DR8601-CS 860425GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TO: Mr. Ed Powell, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: Ginn, Inc.
DATE: April 25, 1986
SUBJECT: Drainage Channel -- Parkwood Subdivision
In view of the April 22, 1986 Council meeting, where the
above referenced project was discussed at length, we have
done quite a bit of research to help you in determining the
City of Coppell's position in this matter.
Some items may have direct bearing on the problem, cause or
solution; while some may be provided as background informa-
tion only to help bring you up to date on previous happenings.
1. Parkwood Addition project started construction October 24,
1983. Contract executed between Lanzo Construction Co.
and Coppell M.U.D., September 26, 1983, not involving
City money.
0
Plans were designed and approved prior to present
Subdivision Ordinance adoption.
e
0
Se
Plans were not approved by Ginn, Inc., but were reviewed
and approved by prior City Engineers, Hogan and Rasor, Inc.,
and verified, by Ginn, for compliance with comments made
by those engineers prior to Ginn, Inc. becoming involved
in the review process. Since Hogan and Rasor, Inc. was
not representing the City at the time the plans had to be
stamped, Ginn, Inc. stamped the plans, as requested by
previous City Manager and P & Z Coordinator.
In February 10, 1984, memo from Ginn, Inc. to Public
Works Director, it was stated that utilities on Parkway
Boulevard and Moore Road were in compliance with the
specifications and that roadway construction could begin.
On April 4, 1984, Pierce-Lunsford Associates, Inc.
approved a pay estimate for "construction of water,
sanitary sewer and ~%orm drain improvements in Parkway
Boulevard, Moore Road, and DeForest Road right-of-way in
the Parks of Coppell, Texas."
(This indicates to us that the M.U.D. does inspect and
approve storm drainaqe improvements. This conflicts
with prior statements that the M.U.D. does not inspect
storm drainage.)
e
In May 7, 1984 memo to file, regarding Meadowridge
Subdivision, Fleming's inspection found items regarding
installation and embedment procedure methods not in
accordance with good construction practices. Contractor
was advised, refused to comply, told M.U.D. inspectors
16135 Preston Road · Suite 106 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/386-6611
were inspecting, not Fleming; M.U.D. inspectors were noti-
fied, but made no commitment to correcting problem and let
the contractor proceed as before. They were inspecting
project based on their specifications, not City's.
(This type conflict occurred many times where Ginn's
inspector was told that M.U.D. would inspect their own
work, City had no say.)
e
In June 7, 1984 letter from Lichliter/Jameson to City
Manager (Ragland) regarding water, sewer, and drainage on
Meadows Subdivision Section III, indicates M.U.D. No. 1
engineer inspected the project and gave his acceptance.
The M.U.D. also requested "a letter from the City
officially accepting the subdivision."
On June 8, a final inspection was made by the City of
Coppell Water Department and was found to be acceptable.
On June 11, 1984, Fleming wrote letter of acceptance.
So
In August 1, 1984 memo regarding Shadow Ridge Estates
Subdivision, Fleming discussed poor construction
procedures, incorrect pipe being used, incorrect laying
of storm sewer pipe, etc., all under M.U.D. inspection.
(Conflicts with Fleming's inspection and M.U.D. inspec-
tion causing Coppell to receive less than top quality
workmanship.)
August 14, 1984 letter to General Homes referenced
August 7, 1984 final walk through on Parkwood I
Subdivision. Many deficiencies were found. Corrections
needed to be made prior to final acceptance.
10. In August 20, 1984 letter to file from Ginn's inspector,
conflict with construction procedures, Ginn's interpreta-
tion of plans and inspector for M.U.D. were encountered.
The design engineer (Pierce-Lunsford, Inc.) advised
against Ginn's recommendations.
(This occurred on various other projects. Ginn's inspec-
tion found things not to be in conformance, advised the
contractor; then the contractor would contact M.U.D.
engineers and conform to their recommendations,
ignoring Ginn's inspectors, at the direction of the
M.U.D. engineers/inspectors. They were told it was a
M.U.D. project and the plans were designed and approved
by Pierce-Lunsford and should be built according to
those plans. This is not exact wording, but para-
phrasing the M.U.D. engineers and inspector's comments.)
11. In September 8, 1984 letter to City Manager, Ginn, Inc.
identified a list of projects which we were responsible
for in Coppell. This list did not include Parkwood. We
were advised to continue monitoring the progress on an as
needed basis, not full time.
12. On September 12, 1984, Ginn, Inc. to Univest and General
Homes approved Parkway Boulevard and Moore Road, with end
of 1 year maintenance being August 21, 1985.
13. On October 19, 1984, meeting was held to help clarify and
identify policies regarding M.U.D. projects within the City
of Coppell. The following are items which were agreed upon.
(a)
The M.U.D. will adopt the City of Coppell Subdivision
Ordinance, Standard Construction Details, and the
North Central Texas Council of Governments "Construc-
tion Specifications."
(b)
On all new projects, the following format will be
used prior to the M.U.D. bidding a project:
(1) Design engineer must obtain M.U.D. approval first.
(2) Once a design is approved by the M.U.D., then the
project will be submitted to the City of Coppell for
approval.
(3) Once the City of Coppell approves the plans, a
minimum of six sets will be "stamped" approved by
the City Engineer and four will be returned to the
M.U.D.
(4) After the approved "stamped" sets of plans are
returned to the M.U.D., the project can be bid.
(c)
The M.U.D. will inspect their own projects. The
City's inspector will not duplicate the M.U.D.'s
efforts but will make random inspections of the site
from time to time. If deficiencies are found in the
material of in the quality of workmanship during the
City's inspections, the City's inspector will notify
the M.U.D. inspector. It will be the responsibility
of the M.U.D. inspector to inform the contractor of
the deficiency.
(d)
On final inspections, the M.U.D. will send the City
Engineer a memo requesting that a final inspection be
made by the City of Coppell. This request for final
inspection is to be made only after the contractor
has completed a punch list with the M.U.D. inspector.
Satisfying the punch list prepared by the M.U.D.
does not relieve the contractor of his obligations
to complete items noted on the City of Coppell
inspection "punch list." Final acceptance by the
M.U.D. will not guarantee the same from the City.
(e)
It is incumbent upon the M.U.D. to advise the
contractor that the City of Coppell will only accept
first quality workmanship and materials.
(f)
Future contract specifications, on water line
testing, should require 6-9 hours for length of test
with the minimum being 2 hours. Also, the leakage
rate should conform with the NCTCOG specifications.
(g)
M.U.D. should advise the contractor that if a safety
hazard to the public exists on a project, and the
M.U.D. inspector cannot be reached, the City's
inspector does have the authority to shut the
project down until proper measures have been taken
to eliminate the danger.
(h)
Separate pre-construction conferences will be held
by the City and the M.U.D. The M.U.D. will notify
the City (with sufficient notice) prior to the date
the contractor wants to start, and the City Engineer
will contact all the parties involved for the City's
pre-construction conference.
(i)
Upon request of City Engineer or his representative,
make testing results available for our review.
(j)
Notify City's inspector in advance of all testing so
that all testing and procedures can be observed if
desired.
(k)
Any revisions and/or changes in the approved set of
plans are to be approved and stamped by the City
Engineer, and included in the contractor's set on
the job site.
14. On January 14, 1985, Parks of Coppell grading was
completed to elevations as designed by Threadgill-Dowdey
Engineers, and construction by Wiseco Land Development.
(If the digging of the "lake" area is the cause, as
suggested by Pierce-Lunsford, why was it 10 months
before erosion began to take its toll. January 1985 to
October 19857)
15. In letter of February 28, 1985, to Ginn, Inc. from
Threadgill-Dowdey & Associates, they indicated no
resident inspection or testing in connection of the fill,
utilities, or the paving and suggested they would not
assume any liabilities for construction procedures or
results.
(Since Ginn, Inc. was not fully inspecting the projects,
it is assumed that the M.U.D. engineers were providing
full-time inspection.)
16. On August 23, 1985, final inspection of Parkwood Section
II was made and accepted.
17. In letter of December 2, 1985 to Ginn, Inc. from General
Homes, after discussion with Steve Goram, Ginn, Inc. was
contacted regarding the ditch failure. The letter states
approximately 200' of channel has collapsed. General
Homes in Council meeting said first noticed in September
or October, 1985 and was approximately 50' of erosion.
(Why did they wait until November 25, 1985, or December
to notify anyone, after maintenance bond expired? It is
a known fact that the M.U.D. knew about channel erosion
prior to maintenance bond expiration.)
18. Regarding specifics in the March 25, 1986 letter from
Pierce-Lunsford to Ed Powell, we offer the following com-
ments regarding each separate paragraph. These comments
are general in nature and should not be considered
criticism, but may raise other questions or provide
answers to help solve the situation.
FIRST PARAGRAPH
The engineers have brought the matter to the attention of
the board members. What do the board members have to say?
Do the engineers for the project and/or the M.U.D.,
Pierce-Lunsford, have a solution to the problem?
SECOND PARAGRAPH
If the M.U.D. is holding of the contract pending engineering
plans for improvements to Channel to handle anticipated flows
then why is City of Coppell having to make decisions?
General Homes contends the City has some responsibility since
drainage easement was accepted by City. At time City accepted,
it had no reason not to accept the ditch; everything was
according to plans and M.U.D. had inspected and approved.
FOURTH PARAGRAPH
The 3.06% grade on the 255 feet "temporary" ditch, as shown
on the plans, if running full has a velocity of ~ fps;
when only 1 foot of water is in ditch, the velocities are
approximately 9 fps. Based on the called cross section and
type material the ditch was constructed of, velocities in
5-7 fps range would erode the ditch. In our opinion, the
earth ditch, temporary or not, would not be adequate to
carry the run off.
Conflicting plans indicate the side slopes to be 3:1 or 4:1
whichever set of plans you happen to have. Latest ones we
have indicate 4:1 alopes. Although we have not surveyed
the slopes, we feel from a visual inspection, that 4:1
slopes were not attained.
FIFTH PARAGRAPH
While not attempting to excuse our absence from the
called meeting by Pierce-Lunsford, General Homes, Wiseco,
and Threadgill-Dowdey, we felt, as Steve Goram possibly
felt, that this was not a City problem; therefore, we did
not attend the December 20, 1985 meeting.
The large volume of dirt being removed theory as a
contributing factor points to others, other than City of
Coppell or Ginn, Inc. This should have been coordinated
by those parties concerned.
The area where the ditch was constructed was 5' to 8' of
fill. If compaction was guaranteed in all lifts, the
ditch built in a fill section, of "sugar sand" and sandy
soils would be difficult to stabilize in any situation.
Had the side slopes been sodded or even more than one
seeding operation been attempted, the slopes may have
remained.
SIXTH PARAGRAPH
M.U.D. states no opportunity to review plans for borrow
area, nor input into channel, drop structure, etc., and
mention that channel west of Parkwood I subdivision is
not suffering from erosion causes one to question this,
because same engineer did both subdivision and borrow
area.
SEVENTH PARAGRAPH
Hawkins indicates offsite drainage improvements are not
M.U.D. sponsored item and are not bid as M.U.D. projects.
Previous items listed above seem to dissapate that
remark.
19. The following items are just some thoughts regarding all
happenings to this point and in response to General Homes
summary in letter of April 9, 1986.
The design, reviewed by Coppell and Ginn, Inc., does not
relieve the design engineers, the M.U.D. or the owners
from providing the City with an adequate, long lasting
product.
The construction was approved by Coppell and Ginn, Inc.
but was designed, built, monitored, inspected and
approved by others also. Why does Coppell have to accept
blame for erosion?
The maintenance bond expiring has nothing whatsoever to
do with good quality, engineering and construction. Any-
thing should last more than one or two months past the
bond expiration date.
The improvements, being the responsibility of the City,
should have no bearing on the quality of construction.
The City has not permitted a significant physical change
in the ditch outfall. The owners, developers and others
who have caused this ditch to be constructed are parties
to the ditch failure.
Ed, all of the above is not for publication to anyone other
than City staff. We are not attempting to place blame, but
are merely stating facts and opinions that maybe were not
known prior to this.
If we need to go over any of the above, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Gabe Favre
/s r