Loading...
OIG No. 22-07: Review of West Avenue Phase II ProjectTO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT: Joseph M. Centorino, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Joseph Centorino, Inspector General July 18, 2022 Review of West Avenue Phase II Project OIG No. 22-07 INTRODUCTION On January 20, 2022, the City of Miami Beach Commission referred a request to the Office of the Inspector General to conduct a review of the West Avenue Phase 2 Project. The Commission item was sponsored by Commissioner Mark Samuelian. The purpose of the referral was to gain an understanding of the basis for the extensive delays in moving the project forward, with a particular emphasis on the problems encountered by the City in securing signed harmonization and license agreements from area residents. The OIG completed its review and delivered a draft report to affected persons and/or entities on May 10, 2022. Affected persons and/or entities had thirty (30) working days to respond per City Ordinance. The response period expired on June 22, 2022. After reviewing the responses, the OIG determined that additional interviews were needed. Those interviews were completed on July 15, 2022 and incorporated into this final report. The OIG has also incorporated the responses that had factual significance into this final report and has included an additional section that details the relevant responses from the former and current City Engineers. All responses to the draft OIG report are attached as composite Exhibit A. SCOPE OF REVIEW Because of the time limitations given for this report, the OIG has not conducted a comprehensive review, which would have included additional witness statements, document reviews and issues. It was recommended by the sponsor, Commissioner Mark Samuelian, that the OIG conduct a "bird's eye" review of the harmonization process and that is what has been done. The OIG interviewed a cross section of residents to better understand their positions and objections, if any, to signing the harmonization and license agreements and met with local experts who wanted to express an opinion about the need for harmonization (and road raising). The office used its own consultant Engineer, Louis C. Aurigemma, P.E., to advise on issues related to drainage, among others. The report includes a summary of the expenditures to date prepared by OIG auditor Marcela Mercurio. The OIG attended weekly harmonization meetings between the contractor's team and City staff from the departments of Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects and Page 1 of 31 N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) Executive Summary The OIG Report 22-07 is a blatant mischaracterization of the facts of the project. It cherry picks information to arrive at the desired conclusion. I have, in an abbreviated manner, elaborated why the OIG’s findings are wrong. I have also documented why the findings, with respect to me, are not only inaccurate but intentionally mischaracterized to fit a narrative that faults City staff for executing the directions they were given. I invite the OIG to investigate the true reasons why West Ave. has stalled and why there were so many obstacles to harmonization. I also invite the OIG to review the success of other projects delivered by our administration and the administration before us; and compare the differences between projects. Perhaps most importantly, the OIG was asked by commission, and acquiesced, to: “gain an understanding of the basis for the extensive delays in moving the project forward, with a particular emphasis on the problems encountered by the City in securing signed harmonization and license agreements from area residents.” The fact that any of these delays are now attributed to me by the OIG is nothing short of preposterous. This is best exemplified by the baseline schedules marked “received” by the City on July 28, 2017 – almost two years prior to my arrival at the City. I began working for the City in January of 2019. According to the baseline schedule, the project should have obtained substantial completion on January 25, 2019 – only weeks after my arrival. The same schedule shows the project being completed on April 25, 2019. The fact that the OIG report attributes any delays to my tenure at the City is an absurd misrepresentation of facts – particularly since the project was still in design when I arrived. Response First and foremost, I would like to thank the OIG for the compliments on the Indian Creek Project. Your praise of the harmonization efforts in Indian Creek, are not only accurate, but emblematic of the success other neighborhood projects could attain. To quote the OIG specifically: “The Indian Creek Drive Flood Mitigation Project is a separate project in the City, but one that has successfully harmonized the properties affected by the project.” One article that was released when our administration (what the OIG report refers to as the previous administration) kicked off the Indian Creek Project stated: “There’s finally some good news for the troubled Indian Creek road project. After making changes to the bid process, the City of Miami Beach likes the results from the latest round of bidding to complete the road work on Indian Creek between 25th and 41st Streets. The number of qualified bidders tripled and the savings to the City and State of Florida could be $9 million.” The article, written by a highly respected resident journalist -Susan Askew, can be found here: https://www.remiamibeach.com/mid-beach/more-bidders-and-a-potential-9-million-savings-for-indian- creek-project/ N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) What’s important to note, is that this project was at a standstill when our administration adopted it. Indian Creek was an active construction site, one that some residents compared to a war zone. The maintenance of traffic was a nightmare, the roadway and flood mitigation project did not have the required permits to proceed, and the seawall had, essentially, no chance of ever obtaining regulatory approval. Yet, our administration, not only obtained the required permits, kicked off the roadway and seawall projects, and improved the conditions of Biscayne Bay by removing four derelict vessels; but we also redesigned the project – an effort that saved the taxpayers $9 Million dollars, which amounts to a 40% decrease in the bid price. Indeed, the results of the project speak for themselves. During the extreme storm event that occurred on the weekend of June 4, 2022, a storm that exceeded the South Florida Water Management District’s 100 year – 24 hour storm, the Indian Creek Project faired well. This was a storm that deposited 12.31 inches of rain for the mid beach area on 6/4/22. The equivalent one-hour intensity was 6.62 (3.31 in a half hour). No matter how you measure it, it was extraordinarily in excess of the design storm for the Indian Creek basin. If you would like to see video of the corridor, I invite you to follow this link: https://youtu.be/ZPkelMUmjC4 The following photos, provided by the contractor (Ric-Man Construction of Florida), demonstrate just how well it faired. N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) For the lay person reading this, the video and photos exhibit Indian Creek Drive absent of any flooding, during an event well in excess of its design storm event. In fact, the video also shows that the adjacent private properties were protected from flooding, not just the corridor – a testament to the harmonization that our administration developed. Meanwhile during the same event, and at the same time the above photos were taken, the following photos show how another mid-beach neighborhood faired. La Gorce, which did not undergo any improvements was inundated. After this event the City received numerous complaints from the La Gorce neighborhood because of the inundation. N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) What is without dispute, is that our administration delivered a functional and satisfactory project in Indian Creek. I sincerely thank the OIG for the compliments, it is always nice to have your work appreciated. As I discussed during my interview with the OIG, I would invite the OIG to consider the differences between a project like Indian Creek and West Avenue. Firstly, Indian Creek Drive is an FDOT roadway. The project was part of a department funded agreement with FDOT. Therefore, changes to the project must be approved by FDOT. This was explicitly stated by Michael Fisher and documented in your report: “it’s a single strip of roadway, an FDOT roadway…When you raise an FDOT roadway, there is criteria you have to follow. And, no one, no matter your opinion…it is what it is…in West Avenue you don’t have that kind of discipline.” It is these very changes, that were mitigated in Indian Creek Project by the contract with FDOT and conversely allowed to stall the West Ave. project due to private interests, that created the issues. West Ave. was constantly redesigned. Whether due to the pump station location, the harmonization, the water quality treatment, the roadway cross-section (layout of the travel lanes and sidewalks); there was a constant obstacle to progress. Yet another example is the Dade Blvd. project. Dade Blvd., a county road, was raised. This may be the single biggest success in Miami Beach road raising history, and one that our administration cannot claim credit for. For years, possible decades, every time that there was an astronomical high tide (king tide), Dade Blvd. was under water. Cars would stall and a major thoroughfare, one that is an emergency excavation route for the City, would be effectively inaccessible. Fortunately, the City had a plan. Dade Blvd. was raised as part of a cooperative agreement with the County. This project was a resounding success. Cars do not stall on Dade Blvd. today - no matter the tide. In fact, Dade Blvd. serves the city every day, and remains functional when needed for emergencies. The reason for this is simple, like Indian Creek, changes did not derail the Dade Blvd. project. They couldn’t – it was a county road. Secondly, the Indian Creek Drive Project is a design-bid-build project. The subject report claims that the City “didn’t really have a strong track record in design-build projects infrastructure wise.” The facts depict a very different story. Enumerated below are just some of the high-profile projects that were either bid as design-builds or converted to design-builds. While some projects may have been perceived as more successful than others, what is indisputable is that the below projects construe an impressive resume of design-build projects – public infrastructure wise. • Washington Ave. – bid as a design-build • Palm and Hibiscus – bid as a design-build • 54” Redundant Force Main – bid as a design-build • 11th St Neighborhood Project – bid as a design-build • Sunset Islands III & IV – bid as a design-build • Emergency FM replacement along Harding Ave. – bid as a design-build • Biscayne Point, Biscayne Beach, and Stillwater - converted into a design-build • Sunset Harbour – converted into a design-build N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) The difference between the Indian Creek Project is not our administration’s ability to implement a design- build project, rather the magnitude and number of changes that can derail a project. When one visits a doctor, their treatment is not defined by the court of public opinion. It is defined by the professionals expertise. Similarly, a professional engineer’s solution should not be defined by the court of public opinion. A testament to this is the results of private property harmonization in Indian Creek. When allowed to do our job, we executed successful projects. Proof is provided in the above photos and link. Thirdly, the common denominator in both Indian Creek and West Ave. was the execution team. Our administration (Roy Coley, Nelson Perez-Jacome, Luis Soto, Giancarlo Pena, Mariana Evora, David Martinez, and Ric-Man Construction of Florida) were the same team executing both projects. One project was successfully implemented, the other project remains stalled. The difference is the process and the number of constant changes to the project. A testament to this is the fact that the Prime Contractor is now suing the City to terminate the contract for convenience. This is documented in the April 27, 2022 letter addressed to Lester Sola (Assistant City Manager) and in the Declaratory Relief Action that was filed against the City. Our administration worked tirelessly to, not only ensure a successful harmonization effort, but to also provide a flood mitigation project that improved the quality of life of the neighborhood’s residents. In fact, our administration’s accomplishments speak for themselves and benefited the residents of Miami Beach. Our administration: • Saved the City millions of dollars, o $9 Million in Indian Creek o $19 Million in Advanced Metering Infrastructure • Protected Biscayne Bay o Removed four derelict vessels from Biscayne Bay o Provided water quality treatment in West Ave. in excess of the 220 cfs that were required • Restarted the Indian Creek Project • Permitted and began construction of the Indian Creek Seawall • Closed the Palm and Hibiscus Permits • Implemented permitting controls to ensure that no work would be done without proper regulatory approval • Established a collaborative relationship with DERM o Opening 17 new permits o Closing 24 outstanding permits • Obtained 34.5 Million in grant funding for City projects o Obtained $14.5 Million in water and sewer grants o Obtained $20 Million in stormwater grants for First St. • Developed a $122 Million Critical Needs Capital Plan to address failing water and sewer infrastructure • Hired or promoted a team of excellent engineers • Above all, protected the interests of Miami Beach residents N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) Addressing specific comments within the report: The OIG criticizes the previous administration and praises the current administration for having implemented weekly meetings with the Engineering group and they address each project to discuss issues and urgencies. However, the OIG admitted during their interview with me, that they were aware of, and reviewed, the operating manual that was developed during my tenure – the same manual that established the organization and meetings. This operating manual is, without doubt, what formalized and brought forth the organization that OIG references. In the report, the OIG states: “…the former City Engineer, Nelson Perez-Jacome, who initially had been meeting with residents on their properties, stopped participating in those meetings.” This is blatantly false. It can only be deemed a purposeful mischaracterization of the truth. Particularly since, I personally clarified this exact issue during my interview with the OIG, yet my statements are not included, and this is in no way caveated. The facts are simple: Harmonization was not under the purview of the Public Works Department, where I worked. It was the responsibility of another department – CIP. Public Works would be involved in technical issues, when requested. I only attended one harmonization meeting on one resident’s property. This was because the meeting pertained to harmonization and the stormwater pumpstation. This meeting was held with the residents, which were located in front of the original pump station location. While harmonization was discussed, the only reason for my presence at the meeting was the stormwater pump station. TO be extremely clear, harmonization was a matter that was administered by CIP, public works only opined when CIP requested engineering expertise. “The absence of the City Engineer, coupled with the lack of direction related to encroachments and drainage, added to the residents’ resistance.” This is not only an absurd comment, given the hesitancy exhibited by residents and public officials well before my arrival at the City, but clearly a red herring that is politically motivated. Additionally, the OIG is well aware that both my staff and I were available to resolve technical harmonization issues – a fact that occurred on numerous occasions. This was explained to the OIG during my interview, yet again conveniently left out. Regarding the Harmonization and Drainage Policies: The OIG made accusations during my interview and in the report that the policy was not properly developed and was not formally adopted. The policies were not only developed pursuant to the instructions that the administration received but was without question formally adopted at a City Commission meeting. The fact that the policy was not considered official by certain individuals or may not have been formally recorded by the Clerk’s office does not, in any way, discount the fact that it was deliberated and adopted at the dais. This makes this policy official. Furthermore, the drainage policy was agreed upon by DRER, the regulatory body overseeing the permitting of the project – a feat, that was not easily attained. N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) Regarding specific statements in the report attributed to me. I honestly have to ask how can the OIG possibly, in good faith, misquote our recorded discussion in the way it is presented in this report? It seems, at best, like this quote was an attempt to use me as a scapegoat for all the issues I mentioned above and during our interview. My statements were taken completely out of context and reorganized on one occasion. As seen below, there was much more to the conversation than what was elaborated in the subject report. Nonetheless, I have clarified the quote the OIG attributed to me in the report. In the following pages, my your quote is shown in italicized black, all missing context stated by me is in red, and the OIG’s questions are shown in green. In approximately 2,000 words of context, the OIG cherry picked 219 words. Approximately 10% of context was used and that doesn’t include the rest of the conversation. If it did, it would be far less. To put this into perspective, in a consecutive portion of the conversation, that lasted 20 minutes – less than 2 minutes were used. The entire conversation was well over an hour. Below is the actual conversation. Jani Singer: What was in place as far as public works reviewing the plans? Did you have a team of engineers that would look at Ric-Man’s work say yes or no? That’s the first piece. The second piece would be: did you have a team of engineers that would then go out to any of these properties and walk the properties with heather or lauren or Ric-Mans team? Nelson Perez-Jacome: Yeah, so absolutely. The engineers on West Ave. were Luis. I mean I would get involved from a Public Works perspective. But Luis was on the job, Giancarlo was on the job, and Mariana was managing the design of the infrastructure. The water, the sewer, and the stormwater really, but the infrastructure side of things. Not so much the private property side of things. The private property, the harmonization side of things, which is a lot less engineering and a lot more paperwork and administrative work was handled mostly by CIP. Ill be honest with you I told David there’s no way I can do my job and attend 200 harmonization meetings. It’s just…it can’t happen…but more than that, they were becoming completely unproductive. Every harmonization meeting would…switch over to the generator discussion or to something else that had nothing to do with harmonization whatsoever… So, Public Works took a back seat on everything harmonization and CIP did it. And we would opine when an engineering decision needed to be made. So for example, if we needed to waive the 3.7 requirement because harmonization would allow you, so we had a couple of instances, I forget the road its right by Lincoln Ct. Or it might be Lincoln Ct. There’s a couple of instances there were a garage is too low, we had a fire escape couldn’t be moved. Right? What were we going to do with the door for the fire escape, people had to get out during a fire. So we waived the 3.7 in certain scenarios. We will get involved in that type of harmonization discussion, technical decisions, not so much procedural harmonization…that was really on the CIP side… Jani Singer: Ok and one o the things that has percolated was that the design criteria package was pretty clear that the roads were going to be raised to 3.7 NAVD right? Nelson Perez-Jacome: We had the ability to waive it, if there was a conflict. Ok so the situations you just gave me would have allowed you to lower the roads? Nelson Perez-Jacome: Right. N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) Jani Singer: Because the conversation that the City has been having with residents is that under no circumstances can we lower the roads. Nelson Perez-Jacome: I take exception to that, at least as long as I was there Jani. That’s definitely not the case. While I was there. Now I obviously cant opine on what’s been spoken of in the last six months. But that’s not the case at all whatsoever when I was there. We were very clear that the Public Works Director, or his designee, with the old version of the policy – the new version of the policy put the City Engineer. But regardless, the new version of the policy isn’t applicable. That’s the Jacobs policy for their integrated water analysis. The old version of the policy, the Public Works Director, or his designee, if there is a legitimate constraint, has the ability to waive the requirement. But it has to be a legitimate constraint. The new version is actually, I guess… I guess in retrospect everything can be improved upon, and the new version I think improved on it a little bit and I guess we went more in the right track. So it wasn’t so strict to a constraint, it had to do more with what’s an acceptable harmonization. And I forgot what the grade is, it’s a percentage of grade, it may be 14%, and if its in excess of that, then we waive it. Cause, you could technically do more than that grade, but they determined in excess of that it becomes too much of a burden. The old version was a little bit more about constraints, not being able to achieve the harmonization. It was a little bit more black and white, but nonetheless, we were always very clear that if the constraint existed, we had the ability to waive it. Jani Singer: Ok, I think that’s where we’ve ended up. What im saying is, for whatever reason the residents didn’t understand that. The residents thought youre coming in, your raising the roads, and everyone is going to flood right? So I think that’s been clarified at this point. Alright but let me backtrack again. So I understand the resource limitations for you and why you couldn’t continue walking the properties. One of the things the residents have said is that no one from public works was out there able to make decisions on the fly. So if we had a question about something on our property, there’s this whole: well we’ve got to go back and we have to send out a bunch of emails and we’ll get you an answer eventually, there’s a delay in that process. So that is why I was wondering: other than you, was there anyone who was able to walk the property and give answers to any of the residents. Nelson Perez-Jacome: Giancarlo and Mariana were present at many of those meetings, particularly Giancarlo because Giancarlo had a little bit more of the private side. The thing is the agenda wasn’t always black and white. You’re kind of asking a question, where the presumption to the question is that the meeting was always about harmonization. Its not always the case, a lot of times that wasn’t the case. A lot of times it was about harmonization and something else. So sometimes it was Giancarlo and Mariana, but when we could make it about harmonization, it was likely Giancarlo. But it was never that black and white. To answer your question, the thing about being able to make decisions on the fly, I don’t know that I can answer that because it’s a bit of a hypothetical, its vague right? If you give me a specific instance, I’m happy to give you answer. But I don’t know that’s the case either. We made many decisions on the spot. Now, whether they were exactly what the residents wanted to hear and they kept asking the same question to get a different answer, that’s another story. The thing is I know that youre focused on the harmonization, right? Because that’s the impetus right now – resolve the harmonization, so that the job can move forward, im only assuming that’s the logic right? But its not in a vacuum. So what ends up happening is, this job was let before the accelerator before any of this happened, right? And the job was won by the design-builder and it was a five year storm, right? It goes to a 10 year storm, theres obviously a change associated with that. There is also a change in administration and when there is a change in administration, and I don’t mean… I’m sorry, not administration, whatever you call it, the commission. At the dais there is a change. So when that change happens, there was a decision, lets do a red team. But N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) lets do a red team for the entirety of the City, minues this job. Because we don’t want to hold up this job, this job was let under an emergency order, the first phase, because of how important it was. This is the second phase of West Ave. right? We’ve already built phase I of west ave. But the previous commission didn’t want to do it under an emergency order, they wanted to actually go through the bidding process, which was the right decision. But its still very important to build the job, so were not going to do a red team for West Ave. What were going ot do is were going to call Columbia Resilience accelerator and have them take a look at the job. Well, they looked at the job and they said basically what everyone else has said: everything you’re doing pretty much makes sense, just add some more blue-green, do this, do that… Those changes made some impacts to the project again driving up cost and then the project moves forward. But somewhere along the lines, somewhere between that and it moving forward, commission says: we’re not fighting with the regulator’s anymore, we gotta play ball with the regulators. Again, it adds costs. Because chapter 24, if you go by the letter of the law in chapter 24, you got to sequester the first flush of water. So, how do you do that in that basin? You can’t do it. You cannot sequester what they define as the first flush because its too much water. It’s 200,000 gpm if I remember. You got 147 acres times 1.5 is 220 cfs and times 448, its about, no its about 100,000 gpm, sorry. So you cannot sequester it, so what were we doing? We were putting mechanical treatment, in excess of the treatment capacity. In excess of the 220 cfs. But DERM doesn’t like that, so then we have to negotiate with DERM, well how many wells can we put? Whats acceptable. Obviously, that drives costs up, because a well is 70 grand a piece, when you reach economies of scale. If you’re building one well its going to be more than 70 grand, but when you reach economies of scale, youre doing 70 grand a piece. But the well isn’t the expensive part, you got to put in, because DERM wants to see electrical things above sea level, so its BFE plus 2, right or above sea level rise. So my electrical panels need to be this high, guess what, that’s costly. The water is coming down, under ground and I gotta get it up that way it pushes water down the well. Well, guess what to do that, I got to build a structure under ground. That needs a cofferdam. These wells with their little micro pumpstations, they’re like a million dollars a pop. So all of these things are happening, and as all these things are happening there’s nuances to the residents. So, for example, before the resilience accelerator started, WAVNA was very adamant about a certain typical section, and I don’t recall all the specifics, but I know they wanted a typical section that had wider sidewalks, more pedestrian friendly, and honestly they were very upfront about it – they wanted to limit the amount of traffic that went through west ave. They wanted people to stop using west ave. as an alternate for Alton Rd. Well the fire department wanted… Obviously the fire department wanted the largest road possible, so that they can get their trucks down. It’s a valid thing, right? They got to put out a fire. Opposing views, we finally came to some consensus. Well the resilience accelerator came in and because of their comments, and I forgot the nuances of it, WAVNA was somewhat unhappy with the new typical section. So, what I'm saying is these interests will often harp on things like harmonization, things like other aspects of the project to slow down the project until they're, what their interest is will get resolved. So, then we end up with situations like harmonization is improperly taken care of…and then we want to just talk about harmonization in a vacuum. But guess what? The whole conversation with harmonization didn't start in a vacuum. Neither did the one with the generator. Neither did the one with the pump station location. None of that started in a vacuum. It was all predicated on other things and other interests. And until we realize that, you're never going to build anything… Populism doesn’t work and that’s whats going on. This isn’t democracy. Democracy is you select an elected official and if he isn’t… you select another elected official to do the job you want. But democracy on every choice, that’s populism and its not working. N E L S O N P E R E Z -J A C O M E , P .E ., E N V S P E-MAIL:NPEREZJACOME@GMAIL.COM Nelson Perez-Jacome Response to Draft OIG Report – Review of West Avenue Phase II Project (OIG No. 22-07) Conclusion The issues with this project are attributable to one issue: constant changes. It was not the engineers or professional staff administering the project that delayed the project. Engineers are public servants. We do not have a vested interest in a project, other than to do what is right and serve the public in the best way possible. Perhaps, out of all professions, we are the one that is most dedicated to a civil society. Without the infrastructure we build there would be no civilization. No roads, no hospitals, no airports, or bridges, or economy, or water. Trust your engineers. You have a remarkable team. Let them do their jobs, lest they find another community that will. Lastly, although not captured in the ordinance governing the Office of the Inspector General in Miami Beach, or any other office of inspector general that is known to me, it would not be superfluous, if merely to draw attention to the enormous inequities that exist under guise of altruism, to note that the Office of Inspector General has the benefit of myriad personnel and a budget of millions of dollars, while the subjects of the report have a computer and a few hours at night after finishing work and their personal responsibilities. Still, I have faith in our country’s system to protect the righteous, in our brethren’s intellect to discern ulterior motives, in truth to prevail over lies, and, above all, in God to lead the way for the benefit, not of those mentioned in the report, but of the citizens of Miami Beach. I respectfully request that, either the OIG revise the report substantially to remove all disparaging comments referencing me and my professionalism from the report, or that this response be made public on the same website that the report is published. The OIG has published responses for the Palm and Hibiscus investigation in the past and this ought not to be a problem. Furthermore, I would like to review a revised report to ensure that all disparaging comments are addressed; otherwise, I would request this response be published.