To: Manager Harden,
The apology Brad Blais offered in his e-mail below, does not address the core of the confusion itself which he created during the June 16th 2015 Council meeting by providing testimony based not on the permitted plans for the Dunlawton Avenue Drainage Improvements Project, but rather on the altered bid plans
The question I had asked Mr. Blais was — would the over bank flooding still occur where he was indicating in his attached power point, namely *along the west side of Spruce Creek Road south of Powers Avenue, * at the headwall where the culvert goes under Dunlawton Avenue, and * at the north end of the shortened berm IF HE HAD BEEN referencing the permitted plans and not the altered bid plans ?
It is important that Council and the people they were elected to represent have a clear understanding from the Design Engineer as to effectiveness of the berm as permitted in preventing canal water from overtopping its banks near Powers Avenue — BESAUSE AS Mr. Giannini noted in his June 19th 2015 letter to SJRWMD any major modification including not constructing the berm will require a ” major permit modificationincluding submittal of revised storm water modeling results ”
You will also remember that Mr. Giannini told us on October 28th 2014 that the Dunlawton storage pond – “was analyzed without influence from the canal as a stand-alone system due to the fact that if the canal overtops its banks, the pond volume is inundated by flood waters from the canal ”
To re-model this project ‘ with influence from the canal and without inundating the Dunlawton storage pond ‘ could well lead to construction costs in the tens of millions if for example it is found that increased pumping capability and a second discharge pipe to the river is required – as will likely be the case.
I am not aware of reason to conclude that the 6.0 elevation ‘ berm ‘ as permitted would not prevent the canal from over topping its banks in the Powers Avenue vicinity to that elevation.
Would you please invite Mr. Blais to reappear before Council to answer this most important question highlighted in bold above.
for responsible government – 2016
From: Brad Blais [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:06 PM
To: Harden, David; Ford, Bob; Stiltner, Scott; Green, Allen; email@example.com; Burnette, Don
Cc: Rivera, Cynthia
Subject: Re: Clarification
I would like to clarify a statement made in response to citizen question posed at Tuesday evening’s meeting. Specifically, a question was asked about the berm configuration as depicted on the ‘SJRWMD’ permit vs the final bid set. I reviewed the project files after the meeting and found that the original depiction did indeed include additional fill on the south end of the berm on the west side of the canal up to Powers Ave.. The bid set revised this requirement due to constructability issues. I would like to clarify this comment and apologize for any confusion.
Brad T. Blais