After extensive deliberations about building a head-turning new City Hall — including a meticulous ranking of developers vying for the job — Fort Lauderdale might end up buying an existing glass tower downtown instead.
Tower 101, the new home base for City Hall since the flood of April 2023, has been offered up by its owners for a sale price of $86 million.
Commissioner Ben Sorensen, who says he’s looking to save money, argues Fort Lauderdale should consider the deal.
Mayor Dean Trantalis and Commissioner Steve Glassman prefer to build a landmark City Hall tower that would cost at least $200 million.
But Vice Mayor John Herbst and Commissioner Pamela Beasley-Pittman are siding with Sorensen, saying the cost-saving proposal is worth a look.
Fort Lauderdale has been without a City Hall since April 2023, when a historic rainstorm swept through town, flooding the basement of the eight-story building.
Damaged beyond repair, the building was permanently closed and later demolished.
A new City Hall would rise from that same spot if the commission agrees to move forward with its original plan.
Tower 101, located at 101 NE Third Ave., was built in 2001. Fort Lauderdale is leasing space at the building until a new City Hall can be built.
Commissioners have already selected a development team that would build a more modern City Hall, but negotiations are still underway between the city and developer.
Contract negotiations kicked off on Jan. 8, city officials say. Commission approval of any deal is likely months away.
During a meeting on Dec. 2, commissioners ranked the four development teams vying to build the new City Hall.
The rankings, from first to last: FTL City Hall Partners, Balfour Beatty, Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners and FTL Beacon Collaborative.
The top-ranked team includes CORE Construction, Stiles Corp. and the PALMA architectural firm.
The team’s initial proposal calls for a 15-story building. To bring the price from $344 million to a more reasonable $200 million, the building will have to get smaller, city officials say.
On Tuesday, Trantalis said he was taken off guard when Sorensen suggested the city look into buying the tower that stands next to the City Hall site.
The matter came up at the very end of a public meeting on Jan. 20 that extended past midnight. The topic was not listed on the agenda, but came up during commission comments.
“To me this was out of left field,” Trantalis told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “He broached the subject after midnight almost as an afterthought.”
The commission has already voted to enter into a comprehensive agreement with a developer it has chosen to build a new City Hall, the mayor argues.
“To entertain a sideshow shows complete bad faith on the part of the commission,” he said. “I think it violates our integrity to make representations to a third party and then try to pull the rug out from under them. Why would anyone want to bid on a project if they win the contract and the city turns around and tries to cancel it?”
Sorensen says he based his suggestion on news relayed by City Manager Rickelle Williams in an email on Jan. 16 that made it clear the building was for sale.
The email included a proposal from the building’s owner.
“By choosing acquisition over new build, the city can avoid the time-consuming oversight and capital required for design, permitting and construction,” the proposal stated. “The acquisition cost alone will save Fort Lauderdale approximately $50 million versus the cost of a new construction project.”
Here’s how the discussion came up at 12:15 a.m. on Jan. 20 at the tail end of the commission meeting.
Sorensen noted the city manager’s email about the sale proposal from the owner of Tower 101.
“Is that something we want to look at in terms of costs and so forth?” he asked.
The mayor, surprised by the question, noted that the commission had already approved the concept of a new City Hall and ranked the developers competing to build it.
Commissioner Steve Glassman added: “I think they’re also just a little too late (in proposing to sell the tower). I think they should have made that offer before we started our process.”
Commissioner Pamela Beasley-Pittman interjected.
“I think we should entertain the offer,” she said.
Trantalis said he disagreed.
“We’ve already started on a path for a City Hall project,” he said. “Where would we have chamber meetings (in the existing tower). We’d have to tear down walls.”
Glassman agreed, saying he was opposed to entertaining the new offer.
“We put four development teams through a process,” he said. “They all spent a lot of money. They complied with our timeline. So how do we just say now, ‘Well thank you, but now we’re going to go in a new direction?’”
Sorensen argued that the city is under no obligation to make a deal with the top-ranked developer.
“We’re not committed to anything,” he said. “We can stop that negotiation at any point. During that time, we can also consider any other options we want.”
Glassman argued it was a bad idea to change course at this point.
“We have a process that we started,” he said. “We have four developers that we ranked. And if things go sour with number one, we go to two or we go to three or we go to four.”
Sorensen held his ground.
“But just so you’re aware, the process doesn’t preclude us from considering outside options,” he said.
Vice Mayor Herbst chimed in.
“I think it’s a great idea,” he said. “I think it’s one we should absolutely consider. I think it would be financially irresponsible not to take a look at it. If we’re talking … millions of dollars that we could potentially save, I think we have an obligation to the taxpayers to do that.”
Here’s why the mayor thinks buying the existing tower is not a good idea.
“The building is over 25 years old,” Trantalis said Tuesday. “It could have the vestiges of decay an older building often possesses. We don’t know if it has hurricane-impact windows. We also need to figure out if the floors can be reconfigured to accommodate the kind of City Hall we require. It doesn’t have a public plaza.”
Bill Brown, chair of the city’s budget advisory board, says he viewed the 11th-hour proposal with skepticism.
“The 101 tower was built in 2001,” he told the Sun Sentinel. “That means they’re due for their 25-year inspection. You have to look at what it’s going to cost to retrofit it and also whether it can be retrofitted to meet Cat 5 standards. I think there’s too many unanswered questions.”
Brown had one final comment.
“It’s a nice building for $86 million,” he said. “But will it withstand a Cat 5?”