Random thoughts over the past week...

It's been a busy week and, even so, tried to keep up with the goings-on of the City Commission who had marathon meetings Monday and Wednesday.  They covered a wide array of topics.  It seems that the party line is that the city should keep the utility and actually purchase power outside of FMPA after 2014 - which would be more expensive, but open the way for the City to actively promote solar energy in dispersed locations throughout the city.  This might be more expensive than what we are paying now, but as more solar units come on line that cost would be reduced on a citywide basis.  If someone has a clearer understanding of how this works, please elaborate under the comments section to this post.  It doesn't look like the out-right sale of the utility is in the cards since, as Commissioner Mulvehill puts it, it's the city's "cash cow."Again, this discussion went on during a Commission workshop where there was no public comment allowed and one that took place during the day.  Even though I had the Internet stream going, it is hard to hang on to every word with the typical daily distractions, quick errands, etc.

An interesting homework assignment would be to come up with a wish list of strategic investments that the city could make to position itself for a prosperous future if the city were to receive a one time "windfall" through the sale of the electric utility.  Much like alternatives for the casino building rehabilitation, other approaches are not even being studied or examined.

The City is undertaking a sustainability study which is funded by the energy conservation fund to the tune of $200,000.  Already a team has gone around to every municipal building and performed an energy audit - grading each building and creating a list of improvements based upon payback over time.  The results have yet to be produced, but should be interesting when made public.  Towards the end of October they plan to have a public meeting with a series of follow-up meetings looking at various topic areas - I pointed those out in a previous post.  I had an opportunity to talk with one of the people involved with the city and they performed a similar study in Boynton Beach (why does everything seem we do start in Boynton?)  I'd like to get a copy of that product.  But it turns out that the city building's overall contribution to its carbon footprint was 3% of the total.  A little more than 40% came from transportation related issues and the remainder came from the commercial and residential sectors of the city.  Which means that if we find ways through smart land use decisions to encourage alternate means of transit - through strategic increases in density - that is where we will have the biggest bang for the buck in terms of sustainability.  And, remember, whatever we do has to be economically sustainable - or otherwise it is literally not worth doing.  They have come up with a slogan for the program and will be calling it "Energize Lake Worth" which may branch off into future branding of the city.

On Tuesday, REG made their initial presentation to the Commission after the results of the charrette.  There is going to be another one on 9/25 at the golf course which will be open for public comment.  It is clear that the whole project is being backed-in-to a $6 million budget - which supposedly includes a $1 million contingency.  Questions from Commissioner Maxwell about the likelihood of cost over-runs and the probability of a construction manager at risk of taking the job fell on deaf ears.  The most important item that I found in the back-up material is this paragraph:

This is the first formal acknowledgement from a building industry professional that there are permitting and code issues that really have yet to be addressed.  I maintain that until these are fully explored, only then can a firm time line and budget be determined.  A 15 month construction period for the building rehab is optimistic, in my opinion.  And, it turns out that Commissioner Jennings wants to see if the tower at the northeast corner of the building can be accessed and what the cost would be.  The issue here is one of accessible of the disabled community (ADA requirements) - if access is only provided to "able" people, then an entire community will be discriminated against since that opportunity would not be available to them.  In order to meet the requirement, an elevator would need to be provided - which would change the scale of the tower and add additional expense for relatively little utility.  This is not an existing tower, so it wouldn't be eligible for a waiver due to historic considerations.  REG is going to look into this and report back to the Commission.  It is these sort of "impulses" that will add cost and time to this project - reminiscent of the south Bryant Park fiasco.

The next step will be to get a contractor on board and the construction manager at risk - then we will have a true idea about cost.  The allocation of cost between the building rehabilitation and the beach renovation is another important matter as talk of where to allocated the cost of a cistern for storm water became an issue on Tuesday.  It was also interesting that it seemed that interaction with the tenants really has yet to happen and Commissioner Mulvehill seemed especially concerned about the proposed floor plan affects John G's - after all, they funded much of her campaign.  Apparently there will be a meeting with the tenants soon to "gauge the level of interest" in staying in the building.  Little was talked about regarding the arrangement for tenants during the time the building could not be occupied during rehabilitation.

One of the more interesting items talked about Tuesday, later in the day, was the status of various of city buildings, what groups currently occupy space and under what terms. CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT FROM ANY DISCUSSION OR DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING THE LAKE WORTH CDC.  They occupy a city-owned building at the end of Wingfield Street - south of the gymnasium and the Osborne Center.  It would make a great area for children - day care, after-school programs, computer training, classroom space for continuing education.  Instead, we have a private, non-profit agency that seems to do little tangible good, staffed by a City Commissioner taking up this valuable civic, community space.  The lease has been up for renewal before, but I don't remember it being discussed recently.  Why aren't we objectively looking at alternate uses for that building and the costs associated with it?

Then on Tuesday night the CRA acted unanimously to buy property from the CDC - Ed Grimm, who is on the board of the CDC properly recused himself - total price $30,000.  This will help the city spend the fund from the $23 million NSP grant (funds to buy the property come from another regular line item in the CRA budget.)  Which is ironic since Commissioner Golden didn't want the city to apply for the money in the first place, let alone be awarded the grant or spend its money.  But, in an in-direct way, her agency benefits from it.  Is what they do, which doesn't seem like a lot, worth taking up space in a city-owned building?  I guess we won't have this discussion until things change on the Commission.

The city facilities item will be on the October 5 Commission agenda - it looks like the "Mentoring Center" will be losing its lease in the shuffleboard court building.  Other changes are brewing as well related to the museum and the art league in the Annex.  Let's hope someone mentions the CDC, at least for appearances.

Wednesday night they talked about the budget and the ability to "regulate" downtown parking through the establishment of pay meters won the day (Jennings, Varela, Golden).

Questions: Is there anything the city regulates well?  Should it be done at the risk of losing more businesses downtown during these fragile economic times?  Answers in order:  Nothing and No.