointed out the CDC would need an additional year from December 2014 to complete the homes. Motion Mr. Karageorge moved to consider. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Merker requested confirmation that Habitat would finish what they said they would, the CDC needs an extension, but Habitat could do the work and get it done by December. Ms. Brooks explained Habitat explained to her they could get the work done by then because they have the buyers. He inquired if it mattered who completed the 11 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 work and questioned extending the deadline if the work could be completed properly. He thought Habitat does an excellent job. Mr. Merker thought neither party was guaranteeing anything. The only guarantee he heard was Habitat did what they said they would do and would follow suit and let them move forward. Neither was saying they have the three moderate homes as required. It was stated Habitat had two and the CDC has two guaranteed. Ms. Brooks explained the CDC built three homes and may have another buyer. Mr. Merker thought if they could get it done, let them get it done. Vice Chair Hay explained he had heard Habitat would construct 11 homes, the CDC would build 10, and then the numbers changed. He wanted to know the reason for the delay, whether they are using the same developer, and if the quality of the homes would be the same. If the moderate homes are constructed by Habitat, he inquired if the homeowners would have to pay more because moderate- income homes were not in the Habitat process and there would have to be some modifications in order to take on the project. Sweat equity would not balance the cost of the home. Mike Campbell, Habitat for Humanity Community Land Trust, explained the moderate- income homes would not involve sweat equity at all. The families have to qualify for a traditional bank mortgage. Because it is outside of Habitat's traditional plan, in order for Habitat to complete the project, the equity of the volunteers working on the home is charged as labor to the cost of the home, not the homeowners purchasing the home. That is why the cost of the home would be more. Since Habitat's mission is low- income families, it was acknowledged a subsidy was needed. The land the CRA gave for the homes was a pass - through subsidy to the buyer, but ultimately, the subsidy would be determined on a case -by -case basis and the amount would vary depending on how much of a mortgage the family could support. They may have to step up with a subsidy like a soft second on the home. Vice Chair Hay requested more information regarding the extension and why the project could not meet the deadline it had. Keturah Joseph, Director, Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC, explained when the project started, the CDC was initially going to build 10 homes and Habitat would build 11. Of the CDC's 10 units, five were to be moderate and the other five at or below moderate and low income buyers. When the first set of appraisals on the units came in, the values came in significantly lower than they had ever anticipated. Ms. Joseph and the CDC Board discussed the matter at their Board meeting and then with the CRA and Habitat, and they all agreed if building the homes was going to be a hardship for the CDC, the Community Land Trust (CLT) would take over the ones they could not construct and provide the development subsidy that was needed. After negotiation, it 12 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 was agreed the CDC would only build five homes. Of the five buyers the CDC has, three are moderate and two are low income. They have Certificates of Occupancy for their homes. They are getting ready to close the second moderate - income home next week, and the third will close at the end of the month. In January, the CDC stopped marketing the project because it was agreed Habitat would construct the other five homes instead of the CDC. Before the parties agreed the five CDC units would be constructed by Habitat, the CDC was in the process of obtaining a construction line of credit to build all 10 of the units, and the loan was now approved. When the CDC became aware that it was a hardship for Habitat to build those homes, the CDC decided to use their line of credit and the net proceeds from the sale of the NSP homes they were selling, and commit as much development subsidy for the project as was needed so it would not create a hardship for Habitat. That was why the CDC returned to honor their original commitment. Ms. Joseph explained the reason to extend the deadline at least a year was because when it was agreed the CDC would only build five homes, they had five buyers and they stopped marketing Ocean Breeze. They need the time extension to market Ocean Breeze to obtain another five buyers. The CDC's intention was not to create a hardship for Habitat and believes with the construction line of credit and the development subsidy from the sales of the homes they were selling from the NSP program, they can take the project back. Mr. Karageorge commented there was no guarantee HUD would extend the deadline. Ms. Joseph explained she was working with Octavia Sherrod, the Community Improvement Manager, for the extension. Mr. Karageorge preferred to have the project completed on time and have a mix of moderate and low- income homes, which was the goal of the prior CRA Board. He feels this can be accomplished with Habitat and he did not believe the subsidy had to be $300,000. Mr. Karageorge expressed the subsidy could be reduced to $60,000 to $80,000 to ensure they were constructed within the agreed timeframe. He did not want to renege on the agreement. Mr. Casello requested confirmation the money was available to finish the project and the CDC was requesting the extension in order to market the property due to the arrangement they made with Habitat. Ms. Brooks explained the CDC had to market for two moderate - income buyers and the remaining would be low- income individuals. The only reason they are taking the project on is to eliminate any hardship on Habitat for Humanity. If Habitat can do the project on their own, they can proceed, but when it was announced at a CRA meeting this was a financial hardship for Habitat, the CDC Board advised they were now in a position to assist. Mr. Buchanan inquired if the project was switched, if the subsidy would come from next year's budget. He noted Habitat anticipated the homes would close in four months. Further discussion followed about the quality of materials and Mr. Casello inquired if 13 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 there was a difference in the quality of materials. Ms. Joseph responded, to her knowledge, the CDC homes were the same as the Habitat homes and the roofs had 25- year shingles. They have all the warranties from the builders. Mr. Karageorge inquired about the difference in the two roofs. He thought there were issues with the way the shingles were laid and the integrity of the roof. Ms. Joseph inquired if it was a roofing company issue and Mr. Karageorge agreed and commented the general contractor or sub - contractor could have done a better job. It was noticeable to him. Mr. Karageorge commented he is not a roofer, but he is involved in housing. He went to the general contractor and foreman who used to work for Southern Homes about the matter and was told it was a CDC home. Ms. Joseph expressed disappointment that Mr. Karageorge saw something that caused him concern and he did not contact her. She explained the City passed the work. She agreed to look into the matter and implored members that if they saw something that looked odd, to let her know. Discussion followed about meeting the guidelines to qualify for the funds. Vice Chair Hay thought if the guidelines were met, HUD would not pull the project. Ms. Joseph agreed and explained it was her understanding HUD established a timeline for close -out of NSP projects. HUD lifted the closeout timeline. It was her understanding, once the project commenced, whenever it was finished, it was finished and there were no more timelines. Ms. Joseph explained before the City extends a contract or agreement, the City would verify that with HUD and she left it to the City to pursue. Mr. Karageorge pointed out there was no guarantee an extension from HUD would be granted, and if not extended, it would cause financial problems for the Agency. Further discussion followed about the agreement between the CDC and Habitat. If the extension is granted, what would be the impact on Habitat if the CDC would meet the timeline. Mr. Campbell explained the Land Trust does not want to be a part of the extension. Habitat's goal was to have the project completed by June 2014, with the walls being vertical by December 2013. If the CDC wants to extend the deadline for a year, the Community Land Trust would like to enter into an amendment to be removed from the project, based on the completion of the 11 Habitat homes. The CDC needs 12 months to finish the project if the CRA agreed the CDC would take back the homes. Ms. Joseph commented when Habitat initially agreed to take back the lots, they did not indicate it would be a hardship. Mr. Campbell had indicated Habitat could build to the economy of scale. Mr. Campbell explained seven homes need to be completed. There are three homes constructed by the CDC, two homes in permitting by the CDC. Habitat has seven homes completed, two homes will be finished by the end of October, one is under construction and the final home is in permitting. The hardship is Habitat has funds budgeted to build homes. They have six homes to build in Delray Beach, six homes for the CRA, and the hardship arose from the five homes the CDC was building. Habitat would have to build five homes for families of moderate income and Habitat cannot take donated dollars to build moderate- income homes. This was the 14 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 hardship and why they needed assistance. Mr. Campbell explained Habitat cannot hamper the growth of their mission. In meeting with the City, the CDC and Ms. Brooks, Habitat indicated they will complete the project, but if the CRA chooses to allow the CDC to finish the homes, Habitat preferred the property be written off to the CDC and they will step away from the project except to adhere to the maintenance agreements they entered into for the community. Mr. Merker inquired if Mr. Karageorge was certain one home was inferior to the other. He noted there were many suppositions made and the questions asked could not be answered. He thought if HUD would pull out, it would be foolish not to build the homes immediately. As far as an extension, there was a contract between parties to fulfill their obligations. If one party can finish the job properly, they should be rewarded to do the job. He thought the goal was what was best for the people. If they can complete the work, they should do so. Mr. Buchanan requested confirmation the CDC's position is they are happy to complete the five homes and if it is no hardship on the Community Land Trust, they could complete the homes as well. Chair Taylor explained the hardship to the CLT could be subsidized, but the amount of subsidy was unknown. It was thought if they allocate between $60,000 and $80,000, that would make the project complete. Ms. Brooks explained when the CDC's third moderate buyer closed, the CLT only has to construct two moderates. There would not be much subsidy on two homes. Mr. Campbell explained there are still another three homes that had to be built contingent on the Program, and it was a cash flow concern. Mr. Campbell explained the issue is building five properties. Two of the homes have to be moderate income and they do not know the amount of subsidy, and then there are another three. Habitat has to go to the Land Trust and ask if they will build the other three and how much will it cost to do so. For those five, they can get a line of credit. They would do their best to get them done, but there would be a shortfall of $279,000. The CDC could build the homes and if the Board opts to do so, that would be fine. The CLT can complete them, but they will look for assistance. There was discussion how to frame the motion. The motion pertained to amending the Developer's Agreement. It was recommended the Board not amend the Developers Agreement and have Habitat complete the remaining six homes within the current project timeline; however, the original goal of five moderate income families within the project may not be met since these homes would require a development subsidy of approximately $300,000. If the Board is willing to forego the moderate income goal for five homes, the project can be completed on time without additional funding. It 15 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 appeared at least two of the five homes needed to be moderate homes, but the Agency would have to subsidize it. Motion Mr. Buchanan suggested not amending the Developer's Agreement and have Habitat complete the remaining five homes, and include the dialogue about the subsidy as needed. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. Attorney Cherof explained there were not enough facts to frame the motion and it was too vague. He recommended tabling the motion. Both entities were speaking positively about the ability to work things out. The amount of subsidy was unknown. He thought between now and the next meeting, that amount of subsidy could be identified and the matter addressed at the next meeting. Vice Chair Hay moved to table. Further discussion followed about including a subsidy up to a certain amount. Mr. Buchanan suggested he include in his motion to subsidize an amount up to $300,000. The motion was seconded. Attorney Cherof explained the amount and where the subsidy would come from must be identified. Ms. Brooks explained the subsidy would come from next fiscal year's budget. Susan Harris, Finance Director, reminded the Board of its financial alternative. The Board was discussing an unknown subsidy at the moment; however, if HUD did not extend the deadlines, the City was the primary recipient of the NSP funds. The CRA is a sub- recipient. HUD will audit the City because they have not met its deadline and there may be a financial impact to that. The CRA used $400,000 of the City's NSP funds. The issues were the unknown potential whether HUD will or will not extend the deadline. The impact will be greater to the City and CRA if HUD does not extend it. They will have to meet an unknown financial obligation in the future when they may not have the funds this coming year. Scott Kline, Economic Development Manager, has communicated with HUD and the concept of the deadline was not as dramatic as was discussed. Mr. Kline announced HUD has not expressed a desire to pull funds this year, and were not giving a deadline as to when the project needs to be placed in service. There are many cities in the same position. In his opinion, HUD would have to make a bold decision to request the funds back. 16 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to not amend the Development Agreement, allow the CLT to complete the remaining five homes with a maximum subsidy of $300,000 comprised of funds committed in the next fiscal year. Mr. Merker seconded the motion that passed 4- 2 (Vice Chair Hay and Mr. Casello dissenting.) F. Request by Former Board Member Steven Holzman for Reimbursement of Legal Fees in Connection with the Bright vs. Boynton Beach CRA Case Attorney Cherof explained the item in the meeting backup. Mr. Holzman was requesting reimbursement for attorney fees he incurred while attending a deposition in a case in which he is not a party to, which was the Bright vs. CRA case. Mr. Holzman was not a defendant; he was subpoenaed as a witness. Attorney Cherof responded he was unaware of any legal authority that would authorize the reimbursement of attorney fees under those circumstances. There is authority to provide for reimbursement for a board member who is the subject matter of litigation, is a defendant, or the subject matter of an administrative proceeding. There are very specific facts and circumstances. Mr. Holzman cited instances in which reimbursement was made; however, in Attorney Cherof's view, the cases were all distinguishable, and they were parties to defendants in litigation, were the subject matter of an ethics violation or something along those lines. The decision to reimburse a former Board member lies with the Board or another venue. Attorney Cherof commented the Attorney General, from time to time, has determined when public officials are entitled to reimbursement and it may be possible to submit this question to him to determine whether he thought it was proper to expend public funds for reimbursement in this matter. Attorney Cherof explained he cannot seek that opinion without the authority of the Board. Mr. Buchanan inquired if Mr. Holzman was a member of the CRA Board at that time and if the CRA had an attorney at all the depositions to act on Mr. Holzman's behalf. Attorney Cherof confirmed Mr. Holzman was a member at the time of the deposition. The firm of Lyman Reynolds was present on behalf of the Board, and they was there to protect the interests of the CRA, and in some circumstances, the witness related to the CRA. Attorney Cherof explained in a deposition, it is not proper to instruct a witness not to answer, so there is a limited role of an attorney in any regard. It is common in a deposition for an attorney to ensure the individual is not badgered. Lyman Reynolds would have been in attendance at the deposition and acted in that capacity for Mr. Holzman. Mr. Buchanan felt there was an attorney to represent Mr. Holzman's 17 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 interests, and it was Mr. Holzman's decision to bring his own attorney. Ms. Brooks had a conversation with Lyman Reynolds and was told they would protect the interest of Mr. Holzman at the deposition, and had communicated that to Mr. Holzman's attorney; however, Mr. Holzman's attorney communicated back he would prefer to do so. Mr. Merker understood he was called in as a witness, to simply answer questions honestly. It was Mr. Holzman's choice to have double protection. His defensiveness to ensure his testimony was exact was a personal choice. Ms. Ross brought her own counsel. Lyman Reynolds represents the CRA. If one was being deposed for a personal issue, they can chose to have personal legal representation. Mr. Merker questioned whether it was the City's obligation to pay for one's potential mistakes. Mr. Karageorge also spoke with Lyman Reynolds whether others brought their own counsel. Mr. Reynolds called to schedule a pre- deposition meeting and Mr. Holzman's attorney informed him it was not needed. Ms. Ross brought an attorney with her because she was the subject of an ethics matter. The same attorney that represented her in the ethics matter represented her in the deposition. She has not asked for those fees to be reimbursed. When someone is deposed, a place and time to be and to answer all questions honestly is given under oath. If the truth is told, legal counsel is not required. David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, reviewed the backup and pointed out the bill was not itemized for 10.9 hours, at $350 an hour. The deposition lasted two hours and there were four short emails between Ms. Bright's attorney and Mr. Holzman's attorney. The deposition was held at Mr. Holzman's attorney's office so there was no travel time. He thought if reimbursement would be made, it should be around $700 and he questioned how the total was determined. Mr. Katz explained he was deposed as well. He did not favor reimbursing Mr. Holzman and opined he brought a friend with him who made money on the matter. Chair Taylor did not favor reimbursement. Motion Mr. Casello moved to deny the request. Vice Chair Hay second the motion. Attorney Cherof would not pursue an opinion from the Attorney General. The motion unanimously passed. 18 Meetings Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, FL August 13, 2013 V. Executive Director's Report: A. Project Status Update Ms. Brooks explained that a site plan for development of the Arches site would be submitted in November. There was also an exciting mixed -use project on 5.7 acres in the Heart of Boynton forthcoming. The owner had part of the property and the CRA owns part of property. They hoped to address the land use and zoning to get that project going. Things were progressing well. Mr. Simon explained he learned before the meeting of sad news. The property manager at Marina Village, May Bryce, suddenly passed away this weekend. Being a member on that Board and working with the Marina Village Master Association, it would be impossible to express her service to the Board and the community. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to authorize the Executive Director to send flowers or some type of official condolences from the Board. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Mr. Karageorge praised Ms. Bryce as a top notch individual. XVI. Future Agenda Items: A. RFP for General Contracting Services for Parking Lot Project located at NE 1 st Street and NE 1 st Avenue (Sept. ) B. RFP for General Contracting Services for the Boynton Harbor Marina Phase II Project (Sept.) C. Consideration of Executive Directors Annual Employment Review (Sept.) VII. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Taylor adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 082113 19