City Commission - Special Meeting

Okay. Okay. Mayor, it appears that maybe the same challenges that [music] I'm experiencing their poly encountering. If you will don't allow me to go back there just to confirm. Hey. Heat. Heat. Beach Special City Commission meeting to to order Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 at 100

p.m. If I could ask everyone to please silence their cell phones or put them on vibrate during the meeting, that would be great so we don't get disrupted during the meeting with a telephone call. So, please silence your cell phones or put them on vibrate. Let's go ahead and call the role. Commissioner Fez here. Commissioner Perkins here. Commissioner Sigerson Eaton here. Commissioner Smith here. Vice Mayor Ponier here. May Harden here. If I can ask everyone to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right. Any changes to our agenda today? Mr. Harrison? Motion approving the agenda as printed? Commissioner Fess. Yes. Just before we approve the agenda, um I just I wanted to have 30 seconds for just an administrative clarification if I could.

Um it's just a scheduling request. So, back in December, December 9th, uh, 2025, on the record at one of our previous meetings, um, I asked for permission to go on to the air park with a wildlife expert, um, for environmental review prior to our vote in January. And I followed up in writing, but to date, here we are. Um, and that access has still not been provided. And so, before we have any anything happening, Mr. Harrison. Um, I've been informed that some third parties are now being authorized to enter the air park um on those same parcels for some botanical salvage activity. And I'm just requesting confirmation of when my request on December 9th uh will be honored and and that if so, we could have placed an agenda on our next meeting an agenda item on our next meeting regarding air park access policy and authorization for this this particular item.

And I've got Mr. Burman with his hand raised down. Mayor, that's not on the agenda. That's not a topic that properly should be covered or discussed in terms of additional public business. This is a special meeting. What can be discussed is what was noticed. Right. I'm not discussing it. I'm just asking for it to be on the next meeting or for him to get back to me later. And it's discussing it, but I'm not going to argue. Thank you. Very good. Now, it's Mr. Harrison. Any changes to our agenda? Very good. Can I get a motion approving the agenda as printed? So moved. Second. Moved and second. All in favor say I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Now, I've got a quick point of order. Um, at the last meeting, well, the last meeting and and other meetings, there seems to have been been some confusion as far as time constraints on speaking here um amongst the commissioners and mayor for that matter. So, I've got a condensed copy of Robert's rules for dummies here that I I just want to read from just a couple of couple of spots. One is limitations on debate, which this this is this basically is based on Robert's rules of order, which we all agreed to um in a unanimous vote. Um limitations on debate. Unless your group has adopted special rules of order, you come to every meeting entitled to speak twice on every motion with a limit of 10 minutes per speech. That's 20 minutes per person per motion per meeting. Additionally, speaking a second time. Under Robert's rules, you you can't speak a second time until everybody else who wishes to speak has done so. Requesting an extension of time. The chair is responsible for letting you or any other member know when their time is up, and it's your duty to honor the chair's polite notice that your time has expired and immediately conclude your remarks. If you need more time, you can ask for it or the chair can, if he deems it appropriate, offer the members the opportunity to consent to an extension. I just wanted to clarify that there seem to be some confusion over what the the the process is and what the the chair myself is is doing with these time constraints. It's I'm just I'm following the rules and that's uh that's all we all I wanted to point out. Thank you. That takes us up to our regular agenda. Item one is an approval. Approving and authorizing the award of

ITB26-025 for the Southeast 6 Terrace New Bridge replacement to the lowest responsive responsible bidder general Asphalt Company LLC in the amount of 8,530,6520 and authorizing the proper city officials to execute the contract as provided in ITB26-025. Is there a motion? So moved. Moved and second for discussion. Miss Good. Dr. Good.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Dr. Tammy Good. Uh for the record, our position remains consistent since last meeting. Our evaluation finds that General Asphalt has demonstrated the requisite qualifications and has provided satisfactory references to successfully perform the work. Uh this conclusion is consistent with the determinations of the legal department as well as the procurement department and staff's review. Likewise confirms that general asphalt is both responsive and responsible for clarification which is consistent with language in our ITB and similar to language in other municipality agencies ITB language. The city may wave any informalities, irregularities, or technicalities that do not involve price, time, or changes in the commodities and/or services and should do so when it is in the city's best interest. General Asphalt's bid includes no serious omissions, material alterations in form, unauthorized additions or conditions, or other significant irregularities that would affect price, materials or scope. Accordingly, we recommend awarding the contract to general asphalt. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. And uh would you like to just adopt your present your prior presentation on this matter? I would like to do so. Yes. Very good. Without objection. All right. Thank you for the presentation and thank you for the uh recommendation. Appreciate it. That uh moves us on to public input. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Please come forward. Just give give your name and address for the record.

16:30 Southwest 5th Avenue in PMPO. I only showed up for a few minutes, so hopefully we can close this out in 20 minutes. I know this is part of the meeting, but Harrison, I would tell everybody to fill up with gas that owns city vehicles today. Prices are going up probably. Um, okay. I don't read the backups any longer because it doesn't pay to help people out anymore. All they do is screw me over. So, um, what we could do here, my idea, unless this is already in there, because I used to frame houses and we got paid on what we did and we depend and you didn't get paid until your job was over and you got paid the lump sum at the end. So, let's just say we're paying these people $10 to do the bridge. You give them the first draw for two, the second for two, the third for two, then the fourth will be $4 to make sure everything is done properly. That's it. There's no need for you to stand up here, sit up here, and bicker like a bunch of two-year-olds. That's how you do it. That's how you're supposed to do contracts. That's what we did when we framed houses. We worked on Thanksgiving a few times so we could get paid on Friday to get our draws. So, in order to get their final draw, hold back the last large sum to make sure they do the job properly, plain and simple. And in that last draw, which is very, very, very, very important, and I will commend you on this, Darlene, because you're the only one that's done this because the rest of them don't give a crap. There is damage. If there is any damage done by the pile driving, which there will be in this Garden Isles area, that people get compensated not by the insurance company, by the guy that built

it. That's who pays the the contractor that comes out of his pay. Because I know firsthand when they did the Southeast Fifth Bridge, one of my friends over there had a lot of damage done to his property. And just like I had damage done by her best friend, he was never compensated and he fixed it all himself, I think. So that should also be in the contract. The money does not come from the insurance company. It is to be paid by the contractor for any damage done with the pile driving because these people in Bard Isles don't understand their house is going to shake and they will receive some of them will get cracks on their property. You must think of the people first. I know you're out to get money from the de developers and everybody else, but the people should come first. We learned on my block, the people came last. Okay? So, once again, you pay them at the end their big lump sum to make sure everything is done properly. And one other thing, the people that did the BR the um what do you call it over at the pier, remember they didn't have much experience. They got it done.

Thank you, sir. Speaker, any speakers from the public wish to participate? Just name and address for the record. Jocelyn Jackson, I would like to say um in reference to the bridge and the um I know last time we was here it was an issue with uh the history, but from my understanding the history did not comply to the individual that was awarded the bridge. I know we've been hearing a lot over the past year almost a year and a half of savings. You know, we we've been hearing saving saving saving money from this dis hearing saving so much that the consultants have been attacked because of the money that they were being paid. So in the in and since this already been awarded for the 8 million versus the $14 million, I think our staff when it comes to making decisions, I think they do a great job. And I think if anything needed to be said, it should have been addressed before and not to embarrass them. And that's what we have to work on because we are a family here in this city and we need to start acting like that. acting as if we were a family because at the end of the day, you are the commission and staff is hired to do a job. And I just want to commend you for you guys to be able to stand in your grace for what you guys gone through at the last meeting. You have to have tough

skin. As Commissioner Perkins always say, your skin have to be tough. And I commend you all for doing a magnificent job. And I vote for the cheaper cheaper cost for the residents because I pay a lot of taxes. So I appreciate you guys doing your due diligence and doing the right thing for the community and the residents. And of course, you can set up a strategy to where they going to be paid in increments as the completion of the job. So again, I commend you. In the future, we need to do better in communicating with our staff and don't bring them on national TV to embarrass them because you won't want it done to you. And I stand on God's purpose and promise. God say, "Don't touch my anointing." And I stand with that. So, congratulations and I hope you guys make the right decision on saving the residents who pay taxes.

You next speaker, mayor, commissioner Perkins. Yes. I don't know about the uh skin being tough. Don't remember saying it, but I am tough. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Next speaker. Mayor, commissioners. Um, my name is Ldwin Luck for those who are probably not familiar with me. And just to reintroduce myself, I'm the representative for the chief financial officer of Blazing Golia. So, as you probably know, uh, the CFO is focused on uh, local government in terms of their accountability and uh, you know, physical um, transactions. And so, I'm just here just to let you know um, my my presence is here. So, if there's any issues or anything that um you want to reach out to our office or just in general any questions, I know there's uh I don't always look at the the minutes or look at the the videos as far as what's going on in the conversations in your commission meetings, but uh I'm here and uh if there's any of you that have an issue or have a concern that you want to bring up to myself or to the CFO's office, uh just please let me know. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Next speaker. Good afternoon, Delvin King, 2601 Northwest 12th Street. Um, as far as the bridge, it look like um we're going to have to bite the bullet for it and you know go go with this vendor, but one thing I do want to say commission and to especially to the staff, we want to make sure that this vendor that we're using, we hold them accountable. We make sure that they're giving us what we paid for in the project that they present. We want to make sure that they're actually going to present that and they're going to follow through. And if they're not following through, we're making sure we do what we have to do to ensure that they following through or put move them out of the way because we don't want to waste time because we we at a time restraint with this project. So, we're going to make sure that we don't waste any more time and that we move forward. Now, one thing I can say because the last the two speakers ago, she said you guys um do do due diligence and everything, but I can say that you guys use and do what you want to do for who you want to do. Now, the commissioner did let you guys know of the history of this vendor that we're using and you you guys didn't take that into a fact, but when it came down to me doing business with the city of Pompo and trying to get property, the same staff used my history and took that into account and not gave not giving me the contract for something that we want to do in the city of Pompo. So, I want to make sure that we're being uh um with any vendor and anybody trying to do business with the city of Pompo, make sure we're holding them to the same track and the same accountability that you would do anybody else. So, that's with anybody. So, same thing to the commission. Anybody that want to do business in the city of Palmo, make sure

we looking at the history, we looking at this, we looking at that for everybody. Don't pick and choose when you want to do it because that's your homeboy or that's your home girl or you love that vendor and this is the cheapest this that sometime the cheap ain't the best to be honest. Sometime going the cheap way ain't the best but we'll find out after we use this vendor. We'll find out if going cheap is the best. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Next speaker.

Just name and address. Uh Chris Kresman, 250 Southeast 2nd Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission, uh for allowing us to speak today. Uh I just wanted to make a a quick point. I mean, when this bridge was uh originally uh put forth in front of the commission and a budget was approved, uh the number that we have today for this current bid is not much higher than what that original uh bid was uh or the original approval was for the amount of money that was going to be spent on this bridge. Um, that being said, I think it's time that we move forward and choose a contractor and build this bridge. It's been a very long time coming. I think that we've got fantastic city staff here that has chosen contractors in the past to be presented to this commission. We've got two uh bridges that uh one bridge that is done, one that's uh going to be underway very shortly. And I think that it's time to move forward on the 61th bridge. I think that the wait has been long enough. Now that we've got uh a couple of bids that are valid, I think it's time to make a choice and move forward.

Thank you. Very good. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, [snorts] Paul Peterson, 301 Southeast Third Court. Thank you guys for having us up here again. Uh I want to say thank you for taking the time to do the evaluations on the current bidder. Uh there's something in the bidding process. Uh it seems like Pompo always takes the lowest bidder is required to take the lowest bidder. Is that correct? If it's advertised as a low bid situation and we have to take the low bidder unless we want to throw them all out.

Okay. Just in my opinion. I don't think that's always the right way to do it because there are other things that we should base things on. Qualification, skill level, past projects, and history. That's just an opinion. But if it's a a lowqualifying bid, that's the way it was bid. That's the way it should be taken. As long as we've vetted the the current bidder, which it seems like we have, uh, then that's the way the process go. If the bidder is qualified, capable of doing it, and has a good history. I know there's been some questions about the the history and some challenges. I think those should be addressed to make sure that we don't run to the situation uh currently on the bridge that they're building now. Uh, so I think in contracting we should take care. Contracting is not done yet. Correct. Uh for the record, we take the lowest responsive responsible bidder.

So what was your question? Uh contracting. So in the contracting phase, can we put like it's been stipulated by the other speakers to put roadblocks in roadblocks in place? We already have that in our language. That's standard. It's there and only standard liquidated damages. Absolutely. We have Can we make the liquid damages have enough teeth that the contractor takes notice? By law, we can only assess liquidated damage in accordance with the loss or damages. And they're at that um amount at this time. Which would that how much is that? $500 a day uh to substantial and between substantial and final $300 a day. What's the maximum liquidated damages?

There is no maximum. however many days they're behind, providing we wouldn't terminate at some point in time, but there is no maximum uh amount of days that we can assess liquidated damages. So 500 a day times 365 perhaps 150,000. I've had a contract where I've assessed $30,000 in liquidated damages on a project. I mean, I've I've been in situations, I mean, that's nothing compared to an $ 8.5 million project on the projects we typically bid. I'm a contractor. We bid projects all the time. 10% is typically the lowest liquidating damages that you know is acceptable.

Well, we're we're not private sector, so we're not generating revenue from this bridge. So, we have to establish and I could defer to the city attorney on this. We have to establish a loss, whereas a private project may be much easier to establish a loss because you're generating revenue. Correct. But is isn't that loss take into effect the loss to each individual citizen that that bridge is affecting? So if it takes much longer to do the bit bridge, no, it's only revenue lost by city pompa that we can calculate or quantify. Yes. You'd like Mr. Burman can address that, Mr. Burman. I agree with the assessment of the city engineer. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, that's good enough. If I just ask in the contracting phase, we do responsible contracting and put roadblocks in there and penalties for the contractor and make sure they hit their deadlines in time and build it safe. Number one, thank you. Very good. Further input from the public. Just name and address for the record. [clears throat]

David Hall Beach. Um, we're talking about procurement and how we do things and the way we try to conduct ourselves. What we should also be looking at anyone who's having contact with the contractors maybe from the deis who's talking to their subs who's talking to their contractors who's talking to people in the city who talk to the subs and the contractors and what conversations are being had because you can be assured that there are conversations being had outside of this room and what's going on here uh where there are innuendos and things made and companies that would have no idea about other folks uh potentially bidding something. So, it would be interesting to see when those or be able to find out who on the day has had conversations with any of the contractors or any one in the city who lobbies the city or knows any of the contractors because there's a lot of things that are being thrown at the city, but I don't think we're taking a look at some of the things that we know happen with people who are consultants or people who try to lobby the city for certain deals that they're talking with commissioners. So, that definitely happens. if we're also talking about making sure that we're going after um the contractor for damages and making sure that it's not just the city that's being held harmless or reimbured, but also perhaps the citizens. It should also be taken into consideration that we shouldn't be paying six, seven, eight million more for a project just because you maybe prefer a certain vendor or are lobbyed by a certain person in the city to push for a vendor. So, we should actually do what we're supposed to do, which is go with the lowest responsible bidder and responsive bidder and follow finish and follow the the procedures that we have in place. Thank you.

Very good. Further input from the public. Anyone else? Seeing none, public input closed. Who's on commission discussion? Commission discussion. Vice Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I have more concerns today than I think I had last week. Um, I'm going to address the last speaker. My position is really straightforward. I don't know what the rest of my colleagues. I I don't have a preferred contractor. I don't know any of them. Haven't spoken to any of them. Never would. That isn't my job. Um, and I'm kind of sick of the insinuation of that. So, ladies and ladies and gentlemen, please.

I'm just had your opportunity to speak. Let us speak now. Thank you.

Uh I am concerned about finding a firm that will deliver on time a quality, safe product that the residents deserve. That's it. That we run a fair and transparent process and get all of our answers to the questions we have before we go under contract with someone. And our decisions should be made from accurate data, honesty, and completeness of it. So, uh, nothing more, nothing less that I want out of this process. And I know the residents of my district want this, want this bridge. And this has been, um, a very difficult one because I know how long everyone has waited. And there's no one that wants to just say yes to this more than me. So, I want to address two statements made last week at our meeting before I go forward with some questions from the legal legal memo that we received. Uh, a couple things were inaccurate and it really bothered me. Um, there was a statement made by engineering that said, "We know that General Asphalt is a billion-dollar asphalt company that does bridges as an ancillary scope to their million-dollar projects, and they are highly qualified, more qualified than the other two collectively." So, that statement uh and characterization is just factually inaccurate, and I wanted to make sure that was addressed here. So, uh, Qitt was deemed responsible and responsive. One of the two biders that was, uh, we were told wasn't qualified. Uh, they have 16 billion dollars in of revenue, whereas General Asphalt has, I don't know, 250, maybe one or two% the size of QIT. Now revenue is not alone some indicator of their ability to do the project but that statement that was made was really inaccurate and I concerned when it feels like staff is making comments based on emotion and bias and exaggerated comparisons to try and like pressure us to do our job without

getting the answers. It makes me wonder actually what else is going on. So I I wanted to address that one. Um, and our responsibility up here doesn't is not to advocate for any particular bidder, but to simply verify the qualifications and the the the bids and and and make a, you know, and make a decision. And we can't do that when we're being um steered or or led a certain way. Second thing that was said at the last meeting, which is also troubling to me, was this artificial deadline, which is why we're here today. We don't need to be here today. Um it was stated that we needed this special meeting because March 10th was too close to March 14th to get the paperwork in order for the permit deadline. Well, I I spoke with the um regional chief of the Army Corps regulatory division last week and here are the facts on the permit. I think it's time everyone understands this. Um and I documented in an email that she responded to. So it says, "Alyssa, thanks for taking my call. This is such an important project for our city. So I want to recap quickly what was discussed to make sure my notes are accurate. Can you confirm this? All nationwide permits issued in the five years prior to March 14th, 2026 expire on that date. Meaning if it was issued today, it still expires on March 14th. New 5-year nationwide permits permits can be issued starting on March 15, 2026. If nothing about a project has changed, it's a simple form verifying no changes and the new 5-year permit will be issued quickly within days. Further, if we do manage to identify a contractor prior to March 14th, we don't need all the formal paperwork completed. We just need a verbal agreement and that contractor would have a year to complete the work. However, it is advisable to still get the new nationwide permit just in case the work takes longer than a year. Thank you for your time. She said, "Yes, that summarizes our conversation well. Also, you do not even need to give us confirmation that you have any kind of agreement with a contractor. It is, as she told me, very handsoff. And if you

even verbally say, "Okay, I think this is the person." That's good enough for them. So this idea that we needed to have this contract signed by March 10th or have have this meeting is completely false relative to what is actually happening with that permit. And it should also be quickly reauthorized based on checking a box saying nothing has changed. So the stress about that we're under about this permit is uh not not really the case. Um it's a false a bit of a false deadline. So, I do think that gives us an opportunity to slow down and ensure that we get everything answered. Now, I didn't actually receive the legal memo until yesterday when I had to follow up with the city attorney's office and ask for it because it wasn't in part of the backup and I hadn't received it yet. And I have a lot in here that I have questions on. So, and no opportunity until now to to go through this or with you because we just got it. So, um, the memo does say upon first glance at the bid package, it initially appeared that the bidder was not responsive as several items were not completed with some that might have been determined to be material in nature. There's a giant bold however after that, but in talking with other cities and boards, it's clear to me that responsiveness uh in other procurement processes in other cities is something that it happens at the bid opening time. bids are opened and they are deemed responsive or not based on what they submitted. There are two piles made and only the bids that are responsive are cons are are considered. Uh other entities don't have a process to cure material defects for responsiveness. Uh so with apparently in Pomp we do that but that's not the norm. Um, I still haven't seen all the documents that are required to make the bid responsive, but I'm going to assume everyone else has because there's nothing in the backup that shows it to us. Um, and now I want to talk about the AEB and general asphalt relationship because I think that's really the crux of the problem here. And if it's not a problem, then it's not a problem. Let's let's talk

about it and figure it out instead of trying to point fingers and undermine everybody. Um, but let's be honest, the memo says that the only connection between the two companies I'm aware of appears to be the takeover of the brid bridge project by GA due to AEB's lack of performance. As a reminder, AEB is the company that has defaulted on five bridges in Penllis County, isn't allowed to do work there and uh defaulted and was fired from the C view bridge in the Keys. Uh, so if you see pictures of the C view construction project, even now, it shows all the AEB equipment still there. they never left the site and AEB the company that was fired from both those counties is the is uh is still has been there for the duration of of the work. Um and then um as recently as February 20th, the Monroe County public website providing updates on the C view bridge listing the contractor says general asphalt/ AEB. So, while you said there's no connection between them, the the county is updating as if they are one entity, General Asphalt AEB. So, to me, that sounds like an ongoing connection between these companies, which is counter what the memo says. And then it goes on to say, check the Florida my check of the Florida Division of Corporation Sumids website as this reading reflects no current legal status for two separate and distinct corporate entities with no legal ties. This really concern me, Mr. Burman. So some biz is a registration of corporate entities. Uh it's records are limited to basic public filings like articles incorporation, your registered agent and your annual report. Some biz and I'm going to ask you to confirm this when I'm done because I don't I don't want to be accused of saying anything inaccurate. Sunbiz in no way contains information about ownership structures, shareholdings, parent subsidiary, joint ventures, investment interests or any other corporate affiliations that may

exist between two legal entities. It absence of a listed connection in SUBIS is actually fully expected for two different entities and that doesn't mean that they are not related. um it is not sufficient to determine any legal financial or ownership relationship between corporate entities. Would you agree with that Mr. Burman? Partially, not completely. Okay.

They're two separate companies. First of all, let let's address the fact that this was issued yesterday. This was requested Wednesday uh Tuesday night at a meeting that went till 11:00. That left Wednesday and Thursday working days and Friday to gather this information. Most of the time was spent getting the documents from staff so I could review everything and come up with a conclusion that you requested for an opinion. And again, it's just an opinion from what I've seen. Now, as far as Sunbiz, Sunbiz will show the corporate entities. Sunbiz when looking at the filing shows who's involved in those corporations, who the officers are. There was no intertwined membership, no same people. They there was no dissolution of corporation for one to be absolved absorbed into another. They still appear

I have limited time so I I do no no no you asked a question. I'd like to finish answering the question please.

My observation was as of the date that I wrote this they were two separate existing companies both still in business with nothing to indicate that there was anything that tied the two companies together. I mentioned in the memorandum that the only thing I could that was clear is that one took over the project for the other. I did provide that p that press release to show that general asphalt did finish it. She did say J AEG but the other documents provided from the project manager for Monroe County made it clear that it was general asphalt that did the work. Now I stated that in the short period of time that I had I could not find any connection between the two. If they've hired AEG employees that's their determination but they're managing this project. If they are merging, there's nothing that I was able to locate in that short period of time that indicated it. And

and nor would you using Sunbiz if someone sold sold shares, created a joint venture, you don't Sunbiz and in general private corporate ownership is not public information. It is public information when they file with Sunbiz. And the information that they have on file is that there's one separate corporation, General Asphalt, another separate corporation, American Empire Builders. Separate officers, separate addresses, separate everything. There's nothing to indicate. Could they be a wholly owned subsidiary? It would have they own the shares of it with different directors 100%.

Not without listing it. It needs to be listed that they are a subsidiary of the other. And that may well be in progress, but there was nothing that indicated that was the situation. Vice Mayor, I'm going to have to cut you off. Probably out of time. Yep. Great. Further commission discussion. One further. Commissioner Fess.

Thank you. So I think in previous meetings before we start this previous meetings it was it was said that you know questions and commentary or leadin things to ask questions were not counting as time. And so we're going to go with that. I understand the mayor's role here. One of the things that one of the motions I made at the last meeting was to have this meeting so that we could air out all of the questions that were that were presented so in a calm fashion with time without such crazy time constraints so that we could make sure we were doing the right thing and we could justify our answer to not just our staff but also to the people that we serve. So um just like to just kind of keep that in mind as we we try to work together on this. Um, I did so I went back and I did some I did some homework myself and so I have some just some questions. I was I went back and I first reviewed the meetings back in October. I wanted to refresh my memory with how we got back to this point. And back in October, um, Vice Mayor brought up that there had been a there had been a a bid that went out, uh, related to the sixth terrace bridge. And September 4th, received a bid. It was responsible and responsible and responsive bid. And then she made a motion to put the resolution on the next agenda to be a vote to discuss the bridge. And everybody agreed via I. It was a a unanimous vote. But that next meeting, it was stated by the vice mayor that staff had unilaterally decided to reject that bid. And that was after they were I think initially I was waiting for the paperwork. So I'm I'm still waiting for the paperwork that I asked for um so that I could review that that process and see what happened there. But I haven't received it yet. Um, but given from what I understand in what was

discussed at our last meeting, it was around the same 14.1 I think or 14 and then it was negotiated down maybe Miss Good or or Mr. Sropolis can can verify that it was negotiated down to 13.9. I'm not advocating for these things, but I'm just saying that those are now we of four bids received, we've got three of whom are in basically that same dollar amount. Um, and then just one that's this outlier. And this one that's an outlier has significant issues with the way that they have been able to finish the job that they were supposed to start. So while I understand our our our responsibility to choose as per the ITB the lowest and responsive bid bidder part of that being responsible portion is doing the due diligence to find out the company is truly going to be able to do the job as we request and I have concerns about this particular company being responsible Did you have a question relative to that?

No, Mr. He confirmed it was 13.9 or negotiated down. Thank you. Um, so I will say this. I think I think think that the the with everything else going on, the fact that there is the ability to do this in a manner where you're looking at all these things and we're not under this timeline. So the the Army Corps of Engineers piece was a new was a new disclosure and that is I think that goes back to something else. So, so just if I were to just sort of shift the rest of this away, this goes back to something that I have said many many times about how oftentimes we sit up here and we have to make a decision right now because of XYZ. There's some sort of crazy time limit or time frame in which we are required to do something or else we're going to lose something. Um, and so

given the way that this meeting started and given that vice mayor has already had her time cut off, I I I very qu I question question the ability for us to have a real conversation about anything because I believe it's only doing our due diligence to make sure that all questions are answered. We don't play this this crazy time limits game. It's going to be within reason. As long as it's within the scope of the agenda item, it should be allowed to be discussed. Um so I will ask this. So because I have questions and I haven't received it, uh Mr. Mr. Harrison, could you know who made the decision that that prior negotiated never made it into the packet or we never got the backup? I couldn't find it anywhere.

My recollection is that it was so over bid there was no way to move it forward. Did not have the money to do it. I I so I never saw it so I have no idea and I just was curious how it didn't get um included in some of our backup so we could sort of look at the apples to apples comparisons procurement department with engineering or streets or whoever uh does this all the time. We don't bring each individual uh situation to you as a body

and I wouldn't expect you to either. I I'm just saying that we've had this discussion and because it was brought up several times that was my concern is I would just like to see one of the things that were stated at a previous meeting was that this particular that the reason for this cost of this this initial one was due to a time constraint that we were trying to meet with the McNab bridge project and so that was part of the reason for a an inflated if you will or slightly larger budget. So I I I didn't have that information and I don't have that information so I can't make a determination. I'm just saying that this is what I remember and I went back and listened to again. So I just had questions about that. um so related to the responsible and the responsive bit is who is I guess the the sole authority for responsiveness and responsibility determinations

would be that Johns for city engineer good afternoon uh the responsiveness is determined by the procurement department and they deemed them all responsive and then we took over the responsibility portion.

And then and then the other thing that the other question I did have that that I kind of skipped over in the beginning was was it was said in um in Mark Mr. Berman's communication again that we we got says something here that says the determination let's see where was it um going back to that same line upon first class it initially appeared the bidder was not responsive but it says that all three biders were contacted procurement said additional information was requested by which is normal but it said which ensured a level playing field because all three biders were contacted for additional information. So my concern is do we know what level of information was it equal? Do we how do we know what was So I I've seen the backup with the hand scratchy, you know, documentation through one. I went through the backup of each one of these proposals and and looked at and looked at them and and what there was there and what there was not there. And so my question is was that same what was that playing field, right? Like what was missing from XY andZ? What was it that procurement asked for or When I initially did the the preliminary review, I was not satisfied with what I was seeing. There was some information that I needed clarification on. So, I coordinated with the procurement department and requested them to follow up with all three of the the biders to get that additional information. Basically, I wanted to have something that specifically said three projects completed within a 10-year period.

Okay. Thank you. So replacement projects, not rehab bridges replacement. So one and so one of the things that that I think I brought up in a different meeting a while back there was a question and it was if if somebody does not is not forthcoming or is not honest in their response, does that disqualify them as a bidder?

Mr. Mr. Berman. Yeah. is it's a question legal question. Yes. Someone falsifies information in the application that would disqualify them. That would mean that they did not properly complete uh answer the questions that were given to them. Okay. Thank you. So in the [clears throat] backup they cited that this bridge that was down at Ducky was finished and in fact I think it just became finished somehow in this most recent week but it was not finished at the time.

I I'd like to if you don't mind read to you what we received. And I believe you all have it already in your backup from Mr. Burman, but I'll read all three of them from you for you. So, Jonathan Fendura, resident engineer, South Miami Dade to Monrose Residency, FDOT. This is regarding the Tamiami six bridge replacement. Good afternoon, Tammy. It was a pleasure speaking with you as well. Well, before I go there, I initially had contacted them and had uh verbal communication with them. So, these emails are are are after that, but it's just reinforcing what I had already known from my prior discussions with them. Good afternoon, Tammy. It was a pleasure speaking with you as well. I can confirm that the bridges are completed and have been open to traffic according to the phasing of the contract. So, that's the six bridges. Then we've got C view View Drive replacement Duck Key. This is Clark Briggs, senior project administrator, Monroe County Engineering. Good afternoon, Tammy. The C view drive bridge replacement project was rebid after the initial contractor failed to perform. General asphalt was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and was awarded the contract. The project is complete, including punch list items, and the bridge was opened up to two-lane traffic on February 19th, 2026. This work was self-performed by General Asphalt. And then we've got the Chrome Avenue Bridge. Jonathan Fedora again from FDOT. General Asphalt was the prime contractor and two bridges, one northbound and one southbound, were constructed as part of the project scope that was completed on 310 2018.

Thank you. So, so what well that's that's well and good and I just want to make sure that I point out that that email related to the the duck keybridge was sent and or received what on February 25th which was after we were here last time. So you are correct but it's just reinforces my prior conversation that I had with them after the uh bid opening which was on February 9th. I had communicated with them. So, this email is just reinforcing that conversation.

And I I want to make sure I'm clear for my my commentary. I I'm not I'm not trying to hold your I know it was sort of assumed or sort of mentioned earlier. I'm not trying to to to hold hold to have hold you in any sort of negative light. I respect the work that you do and I want to make sure that that's said. Um, I I I have questions and concerns related to how some of these some of these biders are responding andor how they're moving through this process and making it very difficult for you to do your job when the in when this when the time that this was received, they did not have that complete. Thank you, Commissioner Pessie.

Further commission discussion. Commissioner Smith,

when um we had our last meeting, we um established the special meeting so that we could get a legal opinion that the bidder general asphalt was responsive and responsible. That was the whole reason to not make a decision last week, but to have this special meeting. Um someone And General Asphalt is the one we're looking at the contract with. It is not American Empire Builders. American Empire Builders is the one that everything that um Vice Mayor mentioned last time and what I've seen as articles that are being distributed through social media about American Empire Builders texts and emails. They're the ones that the articles state haven't been able to finish projects. doesn't state anywhere that General Asphalt's having trouble completing projects. They're two separate companies. We're looking at a bid from General Asphalt. Mr. Burman has determined in his legal opinion that they were responsive and responsible. They are the lowest bidder. That's the contract that's before us. It has nothing to do with the other two or has nothing nothing at all to do with American Empire Builders. not they're not even on the table as a contractor that's being considered. So I just want the commission to just to remind us that our purpose today was to review the legal opinion. We got the legal opinion. I thought it was very thorough. A lot of detail, a lot of research at the last minute went into that. And our job here today is to award the contract to the

lowest responsible responsive bidder. And that is general asphalt. Thank you, mayor. Very good. Thank you. Um, yeah, let's see. I've just got a couple of questions. Thank you. And so let me ask you um John and I understand you're not procurement but in your experience is asking for additional information during a bid process like this is asking for additional information from the biders is that unusual?

No, it's not unusual. In fact, our ITB language supports it. Very good. And and the the questions whatever questions you you ask or what any department asks those go out to all of the biders. Correct. So everybody gets the same information. There is no preferential treatment. Correct.

Gotcha. Very good. Um now the the questions you had it you indicated it was questions about the three completed bridges. Um, so did some of the companies answer the about the three completed bridges and some didn't? Is that what the problem is or was? All of them didn't initially, but I only really reviewed the general asphalt because they were the low bid because we're required to only review the low.

Gotcha. Gotcha. So, so it's so none of them answered that question and you you took it upon yourself to to request procurement to send out this request for information. Yes, sir. Um, you could have, I assume, directed procurement to just reject them all because they didn't answer the question, right? Could have. Okay. because but I mean I'm I'm I know the answers to some of these questions, but I'm just I'm trying to make sure that everyone everyone is educated about the processes that we use here. When you put a bid out on the street, you're doing that for a purpose to complete a project in the city for the residents, right?

That's right. So, you use your judgment as professional staff member working with procurement to try and get as many completed bids as possible to get the best deal for the city. Correct. That's accurate.

So, it's it's I'm just trying to point out this sending out a request for additional information from biders. There's nothing untoward about that. There's nothing complicated about it. You're doing your job to serve the residents of this city by doing that. So I I and I want to say thank you. Um and and you guys you stand by your recommendation which is what you had last time which is build the bridge for $8 and a half million dollars. I mean we got the money to build the bridge so build it. Um Mr. Burman thank number one thank you for uh for your memo and thank you for speaking with me about the memo when I called because it's been out there since what yesterday. So you have been available to discuss it anytime somebody wanted to call you. Correct.

Yes. just a short amount of time between the request and us getting back together today to deal with it. It's a lot of information to digest and go through and basically my task as I saw it was to uh render an opinion whether or not I concur with the opinions of staff which is what I attempted to do.

Right. You you did what you what you were directed to do. I mean, you're not giving a legal opinion, but you're looking at everything and explaining and and in your opinion, not as not whether it's per perhaps all legal, but it's it's proper according to the laws that and the way we we have things set up here in the city of Pmpo Beach. Um, and your memo states that yeah, there's no reason not to award the bid for $8.5 million and build a bridge. basically to paraphrase

basically. Yeah. I I was also I went back and looked at the minutes and I had to wait to get the minutes uh of the meeting and look at the video as well. Uh look at the lowest bidder and also I was asked for an opinion as to the others which I basically curs gave a cursory opinion on that. Uh one I didn't believe qualified under these bid specifications. Not saying they're not a qualified contractor, but under these specifications, I didn't see adequate information in the materials I was provided to be comfortable saying that one of them was. The other two, I believe, were so as I indicated.

Very good. Appreciate that. Um, so Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir. Not not not about today perhaps because um Mr. Burman is the one who has produced additional information for our meeting today. But when this item was on our agenda when we last considered it on a regular commission meeting, was that was was were there last minute insertions into the item or anything of that nature? I know sometimes that happens. It's like the day before the meeting and suddenly something changes on on an agenda item. Did that happen with this item at all? I'm not aware of it.

Okay. So, and so the information was there in the backup be viewed, investigated to be questioned, add nauseium perhaps for any anybody to to address prior to the commission meeting. Would that be accurate? Yes. Got you. And and and did anybody any commissioner complain to you that they didn't feel they had adequate time to to consider that item? No sir. Very good. Thank you. That's that's all I've got. Discussion. Wait a minute. I heard something. May I speak about uh the Army Corps permit or not at this time?

Oh, yeah. Not sure. Go ahead. Please do explain that. So, Vice Mayor, um you had expressed concern last October about the Army Corps permit expiring. And when we read into the language on the Army Corps permit, it specifically says this permit will expire if construction does not start or there is not a contract under contract by March 14th. So, it was very explicit there. So, I'm glad you found what you found because we were working overtime behind the scenes with purchasing and engineering and with our engineer and so forth trying to get this done before March 14th. Very good. Thank you.

I think we were doing that together at one point, but it was worth a a phone call to get clarity on they required absolutely no proof and they she said they were very lenient on that. Very good. So, so further commission discussion any any any any very good vice mayor.

Okay. I want to say one more thing and then I want to talk about what we really need to talk about here. Um so the in your memo it also says that in your assessment of responsibility you wrote the construction work was completed on February 19th 2026 for the C view bridge but bids were due February 9th. And what the ITB in the question doesn't say list projects that are almost complete or somewhat complete or mostly complete. It says final completion. And that bridge wasn't even open to traffic. So in your opinion, the C view bridge had reached final completion on February 9th, even though the county said that it wasn't open until traffic and done until February 19th.

There were some mixed indicators there. That's why I included everything that I considered to formulate my opinion with the materials for all of you folks to look at as well. Um, it looks like from what I could see, it was opened to two-way traffic by the 9th. The major structural issues were all complete. There was some soding, some other matters that were done. And then when I was furnished with the later memo, it looked like they were all done. But today, as of this date, the date that we are considering this matter, everything is certainly done.

Okay. I I have limited time. So I I'm sorry I have limited time. I will read it. It says, "General, this is the latest update from the Monroe County C view bridge. General Asphalt AEB completed the drainage insulation, construction, drainage outlets, blah blah blah, and opened the C view drive bridge for two-way traffic on February 19th, not February 9th. So, it was not open when the bids were due. It was somewhat complete. Uh, okay. But so, I think like there is a lot here, but really what matters is are we where what how is AEB involved in this? Because I think that's where all of our heartburn lies, right? It is a company that has defaulted on five bridges, been fired from Penllis County, been fired from Monroe County. It is clear that AEB equipment personnel uh everything were were used to finish Duck Key and with in partnership with General Asphalt. So, Commissioner Smith asked what does that have to do with them? Well, I asked at the last meeting also, do they have a partner who builds bridges and and AEB was the answer. So, is AEB their partner on this project? do in in the sense partner as in they bought their assets, they invested in them. So in the ITB it says well in the ITB it says that further investigating a link um the city can conduct investigations about to establish you know bid credibility with partners and subsidiaries and subcontractors and all that and anyone that's going to do the work. So this is to me part of the investigation and I would hope you would want to know that. I would super hope that you would look at me and be able to say no AE has nothing to do with that company that was in default is going to have zero to do with this because at the last meeting that's not what was said. So did we make a call to general asphalt to find out if AEB is part of this or not? So Dr. Tammy Good again um I did speak with the Monroe County uh project representative and he did say that General Asphalt had self-performed. So in the bid documents

General asphalt is self-performing this work. They did not list AEB as a sub a subsidiary. So, we're not even considering all we know is general. Here's my question though. We all know that AEB finished the bridge. It's listed in the press release. They did not. I don't We're not going I have pictures of their truck. Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, we're not going by a press release. I have information from the project representative that managed the project that said the project was completed by General Asphalt who self-performed the project. So, they put they put in their bid. They said self-performing. They didn't say anything about AEB. No problem. Maybe they maybe they bought AEB and AE is is is owned by them now. I don't know.

We don't we don't know if they invested in them because they had financial trouble because they defaulted on so many bridges. We don't know that. And that is part of the investigation to us. We do know that. We do know that AE did not perform on Duck Key because the project manager for Monroe County stated such and nor are we because they wrote down self-perform. If you I have pictures of everything that's happened there in 2025 and it's all AEB AE AE trucks. Maybe they bought their assets. I We're not entering into contract with AE. We're entering into contract. General Asphalt has a contract with AE to build that or some Well, they have I'm asking you to find out. I already did. That's speculation. General Asphalt has Did you ask General Asphalt if they have a relationship with AE?

I did not because I don't need anybody. General Asphalt has informed us that they are self-performing this bridge. That's all we need to know. and they have we have checked their references and their qualifications and we received excellent reviews. This is where I'm so frustrated with our city. Like you should want to know this more than I want to know this. I do want to know it but I can't no one can answer if there is any relationship. I actually John as I asked it at the last meeting and I'm pretty sure John said there was. Vice Mayor, we cannot control.

So John, there's no relationship between AEB and General Asphalt. AB the company that that I wouldn't want to hire to build a bridge. General Asphalt I I don't know. Vice Mayor, I don't know the relationship. I'm just going by an email that procurement had sent me on the day of commission and it wasn't really even clear. It was something along the lines of there was uh acquiring a resource or acquiring a re resources something along along those lines from AE. That's it. You get that answer last few days then. But to me it was moot anyway because is it moot when that's a company has defaulted?

But but think about it. This happens all the time in the industry. Companies either get dissolved, acquire, people move and transfer. I there's no reason to look into that further because our contract is with General Asphalt, not with AE. So Monroe County's contract is also with General Asphalt, but the press releases still say AEG and all the equipment still says AEG. I'm not going by a press release. We're going by the FDLT. It's Monroe County. It's the same people that that that you talk to. There's not a It's Monroe County saying, "Here's the update." It's It is We don't We don't trust public information.

Not someone intimately involved with the contract. Perhaps they were getting delayed information. We have no idea. We have hot off the press information from the project representative. The General Asphalt successfully completed the project and they self-performed the work

after the bid deadline. Is there a way for us to go out and just now that we know all this we've done so much work the permit's okay for us to go out even at general asphalt and get all this stuff answered we know is going to be here and are there other bridge companies who maybe didn't get a chance to bid on it because they tried to meet the deadline of the ninth and and they couldn't and even though these none of these bids did either really are there other people out there that we should be talking to that maybe can build an $8 million bridge so we could so the project was let out to anybody. We took the scheduling constraint out of the scope. So, anyone could have bid on it. There were no scheduling constraints on this second bid. Anyone could have bid on it.

In fact, Vice Mayor, we coordinated with procurement and gave them a list of all so many different bridge contractors so that we can open up the the competition. I was actually surprised we only got three. Right. So, is there a way to reach out to bridge contractors now that we have all these kind of failed processes and say we have this project and you do it? Not not when we have a lowest responsive responsible bidder in front of us. Mayor, Mr. Burman, no. Not unless you terminate this bid and restart the bidding process. Correct.

That's the only way you could potentially. And then maybe the people who bid on this may not rebid because they went to the effort through the effort and obviously we shut it. We'd have to shut it down and rebid. You cannot open a bid up and start bringing in more people. The bids the bid the submissions have closed. The openings have been done and this process is either complete or it's terminated. One or the other. But that's the only way to do that. Thank you. Very good. Further further commission discussion. Commissioner Fessic.

Thank you. Okay. Um just I wanted to address a question um that the mayor stated earlier about to the city manager asking if all this information was in our agenda backup and if anybody asked if we needed more time. And think it kind of just made me remind reminded me of something. I happened to be picking I picked up the new Pelican and I was reading about another city and that in Deerfield commission and I called and confirmed with the commissioner and mayor that they get their agendas for their commission meetings 10 days in advance which gives them a full week to talk to staff before they have their meetings and and have those conversations. So 10 days is a lot more than the think like the six where we get ours on Wednesday. No. And Kervin has been awesome about getting it to us a day extra because we used to get it Thursday and then we havely the weekend to go over it. So there's a lot and they were closed on Friday. So there's a there's that. Um I would I I just want to be before we kind of go back into everything else, I I want to ask just make sure I'm really clear on this. If somebody is not honest on their application, you stated it was grounds for it to be disqualified. That correct? It would be deemed nonresponsive. Yes.

Okay. So, that would there. Okay. So, one of the one of the one of the one of the things in here was this this went out and things had to come back by February 9th for the bid in in the application. General Asphalt said that they had completed this project. listed it as a completed project. Know that when vice mayor mentioned Monroe County and the public information um she read from an article from next door but from public information officer Monroe County and that particular article was also added as part of our city attorney's documentation. So it's part of the memo. On that same memo, it says, "Change order number one, which added milling and reservicing of West C drive from the intersection of Corsair Road to the CVU bridge, extended the contract date of substantial completion to February 10th to 2026. The bridge was opened fully on February 19th." So that means that at the time they submitted on the 9th, it was not necessarily completed and it was not an honest answer. So I'm all for saving money. Let's let's put it this way, but I want to make sure we're doing things where where we hold the same people's feet to the fire every time. So process itself is important. And if we, you know, sort of go on a technicality here and a technicality there, it's like here techn here technicality there, a techn technicality, and then there we've just got a mess.

It's so important that we just be really really firm on what those processes are. And and we've come to this before where there's been somebody who's lied before and we've or they or have omitted certain information. I think I go back to one of the contracts that that came before us and I questioned if they were they said that they had no legal case open but yet they did and they still do. So I'm not saying for this particular agenda item, but the point is is that we have to make sure that if we're te taking people off of the list or we're disqualifying them or we're recommending them, we follow the same procedure every time. And as per our procurement process and the the manual, that is the procedure as per Mr. Burman, that is the process. this person who this company should not even be that that would be deemed non-responsible that or nonresponsive at that point because they would have not provided the correct information. Correct.

Not necessarily if it's not a material element and it was deemed to not be material element. The bid process as it's written for this bid and other bids. If a response is not accurate, it has to be of a material nature in order to invalidate it. the the imp what you just discussed was something that hadn't been completed. Now, going by a press release for your argument that I included because that's what I found online and I wanted to share it with you. I didn't vouch for the accurate and do not vouch for the accuracy of any dates on that, but this is what I was able to find and that's why I provided it so you could see what I was looking at in the short period of time I was involved in this after being uh pulled into this procurement matter. Thank you. And for for clarification, the bridge was physically physically complete and that's why we do have those that language in the ITB as it relates to technicalities. Furthermore, the change order that was issued was an owner initiated change order. So that too further extended the contract of no fault to the contractor. So we were able to overlook those minor technicalities. We're not going to in the best interest of the city forego a technicality because they were were not finally complete with a project within 10 days at an expense of almost $6 million. So that was our position and we stand firmly on that still.

Mayor owner initiated for the record means the county changed what the work they wanted done. That is correct. Thank you. Okay. Um my my last piece of this is I think that we really need to look no matter what we're doing. I don't know if we need a motion or if this is just good common sense, but to no matter what, we should make a motion to extend and I I'll make the motion to extend the Army Corps of Engineers um five years just in case anything happens. While we're discussing this, I'd like to make a motion to make sure that we for sure extend that Army Corps of Engineers uh contract. I don't know if we need to do that, but are we planning on doing that? Well, we have to. That's a regulatory requirement, but the commission does not need to make that motion. That's just something that staff would do. Okay. So, and are you planning on doing that?

We've already initiated that process.

Thank you. That's great. Okay. So, now we know that we are not under the gun for making a decision right now. I I I I don't I have I have a I really like So, from an engineering standpoint, I do have a question given that. So, let's let's now let's just take all of the above off the table. Okay. In your professional opinion, I would really like for you guys to help me understand and explain the $ 8.5 million versus $14 million spread. So, like I mentioned, three out of four essentially, even though we're not considering the fourth, but three out of four were in the same bucket of 13.9 to 14.15 or whatever in dollar amounts and using scope and risk, right? So, and and the reason why I was just say so and if you can't I just want to find out how are you confident that this will not end up being a change order that that results in getting back to that price point anyway?

Absolutely. So, actually just just for the record, it's actually two out of three bids were kind of exorbitant because the second was renegotiated from a from the same firm, right? So, it was two firms. So I have done some research because I wanted to ensure even though I was confident that the 8.5 million was aligned with market rates but I did do some research. So city of Del Rey Brandt bridge completed in 2023 this bridge is almost double the size of our bridge and it was $2.5 million. Okay. At escalation our bridge may still be a little bit inflated although we do have some subacquous work was that was around 1.5 million. So our bridge cost is about $7 million. The McNab Bridge that was a line item price that bridge which is also larger than the six terrace bridge was $7 million. Um Earman River bridge village of North Palm Beach. Um this bridge is five times larger than our bridge. It too has subacquious work and utility work. 13.7 million. Five times larger than our bridge. And um I think that's the the research that I've conducted. So we're very confident that the $ 8.5 million, matter of fact, just my opinion, I think it's still a little inflated, but I don't think that waiting and putting it back out to bid is going to yield a lower cost. I think that it's only going to costs are only going to increase. So, we're very confident with the language that we have written in the contract templates that we can hold this contractor to comply with all of the requirements that he is contractually or she contractually obligated to perform.

Um, [sighs] I I I I will say that I I did go through a a a rabbit hole of details related to this this duck bridge and related to some of the other things with this this partnership. I think it's really important that we do find out that information, that we do find out if there is even if they're self-performing, I feel like that's a really important question to this because if if the answer is no, they have nothing to do with with AB and they have no material and they they have no relationship or they're not planning on using them and and they are essentially they they use them because they were already there for this one project, but they're never going to touch that again. They cannot because they didn't list them as a sub. And the only way that they could use a sub that is currently not listed is if they approve it, get authorization and approval by the engineering department, which I would not approve. So I please feel confident that we are not going to allow a sub such as AEB or any other sub. And I'm I'm not saying that AE is bad or indifferent. I don't know. I didn't do my research. But we're we would vet out every sub that steps foot on that project. And I will personally be overseeing that project. Then I guess what the la the last I'll just leave it at the last one. I still like I said I still think I have a lot of of questions in the air related to this and I and I I mean I understand the 8.5 million that's easy, right? But I don't feel that sometimes I don't feel like sometimes what we're going to get for what we're what we're asking is the same quality. And so I'm not even sure if there was was there any work done to find out of the projects they've completed any were there anything that had to be material that had to be fixed within a period of time that was normally not the standard of amount of length? Now, I got excellent reviews from the individuals that I spoke with as well as the on the Earman Bridge, the subcontractor that did not perform, General Asphalt came in, demolish the entire bridge, all the

the work that was done, and rebuilt the bridge in accordance with spec. So, it isn't just city staff overseeing it. We have the building department that comes out and does uh will perform inspections, special inspectors, and other outside agencies. So there's a lot of eyes and ears that will be overseeing this project to ensure that it complies with the design documents. Okay. And you you mentioned earlier when I said four because I haven't received or seen the other piece of this that was back in October or September. Um that was that was one of the companies here that was also

it was it so there were three biders on this rebid. One of the companies was the same one single bidder on the first bid and they had renegotiated procurement and John renegotiated and they had come down not much but uh they had come down a little bit. So there's three different prices that are exorbitant and not align with market rate from two firms and I and one and so related to that as well. What was the reason? Because I think I remember seeing or hearing in one of the meetings that the city manager agreed with engineering's decision to reject that bid back then. What was the reason given for that rejection?

Well, it was because of the cost. We knew as subject matter experts and what our design consultant had conducted in his own research and cost estimating that those that that cost was not aligned with market rate and it was not in the city's best interest. We felt that primarily it was a result of the scheduling constraint which is why we held fast on trying you know to rebid it. Um and so I think that uh there may be other issues still going on. We don't know, but we're very confident the 8.5 million will get the project done to the quality and standards as it's designed. Thank you, Commissioner. I have one final question. Question. Mr. Fick, you'll have time to have your questions addressed. I have just one final question.

Thank you, Commissioner Fess. I've got to cut you off. All right. Well, then thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fess. Thank you. Appreciate it. Further commission discussion. Yes, Mayor. Commissioner Perkins. So, Vice Mayor, um, we've been going back and forth with this and you've done your research. Is it you're thinking that you would like to throw this out and restart the bid? Is that what you're requesting? What is your request at this point? Uh, being that this is your district and so many would like to see this bridge garden finish. Where are you at this point? Am I allowed to speak?

Sure. She's asked you a question. Um, so I still have concerns about AEB and like I asked if we could get clarification in writing from the company that from General Asphalt that that there is no relationship there, then I would be comfortable with this bit. Um, I also is General Asphalt here. I was just going to ask that. Are they just getting ready to say that? I want to make sure that it doesn't break the cone of silence, but General Asphalt is in the audience. we not talked and so I don't know if that is appropriate to I would defer to the city attorney I think if it I have a bunch of questions now let's let's so let's get our questions answered yeah let's Mr. confirmed.

I think staff can certainly speak with an answer, get the answer to the vice mayor's question and put it on the record. I don't think would be inappropriate at this time. Okay. But I feel like we've already answered the question. Aeb is not affiliated nor will they be working on this project and we hear that from General Asphalt. I'm the owner and I get to say so who I get to say who does what on this project that you wouldn't I mean they're going to they're going to tell you whatever. It's what we say and what we approve and what we allow. And I will not allow AEB to come onto this project. You're good. And do and perform anything. I just asked if they're here and they could speak and you just said no. Where m Mr. Burman, you already spoke on this that staff could talk to them. But can they go?

They're not going they're not going to come forward. Yeah. Better speak all the time. Commissioner Perkins. Commissioner Commission. So Commissioner Perkins, you have the floor. Yeah, it it sounds like we have trust issues. of course we do with staff and and we're concerned about the AEB and the findings and all of this vice mayor. So like I just said I want to move forward with this. You you want to move forward? I so want to move forward with this for the residents of our district and the city and get this p. I mean Rex, you must want this. You were the commissioner here. this district wants this project. It's a simple question.

You didn't ask me. It's a simple question. And now I feel concerned that we can't ask the company. Mark, don't we often have people come up and answer questions. But I'm asking Commissioner Perkins. But Vice Mayor, I'm asking after the selections been made, we've had the selected party come up and answer questions. Not during the middle of a bid until a bid is concluded. However, if staff would like to confirm information, they can place it on the record and get your answer that way. Hopefully, if you want to take uh a two-minut break, mayor, I'd suggest taking a fivem minute recess. Great. Okay. General Asphalt, we come back up.

Let me let me just finish with Mr. Perkins. If that were you want to take a break and then come back and you'll still have a four. Okay, great. Okay, we're going to take five minute break.

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music]

[music] Hey [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] It's meeting back to order. And I see that we got our engineer. May there still pause. One moment. Wait on. Time out. Nope. We're not done yet. We're on. We're live.

We're on. Okay. Very good. Let's call this meeting back to order. I see we have Mr. Zeropoulos and Dr. Good over there. You guys uh were able to get an answer to the questions that the vice mayor has posed. And and by the way, Mr. Perkins still has the floor, but go ahead. John Sopolis, city engineer. Yes. Uh we inquired with general asphalt and they are not using AEB. Okay. Very good then Mr. Perkins. All right. Thank you.

Okay. So I basically was trying to find out from the vice mayor because this is her district basically how did she want to move with this bidding so far. Based on your findings is is what answer I'm trying to get out of you. What would you like to see happen based on your findings from this bidding process and this group that was awarded the the uh bid?

So that's a really big [music] question. I want to see this awarded and this bridge built and we have to do that. So this is where we're at. I I also ask what Mr. Burman had suggested to the mayor, but you know I can ask that. Um, is there some suggestion? I'm sorry, I can't. Is there a question? I didn't hear you. You suggested something to the mayor and you suggested to us all publicly so we know what it was.

Absolutely. I wanted to make clear on the record that based on your inquiry and desire for additional information, the purchasing director who is present in the room and has the ability to wave the cone of silence. She did that temporarily and that's when the question was asked of uh of um General Asphalt and your question was hopefully answered. They are not going to use um AE in any manner. The con of silence is back in effect which is why I didn't want them to. But I had asked that the mayor put on the record that they open the cone of silence just to get your answer to your inquiry and that wasn't done. So I was waiting to raise my hand to put that on the record.

Okay. Thank you. Uh so I have as everyone knows huge concerns about our [music] procurement process here. Not not it's not about any one person. It's just relative to how city other cities and boards work. Um, I I think we need our procurement workshop discuss this so we can [music] feel better about moving all of these big projects forward in all of our districts because we keep hitting these issues, right? These roadblocks where we can't get anything done. So, uh, today based on what I have heard, I I am going to vote to for the six terrace bridge. I have no option. I don't I'm very uncomfortable. I'm very uncomfortable, but I have no option but to trust staff. Okay, that's she answered my question. Thank you.

Very good. Any further? I'm done. Thank you. Very good. Okay. All right. Um further commission discussion. Let me just check for one question. Mr. Commissioner Fik, you can ask a question. So I I want to say thank you for for trying to get that information clarified. My my secondary question is of the list of subcontractors that are listed that are approved, would any of those subcontractors be able to essentially subcontract contract out work through Eevee as well? So, or is it just or or do they have a business relationship with any of those people? So, I'm just trying to remove all doubt that that those things you've asked the question. Let's get it answered. No, that that sub is just for paving, marking, and signage. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, that's all. Very good. The commission discussion. Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the role. Commissioner Fez, yes. Commissioner Perkins, yes. Commissioner Seagerson Eaton, no. Commissioner Smith, yes. Vice Mayor Ponier, yes. Mayor Harden, yes. Thank Thank you, ladies. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. All right. Um, that's that's the only item on our agenda. This meeting is adjourned. Now you can clap. All right. Yeah.