Update March 8, 2012: The CRA Board voted yesterday to scrap the camera aspect of the emergency phones and to install the phones already purchased in the ArtsPark and around the downtown garages. Spots for eight of the phones have been identified. Commissioner Furr requested that another be located in the Dog Park down by Pembroke Road. IT Director John Barletta was reported to be exploring a different type of camera set-up based on a privately owned wireless network, but this appeared to be in an exploratory stage only as no details were presented. The entire cost — both purchase and installation prices — of up to 10 phones for downtown (and maybe dog park) will be borne by the Police Department’s forfeiture funds.
February 18, 2012: Those with long memories will recall Police Chief Wagner back in 2008 announcing a plan to curb crime by installing emergency phones with zoom/tilt cameras in the downtown Parkside and Royal Poinciana areas. The City subsequently purchased ten of these phones which have been in storage ever since. For a variety of reasons this project has repeatedly stalled, but now we’re told the emergency phone/camera project will be on the CRA Board’s March 7 agenda. An additional ten phones will be discussed for the beach.
There’s been both controversy and lack of clarity about this project for at least three reasons: (1) the cost, (2) technological complications related primarily to the cameras, and (3) whether the phones will function more as an attractive nuisance than a crime deterrent. And finally, with the proliferation of sophisticated cell/camera phones now in the hands of so many private citizens, the question has to be asked (and not just dismissed) as to whether the emergency phones are a project more appropriate to yesterday.
1. The Cost
After the Sun-Sentinel reported the ten downtown phones with camera attachments would cost $450,000 ($45,000 per phone), many reacted with shock. How could the City afford such a costly project? What we’ve learned is that the City’s cash-strapped General Fund will not be tapped for this project. Instead the CRA has committed $100,000 and the rest is to come from LEAF funds (Law Enforcement Assistance Funds). These latter funds can be spent only on police-related projects.
While the phones have already been purchased, the cameras have not. The projected cost breakdown we’ve received from Bryan Cahen, CRA Finance Manager, is as follows:
Phones – purchase price $47,111.75
*Cameras and wireless network $239,753.10
*Poles for video $8,244,10
**Installation/electrical $150,000
____
* Wireless network and poles are required for cameras, not for phones
**Installation costs would be reduced if camera component is not purchased
2. Cameras
A wireless video network must be set up for the camera component of this project. In other words, wi-fi. The Police Department, which has taken the lead in promoting the emergency phones, defers to John Barletta in the City’s IT unit when questions are raised about the feasibility of such a network in the downtown, given potential interference from tree cover and tall buildings. (The Beach is another story, because the broadwalk is a more open environment.) Given Mr. Barletta’s role in the failed city-wide wi-fi venture, we are uneasy at the thought of deferring to him on yet another wi-fi project.
Assuming the network could be made to work reliably, the video feed would be transmitted to the City’s 911 Communications Center. How monitoring this feed would complicate the already-complex 911 staff work has not been explained, to the best of our knowledge. One city staffer told us the cameras would be live 24/7 and continuously monitored by the Police Dept. But one elected official told us the cameras would come live only if someone made a call on the emergency phone. What is the plan for the cameras?
3. Attractive Nuisance
Is video surveillance a significant crime deterrent, greater than the phones, as some have advocated? Or is it unworkable downtown, or too costly? And if so, will the emergency phones without video be more likely to attract pranksters and vandals? These are open questions.
Conclusion
Everyone can have an opinion on the questions this project raises, but opinions without sufficient back-up facts are not helpful in the difficult decision-making process required to make our community as safe as possible. We look forward to a clear, reliable presentation and discussion of both emergency phones and the video component — both pros and cons — at the March 7 CRA Board meeting.
February 3, 2011
Note: See earlier article here.
What was once a voter-approved $2.2 million plan to renovate Hollywood’s A1A fire station (2200 N. Ocean Dr.) has become a costly $15.8 million land acquisition/new construction project further south on A1A that would replace the existing facility. How did this happen?
In short, the Beach CRA went rogue. Back in 2006, it bought 3 parcels on A1A (between Madison and Monroe) at a cost of $6.7 million. One of the sellers was the founder of Cops and Firefighters Business Network. He made $1,140,000 on this deal, an 84% gain on property he held not quite two years. The remaining sellers also made handsome profits as the CRA dished out top dollar for this project which was to include a brand new fire station that would also store beach safety vehicles.
Although both Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinel reported this morning that the City Commission OK’d $7.9 million to construct this new building, they failed to include the debt service over 15 years on funds the city must borrow to cover a portion of the construction budget. Nor did they mention the exorbitant $6.7 million the CRA spent to acquire the land. When those figures are added in, we see a $15.8 million fire palace.
|
Land Acquisition (3 separate parcels) |
$ 6.7 million |
| Construction & Related Costs (including debt service) |
$ 9.1 million |
| Total Cost (excluding demolition costs) |
$15.8 million |
Bottom Line: Expenditure of $15.8 million for this project seems unreasonable if not unconscionable considering that the existing fire station could be renovated for much less. Only Mayor Bober and Commissioner Furr voted against the project yesterday, citing its excessive cost in light of the city’s over-stressed budget. We think their vote was responsible given that the commission will be considering not only cutting staff and services in the next budget year but also declaring a state of financial emergency in order to break union contracts.
When possible, the Balance Sheet tries to make helpful suggestions or offer alternative ideas to solve problems. In this case all we can do is ask the Commission to do a better job as stewards of the tax payers’ money.
November 18, 2010
Note: See earlier article here.
The developer has made some changes in the original Margaritaville plan, including the following:
- substitution of a small lighthouse for the airplane proposed for public access on the southeast corner of the property
- one-story reduction in height of the hotel (now 16 stories)
- refurbishment of the existing bandshell rather than the earlier proposed new theater
- traffic light at Michigan Street (request pending with FDOT)
A more complete list of changes, along with an explanation for them, can be found in the City Manager’s MEMO to the City Commission dated August 30, 2010.
Next steps:
- Planning and Zoning and Development Review Boards meet tonight (Nov. 18) at 6 p.m. to review the developer’s design and site plan and to consider his application for units from the hotel pool. (A beach developer may request extra hotel units — beyond what is allowed by the zoning code — from a pool of additional units.)
- City Commission approval on December 1, 2010.
For more complete information on the status of this project, consult the city’s website at this LINK.
July 4, 2010
Note: See update article here.
A team of city staff members, with help from financial, legal, and hospitality consultants, has come up with a strong set of business terms for the proposed Margaritaville Resort Hotel project on Hollywood Beach.
If the developer fails to build the project or attempts a “bait and switch,” the city will have a range of remedies to protect our interests and keep us from being “whacked” as the Mayor once lamented about past agreements. But it will be up to the City Commission to utilize the many “teeth” that staff are drafting to protect the city, the CRA and above all the taxpayer. If our elected officials can summon the will to do so, they will be sending a strong signal that a new and better day has arrived for Hollywood development.
The negotiating team, in concert with the developer, has produced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets out timelines, construction, financing, operational and other requirements for the project. It not only provides for numerous revenue streams and many protections for the city but is also fair to the developer.
Separate from the MOU negotiations, the city’s Planning Department has been working on all aspects of the site plan. We will need to keep an eye trained on the Planning Department to be sure the project retains many amenities for the public to enjoy.
The MOU will come before a joint session of the City and CRA for approval at 4 PM on Wed., July 7. It is not a contract, but it does set out many provisions that the developer and the city have agreed to include in the binding legal documents that will be drafted once the City Commission approves the MOU. We believe the Commission/CRA Board should promptly approve it as drafted, so that staff can begin immediately to negotiate the necessary developer agreements to get the project moving by October 1, 2010.
A few examples of MOU provisions are the following :
- The developer must pay the city up to $300,000 to reimburse us for the cost of consultants we have hired to assist in contract negotiations.
- The hotel will have 360 rooms, 35,000 sq. ft. of convention space, 30,000 sq. ft. of restaurant/bar and 6,500 sq. ft of retail, plus a boat landing on the Intracoastal.
- The parking garage will have 1,056 spaces, 600 for the public, 456 for the hotel.
- The public right-of-way on Johnson Street will include a public amphitheater with “great lawn” seating, dance area, walkway and breezeway, shelter and trolley stop, and public restrooms.
- The developer must secure performance and payment bonds to assure completion of the project.
- The developer must secure all financing and permits before taking possession of the property which is to occur not later than October 2011.
- The developer must begin construction within 30 days of taking possession of the property.
- One or more representatives of the City/CRA will be advised of and entitled to attend all meetings of the developer and the contractor or subcontractor.
- Construction period rent, minimum guaranteed rent, participation rent, and transaction rent are all specified in the MOU along with other sources of revenue that the project will provide the city.
The project’s cost is $126 million, with funds coming from several sources. As you can see, the developer’s earlier request that the City pony up $30 million for the project has been scrapped. Our negotiating team hung tough.
- $ 10,000,000 – Developer equity
- $ 75,000,000 – EB-5 financing (federal program)
- $ 31,000,000 – Community Development District bonds
- $ 10,000,000 – CRA loan (5% interest, 10-year term, priority repayment) subject to draws for equipment and furnishings only, presumably after the hotel is built
In addition, the CRA will pay up to $5 million for public improvements on Johnson and Michigan Streets and AIA. These will include burying the power lines on both Johnson and Michigan (already budgeted at $2 million) plus landscaping and the public amenities on Johnson (new bandshell, seating, restrooms, etc.)
Sending a New Signal to Prospective Developers
This MOU is significant because it sets a new standard for development agreements in Hollywood. It is strong in protecting city, CRA, and taxpayer interests. Over and done with is showering the developer with millions of dollars in future tax revenue that rightly belongs to the public. No longer will the developer be allowed to sit on city-approved plans without building the project and then require city compensation for its own failure to perform.
For their work in crafting this MOU that protects our interests in a variety of creative and interlocking ways, we thank City Manager Cameron Benson, Assistant City Manager Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, CRA Director Charlotte Burnett, Finance Director Carlos Garcia, and City Attorney Jeff Sheffel as well as the financial and hospitality consultants who assisted them in negotiating this document. So far, they have done an outstanding job.
Final Note: While originally there were two proposals, the second choice, Planet Hollywood, has now withdrawn.
May 26, 2009
An exciting new opportunity has opened up for Hollywood Beach now that the proposed Marriott Ocean Village resort has tanked. Having recently hired a new Assistant City Manager with complex development experience, Hollywood is suddenly in a good position to re-evaluate development options for this publicly owned beach front land.
Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
|
The Balance Sheet editors believe strongly that this land should be preserved as public space, city-owned and city-controlled. Uses of the property should be a combination of public and private.
Three times in recent history, the city has pursued a private resort-hotel on this property without success. It is time for something new and different for this precious public land. Privately controlled development has the overriding goal of maximizing profits for the developer. By maintaining control, the city can make its own needs and concerns the primary goal.
Clearly the city welcomes the property taxes a private development would generate, but tax income from this single property will not maximize its value. If the development remains under public control, the city can integrate what is built here with the existing small businesses along the broadwalk, with the explicit aim of creating synergy and higher property values throughout central beach. In this way, the property can reach its true potential as an income producer for the city while preserving the public space Joseph Young envisioned for this site back in the 1920s.
The city commission will seek ideas and developers for the property in two stages. The first will consist of public outreach to Hollywood residents. Simultaneously, city staff will be preparing a notice that will be circulated widely to those interested in developing the site. This notice will ask for a brief submittal that will include a sketch of the proposed development along with the developer’s qualifications and experience. The idea here is to get a wide range of ideas for the site, along with evidence of ability to successfully complete whatever project a developer submits. Ms. Swanson-Rivenbark stressed the importance of developer qualifications. “Hollywood doesn’t want people learning on the job,” she said, emphasizing the importance of prior experience in whatever type of project a developer may propose.
The second phase will come after city staff and elected officials narrow down proposals received from the first phase. A few will be selected to provide much more detailed information about their project. And then, the city commission will make the final choice.
Since public outreach comes during the first phase NOW IS THE TIME for all of us to be thinking about what we’d like to see built at Johnson Street on the beach. What do you think? .
July 30, 2008
What’s Happened to the Ocean Village and Resort?
Quiz: Is this an office building or a beach resort?
Answer: This is, in fact, not a new mixed use office complex, but the redesigned Ocean Village and Resort slated for the city-owned Johnson Street property on Hollywood Beach. Drop us a line and let us know your opinion of this design for Central Beach.
You may be wondering what has happened to this long-awaited project that was approved back in 2005.
We were supposed to have a luxury hotel complex with two swimming pools, 350 hotel rooms, upscale restaurants and retail, as well as passive parkland and a grand ballroom. And the Beach CRA was to provide the money for a 1,600 parking garage, with 500 spaces for the Resort and the rest for the public. This highly touted development was intended “to change the image of Hollywood Beach.”
The project has been plagued with delays and foot-dragging, and recently it appears that the developer wants to scale it down. The city had to secure permission for an exception to the State rule that new coastal construction must be substantially elevated to minimize flooding. That has been accomplished. But instead of moving the project forward, Ocean Properties submitted plans last winter that were so inadequate the city’s Planning Department would not process them. Earlier this summer, Ocean Properties re-submitted a more detailed set of plans which the city is currently studying. From a quick review of these, it begins to appear that the project Ocean Properties promised back in 2005 is not what it wants to build.
Can we expect Ocean Properties to start building soon, or are more delays likely? For one thing, we are not alone with our stalled development. Palm Beach County and Portsmouth, NH are both stuck in the same boat. As reported in the Palm Beach Post, after being selected back in 2004 for a $100 million downtown hotel in connection with the Palm Bach convention center, Ocean Properties is now fighting in court for an extra $10 million to build a smaller hotel than originally promised. The Chair of the Palm Beach County Commission has been quoted as saying the project is on hold and may be put out to bid again.
In Portsmouth, NH, Ocean Properties is “embroiled in a similarly snarled” hotel and conference center project that has not moved forward, according to the Post. Ocean Properties has put up so many road blocks in that project that the Portsmouth city manager has suggested the company is trying to kill the deal by applying “death by 1000 cuts.”
The Post has also reported that federal authorities are investigating whether Palm Beach decision makers “accepted free or deeply discounted hotel accommodations” from Ocean Properties when it was initially selected to build the hotel.
Word of these disputes and the company’s nonperformance in Hollywood all influenced the outcome in Portland, Maine, where Ocean Properties was vying for a development contract in that city. After being warned by their city attorney about the Palm Beach, Portsmouth and Hollywood problems, Portland officials picked another company, according to the Post.
Currently it appears that Hollywood will have a new Hotel (and Resort?) that looks a lot like a Ft. Lauderdale office building for our premier beach property. Keep your fingers crossed for things to run smoothly from here on in, because we’re beginning to wonder….
Sara Case
Laurie Schecter
