Forum

Hello all interested parties.

Please see email string below for your information

I hope you are able to turn out to the meeting on Wed to see how it is all handled.

Thank you

Eli Marx

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Eli Marx <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>; Peter Bober <PBOBER@hollywoodfl.org>; Patricia Asseff <PASSEFF@hollywoodfl.org>; Beam Furr <BFURR@hollywoodfl.org>; Heidi O'Sheehan <HOSHEEHAN@hollywoodfl.org>; Richard Blattner <RBLATTNER@hollywoodfl.org>; Frances Russo <FRUSSO@hollywoodfl.org>; Linda Sherwood <LSHERWOOD@hollywoodfl.org>
Cc: Johnson Street RFP <JohnsonStreetRFP@hollywoodfl.org>; Jeffrey Sheffel <jsheffel@hollywoodfl.org>; Alan Fallik <AFALLIK@hollywoodfl.org>; Jaime Hernandez <jahernandez@hollywoodfl.org>; Douglas Hewett <DHEWETT@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Thanks Cathy

I'm not worried about the virtual tour, although it would be interesting to see it completed, and I think the developer mentioned at the previous commission meeting 6 weeks ago that he was working on putting the final touches on it so that he could present the finished product to the Commission at the following meeting. So if he just hasn't been able to get it finished, then so be it, but it's just one more thing in a long list of things that he has not been able to complete as stated/promised/agreed to, etc. , which is what my real concern is.

I read the proposed revised Schedule of Performance and the changes from the original deadlines do not seem unreasonable to me, provided of course that the developer meet all of those new deadlines, and that he is clearly informed that the Commission will not continue to grant extensions upon extensions until he finally meets a deadline - that sort of defeats the purpose of setting deadlines.

This is Amendment #1 to the agreement. How many Amendments the to the agreement should we expect going forward (as Cathy mentions below is typical of projects like these) and at what point do all the Amendments make the original agreement worthless. Agreements are written for a reason, and in the private sector they are typically enforced rather strictly - either perform as agreed or there are consequences. In the public sector however, this is often not how things get done. So is it any wonder why the general public often criticizes their government representatives and are skeptical about how government does business.

The "project update" that the developer presented 6 weeks ago wasn't much of an update at all, which is why I am hoping to hear a true update at Wed's meeting where specific questions will be asked about what is causing the delays and how he is planning on catching up. The "update" 6 weeks ago was more of a photo op/love-fest with the Commission and his Chinese EB-5 partners (who proclaimed how handsome Mayor Bober was) which I suspect they needed to help them market the project to their prospects back in China, since that effort appears not to have gotten much traction. I hope the Commission plans on asking him how many more commitments he has received over the past 6 weeks to add to the previously stated 18 commitments at the meeting 6 weeks ago. More importantly, I hope the Commission asks him to specifically disclose what his back up financing plan is when/if the EB-5 investors fail to materialize - who is he talking to to get a financing commitment in place and where is he with that effort?

I'm glad to hear that the CDD was approved by the judge, now lets hope the bonds sell for the $38M everyone is counting on from them. I appreciate the effort the developer is making, as well as the support everyone at the City has been giving him to push the project forward, but as I said before, effort is one thing, achievement is quite another, and although the developer's effort is commendable it unfortunately means nothing if he can't achieve the goal of those efforts. It is up to the City Commission as the "Coach" in this game to decide when they need to pull the quarterback (the developer) from the game and put in a replacement that is better capable to achieve the City's goals. As difficult as any breakup tends to be, sometimes it is necessary for the betterment of everyone involved. So don't be afraid to exercise the City's rights in the agreement to remove this developer and replace him with someone else if he can't get the job done. Better to do this earlier than later in the process. The deeper the hole this developer digs for the City, the harder it will be for the City to climb out of it. I'm sure that the City can find another developer that is better equipped to complete this project if it chooses to terminate its agreement with this developer. So just be aware of the City's rights (and obligations to its citizens) when deciding how to proceed with the current developer.

Thanks again to Cathy for keeping an open line of communication with all of us interested parties, and thank you all on the Commission and City Staff for working so diligently to better our community. I know first-hand that public service can sometimes be a thankless job, so Thank You All for your service.

I look forward to seeing you all on Wed and I'm anxious to hear you pose good questions to, and get good answers from, the developer on the status of the project and the game plan going forward. I'll make sure to bring my list of questions to address to the Commission and Developer in case the discussion misses any of them.

See you Wed.

Thanks again

Sincerely,

Eli

From: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
To: Eli Marx <marx_eli@yahoo.com>; Peter Bober <PBOBER@hollywoodfl.org>; Patricia Asseff <PASSEFF@hollywoodfl.org>; Beam Furr <BFURR@hollywoodfl.org>; Heidi O'Sheehan <HOSHEEHAN@hollywoodfl.org>; Richard Blattner <RBLATTNER@hollywoodfl.org>; Frances Russo <FRUSSO@hollywoodfl.org>; Linda Sherwood <LSHERWOOD@hollywoodfl.org>
Cc: Johnson Street RFP <JohnsonStreetRFP@hollywoodfl.org>; Jeffrey Sheffel <jsheffel@hollywoodfl.org>; Alan Fallik <AFALLIK@hollywoodfl.org>; Jaime Hernandez <jahernandez@hollywoodfl.org>; Douglas Hewett <DHEWETT@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Hi Mr. Marx. As I mentioned to you in a previous email, the virutal reality tour is not a city requirement but rather a marketing tool for the developer. The tour of the exterior is currently on the City's website as a courtesy. If the developer chooses to prepare an interior tour, we will post it on the website. You also may recall the Developer presented a project update approximately six weeks ago and referenced we would bring back to the City Commission an updated timeframe for consideration. That revised timeframe, consistent with our discussions, is included on the March 21 agenda. In addition, final revisions are being submitted for permitting. The developer is making significant progress on the steps necessary for the City to turn the property over to the developer which is why the timeline revision is being recommended. One of the requirements was the establishment of a Community Development District for the public parking component. We are pleased that the CDD was approved by the Judge on February 29 which represents $38 million. In the meantime, the City is receiving $20,000 per month while we get fulll use (and revenue) from the City's parking facilities. I would be happy to meet with you to go over the project schedule in detail and to share the completion timeline. While I understand you are concerned about the need to revise the timeframe, I have been involved in several successful long term lease and developement agreements through competiitive RFP processes and such timeline revisions are to be expected with projects like this. We are glad that you share in our excitement about this beautfiul project. thanks

From: Eli Marx [marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:00 PM
To: Peter Bober; Patricia Asseff; Beam Furr; Heidi O'Sheehan; Richard Blattner; Frances Russo; Linda Sherwood
Cc: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark; Johnson Street RFP; Jeffrey Sheffel; Alan Fallik; Jaime Hernandez; Douglas Hewett
Subject: Fw: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Hello everyone

I'm looking forward to the meeting on Wednesday to see and hear about the status of this project in general, and specifically from the developer about the status of his financing, permitting, contracting, etc. Hopefully he'll also be able to show the completed virtual reality tour of the project which was only partially completed at the last meeting that this issue was discussed.

As you can read on the email string below, I'm very hopeful that the project will be successful. I have followed all the different development plans for this property, with all the different developers, over all the many years, and this seems to be the closest we've gotten to getting it done.

That being said I have my concerns about this particular developer's ability to get the job done based on the extensions to the milestone dates being requested now, as well as (and perhaps more concerning) his ability to secure the necessary financing to build this project - his partners in that aspect of this project recently filed for bankruptcy on their City of Plantation project, and although I know it's probably just a defensive move to head off foreclosure, and that the failure of one project does not necessarily mean their other projects will also be failures, it is still something that the City should at least ask about. You can read about the bankruptcy on the link at the end of this email string.

Given the EB-5 Chinese money strategy has not seemed to deliver the targeted 150 investors at $500k each to raise $75M which represents the bulk of the financing required to build this project (last I heard they only had 18 commitments - only $9M - and that money isn't even yet available to be used for the project) I think its of critical importance at this stage in the game that the City take a very firm position with this developer if he cannot secure the required financing through any conduit (EB-5 or otherwise) that he knows that the City will exercise its right to terminate the lease and development agreement with him, maintain all the work product (at no cost to the City) that has been prepared up to the point of contract termination, and will look for another developer that the City deems to be more capable of performing on an agreed upon schedule, and who can bring the required funds to the table without having to rely on foreign investment capital for this local project. That may sound a bit harsh, but this is business, not personal, and the City needs to act quickly to replace the developer if he cannot perform on time. Otherwise this will just turn into another one of those government projects that go way over budget and take much much longer than originally scheduled.

So I urge the Commission to give careful thought to extending the milestone dates on the Schedule of Performance to give this developer a break (which the City has no obligation to do). If you decide to give him this ONE TIME break, please spell out the consequences of him not meeting ALL of the revised deadlines so that there is no question as to what will happen if should not be able to perform on time going forward.

Also please make sure that any non-conformance with the existing, and assumed to be modified on March 21, agreement is documented IN WRITING as proper notification to the developer that he is in non-conformance with specific items of the agreement and that he has X days to cure to items, and that if he does not he will be deemed to be in default of the agreement and that the City will then proceed to terminate the agreement with him, keep all the work product produced (at no cost to the City) and find a replacement developer to complete the project on the City's behalf.

I sincerely look forward to the meeting on Wed and truly wish everyone luck in getting this project done with the City's best interest in mind.

Thank you

Eli Marx

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Eli Marx <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
To: Jeffrey Sheffel <jsheffel@hollywoodfl.org>; Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
Cc: Alan Fallik <AFALLIK@hollywoodfl.org>; Johnson RFP <JohnsonStreetRFP@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Good morning everyone. Thank you for your reply Jeff.

Obviously my background is not in contract law, but I did suspect that any contract could be amended by mutual agreement between all parties to the contract unless otherwise stated in the contract (perhaps giving one party to the contract unilateral discretion to change certain terms of the contract without the need to get the other parties to the contract to agree to the changes - which is not really the case here). Since all the parties to the agreement - the City and Developer in this case - are in agreement with the changes being proposed (or technically the Staff and the Developer are in agreement for now, and the City will be, if and when the Commission approves the amendment on March 21) then the agreement, and specifically the Schedule of Performance, can be changed.

I guess that the only issue then with changing the deadlines on the Schedule of Performance is perhaps a political one. The citizens of the City were told by way of the provision I am referencing - "The dates in Exhibit "I" shall not be extended except for an event of Force Majeure." - that the City intended to keep a short leash on the developer to make sure he performed on time, so the Commission need only concern themselves with the political implications of approving the extensions for this developer to be able to continue with this project. Fair warning, if they grant the extensions, and the developer does not perform, and comes back to the Commission again seeking further extensions, the citizens will not be happy. We've seen it happen with this property for so many years and with so many developers that we just don't want to be jerked around any more...and I would hope that the Commission and Staff feels the same way.

As I mentioned below, I would hope that the City has formally IN WRITING notified the developer in each and every instance that he has become delinquent in his obligations as per the terms of the agreement, specifically as it relates to the deadlines that were set in the Schedule of Performance, such that the clock to cure the non-conforming items would have begun to tick, and if the cure period has expired that the City has also formally IN WRITING notified the developer that he is in default of the agreement and that the City now has the right to terminate said agreement, retain all work product produced to the date of the termination of the agreement (at no cost to the City), and that the City has the right to move ahead with the project on their own, or perhaps partner with a new developer that they feel can better get the job done. The developer needs to know that he is on thin ice and that he is NOT going to be able to keep asking for extensions every time another "unforeseen" issue occurs that delays his progress. A more experienced developer (and specifically a HOTEL developer, which this developer is not) may have foreseen the issues that are now delaying the process and would have built that into the Schedule of Performance to begin with. It's always better to under-promise and over-deliver than the other way around (which is now the case with this project unfortunately).

And as I've said before, I am a fan of the project and absolutely want to see it get built, and feel the right project and developer were chosen at the time this project was awarded, and I really do hope that the developer is successful. That being said, my primary concern is that the City (and by extension, the citizens of the City) are protected from what could potentially be a big mess with this property yet again. I am fully confident in the City's staff, and particularly in Cathy, to keep this project on the right track. I'm not so confident in the developer now however, and as such, as I mentioned before, the City needs to do everything in its power to maintain all its rights to change out this developer (sooner rather than later) if he can't get the job done. It may sound harsh, and the developer would certainly lose allot of money by being kicked off the project, but if that has to be done to assure the project gets built then that's what the City needs to do despite the developer's substantial efforts, investments, and good intentions. Don't put yourselves, and the citizens of the City, in a position that 6 months from now, in hindsight, you were wishing you would have removed this developer (as is your right to do so). He is not the only game in town (although I know he is a resident of the City) and I am sure there are other developers out there that would love the opportunity to build this project with the City and are more experienced with this type of development and capable to get the job done on an agreed upon schedule.

So if the City wants to give him an extension, so be it, I'm not necessarily opposed to giving a guy a break on such a large and complicated project, but let the Commission go on record at the March 21 meeting that they have every intention of enforcing the new deadlines and that no other extensions will be granted, and let them spell out the implications of what that mean for the developer at the March 21 public meeting - i.e. that he needs to meet every deadline on the revised Schedule of Performance or that he will be notified as soon as he misses a deadline that he is in non-conformance of the terms of the agreement and that he has X days to cure said non-conformance, and that if does not he will be deemed to be in default of the agreement and that the City will exercise its right to then terminate the agreement with this developer and retain all the work product, and perhaps tap into the payment and performance bond (which will hopefully be in place by then) in order to complete the project on their own or find a suitable developer to finish it for them.

Did the City ever officially notify the developer IN WRITING of each of his non-conforming items when he missed all these deadlines? If so can I get a copy of those letters? If not, why not?

Please advise when you can.

Thank you

Eli

From: Jeffrey Sheffel <jsheffel@hollywoodfl.org> To: 'Eli Marx' <marx_eli@yahoo.com>; Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org> Cc: Alan Fallik <AFALLIK@hollywoodfl.org> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:24 AM Subject: RE: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Mr. Marx, Not sure what your background is. It is not necessary to place a provision in an original contract to allow for that contract to be amended by the mutual agreement of all parties to the contract. The provision you reference was placed in to the contract so that the Developer could not argue that the City was being unreasonable (it is inherent in all contractual relationships that all parties are required to act reasonably) if it refused to amend the dates upon a request solely by the Developer. Since we are agreeing to the changes (at least we will be if the Commission approves the amendment), that provision is not an impediment to this change.

Jeffrey Sheffel

City Attorney

From: Eli Marx [mailto:marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:28 PM
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
Cc: Jeffrey Sheffel
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Thank you Cathy

Hello Jeff...can you point me to the provision in the agreement that allows the City and Developer to modify the Schedule of Performance?

Thank you

Eli

From: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
To: "Eli Marx (marx_eli@yahoo.com)" <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Sheffel <jsheffel@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: FW: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

The City Attorney's Office prepared the updated Schedule of Performance for Commission consideration at the March 21 meeting so I am confident the City and the Developer have the ability to enter into amendments that are mutually agreed upon. I have copied City Attorney Jeff Sheffel in this email should you wish to ask speak to him directly on the matter.

From: Eli Marx [mailto:marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
Cc: Johnson Street RFP
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Good afternoon Cathy

Thanks for the response on this issue.

I went to the website and saw that there was a link to the Staff review comments for the permits being pursued by the developer, so thank Jaime for that. There were however no design plans that I could see, so hopefully they can post some of those in the near future.

I then reviewed the executed lease and development agreement and found a couple of things that may be very pertinent to what you are trying to do on March 21 in so far as extending the dates on the Schedule of Performance. On Section 3.5 (pages 28-29) of the lease and development agreement it states "The dates in Exhibit "I" shall not be extended except for an event of Force Majeure." Exhibit "I" is the Schedule of Performance which is what you are trying to extend on March 21, but no event of Force Majeure, as defined in Section 7.4 of the lease and development agreement, has occurred as best I can tell. So how does the City get around the terms of the agreement with regard to it stating that the dates of the Schedule of Performance shall not be extended except for an event of Force Majeure when no such event has taken place?

I could not find anything in the agreement that even gave the City unilateral discretion to extend the dates on the Schedule of Performance. So without having that discretionary right to extend the dates on the Schedule of Performance it seems to me that the City has no right to extend those dates, and the only right it may have is to notify the developer in writing that they are in non-conformance with the terms of the agreement, and that the developer has 60 days to cure said non-conformance from the date the City notifies the Developer of said non-conformance, after which the City would have the right (and perhaps the obligation) to terminate the lease and development agreement with this developer.

I would hope and expect that as soon as the developer missed the 1st milestone in the Schedule of Performance that the City would have notified him in writing of his non-conformance to get the clock started on his 60-day cure period. Was such a written notification issued to the developer on Feb 1, 2012 when he failed to take possession of the property? Or even before then when he failed to meet the deadline for the formation of the CDD on July 1, 2011, or failed to finalize his plans and specifications and submit them for review to the City by July 1, 2011, or deliver the payment and performance bond by Dec 1, 2011, or have loan commitments for financing in place by Jan 1, 2011, or reimbursed the City for the $300k in third party fees he was supposed to pay by Feb 1, 2012? In fact I don't believe he has met a single milestone date on the Schedule of Performance, so has the City notified him IN WRITING of his non-conformance such that his cure periods would have kicked in? If so can you share those written notifications with me? If not, does the City plan to issue those notifications as they have the right (and I believe the obligation) to do? If the notifications were in fact provided to the developer, then it would appear to me that since it does not appear as though he has cured said non-conformance items that he would technically be in default of the agreement and that the City would now in fact have the right (and perhaps the obligation) to terminate the agreement with this developer.

I also found that in Section 7.2 (d) on page 46 of the agreement that the City does have the right to take possession of all the work product from the developer and his consultants in the event of the lease agreement being terminated before the completion of the development at no cost to the City, and as you mention below, the payment and performance bond would then kick in to help the City complete the project.

So it seems to me that (1) the City does not have the right to extend the dates on the Schedule of Performance, (2) that the Developer has been and continues to be in non-conformance with the terms of the agreement by not meeting the deadlines set out on the Schedule of Performance, (3) that the City should have notified the developer in writing of these non-conformance items in order to give the developer his contracted 60-days to cure said non-conformance, (4) that 60 days have long passed on several non-conforming items, (5) that the developer is now technically in default of the terms of the agreement, and (6) that the City now has the right (and perhaps the obligation) to terminate the lease agreement with this developer, and has the right to keep all work product that has currently been produced for the project at no cost to the City, and should also be able to tap into the payment and performance bond (if it in fact has even been delivered by the developer) in order to continue the development of the project on its own or with a replacement developer. What do you think?

I know the virtual tour is not a requirement of any kind, but since they put it out there it would be nice to see the finished product. Not having that finished also makes me wonder as to the completeness of their plans, and if it is being used as a sales tool for the Chinese investors, and it is not completed, then obviously their investment sales are not benefiting from this tool and perhaps may in fact be one of many reasons why they only have commitments from 18 (at last commission meeting) out of 150 investors that they were trying to raise money from. If there is no definitive back up financing that will cover this deficiency in the financing package at this point in the game, and given all the other deadlines that have not been met, perhaps its time for the City to cut and run and change out the developer (as it appears to have the right and perhaps the obligation to do) before the project goes any further into the hole. I'm sure there are many HOTEL developers out there that not only have the experience, but also the financial capacity to build and operate this resort without having to depend on Chinese money, that would be very interested in taking over the project.

Please let me know what you think of these issues when you get a chance. I hope you don't find me to be too much of a pest, but I really just want this project to get built, and that the City (and by extension us residents of the City) to be protected from the risk of being partnered up with a well meaning developer that just can't get the job done despite all his best efforts. Sometimes people are just a bit outside their zone of expertise and can't quite put the pieces together. No shame in trying, but if you try and can't get it done, then the right thing to do is move out of the way and let someone else step in that can get it done.

As always, I look forward to your thoughts on these issues and hope to see you at the March 21 commission meeting.

Thank you

Eli

From: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
To: 'Eli Marx' <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

The lease agreement is posted on the web for public review. There are sections of the agreement that are pertinent but will hopefully never be used-- one is the default section and the other is if the developer were to back out. The first is a very serious section that requires several opportunities to cure by the developer and also the lender well before the property would return to the City. The second provides the City all plans should the City wish to proceed at City's option. As you recall a payment and performance bond is required prior to possession for this purpose. You should review the lease yourself, I am only providing a very brief capsule from memory. Regarding the status or completeness of the virtual tour, I am sure you realize that the tour is not a requirement nor an expectation from the City, instead it is more a work tool for the developer and the investors.

From: Eli Marx [mailto:marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:12 PM
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
Cc: Jaime Hernandez
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Thanks for the invite Cathy but I know you're busy so I don't want to take up part of your day. As I mentioned below, I was only interested in seeing the plans to satisfy my curiosity about what the place is going to look like inside. I can wait to see that until the plans are posted on your website or the virtual tour is completed and shown at a commission meeting and/or posted to your website.

Good luck resolving the Flo Rider issue and getting the permits issued. Glad to hear all seems to be in order with this aspect of the project.

I'm still just curious about the City's rights to change out the developer if he can't perform for any reason. Maybe you can just point me to the applicable provision in the agreements that address this issue. Please don't take this the wrong way, I really do want the developer to succeed, but I'm just hoping that the City has a clean way out if he can't perform, and that all the work done over the past year would not be lost if you enforced any rights you may have to change out the developer.

Please advise when you can.

Thanks again

Eli

From: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
To: "'marx_eli@yahoo.com'" <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jaime Hernandez <jahernandez@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Would you like to meet to discuss and I can have the plans with me? There is an outstanding issue regarding the flo rider that needs to be resolved before the permit is issued but otherwise I believe the permit hurdles have been cleared.

From: Eli Marx [mailto:marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 07:43 AM
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
Cc: Jaime Hernandez
Subject: Re: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Thanks as always for your timely reply Cathy

Jaime, please advise when and how we may be able to see the plans/permits/review comments etc on the website. I'm really interested to see some of the details of what this will look like, particularly on the inside since we all pretty much know what it will look like on the outside. Also, are you really prepared to issue building permits this week like I read in article recently?

Cathy I know the plans and elevations were already approved at site plan approval and that the Commission's review now is focused on enforcement, adjustment if needed, and execution of the lease and development agreement terms. That's what I'm really interested in as well. My interest in the plans is just to satisfy my curiosity. Do you know if the incomplete virtual tour that was shown at the last meeting is now finished, and if so, if it will be shown at the March 21 meeting?

I have no doubt that this project will get built one way or the other and I am anxious to see it get built and open...I plan to visit often, which is why I am asking you about the City's options regarding the current developer and his financing and project management capabilities, as well as enforcing the timeline/milestone terms of the lease and development agreements. I vaguely recall a presentation you made to the commission over a year ago when you were discussing the drafting of the agreements (I think a Rubic's Cube was involved) and I believe you mentioned that there were provisions in the agreements that would allow the City to replace the developer if he did not meet all his obligations by the milestone dates that were put into the agreements. I believe I remember you saying that you and Staff intended to hold the developer to those obligations or that there would be consequences. Are those provisions for the replacement of the developer in the agreements? If so, under what circumstances would the City have the right to replace the developer? I suspect that the City has the discretion to adjust the terms of the agreements to accommodate delays in securing financing, permitting, etc, but how much discretion is the City willing to use? I'm all for giving a guy a break from time to time to get caught up with things, especially with these large complicated projects, but will the City go on record and say "OK we're giving you this one time extension, but if you don't come through by May 15 with the financing you are out and we will find another developer to replace you that has the money and experience to do the job."? I know it sounds a bit harsh, and the developer would stand to loose allot of money which they've already invested in the project, but these types of projects are notorious for getting dragged out and going way over budget, and in hindsight many times the officials charged with keeping the projects moving forward look back and say "I wish I would have cut this guy off and switched horses early on". Yes another sports analogy. So all I'm asking is does the City have the ability to change out the developer and is there a trigger mechanism that everyone agrees with that clearly says if the developer does not perform X by this milestone date that he is out - clean and clear with no right to argue about it? In conjunction with that, I'm curious if the City has the right to retain the work product that has been prepared through the date that the developer is dismissed from the project, and just pick up were he left off once a suitable replacement developer is chosen, so that the City does not have to hit the reset button and start all over again?

Please advise when you can.

Thanks again

Eli

From: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark <CSWANSON-RIVENBARK@hollywoodfl.org>
To: 'Eli Marx' <marx_eli@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jaime Hernandez <jahernandez@hollywoodfl.org>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Thanks for the follow up. I know Staff is working on putting the plans on the web but I am not sure what the status is. I have copied Jaime Hernandez for an update. We have prepared a City Commission item for the 21st of March to revise the dates in the lease agreement. I also have your questions from previous emails and we will work on getting answers where possible. While you may have concerns that the project will not happen, I have confidence that it will be built and will be successful. Having done several public/private joint ventures in the past, these kinds of timeline revisions are to be expected. As Landlord, the Commission's review will be on the dates and not on the plans or elevations since it was already signed off thru site plan review.

From: Eli Marx [mailto:marx_eli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark
Cc: Johnson Street RFP
Subject: Margaritaville Funding Deadline

Hi Cathy

Just read the attached article and I see that a deadline has now been given to the developer to have his funding in place by May 15. What happens if he does not have it in place? Does he get another extension? How many extensions is he entitled to, if any, and for what reasons is he able to just keep asking for extensions? Does the lease and other development agreements allow the City to replace the developer? If the developer can be replaced does the City have to start from ground zero again, or does the City have a way of retaining the work product that has been produced up until now and can simply replace the developer with one that has the financial capacity to execute the plan that has been put together so far? I'm a fan of the project and want to see the developer succeed, but if he can't get it done, like in football, the City (as the coach) needs to pull the quarterback (the developer) out of the game and replace him with a backup which can get the ball over the goal line. Does the City have a backup quarterback?

I read that the developer will face the commission on March 21 and I hope to attend so that I can hear what he has to say about the questions I have. I hope the commission will ask him some tough questions this time around because the last time it was nothing more than a love fest and photo op. I'm sure you still have my list of questions from previous emails so I hope you share them with the commission so they can ask the developer for answers. Otherwise I will feel compelled to address the commission and ask the developer the questions myself at the commission meeting.

I also read that they expect to get building permits by March 15, as in a few days from now. That's a bit of a surprise. I never did see any of their plans or staff review comments on your website. Will that be available some time soon? Likewise, will the sketchy work in progress virtual tour that was shown at the last meeting be completed and shown at the March 21 meeting?

Please advise on these issues when you can and keep pushing them along. You've done a great job getting this project to where it is today and I hope you can keep it going with this or some other developer if need be.

Thanks as always.

Sincerely,

Eli

Fashion Mall in foreclosure … again

Published: February 24, 2012

The shuttered Fashion Mall in Plantation has been hit with a foreclosure lawsuit for the third time in the past five years.

View full article

Copyright (C) American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.