Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Key West commissioners reject expanded harbor monitoring change order as cost and process concerns mount
Summary
A proposal to add harbor monitoring and sensor equipment to a Stantec contract drew mixed public comment and repeated commissioner questions about procurement and scope; the change order failed on a 4‑3 roll call after staff said harbor monitoring had lapsed for about a year.
Key West commissioners on April 1 rejected a change order that would have added harbor monitoring and new continuous‑sensor equipment to the city’s water‑quality contract with Stantec Consulting Services.
The item would have added roughly $62,808 for Stantec’s Task 0 and pushed total near $115,000 when equipment purchases are included, staff said. The change order was introduced as a way to reinstate continuous harbor testing that city staff said had stopped about a year ago.
Resiliency manager Allison Higgins told the commission the harbor monitoring lapse left a gap the city should fill. Higgins said staff convened an expert water‑quality team including state and regional partners and concluded that continuous sensors are the most efficient way to restore data continuity and produce quarterly, actionable summaries the commission can use for policy decisions.
Public commenters were split. Bart Smith, speaking for Pier B, said the harbor has healthy coral and questioned whether the extra testing duplicates other agencies’ work; Carrie Baker of the Chamber urged fiscal restraint given other city budget pressures; advocates for expanded monitoring said the harbor’s coral could benefit from proactive data and pointed to grant opportunities that could subsidize beach expansion work.
Several commissioners raised procurement and transparency questions: Commissioner Kauffman said it was unusual to have a single proposal for chief‑building‑official services (another agenda item) and asked who would be physically onsite. Commissioner Lee called the addition of Task 0 to the contract “a bait‑and‑switch,” saying the initial RFP did not include harbor testing and the dollar amount is substantial compared with the original award. City attorney and staff acknowledged Task 0 was not part of the signed contract and that change orders of this magnitude can present legal and public‑process concerns.
After extended debate, the commission took a roll‑call vote. The motion to approve the change order failed 4‑3 (Castillo, Haskell and Kauffman voted yes; Carey, Lee, Velez and Mayor Enriquez voted no). The city will continue to discuss monitoring options, staff said, and any future tasks would return for separate consideration and specific funding approvals.
