Good afternoon Manager Harden,
I am sure you realize your e-mail below raises several questions — CONSIDERING the plans on which this project was permitted by the SJRWMD depict a berm extending from Dunlawton Avenue north to Herbert Street, AND FURTHER CONSIDERING that the signed and sealed As-Built Certification for this project states that it was not completed in substantial conformance with those permitted plans and specifications in that all work north of Dunlawton Avenue was deleted from the project. Accordingly:
1) As regards the permitted plans what purpose or function was the work north of Dunlawton Ave designed to provide.
2) What design impact did including or removing this work have on the project in terms of original calculations (with bern), and revised calculations (w/o berm) regarding the storage capacity of the Dunlawton Pond in a storm event.
3) On what date was the portion of this project that included the work north of Dunlawton Ave permitted by SJRWMD.
4) Did the bids the City received on this project include pricing for the work north of Dunlawton Avenue.
5) On what date was the construction contract for this project approved by Council.
6) Did that contract price include construction of the work north of Dunlawton Ave referenced in the permitted plans.
7) If this work was included in the contract price, on what date was its removal approved by Council.
8) On what date was it decided to omit this work from this project.
9) Who made the decision to eliminate this work from the project. Who was informed of that decision, And is there any correspondence relative to that decision.
10) Did the City Attorney or City Right-of-Way Agent confirm or refute the ownership claim asserted by Freda Gruggs, And is there any correspondence regarding her ownership assertion, or the possibility of having purchased an easement from her.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
inal Message —–
From: Harden, David
To: Mike Gardner
Cc: Bastian, Drew ; Burnette, Don ; Kennedy, Dennis ; Ford, Bob ; Green, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:24 PM
Subject: RE: Dunlawton Drainage Project
I have received the following response from QLH:
The original design and permitted plans for the Dunlawton Drainage did have a berm on the east side of the Halifax Canal running from Dunlawton to the 90 degree bend in the canal north of the Post Office. After the start of construction it was determined that ground elevations immediately north of the end of the berm were lower than the top of the proposed berm. Therefore, if the berm were constructed the water would, in a high water situation, simply flow around the north end of the berm into the Sugar Mill Apartments retention pond which would overflow to the south and flow onto Dunlawton in the vicinity of the Powers/Dunlawton intersection. A property dispute also arose with Freda Gruggs of 639 Powers Avenue. She presented documents appearing to indicate that she owned the property up to the edge of the canal, and that there was no right-of-way on which to place a berm adjacent to her property. These two issues were discussed with the City project manager and it was decided to remove the berm from the contract due to the probability the water would just flow around it and to avoid possible litigation with Ms. Grubbs.
So far as QLH recalls this was never discussed with City Council.
From: Mike Gardner [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Harden, David
Cc: Bastian, Drew; Burnette, Don; Kennedy, Dennis; Ford, Bob; Green, Allen
Subject: Dunlawton Drainage Project
Dear Manager Harden,
I’m sure your recall the last City Council meeting when Mr Paul Rozar of 607 Powers Av stood up and described watching Dunlawton Av flood as the Halifax Canal overflowed its banks. The area where Mr Rozar witnessed water sheeting from the canal onto Dunlawton is on the north side of Dunlawton, just downstream of the bend in the canal where Canal View Blvd becomes Spruce Creek Rd. Mr Rozar had made similar observations after the May, 2009 rain event (which also flooded Dunlawton) and his suggestion was/is to build a berm along the canal in the areas where it overflowed.
What I find extremely distressing is the engineers at Quentin L Hampton apparently agreed with Mr Rozar back in 2010 but nothing has been done about it. The permit for our three-million-plus dollar Dunlawton Drainage Project originally included berm work in just the areas that Mr Rozar points out, but sometime between the permit application in October of 2010 and the final paperwork in January of 2014 that work was deleted from the contract.
It seems we are constantly being urged by the mayor and some others on Council to “move on to solutions” and “not be negative,” but I feel we deserve some explanation of when and why this critical part of the Project was eliminated.
618 Ruth St
Port Orange, FL 32127