I just finished listening to the Commission Workshop meeting on the Beach Casino Design Agent

If you have have an extra two hours, I would suggest you listen to it.

First question that comes to mind is: Couldn't we have prepared the "site vision study" talked about by Michael Singer and prepare a site plan to satisfy the County requirement to keep the $500,000 last year? The site plan referenced in the interlocal agreement with the County is the same as the one contained in the development agreement with Greater Bay. That was always thought of as an "illustrative" site plan - one that was subject to changes. However, through out the process, that "illustrative" site plan was dubbed the permanent site plan for those who did not like the Greater Bay arrangement. My point here is that the need for a Chinese Fire drill sort of panic that we find ourselves in this year could have been avoided had we done this exercise last year. At last count, four of the five members of the Commission were there last year.

And wasn't Greater Bay faulted for not preparing a site plan? This is the same thing that we are asking this Beach Casino Design Criteria agent to perform, right? (Who still doesn't have a contract, by the way.) Then, I ask, why couldn't the city act, as part of its public private partnership arrangement, undertake the preparation of a site plan, with public input, consultants, whoever? The process, had the partnership continued to exist, called for the City to approve a site plan for its property for the developer to submit to the Planning and Zoning Board for review.

Even if the city had in its mind that it wanted to get out of the Greater Bay contract, there was still plenty of time to do what was contemplated in this two hour long workshop meeting - LAST YEAR or even the YEAR BEFORE THAT! Much of what was talked about during this meeting involved reviewing materials that have already been generated from extensive public input. How many times to we have to re-invent the wheel?

I am all for a "sustainable" and "environmentally responsible" beach redevelopment project. I have always wondered how environmentally responsible it is to continue providing 680+ parking spaces - which all takes up a certain and significant amount of property. It also says, as a policy statement, that the City of Lake Worth wants to encourage people to drive their cars to the beach well into the future - and provide plenty of asphalt, or the like, to accomplish that policy.

Now, regarding the process here, Kimley-Horn - our selected design criteria agent - regardless of what Commissioner Jennings says, is a capable multi-disciplinary firm and can perform visioning studies, site plans, "sustainable" construction and planning methods, etc. Commissioner Jennings, responding to the meeting she had before hand and the half hour commercial on the part of the Michael Singer group, said that this is an "artist doing a public works project" and that she couldn't imagine anyone else with that ability could qualify in response to an RFP or RFQ for the same. Commissioner Jennings, there are about 100 firms worldwide that could provide similar services. Would you now like to give them all the opportunity to make a half hour presentation to the City Commission? It would only be fair. The Post editorial from today pointed out the Commissioner Jennings generally adheres to process. WRONG! She only adheres to process when it helps push her issue - a good example of that is avoiding the zoning and building code issues with the shuffleboard court building housing the "resource center" and then spending hours of time trying to pick apart the Planning and Zoning Board decision on the Gulfstream Hotel.

I don't want to take anything away from the Michael Singer Group - but there should be a level playing field here.

Let's look at the time factor. According to the Mayor, while the contract with the County for the $5 million grant expires in October, any revision to it or extension of it has to be made by the County Commission at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the agreement. This means that the County Commission has to decide this issue in August. Which means, according to the Mayor, we have to get the County Commission a site plan with information on estimated cost by the end of April. Hmmmm. And include public input and include the creation of multiple plans and reach consensus - double hmmmmm.

Finally, the large pink elephant in the living room remains. Are we going to rebuild the existing building or are we building a new one? Which is more expensive? What are the objective reasons for doing or not doing either option? When is this going to be decided? It was only mentioned by the Mayor under his breath at the end of the meeting. It was mentioned by Rachel Bach as an important matter for the site plan to have the "building envelope" indicated on the site plan. As a planner, and logically speaking, one of the first considerations to the development of a site plan is where the building(s) will be. When is this decision going to be made?

Godspeed City Commission. Commissioner Jennings thinks that this new project will wow everyone that hears about it and that maintaining the funding from the County will not be a problem.

My opinion is summed up in the chorus of this great song: