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

There is so much to talk about here I scarcely know where to begin. In a previous post you read that I had asked for copies of the RFP, amendments and responses regarding the shoring project at the Casino Building. This coming after paying $20,000 for engineered shoring plans. At the time, the reason to do this was in response to numerous structural studies on the building documented problems which may affect safety of the general public. So much so that one of the half dozen chief building officials the city has had over the past few years issued a pronouncement that if work didn't commence or if the city didn't make progress and put these steps into motion, the tenants would have to vacate the building on March 31, 2009.

The shoring was to be done with the tenants in place and estimate to be in the $100,000 range or a little less. With the RFP process initiated, the tenants were allowed to stay in the building. The bids were due back last Tuesday. At the City Commission meeting, City Manager Stanton indicated that she dismissed all the bids from some 10 contractors as they all came in significantly over the estimated price. I copied Ms. Stanton on the request and she wrote back that she would like to meet with me - we haven't had the opportunity yet - and that she would hand me the information then. That was Friday and I expect more communication with her this week, perhaps leading to a meeting.

In that set of e-mail communications, she told me, and this is reflected in the back-up memo (click here for link to full report), that she didn't see the purpose in shoring up a building that the city was going to renovate. Wise thinking if that is the course the city is taking, but when did this decision get made? Up until now, the building's future was in limbo as to whether it would be renovated, torn down and replaced or just torn down and not replaced. And, by the way, this is where any kind of wise thinking ends if the city pursues renovation.

At 5:59 on Friday, I received the agenda for the Tuesday 1 p.m. meeting and the related back-up material was on the city's website. Let me say now, and I will probably say again, that this meeting has no business being held at 1 p.m. in the afternoon. It's being held in the City Hall conference room which does not have the ability YET to stream meetings over the Internet. Also on the agenda, besides the casino building's future, are discussions on the RO plant, on the budget and on the City Attorney recruitment process. Are there any more important issues other than these right now? I am highly suspicious of this being called a "Work Session" and not a "Workshop" - can action be taken here or is this just another way to refer to conversations between the Mayor, Commissioners and staff? If direction is given and acted upon, I would say that is taking action. Again, another reason not to have this meeting at 1 p.m.

I should also point out that the CRA workshop meeting would have been held Tuesday night and if it took place would conflict with an evening City Commission meeting. However, this coming CRA workshop was cancelled so there is no conflict either schedule-wise, room-wise or attention-wise.

Now let's turn to the contents of the memo. This City Manager has been here two months. The saga of the Casino building and beach goes back at least 30 years or more, depending on who is counting. It's worth noting that none of the multitudes of proposals to redevelop the beach ever talked about using the existing building in the redevelopment scenario. She does get the importance of the building's location and that it "is a very significant community asset worth preserving and protecting."

However, she ironically points out below that the poor condition of the Casino building "is a very visible reminder of what happens in a City when it fails to develop an effective dialogue with community residents." Ms. Stanton, how is holding a meeting at 1 p.m. developing an effective dialogue with community residents?


The first of the ten policy objectives is a thorny one, but let's wade into it. Yes, the Casino building has historical significance. But in what way should it be protected and preserved? Should it be returned to the much smaller original version that bears no relationship to the current structure, other than some architectural elements on the west side of the building? This "restoration" option would likely be the most expensive and the tenants and the city would lose leaseable space. Remember, most of the second floor was ripped off during a late 1940s hurricane. (Note that the banner of this blog, for almost its entire existence, is taken from this postcard)

Or do we rehabilitate the building in its current style? No one wants this option, but from a historic preservation perspective, it has the most merit. The building's design is reflective of the International Style and has a right to be preserved in and of itself.

The direction we are heading in, according to this memo and if past behavior is any indicator, is some sort of amalgamation of the two which has no basis in history and would be frowned upon in historic preservation circles. It would essentially put a 1920s -ish "icing" on a cake that is way out of proportion with the original. Freeing our selves from the confines of the existing structure opens up many more desirable design options and a new building could more closely replicate the 1920s style, but do so in a modern, functional fashion.

Moving on to the second objective:
I'm not sure who Ms. Stanton has talked to during her two months at the helm, but there is a substantial portion of the community that feels disenfranchised from the actions of the city due to the "no compromise" approach by the current majority on the dais. We have no debate here - what we have during City Commission is an "echo chamber" where everyone in attendance falls all over themselves agreeing with Commissioners Jennings, Golden and Mulvehill. Any view to the contrary is met with disdain and the mumbling begins how anyone that doesn't agree with the majority is corrupt, developer pawns, out of touch, etc.

I would say that most people in the community want a quality redevelopment project at the beach that most efficiently uses public or other funds to accomplish its goals. Digging into a building without any drawings of record, that has been buffeted by salt air for most of a century, that has been destroyed and rebuilt many times, that has questionable functionality for the current times, that has almost no aesthetic appeal in its current state - I would argue that doesn't represent a responsible use of public money on public property.

To be continued tomorrow in Part II