Loading...
Minutes 09-08-15 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AT 6:30 pm IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 100 E. BOYNT BEACH BOULEV BOYNT BEACH, FLORIDA Present: Jerry Taylor, Chair Vivian Brooks, Executive Director Joe Casello, Vice Chair Tara Duhy, Board Counsel Buck Buchanan Michael Fitzpatrick Woodrow Hay Mack McCray David Merker I. Call to Order Chair Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Invocation and Pledge to the Flag Mr. Hay gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. III. Roll Call Roll call established a quorum was present. IV. Legal: None V. Agenda Approval: A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 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 Mr. Hay disclosed he met with the Related Urban Development Group and also spoke with Bradley Miller.. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Mr. Fitzpatrick disclosed a brief discussion with Bradley Miller. Vice Chair Casello spoke with Bradley Miller. He advised during his inspection of the Old High School, there were about 10 or 15 4'x 8' CRA signs. Mr. Merker spoke with Bradley Miller. Mr. McCray spoke with Bradley Miller briefly and with the Related Urban Development Group. Mr. Buchanan met with Bradley Miller who was representing someone on the agenda. Chair Taylor received a short call from Bradley Miller. He thanked the Vice Mayor for covering the City while he attended a short family reunion. B. Informational Announcements VII. Announcements & Awards: A. Recap of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Clean -Up Project Renee Roberts, Marketing Events and Economic Development Assistant, advised the Clean -up was a great success. There were 50 volunteers including CRA staff, the Police Department, Police Academy students and community members. They picked up all the litter and removed some sidewalk graffiti on MLK Boulevard from Seacrest Boulevard to Federal Highway. Mr. McCray requested the balance for the project fund line item where $909 was spent. Ms. Brooks responded the item was the Community Support line item. She commented Susan Harris, Finance Director, would provide the balance in the account to him. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired how many baggies used for drugs were removed during the clean -up. Ms. Roberts advised there were hundreds of them all over the area. The Police Academy students took note of the baggies. VIII. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes — CRA Board Meeting August 11, 2015 B. Approval of Period Ended August 31, 2015 Financial Report C. Monthly Purchase Orders Motion 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Mr. Merker moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. IX. Pulled Consent Agenda Items: None. X. Information Only: A. Public Comment Log There were no comments on this item. B. Marketing and Business Development Campaign There were no comments on this item. C. FRA Annual Conference — October 21 -23, Tampa Chair Taylor advised if a member wanted to attend the Conference, he should let Ms. Brooks know. D. Congratulatory Letter from Bill Hager, Florida State of Representatives Ms. Brooks advised Florida State Representative Hager sent a letter to the Chair for the Florida Festival events congratulating them on the awards. XI. Public Comments: (Note: comments are limited to 3 minutes in duration) Piotr Blass, 113 W. Tara Lake Drive, spoke about the beach noting there is pollution in the water. He requested the City analyze the situation and prevent any further deterioration of the beach. He will be traveling to Atlanta and will talk about Sister Cities possibilities. He commented regardless of the disposition of the Old High School, in his heart the building would always be a 24 -story University of Boynton Beach. Chair Taylor commented the City periodically tests the ocean water and would shut down the beach if anything dangerous was found. XII. Public Hearing: None A. Consideration of Resolution No. R15 -03 Adopting the CRA Budget for FY 2015 -2016 Ms. Brooks advised the following changes were recommended at the budget meeting: • Increase the Business Incubator project funding from $25,000 to $50,000 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boyn each, Florida September 8, 2015 • Add a Community Policing project for $200,000 • Reduce the District Clean program funding from $100,000 to $50,000 • Add $200,000 for funding the Town Square Project including addressing the Old High School. Staff reduced the Development Incentive payments by $100,000 because Cornerstone, the developer of the Preserve, did not supply the required report timely, and staff was not obligated to pay that amount. They reduced the Economic Development grant budget by $50,000 and the Property Acquisition funding by $70,917. Motion Mr. Merker moved to approve the Resolution. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. McCray inquired if the budget reductions would have a negative impact on future projects and learned they would not. Ms. Brooks explained the amounts could also increase. She pointed out they would receive funds when closing on the 480 and 211 E. Ocean Avenue properties that can be reallocated to the line items that were reduced. Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned the Board's recommendation for the demolition of the Old High School when there was no vote. Ms. Brooks responded this came out of the budget meeting. It will be funded through the Town Square project line item. The money is there if the architect comes back with a plan the City Commission supports. The funds could be used for asbestos removal. If the report says restoring the Old High School was not feasible, then the funds could be used for demolition. In the past, staff used funds from the line item for surveys, for developers to conduct site planning and appraisals. It was not specific to one item. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented they could motion to specifically not use the funds for the purpose of demolition. Ms. Brooks explained they could set a policy barring using the funds for demolition. Any use of the funds would have to be approved by the Board. Mr. McCray suggested removing the word demolition regarding the Old High School in the Town Square Project Line Item at $200,000, and Ms. Brooks agreed to do so. Mr. Merker wanted the $200,000 for the Community Policing program defined when it is created. Tara Duhy, CRA Board Counsel, explained the motion should be to approve Resolution R15 -03, a Resolution of the Boynton Beach CRA adopting a budget for the Fiscal Year October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, and providing an effective date subject to ratification by the City. Chair Taylor announced that was the motion and the motion unanimously passed. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 B. Consideration of the Purchase and Development Agreement with Related Urban Development Group (RUDG, LLC) for the Ocean Breeze East Site Ms. Brooks explained the Board selected this group as the developer for the Ocean Breeze East site. They had multiple conversations to have the agreement in final form in time for the meeting. She advised the agreement was reviewed by both parties' legal counsel. The purchase price was $2 million for the site, contingent on Related receiving a 9% tax credit allocation after the first of the year. The design is subject to CRA Board approval and closing will occur within 90 days from the tax credit allocation approval. They will have two additional closing extensions at $15K each in addition to the purchase price. They will submit a site plan by May 31 sc and will submit construction drawings within five months of a binding commitment for the tax credits from Florida Housing Finance. They requested a local government contribution minimum of $75K as a low- income loan or grant, but it must be from the municipality and not the CRA. Ms. Brooks would request the City Manager add this item to the next City Commission agenda and then enter into an interlocal agreement for the CRA to reimburse the City. The local government contribution is a tax credit requirement. If they do not get private funding, it will only be good for that application. The $15K is non - refundable and the two extensions were for 30 days each. Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Jason Goldfarb from Related Urban Development Group, explained the amount was the minimum threshold requirement of each application submitted for the 9% tax credits. The requirement shows a commitment from the local government that they are in support of the project. It is a standard fee. Vice Chair Casello inquired if unsuccessful for the 9% credits, if they had a Plan B to apply for the 4% tax credit and fill the gaps and learned they did. The motion passed 6 -1 (Mr. Merker dissenting.) C. Consideration of the Related Urban Development Group's (RUDG, LLC) Request for Required Local Government Contribution in the Amount of $115,000 for the Ocean Breeze East Site Ms. Brooks explained they have the $115,000 because that was the net present value. They had originally looked at a loan, and staff was now looking at a grant. Ms. Brooks explained they should approve this at $75,000. The motion should be to approve the local government contribution to Related Urban Development Group for Ocean Breeze East in the amount of $75,000 to be reimbursable to the City. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Motion Mr. McCray so moved. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed 6 -1 (Mr. Merker dissenting.) D. Consideration of the Purchase and Development Agreement for 480 East Ocean Avenue with Ocean Avenue Pride, LLC Motion Mr. Merker so moved. Mr. McCray seconded the motion. Vice Chair Casello noted the reverter clause and inquired if both parties had to agree or if one party could stop the process. Ms. Brooks explained if the project is not completed in the time frame, they can request an extension. The clause is if they do not do anything, the property would revert back to the CRA and the developer would have their money refunded. One party can activate the process. Ms. Brooks confirmed the Board has the discretion to approve the extension, but extensions should not be unreasonably withheld. There are delays that can occur with inspections and construction. It was noted the clause pertained to both the 211 and 480 properties. The motion unanimously passed. E. Consideration of the Purchase and Development Agreement for 211 East Ocean Avenue with Local Dev Co., LLC Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. Ms. Brooks explained there were some issues with the agreement. The first was the determination of assignability of the contract. The CRA wants to prevent the flipping of the property and staff was aware the purchaser will form a new LLC. The CRA wanted to ensure the new LLC was solely or mostly owned by the person the Board agreed to sell to. Another item the purchaser was asking for, under the Renovation Grant of $200,000, was that the CRA reimburse the developer for architectural expenses. Ms. Brooks pointed out the CRA had never made that an eligible expense under any of their programs because it is a soft expense. The next issue was the length of time for the reverter clause. Ms. Brooks thought it was fine to have a shorter period than what staff proposed, but not as short as the purchaser proposed. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boy nton each, Florida September 8, 2015 Attorney Tom Carney, 135 SE 5 t " Avenue, representing Bruce Kaplan commented the issue had to do with the way corporate structures operate. In reference to assignability, Mr. Carney thought at some point when the project is running, they could assign the project to a new buyer without having to obtain consent. Vice Chair Casello inquired if assignability would apply after the project was completed or while it was in progress and learned it pertained to after it was completed. The idea was they could then sell it, but it also pertained to the right of first refusal. Mr. Carney wanted to have the right of first refusal cease at some point, should they want to sell to the existing operator. The contract always had a right of first refusal and Attorney Carney wanted a time frame. Attorney Duhy clarified Attorney Carney was referring to Section 21, Paragraph E, which she read. This provision was not intended and will not be exercised to prevent the purchaser from conveying the property to a third party that would otherwise meet the criteria and obligations in the agreement. The purchaser wants it to expire at some point. Mr. Merker requested confirmation Party A puts it together and Party B runs it for a specific time before sale and learned it had to do with the property being operated in accordance with how the CRA wants it to be run. Attorney Carney wanted to exempt Party B if Party A wanted to convey the property, but at some point eliminate the right of first refusal. Attorney Carney explained he had recommended three years. Chair Taylor understood the right of first refusal to purchase the property was to ensure they maintained a historic house. If the first right of refusal goes away and the property is sold, the property could be demolished. Ms. Brooks clarified the intent was if the property was sitting dark and not performing as anticipated, the CRA could intervene. The house is designated as historic. They could not demolish it per City Code and it would come before the Board. Attorney Duhy explained the right of first refusal is triggered if the purchaser wants to sell to a third party. Before that could occur, they would have to give notice to the CRA and give them the opportunity to purchase it back. Attorney Carney's proposal was three years for the right of first refusal which Ms. Brooks could support. The second issue is the reverter which would come into play if the property failed to be used in the manner specified in the agreement. Ms. Brooks explained assignability was in the first paragraph of the agreement. The reason was to ensure that who they were dealing with through the process of the project being completed was the same person they were partnering with today. Staff had included in the language they have to be a wholly -owned affiliate assignee. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beac Florida September 8, 2015 Attorney Duhy would not recommend including the language in the front of the agreement and commented it would have the same effect if including it in paragraph 14 which deals with assignability. Attorney Carney agreed to common ownership which Mr. Kaplan would be the principal, and it may be a new LLC, but not a subsidiary of a local development company. Attorney Duhy summarized the request was to amend language in paragraph 14 to allow the purchaser to assign the rights and obligations of the contract to another entity that is of common ownership sufficient to ensure that it would be who they were contracting with and using different words. If done, it would not come before the Board; otherwise, any other assignment of the contract would have to come before the Board for approval. Mr. McCray asked why this was not provided prior to the meeting. Ms. Brooks explained the second page of the agenda cover item detailed the unresolved items in the agreement needing policy direction. Attorney Carney spoke about eligible expenses and discussed the costs of some of the architectural and construction drawings were included as hard costs because the contract detailed there were required elements. He offered to split the costs. Ms. Brooks explained staff wanted to prevent someone entitling the property they received at a low price and sell it. They linked the assignability and these costs. She pointed out this could happen under the scenario Attorney Carney presented, but staff thought it was in the best interest of the public to not allow it. Those costs are on the developer. She pointed out the purchaser would do this prior to closing, but the same was true for any development and those costs are paid up front prior to closing. When they have an agreement, Mr. Kaplan is assured he will receive the $200,000 grant specified in the agreement and he could use that $200,000 to offset the hard costs for planning and architecture costs. Ms. Brooks did not support this and did not want to set a precedent. Mr. Kaplan did not think it was significant. He was not concerned about the issue if the Board felt it was not appropriate. As to assignability, Mr. Kaplan clarified his attorneys and insurance carriers want to avoid the term wholly -owned subsidiaries. They have many projects and many investments. They could all be targets in case one of their projects owned by a local development company is sued. This protects the Board and the project. This is done individually, not as a local development company. The local development company will be the 51% member. To call the entity a wholly -owned subsidiary of a local development company leaves them open to liability if someone is injured in one of their establishments. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Mr. Kaplan explained the person leasing the property or being setup as an owner has no ownership interest until it is sold. When they build the restaurant, they may have an operator in the premises, but Mr. Kaplan would still maintain ownership of the equipment and everything. The operator will pay rent, fees, or other costs. Mr. Kaplan explained most of their holds exceed three years. If the operator wants to purchase the property from them, they would then become a member of a new entity they would sell it to. When the operator wants to purchase the establishment, the Board could either agree or refuse. Prior to any time of sale, the operator would not have a relationship with the CRA, but would after the sale. Mr. Buchanan inquired if this topic could be resolved in paragraph 14 and agreeable to both parties and Attorney Duhy confirmed it could. Mr. Kaplan had agreed to the CRA terms regarding the soft costs. Vice Chair Casello asked if the commercial grants were matching grants and learned they were. Ms. Brooks clarified the only one that was not a matching grant was the $200,000 that was carried in the budget for the last few years for the project. Attorney Carney explained they had discussed receipt of the $200,000 could be set up as a draw schedule as opposed to a lump sum upon the certificate of occupancy. He requested the Board approve of staff working out the draw schedule and the members had no objections. The hard costs would be about $600,000. Attorney Duhy noted paragraph 19 discussed the reverter clause and Exhibit B was the attachment. The issue was the length of time for the reverter clause would be in effect. It was discussed if the building is not used for nine months, it would revert back. Mr. Buchanan commented the reverter clause protects the CRA in case the property lay fallow. Whoever owns it at that time would be paid fair market value. Because payment would be at fair market value, Mr. Buchanan did not see a down side. Ms. Brooks explained at some point they will have to let the project go to the private sector. The likelihood the CRA would buy back the property when it is finished was very slim. Ms. Brooks suggested a time frame that is fairer to the purchaser and fair to the CRA. After further brief discussion, three years was agreed on by both parties Mr. McCray inquired when they would receive the final copy with the amendments. Attorney Duhy explained it would be part of the motion. The Board could agree to let staff negotiate the terms as discussed and approve the agreement at the meeting next month or the Board could direct staff to negotiate it and allow it to be executed outside of a meeting as long as the agreement contained the terms and policy direction was given. Mr. McCray requested it be brought back to the Board. Mr. Fitzpatrick explained the discussion was in the record and was concerned about the timing for the next season. Chair Taylor agreed as did Messrs. Hay and Buchanan. Ms. Brooks would ensure what was discussed would be incorporated with Attorney Duhy's help and allow Chair Taylor to execute it when completed. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Attorney Duhy explained the motion would be to approve the purchase and development agreement with the following amendments: • Amend the paragraph regarding the right of first refusal to expire three years from the issuance from the Certificate of Occupancy. • Allow the assignment of the contract to an entity with a majority common ownership without CRA Board approval. • Add a limitation on the length of the reverter clause to expire within three years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to direct staff to proceed with those changes. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. The non -use reverter clause if the property was fallow for nine months within that three - year period was still in effect and was agreed on by both parties The motion unanimously passed. XIV. New Business: A. Consideration of Letter of Intent from Housing Trust Group for Properties on the South Side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Ms. Brooks explained the Housing Trust Group (HTG) wanted to build a project. Ms. Brooks clarified she presumed they would construct 60 units based on their last presentation. They want to purchase all the property within a certain area next to the Family Dollar Store. The cost of the additional parcels not owned by the CRA was about the same as what the Related Urban Development Group was paying for the Ocean Breeze East project although this project was one acre smaller proposed as mixed -use to be complementary to the Family Dollar Store and provide neighborhood business space in the project. Bradley Miller was present representing the Housing Trust Group. Mr. McCray pointed out the CRA purchased the land for $800,000. It was appraised for $500,000. He noted HTG did not want to pay for this land, but was willing to pay $2 million for Ocean Breeze East. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning was present with Bryan Finnie, Vice President of Development, HTG. Mr. Miller reviewed an aerial of the property. It was a 1.85 acre with Family Dollar next to it. This included property outside of what the CRA owns. There were gaps creating a development parcel. HTG went to the three different property owners and negotiated a selling price. They have a verbal agreement with the owners and hoped there would be 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B o y nton Beach, Florida Se 8, 2015 direction given at the meeting. The plan only works if the CRA and three property owners agree. Mr. Finnie confirmed discussions and verbal agreements took place, but nothing was on paper. If the project is approved, they would continue their discussions with them. Mr. Merker inquired if they set a timetable. Mr. Finnie explained they want to participate in the next round of tax credit funding for October /November this year and do the project in 6, 12 and 18 -month segments. Chair Taylor explained anything the Board agreed to would be based on them acquiring the four properties. If not, the project dies. Mr. Miller explained they prepared a plan to fit into the neighborhood along MLK Boulevard, taking into account the Master Plan parking and have recommended amenities to go with it. The 2001 Master Plan shows the corner as commercial and multi - family, and the other area shows nearly the same plan they came up with, which was exactly what the Heart of Boynton Master Plan had even with the updates. He gave kudos to the City and the CRA for completing the Carolyn Sims Park, the Model Block plan, the Ocean Breeze East, and Family Dollar because the Plan was coming to fruition. The $2 million for the non -CRA property is to assemble the property into a developable parcel. Per acre, it is slightly over $600,000, or $23,000 per unit. Ocean Breeze East is at $17,000 per unit. For the 3.3 acres to be developed with the 88 units they are considering, it would require all working together. Mr. Miller wanted the Board to consider this and move forward with the property owners, otherwise he feared they will be stuck and the property will remain as it is today. Mr. Buchanan inquired if there was a Plan B and learned if they were unsuccessful with the 9% tax credits, they will pursue the 4% funding. Mr. Finnie explained they had to identify funding from unusual and non - traditional sources. They have the ability to do that. He advised most of the real work is done on the 4% bonds. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented there were two firms applying for the 9% credits, and inquired if it would hurt one of them. If so, they should stick with the Related Urban Development Group and let them have this cycle. Ms. Brooks responded they are competing against other developers in the County. She anticipated there would be 10 to 15 applications. One project would be selected. If there are two applications, the odds of one of the two projects being funded increases. Mr. Fitzpatrick thought if they gave the land away, they would be setting a bad precedent that would hurt the CRA down the road. Mr. Merker disagreed. They were putting up $2 million of their own funds to beautify and better the area. Vice Chair Casello asked, if paying $606,000 for an acre of land, how they would institute Plan B. Mr. Finnie responded many affordable housing programs allow for low cost financing and some funds to be turned into grants. They would determine the 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 financial structure, the rates and terms needed to obtain a return for their investors. Vice Chair Casello inquired if that included coming back to the CRA for funding and Mr. Finnie responded that was not their intent. Mr. Finnie pointed out if they have a $20 million project and they raised $19.5 million, when the project closes, they will generate $100,000 in taxes forever. If they indicate they need $500,000 that can be returned within five years, they could ask, but he reiterated it was not their plan. Mr. Hay was encouraged by the project, particularly because the property has been an eyesore and a challenge to the City, community and the Police Department for decades. Mr. Hay favored pursuing the project noting it could be the springboard to great things. Mr. McCray asked what the next step would be if the property owners refuse to sell. Mr. Finnie understood at some point in time, they would be given the right to develop the site. They cannot close and take title to the property until the parcel is assembled. Until they go through the process, the CRA would have no exposure. Chair Taylor was impressed with HTG. The CRA has spent over $23 million in the HOB and people comment they do not see it and the CRA has not done anything. Other than the Ocean Breeze West and Family Dollar Store which were tangible, the main thing in the HOB was developing MLK Boulevard. If that could be developed, the community will say that they did something. If the HTG can return to the Board with written sales agreements, Chair Taylor would not have a problem giving the land to bring the project to fruition or have a problem spending another $500,000 to make the project. He agreed with Mr. Hay. Mr. McCray explained the HOB is partly in District III, and wanted to know how much was spent in District II. Ms. Brooks explained the $23 million was spent in the HOB per the HOB Plan and it did not overlap into District 3. Mr. McCray requested a copy. Motion Mr. Hay moved to give the green light for the letter of intent for HTG for the properties on the south side of MLK Boulevard, and to come back with a proposal to present to the Board. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. Attorney Duhy suggested the date to bring the agreement back to the Board be included in the motion. Mr. Hay agreed it would have to be brought before the Board by the next month's meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented if voting for this, the CRA was throwing money away without getting a good return. He thought they needed some standards, and his would be to receive 70% of appraised value. He thought the CRA was rewarding bad behavior and was setting an expectation for all landowners the CRA will pay more and more for less and less. He thought the CRA should take a stand. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 201 Chair Taylor explained the goal of the CRA was not to make money. It was to invest in downtrodden areas to improve taxable values. The CRA buys property to eliminate undesirable areas and make them desirable. Mr. Merker thought it was the smartest thing the CRA could do. If MLK Boulevard was developed, they broaden the horizons for the rest of the City. If they develop it properly the rest will follow. The whole City should be developed. Vice Chair Casello inquired if they anticipated having the parcels under ownership in time for the application deadline and Mr. Finnie did. Mr. Buchanan commented they must look at the true value of the property. Unless someone puts money in, it is just land they cannot do anything with. He would rather see the HTG move forward with it. HTG is willing and has the plans to move forward. Currently, the property, functionally was zero. Mr. Hay always supported improving Boynton Beach and one day hopes to ride all over the City and not be able to identify any blighted areas, which currently had obvious areas. Now they have the right people at the table and this was an opportunity to move the City forward. Mr. McCray wished HTG well. The motion passed 6 -1, (Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting.) B. Consideration of Transferring Two CRA Properties to the City for the Model Block Project -1204 NW 1 St Street and a Portion of 133 W. MILK Blvd. Motion Mr. Merker moved to approve. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed 6 -1 (Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting.) C. Consideration of Responses to the Invitation to Bid for Boynton Harbor Marina, Marina Open Space Project: Demolition Phase Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. Vice Chair Casello noted the CRA had previously voted to demolish the old dive shop building and he tried to restore it. He asked if they explored any possibility of developing the building. Ms. Brooks responded they did not because when the engineers studied the building, the cost to improve it exceeded what it would cost construct a new one. The building was too small. Additionally, it was not a historic building. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boy Beach, Fl to er 8, 2015 Mike Simon, Assistant CRA Director, clarified they had a tenant there and the CRA terminated the occupancy to move forward with the project. The tenant was a commercial tenant. Vice Chair Casello felt Two Georges and Marina Village dictates what occurs at the Boynton Beach Marina. He receives emails saying it creates noise and it obstructs the sight lines to the Harbor. He pointed out the building was there before Marina Village was constructed. The building could be a multi - purpose building, and he felt Ms. Brooks never explored the possibility of bringing businesses to the Marina. Ms. Brooks explained this was part of a Master Plan that was adopted and was a sub plan in the Downtown Master Plan. This was always in the Plan and it never changed. There is a Palm Beach County easement on the property and if they sold that property or changed its use from a public use to a private use, they would have a say. They had to work within those guidelines. It was not the CRA's desire to demolish a building and plant palms; it was to increase the desirability of the area to make it a destination for visitors and residents. There is a lot of vacant commercial space, and each year the CRA encourages many businesses to come to the district. Staff was just implementing the Plan. Chair Taylor agreed. The Board discussed putting a business there and voted against it 6 -1. Vice Chair Casello had wanted to keep the building. The Board needed to move forward and discuss the invitation to bid for the demolition phase. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented RFPs are issued when the Board approves them. If there is a subject the Director does not bring up, then members should raise the issue. The business that moved out moved 50 feet to a newer store. Motion Mr. Buchanan moved to enter into negotiations with the low bidder that staff recommended and allow the Chair to execute a contract consistent with the proposal received without bringing it back before the Board. Mr. Merker seconded the motion that passed 6 -1, (Vice Chair Casello dissenting.) D. Consideration of Bus Shelter and Bus Bench Design within the CRA District Ms. Brooks explained the City has an agreement with Paul Smith Company to build, install and maintain bus shelters and benches throughout the City in exchange for putting advertisements on those structures. The City receives $14,500 per year in revenue from these advertisements. As developers come in, if there is a bus stop or shelter in front of the property, the CRA asks they create a new one architecturally compatible with the project. These do not have advertising. Ms. Brooks explained when reviewing coastal communities to the north and south of Boynton Beach, they do not have advertisements on their bus shelters and benches. It 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 was a policy decision they made and they passed ordinances barring off -site advertising to make the area more attractive. She referenced the area north of Federal Highway in Hypoluxo, the east side is attractive. Lantana, Lake Worth, Delray Beach and Boca Raton all have this policy. These are typically redevelopment areas they want to enhance. Staff sought direction to continue to work with developers to have bus shelters and benches architecturally compatible with their project. Mr. McCray agreed as long as they were compatible and had trash cans. Discussion followed the shelters without advertising had continuity. Mr. Hay agreed, but inquired if there were any rules about signs because some shelters had signs in the background. Ms. Brooks responded people are not supposed to be putting signs there because they are not permitted. Mr. Hay has seen them and thought the City should step up Code Enforcement. Vice Chair Casello noted the bus shelters on Gateway have advertising. Ms. Brooks pointed out this pertains to areas within the CRA District. Vice Chair Casello did not find the shelters offensive. Ms. Brooks repeated CRA staff asks the developer to pay for the shelters through the site plan approval process. There are very few bus shelters on U.S. 1 in the CRA District. The route is frequently used by Palm Tran and there would be more transit forthcoming. Other cites require a bus shelter to protect passengers from the sun and rain. Vice Chair Casello inquired if they could dictate what type of bus stop they want with the advertising and use the revenue to keep bus stops clean and attractive. Mr. Buchanan thought advertising on bus stops looked cheap, low class and third worldish. The revenue for the shelters was miniscule. The stops by City Hall are atrocious. He commented INCA fought this for years. The City would not be a first - class City if they continue to have those bus stops with advertising. He could see the difference in the north and south and thought it should be cleaned up. Chair Taylor commented the City has a contract. The Paul Smith Company builds the bus stops for the City. If damaged by a car or storm, the Company rebuilds it. The advertising helps to do this. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired how the contract could be in place since 1997 with no sunset date. Tim Howard, Finance Director, explained it was a long -term agreement, but was unsure of its expiration. He believed the City would have to give a 90 or 120 day written notice to terminate. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted Chair Taylor had put in an exception for the CRA. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton B each, Florida September 8, 2015 Motion Mr. Merker moved to adopt no advertising on bus shelters in the CRA area. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed 6 -1, (Vice Chair Casello dissenting.) E. Consideration of Renewal of CRA Executive Director's Employment Agreement Motion Mr. Merker moved to accept the contract. Ms. Brooks explained it was the same contract as last year except the dates were changed. Attorney Duhy explained she did some technical cleanup, but did not change the terms of the agreement. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Vice Chair Casello inquired if the contract included a 3% increase and learned it did not. Attorney Duhy explained the salary was the same salary as last year, but there was a provision for an increase in the contract. Motion Mr. Buchanan amended the motion to include a 3% increase. Mr. Merker seconded the motion. Vice Chair Casello explained they were giving someone thousands of dollars for a raise that did not meet expectations. He thought department heads and executive directors should be held to a higher standard. This would be a 3% raise each year when there were hiccups in the process this past year. He voted not to keep the Executive Director. He advised when things are not going well for a team, you do not fire the whole team; you look at the manager and Ms. Brooks is the manager. Her rating of 3.8 did not warrant the raise and it should not be automatic. Mr. Buchanan thought the rating was skewed by two members, and Vice Chair Casello disagreed. Mr. McCray explained he rated her based on how he felt. He was not satisfied she was getting a raise and he was not satisfied with her. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented it is difficult to be a Director. It is a positon with many variables. He rated her above four. Mr. Hay restated the problem was not with Ms. Brooks, or the City Manager or the staff. The problem lies with the leadership. He wished there was an evaluation form for each CRA Board Member. If reversed, many of the CRA members may not be on Board. He also favored a 3% increase. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton B eac h, Fl September 8, 2015 Mr. McCray advised he listens to the residents in District Ii and that was how he evaluated her. He felt District II was not getting the bang for the buck. Vice Chair Casello commented he is evaluated every election. He had to be accountable because being appointed and elected is two different things. Chair Taylor commented the Board had previously discussed the evaluation; this was just to renew her contract with a 3% increase. The motion passed 5 -2 (Vice Chair Caseiio and Mr. McCray dissenting.) F. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Revisions for FY2015 -2016 a. Commercial Rent Reimbursement b. Commercial Interior Build -Out c. Commercial Fagade d. Commercial Construction Permit Incentive Chair Taylor read each grant. Ms. Brooks explained they made a few changes. One was to add a credit score of at least 601 to ascertain the financial stability of the business or business owner. Staff wanted to establish a threshold to avoid any arguments. Staff also added medical research centers /housing to the list of ineligible grant activities. These are rehabilitation centers, drug detox centers and staff was receiving many inquiries about them. Hair and nail salons were struggling and there is an overabundance of florists and fitness centers. Staff did not want to artificially encourage them with funding when the market was saturated with those uses. The amounts were not changed.. Mr. McCray inquired who argued with her about credit and learned one business owner argued her credit score was good enough. She pointed out 601 was a mediocre score so staff wanted to have an actual policy. Chair Taylor inquired about the interior build -outs with rehab centers and asked if they were office rehabilitation centers and not sober homes. Ms. Brooks explained they were receiving a lot of demand for assistance with sober homes so they were listed as ineligible. Mr. Merker inquired if the sober homes could bring suit against them. Attorney Duhy clarified this action was consistent with the CRA's mission. It was a grant program and the Board could set criteria that is consistent with the CRA's development and adopted plans. Ms. Brooks explained sober homes were in -house medical treatment centers. Chair Taylor thought it was too broad. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted page 667 lists the unpermitted uses which included drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers /housing. Mr. Simon explained there was pretty clear language and since they are matching grants, the City would have to issue a Business Tax Receipt which further defines the business. Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out the Board is not obligated to approve anyone if they are not on the list. Attorney Duhy agreed. Any use inconsistent with the redevelopment plan could be denied. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board B oynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Mr. Merker so moved. Mr. Simon clarified the members had previously discussed a Commercial Fagade applicant that some Board members requested participate in the No Trespass program as a criteria for grant approval It did not pass, but staff was asked to bring back the possibility of adding it to grants. They have partnered with the Police Department for their own properties and others. Currently enforcement by the Police Department, under those agreements, was inconsistent. Staff was concerned if they place that type of a burden on the applicant, while the intent of the Board was admirable, the process for those trespass agreements does not guarantee the end result. It was not as efficient as the Board wanted it to be and it would be cumbersome with the tenant, landowner and the Police. He agreed it could be an opportunity to have dialogue with the applicants with properties that have extreme Code Enforcement and Police issues. Ms. Brooks agreed to speak to the Assistant Chief to find a more effective process to determine what existing signs are valid. Mr. Hay agreed the Bell property had signs on the building, but they needed a written trespass agreement. The signs are already there, but not being enforced. Mr. Buchanan commented they could still require the provision as part of the grant criteria. Regardless of whether the agreements could be enforced, he thought the mechanism should be in place. Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke with the City Manager and the agreements run out after one year. In any given month, some would run out, but no one was keeping track. They could time it with the Business Tax Receipt and include it as part of the process. He understood staff was indicating they should not put the criteria in the fagade grant, and handle it on a case -by -case basis as the applications arise. Attorney Duhy agreed and suggested including language to that effect. Vice Chair Casello inquired if someone could come back and claim discrimination. Ms. Brooks explained it could be tied to Police activity. It would be easy to obtain the statistics on the address and if there are significant amounts of police activity on the site, the Board could consider whether or not to fund them at all. Mr. Simon clarified it would be specific to the applicant who owns a specific property. Mr. Buchanan commented the Board does not have to give anyone a dime or give a reason. Attorney Duhy concurred that as long as it was consistent in the guidelines for issuing the grant, and those criteria and conditions placed on any individual grant are consistent with the mission and adopted plans of the CRA, the Board could make their decisions on those factors. Mr. McCray noted on MILK Boulevard, the CRA is one of the biggest derelict property owners, and they should step up to the plate. He thought they should lead by example. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 Chair Taylor noted there was consensus for items a, b and d. They have to decide on the trespass. After staff meets with the Assistant Chief on how to improve the program, it could be brought back at another date and added as a condition of approval. Mr. Buchanan favored including the requirement now and letting the administrative procedures work out how it is to be enforced. The Board was not enforcing the rules; they set them. Mr. Fitzpatrick preferred to go with the staff recommendation and believed it would not be easy to fix. After polling the members, there was agreement to leave it out. Attorney Duhy recommending approving the economic development grant revisions for the Commercial Rent Reimbursement Grant, the Commercial Interior Build -out grant, the Commercial Facade grant, and the Commercial Construction Permit Incentives as recommended by staff. Motion Mr. Hay so moved. Mr. Merker seconded the motion that passed, 6 -1, (Mr. McCray dissenting.) G. Consideration of Letter of Intent to Lease between the CRA and DJV Development for 404 E. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Ms. Brooks explained staff was planning ahead for the Innovative Policing Program, and she and the Chief had discussed having a police presence on MLK Boulevard. This is an 800 square foot property. The building was already improved and had an office with a restroom. If the Board approves, they would place a large Boynton Beach Police Department sign there. She hoped it would cut back on the loitering. This action would lead to community- oriented policing by having a more visible and frequent police presence on the Boulevard. Mr. McCray disagreed and pointed out there is trash on CRA property. Mr. Hay was concerned and noted there was a church next door. Ms. Brooks responded the last time she spoke with the Church, Pastor Lyons called her to buy the church. She did not know if they were still in operation. Mr. McCray advised some years ago, the CRA owned a property that had a restaurant and they made it a sub - station. The building was since torn down. Vice Chair Casello inquired if they should purchase the building. Ms. Brooks explained there are very few commercial buildings on MLK Boulevard. He asked if they had the option to buy. Ms. Brooks explained the property was a large parcel and they were only leasing one piece of it. The owner purchased everything from the Doris Jefferson Estate (DJV). They want a lot of money. The CRA did not know how the trial program would fare, but there will be benchmarks for positive change. Under the agreement, 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2015 they will have to provide reports. They want to ensure everyone is on the same page for the CRA's plans for the corridor. Mr. Merker thought having a police presence in any area where something happens sends a positive message and it was an excellent idea. Paul Snitkin, Anderson & Carr, CRA Broker, explained they had negotiated a larger space, but got the owner to lease smaller space at a lower rate and clear out the restaurant equipment. Mr. McCray asked what the rent was and learned it was $800 a month plus sales tax for a three -year lease with an option to renew for another three years. The original space on the east side of the building rents for about $1,500. The smaller unit has a unified meter for water and sewer, and he negotiated free water and sewer for the unit. Chair Taylor inquired what happened if the program did not work and if they had to pay for another two years unless they negotiated an exit clause. The CRA could sublease the property. The rate was contingent on the length of time. If they get the project on MLK, there will be mixed and commercial uses and they could relocate there if they want to continue. Mr. Merker thought it was a business decision to make it a safer area. Mr. Snitkin had tried to negotiate a five -year lease at a better rate. If they negotiated year -to -year, they may have to leave in a year regardless of whether the program works or not. Having the ability to sublease provided options. The original quote was $1,500 a month. Mr. Snitkin did not ask for a year -to -year rate. Mr. Fitzpatrick explained the CRA gave away $520,000 on MLK Boulevard. He commented what was the difference with another $19,000. Vice Chair Casello inquired where the funds were coming from and learned they would come from the property acquisition budget. Motion Mr. Merker moved to accept renting the facility. Mr. Hay seconded the motion, Mr. McCray did not think Mr. Snitkin brought all the options to the table. Attorney Duhy advised the lease will be brought to the Board for approval at the October meeting. The motion unanimously passed. Mr. McCray requested when negotiating items, Mr. Snitkin bring back more than one option. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Boyn c Florida r 8, 2015 XV. Executive Director's Report: A. Developer E -Mails for Potential Redevelopment Sites These were for information only. The emails were sites she was recommending to various developers to consider for future redevelopment. Mr. McCray commented he did not receive them. Ms. Brooks responded they were in the meeting backup. Mr. McCray noted they were emails and asked if they were sent to his home. Chair Taylor explained the correspondence was from the CRA to developers. He asked if they could get a tag line to keep him in the loop before the meeting. He requested emails be sent to him. XVI. Future Agenda Items: XVII. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, Chair Taylor properly adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 091415 21