Port Richey tables Oldsner Park fence replacement after debate over cost, neighbor fence

Port Richey City Council debated a proposed fence replacement at Oldsner Park on Dec. 9, 2025, and voted to table the item so staff can return with clarified scope and updated price quotes. The motion to table carried by voice vote.

The item, listed as L and H General Construction — Oldsner Park fence replacement, came after staff reported they received three price responses and recommended moving forward with the lowest responsive quote. City Manager Andrew Butterfield told the council that three responses had been returned and noted “we got 3 back. 1 was a expensive outlier. The other 2 were $5,700 a piece,” and that staff would follow up with additional details at the next meeting.

Council discussion focused on competing priorities: preserving waterfront sightlines for park users, preventing access to private yards and docks, and avoiding paying twice where a privately installed white vinyl fence already abuts the park. One council member said the $21,000 figure for the work was “a lot of money” for a relatively small run of fencing and urged caution. Another argued against “double-fencing” where a private vinyl fence already exists and encouraged staff to refine the work to only the sections needed.

Members also debated fence height adjacent to the water. Several speakers noted local rules limit fence height near the waterline; they discussed using a 4-foot aluminum fence to preserve views where the private white fence is present and 6-foot fencing elsewhere for security. Council members raised security concerns about people climbing into neighboring yards and recommended that staff consider limiting fence extension over the seawall to the minimum necessary for deterrence.

Councilors proposed cost-saving measures: use of city crews to remove the old fence and incorporate demolition work into the city’s scope to reduce contractor charges. A council member moved to table the item while staff collects revised quotes that reflect narrower scope options and any city-provided demolition work; the motion was seconded and carried by unanimous voice vote.

The council did not approve a contract at the meeting. Staff were directed to return with refined, comparable quotes for 4-foot and 6-foot sections, an option that limits fence extension nearest the water to preserve views, and an estimate that accounts for in‑house demolition to reduce contractor cost. The item will return to the council when updated pricing and scope options are available.