A major focus of the meeting was the debate over the installation of a new fence along a park area, which sparked strong opinions among the agency members. One member voiced opposition to the proposed $21,000 expenditure for a black picket fence, questioning its necessity and likening the potential aesthetic impact to an “inner city kind of getter look.” This sentiment was contrasted by another participant’s concern about security and liability issues.

The debate extended to the type and height of the fence, with proposals for a four-foot fence near the water area to maintain open views for park visitors, while a six-foot fence was considered necessary for security further away from the waterfront. Rising costs for fencing materials, notably a 75% increase in metal fencing prices, added another layer of complexity to the decision-making process.

The meeting also addressed the intricacies of the US 19 and Grand intersection project, which has faced delays due to permitting requirements and funding timelines. Updates were provided on the engineering adjustments required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), including additional drainage calculations and a grading plan. The project cannot commence until a state appropriation of $300,000 becomes available on July 1. The inability to claim spent funds prior to receiving this appropriation added to the frustration among agency members, with concerns about potential delays jeopardizing the appropriation if the project does not proceed promptly.

Further complicating the fence discussion was the issue of an aluminum fence near a seawall, where aesthetic and safety concerns were raised about its height and placement. Members debated the appropriate extension from the seawall to deter individuals from swinging around it, ultimately moving to gather additional input before making a decision. This highlighted the ongoing challenges in balancing safety, cost, and visual appeal in community development projects.

City Manager Andrew Butterfield provided an update on the costs associated with property appraisals necessary for acquisition efforts related to the water plant and other properties. Three appraisal quotes were received, with two at $2,700 each and one higher at $9,000. The need to acquire several properties for the water plant was discussed, alongside efforts to assess potential acquisition of the Billy Kitas property. However, there was confusion about whether the appraisals included one for the water plant property, which remained under negotiation.

Butterfield also mentioned recent discussions from a county commission meeting where the approval for tax increment financing (TIF) transfers for all CRAs was pulled from the agenda for further discussion.

The meeting concluded with a suggestion to consider cost-saving measures such as handling the demolition of the old fence in-house rather than outsourcing, potentially saving around five thousand dollars. This underscored the importance of fiscal prudence in managing project costs and ensuring that expenditures are justified.