Loading...
Minutes 03-09-21 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING HELD ONLINE VIA THE GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021, AT 5:30 P.M. PRESENT: Steven B. Grant, Chair Mike Simon, Executive Director Ty Penserga, Vice Chair Thuy Shutt, Assistant Director Justin Katz, Board Member Tara Duhy, Board Counsel Woodrow L. Hay, Board Member (arrived 5:36 p.m.) Christina Romelus, Board Member 1. Call to Order Chair Grant called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. John McNally, Director ITS, read a statement explaining how the meeting would proceed and how the public could participate in the online meeting. 2. Invocation Board Member Romelus gave the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. Roll Call A quorum was present. 4. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Board r Katz movedo approve the agenda. The motionas duly seconded and passed unanimously- 5. Legal Tara Duhy, Board osel, explained ere are a few bills of interest, but none directly affectingthe CRA. One is having restrictions on local government to require aesthetic changes and requirements on residential v l however, 's are . i Another bill has to do withspecial isrict accountability thatof strengthen Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 auditing and reporting requirements, but nothing specific to or of great concern to the CRA. Chair Grant was aware of a bill pertaining to home-based businesses and allowing the CRA to assist home-based businesses in the CRA District. Attorney Duhy understood the bill would allow home-based businesses and would usurp local government authority to prohibit them, but it would not directly affect the CRA's ability to assist them. If the bill passes, it would impact the City more and their ability to restrict them and require them in certain locations. 6. 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 Board Member Katz spoke to Bradley Miller regarding the Cottage District and the 115 Federal Highway property. Board Member Hay also spoke with Bradley Miller about the projects and attended the Kinetic Art Event this weekend, which was very nice. Board Member Romelus met with Bradley Miller regarding the Cottage District, but not the 115 Federal Highway property. Vice Chair Penserga spoke with Bradley Miller regarding item 15A and attended the Kinetic Art Event, which was phenomenal. People were wearing masks and social distancing. They were shopping at stores and going to the restaurants. It was a great event. Chair Grant spoke with Tim Collins, Attorney Bonnie Miskel, Bradley Miller and Rajesh properties in the past. He noted the signing of the deed for the Historic Women's Club transferring the building from the CRA to the City, which now gives the City an Addison Mizner building. The City should be very proud of the building, which is a National Historic Landmark. He looked forward to the events and activities occurring there. 7. Announcements and Awards 8. Information Only A. Public Comment Log 9. Public Comments Chair Grant opened Public Comments. No one coming forward, Public Comments was closed. 10. CRA Advisory Board 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 A. CRA Advisory Board Meeting Minutes - February 4, 2021 B. Reports on Pending Assignments 1. Review of Commercial Properties within Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor within CRA Area Mr. Simon explained on February 4th, the CRA Advisory Board Report reviewed properties along the Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor, east of 1-95 to US 1, and whether to pursue land banking or development opportunities now, pursue in the future as determined by the Board, or not pursue at all as the property does not fit the CRA's criteria. Mr. Simon reported the CRA Advisory Board advised the 202 W Boynton Beach Boulevard property did not fit the criteria to pursue acquisition. They further recommended pursing the property at 225 Boynton Beach Boulevard. The property at 420 Boynton Beach Boulevard was no longer available and the property at 433 Boynton Beach Boulevard was recommended to pursue. Chair Grand noted the CRA did not have the money in the budget this year, but should review funding during the budget. If the properties are still for sale, the Board could move forward allocating the funds to purchase the property. Mr. Simon noted Attachment 1 has the description of the properties, which he reviewed for the Board. The CRA Advisory Board will review three to four additional properties at their next meeting. Chair Grant requested reviewing the newest listed properties first, and the older listings later. 11. Consent Agenda A. CRA Financial Report Period Ending February 28, 2021 B. Approval of CRA Board Meeting Minutes - February 9, 2021 C. Approval of Commercial Rent Reimbursement Grant Program in the Amount of $11,400 for Premier Medical Center of Boynton Beach, LLC located at 326 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard D. Approval of Commercial Property Improvement Grant Program in the Amount of$23,057.67 for Raj Properties, Inc. located at 109 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard E. Approval of Commercial Property Improvement Grant Program in the Amount of$21,205.80 for AMS Acquisitions, LLC located at 517 NE 5th Avenue F. Approval of Commercial Property Improvement Grant Program in the Amount of$8,930.40 for Loufranco Management Corp. located at 609 N. Federal Highway 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 G. Approval of Commercial Rent Reimbursement Grant Program in the Amount of $15,000 for Appliance King of America, Inc. located at 622 N. Federal Highway 12. Pulled Consent Agenda Items None. Motion Board Member Katz moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Vice Chair Penserga seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Monica Roundtree Cleckly, Premiere Medical Center of Boynton Beach, LLC, a Board-Certified Family Nurse Practitioner and native Floridian, was happy to be able to bring a primary healthcare medical center to the community. She was proud to bring primary healthcare to her community because she sees the disparity in healthcare and the importance of access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay. One goal is to partner with community churches and hold screenings and outreach to let people know they are there to help with healthcare needs. She was happy and excited to receive the grant. Chair Grant noted there is a social media outreach program and advised the CRA will help as much as they can. David Costanzo, Appliance King of America, announced they have been in Boynton Beach for over 20 years. He appreciated the Board's consideration of the grant. They are moving and expanding locations, due to the stability of the grant for the Corona virus program the CRA provided. It stabilized the company in a time of uncertainty and helped put them on stable footing. He appreciated the innovation the program showed. As they expand, they are partnering with Career Source opening new positions in Boynton Beach. He was excited to partner with the CRA about the project and bring high paying jobs to the City. 13. CRA Projects in Progress A. Marketing, Business Promotions, and Social Media Update Renee Roberts, Communications and Social Media Specialist, reviewed her presentation for the month of February detailing social media posts published, the public input survey for future redevelopment projects, and the new Boynton Beach CRA.com website. Mercedes Coppin, Business Promotions and Events Manager, reviewed the Boynton Beach Bucks promotion for the Sea Mist III, which provided a $10 discount for the first 50 respondents for one week. The offer was extended an additional week, and during that time, 27 Boynton Beach Bucks were redeemed during the promotion. There were 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 117 individuals that responded to the survey used to track the promotion and track the discount code: 42% of the respondents previously fished with the Sea Mist III and 58% had not. Fifty eight percent of the respondents were residents and 42% were non- residents. Examples of social media posts to promote the offer was viewed as well as the custom poster. The information was sent to over 2,300 individuals on the CRA mailing list. Boynton Beach Bucks was also used to promote Pio Pio. The promotion ended on March 5th and staff will report back at the next meeting. Chair Grant thought staff did a great job with Boynton Beach Bucks. The reason for the time frame was to create a sense of urgency to redeem the deal. The two weeks window looks good, so they will move forward from there and adjust accordingly. Staff was working with businesses one-on-one and if the business wanted to extend the promotion, they could. 14. Public Hearing 15. Old Business A. Update on Purchase and Development Agreement with Boynton Beach Cottage District Development, LLC for the Cottage District Infill Housing Redevelopment Project Mr. Simon explained this item was a follow up to the December 8th meeting regarding ranking the proposals for the Cottage District Infill Housing Redevelopment RFQ/RFP. The Board conducted an analysis of presentations made and selected the Boynton Beach Cottage District Development LLC as the first proposal to work with and move to contract negotiations and contract execution to move the project forward. At the prior meeting, staff met with the team from the Cottage District LLC Group and the City. Staff had another meeting with City staff on February9th and they put together a revised updated proposal contained in Attachments A and D. Attorney Duhy explained there are three options: continue negotiations regarding the Purchase and Development contract, terminate negotiations with the selected developer and direct staff to enter negotiation with the second ranked respondent, or terminate negotiations with the selected developer and withdraw the RFP/RFQ after which the Board can determine the next steps they would like to take with the property as contained in Section 18 of the contract Disclosure and Disclaimer. The current first ranked respondent had discussions with the City regarding their development requirement and proposals twice. Bradley Miller, Urban Design Studios, explained the entire team was present. Mr. Miller thought the Board could strike options 2 and 3 and move forward with option 1. Present was Gary Smiegal, Nicholas Heine. NRH Home and Farrell Tiller with Business Flair. There is also a consultant team in place to move the project forward through the City review and application process.. Mr. Miller reviewed the location of the subject site between 4th and 5th Streets as well as the Oyer property, whom they contacted. They have contacted and are under contract with the Macintosh property on 4th Street. If that 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 purchase goes through, they can incorporate that property into the plan. The original site plan was viewed and City staff wanted the team to remove driveways from the street and internalize the driveways with rear loaded garages and porches and incorporate sidewalks to have more of a Cottage District feel. The new iteration of the plan contained 43 units in four model types: one-story homes with detached garages. Attached single-story and attached two-story homes. There was discussion of incorporating townhomes which face Seacrest, 1St Street on the east side and internalized. The circulation pattern is to get cars into the property and park in garages and carports leaving the ability for on-street parking. Recreation and drainage areas were viewed, but there is a minimum requirement for recreational space the public could use. Drawings of the unit elevations were viewed. The three-bedroom, two bath homes one story unit has 1,554 square feet of living space and with porches and garage, had slightly over 2K square feet of living space. The second model, single-family detached garage units were two-bedroom, two bath units with 1,273 square feet of living space with front porches. The one-story attached homes are smaller two-bedroom units suitable for an older person looking for a new home that does not need as much square footage or garage space and have a good living situation with a carport. The two-story townhouse idea is an attached unit with two units with a porch in the front. They have a garage space behind them, but they could have a carport in the back. There is a mix of units. There are 13 detached units, 5 larger units, 8 smaller units and 30 of the attached units a total of 43 units. Prices range from $249 to $299K that are inline to the maximum of the 140% Area Median Income (AMI). Workforce eligibility for the property is not there, the prices are still in the same range as the county's relative to workforce housing. The combined income needed to get into the unit was $98,420 for a two-person family. They plan to control pricing upon the initial purchase with having to comply with eligibility of AMI of 140%. To control the implementation of the community plan and acquire equity, in contrast to the workforce housing program, the equity is limited to grow, which can be a deterrent. The pro-forma synopsis was reviewed as contained in the meeting materials. There is a 10% return, which is typical. Board Member Hay requested confirmation a combined income over $98,420 would disqualify the family from the program and learned it would. There was a table showing household size and income limits, that varied. It was noted the table reflected the County's Area Median Income. Board Member Hay asked what type of model would be used if the Oyer property and the parcel on the west side of the proposed site was acquired and learned they would have four attached units on the Oyer property and two more detached single-family homes on the Maclntosh property. Board Member Hay liked the larger square footage. Vice Chair Penserga commented when they got the various applicants, this was the applicant who asked for the land for free, which was about $1 M when there were other applicants who offered the same product who did not ask for the land free who also asked for $700K in incentives. He asked what the public would receive for the $1 M. Mr. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Miller reviewed the pro-forma synopsis showed the sales prices would be around $12M and construction was $12,648,000 and there was a shortage. He asked why is the land under Uses and not under Sources of Income and queried if it would be a value going into the project and not into the pocket of the developer. Mr. Tiller explained the pro-forma is to show the offering, although it was listed as a source it was listed under Uses and Sources to show it as offsetting. If they took it out of Uses, and took it out of the CRA donation, it was the same number. Vice Chair Penserga asked how it made the homes more affordable. Mr. Miller explained they have to get the price to level where they can control the prices to keep the homes below the 140% AMI. They have to sell the homes in that range. He explained Pulte has a different process, and they are using the property to put their workforce products from some of their other market rate developments, and by doing so, there are strings attached to workforce housing, such as controlling equity over time. Mr. Miller would rather see the equity grow and create a stronger environment in the area. He thought the property owners should keep the equity. Vice Chair Penserga commented families should not be spending more than 30% of their income on housing. He noted the minimum household income someone would have to earn $83K so they would not have to spend more than 30% of their income. He thought it was too expensive and he noted there were errors. Mr. Bradley explained the numbers were coming from the County and they are trying to work backwards. A salary of $86K for that program would be 140%. Some of the other products are not as expensive. The cap of eligibility on the income drops as well depending on the percentage of the AMI. Vice Chair Penserga questioned why, when they are offered choices, the CRA would choose, when offered the same products, the developer that asks for free land and additional incentives when the CRA does not have the money. He asked where the funds would come from and was told from the next year's budget. He thought compared to Pulte Homes, not only did Pulte not ask for anything, they offered to pay the CRA money, and the starting median home prices are lower and affordable. He did not think the plan was in the best interest of the public if the goal is to get families into homes. He wanted to use common sense. Board Member Katz thought Vice Chair Penserga raised a good point. If they went with Pulte, the CRA would not spend the $500K, they would gain $200K to $400K and if they paid it into lowering the market prices, they could lower the homes by $17K. Pulte has homes from $166 to $308K, the average price would be cheaper for potential homeowners to purchase. Pulte's personal obligation may be to fulfill an obligation to the County, but it has no effect of the City or the residents who lived there. The prices being presented are offered are on the high end. He was not concerned about limiting the increased home values and hopefully the families would live there 10 to 20 years. A $300K house for a teacher is not affordable. Affordable housing is housing that costs less money for people who make less money. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Chair Grant thought if a developer builds a duplex, the developer gets more money as they are building two units half the size of one unit. He asked if the new homeowners would be part of a Community Land Trust, part of an HOA, if it was fee simple and if there would be a deed restriction. He thought since Pulte was required to build the homes, they were not looking for a profit, and the CRA donation would be the developer's profit. He wanted to move the project forward as fast as possible. He asked what was best for the property owner. A single person may not be able to buy these homes, and they may need to look at a condo, which the City has, but the CRA Board should focus with the amount of apartment rentals coming, the CRA should not give money for rentals. Single-family homes add another $3M of property valuation that would come with the Cottage District, compared to Pulte homes. The CRA is trying to bring up the market in the area and the market is getting hotter. He did not think interest rates were that high, and they have FHA loans which require 3.5% down, but it was up to the Board if they wanted to go forward with the second phase. The CRA has TIF and the property is not producing taxes. Once the project produces taxes, the extra $500 that would make it unaffordable could be returned. The CRA gets no taxable income from the City and County from this location. If the taxes are $500 a month, the CRA can give back between $200 and $250 a month to the property owner. If is the agreement with the developer that will transfer to the property owner, they can limit it to that property owner who can stay there for 10 years, and if they plan on selling it, it will not pass on to the next property owners. He thought it was something the CRA could do with TIF and the developer . Attorney Duhy would have to look at TIF, but she thought they can provide an incentive to the developer. It is a return of the TIF to individual homeowners for a certain period of time. She thought it would have to be restructured as she is not sure it is allowed. Chair Grant requested Legal look into it. Board Member Hay agreed with Chair Grant. He liked the models from Mr. Miller. The community wanted a Cottage look and had looked at two different plans. The proposal currently presented would satisfy the people's will. Mr. Simon explained the decision to be made is whether the presentation warrants continuation of negotiation to a formal contract with the developer. If the Board approves the presentation, the Board and Legal will meet with the developer regarding the terms of a development agreement, which will have the details regarding deliverables, time frames, financing price points, restrictions, etc., The decision to be made by the Board is to continue negotiations with the developer, not move forward with this group and move to a second group, or redo the RFP. Mr. Miller explained he had some concerns regarding points raised by the Board. They want the highest quality project within affordable pricing. The Oyer property was $250K and the Macintosh property was $340K. The numbers are similar to the original RFP and refined based on feedback from staff and feedback from the Board about the mix. The model they used could be interchangeable with all four products. They anticipate a HOA, fee-simple detached homes. He heard they need more townhomes and they could adjust moving 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 forward. Mr. Miller explained the whole idea is the highest quality product within the County's affordability guidelines. Board Member Rous asked if there was any room to maneuver the price aft home. Mr. Miller thought it was contingent on finding a comfortable price level and or a design backwards to fit inthat range, which could involve stripping away amenities, which they do not want to do. She asked why the Palm Beach County AMI was used. Mr. Miller explained workforce housing is based on the County's numbers broken down into four income categories. Mr. Simon commented the County's AMI is higher than the City's I. The recently approved City Workforce Housing Ordinance is designed to use the City's AMI, but when the RFP was released, the City was using the County AMI, is until a municipality chooses to use its City AMI, the standard is to use County I. The default, is is more restrictive is the individual cities if it is less than the County's. The County's AMI was referenced int RFP. Board Member Romelus thought, int interest of Boynton Beach residents living in the homes, that if they was a way to lower the price of the home, it of be worth the wait. She was not opposed to considering other applicants on the list or reissuing the RFP using the Boynton Beach AMI, as the County's has expensive areas included. The ane is has shown, they are in a seller's market and it is advantageous to raise home prices. If the CRA can develop a new construction home that is affordable, the Board should not bypass the opportunity. If you start a home at a higher price point, it is not affordable int long term. Chair Grant explained the reason the price of is between $250K and $300K is because that is what the Board thinks new construction in this areas out cost. He looked at the Pulte site with 31 townhomes, which needs to be redone, they want the best developer to build the best product. If they want to it teeheapest homes, they could. The Code allows for container homes. If they use Formica instead of granite, the price is a lot cheaper, The Board wants to see the best price they cant is reasonable. Pulte has homes at low income levels because they have to have it that way and they out likely nota as any amenities. Mr. Simon commented they is a misunderstanding about Pulte who responded tothe RFP. Pulte is a developer, but saying they are forced to it homes discounts the company and the integrity oftheir response. Pulte is building homes because they responded to the RFP, and they can provide a larger range of pricing because oftheir commitment to the project or other aspects oft company's obligations, so it was not fair to say Pulte was being forced to drive it prices down. Another aspect to consider is Pulte is building 31 townhomes and this proposal is building 30. Buying a house for $200K selling it for $400K does not help affordable units. There is no mention how to keep the home affordable beyond the homes first purchase, which has not been discussed. The TIF refund and the reference being one project is worth more than the other, discussion out one project being more expensive because the construction price is higher does not equate to value. If the Board went with that theory and paid taxes tote homeowner in addition tote money given to the developer, it is an awful 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 lot of incentive giving to both parties without any assurance that the affordability maintenance is there for life or at least 15 to 20 years, and the Board would now have distributed CRA funding to a private developer and a single-family homeowner. There are no rentals. Part of the RFP requires no rental allowance in the HOA. The HOA discussion did not indicate what the monthly HOA fee is, or if it is in the breakdown in cost. That along with the PMI, will add to already incorrect numbers on slide nine. Chair Grant commented the County requires workforce housing. Pulte had to pay money into the County's fund or build workforce homes in the County. Mr. Simon explained that is not relevant to the RFP. Chair Grant commented Pulte is building an affordable product, but it may not be the best thing for the neighborhood because it may not be what the neighborhood wants. He understood the Board was asking about new residents and trying to get the cheapest product so they can make it affordable. The current developer says I want to build and have quality to my name, but Pulte builds homes at a price and is required to build a certain amount of workforce housing. Chair Grant wanted the Board to discuss what they want to do, have as much housing in an affordable manner or have something in the middle of quality and affordability. Board Member Katz had no reason to believe either product was better or worse and had no interest in Pulte's obligation.. Pulte's motives are irrelevant as long as their product is sound. He would not mind seeing the Boynton Beach AMI in addition to the accurate numbers for the County, including the HOA costs to calculate affordability. The difference in the two proposals is one townhouse and three single-family homes. He queried if the Board could request, although the RFP did not specify it, the Boynton Beach AMI to be calculated and look at those sales prices and then discuss if that creates a bigger gap in pricing and profit for the developer. Attorney Duhy responded the Boardcould make changes to the proposal. If the Board wants to allow the selected developer to respond with an alteration to its proposal based on Boynton Beach AMI, they can. The Board could permit a resubmission by all three proposers. Section 18 of the RFP gives the Board a great deal of flexibility. The submission requirements were what they were, but in terms of getting to a contract, they have flexibility. In this case, the Board has an altered program from what was submitted to the RFP, which could be accepted and make alterations to the submitted program in the ultimate contract the Board will enter into. Board Member Katz supported altering the requirements for Boynton Beach AMI with the current applicant. He favored a better entry point for residents, if possible. Chair Grant wanted better answers because they got wrong numbers. The Board wants no rental ability, maintain affordability of the property so the property owner can build wealth in the equity in the property and not necessarily the property's appreciation to see if there is a range for a lower entry point. Chair Grant asked if the Board should open it up to all the applicants. Board Member Romelus supported opening it up to all the applicants and bringing back the numbers 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 based on the Boynton Beach AMI. The motion would be to select option M, Section 18. Select one or more successful proposers it deems to be in the best interest of the CRA She requested if the Board would be receiving information other than the selected developer, that the Board vote to identify one or both developers as selected for this negotiation Motion Attorney Duhy recommended the motion would be to select all three proposers as selected proposers and direct staff to continue negotiations with all three selected proposers. Vice Chair Penserga so moved. Board Member Katz seconded the motion. Vice Chair Penserga pointed out the applicant mentioned they could acquire the Oyer property for $250K and $340K totaling nearly $600K. If they can do that for two other parcels, why ask the CRA for incentive money. Mr. Miller commented without the incentive, it flips the opposite way. It is one or the other. Overall, they were trying to follow the RFP using the AMI and feedback. If they could have the opportunity to take tonight's input and return next month with corrected refined numbers without opening up the RFP, they would like to do so. He requested the Board consider that in their deliberations. It comes down to the numbers and it is still a matter of a quality development with good prices. Attorney Duhy clarified the motion made by Vice Chair Penserga would not open the RFP, just allow additional proposers to be part of the negotiation . Mr. Miller commented as the first selected proposer they still wanted to be the lead. All three proposers could provide additional information and negotiation with staff for whatever period of time they would like. Mr. Simon sought further clarification. Attorney Duhy explained the first step is to select the other two developers not selected as selected proposers. Then the Board will discuss what additional information the three selected proposers should provide. First is do they want to stay with the selected proposer or not. Once decided they can move on to what, if anything in addition, they would like to ask the selected proposer or selected proposers. Board Member Hay requested the names of the three developers for the record, which are Boynton Beach Cottage District Development LLC, Azure Equities LLC, and Pulte Companies LLC. Motion Attorney Duhy repeated the motion as Vice Chair Penserga moved to make selected proposers inclusive of Pulte, Azure and the current proposer, Boynton Beach Cottage District Development LLC, as selected proposers to discuss the Boynton Beach AMI, have no rental ability for property owners, the ability attain affordability for future 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency.Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 property owners and a wider range of entry points for the property owners. Vice Chair Penserga moved to amend his motion as stated. Board Member Katz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board will discuss the item in April. The information needs to be received by Sunday April 4t", at 11:59 p.m. Motion Board Member Hay so moved. Board Member Katz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Discussion and Consideration of the Purchase of the Property located at 115 NE 4th Avenue At the February meeting, the Board directed staff to contact the owner for the above property owned by Ms. Brown-Mcintosh. The property is listed at $350K. The final counter offer to the CRA was $320K as a back-up offer by a contract that she signed for $340K. He asked if the Board wanted to counter again. Chair Grant was willing to go a little higher to make the project the best it could be. Vice Chair Penserga supported discontinuing discussions and terminating the negotiations. There was consensus to do so. C. MLK Jr. Boulevard Corridor Commercial Redevelopment and Affordable Multi-Family Rental Apartment Project Update Mr. Simon contacted Centennial for an update and he did not see a representative in the audience virtually or in person. Mr. Simon was aware Centennial was anxious to get the permit drawings into the City, start the project and begin negotiations on the commercial component of the project. They are on track and looking to submit drawings in the next 60 to 90 days for permit review and break ground in late fall/early spring. Chair Grant wanted to know if the washers and dryers were included and the homeownership aspect, if the CRA can work with the developer for the tenants to build equity in a rent-to-own process to be used as a down payment somewhere else with TIF funding. Board Member Hay wanted Mr. Simon to express to Centennial and other developers, when the Board asks for an update it is very important for someone to appear as they may have questions. It does not sit well with him when they are on the agenda and no one is present to represent them. Chair Grant requested Mr. Simon let them know in April they will be moved up on the agenda to just after Consent Agenda to Projects in Progress. The Board wants to maintain their good relationship with them as partners. He requested Mr. Simon let them know Centennial can reach out to the Board members individually before the next meeting. D. CRA Economic & Business Development Grant Program Update and Consideration of Request for Additional Funding 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Bonnie Nicklien, Grants and Project Manager, gave an overview of the program which is a 50% matching grant for commercial rent and commercial property improvements. As of this meeting's grant approvals; the remaining balance is $146,865. Staff requests to reallocate additional funding to the program as they have seven pending applications seeking approval in April or May for about $257K in funding, which the remaining balance could not accommodate. There may also be new applicants in the meantime. Staff identified $291,253 in the Project Fund that could be reallocated. There is $145,792 in unused funds from the COVID 19 cancelled business promotional events and $145,461 in lighting improvement that could be reallocated. Staff requested approval to reallocate the funds. Chair Grant wanted to keep the lighting improvements. As to the unused funds from cancellation of business and promotional events, he asked if the CRA planned to have Music on the Rocks or Movies in the Park. Mr. Simon responded staff was holding out hope with the Marina and the two events in June and July. They have not made a decision about public events in the commercial plazas. Unlike the kinetic event on City property, they had a lot more flexibility about the precautions they could enforce and the CRA does not have as much flexibility or authority at the commercial plazas they have used. He and Ms. Coppin discussed it and would like to look into it further. The earliest event could be a May event, which would result in a slight reduction in the amount from that line item. Chair Grant wanted to have another event on Ocean Avenue and close the Avenue between Seacrest Boulevard and NE 1St to have an event in May because the kinetic art will still be there and he wanted to keep some funds in the line item. He was fine with reallocating the $291,253 from the project fund. He asked the Board if they wanted to try to have more business promotional events, Music on the Rocks and Movies in the Park, keeping things socially distanced at the amphitheater Vice Chair Penserga agreed with Chair Grant regarding lighting and that the events should return. He favored reallocating the $291,253, but keeping the lighting. Ms. Nicklien clarified the $291,253 was from two line items. Mr. Simon explained the Board allocated the $445K to the lighting project. The Board is aware, the night of the decision, there were no lighting projects in the works. If the Board allocated $445K to lighting there would still be $300K to spend this fiscal year, which would be difficult given the bidding and design process for significant projects the Board wanted. It could be replenished next year, but if moved over, there would be a $300K balance. Chair Grant thought the CRA over extended the grants. Ms. Nicklien disagreed and explained the applicants are aware the grants are on a first come, first served basis until the funding is gone. There were seven interested applicants. Chair Grant requested, at the next meeting, having the CRA return with possible events for the remainder of this fiscal year that could be used with the existing funds. He asked if the CRA could work with the City on lighting projects at the Galaxy Park playground and the pool. Mr. Simon explained from an expenditure and timing perspective, they do not have a project designed and out to bid, and the Board did not approve a project. He noted NE 1St from Boynton Beach Boulevard to the Cottage District was also mentioned. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 They are working with the City to identify what is involved with those upgrades and there are projects to do. Chair Grant wanted to maintain the balance in the lighting projects for next year, if not this year. He wanted to keep $50K in the fund for the cancelled business promotional events. The Board will learn in April how the CRA can spend the funds in the next few months regarding Music in the Park and Movies on the Rocks. Mr. Simon explained the $145K from the events line item is the unused funds from October 16t into April. There are still funds allocated to events for May, June and July. Chair commented if they have funds for future business promotional events, let them know how much it is, and if there is a possibility to have more, he wanted $50K to be available. Chair Grant requested a motion to transfer $95,792 from the cancelled Business Promotional Events line item to Economic Development Grants. Board Member Romelus sought clarification. She thought the other fund discussed and noted it was already March and in another few months they will not get a chance to fully go through the process for a lighting project. She thought they could reallocate funds this coming fiscal year. At the last meeting, they had discussions about businesses in the CRA District that are still looking for support with COVID and they cannot get assistance from the City. This could be an opportunity to replenish economic development grant funds and assist businesses. Chair Grant commented the City should get direct payments in a few weeks from the COVID stimulus. They need lights north of Boynton Beach Boulevard and these funds could have the design in place to fund construction and bidding process in the early part of the next fiscal year. He requested a motion to transfer $95,792 of the cancelled Business Promotion Events funds to the Economic Development Grant line item. Motion Vice Chair Penserga so moved. Board Member Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Simon will provide an updated status report on lighting and funding the CRA will receive from the stimulus that they can reallocate to economic development grants. E. Discussion of Status of Purchase and Development Agreement with Ocean One Boynton, LLC for the Ocean One Project Attorney Duhy reviewed the Purchase and Development Agreement the requirement to build a public plaza by January 21, 2021. The developer requested an extension, which the Board considered. In February the Board opted to extend the deadline for six months in consideration for $20K and the Board requested they respond. Earlier today, Ms. Miskel submitted a letter from her client on the issue. Attorney Bonnie Miskel, on behalf of Davis Camalier, explained her client listened in last month and has a counter proposal. The Purchase and Development Agreement 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 does speak to commencing construction, subject to Force Majeure. Much of the development stalled or slowed down dramatically due to COVID. Her client had zero ability to try to gauge and comply with the requirement. The property has been busy recently and the owner is currently negotiating with someone. Mr. Camalier has owned the property for over 20 years, maintained the property, paid taxes on it and has insurance. Her client would like to donate $10K for the CRA to use for any park or CRA function. He reminded the Board he has always answered the inquiries and questions by the Board and when asked to donate his property for City and CRA functions, he has done so without cost for the last 20 years. Any time the City and CRA wants to use it, he will make it available for free. The thought to build a park/plaza and turn around and demolish it seemed senseless and counterintuitive and he hoped that was adequate consideration. Attorney Miskel explained they discussed six months at the last meeting, but they would like a year because the party negotiating with Mr. Camalier would need to submit a new site plan. They can return to the Board when there is an agreement or contract in some form when they would need extra time for the site plan process. They will work with the CRA to get something there as soon as possible. Attorney Miskel explained there has been progress. There are two interested parties. One partner, Brian Vanenkopf, flew down and met both parties and Mr. Camalier. Attorney Duhy recommended an amendment to the Purchase and Development Agreement. She suggested extending it and not enforcing the deed restriction for $10K or whatever is worked out. Chair Grant wanted to accept the consideration for the year. He noted Mr. Camalier also owns the property across the street and the Board wants him as an ally to buy the property or join with the CRA with an RFP. He accepted the counter offer, with the caveat the Board speaks to Mr. Camalier to include the property in the RFP and hopefully get an answer in 30 to 60 days. If they do not hear from him for 30 to 60 days, it is fine. Board Member Katz explained the request to give $5K to the CRA for any park activity, and the counter from the Board was $20K, with the counter is $10K. His concern was they gave a piece of land worth 100's of thousands of dollars, that is worth millions to the future project because of the value of the project property assemblage. He commented the potential plans for the future of the project deviated so much that it was nothing they envisioned when they gave the land away for $10 years ago. He did not favor age restricted projects and commented such properties are the cheapest properties on the Intracoastal. He thought the only reason why a project was not developed was they wanted to make a larger profit than they could when they obtained the property. He did not think there was any fairness given to the residents when they are on a trajectory to get nothing they were promised. He thought $20K to enhance parks in the vicinity was offensive and he did not think they should feel bad for the property owner when they would make millions of dollars based on what has been done. He did not think $20K was a dramatic obstacle when it would help and the taxpayers have exponentially paid. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Chair Grant understood the economic opportunity cost. He noted five years ago, the property was given away for $10 with one caveat. The Board was asking for the caveat. He thought they should accept the $1 OK for a year and go from there. He wanted to move forward with the offer. In the past, the property was used for kinetic art at no charge. He asked what the CRA would benefit by making the property owner pay $20K to $30K to build a plaza. His goal was to work with the property owner, to get the property across the street at 115 Federal Highway. He did understand Board Member Katz 's position. The Board was made a promise that has not been kept. There was an obligation due and they are waiting for it to be done and the property owner is offering a different consideration than what the first obligation was. He supported the $10K offer and the acquisition of the Boardwalk Creamery to be included or purchased. Board Member Katz supported rather than building the park and tearing it down, just receiving the $20K for the CRA to improve a park. He commented all of this made him reluctant to talk about the 115 Federal Highway property as he was apprehensive about what kinds of conditions or expectations the CRA may get if they do use the 115 property. He did not support reducing the price. He urged if the Board wanted to accept the $10K they not give a year, rather allow a six-month extension to force a discussion as the Board members will no longer be in office. Vice Chair Penserga recalled the Board had decided on $20K for six months. The owner came back with $1 OK for the same time frame. He thought half the dollar value, half the extension. Board Member Hay agreed the $20K was not a lot to ask for. He did not favor giving an extension. Attorney Miskel could not speak for her client about the 115K property because all the other respondents who jumped in the game wanted Mr. Camalier to align himself to their project and Mr. Camalier held true to the City. He intends to work with the City as it relates to whatever is best for the City and he wants to be a partner. The project has variations of differences that they many flip the north to the south, or get a hotel sooner than was expected. They are trying to come up with a plan to expedite that. It is not dramatically different to what they submitted to the CRA, and they have to go through the process. Chair Grant explained the offer was $20K for six-months, the counter is $1 OK for one year. Their original offer was $5K for six months, then $20K was discussed, but no definitive time frames. Attorney Miskel explained her client thought they were doubling their offer. Chair Grant commented the Board has to decide on not only the One Ocean site, it is dealing with the property on the Boardwalk Creamery. The City and CRA will still use the land as a parking lot. Chair Grant favored $1 OK for six months. The Board has a willing participant with the RFP and within the next six months, the Board could decide whether to move forward or not. The RFP for the site at 115 Federal Highway was as important as the one across the street. Board Member Katz asked if Attorney Miskel's client would agree in writing, the CRA and City, at their discretion up until the point in time that they could use the parking lot 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 within reason, until when the property owner needs to use the land for development. Chair Grant read the letter from Attorney Miskel, which already agreed to the provision. He asked if they could have it codified. Attorney Miskel felt he would not have a problem with the provision putting into a formal contract. Attorney Duhy explained she can make an amendment to add the $10K and the parking to the agreement with a 30-day notice by the developer to terminate the provision as the property will be needed for development. The City/CRA will give notice when they want to use the site. Attorney Duhy explained the expiration date of the Purchase and Development Agreement is January. She asked if the extension was from today's date or January's date. Chair Grant favored six months from today which is August 16, 2021. Vice Chair Penserga supported having parking available continuously so other businesses and restaurants could benefit Chair Grant explained the property owner would then have to provide insurance for the City/CRA events and the neighboring businesses and restaurants would not have insurance on the property and they are at risk of being towed. The property owner has not towed many vehicles which the CRA appreciated. Attorney Miskel explained the issue is when it is open ended and no one is managing the lot, there are maintenance and trash issues because no one is cleaning it. When there are events, it would be a problem from maintenance and liability if open ended. They would be amenable to the parking if there was a valet operator to be responsible for it and have insurance to cover the use of the property and vehicles should they be vandalized. Chair Grant thought the restaurants across the street on Ocean Avenue and Ocean Plaza have the ability to have valet and thought the City and CRA can talk with the valet operator and property owner. Attorney Duhy explained they could have an amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement that would require them to allow the City and CRA to use the property subject to a parking agreement at no cost. They could then have a separate parking agreement. Attorney Duhy suggested entering into a parking agreement for a time with other terms and liabilities until they are notified they property owner needs the property to commence construction. Chair Grant summarized the motion to include an extension in the Purchase and Development Agreement and not enforcing the deed requirement for a six-month extension from today for $10K, a parking agreement with the CRA with a 30-day notice to use the parking lots for community events, so long as the property remains undeveloped. Chair Grant thought the Downtown Business Coalition may talk with Attorney Miskel to allow for valet to be used because it is not in the CRA's purview. Motion Board Member Hay so moved. Board Member Romelus agreed with Board Member Katz. The Board grants extensions, but a new Commission will be elected and have no prior knowledge and the cycle will continue. She felt like there was no real solution. Chair Grant thought they should accept the agreement and spend money on attorneys to enforce the deed 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 restrictions. Board Member Romelus questioned if the Board needed to go down that path to show how serious they are. The Board has been extending the niceties. She was unsure what other recourse they had. Board Member Hay thought the solution was not to walk away and forget about the Board when they leave office. There will be three new board members. Attorney Duhy explained the answer to the first question is what is the value of the requirement in the deed restriction and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. She did not think there was any applicability of force majeure as represented in the letter, and she had no concerns about the Board requiring compliance with the terms of the agreement. The Board has, under the Agreement, the construction of a plaza described in the deed and the Purchase and Sale Agreement and there was a monetary value associated with the construction of it. The larger question is this is five years from execution of the agreement, and as they move forward with a future agenda, they can contemplate as they move forward for more enforcement of the agreement provisions. The CRA can force the improvements, which would be more than $20K. The value of the clause in the contract to develop the cost of constructing the required improvements, would not likely be less than attorney's fees to fight. If the Board enforced it, she speculated the developer would probably construct the public plaza which is less expensive. Mr. Simon explained the Board at that time did not support the staff's recommendation on a reverter clause and those types of claw backs. The value of the property when it was exchanged was $500K. If the land is sold by the current owner to a developer, it would be for more than $500K and the CRA would not get any difference between the value of the land then till now, but there are things they can include going forward. Board Member Romelus supported the amount to build out the park. If the Board was serious about the contract, the developer should pay the CRA the value of the park and do what they want. She thought there would be no positive movement forward if they did not take a stronger position and the situation and extensions will continue. Chair Grant commented 209 N. Federal Highway is owned by the same property owner and is a third of an acre. He asked if she wanted to see it they are interested in including the 115 N. Federal property included in the RFP. Board Member Romelus asked what prevents giving one extension after another. She thought what was occurring with 209 property dictate what is occurring with this property. Chair Grant explained they do not have to extend it another six months. Vice Chair Penserga asked if there were any assurances if they negotiated on this again, they would be a willing partner on the Boardwalk property. Chair Grant responded there were none. You go.to the table either with a friend or a foe. He asked what the problem was with paying $20K. Attorney Miskel responded it is based on what he thinks is fair and reasonable. The contract says if you do not want to extend, he 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 would go forward and build according to the exhibit. If he does not act in accordance with the extension, then in six-month's time, he would still have an obligation to build it. The Board is not releasing him from the obligation. In August, if he is not far enough along with a new approved site plan or commence construction with the current site plan, he will still have to build it for however much it costs. The obligation remains. He felt the for the next six months, the $20K is reasonable particularly with all he's done for the City and CRA and he is interested in being part of the community. Board Member Katz commented he will not vote for$1 OK. Six months, $20K and the parking agreement was fair as there is the potential for millions of dollars in profit. Chair Grant noted with the $1 OK fee, if in six months, there is no project, he still has to spend the $20K. Board Member Romelus stated the Board are not friends with developers, but the Board will not continue to push the ball across the court. They can have friendly negotiations. All their previous actions were friendly. Kim Kelly, Boynton Beach Coordinator and owner of Hurricane Alley, advised today is a lot different than five years ago. People did not develop then, because they did not know where Boynton was going. They may be more willing to start to develop now. She agreed with Chair Grant's comments. It is not about the $10K or $20K, it is about starting to work together. She favored working with the developers. Vote There was a vote on the motion. The motion failed 2-3 (Board Member Katz, Board Member Romelus and Mayor Grant dissenting.) Motion Board Member Katz moved to amend the prior offer for $20K for a six-month extension to be paid to the CRA in cash for the CRA to spend on park activity, and a parking agreement with the CRA. Board Member Romelus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The six-month extension commenced from the current date. Chair Grant explained the Board rejected the counter offer and they have another 30 days to accept or counter prior to the April Board meeting. Chair Grant requested a motion to make the deadline for the motion to be Sunday, April 4th at 11:59 p.m. Vote Board Member Katz so moved. Vice Chair Penserga seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Elizabeth Roque, Centennial Management, explained they have their plans completed and will submit them to the City by next week. They plan to break ground in May and hoped to have the MLK project completed in early 2022 complete with a ribbon cutting ceremony. Board Member Hay thanked Ms. Roque for the update and announced the residents are happy. Chair Grant toured the facility and thought the washers and dryers was an added benefit. He asked what the CRA could do for future tenants or if they could do more with economic or commercial developments, he noted there is help needed for a food desert, groceries and homeownership where tenants can rent to own, which he wanted to discuss as the project moves forward. A portion of the TIF could be used to assist tenants with down payments. The development will generate revenue and he wanted to ensure revenue will be reinvested into the project. Ms. Roque did not know if there could be homeownership for the MLK project at this time, but they would be open to working with the City and the CRA to have that type of program. They feel invested with the City and they would be willing to partner with the City and CRA to offer something. Chair Grant understood and clarified it would be with another type of fund or non-profit working with the developer. Ms. Rogue was amenable to exploring those options. The project will be called the Heart of Boynton Village and not be Wells Landing. Ms. Roque commented there were questions regarding the space at Ocean Breeze that the Police Department did not occupy and there are no plans for that area of the building right now. They did speak to a day care center down the road who was interested. She advised they would not locate anything there unless cleared by the Board and she requested the Board forward their ideas. Board Member Romelus suggested they turn it into a second coworking space to conduct business or have an area to do work. Chair Grant commented Career Source is going to the Library, but if there is a satellite office there, he supported using that location for economic development. If Centennial has ideas Chair Grant would be willing to help fund economic development for the community. Attorney Duhy explained the current contract still has the space as a requirement, which failure to provide for the NOP constitutes a default. The talks were to move the NOP to the MLK location. Chair Grant asked for a motion to move the NOP to the MLK Jr. Boulevard project and discuss uses for the location for economic development. Motion Board Member Romelus so moved. Board Member Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Roque advised Centennial purchased the Family Dollar store and Dollar General will move into that space. The store will be up and running in 90 days. Board Member Romelus asked if there was a food component to the store. Ms. Roque was aware they had asked for refrigeration and she agreed to research the matter further. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Attorney Duhy clarified the six-month extension for One Ocean is September 16, 2021, F. Discussion and Consideration of the Community Input Survey Results for the CRA Project Located at 115 N. Federal Highway Mr. Simon explained the Board finalized questions for a survey on items related to the 125 N. Federal Highway and potential redevelopment project. There were 507 responses, which were reviewed by the CRA Advisory Board. The survey ran on Survey Monkey for three weeks and ended on March 3, 2021. They reached over 25K individuals. Of the responses, 465 said they live or own a business in a Boynton Beach City zip code. Q1 Would you like to see a future redevelopment project incorporate a mix of uses. Sixty-one people said none of the above. The rest of the responses were a variety of all the uses with restaurant and retail the most supported and office residential condo or rental the second most popular response. Q2 Would like to see a full-service grocery store or corporate headquarters incorporated into a future redevelopment project?. The responses reflected 53% said yes and 46% said no. Q3 Would you like to see a hotel incorporated into a future project> Forty-eight percent said yes and 51% said no. Q4 Would you like to residential units built for a variety of income levels incorporated into a future redevelopment project?. The survey showed 72% said no and 27% said yes. Q5 Would you like to see larger than required public open space(s) incorporated into the design of a future redevelopment project> The survey reflected 80% said yes and 20% said no. Q6 Would you like to see more public parking spaces incorporated into a future redevelopment project? Nearly 80% said yes Q7 Would you support paid parking during special events and high traffic times? The survey said 53% said yes and 46% said no. Q8 Would you like to see accommodations for mass transit incorporated into a future redevelopment project ? The survey reflected 71% said yes and 28% said no. Q 9 Are you a resident or business owner in Boynton Beach? Thirty nine percent were residents, 24% were business owners and 79% were both. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Q10 Zip codes. Only 38 were zip codes outside of Boynton Beach proper and 275 were from within 33435. They received 292 email addresses from participants desiring to be added to the CRA's mailing list. Chair Grant was surprised to see a majority supporting paid parking and the amount of residential units was lower than they anticipated. He thought with all the residential units the CRA approved, the public favored economic development with retail and restaurants trying to support the tourism industry more than other economic drivers. He thought they should discuss what this means for the RFP the CRA would issue for 115 N. Federal Highway property at the next meeting, or if the Board wants to landbank, or decide what they want for site. Board Member Katz thought they would give direction to staff at this meeting to bring back an RFP at the next meeting. He noted people want more open space. He supported the south side of the project on the alleyway behind Hurricane Alley and the Oyer property be enhanced with a large alleyway/plaza as there would be some restaurant and small business retail capability. The gap where the building that would be built and where Hurricane Alley and the Oyer property is would be a public gathering space. He would give serious consideration to Hurricane Alley and the Oyer property as they have existed for a long time and he would work to enhance them, He wanted to ensure the area between is a plaza that could draw people with entertainment and activities with outdoor cafe seating from both sides of the plaza. It should be mixed use. He thought the project would be more successful with some residential and the survey noted 15% wanted rental apartments and 25% wanted condominiums which meant 40% want residential units. He thought the project would be more successful and economically viable with residential and it would bring more foot traffic to the downtown. He noted Marina Village, Casa Costa and 500 Ocean have undeniably increased foot traffic as there are more people living there, which is good for safety and business. He did not have a personal preference. People speak about homeownership, but if they are condos like Casa Costa, the residents will only be there two months out of the year as snowbirds. If there are rentals, people will live there 12 months out of the year which is better for business because tenants will spend money all year. He thought a garage would be needed on the north side if there is multi-story residential and he did not know how that will go. He thought enhancing the retail, restaurant and open space on the south, west side and some frontage on Federal Highway would be beneficial. He thought for every plan a developer submits, the alleyway space needs to be bigger and wider than they want to afford more pedestrian space and activity. He did not think vehicles needed to be on the alleyway. He did not know if traffic flow on the side street did anything. The impact of that on the Oyer building and the breezeway was his biggest concern and their ability to park. He would be open to the Oyer's interest to modifying their other two buildings. He did not want to wait two years to see if 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 they can acquire those properties or work with them and then decide. He supported approaching them quickly and was not opposed to doing so. Board Member Romelus agreed with Board Member Katz's comments. She thought, when evaluating certain areas with successful downtowns, they have strong walkability features. She thought having pedestrian traffic with protection from vehicular traffic was needed. She wanted to see an offer to bring in the Oyer and Boardwalk properties, so it could be a well-built project as opposed to a piecemeal, drawn-out development. She supports homeownership, but recognized it may not be appropriate with this project and she supported taking advantage of the TOD. She was fine with making concessions and she wanted to incentivize someone to provide the best of the best product as it is the entrance to the eastern side of the downtown. She wanted it to be a destination. She did not want a hotel and was not opposed to market-rate luxury high end residential rentals. It is prime real estate, they could take advantage of the TOD bonus and make money so they would not need TIF for this area. She would not be pushing for affordable units. Chair Grant noted the developer would have to pay $3M for the land. Vice Chair Penserga had spoken with young people who indicated they would not mind smaller units in exchange for amenities and he would give extra consideration to that and a stand out design. He noted the City does not have a rooftop restaurant, bar or pool. He also favored units that accommodate mixed incomes so that employees could live in the area in which they work. He would give extra considerations to a hidden parking garage. He favored a transportation hub and wanted the developer to be aware of it so it could be configurated into the design. He did not think incentives were off the table. He noted they are not the highlighted location within an opportunity zone. He thought incentives must go into the project if the developer is short, as long as the monies were traceable. He commented they should consider if existing restaurants have to move, they be protected in some way and some consideration would be needed. Board Member Hay noted when there are events nearby, such as the Delray Beach Tennis Event, there are not enough hotels. He thought it may not be the right location, but 1-95 is close by and he thought people would not mind driving from Delray or West Palm if they had nice hotels. Restaurants are hallmarks and a signature for Boynton Beach. He thought compared to their size, the City has more restaurants than others. He supported mass transit, but did not like putting residential areas downtown as there are other areas for residential units. There is never enough public parking. Chair Grant was fine without having residential units and having more restaurant, office and retail. The majority of the people wanted a corporate headquarters or grocery store or a big commercial location besides a hotel. The problem with having bigger than required open spaces is there is less building, which was why it was important to involve adjacent property owners. He thought this was where the Board needed to direct staff to negotiate with adjacent property owners, find out the appraised value, what their offer is and return to the Board to decide. The CRA has not much funding left. The Palm 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Beach County Housing Authority has their auction and they have money set aside to help with construction for that. They have to wait until October 1St, for the funds to purchase anything. In 2023, they have the option to buy the post office. Parking is a large component and they have not discussed alternative transportation. He asked should they include a scooter or public, electric or bike rental locations. He pointed out 269 people indicated they would pay for parking during special events and high traffic times, creating a revenue source for parking to either the CRA or the developer. He did not know about mass transit or if they could speak with Brightline as they had already spoken with Boca and with Miami Dade about their commuter rail. Anything dealing with a train station will be much further off, whereas a bus rapid transit system is very viable because they will have access to the Boca and the West Palm Beach stations for mass transit. Board Member Romelus thought it would be wise if Chair Grant or another representative of the City approached Brightline to discuss and make it clear they want a stop in the City. Chair Grant heard Miami Dade had the funding available from a sales tax to have a station or have access to the commuter rail. The City would ask what Brightline wants to see, if they want the property, it would be something the City would have to decide now. Chair Grant is in favor of TIF to make a bigger better project. The Boardwalk Ice Creamery is a third of an acre and at 150 dwelling units per acre, the site could accommodate 50 units compared to a one-story location that does not have much value to the surrounding area. The other buildings do not have much architectural value so putting a new building next to older buildings is something the Board needs to decide how to landbank. They had a temporary Library and now it is parking lot. He thought the CRA has to think long term. Whatever project they choose will be with the CRA for a long time, and they do not have a lot of opportunity to get the adjacent property owners on board. If they don't include street adjacent properties, the CRA will not receive as much tax value because it does not have the frontage. The survey indicated the public's view of what they want and he thought some items had 70% favorability such as mass transit, more parking spaces, and larger open spaces, but he commented the parking would use some of the open space. Mr. Simon asked if there was any consideration for specificity in the RFP or priority given to a corporate headquarters or grocery store, or leave it up to the developers. A large commercial component was a priority for Chair Grant. Board Member Katz wants as much commercial and retail as possible to wrap the building, contingent on incorporation of other properties. He did not support a hotel. He did not like a supermarket. They have a food dessert, and the subject site is at the edge of a food dessert. If the CRA wants to incentivize a supermarket, he thought Seacrest and MLK Jr. Boulevard or Seacrest and Boynton Beach Boulevard is further out and a supermarket there was more appropriate. Board Member Katz emphasized his comment about open space and that architectural styles needs to be bigger than what was wanted. He did not want orange Mediterranean buildings and Floribbean and Caribbean styles are overused. He was amenable to TIF, but not for required items, 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 rather to get the things they need such as larger community spaces and parking that would benefit the community. He did support slightly smaller units as they may be able to build a few more units. He did not want micro or full-blown condo size units. He needed a better understanding about mass transit and thought a train stop was a Hail Mary, but he looked forward to learning about what type of transportation could go there. Vice Chair Penserga commented no one would say no to jobs, but he did not want to see employees in the office during the day and no activity at night. He was leaning against corporate offices for that reason only. He supported something flexible and creative. Chair Grant noted 500 Ocean built 10K square feet of office space and one company took it all out. They have no class A office space downtown which is a priority. They can build higher there. After retail on the first floor, there are commercial locations above and then residences on top. Chair Grant opened public comments. No one coming forward, public comments was closed. Chair Grant asked if the Board would mind if he spoke to Palm Tran about their bus rapid transit or any mass transit like Mega Bus or Grayhound regarding a potential location or to obtain contact information to give CRA staff a warm lead. There were no objections. Staff will come back with a draft RFP in April. He requested an update regarding any adjacent property owners interested in being part of the project. 16. New Business A. Discussion and Consideration of Letter of Interest Submitted by the Fish Depot Seafood Market for the CRA owned Property located at 401 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Mr. Simon noted the above submitted by Mr. Tim Collins. There was insufficient information in the first letter, and staff requested additional information such as the rental rate and what type of assistance terms. The members received a response of March 5t", which was attachment three. The Board could entertain letters of interest to purchase or lease the property and if interested, staff would need to issue a 30-day notice to dispose or lease. Chair Grant noted a motion to issue a notice to dispose was needed. The Board spoke with Mr. Collins in the past and the CRA was going to demolish the commercial properties not attached to the building Mr. Collins was wanting to use. The CRA was awarded a Solid Waste Authority grant to demolish the 409-411 E. Boynton Beach buildings only. Chair Grant favored Mr. Collins proposal. Tim Collins, Fish Depot Seafood Market, Fish Depot Bar and Grill, understood there was a 30-day window. He was present to answer any questions the Board may have. He tried to create the Letter of Intent to give him as much time as possible in the 25 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 building and give as much latitude as possible to the CRA. Mr. Collins is willing to be flexible to work with the CRA to open as soon as possible. Board Member Katz supported Mr. Collins proposal. Mr. Collins explained they will have products other than seafood, including produce, rice, and seasonings. They will have a much neater and cleaner product. The CRA would move to dispose of the property and have discussions with Mr. Collins regarding the letter of intent. After the 30 days and at the April 21St meeting, they can finalize the contract or discuss further terms to discuss in May. Chair Grant thought the $2,500 use of Economic Development Grants and Rent Reimbursements, they could give direction to staff and hopefully would have an agreement signed in April. Board Member Hay supported Mr. Collin's proposal. Vice Chair Penserga supported Mr. Collin's proposal. He asked what happens after the time is up. Mr. Collins commented they are opening a second unit in Boca and his son will handle the business. They have a strong client base and he wants to stay in Boynton Beach. Motion Board Member Hay moved to approve the properties at 401 and 407 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. This would not to interfere with the demolition of the properties at 409 and 411 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Simon thought there were several things that would need to occur beyond the 30-day notice. He did not see the lease agreement being signed in April because they did not know if they would receive another response. He was unsure if someone submitted a letter to purchase the property. If no one else did, there are terms that will need to be negotiated and preliminary approval by the City to allow the use to occur and issues such as parking and budget. Staff will do all they could to get the information to the next meeting that could be included in the lease for execution in May. Chair Grant thought the zoning permitted the use. Attorney Duhy commented the motion should be to direct staff to publish a CRA Intent to Dispose and enter into lease negotiations with Mr. Collins for the property at 401 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Motion Board Member Hay so moved. It was noted the motion should also include the property at 407 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Board Member Hay amended his motion to include 401 and 407 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. Vice Chair Penserga seconded the motion. Mr. Simon commented part of the discussion and lease term is to allow for the $50K build out assistance. He asked if that would be included in the lease as a set aside of the Economic Development Grant money. Chair Grant noted Mr. Collins has access to the Economic Development Grant funds on a first-come, first-served basis. 26 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 Vote The motion passed unanimously. B. Discussion and Consideration of a Tax Deed Sale for the Property Located at 522 NE 4th Street Mr. Simon explained this property has been on the Tax Deed Sale list before and it is owned by the same owner of the Fish Depot and other scattered sites. The properties have been on the Tax sales and then removed when renewed. Staff sought direction if the property was wanted by the CRA. The CRA has a maximum of$250K and a deposit down. Chair Grant was fine with the $250K. Board Member Katz asked what the purpose of buying the property would be. Mr. Simon explained he would not aggressively pursue the property because it has no parking and is a small site. The property is before the Board because staff was to bring available properties to the Board for consideration. Board Member Katz asked what the minimum bid was and learned it was $29K in taxes. It is appraised at about $150K. Chair Grant thought the property was a piece of a larger Trust. He wanted to ensure no one gets to steal the parcel which was previously an artist studio. Motion Board Member Katz moved to spend up to $35K on the property. Board Member Hay seconded the motion. Board Member Katz amended his motion to spend up to $50K. Board Member Hay seconded the motion. Vice Chair Penserga did not understand what the intent of the purchase was. Chair Grant explained the purpose was the property was valued at $150K. It could be used for parking. Vice Chair Penserga thought going forward there should be a bigger plan. Board Member Katz thought if they could get the property cheap enough it could be turned around in the future. Vote The motion passed unanimously. Board Member Romelus asked if they have a policy when they acquire properties that provides for a set amount. Chair Grant commented the policy is the CRA Advisory Board will notify the Board when there is a possible tax deed parcel available. In the past, they got a residential property for under $1 OK which they donated to Habitat for Humanity to construct a home. They do not want a property in the CRA to go for such a low amount below market value. In addition, there is no more buildable land in the CRA District. 27 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2021 17. Future Agenda Items A. CRA District Lighting Improvements B. Update on Sara Sims Park Amphitheater Plans C. Discussions on Tax Increment Financing Agreements 18. Adjournment Motion Board Member Romelus moved to adjourn. John McNally, explained how the public could access the recording of the meeting. Chair Grant adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. juj�ljr'l,C , rfr. Catherine Cherry .a Minutes Specialist. 28