More from Tuesday night's (10/9) City Commission work session on the Casino building...

Other revelations from that meeting:

• "The building was unsafe and falling down" - according to Rick Gonzalez.  He said that they left 25% of the building.  The Office of the Inspector General said that 4% was left.  The OIG's opinion was not mentioned during the meeting or their recommendation that a code analysis needed to be performed to see if the designation of the project being a "substantial improvement" - above 50% of the total value of the project - triggered other code requirements.  This is where the need for an "armoring device" comes in.
• "The seawall is not in our scope." REG.  Bornstein: "That is a Mr. Biggs (Mock/Roos) question." 
• The pool and pool building are "condemned."
• The casino building only had one electrical meter - meaning John G's or the former tenants weren't charged for electricity.
• Pregnant pause after the question was asked, "Does the city have control of the building now?"
• Willie Howard was there all during this meeting and the Palm Beach Post has not published anything about this meeting.  If a tree falls in a forest and no one reports it, did it make a noise?
• The architect represented, in response to whether or not the project was "historic" - he said that the building was "close" to what was there at one time, that he was an expert and could make that claim.  Last night, at the Historic Resource Preservation Board meeting, I reminded those present that the building that WAS there WAS "historic."  In fact, a designation report done on the 1949 version of the building was worth designation on the National Register of Historic Places.  It never was designated.  What is there now is a new building and meets none of the Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation.
• The condition of the seawall and whether it qualifies as an "armoring device" required by the Florida Building Code remains an unasked and unanswered question.
• The pool structure was included as part of the total project appraisal of value - but no work was done on that building.  It was thought that it was attached to the casino building, but discovered that it wasn't during construction/demolition.
• More square footage and retail space was considered, but eliminated to allow the project to be built for $6 million per the GMP.