Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors discuss boat‑ramp, Oak Street Pier, and bridge expansion; Tidelands funding shortfall noted
Summary
Council members reviewed several capital projects — Oak Street Pier expansion, a proposed large boat ramp, and the Bob Sherry Road/bridge repair — and raised concerns that Tidelands and state funding requests were not awarded.
Council members used the July 15 meeting to press for clearer capital project lists and to flag several projects facing funding gaps.
Council member Tisdale said the city has about 45 capital projects in various phases and asked staff for an Excel list and draft combined fund statements. He identified Oak Street Pier and an unnamed boat‑ramp expansion (referred to several times in the meeting as the **** Street project) as projects that have engineering finished but lack committed funding.
Tisdale said the city had sought roughly $500,000 in Tidelands or state support for a boat‑ramp expansion and that an additional expected $500,000—meant to bring the project to a bid‑ready state—was not awarded. “We they chose not to give us anything,” Tisdale said. He added that another roughly $800,000 had been identified historically to expand launch and trailer parking at the small craft harbor side of town.
Tisdale also described a roughly $15 million project to expand Bob Sherry Road and repair a bridge, calling the work “to prevent exactly that” after a public complaint about long delays on the road. He said the city was about 30 percent through preliminary engineering and awaiting further phases.
Staff said capital projects lists and spreadsheets will be provided to council members as they reconcile to June figures. Council members stressed the need for timely financial figures — gaming revenue and other receipts can arrive late and affect projections — and asked that project titles, statuses and funding sources be clearly shown in budget documents.
No formal action or appropriation was taken at the July 15 meeting on these projects; council members requested follow-up materials and asked staff to present funding alternatives and status at future budget meetings.
