Riviera Beach CRA hears five proposals for 1851 Broadway, authorizes negotiations with top-ranked developer

The Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency on Nov. 12 heard five competing development teams present plans for the long-vacant 1851 Broadway site and voted to authorize staff to open negotiations with Forest Development, the evaluation committee27s top-ranked proposer.

The board27s decision followed more than three hours of presentations and questions from commissioners about financing, schedule, local hiring and community benefits. Forest Development representatives said their proposal would deliver 3502450 market-rate apartments, up to 17,000 square feet of ground-floor restaurant and retail, onsite parking and a workforce-housing set-aside. Wayne Richards, who spoke for Forest Development, said, "We will spend $250,000,000 on the central part of Broadway" and offered a $3,780,000 purchase price with a $200,000 deposit within 30 days.

Why it mattered: the board approved the motion to authorize negotiations by a 3-2 vote, with Chair Lanier and Vice Chair Millie Anderson dissenting. The vote came after commissioners debated whether to hear only the top three proposers (as the RFP notice and staff27s prior briefing anticipated) or all five teams; the board chose to hear all five. Several proposers stated on the record higher purchase offers than appear in staff27s internal listing, prompting commissioners to ask staff to re-check scoring spreadsheets before the final decision.

The other proposals varied in scale and emphasis. Frontier Development and partner Gideon Financial proposed roughly 300 workforce-oriented units and 12,500 square feet of commercial space; Frontier said it had a $4,000,000 offer in its submission and emphasized minority leadership and local hiring. Kenco Communities described a lower-density plan with 219 units and said it had submitted a $4,550,000 purchase offer (and noted a signed PSA). Coaltown Properties proposed a larger, market-style development of about 450 units and committed a community benefits package, including local internship and training programs. Ellicium (an unsolicited proposer) framed a 106-unit, community-incubator model built on low-income housing tax credits and public funding rather than purchase price.

Staffing and scoring controversy: Procurement Director Latonya Ammons explained the evaluation rubric in public: price (15%), conceptual design (20%), community benefits (20%), developer qualifications (20%), financial capacity (20%) and alignment with CRA plan (5%). Several commissioners said staff27s written materials and the LTB (letter to board) had incorrectly indicated that Forest was the lone highest bidder; Executive Director Jadel Mercius acknowledged that a prior LTB contained an error and that staff had invited the fourth and fifth proposers out of an abundance of caution.

Commissioner Guyton pressed staff to confirm that the prices used in the evaluation spreadsheet matched the submitted proposals. Director Ammons told the board she would re-check the calculations; staff later confirmed Kenco27s original proposal recorded in the file was $4.55 million.

Quotes from the meeting capture the tension. Director Mercius said of the scoring error, "That was false. Forest and another group were the highest bidders... but no, that did not affect the final calculation along with the final listing for those developers in ranking." Kenco27s presenter, Chase Gaievsky, told the board, "We are offering $4,550,000, which, as far as I'm concerned, I believe we are the highest bidder," and said his team had a signed PSA.

Next steps: The motion the board approved authorized the executive director to begin formal negotiations with Forest Development; it does not finalize a sale or a contract. If negotiations fail to produce terms the board finds acceptable, staff advised, the CRA can return to the second-ranked proposer. The board instructed staff to verify pricing inputs used in the evaluation and to capture negotiation objectives (price, schedule, local hiring and community-benefits commitments) in writing before finalizing any disposition.

What remained unresolved: Commissioners sought clearer, itemized timelines and proof of financing for each team. Several asked staff to produce precise scoring spreadsheets and to document any changes that might affect ranking. The CRA will return with negotiated terms for board approval before any final conveyance or site-plan-dependent closing.