Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Schulke E-Mail Page 1 of 4 Joseph W. Schulke, P.E. From: Joseph W. Schulke, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:44 AM To: Betsy Field-Connelly Cc: joeschulke @yahoo.com Subject: RE: Indian River Drive/Main Street project Hi Betsy, Great, I would be happy to meet with the S.P.O.A. on June 4th. I do want to mention a couple of things. I do not know why anyone would think this has been railroaded. I was not involved with this project until recently, but I understand that last year City Council had several public meetings where several iterations of conceptual plans were prepared by another consultant, and revised based on council and public comments. Council then voted to commence the process to hire an engineer to complete the design. My firm simply responded to a Public P 9 P 9 Y "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ)for Professional Services-that is, the city had advertised that it had a project it q ( ) is going to design/ permit/construct-and it needed the services of the most qualified engineer to take the project to the next step-that is to formalize design and permitting, and assist the City with the Site Contractor Bidding/ construction contract. This RFQ was advertised in the newpaper. Also, interesting to note-the RFQ had a conceptual plan attached as an exhibit-the one the city approved. Therefore, as you can imagine, any engineer responding to this RFQ understood that this was a project that had been reviewed, considered and discussed by the city and its' residents. I do believe my firm is the best deal the city could have gotten. Our response to the RFQ speaks for itself. We were with-out a doubt the most prepared firm,we have the best qualifications and experience for this project, and we were the only firm that specifically evaluated the project(where all other firms only gave their general qualifications and company resume). We had our Landscape Architect, Environmental consultant, and engineers evaluate the field conditions (we all went on site several times), we interviewed many interested people, we evaluated the city's CRA Plan, we reviewed the city's current lease with the chamber,we than evaluated the city's conceptual plan and we identified its problems, we then found several solutions, and ultimately we prepared a Conceptual plan that was not unlike the one approved by the city, but significantly then basically submit their resume. Have you improved where needed. Again, no other firm did anything other the y y seen the response to the RFQ that we submitted???? We did this in two weeks time! The city will get the same level of interest, involvement, and diligence from our firm that has been shown in our efforts to date. Have you had other firms meet with the POA in the past??? In our proposal, we anticipated numerous meetings with staff, organizations like yours, several public workshops, meetings with adjacent neighbors and businesses. Our proposal includes A to Z, with a comittment to the city to credit the city for any of the services we do not provide if they are deemed to be unneccessary. For example, the SJRWMD sometimes requires a Phase I Archeological Survey. We have included this in our proposal. (I think it is about$4500 -It is 1:00 am, and I do not have my files at home to confirm this amount). If we obtain a waiver from the state Division of Historical Resources,which is very possible on this site, the city will see this credit Another example: I met with IRC traffic Engineer/Public Works Asst. Director Chris Mora about this project last Tuesday. He indicated that IRC has a signal plan in place for the Main St./US 1 intersection, and he would provide free of charge , signed/sealed Signalization Plan/ Modifications needed for submittal to FDOT and for Contractors bid sets. This is a substantial savings that the city will see as a credit in our contract($10,000) I believe we are the most Qualified Engineer, and the best deal for the city Further, we have an interest in the success of this project that I do not believe any other firm has, because many of us our residents of the city. I am a resident of the City, and so is my partner, Stuart Houston -the president of our survey Co.(Houston, Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, Inc.), and so is our Environmenmtal Consultant, Stephanie Savilla (Bio-Tec), and we have several employees that are also residents. The survey requirements are based on typical FDOT standards-when we commence the permitting of this project,we will need to obtain at least three permits from just the FDOT, including: 1. FDOT drainage connection permit. 2. FDOT driveway Connection permit(Main St. modifications) 3. FDOT General permit(for signalized 5/29/2007 Page 2 of 4 intersection modifications at Main /US 1, sidewalk modifications, utility modifications). The FDOT will not evaluate these permits without a current survey of its facilities adjacent to the site. The state does not generally survey its facilities unless there is a current state design project underway. If there was, the survey would not neccessarily tie into our project survey with any level of accuracy, an electronic file would not be available, and certianly, we would not be able to obtain signed/sealed versions of the survey document that we are required to submit to other jurisdictional agencies (ie: SJRWMD), and without a signed and sealed survey, I could not rely on the information in the survey for our engineering design/calculations (For example - if we relied on a copy of this document for existing grades of the US 1 pavement or sidewalks or location of existing facilities/ utilities or drainage pipes, as it pertains to the design of drainage or Main Street modifications, and the survey has an error that we had relied on for our design, and therefore our design is now in error,we do not have a contract, the surveyor who prepared the survey for the FDOT does not have any obligation to our firm or the City, and we do not have any recourse for the problem) The city may not be paying for any fill in large areas of the site, but based on my experience, I would assume it will. However,we do not know until we have fully engineered/designed the site. There are numerous factors involved in determining the elevation of the site, but most are drainage design driven. The state (SJRWMD) has very strict criteria for drainage for new pavement areas, all for the purpose of retaining pollutants from entering the Indian River(examples being oil, grease, antifreeze of other products from motorvehicles that fall/leak etc. from vehicles, fertilizers from lawn/garden maintenance). The criteria requires us to retain the run-off in retention areas or underground basins (exfiltration trenches), which must be above the seasonal high water table. Generally, land near the River is at a relatively low elevation, and must be raised to permit these required retention areas to be constructed and function properly, percolate effectiveley, and hold the required volume of stormwater run-off The bottom line is that the cost you have seen is based on an educ ated/experienced preliminary estimate of costs.... I think the cost question, and perhaps other related questions, are based on the supporting information I submitted to the City with my contract. We prepared a construction cost estimate for the city's use and information. It was based on the conceptual plan we prepared in response to the City's RFQ, and is not too different from the city's previous plan prepared by others. This estimate was not required to be prepared, and was prepared by my firm for informational purposes. As I said, it is based on a conceptual plan - not an engineered/designed plan....However, it is, I believe a good budgeting tool, and provides the city an idea of the upper end of what it may spend. We provide conceptual estimates for most of our clients' projects. Otherwise, how would anyone know how to make an informed decision on financial matters for a proposed project. We always try to be conservative on these estimates-we do not like surprises when the project's construction is out to bid. I am surprised to hear Mr. Gilliams has voiced some displeasure with my firm. After the public hearing when council voted to award the contract to my firm, I spoke with him. He told me his discussions were not personal, and that he was really voicing his displeasure with the state law that requires public entities to hire professionals (attorneys, accountants, surveyors, architects, engineers, etc) based on Qualifications and not on "low bid", and that he was also voicing his displeasure because of some disagreements between him and one or more council members If there is more to it than that, I am certainly not aware of it. I only know Mr. Gilliam through several chance meetings at council, at a restaurant, etc. I do know my survey company provided a survey for him for his Marina about a year ago, but I do not manage day to day operations of our survey company, so I only recently learned that we did work for him. I am certain he is happy with the work Anyway, I look forward to Mr. Gilliams attendence and his suggestions on the project. Finally, I wanted to reiterate that I was hoping I could meet with your organization to discuss the development plan AND EMPHASIZE THAT THERE WILL BE SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS AT CITY COUNCIL where the public can provide its input and insight. I hope to explain the plan concepts/proposed improvements, and get input from the POA members on what they like or dislike with the concepts, and recieve positive suggestions/ comments. Also, please understand that the Plan we have developed to date is only a conceptual plan, based on the city's previous plan,with minor changes and improvements. This plan is not the final plan, and may(probably will) be changed under the direction of city council with the input and insight of the residents at several public hearings Also, please remember I am not in the position to discuss the history of the project or whether the project was railroaded through. I was not involved in the city's previous review or approvals of the project, and I have been recently hired to complete the design of a proposed improvement to the city that will benefit the public. Could you meet Saturday morning, June 2, perhaps at JP Matteys? (Around 9:00 am) 5/29/2007 Page 3 of 4 I look forward to working with you, the POA, and any other residents who have an interest in the city's future. Sincerely, Joseph Schulke From: Betsy Field-Connelly [mailto:tutandbetsyconnelly @ comcast.net] Sent: Mon 5/28/2007 8:06 PM To: Joseph W. Schulke, P.E. Subject: Re: Indian River Drive/Main Street project Hi, Joe, I would be very pleased to invite you to our June 4th meeting at 7pm in the North County Library(immediately west of Walgreens on 512). I can tell you there are lots of questions and issues with this project. There seems to be a common belief that this project has been "railroaded"through and that yours (your firm) is not necessarily the best deal Sebastian could have gotten. Questions I have been asked include, why are we paying for a survey of US 1 in this area?This is a state road and the surveys already exist...?Why are we paying for fill for large areas in the project?There are many other questions. These are not necessarily MY opinions, Joe, I am simply passing along information. I welcome your input to our group on Monday. We will have a Sebastian Police representative speak first and this is not expected to last more than 30 minutes. You may address the group next. I must caution you to try to stick to main points of the project and how they affect us as citizens, why this project is necessary at all, and to keep to language for the "common" folk who will be there. Also, I feel compelled to warn you that Mr. Damien Gilliams will most probably be in attendance as well. He has voiced some, how shall I say.... displeasure...with your firm. As Chair, I will do my best to keep order and keep things moving along in a friendly tone. I mention this so you don't feel like a target. I look forward to seeing you and I would love to have coffee or lunch with you before the meeting. The only time I am free, however is on the weekend or on THAT Monday during the day. My cell number is 538-1831 and if you call me,we can arrange a meeting between us first. This is important and we need to meet eachother so let's try and hook up some way. Call me we will get this ball rolling, I look forward to it!! Yours, Betsy Field-Connelly President of Sebastian Property Owners Association Original Message From: Joseph W. Schulke, P.E. To: tutandbetsyconnelly @comcast.net Cc: aminner @cityofsebastian.org. Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:49 PM Subject: Indian River Drive/Main Street project Betsy Connelly; Sebastian Property Owners Association: Hello. I am Joe Schulke, P.E. with Schulke, Bittle &Stoddard, L.L.C. and we are the civil engineer recently hired by the City of Sebastian to design and permit the Indian River Drive/Main Street project, which will include the realignment of Indian River Drive, boat trailer parking area improvements, and general traffic and pedestrian circulation improvements within the vicinity. 5/29/2007 Page 4 of 4 We are planning on working with Council during several public workshops to receive valuable input from the public on this project. However, we are also meeting with local associations, business owners, etc for their input on the proposed project. I understand your organization has a meeting in June, but does not have meetings in July or August. I would like to take the opportunity to meet with your organization in June to discuss the project. If you believe this is an idea worth pursuing, please contact me with your schedule.Also, I would be happy to meet with you prior to the meeting to explain the project. Thank you. Joseph w schulke, P. F. schullee, gittle Stoddard, 171y uv-diai.River Blvd,Ste. 201 Vera Beach, FL 32.960 (P)772 y70:J622 (F)7y2770 94_96 Jschulleeesbseivineers,cope PLEASE NOTE: This information is provided solely for your convenience only;SCHULKE,BITTLE&STODDARD LLC makes no representations or warranties,either express or implied,as to its suitability for any specific purpose.While we believe this drawing file to be accurate at the time of retrieval,this media and its contents can be easily altered or corrupted either purposely or inadvertently through any number of sources. For this reason,SCHULKE,BITTLE&STODDARD LLC,its managers and or employees shall be indemnified and held harmless from any and all liability that may arise or result from the use of this information by your firm,employees,agents or sub-contractors.Any use of the file provided herein constitutes acceptance of the provisions stated herein. The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose,copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately.Your assistance is appreciated. 5/29/2007