Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vero Beach council rejects Carroll’s bid to change airport parking approach, approves review of reconsideration rules
Summary
Councilmember John Carroll sought to replace staff’s Option 2 for the Vero Beach Regional Airport parking project with a Construction Manager at Risk approach but his motion died for lack of a second; the council then voted 4-1 to ask the city attorney to revise Code Sec. 2-53(e) to better align with Robert’s Rules of Order.
On March 24, 2026, the Vero Beach City Council debated the financing and procurement approach for a proposed expansion of parking at the Vero Beach Regional Airport and failed to advance a motion to rescind prior authorization and substitute a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) option.
Councilmember John Carroll, presenting a PowerPoint on the terminal parking expansion, said the materials lacked clear backup and a site plan and questioned several line items in a cost estimate that listed a total of $5,072,150. Carroll challenged a $660,418.64 annual expense number attributed to a potential lessee and said he had not seen supporting documentation for those figures.
"It is a herky-jerky mess," Carroll said of the history of the parking project and argued the City should consider an Option 3 to retain a CMAR, hire local contractors to refine plans and establish a guaranteed maximum price before proceeding.
Airport Operations Manager Brandon Dambeck responded with staff figures from the potential lessee’s presentation: "the annual expenses that were calculated were the annual recurring expenses that were provided to them from Envision’s (potential lessee) presentation was $328,000 and then the additional expense of the concession fee at that point added $319,000." Dambeck also confirmed the council’s $340,000 figure represented the City’s local match for a grant and said staff were pursuing passenger facility charges and federal funding where possible.
Carroll moved to rescind the council’s prior authorization for staff’s Option 2 and adopt the CMAR approach, but Vice Mayor Taylor Dingle raised a point of order. City Attorney John Turner explained that under Robert’s Rules of Order a motion to reconsider is typically required at the meeting when the original action was adopted and, ordinarily, must be made by the prevailing side. Turner also noted the city’s rules allow items previously acted on to be placed on a subsequent agenda. The motion from Carroll died for lack of a second.
Mayor John Cotugno then brought a separate motion asking the city attorney to reexamine Code Section 2-53(e) and draft language to make the code more consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order. The council voted 4-1 to direct the city attorney to return with recommended amendments; Carroll voted against the motion.
Why it matters: The parking project represents a potential multi-million-dollar capital effort tied to airport master-plan work and grant matches. How the City procures and finances the work could shift which revenues—city-operated parking or proceeds under a lease—are available to the Airport Fund.
What’s next: City Attorney John Turner will draft proposed revisions to Code Section 2-53(e) for council review and the council agreed to schedule a workshop-style joint meeting with the Airport Commission to discuss the airport’s future and master-plan attachments.
