Part II - City Commission Meeting - Tuesday 6/23 - 1 p.m. - Casino Building

This is a continuation of a post from yesterday regarding the City Manager's back-up memorandum regarding the future of the Casino building. Click here for link to the full memo.

Here is policy objective number 3 per memo:

The city has had at least five studies done over the past 15 years that all point to the structural deficiencies present in the building. Reinforced concrete in a coastal saltwater setting is problematic over a period of time - especially when steel rebar has been exposed for long periods of time, the spalling of concrete and the rusting of the rebar continues throughout unseen parts of the building. I do not know of an engineer that would certify the condition of a building of this type in this location - warts and all, which is the kind of analysis I think that the City Manager is looking for. It's an attempt to make sure there are no uncertainties and that all conditions are "known." My opinion, and this is coming from someone who was in the trenches supervising work on an oceanfront, historic reinforced concrete building, is that the only way to rid the project of all unknowns is dismantle the entire building - which of course defeats the purpose if you are out to rehabilitate it.

I agree with the need to find an objective firm to perform the study which I think we can all admit that Straticon was not that firm - or any firm that Straticon brought in for that matter.

This comes to my main point here. A contractor building a new structure at the beach would have more than an even chance to come in on or under budget on a fixed price contract. This is not so for a contractor doing a rehabilitation job on this existing structure - there are going to be unforeseen conditions regardless of the amount of study one does before the job begins. A new building would also allow more flexibility in the design to meeting loading, dumpster, utility connections that meet current standards and are most efficient for the end users of the building.

If we are going to spend public money on this public property, the most responsible method would be the construction of a new building. It would also allow for Commissioner Jennings' impassioned plea (via her PowerPoint presentation from 2007) about how government should lead the way with a "managed retreat" from proximity to the shoreline. This building is seaward of the coastal construction line. Putting millions (and it would be much more than the $6 million talked about in the Fishkind study) of City of Lake Worth money into the building is essentially saying that the City is not taking the lead when it comes to responding to the impacts of global warming.

Likewise, being seaward of the coastal construction control line also increases the standards for rehabilitating a structure. From what I have heard from coastal engineers, as soon as the slab is touched, the need to shore the existing building (pilings) would come into play. That is money spent that would never be seen on the "topside" - taking money away from the functional and aesthetic upgrades necessary for the building. Any comprehensive analysis of the condition of the building should include an analysis of this likely contingency. Also part of this comprehensive analysis should be and ability of the building to meet the 140 mph wind load standard and the cost associated with this. The work planned here is well over 50% of the assessed value of the structure, therefore all new code requirements would come into play - including meeting ADA accessibility standards throughout the building. Any analysis would have to include these factors.

Such a study would not be needed with a new building - it would automatically be part of the design development process. And where are the green building standards being addressed? Wouldn't this be the perfect spot for some urban wind power generation equipment? Watch the grant dollars fall from the sky if it's part of the project.

I've grouped policy objectives numbers 4, 5 and 6 together as they relate to the tenants of the structure:

The above chart and picture explain why this is a tenant-driven, not a city-driven approach to the rehabilitation of the Casino building. The picture of the sign was taken during last October and is the menu board inside of John G's. The tally of Commissioner Mulvehill's contributions speak for themselves and I left out the run-off election contributions, which reflect the same predominance of Casino building tenant donations.

Regarding the business needs of tenants - wouldn't a new building allow all the existing tenants to stay a longer time in the existing building, build out their space and finish it in the new building and then move in - leaving the existing structure vacant and ready for demolition? Isn't it more of an inconvenience for the existing tenants - if they want to be in a new structure - to try to stay open during what would be a massive construction project? Wouldn't this complicate the work necessary to deliver the job on time?

What is being suggested here, that the city will be responsible for the tenant build-out? Is what is being suggested here the large patio featured in the Straticon proposal to the west of the John G's space - effectively doubling their seating area?

Market based rent - $30 to $35 dollars a square foot is not market rent for oceanfront retail and dining. $50 is more realistic and someone would need to do an independent market analysis to confirm this. The difference between the market rent for such space and what these tenants have been paying for years represents a subsidy from the residents of Lake Worth. Where is the tenants' financial contribution to this project? Why aren't other tenants being considered?

I think we know why.