Casino, soon to be completed
No city can do it better than Lake Worth, for screwing things up, that is.
This past Tuesday, it managed to even hire an attorney to get its way to kick our last remaining long-time tenant to the curb and off our beach using taxpayer money to do it. Talk about arrogance. Prior to NYPD Pizza (a Mom & Pop restaurant), the city ran off John G's and Lake Worth T--Shirt Company. All three of these companies had a combine total of 77 years at our beach. Did that mean anything to Lake Worth? In the end, it was all about credit scores and build-outs and real estate brokers selling their song and maligning the competition. Credit and Clout ruled the evening.
On Tuesday the remainder of the leases were voted upon and agreed:
Mamma Mia, Fox Surf and Mulligans. With the Kilwins lease previously approved, that will make a total of four new "stores" leasing at our Casino, down from an original eight shops/restaurants. We still have the upstairs to go.
City Staff went so far as to hire an outside real estate attorney to give advice on the New York Pizza lease. In 1999, the lease with the city was with New York Pizza Department, Inc. and the present owner of NYPD Pizza (the name is short for New York Pizza Department) was a part of/affiliated with that original corporation. NYPD Pizza is a different company as its president is different than in 1999... not the same company name that was on the original lease in 1999...and therefore does not, according to the city attorney, have the right of first refusal even though--
The following are the bizarre state of events that occurred:
Pam Triolo asked for a motion to accept Mamma Mia at $35 per s.f. No one on the Commission responded. Dead silence.
After much more discussion on the Right of First Refusal (that no one on the commission seemed to understand other than Commissioner McVoy and Commissioner Mulvehill and we wonder why mistakes are made over and over again by commissions), Mayor Triolo then again asked for a motion--Andy Amoroso made a motion to approve Staff's decision (accepting the lease of Mamma Mia). No second to the motion was given, Motion failed. Total silence.
Mayor Triolo asks for another motion. Commissioner McVoy made a motion to not approve staff recommendation and approve NYPD Pizza. The motion failed for a lack of a second.
Eventually, after advice of the city attorney, Mayor Triolo than passed the gavel to the Vice Mayor and made a motion to approve staff recommendation to accept Mamma Mia--Second was given by Commissioner Amoroso who was holding steadfast to his original motion, no matter what. He is a businessman afterall.
Public speaking then ensued. NYPD Pizza's attorney said that NY Pizza Department, Inc., the original corporation on the 1999 lease, submitted an offer of $35 a sq. ft. He further stated that he didn't care if the city honors that offer on the Right of First refusal to VFNS, Inc (NYPD Pizza) or to NY Pizza Department as he represents both entities. Commissioner McVoy was very concerned about our legal exposure by not honoring our word.
1. Mayor Triolo called the vote to accept Mamma Mia: The vote was 4/1 with McVoy dissenting.
2. The Fox Surf Shop lease passed on a 5/0.
3. Mulligans passed on a 4/1 with Scott Maxwell dissenting as he wanted Johnny Longboats to rent both floors at $25 per s.f. It didn't matter to him what the people always said that they wanted. It didn't matter that Johnny Longboat's was no longer on the table to consider. It was all about the money.
We now have four companies that will be operating out of our new casino and one will be Mamma Mia. I am sure that this Mamma Mia's is not part of a national chain--they are all over the place. Mamma Mia, in anticipation of its getting the lease, just filed a new corporation on February 1, 2012 with the State of Florida known as Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc.
This past Tuesday, it managed to even hire an attorney to get its way to kick our last remaining long-time tenant to the curb and off our beach using taxpayer money to do it. Talk about arrogance. Prior to NYPD Pizza (a Mom & Pop restaurant), the city ran off John G's and Lake Worth T--Shirt Company. All three of these companies had a combine total of 77 years at our beach. Did that mean anything to Lake Worth? In the end, it was all about credit scores and build-outs and real estate brokers selling their song and maligning the competition. Credit and Clout ruled the evening.
On Tuesday the remainder of the leases were voted upon and agreed:
Mamma Mia, Fox Surf and Mulligans. With the Kilwins lease previously approved, that will make a total of four new "stores" leasing at our Casino, down from an original eight shops/restaurants. We still have the upstairs to go.
City Staff went so far as to hire an outside real estate attorney to give advice on the New York Pizza lease. In 1999, the lease with the city was with New York Pizza Department, Inc. and the present owner of NYPD Pizza (the name is short for New York Pizza Department) was a part of/affiliated with that original corporation. NYPD Pizza is a different company as its president is different than in 1999... not the same company name that was on the original lease in 1999...and therefore does not, according to the city attorney, have the right of first refusal even though--
- 1. they have been operating on our beach for 14 years
- 2. the city has accepted their rental check as the legal tenant, never questioning it and cashing it. The City allowed the relationship to continue with their eyes wide opened. Who knows what happened at that time? A verbal agreement to NYPD to exist and operate as it was being operated by the same guy who was there? We all know how the paperwork is in Lake Worth.
- 3. the city told NYPD Pizza, along with every other tenant at the casino, that they could come back and lease if they so chose...that they had the right of first refusal. There were no caveats to that Right that were ever expressed by the City to any tenant especially NYPD Pizza.
- 4. because of all of the above, legal intent was declared, over and over again by the City, to have all the former tenants to come back and lease, that they would have the first choice.
The following are the bizarre state of events that occurred:
Pam Triolo asked for a motion to accept Mamma Mia at $35 per s.f. No one on the Commission responded. Dead silence.
After much more discussion on the Right of First Refusal (that no one on the commission seemed to understand other than Commissioner McVoy and Commissioner Mulvehill and we wonder why mistakes are made over and over again by commissions), Mayor Triolo then again asked for a motion--Andy Amoroso made a motion to approve Staff's decision (accepting the lease of Mamma Mia). No second to the motion was given, Motion failed. Total silence.
Mayor Triolo asks for another motion. Commissioner McVoy made a motion to not approve staff recommendation and approve NYPD Pizza. The motion failed for a lack of a second.
Eventually, after advice of the city attorney, Mayor Triolo than passed the gavel to the Vice Mayor and made a motion to approve staff recommendation to accept Mamma Mia--Second was given by Commissioner Amoroso who was holding steadfast to his original motion, no matter what. He is a businessman afterall.
Public speaking then ensued. NYPD Pizza's attorney said that NY Pizza Department, Inc., the original corporation on the 1999 lease, submitted an offer of $35 a sq. ft. He further stated that he didn't care if the city honors that offer on the Right of First refusal to VFNS, Inc (NYPD Pizza) or to NY Pizza Department as he represents both entities. Commissioner McVoy was very concerned about our legal exposure by not honoring our word.
1. Mayor Triolo called the vote to accept Mamma Mia: The vote was 4/1 with McVoy dissenting.
2. The Fox Surf Shop lease passed on a 5/0.
3. Mulligans passed on a 4/1 with Scott Maxwell dissenting as he wanted Johnny Longboats to rent both floors at $25 per s.f. It didn't matter to him what the people always said that they wanted. It didn't matter that Johnny Longboat's was no longer on the table to consider. It was all about the money.
We now have four companies that will be operating out of our new casino and one will be Mamma Mia. I am sure that this Mamma Mia's is not part of a national chain--they are all over the place. Mamma Mia, in anticipation of its getting the lease, just filed a new corporation on February 1, 2012 with the State of Florida known as Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc.
14 comments:
Lynn, it seems that you and the vm "king" have a pretty cozy relationship, as you always seem to have the inside skinny on why he votes the way he does and what he is thinking. Maybe you could put some pressure on him to get another city attorney?
Technically, the lease for Units #1 and #2 is with the legal corporate entity Mamma Mia, Inc. (See below 1.2 of the proposed lease). If the operating name (commonly called the fictitious name) of Mamma Mia, Inc. is to be Mamma Mia's on the Beach, then there is no issue. On the other hand, if Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc., is a different corporate entity, then what Mamma Mia, Inc., is legally doing is a transfer.
Therefore, if Mamma Mia, Inc., is not the entity that is operating the restaurant, but Mamma Mia's at the Beach, Inc., is the actual corporate entity operating at the beach, then Mamma Mia, Inc., under provision 6.1 must submit a request to the City to allow Mamma Mia, Inc., to transfer the lease to Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc. Among other things, Mamma Mia' Inc., is obligated to pay a $1,000 administrative fee and all reasonable attorneys' fees and actual costs associated with the City's consideration of the Tenant's transfer request.
To anonymous at 9:41--No "cozy" relationship here. The Vice Mayor has always said that it was only about the money. He is the one who compromised our beach to a 1am closing time to accommodate a bar so that it could make as much money as possible from our LW Casino. Just the facts, anonymous.
Did anyone read the lease after all the tinkering with it? I am looking at the Mamma Mia, Inc., lease.
These are two items on the lease that are significant:
Last sentence of 1.10 says: First and Security (Security equals two months of the fifth year base rent) is due upon signing of lease.
But 1.17 says: 1.17 Security Deposit. A Letter of Credit generally in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “L” attached hereto in the amount of $__________, to be delivered to Landlord upon execution of this Lease by Tenant. The Security Deposit equals twelve (12) months of one years Base Rent. Such Letter of Credit shall be kept in force and effect the entire term of the lease and shall be renewed annually.
Everyone meant 1.17 which is one year of a letter of credit for security, but why is 1.10 still in the lease since it contradicts 1.17 since 1.10 says the security is two months of the fifth year base rent?
Were closing hours discussed and agreed to? 3.4 in pertinent part states these closing hours, going to 1:00 am on Thursday through Saturday 3.4 Conduct of Business. Throughout the Lease Term, Tenant shall actively conduct its business with the closing hours of 11pm on Sunday,12am Monday through Wednesday and 1am on Thursday through Saturday at the latest.
The closing hours are the same as Mulligans, so it may have been discussed. This is from the Mulligan lease: 3.4 Conduct of Business. Throughout the Lease Term, Tenant shall actively conduct its business with the closing hours of 11pm on Sunday, 12am Monday through Wednesday and 1am on Thursday through Saturday at the latest.
Just Saying
This is an example of how, if the City wants to be technical, it can cause difficulties for those who want to do business with the City. My problem with what I have observed with Snitkin, Margoles and the Commission trio of Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso is that they are not evenhanded in what they do -- they pick favorites and treat those favorites one way while treating those they do not prefer another way.
I think the new Commission is VERY aware of the fact that the Casino tenants HAVE to produce - Have to be successful enough to honor their leases.
This is the ONLY way the Casino will work, without having to involve the citizens pocketbooks.
They have done their BEST to make sure that the Casino will thrive, which it must.
Unfortunately, LWorthians seem to not have a good grasp of the business side of such an endeavor.
The sentimental aspect of continuing with prior tenants is great - but this is brass tacks with the Casino. It HAS to support itself, or we're sunk. And the Commission knows this and is acting accordingly.
This is the reason why the City should be out of the real estate business or as mentioned the other night maybe the City Business too!
The prior leases were not administered properly. Defaults of leases were allowed to continue without notice. Promises were made verbally and then poorly written legally. I still think the worst is yet to come when the tenants begin their build-out of the spaces.
On top of that no one on staff, including the broker prepared for the Commission a complete breakdown of the lease terms including amendments, changes, etc. How can anyone expect commissioners (novices as far as real estate) to decide on the best tenants, when all they are comparing is use and price.
And how in the world does someone allow price swings of approved leases to vary by $10/SF? Just because someone got there first in the case of Kilwins without competition? That is the brokers fault for not setting the price and just winging it. Like I said before, what a mess!
Chris
And just think--the City of LW will only be able to go after Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc. should they be late or default, not the major corporation that holds the assets. If they should default, we will get a pizza oven out of it. :)
Please provide real examples backing up your accusations that Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso are not even handed.
Maxwell must be a lot more powerful than we thought if he alone compromised OUR beach.
Do you really want to point out a discrepancy that inures to the benefit of the city?
Do you really think a discrepancy on names is equivalent to a discrepancy on ownership, especially with a Guarantee backed by a Financial Instrument backing up the Lease?
Does the City have that signed Letter of Credit? Is it in the correct name of the corporation doing business at our beach? I'm just throwing out a question to consider. Thanks.
Maxwell has compromised our beach along with his two buddies.
How did Maxwell, et al compromise the beach? How much are you willing to pay to subsidize this project? I would like what was sold to us by the prior commission majority, and that is the project will pay for itself. That now seems like a false and hollow promise to make us all feel good about it. But no one has sharpened their pencils to make sure that was case. So who exactly is to blame for compromising:
Go ahead and start filling in ALL the blanks below. And include yourself too if you bought into the "company line" er um promise.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
And on and on.....
What was said by Staff as well as the Finance Advisory Board, was that with the financial matrix that they did and that Steve Carr has insisted at each and every time he has been asked the question, is that the CASINO will pay for itself. It is no longer even in the worse case scenario.
Now, if you want to get into the beach redevelopment, that has been a disaster in terms of financial projections, I can agree with you. I have said all along, look to the contractor, look to his subs that are coming in with padded estimates for everything imaginable. Do you honestly believe that companies don't do that? I have also said, not to do the beach redevelopment and spend $5 million on redesigning parking lots. If I have said that once, I have said it two hundred times.
I don't need jungle jims and playgrounds for little Billy Bob. Let's get real up there. This is a beach. We don't need these wild contractor estimates for our beach.
Can we just get sensible? If we can't redevelop the beach for the $5 million bond money, then so be it. I would be happy with telling the County to go screw off and do a general obligation bond to just make it look better: repave and re-stripe the roads that are in place, beautify the landscape and put in pavers on the walkways. This GB could be paid off in a very short time.
Now that the Commission has totally fu*ked up the beach by allowing the stores to stay opened until 1am and we have to spend X amount of money on turtle lights, include that in the general obligation bond as well.
Get rid of the County and I would be a happy camper. We don't need them to have control of our beach for 30 years telling us what we can and cannot do. This is our damn beach. We maintain it. We pay for it.
We should have had a project manager who is a contractor who understands what things cost and what things are totally out of line and insane. We never did that and this is our most costly undertaking to date. We hired a guy who is there to make a profit. We needed our own person looking out for our interests, not one looking out for his personal interests.
Hope this explains fully as to how I feel about it. Thanks.
Post a Comment