Did the Sitting Council Know about the Berm Removal?

david_hardenGood Morning Mr. Harden,

From Hank Springer

CC to city council members,

Subject: The Dunlawton Berm project:

I have read the correspondence among you, Ted Noftall and Mike Gardner regarding the Berm issue in the Dunlawton Area. I have commended your timely reply to the questions posed and understand how the task asked of you to go back and research past contracts and decisions is time consuming, especially considering your present day to day operational chores.

However, once again, new information is coming forth which reflect on my original distress voiced to the city council around 2007 I think was the year, and about which I had a 3 hour conversation with my city council man.  Issues of communication or non-communication to city council members have arisen on a number of times since my original interest in these matters.

Within the past week I posted an editorial decrying all the contracts and real estate issues which were being put forth to the city council in the Oct. 21, 2004 city council agenda, but after watching the city council meeting on POG TV I came to realize that many of the agenda items had previously been discussed and now the items had to be cleaned, up, perhaps changed, and put to rest with council members’ votes.  And the proceeding went along pretty rapidly, and I realized after watching the council meeting, that I was wrong in suspecting that new items with important ramifications were being laid before the council members all in one big knotty ball of decision making.

What is bothering me now, is that rightly so, all the details brought to the city council’s attention Oct. 21 2014 were there, big and small, and I compare that to the details of the Berm issue in the Dunlawton Flooding area, which I am led to believe that perhaps the specifics of the Berm contract were not conveyed to city council members at the time land ownership questions came up.

It seems to me that the Berm contract for Dunlawton Ave. was changed and the removal of construction of the Berm from the contract was not voted upon or discussed by city council at the time.  This observation of mine, dare we call it a suspicion, seems to be at the heart of many issues which you and I are just learning about for the first time.

I will be frank.  I fear that it may be possible that someone made the intentional decision not to ask the city council members for approval of a change to the original contract.

I hope you can easily answer my questions because I sincerely do not want to burden you with more work, but the issue cries out for answers to:

1.       Is there a record of the city council members discussing and voting to eliminate the construction of the berm from the contract?

2.      Should there have been information about a change in contract disseminated to the city council?

3.      Who were the city council members during the time a change in the contract was made. IE City Manager, Mayor, and city councilmembers?

I hope the details that I give as a background for my questions are correct.  If not please correct me because I find this issue not to be insignificant.

Thank you – hank Springer

From Hank Springer
386 852 3178
example of a compost berm but is not meant to represent the one missing in Port Orange Oct 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.