marconews.com Accounts

in response to LEHonig:

Hascle asked why we can't build the Smokehouse Bay bridges for an amount per foot closer to the cost per foot of the Jolley Bridge. There are many reasons, and probably some I don't know. Here's a partial list:

1. The Jolley Bridge was "design-build," a construction approach in which one entity takes the project from design to completion. It's often cheaper than the way Smokehouse is being done ("design-bid-build"), a construction approach in which the payer (that's us on Marco, for Smokehouse) wants to control the design and all its elements. So we did all the design (and paid for it), and now a contractor will have to bid on building to that spec. (Recall that Smokehouse's design was put to the citizens to vote, and the citizens did not choose a bare-bones design.)

2. The Jolley Bridge didn't have to be done in a big hurry. We already had a bridge, and the traffic disruption was minimal. Smokehouse will be a whole different animal. Essentially it will be the construction of one bridge at a time, with traffic diverted to one lane on each bridge as the other bridge is constructed.

3. For the Jolley Bridge, we didn't have to rebuild seawalls and construct elaborate pedestrian pathways and so forth.

4. Big projects and little projects alike have to be prepped and staged and the contractor has to amass the equipment and materials and labor and plan each day and each step. If those costs can be spread out over a lot of work (in this case, a long span for the Jolley Bridge), then the per-foot cost can be reduced.

5. The economy probably played a role. Maybe when Jolley was put to bid, builders were hungry.

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Thank you Commissioner Honig and Marcofriend for the information.

Based on what I see, the T.Y. Lin design provides the highest bridge at the lowest cost, and should be used as a basis for the bidding process. I also wonder how much the elimination of the Arch would do to reduce the cost, unless it’s a structural component.

I assume the Contractor for the Jolly Bridge will bid on Smokehouse.

in response to mhs513:

Mr. Honecker, that doesn't solve the parking problem, not even close. Some planner you are.

in response to ajm3s:

From my expectations regardless of interpretation, I thought this meeting was advertized as a discussion of the likelihood of moving forward under a host of options which I thought included NO expansion, which would be placed on a referendum as Mr. Honecker, Mr. Patricca, Mr. Sacher and Mr. Batte all expressed in campaign or public forums.

I was hoping for a robust discussion not a commitment or motion to get into the details of a contract for an expansion, when 4 sitting council members voiced their support of a referendum that I thought was a basic yes/no for spending x amount of dollars of any expansion.

What is really interesting, I believe the call for a referendum was citizen initiated, yet the discussion at that meeting was "to move the ball forward". Well lets move the ball forward and simply ask if the folks want to expand the community center. Period... and let them cast a vote for or against capital expansion.

But as Hascle has stated, "it is a done deal" and that is NOT what 4 council members agreed to unless they have changed their position.

So lets ask them to comment publicly because I did not hear a single word regard8hg a referendum!

Or maybe I do not understand this council procedure and we must have a detailed contract to vote on rather than a basic yes/no for expansion, or other options that were discussed.

in response to dc5799:

Don't you remember how fast both Moss and Rienke bolted off the Island?