From the City Manager's Self-Evaluation

Click title for link to entire document.  These two items relate to what the City Manager feels are her top accomplishments for 2010.  

As far as the Casino reconstruction project, let's remember a few things and think about some new ones.  One, there is an existing lawsuit regarding breaking of the development agreement related to the last attempt at re-doing the Casino building (and the entire property.)  The city, by going ahead with the entire beach project is doing so at its own risk.  The city has been put on notice of this long ago.  Likewise, contractors and other professionals brought in to work on the beach project, are also proceeding at their own risk.  The lawsuit is still in the discovery stage and depositions have yet to happen.  The City has also already spent, at last accounting, over a quarter of a million dollars on legal fees in defense of its position. Thus, before there is any clinking of champagne glasses, the lawsuit needs to be resolved.  It is only then that we can see in clear light the wisdom of the past Commission's action which exited the contract.  Going ahead is a risky venture for a city with little left in reserves and is in a self-declared state of financial urgency.

Now, the financial plan that is mentioned in the above "accomplishment" has not been revised since adjustments have been made to the total square footage of the leaseable area - there is more public common space.  The parking projections, in my opinion, over emphasize increased traffic to the new building which will not be all that different in tenant mix and draw than the current edition - after the novelty wears off.  We have yet to see how the city's contract management systems have been re-engineered.  The project is still in need of a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction line.  There is the likelihood that the state of Florida DEP may not buy the interpretation that this is a rehabilitation of an existing building - since at least 80% of it is coming down before the new construction starts.  This could trigger changes in the basic structural elements of the building - digging into the million dollar contingency.  Will that be enough?

Furthermore, we just found out at yesterday's work session that the retail spaces' display windows will be darkly tinted - which is not ideal for retail.  Think "window shopping."  Lighting will be dim and amber in color for the turtles and there seems to be a reluctance to have the building open later.  All these factors may affect the financial plan negatively.  Work to update the plan hasn't been done.  So now, until that is done, we are relying on a wish and a prayer that the project will be self-sufficient in real life and not just the political lives of certain Commissioners and a City Manager.

Let's not forget how the project's financing relies on money from the city's "cash portfolio."  This is the same city that finds itself in a state of financial urgency. Permanent financing has not been identified.

The action that broke the contract of the previous project that is the subject of the lawsuit happened in December 2008.   The current City Manager arrived on the scene in April 2009.  Granted, the interlocal agreement with the county had to be amended to reflect the change in nature of the project - removing the private sector participant.  It is my understanding that former Commissioner Jennings was the lead person re-negotiating the agreement - not the city manager.

The City Manager also uses the tired myth of those that support Golden, McVoy and Mulvehill that the former beach project somehow prevented public access to the beach.  This couldn't be farther from the truth, but here in her self-evaluation she uses that to confirm the Troika's myth - bonus points for her from that camp.  However, it doesn't reflect reality or the truth.

All in all, anything at the beach really can't be considered an accomplishment until more of the variables become known quantities.