{"id":493,"date":"2026-10-21T21:00:38","date_gmt":"2026-10-21T21:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thetheolowgen.com\/?p=493"},"modified":"2026-10-21T21:00:38","modified_gmt":"2026-10-21T21:00:38","slug":"they-paid-before-the-vote-and-called-it-approved-palm-beach-countys-inspector-general-found-the-county-paid-903387-75-for-change-order-work-on-the-sheriffs-headquarters-renovatio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetheolowgen.com\/?p=493","title":{"rendered":"THEY PAID BEFORE THE VOTE AND CALLED IT APPROVED | Palm Beach County\u2019s inspector general found the county paid $903,387.75 for change-order work on the sheriff\u2019s headquarters renovation up to 355 business days before commissioners approved it, plus $223,243.30 in charges beyond the contract \u2014 on a job first estimated at $17 million, now $54 million and mostly paid from a voter-approved sales surtax \u2014 and the county still refused to make its contractor certify the bills"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

They paid before the vote and called it approved. I know the sentence. It is what a government says when the money walked out the door first, the permission strolled in months later, and the people in charge explain, with a straight face and a cover letter, that since the permission did eventually arrive, the order of events should not count against anybody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the record, from the Palm Beach County Office of Inspector General itself. Audit Report 2027-A-0001, issued Oct. 19, 2026, examined the county\u2019s construction-manager-at-risk contract with Kast Construction Company LLC for the Palm Beach County Sheriff\u2019s Office headquarters renovation, Project No. 11206. The headline finding: the county reimbursed the construction manager for subcontractor change-order work \u201cranging between 6 and 355 business days\u201d before the Board of County Commissioners formally approved those change orders, as the contract and county policy required. The inspector general counts that as $903,387.75 in questioned costs. On top of that, $223,243.30 in identified costs: $2,527.65 in general-requirements charges without sufficient documentation and $220,715.65 in insurance and bond fees paid at rates exceeding the contract. When the inspector general asked for invoices backing the higher insurance and bond costs, the report says, the construction manager told the office that invoices showing direct costs \u201cwere not available,\u201d because the costs reflected increases to the guaranteed maximum price and the markup that rode along with them. The office gave the contractor a chance to answer the findings. \u201cWe did not receive a response.\u201d The background section is the part that should be read aloud at a public meeting: the contract was approved in November 2016, construction was scheduled to start in late 2017 and finish in late 2018, and preliminary construction costs were estimated at $17 million. As of March 31, 2026, contract costs were $54,015,467, about $47,679,994 of it from the one-cent local government infrastructure surtax voters approved on Nov. 8, 2016, and the rest from property taxes. WLRN calls it an ongoing overhaul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now the defense. The county agreed the payments went out too early but objected to calling the $903,387.75 \u201cquestioned costs,\u201d because the Board approved the change orders before the report came out, and, in the report\u2019s summary of its position, because the label \u201cmight imply an ongoing risk of fraud or waste.\u201d The inspector general answered that not all questioned costs indicate fraud or waste; they indicate a violation of the rules governing how public money is spent. CBS12 reports the county\u2019s own preliminary review found a net overpayment of $124,477.75 that it plans to deduct from the contractor\u2019s final payment. The county accepted six of the seven recommendations. The one it rejected would have required the construction manager to sign a certification on each draft payment application confirming that every subcontractor request in it is for original-contract work or an approved change order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buck says he once paid a guy to redo the gutters before Taryn approved it and he has been in the change-order phase of that marriage ever since. Deb wants to know if she can pay the electric bill first and get it approved by the board later. I love them. They are seasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cApproved\u201d is the alibi. The calendar is the story. Sit with 355 business days until they confess. That is more than a working year in which public money had already left the county\u2019s hands for work its elected board had not yet blessed, and the vote, when it came, was not a decision; it was a receipt. I know how punctual the county expects me to be when its number lands in my mailbox; the courtesy, it turns out, runs one direction. And I will not let the firm hide behind the clerks. A contractor that bills insurance and bond fees above the contract, says the invoices are not available, and does not bother answering the inspector general is not a victim of sloppy paperwork. It is the beneficiary. But the moment that made me put the coffee down is the rejected recommendation. The cheapest fix in the whole report was a signature: the contractor promises, in writing, that it is only billing for work somebody was allowed to buy. The county said no to the signature. A $17 million estimate became a $54 million building for the people with the badges, paid mostly by a voter-approved penny of sales surtax, and the one reform turned down is the one that would make the private side swear to it. Both parties are the help. One carries the badge. One carries the invoice. Neither, apparently, carries a pen. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, what a vote is for when the check already cleared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n