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. Quoting the engineers e-mail to DOT of 8/22/13, “Our original thoughts for adding these improvements was to be able to contain the water in the canal if the east berm was raised.”
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. The engineers would have to answer this question.
3) On what date was the portion of this project that included the work north of Dunlawton Ave permitted by SJRWMD. There are two SJRWMD permits. The first was issued on March 23, 2011 based on plans submitted on February 22, 2011. The second was issued on April 3, 2012 based on plans submitted on May 17, 2011 as amended by Sheet 3 on July 13, 2011 and by Sheet 2 on January 10, 2012.
4) Did the bids the City received on this project include pricing for the work north of Dunlawton Avenue. Yes.
5) On what date was the construction contract for this project approved by Council. 12/4/12
6) Did that contract price include construction of the work north of Dunlawton Ave referenced in the permitted plans. Yes.
7) If this work was included in the contract price, on what date was its removal approved by Council. “Credit for Work Deleted north of Dunlawton Ave” is item 21 in the final close out Change Order for Dunlawton Avenue Drainage Improvements approved by City Council on 2/25/14. Otherwise the Council was not informed or consulted about removal of this work.
8) On what date was it decided to omit this work from this project. 8/22/13. FDOT approved the deletion on 8/28/13.
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. The deletion of the berm was recommended by Andrew Giannini of QLHA; ultimately agreed to, after some initial resistance, by Fred Griffith PE, the City’s Project Manager; and approved by Vincent Vacchiano, Operations Special Projects Manager with the FDOT District 5 Construction Office. There are three e-mails concerning this deletion. I have been told that neither the City Council nor the City Manager were told about this decision at the time it was made. As noted above, the removal of this work was noted in the final close out Change Order presented to City Council and approved on 2/25/14.
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. The City Attorney does not recall having been consulted, nor has she found any correspondence in her files concerning this issue. The City’s right-of-way agent believed that some legal work would have to be done to clear up the title question for the area where the berm was to be built. She has some correspondence regarding the issue. There was no effort to purchase an easement since the City believes that there is a public right-of-way where the berm was to go.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
- Why I will not be voting for Sonya Laney
- Did the Sitting Council Know about the Berm Removal?