|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In the regular monthly meeting of the Palmetto Bay Village Council on Monday, Nov. 1, the issue of the county’s planned bridge on SW 87th Avenue over the C-100 canal was again the primary topic of interest, drawing a crowd of people into the council chambers as well as watching online via Facebook and the village website.
After an ongoing dispute with Miami-Dade County about the controversial bridge project announced by County Commissioner Danielle Cohen Higgins, who had been appointed to fill the District 8 seat vacated by Daniela Levine Cava when she became county mayor, and the Miami-Dade County Commission’s vote to approve the project, negotiations had been undertaken to mitigate the impact of the bridge on neighborhood traffic on either side of the bridge and along the route. Residents previously voiced objections to the apparent lack of support for many affected neighborhoods.
After the item was approved by the county commission under a COVID-19 policy that allows for shortened public notice, but may not apply to construction projects, council members also pleaded in front of the Metropolitan Planning Organization to no avail.
More than 30 residents spoke during public comments on the agenda item with most in opposition to the construction of the bridge and against approval of the interlocal agreement. The agreement was the proposed resolution to the mediation process initiated by the village, which is a statutory requirement for government entities before entering into litigation.
Village Mayor Karyn Cunningham opened the public comments stating that she would likely make a motion to end the mediation process and go into litigation at least in relation to the county’s process to approve the bridge project.
“In many respects we have been robbed of the process and that is the only thing that is being addressed in the Interlocal,” Mayor Cunningham said during the meeting.
In public comments, resident after resident stepped up to the microphone.
“I’m here to speak against the interlocal agreement,” John Crawford said. “There are traffic calming devices on my street now and even with those, people drive 60 miles per hour between the traffic calming devices. I can’t imagine what they’ll do if the bridge is put in.”
Dr. Caroline Hetu said, “I’m against this agreement, because it isn’t an agreement, it’s really just a release of liability to the county. There are still things we can do to stop this bridge. Why give up what power we have?”
Vice Mayor Leanne Tellam reminded residents that the village does not have the legal authority to approve or reject the bridge, as it is only within the county’s jurisdiction to make that decision.
“Regardless of what we do, that 87th Avenue bridge is going to come through and, yes, it will destroy neighborhoods and I hope that as a community we can find ways to stop it,” Tellam said. “Step 1, what can we mediate on, if we don’t agree to terms in the end, which is our interlocal agreement, we go to Step 2, which we litigate on the same basis.”
Councilmember Steve Cody expressed concerns about the litigation route but explained that he would support litigation if that is the preferred option for Palmetto Bay residents.
“If we go down the litigation route, we have no guarantee of success,” Councilman Cody said .
Councilmember Patrick Fiore opposed the agreement and the process by which the bridge project was approved at the county level.
“I can see from tonight and from all the emails, and speaking to my neighbors especially up where I live that if we’re going to fight, we have to fight until the end,” Fiore said.
Councilmember Marsha Matson encouraged residents to continue to reach out to the county to express their opposition to the bridge project in hopes that the county mayor might help.
The village council voted 4-1 to reject the interlocal agreement.
“The next step in the process will be a Joint Public Meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and the Village Council,” Mayor Cunningham said in an email letter to residents. “The date of that meeting will be set and will be held at the commission chambers. Should that joint meeting not result in a resolution, litigation will be the final step in the process.”
