Comment Up
The blame for all this disappointment is not on any one individual commissioner or one who did not know what grade of wood was being used at the Casino and who has been in office for 15 months. The blame for this huge price increase involved a couple of things:
1. This Entire Commission
The commission voting to further commercialize our beach and closing our park at 1am. This closing time was never considered because John G's closed at 3pm for 37 years. It was never the intention of the people to have a bar dictate the closing time and Commissioner McVoy was the only commissioner who wanted earlier closing times. This one action alone, kicked in the need for expensive lighting that was an alternate in the contract. The blame on the commission was also not realizing that Staff gave them a song and dance making them believe that closing hours just had to be extended so that businesses could afford the higher price per square foot.
2. The City Staff
We did not hire an independent project manager and relied on a contractor who was making a bundle off of the project to sub it out, hoping that he had our best interests in mind. Conflict of interest. Naive. City staff never told the entire truth to the public or to the Commission as to the real cost of the project. Infrastructure, that was allowed to be paid by the Bond money, was left out of the cost analysis.
$6,712,591. That's the amount that we will be paying for the beach redevelopment which is totally separate from the Casino that is costing us $6 million plus the architect's design. The City says that this amount includes all of the Palm Beach County BOND required elements, as well as the infrastructure and lighting components.
The infrastructure costs, costs we all assumed were part of the County Bond money but became evident that they were over and above the Bond, amount to:
water main--$394,000
Sanitary Sewer--$374,750
Stormwater--$276,634
Turtle Lighting: $800,000
Seawall: $224,208
Decal Parking $80,000 (at least we knew about this one)
What does this mean for the citizens of Lake Worth to lose control of its beach for 30 years?
1. $2,149,594 over and above the Bond or $7,149,594.
2. Loss of around 175 upper level parking spaces
3. Loss of decal parking anywhere on the property
4. Loss of or change to 33 items that were in the original design supposedly and originally covered by the $5 mil bond.
5. Site lighting in the western parking lot
6. All paver walkways replaced by monolithic slabs
7. The entire project scaled down from the original design
8. We will get a whole lot less for a whole lot more $
9. The City is doing some creative addition by telling us that the Bond is really only $4,563,000 because there is a fee if $437,000 taken out of that for KHA, whatever that is, and they come up with a total dollar figure of $6,712,591. It makes the project appear cheaper than it really is.
We all assumed that the contractor, Morganti, was watching the store. His man was there last night to assure us that they did everything according to Hoyle. Then WHY did everything in the design come in OVER the original BUDGET?
The Vice Mayor, in office for 27 months, was right on one hand when he highly criticized the cost over-runs on this project. He was wrong when he blamed the beach redevelopment on politics. It is not the commission's job to oversee projects of this magnitude or any other city project. It is not their fault that they voted to proceed with the beach redevelopment. That is why we have Staff. Staff should be asking the questions. Staff should be giving correct and accurate information so that the Commission can make accurate decisions. That's the way the game is played. Disappointment, however, is across the board.
The positive is, the commission voted 5/0 to proceed. The negative is, we the people are paying $2 million more than we ever should have had to pay. They never should have taken this bond money to spend most of it redesigning parking spaces. They didn't come back with a vote to have Morganti re-bid some of the project. Whatever choice do we have?
For over two years Stanton and her employees mislead the commission. I don't know how many times I heard her say that the entire project would cost no more than the 11 million budget. Now that she is gone we are hearing that certain things like water, sewer, lights and basic items were not included in that figure. No one forgets those items. They were left out deliberately. The commission was deceived intentionally and in my book that is more than enough proof that Stanton needed to be fired. I can only wonder what else her staff has yet to tell us. The cost of water, sewer, utilities and lights should have been paid for by the county grant. What was left over should have went for the rest of the project. All paid for with this 5 million. That's what I thought was going to happen. Thank you for this big screw Stanton.
ReplyDeleteSusan Stanton was in charge of overseeing this project. She should be fired immediately.
ReplyDeleteThe best commission ever is also responsible for the mess at the beach. They should be voted out of office.
The entire beach should close down at 3 pm because John G's closed down at 3 for 37 years.
You went a loooooooooooooooooooong way trying to deflect the blame off of Stanton, Mulvehill, Golden and Jennings. Thank god at least some people know the real truth about the beach.
Don't know for sure--but in September last year the commission asked that the project be bid out including all of the elements covered under the Bond money. Somewhere over 4 months to last month, we learned that infrastructure was not included and that it had been budgeted in the Utility. The song and dance given was that, "Oh yes, infrastructure is ALWAYS paid by the owner of the property." Stanton was fired on Dec 6. When it came back, it should have been re-bid then and the contractor should have been told, design the damn beach around $5 million and not a penny more. If you must, eliminate costly and unnecessary items and then bring it back. This NEVER happened becasue we are $2 mil over the Bond.
ReplyDeleteWhile I disagree with a lot of your points, i.e. what the people want or don't want, or what the intention was or was not (come to any planning meeting and you find that the people want a variety of things from the beach, families want one type of experience, seniors another, adults and young adults another, tourists and visitors another). I, for one, but you can count my husband too, are looking forward to the bar at the beach.
ReplyDeleteBut I will agree that there is lots and lots of blame to go around.
Anony at 2:11, you don't know the truth about the beach. You want to continue to play your little blame game of politics. Go hold Maxwell's hand. Carry on.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that Benny's has a little bar if you like to sit at bars, that is. Mulligans will have its bar but it is a restaurant first. It makes its money first on the food. You will get your wish now--sitting at a bar until 1am...you probably won't have much of a view at night other than blackness.
ReplyDeleteAnony at 3:02pm. Why don't you enlighten to us about the truth. Believe me, I can handle the truth.
ReplyDelete2:56 maybe you were not here a few years ago when 3,000 people said what they wanted at the beach and Jennings and Varela didn't listen.
ReplyDeleteWill the Commission EVER listen to what the public is telling them rather than the lies that staff is whispering into their wooden ears?!?
ReplyDelete