Skip to content

Why DIY?

Could it be because we can’t afford to pay Epic?

A reader brought this problem to my attention.  The amount appropriated to build the pavilions doesn’t seem to be enough to cover the cost of building them if we use Epic.  Let’s look at the numbers:

Ordinance 2015-23 for the 10th Ave pavilion authorized the borough to spend $2 million and to borrow $1.9 million of it.  Ordinance 2015-25 authorized us to spend $4.1 million for the 5th Ave pavilion and to borrow $3.9 million of it.  The total amount allocated for the twin projects is $6.1 million and the funding made available by the bonds comes to a total of $5.8 million.

But how much do we need to spend?

Well we already spent part of it.  As soon as the bond ordinances were passed we paid off the Maser design and engineering bills that we’ve owed for a couple of years now:

Screen Shot 2015-12-30 at 3.26.23 AM

The total is $332,534.76

Now what do we have to pay Epic?  Here is the bid:

Screen Shot 2015-12-30 at 3.25.22 AM

Bid 1 is for the construction of the 5th Ave pavilion.  Bid 2 is for the construction of the 10th Ave pavilion.  Bid 1A is for the decking, railings and ramps.  It’s worth noting that because of the high elevation of the buildings we need to have all these deckings and railings for the public to access them.

I believe alternate bids 2A and 3A are for upgrades that we can forgo so let’s forgo them.

The total amount we would need to pay Epic, the total of bids 1, 2 and 1A  comes to $6,145,000.  Add in the $332,534.76 we already paid Maser and we’re up to $6,477,534.76.  We don’t know how much Maser will end up charging to oversee Epic’s work but I’m pretty sure it’s going to run into six figures.  And then there’s going to be change orders.  In the end, having Epic build the pavilions is going to cost $6.6 to $6.7 million.

But we only borrowed $5.8 million and only planned to spend $6.1 million.

So why are we going to build the pavilions ourselves and hopefully save 10%?  Maybe it’s because we have no other choice!


  1. Tom Burke wrote:

    Indeed, a fiscally responsible way to proceed with what the people said they want to be built. Having contingencies is often a good thing in the planning and implementation process. In that process, the evaluation component comes at the end.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:57 am | Permalink
  2. OLD MAN wrote:

    #1 I disagree. Evaluation starts when the project does. Constant progress reporting and milestones reached at pre established prices is what is required on projects this size. Also add timelines. Now I have a headache. More aspirins please.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink
  3. Anonymous wrote:

    Hey dummies, plain and simple…Belmar is broke ! Matt Doherty does not hold the secret to municipal finance. His politically motivated 0% municipal tax increases are starting to have an effect and it’s going to get worse.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:18 am | Permalink
  4. Anonymous wrote:

    PERFORMANCE BONDS? Liability Insurance? Pension credits? Time frame? Surveillance/Risk? JIF monies, FEMA monies; Casualty reimbursement fraud? ERRORS & OMISSIONS?

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink
  5. Jim Bean wrote:

    Tom Burke, didn’t you have meetings with the Mayor to try and reduce the cost of the pavilion construction? Saving 10%…How did this idea never come up until now? You should be pissed they laughed you off, but instead you praise them and kiss their boots. Please, just join their party and allow the rest of us to have a little dignity.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:48 am | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Couple of months during the summer and fall collaborative talks with Maser prior to the November election? Maser stumping with the Mayor to convince the electorate to vote YES to the 5 MILLION dollar bond ordinance? Insiders were told of this plan. It could be All part of their plan because they knew full well they couldn’t use the BUF money? Pay to Play in the works here? All has been stated “all is well”.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9:20 am | Permalink
  7. Summer Timer wrote:

    Whatever is built will be destroyed by the next big storm, that is why it should be built as cheap as possible.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9:20 am | Permalink
  8. The Truth wrote:

    The bottom line is they don’t even know how much or how little $$$$ they have. On another note I see Djais is doing more work to the building are they required to have building permits ? I know they didn’t need them or get them when they extended the outside rear , or poured footings the in the basement. Feel free to drive by they have a big wall could be they’re at it again.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9:35 am | Permalink
  9. Anonymous wrote:

    Although the resolution doesn’t explicitly reject the bids…. that’s the key… it’s a ruse

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:19 am | Permalink
  10. bipartisan wrote:

    I can’t believe the temerity of these people. this late minute resolution was planned late summer with Maser while the 5 m BOND referendum (back and forth in court) was being courted by the mayor and Maser. No wonder the union contributions were low. it was in the bag by 19 votes from Djais. Here goes another fiasco. Advertising the meeting on Christmas shows deception clear and evil. No cunning

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:27 am | Permalink
  11. Just Passing Through wrote:

    NO money for the “add ons”

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:40 am | Permalink
  12. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    Remember …. Maser’s engineering cost estimate for pavilions was over $1M! …. now, they want to add-on project management costs …. someone …. please get these guys out of our pants!
    Do you really want to buy your electric from them?

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:04 am | Permalink
  13. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

    I Memory Lane..I enjoy going back to capture what was said earlier. While at this point, watching the entire June 3, 2015 meeting provides more than its fair share of irony I particularly like At 3:28 in Part I when the mayor flippantly remarks if Taylor costs more than 4.1 million, he won’t build it and further states if Taylor ends up costing more than $4.1, he will personally sign a petition to have him recalled. P.S. How is the Lake Como outflow project going?

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
  14. Memory Lane wrote:

    Speaking of memory lane…Remember when the CFO Robbin Kirk would be a part of the presentation and most critically the certification. No wonder old timers like myself don’t trust Matt or Colleen. Over the past three years I have discovered you can’t even trust Ms. Kirk unless she is under oath.
    #13. It is good that we have it on record. Now to keep tabs on just the costs and cost over 4.1 million for Taylor.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
  15. ms.perspicacity wrote:

    “Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best.” – Ragnar Lothbrok (Vikings series)

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
  16. Love the Beach wrote:

    #15, loved the series. FYI on a lighter note, found this the other day. “We have the latest information on the release date of Vikings season 4. New episodes are scheduled to premiere on History Channel on February 18, 2016.”

    It will be interesting to see the explanation in the resolution why the bids are being rejected. Found online:

    “There may be some situations when the municipality desires to reject all bids despite the fact that the lowest bid has been submitted by a responsible bidder. A municipality may reject all bids received only if (1) the lowest bid substantially exceeds the cost estimates for the contract; or (2) the lowest bid substantially exceeds the municipality’s appropriation for the goods or services; or (3) the governing body of the municipality decides to abandon the project; or (4) the municipality wants to substantially revise the specifications; or (5) the purposes or provisions of the LPCL are being violated; or (6) the governing body of the municipality decides to use a State authorized contract pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:11-12. N.J.S.A. 40A:11-13.2”

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
  17. bipartisan wrote:

    Does “Murky” qualify under the state statutes?

    Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
  18. Anonymous wrote:

    Townies getting drilled at DJAIS? SOunds like sUMMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 9:25 am | Permalink
  19. An Observation wrote:

    The Mayor and Council should thank the people that sued you and prevailed. Left to your own misguided, biased ,ideological, and egotistical ways you all would have been in a bad way,with no excuses. I believe even if the original 7+ million dollar expense went through you still would not have the $$$ to cover it. Next year i hope you all wise up and start acting in a responsible manner.

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink
  20. Anonymous wrote:

    Why would they want to build an expensive pavilion on the the beachfront? How can they be such global warming deniers? The evidence is conclusive. Didn’t they watch Al Gore’s slideshow?

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
  21. Anonymous wrote:

    1.1 degree temperature increase on the coastal sections of US

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
  22. madame.snark wrote:

    Pavilions are accoutrements, as per Ms. Connolly’s courtroom testimony. This leads me to think that they are not so important, just add-ons to the boardwalk. We don’t need them! If piles are driven prematurely, without permits even, they, when standing alone on the beach for years like barren trees, will become known as “Doherty’s Folly.”

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
  23. Anonymous wrote:

    Asbury had rust eaten abandoned construction sites for over 25 years. Foundation pilings are just that pilings and, who knows, you may have to pay the big bucks to get the non- permitted accouterments removed from the V ZONE when the gavel comes down

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
  24. madame.snark wrote:

    #23 yep. These folks are way too hasty to start construction.

    Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
  25. madame.snark wrote:

    That tug-on-the-heart-strings-fond-memory Taylor Pavilion was not insured, by the way. Let us trust the good judgment of the elected officials in town.

    Step right up and have yer piccher taken with the mayor at the pile-drive ceremony. Dang, I have the shut-up-sit-down-you’re-nobody Belmar blues!

    Friday, January 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
  26. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

    #5 Jim Bean you should know personally that Tom Burke takes himself seriously. He has been so oblivious to being fooled, used and abused that he now ranks as court jester. My first recollection was the summer and fall of 2012 when he served on the Belmar Chamber and ran against Jennifer. His postings still online praising Brenda Yarnold who showed her appreciation by sending a political contribution out of the Chamber account for Nicolay for Council. In January of this year 1/20 meeting at the 47 minute mark the Mayor used a false statement about
    a boycott remark I made and used it to attack many Republicans. We all got Mr. Burke’s endorsement of the Taylor Bond written by Burke this election. Yes, Burke is too foolish to be pissed off and the mayor is the perfect judge of his character.

    Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    Life would be a dreary waste if there was no thing called LOYALTY

    Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.