Loading...
Minutes 06-13-17MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017, AT 6:30 P.M., IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: Steven B. Grant, Chair Justin Katz, Vice Chair Joe Casello Mack McCray Christina Romelus 1. Call to Order Mike Simon, Interim Executive Director Tara Duhy Board Counsel Chair Grant called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Invocation Reverend Woodrow Hay gave the invocation. III. Roll Call Roll call noted the above members as present. IV. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chair Grant requested moving Old Business Item I, Discussion and Consideration of Budget Amendment to Resolution 17-01 for the Town Square Project Funding before Public Hearing and Old Business Item D, Consideration of Tax Increment Revenue Funding Agreement for the Ocean One Project before Item C, Consideration of Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA -owned Property Located at 222 N. Federal Highway, a/k/a the Ocean One Project (Tabled 3/15/17). The members can discuss the Tax Increment Funding Agreement for the Ocean One project before the Purchase and Development Agreement. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Ms. Romelus moved to approve as amended. Mr. McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. V. Legal: None Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 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 Vice Chair Katz disclosed he met with the Centennial Group regarding the Ocean Breeze East project. Mr. McCray met with Centennial regarding Ocean Breeze East, but did not meet with St. John Missionary Baptist Church or Roundstone Development. He stated if he votes in favor of St. John Missionary Baptist Church, he has nothing to gain or lose and there is no conflict. Chair Grant met with Centennial and the Meyers Group, noting the latter group withdrew. He had previously met with St. John Missionary Baptist Church and Roundstone and received emails from the Church. He visited Troy's BBQ that is on the agenda regarding a grant application and attended the Sara Sims meeting held by the CRA. He did not meet with Ocean One or NuRock. He pointed out the Fourth of July Fireworks will take place on July 1St at 6 p.m. so families can enjoy the event without having to wake up early to go to work the next day. Ms. Romelus disclosed she met with the Meyers Group who pulled out of consideration Mr. Casello met with St. John Missionary Baptist Church, NuRock and the Meyers Group. B. Informational Announcement VII. Announcements & Awards A. Movies in the Park Mercedes Coppins, Special Events Coordinator, explained the final Movies in the Park event was scheduled on June 2nd, but was cancelled due to rain. The new season will start October 6th B. Music on the Rocks The May Music on the Rocks event featured the Jeff Harding Band. About 200 people attended the event. The last event is scheduled for June 16th with music provided by the School of Rock of the Palm Beaches, performing cover songs from Michael Jackson and the Beatles. Food and drinks are available for purchase from the Food Truck Invasion vendors and the mobile bar service starting at 6 p.m. The concert is from 7 P.M. to 10 P.M. K Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 Vlll. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Period Ended May 31, 2017 Financial Report B. Monthly Purchase Orders C. Approval of CRA Board Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 D. Approval of The Davis Family Co. d/b/a Troy's BBQ for Commercial Fagade Improvement Grant Program E. Approval of The Davis Family Co. d/b/a Troy's BBQ for Commercial Interior Build -Out Improvement Grant Program F. Approval of The Davis Family Co. d/b/a/ Troy's BBQ for Commercial Rent Reimbursement Grant Program Motion Vice Chair Katz moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. IX. Pulled Consent Agenda Items: None X. Information Only A. Public Comment Log B. Marketing and Business Development Campaign C. Social Media Outreach Program D. CRA Board Agendas Converting to NOVUS Agenda XI. Public Comments: (Note: Comments are limited to three minutes in duration) Peter Guillaume, 305 SW 5th Avenue, explained he was interested in running a business downtown and was trying to determine how to bring forth a better proposal and direct his efforts. He sought to accomplish community initiatives and to work with officials. The members suggested he schedule meetings with the Board members on items he wanted to move forward with. Mr. McCray explained government works differently than daily operations and community input and support is needed. Mr. Guillaume understood there was money available, but it disappeared. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 Jeanne Heavilin, President, Greater Boynton Beach Sister Cities, explained Sister Cities will host a travelling sauna to celebrate Finland's Centennial Year and the City's new relationship with Rauma, Finland. The event, on November 18th or 19th at Intracoastal Park, would be a city-wide event giving citizens a chance to partake in an important part of Finish culture. Assistance was requested from the Finish American Chamber of Commerce. Sister Cities was working with Finlandia House in Lantana on the event and was seeking to partner with the City and the CRA for their event planning, marketing and possibly some financial assistance. A handout explained the sauna can accommodate four to five people at a time. The travelling sauna charges between $5 and $15 per person and souvenirs will be sold with a portion of the proceeds donated back to Sister Cities. Boynton Beach would be one of 56 locations in the US hosting this event during Finland's Centennial year. The cost is $500 for food, lodging and expenses for the two men travelling with the sauna across the country. Utilities, water, drainage, firewood and a power outlet would need to be supplied. Chair Grant commented the City is discussing next year's budget and will work with them. Ms. Heavilin pointed out the amount of assistance is nominal and pertained mostly to marketing. No one else coming forward, Public Comments was closed. I. Budget Amendment R17-01 for Town Square Funding. (Heard out of order) Mike Simon, Interim Executive Director, explained this item is in response to the Special Board Meeting held on June 12th for the Town Square Phase I Agreement. The Board approved funding $2,100,000 for the project from two internal accounts which were the General Fund and the Project Fund. In order to move the funds, a Resolution is needed. Motion Mr. Casello moved to approve. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. XII. Public Hearing A. None XIII. Old Business A. Discussion and Consideration of the Budget for FY2017-2018 Mr. Simon explained staff wanted to review the project fund budget for the next fiscal year which starts October 1, 2017. An excel spreadsheet was prepared and reviewed. Mr. Simon explained the Tax Increment Fund revenue was projected by the Property Appraiser's office. Revenues were up 8.4% from last year which is a good indication 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 the City and CRA were doing well and the economy was heading in the right direction. Total revenue the CRA would receive next year was $11,426,469. Staff also anticipated $1 million from the Marina, which is offset commensurately with its expenses. The debt and operating expense line item included obligated debt, administrative, operating, marketing projects, professional services and Marina costs. The total expenses are $5,736,624. Tax increment Revenue Funding Agreements are agreements that were previously entered into that obligate the CRA to fund projects that meet certain goals annually, and that are verified by audits and/or reports. The CRA is currently obligated $1,327,000 for next year. Mr. Simon explained there are six agreements in place including 500 Ocean; however, the agreement with 500 Ocean will not commence until the next year if they obtain their certificate of occupancy by December 31, 2017 and make the 2018 tax rolls. The Project category budget will be reviewed and revisited during the July and August meetings. The allocation to the project fund is $5,362,845. Based on the approval of the Town Square allocation, the $2,500,000 was included. These monies will be set aside for the City and CRA to move forward for the Phase 11 portion of the Town Square project. The spreadsheet provides the Board and the public the opportunity to allocate funding to projects that exist or include other projects mentioned throughout the year. It is a Board directed budget and items are compliant with CRA plans and the goals and objectives that pertain to CRA statutes. The balance to allocate was $2,800,062. Chair Grant wanted to ensure staff the TIF revenue from 500 Ocean was included. He thought the numbers were skewed and commented the Board could discuss it in 2017/2018. Mr. Simon reviewed one project under discussion was to explore existing conditions at Sara Sims Park and future improvements in the Heart of Boynton (HOB). Staff was working with the City on how to add value to the existing park. He noted the City has about $740,000 in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Mr. Simon suggested matching it with $600,000 which combined provides $1.3 million for park lighting, fencing, irrigation, walkways, bathrooms, and grass. It will provide at least a cosmetic lift. The CRA Advisory Board and those that attended the meeting regarding the Park at the Carolyn Sims Center, felt the existing condition of the park was frustrating and needed improvement. It was not a discussion of what amenities were needed; rather it was a neglected area of the community. For the $1.3 million, the investment was a good way to improve the park and community without having to redesign the park. The City and CRA was investing millions in the HOB, the Model Block, Family Dollar and many other items that would benefit immediately from this type of project. The Park can be augmented in the future. Mr. McCray explained money was set aside for Sara Sims for years and he favored allocation of the funds. 47 Meeting Minutes Community RedevelopmentAgency Boynton• .. June 13, 2017 Mr. Casello recalled at one time the CRA contemplated taking a strip of land from the park to be used for housing. Mr. Simon explained it was discussed, but the community does not want to use any of it for housing and feels there is considerable land available for housing outside of the park. The priority would be on those lands and trying to construct the Ocean Breeze East and the Cottage District. Chair Grant also favored the $600,000 allotment for Sara Sims Park. Mr. Simon suggested dedicating $125,000 to match the City's monies for the Boynton Beach Boulevard extension east of Federal Highway into Pete's Pond and the Marina area as contained in the City's CIP. He explained there were planters used in 2004 and 2005 for the roadwork to build Casa Costa and Marina Village. The raised brick planters were the wrong 3-D planters and were in the wrong space and damage from vehicles attempting to Parallel Park has occurred. The City wanted to change the planters. He noted the upcoming Ocean One project, the potential hotel on the Bank of America site and other activities downtown and in the Marina District. Mr. Simon explained there is an opportunity to have 16 or 18 more parking spaces by reconfiguring the spaces and eliminating a roundabout at the end of the drive. He noted improvements in the landscaping and lighting is significant. Special Events was another item that had been discussed. The Strategic Plan discussed creating community space. Mr. Simon explained this item is expensive and this item can be a place holder. Last year, the CRA spent $413,000 on special events. For accounting reasons, special events are also included in the marketing line item. There was an increase in the Pirate Fest Event of $36,000 for management services from an outside event management company. Event attendance has grown to about 85,000 people. Last year they retained a management firm for $15,000 and staff needs additional help as two staff people cannot handle the event alone. Vice Chair Katz queried how much of the budget was a pure increase and learned it was about a 75% increase due to vendors, more generators, lighting towers, tents and costs. Staff wanted to make the event a smarter event, have new things and make it a family -friendly signature event. An event manager was a $15,000 increase from last year, but staff could pull back on other line items to make up the difference. Mr. Simon noted the CRA could acquire the Women's Club for $110,000 that could come from this year's Acquisition Fund and staff could apply for an historic preservation grant for project work. The Professional Services line item budget was $564,000 and covered architectural services, project contingencies, demolition and site work. The Neighborhood Policing line item funds two officers in District ll. Mr. McCray noted the CRA wanted to add two more officers, and commented the City should pay for the two additional officers and not the CRA. The line item has $275,000. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 The CRA is funding the Community Outreach Coordinator. Mr. McCray favored funding the item this year only, noting the position is for a Code Enforcement Officer that was previously funded by the City. He felt the City should fund the position. Mr. Simon explained funding for the Director of Economic Development was in the line item. Mr. McCray did not want to fund as the individual works at the discretion of the City. The man is making more than Mr. Simon and he felt the funding should come through the City budget. Chair Grant disagreed based on Mr. Scott's experience, but would consider reducing funding for the position. He favored keeping the budget at $50,000 and the CRA Advisory Board considering the matter at their next meeting. Vice Chair Katz favored partially funding the position as most of his work will be done in the CRA District. Mr. McCray reiterated he opposed the funding as the individual does not have an office to make phone calls, any employees or budget. He thought it was wrong as the man works when he wants and when asked for a report, he produced a one line document which was not acceptable. The Community Workshop and Events line item was moved from the Project Fund into the General Fund and Mr. Simon did not anticipate additional workshops or meetings that would need additional funding. The Community Caring Center currently receives CRA funds for the incubator program. Chair Grant noted the CRA increased the Community Caring Center funding this year from $50,000 to $70,000. He wanted a report detailing what the funds were used for and how many new jobs or businesses were created and learned the Community Caring Center provides quarterly reports. Mr. Simon responded there is no set policy or program to fund the Community Caring Center or other agencies; rather it has been a supported line item. He suggested funding be handled in a way similar to how CDBG funds are disbursed. Ms. Romelus favored having an official program so other organizations could apply for funding and thought there was a need to be transparent. Chair Grant agreed with the condition the principal business location be located in the CRA District and for job creation and business entrepreneurship. Mr. Simon cautioned the CRA should avoid social service funding as it is not permitted by Statute and agreed to bring back a policy in July. He recommended the Board determine an amount that would be allocated and advised the Community Caring Center has submitted reports. Seventy thousand dollars was allocated this year. Ms. Romelus suggested $100,000 to $150,000. Mr. Simon noted after allocating $150,000 there would still be $221,000 remaining to be allocated. He suggested this item be a placeholder. Mr. Simon explained the Board has not discussed its Economic Development Program. There is about $100,000 worth of required advertising and marketing done for the CRA regarding its annual reports for the Agency and other items they handle such as the Marina. He suggested there may be savings there and suggested having a $100,000 to $110,000 range as opposed to $164,000. If the Board wanted to fund an economic development grant program, the balance of $100,000 could be allocated. It was clarified the economic development grant program includes facade and rental reimbursement rA Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 grants. Vice Chair Katz asked if there was a maximum amount a business could receive from the eligible grants. Mr. Simon thought, for a restaurant, the limit would be about $65,000. He explained each year, staff brings back the programs, applications and guidelines to try to stretch the fund and change some of the maximums. Mr. Casello noted additional funds were allocated to the programs. Ms. Romelus favored reducing funding to the incubator funding to $125,000 and adding another $25,000 to the economic development program. Chair Grant explained the program was increased to $200,000 this year and was hesitant to increase it. The CRA had not made the public aware of the funding and there are other expenses. Last year the program was allocated $300,000. They added $200,000 and a total of $500,000 was spent last year. The $784,000 was the prior year's funding that was not spent which rolled forward. Mr. McCray noted there were no funds allocated for a housing rehabilitation program for individuals who need help. Mr. Simon asked if the CRA wanted to work with and provide funding to establish City programs. They had met with Mark Woods, Community Standards Director, and Octavia Sherrod, Community Improvement Manager. Staff did not bring the concept to the Board, but thought it was a good way to provide funds for repairs and the City seemed receptive. Mr. Simon thought it would be cost effective to combine funding and efforts than start a new program. Mr. McCray did not want a new program. He only wanted individuals to see they were trying to help elderly residents who could not afford to repair their homes. Vice Chair Katz commented this program was shelved for a while and staff had requested revitalizing the program. This was done for two years and then funding was allocated for the First Time Homebuyer and SHIP programs. Vice Chair Katz wanted to review the program. Mr. Simon agreed to provide additional information at the July meeting. Mr. Simon wanted the Board to be aware, as they begin to commit funds to TIF agreements and other obligations in future years, the TIF agreements do end and the CRA stops paying the TIF when the agreement ends. The Board will also take on new agreements as the agreements cycle out. The more the Board funds individual developments, the more it will have an effect on increases to the budget. The Board has traditionally been conservative in its estimates and used 3%. In 2026, some debt service and bonds will be paid off which frees up several million dollars in project funding. He pointed out sometimes the revenues drop and sometimes it increases. Had the Board had too many obligations, the Town Square contribution may not have been possible. He complimented the Board on requesting this type of information and considering it going forward. Vice Chair Katz commented if all the items discussed are approved, it would deplete discretionary spending in the project fund in the 2017/2018 fiscal year. Mr. Simon explained staff will true up remaining funds, which were left over funds, and there will be some additional funds remaining to allocate. The first few years will require more funding from the CRA. Chair Grant advised the public that in lieu of taking public comments, the public can send ideas or comments to the CRA which will be logged and shared with the Board. �•a Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FloridaJune 1, 2017 B. Consideration of Extension or Termination for Special Event Grant Funding to Etcetera Entertainment, Inc. for the Boynton Beach Brunch Fest Motion Mr. McCray moved to terminate the grant. A representative from Etcetera Entertainment was not present. Vice Chair Katz noted the event was postponed due to rain and they may make their request again. Mr. Simon explained there are no provisions in the grant that it will be valid for a set period of time, which would avoid applicants having to reapply for the grant if an event needed to be rescheduled within the window of time. Mr. Casello asked how long ago the postponement occurred and learned the event was scheduled for April 30th. A suggestion was made to contact the applicant. The Board could extend the grant; however, further discussion followed it was not the Board's job to reach out to applicant. Motion Mr. Casello moved to approve a 30 -day extension. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion that failed 2-3 (Ms. Romelus, Chair Grant and Mr. McCray dissenting.) Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve terminating the grant. Ms. Romelus seconded the motion that passed 3-2 (Mr. Casello and Vice Chair Katz dissenting.) D. Consideration of Tax Increment Revenue Funding Agreement for the Ocean One Project (Heard out of Order) Attorney Duhy explained she and Mr. Simon met with the developer and consultant for the TIF and the Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA property. She reviewed a handout containing issues that surfaced that needed further clarification and commented Phase I, in the agreement, was not tied to the site plan for the project. Attorney Bonni Miskel, representing the developer, advised the developer was amenable to tie the TIF to the site plan so the Board would know what the project would look like as opposed to having only a verbal description. The current agreement by the developer sought to commence construction of Phase I within two years of the date of the agreement. If not started by then, the developer would not be eligible for TIF and the contract for Phase I would be terminated. Attorney Duhy explained there is a single property owned by the developer that is combined with CRA land and the project involves two phases of payment. Last week, the developer proposed to partition the land, creating two parcels with each having individual PCN numbers which is a cleaner way to assign TIF. The current agreement includes both N Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton each, Florida June 13, 2017 phases of development and details the conditions that have to be met to receive the funding, including annual performance reports, assignments, defaults and terminations and would be applicable by Phase, as opposed to running concurrently. The developer's proposal also could result in a default on Phase I, but not Phase II which would mean they would receive funding for Phase II and not Phase I. Attorney Miskel explained the developer is creating two parcels and they are currently related, but they may not be in the future. They are two different developments: one is a hotel and the other a residential mixed-use building that will be developed by two different developers. It would be punitive for one entity that is compliant with the agreement to be penalized because the other parcel and entity is in default. Attorney Miskel explained the Board will execute a contract with the owner who will assign it in the future. Chair Grant felt there were too many unknowns and there was already an approved site plan for Phase I. Vice Chair Katz agreed. He favored funding Phase I based on Phase 11 and did not know if the CRA could absorb the risk if separating the phases. Attorney Miskel explained currently, Phase 11 is speculative in that they do not have a site plan and they will have to return for approvals, but the benefit would be when they market the property for a hotel developer, they will not have to wait and will know if they have a TIF incentive. Attorney Duhy explained another option was to separate the two agreements which would solve legal issues regarding assignability. Parcel I would pertain only to Phase I and could be assigned to the developer at the Board's discretion. If the Board wanted additional future protections regarding a future site plan for Phase 11, it could be negotiated with the developer in a separate agreement. Mr. Casello asked if the future protections would have timelines and learned it would be the same terms, but it would be specific to Phase II based on the comments received with the future site plan and a mechanism where the CRA has to give approval. If the developer fails to move forward with commencement of construction of Phase Il, there could be terminations. Chair Grant agreed to two separate agreements for two separate projects whereas a purchase and development agreement could move forward for Phase 1. Mr. McCray favored separate agreements. There is a control mechanism and he recommended legal go back to negotiate. Ms. Romeius asked why it took a year and learned there is a process and the project is a large development. The developer already had to submit an approved site plan to get to this point. Attorney Miskel explained the Phase I agreement and terms are fully vetted and final. The only dispute was to bifurcate and they would work on an agreement for Phase Il. Attorney Duhy suggested reviewing the rest of the issues and then the Board could decide if legal can work on the agreement without it having to return to the Board.. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 Phase II would be removed. She reviewed the project includes the 231 multi -family residential units with amenities including 8,575 square feet of commercial space. The agreement contained provisions for the developer to build and construct the commercial space as a condition for funding, but there was no requirement the commercial space be occupied by a certain percentage or that efforts to do so are made. After brief discussion, there was agreement after the first year, 25% of the commercial space would be rented; after three years, 50% would be rented; and by the seventh and eighth year, 75% of the commercial space should be rented. Mr. Simon asked if the percentages related to the amount square footage of retail space or number of units. Attorney Duhy suggested using the total square footage. The Board and the developer agreed. Attorney Duhy reviewed another issue was 50 public parking spaces. Attorney Miskel explained the parking spaces are not above and beyond what the Code required, but they would be restricted from use by residential tenants. The developer did not include the cost of maintaining the parking spaces and anticipated they would enter into a parking facility agreement with the Board in the future. Attorney Duhy explained the concern was about the spaces once they were in a garage in Phase II. She was unsure if the maintenance was an issue for staff. Chair Grant was aware some spaces were in the garage and some were outside. Attorney Miskel explained that would not occur with Phase I, but in Phase II, the parking spaces would be entirely within the garage. There was agreement to address this in the Phase II agreement. Maintenance of the 50 parking spaces outside will be managed by the CRA. Mr. Simon commented it would cost about $1,100 to $1,200 a month for landscape maintenance. The expectation was the CRA would handle debris, cleanup and ensuring the wheel stops were in place. Chair Grant learned the developer would accept premise liability for the property. During site plan approval the developer discussed parking primarily to give residents options and possibly using lifts when people have more than one car or, with a good restaurant, the option of using a valet and the top deck for stacking. Attorney Miskel clarified they have more parking than is required, but they are reserving the right to create more space if needed on upper levels of the deck. Mr. Simon noted the parking management agreement will come back at a later date with Phase I funding, contingent on meeting all conditions. Mr. Simon explained the parking agreement is tied to Phase II and the developer would handle the initial landscaping, lights and improvements. The CRA would clean, maintain landscaping and improvements. Chair Grant hoped local workers would be hired to do so. Attorney Duhy reviewed the residential units would comply with the nationally recognized Green Building Rating System. The community benefit requirement included the developer hiring a job placement consultant during construction, hosting a job fair, give preference to locally -owned small businesses as contractors and subcontractors for construction; and require contractors and sub -contractors to use good faith efforts to hire City residents. Good faith was defined for the developer to use reasonable means to accomplish the goal to hire local workers; however, Attorney Duhy inserted the word 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 "all" as the word reasonable has case law behind it. The Board agreed the word "all" was not needed and Chair Grant wanted the developer to work with Adult Education at South Tech Academy and Boynton Beach High School ahead of the development as there may be a special grant for Boynton Beach residents to receive pre -apprenticeship training or provide work for graduates of those programs and receive preferential treatment. There was agreement said language would be added to the document. Attorney Duhy discussed providing a list of jobs to a community outreach partner that has not been named in the agreement. Chair Grant commented it was just mentioned and could include CareerSource. Attorney Miskel explained there is an audit requirement in the agreement and it would disclose those activities. The developer agreed to use good faith efforts to offer City residents permanent jobs and agreed to pay new permanent City hires a minimum of the living wage. The established amount is above the Federal Minimum wage which is $11.15 at their time of hire and employee wages would be adjusted with longevity. There are a number of tools such as job fairs, notices, local schools, posting areas and more. Mr. McCray agreed to provide the names of community outreach organizations to Attorney Miskel. The members discussed Phase ll. Chair Grant noted the only thing that will tie Phase II to Phase l is construction is to commence within a certain time period and thought it was better to wait to ensure it is in the best interest of the CRA and they see what will move forward. Currently, they are not tying it to the site plan, and in order for the Board to approve Phase II funding, the Board needs to see the site plan. Attorney Duhy asked if she should prepare an agreement with the same terms for Phase I with a provision for funding to require the developer to come forward with a site plan that meets Code within a certain time frame. The terms are the same. Attorney Miskel pointed out the developer has undertaken some design and master planning and they know it is a viable option as long as they find a user. The only condition is the agreement does not take effect until they have submitted a site plan to the Board to perfect the agreement, but the agreement will have already been decided. The timeline will be contained in the Phase II agreement, and construction must commence no later than two years from substantial completion of Phase I. If not done within two years after substantial completion, then the agreement is terminated as to Phase II. A new Phase II agreement would have to be entered into in order to get the TEF funding and the site plan would be a part of that. It is an enticement for a hotel operator to look at the site because they will not have to wait a year for approval because the approval will already have been given. They will only need to prepare the site plan which the Board will review. Attorney Miskel clarified the developer would run the site plan approval concurrent with the City's approval to ensure the plan adheres to the Code. Part of the Phase II agreement includes a parking facility management agreement for both phases. Attorney Duhy explained most of the comments were resolved through the bifurcation issue. The terminology would be the developer would like to assign, with CRA written consent not to be unreasonably withheld, and would be the same term in 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton c Florida June 1, 2017 both contracts. It is at the Board's discretion to determine what level of control they want over assignment to a future developer and the language would also be the same term in both contracts. Chair Grant noted the Board would be able to ask the new assignee any questions. The term and percentage of the funding request was an eight- year term with years one through seven at 75% and the eighth at 50% which would be the same for both phases. There would be two separate eight-year terms and one for each phase. The Board had no objection. Attorney Duhy noted the annual performance report being accepted could be worked out between Attorney Duhy and Attorney Miskel and Attorney Duhy recommended it be accepted by the CRA similar to the way it was handled with Casa Costa. it will include the hires. Mr. Simon explained the annual performance audit provides the final approval for the CRA staff to release the check. Mr. McCray noted $4 million will be paid over an eight-year period. Attorney Duhy will return with the agreement at the July meeting. Motion Mr. McCray moved to table the item to the July meeting. Ms. Romelus seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA Owned Property Located at 222 N. Federal Highway, a/k/a the Ocean One Project (Tabled 3/15/17) Motion Mr. McCray moved to remove from the table. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed Attorney Duhy reviewed the main points to make with the current Purchase and Development Agreement as the purchase price was $10; closing would be within 60 days of signing the Purchase and Development Agreement; and the Agreement is not tied to the TIRFA Agreement. Once the agreement is closed, the developer will own the property whether the project is built or not. The Board had previously discussed the effective date of the Purchase and Sale Agreement would be upon approval of the TiRFA for Phase i. Attorney Duhy explained once they own the property, subject to the agreement, it is not tied to the project and the items the Board had previously discussed except as follows: once the Board agrees to Phase I of the TIFRA, the developer has the property free and clear with two years to build a park if nothing occurs with Phase I. The CRA has the right of first refusal if the property is sold separately, to buy the property back for $10 plus the cost of the improvements which are the park improvements, walkways benches and landscaping. Attorney Miskel had an exhibit depicting what they think will be there in the event the building is not constructed, which 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida Im7 moi bm iZ 7 is unlikely. Chair Grant had concerns if the developer sold the Phase l property with a separate PCN, and if the developer combined the two properties, the CRA cannot purchase the property back or receive its value. There was very lengthy discussion if the developer tried to spin off the CRA parcel, the Board could take back the parcel, but if the developer assigned the overall Phase parcel to a developer and they commenced construction, the CRA could not exercise the right of first refusal. Attorney Duhy explained the right of first refusal on Phase I was for whatever the purchase price was prior to commencement of construction. Attorney Miskel commented as a right of refusal there are two options. There is a right of first refusal for the CRA piece or the entire piece. If the developer did not build Phase I and sold it to a developer that would construct a building, the Board had the right to pay for it, but the CRA would pay for it at the same basis they are offering. Chair Grant felt the developer would profit. Attorney Miskel pointed out the developer is looking to develop 231 units. The CRA is getting at least that development or something greater, whether the developer builds it or assigns it to another entity. Even with another site plan, the developer would still have to obtain Board approval and they would lose the TIFRA. Attorney Duhy clarified if the developer combines the land and flips it to another entity that has no intention to build or abide by the TIRFA, there is a value received by the developer for the CRA property that was given to them at a low price. She explained there could be a payback negotiated if they sell to a different party than has been subject to the TIFRA. The property would go with the TIRFA with Phase I and if that is not built by a developer, the developer cannot sell the property for a profit because the CRA has the first right of refusal to purchase the CRA's property back. Attorney Miskel noted there is a deed restriction in the agreement which requires the plaza to be constructed. If a developer wants to remove the deed restriction, they would have to approach the Board for approval. Chair Grant asked if the CRA has enforcement of the building of the plaza and if it was covered under the prevailing party attorney fees. Attorney Miskel commented if it was not covered, language could be added. The deed restriction was defined as: "In the event grantee fails to commence construction of development of the project as provided in the purchase and development agreement, grantee shall be obligated to construct the public plaza on the property containing benches walkways landscaping irrigation and lighting in accordance with Exhibit C." She explained the restriction runs with the land and is recorded against the property so the land could only be developed as a plaza unless they come back to the Board to obtain a release. It should calm the concern they could flip the property. Attorney Duhy explained if they sell the property to someone who wants to build the project as approved in the TIRFA, they would have to return to the Board so the future value would be diminished by the deed restriction and the need to return to the Board for a release, unless a developer wanted to purchase a park. Attorney Duhy explained the restriction specifies the only way to remove the park would be for the construction of Phase I and they would add the attorney's fees provision `C! Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FloridaJune 13, 2017 includes enforcement of the deed restriction and the warranty deed will be clear to attach to the appropriate site plan and reference the development as in the TIRFA. Motion Mr. Casello moved to approve consideration of Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA Owned Property Located at 222 N. Federal Highway, a/k/a the Ocean One Project as amended per the discussions. Mr. McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. D. Consideration of Tax Increment Revenue Funding Agreement for the Ocean One Project (This item was previously addressed) E. Consideration of the Letter of Intent from St. John Missionary Baptist Church for the Purchase of the CRA Owned Property located at 700 N. Seacrest Boulevard, also known as the Ocean Breeze East Site (Tabled 5/9/17) Motion Mr. McCray moved to remove from the table. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Chair Grant suggested discussing Items E and F together. Mr. Simon suggested if there are any items that need to be clarified with regard to the project, such as if it is a senior housing project, a multi -family project, or other aspects of a project they want, they discuss it prior to presentations. This item was an unsolicited Letter of Intent where as last year, the CRA issued an RFP. Mr. Casello expressed disappointment noting the Board received amendments to some of the proposals as late as this afternoon for a multi-million project the CRA is basically funding. He did not like any of the proposals as it is not a good business deal for the CRA. He noted the CRA has a significant commitment to the Town Square project, Motion Mr. Casello he moved they put this property out to RFP versus having a discussion about this item. Mr. Katz seconded the motion. Vice Chair Katz commented the Board is looking at a variety of offers such as a 55 and older project and others with no age restrictions. There were offers that yield revenue for the CRA and some that cost $10 million. They received an unsolicited letter of intent and the proposed requests were financially high. It led to competitors undercutting the request. He thought just because there are better offers financially did not mean it was still the best offer for the CRA. The Board had not issued a RFP or say there was 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 potentially $10 million in incentives for the property as the Board never specified what it would invest. Vice Chair Katz did not favor accepting any letter of intent without having a defined project. The Board had attempted to have the project constructed with tax credits and two developers emailed proposals to the Board at 10 or 11 a.m. He did not favor making decisions on a proposal without conferring with the executive director or legal counsel. Mr. McCray was baffled by the other individuals who submitted proposals late. St. John Missionary Baptist Church had the initiative to come up to the plate. After the proposal hit the newspaper, others stepped forward. He thought to put the project out for an RFP when the Board has information on all three developers was not fair. Nothing has been done with the property for 20 years. There is a group to do something. The Board gave a go ahead and issued a 30 -day waiting period and now wants to issue an RFP. He favored moving forward and the Church was the first group they should consider. Chair Grant walks by the property all the time and it is an eyesore. The Church came up with non-competitive financing over 10 or 20 years. He felt the CRA did not necessarily have payments for anything more than $40,000. He was aware $700,000 would be spent on Sara Sims and the property was across the street. He asked if the Board would move the funds from the park to this project. If they win the tax credits, the funds could be returned. Chair Grant spoke with SJMBC and Centennial and the main difference is the project will make a profit for whoever develops the project. He thought the Church and Roundstone took the initiative to develop a project and the CRA cannot fund anything other than a project with a 20 -year funding option due to lack of funds. He asked Mr. McCray if the community would hold off on Sara Sims and advised he spoke with residents and they favored a 55 plus community. The upcoming Cottage District and other vacant lands are available for housing for all ages and he pointed out a 55 plus community permits 25% of the units to be for any age. Ms. Romelus wanted a proposal for both parties to come out ahead and thought the CRA has to make a business decision. She wanted a project that will be constructed and sustainable and preferred SJMBC, but the numbers did not work. The Palm Beach County Housing Authority has bonds and she supported working with them to develop a budget as a partner that would allow the CRA to do something with the site that is feasible for all. She requested a 30 -day extension for the Palm Beach County Housing Authority to present a plan or be more precise and create a project that works for all. The CRA could determine what they have and how much to allocate and go out to RFP. She thought the CRA lost control of the process and noted this project would benefit District li. Chair Grant noted the Palm Beach County Housing Authority is an appointed entity and has a lot of vacant property is District II. They already have more property and they should build on their land. As for the RFP and the timing aspect, he questioned how much longer the land would be vacant. He favored hearing the presentation and picking one to move forward. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 Mr. McCray pointed out the Palm Beach County Housing Authority has property in Cherry Hill that is an eye sore and they have not done anything with it. He supported the Housing Authority building on their own land. Vice Chair Katz had one detailed discussion and one casual conversation with the County Commission who chastised the Housing Authority for not addressing the need for workforce and affordable housing. The County and Housing Authority have a mandate to fund these types of projects. He pointed out Palm Beach County could provide funds for this and reduce out of pocket costs for the CRA. As to giving funds to the first party that made an unsolicited offer, if the CRA had accepted the original officer, it would cost the CRA $5 million more than the highest offer currently on the table from the same party and the proposals warrant greater scrutiny. The CRA cannot afford Sara Sims and this project, but the Board could address Sara Sims and have a company or the Housing Authority complete the project for a much lower cost and get the best of both worlds. Vice Chair Katz thought proposals from an entity that has a personal relationship with the City, financially speaking are not the best deal for the taxpayers. In terms of operating a property, the developer plans to pull out of the property leaving it in the Church's hands and they do not have the experience to run a property. A developer will come in, take a profit and walk away, leaving a property the taxpayers paid for costing about $8 million to an entity with no experience. He agreed with Mr. Casello and Ms. Romelus. Since the letter of intent was submitted, the Board had no discussion about the scope of the project. He thought the discussion should occur and an RFP be issued as competition is fair. He noted one proposal was to purchase the property outright which means the Board did not have to pay for the project or seek tax credits. He wanted to develop this property, Sara Sims and property on MILK. If the Board overspends on this project, the CRA will jeopardize development of one or two other projects. If done responsibly, all three could come to fruition in the next 12 months. The Board has an obligation to vet the project to get the best deal and the RFP will set forth the possibilities. Mr. Caselio questioned if the project could be discussed with the Housing Authority if they issued an RFP. Mr. Simon responded he would contact interested parties and advised an RFP would be issued. The County is more likely to help the Board. Ms. Romelus favored an RFP that will give all proposers the opportunity to respond with the Board parameters in mind. Mr. McCray explained this was on the table and the Board would not have done what they did with Town Square funding, giving all the money away. The District has been paying and waiting and not receiving anything now everything is going downtown and they are the stepchild. The Housing Authority had property for 20 years and not done anything. He want to see what they would do with their property first. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 Motion The motion passed 3-2 (Chair Grant and Mr. McCray dissenting.) Chair Grant recessed the meeting for a short break at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Chair Grant requested each member tell Mr. Simon what they want in the RFP when they meet individually and he will bring back it back to the next meeting. F. Consideration of Additional Letters of Intent for the Purchase of the CRA Owned Property located at 700 N. Seacrest Boulevard, also known as the Ocean Breeze East Site This item was addressed earlier in the meeting. G. Status of the 2.97 Acre Project Site known as MLK, Jr. South Mr. Simon explained NuRock did not receive funding and sent a termination letter. The Board acknowledged the contract was terminated and the deposit will be returned. Chair Grant asked if the Board wanted an RFP for this project. Vice Chair Katz pointed out there is $1 million and asked if the Board wanted to re -up the allocation for the property. Chair Grant thought the $1 million was for the Seacrest site and commented there were two different line items. Mr. Simon explained if the Board has limited funding and the proposals ranged from $500,000 to $1 million, it may be funds the Board can use for site planning or utilities and split it into two different projects at the same time. All of the projects with the existing property owners adjacent to the subject lands will be a start from scratch process for a new developer on the MLK, Jr. South site. Chair Grant asked if Mr. Simon had a list of properties to purchase. Mr. Simon responded there were three properties and only two owners committed to be part of the MLK Jr. South project whereas Ocean Breeze project is 100% owned by the CRA. Staff could meet with property owners Chair Grant wanted to keep the money there and asked if the Board would purchase the properties for MLK Jr. South with the $1 million noting it is more of a land banking purpose. Mr. McCray suggested letting things play out and there was agreement to address future development as they arise. As to the RFP, Mr. Simon will work on parameters and bring back a draft in July to issue in August and have a deadline in September. There should be Board agreed on criteria. Chair Grant asked for consensus on an age restriction and there was agreement when the members meet with Mr. Simon, they would give their preference. Mr. Simon we will accelerate the RFP to try to take advantage of tax credit. The RFP will be a 20 or 30 day RFP for Ocean Breeze East only and the RFP will return to the Board in July im Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 H. Discussion and Consideration of the CRA Executive Director Position Attorney Duhy explained the backup contained a draft of the agreement noting there were three blanks to be discussed which were Mr. Simon's salary request that should have been sent to the members, the Boynton Beach CRA classification salary range table provided by Susan Harris, Finance Director, and the second is the salary schedule for all current CRA employees. The Delray Beach CRA director salary in 2015 was $133,000 which if escalated yearly at 3% would be $140,000. Mr. McCray asked about his benefit package. If a salary of $140,000 is agreed on, his benefits package would be about $15,000 and his retirement benefits would be about $28,000. Mr. McCray explained this was Mr. Simon's six month mark and he was being held accountable as he has a budget, employees and answers to the Board as opposed to hiring someone at $137,000 that has no budget or employees. He was anxious for Mr. Simon to be the Director. Chair Grant noted Mr. Simon has a side job as a realtor. Attorney Duhy explained Mr. Simon noted the contract indicates Mr. Simon would not have any outside employment; however, Mr. Simon wants to do real estate transactions for individuals not associated with his job and his license was current. Chair Grant wanted Mr. Simon to do one or the other and thought a side job could mean there are other obligations that may occur during the week. Mr. Casello did not think a side job could tie into what they should pay Mr. Simon and noted Mr. Simon could come to work with other things on his mind. He was comfortable with what Mr. Simon does on the job, as was Ms. Romelus, and did not think it would affect his job performance. Mr. Casello commented he likes how Mr. Simon handles difficult situations and finds solutions to the problems. Mr. Casello favored the $140,000 salary and the car allowance. Motion Mr. McCray moved Mr. Simon be removed from the Interim Director position to Director/Executive Director. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Mr. McCray and Vice Chair Katz favored the $140,000 salary and thought he earned every penny. Ms. Romelus asked what the salary would be for the vacant Assistant Director position and Learned the range was about $108,000 to $115,000. It was noted Mr. Simon had already started the process to fill the position. Ms. Romelus thought $135,000 may be better as the past director left at $133,000. Ms. Romelus agreed with Mr. Casello's comments about him doing a fantastic job. She hoped his appointment would lend itself to him being more dynamic. Chair Grant liked the $135,000 as did Mr. McCray. 19 Meeting Minutes Community .- - •• -Agency• •n Beach, Florida{ Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve the salary at $135,000. Ms. Romelus seconded the motion. Motion Mr. McCray moved Mr. Simon could use his real estate license without conflict. Ms. Romelus seconded the motion. The termination clause is written for a majority vote and not a super majority. There is a required annual review in May of each year. Termination provisions are clear and the consequences to termination. Mr. Casello favored a super majority to remove. Motion Mr. McCray moved the termination clause stay with the majority and not supermajority. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion. Attorney Duhy requested a vote to approve the contract as written with amendments allowing Mr. Simon to use his real estate license as long as it does not conflict with his responsibilities as a director; at a salary of $135,000 and termination as written by majority vote. Vote The motion unanimously passed. t. Discussion and Consideration of Budget Amendment to Resolution 17-01 for Town Square Project Funding This item was previously addressed. XIV. New Business A. Consideration of the Contract for the 2017 Pirate Fest Event Management Firm, Standing Ovations, LLC Mr. Simon explained the CRA was using an event management firm to offset labor, operation and volunteer management leading up to the Pirate Fest event. The proposal for $36,000 was in line with the increase in the duties Standing Ovations, LLC will handle. It will take the event to the next level. Staff had issued an RFP. Standing Ovations had not worked for the CRA in the past; however, Mr. Simon explained there is a strong advantage to starting work after an event ends. The agreement would be a multi-year agreement that would be treated annually and bring it to the Board in January 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 or February. Standing Ovations would provide assistance with advancing sponsorship efforts to help defray some of the CRA cost. Mr. Simon anticipated the company connections would open new opportunities to operate vendor sponsors they have not been able to attract. The goal is to get a 25% level of sponsorship. Mr. McCray asked about events they handled and learned they handled Dania Beach Arts and Seafood Celebration, SunFest, Scripps, Florida Institute, FPL events and ArtiGras. They are a local firm that will work under the supervision of CRA staff and assist in an area of expertise as the CRA is down in staff. There have been several meetings already. Ms. Romelus learned the $36,000 is the flat rate. Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Consideration of the Purchase and Sales Agreement with Steven Reichel for the Property located at 521 NE 2nd Street (Tabled 5/9/17) Motion Mr. McCray moved to remove from the table. Ms. Romelus seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Chair Grant commented even though the property is blighted and is something needed in the HOB community, it is not in the budget and the CRA would rather allocate the funds to the Neighborhood Improvement Program. Mr. Simon commented these properties are across the street from the Cottage District. In looking at the cost to convert by square foot, the cost outweighed the benefit. Staff is working with Community Standards on ways to change the visual conditions. Motion Mr. Casello moved not to purchase. Mr. McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Consideration of Letter of Intent with Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach for a CRA owned property located at 117 W. MLK, Jr. Boulevard Mr. Simon advised the CRA received a Letter of Intent for the Model Block from Habitat for Humanity for three other lots. The remaining four homes on the Block were constructed by the Boynton Beach Faith -Based Community Development Corporation (CDC). He spoke to CRA legal counsel and commented until the CRA comes up with a policy, the Board should not issue an RFP and accept the Letter of Intent and approve the issuance of the Public Notice to Dispose. The Board would take to the City 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 Commission since the property would be sold at less than fair market value. Staff tries to work with landlords and multi -family absentee landlords to upgrade their units. Habitat wanted the land for $10 and the lot was vacant. The CRA had purchased the property, demolished the home and the site is ready for construction. They would bring back a picture of the home with the purchase and development agreement. Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve. Ms. Romelus asked if the Board could change the price. Mr. Simon explained if the land costs are not at the requested level, the cost is passed on to the homebuyer which places them in a position to need down -payment assistance. The cost of the land is what makes the home affordable. It was noted the CRA purchased the property in January 2016 for $109,000 and it is appraised at $12,600. He thought if the Board did not sell it to Habitat, it was unlikely another developer make it affordable. Chair Grant favored charging $1,000 because of all the properties the CRA has given to Habitat. Mr. Simon commented he would discuss it with Habitat or issue an RFP. Any proceeds to into the community. Mr. Casello thought the Board should continue on the same path with Habitat, particularly on this property. Chair Grant withdrew his request. Ms. Romelus was glad they let go of the prior property and appreciated the work Habitat does; but was only trying to close the gap. She hoped the Board would take into consideration the price they pay for properties. Mr. McCray noted once a home is constructed the owners would pay taxes. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed.. Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve the issuance of the notice to dispose. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. D. Discussion of Sara Sims Park Master Plan Design and Conceptual Housing Component Mr. Simon explained there was a community meeting held on May 31St to discuss the existing master plan design. It was an informational gathering with open and frank dialogue. From that meeting, Chair Grant ascertained the majority of the community did not support using a strip of parkland for housing. They will seek input from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for input, have another meeting and weigh in. He asked if the Board wanted to move forward with a Master Plan design charrette or continue to gather input from the community. Mr. McCray commented the community met and indicated their preferences. He favored turning the matter over to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and then hold charrettes. Chair Grant explained he was unable to voice his opinion why he had requested the housing option. He favored landscaping W%l Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 13, 2017 the property and moving forward with the draft park improvement list, but wanted to tell the community he wanted the additional housing facing the park to create more revenue to help with future park improvements. He had been unable to do so because other commissioners were present. He noted Wifi was an important feature and he wanted charging stations in the pavilion. Mr. McCray did not think meeting with the community again would make them change their mind. Chair Grant wanted to add the Wifi and charging station to the draft park improvement list. Mr. Casello asked if there were any prior plans drawn up from past charrettes and learned there was in the 2014 HOB plan that converted to the 2016 CRA Redevelopment Plan which was included in the meeting backup. The Plan has all of the same components as what is in the park now; an expansion of the cemetery, but the pavilion, basketball courts, handball, green grass, trees, fencing and lighting will be added similar to other parks, but generally, the community felt those were the elements that was missing. Mr. Casello noted the community wanted a water feature and explained development will not happen all at once. The improvements cost $1.3 million. Mr. Simon explained the combined City and CRA funding would include park fences at $300,000; grass at $200,000; and $150,000 for irrigation of the 7.5 acre site. Walkways and park lighting was about $200,000 and $150,000 was for new restrooms, all ADA requirements and a feature at MLK Jr. Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard as an enhanced entrance to the park. Mr. Casello asked how park maintenance would be handled after the improvements were made. Mr. Simon responded the community has been vocal about being engaged with the CRA, City and neighbors and they did not want to see those issues at the park. They wanted fencing to prevent ATV issues and were concerned about illegal or undesirable activities at the park. There was a neighborhood policing meeting in March and the sense was the community wanted to take the park back. Mr. Simon favored, as a partnership with the City and CRA, a commitment from the community in support of it to help the CRA police enforce rules, implement clean up days and take ownership of the park. There may be Boy Scout clean up days or student service hours. Mr. McCray commented they need a park ranger to ensure parks are open and closed properly and notify someone if there are problems. The community commented they will maintain the park. Irwin Cineus, 223 NE 12th Avenue, asked if the One -Cent Sales Tax would be used for existing infrastructure at the park and learned the City was using a portion of it. He commented the community wants something to engage the community such as a baseball park or water feature. The community wanted a park the community could be proud of, they want opportunities to have things that bring excitement, families and cultures together. Minister Bernard Wright, 713 NW 2"d Street, lives near the park and commented beautification will relieve sore eyes, but would not engage the children. He commented the City took away the baseball park and needed it back as it took away the 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida community's culture. He will make sure the park is maintained. He wanted other items added. Chair Grant noted there is a baseball diamond just north of Galaxy Elementary School that is owned by the City. Reverend Wright explained it is not a neighborhood park and they always had a baseball diamond. Chair Grant explained it is half a mile away. Rev Wright commented the neighborhood does not go there often as no one wants to walk, some people have problems with transportation and it is not in the neighborhood, where they had a baseball//softball diamond to engage the children and give them an opportunity to go to the pros. Chair Grant thought if youth could not walk half a mile, then they are not really playing baseball. Rev. Wright responded Chair Grant was referring to a white neighborhood and he was talking about the HOB neighborhood. Chair Grant explained it is in the northwest part of the community. Reverend Wright maintained the City removed the baseball field and Chair Grant should "get real." Mr. McCray clarified there was a baseball diamond at Sara Sims Park. As far as a water feature, they should concentrate on the John Densen Pool and have more youth learn how to swim, by making it more affordable for them to go in and swim. It detracted from the community's culture by charging a dollar fee for items. They are being priced out of the neighborhood pool. Rev. Wright commented the Board misspent $30,000 by making the determination on what the neighborhood children would engage in within Boynton Beach. Brittany Gallie, 306 NE 1St Avenue, thanked the CRA for the $600,000 match with the City for the park. She stated in regard to businesses and the community coming together. She was working with the assistant director for a technology vendor for off- duty police and security guards, maintenance facilities and janitorial services for the City. She advised her company would donate the IT services for the maintenance for any security, maintenance, or janitorial use. Chair Grant thanked Ms. Gallie. Mr. Simon explained the City and CRA will bring back information to the Board. He queried if the Board wanted the plan forwarded to the Recreation and Parks Board. Mr. McCray favored doing so and Ms. Romelus wanted amenities the community was looking such as a water feature and ball park to be added so the park would be satisfactory. Mr. Simon explained the City is the owner of the park and they will want to weigh in with City staff regarding the cemetery as part of the Master Plan as it includes the existing cemetery improvements and/or expanding it. The CRA would not be managing it or responsible for it. Mr. Simon commented submitting it the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Commission would be beneficial. Ms. Romelus asked if the cemetery would be expanded west or south. Mr. McCray explained the cemetery has perpetual care, which is money paid to ensure maintenance of the cemetery. He thought the City needed to mow the cemetery more and provide irrigation. There had been discussion about adding a mausoleum. He explained African- Americans have indicated they do not want to be buried at Sara Sims. Ms. Romelus commented most people do not know there is a cemetery there because of its poor Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida RITTM-E 10W117i ti condition. Mr. McCray commented the City has funds to take care of the cemetery. The City uses contractors and they are not doing a good job. Ms. Romelus suggested bringing it up to the City. The last time the cemetery was used was last year for Mr. Light and the only people who wanted to be buried there was Reverend Wright and Ms. Meeks Light. Ms. Romelus felt the City had an obligation to maintain the cemetery and once they spend the funds there is a partnership to keep the park in the good condition. Sara Sims was responsible for starting with the St. John Missionary Baptist Church and she was the first person buried there. There were no further comments. E. Consideration of Acquisition of the Boynton Woman's Club located at 1010 S. Federal Highway Mr. Simon explained this was a solicitation by the Boynton Beach Women's Club to consider acquiring the building. This would ensure its operation and longevity and by selling it to the City or CRA, it would meet all the goals of the CRA Federal Highway Corridor Plan and the downtown with historic preservation. He noted it is an Addison Mizner building. He noted buildings such as this are often brought to the CRA. They were asking for $110,000 with the proceeds going into a trust under the name of Nathan S. Boynton to add scholarships and preserve his name. The Women have offered to assist them in their volunteer efforts. This building hosts about $60,000 a year in events, but they have been supportive of the idea of with full-time marketing, the building can reach a higher level of income. Mr. Simon explained aside from money in the budget for a special category grant from the Trust for Historic Preservation, which the CRA is using for the Old High School for the Town Square Project. He suggested the CRA apply for a grant next year with the assistance of Warren Adams, Historic Resource Preservation Planner. Mr. Simon thought it was a great opportunity. Mr. Casello commented it is a beautiful building and he liked the history behind the structure. He thanked the women for making the offer and supported the purchase. He thought it was one of the best buys. He supported the acquisition. Mr. McCray inquired how much money the CRA provided for refurbishing the building and learned the CRA provided $50,000 as match for a $140,000 grant from the State and a commercial facade for $15,000 grant as a match for a $30,000 grant. The total was $65,000 since 2014 and they got grant funds from the State because of those matches of $140,000 and $10,000 of their own funds. He would want to use a grant application for the first floor renovation. Pat Waldron, Historic Preservationist, Women's Club, agreed with Mr. Simon's comments. Mr. McCray thought it was a good investment. Chair Grant inquired if there were any deed restrictions and learned it has to remain a memorial to Major Boynton. Chair Grant asked if there was a right of refusal and learned a restriction could be added. A use could be found for the building. Michele Walters, President, Women's Club agreed and commented the building belongs with the City. 25 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 1, 2017 Ms. Romelus noted the building is appraised at $2.4 million. Vice Chair Katz commented it was important to balance preservation with new development. Motion Mr. McCray moved to approve. Mr. Casello seconded the motion that unanimously passed. It was specified the motion included the deed restriction. XV. CRA Advisory Board A. CRA Advisory Board Agenda — June 1, 2017 B. Minutes from CRAAB Meeting — May 4, 2017 1. Pending Assignments: None C. Reports on Pending Assignments: None D. New Assignments from CRA Board Meeting April 12, 2017: 1. Review and Revise Current CRA Special Event Grants 2. Review and Revise Vendor Policy for other CRA'slNon- Profits XVI. Future Agenda Items A. CareerSource March Career Expo Recap July 11, 2017 B. Consideration of Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA Owned Property located at 711 N. Federal Highway to South Florida Marine XVII. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to discuss, Ms. Romelus moved to adjourn. Mr. McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. { Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 26 A Sauna in South Florida? Really? Yes! Experience a real sauna Boyn- inton Beach! , .. ., * � � � ,,..„. Saturday, 4 �% r I : �f I y. ' November 1 2017 A I „to tr 10:00 AM - 6:0.0 PM t.- „� „ , 4,1,- , . I ., y 0 Intracoastal Park p * 2240 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Celebrating Finland's Centennial and the Sister Cities relationship between Rauma, Finland and Boynton Beach The Traveling Sauna '''„ ”;4!i :. lt, 1 Reservations are required. , ° www.signupgenius"com/go/5080f4aaeab2dabf49-sister ,. i o a° Admission is $10/hour for the Sauna. r09' ,- 1 Bathing suits are required. Changing room & , :, , g shower available. To enjoy an authentic sauna experience, Finnish style, Finnish food will/also be available for purchase. For information, contact bovntonsistercities@gmail.com or call 561-901-8714. Sponsored by greater Boynton Beach Sister Cities and the City of Boynton Beach Y ap Greater Boynton Beach ' '' "a• ..x eon. �``„^.,.�.�„�r' �"S�Y-"�.�,- a . ;�o 'ss�• �Tn� .,., .. ,�`.�'�.`"., _ �.� .. M .,,. :'a`' iv',. d k•_:`�: �'�`.x�..:f "F. , r.�...,