Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council orders new bid focused on repair for Winterberry boardwalk after public outcry
Summary
After heated debate over a previously accepted bid of about $849,400 and conflicting repair estimates, the council voted 6–1 to issue a new RFP for boardwalk repair rather than proceed with the larger replacement bid. Residents and local contractors testified that repair bids and design details were incomplete and urged rebidding to attract local bidders.
The City of Marco Island debated the future of the Winterberry boardwalk during its June 1 meeting and ultimately directed staff to issue a new request for proposals focused on repair rather than proceed with the previously accepted replacement bid.
Background: A prior procurement and single contractor bid had been presented to council at roughly $849,400 for a boardwalk scope that some members and many residents considered too costly. Some supporters of replacement said a full rebuild would be longer‑lasting; opponents and local contractors argued the existing structure could be repaired at far lower cost (an engineering repair figure of approximately $430,000 was cited from a prior single bid), that insufficient bidders participated previously, and that the procurement process limited small local firms’ participation.
Public comment featured multiple contractors and residents: Dwayne Thomas (local contractor) advised council to control engineering and product selection and not simply accept a contractor’s design; Mario Curiel, a long‑time contractor, urged the city to re‑examine the design and seek competitive bids; Christine Dowell and Michael Josephs argued a repair option would be far less expensive and criticized the emergency justification used for prior action. Rick Woodworth and other residents urged the council to ensure full transparency and ask for local participation.
Council members split over whether the initial decision had been wounded by a misstatement in minutes (the repair vs replacement phrasing) and over whether rebidding would be fair to the previously accepted bidder. Vice Chair Champagne emphasized the importance of standing by prior decisions but acknowledged concerns about the bid’s size and the public’s trust. Councilor Goler and others urged a practical re‑bid that solicits repair proposals and allows local contractors to compete.
Outcome: On a 6–1 vote, council directed staff to issue a new RFP for repair of the boardwalk, rather than replacement, and to re‑solicit bids. The motion was made by Councillor Goler and seconded by Councillor Doan. Council also asked staff to compile more detailed cost breakdowns, to explore potential FEMA reimbursement eligibility for repairs (approximately $35,000 previously identified as potential FEMA funds), and to report back.
What happens next: Staff will prepare a repair‑focused procurement package, attempt to clarify scope and design documents to encourage multiple bidders, and return to council with updated bids and cost comparisons. The council also discussed exploring potential grant or TDC (Tourist Development Council) funding as part of the funding mix.
Votes: Motion to issue new RFP for repair passed 6–1.
