Council pulls boathouse gas-line item, asks for cost, safety and alternative analyses

Council members on July 22 halted action on a proposed natural gas-line extension to the city’s Yacht Club/boathouse and asked staff to return with more detailed cost and safety analysis.

Council member Lastra said she wanted clarity after residents reported a floating propane tank incident and asked whether the city had considered burying propane tanks as a lower-cost alternative. The city manager and facility projects manager explained the history: the city had previously had a propane tank and staff described an incident in which debris struck a tank, prompting a safety review. The manager said the agreement with the boathouse requires the city to provide utilities to the site and that utilities typically are designed and installed by the utility companies (TECO, LCEC), which set policies such as repayment/credit terms.

Council members repeatedly asked whether the $596,000 estimate should have been included in earlier budget materials, whether the city is legally obligated to provide natural gas rather than a tank, and how the city would recover costs if only a single concessionaire connects. Council member Long said she could not support the item without an analysis comparing the gas line with buried propane tanks and a clearer explanation of funding sources. The manager offered to produce a cost‑benefit comparison and confirmed that the item could be pulled for a future meeting; the council agreed to remove the item to allow staff time to gather the requested information.

What’s next: Administration will prepare cost comparisons (gas line vs. buried propane), clarify funding sources, provide the boathouse concession agreement, and report back to council before the item returns for a vote.