Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 212321

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 212321

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-942-21

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: MAINTENANCE OF THE VENETIAN AND RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAYS

Introduced: 9/22/2021

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 10/5/2021

Agenda Date: 10/5/2021

Agenda Item Number: 11A3

Notes:

Title:

RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR’S DESIGNEE TO REVISE THE COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION FOR THE DESIGN, BUILD, FINANCE, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VENETIAN AND RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAYS (“SOLICITATION”) TO REMOVE THE VENETIAN CAUSEWAY FROM THE SOLICITATION AND TO ISSUE AN ADDENDUM TO THE SOLICITATION TO EFFECTUATE SAME AND PROVIDE NO ADDITIONAL TIME FOR RESPONSES THERETO [SEE ORIGINAL UNDER FILE NO. 212084]

Indexes:	VENETIAN CAUSEWAY
	RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY

Sponsors:	Sally A. Heyman, Prime Sponsor
	Joe A. Martinez, Co-Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	10/5/2021	11A3	Adopted				P
REPORT:	See related Non-Agenda Item 15F4, Legislative File Number 212476. Commissioner Heyman explained the intent of the foregoing proposed resolution. She explained it was revised to remove the Venetian Causeway from the original competitive solicitation, continue in the customary competitive process to effectuate the solicitation, and provide no additional time for proposers to respond to the solicitation. She indicated the County Administration was in the process of identifying a funding source for the historic preservation of several bridges. Chairman Diaz emphasized that this was an ongoing Request for Proposals (RFP). He noted the public was not allowed to make comments relating to this item and requested refraining from exchanging information. Assistant County Attorney Monica Rizo advised that Miami-Dade County staff should not divulge any information on the unsolicited proposal pursuant to the Miami-Dade Cone of Silence and State Law, which provided that information was exempt from public disclosure and public discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board members and Assistant County Attorney Rizo about what could be discussed and what the public could be allowed to discuss about the foregoing resolution. Upon conclusion of the foregoing discussion, Chairman Diaz opened the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard; and the following persons appeared before the Board: • Mr. Brett G. Moss, Councilmember, Village of Key Biscayne, 152 West Mashta Drive; Key Biscayne, Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution and the removal of the Venetian Causeway from this proposal. • Mr. Brian May, 235 Catalonia Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida, represented the Partners Group and the Plan Z Consortium, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution. • Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey, 240 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution. • Mr. Chad Friedman, Councilmember, Village of Key Biscayne, 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700, Coral Gables, Florida, stated the original solicitation binds both the Rickenbacker and Venetian Causeways. He emphasized this proposed item revised the Request for Proposal (RFP), and the scope of the amendment was inconsistent with the Miami-Dade Code. He urged the Board to begin a new solicitation process. • Ms. Grace Perdomo, 902 Rodrigo Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida, spoke in support of Plan Z and the Rickenbacker Causeway RFP portion. She mentioned the infrastructural amenities and projects included that would improve the safety of residents within the subject area. • Mr. Luis Lauredo, 201 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, stated this also affected Miami-Dade County residents who visited the Village of Key Biscayne since it would probably increase toll costs. • Mr. Greece Lorrero, Key Biscayne Ambassador, 201 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, commented this proposed resolution would increase toll costs. He asked the Board to rescind this resolution. He provided a copy of a resolution approved by the Village of Key Biscayne for the record. • Ms. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 SW 6 Street, Miami, Florida, inquired if small businesses of Miami-Dade County would retain job security and raised concerns regarding the safety of bikers and residents residing in the area. • Ms. Allison McCormick, Councilmember, Village of Key Biscayne, 680 Curtiswood Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, asked the Board members to reject the foregoing resolution and continue with the existing RFP. She also asked that the Board address the transportation and recreation aspects of this proposed Rickenbacker project. • Mr. Fausto Gomez, 765 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution. He pointed out the Rickenbacker Causeway was the only entrance and exit to their homes and requested due process to have residents involved in the process. • Ms. Cecil Sanchez, 260 Cypress Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, stated the process excluded participation of the stake holders. She asked for transparency in government meetings, and that the RFP be nullified. • Mr. Juan Santaella, 360 West Heather Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, suggested developers be asked to meet with the residents of Key Biscayne to address their concerns. • Ms. Mayra Peña Lindsay, Former Key Biscayne Mayor, 365 Westwood Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida, asked the Board members to reject this proposed item. • Ms. Adriana Petallie, 1121 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, asked local officials of Key Biscayne be included in the decision making process since it affected residents of Key Biscayne. Ms. Louisa Conway, 151 Crandon Boulevard #937, Key Biscayne, Florida, asked the Board members to reject this proposed item, keep toll rates affordable, and consider the public safety of students transported to Maritime and Science Technology (MAST) Academy. • Mr. Paul Lambert, 100 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2570, Miami, Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution. • Mr. Francisco Ruiz, 3575 West Glencoe Street; Miami, Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing resolution. • Mr. Bernard Zyscovich, 100 North Biscayne Boulevard #2700, Miami, Florida, representing the Plan Z Consortium, explained he initiated bike lane infrastructures and offered solutions to eliminate traffic. He requested that the process for this proposed item to continued. • Mr. Al Dotson, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, represented Partners Group and Plan Z Consortium, Spoke in support of this proposed item. He pointed out the RFP could be amended at any time; and after issuance of the interim agreement, public participation was required to effectuate the public-private participation (P3) legislation design. There being no other persons wishing to speak, Chairman Diaz closed the reasonable opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Heyman?explained the uniqueness of the proposed resolution, noting the proposal was unsolicited and omitted any engagement from its inception. She pointed out that the proposed RFP was for the Rickenbacker Causeway only. She advised that the RFP needed to include the following components to make progress: the need to dialogue, receive support from the Historic Preservation Board, the work done by the Federal Department of Transportation (FDOT), and financial assistance from the federal government.? Commissioner Heyman advised she had no objections to discussing the item to address Commissioner Regalado’s concern, who represented Key Biscayne. She expressed support for Commissioner Regalado making motions on the foregoing resolution. She requested no interference with the passage of this proposed resolution, and that Board members take a separate vote. Commissioner Regalado expressed her support for this item as long as the Board members were allowed to speak on the concerns relating to the second portion, and this Board was provided the opportunity to obtain feedback from Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava. Commissioner Higgins explained the Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works Department (DTPW) and FDOT had made progress in regards to the upgrades for historic bridges. She expressed her support for the propose resolution. She advised state and federal funds were available for this project. Commissioner Higgins explained the Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works Department (DTPW) and FDOT had made progress in regards to the upgrades for historic bridges. She expressed her support for the propose resolution. She advised state and federal funds were available for this project. Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava indicated the financial information was not available or apart of the process and she subsequently, directed Miami-Dade staff to conduct an emergency procurement and expected the value of money analysis to be completed by the end of this month which would show the differences between private and public financing, the comparison of private/public operations, maintenance, design build and if it were more feasible for Miami-Dade to have smaller number of those components of the Public, Private partnership (P3) which included design build, finance, operations, and maintenance. She indicated if the RFP was cancelled now it would cause removal of the confidentiality protection on the original unsolicited bid. She agreed with the suggestion to have the discussion today to plead to potential bidders. Mayor Cava suggested for the Board to wait for the financial analysis report after the bids come in and for the Board to make a determination to consider the extension of time to receive bids. It was Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava’s preference and recommendation to allow further discussions/changes once the completion of the value of money analysis was received. Commissioner Regalado emphasized certain changes to the RFP would be important to consider and opined the extension of time should be granted due to the pending value of money analysis and the information that would be provided. She indicated the pertinence of the entire process and pointed out the unsolicited proposal was new for Miami-Dade and needed refinement to explore how this process would impact her commission district. She requested to amend this RFP and requested an extension of time to March 1, 2022 to re-set the time on the RFP. Commissioner Regalado read her motion to amend into the record as follows: “Request that the date be extended to March 1, 2022” “This Board directs the Mayor or Mayor’s Designee to revise the solicitation to; - A) Remove all references to development and construction of an Introspective Resiliency Center along Rickenbacker Causeway, - B) Revise all references and specification relating to the observation deck on the Rickenbacker Causeway to remove description term, such as “iconic and state of art”; and - C) Revise all references and specifications relating to the fishing pier of the Rickenbacker Causeway that requires it to be demolished and a new fishing pier to be built unless it is deemed to need to be replaced. It was moved by Commissioner Regalado to move this item for discussion. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Higgins. Commissioner Heyman raised concern as to whether the requested amendments made by Commissioner Regalado should be voted on separately, specifically as it related to Bear Cut Bridge repairs that needed to be completed prior to the commencement of this proposed project. She agreed to the extiosion and agreed the March date should be a part of the Date Change Statement for the Federal Infrastructure Bill to reduced costs where feasible. Commissioner Martinez explained local government had to determine toll rates to help offset infrastructural upgrades. He requested to know the estimated cost of this proposed project and opined the private sector should not set toll rates. Commissioner Martinez asked for the estimated cost of the upgrades and was hesitant to agree with this RFP without the disclosure of the financial plan. In response to Commissioner Higgins inquiry if the RFP moves forward would it preclude anyone from bidding and making suggestions about what could be added, Assistant County Attorney Monica Rizo advised within the specifications and requirements within the RFP, all proposers must comply with the RFP within the solicitation and must respond to the requirement in order to be considered for the award. In addition, she inquired if she was required to accept Mayor Cava’s recommendation in the event she opined it would not be beneficial for residents of key Biscayne or Miami-Dade County to which Assistant County Attorney Rizo advised this Board would determine the final decision. Mayor Cava explained once the value for money analysis was received it would allow a reset for all potential bidders and if the County would accept the unsolicited bid. Chairman Diaz emphasized he wanted to ensure this would be a fair process and the information would remain confidential unless there was a new proposal. Commissioner Regalado indicated the main concern is that the stake holders should not communicate with the proposers and to resolve this by making meeting dates publicly announced and noticed to allow discussions to take place at Sunshine meetings to uphold the Cone of Silence. Assistant County Attorney Rizo advised Commissioner Regalado and Chairman Diaz that proposers were allowed to make suggestions or proved feedback to exchange information as long as it was transacted at a publicly noticed Sunshine meeting. She emphasized the unsolicited proposal would not be discussed and only to receive ideas and feedback that the stake holders would like to see again, at a duly noticed Sunshine meeting. In addition, she advised the RFP had a provision that was authorized by the County. Assistant County Attorney Rizo addressed Commissioner Regalado’s concern if the proposers would be allowed to make suggestions and receive feedback from key stake holders as long as the exchange was transacted at duly noticed Sunshine meeting noting, not to discuss the unsolicited proposal. In addition, she advised there was a provision in the existing RFP that specified communications were appropriate and permissible under the solicitation, if Miami-Dade County chose to provide written authorization. Commissioner Monestime questioned at what point in time could the discussion take place at the Sunshine meeting during the interim of the time extension. Commissioner Regalado reiterated Assistant County Attorney Rizo’s advisement that a Sunshine meeting was permissible as long as it was authorized and that the proposals could make disclosure and receive feedback as long as the meeting was publicly noticed. Assistant County Attorney Rizo advised Commissioner Regalado that she could direct the Miami-Dade County Administration to include the County staff’s recommendation under the dissertation as part of her amending motion to allow Miami-Dade staff to have a Sunshine meeting. Mayor Cava concurred and stated upon completion of the money value analysis she would convene a Sunshine meeting. Commissioner Regalado indicated her only amendment to the motion was for an extension of time until March 1, 2022 on the existing RFP that was before this Board. In addition, the motion included the scheduling of a Sunshine meeting upon the completion of the money value analysis report that would include discussions with Miami-Dade Mayor Cava; and to provide notification to all bidders and the residents of Key Biscayne. There being no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to take a roll call vote on the foregoing proposed resolution. Note: See related Agenda Item 15F4, Legislative File Number 212476.

County Attorney	9/22/2021		Assigned	Monica Rizo		9/27/2021

Chairmans Council of Policy	9/17/2021	2A Amended	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Pursuant to Commissioner Heyman's request, Assistant County Attorney Monica Rizo read the following amendment into the record to provide that no additional time be provided to proposers to respond to the solicitation; therefore, the last sentence of Section 2 of the foregoing proposed resolution would be revised to add the words "no additional time". In response to Commissioner Hardemon’s inquiry regarding the due date for the solicitation, Assistant County Attorney Monica Rizo stated the solicitation was extended through December 13th. There being no further discussion, the Council proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution, as amended. Later in the meeting, Chairman Diaz announced there were three individuals who wanted to speak on the foregoing proposed resolution but they were delayed at the entrance while filling out speakers’ cards. He stated he would allow them to make their statements and the item would come back to the Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Michael Davey, Village of Key Biscayne, 88 West McIntyre Street, Key Biscayne Florida, spoke in support of the foregoing proposed resolution, and requested continued support when the item was brought before the County Commission. He asked the Council to send the item back to the County Mayor for reconsideration as to whether the Venetian and Rickenbacker Causeway projects should be bifurcated, as the scope of the work would be substantially changed by the bifurcation. Mr. Chad Friedman, Village Attorney, Village of Key Biscayne, echoed Mayor Davey’s comments. He opined the item should go back to the Mayor for a recommendation based on the bifurcation, and referenced language, which stated the Mayor’s recommendation, was for the “same project that was submitted.” Mr. Friedman stated he looked forward to working with Chairman Diaz and Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado stated a meeting would be held on September 22, 2021 to address the issue referenced by Mr. Friedman. Mr. Alex Munoz, Director, Internal Services Department, stated Mayor Levine Cava supported the foregoing proposed resolution, and while she had concerns about the constraints in this process, she was supportive of the opportunity for public input. Mr. Munoz noted there were limitations in this process; however, staff was reviewing the project and the County would hire a company to review the process and there would be future opportunities. In response to Chairman Diaz’s inquiry, Assistant County Attorney Monica Rizo advised the item was under the Cone of Silence; however, this was one of the exceptions to the Cone as it was a duly noticed meeting. Chairman Diaz stated these statements would be applied to the proposed resolution.

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO REVISE THE COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION FOR THE DESIGN, BUILD, FINANCE, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VENETIAN AND RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAYS (�SOLICITATION�) TO REMOVE THE VENETIAN CAUSEWAY FROM THE SOLICITATION AND TO ISSUE AN ADDENDUM TO THE SOLICITATION TO EFFECTUATE SAME AND PROVIDE NO ADDITIONAL TIME FOR RESPONSES THERETO [SEE ORIGINAL UNDER FILE NO. 212084]

BODY
WHEREAS, the Venetian Causeway bridges were originally constructed in 1926 across Biscayne Bay to link Miami and Miami Beach and have been designed as historic landmarks by the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the Venetian Causeway was listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the County and the Florida Department of Transportation (�FDOT�) executed an agreement for FDOT to provide funding to the County to assist with the project development and environmental (�PD&E�) study necessary for the rehabilitation or replacement of the 12 Venetian Causeway bridges in order to ultimately seek federal funding for the rehabilitation or replacement work on the bridges; and
WHEREAS, since that time, the County has been actively undertaking the PD&E study with FDOT�s support and just this year held a public hearing as part of the PD&E in order to ultimately provide documented information necessary for the County and FDOT to reach a decision on the type, design, and location of the improvements for the Venetian Causeway bridges; and
WHEREAS, in the midst of the PD&E study, on March 3, 2021, the County received an unsolicited proposal for the design, build, finance, operation and maintenance of the Rickenbacker Causeway and the Venetian Causeway, including the development of parkland and beachfront along the Rickenbacker Causeway; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, this Board adopted Resolution No. R-648-21 to accept the unsolicited proposal and to approve the issuance of a competitive solicitation for the same project purpose as set forth in the unsolicited proposal; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2021, the County�s administration issued a competitive solicitation for the design, build, finance, operation and maintenance of the Rickenbacker Causeway and the Venetian Causeway, including the development of parkland and beachfront along the Rickenbacker Causeway (the �solicitation�); and
WHEREAS, since this Board�s decision to issue the competitive solicitation for the Rickenbacker and Venetian Causeways, the County has received numerous requests from residents, businesses and elected leaders in the County seeking to have the Venetian Causeway excluded from the competitive solicitation and to have the improvements to, operation and maintenance of the Venetian Causeway remain under the oversight and control of the County rather than a private entity; and
WHEREAS, due to the unique, historic nature of the Venetian Causeway, the fact that it has been the subject of a PD&E study in partnership with FDOT for the improvement thereof, and that there is considerable public opposition to allowing a private entity to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the Venetian Causeway, this Board desires to exclude the Venetian Causeway from the solicitation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this resolution as if fully set forth herein and are approved.
Section 2. The Board directs the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee to revise the solicitation to remove the Venetian Causeway from the solicitation and to issue an addendum to the solicitation within 10 days of the effective date of this resolution to effectuate same. The County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee is further directed to provide, as part of the addendum, >>no<<1 additional time to proposers to respond to the solicitation as a result of the removal of the Venetian Causeway.

1 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] are deleted, words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< are added.