Bayview center: Budget analyst says, ‘project was not planned at a $6M total cost level from the beginning’

The Pensacola City Council’s budget analyst, Butch Hansen, sent the council his review of the proposed $9.6-million Bayview Community Center.

He states, “My review of the history and available documentation of this project concludes that the project was not planned at a $6M total cost level from the beginning, as initially approved by council and then prescribed in the A&E contract approved by council.”

From: Butch Hansen <>
Date: June 13, 2018 at 1:01:38 PM CDT
To: Gerald Wingate <>, Sherri Myers <>, Brian Spencer <>, “P.C. Wu” <>, Jewel Cannada-Wynn <>, Andy Terhaar <>, “Larry B. Johnson” <>
Cc: Don Kraher <>
Subject: Bayview Resource Center Agenda Item

Councilmembers, I have obtained information regarding the costs and process regarding the Bayview resource Center Project. Attached please find a time line document as well as a spreadsheet with the history of invoices from the A&E contractor. The timeline document also has information on previous community center projects, as well as data on property value impacts following construction of the Sanders Beach facility.(basically, no change in values in the surrounding community was noted). Here is a summary of the project:

Bayview Community Resource Center Summary:
My review of the history and available documentation of this project concludes that the project was not planned at a $6M total cost level from the beginning, as initially approved by council and then prescribed in the A&E contract approved by council. Hence cost increases from the initial approved $6M project are a combination of design enhancement and construction cost increases, the balance of which I have not been provided information to ascertain.

– In February 2016 The City Council approved a project to build a new resource center for a cost of $6.05M.

– On January 12, 2017 the City Council approved a contract for A&E services for the design and construction support of the resource center with financial parameters of $5.5M total project cost.

– On January 23, 2017 some City Council members were informed that the resource center was being planned in the LOST IV funding at $8.25M due to additional improvements and amenities desired by the community, as related by the architect. The architect contract was not signed until 1 week later on 31 January.

– In July 2017, the A&E contractor began sending invoices based on a changed contract value for basic services consistent with an $8.25M project, with $6M construction cost.

– On September 20, 2017, City Council was presented and approved a FY 2018 budget that included a LOST IV budget line of $8.25M for the resource center.

– On September 30, 2017 the contracted architect invoiced for completed design work (i.e. 100% of Schematic Design and Design Development sub tasks) at the values consistent with a $6M construction cost, not the $4.779M provided in the original contract approved by City Council.

– Email communications on 24 October with the A&E contractor confirmed the completion of the design phase and authorized proceeding to construction documents phase. The A&E cost estimate provided was $8.4M total project cost with $6.3M construction cost.

– Construction bids for the resource center design were received in May 2018, with the lowest bid being $8.0M in construction cost, 33% higher than estimated 8 months earlier by the A&E contractor. Total project cost was provided at $10.1M, but then was reduced to $9.585M by reducing contingency to 3% from the normal 10%. No specific information has been provided regarding what the cost drivers were (e.g. design, material, etc.) for this significant increase in construction costs. These construction cost increases have not been seen in other projects being executed by the city, nor are they being planned for in future projects identified in the capital improvement plan.

Impact of proposed cost off-sets:

– The additional funding ($1.335M) for the resource center project is proposed to be taken from 2 LOST IV line items:

o General Park Improvements – $365K (all remaining for the 10 year period of LOST IV)

o General Athletic Facility Improvements – $970K (all remaining for the 10 year period of LOST IV )

– These line items represent all of the funding for as yet undesignated projects for Parks and Athletic facilities for the next 10 years. Specific uses of these funding lines in the past have not been provided, but the administration contends that there is sufficient funding for all planned projects with the increase in the resource center cost and the increase in construction costs witnessed in the resource center bids.

Please let me know if you would like me to locate any additional information, discuss what is provided, or have any questions. I will be in the office tomorrow afternoon in advance of the council meeting, or as is convenient for you if you want to meet to discuss.

Respectfully, Butch

W.A.”Butch” Hansen
Strategic Budget Planner
Pensacola City Council


1 thought on “Bayview center: Budget analyst says, ‘project was not planned at a $6M total cost level from the beginning’

  1. I heard that the Hayward Administration was angry that Hansen was able to get access to city documents that help explain how this project became such a mess and that his access was terminated to the documents to try to keep him and so the City Council in the dark. If true, this seems consistent with the Hayward Administration’s long-standing plan to treat the City Council like political mushrooms left in the dark until the last moment and thrown a few scraps of @(#*.

    On July 29, 2015, WUWF Radio had an interview that uses City Administrator Eric Olson’s own words to prove that he lied to the City Council this past Monday when putting out for public dissemination a fake timeline that only went back to 2014 (not to 2011 when the decision was made to demolish the community center and renovate and expand the senior center to include community center features).

    The day prior (July 28) the PNJ had a story by Will Isern that had told more of the story in Olson’s own words. The online version of the story (dated July 27) is linked here:

    Both stories emphasize that the city’s 2011 Bayview Park Master Plan will be the basis for the park’s plan. The link to that document on the city’s website is here:

    It’s a darn good plan.

    Adding to the confusion, right now the City is trying to jam through a renovation of the Senior Center taking even more action in violation of the 2011 Bavview Park Master Plan. Here’s the link to the RFP:

    On top of all the above, a friend said that the city is meeting to discuss a makeover of the dog park with the East Hill Neighborhood Association. The 2011 plan described two options, keeping the dog park in its current location or moving it to the northeast corner of the park closer to Ashton Hayward’s house. Not sure what is being discuss. Also, the same friend said that the city is talking to people in East Hill about putting a swimming pool in Bayview Park. There is nothing about a swimming pool in the 2011 Bayview Park Master Plan. If there is a pool built, we will know who the city thinks will use it based on how much they charge kids for daily use;: $1 for African-American kids @ Hunter Pool and $3 for White kids @ Roger Scott pool. That was the actual explanation I got from Hayward Administration staff when I asked why the city’s current two pools had such different daily use rates. Because it’s East Hill with only 161 African-American voters out of 6,180 in Larry Johnson’s District 4, I bet they might charge $5 for a kid to use the pool.

    Hayward is sure working hard to throw as much city money into Bayview Park before he leaves office hoping that he can sell “Hayward House” (as he branded his home in 2010 when he first tried to sell it for $2.3 million) for its current asking price of $1.9 million so the Haywards can get out of town:

    It might be cheaper for taxpayers to just buy Hayward House and rent it out as a party house. Perhaps if someone just buys the place, Hayward will withdraw the agenda item, resign and move back to New York City from where he came.

Comments are closed.