To try and explain this--
Yes, an earlier Commission approved a project at Bryant Park for $1.39 million.
Well into the project, it was determined that the necessary tie-backs to secure the seawall had to be extended further into the existing parking lot.
The Public Works Manager then made the decision to move the parking lot 150 feet north of that location. It now became a NEW plan. At that point, the scope of work changed. The PLAN changed. It was NOT the Plan originally approved by the former Commission. It was now a DIFFERENT PLAN.
The new plan devised by the Public Works Director had reduced parking. He had to move nearly 40 trees. He never informed his boss, the city manager. He just plowed ahead, literally.
There was discussion that 5th Avenue South now had to become a 2 way street. This is a MAJOR change to a city street.
Say for instance, you contracted with someone to do some extensive work on your house. Everything seems to be going along smoothly until the day you come home from work and you notice your front door has been moved, and now instead of entering into the living room, you enter into the dining room. The contractor never consulted with you. You would be outraged. Afterall, it is your house and you are the one paying the bill based on a plan that was agreed upon. Not only would you fire the contractor, you would sue him.
This employee should have immediately reported his ideas and his reasons to move the parking lot to his boss, the City Manager, who would have then taken it to the City Commission and it would have been discussed at a public meeting.
For The L.W. Herald to say that "no commissioner has any business injecting him/herself into projects already approved on the commission level" is just flat not the case. If that reasoning was correct, we would still have Greater Bay and we would still have PB County water. Commissioner Suzanne Mulvehill was catering to the rights of all the taxpayers of this City who actually own this Park and who pay the tab. She took responsibility all because of a major decision made by a staff member, a decision that was not approved nor under his scope of authority.
Who is running this City?
I don't understand why you don't just drive the bus over Joe Kroll yourself. Why don't we take a closer look at the facts, because the only thing you got right in your post was the budgeted amount of the project and the tiebacks.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kroll had previously been to a public meeting on the Park plan where the new playground equipment was discussed and where several residents and parents had expressed interest in having the parking lot relocated from its position running the length of the seawall. At the time, Mr. Kroll also met with the two neighborhood associations in the area where other residents expressed similar interests.
So after the original parking lot was destroyed, Mr. Kroll saw an opportunity to
1. Create MORE green space
2. Reduce the number of parking spaces
3. Create a larger area for the childrens playground, allowing for future expansion
4. Moved the parking from directly in front of the pavillion. Some residents had complained that the proximity caused the pavilion to be used for purposes other then intended.
5. Create a single entrance in and out of the park which had been suggested by the Sheriff's Office as a way to enhance their patrol.
6. Preserve ALL of the existing trees and without moving the more sensitive 100+ year oak trees located on the south side of the park.
7. Put in more picnic tables and benches along the seawall. It allows allows for those who want to do a "drive through" of the park to still see the water.
8. All of this would be done without any additional cost and without delaying the opening of the park.
The problem: In order the repair the seawall, 40 sabal palm trees needed to be relocated. Not destroyed, just relocated. And as Mr. Kroll stated at the Commission meeting, there is already money budgeted to plant MORE trees and provide additional landscaping along the seawall area. A handful of residents have complained and want the parking lot either eliminated entirely or moved to the southern end of the park. The estimated additional cost for doing so would be $80,000 with no indication as to where the money would come from. THIS is when 5th Ave South would need to become a two way street, NOT with Mr. Kroll's plan. The oak trees at that end of the park have a shallow root structure and would most likely not survive the move. This could also extended the opening of the park 6-8 weeks. If you had bothered to read the backup material provided for Tuesday's meeting, you would not be here parroting Mulvehill's talking points. Doesn't an extra $80,000 constitute WASTE?
Mulvehill was upset because Mr. Kroll did not come back to the Commission asking for permission to move the parking lot. Mr. Kroll did go to the NAPC meeting when the opportunity to move the parking lot became available. The NAPC all agreed that this was a great idea and fulfilled the wishes of the residents in the three previous meetings Mr. Kroll had attend on the Bryant Park project.
It is absolutely ridiculous that a long-time, dedicated, hard working, loyal employee who has gone above and beyond trying to make this City better is being disrespected in what is OBVIOUS political maneuvering. I have not seen or heard one single reason to move the parking lot to the south side other then it would please the three or four residents who spoke at the meeting. The overwhelming number of people who spoke up did so in support of Mr. Kroll and his plan. The City Manager needs to allow the employees to do their jobs. Every single little detail does NOT need to come back to the Commission, especially when it does not require spending any more City funds.
Mr. Kroll is not being thrown under any bus. You said it in your own words--"Mr. Kroll saw an opportunity..." that's the problem. That is the essence of the blog that you choose to ignore.
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. Kroll saw all these changes to the Plan, he should have discussed them, not implement them. The only political maneuvering was the night when a few residents talked at the lectern about what a great employee Joe Kroll is. Obviously they knew that Mr. Kroll might have overstepped is boundaries here. Whether the move of the parking lot is good or bad is not the issue. I spoke that night and said I didn't know if the plan was good or bad. It might be the best plan ever devised. That was never the problem with what occurred.
And R.J. are you posting under your real ID?
About the only thing Joe Kroll is loyal to is the almighty $$ and his own wallet. And he isn't one for presenting options. He tried to weasle $350 thousand out of the city to fix up the Suffleboard court and when the Mayor asked if he had a cost sheet ...Kroll said "I didn't think I needed one" and later said "I just thought I'd tell you what the cost would be and you'd give me the money."
ReplyDeleteHere in Lake Worth, we weren't born yesterday. Turns out when Mr Kroll did mention a figure for roof repair it was more than three times what it should have been, but of course he knew that. What was he doing? Obviously padding out the bill means all bidders would bid way over what they normally would and Mr Kroll was perhaps anticipating that maybe an appreciative contractor who got the bid might "show his appreciation" for Mr Kroll's generosity with our money.
And that isn't all, I saw the raw footage from Coakley's first report where out of respect he didn't include the part where Joe Kroll lied his ass off about the health department checking on asbestos levels and other toxins at the land fill when in fact it was all lies. Remember all that demolition debris junk that was being dumped on our landfill. It was when Retha took a half dozen illegal campaign contributions from Guzmano and then led the city in giving Guzmano the contract to re-open the landfill. Guzmano then proceeded to dump 6 feet of crap he couldn't get rid of anywhere else.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe NAPC did a LOUSY job of distributing this info to their people ! Nice of Joe to meet with the few from the neighborhood- BUT THIS IS A CITY PARK!!!!!!!!I agree with the plan that staff came up with. Now the problem-STAFF came up with this and STAFF decided to go ahead with it.The residents of Lake Worth and our commissioners were all caught with our pants down thanks to Joe Kroll and staff.We don't need staff that behaves this STUPIDLY. Maybe the word should be ARROGANTLY ! Paraphrasing the line from Animal House- "Arrogant and stupid is no way to go through life, staff".There are TONS of great people out there looking for jobs. Lets hire some of them to work for Lake Worth.And by the way- message to the Dept heads who have their resumes out there-don't let the door hit you in the rear.Leave lake Worth,PLEASE! We can then pick from the herds of people that will show up to be hired for the jobs that you (thankfully for us ) left. Good riddance.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the people under the bus are the ones who used the pavilion as intended.
ReplyDeleteIf the 10 people who attended the playground meeting (which was NOT held as advertised), along with the 20 or so from neighborhood associations (topic not advertised by the NA here) are the basis for Kroll's statement that the "public" wanted the lot moved, it's just laughable.
And by all means, let's make the standard for city projects whether PBSO's life will be easier. (Didn't they insist on those bathroom doors in the pavilion?) Tell that to the families who will be dragging their coolers across the grass because staff made a decision to change the plan.
The point is that these are not issues to be decided on the fly by staff. Kroll can't seem to remember that.