The 1895 Church of StuArt

Do Not Trust The Guardians Of Public Trust – Part 2.

The City of Stuart Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation (CDBG HR) Program. (When you watch the video below, please keep in mind, Mr. Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management Inc. was aware of the State Historic Preservation Office letter dated December 1st, 2023, 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:…” The contractor was also aware of the historical nature of our building as the contractor signed the documents prepared by The City of Stuart and Guardian CRM, Inc. We, the historical building’s owners, didn’t know anything about the above-mentioned SHPO letter until November 22, 2024. You can download the letters below.

The City of Stuart CDBG Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project – Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas, the City of Stuart Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Executive Director.
CDBG HR Project Manager and Director of Construction – Antonio Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc. (a company contracted by the City of Stuart)
Contractor: Patriot Response Group, LLC ( one of two bidders reviewed, brought in, and supervised by Guardian CRM, Inc.)

Under the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant, we, Olga Hamilton and Robert W. Hamilton, Jr., applied for The City of Stuart CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program. Our house is registered with the FMSF as a historical structure significant on local level with ID number: MT0034.

On December 1st, 2023, the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Management, Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas and Guardian CRM, Inc., has 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 (the National Register of Historic Places) 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:
Windows: 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 got aware of this letter dated December 1st, 2023, only on November 22, 2024. After the damage was done to our building and we had to file a complaint with FloridaCommerce as the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Management ignored our complaint.

The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program contractor also was aware of the historical nature of our building as the contractor acknowledged and certified with the signature that the contractor reviewed & agrees to perform the work described the City of Stuart CDBG HR Program Scope of Work on our building.

Under the City of Stuart CDBG HR program and the scope of work, the contractor Patriot Response Group (CGC-1526178 ) was solely responsible for the permit application, measurements of the windows frames, plans, drawings, ordering the replacements windows, and installation. The contractor negligently ordered the oversized replacement windows (31.5″x59.5″) which are 4″ bigger than our original windows. The replacement windows didn’t fit within our existing rough openings. Out of 20 replacement windows 3 couldn’t be installed at all due to their large size.

The first installation of the replacement windows took place on July 5th through July 7th, 2024. We expressed our concerns to the contractor regarding the oversized replacement windows, but were told not to worry, to trust the contractor’s “window crew,” and not to interfere with their work, that everything was according to the Florida Building Code and the contractor submitted all necessary documents and plans to the City of Stuart Building Department.

To fit the oversized windows, the contractor removed not only essential parts of the windows’ frames and the walls’ assembly but also altered our exterior load-bearing walls. The gaps between the installed replacement windows, destroyed frames and rough openings were up to 1” and even more. From July 5th through July 7th, we had to tape the gaps and holes around the windows with the painters tape to prevent the insects, water, and hot air coming from outside after.
Below are photos of the first installation of the replacement windows: July 5- July 7, 2024.

Replacement windows installation: July 5th – July 7th
The contractor cut out the original Dade County pine sill, part of the stud, and also altered the exterior load-bearing wall.

The contractor removed the original 1.5” thick protruding sills, parts of the framing, and altered the exterior load-bearing wall to fit the oversized replacement windows.

Photos of replacement windows installation: July 5th – July 7th. In one of the photos you can see the screw penetrating the windows corner.

All 17 replacement windows were installed incorrectly, the contractor taped them with clear visqueen on July 9th. The re-installation of the oversized replacement windows by the contractor took place on July 10th, 2024 through July 13th , and they inflicted more damage to our historical building. On July 10^th, the contractor’s construction manager Jim Nichols was rude and insulting, and threatened us to take his crew and leave when we were upset with the damages inflicted to our building and expressed our concern with the oversized windows reinstallation. We asked the contractor not to destroy our rough openings and not to cut into the exterior walls anymore. The contractor was aware of the historical nature of our building and signed the document, acknowledging that the scope of work and all rehabilitation shall be in accordance with required state historic mandates relating to material and aesthetic.

On July 16th, we sent a message to Antonio Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc., asking if the contractor had plans and the Building Department permission to alter our exterior load bearing walls. Mr. Jenkins, the CDBG Project Manager and Director of Construction, responded “yes.” Mr. Jenkins was aware of the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023. Mr. Jenkins, Project Manager and Director of Construction certified in building codes, was also aware that his answers were in contradiction to the Florida Building Code on existing buildings.

After the inspection of the building permit file, we found out that it wasn’t true.

On July 19th, 2024, we sent an email with the photographs to Antonio Jenkins of Guardian Community Resource Management and Pinal Gandhi-Savdas, the City of Stuart CDBG Project Manager for the City with the authority to act on the City’s behalf with respect to all aspects of the Project, about our historical building being damaged by the contractor Patriot Response Group, that our exterior walls were cutout. Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas ignored and didn’t respond to our email despite the letter from the State Division of Historical Resources!

We also wrote that we even weren’t aware or notified by the contractor regarding such alteration to our building in advance, and we have never been provided any plans.

The contractor applied for the building permit electronically. Under the CDBG scope of work, the contractor was aware of the historical nature of our building as it is stated on the CDBG Scope of Work documents. The contractor deliberately did not submit the CDBG scope of work to the building department. The contractor submitted the wrong floor plan with an added almost 300 sq feet extra room to our dwelling and altered the path of egress. The contractor did not submit any plans to alter our existing windows’ rough openings and exterior load-bearing walls. We notified the City of Stuart Government, including the Building Department and the CRA. You are welcome to read the correspondence with the City.

The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program- Correspondence with the City of Stuart

The current situation we are left in after the replacement windows re-installation by the contractor on July 10th through July 13th.

The picture below is our window’s rough opening facing north. The photo #1 was taken on November 6, 2022, when we finished insulating the wall, and the photo #2 was taken shortly after we covered and reinforced the wall with 3/4 in. plywood. Both photographs also show the 4.5″ exterior trim attached from the outside. Photo #3 was taken after the contractor cut out the critical parts of the rough framing and also 4 inches of the exterior load-bearing wall, inflicting cracks on the wall covering as well.
This part of the building was built in 1932 by the Stuart Episcopalians, as one of the building enlargements in the form of a cross to the former Methodist Church, also known as the Pioneer Church built in Stuart in 1895.

The oversized and much heavier replacement window that faces north doesn’t have any support underneath, except for 0.75″ inferior grade pressure-treated yellow pine board screwed to the top of the cut-off cripples and a completely cut-out jack stud. (Our current situation)

Our exterior load-bearing walls are left with cracks after the contractor altered them, enlarging the windows’ rough openings to fit their oversized replacement windows. (Our current situation)

Windows facing west The contractor altered the existing window frame and rough opening, and the exterior load-bearing wall to fit oversized replacement window.

The photographs show our original window vs. the oversized replacement windows and the destruction of our frames and rough openings.

After removing the original frames’ parts, protruding 1.5″ thick sills, and altering the exterior load-bearing wall, the contractor Patriot Response Group filled the holes in the exterior walls with silicone sealant.

Instead of addressing the issue with the damaged stud first, the contractor installed the replacement windows anyway.

Our original Dade County pine and Cypress 4.5″ wide trims were replaced with 3.5″ wide inferior-grade pressure-treated boards, altering our building’s exterior historical aesthetics. When we mentioned it to the contractor’s construction manager Jim Nichols, he responded with a smirk, “I can fix it, but you will not like it.”

The replacement windows are installed off-center and therefor have different trim width: one side is 2″ and another side is 4″. It will require further destruction of our wall to center the windows, and more damage will be inflicted to the wall.

Windows’ wrapping was damaged when the contractor was jamming the oversized windows in during the first installation that failed, taking the windows out, and after reinstalling and jamming the windows in again.

The pressure-treated trim boards are cracking and moving and the non-paintable silicone sealant and stucco patches the contractor put around the windows to cover the holes they created are separating. In wind-driven rains windows are leaking.

The window silicone the contractor used to fill the gaps between the wall and the window’s sill is falling out by chucks and you can see through the holes.

Due to the shoddy and incomplete work by the contractor, our house is less safe and in much worse condition. We are also in a financial burden to repair the damages. 

The Engineer.

As we mentioned earlier, after the re-installation of the replacement windows that took place from July 10th through July 13th, we messaged Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. on July 16th, asking if the contractor had plans and/or permission from the Stuart Building Department to do the structural alteration and Mr. Jenkins responded “yes” 

The windows re-installation didn’t pass the Building Department inspection due to the shims. We have mentioned to the Building Department officials that the contractor altered our exterior load-bearing walls and removed certain structural elements. The Building Department officials responded they couldn’t inspect or comment on the work that wasn’t on the permit. The contractor also attached two windows to the studs with obvious damage. The Building Department also couldn’t comment on that and said that, optionally, we can hire engineer, and per the engineer report to replace the studs if necessary.

On July 19th, 2024, at 10:17AM, we sent an email to Mr. Jenkins with the photographs of our historical building walls’ alteration and destruction of existing frames and rough openings. Mr. Jenkins didn’t respond. At that time we hadn’t found out that the contractor “faked” the roof ridge vent system instead of installing it.

On July 23, 2024, at 3:24PM, Dawn Cobb, Guardian CRM, Inc. Admin, brought the change order #2. We did not sign it right away. The CO#2 stated “In accordance with the Building Department recommendation: The services -Dwelling of an engineer shall be procured and assigned. The engineer shall complete  the following site review services:…” Guardian CRM, Inc. charged $1000 to our CDBG account. By the way, we haven’t been provided with any official notes or recommendations after the windows inspection by the Building Department.

On July 24, 2024, at 10AM, we sent an email to Mr. Jenkins, asking him to respond to our email we sent on July 19, 2024, before signing the CO#2. The same day at 10:40AM, Mr. Jenkins called us and the first thing he said if he had to respond to the email in writing it would hurt us badly. He was talking over us, convincing us that he hired the engineer personally for us and it would be the best option we had. Mr. Jenkins didn’t provide us with the engineer’s name. At 11:02AM we sent to Mr. Jenkins the signed CO#2 and the PDF with the photographs for the engineer. Please keep in mind, Mr. Jenkins of Guardian CRM, Inc. has been also aware of the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023.

On July 25th, 2024, at 7:36AM, we called Mr. Jenkins, again expressing our concerns with the damages to our building with the oversized windows installation. During 35 mins. of our conversation, Mr. Jenkins was assuring us that everything was done according to the Florida Building Code, the plans were provided to the building department, and his email responses would not do any good for us. He didn’t provide us with the engineer’s name per our request, stating that the engineer was independent. He confirmed the engineer and Dawn Cobb, Guardian CRM, Inc. Admin, were coming on July 26, 2024 at 10AM. Mr. Jenkins didn’t mention that the contractor would be coming as well. 

On July 25, 2024, we also sent phone message to Mr. Jenkins with the pictures, showing that the City of Stuart CDBG contractor Patriot Response Group used the window silicone sealer to fill the holes in the exterior load-bearing walls they left after cutting our walls. Again, Mr. Jenkins didn’t say a word the State Division of Historical Resources letter dated December 1st, 2023.

On July 26, 2024, Vance Olvey, the contractor, came earlier to meet and greet the engineer. The contractor was chatting with the engineer who was looking through the papers brought by the contractor when Mr. Hamilton, Jr. saw and approached them. Mr. Hamilton, Jr. was concerned that the engineer’s independence was tainted by the contractor. When Mr. Hamilton, Jr. stated that Antonio Jenkins hired the independent engineer, paying from our account, Vance Olvey stated it was the contractor who hired and paid the engineer. The engineer stated that he doesn’t feel “independent” anymore and therefor could not perform the inspection. Mrs. Dawn Cobb arrived 8 minutes late. Vance Olvey said he was calling Mr. Jenkins, while Mrs. Cobb, Mr. and Mrs Hamilton, Jr. were talking to the engineer. The engineer left at 10:13AM. Vance Olvey was still talking on the phone. Vance Olvey took the contractor’s trailer and left at 10:28AM , and Mrs. Cobb left after. Mrs Cobb came back at 11:12AM telling us that she had a conversation with the CRA executive director and Patriot Response Group was removed from our project.

Mr. Jenkins didn’t call us that day. After July 26, 2024, we haven’t heard from Guardian CRM, Inc. until his short response on August 6th, after our email on August 4th. After August 6th, we haven’t heard from Mr. Jenkins until his email on August 15th in response to our email.
We still don’t know the engineer’s name. On August 26, 2024, during the video-recorded CRA meeting, Mr. Jenkins couldn’t remember the engineer’s name either when the City Commissioner asked him.

The FloridaCommerce Office of Inspector General responded to our complaint. On November 22, 2024, SHPO (The State Historic Preservation Office) sent us a copy of the letter directed to Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas: “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.” Please read the letter below.

The City of Stuart Manager Mr. Mortell, who is also a Florida Bar member, listed as a Government Attorney, has been repeatedly notified by us about the fraud committed by the CDBG HR Contractor on our roof, about the damages inflicted on our historical building. Mr. Mortell has also repeatedly denied our request for re-inspections and to record the violations by Patriot Response Group. Mrs. Gandhi-Savdas and Mr. Mortell has been also notified by FloridaCommerce that the work performed by the City of Stuart CDBG contractor is not in conformance with the State and Federal Codes and Regulations, and the City cannot distribute the federal funds allocated on our Rehabilitation Project as a payment to Patriot Response Group.

The City Manager Mr. Mortell has been speculating and making disingenuous statements at the City’s public meetings such as “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” as Mr. Mortell, who is also a Florida Bar member, listed as a government attorney, stated in his email dated September 5th, 2024, in contradiction to the CDBG related documents he approved and signed as the City Attorney, and also in contradiction to State of Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity Federally-Funded Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subgrant Agreement with the City.

(2) Incorporation of Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Policies.
The Recipient agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to, the Federal laws and regulations set forth at 24 C.F.R. Part 570 Subpart I (except that the Recipient does not assume DEO’s responsibilities described at § 570.604 and the Recipient does not assume DEO’s responsibility for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR part 58); and chapter 73C-23, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Effective: May 27, 2018.
(8) Monitoring.
(a) The Recipient shall monitor its performance under this Agreement, including the performance of any subrecipients, subcontractors and/or consultants who are paid from funds provided under this Agreement, to ensure that the project activities are being accomplished within the specified time periods included in Attachment C – Activity Work Plan and that other performance goals are being achieved.

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.

Please see our correspondence with the City.

The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program- Correspondence with the City of Stuart

The City of Stuart CDBG HR Program – The Roof