Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant gives board five demolition/redevelopment concepts for Brett’s with wide cost range
Summary
City staff shared a Passaro consultant study outlining demolition and redevelopment concepts for the Brett’s waterfront footprint, with probable costs ranging from about $300,000 for a minimal connect-and-remove option to more than $1.5 million for expanded decks, pavilions or a restaurant; permitting and seawall condition could add time and cost.
A consultant presentation to the Waterfront Advisory Board laid out multiple options and rough cost estimates for demolishing and redeveloping the Brett’s waterfront site, and staff warned that permitting and an aging bulkhead beneath the structure could substantially affect schedule and cost.
Jeremiah and consultant materials from engineering firm Passaro identified five concept tracks: a minimal "do‑nothing" demolition with connection to an adjacent dock (probable cost $300,000–$365,000); a mid‑range option extending dock space ($870,000–$1.1 million); a full expanded deck ($1.3 million–$1.6 million); an expanded deck plus pavilion ($1.5 million–$1.8 million); and a package that adds an on‑land restaurant within the footprint (roughly $1.3 million–$1.5 million for the restaurant option in the consultant's outline).
Passaro highlighted demolition complexity for a building partly over water: fuel lines and other utilities must be relocated, old pilings and debris removed, and a deteriorated bulkhead beneath Brett’s appears to be undermined in places. "You literally have to build some new systems in place just to facilitate removing the old," the presentation said, noting demolition over water increases cost and permitting complexity.
Staff told the board that a limited demolition segment tied to an existing bulkhead may fit a quicker permitting window—about six to eight months—while larger footprints and more extensive bulkhead work could trigger a higher‑level review with 12–18 month timetables. Passaro and staff also said they are exploring options for piling disposal, including potential use as artificial reef material, but noted environmental permitting and disposal logistics remain to be studied.
The board and members of the public debated whether the city should build and own a waterfront restaurant or seek private investment via land leases. Some residents warned municipal ownership could limit public access and impose long‑term maintenance obligations; others said a waterfront restaurant is a tourist draw and local landmark. Staff said the lease for the current tenant expires at the end of the calendar year, creating a narrow planning timeline.
Staff will send the full consultant presentation to board members for review prior to the next meeting and the city commission workshop, and the board will be asked to provide feedback from community engagement and a planned town hall.
Next steps: staff plans to include the Passaro backup in the board packet for the next meeting and to coordinate a public survey and town hall before the commission’s workshop.
