Builder files lien against Bridgeton Harbor marina

BRIDGETON- The builder of  the marina at Bridgeton Harbor has filed a $448,322  lien on the property and has a lawsuit pending against the Florida company that is responsible for the half-billion-dollar development.

T.D. Eure Construction Company, the Morehead City business hired to build the marina, says the money is the unpaid balance of a $7 million contract with Harborside 17 Partners, a limited liability corporation that is associated with Jupiter USA.

 Jupiter USA is the Orlando-based company responsible for Bridgeton Harbor, a multiphase, multimillion-dollar project that is to include 840 residential units, three hotels, retail and office space, a yacht club and marina when it is finished. The project also includes a new wastewater-treatment system capable of handling even more growth in Bridgeton, the tiny town across the river from New Bern.

The president of T.D. Eure Construction Company says the lien was filed after months of "promised payments that never came through." A senior vice president of Jupiter USA says the marina is unfinished, and because of that, is costing his company money.

Chuck Bissette, the president of T.D. Eure Construction Company, says he wants to be paid for "completed and accepted" work that was approved last fall by a local engineer who worked on behalf of Jupiter USA.

The lien claim describes that work as:  "construction of a vinyl bulkhead ..., heavy timber waterfront walkway, marina floating docks system and other work, including labor and materials to construct, manufacture and install the marina."

That lien was filed on Feb. 27 in Craven County. Less than two weeks ago, paperwork was filed in Craven County to give notice of a lawsuit pending in Carteret County.

Bissette acknowledged Friday that some of the marina work is not finished, including a fuel system that has to be repaired or replaced, and a fire system that has not yet been approved by inspectors. But he said his company is being blamed for delays that are beyond its control.

He released to the Sun Journal a Dec. 15 e-mail from Sue Nelson, senior project manager for JUSA Development LLC, that indicates the Florida company was willing to offer a $366,322 "interim payment" that excepted  the fuel and fire systems and  a ball valve.

"We could have negotiated the rest," Bissette said Friday. "I kept looking for a check every day after that. I was looking for a check that never came. ... I think what has happened is that now, all of a sudden, they've run out of money."

Dan Robison, a senior vice president of Jupiter USA, called the lien "the result of a disagreement on the final bill between the contractor and the owner."

"The work is incomplete," he said.

Robison referred questions to John King, a New Bern attorney who represents the principals behind Bridgeton Harbor.

King said his clients and the marina builder are at odds "over the length of time that it took to build the pier and some issues outstanding with it."

King said "a variety of delays" in the marina project had pushed its projected opening back by nearly a year.

One of those delays relates to the fire-protection system and the use of CPVC pipe where galvanized pipe could be used instead.

 Bissette contends that he and Jupiter USA had an oral agreement in which Jupiter agreed to the CPVC substitution and he agreed to give the company a $30,000 credit.  The delays came, he said, when Craven County inspectors would not approve that kind of pipe. Since then, the town of Bridgeton has hired its own inspector.

Bissette also said that some "environmental problems" were discovered when it was time to install the fuel tanks and that those are still being resolved. He did not elaborate except to say that Jupiter engineers are studying the area to ensure that the Neuse River Basin is protected.

Bissette said his company will stand behind the work that it has done and he only wants to get paid.

King called disputes like this one "not uncommon" and said the amount of money involved is "minor" in relation to the contract as a whole. He said both parties were doing what they needed to do to protect their business interests.

"I feel sure this is something that can be resolved," King said. "There has been constant communication on both sides, both before the lien was filed and afterward."