The Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District heard a multi‑hour review of the long‑running sports‑court project on Dec. 16 and postponed action on the construction contract after legal counsel warned a board member’s participation could risk enforcement by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

General Manager Chris presented a slide timeline tracing the project from a 2019 per‑capita grant application (roughly $177,952) and subsequent design and permitting steps to a coastal development permit and invitation to bid. The GM said the district later received extensions of project performance dates and a mix of consultant amendments and volunteer committee efforts to keep the project moving.

Legal counsel told the board that a board member (identified in the record as Tristan Sanders) may discuss the matter but should recuse from a vote, because participating in a vote could expose the district and the director to an FPPC enforcement action “including a potential $5,000 fine.” Following that advice, the board postponed approval of the construction contract and instructed staff to return the item at the January meeting with any additional legal or procedural clarifications.

The meeting then moved into an extended public‑comment period during which dozens of residents and business owners spoke. Supporters framed the court as an economic and recreational asset that would bring visitors and weekend revenue to local businesses. “We have a whole group of people… we have supervisors coming down from Eureka, to kind of encourage you to keep this rolling along,” one commenter said in urging action.

Opponents and some board members raised practical questions about airport land‑use compatibility and occupancy limits attached to the county planning permit. The fire chief clarified that, per the county building permit, the approved occupancy load for the court is 50, but that FAA/airport conditions could restrict organized or league play while the airport is in operation. Board members discussed options such as applying for a variance, scheduling tournaments during airport closed hours, stronger signage and enforcement, and whether district‑sponsored events would expose the district to liability.

The GM and staff described that five bids were received and that the lowest bidder’s price exceeded grant projections, but that the procurement package is ready to return once the board resolves the conflict‑of‑interest question and confirms the district’s risk posture.

What happens next: The board directed staff to bring the construction contract and related bid materials back for action at the January meeting; the item remains open pending FPPC guidance or additional procedural steps.

Key quotes from the meeting included: “Legal counsel’s guidance is that board member Tristan Standard can discuss the topic, but… recuse herself and maybe attempt to abstain… but she risked enforcement action, including a potential $5,000 fine from the FPPC,” staff said during the presentation. The fire chief told the board: “The occupancy limit approved by the county is 50 for this court,” clarifying a central point of the permit discussion.

The record shows passionate community involvement on both sides: speakers alternated between urging quick construction to support local business and youth activities and urging careful compliance with county and FAA requirements.