.
Feedback

Belmar Council Approves $1.4 million More For Boardwalk

FEMA is partially to blame for extra money, engineering firm says

The Belmar Borough Council on Wednesday approved an additional $1.4 million for the re-construction of its boardwalk, even while the reason given for the extra money has changed.

The vote, which followed a lengthy discussion among council members spurred by a  short presentation by the borough’s engineers, was 4-0. Councilman James Bean abstained.

The vote brings the total price of the boardwalk reconstruction to just shy of $8 million, up from the original bid of $6.6 million, an increase of about 17 percent.

The project’s engineer, Paul Calabrese of Birdsall Engineering, said in a short presentation prior to the vote that the additional money was required chiefly to install safety measures to buttress the boardwalk from future storms because the original design anticipated the addition of a seawall that FEMA has since nixed.

“The original design needed to be strengthened to address the increased forces that the original bid did not consider because it considered the seawall as part of the system,’’ said Scott McFadden, Chief Administrative Officer at Birdsall. “And that’s really the driving force behind the (additional safety measures).’’

But that’s not the same reason Birdsall gave for the change order just a week ago, when the company said in a release that the boardwalk was in places wider than the 25-foot specifications in the original bid, causing the inflated price.

In that release, the company also said the wheelchair access ramps had to be changed because of lowered sand levels on the beach – a condition that, because of the amount of debris on the shoreline at the time the specifications were written, was impossible to anticipate, a claim Calabrese reiterated at Wednesday’s meeting.

But Calabrese said that FEMA was mainly to blame for the bump in the boardwalk’s price tag because the organization would not allow for an expected seawall to be built in conjunction with the boardwalk rebuild. The feds consider the two projects mutually exclusive, Calabrese said.

Because of that, extra safety measures – extra joists and hurricane straps – had to be built into the design, adding to the project’s cost, he said.

Mayor Matt Doherty, along with Councilwoman Jennifer Nicolay and Council President Claire Diecke defended the change order, saying that change orders were typical of large projects.

“It’s not unusual to have change orders on a construction project of this magnitude,’’ Calabrese said.

Prior to the vote, Councilman Bean had harsh words for the change order and abstained from participation.

“I am not voting on things that my vote doesn’t even count,’’ Bean said. “If they were already authorized to do it, they don’t need me. I’m now calling this the Jim Bean rule and I’m invoking it. I’m not voting on anything where the decision has already been made. Jim Bean rule is invoked. I am abstaining.”

Later, the council also approved an additional $574,272 for boardwalk lighting. That vote was unanimous.

Fight Club March 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Doherty and Maggie Moran must laugh themselves to sleep in bed every night. Corzine must be proud.
educatedsmallbizowner March 14, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Here we go again... Bisrdsall engineering. How many indictments? How many of there key people involved in pay to play? How many lawsuits for shoddy consulting? .. Instead of blaming others ! They should look in the mirror and the residents had better start looking at the politicians CLOSELY
Belmarchick March 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Bean should resign already
jenni March 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Bean should be the mayor. Next council meeting the name of Belmar will be changed to Dohmar.
Terri Gourley March 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
All the patting themselves on the back and "o can you believe the great deal we got" when the rest of us were saying "are you serious" no one believed for a minute that the extras would not start rushing in like the tide. And any project with Birdsall attached is a guaranteed license to steal... here we go again.
paulie March 14, 2013 at 02:09 pm
Be nice here people. The real reason they need the extra money is to pay the Mayor's wife for consulting services.
Tex March 14, 2013 at 02:10 pm
I knew that original explanation didn't make much sense. The new excuse is more plausible since it blames a third party who was not there to defend themselves.
Jimmy J March 14, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Still to this day the Doherty / Moran couple has yet to disclose how much money Ms. Moran's "public affairs company" made from the slippery hiring of AshBritt in Belmar. Maybe someday the Doherty / Moran couple will also come forward and explain why their friends, who coincidentally are also "public officials", went out advocating for the hiring of AshBritt to neighboring towns. This event call Sandy may have shown that these government officials practiced the role more of salesmen than true stewards for the taxpayers.
john ennis March 14, 2013 at 04:16 pm
Ace:
Two points, first how can Birdsall still be in business after repeated offenses and second if the politicians EVER consider doing business with them again a red KICKBACK flag should go up
marcus d'addio March 14, 2013 at 07:13 pm
And if the necessary decisions had not been made swiftly there would be a whole group of negative Nellies asking why don't we have a boardwalk this summer, what's taking so long, and why aren't they doing anything? Take a look at other communities' ineffectiveness at making progress. At least give some credit where it is due. It is completely rational that all of the reasons listed are valid and must be added to the original costs. EPIC costs are still FAR below the next highest bidder in any case, so doing pretty well with managing the progress and changes.
Tex March 15, 2013 at 02:36 pm
marcus. I can only speak for this Nellie. If the cost overruns are legit, so be it. But when the lead engineer changes his story every time he is asked for the explanation of the change, it smells of a cover up. The engineer is usually the person with the most knowledge of a project. All I want is transparency.
marcus d'addio March 15, 2013 at 07:43 pm
Tex, point noted. However, shouldn't we assume positive intent rather than imply and presume that there are coverups, kickbacks, or worse going on (like some of these posts state) when there are no facts to back that up. It's like me saying publicly about you that "Tex is definitely cheating on his wife" unless he can prove otherwise. Running for office does not mean you now have to tolerate charges of guilty until proven innocent.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Wall Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Gale Quinn May 26, 2013 at 02:40 pm
Don't do it. The Patch just wants others to do its job. The Patch reporter was moved to the HowellRead More Patch. Wall no longer has a reporter specifically assigned to our town. No longer do we have a reporter attending meetings and reporting on the important news relating to Wall.