March 8, 2012. Hollywood has quietly rolled out an eye-popping economic development policy – one that has solid intellectual underpinnings and a promising track record in other locations. This is the first time, to the best of our knowledge, that our City has formulated an economic development strategy that focuses not only on improving the City’s economic base but also on raising the earning power of Hollywood residents.
The new approach is based on the concept of the “industry cluster” – that is, a geographical concentration of companies that are interconnected by the markets they serve and the products they produce. Silicon Valley with its thousands of high-tech companies is the most obvious example. The big question for us is this: Does Hollywood have the necessary assets to create an environment in which industry clusters will grow and prosper?
To answer that question, we start with what we already have. Take for example, our city’s coastal location between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach: three shipping ports, three airports, ready access to the Florida Turnpike and I-95. Listen to Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, our city’s economic development guru, applying this approach to Hollywood. She says we must understand and capitalize on what’s already here – the “high-growth, high quality industries that are located in Hollywood (such as Life Sciences, Marine Industries, Aviation/Avionics, Logistics/Transportation, and Tourism) and the cross-clustering of these important industries.” She adds that these are unique assets on which to build our development strategy. Groups of closely related and complementary industries operating in Hollywood would reinforce each other. In addition, they would result in more and better jobs for our residents, the great majority of whom now work outside Hollywood.
She goes on to name the Joe Di Maggio Children’s Hospital, Nova Southeastern University’s National Coral Reef Institute, and Barry University’s College of Health Sciences Campus in downtown Hollywood as thriving Hollywood industries that have remained stable and strong during the recent recession and are projected to grow in the future.
Meanwhile, in furtherance of the new economic development policy, city staffer Anthony Grisby has been studying Hollywood demographics, documenting such troubling statistics as an unemployment rate higher and median income lower than nationally. He’s also documented that health sciences, for example, can provide many entry-level jobs for high school graduates as well as job training and advancement opportunities that can help to increase Hollywood’s dwindling middle class. He demonstrates that a focus on business recruitment in health sciences would build on the resources we already have and provide more employment opportunities for Hollywood residents.
To support this new approach, the City has combined its economic and community development functions in a new Department of Community and Economic Development. Since the Director of the former Community Development Department resigned last year, the position has remained vacant. A search is now underway for a director of the new combined department. Keep your eyes trained in its direction to spot what we hope will be significant, positive changes to community development, economic development, and redevelopment in the City of Hollywood.
No one knows more than our Commissioners how desperately Hollywood needs to stabilize and improve its neighborhoods and its corridors. Yet when our elected officials had an opportunity earlier this month to reduce the number of pawn shops on 441, they let us down.
The City Commission, in a 6-1 vote, approved a pawn shop’s request to build a new building on 441 at Duval Street now that the shop’s current location a little further south is being taken by eminent domain for 441 widening. City staff recommended against approval as did the Planning and Zoning Board. Both informed the Commission that there are already 12 pawn shops on a six-block stretch of 441 and here was a chance to eliminate one. Approving this pawn shop was the Commission’s first development decision for the “new” 441 corridor.
What was striking about the pawn shop proposal was its full court press led by Hollywood lobbyist Alan Koslow and the champion Broward County lobbyist George Platt. In hasty nonspecific disclosures before the public hearing began, every commissioner announced a prior meeting behind closed doors with “the applicant,” but none disclosed whether it was with lobbyist, pawn shop owner, or operator. Not one member of the public spoke in support of the pawn shop and several spoke against it.
Only Commissioner O’Sheehan took the obvious principled position against the proposal. Commissioner Blattner approved it, seeming to be angling for improvements to a pawn shop on Stirling Road owned by the same company. Commissioner Russo said the new 441 pawn shop would be a “beautiful building.” We are quite certain that Commissioner Asseff would never have approved a pawn shop in her district. Nor is it likely Commissioner Furr would approve one in his district. Both of them have been fighting blight. But they were willing to put it on 441, as were Commissioner Sherwood and the mayor.
We are left with these questions:
1. Why do Hollywood’s elected officials think so poorly of our City that a new pawn shop becomes a desired development?
2. What can we do as a City to raise our sights and recognize once and for all that we deserve better and can actually achieve it?
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.
June 16, 2009
Forget Zoning and Design Standards
Question: Why is Block 55 on the City Commission agenda now, just a month or so before Zyscovich Architects, the consultants hired by the city last June, can complete the Master Plan and Zoning Code for Young Circle and parts of downtown?
Have we forgotten the words of Commissioner Blattner last summer when our elected officials voted unanimously to spend $200,000 for the plan and code? “If we don’t establish our vision based what Zyscovich presents to us in the next six months to a year, whatever it takes, all we’re going to get [are] projects that don’t meet our vision.”
Now – after numerous meetings with the public and stakeholders – March 10 is the anticipated date on which Zyscovich’s recommended zoning changes and design standards will be issued. “We are that close!” said Terry Cantrell, President of the Hollywood Lakes civic association, one of the stakeholder groups that is actively pushing to have the hearing on Block 55 postponed. Only after the zoning changes and design standards are available, will our elected officials have the tools they need to assure that new Young Circle development truly meets the city’s vision for the ArtsPark and downtown.
Commissioner Asseff has repeatedly expressed her concern that city commission action not interfere with developer entitlements. In this case, postponement would have no bearing on entitlements, because the developer’s proposal for this project does not comply with the city’s development agreement. Hence a new agreement will be required if the project is approved and any entitlements will negotiated at that time. Therefore entitlement interference is not a viable argument against postponement.
Bottom Line: the public hearing on Block 55 should be postponed until after the Zyscovich zoning and design standards are released next month.
Note: The Commission acted on Block 55 without waiting for the new zoning and design standards.
May 29, 2009
Development Projects: Cone of Silence
Two Viewpoints: You Decide
Sent by E-Mail 5/27/09
Dear Balance Sheet,
I find it interesting that the editors of the Balance Sheet, who have been lobbying the Commission over the last few weeks on their own ideas of how the Johnson Street property should be used, now want to shut the door behind them so that no one else has that same opportunity. You have advocated for public use and [in] particular for water features to benefit the small mom and pop motels that don’t have pools themselves. I think there is merit in this idea and would think that you would want me to communicate that to interested parties. The same would go for others of whose ideas I considered worthwhile.
In the free market place of ideas, it is ultimately beneficial for concepts to build upon each other. There are also many competing agendas and interests in this project. I would rather know what they are and have the opportunity to understand the benefits before shutting down communication. As a commissioner, I would like to convey to interested developers my constituents’ suggestions. That is where we are at this stage of the process. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the ethical dilemma of passing on worthwhile ideas to those who are trying to create projects. Once the RLI is written and available, and proposals are being received, I understand and agree that there needs to be a cone of silence. But right now, there are people that would like me to pass on their ideas to those capable of incorporating them into projects.
Beam Furr
Sent by E-Mail 5/28/09
Dear Beam,
Thank you for your letter which raises several important points. At the outset, we want to make it clear that we are not questioning your integrity or your motives.
When rules are made, like a cone of silence, they are not intended to restrain the good but to prevent the bad. Remember the Madison aphorism: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
The power of lobbyists in Hollywood is legendary throughout Broward County. We need to recognize this and address it head on.
First, your concern regarding the role of a commissioner in the process of gathering ideas for Johnson Street before “communication shuts down” – that you want to know all the “competing agendas and interests,” so you can “understand the benefits.” We completely agree. The cone of silence would augment this, not prevent your learning of interests and agendas. It requires that such learning be a matter of public record. This way we could all learn these things so that everyone has the opportunity to understand the benefits and comes to the table with the same understanding.
You say there are people who want you to “pass on their ideas to those capable of incorporating them into projects.” This is our point too. A public process, out in the open, where your constituents and others can express directly their hopes and concerns about the Johnson Street development is truly the “free marketplace of ideas” you mention. Doing this in private with those developers and lobbyists who are accustomed to gaining the inside track through such meetings is the opposite.
You infer that because we advocate for the cone of silence now, we must want to shut the door so that no one else can put forward ideas for the property. Our purpose is the opposite. We have advocated strongly for public outreach from the beginning and continue to do so. The views of Hollywood residents are an essential key to the success of any project built on the site. We have emphasized the need for a public process on Johnson Street with the city manager, with each commissioner, and in public meetings.
Lastly, we spoke with each commissioner about the property before there was any discussion of a competitive bid process. Since our meetings (which were to encourage the Commission to be thinking positively about public use and public input), there has been both a presentation by the assistant city manager and a decision by the commission to follow a competitive bid process. We believe, as did three of your colleagues, that once the commission signals its intention to initiate a bid process, everything changes and it is time to institute a cone of silence.
Our goal has always been to advocate for the public, and for transparency. This, we believe, is where you will find your best ideas. The final decision is up to you, and to get the most input from the greatest variety of sources, public communication is the most respected, and safest, way to go.
We look forward to the best result possible and appreciate your thoughtful consideration.
Sara Case and Laurie Schecter
