Good afternoon and welcome to the board of commissioners special meeting. Today is Tuesday, November 25th, 2025. It is 2 PM. City clerk, would you call the role, please? >> Mayor Brooks, >> here. >> Vice Mayor Kerr, >> here. Commissioner Taglerini
>> here. >> Commissioner McGee. >> Commissioner Gavay >> here. >> All are present except for Commissioner McGee. >> Next on the agenda is public comment. Public participation is encouraged. If you are addressing the commission, step
to the podium and state your name and address for the record and the organization or group you represent. Please limit your comments to five minutes and do not include any topic on the agenda. Public comment on agenda items will be allowed when they come up.
If you would like someone at the city to follow up on a comment or question made at the meeting, you may fill out a comment card with the contact information and give it to the city manager. Comment cards are available at the back table in the commission chambers. Completing a comment card is
not mandatory. Do we have any public comment? With no public comment, we will move on to project items A. Archerald Snack Shack scope approval. >> All right, mayor and commission. I will turn this over to community development
director Marcy Forbes. >> Good afternoon, commission. Um, so as we discussed during our last meeting, uh, city staff reached out to the contractors who bid on the repair for the stag shack and asked them to provide us two additional uh, bid opportunities.
One of them was to remove the subflooring to expose the connections that are connecting the building to the piles. And in addition to or in lie of removing the subfloor, we also asked for a cost related to removing the sand from beneath to provide the access that we
needed. So we were able to get quotes back and that's that's why we it's before you today is to look at the quotes and discuss uh moving forward with either subfloor removal or sand removal. Also, um, since we last met, I
had I've been engaging with Kimley Horn about the process for the historic. When I did that, I had asked Katherine Yonkan to start uh researching the snack shack historically. So, I included two documents on the deis for you guys and I
I gave a copy to attorney Tras as well. I thought it was kind of interesting and I know the public's been talking a lot about their knowledge of the snack shack and kind of what they've seen throughout the years. So, I thought this was pretty interesting because this was definitely a voice from the community stating their
hopes for not losing the snack shack back in 2007. So, it appears through referendum they created an ordinance to prevent the demolition of the snack shack in 2007. I've just started I just got this document today. So, I haven't really had
a chance to vet it with attorney Tras to see if the ordinance as written and passed is written as a snapshot in time or if because of the way it's written, it's completely applicable. Either way, I thought it was interesting and something to consider as well as some of
the thoughts and feedbacks from the public around what they wanted from the snack shack back then. So, I thought it was kind of something you guys would appreciate having. So, we provided that to you as well. Do we have any public comment? >> Um, I'm here for the dredging, but uh I will comment on this as well. My name is
Captain Dolan Hubard from Hubard's Marina. Uh, the snack shack is a structure that I I think we should really be careful with because it's a structure you will never ever ever get to rebuild. So if there's any possibility uh of sustaining it, I think
we should really explore every potential possibility uh because of its location and the special nature of that building. It would just be such a loss to the community, to the area. It is uh definitely very valued to not only our guests and visitors, but also to our
residents. I think it's a very special part of Mader Beach and I think it will be a very special part of the future development in that area as well. So would love to see whatever we can do uh to keep that running. Thank you. >> Do we have any additional public
comment, commissioners, comments, questions? >> I'll get us started. Um uh Mr. Tras, does the uh ordinance that was voted in in 2008 impact any of our
decisions or is it too early to ask? Well, I'm just reading it now, but it looks to me like it was only addressing the issue back in 2007 or 2008 when it was approved. I don't I don't see after reading sections one
through three that it in any way prevents you for either rehabilitating the structure or removing the structure if it is not um safe. So, it looks to me like that that was just trying to address the issue right then and there
and that in that in that time frame. >> Okay. If you um have a differing opinion later, I'm sure you'll let us know. My question on the subfloor um is was that part of the initial
scope to to um renovate? >> So, part of the initial work was to possibly replace some of the subfloor. I think we had calculated half of the 1800 square feet, but it was not to remove the whole entire subfloor, but
it was just in case when we were removing the tile, if we found rotten subfloor that needed to be replaced >> by removing the entire subfloor. Is it of course it would give you a better inspection, but does it impact what
their scope would be? I guess it would for the renovation. So that would have to all be rebid, >> correct? >> Because it's a different scope. Do you feel that you would have to remove the whole entire subfloor to to get the inspection you're looking for?
>> I'm gonna let Marcy answer that question. That would be my plan with that if we did decide to go the subflooring route would be to be on site during that to kind of guide them. If we get to a point where every single one of them looks corroded and I want to go ahead and
extrapolate that all of them are we can make that call then but it would have to be an infield decision as to when we would stop the subflooring or if we felt like it needed to continue to come up because of what we're discovering as they're removing it. So my intent was to would be with the sub
flooring to limit as much destructive testing as possible. Um um so with that, honestly, I'm a proponent of the sand removal. I think that'll provide us the access we need from the underside because there's also
um some plumbing and some electrical that runs beneath there. And ideally, if we remove the sand, it doesn't count against our FEMA 50. Then with that, we would work to put up a protective skirting to prevent sand accumulation in the future. Try to maintain that underpace access. That doesn't mean we
may not have to cut a location or two. But if we can retain the slub flooring and go ahead and assess from underneath the damage, I I to me that seems seems like a better approach. approach. I know it's a more expensive one right now, but I think in the in the long run, it would
be very beneficial. I think the subfloor removal, how much will actually have to come out to make that assessment would be a fill-time decision as we're exploring it. >> So, if you remove the subfloor for inspection, you most likely would have to at a later
date remove the sand anyway. Is that what I'm >> That's Yeah, that's exactly what we were talking about, too. Because even like the three locations we uncovered, one of them, one of them really didn't have sand. The rest of them the sand was just right there. So, you're still going to have to get it out to really inspect
around the the connections locations as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Would you would you say that uh the excavation that that we're that we bid out and we're going to do that was is not going
to impact negatively any further decision we make whether it is to rebuild it or to uh start fresh. It's not going to impact negatively any of that. Is that correct? >> So with with the sand removal there
there will be no impact if we went the subf flooring route. I did sent out an email to Kimley Horn and she felt like because the the nature by which we consider the snack shack to be historical isn't dependent upon the subflooring. So it wouldn't necessarily
probably impact the ability to get it designated historic. If we were knocking off the outside exterior parts that would change, but the subflooring she felt like would not negatively impact our desire to get it designated historic. >> And that's what we're talking about just the sub subflooring then today
>> in the tile. So there it has a subflooring, then there's like a mastic material and then tile on top. >> And so all that would go away with that subflooring removal, >> which is what we've got bids on. >> Correct. So you have bids on the subflooring removal and the sand removal. >> Okay.
>> Uh two separate options. >> Um I am for revitalizing the historic snack shack. However, I think the biggest challenge we have here is the 50% FEMA rule. So, if we do not get the historic value,
then any money we're spending because I know once you once you get into revitalizing the value would be greater than 50%. So I'm I'm thinking that it is really important to get that historic
designation so that we can bypass that 50% FEMA rule. Um that FEMA rule I think is going to be killer. Um so I don't know how to address that.
um you know are we throwing good money after bad is the question and then the other the other questions that I have let's say it's with it's below 50% let's assume that yes we can um fix and
revitalize this I have a couple questions uh did you all come up with the 1,800 square foot and the 13 and 133 cubic yard of sand >> analis county property appraiser has the square footage at 1,800 square feet for
the for the restaurant and then yes we calculated the 133. >> So um so I would have I would have not given the the square footage to the contractors. I would have wanted them to figure it out for themselves. Otherwise
if it's greater than 1,800 they are going to charge and if it's less than that they won't return our money. And and secondly, why do we have to remove the 1,800 square foot or whatever it is to see what's below it? I think we can
um just open maybe 10 areas, certain areas, and look down below to see the integrity of the structure beneath there. And and frankly, even if there is, let's say, sand below there, I don't see that sand being detrimental. Why do
we have to remove the sand? If there is sand beneath the floor, so let it be. You You generally build pilings. You have pilings and then you have the floor. So whatever amount of sand that's below there shouldn't really affect us.
So, I'm I'm just worried that we're spending money that is just just basically wasting money is what I'm sort of worried about. Um, and I'm in a dilemma. I mean, I I know we have to make a decision. I understand
that we can't wait for the historic um evaluation of of Snack Shack. So, we have to take some action. Um so um
I you know I'm in I'm in I'm in dilemma. That's I I don't know what to say really because we don't know you know the 50% rule. We don't do we have to address that now not having the historic
designation and if we do then Marcy would you say that whatever we do to the snack shack would be greater than 50%. Reconstructing >> based Yeah. based on the based on the quotes we received to to return it to its white box state and then the
estimated kitchen equipment that would have to be installed that would also count against the FIM FEMA 50%. It's it's too close to not be concerned about it that we would ultimately go over the allowable spend. >> Oh wow. And I I will say with the holes
that we cut in, I was hopeful like you that I cut a hole and I could poke my head in, but it the sand was just so high in those locations. And because of the orientation of the sub the the beams, um the the floor joist, you couldn't get the visual
that I I had hoped for with the with those few cuts. Um I feel like the pros to the sand are the ability to remove it. So, not only are we seeing just the connection to the building, we're seeing like one and a half to two feet of the pile. So, it has been there for 90 90 plus years or whatever you want to
quote. But those are 90 years of of of damage, unseen damage that's also been occurring to it. And that's kind of what we've been seeing too with some of the condos as I'd previously mentioned, damage they didn't know they had until the sand washed it away. So, I think with the sand, we get to see the connections, what kind of shape they're
in. We also get to view the subfloor without being destructive. gain access to, like I said, any plumbing or any electrical that goes underneath there, we can properly correct that. Um, and so those are the things that I think are if if we're going to do this, that's those are some of the pros I see with the sand removal
part of it. But to your point, we couldn't really cut holes and then just pop our head in. It wasn't feasible, unfortunately. If you were to assess the quality of the pilings, the existing pilings >> visually,
the pilings I have been able to see um did not show I did not see any structural concerns on the few that I saw. I did crawl up underneath there. You both saw me try to fit underneath what I could to really get a better view. So, I couldn't really assess the underside. Like the exterior ones you
can kind of see a little better and those seem okay for the visual spots underneath. You couldn't really tell. And almost all of the straps that I've seen are are severely rusted. >> Okay. Now, the 50% rule is not a one-time deal. It's every year. So,
every year you could do 50%. Just wondering if we can take advantage as we go through the process of re uh reassessing the uh historic. Can we do 50% and then wait and then maybe by then
the hopefully the issue with the historic will go away. If it doesn't then the following year we do it the the rest of the 50. >> I'm pretty sure that the FEMA rule is you have to bring it back to its pre-torm state.
I guess you could argue that there is a lot of things damaged there that were not caused by the storm. I don't know how far that would go. I I'll tell you what my my opinion is on this based on um where we are, based on the community,
based on um the quote that we have, the conversation we've had is rooted in whatifs and may. And the easiest way for staff to be able to discern and get away from what ifs and
may and have it based totally on fact is to remove the sand. the sand will need to come out regardless. But if the sand is gone, then there's a crawl space under that building enough to be able to see are the pilings's good, how many
straps need to be replaced, and as Marcy stated, they could then put a pinning underneath to keep sand from washing back in. And it would really allow us as a commission to be able to make the best choice moving forward
based on the construction of the building without wondering what we might find or what we might uncover. Um, and removing the floor, you're still going to have to take the sand out to be able to see the straps. So, it's not
um I I think that $30,000 could arguably be a lot of money to spend on sand removal, but based on the information that we've received, I feel that it is money well spent to look towards the
preservation of the building. And I don't know how long, Marcy, did um do you have any idea on the timeline for determination on whether or not we qualify for a historical building.
So I I don't quite yet. So I have reached out to Kimley Horn. Um we are putting the historical documents together in a package for them to be able to review as well. I don't want because we're we would draft it into our LDRs and then it's
reviewed um for criteria. I believe at a state level possibly the state just complies with federal so that's where it stops. But the way we would the way I foresee us doing this is it would be declared historic to our city and be protected by the city and the state and
that's pretty much it with with what we're saying makes it historical which is the look of it. You can look at a picture of it and anywhere in the world and you go oh that's snack shack at Madiraa Beach. That's what keeps it historical. So with that I think um I think we have pretty good chance of
being able to to to get to meet the qualifications that we would need. I don't want to say 100% but I think the outlook is good for that timing is is difficult for me to say right now but once I get that from Kelly Horn I can share that with Clint and then he can share distribute that to you guys.
So I mean if we if we vote today to remove the sand then you can contract have the sand removed and start doing your assessment on the underneath of the building. >> Correct. be able to determine what might or might not need to be added to the bid
that we already have. Correct. Or revisions that need to be made to that, what have you. >> We will more than likely have to go back out >> back out to bid. >> Yeah. So, that will that'll be a process. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I don't care so much myself about the
process. I care about getting it right. And I think that the community doesn't care if it takes I mean, they obviously I'm not saying they don't care. the community wants just to understand what we're doing. So what I mean and until we can
see it, you can't know what we're doing. So if if you said to the community, you know, in a month, okay, we've removed the sand. This is what we've determined. We need to get a rebid because this was on it. It doesn't need to be there or this wasn't on it. Needs to be there.
Goes back out to bid. It's a a betterformational bid based off we have better information to be able to put out and then the bid comes in and it's safe under the 50% then we're still moving forward with historical designation but we don't have
to wait to start the work or vice versa it comes in over we need to complete the historical designation but if we see that that path is a given it's going to happen it's just a matter of time there'd be no reason why the city couldn't go ahead and start um working
on the building and securing it to keep any deterioration from continuing. Like if there's termites in the building, we should ten it, right? >> We should stop the termites today, not in six months. Right. >> We've had a termite inspector over there. I'm waiting for the paperwork to
come in. >> Awesome. I mean, I just think that I think that the forward thinking part of it, but we need a little more information. I would agree and I and I I I strongly feel like if you know going the historical route we have we have great opportunity there by removing the sand
from underneath we also have the ability and preventing it from gathering up underneath there structurally securing it now I'm going to feel better during the next um Helen event that that structure can withstand not at least not being wiped off the foundation right >> which would be the the catastrophic part
of that so I think with the information we gather we can do that also So, if we go back out to bid and we have been able to access the underneath, we can say, "Okay, four subfloor locations need to be repaired and that could drive down the cost of what we've seen because now
we know what subflooring is really bad." >> And with the timeline of rebidding it out, more than likely it would probably come back to you all in Marchish. So, we would be further along in the the designation. >> So, we will know a little bit more then
as well. And in the meantime, once you see it, if if termites come back, it needs to be tinted. All of that can be happening while we're working through the process. I am strongly in favor of removing the sand so that staff can determine this the state of the building.
took the words right out of my mouth about the termite inspection because I was will they not only be able to say okay you have termites or you don't but the actual structural damage that was caused >> unfortunately I was in a meeting when
the termite inspector came on site so I wasn't able to meet with them but I do know that when he walked in the building he said that it was pretty bad so I'm expecting that to come through if that doesn't have the information that we need in it then we can just obviously go forward. That was what the intent was
whenever I scheduled the inspector to give us a level of of I guess how how bad it is, but I'm not sure. >> Yeah. I mean, I would I would be in favor of the sand removal based on that
in inspection because if if the structure is in such poor shape that the scope to repair is significantly more, it's a safety hazard or whatever, then why spend the
$30,000 to So, one one decision is based on the other in my my opinion. Okay. So is is it is it possible to take a vote and then on the sand removal based on
the termite inspection? Is that a >> what's the termite inspection have to say to say that you can remove the sand >> if it's structurally if the building is structurally sound? Well, >> I mean the building's standing there. It survived a hurricane >> today.
I mean that it's not going to fall down because of termites. >> I don't know that. >> Marcy, do you have an opinion on that? Or Megan, >> I'd have to go back and refresh my memory on Penoni said, but I I don't
know that they really identified any any areas of like that level of concern. I know they said that there were some >> they noted They know damage >> and as long as it's not a structural >> issue. But I think that two kind of go hand in hand. The sand removal to
inspect the structural straps of the building and also then the termite inspection. So two separate but structural if that makes sense. We need both of them to be done.
Well, did did I understand you to say that there there there was a termite inspection done, but you did. >> So, um I don't remember what day it was. I contacted a company and I think it was last week, but I can't recall. They came
in and they looked at the building and they are supposed to be providing me with a proposal. And my hope is that it was going to have the level of I don't know how termite inspections go, but the level of the
infestation, if you want to call it that. Um, but I haven't received it yet. >> But and and more importantly, the the level of damage to the structure that can or cannot be salvaged. I mean, is that a possibility that it' be so much termite damage that the structure
couldn't be revitalized? >> I don't think that that would come from them. I think that that would be further through another engineer inspection. >> I could look back at the Penoni report, too, but I don't I believe they didn't have anything that really jumped out at
me that screamed the termites are, you know, it's going to be to that level of destruction, but I'd have to refresh my memory and go look at the Penoni report. I don't know that the quote we're going to get related to the termite. I believe he walked in and said, "Oh, it's bad." and he's going to give us just a cost quote, not grade how bad it is or what
his determination of the depth of damage based on the termites is. So, like I said, I could review the Penoni report, but I don't remember anything too too detrimental. >> What is that report you're referring to? >> So, Penoni did a structural assessment
and we've included we've had it in previous packets and I don't have it up right now, but I can try to pull it up where they kind of did an overall of what they could see. Then with that, we help we utilize them to help build to help build out that construction drawings that we sent for bid. So that's
we kind of used them to help identify things that do need to be repaired and fixed and sent that out to bid, but they do acknowledge in the report they couldn't see everything. >> Okay. So there there wasn't a definitive report on structural integrity regarding termites. >> Let me pull
>> regarding termite damage. >> Let me pull up the Penon report. Do you have it up? Okay, cool. real quick. >> Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. >> I mean, as long as it's not a a structural main structural member, I
don't think it would be a big deal. But I guess he I mean, I'm sure the report would come back. We didn't have access to any of the um main beams. uh under the building. So, I guess we would move forward. So,
and we may have to reassess or reinspect because I don't know how do you inspect something that's all covered up. >> That's why we need the sand removed. >> The chicken egg situation, >> right? So, we need to proceed with removal of the sand or the subflooring.
We prefer the sand. And then from there um depending on how this report comes in, we can further um contact somebody to come in and give us an inspection on the termite damage. I I would feel comfortable do removing
the sand and uh but continue with our investigation with structural integrity of the termite damage. >> Sir, you making a motion? >> I I do have one other question. I guess not. So I I just want to state that
that if we are moving forward and the answer is yes on these items then we have to assume that um that either we will have the historic um designation approved soon by
the state or um the value of reconstruction would be less than 50%. I think based off of Megan saying that um more than likely we're going to have to go back out to bid because once the sand is removed,
we'll have a different scope of work based off of the visual and not the whatifs and may. So, if that isn't coming back to us until March, that's four months. So, four months, we're either going to know that we're under
50% or that the historical designation is approved. I would think they would go hand in hand in that timeline. >> So, so if the historic designation is not approved and reconstruction will cost greater
than 50%. Then the money we're spending right now is waste, right? Is that is that safe to assume? I don't think it's wasteful because I think that if we don't take the steps to truly understand the damage
then we're not doing our job to I mean the you're either going to spend it today or you're going to spend it tomorrow. You've got to do you've got to do the work to find out what's underneath the floor. Right. So, I mean, in in my mind, I feel like every
day that we don't remove the sand and get the building back in a climate controlled environment, it's deteriorating. So, I'm for let's get the sand out. Let's see what's there. Let's >> Well, that was my question to Marcy
early on. Removing the sand, is that going to negatively impact our e either decision? Don't we need to get down there and see it regardless correct what we're doing? >> I I believe so. >> If so, why is >> it just the money that's being spent is what I'm >> But I'm suggesting that we need to spend
it either way. >> Either way, because if you don't spend it, you can't make a decision. You don't have the facts. That's what I'm hearing. >> If you do spend it, you spend the $31,000 because it's $30,700. If you spend $31,000 and they pull that sand out and it is
just a wreck, that's a different conversation. But that's a conversation based in fact, not based in we're going to start spending the money and then once they start the work, they realize that there's a lot more damage we didn't know about. >> So, this taking the sand out would allow
us to make better decisions. I'm I'm I'm looking at spending I guess uh one of them one of the contractors would want $49,340 and the other one $54,100 because you have to add
you have to add floor removal and sand removal. >> No, we don't have to remove the floor. If we take out the sand, >> if we take out the sand, the floors don't don't have to come out. Once the sand is gone, you can crawl under the building and look at everything. Marcy or whomever can go under and assess all
of the pilings, can assess all of the straps because there's a crawl space. The way that it is now, if we remove the floor, the sand is still there. So, you can't see the pilings or the straps necessarily because of all the sand. You can't see the plumbing, everything
that's under the building. >> You don't have to do both. >> No, only the sand. >> How do you get to the sand? Just from >> they they're suck it out, >> don't they? They suck it out like a vacuum cleaner kind of. >> So, I imagine there'll be probably some based on the um elevation projects, they're tunneling underneath, but um by
hand, but it do it'll be a combination of both. It'll probably be some hand operations, some vacuum operations. We already have some holes in the floor they could utilize for for getting to it from above. >> They understand they don't have to remove the floor. They understand that they have to do whatever
it takes and not have to spend. I could look back at it. He's saying that to make sure that the contractors understand that their their bid is based on not removing the subfloor, just removing the sand. They they don't they're not Yeah. >> Yes. That it was one or the other.
>> Methods are however they get there was their choice. We were not going to tell them how to do it. >> That's the case. I feel more comfortable now. >> Awesome. Then do we have a motion? It it just looks like we uh I recommend that we
move forward with sand removal based on the Molly contracting core price. >> Do we have a second? >> The Molly contracting that's the 30,700, right? Yeah. I I second. >> City clerk, would you call the role, please?
>> Commissioner Tagarini. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Kerr? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Gabay? Yes, >> Mayor Brooks. >> Yes. >> The motion carried 4 to zero. >> Next on the agenda is ITB number 25-14, John's Pass dredging.
>> All right, mayor and commission, we're just providing you the uh the bids that we received for the dredging project, giving you an update on where we're at with everything, and I'll turn it over to public works director WebR. >> With the dredge um bids, we received
three bids. So you'll see that in the memo. Um the first CNM drudging, they did not respond properly to the bid. So automatically they they were not responsive. The reason why there are two separate areas is because we had the
base bid which was in the original permit to dispose of the sand at a class one which is Penllis County dump. And then after we acquired the property and after doing inspections at the new property, Marcy had a great idea that we would take the sand to that property and
we would we would grade the property properly because right now there it's not it's not graded very well. So you have the alternate bid in that and you'll see that the alternate bid is much lower for than the base bid. So we
are we are working on modifying our current permits with Army Corps and also with FD to be able to add that as a location. We do not have that as of yet. Um, Army Corps has requested additional information. They wanted to see like a
devel development plan for the property and also a site plan. We did provide that yesterday, I believe, but with it being a holiday week, I Edgar is is not in the office. Um, and the FD permit, I
think that we've already pretty much gotten the verbal okay, but not a written modification to the permit. So, what you have in front of you is the bids. And Marcy, do you want to add anything to that? >> Um, no. I think you covered that pretty
good. >> We can answer any questions that you may have. Do we have any public comment? >> Yes. Uh, I Dylan Hubard from Hubard's Marine. and just fully support moving forward on this as soon as we can uh to get the relief that uh John's Pass
desperately needs uh from that sand buildup underneath the bridge. And right now we're seeing the sand build up at an exponential rate uh due to that beach renourishment project. Uh we were just out there with FDOT evaluating some of the bridge material that was left after
the 2007 construction and completion of the new bridge. Um, and the sand has exponentially increased since then because of the sand reourishment projects that are going on from Mader or north of Madira Beach uh to Sand Key and
uh we're seeing that sand build up really really fast. So the sooner this project can get rolling, the less sand will be there. Uh and I think we're going to be faced with a little bit of a challenge as that continues to build up. So, the sooner we can get this done, the better and uh the quicker we can move,
the the faster the project will move as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any additional public comment, >> commissioners? >> Just brilliant idea. >> Well done.
>> So, it's my understanding that today we moving forward we would be looking at a recommendation on the Bayside dredging alternate bid. That correct? >> Yes. Um, fantastic.
>> So, sand buildup is this sand buildup post what the bid in other words they bid on a certain cubic yards. Is this additional sand buildup will cause additional cost?
>> No. No. The additional sand that that Hubard is mentioning was there and is there throughout the year. It will come and go. So, in the original bid form there, it accommodated for 12,900 cubic yards of sand.
>> Okay. And how much money do we have to spend here? >> So, we were awarded a state appropriation for 1,556,000. Um the current remaining budget if we are to award the alternate to Bayside
will still leave us with a balance after paying for the CI services of 7 $70,39.50. So we'll be within budget >> and the consulting fees and revisions and permitting cost and so forth and so
on, they all came out of this 1.566. >> Correct. And we will still have 70 plus dollar >> per my calculations. Yes. >> We will still be within budget. >> Well, all I would say is um good job
because this has taken forever through no fault of yours. So, I'm happy to see it coming to an end and getting to the the end of it. So, do we have a motion? I think you're going to have a motion. I I just had one question and it's just a
housekeeping question. Page 11. Um the bid the bid pricing. Um and it's talking about the complete build out of the downstairs office suite. >> That was my error. Disregard that. >> Okay. Just just pointing it out.
>> That was corrected on the addendum. Just not >> Oh, okay. >> Sorry. Like I said, housekeeping. So, we Are you ready for a motion? >> Yes. >> Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Bayside Dredging LLC alternate bid
total of $1,294,550. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll I'll second that. >> City clerk, would you call the role, please? >> Vice Mayor Kerr? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Gabbay? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Taglery? Yes. >> Mayor Brooks.
>> Yes. >> The motion carried four to zero. >> Great job, guys. >> Yes. >> Can I just give an update with that as well so everyone's on the same page? Yes. Um, so Penellis County's dredging permit or dredging project is going on right now outside of the channel. We cannot start our dredge until they have
completed and believes that they will be completed by end of December. So, we should be able to get this done in that January time frame. >> Awesome. >> And there's no issues with grants. That's all been extended. >> Yeah. The only the only items that we are waiting for is Penllis County's
permit which they have a site visit scheduled for December 11th. They are fully aware of this project. We've already received the permits from Army Corps and D. So there should be no reason why we do not receive that. And then the modifications to the permits
and we may have to reach out and ask for some help if we don't get an answer to that. >> So we definitely can do that. If you have an issue, let's have that conversation. We should know by next week. >> Okay. >> So, the dredging the dredging material is suitable material then, right? That's
why we are placing it at 555. >> The reason why it was not suitable for the beach is due to too many shells. >> Thank you. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, before you adjourn, I would just like to ask that on a future workshop
that we get an extension of the jetty. something that to talk about that we can um talk about submitting or requesting from whoever it is the county or whoever and get that discussion going.
>> So have to discuss it just >> yes. >> Yep. We can add that. >> We have to gather some information to be able to do that properly but I think I know the right person to talk to. Okay. So if there's nothing further, it
is 2:42 and we are adjourned.