View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Deerfield Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The meeting was called to order at
6:30 p.m. by Chair Capellini on the above
date in the City Commission Chambers,
Present: Mrs. Pam
Albert Capellini, P.E
Also Present: Larry Deetjen, City Manager
Maurodis, City Attorney
Ada Graham-Johnson, CMC, City Clerk
Carlos Baia, Economic Development
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
February 21, 2006
MOTION was made by Vice Chair Gonot and seconded by Mr.
Popelsky to approve the agenda of February 21, 2006 as submitted. Roll Call:
YEAS: Mrs. Militello, Ms. Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and Chair
Capellini. NAYS: none.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
January 17, 2006
MOTION was made by Vice Chair Gonot and seconded by Mr.
Popelsky to approve the minutes of January 17, 2006 as submitted. Roll Call:
YEAS: Mrs. Militello, Ms. Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and Chair
Capellini. NAYS: none.
Item 1 Tape
1, Count 040
CRA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Popelsky stated that this item was placed on the agenda for discussion. The
board discussed this item approximately three months ago. This item has been
discussed and he has had a chance to review how the CRA and the Economic
Development Manager, Carlos Baia, have been operating. He said that on January
17, 2006, he requested that this item be reinstated so that it could be
resolved. However, on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, he asked Mr. Baia if they
could meet and discuss various topics on CRA accounting. Approximately thirty
minutes later, Mr. Baia entered his office, and said that he was unable to meet
with him unless the City Manager, Larry Deetjen, was present.
Popelsky stated that based on prior meetings, he has never had this type of
situation with Mr. Baia. He stated that whenever he requested information, Mr.
Baia was always forthcoming with such. Mr. Popelsky said he was disappointed
with Mr. Baia’s response that he was unable to meet with him, because he works
for Gerald Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management. Mr. Popelsky
further stated that he understands that Mr. Baia works for Mr. Ferguson as the
Economic Development Manager, but with regard to CRA, he works for the CRA
Popelsky asked Mr. Baia if he understood why he wanted to speak with him. He
further stated that as a City Commissioner, he has the right to have various
discussions with him.
Baia stated that he understands and that he didn’t refuse the meeting, but that
the City Manager requested to sit in on the meeting.
Deetjen stated that Mr. Baia is correct on how he characterized the conversation.
He said he indicated to Mr. Baia that Mr. Ferguson, being his department head,
and he, being his manager, on a matter of this nature, they would be more than
happy to participate in the meeting. Mr. Deetjen stated that he never heard
from Mr. Popelsky.
Popelsky stated that a CRA matter does not require the presence of the City
Manager. He further stated that he reviewed Mr. Baia’s personnel file in order
to determine if he was properly compensated to perform both functions, CRA and
Baia stated that he provides the Commission with weekly reports. He said he
informed the City Manager of the meeting as a policy issue and the manager
requested to sit in on the meeting.
Popelsky stated that it was not a policy issue, but a discussion as to how Mr.
Baia was doing over the past three (3) months with the accounting procedure.
Mr. Popelsky asked if in the future, would Mr. Deetjen need to sit in on the
Deetjen replied that would not be necessary. He stated that a report was
provided to the Commission that indicated Deerfield Beach operates
approximately 98% of the CRAs in the State of Florida. He said in this case,
Mr. Baia reports on a day-to-day basis, to Mr. Ferguson. In the future, he
does not foresee a problem with Mr. Baia having a one on one discussion with
the Board. He further stated that as an initial meeting, it was appropriate to
have an open meeting.
Popelsky stated that Mr. Baia reports to the Board and as a member of the
Board, he has a right to discuss topics on CRA with Mr. Baia privately.
Deetjen stated that under our form of government, Mr. Baia reports to Mr.
Ferguson on a day-to-day basis.
Popelsky stated that he has never been refused before. He then asked the Board
if they wanted this type of situation to happen after today. He said he is
distraught that the situation had to come before the Board. Mr. Popelsky
stated that based on his review over the past three (3) months, and the
information that he received, he was satisfied with keeping the status quo.
Poitier stated that Mr. Popelsky has a valid concern, and expressed that there
is uneasiness with employees and commissioners relationships. She stated that
the employees are loyal to the person that hires them, the City Manager. Under
the CRA, the same strategies have been used because Mr. Baia was on a part-time
basis for both organizations. In the city manager/mayor form of government the
City Manager does the hiring/firing. She stated that if an employee
demonstrates unacceptable behavior or does not show loyalty, then it would be
expected that the employee would be afraid of the City Manager. If an employee
has been advised, by the City Manager, that before speaking with a
Commissioner, he must be informed, then the employee cannot be held
responsible. She recommended that some policies be changed, because she is
accustomed to going into a department and being accommodated for whatever her
needs are; however, if the department is unable to accommodate her at that
time, she said she would allow the department to report to the City Manager.
Nonetheless, the City Manager works for the City Commission. She further
stated that she does not want to put a restraint on the City. She said Mr.
Baia would not know how to respond to a situation of this magnitude, where the
City Manager is looking for an evaluation that illustrates loyalty,
trustworthiness, and honesty. Moreover, a policy should be in place that any
department the Commission requires information from, should be provided.
Chair Gonot stated that in the Charter, the City Commission has the right to go
into any department to request information.
Popelsky stated that he has gone to a number of department heads and indicated
to them that if they needed to relay any information to the City Manager, they
were free to do so. He said he has never given any of the department heads a
directive, but only asks for information. He said he has asked Mr. Baia, for
the past ten (10) months, for information and he has never had a problem with
assisting him. Mr. Popelsky again asked if the Board has the right to speak
with Mr. Baia in a one on one situation. He then asked the Board if they would
like to be addressed by Mr. Baia in the same manner that he responded to him.
He said that this will indicate how he will vote as to whether the CRA and
Economic Development Manager should be separated, or keep it as one entity.
Further, Mr. Popelsky stated he has made it clear to everyone what direction he
Chair Gonot stated that he agrees that Mr. Baia is an employee of the City of Deerfield Beach, but as Executive Director of the CRA, he would expect him to meet with
the Council. There are apparently some problems with the accounting procedures,
so it has not operated flawlessly; therefore, he would like to meet directly
with the CRA Director on CRA issues. There is a free flow of information and
the City Manager is more than welcome to sit on any meeting.
Deetjen stated that he accepts full responsibility. He said that if the
meeting had taken place with Mr. Popelsky, this would not have been a topic.
The threshold question was should we operate differently from prior years, and
he does not feel there is a need to change. Mr. Baia has done an outstanding
job and under the tutelage of Mr. Ferguson, this City has progressed
Popelsky stated that he has had many meetings with Mr. Baia over several
Deetjen stated that the initial meeting was important and was contemplating a
radical change/split from how the State of Florida CRAs operate and how the
City operates. Once that threshold policy decision had been reviewed, he would
have then addressed the Board.
Popelsky stated that if he had spoken with Mr. Baia the same day, within ten
(10) minutes, the meeting would have been over. Referring to a memorandum sent
by Ms. Poitier, dated January 19, 2006, she thanked Mr. Baia for his efforts in
helping Mr. Popelsky create a program for affordable housing using specialized
strategies, etc. Mr. Popelsky asked if Mr. Deetjen was present at the meeting.
Poitier replied no, she had been working since last month on this.
Popelsky stated that he is referring to meeting with Mr. Baia.
Poitier stated that neither Mr. Deetjen, nor anyone else understands the
Welcome Home Program because it is her program.
Popelsky asked Ms. Poitier if when she discussed the program with Mr. Baia, did
he indicate that Mr. Deetjen had to be present.
Poitier stated that she never spoke with Mr. Baia about the CRA and it was
revisited after Vice Chair bought it up.
Popelsky expressed concern of how the Board is going to operate in the future
assuming everything remains status quo. He asked would the Board/Commission
need to get approval to speak with Mr. Baia.
Deetjen stated approval would not be necessary.
Poitier stated that a policy will be established.
Popelsky said he would like everything to return to the status quo and that he
accepts what happened. Unfortunately, it was not appropriate, but one better
judgment does not justify changing the methods as to how the City is operated.
He said that he had also spoken with Marva Gordon, Director of Human Resources,
to discuss the salary structure for Mr. Baia.
MOTION was made by Mr. Popelsky and seconded by Ms. Poitier
to support recommendation to return to the status quo. Roll Call: YEAS: Mrs.
Militello, Ms. Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and Chair Capellini.
Poitier stated that she seconds the motion to keep the CRA as it exists, with
Mr. Baia providing half time to CRA and half time to the City of Deerfield Beach.
Item 2 Tape 1,
CRA RESOLUTION 2006/002
Baia, CRA Director, stated that McMahon
Associates has produced a supplemental proposal for $4,400.00 related to the
design of the curbside walk that runs along One Ocean Boulevard project. Mr.
De Palma of McMahon Associates is present to answer any questions specific to
this item. The contractor installed the sidewalk incorrectly, and McMahon
Associates will have to make corrections. Thus, they are requesting supplement
funds in order to do that.
response to Mr. Popelsky’s question, Mr. Baia stated that the project location
is at the intersection of A1A and Hillsboro Boulevard south to SE 2nd Street.
Chair Gonot asked what was the nature of the error.
De Palma, McMahon Associates, replied that another consultant did the work, but
their firm was attempting to incorporate continuity to match the other
improvements, as requested in the FDOT plans. The previous firm left a
differential grade between the sidewalk and created handrail installations.
The area is being improved to be uninterrupted and safer with simply a smooth
swale area with a curb that would accommodate the drainage flow.
Chair Gonot asked why should the City bear the responsibility.
De Palma stated that when the project was first constructed, some issues were
not coordinated with the continuity of the theme of the roadway construction
that were to take place on A1A on the western side. Further, Flynn, the
contractor, updated their plans, McMahon Associates took them to the FDOT, as
they were working on the northern area simultaneously. When Flynn was doing
the work, they did not alert their office for the construction team to go out
in the field to monitor the progress. He indicated that their services have
extended because Flynn procrastinated on the project.
response to Vice Chair Gonot’s question, Mr. De Palma replied it is the
contractor’s fault, as they did not adhere to the plan.
Capellini recommended that the City keep the project going, but back charge the
De Palma agreed with Mayor Capellini. He said once the plan is certified by
the FDOT, once that is accomplished, they can provide a letter to the City,
directing them on the issues of errors by the contractor so the City can
request reimbursement for the additional charges.
Capellini asked if the contractor had been notified to allow him the
opportunity to remedy the situation. Moreover, he stated that a letter should
be sent to the contractor indicating that in approximately ten (10) days the
City will continue to remedy the situation and charge them for what the City
will be paying.
was made by Ms. Poitier and seconded
by Vice Chair Gonot to have City Attorney, Andrew Maurodis, send a letter to
Flynn indicating that they will be charged if the City has to expend additional
funds to rectify the sidewalk construction. Roll Call: YEAS: Mrs. Militello,
Ms. Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and Chair Capellini. NAYS: None.
Item 3 Tape 1,
COMMERCIAL FAÇADE PROGRAM
Baia, CRA Director, indicated that Mrs.
Militello had a well-attended District one meeting approximately one month
ago. A lot of the concerns raised at the meeting dealt with the appearance of
the shopping center. Mrs. Militello wanted to discuss the financial limits on
the façade program, currently $10,000.00 per business. In light of the
increased construction costs, particularly last year, Mrs. Militello felt that
it would be in the best interest to increase the amount. Mr. Baia stated that
if that is done, he suggested mandating a façade criterion. According to the
CRA plan, it is recommended that new façade improvements, in commercial areas,
use a Florida look, which has been the prevalent architectural mode in the
CRA. If this is mandated, staff would be able to have a better handle on
various projects, and the merchants would appreciate a uniform look.
Poitier asked when did Mr. Baia drop the façade oath. She said there is a
difference in the CRA and the blighted area, as the façade treatment in this
area is $75,000.
Baia stated that this is only a suggestion to provide $25,000 per business and
$100,000 per property cap, as a financial suggestion.
Militello stated that the Admiral Building has eight (8) businesses within the
facility. She asked if that building would not qualify because of the amount
of businesses and if there would be a cap.
Capellini stated that the building would be entitled to $100,000.
Militello stated that based on this cap, with there being other businesses
within the facility, it might cause problems because it is not known what each
business would require.
Baia stated that he suggested $100,000 to have a manageable number when the
budget was done, because some buildings that could have numerous businesses
within the facility. He further stated that the $100,000 would be fair for one
property owner. Also, the property owner would have to match the amount,
making it a $200,000 investment.
Popelsky asked if it would be possible to base the decision on linear foot, to
make it fair for each property owner.
Baia stated that most communities do not do base it on linear foot, as it can
become quite cumbersome. Most communities will base it on a property basis,
the City does it on a per business basis, and he suggested a combination of a
per business basis with a maximum cap per property.
Poitier stated that she attended the Urban Design Institute in Jupiter, hosted
by FAU. She stated that this was one of the most rewarding workshops she had
attended in many years. She said it takes people out of the realm of the City,
who are urban designers, and they present new ideas. Florida Atlantic University will send written reports. She requested that this item be tabled for
approximately four (4) weeks, until the report is received, the results will be
very surprising. This will assist the Board in setting up design criteria,
meeting with the owners as the CRA, and at that time, discussing what Mr. Baia
anticipates giving. She suggested that the Board visit the Abacoa area in
Jupiter to see the differences.
Militello stated she does not object to tabling this item; however, she will
not accept the FAU Design Institute plan for the Cove, but will collaborate
with the individuals who attended her meeting as they are impacted by what type
of development occurs there.
Poitier stated that property rights indicate that anyone who lives beyond 300
feet should not have much authority over what is occurring in the area.
Therefore, the discussion of designing the Cove should be with property owners
and residents that are within 300 feet of the Cove.
Militello stated that additional input is needed. Additionally, she said the
reason she asked the City Manager to not send anyone to the meeting, because
she knew the Cove was a topic that would be addressed.
Poitier advised the Board that the Cove was not the only topic of discussion;
moreover, she went to the meeting as a CRA member and had not planned on
discussing the Cove façade improvement.
Baia stated that he has received a letter from the Admiral Building owner, and there are questions regarding the application process under the current
criteria. Nonetheless, he suggested informing the owner that there is a
likelihood that the criteria may change, but only for the better.
Poitier stated that as the CRA, the authority exists to proceed with the work,
without delaying the process for one project and to instate a criteria. The
Board could call a special CRA meeting, if needed. She suggested moving
forward with the criteria.
Capellini stated that he does not want to hinder any applications.
Militello suggested that Mr. Baia inform them that they can have $10,000 now,
but there maybe changes. Further, she stated that the FAU Design Team does not
have the final approval on how the Cove will be improved. Mrs. Militello
recommended approval of the $10,000; with the possibility of changing it
later. In conclusion, she clarified that the FAU Design Team would not have
final approval on the Cove design.
Capellini stated that this was an educational seminar.
Militello reiterated that the CRA Board will not accept the FAU Design Team’s
concept on how the Cove area should be improved.
Poitier stated that it is not her intention to approve the FAU Design, but to
have the Board review it for input. She reiterated that by waiting four (4)
weeks, for the FAU report, Mrs. Militello might be impressed by what was
discussed there. Moreover, the design stages and Mrs. Militello’s desire to
bring the Cove into an urban area would make it beneficial to wait on the
Item discussed out of order
Item 4 Tape 1,
DISCUSSION TO EXTEND
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CRA
Baia stated that in continuing the status quo, the Interlocal Agreement with
the City and the CRA has a termination date as of tonight, February 21, 2006,
and will need to extend the date.
was made by Mr. Popelsky and
seconded by Ms. Poitier to extend the Interlocal Agreement for one year. Roll
Call: YEAS: Mrs. Militello, Ms. Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and
Chair Capellini. NAYS: None.
by Mr. Popelsky and seconded by Vice
Chair Gonot to adjourn CRA meeting. Roll Call: YEAS: Mrs. Militello, Ms.
Poitier, Mr. Popelsky, Vice Chair Gonot, and Chair Capellini. NAYS: None.
There being no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
R. CAPELLINI, P.E., CRA CHAIR
CMC, CITY CLERK