[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6091533,"mediaKeyId","2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7","parentId",2860929,"title","Commission orders rebid of automated school‑zone camera contract after vendors dispute security audit deadline","audioSeconds",3510,"startMs",4184000,"endMs",7694000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7&start=4184&end=7694","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7/thumbnail_4184000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6091533/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/Commission-orders-rebid-of-automated-schoolzone-camera-contract-after-vendors-dispute-security-audit-deadline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6091533-16564fbdb627f791fea7aa49baac2d01/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191816&Signature=FRnbLseY3tZs1kjyk23FsexfIKxIdvrEASIKW7Kg~TTlCUyU3sok05CzlQb2MNkUn2JafMcc9A8lKWJTvR0GIL7GR8Hj3QmrrIJIGdAQ8jHWlDHybnpXMt9Hd-qW4NY~-HBfXRGLsDoP6PzqbrVNc-9eJASEW8qEZ7VaQgRAtPM9eKe~250MWisC6q-ZXNhZLTMKzbTiCH90QbQI8Qq~SvfJFvBDQ2ZRQ7Wl02z7qVObKb9SO~TB2q7icr53rlC7f83shA0Lc0V5mc2QanYq6yS-laVxXgLn7Qf7b1Gv3UpymCh~085aAAG2HZaEyKWIUxuP-ITyzpSk1XO~VJmbmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Fort Lauderdale, FL","date","2025-04-03T13:54:04.563Z","article","Fort Lauderdale commissioners voted April 1 to deny staff’s recommendation to award the city’s automated school‑zone speed detection camera contract and send the request for proposals back out after a dispute over a required SOC 2 security audit.

The matter began as an appeal of the chief procurement officer’s denial of a protest by BlueLine Solutions LLC (M2) and concluded with the commission rejecting the award recommendation in M3 and directing a rebid. Procurement staff told commissioners BlueLine had been ranked the top firm by the evaluation committee but the ranking was “contingent upon complying with the SOC 2 submission requirements.”

Why it matters: the devices and vendor contract control deployment and operation of cameras meant to enforce school‑zone speed limits and adjudicate violations. Commissioners said they wanted the procurement to be unequivocally clean and to preserve public trust while moving as quickly as possible to protect students.

What staff said
Glenn Markel, the city’s chief procurement officer, summarized the timeline: the RFP required a SOC 2 Type 1 report tied to cybersecurity and data protection. Procurement issued addendum No. 3 to allow proposers to provide the SOC 2 within 60 days after the proposal due date, but BlueLine repeatedly missed the date the RFP and addendum set. Markel told the commission the city’s IT and cybersecurity reviewers judged an alternate audit (an inlet audit) insufficient and concluded the SOC 2 requirement was appropriate.

BlueLine and Red Speed positions
Matt Sacker, identified in the hearing as representing BlueLine, told the commission BlueLine “is the, clearly superior vendor in this response to this solicitation” and said BlueLine’s financial proposal was far lower: “They’re also 40% cheaper than the second ranked vendor,” he said, describing BlueLine’s offered vendor payment as $15 per ticket.

Representatives for Red Speed argued the solicitation’s requirements were clear and that a late or missing SOC 2 was a fatal, non‑waivable flaw. Mark Stempler and Greg Parks, each speaking for Red Speed, said the city’s RFP and procurement code required the SOC 2 and that allowing a late submission or ignoring the requirement would undercut the integrity of the process.

Evaluation vs. responsibility
Multiple speakers — including procurement staff and the mayor — noted the evaluation committee had ranked BlueLine highest on the scoring criteria but that the ranking was expressly conditioned on BlueLine providing the SOC 2. Procurement said the SOC 2 was not a scored technical criterion but a responsibility/qualification requirement that had to be met to proceed to award.

Commission action and votes
- M2 (appeal of procurement officer’s denial): Commissioners tabled the appeal to an indefinite date (vote recorded as unanimous). This moved discussion forward while the commission addressed the award item separately. (M2 tabled.)
- M3 (award of the automated school‑zone camera agreement): Vice Mayor Glassman moved to deny the staff recommendation to award and send the procurement back out. The commission voted 4–1 to approve that motion (Commissioner Herbst cast the lone no vote). The practical effect: the recommendation to award was rejected and staff was directed to rebid the project with an accelerated timeline.

What proponents and detractors said
- Joe Goldstein, counsel for BlueLine, argued the late SOC 2 should be treated as a minor irregularity, noting the firm had been ranked first on all evaluation criteria and had delivered the audit when the city requested it: “We submitted it when you guys asked for it on November 13, and we gave it to you the same day,” he said.
- Procurement staff and Red Speed representatives countered that a procurement deadline and a mandatory SOC 2 requirement cannot be waived by an internal staff request and that allowing an exception would be legally problematic.
- Police department staff, while not taking a public position on which vendor would perform better, said the shortlisted vendors were generally capable of providing the service; operational judgment, staff said, was appropriately exercised by the selection committee.

Next steps and timing
Procurement staff said they would move aggressively to rebid and suggested a 21‑business‑day timeline as feasible to post a new solicitation, noting many respondents already have prepared materials. Commissioners emphasized urgency because of school calendars and public safety goals but also stressed the need for a clean, transparent procurement record.

Discussion versus decision
The commission made two distinct decisions: (1) to table the appeal (M2) and (2) to deny staff’s recommendation to award and to rebid the solicitation (M3). Commissioners repeatedly framed the outcome as balancing speed with legal process and procurement integrity.

Ending
City staff were directed to prepare a new solicitation quickly, confirm SOC 2 and other responsibility requirements are explicit, and return with a schedule to brief the commission on timing. The commission’s rebid direction means the cameras will not be installed under the current recommendation; contractors already shortlisted may submit again under clarified requirements.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Commission Regular Meeting on April 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Fort Lauderdale commissioners voted April 1 to deny staff’s recommended award of an automated school‑zone speed detection camera contract and ordered a new procurement after the top‑ranked bidder missed a SOC 2 security‑audit deadline that procurement staff said was a mandatory responsibility requirement.","taxTitle","Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida","taxId",4849,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6091524,"City designates Frank Creuson House a historic landmark despite objections from condominium owners",1125,5953000,7078000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7&start=5953&end=7078","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7/thumbnail_5953000.jpg","/articles/6091524/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/City-designates-Frank-Creuson-House-a-historic-landmark-despite-objections-from-condominium-owners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6091524-acfc24d6997ec4b4127efb5e4a677154/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191816&Signature=TG89Fp7pay8yZqWf7NEorQwo4vyj7Bz-01DgeaHFi9OhTl~sx8YXJF9~wO1IOudnZ42C6CpbTUodMSg5fpbI3h83hUKcUcUxFvhgTBZUUh9ect9jMSA6D3KiOHRuXc0VmVJX5Ei4BN5Rt8LiiXGup93giDU9Oi8jzxVOgQYI66e9g6TDnfbCDNXZlZpsbSWg23rRmDn9d3kCvJxjDemBewVdq9KVmY1azm6XZP~5eKFYidHKTgfD6DVV-yyUa7MPOwHcTDlT478KzSiinmLWmrnoSWdPq1xHd5wvyZJXjnKCjEHOQEvIfdmgLR4atDyQC2aerS6cf1i71LraKM11wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fort Lauderdale commissioners voted April 1 to designate the Frank Creuson House at 1313 South Andrews Avenue as a historic landmark, limiting the designation to the building itself and not the surrounding land. The vote followed public testimony both for and against the designation and more than an hour of quasi‑judicial discussion.

Why it matters: the building dates to the 1920s, is associated with architect Francis Abreu and is one of a shrinking set of surviving early‑era structures in parts of the city. A historic designation triggers review procedures for alterations and can enable incentives the city has created to preserve historic structures.

Key facts and process
- The Broward Trust for Historic Preservation brought the nomination to the Historic Preservation Board for review. The HPB recommended designation and the item came to the City Commission for final action.
- The commission limited its action to designating the structure itself (the house), rather than the underlying land or adjacent parking areas, to reduce legal friction with condominium ownership.
- Commissioners split on the question of owner consent and on whether the city’s Unified Land Development Regulations (ULDR) require different owner notice or assent; several commissioners said the city should review the ordinance to provide clearer owner input in the future.

Public testimony
- Mikaela (Broward Trust for Historic Preservation) argued the house met multiple criteria for designation and noted the public historic value: the structure “is an exquisite example of Mediterranean‑Revival architecture” and, she said, “this building deserves to be preserved for future generations.”
- Ira Marcus (representing one ownership entity) and other condominium owners told the commission they opposed the designation because the property is part of a condominium structure and the condominium associations had not given majority approval for the action. Owners said designation could affect their property interests and resale value.
- Several residents and preservation advocates urged designation, citing precedent and the history of other preserved buildings in Fort Lauderdale.

Vote and legal context
The commission considered a motion to designate only the house (not the land). The motion passed on roll call: Commissioner John Herbst voted no; Commissioner Beasley Pittman voted no after requesting changes to owner‑notification procedures; Vice Mayor Dean Glassman, Commissioner Ben Sorensen and Mayor Dean Trantalis voted yes. The measure therefore passed 3–2.

Commissioner concerns and next steps
Commissioner Beasley Pittman said she would vote no and asked staff to examine changes to the ULDR to provide owners more opportunity for input before designation. Several commissioners agreed to direct staff to review the ordinance and the city’s obligations as a certified local government on historic preservation and to consider options that provide more owner notification or assent while preserving the city’s ability to protect significant structures.

Ending
The commission’s designation applies to the Frank Creuson House building only; owners may still apply for certificates of appropriateness and the city’s historic‑review procedures will govern future changes to the structure. Commissioners also asked staff to propose possible ordinance amendments to strike a better balance between owner rights and the city’s preservation goals.","On April 1 the Fort Lauderdale City Commission voted to designate the Frank Creuson House at 1313 South Andrews Avenue as a historic landmark (building only). The designation passed after debate over owner consent and historic preservation procedures; commissioners added the designation for the structure itself, not the surrounding land.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6091529,"Fort Lauderdale adds language backing tunnel effort, tells county city will not support a bridge alternative",947,7763000,8710000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7&start=7763&end=8710","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2860929-327f972d8de624487575d530abb3d0d7/thumbnail_7763000.jpg","/articles/6091529/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/Fort-Lauderdale-adds-language-backing-tunnel-effort-tells-county-city-will-not-support-a-bridge-alternative","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6091529-4c1ef36008a099d2aa5026e183687644/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191816&Signature=RuSUQjqHSlilGR~J20s2TwIws1aSrPa4Q4JgG2vbLaJE~vwxAZeNWNZL1nASYoYaHtmRiN9WyGz6V-SAh8ucpX4IKlLxooDfkgrT~5KibZyk7KjgR-KbWvpGGofxKakAQzhaGMDOSLOtk48QmM4PWkijkuyFixsEeton5CKjImP0XqWMTkWAQClPY97XMhqE5xlauh0xl8r2R0iEnkbD7uW0nDO16yhrxnaQMMtGTjGm0bpVyIB4UPmim~6t5DNdYf4ql1UcH-BeI3NXBA8oY1hfoi2CaDl1T7PbD9p8EJPPaQeDKuiu-lgJRXQugkM7x10vVfxbHvybeK2YFJjDAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fort Lauderdale’s City Commission on April 1 approved a walk‑on measure to continue work on a New River crossing and added explicit language that the city will seek and promote a tunnel alternative while making clear it does not support a bridge crossing should the county decide to include one in its locally preferred alternative.

Why it matters: the New River crossing is a multi‑jurisdictional transportation project under Broward County consideration and has major implications for riverfront access, traffic flows and neighborhood impacts. The commission’s direction frames the city’s negotiating posture with county staff and sets a policy preference that will shape engineering, permitting and community outreach.

What the commission directed
Commissioners asked the city manager and staff to continue collaborating with Broward County on a viable tunnel alternative and to report back on progress. They instructed staff to engage qualified firms for technical work, evaluate grant and financing options and develop a proposed funding strategy for construction, operation and maintenance of a tunnel.

Added language on bridge/walk‑on
At the request of commissioners and after discussion with county staff, the commission inserted a sentence into the walk‑on text: “The city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing of the New River as part of its locally preferred alternative for Broward Commuter Rail North, but the city does not support that.” Commissioners said the addition was intended to preserve the city’s diplomatic relationship with county staff while making the city’s policy stance clear.

Timeline and deliverables
The commission directed staff to report updates to both the City Commission and the Broward County Board of County Commissioners and to prepare a proposed financing plan and schedule for any technical work required to develop a tunnel alternative. Commissioners also discussed the need to accelerate parallel items such as ordinance drafting and permitting so a tunnel proposal could be evaluated before the county advances a final locally preferred alternative.

Quotes and context
Commissioners emphasized collaboration while maintaining the city’s position. One commissioner summarized the request: the city should “collaborate with the board of county commissioners on a viable tunnel alternative and report on progress,” and should “look at funding opportunities and a proposed financial plan.” County staff had asked the city to present developer proposals and financial backing as the county assessed alternatives.

Decision type
The commission’s action on the walk‑on was to adopt the language and direct staff to continue work (direction), rather than to finalize a project agreement or to award contracts. Commissioners agreed to return the item at a future meeting for final language and timing.

Ending
The added sentence clarifying that the city does not support a bridge signals a firm municipal preference for a tunnel option while leaving channels open for county discussions. Staff were directed to pursue technical, financial and procurement steps necessary to move a tunnel concept forward and to provide progress reports to the commission.","Commissioners added language to a walk‑on resolution on April 1 directing staff to pursue a viable tunnel alternative for the New River crossing and to develop financing and technical plans; the commission also required a statement that the city does not support a bridge alternative should the county choose it.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission orders rebid of automated school‑zone camera contract after vendors dispute security audit deadline

City designates Frank Creuson House a historic landmark despite objections from condominium owners

Fort Lauderdale adds language backing tunnel effort, tells county city will not support a bridge alternative