Loading...
Minutes 01-06-20 Tuesday,Minutes of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board Meeting held on at 5:30 at s s •rIntracoastal Park Clubhouse, 2240 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida Present: Steven Grant, Chair Mike Simon, Executive Director Justin Katz, Vice Chair Thuy Shutt, Assistant Director Mack McCray, Board Member Tara Duhy, Board Counsel Christina Romelus, Board Member Ty Penserga, Board Member 1. Call to Order Chair Grant called the meeting to order at 5.30 p.m. . Invocation Board Member McCray gave the invocation. . Roll Call A quorum was present. 4. Agenda, rvl A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chair Grant requested to move item 15E after Public Comments. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Board Member McCray moved to approve as amended. Board Member Penserga seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 5. Legal None. . Informational Items and D Meeting Minutes Community e v to ent Agency Board Boynton Beach, FloridaJanuary 020 A. Disclosure of Conflicts, Contacts, and Relationships for Items Presented to the CRA Board on Agenda Vice Chair Katz and Board Members Romelus and McCray had no disclosures, but wished all a Happy Holiday. Board Member Romelus thanked staff for a great job on the Holiday Parade. Board Member Penserga spoke to Community Caring Center Board Members, Nancy Flynn, Doreen Robinson, Sheri Johnson, and Michael Weiner regarding 209 and 217 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Chair Grant spoke with Tom Warnke about the Florida Surfing Museum and Mike Weiner, but did not discuss the two buildings. He wished all a Happy Holiday and New Year. 7. Announcements and Awards A. 48th Annual Boynton Beach and Delray Beach Holiday Boat Parade Recap. Azim Hussain, Marketing/Special Events and Economic Development Assistant, announced the event at Boynton Marina, and noted they had 32 captains registered for the event. The Boat Parade starts at 6 p.m. from the Palm Beach Yacht Club just north of Gateway Boulevard and then travels south to the C-15 Canal in Delray Beach, just south of Linton Avenue. There are several viewing areas including the Boynton Harbor Marina, and Intracoastal and Jaycee Parks. The Watch Party at the Boynton Harbor Marina had music, kids' activities and featured a visit from Santa. About 300 people attended. Staff conducted a feedback survey, which consisted of 34 completed surveys. Forty-four percent of the respondents indicated they live in Boynton Beach; 35% from Palm Beach County; 9% just outside of Palm Beach County; and 12% were from out of state. Sixty-two percent of the respondents said they would visit a restaurant after the event; 24% said they would visit a bar and 12% said they would visit a retail store. Winners for the best boat would be announced at the Holiday Boat Parade Award Dinner at Banana Boat on January 9, 2020. B. In Culture ® Art Walk on January 18, 2020 from 6:00pm -9:00 pm on Industrial Avenue Mr. Hussain stated the January Art Walk was a partnership with the Boynton Beach Art District. The event is free and will feature a variety of unique vendors and local artists, live music, food and drinks. Parking will occur along the side of the road on the grass. This year, different food trucks will be present and a movie will be shown. Chair Grant asked if there would be video promotions. Renee Roberts, Social Media and Communications Specialist, explained staff planned on having social media kits for the businesses in the Art District. They were not planning on having video promotions. Post cards would be issued for the event. 2 Meeting Minutes Community v lop nt Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January6, 2020 C. Rock the Plaza at One Boynton on January 21, 2020 from 5:00 pm -9:00 pm. Mr. Hussain announced the first Rock the Plaza event, which will highlight One Boynton's residential offerings and special promotions for businesses located within the plaza. There will be live music and drinks available. Social Media kits will be available to Plaza businesses a week before the event to help them prosper and promote themselves. The next Rock the Plaza will be held February 29, 2020, at Ocean Palm Plaza, then March 28th at Sunshine Square, and April 250 at Ocean Plaza. . Information Only A. Public Relations Articles Associated with the BBCRA B. CRA Advisory Board Update 9. Public No one coming forward, Public Comments was closed. 10. CRA Projectsin Process A. CRA Marketing and Business Development Project Update. Tracy Smith-Coffey, Marketing and Business Development, explained the social media ad campaign featured three businesses: The Main Street Carwash; CJ Lock Shop and Security Center; and the Boynton Harbor Marina. Staff had a double page spread in the Gateway Gazette for the 2020 Bucket List encouraging readers to check out the Boynton Harbor Marina in 2020 to parasail, fish and water sports. Staff also placed an ad in Discover the Palm Beaches for their Annual Official Visitors Guide 2020. The Guide goes to all hotels in Palm Beach County and is mailed to certain residents. It is at shopping centers and highway rest stops. The Weatheris Here, regarding transient docking at the Marina, was advertised in the Coastal Angler, Marina Life Magazine, and the Florida Sport Fishing Journal. Staff took out a full-page ad for the Historic Woman's Club in the Florida Jewish Directory, slated to be issued at the end of January to all the synagogues in Palm Beach County. Board Member McCray thanked Ms. Smith-Coffey for the presentation. B. CRA Economic & Business Development Grant Program Update Bonnie Nicklien, Grant Manager, announced there were no new applicants for the grant programs, but there were several that would come before the Board in February. A listing of new businesses obtaining Business Tax Receipts was included in the agenda cover. Ms. Nicklien explained she, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Utterback had a meeting with a realtor looking to move her office east and she invited them to speak at her seminar. They informed about 25 realtors about the redevelopment projects ongoing in the CRA, the 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 grant programs and the Social Media Outreach Program (SMOP). It was a good meeting. There were lots of questions and it was nice to get the word out there. C. Ocean Breeze East Apartment Project Update Mr. Simon provided a monthly update on the status of Ocean Breeze East Apartments. On November 9th, the Ground-Breaking Celebration for the construction of the 123-unit affordable housing complex occurred. He remarked how much has been done in 30 days and about the visual impact the project has on the corner. Staff will provide images each month. The project uses 9% Low-Income Tax Credits. The CRA sold the land for$800K and provided about $567K for the local government match. The rest of the project is funded 100% through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. The CRA saved about $250K and will receive a $26 or $27 million-dollar project. D. Social Media Outreach Program 16t Quarterly Report (October 1, 2019- December 31, 2019) Ms. Roberts announced there are 77 businesses registered for SMOP. This quarter, three new businesses were added and 19 businesses were visited. In total, 134 businesses participated in the program and all were visited. Part of staff continuing their social media kits for special events included a Light up the Park Social Media Kit, provided to all the businesses who participated. The business owners were extremely happy with the entire event, and they all benefited from the event. Due to the success of the Pirates TV (PTV) live videos, staff continued live videos for the holidays to promote local shopping. The videos took place on Tuesdays and Thursdays from December 6th to December 27th and they highlighted 10 CRA District businesses. They got dressed up and performed a skit. The videos engaged about 1,500 people and there were over 20 shares. Their team wants to continue the live promotions for special holidays, specifically for shopping, as they are effective, so that is the plan for Mother's and Father's Day and other major shopping events. The Boynton Beach Blog pertorms well. Ms. Roberts reviewed the statistics and announced future projects include collaborating with the special events team for all upcoming events. There is advertising assistance and seasonal specials for businesses, which includes the future video campaign that she was talking about. There will be customized media kits, lessons how to use them, and continued one-on-one assistance for businesses as needed. E. Social Medial Activity Report of Project Development 18t Quarter Report (October 1, 2019- December 31, 2019) Mr. Hussain explained between October 1st and December 31St, staff created 16 organic posts featuring CRA projects and redevelopment initiatives, which reached a total of 8,401 people and received 316 engagements. The purpose of the posts is to provide updates on various projects and activities. Upcoming activities are the completion of the Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Floridanu , 2020 Old High School as part of the Town Square Project, update on the Model Block Domes on NW 11th Avenue, update of the NE 15t Street Water Main Replacement Project by Killabrew Inc, and the update of the Ocean Breeze East apartment construction. F. FY 2018-2019 Update for the Nonprofit Organization Grant Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach County. Thuy Shutt, Assistant Director, explained this item was the second reimbursement for the Habitat for Humanity Grant Recipient Request for a portion of the $75K grant given to them. Attachment II showed the construction progress for the NE 12th Avenue properties. Two villas were under construction and three neighborhood revitalization projects were included in the backup. Revitalization included repainting, reroofing, and rehab of existing properties and the educational activities opportunities as well as different components of homeownership. When the recipient completes the requirement for reimbursement, they are paid. 11. Consent Agenda A. Financial Report Period Ending December 31, 2019 Motion Board Member McCray moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Board Member Penserga seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 12. PulledConsent Agenda Items None. 13. Public Hearing None. 14. OldBusiness A. Consideration of a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the property located at 209 N. Seacrest Boulevard Mr. Simon commented the item was approval of the agreement with the terms approved at the December meeting to pay $1.4M for the property at 209 N. Seacrest. The building appraised at $1.4M and the CRA and seller agreed to sell for the appraised value, with closing to occur at the end of October 2020. The CRA is providing a $100K deposit, $50K of which, after 60 days of closing would apply to the overall purchase price, and as was approved at the last meeting, the seller agreed to a $50K cap on items they inspect that Meeting Minutes Community develo m nt Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January0 may need repair. Anything above the $50K would need to come back to the Board to negotiate if the seller did not offer to address. The seller agreed to all the terms in the contract. Staff was looking for approval of the document for execution. The CRA would conduct the inspection and note the amount of the repairs. Staff would be looking for large repairs such as a roof, but the CRA would conduct the inspection and rely on City expertise, potentially hiring an inspector. If so, staff would report back to the Board. The CRA would be responsible for repairs to the building up to $50K. Chair Grant was aware the spiral staircase was not compliant with current commercial code. The $50K is to turn the property into an economic generator for the community. He thought it was a good deal for the CRA. Motion Board Member Penserga moved to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The motion unanimously passed. B. Consideration of a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Property Located at 217 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Simon stated the item is to approve the agreement for this property and specifying the terms. The CRA would not close on the property until the end of the lease in February 2023. The owner will continue to act as the landlord and be responsible for any repairs and maintenance of the building. Mr. Simon hoped, over the next three years, the owner, City staff ,and representatives of the post office would meet to see what their future plans may be and to try to get all in place before the end of the lease to see how to keep the Postal Service engaged in the community. Staff will work on the issue and update the Board with any options or concerns. The property at 217 N. Seacrest Boulevard appraised for $1.6 million, which was agreed on by the parties. There will be a $200K deposit, and after 60 days, $100K of that deposit will be applied towards closing and available to the seller. Approval of the agreement was needed. Chair Grant noted the location is at a main intersection and having this corner would add value to the Downtown. Motion Vice Chair Katz moved to approve the purchase and sale agreement. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. Board Member McCray commented when the idea was first proposed, he was not in favor of approval. He drives through Broward County and saw the newness of their newly constructed building and thought it would be negligent for the CRA not to move on the property. He retracted his prior comments and supported the project. The motion unanimously passed. 6 Meeting Minutes Community v lopm nt Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January C. FY 2018 - 2019 Closeout for the Non-profit Organization Grant Agreement with the Community Caring Center of Greater Boynton Beach Inc. Ms. Shutt explained this item is a 2018/2019 reimbursement request from the Community Caring Center of Greater Boynton Beach who was able to fulfill their grant requirements in two quarters. This will be the closeout for the quarter and the final disbursement to the Community Caring Center for the non-profit grant. The request was for $9,500. The required support documentation was attached. Staff reviewed the materials and supported the disbursement, which requires Board approval. Board Member McCray asked how many grants the Community Caring Center has received and learned they had received a grant in 2017/2018 for$47K. The grant for this past year, the Board allocated only a percentage of the $95K for the economic development component. The rest had to be used in the affordable housing category The Community Caring Center received $19K this year. Motion Board Member McCray moved to approve. Board Member Penserga seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. D. Project Update on Ocean One Boynton, LLC Mr. Simon commented this item was being brought back. The project was partially located on previously-owned CRA property at 222 N. Federal Highway. The CRA sold the property as the result of a Letter of Interest/intent submitted by Ocean One Boynton LLC in order to construct a master plan project, the first phase of which was a 231 multi- family residential rental project with structured parking and 8,600 square feet of commercial space. The Board and Boynton One LLC entered into a Tax Increment Revenue Funding agreement, in which the agreement provided for termination of the TIF if construction did not commence on January 16, 2020, which was approaching. In April, the CRA received a letter from Bonnie Miskel, the attorney for the developer and the item was placed on the agenda with the letter in July of 2019. The Board opted to briefly discuss it and removed the item until closer to the January deadline to see if any activity would occur. Tara Duhy, Board Counsel, clarified that without Board action, the agreement will automatically terminate. Bonnie Miskel, Esq., on behalf of the owner, gave an update. By the end of the approval process, a member of the development team had a relationship with Prudential who would underwrite the project. Within six months of final approval, Prudential fell through and the owner had to pursue other financing to underwrite the project. By April, the owner marketed the site for sale and retained a marketing team. There were three serious buyers currently engaged with the owner, and they submitted Letters of Intent. The Meeting Minutes Community ev to ent Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 2 owner's concern is without the TIF agreement, none of the three will have interest in proceedings. Attorney Miskel requested the Board consider the amount of effort going into the project and that there are three buyers interested. The request was to extend the TIF to conclude negotiations resulting in commencement of a project or at least submitting for a permit before the end of the year. Chair Grant recalled there was a deed restriction, that if the project did not commence, park would be built on the property. Attorney Duhy explained at the same time that the tax increment revenue agreement was signed and approved, a Purchase and Development Agreement for the CRA owned property was signed. There was a requirement in the agreement and deed that if construction did not commence by January 20, 2020, the developer or owner would have to construct a public plaza. The requirement is they have one year from January 20, 2020, to commence construction on the public plaza at the site. The requirement will trigger on January 20, 2020. Attorney Duhy explained the Board could entertain an extension of the TIF for a year, and if they began construction within the year, the owner could request the Board allow them to not begin construction of the public plaza. Chair Grant wanted to know what consideration the owner would give the Board because the Board wanted a public plaza built if the project did not begin. He thought aside from the owner paying property taxes, consideration for the extra year had value. Attorney Miskel explained her client was not asking to postpone the date when the plaza would be constructed. They were seeking to get the property under contract and then return to the Board to apprise them of the update. In the event the buyer cannot commence building prior to the one-year date, they can return and ask for something at that time. The property would continue to be used for special events, to provide parking for construction of other projects, and they will continue to do so. The marketing materials were sent to 1,300 developers, real estate experts and specialists in the country. The material contained a lot of data that is helpful for engaging future buyers interested in coming to Boynton Beach. Board Member McCray wanted to ensure the owner was sincere about getting the project off the ground. He supported giving the one-year extension and hoped what would be constructed would be comparable with what was occurring in the downtown. Board Member Penserga inquired why the marketing materials yielded only three results and learned there were more than three inquiries, but only three that were serious, viable and interested in the entire site. They were approached by a hotel, but they were not interested in the entire site. The owner would like to see any project be constructed as one project using both sites. As to apartments, the concern is the rental rates and the Boynton comparables are low. Any developer selected would have to be a mixed-use, special developer that can balance the site and the three they are negotiating with are far more able to develop the site than the others. Chair Grant would support a year extension, but receive a six-month update. 8 Meeting Minutes Community d v lop nt Agency Board Boynton Beach, Rorida January , 2020 Vice Chair Katz queried if within the year extension, the owner anticipated they would have a buyer with documents executed. He would not want to give an extension and then a new buyer say they need 24 months for the project. He asked when the property is transferred if the new purchaser is bound by the same restrictions and timeline. Attorney Miskel explained potential purchasers have already reviewed the current documents. If they need a change, they would have to return to the Board. He preferred conveying the expectation that the owner would adhere to the 12-month extension. He did not want a two- or three-year extension. Attorney Duhy explained anyone who is assigned the agreement would be subject to the terms of the agreement. Mr Simon clarified the park would have to commence within 12 months although they would not have started construction of the project itself, because the project would not have been a permitted plan. Vice Chair Katz explained that was his concern. Attorney Duhy commented the document has a definition for "commencement of construction" in the TIF, which she read. It meant "obtaining an official permit in-hand for any of the construction activities contained herein and beginning to actually demolish, excavate or prepare the site for development of the applicable phase of the project in accordance with the City Code and continuing until completion of construction of the project or phase of the project as applicable, in accordance with the Florida Building Code". Mr. Simon explained this would apply to Phase I of the project for the 231 units. As of 12 months of today, regardless of the commencement of construction on Phase I, they are responsible to commence construction on the public plaza separate from Phase 1 as the TIF is only connected to Phase I. If a new owner was found in 10 months and the site plan they would use was on hold with the City until 2023, it is unlikely that commencement of construction would take place on the 231 units, even if it sold tomorrow, because it has to be construction designed and permitted with the City in the next eight to 10 months to begin construction. All the Board is doing is allowing the TIF paper to be used as an incentive for the development proposal for the next 12 months as opposed to it ending today if the owner does not have the agreement with the CRA for the funding. There was no timeframe if the owner constructed the park, and no clock on the other side of the park that says when the developer had to begin construction on Phase I. Vice Chair Katz explained his concern was there may not be development for five years. Attorney Duhy pointed out any assignment of the contract requires approval by the CRA Board. It shall not be unreasonably withheld, but at the time, the Board would understand who would purchase the property. The second portion is aside from the commencement of construction requirements in Section 3, a termination section in Section 9 is what is being asked to be extended. Currently, the agreement automatically terminates within two years if construction has not occurred. What was being asked was the time period in Section 3 to begin construction and the termination date, would be extended. If construction does not begin by January 1, 2021, the entire agreement would automatically terminate. Any assignment of the contract would have to be approved by the Board. 9 Meeting Minutes Community ed v lop ent Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 6, 2020 Attorney Duhy explained from a legal perspective, she would not change the commencement of construction date in Section 3 without changing the termination date. It means the CRA was holding the entity they have the contract with to commence construction. If at the time, someone is brought forward and the CRA wants to make any other changes to the agreement or was not able to commence construction within the one-year time frame, then the Board could find out more from the entity, what they were willing to do. She would change both the commencement of construction from two years of the effective date to three years in Section 3, and change the termination in Section 9, to say instead of"within two years of the effective date" to say "within three years." That language would extend all of this for one year with the current contract with the current developer. Vice Chair Katz thought it was a fair request, given how the CRA incentivized the development to set a firm clock. The project was one of the first projects in the new Downtown after 500 Ocean, and now it appears it will be one of the last of what was already proposed. He wanted some enforcement of the contract as the CRA provided a good incentive. He did not want to feel taken advantage of and see the project not even begin construction until 2025 or 2026. Attorney Miskel noted a few things could occur: the buyer could proceed on the basis of the current plan, at which point it is fully approved and valid until February 2023. By closing, they would pursue permits thereafter. If that could not occur in a year, they would approach the Board, especially when they have to get the assignment approved, to move forward with what ever process they need. Another option is the buyer would come in with a completely new plan, and they would ask for what they need. She thought they could provide a lot more information in six months. Vice Chair Katz inquired what would happen to the current agreement if an entity wanted to build an entirely different project. Attorney Duhy responded if there are any changes to the current agreement or the terms thereof, and they have fairly specific requirements about what the development is required to be, including the exhibits, they would need to appear before the Board to request amendments to the agreement. She suggested to address Vice Chair Katz's concern, they could ask at this time to amend Section 3.1, which says "Developer agrees to commence construction of the project within two years of the effective date of the agreement.", to say within three years of the effective date of this agreement. A sentence could be placed after that, which requires the purchaser or developer to diligently and continuously pursue all other necessary approvals, until the first building permit was issued for the development of the project and to diligently and continuously pursue completion of the project after issuance of the first building permit. The termination would also change, but the language would mirror the Purchase and Development Agreement, which does not place a time limit, but does require them to use due diligence and reasonable efforts to continue the project once it has begun. Vice Chair Katz favored a 12-month extension with the proviso they add a clock on the project so any purchaser understands they have a certain amount of time. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redv i t Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 The developer would receive the TIF after the Certificate of Occupancy is received, their audit on the greening of the building is done,.and they have evidence of paying the prior year's taxes. Chair Grant understood the City created their own greening program. He felt the CRA wanted to incentivize development in Boynton Beach in the CRA area, which was .why they sold their property worth half a million dollars for $10 in 2018. It has been two years. While the property has increased in value, the property owner is not the developer for the site. Trying to put deadlines and teeth did not make sense because the Board wants the project done the best way. He was happy to give a year extension with a six-month update and the park is up for negotiation, even though it is part of the deed. It was the Board requiring the park and there will be further negotiations. He was amenable to using the money for the park in other areas. There are vacant lots that the City and CRA own, and they money could be used there to build the best project for the area because this is their downtown area. One concern for the future buyer is the Certificate of Occupancy. He noted this Board gave 500 Ocean an extension past December 31, 2017, to get their license so they did not have to pay property tax on the completed building in February 2018. It was only in 2019, the property was valued at $47 million as opposed to $4.7 million in 2018. The Board may want to consider an end date by December 31st as that is how they receive the value on the investment. He was agreeable to an extension realizing they may have to negotiate the contract once again. Board Member Romelus did not support an extension. The CRA was taken advantage of; they sold the land for $10 and are providing a great deal of TIF. It felt the TIF agreement was being used as a carrot to entice a buyer to purchase the property. Attorney Miskel explained her client was very motivated to find a developer for the site. The issue is there is a significant difference between the rental rates in Boynton Beach and the cost of construction. While property values have increased, construction costs have increased disproportionately and are climbing. A buyer will have to make a financially sound decision. Prudential withdrew from the project because they could not make it work. The property owner's intent two years ago was to move forward with Prudential, but it did not occur. The reason he originally asked for the TIF was because of the discrepancy with rental rates and the cost of construction. Every buyer that spoke with him was interested in the site, but they are interested in keeping the TIF. They already. spent a lot of money on the construction drawings and impact fees, which is normally paid by underwriting. It was not their goal to use TIF as a carrot, but it is necessary because of the market and the cost of construction. Vice Chair Katz could not support an amendment without deadlines and felt it following Chair Grant's proposal, he would not vote to extend it because the Board would negotiate with the Board anyway. They are now negotiating with the intermediary that owns the property. He wanted a fair deal and felt the development did not work out as planned. He just wanted something built as quickly as possible. He would move to put forth language to agree to extend the two years to three years so any buyer understands they should not buy the property if they intend to come back and ask for more extensions. 11 Meeting Minutes Community v I t Agency Board Boynton c , Florida January , 2020 Attorney Miskel commented they had no objection to the language presented to the Board by Attorney Duhy. Attorney Duhy repeated the proposal, which was to amend Section 3.1 to strike "two" so that it will read "Developer agrees to commence construction within three years of the effective date of this agreement. Developer shall diligently and continuously pursue completion of construction of the project after issuance of the first building permit, subject to force majeure." Section 9 would be amended "Unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms herein, this agreement shall automatically terminate upon the last disbursement of pledge project increment revenue to developer for the project or within three years of the effective date if the developer failed to commence construction of the phase I improvements subject to force majeure." Vice Chair Katz thought the understanding with pushing the sale of the project with potential buyer, they would understand they have a hard clock they must commence construction on Phase I, and continue it to completion. Motion Vice Chair Katz so moved to the above. Board Member McCray seconded the motion. Board Member Romelus commented they put faith in the project and are renewing their faith the project will be constructed. Chair Grant noted the CRA will get a park if the project is not built. Davis.Camalier, Project Principal, commented all were disappointed and he has been trying to build a project since 2007. The project to the north of him was constructed and went bankrupt as did the one across the street from him. He is the only project that has been there, and he is not a fly by night guy. He is committed to Boynton and has been an investor since 1986; he believes it is a great piece of property and it should be developed that way. He has never appeared before the Board forcing them into something they did not want, and he thought all were on the same page. He did not feel that way now and it bothers him. The reason why the three parties are interested in the property is because it is in an opportunity zone. It has never been on the market for sale, only for investors to come in. Because he is an old-time investor in the property, he cannot own more than 20% of it, if they take advantage of the opportunity zone laws. It creates a dilemma for him moving forward. He announced no one put more time, energy or money in the project than him. He did not make sense to take away TIF after he informed them, Boynton was open for business. For many years, Boynton was not open for business. There are not many residential projects occurring and it will take some creativity and diligence to get it done. He will commit to meet with them, and they have to work together. Board Member McCray recalled the property when it had a bank and then the bank was demolished. He was glad he was continuing to invest in Boynton Beach. He believed in 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 what he was doing. Board Member Penserga agreed with Board Member McCray and commented he favored the extension. Vice Chair Katz explained it was important the developer be aware of the Board's perspective. Mr. Camalier explained there will be a new owner if the buyer takes advantage of the opportunity zone. They sent 1,300 marketing packages to every large developer they could find. The rents in Boynton Beach are not anywhere near surrounding cities. He thought the site should be attractive, but if building a new building, it cost the same amount of money in Boynton as it does elsewhere. He noted 500 Ocean had some internal issues and rents were reduced. It was a problem because 500 Ocean was the only comparable in the downtown. He thought all should work together and he committed to being more transparent. Board Member Romelus agreed. Vote The motion unanimously passed. Attorney Duhy clarified the amendments were to the TIF, Purchase and Development Agreement and all deadlines will remain the same. Mr. Simon requested a motion to allow the Chair to sign once the amendment is approved by legal and counsel for the developer rather than having to bring it back to the next meeting. Motion Board Member Romelus so moved. Board Member McCray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 15. New Business A. Consideration of Terms of the CRA's Homebuyer Assistance Program between Ian and Tosi Rigby and the CRA Mr. Simon explained the individuals were first time homebuyers purchasing the property at 717 NE 6t"Street, who received down payment assistance from the CRA in 2008. They have been in the home for 11 years and want to relocate. Under the existing agreement, they are required during the first six to 20 years of ownership, the buyer shall pay 50% of the equity to the CRA and years 21 to 30, the buyer would pay 15%. If the owner sells the property to a non-income qualified buyer, they would be responsible to pay some of the grant plus 4% interest from the date of the agreement. The Rigby's will pay back the $50K to the CRA and they are requesting the Board waive the 50% of their equity share on the sale of the home back to the CRA and the 4% interest charge on the amount of the grant. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 Chair Grant supported waiving the equity because they are paying back the loan. They desire to sell to a qualified buyer and he would support waiving the 4% interest on the loan. Board Member McCray also supported the request. Motion Board Member McCray so moved to waive the 50% and 4% interest, and they will try to sell to a qualified buyer. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Board Member Romelus inquired who built the homes and learned it was the Delray Beach and Boynton Beach Faith Based Community Redevelopment Agency, and the City, through the Development Department. The CRA offered the down payment assistance, and anyone who could provide the house at a certain price and had an income eligible buyer would get the assistance. This was also done in the preserve and scattered infill housing, and a little bit like Ocean Breeze West, except in the latter, the CRA invested in the site infrastructure instead of individual closings. The homes could be modified to be handicapped accessible. B. Consideration of an Interlocal Agreement between the Boynton Beach CRA and Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County Ms. Shutt explained this item was through the Blighted Property Program through the Solid Waste Authority. This is the fourth year receiving the grant. The CRA increased the grant award through the years. This is for site work and demolition for two properties the CRA will be addressing. The CRA is one of six entities awarded out of 14 who have applied through the County. The agreement is similar to what the Board approved last year, except for the properties and the grant amount. Staff and Legal Counsel reviewed the documents and sent them back with some changes. The direction is for the Board to approve the draft interlocal agreement and authorize the Board Chair to sign on final Legal review since they may not be able to wait until the February meeting. The grant is dispersed in two parts: upon signing the agreement and then again on the last activity. Chair Grant questioned if the temporary Library would be demolished. Mr. Simon explained when the application was submitted to the Solid Waste Authority, the intent was to issue a Request for Proposal. This would be an incentive for the agency using grant funds to pay for the demolition, that they would have to pay for otherwise. It is providing a cleaner site for the developer, which would expedite the process. Chair Grant commented there was nothing there and nothing there for years; it was a building that has been used and could be used. The Board does not know how much it would cost to fix it or tear it down. Mr. Simon asked if the intent was to RFP the building or occupy it. Chair Grant thought the City had needs that the building could accommodate. He queried if the building had to be demolished if the Board accepted the grant. Ms. Shutt explained this was specifically for the building. Before staff submitted the grant, they asked City staff about converting the property and what the cost would be to convert the building. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 The temporary Library use was to be temporary. There were fire codes and accessibility requirements that would be cost prohibitive to convert to retail or any other use. There are also some crime issues that occurred before the temporary library was done. A police report and other data was supplied. In addition to the library, there are portables also used. When the Library relocates to the new Town Square, there will be additional insurance and other safety measures that would need to be addressed in the building, before it could be converted or have any use. Chair Grant commented it was currently a usable building and to tear down a usable building made no sense, especially since there are costs associated with it. He felt the building could accommodate different uses. The City needs entrepreneurial space. He visited the City's incubator and it is not that big. He thought the building being on Federal Highway, having a lot of storefront, right next to bus stops and restaurants, could be used for office space. He asked if the $84,500 was only for demolition and learned it was. He did not support demolishing the building because staff had not informed him what the cost would be to save the building. Mr. Simon explained he would not consider demolition to create a parking lot. The project and property were purchased for future redevelopment; not to keep it as an antiquated building or turn it into a maker's or co-work space. The intent of the acquisition, at the time, was to purchase a key piece of property in the downtown that was not at its highest and best use. It is at the highest allowed height and highest density, across the street from a potential the Ocean One project and the Villages Project in between with frontage on Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway. The intent of the acquisition at the time, other than tohelp the City save funds, was to reuse the building as some type of commercial structure, it was not really discussed. The Board does not have to accept the grant. Staff can contact the Solid Waste Authority and see if they have the opportunity over the next six months, to assign the value to another part of the project, or return the funds and just use the amount needed for the N. Railroad property. He thought the item needed discussion. There had been very brief discussion at the time of purchase regarding the potential train station. Chair Grant felt the Board did not discuss the building and should do so. He has seen what the CRA has done with MLK Jr. Boulevard, the Cottage District and other properties and they have pretty much demolished buildings. The building is currently usable although it is unknown if it will be usable in the future. Chair Grant asked if the grant amount was enough to cover demolition. Mr. Simon explained the CRA could absorb the cost. They applied for the grant because it was available. Chair Grant thought it did not make sense to demolish the building. There are many uses the building could accommodate and there is an elevator, stairs and restrooms. Chair Grant did not support demolition. He thought if demolished, it will be a parking lot and the use will be similar to Davis Camaliers' property. It will be used on special events and festivals and there would not be jobs associated with the building. He supported accepting the grant for the N. Railroad property. 1 Meeting Minutes Community RedevelopmentAgency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January , 2020 Ms. Shutt explained in the grant application, staff had asked for construction or demolition activities associated with N. Railroad Avenue which would not occur until August. The Board could return the funds and have an Inspector give an estimate to convert the building to office and/or any other permitted use within the zoning district. Chair Grant supported the report so the Board will have the opportunity to vote on final demolition at the June or July meeting. Vice Chair Katz agreed, but did not want to put a tenant in the property because he anticipated the building will be demolished at some time. The building is an old church on a prime piece of real estate the CRA paid top dollar to redevelop. He thought no one would sign up to be a tenant with the knowledge of being booted out of the property in a matter of some months. He favored obtaining cost estimates because there is no urgency to demolish, but he would be reluctant to try to use the building, because it was always his hope that when the Library was done, the Board would issue an RFP, and by happenstance on the agenda, the CRA has the only other property owner of the parcel the CRA does not own, they may be able to partner. He did not know Mr. Camalier's plans for the Boardwalk Ice Cream property, but he imagined the Board would work with him to acquire or complete the parcel so all can see the full effect of that assembly of property. He did not object to looking at costs, but his personal belief is the building will be torn down and he wanted to move on a project for the compiled properties. He would not necessarily support putting a tenant in the building that would have to leave in six to 12 months. Board Member McCray noted it was not an old church. A bank built the building. Chair Grant requested a motion. Attorney Duhy suggested the motion include the Chair had the authority to sign the document after final Legal approval of any changes when the document is received from the Solid Waste Authority. Motion Vice Chair Katz so moved. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Chair Grant requested an inspection report. Ms. Shutt responded staff could provide it and then receive input whether the funds would be used for demolition or to return the funds. C. Consideration of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with the City of Boynton Beach for their Parking Lot Located at NE 4th Street Motion Vice Chair Katz moved to approve. Board Member McCray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. D. Consideration and Discussion of Future Property Acquisition Strategy: 623 N. Railroad Avenue 16 Meeting Minutes Community v to t Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaryg 2020 Chair Grant understood there were two aspects to the item: If the CRA wants the property, and the police of a Board Member to speak with the Executive Director how to bring up properties for consideration within the CRA area. Attorney Duhy addressed the latter portion, and commented the Board should discuss about the authority of the Board versus as individuals, how, when and if, the Board would authorize each other to ask staff to move forward with projects before they come before the Board. Currently, a Board Member is free at all times to bring something to staff's attention that they will bring to the Board. Staff's current strategy is to take all requests and information from Board Members and bring it to the Board and the Board directs staff how to move forward. Chair Grant recalled this also occurred regarding the garden on NW 6t" Avenue that was proceeding to a tax deed sale he brought to the Board. The Board voted on it and the CRA bought the property through the sale. The item is to determine if the Board was happy with the process or amend it. Board Member McCray commented, if a Board Member sees a property of interest to the CRA, it was fine to bring it to the director. His concern was if a Board Member speaks to the property owner and then going to the Executive Director. Chair Grant explained in this instance he was driving by, saw the flyer, got it and brought it to the Executive Director along with other properties for sale and Mr. Simon commented one of the properties had no value, and the other may have value. Mr. Simon commented the subject property is for sale, and the Board should decide if the CRA should solicit other developers for it. The property is behind the Easy Pay Tire. The building is visible from Federal Highway. The asking price is $985K. Mr. Simon spoke with the owner and toured the building, which has parking. It is a nicely constructed building that could serve light industrial. It would be great to have another industrial use come in or some type of business. Staff contacted several brokers they deal with and they felt the price per square foot for an end user was good. Ideally, an end user purchasing the property and putting it on the tax roll. If the CRA purchases it, it would take it off the tax rolls. Even contemplating the space for a co-work or makers space, are on the forefront of their thought, but it is hard to match an entity with the use. Financially, the CRA could find the funds. It is not a priority acquisition. Staff has not stopped promoting the parcel. He hated to see the family business leave, but the owner is looking to relocate to North Carolina. Board Member McCray agreed with Mr. Simon. It is not a priority for the CRA and there are many other projects that need to be completed. The CRA is not a real estate agent, only to eliminate slum and blight, and the property looks nice. He did not support the acquisition. The property was sent to the City's Economic Development Director. The subject property was surrounded by warehouse/light industrial use, car storage and towing, granite and fabrication store, a pool supply and auto repair businesses. There is no blight. 17 Meeting Minutes Community v I p nt Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 6, 2020 The process for a found property is to bring the property to the Board. If there is enough interest to pursue acquisition, an appraisal would be done, and staff would bring back the relevant information. Mr. Simon did not think the property was worth $985K. The property was on the market about 90 days. Vice Chair Katz agreed with Board Member McCray not to pursue. Mr. Simon did apprise the owner of the available grants as he is selling it himself. Board Member McCray recalled when Quantum Park was constructed, the City was criticized because the City was allowing industrial property to be used for housing. The land use is zoned for light industrial. Boynton will lose its industrial activity. Chair Grant agreed and explained his goal, recalling the conversation regarding the Family Dollar purchase and trying to make investments in the Heart of Boynton, was to discuss the matter. There was no action taken on this matter. E. Consideration and Discussion Regarding Assignments to the CRA Advisory Board Mr. Simon presented the item. Chair Grant had spoken with Mr. Simon about the item, who had suggested this be done on an as needed basis. The Board could review the budget ahead of time, but they do not need to have a meeting regarding the purchase and sale of the City's parking lot as the CRA. He did not want them to meet for no purpose. Vice Chair Katz agreed, especially regarding Letters of Intent. He would not want the CRA Advisory Board to review the matter before the Board. All needs to go through the CRA Board first. Attorney Duhy requested a motion as follows: The CRA agenda will only contain items assigned to it by a majority of the CRA Board. Motion Vice Chair Katz so moved. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Vice Chair Katz commented he had no problem with a Board member bringing any property to the Executive Director for consideration and appreciated Chair Grant's efforts. Board Member McCray did as well, but was only concerned with procedure. 18 Meeting Minutes Community I t Agency Board Boynton Iri , 2020 16. CRA Advisory A. Pending Assignments B. Reports on Pending Assignments C. New Assignments 17. FutureItems A. Quarterly Report - MLK Jr. Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Project Update B. Consideration of the New CRA Affordable and Workforce Housing Grant Program C. Consideration and Discussion of a RFP/RFQ for the Management of the Historic Woman's Club of Boynton Beach D. Status of CRA Owned Property Located at 115 N. Federal Highway 18. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to discuss, Board Member Romelus moved to adjourn. Board Member McCray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. &&,.ILL U Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 19