Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Lauderdale and Broward County spar over tunnel vs. bridge language as New River Crossing talks continue
Summary
Commissioners debated draft language April 1 after county feedback requested wording that would allow a bridge if a tunnel ‘‘cannot provide a viable alternative.’’ City commissioners said they would neither support a bridge nor acquiesce to language that could be read as such; staff will rework the resolution for the evening meeting.
City commissioners spent more than an hour April 1 debating draft resolution language and county comments about the New River Crossing project, focusing on a contentious clause the county asked be added that would acknowledge the county “may elect to include a bridge crossing” if the city could not provide a “viable tunnel alternative” by a target date.
Commissioner Sorensen objected strongly to any clause that could be construed as accepting a bridge and challenged county conditions and milestones she described as onerous. “I don't feel that that language that you want to include is going to ensure that our…goal of building a tunnel instead of a bridge is going to be assured,” she said, adding that such language “will be interpreted by the federal government as our acquiescing to a bridge alternative.”
Ben Rogers, acting assistant city manager, said city staff had shared a draft resolution with county staff and that the exhibit labeled “county feedback” contained suggested changes from county staff. Rogers and other staff proposed removing specific references to the county’s March 3 letter and tightening the city’s resolution to emphasize that the city wants to collaborate on a tunnel alternative and to report progress by a date the parties agree upon. Staff proposed adding a new section saying the city commission would collaborate with the county on a viable tunnel alternative and would report back to their respective boards by Oct. 1, 2025, or a later mutually agreed date.
Mayor and other commissioners pushed back on wording that could be read as conceding the bridge option; commissioners asked staff to remove references to the March 3 letter where it would bind the city to specific milestones and deadlines. Several commissioners said they wanted a firm statement that the city does not support a bridge while still committing to collaborate with the county on the tunnel effort.
Staff told the commission the county had requested an Oct. 1 update so the county could know whether to keep a “pencil down” on bridge work; staff also said they were preparing a revised walk‑on resolution for the evening meeting that would remove references that seemed to tie the city to the county’s March 3 drafting and add language about collaboration on a tunnel alternative and a reporting date.
Ending: City staff said they would prepare an amended resolution (to be presented as a walk‑on for the night meeting) that removes several county‑drafted clauses and emphasizes collaboration on a tunnel alternative with a reporting date; commissioners did not vote on a final resolution during the conference session.
