OIG No. 20-07: Investigation of Palm and Hibiscus Islands Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvement Project, Final ReportCITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FINAL REPORT
OIG Report No. 20-07
________________________________________________________________________
Management of the Palm & Hibiscus Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvement Project
March 10, 2021
Updated and Revised
AUTHORITY
The City of Miami Beach’s Inspector General shall have the power to report and/or
recommend to the City Commission and/or City Manager whether a particular
project or program is, or was, necessary and, if deemed necessary, whether the
method used for implementing the project or program is, or was, efficient both
financially and operationally.
Any review of a proposed project or program shall be performed in such a manner as
to assist the City Commission and City Manager in determining whether the project
or program is the most feasible or efficient solution to a particular need or problem.
Monitoring of an existing project or program may include reporting whether the
project is on time, within budget, and in conformity with plans, specifications, and
applicable law.
Function authority and powers
Office of the Inspector General
City of Miami Beach Code
Section 2-256 (d) (5)
3
VOLUME I: TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT ................................. 9
II.RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND AUDIT CRITERIA ............................ 10
III.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 11
IV.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 21
V.THE BEGINNING ........................................................................................................... 29
A.(2010-–2013) The City updates its Stormwater Management Master Plan and approves
and begins planning the Palm and Hibiscus Project ............................................................ 29
B.The City’s Progressive Design-Build contract with Lanzo; role of Public Works; CIP’s
process for managing construction contracts ........................................................................ 31
C.(Feb. – March 2012) The City selects an engineering firm to prepare a Design Criteria
Package (DCP) for the Palm and Hibiscus project ............................................................... 35
D.(Dec. 2012) Stantec drainage study concludes it is “not possible” to raise the elevations
of North and South Coconut Lanes because of unusually low elevations of adjacent houses
37
E.(July – Dec. 2013) City approves DCP by Stantec and Crews; selects Lanzo as qualified
general contractor for Palm and Hibiscus project; estimates total cost at $9.4 million .... 39
F.(Jan. – Feb. 2014) Mayor Philip Levine elected with mandate to accelerate and expand
the City’s efforts to reduce flooding ....................................................................................... 40
G.(Jan. – Sept. 2014) The City and Lanzo struggle to incorporate new road elevation
design criteria over fears that raising roads will cause new flooding; under pressure from
Homeowners Association, City awards Lanzo a contract for the project’s design phase
without a finished DCP ............................................................................................................ 42
H. (Oct. – Nov. 2014) The City approves a DCP that fails to provide clear direction for
preparing construction plans; CIP Consulting Engineer Crews warns that some DCP
requirements may not be possible .......................................................................................... 45
VI.THE DESIGN PHASE ..................................................................................................... 49
4
A.(Feb. – March 2015) Engineer of Record Rubio begins preparing construction plans for
the drainage system without clear guidance in the DCP for elevating roads; City tells Lanzo
to assume all roads will be raised to 3.7 feet above sea level ................................................ 49
B.(April 27 - May 26, 2015) The City Engineer Mowry agrees to waive road elevation
criteria for North and South Coconut Lanes; City officials reach a consensus about the need
for change in policy to allow public drainage systems to collect water from private lots. 53
C.(June 2015) Lanzo submits 60% and 90% plans with west Palm Island road elevations
at 2.2 feet above sea level; Lanzo submits lump sum estimate of $34,447,283; Homeowners
Associations objects to clearing right-of-ways; CIP orders “pause” .................................. 56
D.(June 2015) Lanzo submits 90% plans, with Rubio’s near-finished stormwater and
hardscape sections; Homeowners Association objects to clearing right-of-ways to build
swales; City postpones milestone review ............................................................................... 57
E.(Sept. 2015) The City approves use of Rubio plans to obtain permits from DERM and
the SFWMD; during king tide flooding, Mowry advocates for raising elevations of roads on
Palm Island ............................................................................................................................... 60
F.(Oct. 9 – 12, 2015) City approves Mowry’s decision to change elevation criteria,
requires raising North and South Coconut Lanes additional 1.5 feet; design engineer
concludes the higher roads will cause new flooding of adjacent lots .................................. 62
G.(Oct. 14 – Oct. 15, 2015) Mowry’s decision requires complete revision of the Rubio
plans; City decides not to provide new funding for that purpose or allow Lanzo time for
that work; Wade Trim decides to terminate Rubio and Craig A. Smith & Associates as
subcontractor. .......................................................................................................................... 65
VII.WADE TRIM’S SOLUTION .......................................................................................... 67
A.(October 2015) The City approves conceptual engineering solution developed by Wade
Trim; adopts expedited design methodology that Mowry used as Engineer of Record for
Sunset Harbour project ........................................................................................................... 67
B.(Oct. 30, 2015)- The City approves RFI# 35 (Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation”) and Wade Trim’s conceptual plans for a drainage system designed to
connect with drains on private lots; City staff tell Homeowner’s Association Commission
will change policy to allow residents to connect yard drains to the City drainage system69
5
C.(Nov. 4, 2015) The City and Lanzo finalize plans for installing private-side yard drains;
direct Rubio to submit his plans to DERM with permit application; direct Wade Trim
engineer Kremers to reengineer, redesign, and revise Rubio’s construction ..................... 72
D.(Nov. 5 – Dec. 9, 2015) The City approves Wade Trim’s revised plans for the drainage
system in west Palm Island and unveils the initial version of a policy to allow the connection
of yard drains on private property to the public drainage system ...................................... 74
E.(Jan. 11 – 30, 2016) The City awards $38.5 million build contract to Lanzo with
finished plans for new public-private drainage system or drainage studies to verify its
expected performance; Concurrent with these activities, the City continues to review and
approve Rubio’s use of the original plans to obtain permits ............................................... 77
F.(Feb. 26 – March 19, 2016) At the direction of the City and Lanzo, Rubio continues
using his plans to obtain permits for the project; Wade Trim engineers Kremers and
Wright complete their revision of the Rubio plans ............................................................... 79
G. (April 7 - 28, 2016) The City and Lanzo finalize plans for installing permanent yard
drains in private lots; DERM begins the final phase of reviewing the City’s permit
application ................................................................................................................................ 81
VIII.PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 90
A.(May 5 – July 5, 2016) The regulatory agencies issued permits for the project based on
the Rubio plans. With this in hand, the City directed Lanzo to begin construction using the
Kremers plans .......................................................................................................................... 90
B.(May 2016 – Dec. 2017) The City and Lanzo make significant changes to the
construction plans to accommodate demands from the Homeowners Association; Wade
Trim engineers recommend notifying DERM and obtaining a permit modification to no
avail ........................................................................................................................................... 98
C.(Feb. – April 2017) In February City Manager Morales affirms policy prohibiting
connection of privately owned yard drains to the public drainage system; in April the City
Commission directs City staff to develop an “engineering solution and policy” to allow
property owners to connect private-side drains to the drainage system .......................... 100
6
D.(March 7 – April 26, 2017) Carpenter and Mowry continue pursuing change in policy;
Commission approves policy allowing connection of private-side yard drains to public
drainage system ...................................................................................................................... 102
E.(June – Nov. 2017) National recognition for City’s proactive efforts to address climate
change; first signs of trouble with permitting agencies over City’s efforts to accelerate work
on a stormwater drainage project ........................................................................................ 108
IX. EXPANSION AND DISCLOSURE .............................................................................. 111
A.(Jan. – April 2018) The City decides to begin installing private-side yard drains under
the Class II permit; CIP tells homeowners that the unpermitted right-of-way drainpipes
will be used as connection points to the mainline pipe ....................................................... 111
B.(April 4 - May 10, 2018) The City decides to begin a new phase of construction that
extends the public drainage system into private property; creates City Drainage Connection
Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 116
C.(Jan. – Feb. 2021) In written responses to a draft of this report, Carpenter and Interim
City Manager Raul Aguila acknowledge 88 unpermitted stubout or right-of-way drainage
connections were built as permanent, but inoperative, parts of the drainage system ..... 130
X. FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 134
XI. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 139
XII.EVALUATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES ............................................................ 141
A.Response received after Feb. 8, 2021 from Interim City Manager Raul Aguila and
former City Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman .......................... ............................... 142
B.Responses of elected and appointed officials and a representative of the Homeowners
Association .............................................................................................................................. 145
C.Responses of current and former City staff named in this report ............................. 145
D.Responses of engineers and engineering firms Lanzo, Wade Trim and AECOM ... 147
XIII.POSTSCRIPT: THE PROBLEM OF MANY HANDS .......................................... 149
XIV.SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS ............................................................................ 150
A.Volume II: OIG Engineer’s Technical Report & Auditor’s Financial Analysis
7
B.Volume III: Written Responses and Rebuttals Click this link to access to Volume III<-----
8
Aerial photograph of west Palm Island in April 2020
Figure 1 Aerial photograph of west Palm Island, with view of North and South Coconut Lanes and Palm Island Avenue taken April 27, 2020 by Smith Aerial Photos and submitted to City of Miami Beach by Lanzo Construction Co. Fla.
9
I. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
ACM Assistant City Manager
CIP Capital Improvement Projects Office
CAS Craig A. Smith & Associates
DCP Design Criteria Package
EOR Engineer of Record
FFE First Floor Elevation
DERM Miami-Dade Division of Environmental Resources Management
GMP Guaranteed Maximum Price
HOA Homeowners Association Star, Palm and Hibiscus Islands
NAVD North American Vertical Datum
OIG Office of Inspector General
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
10
II.RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND AUDIT CRITERIA
•Florida Statutes Title XIX (Public Business) Chapter 287.055 “Consultant Competitive
Negotiation Act” applies to the selection by local governments of a design professional toprepare the Design Criteria Package (DCP) and serve as the agency’s representative duringthe award of a design-build construction contract
•Florida Status Title XXXII (Regulation of Professions and Occupations) Chapter 471(Engineering) establishes legal requirements for licensing of professional engineers inFlorida, authorizes a Board of Professional Engineers and the discipline for professionalmisconduct.
•Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 61G15 establishes the Florida Board of ProfessionalEngineers and the Board’s Professional Responsibility Rules. The rules describe the rolesand obligations of an Engineer of Record (EOR) “in responsible charge” of preparingconstruction plans for submission to regulatory agencies to obtain permits.
•Miami Dade County Code Chapter 24 (Environmental Protection) Sec. 24.48.(1 -11) Thissection of the MDC Code provides the applicable local law for the permitting of stormwaterdrainage systems that empty into bodies of water in Miami-Dade County and the basis of
DERM requirement for permit applications.
•Internal Standards for the Federal Government, U. S. Government Accountability Office,provides generally accepted standards for operating an effective system of internal controls
and audit criteria for identifying risks to internal controls that can prevent help government
agencies from achieving their objective, including management override of internal controls.
11
III.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was prepared in response to requests by City Commissioners Michael Gongora
and Mark Samuelian that the Inspector General investigate the unpermitted construction of drains
on public and private property during the Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood Infrastructure
Improvement Project (“the project”), and the increase in the cost and complexity of the unfinished
project. Their requests followed statements made during public hearings in October 2019 about the
prolonged delay in the City’s efforts to resolve a cease and desist order issued by the Miami-Dade
Division of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) that stopped work on the project
During the project, the City of Miami Beach ("City") and Lanzo Construction Co. Florida
(“Lanzo") were jointly and severally responsible for obtaining a Class II permit from the Division
of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), within the Miami-Dade County Department of
Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), to construct a stormwater drainage system in
compliance with the Miami-Dade County Code. The City and Lanzo also were responsible for
obtaining an Environmental Resources Permit from the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). The City’s contract with Lanzo made the design-builder responsible for preparing
permit application on behalf of the City as owner and permittee and obtaining the permits. An
Engineer of Record for the stormwater drainage system was responsible for preparing, signing, and
sealing construction plan and submitted the application.
Beginning in November 2015, the City and Lanzo directed two engineering firms and
engineers – Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS) with Orlando Rubio, and Wade Trim with Holly
Kremers – to develop distinctly different construction plans for different purposes. Rubio finished
plans based on a standard design to give to the permitting agencies. Kremers was assigned to revise
those plans to provide connections for private-side yard drains in each lot on west Palm Island. The
City and Lanzo obtained a Class II permit from DERM, and an Environmental Resources Permit
from the SFWMD in May 2016 after submitting outdated, revised, and superseded construction
plans and technical documents that described a standard right-of-way drainage system.
Unbeknownst to the regulatory agencies, the plans and documentation the City and Lanzo
12
submitted with the permit applications did not describe the stormwater drainage system that the
City intended to build.
After Lanzo’s design engineers had prepared nearly finished construction plans for a
standard right-of-way drainage system, the City Administration decided in early October 2015 to
require a design change that added a foot or more to the elevation of North and South Coconut
Lanes. This decision significantly increased the risk that building up the pavement to that height
would create a dam-like barrier that would trap floodwaters on adjacent private lots at lower
elevations. To counter this risk, the responsible City officials made a second decision. They decided
to build a public right-of-way drainage system with a different design and intended purpose that
included permanent connections for privately owned yard drains in every residential lot on west
Palm Island. (“private-side yard drains”). After making this decision, the responsible City officials
and the Lanzo design-build team knew, or had reason to know, that such a drainage system could
result in an more complicated and prolonged environmental permitting process and could present
other issues that might delay the project.
Under pressure to begin construction from the City’s political leaders and the Homeowners
Association that represented residents on Palm and Hibiscus Islands, the Capital Projects
Improvement (CIP) office directed the two engineering firms, CAS and Wade Trim, to work on
different versions of construction plans for the drainage system to be used for different purposes.
CAS Senior Engineer Rubio was assigned to complete the nearly-finished his plans for a standard
right-of-way drainage system that would be used to obtain permits (“Rubio plans”). Wade Trim
Vice President Kremers was assigned to re-engineer, redesign, and revise the Rubio plans based on
a non-standard and unprecedented conceptual design for a municipal drainage system in Miami-
Dade County that Wade Trim’s engineers were not sure DERM would permit (“Kremers plans”).
The permitting review process by DERM and the SFWMD took nearly seven months.
During that period, CIP and Lanzo actively managed the parallel efforts of the two engineering
firms and the City staff approved two different “100% Final Design” plans for building the
drainage system on west Palm Island. The plans by Rubio were used to obtain permits. After the
permits were issued, the plans by Kremers would replace and supersede the permitted plans and
thereafter be used to build the essential infrastructure for a non-standard drainage system that could
connected in the future to yard drains in residential lots.
13
The environmental permits issued by SFWMD and DERM were based on the superseded
construction plans by Rubio that did not accurately describe the stormwater drainage system the
City intended to construct. During the permitting review process, this legally significant change in
responsibility for the plans was not disclosed to the regulatory agencies. Between December 2015
and May 2016, the CIP and Lanzo oversaw and approved the parallel work by Rubio, Kremers and
their respective engineering firms on separate versions of construction plans for the same project.
During this period, the City approved a final version of the standard plans by Rubio for a right-of-
way drainage system that was submitted to the SFWMD in December 2015 and to DERM in March
2016 as part of City’s environmental permit applications.
At that point, the permit applications, and the supporting documentation submitted to the
agencies did not truthfully describe the stormwater drainage system that the City and Lanzo
intended to construct. During the seven months review process, the SFWMD and DERM remained
under the impression that Rubio was the Engineer of Record for the project and relied on his
representations on behalf of the City. During most of this period, CIP, Lanzo and Wade Trim knew
that Rubio had ceased to perform most of the functions of an Engineer of Record set forth in Florida
law and that Kremers was performing the critical functions of approving engineering decisions that
impact public, health and safety.
On May 5, 2016, the SFWMD unwittingly issued an Environment Resources Permit for the
project based on the revised and superseded Rubio plans. On May 27, 2016, DERM did the same,
unwittingly issuing a Class II permit based on plans signed and sealed by Rubio that the City did
not intend to use. In both instances, the regulatory agencies relied on permit applications,
construction plans, and technical documents that showed the proposed system met water quality
standards, that omitted material facts and contained information that was untrue and misleading.
Once the permits were issued based on the Rubio plans, the City and Lanzo replaced those
plans with the revised and different Kremers plans, that she signed and sealed in June 2016 and
which the City’s Public Works Department approved in July. For the next two years, the City and
Lanzo used the Kremers plans to build a stormwater drainage system which included pipes that
extended laterally from the mainline drainage system at the edge of the right-of-way in front of each
house on west Palm Island.
The purpose of these permanent right-of-way drainpipes and stubouts was to provide
connections for the future installation of yard drains in each private lot on west Palm Island. The
14
array of lateral pipes that extended from the main drainage pipe were fitted with connection tees or
stubouts (which together comprised the stubouts) were not on the Rubio plans and were not
approved by the permits issued in 2016. At no time did the City, Lanzo and Wade Trim advise the
SFWMD or DERM of the significant changes in design and construction or submit the plans signed
and sealed by Kremers and approved by the Public Works Department for approval.
In early 2018, the City directed Lanzo and Wade Trim to begin the design work for
installing private-side yard drains in dozens of private lots. This new phase of construction would
complete the City’s plan to install one or more private-side yard drains in each lot using the
permanent right-of-way drainpipes to connect private-side yard drains to the public drainage
system. This work was not included in the City’s contract with Lanzo and was not covered by the
existing permits, which had been issued for construction of a drainage system in the right-of-ways.
On or before February 2018, the City and Lanzo began the initial efforts for extending the drainage
system onto private property. During this period, Wade Trim recommended that the City and Lanzo
notify DERM and SFWMD of this new phase of construction and obtain a modification of the
existing Class II permit from DERM and the Environmental Resources Permit from SFWMD. The
agencies received no such notification.
In May 2018, the project’s two-year Class II permit expired. When the City and Lanzo
applied to DERM for a new permit, they did not disclose the Kremers plans. For the second time,
DERM was misled by a permit application based on the long-since superseded and unused Rubio
plans. The City’s new application for a permit was accompanied by correspondence from a Wade
Trim engineer that omitted material facts and contained information that false or misleading about
the drainage system under construction. The misrepresentations included a statement that
significant changes had not been made to the original Rubio plans, and other statements that
reinforced the fiction that the City and Lanzo were still using the Rubio plans. On May 29, 2018,
DERM again unwittingly issued a new Class II permit based on the outdated construction plans
prepared by Rubio.
The deception of the SFWMD and DERM continued for 31 months. It ended after a
whistleblower sent the agency an email with photographs of the installation of a private-side yard
drain on a residential lot on Palm Island that was connected to an unpermitted drainpipe in the right-
of way. The permanent right-of-way drainage pipe was connected to the City’s new stormwater
drainage system that emptied into Biscayne Bay.
15
The circumstances and organizational pressures that led to the misleading of the SFWMD
and DERM can be traced to two causes. The first was the well-intentioned efforts by former Mayor
Philip Levine to accelerate the City’s efforts to reduce flooding. The investigation developed no
evidence that Mayor Levine ever directed or intended that CIP or Public Works not comply with
state and county permitting requirements. Levine’s initial efforts achieved significant results. They
included the construction of pumping stations and drainage projects that materially reduced
flooding in low-lying parts and earned the City national recognition for taking innovative steps to
counter the threat of sea level rise. In the case of the Palm and Hibiscus project, the sustained
emphasis resulted in City officials cutting corners and neglecting critical tasks related to the
project’s planning, design, and construction.
The second cause was the concurrent and equally well-intentioned efforts of the Mayor’s
Blue Ribbon Committee on Sea Level Rise (“Mayor’s Committee”) to incorporate changes in the
design criteria of stormwater drainage and neighborhood infrastructure improvement projects to
counter the existential threat of climate change. The Mayor’s Committee and its consulting engineer
developed changes in design criteria, revisions to the City’s Building Code, and justification for
stormwater bond issues that, collectively, ensured a comprehensive and essential overhaul of the
City’s defenses against climate change. In the case of the Palm and Hibiscus project, however, the
pressure and imperative to incorporate new road elevation design criteria into the project’s
construction led City officials to make decisions that created the circumstances and incentives that
contributed to the permitting violations.
The combined pressure to accelerate the project’s planning and execution, and to also
incorporate aggressive road elevation criteria resulted in serious override of the City's internal
controls. Ultimately, these pressures reached a tipping point in October 2015, when the City made
an eleventh-hour decision at the end of the project's design phase that dramatically increased the
project’s cost and technical difficulty. This resulted in ill-considered decisions by the responsible
City staff to proceed with construction of the Palm and Hibiscus project before they had developed
engineering solutions to the technical challenges, finished preparing construction plans and
obtained proper permits. The City staff members managing the project who were involved in those
decisions have contended that, because Lanzo was contractually responsible for obtaining permits,
they had no responsibility to insure that the permit applications were accurate, complete, and in
compliance with the Miami-Dade County Code requirements for such permits.
16
As set forth in this report, the City decided to raise North and South Coconut Lanes to a
height at or near the minimum crown-of-road elevation of 3.7 feet NAVD (a measurement of sea
level) at the end of the project’s design phase. The City made this decision knowing that this would
create a dam-like barrier that could cause new flooding and trap stormwater on dozens of private
lots. To mitigate the new flood risk, the City then approved a hurriedly developed engineering
solution that involved the installation of 135 yard drains in private lots. The City's approval of this
solution in November 2015 required a complete revision of the near-finished plans prepared by
Rubio for a drainage system with a standard design.
The City staff in charge knew the revision of the Rubio plans would require months of
engineering work that could delay permitting of the project. Under pressure to proceed, the City
staff decided not to wait for a new set of construction plans. In January 2016, the City Commission
awarded Lanzo a $36.5 million contract, plus 10% contingency. At the time of the award, the City
did not have finished construction plans for building the stormwater drainage system, drainage
studies verifying the system’s expected performance, or a reliable basis for determining how much
the non-standard system would cost or how long it would take to build.
Given the unprecedented nature of the system’s design, Wade Trim engineers did not know
whether DERM would issue a Class II permit for a public drainage system that was designed to
connect to private-side system. But they did know or should have known that Section 24-48 of the
Miami-Dade Code would require a separate Class II permit for the construction of each private-side
drain that emptied into a body of water such as Biscayne Bay.
To be clear, this investigation developed no evidence that Mayor Levine or Blue Ribbon
Committee Chairman Robins directed City staff to mislead permitting agencies. During his
campaign for Mayor, Levine contended that the routine flooding of City streets was a public
emergency, which it was. He was elected with a strong mandate from voters to accelerate and
expand the City’s efforts to reduce flooding and modernize the stormwater drainage system. During
his two terms as Mayor, the record shows that he and the responsible City officials made significant
progress on those objectives.
Nevertheless, the evidence compiled in this report establishes that the cumulative effect of
Levine’s “Get it Done” management approach set a tone at the top of City government that was
translated by some City staff to justify or rationalize ill-considered decisions and actions in the case
17
of the Palm and Hibiscus project, that made the Mayor’s primary objective of accelerating
completion of the project impossible to achieve.
Design changes, cost escalation, schedule delays, and disputes with regulatory agencies are
common occurrences in public works construction projects. In the case of the Palm and Hibiscus
project, however, the evidence established that the project's prolonged delay and increased costs
stem from serious acts of commission and omission by the City staff and Lanzo that overrode the
City’s internal controls and violated the Miami-Dade County Code regarding the construction of
stormwater drainage systems.
This report takes a critical look at the management of a single City of Miami Beach public
works project designed to reduce flooding and counter the future effects of sea level rise. The
official actions and decisions that gave rise to the circumstances and pressures that culminated in
DERM’s enforcement action occurred over a period of seven years. While this report describes an
extensive history of the project, and includes background on related topics that provide context for
understanding the causes of the project’s difficulties, the focus of this investigaton is on the actions
by City staff and City contract personnel leading to the permitting violations, the DERM
enforcement action, and related managerial problems.
Given the importance of an engineering background for an understanding of the project’s
development, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) retained a consulting engineer with extensive
experience in the planning, design, permitting, and managing of construction projects by local
governments to assist with review of technical documents and construction plans. The consulting
engineer’s report is included in Volume II of this report. To be clear, this report does not question
the quality of the engineering services provided by Wade Trim and CAS during the project; the
Commission’s decision to ultimately approve the connection of private-side yard drains to the
system; or alleged any criminal act.
The purpose and scope of this investigation was to examine the decisions and acts that
resulted in a prolonged enforcement action by DERM that has delayed completion of the project,
increased its cost, and caused residents and members of the Commission to question the City
Adminsitration’s capacity to manage large-scale investments to reduce flooding and counter the
effects of sea level rise. The findings are focused on actions during the permitting process in 2016
and 2018 that were not consistent with the requirements of DERM and the SFWMD and an
override of the internal controls, policies, and procedure that CIP uses to manage design-build
18
contracts. As required by ordinance, a draft report was provided to the named entities and
individuals who were allowed 30 working days to provide written responses. Where appropriate,
information from these are responses are were incorporated in the report.
The OIG received a Joint Response, and individual statements, from Assistant City Manager
Eric Carpenter, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) office Director David Martinez, and Public
Works Director Roy Coley. In sum, the Joint Response contended the changes made to the
permitted plans by Rubio in 2016 and shown in the Kremers plans were “immaterial” and could be
disclosed to regulators at the end of the project in As-Built plans; and, further, that the City’s
decision in early 2018 to begin installing private-side yard drains did not require modification of the
project’s Class II permit issued by DERM and an Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) issued by
SFWMD that authorized construction of a drainage system in the right-of-ways. The Joint Response
said this report “demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the standard procedures and
practices surrounding drainage permits…Once the project is completed, the engineer of record
submits signed and sealed as-built drawings, certifies the installation, and requests closure of the
permit.”
The Office disagrees with this view. The report applies provisions of the Miami-Dade Code
Section 24.48, and SFWMD regulations and specific conditions of each permit. Since initiating the
enforcement action, DERM issued Class II permits for each of the installed private-side yard drains
connected to the drainage system. Having first learned of the changes to the Rubio plans during a
review of the draft report, SWFMD staff said the agency will require a modification of the City’s
permit. During an interview with OIG staff, SFWMD Division Director Jill Creech said, “The
extent of the difference between the two plans certainly would have been appropriate to have a
modification.”
The Palm and Hibiscus project was always going to present the City and its design-builder
with hard problems of design, engineering, and construction. Recently, City staff stated that they
anticipate completion and permitting of the project within four months. In providing written
responses to the draft findings of this report, they submitted emails from residents of Palm and
Hibiscus Island that hailed the efforts of Public Works and CIP and infrastructure improvements
made to their neighborhoods.
19
While this report summarizes evidence of poor judgment, professional misconduct, and
disregard for the applicable laws, regulations, and professional standards, the findings and
recommendations are made with two caveats in mind.
First, that the records and testimony gathered during this investigation supports a conclusion
that, in the matters described in this report, the responsible City officials believed they were acting
with the knowledge and approval of the City’s political and administrative leadership and in the
best interests of the City. There is no evidence that they acted unilaterally or with corrupt or
wrongful intent.
Secondly, the evidence supports a conclusion that the responsible personnel with the design
builder Lanzo, and the engineering firms Wade Trim and CAS, believed they were acting at the
direction of CIP and Public Works and with the approval of the responsible City officials. The
evidence establishes that the incentives and pressures for their actions originated with the City and
were largely the result of frequent changes in the project’s design and the pressure to expedite work
and hold down costs. On this subject, it bears noting that DERM has taken no actions against
Lanzo, Wade Trim or the design engineers in connection with the unpermitted construction. On this
subject, DERM Director Lee. N. Hefty said in an interview, “A contractor working for the
government, I don't expect, is going to do things for free. They're going to make sure whatever
they're doing, they're going to get paid for. So in my estimation, the responsibility and the direction
must have been coming from the City because why would a contractor do this additional work
without assurances that it was being paid for…that’s what leads us to believe that the City is the one
that was behind the desire and directions for this additional work.”
Regarding the excuse proffered by City staff that it was not responsible for the permitting of
the project, it is correct that Lanzo was assigned the role of preparing and submitting the permits
under its contract with the City. It is our conclusion, however, that the denial of responsibility by
City staff to ensure the proper permitting of this now projected $50 million project reflects a glaring
weakness in internal controls. The City is both owner of the project and the actual permittee, and
must provide signatory approval of the permit conditions, as well as oversee the work performed by
its contractors. City staff members involved in the project, including well-qualified engineers
familiar with the project details, should not consider themselves passive spectators in the permitting
process. As public servants and the City’s representatives, they have an obligation to protect the
City’s interests and to ensure its compliance with environmental regulations.
20
A NOTE ON CONTEXT
As already indicated, this report takes a critical look at the management of an important City
of Miami Beach flood prevention project. The scope of the report includes the project history in
detail, but focuses on managerial decisions leading to the permitting issues and their consequences.
It is not intended to be a critique of the City’s policy choices or the engineering decisions or
methods used, which are outside of the scope of the report. It also does not purport to pass
judgment on success of the project. We have been informed by some City staff members that the
Palm/Hibiscus project is nearing completion, and that the serious problems identified in this report
have been addressed and may at last be getting resolved. The Engineering Division of the Public
Works Department has assumed responsibility for permitting and the DERM has advised that the
working relationship has dramatically improved. We hope these improvements are sustained. If
they are, then the hard work of the City Administration that has been done to move past these issues
will deserve credit. It is well understood that the City’s efforts at stormwater control have been
recognized as innovative and groundbreaking. Despite the emergency conditions under which these
projects have been undertaken, and the novel problems they have presented, City staff members
overall have performed well in confronting these challenges.
21
IV. INTRODUCTION
The genesis of DERM’s enforcement action can be traced to a whistleblower’s emails that
contained photographs of construction work on a private lot in west Palm Island.
On the morning of Sept. 20, 2018, Maria Molina, supervisor of DERM’s Water Control
Section, opened an email with photographs attached to a message expressing disbelief that the City
was allowing the discharge of pollutants into Biscayne Bay. When she opened the attachments,
Molina saw photographs of an open trench in the front yard of a residence at 253 North Coconut
Lane. In the trench was a newly laid PVC pipe connected to a 12-inch drainpipe in the right-of-way
with two 12-inch drains in the front yard and garage. (Figure 2)
DERM's Water Control Section is responsible for enforcing Section 24-48 of the Miami-
Dade Code and issuing Class II permits for the construction of stormwater drainage systems that
empty into bodies of water. Article VI, Section 24-48 of the Miami-Dade Code makes it “unlawful
for any person to perform work or authorize, allow, suffer or permit work to be performed …[on]
the construction of a drainage system for any project anywhere in Miami-Dade County” without a
valid Class II permit from the Miami-Dade County Division of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM). DERM's Water Control Section is responsible for enforcing Section 24-48
and issuing Class II permits.
Molina sent one of her staff to inspect the building site, but the inspection was unavailing.
The construction work was finished, and the trench closed. Given DERM’s mission of enforcing
environmental protection laws and issuing construction permits, it is not uncommon for the agency
to receive complaints that a property owner is having construction done without a permit. In this
instance, a single phrase set this complaint apart. It included an earlier email to City Manager
Jimmy Morales that complained about the City “allowing private properties to connect to the storm
water system,” apparently on Palm and Hibiscus project.
22
Figure 2. Photographs a whistleleblower sent to DERM Sept. 20, 2018 that resulted in the
agency’s discovery of 88 unpermitted right-of-way drainage connections that were a primary basis of the agency's enforcement action against the City stopping work on the project
23
Molina was familiar with the City’s ambitious efforts to respond to sea level rise with
innovative engineering solutions. DERM’s Water Control Section had played a small but pivotal
role in the City’s efforts by permitting the City’s growing portfolio of projects to modernize its
drainage system. She and her staff attended monthly meetings with City officials to review the
status of ongoing projects; they met often with the City’s contractors to discuss the permitting of
new pumping stations and stormwater drainage construction projects.
Despite this working relationship, there had previously been tensions between the City and
DERM over compliance with permitting requirements. In one instance, a DERM enforcement
action had derailed a signature project in the City’s sea level rise initiative. In August 2017 another
whistleblower had tipped off DERM to the removal of mangrove plants along a section of the
Indian Creek project, prompting the agency to direct the contractor to stop work. When former City
Manager Jimmy Morales learned of DERM’s action, he sent an Aug. 30, 2017 email to former City
Engineer Bruce A. Mowry and Assistant City Manager Eric Carpenter that said, “Bruce and Eric,
we cannot proceed on this basis. I recognize that this is an emergency, but that does not authorize us
to do work on properties we do not own and to do so without a permit.”
A primary objective of DERM’s enforcement actions is to obtain compliance with
permitting regulations, using the leverage of its authority to stop work on a project. In the case of
the Indian Creek sea wall issue, DERM began working with the City to provide a modification of
the permit. While these negotiations were underway, the project’s contractor emailed Mowry asking
if the company could resume construction. In a reply email on Sept. 14, 2017, Mowry said the work
could proceed, adding, “The City will address all issues with DERM. We are working under an
emergency condition that was declared by the City for this project, Thanks.”
Four days later, DERM discovered that construction had resumed and notified the City that
it was violating the cease and desist order. This episode triggered additional enforcement actions by
the SFWMD and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City canceled the project’s contract;
Mowry agreed to leave his position with the City.
Now, little more than a year after those events, DERM’s staff was faced with another
whistleblower complaint about another high-profile project in Miami Beach. Molina and her staff
were well-versed in the Palm and Hibiscus project. In May 2016, Molina had issued a two-year
Class II permit to the City to build a stormwater drainage system in the public right-of-way as part
of a neighborhood infrastructure improvement project on both islands. In May 2018 she had issued
24
another Class II permit so that work on the project could be completed. In both instances, engineers
in the Water Control Section had relied on construction plans for building a standard right-of-way
drainage system. Those plans had said nothing about connecting the new system to foot-wide drains
in private property.
What Molina had never done was to issue a Class II permit for the construction of a
privately-owned stormwater drainage system at 253 North Coconut Lane or approve a modification
of the City’s Class II permit allowing connections of yard drains on private property to the public
drainage system. DERM had the authority to permit such connections, but only after approving
construction plans and the results of computer modeling of the new drainage system’s expected
performance.
Perplexed, on Oct. 5, 2018 Molina forwarded the chain of emails and photographs to the
City's Assistant Director of the Environment & Sustainability Department, Margarita Wells, with an
email that said, "We just want to check if the city allowed this connection (if it is a connection)
from this private property to the City system.”
After consulting with other officials, Wells sent a response on October 9, 2018 that said,
“Yes, there are a few isolated circumstances where private properties have historically depended on
the public right-of-way for surface water drainage. As we raise the adjacent road to the minimum
crown of road elevation approved by City Commission (to 3.7 feet NAVD), the conditions at these
properties are reviewed by Public Works and allowed, through a permit, to connect temporarily via
a yard drain to our (drainage system) in order to reduce their risk of flooding.”
Molina was surprised by this response. No municipality in Miami-Dade County has the
legal authority to issue permits for the construction of stormwater drains that ultimately empty
into a body of water. Molina responded with an email that reminded Wells of the legal
requirements under Sec. 24-48 in an message that said, “By connecting to the City's system, the
home is now connected directly to a system that outfalls to a water body. I would need a CLII
permit from this home.” Molina closed with the admonition that the same requirement would apply
to other unpermitted privately-owned stormwater drains connected to the City’s drainage system:
“Keep in mind all the private home connections will require a CLII permit.”
DERM Senior Engineer Mayra De Torres had conducted the agency’s seven-month review
of the City's original application for a Class II permit to build the right-of-way stormwater drainage
system on Palm and Hibiscus islands. When she saw whistleblower’s photographs, what caught her
25
eye was the 12-inch drain in the right-of-way, the pipe that appeared to have been used to connect
the private-side yard drains at 254 North Coconut Lane to the public drainage system.
DERM’s review of the City’s application had included a close examination of the project’s
construction plans and a drainage study report, both signed and sealed by the project’s CAS
engineer Rubio, the Engineer of Record for the drainage system. The right-of-way drainpipe in
front of 253 North Coconut Lane had not been shown on the plans by Rubio that had served as the
basis of the Class II permit.
De Torres arranged to meet with a construction manager from Lanzo Construction Co.
Florida (“Lanzo”), the general contractor for the Palm and Hibiscus project, at 253 North Coconut
Lane to examine the drain in the right-of-way. During the inspection, the contractor disclosed that
Lanzo had installed more than 80 12-inch right-of-way drainpipes and stubouts that were not shown
on the construction plans DERM had approved and not authorized by the City’s Class II permit. As
needed, the unpermitted stubouts and right-of-way drainpipes were being put to temporary use
during construction to drain stormwater trapped in adjacent lots by the newly elevated roads.
Twelve months passed. During the next twelve months, DERM inspectors confirmed that,
at the City’s direction, Lanzo had installed a right-of-way drainpipe in front of each house on west
Palm Island and that eight private-side yard drains had been connected to the drainage system. In
July 2019 the agency issued a “cease and desist” order and directed the City to obtain a
modification of its existing Class II permit. This enforcement action disrupted a $775,000 effort by
the City to install approximately 90 private-side yard drains and to connect those privately-owned
drains to the public drainage system. As the months passed, the Homeowners Association that
represents Palm and Hibiscus Island became concerned about the lack of progress.
In September 2019 their complaints reached Commission Mark Samuelian, chairman of the
Sustainability and Resiliency Committee, which raised the issue at a Sept. 25, 2019 hearing. During
the hearing, CIP Director David Martinez said the project’s contractors were preparing construction
plans for the construction of 60 to 70 private-side yard drains. He said, “We are providing that same
information to DERM for them to tell us how they're going to do it…everything's predicated on
DERM letting us run loose with the work that we have to do.” During the hearing, former
Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman contended that DERM staff was reluctant to approve the use
of private-side yard drains and suggested that City Manager Morales raise the issue with more
26
senior County officials and determine “the capacity of DERM…in terms of turnaround for
projects.”
Intent of resolving the impasse, Samuelian invited DERM officials to a hearing of the
committee on Oct. 23 to explain the delay in issuing permits. During that session, DERM Director
Lee N. Hefty rejected the suggestion that the agency was holding up completion of the project. He
said DERM was still waiting for the City to provide construction plans so new permits, or
modification of the existing permit, could be issued.
During the hearing Hefty said, “What we need from the City is details on how they want
their drainage system to be designed. To submit those to us with the proper certification so that we
can review and approve it.” He observed that permit violation had been pending for months, and, he
continued, “We want the City to come into compliance. Work was done without a permit, and we
need that work to be done under a permit.”
During the hearing, Carpenter said:
I would tell you that Palm Island is certainly much more challenging because I think that's where we have about 88 of the hundred and eight properties or connections that we're talking about, particularly on the Coconuts. That's where we installed a number of
temporary construction drains. As we were going through the process, we realized that raising the roads up could potentially put some of these properties in a little bit different situation during construction activity. So we installed approximately 88 temporary construction drains while we were out there. Those are ultimately going to either get converted to a private property drain or if we can't resolve the harmonization issue
with the private property owner, then we would permit those as a permanent drainage
structure. (Emphasis added)
A week later, during the City Commission meeting on Oct. 30, Samuelian summarized the
new information from Hefty and likened the situation to the permitting violation that had stopped
work on the Indian Creek seawall. "Like we had in Indian Creek, we now have unpermitted work,
and we are in violation," Samuelian said. Among the questions he said he wanted answered was,
"How did this happen?"
Carpenter was present for the City Commission hearing and had prepared a presentation. He
was accompanied by Kremers, who had replaced Rubio as the Engineer of Record after DERM
issued the Class II permit. Carpenter said DERM’s enforcement action stemmed from a difference
of opinion about when the City and Lanzo should have notified DERM about the right-of-way
drainpipe connections and obtained a modification of the Class II permit.
27
Carpenter said the project had "gone through an evolution" since DERM had issued a Class
II permit for the project. He said that when changes were made to a project’s plans during
construction, it was customary for general contractors to notify DERM at the end of a project when
they submitted “As-Built” construction plans showing additions. Carpenter said, "It is a judgment
call of DERM as to when is the most appropriate time to go through that modification process."
Carpenter invited Kremers to explain why the right-of-way drains had not been disclosed to
DERM as part of the City’s application for a permit. Reiterating Carpenter’s earlier explanation, she
said the right-of-way drainpipes were not disclosed because they were “temporary” construction
drains that were never intended to be a permanent part of the drainage system. She said the “88
drains that you've been hearing about, these are temporary construction drains. There was one
installed in the right-of-way in front of each property on North and South Coconut.”
Kremers said the drainpipes were installed as a temporary precaution because “we wanted
to make sure that we had that in place…in case any flooding issues were to occur during
construction.” She explained that, “The intent was that when the project was complete and before
the stormwater system was placed in service, that those drains would be…abandoned, and the
permanent drainage system would be in place at that time.”
City Manager Jimmy Morales summarized the Administration’s response by reiterating that
the 88 pipes and drainage connections Lanzo had installed in the right-of-ways in front of each lot
on west Palm Island were temporary drains for use during construction; and, further, that the City
had adopted a policy to allow property owners to connect to the City’s drainage system. Morales
concluded that City staff had identified 98 properties on both islands that qualified for installation
of private-side yard drains.
At the close of the discussion, Gongora observed that the City Commission had provided
"tens of millions of dollars over the past two years" for the Palm and Hibiscus and the Indian Creek
projects, and "yet the work doesn't really get done." Further, he expressed frustration with the City
Commission's inability to obtain information about the status of the projects. He concluded by
asking the City Clerk to convey a request to the Inspector General that the office investigate to "find
out what went wrong with permitting. Why we budgeted so much money and it's gone over budget?
Why these projects aren't working correctly, why the residents are waiting years and years and
years with no results?”
28
29
V. THE BEGINNING
A. (2010-–2013) The City updates its Stormwater Management Master Plan and approves
and begins planning the Palm and Hibiscus Project
Ten years ago, former Mayor Matti Bower and members of the City Commission made
decisions that put the City of Miami Beach in the front ranks of waterfront municipalities in the
United States that were awake to the existential threat climate change, frustrated with street
flooding during storms, and prepared to invest in public works projects to reduce flooding and
counter the future effects of sea level rise.
In 2010 the City awarded a $600,000 contract to the engineering firm CDM-Smith to update
the City’s 15-year-old Stormwater Management Master Plan. During the next three years, they
approved more than $50 million in new stormwater drainage projects. One of those was
Neighborhood No. 13 Palm and Hibiscus Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement Project
(“project”).
In August 2012, Mayor Bower and the City Commission approved the new stormwater
master plan and increased the Level of Service (LOS) for the expected performance of the City’s
stormwater drainage system. The process of establishing, or raising, the service level for the City
drainage system required striking a balance between how much flood protection the City could
afford to build over 20 years versus the maximum flood levels that the City was prepared to accept.
The decision entailed adopting design criteria that comprised the Level of Service.
Several of these design criteria that are used to establish the City service level are material
to understanding the history of the Palm and Hibiscus project. As set forth below, changes in the
design criteria made under former Mayor Levine play an important role in the decisions that
contributed to the project’s permitting issue.
In adopting a new Level of Service (LOS), or changing the criteria that are part of the
service level, the Commission under Mayor Bower was establishing the expected standard of
performance for new drainage systems. When the City builds a new stormwater drainage system, it
awards a contract for the construction of a system that can prevent maximum flooding up to the
Level of Service. As noted in City’s 2011 Stormwater Drainage Master Plan, “LOS decisions will
30
directly affect the size and cost of proposed improvement alternatives.” Higher levels of service
provide more protection against flooding, but also entail higher construction costs. In 2013, the
Commission adopted a $200 million, 20-year plan of investments.
One critical design criteria is known as the tailwater boundary, or groundwater criteria. It is
based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 or NAVD, which is equivalent to local sea
level. The tailwater boundary criteria sets the elevation baseline that is used to design new
stormwater drainage systems and has an impact on the cost of a new drainage system. Generally,
raising the tailwater boundary criteria means raising the elevation of gutters, roads, and swales.
Under former Mayor Bower, the Commission used an intermediate estimate of the rate of sea level
rise developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and raised the tailwater boundary criteria
from .04 feet NAVD to .67 fee).
The design basis storm is a criteria that is based on estimated rainfall during 24-hour period.
It is used to design the capacity of a drainage system. Like the tailwater boundary criteria, the
design basis storm criteria can be adjusted, depending on the level of service. A project’s design
basis storm criteria are included in the DCP. They are used to design the drainage system and
prepare construction plans. It is also used to conduct computer modeling and simulation evaluations
known as drainage studies.
Drainage studies verify the expected performance of the drainage system. In reviewing
permit applications, DERM and the SFWMD require the submission of finished construction plans
and drainage studies based on those plans. They use the results of the studies to verify that a new
drainage system can handle the quantity of stormwater expected during the design basis storm and
meet water quality standards for stormwater discharged into bodies of water.
Concurrent with raising these design criteria, the Commission authorized $50 million in new
construction, including the Palm and Hibiscus neighborhood improvement project.
On June 11, 2011, the City issued Request For Qualifications (RFQ) #35-11 for a consultant
to produce a “Design Criteria Package for Palm and Hibiscus Island as well as a Master Design
Criteria Package to be used as a template for other City horizontal right of way projects.” It would
be the City’s first effort to apply the new design criteria to a neighborhood infrastructure project. It
also was the City’s first use of a variation of the standard design-build construction contract. The
new approach, known as a progressive design-build contract, would give the City a more direct role
in shaping the construction plans.
31
In January 2012, after failing to reach agreement with the highest ranked firm, CIP asked the
second ranked firm, C3TS (which later became Stantec Consulting), to submit a proposal. C3TS
Senior Project Manager, Jeffrey Crews, who later represented Stantec, submitted a Scope of Work
that included the following description:
The term Progressive Design Build is defined as a methodology where the Design-
Build Team is hired predominantly on the basis of qualifications without identifying
an ultimate project cost. As the project develops through the Design Phase, the Design Builder will provide a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. At the end of the Design Phase, the City has the option to accept the GMP and continue with the Design Builder through the Construction Phase or may utilize the plans
developed for continuation with some other means of project delivery without
further involvement from the Design Builder.
B. The City’s Progressive Design-Build contract with Lanzo; role of Public Works; CIP’s
process for managing construction contracts
Within City government, Public Works was considered the owner of the Palm and Hibiscus
project and would operate the drainage system once it was built. CIP was responsible for managing
all aspects of the construction for Public Works. City Engineer Mowry was responsible for
approving the project’s design criteria package and mid-construction changes to the criteria. Public
Works would approve the construction plans for the stormwater drainage system. Mowry reported
to Public Works Director Carpenter. Both Public Works and CIP had successfully managed
numerous stormwater drainage projects. The two agencies had overlapping roles and
responsibilities.
Public Works did not have the resources to manage a portfolio of large-scale design-build
construction projects, but CIP had both the mission and the resources to do that job. Over a decade
of operations, CIP had built an integrated process for managing every phase of a large-scale
construction project. CIP Director Martinez and his predecessors had assembled a staff of
experienced project managers, engineers, and subject-matter experts, many with degrees in
architecture, construction management, project management, environmental engineering, and other
technical specialties.
32
As an organization, CIP’s policies, practices, operations, and software were aligned with the
stages of the design-build contracting process. To manage a dozen or more projects a year, CIP
used eBuilder, a high-end, web-based dashboard that was specially configured for design-build
contracts. (Figure No. 3) Additionally, CIP integrated into each project an outside architecture and
engineering firm to handle the myriad of technical and administrative aspects of large construction
projects. These tasks included conducting daily field inspections, monitoring the general
contractor’s compliance with permitting requirements, and managing the Request for Information
process that documented large and small changes in a project.
Several distinctive aspects of the design-build contracting process are material to this
investigation. Title XIX, Section 287.055, Florida Statutes (“Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation
Act”) prescribes the design-build contract model for public construction projects by local agencies
and identifies the critical elements. Several of these relate to the issues that arose during the Palm
and Hibiscus project.
Figure 3: CIP slide that shows the end-to-end process the office used to manage design build projects.
33
For example, the Act describes the signal importance of beginning the process by
developing a Design Criteria Package (DCP). The primary purpose of a DCP is to clearly
communicate to the general contractor and its engineers how the owner (in this case the City) wants
the project built. A finished DCP provides the project’s design engineers with “specified
performance-based criteria for the public construction project, including…schematic layouts and
conceptual design criteria,” according to the Act. Because design engineers use the DCP’s
specifications and directions to draw construction plans, a DCP should provide "a clear, concise,
performance-oriented outline specification of the requirements of the project which defines the
design constraints and the time and budgetary constraints to be achieved,” according to F.A.C. Rule
13D-23.002(6).
An equally important purpose of the DCP is to give the owner and general contractor a
reasonable basis for estimating the costs and the technical difficulty of preparing the construction
plans, and, ultimately, negotiating a lump sum price for the project’s design phase. Section (2)(J) of
the Act says, “The purpose of the design criteria package is to furnish sufficient information to
permit design-build firms to prepare a bid or a response to an agency’s request for proposal, or to
permit an agency to enter into a negotiated design-build contract.”
Given the DCP’s pivotal importance to the success of a design-build project, Florida law
directs a local government to retain its own engineer or architect to prepare the DCP. Subsection
(9)(b) of the Act says, “The design criteria package must be prepared and sealed by a design criteria
professional employed by or retained by the agency.” For the Palm and Hibiscus project, the City
selected Stantec Consulting engineer Jeffrey Crews as the project’s designated Design Criteria
Professional.
To ensure that the construction plans reflect the DCP’s directions, design-build contracts
provide for a periodic review of the construction plans by the owner at the 30%, 60%, 90% and
100% stages of completion. Changes to the project’s design, specifications and construction plans
occur during both phases, and can have financial, legal, or operational implications for the owner
and builder. To document and manage changes during a project, CIP uses an online Request for
Information form that is uploaded to eBuilder. In the Palm and Hibiscus project, Lanzo
Construction Manager Bob Beaty and Wade Trim Engineer Daniel Garcia submitted RFI’s with
queries or proposed solutions. Crews managed the RFI process and responded on behalf of CIP.
34
Florida law and the Miami-Dade Code govern the construction of stormwater drainage
systems that empty into bodies of water. Like those of CIP and most general contractors, the
procedures and practices of the SFWMD and DERM also closely align with the design-build
process. To ensure the integrity and reliability of the permitting process, Florida law and Section
24-48 of Miami-Dade Code also govern the role of a design-build project’s Engineer of Record.
Pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code, the professional responsibility rules for licensed
engineers require that an Engineer of Record “personally makes engineering decisions or reviews
and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation, including the consideration of
alternatives, whenever engineering decisions which could affect the health, safety and welfare of
the public are made.”
For a stormwater drainage system, the Engineer of Record’s primary responsibility is to
prepare, sign, and seal the final plans at the end of the project’s design phase, and certify to
permitting agencies that the plans are accurate and, in particular, that they do not cause harmful
flooding or negatively impact adjacent property. In order to perform this responsibility, the rules
require that the Engineer of Record “shall be completely in charge of, and satisfied with, the
engineering aspects of the project,… shall have the ability to review design work at any time during
the development of the project,” and should make final decisions about the “selection of
engineering alternatives.”
The Palm and Hibiscus project was the City’s first attempt to use a “Progressive Design-
Build” project delivery model. This approach is a variation of the standard Design-Build
contracting process. According to a primer published by the Design Build Institute of America
(DBIA), the Progressive Design Build model is an “excellent option when an owner wants to use
design-build but remain actively involved in the design decisions” and also wants greater control
and “transparency into the design-builder’s proposal cost (including the pricing for risk and
contingencies) and the ultimate cost for final design and construction.”
The project is awarded in two phases. During the Pre-Construction Design phase, the design
build team’s engineers prepare construction plans based on the DCP. According to the DBIA:
At the point in time where the design has been advanced to an appropriate level of
definition that aligns with the owner’s requirements, the design-builder will provide a formal commercial proposal (including the overall contract price) for Phase Two services. The proposal is often established when the design is approximately 40 to 60 percent complete, but it can occur anytime (including as late as 90 to 100 percent
35
design completion), depending on the amount of control the owner desires to maintain over the design definition.
The Final Design and Construction phase is awarded based on a lump sum Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP). According to the DBIA primer, “Once the owner and design-builder agree
upon commercial terms (including the project’s price and schedule), the design-builder will
complete the design and construction of the facility in accordance with those commercial terms.”
The City’s contract with Lanzo provided CIP with the maximum period of control over the
design of the construction plans. The Phase I Preconstruction and Design Phase required
submission of construction plans at the 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% stage of completion milestones.
It said final payment would be withheld until all permits were issued based on a final 100% plans
signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. Further, the City’s contract made Lanzo responsible
for obtaining all permits. It said, “The Design-Builder shall be responsible for obtaining all
necessary licenses and permits not being provided by the City, and for complying with Applicable
Laws in connection with the prosecution of the Work.”
As set forth below, the responsible City officials said in interviews that they were not
responsible for obtaining permits or complying with the requirements of DERM and SFWMD. In
an interview, Assistant City Manager Eric Carpenter, who signed the City’s permit applications,
said, “The permit submittal process is one that is required of the design-builder. The design-builder
puts together the design, puts together the permit packages, and then typically would submit those
permit packages to the City. The City, as the owner needs to execute the permit before DERM will
review it.”
C. (Feb. – March 2012) The City selects an engineering firm to prepare a Design Criteria
Package (DCP) for the Palm and Hibiscus project
On Feb 8, 2012, the City Commission awarded a contract to Stantec to produce a Design
Criteria Package (DCP) for the project. Crews was the project’s designated Design Criteria
Professional. Under Florida law, cities that use design-build contracts for public construction
projects are required to begin the process by developing a Design Criteria Package (DCP). The
DCP is a foundational document in which the City spells out what it wants the general contractor to
build. The law requires that a DCP “must specify performance-based criteria for the public
36
construction project” and provide “…conceptual design criteria of the project, cost or budget
estimates, design and construction schedules” and other metrics.
The DCP is used at every stage of a design-build project: by the City to solicit Request for
Qualification proposals from general contractors; by design-build firms to prepare bids for the pre-
construction design phase contract; by design engineers to prepare construction plans; and by
Design Criteria Professionals to verify a project was built to the City’s specifications.
Given its importance to the success of a design-build project, Florida law requires that cities
retain their own Design Criteria Professional to prepare the document and “to serve as the agency’s
representative” to assist in supervising and approving “detailed working drawings of the project;
and for evaluation of the compliance of the project construction with the design criteria package.”
The City’s contract with Stantec included tasks that are material to this investigation,
including the clarity of the DCP’s criteria and the obligation to obtain the approval of permitting
agencies. For example, it required Stantec to finalize all design criteria (clearly defining the entire
scope of work to be performed) to be utilized by the contractor to bid, design and construct the
Project. The contract further required Stantec to address issues related to infrastructure design
analysis and performance specifications. More specifically, the contract required that in preparing
the DCP, Stantec “shall seek the approval of the DCP” from the permitting agencies including
DERM and SFWMD.
On March 22, 2012, Crews met with engineers in DERM’s Water Control Section to
describe the Palm and Hibiscus project and determine the types of drainage solutions the agency
would be inclined to permit on islands surrounded by Biscayne Bay. He also inquired about the type
of drainage studies DERM would require for the project. A drainage study measures the
performance of a drainage system, including its ability to prevent flooding. Engineers use software
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to model the expected
hydrologic and hydraulic performance of a proposed drainage system during a hypothetical extreme
weather event known as a design basis storm.
Drainage studies produce two measurements that regulators use to approve drainage
systems. The first measures the total quantity or volume of stormwater the proposed system could
be expected to remove during a 24-hour storm. The second measures the capacity of the system to
37
retain the first inch of rain during a storm, considered the most polluted, and prevent its discharge
into a body of water.
After his meeting with DERM, Crews produced minutes that said in part, “The area
considered for water quality is the footprint of the Right-of-Way. Contributions from the properties
do not need to be considered.” The minutes indicated that DERM was open to the use of a relatively
new water technology that enabled the use of pumping stations equipped with water quality
treatment systems instead of methods like traditional gravity wells to retain the first inch of
stormwater on site. The minutes said, “Stormwater treatment units (centrifugal) is an option for the
County but SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) is still reviewing them. They have
accepted one specific unit that includes filtration as part of the treatment.”
D. (Dec. 2012) Stantec drainage study concludes it is “not possible” to raise the elevations of
North and South Coconut Lanes because of unusually low elevations of adjacent houses
Stantec and Crews used the City’s newly updated tailwater boundary design criteria to
develop a DCP and initial 30% construction plans for Palm and Hibiscus Islands. The starting point
was a voluminous Design Basis study of the two islands. It explained that the pre-construction
stormwater drainage system on west Palm Island, which the City intended to replace, had used
North and South Coconut Lanes to collect stormwater runoff from private lots and channel it to
drains and catch basins.
The Design Basis study said, “Coconut Lane is a two-way road that extends around Palm
Avenue on the west half of the island. It is surrounded by residential properties and outlined with a
flush concrete curb through its entire length. The pavement has an inverted crown section that
slopes toward the center, where runoff from the right-of-way and adjacent areas is collected by
intermittently located catch basins.”
The design of the existing stormwater drainage system before construction is material to this
investigation. The original system was outdated and routinely overwhelmed by severe storms and
seasonal king tides. However, because the elevation of North and South Coconut Lanes was
generally lower than the adjacent houses, the inverted centerline of those roads allowed the
38
“positive” flow of stormwater from private lots into right-of-ways and roads for collection by the
drainage system. Before DERM can issue a Class II permit to build a new public or private drainage
system, Miami-Dade Code 24-48 requires a project’s Engineer of Record to certify that the new
drainage system will not create a “Harmful obstruction or undesirable alteration of the natural flow
of the water within the area of the proposed work” or harm to adjacent property.
Crews and his colleagues at Stantec produced a DCP and prepared a 30% set of
construction plans. Thereafter, they conducted drainage studies of the proposed drainage
system to determine if its expected performance would meet regulatory standards. The
results were summarized in a December 2012 Drainage Analysis report that described the
terrain and geological challenges of building a stormwater drainage system on west Palm
Island. It said, “Soil permeability within the project site is poor and the site has extremely
low ground elevations. High ground water and tidally influenced groundwater levels lead to
flooding the site under minimal rainfall. High tidal elevations during Proxigean spring tides
(two weeks during spring and fall) often compound the issue by forcing seawater back into
the drainage system and over the pavement surface.”
Ultimately, Stantec and Crews designed a modern stormwater drainage system with larger
pipes, new catch basins, refurbished swales, rebuilt curbs and gutters, and resurfaced roads. The
construction plans included one automated pumping station equipped with a water treatment unit
and injection wells to handle the first inch-and-a-half of rainfall (providing for either on-site
retention or treatment of stormwater before discharge. The DCP said:
All road right-of-ways within the limits of the Project shall receive upgraded drainage to include new piping, catch basins, manholes, outfalls, centrifugal treatment units and pumped drainage wells…The proposed drainage improvements
for Palm Island consist of a collection system of catch basins, manholes and conveyance pipes along the long axis of the island. At either end of the island, the collection system connects into stormwater pump stations discharging into pressurized drainage wells. Existing outfalls are maintained as existing and interconnected to the new system. Each outfall and well is protected with tide-flex
valves and stormceptor units for quality treatment.
However, the one option that Stantec and Crews firmly ruled out was raising the
elevation of roads on Palm Island by more than two inches. The Drainage Analysis report
said, “Palm Island has extremely low road elevations below Proxigean spring high
tides…Some areas will be raised minimally (up to 2”) but major grade changes in this area
39
were not possible due to the low elevations of yards, garages and even finished floor
elevations of the adjacent homes.”
E. (July – Dec. 2013) City approves DCP by Stantec and Crews; selects Lanzo as qualified
general contractor for Palm and Hibiscus project; estimates total cost at $9.4 million
From the outset, the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) office managed the project
for Public Works. Stantec and Crews helped CIP draft the Request for Qualification solicitation
based on the DCP. Five contractors submitted proposals. Two members of the Homeowners
Association representing Palm and Hibiscus Islands served on the committee that selected Lanzo
Construction Co. Florida as the highest ranked bidder.
On July 17, 2013, the City Commission authorized CIP to begin negotiations with Lanzo for
the project’s design phase or “Phase 1 – Pre-Construction and Design.” In August 2013, CIP
notified Lanzo that the City estimated the project’s cost at $9.4 million dollars, based on the Stantec
DCP and 30% plan. Lanzo countered with a proposed lump sum price of $10.4 million, including
$599,464 for the project’s design phase. In a Letter to the City Commission dated Sept. 18, 2013,
City Manager Jimmy Morales provided a timeline for the Palm and Hibiscus project with a
completion date in August 2015.
By the end of 2013, the City had approved a 20-year, $200 million plan to modernize its
stormwater drainage system. It had completed projects in the Normandy Shores Neighborhood,
Nautilus Neighborhood, Sunset Islands I & II, and South Pointe II, installed pumping stations in
Sunset Harbour and other areas, and was managing other projects in various stages of development,
among them the Palm and Hibiscus project. On May 3, 2013 the City awarded Lanzo a $2,040,459
contract to upgrade three existing pumping stations in Sunset Harbour.
Nevertheless, flooding of streets from storms and seasonal king tides remained a frequent
and frustrating part of life in Miami Beach. During the 2013 mayoral race, Philip Levine made the
issue of combatting sea level rise the centerpiece of his campaign and was elected with a strong
mandate to accelerate the City’s efforts to reduce current flooding and counter the future effects of
climate change.
40
F. (Jan. – Feb. 2014) Mayor Philip Levine elected with mandate to accelerate and expand the
City’s efforts to reduce flooding
On January 6, 2014, newly elected Mayor Philip Levine sent an email to City Manager
Morales and members of the City Commission wishing them a Happy New Year and declaring,
“Because the flooding epidemic on Miami Beach is of such great importance and must be tackled
on an emergency basis, I have formed a Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding Mitigation consisting of
qualified Miami Beach residents.”
Attached was a memorandum establishing an advisory board that Levine vested with the
mission, authority, funding, and staff to become involved in all aspects of planning, designing, and
funding stormwater drainage and neighborhood infrastructure projects. The chairman of the panel
was Scott Robins, a successful developer in Miami Beach. Under “Powers and Duties,” the
memorandum said the Committee shall report directly to the Mayor; use the services of a consulting
engineer and City Attorney’s Office; and contact staff at all levels of City government. City
Engineer Mowry was the City’s liaison to the Committee.
During the next three years, both Levine and Robins developed a close working relationship
with Mowry, who functioned as the intellectual author and advocate for recommendations by the
Committee that were later approved by the City Commission. The Committee held frequent
meetings and required the attendance of the responsible City officials including Carpenter, Mowry,
and CIP Director David Martinez. The City awarded a $7 million contract to the global engineering
firm AECOM, which provided the Committee with its own consulting engineer, Thomas
McGowan.
On January 30, 2014, in response to a query from an engineering contractor, Mowry wrote
an email about prospective changes in the City’s design criteria that he copied to Morales,
Carpenter, and Martinez. It said, “We will be making several changes to the criteria over the next
several months…The position of using mean sea level data is not appropriate because the tide has
peak elevations that cause flooding. A peak tide event should be used in a design of any drainage
system in the City…The City Commission, at their next meeting, will be considering the adoption
of tailwater criteria of 2.7 feet NAVD for all projects in the City.”
41
On February 12, 2014, the City Commission approved a resolution based on a recommendation to
raise the tailwater boundary criteria to 2.7 feet above mean sea level. The resolution included the
following:
WHEREAS, the City's Stormwater Management Master Plan (SWMMP) takes into account climate change and estimates of projected sea level rise over the next 30 years and, as a result, for all new projects, a sea level elevation of 2.7 feet NAVD88 (based upon the
South Florida Climate Change Compact projection) is being used for stormwater design purposes and an elevation of 5.7 feet NAVD88 ( a vertical control datum established in 1991 used to define elevations) is being used as a minimum for public seawall elevations;
Typically, formal recommendations of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on matters of
policy or design criteria were presented at meetings of the Flooding Mitigation Committee and
forwarded to the Commission for action without a Letter to the Commission. This process bypassed
the City Administration’s usual process and did not require review and approval by former City
Manager Morales or his input. During an interview with OIG staff, Morales said, “Your observation
is correct. The Mayor’s Clmmittee was very proactive, met frequently, worked with staff, and their
recommendations usually went straight to the Commission. But in fairness, with the analysis done
usually by the City staff and AECOM.”
In addition to recommending policy changes to the Commission, the Mayor’s Committee
also weighed in on decisions about specific projects. According to CIP Director Martinez, the
Mayor’s Committee operated on two levels, recommending policy to the Commission, and
weighing in on decisions about specific projects. Martinez said in an interview, “then it became
'What projects do we implement that on? I believe that part of those things really only came from a
directive from the panel through Public Works to CIP saying, 'OK, on this project, we're not going
to implement the road raising, and we're only going to do this on this one. We're going to do it all
on this one.'” (Emphasis added)
During meetings with City staff, the Committee discussed the risk that elevating roads in
Palm and Hibiscus and other low lying neighborhoods would cause new flooding and create a need
for change in City policy to allow privately-owned, or private-side, stormwater drains to connect to
the City drainage system. Consistent with the authority Levine had vested in the Committee,
Robins communicated directly with Carpenter, Martinez and Mowry and was consulted about how
and to what extent the new design criteria should be applied to specific neighborhoods.
To the extent that Robins was viewed as Levine’s representative, his frequent interaction
with Public Works staff and AECOM consultant McGowan lends credence to statements by former
42
City Manager Morales that he was not aware during 2015 and 2016 that the drainage system on
Palm Island was at that time being designed to accommodate private-side yard drains.
During an interview with OIG staff Morales said, “I think Palm and Hibiscus was the first
project where we did road raising in a single-family neighborhood. And that highlighted the issue
then of, as we're raising the road, how we are impacting the properties. So, the requirement to, I
believe, connect individual properties to our system was well into the project. It was not something
that had been part of the original project.” When shown the exhibits described below, including the
Kremers plans, Morales said, “I had no idea…the engineers and the team, whatever, whoever it
was, already had that in mind from day one and lied to DERM about it. That's news to me.”
Meanwhile, CIP and Lanzo were still negotiating a price for the design phase of the Palm
and Hibiscus project. On Feb. 27, 2014, Lanzo proposed a lump sum price of $599,464 for the
project’s design phase based on the DCP developed by Stantec’s Crews that did not take into
consideration the new design criteria for local sea level.
G. (Jan. – Sept. 2014) The City and Lanzo struggle to incorporate new road elevation design
criteria over fears that raising roads will cause new flooding; under pressure from
Homeowners Association, City awards Lanzo a contract for the project’s design phase
without a finished DCP
On July 1, 2014, at a pre-design meeting, Mark Tomczyk, CIP’s Senior Project Manager for
the Palm and Hibiscus Project, explained to Lanzo representatives how the changes in design
criteria, based on the Committee's recommendations and the City Commission's consent, would
affect the project. During the meeting, he circulated a new version of the DCP that incorporated the
new design criteria and included raising roads and installing yard drains.
After the meeting, Crews sent an email to Public Works with his concerns about raising road
elevations higher than the finished floors of homes on west Palm Island. Assistant City Engineer
Douglas Seaman responded by suggesting the possibility of relaxing the elevation requirements in
areas with lower elevations, subject to Mowry's approval: "We will need to look on a case by case
basis at any location that cannot meet the above criteria and provide a variance," Seaman wrote.
43
By August 2014, the Palm and Hibiscus Homeowner Association’s CIP Oversight
Committee had grown impatient over the delay in awarding Lanzo a contract for the project’s Pre-
Construction Design or Build phase. On August 17, 2014, HOA President Pierre De Agostini sent a
lengthy email complaint to Levine that he copied to Morales, City Attorney Raul Aguila, Assistant
City Manager Mark Taxis (who oversaw CIP and Public Works at the time), Martinez, Tomczyk,
and others. De Agostini's letter said, “The lack of progress on this negotiation is very disturbing. By
now, a contract should be worked out with the firm chosen as the 1st. We need to move on with this!
Mr. Mayor, please push this contract negotiation to finalization! Our residents would be most
grateful."
Levine forwarded the email to Morales with a message that said "Not sure what is going on
here but getting really bad feedback from these folks over this situation. Can you please intervene?"
Morales emailed City Attorney Aguila with the message, "Let's discuss tomorrow with David," a
reference to CIP Director Martinez. Subsequent events indicate that De Agostini's inquiry added
pressure on City officials to accelerate work on the project.
One source of delay was a decision to have another engineer assume responsibility for
incorporating the new design criteria into the project’s DCP. At the direction of the Mayor’s
Committee, on August 28 the City Administration transferred this task from Stantec’s Crews, CIP’s
Design Criteria Professional, to AECOM’s McGowan, the Committee’s consultant who was
assigned to Public Works.
A significant challenge was developing language that gave the design-build team direction
in preparing construction plans that included raising the elevation of roads. Public Works engineers
and the engineers on the design team had not developed an engineering solution to prevent newly-
elevated roads from flooding adjacent properties. One roadblock was the lack of basic data. While
Carpenter, Mowry, and Martinez had discussed the challenge that elevating roads in west Palm
Island could cause new flooding of the adjacent private lots, Public Works and CIP had not
obtained a survey of the first finished floor elevations (FFE) of houses on North and South Coconut
Lanes in that area. Without a current survey, it was difficult to estimate how high roads in west
Palm Island could be raised without trapping stormwater on private lots. In a written response,
AECOM engineer McGowan said, “This information was unavailable at the time the DCP language
was requested, therefore, some flexibility in the DCP language was necessary.”
44
Given the potential costs and technical difficulty of raising road elevation, and the lack of a
engineering solution to mitigate the flood rise, the City and Lanzo did not have sufficient
information to estimate the technical difficulty or cost of preparing the project’s construction plans
or engineering services.
During an interview, former City Manager Morales said, “there was a lot of political
pressure to move these projects along. Mayor Levine got elected in part on a sort of flooding
mandate and quickly formed this Blue Ribbon Panel…there was a tremendous amount of
pressure to move these projects forward.”
Under pressure to proceed, the City Administration decided to award a contract based on
Lanzo’s estimated cost of the outdated DCP that Crews had prepared in 2013, which had not
included the elevation of roads, while McGowan continued his work on the revising the DCP. On
Sept. 17, 2014, the Commission approved a $599,464 contract to Lanzo for Pre-Construction
Design phase of the project. A Sept. 23, 2014 Scope of Service, which described the tasks Lanzo
had agreed to perform, reflected the DCP’s unfinished state. For example, it said that "all road right‐
of‐way within the limits of the Project shall be constructed to newly targeted elevations as requested
by Owner [City]," but did not specify the targeted elevation. Regarding the minimum grate
elevation, the Scope of Work said the lowest grate of storm drain "shall be established where
reasonably possible at elevation 2.78' (sic) NAVD.” Regarding the risk that raising roads would
obstruct the historic flow of stormwater and cause new flooding, the document said, "Additional
design considerations will be made to maintain positive drainage from the private lots," again,
without specifying an engineering solution.
The decision to award the design contract to Lanzo without the benefit of a finished DCP
placed additional pressure on City staff who were responsible for the project. It also foreshadowed
other decisions the City Administration would make to accelerate the contracting process and
override contract provisions or internal controls embedded in CIP’s process for managing design-
build projects. During an interview, CIP Director Martinez said, “There was no saying no,” he said,
to the pressure and imperative to accelerate the project. “There were no other options. That was the
mandate and that's how it's going to be.”
45
H. (Oct. – Nov. 2014) The City approves a DCP that fails to provide clear direction for
preparing construction plans; CIP Consulting Engineer Crews warns that some DCP
requirements may not be possible
The Homeowners Association recognized that the Sept. 14, 2014 award of the design
contract to Lanzo Sept. 14, 2014 was half-step forward and did not mean the project’s design phase
and preparation of the construction plans would get underway. Revision of the DCP remained a
work in progress. Nevertheless, the residents were eager for that work to begin. On Oct. 6, 2014
Tim Rose, then serving as the group’s executive director, pressed CIP Director Martinez for an
update in an email that said, “We can’t wait. Don’t keep us hanging.”
In his response, Martinez said, “The extent of design changes, covered by the design criteria
package (DCP) is currently being reviewed by the City’s consultant.” This was a reference to
McGowan. His work on the DCP continued through the balance of October. Notwithstanding the
DCP’s unfinished status, on Oct. 14, 2014, the City Administration proposed adding $251,016 to
Lanzo’s award for the design phase.
In a Letter to Commission, Morales attributed the need for more funding to McGowan’s
work and “subsequent review by the City Engineer's office” that determined “additional
modifications to the DCP were required.” The following day, the City Commission adopted
Amendment #1 to Lanzo’s progressive design build contract, bringing the total award for the pre-
construction design phase to $850,480. It said, “the City's Public Works Department has requested
that staff implement the enhanced stormwater system criteria and, further, that “upon receipt of
AECOM's review comments (October 31, 2014) and a subsequent review by the City Engineer's
office (November 3, 2014), it was determined that additional modifications to the DCP were
required.”
On Nov. 4, 2014, Crews received the approved DCP from Public Works as a fait accompli
and found that it still lacked clear guidance for implementing the elevation design criteria. On
November 5, 2014, Crews forwarded the DCP to CIP, Lanzo and Wade Trim in an email that said,
“Please find attached the final DCP the City is moving forward with. In trying to get final
comments from Public Works, they ended up substantially rewriting the Drainage section. The text
deviates some from previous intentions…but we have to move forward with the understanding that
this document represents the ultimate requirements as dictated by Public Works.”
46
Crews included comments to the sections related to the elevation criteria that indicated
McGowan and Public Works had again postponed decisions about whether and how to apply the
new road elevation requirements. “Decisions about how to apply the design criteria would be
determined after Lanzo had completed a survey of the first finished floor elevations. Crews wrote,
"I think many of these implications will become clearer as we get the survey and progress further
through the project. In the end, I think these will sort themselves out as we continue through. The
City is intending to move forward with this version. Further comments and responses are only
going to slow things down and ultimately, we won't know the implications until we get farther."
The DCP established a new Level of Service that was based on “24-hour storm event
totaling 7.5 inches of rainfall” during a design basis storm. The proposed drainage system was
required to limit maximum flood levels to an “an elevation not greater than the lowest crown of
road elevation within a drainage basin, or be within twelve (12) inches of the lowest habitable FFE
within the basin during the design storm event.”
For the purposes of conducting drainage studies and modeling the performance of the
drainage system, the DCP established an area that encompassed most of the public land and private
property on the islands, with the exception of backyards facing Biscayne Bay that tended to drain
over seawalls. The DCP said, “For drainage design and modeling of the piping and pump station
system, the drainage area shall be sized to account for, and reflect the actual contributory area – and
shall include at a minimum all road rights-of-way, 100% of interior (landlocked) lots and 50% of
waterfront lots.” Drainage studies calculated two measures, the quantity of volume of stormwater
the system was designed to handle, and the capacity of the system to meet water quality standards.
Regarding the second standard, the DCP said, “Water quality treatment shall be provided for
the road right-of-way and adjoining commercial properties and exclude residential lots
(treatment area).” Further, it said “Water quality volumes shall be determined based on a treatment
depth of 2.5 inches times the percentage of impervious area over the treatment area. This volume
shall be increased 150% for discharge into Outstanding Florida Waters,” an increase that meant the
system was designed to provide water quality treatment for a larger volume of water. It indicated a
system with a large capacity.” The drainage system would treat the stormwater using a stormwater
treatment device that would be installed in each pumping station.
The ability to use pumping stations allowed the City to forego the use of traditional methods
of retaining the first polluted inch of stormwater onsite. For the purposes of meeting water quality
standards, the tributary area was large enough to allow for the collection of stormwater from the
47
residential lots “excluded” from design criteria. Similarly, the pumping stations were designed and
equipped to treat all the stormwater collected from public and private land and meet DERM water
quality standards for ultimate discharge into Biscayne Bay. In other words, the drainage system was
sized to provide water quality treatment for stormwater from right-of-ways and private residential
lots.
The DCP guidance on the project’s Level of Service was subject to change after the new
FFE elevation survey. It said, "Flood Stages shall be limited to an elevation not greater than the
lowest crown of road elevation within a drainage basin, or be within twelve (12) inches of the
lowest habitable FFE within the basin during the design storm event." In his comments, Crews
wrote, "This ties the maximum design flood of the 7.5" storm to the FFE. The maximum flood
allowed is relaxed to allow full flooding…However the FFE comparison might be more critical.
Since we don't yet know the FFE, we don't know how critical this limitation will be.”
Notwithstanding McGowan’s efforts and the additional time for revision, the DCP’s
guidance on minimum elevations was open-ended and deferred resolution of the most difficult
technical challenges. For example, the DCP's direction for applying the new criteria for stormwater
drains said, “Minimum gutter elevation shall be established where reasonably possible at elevation
2.78' (sic) NAVD." The roadways section of the DCP specified, "Where practicable, minimum road
crown elevations shall be 3.7 feet NAVD." In his comments, Crews wrote, "This seems more
critical than before but is mitigated by the ‘where practicable’ clause." The DCP repeated the
admonition that in the process of elevating roads and storm grates, the design-builder should not
alter the historic flow of stormwater from the adjacent properties, saying “Additional design
considerations will be made to maintain positive drainage from the private lots,” but failed to say
how this should be done.
The next sentence in the DCP specified, "The maximum road crown in any given drainage
sub-basin shall be twelve (12) inches below the lowest habitable finished floor elevation within the
sub-basin." This suggested that an elevated road had to be at least a foot below the lowest first
finished floor of adjacent houses. In his comments, Crews wrote, "This may not even be possible
since the lowest FFE may already be lower than the max existing crown +12". We won't know until
the survey. Since we are only really looking to raise the low areas, I don't see a scenario where we
would be raising high areas any higher than existing conditions.”
48
The minimum grate elevation, or lowest acceptable elevation for a drain, was 2.7 feet above
sea level or (NAVD). Like the minimum crown-of-road elevation criteria, this, too, was qualified in
the DCP and left case-by-case discretion of the City Engineer: "Where practicable, minimum catch
basin grate elevations shall be set above 2.70 feet, NAVD. Catch basin grate elevations below1.66
feet, NAVD shall not be permitted without prior approval of the City Engineer." The DCP’s
delegation to former City Engineer Mowry of the authority to make case-by-case changes in the
design criteria would open the door to significant changes in the project’s design criteria.
Crew’s critique flagged a second issue in the DCP – the proposed use of right-of-ways to
construct grass swales that would results in schedule delays and add to the project’s cost. Given the
generally poor permeability of the soil on both islands, Public Works viewed the creation of grass
swales as a priority and essential to minimizing flooding of adjacent private lots. The relatively
wide right-of-ways on Hibiscus Island and those alongside Palm Avenue offered one of the few
topographic advantages that could be used to mitigate the risk that elevating roads would cause new
flooding.
If the DCP's open-ended directions for applying the elevation design criteria and calculating
Level of Service lacked specificity, the DCP’s guidance for designing and building grass swales
was unambiguous and clear. The DCP said, “The swales shall be graded gently, sloping from the
edge of right of way without mounding or obstruction conveying the runoff into the inlets.” And,
further, that "The stormwater inlets shall be located on both sides of the streets, placed either in the
valley gutter or adjacent to the valley gutter on the swale side of the gutter allowing runoff into the
inlet structure." Additionally, the swales were intended to provide backup if a storm with more than
7.5 inches of rain in 24 hours overwhelmed pumping stations and caused maximum flood levels
greater than the system’s Level of Service. Thus, the DCP said, "The elevation of the swales shall
match the elevation of the inlet structures to allow partial storage of excess runoff in the swale
during heavy rainfall events."
Given the large number of trees and the hedges along the relatively narrow streets, the DCP
allowed for leaving such “encroachments” in place if they did not disrupt the flow of stormwater to
drains in the swales. The DCP said, “Placement of inlet structures should take into consideration
existing driveways and trees that would remain, if they do not interfere with the street construction,
utilities placement or the longitudinal stormwater flow in the swale.” The DCP allowed no such
accommodation for the many fences, gates, and other “encroachments” onto public land. Those
49
would be removed during construction and “…walls, decorative curbs, hardscape or any other
forms of landscaping will not be allowed in the right-of-way.”
In his comment, Crews wrote, “In other words, areas of the R/W get cleared if the
Encroachment Analysis shows that it needs to be an official swale as part of the design.”
Public Works was intent on having Lanzo build an effective stormwater drainage system on
the islands. This put a premium on converting the right-of-ways into swales by clearing the right-of-
ways as needed. In contrast, CIP was responsible for getting the project built on time and within the
budget allocated by the Commission. CIP’s process for managing road and stormwater construction
contracts includes minimizing the impact on residents. After seeing the DCP, CIP staff anticipated
objections from residents who valued their tree-lined streets.
Crews markup of the DCP criteria for swales reflected the views of CIP, Stantec’s client. He
wrote, "I think this found its way into this document from when they intended to completely clear
the swales. The current intent is to discern on a case-by-case basis what can stay or needs to go
through the Encroachment Analysis process."
Crews’ observation about swales identified a second section in the DCP that would prove
problematic. As set forth below, Rubio had completed a near-finished set of plans at the 90% that
include extensive use of swales. This required the removal of trees and other encroachments from
the right-of-ways. Upon learning of these plans, objections from the Homeowners Association
disrupted the project’s design phase and resulted in significant changes to those plans.
VI. THE DESIGN PHASE
A. (Feb. – March 2015) Engineer of Record Rubio begins preparing construction plans for
the drainage system without clear guidance in the DCP for elevating roads; City tells
Lanzo to assume all roads will be raised to 3.7 feet above sea level
On the afternoon of Feb. 4, 2015, the Lanzo design team filed into a CIP conference room
for a team meeting. They were led by Lanzo Construction Manager Bob Beaty. With him was Holly
Kremers, a vice president with the Wade Trim engineering firm and subcontractor to Lanzo, and
Orlando A. Rubio, an engineer with the firm Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS), a subcontractor
50
to Wade Trim. Between January 2014 and the end of 2018, Kremers was the “engineer in
responsible charge” or Engineer of Record for all but two sections of the project’s construction
plans.
The two exceptions were most important and technically challenging sections of the
construction plans. These were known as the "Stormwater" section, which would contain
engineering drawings for building the drainage system, including the pumping stations, and the
"Hardscape" section, comprised of drawings for roads, right-of-ways, and other above-ground
infrastructure. The two sections had to be closely aligned. The design of roads and right-of-ways
would determine how well the new drainage system would prevent flooding during a design basis
storm with 7.5 inches of rain in 24 hours. Rubio would serve as the Engineer of Record responsible
for the two essential tasks of (a) preparing, signing, and sealing the Stormwater and Hardscape
sections of the plans and (b) submitting the plans to DERM and SFWMD certifying their accuracy
and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Rubio’s designation as the engineer ‘in
responsible charge.” With this role came the responsibility to approve all changes to the plans that
involved public health, safety, and welfare.
The Lanzo design team was met by representatives from CIP and Public Works. CIP Senior
Project Coordinator Mark Tomczyk and CIP Project Coordinator Olga Sanchez were responsible
for managing the design and construction phases of the project with City Engineer Bruce A.
Mowry. They were joined by Stantec’s Jeffrey Crews, CIP’s consulting engineer. Minutes of CIP
progress meetings with the Lanzo team were prepared by the staff of one of the contractors,
approved by CIP, and made part of the project’s record. Some minutes identified speakers; some
did not.
Lanzo had not completed the new survey of finished floor elevations (FFE) and garages, but
the earlier results had confirmed the fears of Crews and others about the unusually low elevation of
houses on west Palm Island. The lowest FEE was 1.64 feet above sea level, more than two feet
lower than new design criteria of 3.7 feet above sea level. Road elevations were generally lower. A
pre-construction survey recorded existing crown-of-road elevations for South Coconut Lane that
ranged from 1.15 feet to 1.83 feet above local sea level. For North Coconut Lane, the range was
1.05 feet to 1.75 feet above sea level; for the western end of Palm Avenue elevations ranged from
2.05 to 2.60 feet above sea level.
51
During the Feb. 4, 2015 meeting, the City staff discounted the importance of the first
finished floor elevations of houses on west Palm island and told the design engineers that they
should adhere to the minimum crown-of-road elevation of 3.7 feet above sea level. The minutes
said, “City indicated that the road standard per the DCP is to be maintained and that existing FFE
will not dictate the proposed road grades.” In addition, the minutes said, “City advised to assume
entire roadway design will consist of 3.7' NAVD for minimum crown elevation and 3.7' NAVD
sidewalk elevation where practical. City advised that for residences with extremely low finished
floor, a formal City ruling process will have to be taken for adjacent roadway design and
harmonization treatments.”
The next day, CIP staff and members of the Lanzo design team, including Rubio, the
Engineer of Record for the stormwater section of the plans, met with DERM’s Water Control
Section staff, including Senior Engineer Mayra de Torres who would conduct the agency’s review
of the City’s application for a Class II permit. The Miami-Dade agency encouraged such
consultations to avoid permitting delays.
Rubio led the briefing, according to minutes prepared by Wade Trim. He described the
City’s plans to use three automated pumping stations equipped with a stormwater quality treatment
device known as a Downstream Defender. These devices were a relatively recent innovation in the
design of stormwater drainage systems. They were designed to screen out pollutants and solid
objects as water passed through the pumping stations. Rubio explained that drainage studies, which
estimated the capacity of the proposed system to prevent flooding and meet water quality standards,
would be based on 100% of rain in the right-of-ways, 100% of the landlocked lots, and 50% of
waterfront lots.
On the morning of Feb. 18, 2015, Lanzo Construction Manager Bob Beaty uploaded RFI
#10, “Roadway and sidewalk elevation criteria,” to CIP's eBuilder system with the survey results of
first finished floor elevations on west Palm Island attached. RFI# 10 summarized the still-
unresolved challenges of incorporating the new elevation design criteria into the project without
flooding adjacent properties. RFI #10 said:
The City has directed the Design-Builder to increase roadway crown elevations and sidewalk elevations to a minimum of 3.7' NAVD. The current, ongoing field survey has
recorded existing finished floor elevations of residences on Palm and Hibiscus Islands to be
as low as 1.64' NAVD. In addition, our landscape architect has advised that a significant number of trees will be impacted should a 3.7' NAVD minimum crown and sidewalk elevation be employed throughout the islands…The challenges resulting from
52
this design criterion which proposes raising roadway and sidewalk elevations including driveways will result in a significant increase in project cost, due to landscaping mitigation
as required by permitting with Miami-Dade County, as well as driveway harmonization
treatments and stormwater design for drainage basins with lower existing FFE. We request confirmation that it is the direction of the City to raise all roadway crown and sidewalk elevations throughout Palm and Hibiscus Islands to 3.7' NAVD. (Emphasis added.)
Beaty attached a photograph showing the right-of-way along Palm Avenue that contained
numerous trees. Based on the new survey data, the City agreed to waive the road elevation design
criteria for west Palm Island. Minutes of a CIP progress meeting the same day said, “City willing to
accept designs that have elevations less than 3.7' NAVD, but not lower than 2.7' NAVD.”
The City also agreed to waive the design criteria elevation requirement for the minimum or
lowest elevation (2.7 feet above sea level) for drains or storm grates in the area, which was usually
a foot or more below the road. The minutes said, “The freeboard criteria between lowest FFE and
lowest grate elevation may be relaxed or compromised on a case by case basis so as long as the
minimum road centerline elevation is not below 2.7' NAVD. City will respond to RFI."
To the Lanzo design team and CIP Consultant Crews, this compromise elevation brought
the design criteria into closer alignment with actual conditions on west Palm Island. In the days that
followed, though, Rubio found that flooding continued to occur at 2.7 feet above sea level and
proposed lowering the centerline elevation by another five inches, to 2.2 feet above sea level.
On March 27, 2015, the Lanzo team sent CIP a 30% set of plans with the crown-of-road
elevations in west Palm Island at 2.2 feet above sea level. The submission included the results of
new drainage studies. Such studies use advanced software to model the expected performance of a
proposed stormwater drainage system. The purpose of this computer modeling was to verify that the
proposed drainage system would meet regulatory standards for water management to ensure the
system (a) did not cause flooding of nearby properties; and (b) would meet standards of water
quality to ensure the system would not pollute bodies of water, in this case Biscayne Bay.
The results of the drainage studies showed that the proposed system–with centerline road
elevations of 2.2 feet above sea level on west Palm Island, and 3.7 feet for road roads elsewhere–
would meet the requirements of the SFWMD and DERM, during a hypothetical severe weather
event, known as design basis storm, with 7.5 inches of rain during a 24-hour period. In a report of
the drainage study results, Rubio attributed the results to the lower road elevations, and observed
53
that the City had agreed to allow “flexibility” in using centerline road elevations lower than the
minimum crown-of-road elevation of 3.7 feet above sea level.
AECOM’s McGowan, the consulting engineer who was retained to provide the Mayor’s
Committee with technical assistance, was assigned to review Rubio’s 30% plans on behalf of Public
Works. The department’s official comments on the 30% plans questioned the technical assumptions
in Rubio’s drainage studies: “The report suggests a need to relax the LOS (Level of Service)
requirement of flood stages not exceeding the low crown of road or 12-inches below the lowest FFE
in the basin. There is not enough information on the plans or within the calculations to support such
a variance at this time.”
B. (April 27 - May 26, 2015) The City Engineer Mowry agrees to waive road elevation
criteria for North and South Coconut Lanes; City officials reach a consensus about the
need for change in policy to allow public drainage systems to collect water from private
lots.
On April 27, 2015, Lanzo Construction Manager Beaty uploaded a copy of Rubio’s
hardscape plans that showed road elevations on west Palm Island as part of RFI# 10. It said, “The
roadway crown elevations that are below 2.7' NAVD have been highlighted. As can be seen from
the Hardscape Key Sheet the low crown elevation locations are concentrated on the west half of
Palm Island.” On May 1, Crews provided a response from the City that said, “The City Engineer
will evaluate the proposed elevations with City Leadership.”
On May 6, 2015, Mowry responded to a query from Crews with an email that reiterated the
City’s willingness to allow the use of lower road elevations on west Palm Island, including 2.2 feet
above sea level. The email said, “I have been thinking about the street elevations on the end of Palm
Island that is very low. I still have concerns about building road elevations low enough to flood at
high tides. I would recommend that we maintain the crown of road in this area only for the project
to be designed to elevated to an elevation of 3.7 feet NAVD in the future, but we would set
minimum crown of road of 2.2 feet NAVD when necessary to accommodate these low finished
floor homes and yards. We could allow greater than 2% slope from crown to curb, maybe allow up
to 3%.”
54
For the Lanzo design team, the City’s approval of the downward adjustment of an additional
five inches in elevation was a critically important milestone. Fixing the minimum height of roads
and storm grates was essential to completing other parts of the construction plans. CIP Consulting
Engineer Crews said the City’s waiver of the minimum design criteria and approval of a centerline
elevation of 2.2 feet above sea level for North and South Coconut Lanes was a considered decision
and the result of a successful negotiation between engineers from the City and Lanzo. In an
interview with OIG staff, Crews said, “It would have been worse if we went all the way to 3.7.
Imagine those roads with another foot and a half. Then it wouldn't be 100…properties that were
underwater, it would be two hundred.”
During meetings of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee in May 2015, the minutes show
that the responsible City officials repeatedly discussed the risk that raising roads on west Palm
Island to the minimum elevation criteria of 3.7 feet above sea level would cause new flooding and,
further, that they discussed changes in City policy that would allow the use of private-side yard
drains to mitigate the consequences of road elevation. Minutes of the May 12th meeting show CIP
Director Martinez “shared that an upcoming issue for residential neighborhoods will be flooding
back onto private property when roads and sidewalks are raised. A policy needs to be adopted by
the City Commission. Primarily, interior properties will be affected.”
During an interview with OIG staff, City Engineer Mowry said the need to both raise road
elevations and develop a policy that allowed the collection of stormwater from private lots was a
consensus view that he, Carpenter and Martinez shared and discussed with Robins and members of
the Mayor’s Committee and with members of the Flooding Mitigation Committee. Mowry said the
following:
I can tell you that people such as Eric Carpenter were fully aware of this and was in agreement that we make these designs…So CIP, the Public Works Director and the City Engineer in the Blue Ribbon Committee, we're all in concurrence of this and that we wanted to be able to have this…This is this was not something done in the dark…CIP would have
been very well aware of it and Stantec, who was also doing a review of it, was fully aware
of the direction. And this did follow the policy in which I was being directed to implement at the time, because we were anticipating in the future that we would get a direction to be able to take water from private property…we put this in so that we had the flexibility to be able to make that connection in the future.
During an interview with OIG staff, Mowry said he assumed the design changes in October
2015 that required revision of the plans were communicated to DERM and SFWMD, and that he
was not involved in the permitting process with either agency. More broadly, he said “there was
55
never any guidance” from Carpenter or Levine suggesting or directing that information be withheld
from DERM. “Whenever I talked with any of them, they basically…wanted to be above board on
everything. So there was no policy that I was aware of within the City or direction from
management saying hide things.”
In a written response to this report’s finding, Carpenter, who oversaw Public Works at the
time, denied that he had a conversation with Mowry regarding the decision that the former City
Engineer announced Oct. 9, 2019 rescinding the waiver of the elevation design criteria for west
Palm Island. In response to a direct question about whether he approved Mowry’s decision,
Carpenter’s response was, “To my knowledge I was not involved in discussions regarding the inlet
elevations on west Palm Island during this time period.”
Regarding the City’s Oct. 30, 2015 approval, conveyed by Mowry, of RFI #35 (“Private
Property Drainage Water Accommodation”) and Wade Trim’s conceptual plans to build a drainage
system with connection for private-side yard drains, Carpenter’s written response said, “More than
four years after the fact, I am not sure of when the initial discussions took place in relation to the
Oct. 30, 2015 date but I was consulted on the need to provide stubouts to allow the possibility of
future connections without disturbing work that needed to be done on the roadway.”
During a CIP progress meeting May 14, 2015, the City staff reiterated that Rubio could set
the centerline elevation of roads on west Palm Island as low as 2.2 feet above sea level. But when
Beaty followed up with an RFI to confirm this commitment, the City’s response came with a
caveat. The answer from Crews said: “As noted, it was agreed to place segments of the roadway in
the vicinity of low lying homes at a minimum centerline elevation at 2.2 feet…The agreement was
to design the 90% plans with this criteria at which time the City will evaluate the impacts further.
Please proceed accordingly.”
During a May 26, 2015 meeting of the Mayor’s Committee the discussion returned to the
likelihood that elevating roads on west Palm Island would cause new flooding to adjacent homes.
The minutes said: “Chair Robins said that there are 20 homes on Palm and Hibiscus Islands that are
below the proposed new street elevation. If the streets are rebuilt at the current elevation the homes
will end up below water and will also in time have to deal with ground water intrusion.”
56
C. (June 2015) Lanzo submits 60% and 90% plans with west Palm Island road elevations at
2.2 feet above sea level; Lanzo submits lump sum estimate of $34,447,283; Homeowners
Associations objects to clearing right-of-ways; CIP orders “pause”
Shortly before the 60% version of the construction plans was due for a milestone review,
CIP and Lanzo met to review their joint understanding about the design criteria for the stormwater
and hardscape sections of the construction plans. According to the minutes, CIP staff confirmed that
the “minimum crown elevation of 2.2' NAVD is to be used for lower elevation areas in western
sections of Palm Island along South Coconut Lane and North Coconut Lane,” and, further, that CIP
also agreed that in order to construct the swales Rubio had included in his plans, “hedges, bushes,
etc. can be removed from the ROW without replacement…City reaffirmed that mitigation plan
includes 310 trees cited in DCP.”
On June 1, 2015, the Lanzo team submitted a 60% set of construction plans. At this point,
the hardscape and stormwater sections of the plans Rubio had produced were nearly complete and
included detailed technical specifications. The plans set the centerline road elevations at 2.2 feet in
west Palm Island and converted most right-of-ways into grass swales with inlet drains. The
following day, the Lanzo team sent CIP a Draft Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $34,447,283
based on 60% plans. The GMP included more than 400 pages of estimates from subcontractors and
unit prices for building materials. It was accompanied by a draft technical specifications document
and construction schedule of 18 months, and the list of assumptions Lanzo had used to develop the
estimates.
The assumptions were based on directives in the DCP and CIP’s modifications of the design
criteria through the RFI process. Assumption #17 (“Existing landscape will be removed to
accommodate Swales”) described the main requirement for converting the limited open ground in
right-of-ways to grass swales with drains. Because this would entail clearing the right-of-ways of
many trees, hedges, gates and fences, the other assumptions included planting 310 trees after
construction and a plan for re-landscaping. Taken together, the 60% plans with technical
specifications and the lump sum estimate and construction schedule described how the project
would be built, how much it would cost, and how long it would take to finish.
57
The City’s comments on 60% plans illustrated the difference in priorities between Public
Works, which was focused on designing an efficient drainage system, and CIP, which was intent on
minimizing conflicts with residents that would make it harder to build the system. The comments
from Public Works said Rubio’s drainage studies “did not indicate whether the project’s expected
“Level of Service is being provided, or if the pumping systems are large enough.” A comment from
CIP said, “The proposed drainage/roadway work appears to impact numerous trees and/or palms,”
and asked about plans to plant trees elsewhere on the islands.
D. (June 2015) Lanzo submits 90% plans, with Rubio’s near-finished stormwater and
hardscape sections; Homeowners Association objects to clearing right-of-ways to build
swales; City postpones milestone review
On June 19, 2015, Lanzo submitted a 90% set of plans to the City. The stormwater and
hardscape sections with Rubio as the Engineer of Record were at a “near-finished” stage for
constructing a standard drainage system. The City had not objected to Rubio’s extensive use of
grass swales and setting the centerline elevation of North and South Coconut Lanes at 2.2 feet
above sea level.
At this point, the stormwater and hardscape sections of the plans were essentially done.
Over the course of six months and two milestone reviews, the stormwater and hardscape sections of
the construction plans by Rubio proposed a stormwater drainage system, roads, and right-of-way
infrastructure that complied with the DCP’s directives about the design of swales and the City’s
modification of the road elevation design criteria.
Drainage studies based on these plans indicated that Rubio had proposed something that in
December 2012 the Stantec Drainage Analysis had said was “not possible” for North and South
Coconut Lanes. Where he could raise roads on Hibiscus Island and east Palm Island to 3.7 feet
above sea level without flooding private lots, he did so. On west Palm Island, where the drainage
studies showed that elevation would result in flooding of houses with low first finished floors, the
City’s waiver had allowed Rubio to propose raising North and South Coconut Lanes by six to ten
inches above their existing elevation.
58
The drainage studies also indicated that the two pumping stations on Palm Island would
provide a dramatic improvement in the Level of Service over the existing drainage system and
prevent flooding of streets during a storm with up to 7.5 inches of rain in 24 hours. More extreme
weather events with 10 or more inches of rain in a single day would still overwhelm the drainage
system. Even in those worst-case scenarios, though, the proposed drainage system in Rubio’s plans
would remove floodwaters far faster than the gravity-based system it would replace.
The drainage studies showed that the new drainage system would meet the water quality and
quantity standards that DERM and the SFWMD required for permitting. The computer modeling
indicated it could remove all the rain that fell on public and private ground during a design basis
storm, except for rain in backyards that faced the Bay. The drainage study also established that the
proposed drainage system would not cause new or harmful flooding of private homes that had
garages or first finished floor with elevations below 2.2 feet above sea level.
On June 15, 2015 the Commission approved a resolution to allow the Marriot Residence Inn
at West Ave. and 17th Street to connect its stormwater drainage system to the City system. The
After-Action minutes from the meeting said the resolution would serve “Until The City Approves
Code Modifications To A Citywide Storm Water Connection Fee Program". In a written response,
Carpenter that this was tantamount to approval to develop a policy to connect private yard drains to
the City system. Carpenter’s response said, “This, combined with the direction to size the
stormwater systems to account for all of the inland lots and half of the waterfront lots, clearly
demonstrates the direction if not the intent of the City Commission to include private properties in
the adaptation plans, and not as an after the fact approval of modifications to the program…The
City Commission gave direction to the Administration on June 10, 2015 to prepare a framework to
allow private connections to the public stormwater system.”
On June 19, 2015, the same day that Lanzo submitted the 90% construction plans, Senior
Project Manager Tomcyzk received a letter from the Homeowners Association President, Pierre De
Agostini, expressing strong objections to cutting down trees in the right-of-ways to construct swales
throughout Hibiscus Island and parts of Palm Island. Members of the Association had learned of the
plans to clear right-of-ways to build swales. “The fact that the City is planning to ask residents to
remove from the right-of-way hedges and other plantings that have existed for generations, which
will not physically affect the construction of this project, will be a very contentious issue,” he
59
warned. De Agostini demanded a meeting with City Manager Morales “as soon as possible to
resolve these important issues to our community.”
The impact of the letter on the project was immediate. The same day, Wade Trim engineer
Garcia notified Rubio and others on the design team that CIP had decided to stop work on the plans.
The email said, “We have been directed by the City of Miami Beach to complete our responses to
their 60% comments and then pause all design activities until we receive comments from the HOA
Board on our 60% submittal.” CIP postponed the 90% milestone review.
When Beaty learned of the HOA’s objections and CIP’s subsequent efforts to mollify the
HOA by agreeing to change the plans, he used the RFI process to defend the swale-based design,
and remind CIP that it was based on the design criteria that had been approved by the City.
On Aug. 8 Beaty uploaded RFI# 23 (“Swale Definition”), which said, “These swales are
necessary to best ensure that rain water falling into the City Right-of-Way stays in the City Right-
of-Way,” and that building the swales meant clearing most right-of-ways of trees and other
encroachments and rebuilding many driveways that extended into public land. Further, RFI#23
expressed Beaty’s concern about verbal assurances that CIP had given the Homeowners Association
about changing the plans.
RFI #23 concluded, “Landscape/Driveway area between the concrete valley gutter and the
ROW Line will be preserved as much as possible. Please note that this may include the clearing of
the entire Landscape/Driveway area if necessary for swale construction.” He closed with an effort
to elicit clear guidance from CIP, saying “Please confirm that this swale definition is acceptable to
the City.” CIP never provided a response to RFI #23.
Lanzo’s budget included $500,000 for landscaping at the end of project. A landscaping
contractor, Savino Miller, who was part of the design-build team, had prepared a landscaping
section in the construction plans that provided for replacing the trees lost during the clearing of
right-of-ways by planting trees elsewhere on the island. CIP had shared the construction plans with
the HOA at the 30% stage of completion; during meetings with residents, CIP and the Lanzo staff
explained the plans for clearing right-of-ways and mitigating the impact of that work.
Nevertheless, as a consequence of the complaints by the HOA, CIP postponed the 90%
milestone review. As set forth below, the City decided to award a separate $500,000 contract for
new landscaping and make changes to the design of swales in the construction plans. This was the
60
first of several significant changes to the drainage system’s construction plans that were made at the
request of the HOA. During an interview, Wade Trim engineer Thomas Brezinski, who led the
Wade Trim team and handled negotiations with the City, said, , “I think the City started a job in one
way and responded to what their residents wanted which has been the driver of all these changes.
They've been reacting to the residents.”
Those changes reflected the difference in priorities between Public Works and CIP that
Crews had identified in the DCP and the hurried preparation of the DCP. Yet the changes also
support a conclusion that, notwithstanding their support for construction of a modern stormwater
drainage system that reduced current flooding, residents on the islands were not prepared to
sacrifice the tree-lined ambience of the islands to the cause of building a stormwater drainage
system designed to reduce future flooding caused sea level rise.
In a written response to the report, HOA President Ian Kaplan attributed the need for
changes to poor planning by City staff. The response said, “The assertion that the Homeowners
Association is responsible for delays in the project due to objections over the removal of trees is
false. There was clearly a lack of adequate planning in the original plans to preserve the trees…Had
proper planning taken place initially, no delays would have been encountered and the financial
savings from minimizing tree removals would have been maximized.”
E. (Sept. 2015) The City approves use of Rubio plans to obtain permits from DERM and the
SFWMD; during king tide flooding, Mowry advocates for raising elevations of roads on
Palm Island
On Sept. 16, 2015, Rubio emailed Carpenter a completed copy of the Miami-Dade County
application for a Class II permit for his signature on behalf of the City as the owner of the
construction project and applicant for the permit. Carpenter’s assistant forwarded the permit
application to Martinez and Mowry. Five days later, Wade Trim’s Daniel Garcia emailed Rubio
with a request that he send the permit’s supporting documentation—the final design construction
plans and the drainage study—to the City for review. “The City would like to fully review all
documentation for permits prior to submittal to agencies,” Garcia said.
61
During the final week of September, heavy rains caused extensive flooding on Palm Island
and an unusually high king tide occurred that resulted in complaints from residents. On Sept. 26,
2015, a resident of Palm Island sent Mayor Levine an email with photographs of flooding around
her house that began, “Thanks for taking care of the flood in Miami Beach but unfortunately you
forgot Palm Island.”
Levine forwarded the email to Mowry, Carpenter, and Morales with a message that said,
“Plan?” Mowry contacted Lanzo staff who agreed to plug the outfalls and deploy a portable pump.
In an email to Levine that he copied to Carpenter and Morales, Mowry wrote, “This is the
recommendation for Palm Island. I believe we have put a pump on the island to at least show we
tried. I will continue to recommend that raising elevations is the only solution to ensure a future for
Miami Beach. This has been my recommendation since the first day I became the City Engineer.”
Later the same day, Mowry pressed his argument for raising the elevation of roads on North and
South Coconut Lanes and amending City policy to allow the use of private-side yard drains.
Mowry’s email said:
The neighborhood improvement project design for Palm Island is at a 60% complete
(sic) with a proposed agenda item for action at the meeting in December/January for a
contract to construct drainage with pump stations next year. The major problem we are encountering is the existing street elevations are below high tide and the older homes were built at low elevations. These owners are objecting to higher streets and this will result with streets that flood if they are not raised. We will need to develop a policy if
we raise streets in these situations. The pumps will help but raising elevation is
necessary to save the City.
On Oct. 5, CIP and Public Works had completed their review of the permit applications, the
Rubio plans, and other documentation. CIP Director Martinez sent Carpenter the permits for his
signature with a cover memo that said, “Backup documentation including water quality and water
quantity calculations, drainage calculations and stormwater standard details to support this
application are included in a CD attached to this request.” On Oct. 6, 2015, a Tuesday, Carpenter
signed the permit application on behalf of the City as owner and permittee.
62
F. (Oct. 9 – 12, 2015) City approves Mowry’s decision to change elevation criteria, requires
raising North and South Coconut Lanes additional 1.5 feet; design engineer concludes the
higher roads will cause new flooding of adjacent lots
Three days after Carpenter signed the applications for permits based on the Rubio plans,
Mowry met with CIP officials and Crews and announced that the City had decided to rescind its
waiver of the minimum elevation design criteria requirements for west Palm Island that had set the
elevation baseline for stormwater and roadway sections of those plans.
During a meeting with CIP staff on Oct. 9, 2015 Mowry explained that, in light of recent
flooding during a king tide, he had decided to make the minimum grate elevation of 2.7 feet above
sea level design criteria mandatory for all parts of Palm and Hibiscus Islands. This criteria
established the lowest elevation for drains and had an impact on how high roads could be raised and
how swales were built. The City’s earlier waiver of this criteria had allowed Rubio to set the
centerline road elevations of North and South Coconut Lanes at 2.2 feet above sea level.
In a written response, Mowry said Carpenter and other senior City staff approved the
decision to change the elevation criteria for west Palm Island. Mowry wrote, “When the elevation
changes were established for Palm Island, the City Engineer had to discuss these changes with the
Director of Public Works for his approval. The Director of Public Works and I did have these
discussions before I gave direction for the design of Palm Island to CIP.” In a written response on
this issue, Carpenter wrote, “To my knowledge I was not involved in discussions regarding the inlet
elevations on west Palm Island during this time period” was not surprised to learn of the decision
after the fact.
On Oct. 12, Crews notified Lanzo and Wade Trim of Mowry’s decision and the change in
elevation design criteria in an email titled, “Palm and Hibiscus Islands Directive.” It said, “The City
Engineer has directed that the absolute minimum elevation on the project be no lower than 2.7’
NAVD at the grate elevations. Please design all roadways within the project area to meet this
criterion.”
The City made the decision knowing that the design engineers, including Engineer of
Record Rubio, had concluded that the higher road elevation would cause new flooding of residential
lots on west Palm Island. During an interview with OIG staff, CIP consulting engineer Crews said,
“The major complication came with raising the roads because it inverted a lot of the properties that
63
had previously been higher than the road…[and] had natural gravity drainage to shed to the road.”
Crews said that “when the road went up, suddenly they were behind the dam…we were making
their historical situation worse.”
Wade Trim engineer David Mullen, the current Engineer of Record for the stormwater
system, used a similar analogy to explain the expected effect of the City’s decision. During an
interview with OIG staff, he said: “Yes, the construction, the elevating of the roadway, would
basically put up a dam in the middle of the roadway blocking the existing stormwater flow." Rubio
also used the analogy of a dam-like barrier during an interview with OIG staff.
For Rubio, Mowry’s decision and the risk, if not absolute certainty, that it would cause
harmful flooding raised several issues, including one that implicated his responsibilities to approve
and make design changes to the construction plans that would have an impact on public health and
safety, and meeting the requirements of permitting agencies.
As a licensed professional engineer, Rubio’s submission of the City’s permit applications to
DERM and the SFWMD crossed a threshold and entered a legal realm that is governed by Florida
law and the professional responsibility rules for professional engineers, adopted pursuant to 61G15
of the Florida Administrative Code.
These rules are unusually detailed. They govern every aspect of the process from the layout
of each engineering sheet to the requirement that every page of a construction plan bear the
signature of the Engineer-of-Record, the date the page was signed, and that both be stamped with a
seal with the engineer’s license number. The bulk of the rules and their primary purpose are two-
fold: (1) to establish the responsibilities and legal prerogatives of “the engineer in responsible
charge” of drawing a project’s construction plans, commonly referred to as the Engineer-of-Record,
and (b) to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of signed and sealed engineering documents
that are submitted to the “Authority Having Jurisdiction” or regulatory agency, for the purpose of
obtaining a construction permit based on the plans.
A handful of these rules are material to the events described in this section. Among the most
important to regulatory agencies are the rules for verifying “who is in responsible charge for the
preparation, signing, dating, sealing and issuing of any engineering document(s)” and ensuring that
a permitting agency assume that the plans they review for the purposes of issuing a permit were
prepared by a single engineer who is legally responsible for the accuracy of every document,
64
written representation or letter certifying the information that the agency relies on in deciding to
issue a permit.
Given the importance of the Engineer of Record’s role in protecting the integrity of the
permitting process, the State’s rules explain how to distinguish the “responsible engineer in charge”
of preparing construction plans from other engineers who may contribute to a project’s technical
documents. “As a test to evaluate whether an engineer is the Engineer of Record, the following
shall be considered…2. The engineer shall be completely in charge of, and satisfied with, the
engineering aspects of the project. 3. The engineer shall have the ability to review design work at
any time during the development of the project and shall be available to exercise judgment in
reviewing these documents.”
The policies and practices of the DERM and SFWMD are based on Florida law and are
essentially the same. Both agencies rely on the accuracy and completeness of documents,
information and certifications signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. Both agencies will
begin their review of an application based on unfinished construction plans but will not issue a
permit until they review final plans signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In design-build
projects these final plans are labeled “100% Final Design” that are approved by the project’s
owner after the final milestone review during a project’s design phase.
After DERM and SFWMD issue permits for the construction of stormwater drainage
system, both agencies have an unequivocal requirement that the project be constructed based on
the signed and sealed final plans they reviewed and relied on in making the decision to issue a
permit. DERM’s Class II permit is issued subject to the following condition: “This permit only
authorizes the grading and drainage work summarized in page 1 of this permit. Any additional work
not shown in this permit or on the approved plans shall require additional Class II permit approval.”
Further, the DERM permit says that if the project is not built “in accordance with the conditions of
the permit, the Code, or the approved plans upon which the permit was issued,” then DERM can
withdraw the permit and order that the work be stopped.
Despite the legal rigor of these requirements, both agencies acknowledge the operational
reality that during the construction of a complex stormwater drainage system, general contractors
often need to make minor adjustments, such as installing a fire hydrant on a different corner than
originally planned.
65
Consequently, both agencies allow owners (in this case the City) and general contractors
(Lanzo) to disclose minor changes at the end of a project when they submit an “As-Built” set of
construction plans. However, this accommodation is limited to minor changes in the field that do
not alter the project’s design or require significant changes to the construction plans. The District’s
regulations state that, “Major changes, including changes to permit authorization or special or
limiting conditions would require a permit modification before implementation.”
A provision in the Miami-Dade Code requires that all applications for Class II permits
include a “Letter of Engineer’s Certification” affirming that the proposed stormwater drainage
system will not create a “Harmful obstruction or undesirable alteration of the natural flow of the
water within the area of the proposed work,” or cause a “Material injury to adjacent property”
The evidence supports a conclusion that Rubio, Wade Trim engineers including Kremers,
CIP Consulting Engineer Crews, City Engineer Mowry, and other engineers involved in the project
knew, or had reason to know, there was a high probability that raising North and South Coconut
Lanes a foot or more above 2.2 feet above sea level would disrupt the historical “positive” flow of
stormwater from private lots and cause the “ponding” of trapped floodwater.
G. (Oct. 14 – Oct. 15, 2015) Mowry’s decision requires complete revision of the Rubio plans;
City decides not to provide new funding for that purpose or allow Lanzo time for that
work; Wade Trim decides to terminate Rubio and Craig A. Smith & Associates as
subcontractor.
The City’s decision to raise road elevations required a complete revision of the near-finished
stormwater and hardscape plans that Rubio prepared for the 90% milestone review in June. Raising
the elevation of the drains and road by a foot or more would have an impact on other parts of the
design.
In an initial assessment for Wade Trim, Rubio wrote that, “Driveway harmonization will be
(and has been) a significant effort and is intensified by the higher elevation. Note: revisions to water
main plans may need to be considered unless deeper installation of water main is kept as a result of
the road being elevated.” The change also meant that the results of drainage studies based on
Rubio’s 60% plans, which Rubio had just submitted to the SFWMD as part of the City’s permit
66
application, would need to be revised. If elevations throughout the drainage system were raised by
1.5 feet, the results of the earlier tests would no longer be a reliable estimate of the drainage
system’s performance.
Further, Mowry’s decision had financial consequences that were immediate. The change in
criteria significantly increased the technical difficulty of the project. CAS assumed that Rubio
would handle revisions of the stormwater and hardscape sections of the plans and sent Wade Trim a
purchase order to pay for the additional engineering work on Oct. 15. Wade Trim rejected the
purchase order and advised CAS that its own engineers would perform the revisions.
During an interview with OIG staff, Wade Trim’s Brzezinski said his firm decided to have
Wade Trim engineers do the revisions instead of Rubio because, at that point, the City declined to
provide additional funding. Brzezinski said, “We were asked to finish the job for an amount of
money that was less than what we wanted.” In the weeks that followed, Wade Trim engineer
Kremers began revising the stormwater section; Wade Trim engineer Carey Wright revised the
hardscape section under Kremers’ direction.
On Oct. 14, City Manager Morales submitted a Letter to the Commission (LTC) in support
of Amendment #2 to the Lanzo contract, providing $73,400 for “additional design services.” The
funding request was not related to the City’s decision to require the minimum grate and road
elevations on west Palm Island. The funding sought under Amendment #2 was for changes
requested by the Homeowners Association and the Fire Department, as well as those required by a
new City ordinance that made it more difficult to cut down trees. This reflected the City’s decision
to override guidance in the DCP regarding swales that allowed the removal of trees that obstructed
the flow of stormwater.
The LTC recalled that just eleven months earlier the City Commission had added $251,016
to Lanzo’s design contract to cover the cost of incorporating the new stormwater design criteria into
the construction plans, and noted that “the City's Public Works Department (PWD) has requested
that staff implement the enhanced stormwater system criteria.” Addressing the City Commission in
support of Amendment #2, CIP Director Martinez said, “This is a progressive design build contract.
We're strictly going through the design phase right now. There have been some additional design
modifications that have come up that need to be incorporated into the design. So we're asking for
this amendment for the design builder Lanzo Construction to continue and wrap up the design so
we can bring up a guaranteed maximum price in December of this year.”
67
Two aspects of the Commission’s action are material to this investigation. First, Amendment
#2 did not request funds for the additional engineering services required to revise the stormwater
and hardscape plans based on the City’s design changes. This would result in a decision by Wade
Trim to terminate CAS as a subcontractor and assume responsibility for revising the Rubio plans.
Second, declaring that the additional funds would enable the City to end the project’s design phase
by December and negotiate a GMP with Lanzo meant the City was not prepared to allow time for
Wade Trim to prepare new construction plans and drainage studies.
VII. WADE TRIM’S SOLUTION
A. (October 2015) The City approves conceptual engineering solution developed by Wade
Trim; adopts expedited design methodology that Mowry used as Engineer of Record for
Sunset Harbour project
The City’s decisions in October 2015 to change the elevation design criteria for west Palm
Island, override CIP’s project management process, discard the Rubio plans, and begin construction
without a revised set of plans were not made in a vacuum or without considering the risks that the
higher road elevations in west Palm Island would cause new flooding of adjacent private property.
These decisions were based on the confidence that the responsible City officials and their
contractors had in an expedited design and construction methodology they had been using in a
project in Sunset Harbour, the first project during Mayor Levine’s tenure that included elevating
roads above adjacent private lots and using yard drains to mitigate flooding.
During an interview with OIG staff, Carpenter said, “I can tell you that obviously we were
in construction on Sunset Harbour at the time, we were learning a lot because we were actually
building elevated roadways in a very constrained environment. And I am assuming that the team
would have taken some of those lessons learned and tried to apply them to Palm and Hibiscus.”
The responsible City officials viewed the Sunset Harbour project as an early success story
and proof that they could manage the challenges of accelerating the design and construction of a
68
stormwater drainage project and develop innovative drainage solutions. Mowry ran the project;
Wade Trim’s Kremers designed the plans; Lanzo’s Beaty was in charge of construction. By the last
quarter of 2015, they had integrated the installation of pumping stations with water quality
treatment devices, raised the elevation of roads by 6 to 30 inches, and installed 12-inch yard drains
to collect stormwater trapped by the newly-raised streets.
In an interview with OIG staff, Beaty said the City’s decision in October 2015 to raise North
and South Coconut Lanes and Coconut Court a foot or more above the 2.2 foot height in the Rubio
plans left the City with no alternative but to follow the Wade Trim solution. Beaty said, “You know
as soon as you raise the road...you know you've got to do something to accommodate these
people.... so they (the City) by design, they generated a problem that had to be dealt with.”
During the final week of October 2015, Kremers and Wright had begun refining conceptual
drawings for building a drainage system that connected to drains in private lots on west Palm
Island. Starting with the standard drainage system in the Rubio plans, Kremers added an array of
12-inch PVC pipes (“laterals”) that would extend out from the mainline pipe in the road to the edge
of the right-of-way in front of each house. These could be used to connect a pipe that extended
vertically up to the right-of-way or horizontally into the private lot. During an interview, Mowry
said, “We wanted to be able to have this” to provide connection for private-side yard drains in the
future.
On Oct. 23, Wade Trim engineer Wright finished a schematic drawing labeled “N. S.
Coconut Lane Driveway Tie-in” that showed how private-side yard drains would be connected to
the right-of-way drainpipes. Oct. 26, 2015, the day that CIP had set for submitting the 90% plans,
was a turning point for the project. First, Lanzo sent the City a 90% set of plans that contained few
changes to the stormwater and hardscape sections prepared by Rubio, and conceptual drawings by
Wade Trim showing how the private-side yard drains would use the lateral pipes and right-of-way
drainpipes to connect to the drainage system. Second, Rubio changed the designation of his 60%
plans to “90%” plans, signed and sealed these plans, and submitted them to DERM as a supplement
to the City’s application.
69
B. (Oct. 30, 2015)- The City approves RFI# 35 (Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation”) and Wade Trim’s conceptual plans for a drainage system designed to
connect with drains on private lots; City staff tell Homeowner’s Association Commission
will change policy to allow residents to connect yard drains to the City drainage system
On Oct. 30, 2015, Beaty uploaded RFI # 34 “Harmonization of Private Property”. Included
with the RFI were Wade Trim conceptual drawings showing how the private-side drains would
connect to the drainage system. Beaty explained that the new design would ultimately require
construction work in private property. Beaty concluded with language that sought to limit Lanzo’s
responsibility for additional work beyond the right-of-ways. The RFI said: “The Limits of
Harmonization past the ROW and into private property will only include drive areas and only
extend to the point of 7:1 grade transition to the existing grade of the drive area. Any further
harmonization will be ‘By Others,’ including any necessary adjustments to gates, doors, entrance
ways, etc. Harmonization will be limited to driveway transition as defined by the attached driveway
restoration policy.”
The same day, Oct 30, Beaty uploaded RFI #35, “Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation,” and again attached a Wade Trim conceptual drawing showing how a private-side
drain would connect to the public drainage system. (Figure No. 4)
He wrote, “The attached section for elevating roadways provides drainage accommodation
for Private Surface Water Runoff. I understand from discussions that this drainage system should be
‘Capped’ at the Right-of-Way for future connection by the Private Property Owner. This future
connection will include a check valve on the private property side to ensure City drainage water
does not ‘Back-up’ onto private property. Future Connection will be installed ‘By Others.’”
70
Figure 4 RFI #35 “Private Property Drainage Water Accommodation” requesting
confirmation of the City's plans to build a drainage system designed to provide private-
side yard drains. (Emphasis added by OIG staff).
71
Attached to RFI #35 was a Wade Trim conceptual drawing showing how right-of-way
drainpipes would be connected to yard drains in private lots. (Figure No. 5)
Figure 5 Wade Trim conceptual drawing attached to RFI #35 "Private Property Drainage Water Accommodation" that former City Engineer Mowry approved on behalf of the City. [Annotation
added by OIG staff]
CIP Consulting Engineer Crews of Stantec, who administered the RFI process, forwarded
the RFIs to Mowry who responded promptly: “The City agrees with the connection to be made as
described in the RFI.”
During an interview with OIG staff Mowry said, “This was not something done in the
dark…CIP, the Public Works Director, the City Engineer and the Blue Ribbon Committee, were all
in concurrence of this and that we wanted to be able to have this…I made those statements, but they
were based upon the direction that was given to me as from management and from committee
meetings that were going on”
During an interview with OIG staff, Carpenter said he did not recall when the decision was
made to approve the redesign of the drainage system to provide for connections to private-side yard
72
drains. “I don't know at what point in relation to the contract execution that those concepts started to
get circulated. I remember hearing about stub-outs from right-of-way drains, but I don't remember
at what point those discussions started.”
Regarding the City’s Oct. 30, 2015 approval conveyed by Mowry of RFI #35 (“Private
Property Drainage Water Accommodation”) and Wade Trim’s conceptual plans to build a drainage
system with connection for private-side yard drains, Carpenter said in an interview he could not
recall when he learned of the plans. In a written response, he wrote, “More than four years after the
fact, I am not sure of when the initial discussions took place in relation to the Oct. 30, 2015 date,
but I was consulted on the need to provide stubouts to allow the possibility of future connections
without disturbing work that needed to be done on the roadway.”
The Rubio plans were the result of difficult negotiations that resulted in a standard drainage
system that complied with the DCP. AECOM engineer Thomas McGowan, who prepared the
stormwater and hardscape sections of the DCP and participated in review of the 60% and 90%
construction plans by Public Works, said the Rubio plans were the result of a compromise. He said
in a statement, “I attended several meetings at CIP including Rubio and Crews wherein the intent of
the DCP language was discussed, where flexibility existed, and means and methods to resolve the
technical issues. The result was the Rubio design with road crowns in specific locations at 2.2 feet,
NAVD, and a standard stormwater management system design as reflected in the 100% Rubio
plans.”
C. (Nov. 4, 2015) The City and Lanzo finalize plans for installing private-side yard drains;
direct Rubio to submit his plans to DERM with permit application; direct Wade Trim
engineer Kremers to reengineer, redesign, and revise Rubio’s construction
On Nov. 4, Beaty sent CIP a revised lump sum estimate of $43,719,010 to build the project
with the new road elevations and connections for private-side yard drains, an increase of $9.2
million above the previous estimate based on the 60% plans by Rubio. Lanzo’s new estimate
included $1,204,933 for “265 Yard Drains with Tee,” and added six months to the schedule.
It would take several months for Kremers to revise the stormwater and hardscape sections of
the Rubio plans. Without a finished set of plans, Lanzo based its estimate on a list of assumptions.
These assumptions were derived from the DCP and modifications to the design criteria that Lanzo
had set forth in correspondence and the City had confirmed through the RFI process. These
73
included assumptions that, except for driveways, Lanzo’s work would be limited to the right-of-
way; that “existing Landscape will be removed as necessary to accommodate construction of
Swales;” and, importantly, that “the Work Definition associated with CIP's October 12, 2015
directive is complete with concepts presented in Lanzo's RFI-034 (Private Property Harmonization),
RFI-035 “Private Property Drainage Water Accommodation”, & Savino-Miller's November 3 E-
Mail (Remove / Replace 225 Trees).”
In sum, as of Nov. 4, 2015, Wade Trim’s conceptual designs for connecting private-side
yard drains to the public drainage system, and the plan to install large numbers of private-side yard
drains had been incorporated into Lanzo’s Work Definition under its contract with the City. As set
forth below, while the City would negotiate a lower lump sum price for the project, it would
approve the materials and labor associated with the installation of “265 Yard Drains with Tees.”
During this period the City and Lanzo directed Rubio to continue his efforts to obtain permits for
the project using his now-discarded plans for a standard drainage system.
Also, on Nov. 4, 2015 a clerk in DERM’s Water Control Section logged the agency’s
receipt of the City’s application for a Class II permit based on the now discarded construction plans
by Rubio. Included with the City’s application was a technical report that the City approved Oct. 6
and Rubio signed and sealed on Nov. 2, 2015. The report said the project would include “elevated
roadways where possible, installation of new potable water main systems, installation of stormwater
collection systems with 3 stormwater pumping stations equipped with water quality treatment units
and gravity bypass stormwater outfalls with dissipation structures discharging into Biscayne Bay.”
The report contained a section titled “Proposed Construction” that described the City’s new
minimum (or lowest) grate or drain elevation of 2.7 feet above sea level, and the minimum crown-
of-road or centerline elevation of 3.7 feet above sea level. Using the acronym CMB for City of
Miami Beach, the report explained that, in accordance with the project’s DCP, the City planned to
apply its new elevation design criteria to the “Roadways” or hardscape section of the construction
plans. The report said, “CMB criteria requires that minimum road crowns are set at or above
elevation 3.7' NAVD. For the West Palm Island System, and primarily on North and South Coconut
Lane, this was not possible due to the existing topography (garages and existing yard grades)
encountered below the future design groundwater elevation of 2.7' NAVD.”
The technical report referred to two charts showing the results of Lanzo’s survey of the first
finished floors (FFE) and garages for each house on west Palm Island. Approximately 60 homes
74
had elevations lower than the minimum crown-of-road criteria of 3.7 feet NAVD. For that reason,
the report said, “The criteria posed significant driveway harmonization and resident accessibility
issues which cannot be addressed at this time unless each affected lot undergoes full blown
redevelopment. As such, North and South Coconut Lane road crown elevations will be no lower
than 2.2' NAVD as allowed by CMB with edge of pavement grades matching existing elevations.”
(Emphasis added.)
Nearly a month had passed since Mowry’s announced the City Administration’s decision to
require use of the elevation criteria to west Palm Island that would require raising the centerline
elevation of North and South Coconut Lanes a foot or more higher than 2.2 feet above sea level.
D. (Nov. 5 – Dec. 9, 2015) The City approves Wade Trim’s revised plans for the drainage
system in west Palm Island and unveils the initial version of a policy to allow the
connection of yard drains on private property to the public drainage system
As engineers in DERM and the SFWMD began their review of the City’s application for
permits based on the discarded Rubio plans, Wade Trim refined the conceptual drawing for
connecting private-side drains and the City explained the new approach to the Homeowners
Association.
On Nov. 5, Kremers approved Wright’s conceptual drawing labeled “Coconut Lane
Driveway Tie-Ins” that contained additional details. (Figure No. 6 ) The drawing included notes
describing a stratety for the ponding of stormwater in private lots on North and South Coconut
Lanes that engineers feared could occur after the roads were raised.
The strategy entailed two steps: installing 12-inch drain connections at the edge of the right-
of-way in front of most homes in west Palm Island; and thereafter using drains as connection points
for the installation of drains inside private lots. An engineering note on the diagram said, “Estimate
135 yard drains based on preliminary analysis of 3 drains per yard.” In the upper half of the same
drawing, Kremers also illustrated the 14% slope that would be needed for driveways that descended
from newly elevated roads. The City approved the Wade Trim solution the same day.
75
Figure 6 Wade Trim drawing "Coconut Lane Driveway Tie-ins" dated Nov. 5, 2015 attributed
engineer Holly Kremers [Annotation added]
On the evening of Nov. 5, City Engineer Mowry, CIP staff, and representatives from Lanzo
and Wade Trim met with the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. The first order of
business was to explain the City’s decision to require the minimum grate elevation of 2.7 feet above
sea level, and the City’s plan for addressing the new flooding that this change was expected to
cause for houses at lower elevations on North and South Coconut Lanes. The minutes included the
following:
Lanzo presented conceptual cross-sections for South and North Coconut Lanes. The concept will raise the roads such that the lowest stormwater
catch basin is at a minimum elevation of 2.7' NAVD, and will continue at the
new higher elevation to the edge of the right-of-way. Harmonization onto private property take place at a 1:7 slope into driveways and a 1:2 slope in non-driveway areas. Additional harmonization on private property will be responsibility of the homeowner.
76
City staff described plans for the Commission to change a policy that prohibited the
connection of privately owned yard drains to the public drainage system that so such connections
could be made at the owner’s expense. The minutes said:
The City elaborated on the typical sections provided by Lanzo and the City's approach to stormwater management: The proposed roadway design will capture all rainwater that falls within the right-of-way via the City's stormwater
system. Drainage accommodation for surface water runoff from private property will be per a future City ordinance that will require property owners to pay for stormwater disposal from their private property into the City’s stormwater drainage system. As part of the current improvement project, a stub-out will be provided for each property and “capped” at the right-of-way
(ROW) for future connection (if desired) by the property owner. This future connection will require a check valve on the private property side to ensure City drainage water does not ‘back-up’ onto private property. (Emphasis added.)
This was the first iteration of the “policy” that Mowry and Martinez had been saying the
City would need to adopt if it raised the elevation of roads in neighborhoods with unusually low
elevations. Like the installation of the right-of-way drainpipes, the plan to have the Commission
allow the connection of private-side yard drains to the system was an essential feature of the Wade
Trim engineering solution the City Administration had agreed upon to mitigate new flooding caused
by the elevated roads. During an interview, Mowry said, “We were anticipating in the future that we
would get a direction to be able to take water from private property.”
On Dec. 9, 2015, the City Commission passed a resolution setting a maximum base price of
$35 million for the project’s construction phase with a ten percent contingency for a total not-to-
exceed price of $38.5 million, and authorized the City to terminate its agreement with Lanzo if the
parties could not agree on a price, and to solicit bids from other general contractors. In a written
response by Carpenter, he said “Information was provided in agenda memos drafted by Public
Works and CIP Departments and submitted to Mr. Morales for inclusion in the Commission
Agendas,” for the Dec. 8, 2015 Commission meeting. The Commission Memorandum contained
correspondence from Lanzo as an attachment that referred RFI #35 (“Private Property Drainage
Water Accommodation”) but did not include the RFI or the Wade Trim drawings. Carpenter’s
response said,
On or about Dec. 8, 2015, the City approved a version of the stormwater section of the plans
prepared by Rubio, now labeled “100% Final Design” and dated Dec. 9, 2015. On Dec. 11, Rubio
signed and sealed this version of his plans, and sent it to SFWMD. Thereafter, that agency used this
77
version of the Rubio plans to complete its review of the City’s permit application. The following
week, Kremers approved revisions to the hardscape section of the revised plans for west Palm
Island that raised the crown-of-road elevation for North and South Coconut Lanes to 3.2 feet above
sea level. This was six inches lower than the City’s minimum design criteria of 3.7 feet above sea
level. The adjustment indicated that even Wade Trim found it impossible to raise the roads any
higher.
E. (Jan. 11 – 30, 2016) The City awards $38.5 million build contract to Lanzo with finished
plans for new public-private drainage system or drainage studies to verify its expected
performance; Concurrent with these activities, the City continues to review and approve
Rubio’s use of the original plans to obtain permits
On Jan. 11, 2016, the City Commission approved Amendment #3 awarding a $38.5 million contract
to Lanzo to build the project. The City awarded the contract to begin construction without the
benefit of finished construction plans for the stormwater and hardscape sections of the project. CIP
Director Martinez said the priority that former Mayor Levine placed on accelerating project’s put “a
lot of pressure on the administration” that ruled out further delay in the Palm and Hibiscus
project. “This thing was moving at light speed...And there was no option to stop these
things.” Further, Martinez said Mowry was under particular pressure to get results. “He was
tasked with getting these projects done, in my mind, at whatever cost. Getting them done. So
he was not going to let anything get in his way to get them done.”
During January, CIP attempted to fill this gap by conducting a final milestone review of the
finished, or “100% Final Design” version of the Kremers plans, and inadvertently had Crews and
Public Works staff review the Rubio plans. The confusion occurred for two reasons. First, because
CIP was managing the work of two engineering firms--CAS and Wade Trim--who were revising
the same section of construction plans for distinctly different purposes; and, second, because the
City and Lanzo decided to postpone submission to DERM of a signed and sealed final version of
the Rubio plans for three months.
78
In January 2016 CIP conducted a “100% Milestone Review” of the “100% Final Design”
plans by Kremers. But these plans were not finished. This resulted in Crews and Public Works
mistaking the Rubio plans for the Kremers plans. This mix-up resulted in statements in a CIP
Comment and Review spreadsheet dated Jan. 30, 2016 that shed light on the intended purpose of
the right-of-way drainpipes that were installed in front of each house on west Palm Island.
In the process of critiquing what he thought were the Kremers plans, Crews observed that
the grate elevations on west Palm Island were lower than the minimum elevation of 2.7 feet. His
comment said, “These plans have not been updated to include the higher grate elevations required.
This sheet shows grates at 1.30', 1.40' etc.” Crews also noted the absence of the lateral pipes that
would provide right-of-way drainpipe connections for the future installation of private-side yard
drains. Crews’ comment said, “These plans do not show the miscellaneous connections discussed
for the swale and private party connections.”
The responses attributed to CAS (presumably Rubio) show an attempt to clarify that the
plans were unchanged because Rubio was not involved in Wade Trim’s revision of the stormwater
and hardscape sections of the plans. The CAS comment said, “CAS was aware of the scope change
and requested a change order on 10.12.15 for another scope change from WT. On 10.15.15, WT
opined to CAS that they were better suited to address the elevation… by Dec. 2015 but have not
clarified ‘engineer in responsible charge’ matters with CAS nor to the best of our knowledge
modified plans as they indicated.”
The CAS response about the “engineer in responsible charge,” refers to rules in Florida that
apply when an Engineer of Record is replaced. Before signing and sealing plans prepared by
another engineer, the F.A.C. rules require successor engineers to “redo” the engineering
calculations, document that they have “rethought and reworked the entire design process,” and
notify the prior Engineer of Record they are taking charge of the project.
The exchange of comments reflected the impending end of Rubio’s responsibility for
preparation of the stormwater and road plans and approval of design changes. In developing the
original drainage system, Rubio had decided to use 18-inch and 36-inch drains on both islands to
improve the performance of the system to collect stormwater in the swales and right-of-ways.
Because the size and location of drains helps determine the performance of the drainage system and
its ability to prevent flooding, such decisions can have an impact on the “health, safety and welfare”
of residents.
79
The CIP comment and response spreadsheet included a comment from Wade Trim that the
issue of drain size should be discussed with the City and said, “12” [inch] SDR 35 yard drains to be
used in west Palm section.” The response from CAS referred to Rubio’s earlier response to Beaty. It
said, “CAS has had discussions with the Contractor and CAS recommends keeping the 18” grates in
Palm Island with a USF 5608 grate and a 12” storm pipe (if the DCP has been relaxed from 18" to
12") connecting to the proposed 12” Inserta Tee.”
The foregoing statement, and other evidence support a conclusion that Rubio was excluded
from Wade Trim’s revision of his plans, but that on or before January 2016 he knew, or should have
known, that the City’s decision required that his plans be reengineered, redesigned, and redrawn;
that Wade Trim engineers were making these revisions without his approval; and that he was no
longer carrying out the functions of the Engineer of Record for the stormwater and hardscape
sections of the plans.
F. (Feb. 26 – March 19, 2016) At the direction of the City and Lanzo, Rubio continues using
his plans to obtain permits for the project; Wade Trim engineers Kremers and Wright
complete their revision of the Rubio plans
Despite Rubio’s lack of involvement in Wade Trim’s revision of his plans, he continued to
represent the City as the project’s Engineer of Record for the stormwater drainage section in his
dealings with SFWMD and DERM. CIP, Lanzo and Wade Trim staff continued to oversee and
approve his efforts to secure the permits.
With the exception of his interactions with the permitting agencies, Rubio no longer carried
out responsibilities of an Engineer of Record for the stormwater and hardscape sections of the
revised plans for the new drainage system the City intended to build on west Palm Island. During an
interview with OIG staff, Rubio said he never saw and did not approve the revisions by Kremers
and Wright. There is no evidence that Rubio notified DERM or the SFWMD that he was no longer
in charge of the plans for the drainage system or that it was being revised.
While DERM and the SFWMD used the discarded Rubio plans to conduct their permitting
reviews, Kremers and Wright continued revising the Rubio plans with the assistance of CIP and
80
Public Works. The evidence supports a conclusion that between February and May 2016, Kremers
carried out the functions of Engineer of Record with one exception: She did not sign and seal the
revised stormwater section of the plans. The purpose of this singular omission was explained in
Wade Trim’s correspondence with CIP.
In a letter to CIP Senior Project Manager Mark Tomcyzk dated March 3, 2016, a Wade
Trim manager described the firm’s plans to continue designating Rubio as the Engineer of Record
until the District and DERM had issued permits based on the Rubio plans. It said, “As discussed,
Wade Trim will be appropriating design documents from Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS) for
the Neighborhood 13 Palm and Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements project
once 100% submittal has been fully approved by the City of Miami Beach and relevant permits
acquired from SFWMD and Miami-Dade RER (DERM).”
For the City, Lanzo and Wade Trim, the alternative to this arrangement was to notify DERM
and the SFWMD that Kremers and Wright had replaced Rubio. Had they done so, there is a high
probability that DERM would then have asked to receive finished plans signed and sealed by
Kremers. According to the pertinent section of the Miami-Dade Code, “If the engineer who
provided certification pursuant to Section 24-48.2(I)(B)(2) or pursuant to Section 24-48.2(II)(A)(4)
is discharged by the property owner or his agent, or if said engineer ceases to work on the proposed
or approved work, all work by this permit shall immediately cease and shall not be resumed until a
new engineer is obtained. The property owner shall also be required to obtain a new engineer who
shall meet all the requirements of this permit.” In early March, Kremers and Wright prepared the
100% Final Design versions of the revised stormwater and roadway sections, with a cover date of
Feb. 26, 2016. Wright’s hardscape section included a schematic drawing that showed how private-
side yard drains would be connected to the drainage system. A note on one drawing said, “Estimate
90 12-inch yard drains based on preliminary analysis of 1 yard drain per parcel.” In some areas, the
revised plans replaced the 18-inch drains preferred by Rubio for the 12-inch drains favored by
Beaty, an indication that Rubio no longer was making decisions as the Engineer of Record.
After receiving the “100% Final Design” plans from Kremers dated March 19, 2016, Crews
conducted a review on behalf of CIP. His comments were circulated in a spreadsheet titled “Second
100% Review Comments.” Regarding the stormwater section for North and South Coconut Lanes,
Crews expressed surprise that additional pipes for the private-side yard drains had not been added to
the plans. He wrote, “The configuration of private property collection basins does not meet the
81
intent of the discussed improvements. Each property should have its own connection and
longitudinal pipes cannot run on private property.” Crews reminded Kremers that the lateral pipes
that extended from the mainline drainage pipe to the right-of-way in front of each lot should not go
onto private property.
Even as the City and Lanzo worked with Kremers on the redesign, CIP and Wade Trim staff
continued to oversee and approve Rubio’s ongoing efforts to obtain a Class II permit on behalf of
the City. On March 10, 2016, the City and Wade Trim approved a letter from Rubio to DERM
providing written answers to information requests. The correspondence was copied to CIP Project
Coordinator Sanchez, Lanzo Construction Manager Beaty, and Wade Trim engineer Garcia. On
March 19, 2016, Wade Trim engineer Garcia delivered a signed and sealed version of Rubio’s
“100% Final Design” plans for Palm Island, which also bore the cover date Feb. 26, 2016, and plans
for Hibiscus Island dated Feb. 22.
Since January, Lanzo had been working on other parts of the construction project that did
not require a DERM permit. By March, Crews had become concerned about the length of time that
Lanzo had been working without the benefit of a finished set of construction plans. In a March 22,
2016, email to CIP staff Crews said, “Despite the fact that the “100%” plans continue to evolve, I
went ahead and prepared comments (on the Kremers plans) so that I was on record. I am concerned
that these plans are not where they need to be. More importantly, I am concerned that the elevations
are higher than they should be. Meanwhile, we are installing water main based on those elevations.”
This statement for the record by Crews addressed the potential risks, in terms of cost and
schedule delay, of the City’s decision to allow Lanzo to begin construction before the revised
stormwater and hardscape plans were finished.
G. (April 7 - 28, 2016) The City and Lanzo finalize plans for installing permanent yard drains
in private lots; DERM begins the final phase of reviewing the City’s permit application
On the morning of April 7, 2016, CIP Project Coordinator Sanchez and CIP consulting
engineer Crews traveled to Palm Island where they met with Lanzo Construction Managers Beaty,
Pablo Riano and Victor Serrano, and Wade Trim engineers Wright and Garcia. The purpose of the
82
field meeting was to finalize plans for installing yard drains at the edge of right-of-ways and in
private lots along North and South Coconut Lanes.
Five months had passed since the City had approved Wade Trim’s conceptual design for an
alternative stormwater drainage system that connected to private yard drains. During this period, the
City oversaw the parallel efforts of Rubio and Kremers. Also during this period, CIP and Public
Works reviewed and commented on 90% and 100% versions of the discarded Rubio plans, and
approved his written responses to requests for information from DERM and the SFWMD.
Concurrent with this activity, CIP and Public Works also oversaw the ongoing revisions of Rubio’s
plans by Kremers and Wright. During February and March, CIP and Public Works both reviewed
versions of the revised plans and provided comments that were incorporated into a final draft.
In early April, the City and Lanzo had reason to believe that the City’s permit applications
were in the final stage of the review process at both agencies. In early March, Rubio had sent
DERM engineer De Torres a written response to what he assumed would be the agency’s last
request for information. He concluded with a plea, “The Design Team and the City are on a fast
track to get this project started and any assistance you can provide to expedite the permit issuance is
appreciated.”
The purpose of the April 7, 2016, meeting in west Palm Island was to (1) verify the work
that Lanzo would do in the right-of-ways and on private property, (2) identify the tasks the City
would need to accomplish in order for Lanzo to install pipes and drainage connections on private
property, and (3) delineate the options available to property owners and their responsibilities during
construction. The understandings and agreement reached during the meeting were recorded in
jointly approved minutes. The minutes were titled “North & South Coconut Lane – Special
Harmonization,” and bore logos of the City, Lanzo, and Wade Trim. The two-page document
summarized the City’s plans “to address construction adjacent to and along these properties.”
Figure No. 7 is an excerpt from the minutes that recorded the agreement between the City, Lanzo,
and Wade Trim to install permanent pipes and drainage connections on private property and
connect these private-side drainage systems to the public drainage system using the pipes and
connections installed in the right-of-way.
83
Figure 7 Excerpt from minutes of April 7, 2016 meeting describing plans by the City, Lanzo, and
Wade Trim to install private-side yard drains and connect them to the City drainage system using
the pipes and drainage connections in the right-of-ways.
The minutes of the April 7 meeting begin with a summary of events that preceded
the City’s decision to build a public drainage system that connected to private-side yard
drains. RFI #34 and Wade Trim’s drawing of the changes in grade that the higher road
elevations required were attached as exhibits. The minutes said: “The City has established a
minimum grate elevation and roadway crown elevation of 2.7' NAVD for west Palm Island.
The proposed roadway elevation adjustments will impact driveways, front yard and
backyard interfaces between private property and public ROW. The impacts will extend into
the private properties, in some properties more than others.” The minutes included as an
attachment the conceptual drawing by Wade Trim that showed how the lateral 12-inch drain
pipe installed in the right-of-way in front of a private lot would connect a private-side yard
drain with the mainline pipe in the road.
Three sections in the April 7, 2016, minutes delineated the responsibilities and tasks as to
Lanzo, the City, and property owners. The first section described a “temporary condition” while
Lanzo cleared and regraded the right-of-way in front of a house and reconstructed the driveway to
match the elevated road. It said, “In order to provide property owners with the opportunity to make
adjustments to their property interfaces with the new elevation at the public ROW…Lanzo has
84
provided a temporary condition, which will only impact driveways, walkways, and a small width of
green area.” This part of the agreement was based on the City’s approval of RFI # 34
(Harmonization), which established that Lanzo was not responsible for additional reconstructive
work beyond this limited area.
Given the extent to which existing fixtures and landscaping beyond the right-of-way might
be demolished during construction, the summary said that the “temporary condition” was intended
to allow the homeowners to make “adjustments” during the project at their own expense. The
minutes continued, “Additional grading from future grades on driveways and walkways may be
needed, in order to maintain the structural integrity of these features at their new grade Elevations.
A temporary drainage condition will also be provided inside the within [sic] the City ROW
(cleanout connection typically at the ROW line).” This part of the agreement referred to the
permanent lateral pipes, tees, and drainage connections Lanzo would install in the right-of-way in
front of the houses. During construction this permanent part of the drainage system would also be
available if the elevated roads caused new flooding or trapped stormwater on private lots.
During an interview with OIG staff, former City Engineer Mowry said the lateral and right-
of-way drainpipes were installed as permanent parts to the drainage system to accommodate the
future connection of private-side yard drains. He said the right-of-way drainpipes also were used to
prevent flooding during construction. Mowry said, “We did have the accommodation. It was just
being appropriate and good planning that we had this thing designed and we knew that we were
going to have to take the runoff from construction anyway because we could not run water from
public property into private property. And so we knew that even during construction we had to have
these and we said ‘Why don't we put them in so that we then have the flexibility to connect a
private individual in the future.” Similarly, CIP Consulting Engineer Crews said that using the
permanent lateral pipes and right-of-way drainpipes as a “temporary” means to collect stormwater
during construction was an essential precaution and an effective use of the permanently installed
equipment. He said in an interview:
On one hand, one of the things that it was accomplishing was creating that potential connection point for every property. The other thing that it allowed the contractor to do is to create a temporary system during construction so that those laterals....went to
the property line, and turned up into small drains. That became a temporary
connection point, not a connection, a temporary inlet. Because, what happens in this is when they raise the roads, the problems happen right away for the private property…So those drains that were turned up at the right-of-way became at least a temporary relief point so that the private lot wouldn't flood. Because there was a
85
danger that if we raise the roads and there was some delay between raising the roads and getting the property situated with whatever eventual solution would take care of
them, that if they flooded, they wouldn't get any flood relief until it either spilled
over into the bay or got as high as the roads.
The April 7, 2016, minutes described a “Permanent Condition” that would entail reversing
the slope inside private lots and extending a pipe from the right-of-way connection drain to a low
point in the private lot for use as a yard drain. It said, “The Permanent Condition will have a 1%
slope running from the ROW to the edge of pavement,” and a slightly steeper slope from the edge
of the right-of-way “to match existing elevations into the private property.” Thereafter, the minutes
continued, “…A connection comprised of a 12" SDR 35 yard drain connected to the Project's
stormwater system will be installed and capped in each property, providing residents with the
option to connect to the stormwater system at some future date.” (Emphasis added.)
Lanzo would leave behind a newly graded right-of-way and a rebuilt private driveway, but
in many cases the construction would require much additional construction and landscaping further
inside the property. After the City’s decision in late October to further elevate North and South
Coconut Lanes and to have Lanzo build Wade Trim’s engineering solution to mitigate the expected
flooding and impoundment of stormwater on private lots, Beaty had emphasized the limits of
Lanzo’s responsibility for work on private property. These limitations were documented in the
minutes of the April 7 meeting. They said, “Should the resident wish to harmonize from property
interfaces at ROW to all areas further into the property, the resident can do so and is allotted time
for this between the dates that the Temporary and Permanent Conditions are constructed.”
As to the City’s responsibilities and assigned tasks, the minutes described the need to
change existing City policy to allow property owners to connect their personal yard drains to the
City’s drainage system. Without a change in the existing policy, the City could not allow these
connections. Further, the minutes described the additional task assigned to the City of obtaining
written authorization from each property owner for Lanzo to work further inside each property.
Without the signed harmonization agreements, Lanzo could not dig necessary trenches inside a
private lot and lay an additional length of PVC pipe that extended from the lateral pipe and right-of-
way drain connection to a low point on the owner’s property. “The City is to define (right-of-way)
harmonization policy, private party drainage connection policy, and endorsement of typical
86
section…City to finalize letters to send out to residents affected by special harmonization
conditions.”
Finally, the parties agreed on the responsibilities and options that would be available to each
homeowner who agreed to have a yard drain installed on private property. The minutes said, the
“procurement of the connection from the private property side will be managed by the private
property owner.” This meant that after the City and Lanzo installed the permanent private-side drain
connection, the property owner would be responsible for the costs of activating the drain to collect
and transfer stormwater from their yard into the public drainage system. During an interview with
OIG staff, Mowry said the change in policy was an integral part of the City’s decision in 2016 to
install the permanent laterals and drainage connections in front of each lot on west Palm Island. He
said, “We were anticipating in the future that we would get a direction to be able to take water from
private property…we put this in so that we had the flexibility to be able to make that connection in
the future.”
After the April 7, 2016 meeting, CIP staff moved forward with the tasks assigned to the City
that were necessary prerequisites for Lanzo’s installation of the private-side drain connections. The
minutes of a CIP construction progress meeting with the Lanzo design team on April 26 said,
“Some properties can be asked if they want a yard drain, resident to decide…Some harmonization
agreements still not signed…Residents were contacted.” Further, the minutes said, “Residents
wishing to connect to system only need plumbing permit from city.”
In order to identify the best location for installing pipes and drain connections on private
lots, CIP and Lanzo also discussed the need to conduct a more detailed elevation survey of private
lots in west Palm Avenue to determine the best location for the private-side drain connection. The
minutes said, “Scope of survey into private property only required to determine appropriate drain
location.” The minutes contained no reference to the need to modify the City’s pending applications
with the SFWMD and DERM for permits to construct a public stormwater drainage system to allow
for its extension into approximately 90 lots on west Palm Island.
From Lanzo’s point of view, the City’s decision in late October 2015 to require adherence to
the minimum grate elevation criteria of 2.7 feet above sea level on west Palm Island (which
required raising North and South Coconut Lanes above the centerline elevation of 2.2 feet above
sea level in the Rubio plans) was a “changed condition” under the contract. At this point, though,
the Commission had not amended the contract with Lanzo to authorize an expanded scope of work
87
to extend the stormwater drainage system beyond the right-of-way for the installation of private-
side drain connections.
Without contractual language that also covered work on private property, Lanzo’s
management feared exposure to liability for damages for what occurred on private lots from
elevating North and South Coconut Lanes to the point where they trapped stormwater on private
lots and caused new flooding. During an interview with OIG staff, Beaty said the ability to refer to
the right-of-way drainpipes as “temporary” provided a justification or legal rationale for the work
the City wanted done. Beaty said, “The road is higher than the private property. The
accommodation and the need was understood, but the method of accommodation wasn't. That was
resolved with temporary drainage…What that allowed us to do is build the drainage system and
build the road and come up with a method of accommodating private residents. But that was not in
our contract.”
The City Administration made the decision that Mowry announced Oct. 9, 2015, which
required raising the roads on west Palm Island by an additional foot, despite the concerns of design
engineers that the road would change the existing positive flow of stormwater from private lots and
cause harmful flooding to adjacent private property. Having crossed this threshold, the responsible
City officials, including Carpenter, Martinez, and Mowry, recognized that they had to develop a
way of mitigating the expected flooding.
In the absence of contractual language and/or an amendment to Lanzo’s contract that
explicitly authorized construction work on private property and the installation of underground
infrastructure for private-side drain connections, Beaty and other Lanzo construction managers used
written and electronic means of documenting the City’s directions and commitments, including
email, correspondence with CIP, the RFI process, the jointly approved minutes of CIP progress
meetings, and, ultimately, electronic recordings of those meetings.
For example, in a letter to CIP Senior Project Manager Tomczyk dated April 27, 2016,
Beaty restated Lanzo’s understandings with the City that were recorded in the minutes of the April
7 meeting and in RFI submissions. The letter said in part: “Request for Information (RFI) 34 & 35
(attached) dated October 30, 2015 provide current contract definition with regard to Private
Property Harmonization…and Private Property Drainage Water Accommodation (Capped 12" for
future connection by Others and a temporary yard drain).”
88
During an interview with OIG staff, former Wade Trim Vice President Kremers said that the
designation of the right-of-way drains as “temporary” was an accommodation to the City. Kremers
said: “While we were designing this project, the City was in the process of developing a policy
for…whether it would and how it would allow private properties to connect to the system. The
ultimate plan was they would be allowed to connect. They (the City) just weren’t sure of the means
yet.” During an interview with OIG staff, Beaty said the right-of-way drain connections were
described as temporary installations “because at that point, the definition of how it was going to be
accommodated, and who was going to pay for it, that definition didn't exist.”
On April 28, City Engineer Mowry attended a CIP progress meeting that included CIP,
Lanzo, and Wade Trim staff. According to the minutes, he confirmed the City’s plan to operate the
public drainage system and allow property owners of private-side drains to connect to it for a
monthly fee. The minutes said, “Bruce M. (PW) explained the process of billing regarding private
property drainage. It will be a flat rate per month, regardless of rain.”
During an interview with OIG staff, Mowry said that during the decision-making process in
early 2016, he, Carpenter and Martinez agreed on the strategy the City implemented. He said they
discussed the flood risks of elevating roads before the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee and
described the option of using private-yard drains to remove trapped floodwaters from private lots.
Based on these interactions, Mowry said he and his colleagues concluded that they were authorized
to have Lanzo build a public drainage system that was designed to connect to private-side yard
drains, with the understanding that the necessary change in City policy would be made at a later
date.
In written responses, Carpenter said he did not recall when he learned that the lateral pipes
and connection tees, which together are also referred to as stubouts, were added to the construction
plans. However, in a written response, Carpenter indicated he was aware of the changes and the
City’s decision to approve Wade Trim plans to build a drainage system designed to connect with
private-side yard drains by at least Dec. 9, 2015 when Public Works and CIP provided former City
Engineer Morales with memoranda that referred to RFI #35 (“Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation”) in a Commission Memorandum.
Further, Carpenter’s response acknowledged his awareness of changes to Rubio’s plans. He
stated, “The incorporation of the secondary drainage system on west Palm Island evolved over time.
89
The initial modification was only the inclusion of stubouts from the existing primary drainage
system that remained unchanged.”
90
VIII. PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION
A. (May 5 – July 5, 2016) The regulatory agencies issued permits for the project based on the
Rubio plans. With this in hand, the City directed Lanzo to begin construction using the
Kremers plans
On May 5, 2016, the SFWMD issued to the City an Environmental Resources Permit based
on the outdated Rubio plans titled, “100% Final Design,” dated Dec. 9, 2015, that Rubio had
signed, dated and sealed on Dec. 11, 2015. The first general condition of the permit said, “All
activities shall be implemented following the plans, specifications and performance criteria
approved by this permit. Any deviations must be authorized in a permit modification in accordance
with Rule 62- 330.315, F.A.C. Any deviations that are not so authorized shall subject the permittee
to enforcement action and revocation of the permit under Chapter 373, F.S.”
During the next two weeks, Kremers and Wright incorporated the City’s comments into the
now fully reengineered and revised Rubio plans, known as the Kremers plans. This work resulted in
a second version also titled “100% Final Design Plans,” dated May 18, 2016, by Kremers.
Consistent with the March 2, 2016, understanding between Wade Trim and CIP, Kremers and
Wright did not sign, date and seal the revised stormwater and hardscape plans.
On May 27, 2016, DERM issued a Class II permit for the Palm and Hibiscus project to
Carpenter on behalf of the City “per signed and sealed plans by Orlando A. Rubio, P.E., from Craig
A. Smith & Associates.” (Figure No. 8) Like the permit issued by the SFWMD, the DERM permit
contained a condition stating: “This permit only authorizes the grading and drainage work
summarized in page 1 of this permit. Any additional work not shown in this permit or on the
approved plans shall require additional Class II permit approval.” (Emphasis added.)
91
Figure 8 Excerpt from Class II permit dated May 27, 2016. Item #1 identifies Carpenter as the
designated permittee, Item #2 identifies Engineer of Record Orlando A. Rubio, Item #3 shows the permit was based on plans signed and sealed by Rubio.
The two drawings below show pages from the Rubio plans and the Kremers plans for the
same section of South Coconut Lane. Figure No. 9 shows the standard right-of-way drainage
system designed by Rubio, which included four 18-inch drains that were connected to the drainage
system by four pipes extending from the force main. The drainage study conducted by Rubio
showed that these drains were sufficient to collect stormwater from the right-of-way.
92
Figure 9 Excerpt from the permitted Rubio plans for a section of South Coconut Lane that shows standard design for a right-of-way drainage system.
On June 20, 2016, Kremers signed and sealed the revised stormwater section of the plans;
Wright signed and sealed the revised hardscape section. The array of lateral pipes Kremers added to
the Rubio plans were the essential infrastructure for building a public stormwater drainage system
that was configured to connect to private-side yard drains.
Figure No. 10 below show the same plans prepared by Kremers for the same section of
South Coconut Lane. The lateral pipes shown in blue tint on the Kremers plans extend from the
mainline pipe to the right-of-way in front of each residential lot on west Palm Island. The primary
purpose of lateral pipes was to provide permanent links between the mainline pipe and one or more
private-side yard drains in each lot. During an interview with OIG staff, CIP Consulting Engineer
Crews said, “One purpose was to create that future potential connection point that, if the City had
gone through with that policy, you, as homeowner at a given address, could say, ‘I've got water that
I don't know what to do with it. Here's my $35 a month’…they would have allowed you to connect.
You make the connection; you get to discharge your water to the public system.”
As shown in the Kremers plans, the intention was to equip the end of each lateral pipe with a
tee connection fixture, also known as a stubout, with two connections for additional drains. A
vertical connection could be used to establish temporary or permanent drainpipes or inlets in the
right-of-way (“right-of-way drainpipes”). A horizontal connection could connect with pipes in as
many adjacent lots as possible for permanent private-side yard drains. (See Figure 10 below and
OIG Consulting Engineers Technical Report re: Exhibit 1 Comparison of Rubio plans and Kremers
plans for additional examples.)
93
Figure 10 Excerpt from Kremers plans for the same section of South Coconut lanes shows the
addition of lateral pipes (in blue tint) that extend from the main pipe to the edge of the right-of-way in front of each house on West Palm Island.
The Hardscape section of the revised plans below included a drawing titled “Typical
Roadway Section for North and South Coconut Lanes” and a schematic drawing titled “Yard Drain
Detail” that showed how the lateral pipes would connect to private-side yard drains. (Figure No. 11)
94
Figure 11. Engineering plans labeled “Typical Roadway Section for N.& S. Coconut Lane”
signed and sealed June 20, 2016 by Wade Trim engineer Wright. The “Yard Drain Detail” in
lower right shows a lateral pipe extending mainline pipe fitted with a connection tee at the end. Together, the lateral pipe and tee comprised the right-of-way drainage connections or “stubouts” for connecting future private-side yard drains to the public system.
Beaty equated the lateral pipes, tees, and caps installed in the right-of-ways in front of each
house on west Palm Island to permanent water and sewer lines installed in a new development
before houses are built. Beaty said, “When you go to a new residential development, you never go
onto private property. You do all your work in the right-of-way. What you do is you establish a
service within the right-of-way up to the property line for connection by the private owner at a later
date. What that does is that when they build the house and the plumber comes in, a plumber has a
place to connect the sewer pipes.”
Mowry said that from the beginning of the redesign by Kremers of the Rubio plans, the City
planned to build a drainage system that provided right-of-way drainpipes to use in the future to
provide connections to private-side yard drains. He said, “We were anticipating in the future that we
would get direction to be able to take water from private property… it was just being appropriate
and good planning that we had this thing designed.”
95
The City’s Joint Response said, “The documents prepared by Wade Trim did not add inlets,” or
open drains, and added:
This is not a material change, nor does it make the permit documents false or misleading. The DCP and early meetings with DERM clearly established the tributary area of the stormwater collection system for this project to include the entire right-of-way, the entire private, non-waterfront lots, and½ the private waterfront lots. This did not change between the two sets of
documents; is not a material change to the permit; and does not make the permit documents
"false or misleading." Simply stated, the Wade Trim drawings did not alter the functionality, effectiveness, or ability of the project to protect the Bay, and comply with Code.
An additional three weeks passed while the plans were reviewed by Public Works.
Figure 12 Cover page of Kremers plans. Item #1 shows cover date of May 18, 2016, Item #2
shows plans were signed and sealed by Kremers on June 20, 2016, Item #3 shows plans approved
by Public Works July 5, 2016
On July 5, 2016, each page of the stormwater section was stamped with a Public Works
approval form and signed by Assistant City Engineer Eugene Egemba (Figure No.12). The array of
lateral pipes in the Kremers plans and the corresponding technical specifications for the connections
tees, which together comprised an extension of the system known as stubouts, were approved as
permanent parts of the drainage system.
During an interview with OIG staff, current Public Works Director Roy Coley said the
lateral pipes that extended to the front of each house on North and South Coconut Lanes were
96
approved by Public Works as permanent installations. When asked if the lateral pipes shown on the
Kremers plans were intended to connect private-side yard drains to the public drainage system as
shown in the Wade Trim drawing titled “Typical Cross Section Driveway-Tie for the Coconuts,”
Coley said, “That’s correct.” Coley said lateral pipes and right-of-way drainpipes on the plans
approved by Public Works were not intended to be temporary construction drains. He said, “No. As
far as I'm concerned, the temporary drains were a construction activity…we didn't approve them
and there's no engineering from Public Works for temporary inlets.”
During an interview with OIG staff, Lanzo Construction Manager Beaty said the plan was to
build a system that could connect to private yard drains, but that in 2016 the construction of drains
on private property was not part of Lanzo’s contract with the City to build a right-of-way drainage
system. Beaty said, “When the road is higher than the private properties, there's a need for
accommodation and the need was understood, but the method of accommodation wasn't… That was
resolved with temporary drainage.” Beaty’s recollection was consistent with the minutes of a CIP
progress meeting on Oct. 13, 2016. The minutes said, “Harmonization Meetings Summary
spreadsheet for Coconut Lane was discussed. Certain components including wall/gate
harmonization are homeowner responsibility, yard drain in certain areas is a temporary condition, it
will be plugged when homeowner establishes their private side drainage system.”
During an interview with OIG staff, Kremers explained the genesis of the decision to
describe the 88 “permanent” right-of-way pipes and drain connections as “temporary” : “The
original...design kept some portions of the road low so we wouldn’t be trapping pools of water on
people’s property. The design criteria was modified so the roads were required to be raised. It was
at that point when we knew we were going to have to make accommodations for private property
drainage. And the City at that point didn’t have a policy established and was working on it.”
CIP Senior Project Manager Samadi took over management of the project in July 2016 after
Tomcyzk left his position. During an interview with OIG staff, Samadi said that from the beginning
of her involvement, she understood that the plan was to use the right-of-way drain pipes to install
private-side yard drains. She said:
The set of the plans that we were working from the time that I took over the project had those yard drains in it and I could not understand what that was and it was explained to me
in detail as to what was the purpose of those yard drains. The purpose of the drains [was] for during the construction, and they were going to be plugged. And at some point in the future, when the city approved, they were ...going to allow the residents to connect to these drains like a stormwater utility permit type of payment and things of that nature...the yard drains
97
were already a part of the plans. I am not sure. I don't think they were permitted, but they were part of the plans when I took over the project and that was what was going to be
constructed.
The evidence supports a conclusion that between Dec 9, 2015, and May 27, 2016, the
responsible City officials and City contractors knew, or had reason to know, that DERM and the
SFWMD were reviewing plans prepared by Rubio that the City did not intend to follow; that the
permitting agencies were basing their permitting decision on the Rubio plans; and that Rubio had
ceased to function as the Engineer of Record. Ultimately, both agencies issued permits based on the
Rubio plans. Soon after receiving a Class II permit on May 27, 2017 based on the approved plans
signed and seal by Rubio, the City adopted the unpermitted plans prepared, signed and sealed by
Kremers.
Carpenter said in an interview that he was not aware the Rubio plans were revised by
Kremers. “I can honestly say that I don't recall reviewing those plans. I don't know whether those
plans were, you know, put together as one obviously is with harmonization and one is without
harmonization, meaning that we're able to reach an agreement with a private property owner to be
able to encroach into their property, do additional filling to be able to match an elevated roadway.”
Further, Carpenter said that when he signed the permit he was not aware of any decision to use the
Rubio plans for obtain permits from SFWMD and, concurrently, direct Wade Trim’s Kremers to
prepare an alternative set of plans with connections for private-side yard drains. Carpenter said, “I
think the simple answer to that is no.”
During interviews with OIG staff, DERM engineers Molina and De Torres said they believe
they were misled in 2016 when they were led to believe that Rubio was the Engineer of Record for
the stormwater drainage section of the plans, and that the City intended to use the 100% Final
Design plans prepared by Rubio to build the drainage system. During an interview, Molina said:
“The work scope of a Class II is to…check the quality, check the quantity, and also the piping. The
fact that they added extra piping, extra connections, that also implies that we have new owners in
place. It would have required a Class II permit…Had they come to us and showed us, ‘This is our
plans.’…I would have requested a permit modification.
DERM Director Hefty disputed the rationale offered by Carpenter and Beaty that, given the
system’s capacity to provide water quality treatment for stormwater from both public and private
lots, there was no need to notify DERM of changes in the system design to accommodate private-
side yard drains. Hefty said this change in design “should have been included initially or, if they
98
came up with a design change of this significance, it would have required a modification to the
permit. Further, he said:
It sounds to me like what they're trying to say is they didn't think they needed to get DERM's approval because they thought they had overdesigned it. But those two things are apples and oranges. If they've overdesigned, great, include those calculations in your request for a modification. It'll make it easy for my staff to review and approve.
But the requirement to obtain a permit is pursuant to the Code. They don't get to decide
when they get a permit or not based on what they think DERM cares about. The Code spells out when a permit is required, a permit was required, and they didn't obtain it.
During interviews with the OIG staff, the responsible current or former City officials,
including Carpenter, Martinez, Mowry, Samadi, and Sanchez contended Lanzo was solely
responsible for permitting. They claimed that the City as owner and permittee was not responsible
for obtaining permits or ensuring that the agencies were provided with the Kremers plans because
the City’s agreement with Lanzo made the general contractor responsible for obtaining all permits.
During an interview, Carpenter said, “The Engineer of Record is responsible for design and
permitting of the project.” Martinez said his staff will assist in processing the applications, but that
contractually the design builder is responsible for permitting.
During an interview with OIG staff, DERM Director Lee Hefty stated,
I've been a public servant for more than 30 years. And you can't outsource stewardship, so as a public servant, we have a higher level of obligation,
responsibility to the public. And so for the city to simply say, ‘Hey, it's not our fault
we hired somebody else,’ I don't buy that excuse. Quite frankly, we are public servants for a reason. We have a higher moral obligation to ensure the public is protected. So I don't care how many people you hire, you are ultimately responsible. So that's my professional opinion.
The Office of Inspector General strongly agrees with this view.
B. (May 2016 – Dec. 2017) The City and Lanzo make significant changes to the construction
plans to accommodate demands from the Homeowners Association; Wade Trim engineers
recommend notifying DERM and obtaining a permit modification to no avail
After issuing a permit, both DERM and the SFWMD require the project owner and general
contractor to use the approved plans to build the project and notify them of significant changes.
99
However, both agencies acknowledge the operational reality that during the construction of
a complex stormwater drainage system, contractors often need to make minor adjustments, such as
installing a fire hydrant in a different part of a street, or shifting the placement of a storm drain by
several feet to improve the drainage in a swale.
For that reason, both agencies allow owners and contractors to disclose minor changes at the
end of a project when they submit an “As-Built” set of construction plans indicating what has been
constructed. But this accommodation is limited and is not intended to include changes to the
project’s design. The SFWMD’s policy says, “Major changes, including changes to permit
authorization or special or limiting conditions would require a permit modification before
implementation.” The DERM application requires a project’s owner and Engineer of Record to
attest that, “To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information, data and plans submitted are
true, complete and accurate, and I will apprise the Department of any changes to information
provided in this application.”
Because Wade Trim engineer Garcia was based in the firm’s Coral Gables office, he
attended CIP progress meetings, attended numerous meetings with residents on Palm and Hibiscus
Island, and responded to requests from CIP and Lanzo. Under Florida rules that apply to licensed
professional engineers, Garcia functioned as a “delegated engineer” who provided engineering
services under the direction of Engineer of Record Kremers.
As the Wade Trim engineer with day-to-day responsibility for servicing the project, Garcia
attended most CIP progress meetings and was instrumental in the engineering work these changes
required. During an interview with OIG staff, Wade Trim engineer Garcia said that by 2017 he had
grown frustrated with the number of significant changes that CIP had directed Lanzo and Wade
Trim to make to the construction plans, most of them at the request of the Homeowners
Association. Garcia stated that he was concerned about the failure to notify DERM of the
significant changes and the agency’s reaction if all the changes were only disclosed at the end of the
project. In 2017 Garcia prepared a spreadsheet of issues with CIP, including one labeled “Disregard
for approved permits.” It said:
MDRER/SFWMD: Significant changes have been directed by CIP to stormwater design (as a result of changes in tree removal directives); it has only been recently that CIP has expressed
concern with project certification; it is unclear whether CIP weighed risk of permit certification against universal directive to save ALL trees, including not removing trees in swale areas that reduce conveyance efficiency and integrity of the proposed stormwater system (the removal of trees in the swale area was an explicit directive in DCP).
100
One of these significant changes was a redesign of the swales that, in the Rubio plans,
would have been created by clearing the right-of-way along Palm Avenue North. In response to
requests from the HOA, in October 2016 the City directed Lanzo to redesign those plans to preserve
the trees and other encroachments in the right-of-way. This represented a significant change to the
Rubio plans.
During an interview with OIG staff, Wade Trim engineer Garcia said he urged the City and
Lanzo to notify DERM of the significant changes to the project’s construction plans and determine
the need to modify the Class II permit. Garcia said, “On a number of occasions I had recommended
that we reach out to RER (DERM) sooner to begin discussions regarding some of these changes
that had been going on. And every time I would present that, they would say, you know, ‘wait, let's
wait,’ or, you know, ‘don't talk to them directly.’” Garcia stated that he was given these directions
by CIP Senior Project Manager Mina Samadi and Lanzo Senior Construction Manager Pablo Riano.
Garcia said, “That came from not only Mina but also Pablo…Pablo was my client, or Lanzo, and so
I advised Lanzo that we really should start discussions earlier with RER (DERM). But then he also
put the clamp on that, so I was essentially muzzled.”
C. (Feb. – April 2017) In February City Manager Morales affirms policy prohibiting
connection of privately owned yard drains to the public drainage system; in April the City
Commission directs City staff to develop an “engineering solution and policy” to allow
property owners to connect private-side drains to the drainage system
The Palm and Hibiscus project was the first neighborhood project where the City had
applied the strategy Mowry had approved in Sunset Harbour that combined raising roads and using
12-inch drains to mitigate new flooding. It also was the first neighborhood project that suffered
from the unintended consequences of accelerating the project’s design and disrupting CIP’s process
for managing large scale design-build construction projects.
One of the earliest warning signs was the City’s failure to develop a framework and policy
for managing the legal, regulatory, and operational issues that City officials knew were likely to
result from a project that raised roads a foot or more higher than the elevation of adjacent
101
properties, and depended on an unprecedented and untested engineering solution that relied on the
use of private-side yard drains.
When the City decided in October 2015 to require Lanzo to raise roads in west Palm Island
a foot or more above the 2.2 foot centerline elevation in the Rubio plans, Carpenter, Mowry,
Martinez, and other decision-makers knew that requiring the minimum grate elevation of 2.7 feet
above sea level could result in new flooding of private residential lots. Mowry and other City
officials recognized the need to develop a legal justification and an administrative process for
managing the connections.
Sixteen months after Mowry and others had assured the HOA Board at a Nov. 2015 briefing
that the City would change the policy prohibiting the connection of private-side yard drains to the
City system, that had not happened. This suggests that City Manager Morales and his staff had not
yet agreed on an approach that allowed the connections but also protected the City from liability for
the legal and financial risks associated with causing new or harmful flooding on private property.
Meanwhile, Lanzo had been installing the drainage system, and word of the City’s allowing
residents to connect their personal yard drains to the public drainage system had spread to other
neighborhoods. In response to an increasing number of inquiries about the City’s policy, Morales
sent the City Commission an LTC dated Feb. 9, 2017, titled “Elevating Roads and Reducing Floor
Risk-Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).” The FAQ explained that residents were responsible for
any new flooding caused by newly elevated roads and ruled out the connection of private-side yard
drains to the City’s drainage system.
Two of the FAQ’s questions and answers are material to this investigation. The first asked,
“Will elevating the roads flood my property?” The City’s answer was, “The street improvement
projects are designed to capture and manage all water within the public right of way. If water from
private property flows to the street, when the street is raised, this water will have to change the
direction of flow to other locations on the private property. Water will not flow from the elevated
City street into private property.”
Historically, stormwater that fell on private lots on west Palm Island had flowed into the
street, where the inverted center of the pavement, had channeled the water into the drainage system.
Raising the roads in front of those houses would block or alter that historical flow of stormwater
and, in worst case scenarios, cause this water to pond or collect on the homeowner’s lot.
102
The FAQ statement that “water will not flow from the elevated City street into private
property” was, at this point, an aspiration and design objective of the construction plans, but was
not true. If it were true that the elevated roads would not cause new flooding, the City and Lanzo
would not have decided to install private-side drain connections in most lots on west Palm Island.
The second question asked was, “How can I tie my stormwater infrastructure into the City's
drainage efforts?” The City’s answer was, “Currently this is not an option for private property
owners, but we are exploring options to provide our residents with additional water management
options in the future.” While expressed in nuanced language, the answers indicated that the City
recognized the risk that raising roads would cause new flooding on private lots; was unwilling to
assume a city-wide duty to prevent such flooding; and intended to shift the legal responsibility for
any flood damage caused by elevating roads to individual property owners. On its face, the FAQs
restatement of existing City policy appeared to rule out the use of the engineering solution that
Wade Trim had developed to remove trapped stormwater from private lots.
In light of subsequent events, the Feb. 2, 2017, LTC suggests that Morales was not aware at
that time that the drainage system was already designed to connect with private-side yard drains.
However, Mowry and other engineers involved in the project considered the use of private-side
yard drains an essential part of their plan to raise North and South Coconut Lanes a foot or more
above 2.2 feet above sea level. During an interview with OIG staff, Morales said he was not aware
that the drainage system had been designed to connect to private-side yard drains. Morales said the
option of using the right-of-way drainpipes or stubouts for private-side drains was presented to him
in 2018 as “work we would have to go back in and do.”
D. (March 7 – April 26, 2017) Carpenter and Mowry continue pursuing change in policy;
Commission approves policy allowing connection of private-side yard drains to public
drainage system
During March 2017, Mowry continued to assure Lanzo that the City’s new policy would be
adopted, and that private-side drains would be installed and residents would be allowed to connect
their new private-side drains to the public drainage system. When the subject came up during a CIP
progress meeting March 7, 2017, Mowry said he expected the new policy to be presented to the
103
Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee in April. According to a recording of the meeting, Mowry said,
“Based on what the committee has, if they recommend to move forward, then we can go to the City
Commission….if the City Commission basically concurs with it, then the program will be set up
sometime in Summer to make a connection.”
During the same meeting, Mowry acknowledged that allowing residents to connect personal
drains to the system raised potential legal issues for the City that had to be sorted out. Mowry said,
“Actually, I have a meeting with the City Attorney’s office. It is an active process. We have experts
coming in from other places to help us talk about this because we are one of the first places in the
whole country that's ever done this. And even legal precedent of this has to be asked.”
During March 2017, Carpenter and Assistant City Attorney Eve Boutsis began drafting a
resolution approving the change in policy at the request of Aleman.
On March 31, 2017, Boutsis sent a draft to Carpenter in an email that said, “Eric, this is my
first attempt at the draft stormwater policy resolution that City Commissioner Aleman is
seeking…thought I would kick this off – for discussion purposes.” The text said, “the City
stormwater policy requires private property owners to construct on-site stormwater management
systems to handle their stormwater volume, however, certain single-family properties place
additional demands on the City’s stormwater management system because they are (1) older
single-family properties that did not have the same requirements at time of construction, (2)
single-family properties that partially redevelop and increase the impervious area of a property
without the associated stormwater improvements; and (3) single-family properties that are
illegally connected to the public stormwater management system.”
Concurrent with these efforts, City officials generated support for the new policy through
news media coverage. On April 5, the Miami Herald published an article (“Miami Beach residents
worry: Will city's anti-flood work dump water in my yard?”) about an open house the City held in
response to the “level of concern among property owners that the city is moving fast on
infrastructure projects that are not completely understood by the public. Each homeowner will
want to know what will happen to their property when the crown of the street is raised.”
The article added, “In the coming months, city staffers want to propose a program that
would allow private property owners to connect to upgraded street drainage systems for a fee. This
104
would allow homeowners who have drainage issues to keep their properties dry after the streets are
raised.”
At an April 26, 2017 City Commission meeting, Commissioner Aleman introduced the
resolution calling it “a really significant paradigm shift” in City policy. During an interview,
Aleman said she learned of the option of connecting private-side yard drains by City staff: “Bruce
Mowry, Eric Carpenter, Roy Coley, [Assistant Public Works Director]Jay Fink were the ones that
informed me the most…Yes, absolutely. I mean, I attended numerous of those blue ribbon panels. I
consulted with Eric and Roy and Jay and Bruce all the time.”
During an interview with OIG staff, Aleman said that during this period she attended
meetings with residents where City staff discussed stormwater improvements in other
neighborhoods that included raising roads. Because the City’s long-standing policy of prohibiting
the connection of privately owned yards drains to the drainage system remained in effect, Mowry at
this point was telling residents they would be responsible for managing stormwater on their
property. During an interview with OIG staff, Mowry said, “The policy of the City has always been
that the City wasn’t responsible to manage or handle water that was coming from private
property…we were saying “No, they had to basically put in their own systems to do that.”
This explanation heightened the concerns of residents in other neighborhoods with
unusually low elevations that faced the potential risk of new flooding if their roads were elevated.
In her written response to the OIG, Aleman said she heard from “single family homeowners, many
of whom were deeply concerned, if not downright scared, that the City was going to make changes
to infrastructure that would cause flooding in their homes and was not planning to provide any
support or assistance mitigating such flooding.”
Intent on addressing these fears, Aleman took up the cause of these residents In an interview
with OIG staff, Aleman said she consulted with Carpenter and other City staff about the feasibility
of allowing residents to “tie-in” their own yard drains to the public system. During an interview,
Aleman said “When I came forward with this concept…they let me know that the capacity, the
carrying capacity of the system, was already sized to handle that private stormwater runoff. And
they would get to work on an engineering solution to figure out how to put in-falls on those private
homes. The connections were not, as I understand it, part of the design at that time. It's that the
capacity of the main system was adequate.”
105
The first part of what Aleman said she was told was true. To accommodate the future
connection of private-side yard drains, the City had designed the drainage system on Palm Island
with the capacity to collect and treat stormwater in the right-of-way and on private property.
However, the second part of what Aleman said she was told was not accurate. The underground
stubouts and right-of-way drainage connections for each house on west Palm Island were, in fact
“part of the design at that time,” according to the construction Kremers prepared after the City’s
October 2015 decision to increase the elevation of roads on west Palm Island. And, by 2017, the
underground infrastructure for that “engineering solution” that had already been built.
The resolution Aleman introduced said the City would assume responsibility for designing
and implementing “a stormwater system with sufficient capacity to handle both public and private
stormwater runoff,” and “…develop a policy and engineering solution for private property owners
within the City' s municipal stormwater system.” It directed the City to “coordinate a stormwater
system that would have the capacity to allow private property owners to connect to the system,” and
to establish a monthly stormwater fee “to ensure proper capitalization of the program through cost
recovery.”
During her presentation of the resolution, Aleman said she had developed the resolution on
an expedited basis. She said, “I would have normally taken this resolution through the Blue Ribbon
Panel on Sea Level Rise and had them endorse it through all the proper channels.” However, she
decided to expedite the process after hearing from constituents “who are really, really concerned
about the message that they were receiving, which was based on the old policy. This policy says
you're going to get to tie in now. We're not going to drain our water on you and we're not going to
charge you to tie in. And I thought residents needed to hear that sooner rather than later.”
The resolution provided Carpenter and Mowry broad authority and legal basis for
proceeding with the City’s plan to install a lateral pipe and drain connection in private lots and use
the right-of-way drain pipe to connect the private-side drainage system to the public drainage
system. This was the policy change that Mowry had said would occur during multiple CIP meetings
with Lanzo and had unveiled for the Homeowners Association in November 2015.
Aleman’s description of the resolution as authorizing a “really significant paradigm shift”
was not an exaggeration; the financial, legal, and operational implications for the City were
potentially significant. Mowry, in a recorded statement during a CIP meeting in March, had stated
that he would be attending a meeting in the City Attorney’s office with legal experts to sort out the
106
legal issues of what he called the “unprecedented” step of connecting private-side yard drains to a
public drainage system. However, City Attorney Raul Aguila said in an interview with OIG staff
that no such meeting occurred, and he was not asked to provide legal advice on the subject. During
an interview, Aguila said, “I do recognize and respect the pressure that's put upon administrative
staff to get these projects done. But I think the lessons learned from this project is that you cannot
sacrifice process for expediency.”
During an interview, CIP Director Martinez said of the 2017 resolution, “They haphazardly
passed a directive without thinking of unintended consequences to provide a drain connection to
every property. That is something that in my experience is unheard of.”
During an interview Carpenter said, “What this particular resolution was intended to do was
to give some relief to the private property owners that were hurting at the time because the roadway
had been elevated and there had not been any authorization to install private stormwater drains on
private property.”
Subsequent events and records examined during the investigation, support a conclusion that
the primary purpose of the resolution was to provide after-the-fact authorization and legal
justification for the private-side drains the City had already allowed, and any new connections of
such drains to the system.
In a written response to this report, Aleman said this conclusion was “grossly inaccurate”
and mischaracterized the “true impetus” for efforts. There is no basis to doubt that the impetus of
Aleman’s introduction of the resolution was a sincere desire to address the fears of residents about
the risk of flooding from newly elevated road and that she acted in good faith and without
knowledge of the unpermitted construction plans by Kremers.
However, the evidence, including her statements during an interview with OIG staff, also
indicate that the initial effect of her well-intentioned efforts provided after-the-fact authorization
and justification, albeit unwittingly, for the City’s unpermitted construction of the infrastructure for
a right-of-way drainage system on west Palm Island that was designed to connect to an array of
private-side yard drains.
As Aleman observed in her written response, her sworn statement during the investigation
“clearly indicates that I was unaware of the connections for every home in 2017” had already been
installed. As set forth elsewhere in this report, the evidence establishes that the right-of-way
drainage connections or stubouts were already “part of the design at that time,” and had been
107
installed in front of each house on west Palm Island. The failure to disclose to DERM and SFWMD
the City’s plans to install the additional array of pipes and connection to provide “future
connections by others” was a key element of the permitting violation.
In retrospect, Aleman said in an interview with OIG staff that the 2017 resolution was never
intended to authorize or justify actions that were contrary to permitting requirements. She said,
“The Commission is setting the policy…so to have that policy change, I stand behind it. I think it's
completely appropriate.” But she added, “The implementation of that, and to actually proceed to do
work without proper approval and permitting, I can't support that. And I was really surprised that
that happened.”
Further, Aleman contended that the regulatory enforcement action that later delayed the
project eroded public support for the City’s plans to undertake similar projects in other
neighborhoods. She said in an interview that, “Those are the things that break the trust with the
community, where our residents think, ‘What is the government doing? And what do you mean you
were constructing things without permits? If I did that as a resident, you know, there'd be hell to
pay.”
During the latter half of 2017, Wade Trim engineer Garcia said he grew concerned about the
regulatory implications of converting the temporary drains to permanent fixtures and connection
points for drains in private yards. Garcia had worked on the project since early 2015, had served as
Wade Trim’s liaison with Rubio, and assisted his work in obtaining the DERM permit.
Garcia knew that DERM had issued a Class II permit based on the previously discarded
Rubio plans and that the City had replaced those permitted plans with the unpermitted plans by
Kremers. He also knew that during 2016 and 2017 the City had directed the Lanzo team to make
other significant changes to the construction plans. Based on the number and significance of those
changes, Garcia said in an interview with OIG staff, that he recommended the City and Lanzo
conduct new drainage studies to verify the system’s performance, and to notify DERM of the
significant changes to the plans.
During an interview with OIG staff, Garcia said, “ I can say that on many occasions, I raised
red flags and I tried to push back, but it felt like just the support wasn't there, you know, going up
the chain, so to speak…Wade Trim runs a business and they want to keep clients happy and
108
etcetera. But on several occasions, Lanzo had already done things to Wade Trim that I thought
weren't correct. And I was surprised that we were still in business with them.”
E. (June – Nov. 2017) National recognition for City’s proactive efforts to address climate
change; first signs of trouble with permitting agencies over City’s efforts to accelerate
work on a stormwater drainage project
Mayor Levine’s accomplishments were substantive and had the sustained support of an
affluent and progressive community that was awake to the existential threat of sea level rise, and
prepared to pay higher utility rates to reduce flooding and protect property values. A November
2017 Engineer’s Report for a stormwater series bond issue estimated the total cost for new and
existing stormwater drainage and neighborhood infrastructure projects at $658,940,087.
Having ensured that the City would have sufficient funding for a sustained build-up of its
defenses against climate change, AECOM’s McGowan, Carpenter, Mowry in Public Works, and
Robins as chairman of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee collaborated on plans for using these
funds to overhaul the City’s 70-year-old stormwater drainage system in seven to ten years. This
would entail the construction of 57 additional pumping stations, each with a backup pump and
power station. Where possible, these stormwater drainage upgrades were integrated into
neighborhood right-of-way infrastructure improvement projects, that included upgraded water and
sewer lines, roads, sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping.
The Engineer’s report said, “The financial plan for improvements to the City’s stormwater
management system, as described in this Engineer’s Report, includes adequate funding for
improvements to be constructed and installed in the manner and time periods currently
contemplated.” This conclusion assumed that the projects would be well-managed and would not
suffer significant increases in cost. The report estimated the Palm and Hibiscus project at
$32,161,390. At that point, the cost of the project was $38.5 million and climbing. At present, the
total project cost is projected to exceed $50 million (See Appendix 2).
During the June 2017 United States Conference of Mayors, Mayor Levine led a panel
discussion about the City’s resiliency efforts and asked Carpenter to describe his strategy. Carpenter
109
said: “I have the benefit of being an engineer by training, but also having one foot in the
administrative side of the government. So my role was really twofold: putting the team together of
the engineers that needed to decipher the problems, but also identifying those problems and helping
the policymakers set the policies that were going to fix the problems.”
Carpenter noted that a key to the City’s expanding initiative was persuading regulatory
agencies to issue permits for drainage solutions that fell outside the existing framework of
environmental law and regulations that required public and private stormwater drainage systems to
retain the first inch of rain (the most heavily polluted) and prevent its discharge into a body of
water. “We were working with outdated technology because it was all the environmental regulators
had been familiar with,” Carpenter said, “And so we had a large learning curve, not just of
ourselves, but also educating the regulatory community on how we can do this better and still not
have any adverse impact on our surrounding environment.”
A critical step had been persuading the SFWMD and DERM to allow the use of water
quality devices in pumping stations to meet water quality standards instead of retaining the first
flush of stormwater in a well or cistern. This opened the door to wider deployment of large
pumping stations that could discharge all rain from a storm or king tide into Biscayne Bay or the
Atlantic Ocean. During the Mayor’s Conference panel, Carpenter said, “We've had to push the
envelope, not only on the technology side, but also challenge the regulators to evolve with us.
We’ve basically come up with some very innovative techniques to be able to treat the water before
it gets discharged into the bay.” A prerequisite to the City’s accomplishments were increases in
stormwater rates that served as the basis of bond issues in 2015 and 2017
Regulatory approval of the water treatment equipment also changed hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling of expected performance of stormwater systems (“drainage studies”). In theory,
it allowed the City to meet DERM’s water quality standards with a pumping system that could
collect all or most of the stormwater on public and private property. This development was material
to evaluating the City’s actions during the Palm and Hibiscus project. To establish that a public
drainage system would meet water quality standards, DERM required drainage studies based on the
amount of rain expected to fall within the right-of-way during a design basis storm. That
requirement had not changed. But use of the treatment devices meant the City was installing
pumping stations that could ensure the water quality of stormwater collected from both public and
private property.
110
Levine turned next to Mowry, saying, “You're more than a chief engineer. You're Eric's
general on the ground constantly,” and asked him to “tell us from an engineering point of view,
what are the unique, advanced things that you've had to do and had to look at and reconfigure?”
Mowry said that the City’s success had depended less on his technical acumen than Levine’s “Get it
Done” philosophy and the support of the residents. “Technical is easy,” Mowry said. He added, “It's
the issue of getting it all together and getting the funding and getting the community together…and
that's how I implement our solutions here.”
During the panel, Carpenter and Mowry did not mention their ongoing and unprecedented
plan to build a public drainage system that was designed to connect private-side yard drains to the
public stormwater drainage system.
111
IX. EXPANSION AND DISCLOSURE
A. (Jan. – April 2018) The City decides to begin installing private-side yard drains under
the Class II permit; CIP tells homeowners that the unpermitted right-of-way drainpipes
will be used as connection points to the mainline pipe
On the afternoon of Jan. 19, 2018, CIP and Lanzo staff met with Stuart B. Cooper of 262
South Coconut Lane and explained the City’s plans to install two private-side yard drains in his
front yard that would be connected to the mainline pipe in the road using the 12-inch drain pipe that
Lanzo had installed in the right-of-way in front of the house.
Two years earlier Cooper had been one of the west Palm Island property owners who
received the Aug. 3, 2016, letter from Mowry that said, “During the construction phase of this
project, the contractor will install a temporary collection system inside your property to mitigate the
stormwater runoff from the right of way. This is a temporary system and will be capped once the
final elevations are established and the project restoration is complete.”
On Feb. 8, 2018, CIP Public Information Specialist Lauren Firtel followed up in an email to
another resident that said, “The contractor explained that you have a drain that sits at the right‐of‐
way with a single connection point to allow for you and the other property owners to connect to the
public right‐of‐way. The City Commission passed a resolution which allows for private property
owners to connect to the public drainage system and a method is currently being established.”
Firtel’s account of how the contractor explained the process for using the right-of-way drain
pipes for connecting a private-side yard drain to the drainage system is consistent with the City’s
plans for a permanent condition that was described in the minutes of the April 7, 2016 meeting with
CIP, Lanzo and Wade Trim staff to finalize the harmonization process for North and South Coconut
Lanes.
The City had not yet adopted a new policy allowing private drains to connect to the drainage
system, but CIP was proceeding on the assumption that the change would happen soon. They were
able to do this during the first quarter of 2018 because the City had installed at least 85 lateral pipes
112
and right-of-way pipe connections in front of or near each house on North and South Coconut
Lanes. CIP’s communications with residents between January and March, signaling the City’s plans
to use those right-of-way drainpipes for their intended purpose: as permanent connection points for
private-side yard drains to the mainline pipe.
As set forth below, the evidence establishes that Wade Trim engineers recommended
notifying DERM of the new phase of construction on private property and obtaining a modification
to the City’s Class II permit. After agreeing to new drainage studies to show DERM the drainage
system could still meet water quality standards, the City and Lanzo jointly arrived at an
understanding not to notify DERM and did not do so.
The New Drainage Directive (NDD) was prepared by Public Works under the direction of
Assistant City Manager Carpenter, with the assistance and approval of lawyers in the City
Attorney’s office and City Attorney Raul Aguila, as well as City Manager Morales. During March
and April, CIP and Public Works began implementing the new directive without further action by
the City Commission.
CIP staff carried out most of the activities with Lanzo and Wade Trim. The administrative
aspects of the policy were carried out by Public Works and staff in the Building Department. The
new phase of construction work beyond the right-of-way was not referenced in the City’s contract
with Lanzo to design and build a “right-of-way” project. It was performed under task orders. Aside
from Typical Drive-way Tie-In for North and South Coconut Lane in the hardscape section of the
Kremers plans, Wade Trim did not have construction plans and had not conducted drainage studies
to verify that the large scale installation of private-side yard drains would meet DERM’s water
quality standards.
The new work on private property was not covered by the City’s Class II permit for work in
the right-of-way, and not included on the Kremers plans. During March, according to Wade Trim
engineer Garcia, he raised with Lanzo and CIP the need to notify DERM of the new work and
obtain a modification of the Class II permit.
Minutes of CIP progress meetings indicate that during February and March of 2018, Lanzo,
Wade Trim and CIP staff discussed the need to notify DERM and obtain a modification of the
project’s Class II permit. Wade Trim engineer Garcia said he again recommended to Lanzo, Wade
113
Trim’s client, and to CIP that the City and Lanzo notify DERM of the new construction and obtain
a modification of the City’s Class II permit.
On March 20, 2018, Garcia sent Lanzo Construction Manager Victor Serrano an email
explaining that the new drainage studies were necessary because the number of significant changes
made to the plans had made the drainage studies done by Rubio and Kremers obsolete. The email
said the computer modeling would include, “Review of stormwater as-builts to update ICPR (or
drainage study) model to create baseline conditions; there have been many significant changes to
the design we originally proposed, so want to make sure we reflect installed conditions as our
baseline.”
Given the number and significance of the changes the City had directed Lanzo to make since
July 2016, the June 2015 study by Rubio submitted to DERM and the June 2016 version by
Kremers were by then both outdated. Those results were based on the performance of the proposed
drainage system with different designs.
Regardless of when the City and Lanzo disclosed the changes to DERM, the agency would
expect to see updated construction plans and a drainage study based on those plans. The purpose of
conducting a new drainage study in April 2018 was to verify that, even with the actual changes that
had already been made and the additional changes the City proposed to make, the expected
performance of the drainage system on Palm Island would still meet DERM water quality
standards.
During an interview with OIG staff, Garcia said that Wade Trim did not have a complete
understanding of all the work Lanzo had done at the direction of the City. Given the number of both
large and small changes to the unpermitted stormwater plans that Kremers had signed and sealed in
June 2016, Garcia said the first task was to obtain an updated version of the Kremers As-Built
plans. Garcia said: “We were sort of mid-construction. And so, we're having to put [into computer
modeling] what's been installed already in the field and then what is planned to be installed in the
field.”
Garcia said the As-Built plans would be used to conduct a drainage study to establish a new
baseline of expected performance for the drainage system, based on the changes since July 2016.
Once a new performance baseline had been established, Garcia said he would conduct a second
round of drainage studies to model the expected effect of private-side yard drains on the
114
performance of the drainage system. In an interview with OIG staff, Garcia said, “To proceed with
the design, you gotta confirm that this makes sense from the stormwater perspective. And so you do
a model…of this and confirm that the proposed changes work or make sense.”
Based on the information he had received from CIP, Garcia estimated that one or more
drains would be installed in about half the private lots on west Palm Island. An important aspect of
the second drainage study was verifying that the private-side drains would not cause new flooding,
which was possible. In his email to Serrano, Garcia said he would “create new [sic] scenario with
proposed private side connections (our initial count shows between 30 and 40 additional
connections); we need to make sure the hydraulic grade line does not create potential flooding
conditions in the properties, now that they will be connected to the public stormwater system.”
On March 15, during a CIP progress meeting, the participants discussed the City’s plans to
expand the new phase of construction beyond the right-of-way. That meeting was attended by CIP
staff members Samadi and Sanchez, CIP consultant Crews, Riano and Serrano from Lanzo, Garcia
and Mullen from Wade Trim. According to the minutes, the participants discussed the
engineering work for the new construction beyond the right-of-way, and Wade Trim’s
recommendation that the City and Lanzo notify DERM and obtain a modification of the Class
II permit (Emphasis added).
The text of the minutes indicate that CIP staff discussed, but did not approve, the
recommendation Garcia said he made that the City and Lanzo notify DERM of the New Drainage
Directive phase of construction and obtain a modification of the existing Class II permit, and
further, that the parties reached a consensus that the work on private lots could be performed under
the existing Class II permit for the right-of-way project. Section 5.0 of the minutes (“Design”) said:
“Private connections discussed: The intent is to provide connection specifically if properties are
low. D/B (Design/Build) team noted this as a changed condition and will need to review
calculations and permits. Work to take place under existing permits,” (Emphasis added.)
Nevertheless, this did not end discussion of contacting the permitting agencies. On March
22, 2018 Lanzo Construction Manager Riano sent CIP Project Coordinator Sanchez an estimate of
$63,877 for “additional yard drains to the already approved drainage system, for properties that
have a floor elevation lower than the proposed crown of the adjacent road at the Palm & Hibiscus
project.” The correspondence included a Wade Trim Scope-of-Work for preparing As-Built plans
and drainage studies to “confirm feasibility of City-directed private side connections,” and
115
obtaining modifications of the existing permits from DERM and the SFWMD to allow construction
of private yard drains. (Figure No. 13)
Figure 13 Excerpt from Wade Trim Scope-of-Work for engineering services required to notify DERM and SFWM of City's plans to install private-side yard drains and obtain a modification of
existing permits submitted March 22, 2018 [Emphasis added]
On April 9, 2018 Sanchez sent Garcia, Riano, and Serrano an email (“Palm Island Coconut
Ln. Harmonization Complete – IMPORTANT”) that suggested the City did not object to Lanzo and
Wade Trim contacting DERM to obtain a permit modification. The email said, “I am still waiting
for Daniel’s list of FFE and center line of the road elevation to determine which address does this
correspond to? Run your drainage model and apply for permit mod. If you need to. Provide a
reasonable request for change order with design and construction cost. Implement the work to meet
the new directive and meet your deadlines.”
116
Notwithstanding this email, subsequent events, other records, and statements from Garcia
and Riano during sworn interviews, support a conclusion that the responsible City officials
discouraged the Lanzo team from disclosing the new phase of construction to the permitting
agencies. CIP approved funding for Wade Trim to prepare As-Built plans and conduct a new
drainage study, but did not approve $17,560 for engineering services associated with notifying
SFWMD and DERM about the City’s plans to install private-side yard drains and obtain permit
modifications.
Despite rejecting Wade Trim’s recommendation to notify DERM and the SFWMD about
the new phase of construction, the City approved funding for Wade Trim to prepare an As-Built
version of the unpermitted Kremers plans and to conduct new drainage studies based on those
plans. The work was funded under a revised Wade Trim Scope of Work that omitted reference to
contacting the permitting agencies.
B. (April 4 - May 10, 2018) The City decides to begin a new phase of construction that
extends the public drainage system into private property; creates City Drainage
Connection Permit
On April 4, 2018, Samadi sent Lanzo and Wade Trim additional information about the New
Drainage Directive and the City’s policy for selecting the lots where the new drain connections
would be installed. The email said in part: “Any Property that has signed the Harmonization
Agreement and has FFE at or below the new crown of the road shall receive a yard drain/catch
basin inside the private property, at the low point, referred to as the “connection point” with a plug
that can be removed and connected to the system.”
The City’s efforts to extend the public drainage system into private lots and issue Drainage
Connection Permits to connect those drains to the system, and Wade Trim’s concurrent efforts to
prepare an As-Built set of plans and drainage study for Palm and Hibiscus Islands, were completed
during the six weeks preceding the expiration of the project’s Class II permit
On April 18, 2018 Engineer of Record Kremers completed an As-Built version of the
stormwater section of the construction plans that showed the right-of-way drainpipes and other
significant changes the City had directed Lanzo to make during the project. As planned, Garcia used
117
those updated plans to conduct drainage studies that established a new performance baseline for the
system. The results for Palm Island were submitted to CIP in a report titled dated May 3, 2010.
This was documentation that the City and Lanzo could use to obtain a modification and extension
of the project’s Class II permit. They did not do so.
On April 24, 2018, Chief Resiliency Officer Susan M. Torriente emailed Carpenter about
developing an installation guide for residents suggested by City Commissioner Aleman. It said in
part, “Com. Aleman called me about this potential private tie-in to the public infrastructure system.
She would like me to create an easy “how to” manual or brochure for other residents. Can we meet
to discuss process and steps so I can help in terms of streamlining.”
Carpenter’s response, copied to Morales, Martinez, and Coley said: “Building, CIP and
Public Works have met on this to streamline the process as an attempt to provide concierge service
for the residents that want to connect. I believe that we have a good process of Building
[Department] allowing the walk-through of a plumbing permit with documents provide [sic] by a
licensed plumber and a form signed by Public Works. We are just waiting on legal review of the
form and then we could certainly use some help on the Communication side to get the word out.”
On May 1, 2018 Lanzo Construction Manager Riano emailed DERM Senior Engineer De
Torres a request for a six-month extension. She responded, “As per the Miami‐Dade County
Chapter 24‐48, the application for the permit extension must be submitted.”
On May 10, 2018 three events occurred: CIP held a progress meeting with Lanzo and Wade
Trim staff; the City Attorney’s Office approved the City’s new Drainage Connection permit; Garcia
signed a cover letter for the City’s application for a new Class II permit.
The CIP progress meeting included Lanzo owner Joseph D’Alessandro, and Lanzo
construction managers Beaty, Riano and Serrano and Wade Trim engineers Brezinski, Kremers,
Garcia, Wright, and David Mullen, and CIP Project Manager Samadi and Project Coordinator
Sanchez. The minutes reflect an extensive discussion of pending items, including permitting.
However, the minutes indicate discussion of two permits other than the Class II permit.
The new Drainage Connection Permit made “all present and future owners” of the property
responsible for the performance of the private-side yard drain and clarified that in allowing the
connection the City was not assuming a duty to prevent flooding on the property. The permit said,
“The property owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and assigns for any
118
damages resulting from this agreement” absent negligence. And further, that the “property owner
shall be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the storm water connections within the
property.” It concluded with a disclaimer that said, “This permit shall only be valid for this drainage
connection, and any new development or redevelopment of the subject property shall follow the
City's Land Development Regulations.” If the existing structure on the property were to be
redeveloped, the City would require the owner to raise the property’s elevation.
The May 10, 2018 Garcia signed a letter to DERM intended for submission with the City’s
application for a second Class II permit. CIP Project Coordinator Sanchez made the letter part of the
application package in lieu of an “Engineer’s Letter of Certification” signed by Engineer of Record
Kremers.
On May 15, 2018, Assistant City Manager Carpenter signed the City’s second application
for a Class II permit. The same day, CIP Project Coordinator Sanchez emailed the signed
application for a Class II permit to DERM Senior Engineer De Torres. The investigation obtained
no records that established that Carpenter saw Garcia’s May 10, 2015 letter to DERM’s Supervisor
Molina. During interviews with OIG staff, Carpenter said it was his practice to have CIP review
permit applications prepared by the design-builder and to sign the application based on CIP’s
review and approval.
The DERM permit application at Section 2 included a checklist of documentation required
with each application signed by the project’s Engineer of Record. It said, “Checklist:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE WILL NOT BE PROCESSED” and thereafter
contained boxes to check for 3 copies of the project’s construction plans, drainage studies, and the
Letter of Certification from the Engineer of Record that the proposed drainage system would not
alter the positive flow of water or cause harmful flooding. In the new application, these boxes were
checked to indicate that the required documentation, including the construction plans, were
attached. They were not.
The application did not include the recently updated As-Built version of the Kremers plans,
the updated drainage study by Garcia based on those plans, and an Engineer’s Letter of
Certification from Kremers. Instead, the email from CIP to DERM included the permit application
signed by Carpenter and the May 10, 2018 cover letter on Wade Trim letterhead signed by Garcia.
The letter included an explanation for not submitting the required documentation, including the
119
construction plans. The statement said, “For all required documentation as outlined in Section 2 and
Attachment B, please refer to original permit application for Permit No. 20150058, as a reference.”
This was a reference to the original plans prepared by Rubio that had been the basis of the
2016 permit. It indicated that the Rubio plans were being used to build the drainage system. Those
plans also would serve as the basis of the City’s application for a new permit in 2018. The
reference to the “original permit application” also encompassed the Engineer’s Letter of
Certification that Rubio had signed as part of the first application. In that letter, he had stated that he
would provide “periodic inspections throughout the construction period with staff under my
responsible charge,” and prepare a set of As-Built plans for the agency to review at the end of the
project. Rubio was at this point no longer serving as the Engineer of Record for the drainage
system.
By omitting a second letter of certification signed by Kremers, and omitting plans signed
and sealed by Kremers, the application was omitting information that was (a) required by the
application and (b) material to DERM’s review of the application. In lieu of this documentation, the
May 10, 2018 letter signed by Garcia provided an unusual and irregular supplement to the standard
DERM application form. It contained five questions from DERM’s “Application for Time
Extension of Class II…Permit.”
One question said, “Describe the work, as authorized by the above-referenced permit that
has not been completed up to date.” In the letter, Garcia wrote the following: “Swale area grading,
pump stations, private-side yard drains, lighting, final lift of asphalt, pavement and marking.” All
but one of the items on that list were routine tasks performed at the end of a project. The outlier in
the middle of the group was “Private-side yard drains.” No “private-side yard drains were
“authorized by the” the 2016 permit. This statement in Garcia’s letter was factually false.
In response to the question, “Has the work performed to date as authorized by the above-
referenced permit been conducted in accordance with the permit description, approved plans and
restrictions, limitations or conditions of the permit? If not, describe in detail work that has been
conducted that is not in accordance with the permit.” Garcia’s response to this question did not
answer the first question as to whether work on the project to date had been done in accordance
with the original permit description and “approved plans.” The truthful answer was no, the work
had not been done according to the Rubio plans.
120
Garcia answered, “City provided a change in directive requiring installation of private-side
yard drains for properties that have finished floor elevations below the adjacent crown of road.”
This referred to the New Drainage Directive adopted by Public Works in April.” Thereafter, his
answer summarized the City’s rationale for its assumption that that private-side yard drains were
not a material change because the design of the drainage system was scaled to handle water on both
public and private lots.
The answer continued, “The original stormwater design criteria required that the drainage
area be sized to account for and reflect the actual contributory area at a minimum all road rights-of-
way, 100% of interior (landlocked) lots and 50% of waterfront lots. Thusly there is enough capacity
in the system to account for this additional stormwater load, particularly in light of the fact that few
of the properties fall within this new City criteria.” At this point, it was not clear how many lots
would have private-side yard drains installed but it was expected to be more than “a few.” Garcia
had estimated 40 to 50, but the number could be as high as 90 on west Palm Island.
Next, Garcia said, “Additional City-directed changes will be submitted via revised
plans for Palm Island and Hibiscus Islands during permit certification submittals; these
mainly relate to change of pipe alignments to reduce impact to existing vegetation, addition
of a secondary drainage system to reduce potential flooding in isolated areas, and lowering
of proposed elevation of roads to reduce harmonization impacts to private properties.”
The preceding paragraph suggested that the City and Lanzo would be making changes in the
future to the plans (“Additional City-directed changes”) under new directives from the City and (b)
that those changes would be described in As-Built plans at the end of the project.
Submission of As-Built plans is an activity that is described in the Engineer’s Letter of
Certification. The Engineer of Record agrees to “prepare a set of reproducible record prints of
drawings showing changes made during the construction process based upon the marked-up prints,
drawings, and other data furnished by the contractor to me.” As noted previously, it is common
practice for a contractor to disclose minor adjustments made during construction. DERM and
SFWMD permits are issued with a condition that requires a permittee to report significant changes,
after which the agency determines the need for a permit modification.
In sum, Wade Trim and Lanzo had prepared, and CIP had submitted, an application for a
new permit in 2018 that relied on the construction plans, drainage studies, and certification letter
signed by Rubio for the 2016 application, and did not submit the recently completed As-Built plans,
the updated drainage studies, and a certification letter from Kremers.
121
Dissatisfied by the incomplete application and contents of the cover letter by Garcia, De
Torres sent Sanchez a pointed email that said, “We need a certification from the Engineer of Record
of the original permit to certify that not [sic] changes to the original signed and sealed plans dated
_______ and drainage calculations dated _____ approved under CLII‐20150058 have changed.”
The plain meaning of this email was a request from DERM to CIP to submit a statement from
Kremers certifying that no significant changes had been made to the signed and sealed (though
already outdated) plans by Rubio, dated Feb. 26, 2016, and that DERM had approved when it
issued the 2016 permit.
At this point, Kremers was the project’s Engineer of Record for the Stormwater section of
the plans and for most others. However, she could not have honestly certified that no significant
changes had been made to the Rubio plans or Rubio’s drainage calculations. She had revised the
Rubio plans in 2016 and recently prepared an As-Built update of the alternative plans. Kremers did
not provide a response to DERM. Instead, this task fell to Garcia, Wade Trim’s Miami-based
project manager.
During an interview, Garcia stated that he never saw the email from De Torres to Sanchez
asking that the Engineer of Record certify that significant changes had not been made to the
permitted Rubio plans dated Feb. 26, 2016. Garcia said, “What I was told from Olga [Sanchez] and
Pablo [Riano] was that they wanted a statement from the project manager stating, you know, no
changes had been made.”
After consulting with Riano, Garcia said he prepared and signed a letter on Wade Trim
letterhead addressed to DERM Section Chief Molina. He emailed the signed correspondence to
Riano who approved the document on behalf of Lanzo and forwarded it to Sanchez. The letter
included the following statement: “The purpose of this letter is to state that the original signed
and sealed plans dated February 22, 2016 for Hibiscus Island and February 26, 2016 for Palm
Island and drainage calculations dated October 2015 approved under CLII-20150058 have
not had significant changes.” (Figure 14)
122
Figure 14 May 17, 2018 letter from Wade Trim engineer Garcia assuring DERM signification
changes had not been made to the Rubio plans.
The statements in the letter were not true and misrepresented the status of the project. The
first sentence falsely stated that “significant changes” had not been made to (1) the “100% Final
Design” construction plans dated Feb. 26, 2016 by Rubio that were approved by CIP and Public
Works and (2) drainage study calculations by Rubio based on those plans summarized in a report
dated October 2015. The Rubio plans had been extensively revised in early 2016. During 2016 and
2017 additional significant changes were made in response to requests from the Homeowners
Association. Given the number of significant changes, Wade Trim thought it necessary to conduct a
new drainage study to verify the system’s expected performance. More broadly, the statement
conveyed the false and misleading impression that the City and Lanzo had been using the Rubio
123
plans to build the system and would continue to do so. In interviews with OIG staff Garcia said, “I
wasn't trying to mislead DERM.” He said he was trying to keep “this project moving forward for
the residents of Palm and Hibiscus Island and for the City” until such time as he could present
DERM with a coherent description of the changes the City had directed Lanzo to make to the
project.
Garcia said he recalled discussing DERM’s request for a certification letter as well as his
second letter to DERM dated May 17, 2018 with Kremers. During an interview with OIG staff,
Kremers said she was not aware of the May 17, 2018 letter signed by Garcia. Notwithstanding her
role as Engineer of Record, Kremers said she did not know who was responsible for notifying
DERM that significant changes had been made to the Rubio plans. She said, “I don't know the
answer to that,” but thereafter contended, “The intent was not to try to hide any kind of changes”
because “there’s nothing to be gained” from misleading DERM.
Garcia stated that in preparing the letters for DERM he took direction from Riano who
transmitted the signed copies to Sanchez. During an interview with OIG staff, Riano agreed that the
changes the City had directed Lanzo to make to the construction plans were significant, and that the
statements in Garcia’s letter dated May 17, 2018 were not true. He said Lanzo and City staff made a
joint decision that it would be sufficient to report the changes in As-Built plans at the end of the
project. Riano said, “The City is aware of what's going on. Stantec is aware of what's going on.
Wade Trim is aware of what's going on. Lanzo is aware of what's going on. And yes, I guess that
should not have been done. The proper thing would have been to notify them, stop the project, get
the revision and then move on again.”
When asked about the May 17, 2018 letter by Garcia during interview with OIG staff, CIP
Director Martinez said, “I would have to say it isn't accurate…they appear to be a significant
change. Then by definition, there is a significant change. So that makes the letter not accurate.”
Advised of the DERM staff’s view that they were misled by the Garcia letter, Martinez said, “I
agree…I don't know why Wade Trim decided that they felt comfortable signing this. Maybe their
opinion of significant changes is different than, than, than mine…I'd be speculating why they didn't
just come out and say, you know, ‘There's been these changes.’”
124
Asked during an interview why the City and Lanzo might be reluctant to notify DERM of
changes to the construction plans, Riano said, “They will put a stop on the project and we should
have ceased activities until the permit is approved. Revised and approved.” He said the impetus for
submitting Garcia’s May 17, 2018 to DERM was “the idea to keep going. I think it's more because
of the way the project was moving and the way we needed things to be done, without opening a can
of worms. The idea would be to provide this letter, get the extension of the permit.”
During an interview with OIG staff, Sanchez said she would not have sent the letters by
Garcia to DERM without the approval of a more senior official in CIP and before the submission
was discussed with staff from Public Works, Stantec, and Lanzo. Sanchez said, “Before I submit
anything to DERM everything is discussed. It's not like it is my decision…always everything was
discussed at meetings.” She said all submissions to DERM were “reviewed by Public Works.” She
said Public Works staff were the City personnel in a position to say, “Oh no, you cannot submit that
letter because it is our understanding that it is significantly changed on the design.” She said, “And
they didn't say anything. That's why we provided the letter to DERM based on that.”
Sanchez reported to Senior Project Manager Samadi. In an interview Samadi said, “I want to
emphasize this is the design builder's responsibility. I don't know why they didn't apply for a
permit. I don't know. I don't know. It is beyond me to understand why they didn't do what they were
supposed to have done.” She said she was not aware of the letters written by Garcia, or that
Sanchez, her subordinate, was involved in submitting the application for the second permit. “She
(Sanchez) was my project manager, but sometimes she did things that I didn't know…example of it
here. I would not have asked her to submit this package and application directly to DERM because
this would be the contract design builder's responsibility. I would have suggested against this
move.”
After reviewing a draft of this report, Sanchez provided a written statement that took
exception to Samedi’s characterization and said the following:
At the CIP Department, no documents that goes to an external agency, leaves the department without the approval of a Senior, Assistant Director, or Director. No documents that needs a signature from an Assistant City Manager leaves the CIP
Department without the approval of a Senior, Assistant Director, or Director. That
was the policy as a Capital Projects Coordinator, I did not have the authority to undertake this action on my own nor could I have bypassed three levels of supervision. Furthermore, we discussed all projects at regular weekly meetings and
125
we always were required to obtain prior authorization to proceed with all projects related matters.
During an interview with OIG staff, Carpenter said he was not aware that the permitted
plans by Rubio had been revised by Kremers in 2016 and, in May 2018, would not have known that
the plans had been revised. He said, “So, from my perspective, I certainly wouldn't have seen a
need to go to DERM to modify the drawings if I didn't realize the drawings had been modified.”
During the investigation, the OIG staff did not identify emails, correspondence, or other records that
establish that Carpenter was aware of the two letters signed by Garcia.
During an interview, Carpenter said he recalled being informed at some point about
concerns that the City and Lanzo needed to notify DERM that significant changes had been made to
the project’s construction plans, but said he could not recall when that occurred. Carpenter said, “I
remember those questions coming. At what point in time those questions came, I don't, at this point,
remember. But my feeling would be that if someone came to me with that feeling, I would have
said, ‘Then let's go back to DERM and let's get their modification issued.’”
Additionally, Carpenter said, “I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't have
misrepresented to DERM what we were intending to do. I can tell you that. Obviously, we were in
construction on Sunset Harbor at the time, we were learning a lot because we were actually building
elevated roadways in a very constrained environment. And I am assuming that the team would have
taken some of those lessons learned and tried to apply them to Palm and Hibiscus.” On May 29,
2018, DERM Supervising Engineer Molina issued a second Class II permit, again based on the
outdated Rubio plans, for the Palm and Hibiscus project “per signed and sealed plans by Orlando A.
Rubio, P.E., from Craig A. Smith & Associates, dated February 19, 2016, and the letter from Daniel
Garcia, P.E., from Wade Trim, Inc., dated May 17, 2018.” The permit was issued to Carpenter as
the permit holder in correspondence addressed to Kremers as the project’s Engineer of Record. For
the second time, DERM had unwittingly relied on misrepresentations in an application filed on
behalf of the City and Lanzo, and issued a Class II permit for the project.
The new permit ensured that Lanzo and Wade Trim could continue with the new work of
installing private yard drains under the new permit. Five days after City received the second permit,
Morales sent an email to Mayor Gelber and members of the City Commission (“Subject: R9W –
126
Status Update on the Residential Stormwater Tie‐In Initiative”) with an attached copy of the new
“Drainage Connection Permit for Single Family Residents.” The City Manager’s email said:
All properties within Palm and Hibiscus Islands can connect to the City’s stormwater system
with a plumbing permit and execution of the attached form (drainage connection permit
form). The cost of the permit is a percentage of the cost of the work. The first permit was
issued to 215 Palm Ave. (construction cost $1,000 and permit cost $115).
When the resident decides to connect to the City’s stormwater system, CIP meets with the
residents to advise the following: Process of Connecting to the City’s Stormwater System,
which includes property owner’s proposed drainage connection sketch, a plumbing permit
from the Building Department and associated fees and Drainage Connection Form.
Two City permits had been issued, Morales said, for the connection of private-side yard
drains to the system. Additionally, 109 residents on west Palm Island had signed harmonization
agreements allowing work on their lots. The new permit and the email describing the process did
not mention the legal requirement for each property owner to obtain a Class II Permit from DERM
before a new stormwater drainage system that emptied into the Bay could be installed on private
property.
A. (May 29 – Sept. 11, 2018) Events related to the construction at 252 North Coconut Lane,
DERM enforcement action and the City’s response to notification that Class II permits
were required.
On Sept. 11, 2018, Public Works Director Coley signed a Drainage Connection Permit for
the connection of two private drains at 253 North Coconut Lane. Attached to the permit were
engineering drawings that described the construction work that would later be captured in the
photographs a whistleblower emailed to DERM Engineering Supervisor Molina. (Figure No. 15)
127
Figure 15 Construction plans approved by Public Works for installing two private-side yard
drains at 252 North Coconut Lane and connected to the City drainage system by a drainpipe in
the right-of-way.
On the afternoon of Sept. 19, 2018, former City Manager Jimmy Morales received an email
with the same photographs of construction at 252 North Coconut Lane that the whistleblower would
send to DERM Supervisor Molina the following day. Morales knew the whistleblower to be a vocal
critic of the City’s new practice of issuing Drainage Connection Permits to allow homeowners to
connect their privately-owned stormwater drains to the public drainage system. Morales forwarded
the email to Assistant City Manager Eric Carpenter, Public Works Director Roy Coley, and
Environment and Sustainability Director Elizabeth Wheaton with a message that said, “FYI. He
won’t stop. Make sure we have a good response to this.”
On Oct. 17, 2018, one week to the day after Molina warned Assistant Director of
Environment and Sustainability Wells that separate Class II permits were required for each private-
side drain connected to the drainage system, CIP Director David Martinez stood before the City
Commission to speak in support of Amendment No. 5 to the City’s contract with Lanzo
128
Construction. The amendment provided $775,000 in new funding for large scale construction of 12-
inch yard drains inside private lots on west Palm Island.
At the request of Martinez, however, Mayor Dan Gelber had put amendment #5 to the
Lanzo contract on the City Commission’s meeting agenda. Gelber explained that he decided to
expedite the process after talking with Martinez about the urgent need for the new funding. “I don't
want to shorten a process at the expense of doing it right,” Gelber said, “but I think when we talked
about it you felt we could bring it to the City Commission and perhaps shortcut a little bit of it
because we met with some residents who…are extremely frustrated.”
Martinez agreed. He said, “We had met last week with residents of Palm and Hibiscus
Island, mainly Palm Island, in discussions in terms of wrapping up this project and completing the
few items we have left to do.” He said Lanzo would be “installing a drain somewhere on private
property. It may or may not follow up with the resident tying into it. That’s their choice. The
process is set up for that to happen if they elect to…they are not forced to.”
Further, Martinez said in presenting Amendment No. 5, he was unveiling a new policy that
responded to an April 2017 resolution that directed the City Administration to “engineering solution
and policy” to allow residents to connect their personal yard drains to the public drainage system.
Martinez said, “It’s taken awhile to determine what the policy is. We have finally defined it and
what you see here is the effort that a design-builder would have to take in order to address
approximately 50 to 60 properties that would fall into this category on Palm and Hibiscus Island.”
The City Commission approved Amendment No. 5. The resolution did three things: First, it
added the task of constructing private-side yard drains to Lanzo’s contract with the City. Second. it
authorized the use of the stubouts and right-of-way drainpipes as connection points for
approximately 90 drains on private property. Third, it provided funding for a new phase of
construction that was not covered by the City’s Class II permit. At this point the City’s Class II
permit did not include any construction outside the right-of-way, or the stubouts and right-of-way
drainpipes installed in front of each house on west Palm Island.
Five days after the Commission approved Amendment No. 5, Wade Trim Vice President
Holly Kremers signed a letter to Lanzo Construction Manager Pablo Riano that said the following:
Temporary 12 [inch] stormwater inlets along the low-lying N&S Coconut Lanes as part of
the road elevation design were included in the approved 100% Palm Island construction plans dated
129
August 2016. These drains were not intended to be permanent and were to be cut and capped as the
elevating of the road proceeded along the roadway. Capital Improvement Projects and City
Commission provided directive to allow private side connections to these temporary stub-outs and
requested Wade Trim provide a recommended design to convert the temporary construction drains
to permanent drainage connection points.
During an interview with OIG staff, Kremers said the 88 unpermitted drainpipes in the right-of-
ways “are the temporary, are formerly the temporary, construction drain. OK, so they were there
and as indicated for construction means and methods…And the City said, ‘Well, hey, as long as
they're there, let's keep them and turn them into permanent drains and use them to allow the private
property connections to connect to the City's drainage system.’ OK, so now we're permitting them
as permanent drains. “On Oct. 25, 2018 Lanzo Project Manager Riano submitted a formal request to
CIP for direction to enable the project’s design engineers to begin preparing plans for the new
construction activity. The request for information began: “Per the directive provided by City of
Miami Beach Commission and CMB Capital Improvement Project Department to allow private
property drainage connections to the temporary twelve (12) inch edge drains.”
In the weeks ahead, DERM’s Water Control Staff met with personnel from Wade Trim and
Lanzo and conducted their own field research. By February 2019, the agency had identified more
than 100 unpermitted drainage structures. The bulk of these were the right-of-way drainpipes or
stubouts that extended to the front of each house, but several were private-side yard drains that had
been connected to the public drainage system.
On April 26, 2019, Kremers sent Lanzo Construction Manager Serrano a Scope of Work and
change order for $126,385 that the City subsequently approved. It included language that
acknowledged the unusual and non-standard design of the system and the doubts that Wade Trim had
entertained about whether DERM would permit the proposed public-private drainage system. The
Scope-of-Work said the following: Task 1-DERM CLII Permit Requirements Investigation. Due to
the lack of precedence for DERM permitting of a residential stormwater connection to the
public stormwater collection system, an investigation of the permitting requirements and
process will need to be performed to quantify the level of service required. This task is broken
down into the following sub-tasks: 1.1 – Meetings with Regulatory agencies 1.2 – Investigation of
Permit Requirements. (Emphasis added)
130
Six months passed before the Oct. 2019 testimony during a public hearing of the Environment and
Sustainability Committee that discussed enforcement action and the unpermitted construction of
right-of-way drainpipes before members of the Commission.
C.(Jan. – Feb. 2021) In written responses to a draft of this report, Carpenter and Interim
City Manager Raul Aguila acknowledge 88 unpermitted stubout or right-of-way drainage
connections were built as permanent, but inoperative, parts of the drainage system
In July 2020 a Wade Trim Senior Project Manager Jim Penkovsky engineer spoke by phone
with SFWMD Section Chief Dustin Wood about the need to modify the project Environmental
Resources Permit regarding the design and construction of the secondary drainage system, and then
followed up with an email to Wood that said:
In a follow-up to our conversation, it is my understanding that the work described herein is considered ‘de minimus’ and no permit mod is required for the subject permit (attached for convenience). Briefly, as part of the project the City has asked
the design-build team of Lanzo and Wade Trim to provide for drains within select private properties to assist in localized drainage at those properties. The ERP project description is right-of-way based. So we did want to inform the District of our encroachment into the private side at an average of 10’ into each property…DERM permitting is almost complete and property owner agreements are in place.”
Wood responded with an email that said, “The installation of yard drains within the
permitted surface water management system as described below will not require a permit
modification.” (July 30,2020 email attached). Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley cited Wood’s
decision in a joint response to a draft of this report that said, “it has recently been confirmed by the
South Florida Water Management District that the introduction of the secondary drainage system
will not require any additional documentation or a permit modification.” These emails were
provided to the OIG for the first time by Lanzo in its response, dated January 15, 2021, to the OIG
draft report.
During a subsequent interview of SFWMD officials by OIG staff, which included a review
of differences between the Rubio and Kremers plans, SFWMD senior officials, including Executive
Director Jill Creech and Bureau Chief Jesse Markle, indicated that they were not aware of the
Kremers plans. In a written response to the draft report on behalf of the agency (attached), Markle
states, “The District’s July 30, 2020 response to the e-mail from Wade Trim engineer Jim Penkosky
of the same date was based solely on the information provided in the e-mail without benefit of
review of the Wade Trim/Kremers construction plans or any supporting stormwater management
131
(SWM) calculations, which were not provided. As such, our position that “[t]he installation of yard
drains within the permitted surface water management system…will not require a permit
modification” is no longer the case.”
Markle said SFWMD will require the City to obtain “A modification to Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP) 13-06125-P to address the changes made to the… system during
construction that were not contemplated by the ERP will be required.” Markle said the City will be
required to demonstrate that it “has real property interest… to operate and maintain the portion of
the… system that extends into private property and, further, demonstrate that the areas outside the
right-of-way “that was not considered under the permit that is now contributing discharge” to the
drainage system “does not lead to a violation of State water quality standards” or “lead to
substantially different flood protection.”
As set forth above, during 2019 Carpenter and Kremers offered explanations for
construction of the 88 unpermitted stubouts or right-of-way drainage connections in correspondence
and during public hearings. In sum, they contended that unpermitted pipes and connection tees, or
stubouts, and right-of-way drainpipes were “temporary construction drains” that were never
intended to be permanent parts of the drainage system and, therefore, did not require permitting and
disclosure to DERM. The contradiction between their explanations and the statements of DERM
Director Hefty prompted Commissioners Gongora and Samuelian to request this investigation.
On Dec. 4, 2020, the OIG staff circulated a draft of this report to the responsible City
officials. On Jan. 21, 2021, Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley submitted a 17-page memorandum to
the OIG responding to the draft report on the investigation’s findings (“Joint Response”). The Joint
Response reiterated the prior statements of Carpenter and Kremers that the 88 stubouts or right-of-
way drainage connections were “temporary construction drains,” and were not intended to be
permanent extensions of the drainage system. More specifically, the Joint Response quoted
Carpenter’s statement during the Oct. 23, 2019 hearing that “we installed approximately 88
temporary construction drains that were never intended to be part of the drainage system.” It also
quoted Kremer’s statement during the Oct. 30, 2019 hearing that the “88 drains that you've been
hearing about, these are temporary construction drains. There was one installed in the right-of-way
in front of each property on North and South Coconut."
However, the Joint Response also included a new description of the intended purpose of the
88 unpermitted stubouts or right-of-way drainage connections that indicated they had been
132
constructed as permanent, but inoperative, parts of the system and in that some of these right-of-
way drainpipes were subsequently used on a temporary basis to mitigate flooding caused by the
construction process. This segment of the Joint Response said:
The incorporation of the secondary drainage system on west Palm Island evolved over time in response to the needs of the residents and the public response
to the partially completed Project. The initial modification was only the inclusion of stub out pipes from the existing primary drainage system that remained unchanged. Since these stub outs were only to provide for a future connection, with no additional water entering the system, they created no change to the resulting operation of the system. Subsequently the Design/Build team used some of these stub outs as temporary construction drains within the right of way during the construction activities. (Emphasis added)
Given the inconsistency of this statement with the prior statements of Carpenter and
Kremers, the OIG staff sought clarification by providing a written question to Mr. Carpenter and his
attorney. The question asked, “Did Mr. Mowry consult with you before approving on Oct. 30, 2015
the Wade Trim conceptual plans to build a drainage system that accommodated the future connection
of yard drains on private lots and did you approve this plan and engineering solution for west Palm
Island?”
On Feb. 1, 2021 Carpenter submitted a response that failed to clarify his prior statements.
His answer said, “More than four years after the fact, I am not sure of when the initial discussions
took place in relation to the October 30, 2015 date but I was consulted on the need to provide stub
outs (sic) to allow for the possibility of future connections without disturbing the work that needed to
be done on the roadway.”
The OIG published a Final Report on Feb. 8, 2021. On Feb. 9, 2021 Interim City Manager
Raul Aguila submitted a memorandum on behalf of the City Administration that repeated the
revised explanation from the Joint Response. In sum, this considered statement by the City
Administration appeared to confirm a primary finding of this investigation (see Finding #1 below),
namely that description of the unpermitted right-of-way drainpipes as “temporary construction
drains” was a fiction and the 88 unpermitted right-of-way drainage connections were always
intended as permanent extensions of the drainage system that would be used to connect private-
side yard drains to the drainage system. Their auxiliary use to provide temporary relief from
possible flooding during construction does not change their original intended purpose to provide
permanent connections for private-side yard drains.
133
DERM’s belated discovery of the 88 unpermitted stubouts or right-of-way drainage
connections was a primary basis of the agency’s enforcement action.
134
X. FINDINGS
Finding #1. The stubouts, consisting of lateral pipes fitted with connect tees that extended
from the main drainage system to the front of each house on west Palm Island were
constructed as permanent parts of the stormwater drainage system. They were available to
mitigate flooding during construction. Evidence, including statements under oath by multiple
witnesses, established that the description of these installations as “temporary construction
drains” after they were discovered by DERM, was a legal fiction.
This “temporary” designation was intended to protect the City and Lanzo from legal liability
until the City adopted a policy for connecting private-side yard drains to the public drainage system,
and to postpone the legal requirement to obtain the approval of permitting agencies for their
installation. The purpose of the City’s investment in the engineering design and construction
services and material, starting sometime in 2015, was to build the permanent infrastructure required
to connect private-side yard drains to the public drainage system. The responsible City officials
decided to add the feature to the standard drainage system designed by Orlando Rubio, because
engineers feared the newly elevated roads of North and South Coconut Lanes would trap
stormwater on private lots and cause harmful flooding.
To ameliorate the harmful effects of new flooding, the City decided to have Lanzo and
Wade Trim prepare new construction plans for a drainage system designed to connect private-side
yard drains to the public system. The evidence establishes that this plan by the City was based on a
considered decision by the responsible City officials. In November 2015 and during the subsequent
six months when the permitting agencies reviewed the outdated Rubio plans, the responsible City
officials had a duty to fully and timely disclose to DERM and the SFWMD that the project’s
construction plans and the intended purpose of the drainage system had changed in significant
ways. Similarly, when the Commission approved the award for the project’s construction phase on
Dec. 9, 2015, the City Administration had an obligation to fully and timely disclose to the
Commission that construction of a drainage system designed to connect to private-side yard drains
would significantly increase the cost and technical difficulty of difficulty of the project.
135
Finding # 2. In May 2016 DERM issued Class II permit based on plans for a standard right-
of-way drainage system prepared, signed, and sealed by Orlando A. Rubio, PE., without
seeing the Kremers plans; similarly, the SFWMD issued an Environmental Resources Permit
based on the Rubio plans and without the benefit of reviewing the Kremers plans.
During a seven month review of the City’s permit application between November 2015 and
May 2016, DERM and SFWMD staff remained under the impression that Rubio was the
project’s Engineer of Record for the Stormwater section of the construction plans, and
ultimately issued the permit based on plan dated Feb. 26, 2016 that were prepared, signed,
and sealed by Rubio.
On or after November 2015, the City Administration directed Wade Trim engineers to
revise the plans by Rubio. On or after January 2016, Wade Trim engineer Holly Kremers,
PE had assumed the defacto role of Engineer of Record for the Stormwater Section.
Ultimately she, and not Rubio, prepared, signed, and sealed the plans that the City used to
build the project. DERM and SFWMD staff were left with the mistaken impression that
Rubio was “engineer in responsible charge” of the plans and that the plans they were
reviewing would be used to build the project.
Had DERM SFWMD been notified of the change, they would have required submission of
final plans signed and sealed by Kremers. Instead, DERM, as well as SFWMD, issued
permits based on plans prepared by Rubio and Rubio’s “Engineer’s Letter of Certification.”
The failure of Rubio and Kremers to notify regulators was not consistent with provisions in
Florida law and professional responsibility rules that apply to an Engineer of Record, the
person responsible for the plans.
Finding #3. In early 2018 the City directed Lanzo and Wade Trim proceed with the design
and construction of private-side yard drains on west Palm Island but did not disclose this new
phase of construction to DERM and SFWMD, turn over the updated Kremers plans, or
obtain modification of the existing Class II permit.
Upon learning in early 2018 of a decision by the City to proceed with a new phase of
construction on private property, that was not covered by the existing permits from DERM and
SFWMD, Lanzo and Wade Trim personnel recommended that the City approve and fund
136
preparation of As-Built construction plans; conduct new drainage studies and notify DERM and
SFWMD of the new phase of construction work that the City proposed to do outside the right-of-
way, and obtain a modification of the existing permits.
The City approved production of As-Built plans and new drainage studies, but disregarded
the Lanzo/Wade Trim recommendations. Instead, the City directed Lanzo to proceed with the work
under the existing Class II and Environmental Resources permits. By August 2018, the City and
Lanzo had developed detailed plans for installing private-side yard drains in many houses on west
Palm Island using the unpermitted right-of-way drainpipes connected to the public drainage system.
At all times, the responsible officials with the City, who were also licensed professional engineers,
knew or should have known that Section 24-48 of the Miami-Dade Code required that the owner of
each new private-side yard drain obtain a Class II permit.
Finding #4. In May 2018, in applying for a second Class II permit, the City did not give
DERM recently updated As-Built plans and new drainage studies. Instead, the City obtained
a permit based on the Rubio plans a letter from a Wade Trim engineer falsely stating that
significant changes had not been made to the Rubio plans.
The DERM permit application and letter in May 2018 from Wade Trim engineer Garcia
were incomplete, inaccurate, and omitted facts that were material to DERM’s permitting decision.
In this instance, the false statements and misrepresentations, especially Wade Trim engineer
Garcia’s certification that significant changes had not been made to the Rubio plans, appear to be
intentional. Based on those representations, DERM unwittingly issued a second permit based on the
superseded Rubio plans.
Finding # 5. The pressure to accelerate work on the project resulted in a sequence of decisions
that disrupted CIP’s management of the project and resulted in an override of internal
controls, policies and procedures designed to protect the City’s interests and to achieve its
objectives in design-build projects. The investigation established that the City lacks a clear
policy for planning and managing design-build construction projects.
Finding #6. The City awarded Lanzo a contract for the project’s pre-construction design
phase without a finished DCP.
137
In response to the Homeowners Association and perceived pressure from former Mayor
Philip Levine, on Sept. 19, 2014, the City Administration recommended award of a $599,464
contract to Lanzo for the pre-construction design phase of the project without a finished DCP. The
Commission approved the recommendation. Without a finished DCP, the City and Lanzo did not
have a reliable means of estimating the cost and complexity of preparing the construction plans.
The award ratcheted up the pressure on City staff and their contractors to complete the technically
challenging work of incorporating the new elevation design criteria into the DCP in ways that did
not cause new flooding, and that would dramatically increase the cost and complexity of the project.
A major roadblock to resolving the technical issues in the project’s DCP was the City’s
failure to obtain a survey of the elevation of garages and first finished floor of houses on west Palm
Island, a task that can have been accomplished in a matter of weeks. In a written response to the
OIG, AECOM engineer McGowan said, “Prioritizing speed over technical refinement in the
project’s design created a cascade of problems.
On Nov. 18, 2014, or one month after the first award, the City Commission passed
Amendment #1 to Lanzo’s contract that increased the award $251,016. This brought the total cost
for preparing the project’s construction plans to $850,480, a figure that would be increased again in
less than a year. The need for this amendment was an early indicator of problems in the project’s
design phase.
Finding #7. The City overrode the role of the project’s Design Criteria Professional and
adopted a DCP that did not provide Lanzo with clear guidance for raising road elevations on
west Palm Island.
In an effort to exert control over how the City’s new elevation design criteria would be
incorporated into the DCP, the City agreed to a demand from the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on
Sea Level Rise that the panel’s consulting engineer, AECOM’s McGowan, assume responsibility
for revising the DCP. This decision undermined the role assigned to the project’s Design Criteria
Professional, engineer Jeffery Crews, and discounted the value of the City’s $599,464 contract with
Stantec. Crews did not write the DCP sections on stormwater drainage and roadways. He provided
CIP with a critique that expressed his reservations about the DCP guidance regarding the
construction of swales and the elevation of grates and roads. In both cases the guidance proved
problematic.
138
In the rush to develop a DCP that reflected the recommendations of the Mayor’s Blue
Ribbon Panel on Sea Level Rise, the City failed to produce a DCP that gave the Lanzo team clear
guidance about how to apply new elevation criteria; it also failed to provide Lanzo and CIP with a
reliable basis for estimating the cost and technical difficulty of preparing the construction plans.
The DCP’s guidance about designing roads, for example, defaulted to a recommendation
that Lanzo raise the centerline elevation of roads to the new design criteria “where practicable,” and
do so without causing flooding or obstructing the “positive” flow of stormwater. Together, these
first two decisions were red flag indicators of a rushed and poorly managed process for planning the
expenditures on a project whose final cost is expected to exceed $50 million. These decisions
ignored the purpose of provisions in Florida law that apply to the planning of a design-build
construction project by municipalities and discounted provisions in the City’s contract with Stantec
that were intended to reinforce the design-build process.
Finding #8. After deciding to change the project’s elevation criteria, the City failed to provide
sufficient time and resources for Wade Trim to prepare construction plans for a drainage
system designed to connect to private-side yard drains and verify its expected performance.
While the responsible City officials recognized that the change in elevation criteria would
require revision of the stormwater and hardscape plans by Rubio, they decided that the City could
not afford to wait for the design engineers to revise the plans. The consequences and potential costs
of the design change were not fully disclosed to the City Commission; and a necessary request for
another large increment of additional funding for new construction plans and drainage studies was
delayed.
The basis or wisdom of the City’s decision in October 2015 to change the elevation criteria
for west Palm Island is beyond the scope of this investigation; the implementation of the decision is
not. The City made a serious error by failing to pause and allow time for the Lanzo design team to
revise the construction plans and prepare a credible cost estimate. The failure to acknowledge, and
address, the engineering challenges that the criteria change created - and fully disclose these risks to
the Commission - set the stage for many of the consequences that followed.
Finding # 9. The City awarded Lanzo a $38.5 million contract for the build or construction
phase of the project without finished construction plans for the stormwater and hardscape
139
sections of the project and without a reliable basis for estimating costs associated with
providing connections to private-side yard drains.
On Jan. 11, 2016, the City Commission awarded Lanzo a $38.5 million contract for the
project’s build phase without finished construction plans addressing the engineering challenges that
resulted from the October 2015 decision to increase the elevation of roads in west Palm Island, or a
reliable means of estimating how much the project would cost, or how long it would take to build.
Instead, without providing the necessary funding and time required to redesign, reengineer, and
revise the stormwater and hardscape sections of the construction plans and conduct new drainage
studies, the City decided to award the contract based on conceptual drawings and narrative
descriptions in RFI documents and correspondence. Considered together, findings #3, #4 and #5
manifest an override of the City’s internal controls and a decision to disregard CIP’s process for
managing design-build construction contracts.
XI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1. Establish by ordinance that the Director of the Environmental and
Sustainability Department shall have the final authority and responsibility to approve the
submission of all applications for permits by the City from the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), the Miami-Dade Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER)
and its Division of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), or any other federal, state or
county agency with environmental enforcement authority over issuance of a permit for any City
project; and, further, that the Director of the Environmental and Sustainability Department shall
immediately, and in writing, report to the City Manager and the Inspector General any concerns
expressed by those agencies, or by any other parties, about alleged lack of compliance with federal,
state or county laws and regulations related to the permitting of any such projects.
Recommendation #2. Establish by ordinance that, notwithstanding any provision in a City
contract, that the City official who signs an application for a permit included under
Recommendation #1 be responsible to personally verify in writing to the City Manager the
140
accuracy and completeness of all such permit applications and associated documentation submitted
to any such regulatory agency.
Recommendation #3. The City Administration should develop policies and procedures for the
management of design-build contracts that provide a framework of guidelines, practices, and
internal controls to guide management of design-build projects. The City Manager should develop
the policy in consultation with CIP, Public Works and the Procurement Director.
Recommendation #4. Establish by ordinance that, prior to approving significant changes in the
design criteria of a design-build project after the award of the construction phase of the project,
require that the City Manager notify the Commission, provide justification for the change and its
impact on project cost schedule.
Recommendation #5. Direct the City Manager to provide an evaluation of the costs and benefits of
the City’s present use of multiple architecture and engineering consultants versus those of retaining
a single project management contractor to provide the City with an integrated, coordinated, and
disciplined end-to-end process for planning, designing, and managing the City’s portfolio of design-
build projects to counter the effects of sea level rise.
Recommendation #6. Require that CIP, Public Works, and the Procurement Department working
together, in consultation with the Finance Department, develop a list of key indicators and provide
an annual report to the Commission on projects that are at a high risk of cost overruns, schedule
delays or performance failures.
Recommendation #7. Amend the City’s Debarment Ordinance to authorize the Inspector General
to conduct fact investigations in support of the Debarment Panel and submit to the City Manager
and Director of Procurement reports of investigations on the performance of City contractors for
possible debarment.
141
XII. EVALUATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES
The “Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General” (May, 2014) developed by
the Association of Inspectors General describes the qualitative standards for evidence used in an
OIG report as follows: “Sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence is to be obtained to afford a
reasonable basis for the investigative findings and conclusions” and provides the following
guidelines:
• Evidence is sufficient if there is enough of it to support the report’s findings.
• Evidence used to support findings is relevant if it has logical, sensible relationships to those
findings.
• Evidence is competent to the extent that it is consistent with fact (valid).
On Dec. 4, 2020 a draft of this report was sent to the persons and entities whose activities
were “reported on” in the text to provide an opportunity for submission of written response or
rebuttal within 30 working days. In recognition that weekdays and holidays during that period could
not be counted, the due date for responses was set at January 22, 2021. Assistant City Manager Eric
Carpenter and CIP Director David Martinez were allowed an additional seven working days,
through February 2, 2021, to provide further responses on their own.
Where a written response identified errors or material omissions, presented new evidence or
information, or suggested clarifications that had merit, the OIG staff made revisions to the Final
Report to enhance its accuracy and fairness and increase the potential value of its recommendations
to the City Commission and residents of Miami Beach
In instances where a respondent strongly objected to a finding or characterization of his or
her actions, the office re-examined the underlying evidence and, where appropriate, conducted
additional interviews. In such cases, rebuttal statements from the written responses, or statements
from sworn interviews, were added to the Final Report to provide context and reflect alternative
explanations that were consistent with the evidence.
142
A.Response received after Feb. 8, 2021 from Interim City Manager Raul Aguila and
former City Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman
On Jan. 21, 2021 Carpenter, Martinez, and Public Works Director Ray Coley submitted a
14-page memorandum with 575 pages of exhibits (“Joint Response”) based on the draft report.
Additionally, OIG staff met with Carpenter, Martinez, Coley and Michael R. Band, an attorney
representing Mr. Carpenter, to discuss their concerns.
Following this meeting, OIG staff provided Carpenter and Martinez with a list of questions
to clarify certain issues of fact. On Feb. 2, 2021, Carpenter submitted a seven-page memorandum
entitled “A Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report 20-07 Supplemental Questions.”
Mr. Martinez declined to provide written answers, and submitted no further information.
Ultimately, the OIG staff used Carpenter’s responses and submissions from other individuals to
make revisions that added 37 pages to final report.
On Feb. 8, 2021, a Final Report was submitted to Mayor Gelber and members of the
Commission and made public. The next morning, Feb. 9, 2021, the Inspector General received an
email from the Office of the City Manager transmitting a memorandum titled “City’s Written
Responses/Explanation and Rebuttals to the OIG Draft Report 20-07 – Palm and Hibiscus Island
Neighbor Improvement project.” This submission included 463 pages of exhibits and was signed by
Interim City Manager Raul Aguila (“Aguila memo”).
Consistent with intent of the ordinance, the Inspector General directed that the belated
Aguila memo responding to the draft report and not the final report, be treated as if had been filed
timely, and that any material responses by the City Administration be addressed in an updated and
revised version of the final report.
The Aguila memo was based on the draft of the report circulated in December and not the
Final Report. The criticisms leveled in this response appear to be based on the earlier written
submissions from Carpenter and his colleagues that had been incorporated into the Final Report as
appropriate. Further, the Aguila memo adopted some claims by the responsible City officials that
were discussed at length in the Final Report and, in some instances were not in dispute or had
no bearing on the report’s findings. For example, the Aguila memo contended that, “The
contract required the Design/Build to comply with all applicable laws and regulations,” a fact
that was never in dispute, but did not address the unwillingness of City staff to accept
responsibility for monitoring compliance with permitting regulations.
143
Similarly, the Aguila response said, “The nearly completed Project functions as it was
intended” and, further, that “The regulatory agencies have permitted the vast majority of the
private property connections without any additional water treatment requirements.” It appears
these claims are offered in support of a request from Carpenter’s attorney that the OIG delay
completion of the Final Report for four months when City staff anticipated completing the
project. The Aguila response said, “Unfortunately the OIG was unwilling to give the
appropriate time to conduct what we believe would have been a more comprehensive
evaluation of the completed project.”
As set forth in the report, the purpose and scope of the investigation was based on
requests from members of the Commission that the Inspector General conduct an investigation
to determine “what happened” during the project that resulted in DERM’s enforcement action
and to identify managerial issues related to the permitting violations. The investigation was
never intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the finished project, which remains
ongoing as of the date of this updated version of the report. This response represents an
eleventh-hour request on behalf of the responsible City officials to expand the scope of the
investigation to include subsequent remedial actions taken in response to the permitting
violations.
Significantly, the Aguila memo adopted as fact a revised description of the unpermitted
construction activity that triggered DERM’s enforcement action and that appears to contradict or
amend explanations that Carpenter and Wade Trim engineer Kremers had provided to Commission
members during hearings in October 2019. This revised version of events relates to the “stubouts”
or unpermitted right-of-way drainage connections that Carpenter and Kremers had said were
“temporary construction drains” that were not intended to be permanent parts of the drainage
system and which therefore did not require permitting.
In contrast, the Aguila response said the unpermitted installations were permanent, but
inoperative, parts of the stormwater drainage system that also were used as temporary drains during
construction. Given the materiality of this statement to an issue of fact in this investigation,
revisions were made by OIG staff to the last section of this updated Final Report.
On Feb. 3, 2021 the OIG staff was informed that former Commissioner John Elizabeth
Aleman had been inadvertently omitted from the list of persons who were emailed a copy of the
draft report on Dec. 4, 2020. As a result of this regrettable mistake, Ms. Aleman did not have an
opportunity to provide a written response to the draft report. The Inspector General apologized to
Ms. Aleman,
144
invited her to submit a written response to the final report, and promised to (a) include her
submission in an updated version of this report and (b) revise the Final Report to correct any
inaccuracies or material omissions.
In her written response, Ms. Aleman strongly objected the characterization of Resolution
2017-29840, which she sponsored, and the Commission approved unanimously on April 26, 2017.
She described as “pure conjecture and grossly inaccurate” the report’s conclusion that the resolution
provided an “after-the-fact authorization and legal justification” for the unpermitted construction on
west Palm Island.
It appears that former Commissioner Aleman misconstrued the OIG conclusion as criticism
of the Commission’s decision to approve a change in City policy to allow the connection of private-
side yard drains to the system. It was not. The Final Report made it clear that the OIG staff did not
pass judgement on the validity of engineering solutions or changes in policy or design criteria
related to the stormwater drainage system. The investigation focus was on the flawed
implementation of those policy changes and the extent that had an impact on the permitting or
management of the project.
Furthermore, the investigation developed no evidence that in 2017 Aleman was aware of the
long-standing plans that Mowry had shared with the Homeowners Association in November 2015
to have the Commission change the policy that had prevented the connection of privately-owned
yard drains to the public drainage system.
It bear noting that Aleman’s written response confirmed that she relied on Carpenter and
Mowry for information about the design of the drainage system, and that she was not informed in
2017 that the drainage system on west Palm Island had already been designed and built to provide
connections for private-side yard drains. Aleman’s concerns, and an error in the chronology
regarding her role, were addressed with revisions to this revised and updated version of Final
Report and by the addition of statements by Aleman during her interview with OIG staff.
Additionally, Aleman’s written response recommended that the “City obtain Elevation
Reports for all residential properties within municipal boundaries” and thereafter “create a database
of finished floor elevations by soliciting certificates from residents (most will have done one for
their flood insurer) and update the database on an ongoing basis with data from the Building
Department, filling in any gaps prior to initiating residential stormwater design efforts.” With such
a database, she said the “City will know the precise elevation of every finished floor, and be able to
design accordingly, and use that data in stormwater / event modeling, and use it to assist residents
145
with the most challenging circumstances.” Based on the evidence obtained during this
investigation, this recommendation merits consideration by the Commission.
B. Responses of elected and appointed officials and a representative of the Homeowners
Association
Former Mayor Levine and former Chairman of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Sea
Level Rise Scott Robins did not submit written responses to the draft report. However, the Inspector
General (IG) met with Levine and his attorney at their request. During the meeting, Levine and his
counsel strongly objected to the use of the word “pressure” to describe the impact on City staff of
Levine’s public efforts to accelerate work on construction projects to reduce flooding, and the
imperative to incorporate new design criteria to counter the future effects of sea level rise.
Subsequently, Levine’s counsel submitted emails from former City Manager Morales stating that
Levine never “exercised any improper pressure or influence” and from Acting City Attorney Aguila
stating that, while serving as City Attorney, he never received complaints of Levine having “used
any undue influence or pressuring City staff with regard to various projects.
The report does not state that the actions of Levine and Robins, as to the Palm and Hibiscus
project, were wrongful or improperly motivated. It sets forth facts that show the unintended
consequences that occurred in one construction project. It bears noting that during sworn
interviews, Morales and Martinez used the word “pressure” in describing their perceptions of
factors that influenced decision-making during the project. A written response on behalf of the
Homeowners Association objected to the characterization of the group’s actions during the project.
Revisions were made to the report that address those concerns.
C. Responses of current and former City staff named in this report
Assistant City Manager Carpenter, CIP Director Martinez and Public Works Director Coley
submitted a 17-page joint response as well as separate individual responses. Additionally, at the
request of an attorney representing Carpenter, the Inspector General and Special Agent Jim McGee
met with these officials and the attorney as a group to discuss their concerns. During this meeting,
Carpenter’s attorney, Michael Band, Esq., Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley provided additional
verbal comments. In sum, Carpenter’s counsel contended that draft report accused Carpenter and
the others of crimes including conspiring to mislead DERM and reiterated their position that
146
Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley had no motive to mislead the regulatory agencies; and that they had
relied on the design-build team to comply with permitting requirements.
Further, Carpenter’s counsel argued that the “language” used in the report was incendiary
and implied or created the false and unfair impression that Carpenter and his colleagues had
engaged wrongful actions when, in fact, they were doing their best in a difficult situation and
sought to act in the best interests of the City. Following the meeting, Carpenter addressed follow-
up questions in a five-page supplemental response that identified what he viewed as errors or
omissions in the draft and/or characterizations that cast his actions in a false light.
The written response from Martinez strongly objected to the criticism of CIP management
of the project and stressed that the design-builder, Lanzo, was responsible for obtaining permits
from DERM and SFWMD and that he and City staff had a right to rely on their professional
judgements. His response said, “Neither the City Administration, Office of Capital Improvement
Projects, nor I, have violated the laws of Miami-Dade County regarding the construction of
stormwater drainage systems. There has been no mismanagement, deception, negligence, or serious
misrepresentations.”
The draft report did not allege crimes or intentional torts by any individual. The draft report
did not state that Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley “conspired” to mislead DERM and the SFWMD;
directed others to withhold the Rubio plans during the 2016 permitting process; directed others to
indicate to DERM that significant changes had not been made to the Rubio plans; or directed others
not to notify DERM in early 2018 of the City’s plans to begin installing private-side yard drains.
Further, the draft report did not state that these individuals engaged in a civil or criminal
“conspiracy” to defraud DERM.
The evidence obtained during the investigation established that the City’s two applications
for permits from DERM and SFWMD did not include the construction plans, prepared by Wade
Trim Vice President and Professional Engineer Holly Kremers, that the City intended to use to
build the project; that, as a consequence, DERM and SFWMD relied on the submitted but no longer
applicable Rubio plans in granting permits for the project in 2016; that DERM relied on the
representation by Wade Trim Professional Engineer Garcia, submitted on behalf of the City and
Lanzo, that significant changes had not been made to the Rubio plans; that, from the
whistleblower’s complaint, engineers in DERM’s Water Control Section were surprised by their
discovery that the City had installed 85 or more right-of-way drainpipes on west Palm Island that
147
were not on the permitted plans; that the DERM engineers responsible for issuing the two permits
stated in sworn interviews that they believe they were misled during the permitting process in 2016
and 2018; and that DERM’s subsequent enforcement action reflects the gravity of the omissions
during the permitting process. Additionally, SFWMD, which had not been notified by the
whistleblower and did not initiate action against the City, has now determined, upon review of the
Kremers plans provided to it by the OIG, that the City needs to apply for a modification of its
permit from that agency.
The written responses of Carpenter, Martinez, and Coley did not provide evidence that alters
these facts. However, in the interest of fairness and completeness, the report was revised to include
additional statements from the respondents and from DERM staff on this subject, as well as a
response from the Bureau Chief at the Environmental Resource Bureau/Regulation Division at
SFWMD. The language used to describe the actions of Carpenter, Martinez and Coley in the draft
report was reviewed for fairness and clarity and, where appropriate, was revised. Former City
Engineer Mowry and former CIP Project Coordinator Sanchez submitted responses that affirmed
their statements during interviews. Sanchez and CIP Senior Capital Project Coordinator Mina
Sanchez reiterated their department’s position that it was Design-Builder Lanzo’s responsibility
under its contract, or that of its consultant Wade Trim, and not that of CIP, to obtain all necessary
permits for construction of the project. No acknowledgement of any responsibility on the part of
the City to monitor permitting activities was included.
D. Responses of engineers and engineering firms Lanzo, Wade Trim and AECOM
Wade Trim engineer Holly Kremers, CAS engineer Rubio, and Stantec Consulting engineer
Jeffrey Crews did not provide written responses; no current or former employee of Lanzo other than
Robert Beaty provided a response. Former Wade Trim engineer Garcia provided a detailed and
thoughtful response, that included observations that were incorporated into the report. His statement
did not dispute the report’s description of his actions during the 2018 permitting process. Wade
Trim and Lanzo provided responses that contained general denials of wrongdoing or any intention
to mislead DERM and the SFWMD during the permitting process. Neither contractor disputed
specific facts related to the actions of their personnel during the permitting process.
Wade Trim’s response from President/CEO Andrew McCune said, “Relative to Wade Trim,
we find the report to contain numerous is representations and faulty conclusions; so many that
responding to each would be overly burdensome” and, further, said “The design-build team worked
148
with and at the direction of the City of Miami Beach. We were transparent in our dealings with the
City and other stakeholders. Wade Trim never intentionally misled or deceived any party and the
implication of such is simply false.” Similarly, the response from Lanzo’s Beaty stated, “A picture
of deception by the City of Miami Beach, Wade Trim and Lanzo is seemingly presented which is
not factual and far from the truth.”
Additionally, both contractors suggested the OIG staff lacked the technical expertise to
evaluate their actions. “The report should clearly indicate that the conclusions are being drawn, not
by a “member of the same profession” as required by the contract, but by a party limited in
familiarity with design engineering, construction, and design-build delivery, making it [OIG]
unqualified to assess the performance or standard of care.” Lanzo’s response said, “Lanzo does not
cast blame upon the OIG for its erroneous presentation, understanding that the engineering and
construction aspects of the Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood Infrastructure Project are quite
complex and beyond the normal report and recommendation background of your office.” In bears
noting the Inspector General retained a consulting engineer, Louse Aurigemma, PE to provide
technical assistance during the investigation. His signed and sealed report, which supports the OIG
position, is included in the Appendix.
The Lanzo response to the OIG draft report on January 15, 2021, included an exchange of
emails that occurred on July 30, 2020 (i.e., during this investigation, though not previously provided
to the OIG by Lanzo or City staff) between a representative of Wade Trim and Dustin Wood,
Section Leader with the Environmental Resource Bureau at SFWMD. The Lanzo response to the
OIG said, “Please note that South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued
Environmental Resource Permit 13-06125-P for the Palm and Hibiscus surface water management
system. In response to the discussion concerning the addition of yard drains to the system, the
SFWMD representative stated ‘The installation of yard drains within the permitted surface water
management system as described below will not require a permit modification.’” The City’s Joint
Response also referred to this email and said, “Furthermore, it has recently been confirmed by the
South Florida Water Management District that the introduction of the secondary drainage system
will not require any additional documentation or a permit modification.”
Notably, the July 30 email to Lanzo came from an Environmental Resource Bureau Section
Leader not directly involved in the project, and was based upon incomplete information and without
the SFWMD having been provided with a copy of the Kremers plans. In response to this new
information, the OIG staff conducted an interview with SFWMD staff, which has now had the
149
benefit of reviewing the OIG draft report. As indicated in the final report, the SFWMD response to
a query from an Wade Trim project manager in an email dated July 30, 2020, which was referenced
in responses from Lanzo and City, does not reflect the agency’s present views. The City will be
required to seek a modification of its permit from SFWMD.
A response from AECOM engineer McGowan resulted in the revisions and clarification of
technical concepts related to the DCP. The Office received not written response from Rubio or
Craig A. Smith.
XIII. POSTSCRIPT: THE PROBLEM OF MANY HANDS
…we should surely still hold the officials morally responsible
for failing to take precautions to avoid the harmful
consequences of the actions of other people when those actions
are predictable responses to the officials’ own actions.
Dennis F. Thompson, Political Ethics and Public Office
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) p. 58
The mismanagement and misconduct in the Palm/Hibiscus project outlined in this report
includes acts of commission and omission, lapses both intentional and unintentional. Harvard
political scientist and ethicist Dennis Thompson has tackled the “problem of many hands” in
connection with the difficulty of affixing legal or moral responsibility to individuals when wrong
decisions in government are made through the actions of layers of personnel, some of whose actions
or inactions may affect but not determine the decisions.
There are not enough facts produced in this report to accurately assess the responsibility of all of
the players involved in the Palm and Hibiscus Stormwater Drainage project. When there are
multiple government departments, as well as consultants and subconsultants to them and to multiple
private contractors involved in making complicated, technical decisions on a project gone awry, it
becomes too easy for many of them to point elsewhere when the blame is assessed for the missteps
taken. When the roles of those players are overlapping and ill-defined, the problem of assessing
responsibility deepens.
150
In the end, some consideration needs to be given to whether the numerous public and private
consultants interwoven into the Palm and Hibiscus Stormwater Drainage, without clear lines of
authority, have added to or subtracted from the transparency of the decision-making process, as
well as to the overall efficiency of the project. One gets the impression that the motivation behind
the retention of so many consultants could have more to do with insulating the decision-makers
from responsibility, than it does with marshalling the professional expertise with the necessary
brainpower to ensure the project’s success.
There are other projects of a similar nature to be completed in the City of Miami Beach. It is
hoped that the unraveling of the issues raised in the Palm and Hibiscus Project will help the City
better evaluate these concerns in the road ahead.
XIV.SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
A.Volume II: OIG Engineer’s Technical Report & Auditor’s Financial
Analysis
B.Volume III: Written Responses and Rebuttals <-------Click link to access Volume III
70R 8
FINAL REPORT
OIG Report No. 20-07
Management of the Palm and Hibiscus Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement Project
/
enh M, Centorino
Inspector General
F. James McGee
OIG Special Agent
Volume II
OIG Consulting Engineer’s Technical Report
And
Auditor’s Financial Analysis
TECHNICAL REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
Neighborhood No. 13 Palm and
Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Ways
Infrastructure Improvements
Prepared for the
Office of the Inspector General, Miami Beach, Florida
October 2020
Prepared by
Louis C. Aurigemma, P.E. Independent Consulting Engineer +1.954.303.4179louaurigemma@yahoo.com
October 2020
Prepared by
Louis C. Aurigemma, P.E.
Independent Consulting Engineer
+1.954.303.4179
louaurigemma@yahoo.com
I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the information contained in this
Engineering Report is true and accurate. The independent opinions presented are based
on my experience and engineering judgment during the review of the documents provided
to me by the Miami Beach Office of the Inspector General.
Louis C. Aurigemma, P.E.
State of Florida Professional Engineer License 31896
February 5, 2021
1
TECHNICAL REPORT
2
Table of Contents
I.Table of Contents
II.Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4
III.Professional qualifications ..................................................................................................................... 5
IV.Report structure and limitations ............................................................................................................. 6
V.Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 7
VI.Part 1: The City’s application for permits Background, chronology, significant events ....................... 9
A.The City use of the Rubio plans to apply for a Class II permit in 2016 ................................................. 9
B.City approves alternative plans for drainage system that accommodates yard drains ......................... 10
C.The City’s application for a Class II permit in 2018 ............................................................................ 11
D.City tells DERM no significant changes were made to Rubio plans and obtains permit .................... 12
VII.Part 2: Exhibits and observations ......................................................................................................... 13
E.General observations ............................................................................................................................ 14
1.Exhibit 1 consists of two separate sheets. The first cover page is that of the CAS/Rubio plans that
served as basis of Class II permit issued May 27, 2016. The second cover page is that of the
WT/Kremers plans dated May 18, 2016 used by City to construct drainage system. ............................. 15
2.Exhibit 2 consists of two separate sheets. Page SW06 from Rubio plans is a drawing of the
stormwater drainage system for South Coconut Lane. Page SW06 from Kremers plans showing the
stormwater drainage system with additional lateral pipes that extend to the front of each lot. ............... 16
3. Exhibit 3 consists of two sheets. The Typical Roadway Sections from Rubio plans for N. & S.
Coconut Lanes and Coconut Ct. shows a swale-based drainage system within Right-of-Ways (ROW).
The Typical Roadway Sections by WT EOR Wright show plans for connecting private yard drains and
drains at edge of ROW; estimates called for 90 12-inch yard drains. ...................................................... 17
4.Exhibit 4 (4 pages) Request for Information #035 “Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation” dated Oct. 30, 2015 and attachments that included as attachments WT drawings for
Coconut Lane Tie-ins to yard drains installed in private lots or in ROW adjacent to property line and
subsequent email from former City Engineer Bruce A. Mowry, P.E., also dated Oct. 30, 2015,
approving proposed design. ..................................................................................................................... 18
5.Exhibit 5 Excerpt from Kremers plans (page G03) Construction Sequencing Notes stating lateral
pipes under road and yard drains “shall be temporary drainage…during construction.” ........................ 21
6.Exhibit 6 is cover of City’s Technical Report submitted to DERM with permit application in
October 2015 with CAS (Rubio) as the Engineer of Record. .................................................................. 21
7.Exhibit 7 is excerpt from report, identified in Exhibit 6, explaining use of minimum crown-of-road
elevation of 2.2 feet NAVD for North & South Coconut Lanes and Coconut Court. The design criteria
elevation of 3.7 feet NAVD is “not possible” because first finished floor elevations are below “future
design groundwater design basis 2.7 feet NAVD). .................................................................................. 22
8.Exhibits 8 (4 pages) is excerpt from Drainage Report prepared by WT Engineer of Record, Daniel
Garcia, P.E., dated May 3, 2018, that show additional installations of secondary drainage pipes on Palm
Avenue that connect to private yard drains. (Annotations and markups added for emphasis). ............... 23
TECHNICAL REPORT
3
9. Exhibit 9 is correspondence dated from Wade Trim South Florida Manager to CIP Senior Project
Manager explaining that “once 100% submittal has been fully approved by the City of Miami Beach and
relevant permits acquired from South Florida Water Management District and Miami-Dade RER” WT
would replace CAS as the Engineer of Record (no record of the transfer is provided per Exhibit 9A -
Chapter 61G15-27 of the Florida Administrative Code). ........................................................................ 26
10. Exhibit 10 is May 17, 2018 exchange of emails between DERM Engineer Mayra De Torres to
CIP Project. De Torres asks that the City submit a statement from EOR certifying that no significant
changes had been made to the Rubio plans that had served as the basis of Class II permit issued May 27,
2016. Sanchez transmits correspondence from Engineer of Record, Daniel Garcia. ............................... 28
11. Exhibit 11 is WT correspondence dated May 17, 2018 that Sanchez emailed as attachment to
DERM Engineer Mayra De Torres, wherein WT EOR Daniel Garcia stated that Rubio plans that had
served as the basis of the first Class II permit, and Rubio plans and the drainage study calculations
based on those plans, “had no had significant changes” during construction. ......................................... 29
12. Exhibit 12 is excerpt from DERM Class II permit dated May 27, 2018 issued to designated City
permittee Assistant City Manager Eric Carpenter and Wade Trim EOR Holly Kremers, P. E. stating
permit was issued “per signed and sealed plans by Orlando A. Rubio, P.E., from Craig A. Smith &
Associates., dated February 19, 2016 and the letter from Daniel Garcia, P.E., from Wade Trim, Inc.,
dated May 17, 2018. ................................................................................................................................. 30
VIII. Part 3 Evaluation of explanations by the City and Wade Trim............................................................ 31
F. Claim that unpermitted yard drains were a temporary condition ......................................................... 32
IX. Part 4: Factors the contributed to the project unfinished status. .......................................................... 33
TECHNICAL REPORT
4
II. Introduction
I was retained by the City of Miami Beach Office of Inspector General (OIG) to provide technical
assistance in connection with an investigation of the Neighborhood No. 3 Palm and Hibiscus
Islands Infrastructure Improvements (“the Project”) and the City’s application for environmental
permits to build stormwater drainage systems that emptied into Biscayne Bay, a designated
Official Florida Water subject to enhanced environmental protection. My review included, but was
not limited to, the examination of documents, emails reports, engineering drawings, engineering
calculations, City/Agency permits and photographs; and interviews of appropriate City staff and
City Consultants/Contractors.
The specific purpose of this investigation was to identify the material events, actions and decisions
during the planning, design, permitting and construction phases of the project that gave rise to two
issues of concern to the Mayor, City Commission, and City Administration: (1) the enforcement
actions taken by the Division of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), Miami-Dade
County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), regarding the City’s alleged
unpermitted construction of yard drains on public and private property; (2) the Project’s frequent
design changes, schedule delays, escalating costs and unfinished status.
It is important to set forth what this report does not address. This report does not address the merits
of the many changes in design criteria and policy that the City of Miami Beach (“the City”) adopted
between 2014 and 2018 in response to the effects of climate change and sea level rise. The report
focuses on the engineering, project management, and contract administration issues that occurred
during the City’s implementation of a major construction project in which the City applied the new
criteria.
TECHNICAL REPORT
5
III. Professional qualifications
During a 40+ year career as a Civil Engineer, I have been responsible for the design and
management of public works/utilities projects for municipalities and the administration and
oversight of construction contracts. I have served on more than 100 technical evaluation
committees for construction projects ranging from $100,000 to $750 million in value. I served as
Executive Director of the City of Riviera Beach (FL) Utility Special District and City
Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director in the City of Coral Springs (FL). In the private sector,
I was Director of Civil Engineering for Keith and Schnars, P.A., Fort Lauderdale (FL) Consulting
Engineering firm, primarily working on the design and construction management for water and
wastewater projects for the City of Fort Lauderdale. I was also a Regional Manager for the Nielsen-
Wurster Group, a construction claims consultant primarily working on Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) engagements. In my current position as an independent consulting
engineer, I have provided technical evaluation assistance to the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(mcc.gov), an independent United States Government Foreign Aid Agency (US STATE
Department); and performed Annual Bondholder Facilities Reports for the South Martin Regional
Utility (SMRU)/Town of Jupiter Island, Florida (2016-2020). I am a licensed professional engineer
in Florida, Connecticut, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas, and a Life Member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Public Works Association
(APWA). I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New
Haven (CT).
TECHNICAL REPORT
6
IV. Report structure and limitations
The purpose of this report is to provide my professional opinions regarding the documents and
testimony obtained by the OIG staff with respect to the planning, design and construction of the
Neighborhood No. 13 Palm and Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement
Projects (“the Project”), and the administration of the City’s contract with Design-Build Firm
(DBF), Lanzo Construction Co. Florida, (“Lanzo”). Additionally, the report contains my
professional opinions regarding material issues of fact and the explanations and testimony
provided by the responsible current and former City officials and staff, as well as those of the
DBF-Lanzo and its engineering subconsultants, Wade Trim (WT) and Craig A. Smith &
Associates. (CAS).
The opinions expressed in this report are my own. They are based on my knowledge, skills, and
training as a licensed professional engineer and 40+ year public and private sector work history
specializing in in the design and management of public works projects for municipalities and other
governmental entities. The views expressed are based on sworn interviews of witnesses during the
course of the OIG investigation and my examination of exhibits. In particular, I have carefully
compared the Stormwater Drainage and Hardscape sections of the 100% Final Design Plans dated
Feb. 22, 2016, signed and sealed by Engineer of Record Orlando A. Rubio, P.E. of Craig A. Smith
& Associates (“the Rubio plans”) with the same sections contained in alternative 100% Final
Design Plans dated May 18, 2016, signed and sealed by Wade Trim Engineers of Record Holly
Kremers, P.E. (“Kremers plans”) and Carey Wright, P.E. and other pertinent technical documents.
The report is broken down into four distinct sections as follows:
Part 1: The City’s application for permits. This section of the report provides a summary of
material events. It examines the City/DBF’s use of the Rubio plans to obtain permits from during
2016 and again in 2018. Also, the City/DBF’s concurrence of the Kremers plans to build an
alternative stormwater drainage system designed to accommodate the connection of private yard
drains.
Part 2: Background, chronology, significant events: This section contains excerpts of key exhibits
that show the changes between the Rubio plans and Kremers plans that resulted in the 2016
installation of underground infrastructure and yard drains not shown on the Rubio plans; the
installation of an additional secondary drainage system in 2017; and the City application for a
second Class II permit from DERM in May 2018.
Part 3: Evaluation of explanations by the City and Wade Trim: This section contains an evaluation
of the statements and explanations about the events and decisions made by current and former City
officials and members of the Lanzo design team in sworn interviews or before the City
Commission.
TECHNICAL REPORT
7
Part 4: Primary causes of the project’s unfinished status: This section describes the two factors that
in my professional opinion, and based on my evaluation of the exhibits and testimony, were the
primary causes of the project’s troubled history: the twin imperatives to accelerate work on the
project and simultaneously incorporate the City’s new design criteria to counter sea level rise.
V. Executive Summary
In 2016, the City used the Rubio plans to obtain a Class II permit from the Miami-Dade County
Division of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) to construct a stormwater drainage
system. Almost immediately after applying for the permit based on the Rubio plans, the City
instructed DBF-Lanzo’s consulting engineer, Wade Trim, (Holly Kremers, P.E.) to prepare
alternative plans for a modified drainage system designed to connect to swale drainage and private
yard drains.
During the six-month DERM permit review process, the City and DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim
proceeded on this parallel track with the understanding that after DERM issued a permit, the Rubio
plans would be replaced by the WT/Kremers plans. After DERM issued the permit on May 27,
2016, the City/DBF did not use the Rubio plans, and the DBF-Lanzo began construction using the
WT/Kremers plans. In 2018, the City applied for a second Class II permit for the project and
succeeded in gaining approval without disclosing the WT/Kremers plans.
On May 27, 2018, DERM issued the second permit based on the Rubio plans and a certification
from a Wade Trim Professional Engineer, Daniel Garcia, stating that “no significant changes” had
been made to the previously submitted/approved Rubio 2016 stormwater drainage plans. In
September 2018 a whistleblower alerted DERM to efforts to connect a private yard drain on Palm
Island to the municipal stormwater drainage system. Pursuant to a DERM field inspection, it was
discovered that unpermitted yard drains had been installed on public and private property in Palm
Island West, resulting in the present enforcement action.
Pursuant to the DERM Class II Permit General Conditions, Section 31 states:
“If the engineer who provided certification pursuant to Section 24-48.2(I)(B)(2) or pursuant to
Section 24-48.2(II)(A)(4) is discharged by the property owner or his agent, or if said engineer
ceases to work on the proposed or approved work, all work by this permit shall immediately cease
and shall not be resumed until a new engineer is obtained. The property owner shall also be
required to obtain a new engineer who shall meet all the requirements of this permit.”
TECHNICAL REPORT
8
The evidence shows that the City/DBF never disclosed the Kremers plans to DERM or notified
the agency of its new drainage design. During this investigation, DERM engineers Maria Molina
and Mayra deTorres testified that they believed they were deliberately misled by the City and its
representatives. In my professional opinion, the evidence gathered during this investigation
supports the testimony of the DERM engineers: they were misled and misled more than once.
In my opinion, the statement in the Garcia letter to DERM that “no significant changes” had been
made to the Rubio plans was false and omitted facts that Mr. Garcia knew were material to the
request from De Torres and material to DERM’s review of the City’s second permit application.
The involvement of CIP staff in submitting the Garcia letter to DERM is consistent with other
evidence that indicates the City and DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim acted in concert on permitting
matters.
By contract, it is the responsibility of the DBF-Lanzo to obtain all permits for the Project. Any
modifications to the permit(s) required the DBF to adhere to the permit conditions from the
permitting agencies for resubmittal of updated plans, specifications, calculations, etc. Therefore,
in my professional opinion, the DBF-Lanzo has constructed the stormwater drainage
system in the Palm/Hibiscus Infrastructure Improvements Project without a valid SFWMD
permit and DERM Class II Permits as the DBF-Lanzo did not comply with the respective
conditions of the said permits.
TECHNICAL REPORT
9
VI. Part 1: The City’s application for permits Background, chronology, significant events
On Oct. 6, 2015, Assistant City Manager, Eric Carpenter, signed a DERM application for a Class
II permit based on the Rubio plans and a technical report sent to DERM that described the City’s
use of design criteria to counter the effects of sea level rise, including a minimum crown-of-road
elevation of 3.7 feet NAVD. The report explained the City’s decision to waive the new criteria for
roads in Palm Island West where it was “not possible” to raise the roads to 3.7 feet NAVD “due
to the existing topography (garages and existing yard grades) encountered below the future design
groundwater elevation of 2.7' NAVD” and said, “As such, North and South Coconut Lane road
crown elevations will be no lower than 2.2' NAVD.”
On Oct. 12th, the City notified the DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim that it had decided to raise the minimum
crown-of-road elevation for Palm Island West to 3.7 feet NAVD. This was a significant change
that would require a complete revision of the Stormwater Drainage and Hardscape sections of the
plans. City Engineer Bruce A. Mowry, PE, and other City staff recognized that the new elevation
would result in the impoundment of stormwater on private lots lower than 3.7 NAVD. For that
reason, the City authorized DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim to begin designing an alternative drainage
system that would accommodate connection with swale and yard drains.
A. The City use of the Rubio plans to apply for a Class II permit in 2016
Despite the change in criteria and development of alternative construction plans, the City
continued with the permit application process based on Rubio’s plans. DERM received the City
permit application Nov. 4, 2015 based on the Rubio plans and drainage calculations. The same
day, the City approved Wade Trim’s conceptual designs for an alternative stormwater drainage
that would accommodate connections to 12-inch yard drains installed on private property or in
Right-of-Ways adjacent to the property line in front of each lot on Palm Island West. Between
December 9, 2015 and May 9, 2016, the City approved successive iterations of the Kremers plans.
During the same period, the City conducted 100% milestone review of Rubio’s plans. In a letter
dated March 2, 2016 to CIP Senior Project Manager, Mark Tomcyk, PE; a Wade Trim Manager,
Victor H. Herrera, PE, confirmed a plan to replace Rubio as Engineer of Record after permits were
issued based on the Rubio plans and stated “As discussed, Wade Trim will be appropriating design
documents from Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS) for the Neighborhood 13 Palm and
Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements project once 100% submittal has
been fully approved by the City of Miami Beach and relevant permits acquired from South
Florida Water Management District and Miami-Dade RER.” (Exhibit 9)
Chapter 61G15-27.001 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) identifies the “Procedures for a
Successor Professional Engineer Adopting As Their Own the Work of Another Engineer”.
(Exhibit 9A) It seems that the intent of Mr. Herrera was that Wade Trim would obtain the CAS
drawings per the Rules of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers, modify the drawings and
calculations and submit the modified plans to the permitting agencies as a modification to the
permits issued.
TECHNICAL REPORT
10
The City issued a Second Notice to Proceed (NTP #2), with an effective date of January 28, 2016,
to the DBF for Phase 2 Services – Construction Work. The SFWMD issued 5-year Environmental
Resource Permit No. 13-06125-P on May 5, 2016 and DERM issued a 2-year Class II permit
20150058 on May 27, 2016. Unfortunately, the modifications to the original stormwater plans and
calculations were never submitted to the permitting agencies.
The DERM Class II General Conditions, Section 31, states as follows:
“If the engineer who provided certification pursuant to Section 24-48.2(I)(B)(2) or pursuant to
Section 24-48.2(II)(A)(4) is discharged by the property owner or his agent, or if said engineer
ceases to work on the proposed or approved work, all work by this permit shall immediately cease
and shall not be resumed until a new engineer is obtained. The property owner shall also be
required to obtain a new engineer who shall meet all the requirements of this permit.”
Focusing on the DERM Class II permit, it is my opinion that any major modifications to the permit
would probably have had an immediate stop work order, thereby causing unknown construction
delays and unknown additional costs.
B. City approves alternative plans for drainage system that accommodates yard drains
On May 18, 2016, Kremers and Wright completed work on the alternative plans. Consistent with
Wade Trim’s plan and understanding with the City, however, Kremers and Wright did not
immediately sign and seal the alternative plans. On May 27, 2016 DERM issued a Class II permit
based on the Rubio plans. On June 10, 2016, Kremers signed and sealed the alternative stormwater
drainage plans; Wright signed and sealed the alternative plans for the hardscape section. On June
10, 2016, Kremers signed and sealed the project’s alternative 100% Final Design plans.
On July 7, the City’s Public Works Department approved the Kremers plans. Thereafter DFB-
Lanzo built the stormwater drainage system based on Kremers plans during 2016. During 2017,
the City directed DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim to design and construct a secondary drainage system that
provided for additional 12-inch yard drains. The drawings for the new system extended over three
pages of the stormwater drainage plans.
I analyzed the Lanzo Primavera schedule update of March 31, 2020 for completed Drainage and
Roadway Construction activities during the DERM Class II permit No. 2015-0058 timeframe
(Issue Date: May 27, 2016; Expiration Date: May 27, 2018). The focus in the table below is Palm
Island: North/South Coconut Lanes and western Palm Avenue. My review of the entire schedule
update indicates that all drainage construction on Palm/Hibiscus Islands was completed by January
31, 2018.
TECHNICAL REPORT
11
Palm Island
Zone 3 – North Coconut Lane
Zone 4 – South Coconut Lane
Zone 6 – west cul-de-sac
Activities Finish Date
Z3PDR0030 Install Temporary Drainage May 27, 2016
Z3PDR0060 Palm Avenue Drainage Installation July 18, 2016
Z4PDR0060 Palm Avenue Drainage Installation Nov. 8, 2016
Z4PDR0030 Install Temporary Drainage Mar. 15, 2017
Z3PSR0060 Reconstruct Road Base Nov. 30, 2017
Z3PSR0070 Paving 1st Lift Dec. 1, 2017
Z3PDR0070 North Coconut Lane Drainage Jan. 12, 2018
Z3PSR0040 Sidewalks and Driveway Nov. 24, 2017
Z4PDR0070 Palm Avenue 18+00 West Drainage Installation Dec. 15, 2017
Z4PDR0080 South Coconut Lane Drainage Installation Jan. 31, 2018
C. The City’s application for a Class II permit in 2018
During 2017, the City directed DBF-Lanzo to make significant changes and addition to the
Kremers plans for the alternative drainage system. At the City’s direction, DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim
designed and constructed a secondary drainage system on Palm Island West that was connected to
additional swale and yard drains. The drawings for this additional infrastructure extended across
three pages of the stormwater plans.
Class II permits are issued for two years. In May 2018, the City submitted a second application
for a permit due to an expiring first permit. This permit application was signed by Carpenter
(again), representing the City as Applicant and Wade Trim Engineer of Record, Daniel Garcia,
P.E., the successor to Kremers. The DERM application required the City to submit construction
plans and drainage calculations based on those plans. However, CIP project manager/CIP Project
Coordinator Olga Sanchez did not include the plans or drainage calculations. In lieu of the
Kremers plans, the City staff submitted correspondence signed by Daniel Garcia, P.E. A DERM
supervising engineer, Mayra De Torres, sent Sanchez an email asking that the project’s Engineer
of Record certify that no significant changes had been made to the Rubio plans.
TECHNICAL REPORT
12
D. City tells DERM no significant changes were made to Rubio plans and obtains permit
On May 17, 2018, Garcia, as a Professional Engineer, signed a letter to DERM that said in part,
“The purpose of this letter is to state that the original signed and sealed plans dated February 22,
2016 for Hibiscus Island and February 26, 2016 for Palm Island and drainage calculations dated
October 2015 approved under CLII-20150058 have not had significant changes.” (Exhibit 11)
DERM accepted Garcia’s representations. On May 27, 2018, DERM Senior Professional Engineer
Maria Molina approved a second Class II permit (200180038) in official correspondence addressed
to Carpenter that said the permit had been approved “per signed and sealed plans by Orlando A.
Rubio, P.E., from Craig A. Smith & Associates, dated February 19, 2016 and the letter from Daniel
Garcia, P.E., from Wade Trim, Inc., dated May 17, 2018”.
As noted above, the DERM Class II Permit General Conditions, Section 31, is applicable:
“If the engineer who provided certification pursuant to Section 24-48.2(I)(B)(2) or pursuant to
Section 24-48.2(II)(A)(4) is discharged by the property owner or his agent, or if said engineer
ceases to work on the proposed or approved work, all work by this permit shall immediately cease
and shall not be resumed until a new engineer is obtained. The property owner shall also be
required to obtain a new engineer who shall meet all the requirements of this permit.”
The evidence shows that the City/DBF never disclosed the Kremers plans to DERM or notified
the agency of its new drainage design. During this investigation, DERM engineers Molina and De
Torres testified that they believe they were deliberately misled by the City and its representatives.
In my professional opinion, the evidence gathered during this investigation supports the testimony
of the DERM engineers: they were misled and misled more than once.
In my opinion, the statement in the Garcia letter to DERM that “no significant changes” had been
made to the Rubio plans was false and omitted facts that Mr. Garcia knew were material to the
request from deTorres and material to DERM’s review of the City’s second permit application.
The involvement of CIP staff in submitting the Garcia letter to DERM is consistent with other
evidence that indicates the City and DBF-Lanzo/Wade Trim acted in concert permitting matters.
By contract, it is the responsibility of the DBF-Lanzo to obtain all permits. Any modifications to
the permit(s) required the DBF to adhere to the permit conditions from the permitting agencies for
resubmittal of updated plans, specifications, calculations, etc.
Therefore, in my professional opinion, the DBF-Lanzo has constructed the stormwater
drainage system in the Palm/Hibiscus Infrastructure Improvements Project without a valid
SFWMD permit and DERM Class II Permits as the DBF-Lanzo did not comply with the
respective conditions of the said permits.
TECHNICAL REPORT
13
VII. Part 2: Exhibits and observations
This section contains excerpts from exhibits with observations. For purposes of comparison, it
begins sequential excerpts of pages from Feb. 26, 2016 100% Design Submittal (Rubio plans)
submitted to DERM and the May 16, 2016 WT/Kremer’s plans and related items. Subsequent
exhibits related to the installation o f asecondary drainage system in Palm Island West in 2017,
plans for WT engineer Kremers replaced CAS Rubio after DERM granted a Class II permit based
on Rubio’s plans; and representations to DERM in 2018 by the City and WT engineer Daniel
Garcia that no significant changes had been made to the original Rubio plans.
I analyzed the following sets of Palm Island plans:
The Rubio (CAS) Plans: Neighborhood 13 Palm Island Right-of-Way Infrastructure
Improvements February 26, 2016 SM-1205-A 100% Design Submittal (pages 1-72) and Set #2
Neighborhood 13 Hibiscus Island (pages 73-155) signed and sealed by Engineer of Record (EOR)
Orlando A. Rubio, P.E. Craig A. Smith & Associates; submitted to DERM with City of Miami
Beach application for Class II permit issued May 27, 2016.
The Kremers (WT) Plans: Set #1 May 18, 2016 SM-2015A Neighborhood 13 Palm island Right-
of-Way Infrastructure Improvements; Signed and sealed by Holly Kremers P.E (Wade Trim
Engineers) June 20, 2016; Hardscape page HS01-HS09 Signed & Sealed by Carey Wright.
Stamped and Signed Public Works Department July 7, 2016 “for Stormwater only”. Set #2 May
18, 2016 SM-2015-A Neighborhood 13 Hibiscus Island Right-of-Way Infrastructure
Improvements. Signed and sealed by Holly Kremers June 16, 2016; Pages HS01-HS15) Signed
and sealed by Carey Wright P.E. (Wade Trim Engineers) Stamped and signed by Public Works
Department July 7, 2016 “for Stormwater only”.
The Mullen (WT) As-Built Plans: Storm Drainage As Built plans signed and David Mullen, P.
E. (Wade Trim Engineers) Dec. 13, 2019. Set #1 Neighborhood 13 Palm Island Stormwater
Drainage As-Built Palm Island plans dated April 29, 2016 for Palm Island (pages 1-25) Set #2
Neighborhood 13 Hibiscus Island Stormwater Drainage As-Built (Undated) plans signed and
sealed Nov. 27, 2019 by David Mullen, P.E. (December 13, 2019) submitted to DERM.
TECHNICAL REPORT
14
E. General observations
Comparisons of Palm Island plans were made between the February 2016 CAS drawings and the
May 2016 WT drawings as identified in Exhibits 1 and 2 on the following pages. The storm
drainage plans showed significant changes, mainly in the area of North and South Coconut Lanes
on Palm Island. The WT storm drainage plans were advanced to show temporary/yard drains (and
private drains by others) in the plans and typical cross sections. Rim/grate elevations also changed
due to raising of the road elevations. The road elevations at North and South Coconut Lanes were
raised approximately 12" on the WT plans, which created significant property harmonization
problems.
Comparisons of WT Palm Island plans were made between the May 2016 WT drawings and the
December 2019 WT storm water As-Built drawings. The said December 2019 WT storm As-Built
plans incorporated the design changes recommended in the May 3, 2018 Drainage Report for Palm
Island prepared by WT engineer, Daniel Garcia, P.E., but never permitted through Miami-Dade
DERM.
The As-Built storm drainage plans had one major deviation: the addition of secondary 24”
drainage pipes on the south side of Palm Avenue west, draining towards the stormwater pump
station and new 30” drainage pipes connecting the west cul-de-sac drainage eastward towards
the stormwater pump station. There were other minor modifications in the storm water drainage
piping. Review of the roadway manhole rim elevations indicated the roadway was built in
substantial conformance with the WT May 2016 plans.
Comparisons of Hibiscus Island plans were also analyzed between the February 2016 CAS
drawings and the May 2016 WT drawings. The storm drainage plans were essentially the same,
with minor changes in storm water drainage piping. The pipe diameters remained the same. The
road elevations and roadway cross sections were essentially the same with only minor variances.
TECHNICAL REPORT
15
1. Exhibit 1 consists of two separate sheets. The first cover page is that of the CAS/Rubio
plans that served as basis of Class II permit issued May 27, 2016. The second cover
page is that of the WT/Kremers plans dated May 18, 2016 used by City to construct
drainage system.
TECHNICAL REPORT
16
2. Exhibit 2 consists of two separate sheets. Page SW06 from Rubio plans is a drawing of
the stormwater drainage system for South Coconut Lane. Page SW06 from Kremers
plans showing the stormwater drainage system with additional lateral pipes that
extend to the front of each lot.
Exhibit 2
TECHNICAL REPORT
17
3.Exhibit 3 consists of two sheets. The Typical Roadway Sections from Rubio plans forN.& S. Coconut Lanes and Coconut Ct. shows a swale-based drainage system within
Right-of-Ways (ROW). The Typical Roadway Sections by WT EOR Wright show
plans for connecting private yard drains and drains at edge of ROW; estimates called
for 90 12-inch yard drains.
Exhibit 3
TECHNICAL REPORT
18
4. Exhibit 4 (4 pages) Request for Information #035 “Private Property Drainage Water
Accommodation” dated Oct. 30, 2015 and attachments that included as attachments
WT drawings for Coconut Lane Tie-ins to yard drains installed in private lots or in
ROW adjacent to property line and subsequent email from former City Engineer
Bruce A. Mowry, P.E., also dated Oct. 30, 2015, approving proposed design.
Exhibit 4
19
TECHNICAL REPORT
20
TECHNICAL REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
21
5. Exhibit 5 Excerpt from Kremers plans (page G03) Construction Sequencing Notes
stating lateral pipes under road and yard drains “shall be temporary
drainage…during construction.”
Exhibit 5
6. Exhibit 6 is cover of City’s Technical Report submitted to DERM with permit
application in October 2015 with CAS (Rubio) as the Engineer of Record.
TECHNICAL REPORT
22
7. Exhibit 7 is excerpt from report, identified in Exhibit 6, explaining use of minimum
crown-of-road elevation of 2.2 feet NAVD for North & South Coconut Lanes and
Coconut Court. The design criteria elevation of 3.7 feet NAVD is “not possible”
because first finished floor elevations are below “future design groundwater design
basis 2.7 feet NAVD).
Exhibit 7
TECHNICAL REPORT
23
8. Exhibits 8 (4 pages) is excerpt from Drainage Report prepared by WT Engineer of
Record, Daniel Garcia, P.E., dated May 3, 2018, that show additional installations of
secondary drainage pipes on Palm Avenue that connect to private yard drains.
(Annotations and markups added for emphasis).
Exhibit 8
24
TECHNICAL REPORT
25
TECHNICAL REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
26
9. Exhibit 9 is correspondence dated from Wade Trim South Florida Manager to CIP
Senior Project Manager explaining that “once 100% submittal has been fully approved
by the City of Miami Beach and relevant permits acquired from South Florida Water
Management District and Miami-Dade RER” WT would replace CAS as the Engineer
of Record (no record of the transfer is provided per Exhibit 9A - Chapter 61G15-27 of the
Florida Administrative Code).
TECHNICAL REPORT
27
CHAPTER 61G15‐27
PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPTION OF ANOTHER’S WORK
61G15‐27.001 Procedures for a Successor Professional Engineer Adopting As Their Own the Work of Another
Engineer
61G15‐27.001 Procedures for a Successor Professional Engineer Adopting As Their Own the Work of Another
Engineer.
(1) A successor professional engineer seeking to reuse already sealed plans, prints, engineering specifications,
and/or engineering calculations under the successor professional engineer’s seal shall do so in compliance with
Section 471.025(4), F.S. In other words, calculations, site visits, research and the like must be documented and
producible upon demand. Plans, prints, engineering specifications, and/or engineering calculations need not be
redrawn by the successor professional engineer; however, justification for such action must be available through
well kept and complete documentation on the part of the successor professional engineer as to their having
rethought and reworked the entire design process. A successor professional engineer must use their own title block,
seal and signature and must remove the title block, seal and signature of the original professional engineer before
reusing any sealed, prints, engineering specifications, and/or engineering calculations used for permitted works.
(2) Prior to sealing and signing such work a successor professional engineer shall be required to notify the
original professional engineer, their successors, or assigns of the successor’s intention to use or reuse the original
professional engineer’s work. Notification shall be by certified letter or other verifiable communication to the last
known physical or electronic address of the original professional engineer.
(3) A professional engineer’s reliance upon and legal use of another’s engineering work, in the normal course of
providing original service, is not reuse or adoption of such other engineer’s work as contemplated by Section
471.025(4), F.S., and the professional engineer relying upon such work is not a “successor engineer” as used in that
section. Such engineering work includes but is not limited to, geotechnical reports, soil investigation reports, legal
surveys, and other works that may be sealed, but which are used to support the professional engineer’s work and
are not adopted as the professional engineer’s original service or work product.
Rulemaking Authority 471.033(2) FS. Law Implemented 471.025(4), 471.033(1)(j), 471.005(6) FS. History–New 8‐25‐87, Amended
4‐21‐88, 8‐3‐88, Formerly 21H‐27.001, Amended 8‐8‐18, 12‐29‐19.
TECHNICAL REPORT
28
10. Exhibit 10 is May 17, 2018 exchange of emails between DERM Engineer Mayra De
Torres to CIP Project. De Torres asks that the City submit a statement from EOR
certifying that no significant changes had been made to the Rubio plans that had
served as the basis of Class II permit issued May 27, 2016. Sanchez transmits
correspondence from Engineer of Record, Daniel Garcia.
Exhibit 10
TECHNICAL REPORT
29
11. Exhibit 11 is WT correspondence dated May 17, 2018 that Sanchez emailed as
attachment to DERM Engineer Mayra De Torres, wherein WT EOR Daniel Garcia
stated that Rubio plans that had served as the basis of the first Class II permit, and
Rubio plans and the drainage study calculations based on those plans, “had no had
significant changes” during construction.
Exhibit 11
TECHNICAL REPORT
30
12. Exhibit 12 is excerpt from DERM Class II permit dated May 27, 2018 issued to
designated City permittee Assistant City Manager Eric Carpenter and Wade Trim
EOR Holly Kremers, P. E. stating permit was issued “per signed and sealed plans by
Orlando A. Rubio, P.E., from Craig A. Smith & Associates., dated February 19, 2016
and the letter from Daniel Garcia, P.E., from Wade Trim, Inc., dated May 17, 2018.
Exhibit 12
TECHNICAL REPORT
31
VIII. Part 3 Evaluation of explanations by the City and Wade Trim
This section addresses the responses and explanations that witnesses from the City, Lanzo, and
Wade Trim provided during interviews with OIG and in statements to the City Commission. I was
asked by OIG Special Agent Jim McGee to consider the testimony by Garcia that he did not intend
to mislead DERM or conceal the Kremers plans from DERM, and testimony from both Garcia and
Kremers that it was permissible to disclose the changes to the Rubio plans to DERM in As-Built
plans at the end of the project. Garcia said this was always his intention. I was also asked to
consider statements by Carpenter during a hearing of the City Commission on Oct. 30, 2017,
wherein he said that “ultimately, it is a judgment call of DERM as to when is the most appropriate
time to go through that modification process, because the vast majority of all Class II permits are
modified at their closeout. Very seldom does anybody install a stormwater project that is exactly
the same as what was designed and funded.”
In my professional opinion, Ms. Kremers and Mr. Carpenter misstated the disclosure obligations
of a permittee and mischaracterized the Rubio plans. Carpenter twice signed DERM applications
(as the Permittee/Owner) for a Class II permit wherein he affirmed that “I will apprise the
Department of any changes to information provided in this application.” Carpenter also signed
an application for an Environmental Resources Permit from the South Florida Water
Management District (issued May 5, 2016) based on the Rubio plans. The state permit’s first
general condition said the following: “All activities shall be implemented following the plans,
specifications and performance criteria approved by this permit. Any deviations must be
authorized in a permit modification in accordance with Rule 62-330.315, F.A.C. Any deviations
that are not so authorized shall subject the permittee to enforcement action and revocation of the
permit under Chapter 373, F.S. for the Palm and Hibiscus project.”
In my opinion, Carpenter also mischaracterized the practices of DERM and other regulatory
agencies regarding the use of As-Built plans. DERM and other agencies do recognize that
unforeseen circumstances occur during construction projects that require the general contractor
to make minor adjustments in the field that differ from construction plans. For reasons of
efficiency, permitting agencies typically allow the disclosure of minor changes in As- Built plans
submitted at the end of a project. If the agency concludes that the changes are significant enough
to warrant a modification of the permit, the original permit will be modified. As Carpenter said,
in such instances “it is a judgment call of DERM” whether a permit needs to be modified.
However, this is not one of those instances. In this case, the evidence shows that the project’s
owner (the City), the DBF-Lanzo and its subconsultant engineering firm (Wade Trim) seemed to
knowingly engaged in a concerted effort during the DERM permit review process to develop an
alternative set of construction plans to accommodate the connection of private yard drains. During
2016, Lanzo used the Kremers plans to construct dozens of 12-inch yard drains and an array
of pipes to connect those drains to the stormwater main pipe.
TECHNICAL REPORT
32
During construction of the stormwater drainage system on Palm Island West, the City was in
possession of a Class II permit for the Palm and Hibiscus project. However, the evidence shows
that DERM unwittingly issued that permit based on plans to construct a different drainage system,
one that was not designed to accommodate swale/private yard drains. In my opinion, the exhibits
and testimony I reviewed support a conclusion that the City constructed a stormwater drainage
system on Palm Island West without a valid permit.
F. Claim that unpermitted yard drains were a temporary condition
I was asked to consider the testimony of Kremers, Garcia, and other witnesses who contended
that the 12-inch yard drains installed in the Right-of-Ways were a “temporary condition” to
mitigate flooding of private lots during construction of the system and, further, that it was always
their intention that these “temporary yard drains” would be capped and abandoned at the end of
construction.
Given the totality of the evidence, it is my opinion that the designation of the 12-inch yard drains
as “temporary yard drains” may have been mislabeled. Any temporary drains would be considered
a means and method of construction by the contractor to keep the area as dry as possible where
work was to be performed. Temporary drains for means and methods of construction are not
typically shown on construction plans as they will have been removed before the completion of
the stormwater drainage construction. Permanent drains can function as temporary drains,
however, these permanent drains must be shown on the construction plans. There was no reason
to obscure to the purpose of the yard drains and evade responsibility for failing to disclose the
existence of these drains during the 2018 DERM application process. On this subject, I credit the
testimony of Public Works Director, Roy Coley, who stated that the laterals and yard drains were
always intended to be permanent installations and were approved for permanent use by the Public
Works Department.
TECHNICAL REPORT
33
IX. Part 4: Factors the contributed to the project unfinished status.
The balance of this report provides additional observations about the factors that had an adverse
impact during planning, design, and construction phases of the project and the administration of
the City’s progressive design-build contract with DBF-Lanzo. In my professional opinion, two
related factors were the primary cause of the project’s troubled history and unfinished status.
The first was the sustained and intense pressure that former Mayor Levine, the Mayor’s Blue
Ribbon Committee, and the Homeowners Association from Palm and Hibiscus Islands placed on
City staff to accelerate their work on the project during the development of the project Design
Criteria Package (DCP) and during the project’s pre-construction design phase and the
construction phase.
The second was the concurrent and also sustained pressure on City staff to incorporate the new
design criteria into the project, specifically including the minimum grate elevation of 2.7 NAVD
and the minimum crown-of-road elevation criteria of 3.7 feet NAVD. Accelerating work on a
complex design-build construction project was a challenging and high risk assignment for the
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) staff, the Design Criteria Professional, and the design-build
team DBF-Lanzo and its engineering consultants, Wade Trim, and Craig A. Smith & Associates.
Incorporating the City’s new design criteria into the Palm and Hibiscus project was a separate,
distinct and equally challenging high-risk assignment.
Requiring that both of these complex tasks be accomplished simultaneously with the resources
available to CIP was, in my judgement, an error. There is virtual certainty that the generation of
engineering design changes and contract administration issues would be costly and complicated to
mitigate. The City’s decision at the end of the project’s design phase to change the minimum
crown-of-road criteria to 3.7 feet NAVD was a serious error of design management. It compounded
the already intense pressure on CIP and Lanzo exponentially.
Below is a chronology of events leading to the City Commission approval of the Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP):
The City negotiated Phase 1 - Design and Pre-Construction Services with the DBF in the
amount of $599,464 approved on September 18, 2014 based on the original DCP in the
RFQ.
During the period from June 2013 and October 2014, the City’s Stormwater Master Plan
Consultant, AECOM, was contracted to review the DCP. City staff from the Public Works
Department were also tasked to review the DCP to implement modifications as outlined in
the Stormwater Master Plan.
The City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28852, (dated November 19, 2014)
approving Amendment No. 1 with DBF-Lanzo in the amount of $251,016 for additional
design services associated with the adopted enhanced stormwater criteria.
TECHNICAL REPORT
34
•The City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-29178, (dated October 14, 2015)
approving Amendment No. 2 with the DBF in the amount of $73,240 for additional design
services required to meet the revised City Landscape ordinance, comments from the Home
Owners Association, and the changes in criteria from the City’s Fire and Public Works
Departments related to the placement of Florida Power and Light (FPL) transformers
within the public right-of-way.
•City CIP Staff contracted with Rib U.S. Cost to provide a 90% Construction Cost Estimate
for the Palm and Hibiscus Islands Neighborhood Improvement Projects. The November
25, 2015 report estimated a base cost of $31,008,940, which did not include the 7.5%
design-build fee and owner’s contingency fee.
•The Agreement between the City and Lanzo for Progressive Design Build Services, dated
September 18, 2014, contained Article 4.3 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) (Phase 2
Services), which described the acceptance/rejection procedures for the GMP. The City
had the option at this point to terminate the contract and re-examine the project.
However, the City decided to proceed and accepted the DBF’s GMP.
•The City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-29643, (dated December 9, 2015)
approving Amendment No. 3 with the DBF for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of
$36,500,000 plus a $2,000,000 City contingency for Phase 2 – Construction Services.
•The Office of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) issued Notice to Proceed #2 to the DBF
dated January 28, 2016 for the commencement of construction work (Phase 2). The DBF
was given 540 days to complete Phase 2, by July 22, 2017, as documented in the DCP.
At that point, CIP was managing a fundamentally different project that required the DBF-Lanzo
and its subconsultant engineer, Wade Trim, to design a modified stormwater drainage system. In
my professional opinion, adopting that strategy was a fundamental error. Under pressure to begin
construction, the City/DBF failed to consider that a modified stormwater drainage system design
and change in the EOR may have caused DERM to stop the project for additional modified permit
review time. After concluding that the King Tide phenomenon made it imperative that the
minimum crown-of-road elevations for North and South Coconut Lanes and Coconut Court be
raised by an additional 1.5 feet, the City should have stopped the project, refined the DCP, and
issued a new solicitation. However, stopping or deferring the project was not a serious option due
to the pressure placed on City staff.
Under pressure to begin construction, the City took a different path. At that point in time, the
combined pressure to speed up their work and the imperative to embed the design criteria in the
project’s construction plans compelled the City/DBF-Lanzo to proceed with a design that the
responsible City officials knew would cause flooding of homes on Palm Island West. The exhibits
and testimony are replete with indicators of this pressure and the deleterious consequences that
stemmed from the pressure City staff felt to continue the progress of this project.
TECHNICAL REPORT
35
That decision triggered a sequence of events and other decisions that set the stage for the actions
previously described. It is important to note that the lack of communication and truthful exchanges
with the permitting agencies exposed the City and DBF to scrutiny and significant additional costs
in the construction of this project, which, as of the date of this report, is not completed.
Auditor's Financial Analysis
PALM AND HIBISCUS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT’SCAPITAL
BUDGET ESTIMATE INCREASED FROM $9,086,774 TO $50,217,166 MAINLY DUE TO
DESIGN AND SCOPE CHANGES
The original intent of the project was completely different from the actual construction. The
City requested changes during the design phase and the construction process that increased the project budget from $9 million to a $50 million-dollar project. Those changes included adding generators, increasing the roadway crowns generally to 3.7’ NAVD, raising the Palm lower areas, Coconut Lane one-way redesign, re-design and relocation of drainage system to avoid Tree / Hedges Removal, lowering roadway elevations and additional secondary drainage on
Hibiscus Island installation of underground sleeves and conduits design on Coconut Lane, permitting, construction and harmonization of additional private storm drains , among other changes. It seems that the City did not have a clear understanding of the scope of the project during the design phase prior to construction.
Over the years, Palm and Hibiscus had problems with the inadequate drainage infrastructure and low ground elevations that created a condition of moderate flooding in the area and contributed to deteriorated roadways.
The City made the decision to address these issues, and, on June 8, 2012, entered into an
agreement with Stantec (formerly Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman, PA or C3TS) to develop a Design Criteria Package (DCP) for the Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement for Neighborhood No.13 Palm & Hibiscus Islands and to evaluate compliance of the project construction.
The Mayor and City Commission at that time approved the issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 251- 2013TC on October 24, 2012, for Design/ Build Services for Neighborhood No. 13: Palm & Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement Project. The RFQ was issued on June 10, 2013, with an opening date of July 11, 2013, with
the Design Criteria Package provided by Stantec dated June 14, 2013.
On September 18, 2014 the City of Miami Beach entered into an agreement with Lanzo Construction Co. Florida to perform design, and construction of the Palm & Hibiscus Islands Right of Way (ROW) Infrastructure Improvement Project under the progressive design- build
methodology in the amount of $599,464. The Design-Builder was to initiate the design period,
encompassing the completion of the design to the level needed to define actual construction costs and begin construction activities in the field; collaborate with the City during the design process to ensure that design solutions reflect the most efficient construction means and methods and that the Project would meet the schedule, quality, permitting, and safety
requirements; and procure long lead items, conduct field investigations, and early release
construction packages; and once Design- Builder had advanced in the design to a sufficient level of detail to produce a reliable estimate with well- understood risks and contingencies, a
cost of construction (Guaranteed Maximum Price) will be submitted by the Design- Builder to the City for its approval.
Soon after the City entered into an agreement with Lanzo Construction Co. the City passed (Resolution No. 2014-28852) on recommendation of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding and Sea Rise and the Flooding Mitigation Committee, as well as the City's Flooding Mitigation Consultant (AECOM) calling for design services for additional pump stations on
both Palm and Hibiscus Islands, new surveying services, revisions to the 30% Design
Drawings, increasing the road minimum elevation, and Design Review meetings with the Community; and pursuant to these required design modifications, the Design-Build Firm submitted a proposal for these additional services in the not-to exceed amount of $251,016.
The contractor, Lanzo, hired Orlando Rubio from Craig A. Smith Associates to design the
drainage system for "Neighborhood No.1 3A: Palm and Hibiscus Islands Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement Project" consisting of elevated roadways, where possible, installation of new potable water main systems, installation of stormwater collection systems with three stormwater pumping stations equipped with water quality treatment units and
gravity bypass stormwater outfalls with dissipation structures discharging into Biscayne Bay
within 25.53 acres of existing rights-of-way. The technical report dated October 2015 submitted with the permit application stated that the City’s criteria requires that minimum road crowns are set at or above elevation 3.7’ NAVD;
however, for the Palm Island West System and primarily on North and South Coconut Lane,
this was not possible due to the existing topography encountered below the future design groundwater elevation of 2.7’ NAVD. As such, North and South Coconut Lane road crown elevations would be no lower than 2.2’ NAVD as allowed by CMB. The criteria posed significant driveway harmonization and resident accessibility issues, which could not be
addressed at that time unless each affected lot underwent total or complete redevelopment. The
City would then elevate the road and drainage rims/grates in that area at a later time. However, after a king tides event on October 2015, Bruce Mowry the former City Engineer eliminated the relaxed 2.2’ NAVD on the Coconut Lanes, triggering a chain of events that caused scope changes that substantially increased the project budget.
On October 14, 2015, the City Commission authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Lanzo Construction Amendment No. 2 (Resolution No. 2015-29178) to incorporate additional design services required to meet the revised City landscape ordinance, comments from Home Owners Association (HOA), the City's Fire Department analysis, the City’s Public
Works Department (PWD) change in criteria relating to the placement of Florida Power and
Light (FPL) transformers within the City Right-of-Way, and other design criteria clarifications. This amendment increased the contract price by a not-to-exceed sum of $73,240. At this point, Lanzo Construction had already billed the City $923,720 on design services
(Phase 1). The 90% design plans completed by Rubio were used as the basis to develop a
guaranteed maximum price. If the City did not agree with the price, the manager would have the alternative to exercise the “off-ramp” provision of the Agreement, allowing the City to
terminate Lanzo’s services and seek alternate contractors to complete the Phase 2 construction services.
On December 9, 2015, the City Commission authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into further negotiations with Lanzo Construction Co. (Resolution No. 2015-29243) to execute guaranteed maximum price (GMP) Amendment No. 3 in the amount not to exceed $35,000,000 plus a ten percent owner’s project contingency, and 2,000,000 owners contingency for a grand
total of $38,500,000.
After the execution of the project Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), the Public Works Department requested the addition of 2,700 linear feet (LF) of 6" diameter ductile iron pipe and 9 gate valves to be installed in all side streets (courts) within Hibiscus Island. On July 21,
2016 Change Order No.1, was issued from the approved contingency funds in the amount of
$313,905.06 for the additional watermain installation and to supply and maintain temporary pumps to mitigate king tides on Palm and Hibiscus Islands. On October 29, 2018, Change Order No. 2, was issued from the approved contingency funds
in the amount of $686,094.94, for additional services requested by the City, which included,
force main replacement; additional water main drainage on Hibiscus Island; additional temporary pavement; Hurricane Irma impacts; associated general conditions and other miscellaneous work; credits related to scope of work reductions in street lighting, speed tables and road width reduction along North and South Coconut Lanes; and a time extension of four
hundred and sixty-seven (467) calendar days.
The most significant changes included as part of Change Order No. 2 are the following:
1. RCO# 11 - Coconut Lane One-Way Redesign - After the construction plans were approved for the project, the Palm and Hibiscus Home Owners Association requested the conversion of the Coconut Lanes to a one-way roadway in order to accommodate the underground utilities equipment for the future franchise utility undergrounding of West Palm Island per Resolution No.2016-29643. In order to accommodate this request, the
portion of the island had to be re-designed. This additional work includes additional design efforts. The impact to the schedule for this additional design effort is 70 days. 2. RCO#17- Palm Avenue South Re-Design and Relocation of Drainage System to Avoid Tree/Hedges Removal - The original project construction documents included the
stormwater collection system along the south side of Palm Avenue to be installed in the swale area. The City of Miami Beach Commission voted on July 13, 2016, not to remove any tree/hedges located two or more feet behind the existing curb and gutter. The Design/Build Team re-designed and re-routed the storm water collection system to be constructed within the roadway and installed additional piping and drainage structures to
accommodate the existing trees and hedges within the swales. This additional work includes the design, labor and material associated with the shifting of the system to the roadway. The impact to the schedule for this additional work is 55 days.
3. RCO#19- Hibiscus Island Lowering Roadway Elevations and Additional
Secondary Drainage - The original project construction documents for Hibiscus Island
included the raising of the roadway at locations to an elevation higher than the 3.7’ NAVD minimum City standards to minimize the restoration efforts and reduce the need for harmonization within private property. CIP requested that the Design/Build Team revise and re-design these affected areas. The new design included the lowering of the roadways
and installing additional secondary drainage at these locations. This additional work
includes the redesign of the hardscape plans, revision of the drainage modeling for Hibiscus Island, recalculation of the proposed swale grading, addition of collection structures in some areas, depiction of existing elevations, final design elevations and new proposed elevations. This additional work includes, re-design, labor and material associated with
the lowering of the roadways and adding secondary drainage. The impact to the schedule
for this additional work is 45 days. 4. RCO#20- Coconut Lane Underground Sleeves - The Homeowners Association informed the City about their future plans to underground the overhead utilities on the west
side of Palm Island. In an effort to minimize the need of excavate the new constructed
roadway CIP requested the installation of underground sleeves and conduits while building the North and South Coconut Lane streets. These sleeves were installed at strategic locations crossing the road from one side to the other in order to facilitate the future installation of FPL, ATT and ABB systems. This additional work includes labor and
material associated with the installation of the underground sleeves. The impact to the
schedule for this additional work is 35 days. 5. RCO #23- Additional general conditions (467 days x amount per day $923.57 as per negotiated number).
On December 26, 2018, Amendment No. 4 (Change Order No. 3), was issued in the amount
of $1,900,000, for work associated with the design, permitting, installation, testing, start-up and certification of auxiliary power bi-fuel generator for the three (3) stormwater Pumps Stations.
On April 18, 2019, Amendment No. 5 (Change Order No. 4), was issued in the amount of $775,000 for costs associated with additional design, permitting and construction services
including installation of a yard drain and connection to the City’s drainage system,
harmonization and restoration within the private property to its original or better condition as well as General Conditions Costs, General Allowance, Design Builders Fee and Specific Allowance for certain required tasks, which level of effort is unknown at this time.
On July 19, 2019, Amendment No. 6 (Change Order No. 5) was approved to include a credit
in favor of the City in the amount of $50,000 for the removal of a portion of landscaping scope not to be performed by Lanzo under this Agreement, the portion of landscape work also establishes a General Allowance in the amount of $500,000 from the previously authorized Project contingency funds to be allocated towards future unforeseen tasks associated with the
completion of this Project and as further set forth in the Agreement.
On September 11, 2019, pursuant to the additional scope required for the implementation of the new drainage directive (Resolution No. 2019-30683), the Mayor and the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-30984 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No.
7 in the amount of $840,000 plus 84,000 City contingency for the design, permitting,
construction and harmonization of additional private storm drain connections, inclusive of additional work on the previously approved properties, for a total of approximately 95 properties. This Amendment shall be subject and conditioned upon Mayor and City Commission’s approval of the fiscal year 2020 Capital Budget pertaining to this project.
On September 24, 2019, Amendment No. 7 (Change Order No. 6) was approved in the amount of $840,000 plus $84,000 City contingency for additional scope required for the implementation of the new drainage directive, increasing the number of private drain connections and augmented the treatment requirements for previously approved properties for
the design, permitting, construction and harmonization of additional private storm drain
connections, inclusive of additional work on the previously approved properties, for a total of approximately 95 properties.
Per Eric Carpenter’s January 21, 2021 memorandum, he stated “The City entered into a
progressive design/build contract with Lanzo Construction that resulted in a Guarantee
Maximum Price authorization by the City Commission for $38.5 Million. The addition of several scope changes directed by the Commission has resulted in a final construction cost of $40.9 Million.”
However, in addition to the amounts paid to Lanzo Construction Co. for the Progressive Design
Build, the City also hired contractors to provide additional consulting services that increased the total Project Cost. As shown below, the total amount paid according to E-builder was $46.9 million, the current commitments are $49.7 million, and the total Budget is $50.2 million as of February 4, 2021.
In addition, AECOM’s Task Order 2 Flood Mitigation Consulting Services, Task 0001 Develop Project Work Plan includes the following tasks that were already performed:
• Project Management Activities including meetings with City staff
• Review of various documents and projects including Lower North Bay Road, Palm & Hibiscus Islands, and Sunset Islands 3 & 4
• Prepare drainage portions of Design Criteria Packages for Palm & Hibiscus
Islands and Central Bayshore South
• Attend Blue Ribbon Panel, Land Use and Sustainability & Resiliency Committee meetings.
• Preparation of Deep Well Injection Feasibility White Paper
• Assistance with Florida Stormwater Association Presentation
• Resiliency Study – Code Review
• Stormwater Utility Rate Study Evaluation for ERU adjustment and Impact Fees.
• Develop preliminary methodology for Payment in Lieu of stormwater connection fee.
• Historic Neighborhoods and Elevation Maps
• Base Flood Elevation White Paper
• Indian Creek Linear Park State Revolving Fund RFI
• Indian Creek Linear Park Facilities Plan and Preliminary Design
• Statement of Work and Use of Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Models
• Engineer’s Bond Report and Updates to 5-year Master Plan
• Meetings concerning the bonding and preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the bonds
• Engineer’s Opinion of Preliminary Construction Cost for pumping station and surface facilities costs
• Research, review, and revise Miami Beach City Code – Building Code and Flood Ordinances
Although Task Order 2 included work performed on Palm and Hibiscus islands, there was no known means to accurately allocate these expenditures among the other projects. Therefore, the actual cost of the Palm and Hibiscus island project is most likely even higher than the $49.7 million already committed.
The followings are Palm and Hibiscus Island Enhancement expenditures actuals paid as of
February 4, 2021:
Recommendations: It is important that the Capital Improvement Projects office (CIP) implement aspects of best practices for managing projects, including the following recommendation intended to strengthen the City’s ability to manage future projects and avoid the problems that drove up
costs in Palm & Hibiscus project:
1. The City should have a better understanding of the intended project before starting the procurement process. 2. If the City’s policies change, City staff should analyze and consider the impact
(financial, design, time, etc.) of applying those changes to projects that are in the
construction process already. The Commission could consider requiring the project manager to certify that any proposed change is essential to the success of the project and
provide realistic estimates of the estimated costs and impact on the project’s schedule.
3. Making significant changes to a project’s design criteria or construction plans after work has begun poses a significant risk to the success of a neighborhood infrastructure improvement project and should be avoided. To mitigate the risk of cost escalation caused by changes in a projects design criteria or construction plans the city can establishes a
formal mechanism to evaluate, document, and authorize any significant change that is
proposed after a project’s bid is issued. 4. The City could enhance its ability to provide oversight of CIP’s capital improvement program by completing an annual Affordability Analysis based on current cost estimates and schedules for all stormwater drainage and neighborhood improvement
projects. An Affordability Analysis would help decisionmakers determine if there is
adequate funding to complete CIP’s capital projects.