SEARCH
 
 


 
 
Money Wasted

Lake Worth Utilities
Waste Meter
$50,000
... for an arc flash study that Mr. Reyes was qualified to do in house and at no cost to taxpayers.
$200,000
... the estimated engineering cost of the express feeder which could also be done in house at no cost to taxpayers.
$591,898
... wasted when insurance requirements were circumvented by the city manager and utility director.
$123,098
... 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
$64,000
... wasted when the Matrix organizational study to save taxpayers money was scrapped in favor of higher cost outsourcing by city manager Stanton.
$450,000
... wasted engineering design cost of water piping and tanks (original county water deal) that will never be built.
$59,975
... wasted when additional costs were incurred for not following insurance procedure on transformer repair.
$82,620
... 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:
$1,621,591
 
 

 
 
LWM Menu

· Home
· Advertising
· Authors and Articles
· AvantGo
· Downloads
· FAQ
· 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, 44 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: 54.80.111.72

Welcome, Anonymous
· Secure Login/Registration
· Forgot Password?
Server Date/Time
23 June 2017 12:23:07 EST
 
 

 
  Herald editorial wrong on some points
Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008 @ 09:57:31 EST by admin

Editorials

HERALD editorial scrambled on some points

Commentary on Commentary: LW HERALD page 6 April 17, 2008 "No Sad Songs for defunct RO"

In addition to claiming that LW hasn’t managed it’s assets well… which I agree with and there is a way of fixing that… the commentary made accusations concerning commissioner Golden not doing her own homework, presented incorrect information on DEP permitting, and made statements about deep well injection that are incorrect.



First, the accusation against commissioner Golden. I called commissioner Golden to see how she determined that Lake Worth could easily have gotten a deep well permit. Turns out she did her OWN homework and spoke to a gentleman who is the head of deep well permitting… Joe Maye. 

Next the commenter incorrectly believes that the discharge into deep wells “percolates up and down” and is therefore environmentally harmful. Either the commenter didn’t know what a deep well is or they got the wrong type of well since there is a well established very thick geological formation defined as a NON-PERMEABLE CONFINEMENT LAYER that resides above all deep wells. This non permeable layer will easily keep the discharge from percolating anywhere but laterally 3,000 feet down. So the next statement made by the commenter that “sooner or later, the concentrate with all its minerals will seep into our own aquifers and pollute all the drinking water…” is totally wrong.

As for the county option being less expensive, it appears that the commenter made the assumption that the grossly inflated price Mock Roos submitted was correct. The so called ten million savings with the county water over thirty years…? The Mock Roos price is over ten million too high on the RO. With the correct price we could have saved ten million NOW and kept the interest on ten million over 30 years, maintained control over our water resources instead of having the county choke our water allocation during restrictions, and we would actually have equity in something rather than spending the same money and having nothing but some unusable pipe in the ground and a water storage tank we can't use.


 
 

 
 
Herald editorial wrong on some points | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
 
 

 
 

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

 
 

 
 

Re: Herald editorial wrong on some points (Score: 1)
by KatieMcG on Thursday, April 17, 2008 @ 19:57:38 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

I don't understand why Jeff, Dave ,and Retha would not wait to hear more info on the whole subject. Were they under a deadline ? I would feel more comfortable with their decision if they had allowed and listened to additional info.. There seems to be a real problem with these three already having their minds made up about issues and not allowing BOTH sides of an issue to be heard.




 
 

 
 

Re: Herald editorial wrong on some points (Score: 1)
by hondalife007 on Friday, April 18, 2008 @ 08:23:21 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

the Mayor was nasty when he said that those bringing up the RO had attention deficient disorder. I would have to listen to the tape but I am pretty sure they never voted to stop the RO as an option. They were suppose to look into the county as a water source and bring those findings back to the commission. Who knew that meant a vote of 40 years?
40 is God's unlucky number. In the Bible, bad things seem to come in 40's.




 
 

 
 

Re: Herald editorial wrong on some points (Score: 1)
by Crystal on Saturday, April 19, 2008 @ 10:21:05 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

Parrish says in his article that the City "has control over its beach and naught has been accomplished with that ownership in 30 years." Where has the Herald been? Does it not know that Greater
Bay has control over it with a 20 year lease? Legal rights have been given to the developer on our beachfront property. The City of LW has surrendered possession to Greater Bay (ie the tenant) and the City has no right to interfere and by doing so would be committing an unlawful. act If they want to put a billiard parlor there they could do so if not stipulated in the Lease or in the new zoning code. that's the way I understand it.




 
 

 
 

Re: Herald editorial wrong on some points (Score: 1)
by ILoveLW on Saturday, April 19, 2008 @ 10:30:48 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

If the Herald is still spouting the 30 year thing, then it has been listening to Commissioner Lowe or her power broker. It has only been in serious discussion since Romano when he brought forth the beach bond issue in 2002 which was defeated 60/40. It was defeated because the bond was for $19 MILLION. We, at that time, did not have the $5 MILLION from the County. We were always lead to believe that it was "matching funds. " It was also defeated because the people did not want to commercialize the beach in any way.
LET'S TAKE IT TO A VOTE RIGHT NOW AND STOP WASTING ALL THIS MONEY FIGHTING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE.




 
 

 
 
 
Related Links

· More about Editorials
· News by admin


Most read story about Editorials:
Historical Map of Corruption PBCo

 
 

 
 
Article Rating

Average Score: 0
Votes: 0


To rate this article please Login first


 
 

 
 
Options


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 
 

 
 
Associated Topics

Editorials
 
 



 
 
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: 0.07 Seconds