Consultants briefed the council on the progress and hurdles, detailing the need for precise field verification due to the lack of complete data on the exact locations of current utilities. It was emphasized that many utility companies have limited knowledge of their infrastructure’s precise locations, complicating construction efforts. To address these challenges, proactive communication with utility providers was stressed, alongside the necessity of including utility representatives in planning meetings to ensure seamless coordination.

The council also discussed the role of Florida Power and Light (FPL) in the design process, where it was clarified that FPL is responsible for its own design considerations, with the city ensuring that existing utilities are accommodated in their plans. The representative mentioned ongoing adjustments to avoid conflicts with current infrastructure, highlighting the iterative nature of the design and construction processes. The council expressed concerns about the lack of formalized easements for utility placements, a matter that often leads to last-minute adjustments during construction. The ongoing necessity for open communication and collaboration among city officials, contractors, and utility companies was underscored as crucial for the project’s success.

In another significant segment, the council addressed the rejection of bids for the pickleball court project. The bids were dismissed due to discrepancies, notably the omission of restroom facilities by one bidder, which led to considerations of re-bidding with a scaled-down project scope. The city manager suggested exploring state funding options and leveraging neighboring communities’ contracts to reduce costs. There was also discussion about engaging USA Pickleball to attract more bidders, reflecting confidence in this approach as a path forward.

The council then turned to the issue of adjusting building permit fees, where a proposed 48% increase was presented to prevent the building fund from going negative by fiscal year 2025. The proposed changes were prompted by insufficient past adjustments and rising operating costs attributed to inflation, staffing, and insurance. Council members expressed mixed reactions to the fee hikes, with some advocating for increases to sustain the building department, while others emphasized the need for a simplified permitting process to encourage compliance and generate revenue without resorting to substantial fee increases. Concerns were specifically raised about significant discrepancies in certain fee categories, such as a new pool permit potentially increasing by 250%.

The discussion revealed differing opinions on the best approach to balance necessary revenue with a user-friendly permitting process. Some council members acknowledged the necessity of fee increases but were cautious about the scale and its impact on compliance. As a result, a motion was proposed to revisit the fee structure at a future meeting.

In addition to these topics, the council discussed the introduction of mobility fees to replace existing transportation impact fees, designed to support transportation projects over the next 15 years. Concerns about the proposed fees’ complexity and potential impact on community projects, such as schools and churches, were raised. There was consensus on the need for workshops to explore these issues further, particularly given the presence of new council members. The council also recognized the importance of public communication to mitigate potential backlash regarding fee increases.

The meeting concluded with various community updates, including a report from the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and discussions on increasing youth fishing opportunities and traffic safety improvements. The council underscored the importance of community involvement in advisory committees and outlined upcoming holiday events, encouraging resident participation.