Build it Back has been plagued by soaring costs and delays. In an exclusive report, NY1's Amanda Farinacci reveals allegations that tens of millions of dollars have been wasted on unnecessary work elevating homes to protect them from future storms.
At a contentious City Council hearing last fall, Councilman Eric Ulrich dressed down officials with Build it Back, the city agency overseeing the rebuilding of thousands of homes damaged by Superstorm Sandy.
"I honestly don't know how you can sit here with a straight face after blowing billions of dollars and ask the City Council for more money when you can't even meet your own deadlines," Ulrich said.
Mayor de Blasio had just made an unexpected announcement. The program, funded by $1.7 billion in federal aid, was half a billion dollars over budget. City taxpayers would have to bail it out.
"It is very clear that Build it Back has been a tough program since Day 1," said Amy Peterson, director of Build it Back.
Build it Back blames the $500 million shortfall on the complexities of the rebuilding and not any wasteful spending.
But in a complaint to state officials obtained by NY1, an architect who did work for one of the three construction management companies hired by Build it Back, LiRo, complained that LiRo was requiring costly and unnecessary work on some homes.
NY1 spoke to a consultant to the architect, who asked that we not identify her.
"In the end, what you're talking about is a waste of money," the consultant said.
The complaint was sent to the state Office of the Professions, an agency that handles professional licensing.
The architect, Lou DeGeronimo, of Paramus, New Jersey, had designed home elevation projects to protect houses from future flooding.
DeGeronimo’s complaint charges that LiRo insisted on the most expensive option to elevate homes in Brooklyn, the drilling of screw-like supports known as helical piles deep into the Earth.
"As it became evident, and even upon visual inspection, were very, very capable of standard construction methods, without helical piles."
The complaint alleges that an alternative known as "spread footings" would have provided the same degree of support and safety for elevated homes while "saving some $150,000 to $200,000 in construction costs per house." And not listening to that architect, choosing the more expensive option, the complaint says, "has cost the program tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary work."
A LiRo representative said the company was unaware of the complaint and told NY1 to speak to the city.
Build it Back defended the spending, saying helical piles are the safest, most effective means of anchoring homes, given the soil conditions in Brooklyn.
Watch our special report, "Build it Broke," followed by a live, hour-long town hall meeting from Staten Island, beginning at 8 p.m. Wednesday.
If you'd like to attend that Town Hall, or just weigh in on your own struggles with the program, send an email to NY1TownHall@charter.com.