Money Wasted

Lake Worth Utilities
Waste Meter
... for an arc flash study that Mr. Reyes was qualified to do in house and at no cost to taxpayers.
... the estimated engineering cost of the express feeder which could also be done in house at no cost to taxpayers.
... wasted when insurance requirements were circumvented by the city manager and utility director.
... wasted when plant manager Dave Mulvay’s first attempt at writing a scope of work contained a defect that cost taxpayers an extra $123,098 for tainting the bidding process and giving unfair advantage to one bidder over another. - April 2009
... wasted when the Matrix organizational study to save taxpayers money was scrapped in favor of higher cost outsourcing by city manager Stanton.
... wasted engineering design cost of water piping and tanks (original county water deal) that will never be built.
... wasted when additional costs were incurred for not following insurance procedure on transformer repair.
... wasted when the commission unanimously voted to order transformers when we had equivalent replacements already in stock since the upgrade. - 15 Sep. 2009
Total Taxpayer Dollars Wasted:

LWM Menu

· Home
· Advertising
· Authors and Articles
· AvantGo
· Downloads
· Feedback
· Forums
· Groups
· HTML Newsletter
· Journal
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links

Who's Online

There are currently, 27 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are an Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Site Info

Your IP:

Welcome, Anonymous
· Secure Login/Registration
· Forgot Password?
Server Date/Time
27 November 2021 18:01:02 EST

  $575,000 suggests recall of CRA
Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 @ 13:35:51 EST by admin


$575,000 suggests recall of CRA

“I’m concerned that Southport isn’t asking for more money.” Matt Tompkins

Editorial by William Coakley

Quick Summary  -  3 companies responded to a request for proposal put out by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) for a piece of property the CRA is paying $15,000 a month for the owner not to sell it to anyone else.  One company (Southport) offered to pay the CRA more for the property and didn't ask for the CRA to give them any money.  The other companies offered the CRA less for the property and wanted $575,000 of taxpayer money to proceed with the project.  The selection committee (a volunteer board created to rate the three bidders) rated Southport number one but in a peculiar reversal of logic... Southport lost the deal and the CRA agreed to take less for the property and pay the developer $575,000 of your money.

With congressional earmarks receiving so much attention these days it's no wonder a number of concerned Lake Worth residents are suggesting that its time to recall the CRA from its Disney tour where it is reported that money is found reappearing on trees everywhere and ready for spending.

With $575,000 of your taxpayer money given to a developer by the CRA last night (concerning the Pugh property on sixth avenue south)— it is hard to know where to begin to explain this irrational behavior that just cost taxpayers $575,000 in addition to the $128,000 already wasted. The money was requested by two of the three bidders for the project leaving the top rated Southport the lone bidder who wasn’t looking to dip their hands into taxpayers pockets… yet they didn’t get the deal.

The 4 to 1 vote (the single dissenting vote was made by Brendan Lynch) went against the volunteer selection committee and all their work. So what on earth would make a board decide to spend more money for the same thing? Residents listening to the meeting were stunned when they heard chairman Matt Tompkins cast doubt on the leading bidder's integrity when he said he was concerned that the company wasn’t asking for more money… as if to say, no good deed should go unpunished.

But since the CRA is not accountable to anyone including the public or the commission, we may never know the explanation.  But this behavior is just further confirmation that a serious lack of incentive to curb CRA wasteful spending simply doesn't exist.  The CRA came under heavy criticism for the $15,000 a month payment so the owner of the property wouldn't sell it to anyone else.   It has long been established that there was no good reason or advantage to holding this option. And experts are still puzzled as to how it came about… but former board member Doug McIntee stated very clearly how he thought it had happened. On the record last October, he said that he originally voted for it based on the information he was given... turns out, he said, the information was misleading, incomplete and incorrect and he then completely withdrew his support for the project. Mr McIntee has since resigned.

During last nights meeting, interim CRA executive director, Mr Franke, led the charge to overturn the selection committee’s choice and opt for the more expensive bidder raising speculation about the possibility that he would benefit from such a switch.  Possibly.  If Southport (who didn’t request a half million from the CRA) had won the bid, then Mr Franke’s work might have come to an end and it therefore might be difficult to justify his additional $7200 charge for finishing an RFP that could have been written for nothing... zero dollars. In October, Mr Franke the interim director, managed to award himself a $12,500 contract for writing an RFP that more than one board member described as a “no brainer” and "a basic copy and paste.” The offer was made privately to the chairman by more qualified individuals to do the work for nothing… but the chairman chose not to reveal that to the board and so $12,500 was thrown away on that occasion with a happy Mr Franke delighted to do the work.

Without any accountability to the public who pays for all this nonsense, any oversight of this board has taken a backseat to the higher priority of maintaining an autonomous sub-government that lacks accountability and good fiscal management. Months ago LWM reported on the lavish spending on CRA office space. In addition to paying top dollar rent for a 1200 sq ft stripped core ($25 a sq ft per year), the board elected to heap upon itself all the grandeur that $80,000 would afford to impress the few visitors that happen to stop by. And this money is all being spent on someone else’s building.

But spending that much tax payer money at a time when we can’t afford a veteran’s day parade added to throwing an extra $575,000 to a developer; has now caused weary taxpayers to suggest a recall of the CRA board and to put it back under direct commission control in order to stop the wasteful and mindless spending. All government spending--even that financed by borrowing--must eventually be paid for with taxes. The real cost of government therefore is how much it spends, not how much it taxes. Low taxes are possible only with low spending and low spending means eliminating waste.

It is time to step back and think about the role of government and the fundamental obligations of volunteer boards to serve the public interest. A clear delineation needs to be established between the social and redevelopment priorities of the CRA, so in the midst of a crime spree with residents feeling insecure and violated… we should never again hear a CRA chairman coldly state… that redevelopment is more important than fighting crime.

For those interested in lean, effective government with low taxes, consider having an independent “waste commission” that would present the commission with a list of all wasteful spending.

Either way, we need policies that can promote accountability and more effective public control over redevelopment by eliminating the mandate on ‘how to have fun while spending all the money in your budget.’ The CRA should ultimately be accountable to the public and not itself. We continue to see wasteful practices in full swing and we still have no measure of successful performance. How successfully has our tax money been spent toward relieving blight, crime and how much of an improvement to the quality of life has it made?  We still have no performance reports on how effectively our money is being spent.




$575,000 suggests recall of CRA | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.


No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register



Re: $575,000 suggests recall of CRA (Score: 1)
by ILoveLW on Friday, January 25, 2008 @ 16:49:29 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

As Mr. Franke was the one who recommended Housing Trust to the CRA Board, is it possible that part of the $525,000 plus is going directly to him as a finder's fee? Anyone else getting a commission who sits on the Board? The people want to know.

Mr. Franke was the Interim Director who has now been replaced by Olivia but the CRA Board just wants to keep him hanging on and paying him consulting fees until this "deal" is completed. Such a deal.

Robert P. Franke & Associates
846 SW 14th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315
Tel: 954.765.3299
Cell: 561.312.3357
Robert P. Franke & Associates.


Related Links

· More about Editorials
· News by admin

Most read story about Editorials:
Historical Map of Corruption PBCo


Article Rating

Average Score: 5
Votes: 3

To rate this article please Login first



 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


Associated Topics


The comments are property of their posters, all the rest is editorial © 2007 by William Coakley and unauthorized use is prohibited by law. Anybody who uses, copies or distributes this material in any manner, for commercial or personal purposes, without written permission, would be committing an infringement of copyright.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.09 Seconds