Three years after turning prime public land over to a developer, Fort Lauderdale commissioners are now asking him to prove he has the money to build the food hall, cultural center and Arts Park he promised he would.
During a public meeting on Tuesday, developer Jeff John didn’t show proof the financing is in place.
The commission agreed to declare John and his company One Stop FTL in default on the contract. He now has 30 days to “cure” the default by proving he has the money in place.
If he misses the deadline, Mayor Dean Trantalis told the South Florida Sun Sentinel he will recommend the commission terminate the agreement.
The land, located in Flagler Village in the 300 block of North Andrews Avenue, remains in limbo, fenced off from the public.
John, a club and restaurant owner known around town as a nightlife guru, has rights to the land for up to 100 years under the comprehensive agreement.
Fort Lauderdale commissioners approved the controversial plan in March 2022, but have been waiting ever since for the $140 million project to break ground.
Alarmed by the lack of progress, Trantalis requested weeks ago that John come in person to a commission meeting with proof he has financing for the project.
John stood at the podium Tuesday and assured commissioners the financing was in place.
“I am here to tell you we have a signed commitment for the full funding of this project,” he said.
“Did you bring that with you today?” Trantalis asked.
John had no documentation in hand to show that. He also declined to name the lender.
‘We don’t look at iPads’
Assistant City Manager Susan Grant told the commission John allowed city staff to “look at” an updated financial commitment on his iPad on Nov. 25.
“We weren’t given a hard copy of that, but we were able to look at it on his iPad,” Grant said.
Vice Mayor John Herbst, an expert in finance and accounting, was astounded. “We don’t look at iPads,” Herbst said. “We get copies of stuff, and we call people up and we verify it.”
Herbst asked Grant why the city was not given a hard copy of the financial commitment.
“I think the confidentiality of the commitment,” she answered.
“I don’t think that’s consistent with our comprehensive agreement,” Herbst said. “There’s nothing confidential in what we do.”
Who’s the lender?
Herbst asked John which company was loaning him the money.
John said it was a global firm but declined to name the company. John told the commission he had signed the document to borrow $140 million, but the money has not yet been transferred to an account.
“We’ll be looking to close the deal in the next 30 to 45 days,” John said.
John was accompanied by a man he said was helping with the financing. The man told commissioners he had the document they were looking for but did not have permission to release it.
“I work together with the financial company in New York that has secured this,” the man said. “I work together with (a man) who is one of the owners of the company that works with (John).”
At first, the man said he worked with a London-based company known as BCG to help secure $140 million in financing for the project’s initial phase.
Herbst asked if he meant Boston Consulting Group.
“Uh, hold on one second,” the man said as he pulled out his phone. “Just give me one second. I’m sorry. It’s BGC London. It’s an overseas funding source. But they specialize in city projects.”
Herbst drilled on.
“I’m still not comfortable with who’s providing the financing,” he said. “So we’ve got BGC Group, formerly BGC Partners, formerly Cantor Fitzgerald. I want to make sure we are talking about the same company. I want on the record that you are working with BGC Group, successor to Cantor Fitzgerald, massive investment bank out of New York. Has offices in London. Is that who we’re talking about? Yes or no, on the record right now, definitively.”
The man had a five-word response: “I have to verify that.”
Herbst was aghast at the answer.
“If I’m borrowing $140 million from somebody, I know who’s giving it to me,” he said. “I do finance for a living. I work with companies that are doing capital fundraising. I know who’s giving me money, guys. I’ve never in my life experienced anything like this. You don’t know who is giving you $140 million?”
John spoke up. “I do,” he said. “But I don’t feel comfortable going on the record.”
Herbst replied: “I just want the name.”
John told Herbst: “They are a global company.”
On Wednesday, the Sun Sentinel reached out to city officials and John requesting the man’s name and title. The city officials said they did not know and John did not respond to a text and phone call.
‘You’re empty-handed’
During Tuesday’s meeting, Trantalis grilled John on why he showed up without paperwork.
“Now you kind of knew we were going to talk about this today, right?” Trantalis said. “Why wouldn’t you have the documents with you instead of postponing it yet again? We’re going to make a decision today. And we’ve been talking about this for awhile. You’re empty-handed. Why would you not have it in hand today?”
The comprehensive agreement took effect on Nov. 1, 2022. Under the contract, One Stop FTL was required to show proof of financial commitment from a lender within 90 days of that date.
That did not happen, city officials said.
The city was provided letters from Truist and Banyan Development in 2023, but they were non-committal letters that only showed a possible interest in providing financial backing to the project.
After hearing the discussion, Commissioner Ben Sorensen suggested terminating the contract.
“I just don’t see anything to substantiate moving forward,” he said. “I wish I did, but I don’t.”
Commissioner Steve Glassman argued the project was worth saving.
“I’m not OK with this commission saying we want to scrap this project,” he said. “I think that after all these years, it would be a shame and travesty and a loss for the district and a loss for the neighborhood. I’m hoping this works out. I really want to see this project.”
Under the terms of the contract, the developer is not required to pay the city a license fee until the year after the project gets a certificate of occupancy. The first year requires no payment. The second year requires a payment of $250,000 followed by $500,000 in the third year, $750,000 in the fourth year; $1 million in the fifth year; $1.25 million in the sixth year; and $1.5 million in the seventh year. At that point, the payment would be capped at $1.5 million but increase each year based on the Consumer Price Index, but no greater than 3%.
‘Smoke and mirrors’
Several residents spoke at the meeting, urging the city to call off the deal.
“This is all smoke and mirrors,” Anne Hilmer told commissioners. “This is another example of another bad P3 deal (public-private partnership) for the city. The land has not been usable for over three years. In the future, we need to build in more safeguards in the agreements for our P3s because this one stinks.”
Sister Robin Merrill, an activist who led several protests in the months before the deal won approval, also spoke.
“I think we need to say game over,” she said. “Time’s up.”
Marc Dickerman also urged the commission to walk away.
“Let’s turn it into a public park and turn away from this deal,” he said. “I think it’s a raw deal. I think you should terminate the contract. There’s something that doesn’t smell right here.”
Susannah Bryan can be reached at sbryan@sunsentinel.com. Follow me on X @Susannah_Bryan