CRA declaring Technomarine in default of dock contract
BRADENTON BEACH – Technomarine’s failure to install a floating public dock alongside the Bridge Street Pier has resulted in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) initiating contractual default proceedings.
The CRA members remain open to taking possession of the manufactured dock sections and finishing the floating dock project with another contractor. They’ve also discussed installing a fixed wooden dock instead. The previous storm-damaged floating dock was removed in August 2017.
The CRA members are considering partnering with the city of Pahokee and seeking a Florida Attorney General Office investigation of Technomarine’s business practices. In April, the city of Pahokee terminated its contract with Technomarine for a stalled city marina and campground renovation project and filed a lawsuit seeking to recoup $125,000 paid to Technomarine.
The Bradenton Beach dock sections were manufactured by Ronautica Marinas in Spain and shipped to Port Everglades in August. On Sept. 25, Technomarine CEO Erik Sanderson emailed Police Chief and Pier Team facilitator Sam Speciale and informed him the dock sections were trucked to a Tampa boat yard pending future barge delivery to Bradenton Beach.
To date, Sanderson has not provided an address for the undisclosed storage location and City Attorney Ricinda Perry said the dock sections remain Technomarine’s property until delivered to Bradenton Beach.
Default letter
On Oct. 18, the CRA directed Perry to draft a letter putting Technomarine and Sanderson on notice of being in default of the $119,980 contract the CRA and Technomarine executed in January 2017 and finalized in March 2017.
On Friday, Oct. 26, Perry sent the requested letter to City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and asked that it be reviewed by CRA chair Ralph Cole before being sent by certified mail to attorney Roger Stanton at Technomarine’s North Palm Beach office. Perry also requested that Speciale email the default letter to Sanderson.
“It appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft.”
– Ricinda Perry, City Attorney
“To date, you have failed to provide a proper set of engineered plans in accordance with the request for proposal submission by Technomarine, failed to provide the dock materials paid for by the CRA on July 31 and failed to timely install the floating dock. Technomarine has been largely unresponsive and has provided little to no communication or reasonable assurances as to when your legal obligations will be performed,” Perry’s letter states.
“Despite reassurances from Technomarine that the materials would be delivered to the CRA— to date no such delivery has occurred. Significantly disconcerting is the testimony under oath provided by Erik Sanderson on Aug. 8 in his deposition from Karch v. Sanderson, wherein he stated ‘the city of Bradenton Beach project, to my knowledge is paid in full and 100 percent complete.’ Mr. Sanderson also testified the ‘city of Bradenton Beach doesn’t make payments to Technomarine Construction. They make payments direct to the factory and to the contractor.’ These statements were patently false testimony,” Perry’s letter states.
According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city has made three payments to Technomarine Construction Inc. totaling $83,682 – including the $29,961 July payment Technomarine was supposed to reallocate to Ronautica Marinas.
When contacted on Monday, Oct. 29, Ronautica Managing Director Oscar Fontan said Technomarine has not yet paid Ronautica for the Bradenton Beach dock sections and Ronautica plans to file a $51,000 lawsuit against Technomarine.
Perry’s letter concluded by saying, “It appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft. You have 10 days from the receipt of this correspondence to make appropriate arrangements to resolve the delivery of the dock materials. Failure to do so will result in my client exercising any and all of its legal rights to protect its public funds and this current project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to work out an amicable solution.”
Perry recently told the CRA members it would be a waste of time and money to file a lawsuit against the financially-strapped company.
As of Friday, Nov. 2, neither Sanderson nor Stanton had replied to the certified letter or Speciale’s email. Company representative Anna Bennett did inform Speciale that she is no longer associated with Technomarine.
Karch v. Sanderson
The Karch v. Sanderson lawsuit Perry referenced pertains to Sanderson’s Aug. 8 deposition as part of the ongoing legal actions stemming from a 2017 lawsuit in which Christopher Karch sought $3.87 million from Sanderson and Technomarine. In April, Karch was awarded $1.7 million, which he is now trying to collect.
In 2014, Karch agreed to serve as Technomarine’s qualifying contractor. The lawsuit alleges Sanderson and Technomarine wrongfully converted the proceeds of two multi-million-dollar marina projects and entered into those contracts without Karch’s knowledge or consent.
“Sanderson owns, controls and employs Technomarine Group as a sham entity to defraud creditors,” Karch claimed in the lawsuit complaint.
According to the written transcript of Sanderson’s August deposition, Technomarine Construction has not accepted any contracts in 2018 and is “unwinding as a company because it’s a loss leader.”
Sanderson also said Technomarine did not plan to renew the lease on its North Palm Beach office space and he was not sure if he planned to file bankruptcy, according to the deposition transcript.
