On November 22, 2024, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided us with a copy of the letter sent to Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, the CDBG Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project, stating: “…This office notes that the property located at 311 SW 3rd Street, Stuart Florida (8MT346) appears to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. We previously commented on the proposed rehabilitation of 8MT346 and in a letter dated December 1, 2023, stated that the undertaking should have no adverse effect on historic properties provided the new work match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish. Based on the information provided, the completed work does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and does not meet the conditions set forth by this office in our 2023 letter…” SHPO also provided us with the letter dated December 1, 2023.
You are welcome to download and read the letters.
We, the historical building’s owners, had no knowledge of the letter dated December 1st, 2023. The City of Stuart CDBG Project Manager Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas,Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc., a top-ranking firm” contracted by the City to assist with the CDBG grant management, and the the City of Stuart CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group knew about the conditions that should be met on rehabilitation of our historical building. We were deprived of this crucial information. We even didn’t know about the correspondence between The City of Stuart CDBG Project Management and SHPO until November, 2024. And it is apparent it was done intentionally. Even after our July 19th, 2024, complaint with photographs about the damages inflicted to our historical building by the CDBG contractor, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas has never disclosed to us the SHPO letter dated December 1st, 2023, and she even didn’t respond to our complaint. Antonio Jenkins, of Guardian Community Resource, Inc., the Project Manager and Director of Construction, certified in the latest building codes, has never disclosed to us the SHPO letter. All we knew was that the contractor acknowledged with the signature the “Project Introduction: This project is listed as a state certified home of historic significance. The scope of work and all rehabilitation shall be in accordance with required state historic mandates relating to material and aesthetic. Mr. Jenkins was telling us that everything was going in accordance with the State and Federal codes and regulations, reminded us “keep your distance and let them (the contractor) work,” and give the contractor another chance and another chance after we expressed our concerns on the contractor’s shoddy, destructive work, and bullying behavior. We trusted Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc, “a top-ranking firm” until July 26, 2024. We, the homeowners, the City of Stuart CDBG HR program participants, not just for weeks but months, have to had digging through the Florida Building Codes, Statutes, Florida Administrative Codes, HUD Guidebooks on the CDBG management, Federal regulations, and publicly available documents on the City of Stuart CDBG.
The correspondence below is in descending order.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Campbell Rich; Jordan Pinkston; Michael Mortell; Tom Campenni; Mark Brechbill; Eula Clarke; Christopher Collins; Laura Giobbi; Sean Reed; Lee Baggett
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 03:48:39 PM EST
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – Florida Commerce – Citizen Complaint
Dear Mayor, Commissioners, and CRA Board Members,
We have received a response from Florida Commerce, stating that ” FloridaCommerce does not consider the payment that was made to Patriot Response Group, LLC., to be an eligible use of CDBG funds at this time. Florida Commerce requested that the City use City funding to make payment and have the lien removed from your home.”
We are requesting the City of Stuart Manager to specify what funds have been used to pay Patriot Response Group for the fraudulent lean on our property.
As the City Manager Mr. Mortell deliberately made disingenuous and/or even false statements at the CRA meeting on November 25, 2024, we have to address his statements. It is very concerning that Mr. Mortell had the time to speak with the contractor but not us, other than 5 min he spared in his office waiting area. It is concerning that by all means even by publicly making disingenuous statements, Mr. Mortell is covering the contractor’s shoddy, destructive, and fraudulent work.
Mr. Mortell is familiar with the City of Stuart CDBG HR documents, including all the documents on our rehab project, he also was provided with emails and photographs, including an email from the wind mitigation inspector we hired prior to applying for grant and after the City of Stuart CDBG HR contractor’s destructive work that doesn’t conform to the state and federal standards and regulations. Mr. Mortell is aware of an email by Simpson, the hurricane ties manufacturer , stating that the contractor used wrong hurricane ties and installed them improperly. Mr. Mortell is aware that the contractor installed the hurricane ties in violation of Florida Building Code as the contractor didn’t notify the City of Stuart Building department on the hurricane ties installation and didn’t provide the building department with the proper documentation and specifications on the hurricane ties installation.
Mr. Mortell is aware of the letter dated December 1st, 2023, from the State Historic Preservation Office as Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas most likely provided him with the letter after we notified her via email with the photographs on July 19, 2024, about the damages to our historical building.
Mr. Mortell, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, and Antonio Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. are aware that the contractor knew that the work on our building had to be done in accordance with the required state historic mandates as it stated in red color on the City of Stuart CDBG Rehabilitation Scope of Work and Specifications and the contractor certified that “he/she has carefully reviewed & agrees to perform the work described in this Scope of Work (SOW)” Mr. Mortell was provided with the document.
Mr. Mortell is aware that the oversized replacement windows were installed by the contractor in violation not only the required state historic mandates but also in violation of Florida Building Code on Existing Buildings and the Florida Statutes 553.79 (2)(a)1as the contractor didn’t submit to the building department any plans to alter our existing load-bearing walls by removing structural components and cutting the walls. Mr. Mortell is also aware that the contractor submitted a fraudulent floor plan on our rehab site to the Building Department. After we inspected the building permits’ files on the roof and replacement windows, we notified the Building Department. Mr. Hatten visited us on October 31st, 2024, at 10AM, and acknowledged that the replacement windows and hurricane ties were installed in violation of the Florida Building Code. Mr. Mortell is aware that the hurricane impact windows do not come in standard sizes, all hurricane impact windows are custom size manufactured, especially, to comply with the Florida Building Code on Existing Buildings. If Mr. Mortell was not aware of this fact, he should check the information before making-up his “stories” at the public City’s meetings.
Mr. Mortell is aware that we didn’t give our permission to Patriot Response Group to structurally alter our exterior load-bearing walls. The contractor assured us that the contractor submitted the plans to the building department, everything would be done according to the Florida Building Code, and our historical aesthetic wouldn’t be changed. We provided Mr. Mortell with the response from Antonio Jenkins, when we asked Mr. Jenkins on July 16, 2024, who gave the contractor permission to cut our walls, and Mr. Jenkins messaged back, stating that “the general contractors do not need permission to cut into a home”. The Florida Building Commission, per our phone consultation, told us that Mr. Jenkins’ response was incorrect, and directed us to the specific Florida Building Codes and the Florida Statutes. Mr. Jenkins also wrote that the contractor submitted plans to alter our walls to the building department, which was a lie. After inspecting the replacement windows permit files, we notified the building department and Mr. Mortell that no such plans were submitted by the contractor.
Mr. Mortell is aware that we weren’t awarded $67,000. Mr. Mortell is aware that we were given only two contractors’ bids to choose from. The contractors were reviewed by Guardian CRM, Inc and approved by the City of Stuart in accordance with the Procurement Policy adopted by the City (RESOLUTION NUMBER 11-2021) to comply with the purchasing requirements set forth under 2 Code of Federal Regulations 200 as well as Florida Statute Chapters 255 and 287 by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to receive the CDBG grant. Mr. Mortell is familiar with the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Owner Bid Review and Approval document, and he saw we chose Patriot Response Group’s bid $57,330 in accordance with the statement “the lowest responsible bid shall be recommended per HAP Policy” and also in the blue line “All bids were reviewed by:Antonio Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc; Hereafter “Reviewer. Reviewer determined the lowest responsible bid as follows: Patriot Response Group.” Mr. Mortell is also aware that the total grant sum allocated on our rehab site is $80,000 as Mrs.Gandhi-Savdas confirmed in her emails dated September 3, 2024 and September 25, 2024.
Mr. Mortell is aware that the roof insulation is included in the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work (SoW) and in the two bids approved by the City as he is familiar with the documents. Anyway, Mr. Mortell made a false statement that another contractor refused to include the roof insulation. Mr. Mortell is aware that the CDBG contractors bid on the work write-up / scope of work approved by the city and given to the contractors, and before bidding the CDBG contractors visit the site.
Mr. Mortell is aware that the CDBG contractor committed fraud on the roof permit. Mr. Mortellis aware that the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work on the roof includes the roof ridge vent system installation and the State Historic Preservation Office stated in the letter dated December 1st, 2023 that the roof’s functional features are important. Mr. Mortell is aware that prior to the work by Patriot Response Group, our roof had an existing functional roof ridge vent system. Mr. Mortell was provided with the photographs of our roof, taken by the wind mitigation inspector prior to our grant application. Mr. Mortell is aware that the contractor completely sealed our roof ridge vent and faked the installation. And Mr. Mortell is aware that $19,090 valuation is fraudulent as the building department passed the final inspection of the roof based on the misleading roof permit as the contractor Patriot Response Group concealed from the building department the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work, and the contractor did it deliberately as the contractor acknowledged and signed Notice to Bidding Contractor, certifying to perform the work described in the Scope of Work. The contractor also violated the City of Stuart HR contract Article 1. – The Project by not performing all the work according to the write-up provided by the City of Stuart CDBG Program.
Per our conversation with Florida Commerce, we do not have any issue with the red metal roof as according to the historical narratives the church was built in 1895 (the central part of our building) had a red roof. Per our consultation, Alice Luckhardt advised us that the roof would be metal as the metal roofs became popular in Florida by that time.
But we have issues with the fraud committed by the contractor and the damage inflicted by the contractor to our connections between rafters and ceiling joists by chiseling the rafters ends and the shoddy installation of wrong hurricane ties. We do not have missing trusses, at least not until Patriot Response Group. Nor the wind/home inspector in 2022, neither the contractor advised us to replace the trusses. We have been taken photographs since 2019. We were taken the photographs and videos during the first deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation that took place on May 22, 2024 and failed after the Building Department passed the “dry-in” inspection because the contractor failed to properly replace the decking and install the waterproofing underlayment, and the second time deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation that took place on June 21, 2024. We have a question to the building department, why the “dry-in” inspection was not performed on June 21, 2024, as required by the Florida Building Code, there are no records of the second “dry-in” inspection in the required inspection notes? We notified the building department that the first deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation failed, and the contractor was performing the second one. Apparently, the contractor and Guardian CRM, Inc. did not notify and invite the building department, though it is the responsibility of the contractor and Guardian Community Resource Management Inc., according to the contracts. As of today, our roof is incomplete as we mentioned in our previous correspondence with the City administration and building department.
The contractor ripped out our historical cypress trims and replaced them with the inferior grade yellow pine pressure treated boards, the contractor used plywood instead of the required decking on our historical roof. We also took photographs of the decking boards in good condition being ripped and broken by the contractor. In violation of the contract and the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program requirement, the contractor left a complete mess in our attic: sawdust and black tar dust, broken boards, empty boxes, etc on the top of our beadboard ceiling after two times deck replacement (on May 22, 2024 and on June 21, 2024). The contractor never cleaned it. The contractor in violation of the contract, charged us additional $2,500 for the second time deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation, because the contractor failed to perform adequate work the first time. Mr. Mortell is welcome to come and check our attic and trusses as well to see if there is any termite damage, though we provided Mr. Mortell with photographs.
As Mr. Mortell stated in his email dated September 27, 2024 that he can speculate, but the concern is the City Manager Mr. Mortell is not just speculating, he is publicly making disingenuous statements.
Since December 1st, 2023, The City of Stuart CDBG HR Project Manager Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas and Guardian CRM, Inc. represented by Mr. Jenkins have been officially notified by the State Division of Historical Resources that “based on the information provided, 311 SW 3rd Street appears to be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A: religion (Florida Master Site File Number: MT346). It is the opinion of this office that the proposed rehabilitation should have no adverse effect on historic properties provided the following conditions are met..” But they ignored our email dated July 19, 2024. Moreover, instead of responding to our concerns, the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Management started to threaten us with liens to extort the release of federal funds, and the City Manager Mr. Mortell, who is also a Florida Bar member, listed as a government attorney, suggested to us to “sign the papers – even under protest.” Under protest of what? We, the historical building owners, didn’t even know about the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023, to Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, regarding our property and all the conditions that had to be met until SHPO provided us with the correspondence recently. If we were notified by Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas and provided with this letter before the contractor proceeded with the work, we wouldn’t be in this position. Instead, we were constantly reminded by Mr. Jenkins, to stay away and let the contractor do their work. We preserved all the messages, correspondence, and phone logs.
What has happened to the City of Stuart Administration professionalism and integrity?
As we requested at the beginning, please specify what funds have been used to pay Patriot Response Group for the fraudulent lien on our property as Florida Commerce requested that the City use City funding to make payment.
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <@ci.stuart.fl.us>
Cc: Graham Markarian <@commerce.fl.gov>; OIG <oig@commerce.fl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 05:25:15 PM EST
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – Florida Commerce – Citizen Complaint
Good afternoon,
SHPO has provided us with a copy of the letter dated November 22, 2024 on the same date. They also provided us with the letters dated October 13, 2023 and December 1st, 2023. Sadly and unfortunately for us, we weren’t aware of these letters regarding our property, especially, one dated December 1st, 2023, until recently. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be in this situation, our building would not be damaged by the contractor Patriot Response Group, and Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. wouldn’t be able to deceive us with his statements that everything was done according to the state and federal codes and regulations, and especially with his message that “the general contractors do not need permission to cut into walls”
As the owners of the historical building, we request to be a part of that phone conference on Friday, Dec. 6th.
Thank you for the update.
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton.
311 SW 3rd St, Stuart, FL 34994
On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 02:33:12 PM EST, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Good Afternoon,
Below is an update on the project. It’s taking time due to the process and final determination by SHPO.
The City and Guardian requested clarification on the letter provided by SHPO on Friday, November 22, 2024. SHPO has requested a call to discuss this further after the Thanksgiving break. We are tentatively scheduled for a call on Friday, Dec. 6th. I will provide an update during the week of December 9th. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <@ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Cc: Graham Markarian <@commerce.fl.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 11:29:06 AM EST
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – Florida Commerce – Citizen Complaint
Good Morning Mrs. Hamilton,
Please see the last attachment regarding correspondence with Guardian and Patriot regarding release of lien. It was sent at 8:34 AM today (before I received your email). They have submitted the documentation to county for recording and will forward a copy when they receive it. Please note that I will be out of the office for most part of this week due to the holidays so there is a chance that I will not be able to forward something right away. I will respond when I return to the office on Monday. Please allow some time to respond.
Regarding a letter from SHPO, I received it on Friday at 3 PM. I left the office early on Friday. I followed up with Guardian first thing this morning regarding SHPO’s response. I am not sure what you mean that I haven’t notified you that we had correspondence with SHPO. The City Manager informed you in his email dated 11/05/2024 that we are working with Florida Commerce and SHPO regarding your grant application (email is attached). I followed up every week after that to let you know that we are still waiting to hear back from SHPO and will proceed accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, I received a response from SHPO on Friday afternoon, so please allow us some time to follow up with you. We need additional clarifications, so Guardian is preparing a response letter to SHPO.
Please see the attached email that was sent to SHPO on 10/21/2024 for your reference. It includes the letter dated December 1, 2023, as referenced below.
Also, typically, I do not forward all correspondence on the project unless requested. In the future if you would like certain documentations, please let me know and I will be happy to forward it to you. It’s all public record so I will share whatever you need if requested.
Pinal
Note: Neither Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, the City of Stuart CDBG Project Manager, nor Guardian CRM, Inc notified us, the property owners about any correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office they had in 2023, regarding our historical building, most likely to receive extra CDBG grant program points. We weren’t aware of the SHPO letter dated December 1st, 2023, instructing the City that the proposed rehabilitation of our historical building “should have no adverse effect on historic properties provided the following conditions are met:…” Any person with common sense will know and understand that you cannot request something you are not even aware of. The unsigned documents sent to us by Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas have wrong (or fraudulent) dates, incorrect legal description of our property, etc. Below is one of the attached documents that deserves special attention. Being advised and instructed by Florida Commerce OIG Office that the work performed by Patriot Response Group on our historical building is not eligible for reimbursement with Federal funds, therefore the City has to pay from the City’s funds and not from the CDBG funds, the City anyway has requested the check for payment from the CDBG Funds.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <@ci.stuart.fl.us>; Graham Markarian <@commerce.fl.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 10:49:50 AM ES
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – Florida Commerce – Citizen Complaint
CC: Graham Markarian, FloridaCommerce.
Good afternoon Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas,
Following your email dated November 12, 2024, please provide us with the payment confirmation for the lien filed by the City of Stuart CDBG HR contractor Patriot Response Group, and also with the contractor’s final affidavit as required by the Florida Statutes, section 713.06(3)(d)(1). The contractor had to send the affidavit before filing the lien. We have never received it.
The fraudulent lien hasn’t been removed from our property.
Under the Florida Statues, Chapter 713 and under the City of Stuart CDBG HR contract with Patriot Response Group (3.3), prior to the Contractor being entitled to any payment, the Contractor shall provide to the Owner and the CDBG Program (a) an affidavit identifying all subcontractors or materialmen which have performed work on the Project up to the date of the payment request and (b) affidavits from each such subcontractor or materialman confirming payment in full and release of all lien rights over the subject property. The contractor never provided the affidavit before requesting the final payment.
Under the Florida Statues, Chapter 713, the deadline to file a construction lien is 90 days after the last day the lienor provided labor, services, or materials for the project.
The last day the contractor provided labor services, or materials for the project was July 13, 2024. The replacement windows didn’t pass the inspection, and three windows weren’t installed at all. Patriot Response Group was removed from our project by the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program management on July 26, 2024. On July 26, 2024, at 10:28AM, the contractor removed their trailer from our property (the surveillance camera video is preserved). The same day, July 26, 2024, at 2:23 PM, after Mrs. Cobb, Guardian CRM, Admin, notified us about the removal of the CDBG contractor from our rehab site, we also sent an email to Mr. Jenkins Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc, stating: “No one from their company or their proxies are allowed on our property anymore. We feel intimidated and unsafe. On June 20, 2024, we already expressed our concern and mentioned through the phone messages that “we are very scared of these people.”
We have received a copy of the letter from the Division of Historical Resources & State Historic Preservation Officer sent to you on November 22, 2024. Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, during all this time, you haven’t notified us, the property owners, you had correspondence with SHPO regarding our building, and you have not disclosed the content of the referenced letter dated December 1, 2023, “stated that the undertaking should have no adverse effect on historic properties provided the new work match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish,” even after we notified you on July 19, 2024, about the damages inflicted by Patriot Response Group on our building. Instead of responding to our complaint, the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program management and the City’s administration not only ignored our complaint but also attempted to cover up the shoddy, destructive, and fraudulent work by the CDBG contractor, coercing us to release the federal funds. Now, we have a fraudulent lien on our property.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 at 01:35:08 PM EST
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Good Afternoon,
Just an update. We are waiting for the contractor to provide a lien release document, which we expect by the end of this week. Also, we are waiting for SHPO to provide their comments in order to move forward with your project. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 12:52:25 PM EST
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Hi,
Just FYI – Patriot will be paid this Thursday so they will remove the lien upon payment. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Mortell, Michael <ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Cc: Markarian, Graham <commerce.fl.gov>; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <stuart.fl.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:02:34 PM EST
Subject: Florida Commerce – Citizen Complaint
Good morning,
I am writing to provide an update regarding the issue with Patriot Response Group LLC and the lien it filed against your property. After speaking to Mr. Markarian at Florida Commerce, I am writing to inform you that Florida Commerce has instructed the City to pay the outstanding lien amount immediately.
Note: Florida Commerce has instructed the City to pay the outstanding lien amount immediately from the City’s funds not from the CDBG Federal funds.
Florida Commerce contacted me to make sure that the City was taking care of the lien immediately because the homeowner is the most important priority. As a result, the City is going to pay Patriot the outstanding balance of $48,490.00 dollars immediately to make sure the lien is removed.
Note: In his email dated September 5, 2024, and at the City’s CRA and Commissioners public meetings, the City Manager Morttell denied the City’s responsibility to supervise the project and the contractors despite he approved and signed the CDBG related documents and resolutions, including the Procurement Policy.
Department of Commerce: Chapter: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 73C-23.0051 Grant Administration and Project Implementation: (4) Procurement. (a) Procurement Policy. Each subgrant Recipient shall adopt and follow a local CDBG Procurement Policy that complies with the provisions of 2 CFR 200.317 – 200.326. § 200.318 General procurement standards.
2 CFR § 200.318 General procurement standards.
(b) Oversight of contractors. Recipients and subrecipients must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders. See also § 200.501(h).
During our conference call, we discussed your concerns about the Patriot Response Group and the formal complaint that you have filed against them. However, it was determined that the City should pay the lien and allow the investigation to continue to its conclusion. Therefore, the lien will be satisfied, and you do not have to be concerned about the potential for litigation from the Patriot Group and, the investigation that has been opened will continue and the work that was performed will still be reviewed and addressed.
In the meantime, the City will continue to work with Florida Commerce and complete the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) investigation to verify that your home qualified for the funding and there was no potential to affect the historic properties. For example, the roof was asphalt shingle, and your application sought to restore it to the metal roof that your research indicated was on the property originally. Upon the conclusion of the SHPO investigation, we can then address the outstanding issues on the property and what is necessary to fulfill the Grant Agreement. The purpose for this email is to keep you informed of the process taking place and make sure you are aware that the City is taking steps to protect your property.
During the conference call with Florida Commerce, Ms. Gandhi-Savdas informed everyone in the meeting that you would object to the payment of Patriot Response Group because you were concerned about the work performed and did not want them to be paid until the matter was completely resolved. It was made clear that the investigation regarding the work performed would continue but the City was not allowed to delay the payment now that a lien has been filed. The payment to the Patriot Response Group is being done to comply with the grant program and to protect your property. It is not serving as an agreement or indication that the City or State has made a determination about the quality of the work performed.
When the SHPO investigation has concluded, your entire Grant Application and Award can be reviewed, and a determination will be made regarding the improvements attributable pursuant to the grant award.
I am hopeful that you will continue to work with the City while we work through this difficult situation to make sure that your home is improved by the CDBG grant. I have included Mr. Markarian and Ms. Gandhi-Savdas in the email to ensure that we are all working together toward resolving this matter as expeditiously as possible. I am hopeful that we will have the lien removed from your property by the end of the week if not sooner.
I will email you again as soon as I have confirmed that the lien has been resolved.
Michael J. Mortell
City Manager
Stuart, FL 34994
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr <roberthamiltonjr@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 at 12:52:52 PM EDT
Subject: FW: City of Stuart Conference Call – Follow-up
FYI – As requested, I am forwarding the email from Graham following our call on 10/18. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Markarian, Graham <commerce.fl.gov>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 2:22 PM
To: Grant Administrator <guardiancrm.com>; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <ci.stuart.fl.us>; Antonio Jenkins <guardiancrm.com>
Cc: Jackson, Shaurita <commerce.fl.gov>; Amison, Geoff <commerce.fl.gov>; Melissa Fox <fredfoxenterprises.com>
Subject: City of Stuart Conference Call – Follow-up
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for meeting with representatives of FloridaCommerce and me earlier today.
Based on my review of the information provided it appears that work was completed on the home located at 311 South West 3rd Street that does not appear to be compliant with the Site-Specific Environmental Review Conditions that were issued for the project and costs incurred to date may not be eligible for reimbursement with Federal funds.
As we discussed, the Small Cities CDBG Program is requesting that the City coordinate with FloridaCommerce to pursue additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. The additional consultation will help to better inform whether all Federal criteria were followed.
The Small Cities CDBG Program will not approve for this case file to closed until we have confirmed that all Federal requirements have been met, which may require additional work to be completed on the home.
I understand that the contractor, Patriot Response Group, has not yet been paid and has the ability to put a lien on the home. Please coordinate with the contractor and provide us an update regarding their intent and potential next steps.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Graham Markarian
Supervisor, Small Cities CDBG Program, Section 3 & Labor Standards Officer
Bureau of Small Cities and Rural Communities
FloridaCommerce
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr <roberthamiltonjr@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 9:30 PM
To: Mortell, Michael ; Eula Clarke ; Rich, Campbell ; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura ; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher ; Tom Campenni; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan; Baggett, Lee
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Greetings,
We have been notified that the City has been requested to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether all applicable environmental review (including historic preservation) requirements were adhered to.
We provided the State Historic Preservation with photographs of the destructive installation and re-installation of the oversized replacement windows, resulting in the alteration of our exterior load-bearing walls, structural damages, and damages to our exterior wall covering that protects the walls’ structural assembly.
On July 19th, 2024, we sent our email, notifying the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Managers about the damages inflicted to our historical building by the CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group. In the same email we also notified the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Managers that the roof fascia wasn’t attached properly. Our email was ignored and we, the CDBG HR participants, were even threatened with liens if we wouldn’t release the federal funds for the incomplete, shoddy, and fraudulent work.
As of today, we are left with the roof that passed inspection being incomplete with the fraudulent valuation of $19,090, the roof ridge vent system hasn’t been installed according to the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work, and now the front roof fascia was ripped off by the 50-65 mph wind gust, the roof corner boxes has been bent and lifted, the trim rakes are also lifted.
All these damages were preventable if the the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Management ensured an adequate monitoring of the Program, following the CDBG Program Guidelines, Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations.
We still haven’t received any reasonable explanation neither from the CDBG HR Program Management nor from the City Administration why our requests for re-inspections have been denied and why the CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group hasn’t been cited for the violations of the Florida Building Codes on Existing Buildings and local Code of Ordinances as it is stated in Sec. 10-26 that the city enforces the state building code as required by state law.
It’s apparent that the City of Stuart CDBG Program Management and the City Administration have chosen the path of not only deliberate indifference but the deliberate mismanagement of the CDBG HR Program as well when the laws, codes, and regulations don’t matter, and when the City Manager disseminates misinformation at the City Commissioners and CRA meetings about the City’s responsibilities in the CDBG HR Program management, monitoring, and regulatory compliance.
We ask the City to adhere to the CDBG HR regulations, Federal, State, and local laws and Building Codes, we request the re-inspections of the permits #BP-24-684 and #BP-24-653 and record the violations by Patriot Response Group.
Thank you.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Participants
311 SW 3rd. St., Stuart, FL 34994
On Monday, October 21, 2024 at 03:22:19 PM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Hi,
As a follow up to my email below, we had a call with Florida Commerce on last Friday and they requested that the city coordinate with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for product approval in compliance with conditional standards provided by SHPO for the project. We expect to have a response in 2-3 weeks. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:48 AM
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr ; Eula Clarke; Rich, Campbell; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura ; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher ; Tom Campenni; Mortell, Michael
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan; Baggett, Lee
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
FYI – I am following up on the status of this project. The CRA, Building Official, and Guardian have a call with Florida Commerce this Friday regarding the complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton to Florida Commerce. We will wait for recommendations from Florida Commerce in order to move forward. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr <roberthamiltonjr@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 7:56 PM
To: Mortell, Michael ; Eula Clarke ; Rich, Campbell ; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura ; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher ; Tom Campenni; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan; Baggett, Lee
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas,
The roof ridge vent system wasn’t installed due to the fact that the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program contractor Patriot Response Group didn’t submit the CDBG HR Scope of Work to the building department and didn’t submit all necessary documentation on the roof ridge vent system installation. Instead of installing the roof ridge vent system the contractor faked it. This is no less than a fraud. The roof passed the final inspection due to the incomplete and misleading building permit application by the contractor, therefore, stated on the building permit #BP-24-684 evaluation of $19,090 for incomplete work is fraudulent. The sum of $19,090 is stated on the City of Stuart CDBG HR Scope of Work on our roof and the scope of work includes the roof ridge vent system. As the Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project, you have the City of Stuart CDBG HR Scope of Work in the file on our rehab site. You also have the document acknowledged by the contractor on 9/28/2023 that the contractor is legally responsible to provide the bids estimates based on the work write-up provided by the City, and apparently Guardian CRM, Inc. assisted with finalizing the Scope of Work ( construction bid) according to the Agreement between the City and Guardian CRM, Inc. and it stated on the City of Stuart CDBG-HR Bid review and approval that the bid was reviewed by Guardian CRM, Inc. We had a roof ridge vent system on our roof before the CDBG contractor removed it.
As the City insists to keep the the building permit #BP-24-684 closed with a fraudulent evaluation of $19,090, we ask the City not to coerce us, the homeowners, to sign the release of the federal funds for the incomplete work.
The bid by Code Red Roof on the roof ridge vent system installation and the letter with the estimates from the owner of Liberty Impact Windows and Doors were emailed to you on Sep 22 at 7:10 PM. The file with the damages caused by the shoddy installation and re-installation of the oversized replacement windows also was sent on Sep 22 at 7:10 PM along with the file on our roof.
As we mentioned previously, the CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group submitted the wrong floor plan on the building permit BP-24-653 and added an addition as an extra room to our building, installation of the oversized replacement windows by the CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group was done in violations of the Florida Building Code on Existing Buildings and the Florida Statutes 553.79 (2)(a)1, the contractor did alterations to our existing building without any structural plans and/or drawings approved by the City of Stuart Building Department. We request re-inspection and record the violations.
We also hope that the City of Stuart and Martin County are not going to tax us on that extra large addition with two windows and a door to our dwelling featured in the floor plans submitted by the CDBG contractor to the City of Stuart Building Department on the building permit BP-24-653.
Thank you. Stay safe.
Regards,Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 09:17:46 AM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton,
We understand that the contractor did not install the roof ridge vent system and we asked you to get a quote for the vent system. The new contractor of your choice will pull a new permit for the vent system and it will be inspected by the Building Department. Patriot is NOT getting paid for something they didn’t install. The permit #BP-24-684 was for a new roof and that was inspected and passed by the Building Department. That permit has been closed and will remain closed. A new permit will be pulled for the vent system as mentioned above.
As for the permit # BP-24-653, which is for the windows and is an open permit. Again, we asked you to get a quote so the new contractor can re-install the windows. The permit is on hold and new contractor will do a change of contract on existing permit. Once the new windows are installed, the contractor will schedule re-inspection of the windows at that time. We are waiting for a resolution with Patriot and then move forward with completing the roof ridge vent system and windows.
Please provide photos of any damage caused by the oversized replacement windows for our record. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr <roberthamiltonjr@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2024 8:47 PM
To: Mortell, Michael ; Eula Clarke ; Rich, Campbell ; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura ; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher ; Tom Campenni; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan; Baggett, Lee
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Thank you, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas.
We have repeatedly notified the City of Stuart CDBG Program Management and the City Government about the violations by the CDBG contractor Patriot Respose Group. The contractor submitted misleading building permit applications. The contractor didn’t submitted the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work. The contractor did not perform the installation of the roof ridge vent system according to the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Scope of Work, instead of installation the contractor faked the roof ridge vent system. Without any approved structural plans, the contractor altered the exterior load-bearing walls of our building and inflicted cracks and holes on the exterior walls during the installation and re-installation of the oversized replacement windows in violation of the Florida Statutes, Florida Building Code, and the City of Stuart Code of ordinances. Also, please see the Rule 73C-23.0045. We requested re-inspections. Since July 2024, The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Management and the City Government has been aware that the CDBG contractor removed structural elements to fit the oversized replacement windows and damages caused to the exterior load-bearing walls. Now, with the shoddy installation of replacement windows that do not have adequate structural framing, we are facing storms and hurricanes, and rain water coming through the cracks and holes inside the walls’ assembly.
CFR 200.93 defines a subrecipient as a non-Federal entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a Federal program; but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program.
73C-23.0051 Grant Administration and Project Implementation. (Florida Administrative Code. Department of Commerce)
(1)Subgrant Agreement.
(c) Subgrant Recipients shall monitor project activities to ensure compliance with time schedules, milestones, and other performance goals set forth in the Activity Work Plan of the subgrant agreements..
73C-23.0045 Specific Requirements for Neighborhood Revitalization, Commercial Revitalization and Housing Rehabilitation. (Florida Administrative Code. Department of Commerce)
(3) Program Requirements for Housing Rehabilitation.
(a) The primary objectives of the Housing Rehabilitation category are to improve housing conditions
(e) Rehabilitation of all housing units addressed in any way with CDBG funds must be in compliance with the current Florida Building Code for Existing Buildings, as well as local Building Codes and local Maintenance Codes. If housing units must be replaced, construction of new units must be in full compliance with current Florida Building Code.
As a subrecipient, the City of Stuart is expected to comply with all applicable Federal requirements, laws and regulations, to ensure that (1) subawards are used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, (2) subaward performance goals are achieved, and to take appropriate action when performance and compliance issues arise.
Sub Award ID: 40313
Sub Description : CDBG – DBF20 – OCTOBER 2021
Awarded Amount : $750,000.00
Prime Awardee : Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
Awarding / Funding Agency: Region IV [HUD – CPD – FO]
CFDA: 14.228 Community Development Block Grants/State’s program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii
According to the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG), the activities that are riskier than others include rehabilitation projects. An example of insufficient monitoring by the HUD OIG is when the City officials do not perform adequate onsite monitoring of all of a city’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) rehabilitation sites and do not take corrective actions to meet the objective of the Federal award.
Potential Fraud by Contractors: Failing to begin or complete the work; substandard work; providing substandard materials / product substitution – HUD OIG.
The HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) periodically publishes audit and evaluation reports and memoranda on their website. They audited the Jefferson Parish Community Development Department (CDBG and HOME Programs). They found the Parish did not always administer its rehabilitation program in accordance with program requirements. Specifically, it did not always ensure that payments to contractors were eligible, supported, and reasonable as it made payments (1) for duplicate payments and overpayments, (2) for work not completed and excessive material costs, (3) without adequate invoice documentation or cost analyses for change orders, (4) without performing independent cost estimates before the bidding process, and (5) for properties not brought up to code. In addition, the Parish did not properly monitor and ensure completion of its contractors’ work. They recommend that HUD require the Parish to (1) develop and implement written procedures and take actions to ensure that it better spends more than $216,000, (2) repay $9,489, (3) support or repay more than $1 million, (4) develop and implement written procedures and management controls, and (5) correct the deficiencies identified during the onsite inspections and in the remaining homes.
Improper payment means a payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. A disallowed expense for which Federal funds were originally used must be reimbursed from non-CDBG/non-Federal funds. (CFR Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
We request re-inspections on the permits BP-24-684 and Permit BP-24-653.
We are looking forward to the resolution.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Helpful information: Playing by the Rules: A Handbook for CDBG Subrecipients on Administrative Systems. This handbook is intended for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) subrecipients. The handbook is designed to help subrecipients understand the administrative requirements that apply to the use of federal funds for the delivery of CDBG programs and activities.
Playing by the Rules: A Handbook for CDBG Subrecipients on Administrative Systems
On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 05:58:50 PM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Hi Mr. Hamilton,I haven’t forgotten about getting back to you. We are still waiting for Patriot to respond on the request to reduce the price. I will follow up next week.
Thank you.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 at 4:15 PM
To: Mortell, Michael, Eula Clarke,Rich, Campbell, Mark Brechbill, Giobbi, Laura, Reed, Sean,Collins, Christopher, Tom Campenni, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc:Hatten, Louis, Pinkston, Jordan, Baggett, Lee
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Mr. Mortell,
Please pardon us, your statements sound more as you are not familiar with the City of Stuart CDBG Program, including all the documents, we, truly, don’t want to believe you are deliberately indifferent or even worse deliberately deceptive.
The City of Stuart CDBG Program is not a private enterprise by a private company. The federal funds are not awarded to private companies.
https://www.floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/assistance-for-governments-and-organizations/florida-small-cities-community-development-block-grant-program
Please, contact the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and/ or Florida Department of Commerce.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is a federal program that provides funding for housing and community development activities. Congress created the program when it passed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
The program, which is administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), consists of two components:
1. Entitlement Program – funds are provided directly to urban communities, and
2. State Program – funds are allocated to the states for distribution to eligible non-entitlement communities
FloridaCommerce administers the State Program in Florida through the Small Cities CDBG Program. This is a competitive grant program that awards funds to units of local government in small urban and rural areas. FloridaCommerce receives between 18 and 26 million dollars annually from HUD to award subgrants to eligible units of local government. The program provides an excellent opportunity for communities to obtain funds for projects that they cannot otherwise afford. CDBG funds can also provide administrative support for local governments that may not have the staffing resources necessary to administer their projects.
Mr. Mortell, we have no idea where you get the notion from that we refuse to use the CDBG funds allocated to us to repair the exterior load-bearing walls, rough openings and frames damaged and destroyed by Patriot Response Group, and installation of correct size windows, but definitely not from us. Of course, we will use the CDBG fund allocated to us, if any left, because, per your idea, Mr. Mortell, we should release the federal funds to the contractor for the incomplete roof without the roof ridge vent system being installed as it should be under the City of Stuart CDBG Program, and for the destructive and shoddy installation oversized windows against the Florida Building Code on Exiting Buildings.
Mr. Mortell, you have been notified several times about that the roof passed final inspection incomplete and the structural alterations to our building were done based on the misleading, incomplete, and incorrect permits applications, submitted to the City of Stuart Building Department by the contractor Patriot Response Group under the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program. Please see the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Contract between us, the homeowners, and Patriot Response Group and also the CDBG Scope of Work Attached.
The Attic Insulation and Impact Doors Installation are in the CDBG Scope of Work. Please, take your time to familiarize yourself with the attached files: the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Contract between us, the homeowners, and Patriot Response Group and also the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work.
The brief 5 mins in your office’s waiting area can be hardly called a meeting, and, probably, that’s where the confusion in your statements comes from.
Also, please talk to Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas regarding how much funds have been allocated to each participants in the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program.
Mr. Mortell, all the impact windows are custom size windows. Who did tell you we got “standard” size windows? The windows on our CDBG project were negligently ordered 4″ larger than our rough openings. Our exterior load-bearing walls were altered by the contractor without any plans and permission by the Stuart Building Department and against the Florida Building Code, because the contractor didn’t notify the Stuart Building Department. Three windows couldn’t be installed due to their size.
The contractor submitted the wrong floor plan to the Stuart Building Department. The contractor added an extra room to our building and altered the Means and Path of Egress. Mr. Mortell, if you are not familiar with the term and the codes on the Existing Buildings and Alterations, please, the building department officials most likely will guide you through.
Mr. Mortell, we do not ask the City of Stuart to modify “award,” all we have requested is re-inspections on Building Permits BP-24-684 and BP-24-653 due to the violations of the Florida Statues, Florida Building Code, and And the City of Stuart Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10 – Buildings and Building Regulations by Patriot Response Group under the City of Stuart CDBG HR program. Please see the attached document
Mr. Mortell, your refusal to look into the violations we mentioned in our email dated September 9, 2024, and familiarize yourself with the City of Stuart CDBG program documents we shared multiple times is truly concerning.
When the City of Stuart released the public notice “The City of Stuart received $750,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the Housing Rehabilitation Program to renovate homes that need repairs and bring it to minimum standards,” the City didn’t mention Guardian CRM, Inc. received $750,000. The City of Stuart hired Guardian CRM Inc. as independent contractor to manage the CDBG Program, but it doesn’t release the City from the responsibilities and duties to supervise and monitor the CDBG HR program and the independent contractor to ensure the all applicable Federal, State and local laws are observed, the participants are not abused, and the CDBG federal funds are not spent on fraudulent, incomplete, and shoddy work.
Thank you.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 01:45:18 PM EDT, Mortell, Michael wrote:
I do not feel comfortable responding to all because I feel like this is getting dangerously close to a sunshine violation by discussing an agenda item in an email with all board members. Therefore, I would ask that all board members please do not respond to this email. If you have any questions, please just email me individually. I don’t think the discussion is technically a violation of sunshine because it is not something the Board can vote on since the City of Stuart does not have the authority to resolve the issue between the Hamilton’s and Patriot or Guardian. Further, I do not think that the City can get involved in this dispute because it appears to be a civil dispute between a private home owner and their contractor. It does not matter where the funding came from.
NOTE: Mr. Mortell put his signature as the City Attorney on the contract between the City and Guardian CRM, Inc. Also, the CDBG HR Program contract between the homeowners and the contractor states: “21.4 Contractor Default. If the Contractor disregards laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public body having jurisdiction; or if it disregards the authority of a City development official, agent or employee; or it otherwise violates any provisions of this Contract; then the City may, without prejudice to any other right or remedy, and after giving the Contractor and its surety seven (7) days written notice, terminate the services of the Contractor and…” We repeatedly notified the City of Stuart Building Department and the City Manager about violations of “laws, ordinances, rules, regulations” by the contractor. We requested the building permit re-inspections. The City Manager refuses to act.
The information I stated during the meeting was based upon the information given to me from Robert Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton came to meet with me and we discussed his concerns about Guardian, Patriot and the City of Stuart. I explained to him several times that we did not pick his contractor.
NOTE: RESOLUTION NUMBER 11-2021 (a Procurement Policy designed to comply with the purchasing requirements set forth under 2 CFR 200 as well as Florida Statute Chapters 255 and 287 by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: MICHAEL J. MORTELL, ESQ. CITY ATTORNEY
RFP# 2020-103: CDBG. Contract with Guardian CRM, Inc.
PROJECT DEVLIVERY SERVICES
Meet with the Building Department, Purchasing Department, & other involved departments to coordinate bidding, permitting & inspections as needed for specific activities. ASSIST with finalizing the Scope of Work ( construction bid). Coordinate meetings with staff and contractors to review and sign construction contracts, related documents.
FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT
ASSIST with all Requests for Funds (RFF)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: MICHAEL J. MORTELL, ESQ. CITY ATTORNEY
He also told me that Guardian offered to allow him to pick the contractor of his choice and CDBG grant funds would be used to pay for the replacement windows.
However, Mr. Hamilton explained that he did not want the CDBG program to pay for new windows because that money could be used to pay for his insulation and air conditioning that was above the total amount of the grant he received. When I asked for clarification, he explained that the reason he chose the contractor the first time was because during their conversations, Patriot told him they would squeeze in additional work that wasn’t awarded in the grant such as AC and insulation. He explained that he felt like the first contractor had essentially told him that he would get a new roof, new windows, new insulation and a new air conditioning system. It was his position that if Patriot did not get paid, then the balance of the funds would be available to pay for the AC and insulation. Again, none of this was relevant to the City because the City did not have any authority to make those decisions. I explained that several times.
NOTE:
Whether Mr. Mortell is not familiar with the documents, confused or he just saying whatever comes to his mind. The attic insulation is included in the CDBG Scope of Work. The City has been awarded $$750,000 (including temporary relocation as applicable) and is required to assist a minimum of 11 Households. (Governor Ron DeSantis, On July 12, 2021, in News Releases, by Staff) The average allocation per house is up to but not exceeding $80,000. The CDBG Bid on our project is $57,330. We would have enough funds left for A/C mini splits.
At the conclusion of my meeting with Mr. Hamilton,. it remained his position that the original bill submitted by Patriot should not be paid and those funds would be sufficient to pay for his insulation and air conditioning. I again explained that it was not a city decision and Guardian was likely making an economic decision to avoid litigation but it did not matter because the Hamilton’s did not qualify for enough money to pay for a new roof, new windows and the other improvements such as new air conditioning and insulation. But, if he felt like he was entitled to those additional payments or improvements, he can speak to Guardian directly.
I do not have authority to tell Guardian or the Patriot Response Group what they should or should not do.
NOTE: Guardian CRM, Inc. failed to coordinate adequate permitting & inspections on our project, and as a result the contractor submitted misleading permits’ applications. The CDBG Program Management (The City and Guardian CRM, Inc., according to the Contract) failed to respond to our complaints. Also, Guardian CRM, Inc. falsely stated that the contractor had plans and permission from the Building Department to alter our exterior load-bearing walls. But, Mr. Mortell ignores this.
The only purpose for my comments at the meeting was to inform the board that Guardian had been taking steps to rectify the problem. I was just trying to illustrate that is not a City of Stuart decision.
It is a Guardian decision or another agency that funds the Community Development Block Grant . Clearly everyone involved is aware of all of the circumstances and the Guardian Group was offering to have the windows redone – I do not have any idea if any one acknowledged that there was any improper construction or how they came to the decision to authorize the hiring of a different contractor. The City did not have authority to tell them what to do.
NOTE: The City has authority, power, and duty to enforce the Federal, State, and local law and codes. But, again, the City Manager refuses to act. It looks like when it comes to the CDBG HR Program, a competitive grant program, the deliberate disregard of the law and deliberate indifference is the way to get scores and points with the State and U.S. HUD.
I can speculate and say they made an economic decision and decided it would be easier to remove windows that Mr. Hamilton doesn’t like and replace them without new ones rather than spending money in litigation. It is likely that they will use the first set of windows in a different project that has “standard” window sizes but again that is a Guardian decision.
NOTE: That’s right, Mr. Mortell is expressing his speculations based on his lack of understanding of the CDBG Program or he just throws “whatever” at a wall, or he knowingly and deliberately makes disingenuous statements. and We haven’t received any offers from Guardian CRM, Inc. to have the windows redone. Mr. Mortell is also aware that the Windows Installation by Patriot Response Group didn’t pass the inspections. Awkward, Mr. Mortell suggest a litigation, instead of performing his duties as the City Manager: (a) See that the laws and ordinances are enforced (The City of Stuart Code of Ordinances)
I am not trying to write this email to offend the Hamilton’s in any way nor am I trying to offend Patriot or Guardian. The purpose of this email is to acknowledge that the specific amounts I described could have easily been errors in my memory and as far as I was concerned were used as generalizations. The City will continue to monitor and assist the parties with providing any records in our possession and we are willing to meet with them to answer any questions but the City does not have the authority to modify the award; to hire a different contractor; to decide that there is a winner or a loser; or to take sides and use the government as a weapon to force the other side to come to any agreement.
Michael J. Mortell
City Manager
Stuart, FL 34994
NOTE: For heaven sake, we only asked for the building permits re-inspections based on the Florida Statues, Florida Building Code, and The City of Stuart Code of Ordinance violations by Patriot Response Group. But Mr. Mortell suggests we should pay for the incomplete roof with a fake roof ridge system and shoddy and destructive windows installation.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 1:07 PM
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr ; Mortell, Michael ; Eula Clarke ; Rich, Campbell ; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura ; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher ; Tom Campenni
Cc: Hatten, Louis ; Pinkston, Jordan ; Baggett, Lee
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Hi Mr. Hamilton,
In reference to Mike Mortell’s statement at the CRA Meeting, I think he is referring to invoice payment in the amount of $24,650 (which is 85% of the actual cost) for the new windows installed by Patriot as provided in the attached contract dissolution. As mentioned in previous email, Patriot has agreed to reduce the costs of the final payout by an additional $2,000. That would reduce the final payout from $48,490 down to $46,490. As mentioned in my email yesterday, we are working to reduce this further so we complete replacement of windows and roof ridge vent system, which you provided quotes from contractors of your choice.
Thank you,
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Mortell, Michael, Eula Clarke,Rich, Campbell, Mark Brechbill, Giobbi, Laura, Reed, Sean,Collins, Christopher,Tom Campenni,Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc:Hatten, Louis, Pinkston, Jordan, Baggett, Lee
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Thank you, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas.
Under the City of Stuart CDBG Program Contract with the Contractor Patriot Response Group, we request all the Certificate(s) evidencing the required insurance stated in the ARTICLE 11. Contractor’s Insurance.
11 .2 Certificate(s) evidencing the above-required insurance shall be filed with the Owner and the CDBG Program prior to issuance of the Notice of Commencement.
Please see the attached City of Stuart CDBG Program Contract with the Contractor Patriot Response Group
In response to the City Manager’s public statement at the last CRA meeting “So our building inspector goes out and inspects it, but it’s not related to the CDBG, Mr. Mortell signed the related to the CDBG Program resolutions, including RESOLUTION NUMBER 11-2021 (Procurement Policy), and the contracts with Guardian CRM, Inc. (RESOLUTION NUMBER 73-2020 and RESOLUTION NUMBER 45-2020) as the City Attorney.
(The City of Stuart Contract with Guardian CRM, Inc. RFP #2020-103)
PROJECT DELIVERY SERVICES
Meet with the Building Department, Purchasing Department, & other involved departments to coordinate bidding, permitting & inspections as needed for specific activities.
It is apparent that Guardian CRM, Inc. failed to coordinate permitting on our rehab site under the City of Stuart CDBG Program, as the building permits on our project were done in violation of the Florida Statutes and Florida Building Codes as we mentioned in our previous emails to the City Government, including the CRA and the Building Department.
In response to the City Manager’s public statement at the last CRA meeting “The homeowners don’t want the Guardian to spend the $27,000 on the new windows,” we, the homeowners never received the mentioned proposal from Guardian CRM, Inc. stating that the company agrees to pay $27,000 on the new windows. Please forward us the proposal. Moreover, the Guardian CRM, Inc has already admitted that the damage was done to our building.
(The City of Stuart Contract with Guardian CRM, Inc. RFP #2020-103)
Section 3. Guarantee
The Professional guarantees to repair, replace or otherwise make good to the satisfaction of the City any damage caused during the work. Contractor further guarantees the successful performance of the work for the service intended. If the City deems it inexpedient to require the Contractor to correct deficient or defective materials or labor, an equitable deduction from the contract price shall be made therefore or in the alternative the City may sue for damages, or both.
REGULAR COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Fraud prevention and monitoring.
Under “Fraud prevention and monitoring” by Guardian CRM, Inc., the City of Stuart Building Department passed the final inspection of the incomplete roof with a fake roof ridge vent system, but the City Manager, who is also a Florida Bar member and was notified about this, states “we cannot do reinspections.” Well, the City manager controls the Departments, hopefully, not the City Commission yet.
The City of Stuart CDBG Program is not a “private enterprise” because the City of Stuart entered into the contract with an Independent Contractor Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc. and delegated the CDBG Program management to the private company.
(The City of Stuart Contract with Guardian CRM, Inc. RFP #2020-103)
Section 7. City’s Obligations
7.1 Project Manager
The Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project is: Pinal Gandhi-Savdas
The City Government can always contact the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and/ or Florida Department of Commerce and confirm the City’s duties and responsibilities regarding the CDBG Program Management, which go beyond getting ” the points and scores.” At least, the City should be familiar with all the documents related to the City of Stuart CDBG Program, including the contracts between the CDBG Program Participants and Contractors.
(The City of Stuart CDBG Program Contract between Robert Hamilton and Olga Hamilton, the “Owner(s)”, and Patriot Response Group, the “Contractor”)
ARTICLE 1.
The Project. The Contractor shall perform all the work and provide all labor, materials, equipment, tools, services and other items required by the Contract Documents for the rehabilitation of the above-described property according to the work write-up, plans and specifications (“Project”) provided by the City of Stuart Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program.
(Under the management and supervision of Guardian CRM, Inc., the CDBG Scope of Work was not submitted to the City of Stuart Building Department)
ARTICLE 3.
3.2 Contract Sum and Payment. Progress payments are based on the payment schedule submitted by the Contractor and approved by the Owner and the CDBG Program.
3.3 Prior to the Contractor being entitled to any payment, the Contractor shall provide to the Owner and the CDBG Program (a) an affidavit identifying all subcontractorsor materialmen which have performed work on the Project up to the date of the payment request and (b) affidavits from each such subcontractor or materialman confirming payment in full and release of all lien rights over the subject property.
3.4 Payments may be withheld on account of any one of the following : (1) defective work not remedied ; (2) claims or liens filed ; (3) required inspections not passed by the local government building department; (4) required documents not submitted ; and (5) unsatisfactory performance by the Contractor.
ARTICLE 5. Supervision.
5.3 Work which does not conform to the Contract Documents shall be rejected by the Owner. The Owner may issue instructions to the Contractor through the CDBG Program staff, and apprise the staff of any changes, discrepancies or problems that may arise during the term of the Contract.
(The CDBG Program staff has been notified about the incomplete roof and damages caused by the oversized replacement windows installation in violation of the Florida Building Code, and the misleading permit applications in violation of the Florida Statutes, The CDBG Program documents, etc.)
We will list all the violations by the Contractor Patriot Response Group under the City of Stuart Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program.
We are looking forward to resolving this issue.
Thank you,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
On Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 12:00:13 PM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Hi Mr. Hamilton,
As discussed today, I am doing my best to resolve this issue and work on reducing the final payment to Patriot. We will review the budget for the CDBG Program and quotes provided by you for the window replacement and roof ridge vent system and at the same time comply with the CDBG program policy of not to exceed $80,000 for the project.
Please give me about a week to get back to you on this matter and I hope we can come to a good solution.
Thank you.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr <roberthamiltonjr@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2024 7:10 PM
To: Mortell, Michael; Eula Clarke ; Rich, Campbell; Mark Brechbill ; Giobbi, Laura; Reed, Sean ; Collins, Christopher; Tom Campenni; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas,
Honorable Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and CRA Board Members,
As per your request, we have attached a bid by Code Red Roof on the unsealing the roof ridge vent and installing the roof ridge vent system, and the letter from the owner of Liberty Impact Windows & Doors.
Due to the fraudulent and shoddy work by Patriot Response Group under management and supervision of Mr. Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc. our building sustained substantial damages. And we are also defrauded of the funds for the exterior doors and attic insulation which are included in the $57,330 bid.
Mr. Jenkins has been notified by email on August 4th, 2024, that the roof ridge vent wasn’t installed according to the scope of work. Anyway, Mr. Jenkins demands the release of federal grant funds (31 USC 3729: False claims).
Mr. Jenkins presents himself as a Director of Construction “certified in the latest building standards and codes.” Under Mr. Jenkins “certification” and supervision, in violation of the Florida Building Code on Existing Buildings, Means of Egress, and Path of Egress, Patriot Response Group, destroyed not only our windows’ frames and rough openings but also altered the exterior load-bearing walls, and removed structural elements without notifying and submitting any plans to the City of Stuart Building Department.
In total, based on the Code Red Roof’s bid (now, they have to unseal the roof ridge vent by hand not to damage trusses and metal) and the estimates by Liberty Impact Windows & Doors we are facing $40,139 for the roof ridge vent system installation, repairs to our rough openings and frames, and installing the correct size windows.
The 17 unnecessary oversized replacement windows by Patriot Response Group cannot be installed back into the repaired rough openings and exterior load-bearing walls. Please see the PDF file with windows photographs and damages.
CO#1: (100% complete-additional roof work needed to ensure roof safety and compliance): $2,500.00 is misrepresentation and has to be deducted from the final bill as well. Please see the PDF Roof file.
In total $42,639 has to be deducted from the total final bill. This sum doesn’t include expenses for repairing the stucco wall covering that protects our walls assembly, ripped-off Elastomeric paint, cleaning the attic and the fence.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2024 at 01:04:27 PM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Mr. Hamilton,
In response to incomplete work for the windows, we have agreed to install new windows (including framing as needed) to be completed utilizing project budget. Guardian has requested for you to get three quotes from the contractors on your choice for new window installation. Please provide the quotes so the work can proceed with new window installation.
Also, Patriot has agreed to reduce the cost of the final payout by an additional $2,000. Your project has $33,510 that can be utilized to finalize the new window installation.
I understand your concerns with Patriot and we are aware of the issues. At this time, we want to work with you to finish your windows with the remaining funding.
Thank you,
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
To: Mortell, Michael; Eula Clarke; Campbell Rich; Mark Brechbill; Laura Giobbi; Sean Reed; Christopher Collins; Tom Campenni; Jordan Pinkston; Pinal Gandhi-Savdas
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 11:57:01 AM EDT
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council, City Manager, CRA Administration and Members:
We, Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton, applied for The City of Stuart CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program, offered and advertised by on the City of Stuart website: “The City of Stuart is providing housing assistance to owner-occupied households through the CDBG program in order to complete a HUD national objective through the revitalization of conditions in low to moderate income areas.”
On March 13, 2024, at the City Hall, we signed the Subordinate Mortgage for the City CDBG Housing Rehabilitation loan, where the City is the “Lender” and we, Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr., the homeowners, are the “Borrower.” Our signatures on the Subordinate Mortgage were notarized in our presence by Dawn M. Cobb (Commission #HH 277782). Mrs. Cobb is also Guardian CRM, Inc. Admin. As we were led to believe, Guardian CRM, Inc. has been contracted by the City to manage the City CDBG HR program and supervise the contractors. Please see the attached Subordinate Mortgage.
On March 13, 2024, at the City Hall, we also signed the Notice of Commencement (NofC) stating that the Lender/Mortgage Company is Stuart City Council c/o CDBG Program. Our signatures were notarized in our presence by Dawn M. Cobb (Commission #HH 277782). Please see the attached Notice of Commencement.
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program contractor Patriot Response Group under the management and supervision of Guardian, CRM, Inc. didn’t file the correct NofC dated March 13, 2024, with the Martin County Clerk and Comptroller, instead, the contractor filed the NofC that doesn’t state the Lender – Stuart City Council c/o CDBG Program. The signature of Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. on the NofC filed by the contractor with the Martin County Clerk and Comptroller on April 1, 2024, was notarized on March 28, 2024, without Mr. Hamilton, Jr., being present during the notarization. The public notary Barry Keith Hamilton (Commission #469619) also falsely stated that he knows Mr. Hamilton, Jr. personally.
The public notary Barry Keith Hamilton (Commission #469619) violated The 2024 Florida Statutes, Title X, Chapter 117 (9), and the contractor filed this falsely notarized NofC with the Martin County Clerk and Comptroller and the City of Stuart Building Department. We have filed a complaint with the Governor’s Notary Section, and per recommendation by Martin County Clerk and Comptroller filed our report with the Stuart Police Department – Case# 2024-00024208, Officer Briglia #119.
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr had a meeting with the Stuart Building Department, inspecting the permit BP-24-684 file, and per our request, the building department provided us electronically with all the documents submitted on the roof BP-24-684 by the contractor under management of Guardian CRM, Inc.
Under the 2024 Florida Statutes, Title XL, Chapter 713.135, (7)(b)1,Building permit applications submitted to the authority electronically must contain the following additional statement in lieu of the requirement in paragraph (a) that a signed, sworn, and notarized signature of the owner or agent and the contractor be part of the owner’s affidavit: OWNER’S ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION STATEMENT: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that all the information contained in this building permit application is true and correct.
The contractor applied electronically for building permits BP-24-684 and BP-24-653. Per inspections of Building Permits BP-24-684 and BP-24-653 files, provided to us by the City Building Department, we didn’t locate any signed, sworn, and notarized affidavits, declaring that all the information contained in the building permit applications is true and correct.
Under the 2024 Florida Statutes, Title XL, Chapter 713.135 (7)(a), in addition to any other information required by the authority issuing the permit, the building permit application must be in substantially the following form: Mortgage Lender. Both building permits, BP-24-684 and BP-24-653, do not have Mortgage Lender: “Stuart City Council c/o CDBG Program” information.
The City of Stuart Building Department, CRA Agency, City Manager, City Commissioners, and Guardian CRM, Inc. have been notified by us prior that the Roof Permit BP-24-684 passed the final inspection based on a misleading, incomplete, and incorrect permit application as the contractor concealed the CDBG HR full scope of work from the City of Stuart Building Department, as we mentioned in the previous emails. Please see the attached file on the Roof with messages mentioning the roof ridge vent system and photographs.
On July 16, 2024, the CDBG HR program manager and construction director Antonio Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. assured us that the contractor Patriot Response Group had plans and permission to do structural alteration to our exterior walls. Please see the attached copy of the messages. After inspecting the Building Permit BP-24-653 file that was sent to us electronically by the Stuart Building Department per our request, we didn’t locate any plans approved and even not approved by the City Building Department or by the contractor’s engineer for structural alteration of our existing building load-bearing walls to install the oversized windows that required increasing the size of an existing opening and removal of structural supporting elements. The contractor Patriot Response Group under the management of Guardian CRM, Inc. also submitted the WRONG floor plan – PDF file “Hamilton Overhead Sketch.” The contractor added an extra room / square footage we don’t have and also altered the means of egress continuity.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24 570.480 – .497, Regulations for State CDBG Program, § 570.486 Local government requirements, the local governments are required not only to encourage the citizens’ participation but also (7) Provide citizens the address, phone number, and times for submitting complaints and grievances, and provide timely written answers to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working days where practicable.
We reported the structural alterations and damages to our exterior walls due to the oversized windows installation to the City of Florida Building Department officials during the first inspection on Building Permit BP-24-653 and on July 19, 2024 by email to Community Redevelopment Agency and Antonio Jenkins of Guardian, CRM., Inc. As we mentioned above, we were told the plans to alter our exterior load-bearing walls were provided by the contractor, but we couldn’t locate such plans.
Why would the City Government refuse to act and do re-inspections, hiding behind the statement by the City Manager “We can not just go back and change the inspections” when the inspections were performed based on misleading and incomplete permits in the first place?
The sentiment that the City Government has rested its responsibilities because the City has a contract/agreement with Guardian CRM, Inc. to manage the CDBG HR program, and the City of Stuart as the “Lender” of the CDBG HR federal funds is not responsible for ensuring that the CDBG HR program’s documentation and federal funds are not misused and misused by any party, including the grant management company Guardian CRM, Inc. is quite incomprehensible.
Why the Subordinate Mortgage for the City CDBG Housing Rehabilitation loan we signed wasn’t even filed and recorded with the Martin County Clerk and Comptroller before the NofC?
The Position Summary of the City Manager states:
Under general direction of the City Commission incumbent directs and coordinates all phases of the general municipal government. Work involves the supervision of activities related to the City in accordance with the policies determined by the City Commission, City Charter and applicable laws and ordinances.
The Examples of Essential Functions of the City Manager includes:
2. Administers and supervises through subordinate department heads all functions, including but not limited to, law enforcement, fire rescue, public works, utilities, community redevelopment, financial operations and budgets, community and recreational activities, information technology, human resources, legislative affairs,
community development, city clerk, and other related functions.
3. Prepares the annual City balanced budget for submission to the City
11. Responsible for the overall direction, coordination, supervision, and evaluation of the departments and units under incumbent’s direction. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the City’s policies and applicable law.
As it appears, the City Manager’s position is to “sweep under the carpet” the violations of the City of Stuart Code of Ordinances, Article II. – Administration Of Florida Building Code by the CDBG HR program contractor under the management of Guardian CRM, Inc, and we are supposed to release the CDBG HR federal funds lent to us by the City to pay for incomplete, shoddy and deceptive work by the contractor, performed under the misleading, incomplete, and incorrect permits, and we are supposed to use the CDBG HR federal funds to rehabilitate the damages and incomplete work done by the contractor under management of Guardian CRM, Inc.
The damages were done under the permits submitted to the City of Stuart by the contractor Patriot Response Group under the management by Guardian CRM, Inc.
We ask the City to rectify the situation with the incomplete, incorrect, and misleading building permits BP-24-684 and BP-24-653 approved by the City, and perform re-inspections on the facts that the CDBG HR full scope of work on the roof was not submitted to the Stuart Building Department, the roof ridge vent system installation wasn’t performed on the Building Permit BP-24-684, and the alteration of our existing building load-bearing and removal of structural components by the contractor on the Building Permit BP-24-653 was done by the contractor without any approved structural plans submitted to the Stuart Building Department. ( The 2024 Florida Statues, Title XXXIII, Chapter 553.79 (2)(a)1)
Not just to close but to leave the building permit BP-24-684 “hanging” with $19,090 Full Valuation for incomplete work is no less than perpetuating deceptive practices.
We are looking forward to the resolution and revaluation of the misleading permits, incomplete work, and damages inflicted on our house by the Contractor Patriot Response Group.
Thank you!
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Article II. – Administration Of Florida Building Code[2]
Chapter 10 – Buildings And Building Regulations[1
Sec. 10-26. – Purpose.
The city enforces the state building code as required by state law. The purpose of this article is to provide for the administration of the state building code as amended by the city in this article.
Sec. 10-27. – Definitions.
Structural component means any part of a system, building or structure, loadbearing or nonloadbearing, which is integral to the structural integrity thereof, including, but not limited to, walls, partitions, columns, beams and girders.
Structural work or structural alteration means the installation or assembling of new structural components into a system, building or structure and includes any change, repair or replacement of any existing structural component of a system, building or structure.
Sec. 10-29. – Powers and duties of the building official.
(a) Generally. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of the state building code, as amended in this article. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of the state building code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the state building code and shall not have the effect of waiving any of its requirements.
Sec. 10-36. – Violations and penalties.
Any person, firm, corporation or agent who fails to comply with any provision of the code, or who shall erect, construct, alter, install, demolish or move any structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, or has erected, constructed, altered, repaired, moved or demolished a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, in violation of a detailed statement or drawing submitted and permitted thereunder, shall be guilty of a municipal ordinance violation. Each such person shall be considered guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which a violation of any of the provisions of the code is committed or continued. Upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punished within the limits as provided by law and local ordinance.
(2) Violation of code provisions. The building official may revoke a permit upon determination that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving, demolition, installation, or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued, is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of the state building code.
On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 08:13:53 AM EDT, Mortell, Michael wrote:
Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton,
The City appreciates the concerns you have raised regarding the CDBG program and more specifically the concerns related to your personal experience with the program. Throughout the Covid outbreak and then following with the CDBG HR Program, the City, through the CRA served as the conduit to provide financial assistance to qualifying residents. The Commission distributed millions of dollars during the Covid/ARPA programs and they also authorized the CRA to provide access to $750,000 dollars in assistance from the Community Redevelopment Block Grant Program. In situations like yours, the City finds itself in a very complicated situation. Essentially, the City of Stuart does not serve as the contractor or supervisor of the program. As you know, the City does not set the criteria to qualify for the grants and more importantly, the City does not select the program administrators or the contractors. I am sorry that you have had such a difficult experience with the grant and it is also my understanding that there have been attempts to rectify the issues with your windows. Hopefully the entire matter will be corrected to your satisfaction.
Note: Mr. Mortell, as the City’s attorney, approved and signed, the Procurement Policy adopted by the City (RESOLUTION NUMBER 11-2021) to comply with the purchasing requirements set forth under 2 Code of Federal Regulations 200 as well as Florida Statute Chapters 255 and 287 by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to receive the CDBG grant. He also approved the contract between the City and Guardian Community Resource Management Inc., and aware that Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas is the City of Stuart CDBG Project Manager.
I want to be clear that Ms. Gandhi-Savdas is not taking a position on the services rendered because she is not allowed to take a position. She is trying to get the documents signed and the balance paid so that a new contractor can be hired and focus on the solution to your issues. I am hopeful that you can resolve the issues in the method that you have chosen. All the CRA Director was doing was following the directions of the program administrators. It appears that want to get they prior work signed off and get new work finished. Then they can pursue any investigation they want against the prior contractor for the amount spent on the windows. I do not know their position or even why they gave that instruction but I know that Ms. Gandhi Savdas is just trying to make sure you and your wife are satisfied. Then there will be time for the program to investigate the issues and find a resolution. Nobody wants you to have leaking windows or any other issues.
But, the City can not be used to force the contractor or project manager to take a different course of action because the City has already done the inspections. I understand that you have pointed out deficiencies that you believe justify failing inspections but now that there is a full blown dispute, we can not just go back and change the inspections. It is very complicated. It seems to me that you would benefit from signing the document to all them to take the actions to replace your windows but I am not telling you what to do either.
When you send emails to all of the Commissioners, it creates a situation where the other side does not have an opportunity to provide their side of the story. Most importantly, the City Commission does not have the legal authority to vote and decide the outcome. It appears to me that in order for you to pursue the method you are choosing to resolve the issue, it would require civil litigation. If you sign the papers – even under protest – it will allow the program to replace your windows and then you can address the issues about the faulty installation without having to worry about additional water damage occurring because of leaks.
Note: Please read our post on the replacement windows installation by the CDBG contractor to see the photographs of the most shoddiest and destructive work Mr. Mortell calls “leaks”
On Sep 4, 2024, at 11:40 AM, Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr wrote:
Dear Mrs. Pinal Gandhi-Savdas,
We are not asserting the fraud, we are concerned about the potential fraud. It appears there is a scheme to defraud the City of Stuart CDBG HR program and us, homeowners, while the city is the overseer of the program and the lender of the CDBG HR program funds. And the City provided “the security instrument” we signed to secure the City’s interests as a Lender.
Mr. Jenkins and you, Mrs. Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, have already been notified that the Stuart Building Department passed the final inspection of the roof with a valuation of $19.090 based on the misleading and incomplete permit application by the contractor Patriot Response Group. Under the City of Stuart CDBG HR program, Patriot Response Group supervised by Guardian CRM, Inc., was solely responsible for providing all applications, permits, plans, drawings, product approvals, or other required local, state, or federal, documentation (to include all applicable Fees, A&E, etc). The contractor concealed from the Stuart Building Department the installation of the roof ridge vent system included in the CDBG HR full scope of work. The contractor violated the Stuart, Florida – Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 – BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS. Moreover, after sealing our existing roof ridge vent, the contractor deliberately faked “the roof ridge vent system” by placing the strip of mesh along the sealed roof ridge vent. The City of Stuart is aware of this fraud and has been provided with the photographs as well. We also preserved the communication with Guardian CRM, Inc. regarding the roof ridge vent. Now, we have a legitimate concern about how Guardian CRM, Inc. is involved in this potential fraud with the roof ridge system installation, and why the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Executive Director, representing the City, continues to insist on the full payment of the $19,090.
The City has also been notified about the dubious affidavit submitted by the contractor under the supervision and management of Guardian CRM, Inc. to the City of Stuart Building Department. As we stated, we, homeowners, were taking photographs and videos on May 22, 2024, and we never met or saw James Foster, Executive Vice President of Patriot Response Group on our property, moreover, on the roof. The affidavit is notarized by Vance Olvey, the authorized representative of the contractor to sign the contracts, “changes of orders,” and who also is the brother of the Patriot Response Group owner. How convenient!
Regarding the operational cost: the contractor didn’t submit to the City of Stuart Building Department any documentation on the roof ridge vent system installation according to the CDBG HR program scope of work. We submitted our request to the City of Stuart Building Department on the plans and drawings submitted by the contractor to alter our existing building’s exterior load-bearing walls and remove the structural components to install the oversized replacement windows, which didn’t fit our existing frames and rough openings.
The replacement windows didn’t pass the inspection by the Stuart Building Department, and the building department has never been denied any entrance. We would like to request a second inspection by the Stuart Building Department and submit to the Permit file the photographs of the first replacement windows installation that took place on July 5th through July 7th, resulting in the damages to our house, and the photographs of the reinstallation of all 17 windows, inflicting more damage. The three windows out of 20 couldn’t be installed at all due to the negligent measurements of our existing frames and rough openings. The reinstallation of the windows installed off-center by the contractor will require further destruction of our rough openings, compromising the exterior load-bearing walls.
We have no choice but to hire a structural engineer. Mr. Jenkins has already admitted on the record the damage has been done to our house. Now, we have to calculate how much it will cost to repair all the damages, including the continuous jack studs that supported our upper wall plate and were cut out and/or damaged by the contractor’s shoddy work to the point when the wall cavities are exposed and the wall insulation is sticking out.
$2,500 for the change of order #1 is also a concern. The contractor, Guardian CRM, Inc., and the building department were notified that the deck replacement and the waterproofing underlayment installation on May 22, 2024, failed, resulting in multiple roof leaks. The underlayment wrinkled and the seams were lifted. The photographs of the roof leaks, the failed underlayment, and the deck boards that weren’t replaced the first time were sent to Guardian CRM, Inc.
Guardian CRM, Inc. and the contractor charged an additional $2,500 to the program’s funds for the removal of the failed underlayment, the deck boards that weren’t replaced, and the second time installation of the waterproofing installation that took place only on June 21, 2024. The preserved messages also show that the contractor planned to install the metal over the failed deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation. While Guardian CRM, Inc. and the contractor took the photographs, we also have taken photographs and videos.
The comparison of the photos taken on two different dates shows how the contractor can potentially inflate the job to draw more money out of the federal funds.
Is $2,500 for the extra boards the contractor brought (we can calculate it) or does this charge also include payments for the same job the contractor performed on May 22, 2024? We kindly ask you to elaborate on “roof safety and compliance.”
The supposed independent engineer was not denied entrance to our house on July 26, 2024, either. The engineer declined to perform the inspection after Vance Olvey of Patriot Response Group stated that the contractor hired and paid the engineer. During a 35-minute phone conversation on July 25, 2024, Mr. Jenkins convinced us to sign the change of order and that the engineer would be independent, but Mr. Jenkins never mentioned the $1000 charged to our CDBG HR fund would be “reimbursed” to the contractor, and in combination with the change of order #1 it would make $3,500. We still don’t know the name of the engineer. Mr. Jenkins couldn’t recall the engineer’s name at the last video-recorded CRM meeting at the City Hall. But our surveillance camera video on July 26, 2024, shows Vance Olvye of Patriot Response Group came earlier that day, waiting for the engineer, waving to the engineer, giving the documents to the engineer, chatting with the engineer, and he knew the engineer that Patriot Response Group hired. Mr. Jenkins did not call on that day or even after at least to ask us what happened.
We were left abandoned until we started to raise the issue via email on August 4, 2024. And what did Mr. Jenkins do? Knowing that the roof passed inspection being incomplete because the contractor concealed the scope of work from the Building Department, Mr. Jenkins threatened us with liens on August 15th if we didn’t release the federal funds to pay the contractor, and an hour later after Mr. Jenkins’s email, a man called, stating he was the roofing subcontractor and he wasn’t paid. What a coincidence!
We have not received any apology from Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. nor the contractor Patriot Response Group, only their threats of mechanical liens to extort payments from the program funds for their incomplete, shoddy, destructive work, and even potentially fraudulent work due to which we are in a much worse situation than we were before the CDBG HR program. And now, Dear Mrs. Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, you again asked us to release the funds.
There are not just cracks and holes left by the CDBG HR contractor in our house walls, it looks like there are cracks and holes in the Oversight of these programs and the federal funds are siphoned out.
Due to this situation and concerns, we, homeowners, are put in a position where we have to request an official investigation of this matter.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
(Attachements to the e-mail)
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr ; Mortell, Michael; Eula Clarke; Rich, Campbell; Mark Brechbill; Giobbi, Laura; Reed, Sean; Collins, Christopher; Tom Campenni
Cc: Hatten, Louis; Pinkston, Jordan
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 01:04:27 PM EDT
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Mr. Hamilton,
In response to incomplete work for the windows, we have agreed to install new windows (including framing as needed) to be completed utilizing project budget. Guardian has requested for you to get three quotes from the contractors on your choice for new window installation. Please provide the quotes so the work can proceed with new window installation.
Also, Patriot has agreed to reduce the cost of the final payout by an additional $2,000. Your project has $33,510 that can be utilized to finalize the new window installation.
I understand your concerns with Patriot and we are aware of the issues. At this time, we want to work with you to finish your windows with the remaining funding.
Thank you,
Pinal
Note! Such a “brilliant” approach by the City Government to resolve the issue: We, the City of Stuart CDBG HR program participants should release the federal funds to pay Patriot Response Group for the incomplete roof with a “fake” roof ridge system, the oversized replacement windows shoddy installation that caused damage to our building under the Guardian CRM, Inc. and the City’s watch, approval, and deliberate indifference, and then use $33,510 to repair all the damage! So, our mortgage with the City CDBG HR Program would be $80,000 for the incomplete roof and the replacement windows! $33,510 is not even enough to repair all the windows’ frames and rough openings, including the restoration of the essential structural elements that Patriot Response Group cut out along with the alteration of the load-bearing walls, to repair the cracks and holes in the stucco wall coverings and ripped-off several coats of Elastomeric paint, and of course, no money left for the roof ridge vent system installation, the attic insulation, the exterior doors, according to the bid and scope of work. Oh, that feeling of nausea when you are kinda getting scammed by the City, so the City can report to the State of Florida and the U.S. HUD what a wonderful job the City has done with the CDBG HR funds and get their points and scores!
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 08:31:49 AM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Development Department / Development Division/ Building Department
Permit Documents Request – Corrected Date of the installation
Under the City of Stuart CDBG program and the scope of work, the contractor Patriot Response Group was responsible for choosing and ordering the replacement windows and applying for the windows replacement permit. The contractor negligently ordered oversized replacement windows 4″ larger than our original windows that didn’t fit within the existing or existing rough opening (Florida Building Code Chapter 7Alterations—Level 1, 702.5).
Under the Florida Building Code, our existing building doesn’t require any additional means of egress: we have three exit doors, and we do not have any dead ends.
On July 5th, 2024, the contractor proceeded with the oversized replacement windows installation, and to fit the oversized replacement windows the contractor not only severely altered our existing rough openings by removing the essential parts of our rough openings such as jack studs and rough openings’ sills connected to jack studs and cripples, compromising the structural integrity of our building, but also our exterior load-bearing walls.
According to the Florida Building Code Chapter 7Alterations—Level 1701.2 Conformance, an existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe or energy efficient than its existing condition.
And according to the Florida Building Code Chapter 14 Performance Compliance Methods, 1401.2.4 Alterations and repairs, An existing building or portion thereof that does not comply with the requirements of this code for new construction shall not be altered or repaired in such a manner that results in the building being less safe or sanitary than such building is currently.
By altering our exterior load-bearing walls, the contractor inflicted cracks and holes on the walls’ stucco covering, exposing the exterior wall assembly to further damages such as the accumulation of rainwater within the wall assembly.
We are requesting the plans and/or drawings on the alteration of our exterior load-bearing walls, including the wall assembly, submitted by the contractor to the City of Stuart Building Department on the building permit BP 24-653.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton.
Our apologies for any inconvenience.
Confirmation (sent via the City’s portal)
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 02:08:00 PM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Development Department / Development Division/ Building Department
Notice of the inaccurate, and/or incomplete information, provided by the contractor on the permit BP-24-684
We, Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton are notifying you that the contractor Patriot Response Group gave incorrect, inaccurate, and/or incomplete information to the City of Stuart Building Department when the contractor applied for the roof permit BP-24-684.
Under the contract with the City of Stuart CDBG HR program and the contractor Patriot Response Group, the contractor was solely responsible for providing all applications, permits, plans, drawings, product approvals, or other required local, state, or federal, documentation (to include all applicable Fees, A&E, etc). The contractor deliberately concealed from the Stuart Building Department the full scope of work on the total sum of $19,090, particularly, the installation of the roof ridge vent system by replacing our existing functioning roof ridge vent system. The contractor deliberately didn’t provide the Stuart Building Department with all the appropriate documentation on the roof ridge vent system installation according to the scope of work.
We are also notifying the City of Stuart Building Department that the contractor concealed from the Department the installation of hurricane straps/ties, performed on May 22 without submitting appropriate documentation on the installation of hurricane straps/ties to the Department for approval. As a result, the contractor installed the wrong hurricane straps/ties and also installed them incorrectly and inflicted damage to the connections between the rafters, ceiling joists, and wall plates.
Being misled by the inaccurate, and/or incomplete information, provided by the contractor on the permit BP-24-684, the Stuart Building Department closed the permit BP-24-684 as final with a Valuation: $19,090 without the roof ridge system being installed, and without proper inspection of hurricane straps/ties.
With the lack of proper roof ventilation we, homeowners, are facing mold, mildew, and premature wood deck rot, causing damages to our roof in the future and potential risk to our health. Due to the lack of proper roof ventilation, we homeowners are dealing with high temperatures and humidity in our dwelling as well.
The unauthorized and unapproved by Stuart Building Department installation of the wrong hurricane straps/ties by the contractor put not only the roof of our building but also the entire building at risk of extensive damages caused by hurricanes and tropical storms.
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton.
Confirmation (sent via the City’s portal)
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 12:28:59 PM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Staff Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Administrator
CDBG HR -Notice of fraudulent/ and or potentially fraudulent charges, substandard work
Dear Pinal,
Please, let us clarify the dismissal of the Contractor Patriot Response Group from our rehab site. You were notified about the issues we faced with the contractor in the form of shoddy work and bullying behavior of the contractor from the time they started to work.
As the situation escalated on July 26th, 2024, Dawn Cobb, Guardian CRM admin, notified us that after the conversation with you, the contractor was removed from our project. We do not object to the decision taken by you or Guardian CRM after all the damages inflicted on our historical building by the contractor’s shoddy work. Unfortunately, you have not had any time to visit our rehab site since we sent an email on July 19th, 2024, desperately asking for assistance. We understand how busy you are. The dissolution agreement you provided us with should be based on shoddy and negligent performance by the contractor, starting with the application for roof permit and concealing the scope of work from the City of Stuart Building Department.
Since 1999, all permits on our building had a type record “Historical Building Permit,” but when the contractor applied for the City of Stuart CDBG HR permit in April 2024, the word “Historical” was removed, and on the windows permit as well. Have you directed the removal of the “Historical Building Permit” as a type of record? If it wasn’t you, who did it? Even our paperwork with the City of Stuart Housing Rehab Program given to us by the City and Guardian CRM states in red: “The scope of work and all rehabilitation shall be in accordance with required state historic mandates relating to material and aesthetic.”
The contractor submitted inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading documentation to the City of Stuart Building Department on our roof Permit BP-24-684. The contractor didn’t submit to the City of Stuart Building Department the Stuart CDBG HR scope of work on the roof which also includes the roof ridge system installation that wasn’t performed by the contractor. Instead, the contractor, on April 15, 2024, submitted a shady PRICE list with dubious charges. (Please NOTE, we never mentioned any invoice). We brought the price list as an example of the contractor’s questionable professionalism.
We are waiting for the bids for the roof ridge system installation, the sum has to be deducted from the total $19,090 on the roof. And we are also waiting for the bids on the removal of oversized windows, repair of the framing, and installation of correct-size windows according to the FBD existing and historical building code. We had a meeting with the local Eastern Architectural Systems authorized dealer and he confirmed that the windows installed by the Patriot Response Group are oversized, and the destruction of our existed window rough openings and the alternation of our historical building’s exterior walls were unnecessary.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton
Effective management practices:
Maintaining open and frequent communications among all participants.
Focusing on preventing problems frst, rather than curing them later.
Playing by the Rules A Handbook for Subrecipients on Administrative Systems
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Ofce of Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
“Hi” is Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas’s professionalism. Again, she said no word about the SHPO letter dated December 1st, 2023. We didn’t mention any invoice, we mentioned the shady itemized price list FLW8X SEP23 submitted by Patriot Response Group instead of the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 11:58:23 AM EDT
Subject: CDBG HR Notice of Fraudulent and/or potentially fraudulent charges, substandard work
Hi,
In response to your inquiry below, all non-completed work would be removed from the total project Statement of Work (SOW) (that includes any associated products and/or costs). Example: The doors and attic insulation listed in the SOW was not completed. As such these items, including all costs were removed from the SOW via the dissolution request.
Additionally, any work partially completed would be discounted appropriately. This is also evidenced in the dissolution agreement. The windows and communication line items were discounted by (15%) and (50%) respectively.
Lastly, the itemized invoice (submitted to the building department) is not actually an itemized invoiced. It’s an approximate cost (generally by all items to be listed on a given permit) submitted by the contractor to the building department so that a project cost projection can be used as a point of reference and ensure compliance where legally a NOC is needed (recorded).
Thank you,
Pinal
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. had a meeting with the City of Stuart Building Department Official Mr. Hattem, inspecting the roof file permits. That’s how we found that the City of Stuart CDBG contractor Patriot Response Groupdid not submit the City of Stuart CDBG HR Scope of Work. Mr. Hatten also confirmed that he never saw or was given the CDBG SoW, when Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. showed the CDBG documents to Mr. Hatten. Per our request, Ms. Ruiz-Alvarado sent us the roof permit files electronically. Among the files was a Notice of Commencement with Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.’s signature notarized without his presence by a notary Barry Keith Hamilton from Orange Park, FL, who stated he knew Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. personally. The Roof Sheathing Affidavit, where James Foster, Patriot Response Group Vice President, stated that he personally inspected the roof deck nailing on May 22, 2024. We were home that day, taking pictures and videos of the roofing team replacing the deck and installing waterproofing underlayment. We never saw Mr. Foster. The affidavit was notarized by Vance Olvey, the Patriot Response Group owner’s brother. By the way, after the City of Stuart passed the “dry-in” inspection, the deck replacement and waterproofing underlayment installation failed, and everything had to be redone. You can read more about it in our post on The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – Roof with fake roof ridge vent system.
From: Alvarado, Grace
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 11:23:32 AM EDT
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Development Department
Good afternoon,
Here are all the given.
Regards,
Grace Ruiz-Alvarado
Senior Permitting Specialist
Building Department
City of Stuart
121 SW Flagler AveStuart, FL 34994
(The files attached)
Confirmation
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 08:08:17 AM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Development Department / Development Division / Permit Department
Request of the documents – BP-24-684
Dear Mr. Hatten.
Would you be so kind as to provide us in electronic format (PDF files) with the documents, including drawings and specifications, on the ridge vent system and hurricane straps/clips installation, submitted by the contractor Patriot Response Group on the roof permit BP-24-684 at our address 311 SW 3rd St., Stuart, FL 34994.
On May 22, the contractor installed the hurricane straps/clips/ties on our roof. It has been confirmed by the manufacturer of the installed hurricane ties that the wrong ties were used and the ties were installed wrong.
We also would like to bring to your attention that the price list totaling $16,298.84, attached to the “Hamilton Roof Drawing” PDF file and uploaded by the contractor Patriot Response Response group to the City of Stuart Building Department portal on April 15, 2024, at 9.55am, lists the replacement of our existed roof ridge vent under the line 10b.
Thank you in advance!
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton
Note: The City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work in total $19,090 on the roof includes the roof ridge vent system, Applying for the roof permit, the contractor did not submit the CDBG HR SoW, violating the City of Stuart CDBG HR contract and the Notice to Bidding Contractors the contractor signed. Mrs. and Antonio Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc, and the City Administration were already aware of this fact. The contractor submitted permit application electronically, and the permit was issued by the Building Department without a sworn and notarized affidavit (Florida Statutes, Chapter 713.135(7)(a)). We, the homeowners, were even deprived of our right to know what was in the permit application befor it was issued.
Confirmation
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 11:09:37 AM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Staff Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Administrator
CDBG HR -Notice of fraudulent/ and or potentially fraudulent charges, substandard work
Pinal,
This is what we are talking about: that “Itemized invoice from Patriot Response Group: such an invoice will not be generated from the contractor until a dissolution agreement is agreed upon by the applicable parties, signed, and approved.”
We are asked to sign the dissolution agreement before the “invoice will be generated.” We are asked to sign the total amount without even knowing what it exactly for, so the contractor can generate the itemized invoice after. We have two documents:
1. Roof- The itemized price list FLW8X SEP23 with the line item totals: $16,298.84, officially submitted by the contractor Patriot Response Group on Apr 15, 2024, at 9:55AM to the City of Stuart Building Department
2. The bid with the scope of work on the roof we signed on December 12/19/2023.
This is quite convoluted.
As for today, we asked to pay $19,090 for the scope of work on the roof that also includes the ridge vent system. The roof ridge vent system was not installed. The contractor Patriot Response Group and Guardian CRM know that “the roof ridge vent system” work hasn’t been performed, but they anyway included it into the total payment due.
Regards.
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Note: The response below to our email dated August 19, 2024, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas gave as the CDBG Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project. See Subgrant Contract between DEO and the City. And again, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas deliberately never mentioned the SHPO letter dated December 1, 2023, keeping us unaware of all the conditions that should be met on rehabilitation of our building.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 09:09:31 AM EDT
Subject: CDBG HR
Hi Robert,
In response to your notice of potentially fraudulent changes by the contractor, Patriot Response Group, you should contact them directly and get a response for each item and the Building Official can review it. Thank you.
Pinal
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 at 03:52:29 PM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Staff Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Administrator
Notice-The City of Stuart CDBG-HR
Notice of fraudulent/ and or potentially fraudulent charges, substandard work, faulty workmanship, and damages inflicted on our house by the contractor Patriot Response Group.
Building Permit BP-24-684. Roof
1. The itemized price list FLW8X SEP23 with the line item totals: $16,298.84, submitted by the contractor Patriot Response Group on Apr 15, 2024, at 9:55AM to the City of Stuart Building Department, contains fraudulent charges such as:
11a. Remove Flashing – pipe jack lead – $22.42 and 11.b. Replace – Flashing – pipe jack – lead -$200.36. We never had this item on our roof.
12a. Remove Exhaust cap – through roof – up to 4″ – $14.32 and 12b. Replace Exhaust cap – through roof – up to 4″ – $122.42. We never had this item on our roof.
10b. Continuous ridge vent – shingle-over style -$1,239.70. The continuous ridge vent was never installed
2. The contractor failed to submit the CDBG Rehabilitation scope of work on the roof in the total sum of $19,090. to the City of Stuart Building Department.
3. The contractor concealed from the City of Stuart Building Department that the installation of the ridge vent system is listed in the scope of work, and did not submit proper documentation on the ridge vent system installation.
4. The contractor failed to evaluate the existing roof sheathing, adequately replace the roof sheathing, and install Polystick, a self-adhered high-temp waterproofing underlayment, on May 22, 2024. The contractor’s negligent and substandard work resulted in the roof’s multiple leaks on June 12, 2024, and the removal of the failed Polysrick, the second deck replacement, and the second installation of Polystick, that took place on June 21, 2024.
5. The contractor did not provide the City of Stuart Building Department with the proper documentation on the hurricane ties installation in advance. The contractor concealed the installation of the hurricane ties on May 22, 2024, from the City of Stuart Building Department. The contractor installed the wrong hurricane ties and installed them incorrectly as confirmed by the manufacturer of the hurricane ties.
6. The contractor’s faulty installation of the hurricane ties inflicted new cracks and splits in the wood, damaging the connections between roof rafters, ceiling joists, and wall plates.
7. The contractor did not install the roof ridge vent system according to the scope of work. The contractor completely sealed our existing roof ridge vent and placed a strip of roof mesh, creating a deceptive appearance of a “functioning roof ridge vent.”
8. By sealing the existing roof ridge vent, the contractor deprived our roof of proper ventilation, creating an environment for the roof decking to decay prematurely, the growth of mold and mildew which can be toxic, and therefore causing a potential health risk to us, homeowners.
9. The contractor didn’t complete the roof fascia. The roof fascia was not installed on one side of the building.
10. The contractor didn’t clean the attic of sawdust, black tar, loose nails and screws, empty carton boxes, and the rotten wood debris that fell inside during two times of deck replacement.
Building Permit BP-24-653. Windows
1. The contractor delivered 20 replacement windows 4 inches larger than the original windows. The replacement windows didn’t fit within the existing frames, nor did they fit within the existing rough openings.
From July 5 through July 7, 2024, three workers were left by the contractor without supervision and altered the exterior load-bearing walls. By cutting out the exterior load-bearing walls, the contractors’ unsupervised workers also caused cracks and holes in the walls.
Three windows out of 20 couldn’t be installed due to negligent measurements of the 20 existing windows’ frames and rough openings by the contractor.
2. On July 9, 2024, due to the failed installation, all 17 replacement windows were taped with clear visqueen by the contractor, and the contractor scheduled re-installation on July 10, 2024.
3. From July 10 through July 13, 2024, during the re-installation of 17 replacement windows, more damages such as cracks and holes were inflicted on the exterior walls.
4. Three windows were installed off-center, and the exterior window trim boards’ sides have drastically different widths. Three off-center windows have to be reinstalled. Two windows will require re-installation with additional alternations to the walls to center them. And three windows have to be installed.
5. The contractor replaced our original 4’5″ wide Dade County pine window trim boards with inferior-grade pressure-treated yellow pine boards with knots, veins, and cracks. These trim boards continue cracking and moving. They have to be reinstalled
6. The original windows’ sills had a proper slope. 6. The contractor replaced our original 1.5″ thick window sills with 0.75″ thick pressure-treated boards, and a few 0.75″ sills do not have a slope to deflect rainwater away. The windows have to be taken out, to replace the sills.
7. The contractor used non-paintable silicone sealant and smeared the sealant on the windows’ pressure-treated trim boards and sills.
8. The silicone sealant between the windows, walls, and trim boards continues to come apart, creating bigger gaps. We now have window leaks. 17 windows have to be resealed.
9. The contractor severely damaged the exterior elastomeric stucco paint under and around the windows. The damaged paint continues to peel off.
10. The interior original cedar trim cannot be reinstalled around the oversized replacement windows.
We request a revision of the submitted revised total of $48,490.00.
The City of Stuart CDBG Rehab site: 311 SW 3rd., St. Stuart, FL 34994.
Robert W. Hamilton. Jr. and Olga Hamilton
Confirmation:
From: <noreply@civicplus.com>
To: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 at 12:55:41 PM EDT
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Development Department
Request to reopen Building Permit BP-24-684
Development Division: Building Department
We, Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton, the homeowners and participants of the City of Stuart CDBG HR program, requesting the re-inspection of our roof and to reopen the Building Permit BP-24-684 due to the fact that the contractor Patriot Response Group did not install the roof ridge vent system according to the scope of work and bid. The contractor Patriot Response Group, after removing our roof ridge vent system that was functioning, completely sealed our roof ridge vent instead of installing the roof vent ridge system. Due to the lack of proper roof ventilation we are facing mildew, wood rot, mold and also health risk in the nearest future. The heat index reaches over 120F on some days in the attic and the humidity over 70%. Subsequently, the house’s framework absorbs the heat and transfers the heat into the living areas of our home. The hurricane ties were installed incorrectly and this was confirmed by the manufacturer per the wind mitigation inspector inquire, and we will not get the wind mitigation credits on our roof until this issue is corrected. This incorrect installation of the hurricane ties also inflicted damage to the connections between the rafters, ceiling joists, and the wall plate by cracking the wood. The roof fascia is incomplete and not installed on one side of our building. The rain water running on the wood.
Thank you.
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton
311 SW 3rd St, Stuart, FL 34994
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 8:44 AM To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal ; Antonio Jenkins
Cc: Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael; Hatten, Louis; Bruner, Becky; McDonald, Troy ; Eula Clarke ; Collins, Christopher; Rich, Campbell
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Good morning.
Mr. Jenkins,
This is Olga Hamilton
First, on July 26, 2024, no one denied the engineer entrance. The engineer refused to do the inspection, stating he was no longer independent after Vance Olvey of Patriot Response Group stated that he, the contractor, hired and paid the engineer.
On July 23, 2024 at 3:24PM, Dawn Cobb, Guardian CRM Admin, brought us the change of order with an added $3,500 to our $57,300 loan/contract funded by the taxpayers. On July 24, 2024 at 10AM I sent you an email, asking you to respond to the email I sent on July 19th with photographs of the damages done by Patriot Repose Group, and to our requests in the email dated July 24th, before signing the change of order.
When you called us on July 25th, you stated that your email response would hurt us very badly that’s why you preferred a phone call. During a 35-minute phone conversation, you never told us that the sum of $3,500 would be “given back” to the contractor as “reimbursement”; all you said was to trust you and the engineer would be independent, convincing us to sign the change of order. My bad, I misunderstood you and the the change of order! When we saw Vance Olvey of Patriot Response Group, who came earlier and was waiting for the engineer, and after waving to the engineer, and chatting with him pointing at our house, of course, we had our concerns and we expressed them. But again, it was the engineer himself, who stated he could not do the inspection.
On July 26, the same day, after Dawn Cobb, Guardian CRM Admin, notified us the contractor was fired, and she left, we sent you an email at 2:35PM, but you didn’t respond or call back to talk to us about the situation that took place on that day, and to tell us you were working or planning to work on resolving the issue and moving forward. But you had time to talk to Patriot Response Group. Didn’t you?
We haven’t heard from you or Dawn until after we sent another email on August 4th. You responded on August 6.
So, from July 26 until August 6, no one had a minute to let us know what you were planning. Was it something in your plans you were so concerned about putting on the record through the emails and send us a message?
Yes, on August 8, we had a wind mitigation inspection. We wrote you on August 7th. Again, you never wrote or called us to let us know about your plans, neither Dawn did. You all were waiting until August 15th to “gently” threaten us with the liens, etc. Should we send our request for the sworn statement of account now? Should we notified the Florida Housing Finance Corporation on upcoming liens on our property in advance?
Since May 22, every time we expressed our concerns about the contractor and sent you messages “we are scared of them,” “we don’t trust them,” you were telling and convincing us to give them another and another chance, and another chance, and everything would be fine. Yes, we did compliment them on the roof just to find later the hurricane clips were installed incorrectly, the roof ridge vent was not installed, and the attic is full of sawdust and wood debris. We thanked you and Dawn, and had our trust in you until July 26th. And now we have our exterior bearing walls altered, and cracks and holes, and more to it.
So, you received the photographs of the hurricane clips and the “fake” roof ridge vent we sent on August 4, and never answered our question “Who else knew our roof ridge vent would be eliminated, approved it, and never told us?” And we still don’t know, but the ridge vent was in the scope of work.
As you deny the roof vent installation, stating all the work is complete, and that’s why the roof permit passed final, we question your trustworthiness even more. The ridge vent is in the $16,298.84 bid that was uploaded by Patriot Response Group to the City of Stuart Building Department, and the ridge vent system is in the scope of work: 2a. Roof – $19,090.00. The question is still the same as we asked in the previous email: “Why would the contractor stick the strip of the ridge vent mesh if the never installed the the ridge vent system?” Looks truly deceptive. Please see the attached PDF file.
Are you going to add to our account another thousands of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to pay another contractor to fix all the damages left by Patriot Response Group? Or would be it fair to the taxpayers to deduct this money from Patriot Response Group, the contractor that caused the damages? Regarding the itemized bill, I think the U.S. taxpayers have the right to know how their moneys are spent. So far, we got butchered on the taxpayers’ dime as I mentioned previously.
So, who is paying to fix all the damages done by Patriot Response Group? The taxpayers again?
The assessment of the damages has to be done and the damages has to be repaired, the roof ridge vent has to be installed according to scope of work, the attic has to be cleaned, etc (we will make the separate list). The local contractors should be paid by the Stuart CDBG HR Program, and the cost has to be deducted from Patriot Response Group’s bill who created the damages and left work unfinished, including the roof.
Yes, under the Sunshine Law, all these email communications with all the photographs and documents provided are public records, phone messages as well. You are “guarding” the taxpayers’ money,’ GUARDIAN of the Public Trust, you are paid by the taxpayers, right, you (Guardian CRM, Inc) have a contract with the city voted and approved by the city commissioners, right? or you guard only Patriot Response Group and they have like ten contracts here already in a few months? And no local contractors or subcontractors were hired to work on our place. There were only two bids to choose from. I will write about it later for public record.
Please see the attached PDF file on the windows. All the PDF files I sent are also going to the City of Stuart’s public records along with this email.
Three window are install off-center. Two will require to cut the wall again to center them. Regarding the materials used: the inferior pressure treated board with knots, veins, and cracks are not “of the first quality and without defects” (it is in your own paper work: new materials required) – signed by Patriot Response Group.
“Periodically Remove Debris” is also in your own paperwork signed by Patriot Response Group.
“All bids to include Repair / Repaint…” is also in your own paperwork signed by Patriot Response Group.
Now, you are forcing us to approve the final payment to Patriot Response Group and accept their shoddy workmanship. It is not just windows shims failed, the framing of rough openings is not acceptable. Looks through the photos in the attached PDF file that’s what you and the Stuart Building Department wants to approve.
We contacted the window manufacturer and their dealers, and they all said it wouldn’t be a problem to order the same windows and the same size as our original windows, and they all would be up to the Florida Building Code and wouldn’t require the destruction of our rough openings, more over the alternation of our building’s exterior bearing walls.
We will go over all the documents, records, photographs, and will compose the list of all the questions and notes regarding the final fully itemized bill from Patriot Response Group. We as receivers of the grant funded by the U.S. taxpayers (and I’m a taxpayer myself) also have our obligation to ensure the taxpayers money are spent adequately.
Regards,Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
311 SW 3rd St., Stuart, FL 34994
Note: when you read the email below from Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc., who is Project Manager and Director of Construction, certified in the latest building codes, was aware of the SHPO letter dated December 1st, 2023, and that the damages done to our building by the destructive oversized replacement windows installation by Patriot Response Group were done in violation of the Florida Building Code on Existing Buildings and also against the conditions stated in the SHPO letter stating: “Based on the information provided, 311 SW 3rd Street appears to be potentially eligible for listing in the
NRHP under Criteria A: religion (Florida Master Site File Number: MT346). It is the opinion of this office that the proposed rehabilitation should have no adverse effect on historic properties provided the following conditions are met:..” He never said a word to us about the letter! The City of Stuart and Guardian CRM., Inc also prepared the Notice To Bidding Contractors and the CDBG HR Scope of Work stating “The scope of work and all rehabilitation shall be done in accordance with required state historic mandates…” They all knew about these mandates, intentionally not disclosing the SHPO letter to us, the building owners.
On Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 01:58:10 PM EDT, Antonio Jenkins wrote:
Good afternoon all,
Forgive my intrusion into the conversation, but I think a bit is clarity is needed. I will do my best to address the expressed concerns/inquiries succinctly as they are presented in the email threads below.
First and most importantly, rest assured that the City, the Program, nor Guardian has abandoned your project or your home. An attempt was made as recently as August 8th to meet with you at your home to discuss the process forward, but you were unavailable. During the time between August 8th and now (8/15/24), I have personally been working to secure a change of contractor form (allowing your chosen, new contractor to assume the existing permit, expediting the cure process): I have attached a copy for your records, and drafting the dissolution contract (Provided in a previous email).
Second, the grant is not being closed. The only action being taken at this time is the official dissolution of the agreement between you (The Hamilton’s) and the contractor (Patriot Response Group). This will allow: (1) avoidance of any mechanical liens that the contractor will have a legal right to impose should just due payment not be rendered and (2) move forward with completing (starting over if needed) the window rehab of your home (with a contractor of your choosing). The proposed contract dissolution is an effort to expedite the end of the current rehab contract agreement and allow, via the CDBG Program, complete reinstallation, and as needed reframing (again by a new contractor of your choosing) of the partially completed window installation(s) started by Patriot Response Group.
Note: Mr. Jenkins was aware that before thretening us with liens, demanding the final payment for incomplete work, prior to the Contractor being entitled to any payment, the Contractor shall to provide to the Owner and the CDBG Program (a) an affidavit identifying all subcontractors or materialmen which have performed work on the Project up to the date of the payment request and (b) affidavits from each such subcontractor or materialman confirming payment in full and release of all lien rights over the subject property. We have never received the affidavit as we haven’t received other requested documents.
Because the roof has passed the final building department inspection, should you wish to have it reevaluated by a building inspector, that is a request you will need to make through the Building Department. Once and item has passed a final inspection, any “appeals” protocol is separate and apart from the Program.
Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc was aware that the roof ridge vent system wasn’t installed, according to the City of Stuart CDBG HR Scope of Work, he provided the SoW to the contractor. Under Mr. Jenkins monitoring the contractor concealed from the City of Stuart Building Department the CDBG SoW.
As it relates to contractors, including Patriot response Group, participation in the CDBG Program, like homeowner participation, is dictated by Program (HAP) policy. The City, the Program, nor Guardian has a personal interest or relationship with any firm. Additionally, the City, the Program, nor Guardian is a party to the Rehab Construction Contract Agreement. The Program only acts in oversight, including but not limited to, allowing for notice and cure provisions of chapter 558, Florida Statutes, and/or contract termination/dissolution where program funds are being expended.
Note: Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. and the City as well are aware of (2) Incorporation of Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Policies, (8) Monitoring provisions, and (15) Contracts in the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Federally-Funded Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subgrant Agreement with the City of Stuart. Mr. Jenkins is also aware that Guardian CRM, Inc. and the City are responsible for monitoring the City of Stuart CDBG performance by the contractors. Mr. Jenkins is also aware of the responsibilities of Guardian CRM, Inc. (and therefore his as well) stated in the contract between the City of Stuart and Guardian CRM, Inc., Resolution Number 73-2020 / RFP #2020-10 and Resolution Number 45-2020 / RFP #2020- 103. “General observation of construction activities, field verification of quantitative and adherence to project specifications,… preparation of inspection reports, review of change orders and pay requests for compliance with specifications and actual progress… Review construction contract documents and supporting information compliance. Oversight and coordination of citizen complaints and responses (coordination and response to citizen complaints/concerns). Meet with the Building Department, Purchasing Department, & other involved departments to coordinate bidding, permitting & inspections as needed for specific activities. Assist with finalizing the Scope of Work ( construction bid). Coordinate meetings with staff and contractors to review and sign construction contracts, related documents. Review the Notice to Proceed for compliance so construction can begin. Provide quality assurance/grant compliance construction inspections. Work with Building Department to coordinate inspections & approval of draw requests. Review final construction documents for completeness…” You are welcome to see the documents below, they are public records.
Keeping in mind the aforementioned F.S. cure provisions, it should be objectively noted that the windows did not fail the building inspection for size, for type, for framing (material type), or conditionon, but only for shim/screw placements. It should also be noted that window or other installation does not have to meet any standards other than those required by the minimum Florida Building Code. Conjecture on best material, best methods, or best practices does not equate to a mandate on actual use of material methods, and/or installation practices.
Itemized invoice from Patriot Response Group: such an invoice will not be generated from the contractor until a dissolution agreement is agreed upon by the applicable parties, signed, and approved. That being the case, the itemized invoice will mirror the dissolution agreement which was derived (by me) directly from the accepted bid and line-item breakout. Said bid (which includes the line-item breakouts) should have been provided to you at the time of contract signing, so that you (and Ms. Olga) had the opportunity (during the provided three-day recission period) to review and make any inquiries about what work was included in the project scope and the individual line-item pricing. In the event that you were not provided a copy of Patriots bid and the Program Bid Review and Selection Sheet (where the bids were reviewed and accepted by homeowner signature). I have attached a copy for your records.
If what is being requested is an itemized set of internal company invoices between Patriot Response Group and its subs, suppliers, etc… that is something you will need to request directly from Patriot by whatever means you deem most prudent. The CDBG program does not require, nor can it mandate that individual inter-firm agreements and/or invoices be provided. By program Policy (Housing Assistance Plan), bids are solicited, received, evaluated, and recommended for award based on total bid (within responsible +/- 15% of project cost estimate and policy parameters), not induvial, likely proprietary pricing agreements between a contractor of record and its affiliate, suppliers, subs, etc.
Lastly, I will refrain from directly addressing patiently false allegations as it relates to Guardian and the contractor of record “staging” any action. Although, I was not present on the day in question, I can assure you that all parties were acting in good faith, and in the best interest of your project/home. It was ultimately a homeowner decision (and right) to deny the engineer access to your property and dwelling.
Should there be any additional questions or needed clarifications, please feel free reach out or give me a call.
Kind Regards,
Antonio Jenkins
Guardian CRM, Inc
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Antonio Jenkins ; Grant Administrator ; Mortell, Michael; Hatten, Louis
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 12:48:16 PM EDT
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Pinal,It is not just remaining work. The damages to our home done by Patriot Response Group have to be accessed and calculated how much it will cost to repair all the damages.
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Note: Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas in her reponses didn’t mention the SHPO letter dated December 1st, 2023.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Cc: Antonio Jenkins; Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael; Hatten, Louis
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 12:19:19 PM EDT
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
I understand that there is still some work remaining so all remaining work will be completed.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Antonio Jenkins; Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael ; Hatten, Louis
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
We object to the Grant closure with our home being severely damaged.
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton , Jr.
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Cc: Antonio Jenkins; Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael <mmortell@ci.stuart.fl.us>; Hatten, Louis
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 12:04:18 PM EDT
Subject: RE: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
I am just sharing what I have so far from Guardian as part of the public record request. I will share the itemized bill when I receive it from Guardian. They have to provide that to close out the gran
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Cc: Antonio Jenkins; Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael; Hatten, Louis
Subject: Re: The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Panal,
We never asked for a change order. This is your initiative. We asked to provide us with the itemized bill from Patriot Response Group on the roof to justify $19,090 for incomplete work that was passed by the City of Stuart. We were told by Dawn, Guardian CRM admin, that Patriot Response Group was fired from our rehab site after talking to you, after the rigged and supposedly “independent” inspection by the engineer.
We asked to reopen the project and fix the roof.
We understand that there is a relationship between the City of Stuart, Guardian Resource Management, Inc. (contracted by the city), and the contractor Patriot Response Group (brought and recommended by Guardian CRM), and we, the homeowners and participants of the City of Stuart CDBG HR program, are not privy to your relationship while our home is left “butchered” on the taxpayer dime. The negligently ordered and installed by the contractor oversized windows didn’t pass inspection and now also leaking, and you want to leave us with the damaged home and incomplete work by the contractor while everyone in your relationship is getting paid. And you’re trying to stick us with an unjustifiable $ 48,490.00 of the U.S. taxpayers’ money.
You all abandoned us after July 26, 2024, the day when the obviously staged by Guardian CRM and the contractor, patronized by Guardian, supposed to be an independent inspection by an engineer did not happen, because we caught them.
Again, please, we ask you to provide the itemized bill supported with invoices, checks, etc for each item to justify the taxpayers’ money.
Thank you.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
On August 15, 2024, Mrs. Ghandi-Savdas provided us with the questionable documents. Again, the wrong date of the Contract for Rehabilitation Work NTP – 03/19/2024. We signed the contract and NTP on March 13, 2024. They charged the full valuation $19,090 for the roof after being notified that the roof ridge vent system was not installed and the roof fascia wasn’t complete. Mrs. Ghandi-Savdas, Guardian Community Resource Management Inc., and Patriot Response Group were aware that the SHPO letter dated December 1, 2023 states “Roofs are important in defining the overall historic character of a building. The form of the roof is significant, as are its decorative and FUNCTIONAL FEATURES, roofing material, and size, color, and patterning. The new roof must be based on the existing materials, or historic documentation and pictorial evidence; or it must be compatible with the historic character of the building.” They also knew that the City of Stuart CDBG HR Scope of Work also includes the installation of the roof ridge vent system. They charged 85% for the destructive oversized replacement windows, knowing that three replacement windows weren’t even installed, the oversized replacement windows didn’t pass the City of Stuart Building Department inspection, and the oversized windows were installed in contradiction to the State Historic Preservation office letter, stating “Replacement windows must be based on the existing materials, or historic documentation and pictorial evidence; or they must be compatible with the historic character of the building. The new work should match the old in material, design, SCALE, color, and finish.” We didn’t sign the questionable documents. Also, keep in mind, the City of Stuart CDBG Project management, Mrs. Ghandi-Savdas and Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc. deliberately didn’t disclose the SHPO letter dated December 1, 2023, to us, the historical building’s owners. They didn’t provide us with a copy of the Change Order #1 for $2,500. We requested the Change Order #1 copy on July 24, 2024. They knowingly didn’t provide us with the required affidavits and guarantees before requesting the final payment:
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Contract with Patriot Response Group:
3.3 Prior to the Contractor being entitled to any payment, the Contractor shall
provide to the Owner and the CDBG Program (a) an affidavit identifying all subcontractors or materialmen which have performed work on the Project up to the date of the payment request and (b) affidavits from each such subcontractor or materialman confirming payment in full and release of all lien rights over the subject property.
3.4 Payments may be withheld on account of any one of the following: (1)
defective work not remedied; (2) claims or liens filed; (3) required inspections not passed by the local government building department; (4) required documents not submitted; and (5) unsatisfactory performance by the Contractor.
3.5 One hundred percent (100%) Project completion is defined as all work being
completed and accepted by the Owner and the City of Stuart CDBG Program and verified by the local government building department in writing by the issuance of a final inspection record and/or certificate of completion/occupancy. Final payment shall not be due until the Contractor has delivered to the Owner through the City of Stuart CDBG Program all manufacturer’s and supplier’s guarantees and warranties covering materials and equipment furnished under this Contract.
On Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 10:47:12 AM EDT, Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal wrote:
Hi,
As requested below, please find the attached change order for the job. I just received it today. Dawn will be coming by your house to go over it either today or tomorrow. Thank you.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Mortell, Michael; Hatten, Louis; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal ; Nentwick-Kugler, Jodi
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 09:49:14 AM EDT
Subject: Request to reopen Building Permit BP-24-684
To:
Mortell, Michael J., City Manager
Lou Hatten CBO, BCA, Building Official
Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Executive Director
Jodi Nentwick-Kugler, Development Director
The City of Stuart CDBG HR project at 311 SW 3rd St., Stuart, FL 34994
Homeowners: Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton.
On July 2, 2024, the City of Stuart passed the final inspection of the roof – Building Permit BP-24-684. The roof is not complete and poses a safety risk:
According to the home and wind mitigation inspector Mr. Accera, the hurricane ties are installed incorrectly, by the contractor Patriot Response Group. The manufacturer of the Simpson Strong-Tie H3 hurricane tie connectors confirmed the incorrect installation of the hurricane ties. We get no wind mitigation credits on our incomplete roof. Please see the attached PDF file.
On August 14, 2024, Mr. Jenkins, Guardian CRM project manager, hired by the City of Stuart to supervise the contractor, was notified about the improper installation of the hurricane ties.
Note: Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc was also notified about the improper installation of the hurricane ties on June 18, 2024. Please see our post on the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – The roof with the fake roof ridge vent system by Patriot Response Group
The roof ridge vent was not installed by the contractor, as it has to be installed according to the scope of work. The contractor completely sealed our roof ridge vent, and now we do not have proper ventilation in the attic as we did before. On August 12, 2024, the heat index was over 120F and the humidity 76%. Lack of proper ventilation also traps hot humid air inside our dwelling. In the future, we are facing wood rot, mildew, and mold in the attic, posing health risks and causing structural damage.
Listed in the scope of work, the roof insulation wasn’t done.
The roof 2X6 sub-fascia and aluminum fascia are attached not according to the Florida Building Code. The fascia on one side of the roof is not completed at all.
The cracked wood on our soffits was not replaced and is exposed to the extreme weather.
The Stuart Department Building Permit BP-24-684 doesn’t reflect all required inspections. The “dry-in” that was passed on May 23, 2024, failed and resulted in multiple roof leaks. The Stuart Building Department was notified. The second rotten wood deck replacement and the Polystick installation took place on June 21, 2024. The second deck replacement “dry-in” inspection is not recorded in the required inspections.
No itemized documentation was provided by the contractor to justify the $19,090 Valuation.
We are requesting to reopen the building permit BP-24-684 due to the fact the roof is incomplete to this day and no summarized valuation was done.
Thank you,
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga Hamilton
The homeowners.
(the email was also sent to the building department via the City of Stuart website with the confirmation)
The file attached to the email:
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 03:12:01 PM EDT
Subject: RE: CDBG HR Program
Hi Olga,
No, we have not paid anything. Antonio will submit to final payment when the job is completed.
Pinal
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 03:05:42 PM EDT
Subject: Re: CDBG HR Program
Pinal,
thank you for your response. We CC the request to Antonio and Dawn. Have you already paid Patriot Response Group for the roof? In our “complete” permit it says “Valuation: $19,090.” The bid’s line item totals: 16,298.84.
Regards,
Olga
From: Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal <pgandhi@ci.stuart.fl.us>
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 02:51:12 PM EDT
Subject: CDBG HR Program
Hi,
Antonio has been keeping in the loop as to what’s going on. The contractor does not submit the final itemized bill to the city for work. It would go to Guardian. They will compile everything and submit everything to me when the work is finished. Have you tried getting it from Dawn or Antonio?
Pinal
Note: We haven’t received any responses to our questions in the email dated August 4, 2024. We were ignored again. We asked for the itemized bill to see was the roof ridge vent installation in the bill because it was in the City of Stuart CDBG Scope of Work (SoW)? The SoW document was provided by the City and Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc. to the contractor and Patriot Response Group signed it.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 2:50 PM To: Antonio Jenkins; Gandhi-Savdas, Pinal ; Grant Administrator; Mortell, Michael ; Hatten, Louis
Subject: Request for the Roof Final Bill – The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – The Incomplete Roof
To: Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, the City of Stuart CRA Administrator
Antonio Jenkins, Director of Construction, Guardian Community Resource Management
From Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program
Rehab Site Address: 311 SW 3rd St., Stuart, FL 34994
Request:
As the building permit PB-24-684 was closed as “Complete,” and we were notified on July 26, 2024 by Dawn Cobb, Grant Administrator, that Patriot Response Group was dismissed as the contractor from our CDBG project, we are requesting the final itemized bill submitted by Patriot Response Group on our “completed” PB-24-684.
Thank you!
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
Note: We had the scheduled wind mitigation inspection on August 8, 2024.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Grant Administrator; Pinal Gandhi-Savdas; Mortell, Michael; Antonio Jenkins
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 at 12:33:48 PM EDT
Subject: Re: City of Stuart CDBG – The Roof
Good afternoon,
Due to the scheduled in-advance appointments, we are unavailable tomorrow, August 8, 2024.
Thank you,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
From: Antonio Jenkins
To: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr; Grant Administrator ; Pinal Gandhi-Savdas; Mortell, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 04:23:01 PM EDT
Subject: RE: City of Stuart CDBG – The Roof
Good afternoon,
Received. I will be stopping by your home on Thursday (8/8/24) mid-afternoon. I will have updates on the path forward.
Thank you,
Antonio Jenkins
Guardian CRM, Inc
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: antonio.jenkins@guardiancrm.com; grant.administrator@guardiancrm.com; Pinal Gandhi-Savdas; Mortell, Michael
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 at 03:37:33 PM EDT
Subject: City of Stuart CDBG – The Roof
Dear Antonio,
As requested, please find the attached PDF file with the photographs of the work done on our roof by the City of Stuart CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group.
The hurricane ties are missing screws or not screwed in all the way, therefore, their holding power is diminished. Some rafters are missing hurricane clips.
The roof fascia is not installed on one part of our building, and the rainwater goes directly on the wood. The installed sub-fascia has only one screw and some are off-center, weakening the connection, and is a point of the roof peeling during severe winds.
During the first polystick installation and deck replacement that failed right after the building department approved it, and the second polystick installation and deck replacement, the tails of our roof rafters and ceiling joists were chiseled, exposing the nails and weakening the connection between the rafters, wall plates, and ceiling joists. Also, our attic is left full of old decking debris, sawdust, black tar pieces, etc.
Before the new roof installation, our roof had a properly functioning ridge vent. Patriot Response Group eliminated the ridge vent on the entire roof by completely sealing it. Now, we do not have proper ventilation. This will lead to mold, mildew, and wood rot, eventually leading to more structural damage and posing health risks. On a partially cloudy day, the humidity in the attic is 60% and even 70%.
Why would the contractor place the ridge vent mesh if the contractor completely sealed the ridge roof vent and it is not functioning at all?
This is a blatant deception to give the appearance of a functioning ridge roof vent! How much was the contractor Patriot Response Group paid for the roof ridge vent installation included in the bid, and we don’t have the roof ridge vent installed? Who else knew our roof ridge vent would be eliminated, approved it, and never told us?
The certification of our roof completion was quickly issued by the City of Stuart Building Department.
Are we, the homeowners, left facing the financial burden to prevent all potential risks imposed on us by the substandard negligent work and deliberate indifference of Patriot Response Group? We are preparing another PDF file with the photographs of the damages caused to our building by the contractor Patriot Response Group.
Regards,
Robert W. Hamilton, Jr. and Olga A. Hamilton
311 SW 3rd St., Stuart, Florida 34994
Note: The presumed to be “an independent engineer inspection,” rigged by the contractor and Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc, on July 26, 2024, didn’t happen because the engineer declined to perform the inspection, stating he didn’t feel independent anymore after the contractor yelled “we, Patriot, hired and pay the engineer” in response to Robert W. Hamilton, Jr., that Mr. Jenkins hired the engineer. Mr. Jenkins produced the Change Order #2 with an additional $1000.00 charged to our CDBG account. We didn’t understand at that time that this $1000, Mr. Jenkins would reimburse to the contractor. See the change order below and read more and watch the video in the post on the destructive installation of oversized replacement windows. On the same day, July 26, 2024, after the contractor removed their trailer from our property at 10:28AM, and Mrs. Cobb notified us at 11:12 AM that the contractor was removed from our rehab site and told us we have to pay the contractor to close the permit, we sent an email at 2:23:46 PM. Since July 26, 2024, the contractor never stepped on our property. We didn’t hear anything from Mr. Jenkins until his email on August 6, 2024, in response to our email dated August 4, 2024. We were abandoned for 10 days.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: grant.administrator@guardiancrm.com; antonio.jenkins@guardiancrm.com
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 at 02:23:46 PM EDT
Subject: CDBG – 553.79 Permits; applications; issuance; inspections.—
Dawn and Antonio,
according to the Florida Statutes we don’t have to close the permit with the City of Stuart to release Patriot Response Group. No one from their company or their proxies are allowed on our property anymore. We feel intimidated and unsafe. On June 20, 2024, we already expressed our concern and mentioned through the phone messages that “we are very scared of these people.”
We want the permit left open.
553.79 Permits; applications; issuance; inspections.—
(17)(a) A property owner, regardless of whether the property owner is the one listed on the application for the building permit, may close a building permit by complying with the following requirements:
1. The property owner may retain the original contractor listed on the permit or hire a different contractor appropriately licensed in this state to perform the work necessary to satisfy the conditions of the permit and to obtain any necessary inspections in order to close the permit. If a contractor other than the original contractor listed on the permit is hired by the property owner to close the permit, such contractor is not liable for any defects in the work performed by the original contractor and is only liable for the work that he or she performs.
Olga and Robert
311 SW 3rd St.,Stuart, FL 34994
The oversized replacement windows didn’t pass the inspection. On July 23, 2024, at 15:24 PM, Mrs. Cobb, Guardian CRM, Inc Admin, brought the Change Order #2 with additional charges of $1000 to our account for an engineer. As we didn’t receive any response to our email dated July 19, 2024, we didn’t sign the change order #2 right away and sent an email on July 24, 2024, to Antonio Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. Mr. Jenkins called at 10:40 AM. The first thing he said was that his email response would hurt us badly! Mr. Jenkins said HE himself hired an independent engineer for us and convinced us to sign the change order #2 as it would be the best option for us. Again, he never mentioned the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023, and all the conditions the CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group had to follow on the rehabilitation of our historical building. By the way, notice they put the wrong date “03/19/2024.” In other documents sent to us they put “January 22, 2024.” We signed the contract and NTP on March 13, 2024.
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: antonio.jenkins@guardiancrm.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 11:01:16 AM EDT
Subject: Hamiltons Change Order #2
Antonio,
thank you for your call.
Please find the attached signed Change Order #2
Regards,
Olga Hamilton
From: Olga&Robert W. Hamilton, Jr
To: Antonio Jenkins <@guardiancrm.com>
Cc: grant.administrator@guardiancrm.com ; Pinal Gandhi-Savdas
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 10:01:49 AM EDT
Subject: Re: CDBG Change Order
Dear Antonio,
Before we proceed with the change order #2, we would like to rectify the issue with the oversized windows and have a response to our concerns expressed in our email sent to you on Friday, July 19, 2024.
In addition to our above mentioned email that you can see below, we request:
– a copy of the list of all materials, including the windows, used in connection with this project and pre-approved by us, Owners.
– copy of initial itemized bid submitted and approved
– a copy of the order of the windows with the order’s date, windows descriptions, dimensions, quantities, prices per unit and total cost.
– a copy of the windows’ warranty issued by the manufacture
– a copy of the all roof materials orders with the orders’ dates, materials descriptions, dimensions, quantities, prices per unit, and total cost.
– a copy of the Change Order #1
We also bring to your attention that only 5 windows out of 17 installed windows that were installed and reinstalled have the stickers with the bar code, and the information on the stickers such as windows’ dimensions do not correspond to the window dimensions stated in the Notices of Production Certification and in the NOA. One Notice of Product Certification is for windows with the frame W-915mm (36″) and H-1676mm (66″), the second Notice of Product Certification is is for windows with the frame W-1346mm (53″) and H-1905mm (75″, the windows NOA is for windows 53″X75″. All the 5 stickers we have state the windows are 31.5″X59.5″
We did not see the above mentioned windows paperwork until after the contractor installed the windows installation and were notified by Patriot Response Group the 17 windows had to be reinstalled.
We are looking forward to resolving the oversized windows issue and restoring our building’s original historical aesthetics that were featuring the windows side trims 4.5″ wide and 54.5″ tall and the protruding exterior 1.5″ thick sills, ruined by the contractor, Patriot Response Group.
Regards,
Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr.
On July 19, 2024, we sent an email, notifying The City of Stuart CDBG HR Project Management: Antonio Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc., the company hired by the City, and Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, the Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project, about damages inflicted to our building by the CDBG Contractor Patriot Response Group, and also about the incomplete work on our roof, particularly the roof fascia ” Our roof fascia is missing metal wrapping on one side of the building. The fascia is also not properly secured and we are concerned it will be our roof peeling point during severe storms.” The City of Stuart CDBG HR Project Manager Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas ignored our email despite the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023, she didn’t respond and didn’t provide us with the SHPO letter and even didn’t notify us about the letter, still keeping us unaware of the conditions that had to be met on rehabilitation of our building. Mr. Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc., responded by phone call on July 24, 2024, at 10:40, after our email we sent on the same date 10:01:49 AM.
We expressed our first concerns in written format with the City of Stuart CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group to Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. in June 14, 2024, after the first deck replacement and waterproof underlayment installation that took place on May 22, 2024, and that failed, resulting in the roof leaks in several places due to the unedicquate work done by the contractor. Today, the statement by Mr. Jenkins in his response: “Jim (contractor) and all their parties (including building department) are aware of your roof and installation “issues”” is even more concerning. When did the City of Stuart Building Department become a party of the contractor? Please see our post on the City of Stuart CDBG Roof with “fake” roof vent ridge system.
Below are a few photos of “the faulty installation” and “leaky windows” as the City Manager Mr. Mortell addressed “the issue.” Click on the image.
Emma Michael Kitching arrived in 1894
How and when Potsdam was changed to Stuart, Florida
Stuart’s First Newspaper
History of The First United Methodist Church In Stuart, Florida
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – The Windows
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program- Correspondence with the City of Stuart
The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – The Roof
The First Black Law Enforcement Officers in Stuart, Martin County, Florida
A Cheap Way To Live. How a Florida Man Saves Money and Grows Rich – 1894
Gilbert’s Bar House of Refuge, Stuart, Martin County, Florida
Mornings on Main Street
