Clermont Council advances Meet Us in the Middle waterfront plan, directs value‑engineering of docks
Loading...
Summary
After extended public comment and debate over cost and park equity, the council voted to advance the expanded Meet Us in the Middle design — including tiered seating and memorial elements — and asked staff to sharpen dock cost estimates and pursue grants.
The City of Clermont City Council voted Oct. 28 to advance the expanded Meet Us in the Middle waterfront master plan, asking staff and the design team to pursue value engineering on dock costs and continue seeking grants while moving forward on the land‑side elements of the design.
The council’s decision follows a presentation from Powell Studio Architecture that laid out a full plan including an axial plaza aligned with the Coast‑to‑Coast Trail, a reflection lawn, tiered seating with a veterans and first‑responders memorial and a waterfront pier and floating docks. The architect said a full build of all elements was estimated at just under $12.5 million including a 10% contingency; a condensed alternate reduced that estimate to about $9 million with a 15% contingency.
Why it matters: the project is the city’s largest proposed downtown park investment in years and integrates a veterans memorial, community gathering space and boating/fishing access. Council members and speakers during public comment framed the vote as a balance between honoring veterans and managing limited parks and recreation and general fund resources.
Council members and members of the public highlighted several funding sources. A speaker identified a $1 million LiveWell Foundation grant already accepted by the city and one council member said state legislative funding of $1.5 million has been secured; council discussion also referenced $7.9 million available in recreation impact fees and city fund balance. Several council members pressed for value engineering of the pier and floating dock elements to lower cost and reduce long‑term maintenance obligations.
Public comment heavily favored the project and urged inclusion of a veterans and first‑responders memorial and the pier. Valerie Schuette, a resident active in parks planning, urged the council to “be aggressive” about opportunities for state and other grants and to allow bicycle‑advocacy input. Multiple veterans and veterans’ advocates described the memorial as a long‑overdue recognition of service.
Council debate centered on three issues: (1) the overall cost and whether to fund the entire scope now or phase it; (2) whether park and recreation impact fees and fund balance should be used given competing city needs such as EMS; and (3) the cost and engineering approach for the pier and floating docks. Council members repeatedly asked the design team to return with value‑engineered dock options and sharper cost estimates.
"We need to mine the store," said Councilmember [name not specified in transcript], urging staff to reduce costs before approving dock construction. The design team said the dock and breakwater are the major drivers of cost and that alternate configurations could lower the price.
What the council directed: staff and the design team were asked to proceed with final design and engineering, pursue permitting (Army Corps and other agencies will be long‑lead items), continue grant‑seeking, and return with value‑engineered dock options. Council discussion referenced an expected procurement schedule beginning in late 2026 with potential construction starts in early 2027 depending on permits and final bids.
Next steps: staff will return with adjusted cost models, dock value‑engineering, and refined phasing and procurement timelines. The council also asked that the American Bicycle Association and DPZ (consultants) be consulted on the design as part of the next phase.
Evidence supporting this article appears in the council presentation and the public‑comment record at the Oct. 28 meeting.
