[1. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:25]
          >> PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 
          >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          [Items 4.1 & 5.1]
          >> ALL RIGHT. STARTING OFF WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION ON OUR 
          SEAWALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE INTRODUCTION AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE. THIS TOPIC WAS PUT ON THE WORKSHOP AT REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION AS WAS A FEW OTHER PROJECTS TO WORKSHOP AND DISCUSS NEXT STEPS FOUR. HERE WE ARE PEER TO THE WATERFRONT SEAWALL. 
          FEBRUARY 4TH WORKSHOP AND HOW DID WE GET HERE? IN 2016 2017 HURRICANE MATTHEW AND HURRICANE IRMA CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO OUR MARINA, TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHICH ACCELERATED THE CONVERSATION FOR IMPROVED SHORELINE PROTECTION AND THE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR RESILIENCY. EFFORTS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT, FRONT STREET, DATE STREET ON THE RIGHT AND AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE RECENTLY WE HAVE HAD BLUE SKY FLOODING DUE TO THE TIDES. 
          THIS IS AN EFFORT THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR YEARS TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS. HISTORY, HOW DID WE GET HERE? THE BULKHEADS THAT'S DOWN THERE NOW , THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE '70S. A MORE RECENT LOOK AND 2019, THE CITY PARTNERED WITH PASTOR AND ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE OUR FIRST MASTER PLAN. IN 2020 ENGINEERED SEGMENT TWO AS PARKING LOT C AND D. THAT'S HER FIRST SEGMENT OF THE SEAWALL. ALSO IN 2022 THAT WAS COMPLETED AND IT COST 2.4 MILLION TO MAKE WAY FOR THE FUTURE PARK. WE HAD A FAILING BULKHEAD WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS A DESIRE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          THAT WAS A LOGICAL FIRST STEP. PUT IN THE SEAWALL, STABILIZE THE AREA AND THEN YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PARK. IN 2022 WE DID A CONSTRUCTION. EXCUSE ME, 2022, FOURTH BULLET POINT DOWN WE RECEIVED $1 MILLION FOR SEAWALL DESIGN AND PERMITTING THROUGH THE STATE. THIS IS GRANT LFA 206. THIS IS THE ONE THAT HAS THE ENCROACHING DEADLINE OF APRIL 2025. WE DID RECEIVE CONFIRMATION TODAY THAT WE ARE BE GRANTED A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE WATERFRONT SEAWALL. AND THEN IN 2023 CITY ENGAGED BY 2023 DASH 108 TO DESIGN SEAWALL SEGMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $724,000. 560,000 OF THAT HAS BEEN SPENT. 
          SOME ELEMENTS OF THAT IS OUR STORM SURGE AND KING TIDE REPORT. WE BUILD THE SEAWALL AT THIS ELEVATION ALONG WITH THAT STUDY AND THIS FINDINGS IT'S PART OF THAT STORM SURGE AND KING TIDE REPORT. THAT ELEVATION WAS SET AT NINE FOOT ELEVATION. 
          2020 FOR THE CITY RECEIVED $2 MILLION , EXCUSE ME, APPROVAL FOR $2 MILLION FOR SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION THROUGH STATE FUNDING. THAT'S A SEPARATE GRANT. FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY. 
          THAT'S A DEADLINE OF JUNE 2026. IN 2024 THEY SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE APPLICATION DUE TO FILLING IN THE SOVEREIGN WATERS OF STATE, BASICALLY PUTTING THE WALL OUT INTO DEEPER WATERS. THERE WAS CONCERNS FROM THE CORE AS TO WHY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. IN 2025 HERE WE ARE. WE ARE MEETING WITH HORN. WE MET WITH THE COMMISSION ONE-ON-ONE TO LOOK AT MODIFYING THAT SCOPE AND THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE WE ARE AT AND THE PATH FORWARD. WE HAVE COREY SALT ALONG WITH KIMLEY HORN AND CASEY WANT AND THEY WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS COREY. ON THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH KIMLEY HORN FOR THE WATERFRONT RESILIENCY DESIGN. IF ANYONE REMEMBERS, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR WE HAVE PREPARED A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION , SORT OF, AS AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THE WALL AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN HERE IS THIS WAS THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT IS LAID OUT IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS WHICH WAS BASED ON THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE CITY IS WE GOT TO A 90% DESIGN LEVEL WITH ESSENTIALLY THESE PROJECT LIMITS THAT YOU ARE SEEING ON TOP. AS 
          [00:05:01]
YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE THREE AREAS THAT SEE NO RESILIENCY AREAS. THERE IS A GAP ON THE SOUTH SIDE SOUTH OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY DRIVEWAY. THERE WAS A GAP BETWEEN SEGMENTS FOUR AND FIVE AND THERE WAS A GAP ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE WAY NORTH. WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS AS TO HOW WE CAN ADDRESS AND MAKE THIS A COMPLETE RESILIENCY SYSTEM. IN DOING SO WE HAD SUBMITTED A PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE ARMY CORPS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEGMENTS ONE THROUGH FIVE. WE DID RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE CORE LARGELY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING THE WALL IN SEGMENT FIVE THAT FAR INTO THE WATER. IN WORKING WITH CHARLIE SHORTLY AFTER WE GOT THE RESPONSES THERE WAS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LIMITS OF THE WALL TO ONLY ENCOMPASS THE CITY PROPERTY DOWN HERE IN SEGMENT FIVE ALONG THE MAIN WATER LINE AND NOT SO FAR BUT THAT AGAIN DOES NOT PROVIDE THE FULL SYSTEM AND THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE US PRESENT-DAY. 
          IN SEGMENT ONE WE ARE PROPOSING CONTINUING THE RESILIENCY WALL SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE RAIN YOUR PROPERTY. THERE IS A BERM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD HERE THAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT ELEVATION NINE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OF OUR SUBCONSULTANT SERVICES, THAT BEING SURVEY OR GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION AND A LOT OF THESE AREAS THE WAY THE RFP WAS WRITTEN AND AFTER THE CONCEPTUAL LIMITS WERE AGREED TO THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROJECT. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT DATA. WE WILL COVER A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL ABOUT THE DESIGN THAT SEGMENT ONE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. PART OF THE REQUEST WAS PULLING THE RESILIENCY WALL OUT OF THE WETLANDS WHERE IT WAS SHOWN IN THE 90% PLANS. SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT MANY CHANGES IN THIS AREA. WE MET ON SITE WITH THE ARMY CORPS REVIEWER A FEW WEEKS AGO. REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY, MYSELF, ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT, WE DID A CONFERENCE OF WALK OF THE SITE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE AREAS THAT MAY BE OF MAJOR ISSUE. WHAT WE CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING WITH IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SHOWING IN SEGMENT TWO THEREFORE WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE JUSTIFICATION WE NEED FOR WHY WE ARE DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE ARE PROPOSING EXTENDING LIMITS ON SEGMENT FOR ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE CITY PROPERTY . I BELIEVE THIS IS LOT A. WE ARE PROPOSING BRINGING THAT DOWN AND BRINGING THE RESILIENCY WALL IN THE ROADWAY. 
          THAT'S GOING TO HELP WITH ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS FROM ARMY CORPS ABOUT PUTTING THE WALL THERE. IT GIVES US NOT MUCH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER BRIAN. GIVEN THAT THE PROPOSED LIMITS WERE SUPPOSED TO END RIGHT AROUND THE STREET WE KNOW FROM THE AVAILABLE SURVEY THAT THE NATURAL GRADE OF THE ROAD IN SEGMENT FIVE DOES NOT ACTUALLY REACH ELEVATION UNTIL AT LEAST DOWN BY THE PORT HEARD I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN ON THE SURVEY WHERE WE HAVE SEEN WE ARE AT ELEVATION NINE. WE WILL COVER SEGMENT FIVE AND WHAT THE THREE OPTIONS ARE FOR THE WALL AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE THERE. DIVING IN THE SEGMENT ONE WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS THE 90% SET OF DRAWINGS IF YOU SEE THIS DASHED BLACK LINE RIGHT HERE YOU HAVE THIS PREVIOUS RESILIENCY WALL. 
          WE ARE SHOWING THE WALL IN THE WETLANDS IN ORDER TO AVOID SOME OF THE WATER MAIN IMPACT AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE THE ZONE OFF THE ROAD. THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY HAS BEEN GIVEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CLAUSE WHERE NO DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED IN THE WETLANDS TO PULL THE RESILIENCY WALL OUTSIDE THE WETLAND LINE. 
          IF YOU SEE THIS BLACK PHANTOM LINE THAT'S RIGHT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY THAT'S THE WETLAND DELINEATION. AS YOU CAN SEE THE GAP BETWEEN THE WETLAND LINE AND THE EXISTING ROADWAY IS VERY SMALL. IT PINCHES DOWN TO ONE FOOT NINE. IT DOESN'T GET MUCH WIDER THAN 2 1/2 FEET. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS THIS LINE HERE IS OUR NEW PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR THE RESILIENCY WALL. THIS WAS DONE AS PART OF A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY AND DISCUSSION WITH CITY STAFF THAT IS INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT. 
          THE ISSUE IS IF YOU SEE THIS WM LINE RIGHT HERE THAT IS A WATER MAIN THAT CURRENTLY RUNS DOWN TO A FIRE HYDRANT RIGHT HERE . WE ARE GOING TO IMPACT THIS UTILITY WITH THE WALL WITH THE 90% PLANS. THE WATER MAIN CROSSES OVER INTO THE WETLANDS. TO PULL THE WALL OUT IT'S NOT THAT MUCH MORE OF A WATER MAIN RELOCATION. 
          WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD . BY PULLING THE WALL OUT OF THE WETLANDS WE ARE ESSENTIALLY OUT OF ARMY CORPS'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE WE ARE LANDWARD OF THE MAIN HIGH WATER LINE AND WE DO NOT HAVE WETLAND IMPACTS FOR THE ONLY ISSUE WE ARE WORKING TO RIGHT NOW IS THE WATER SERVICE THAT GOES TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TIED TO THIS FIRE HYDRANT AND YOU'VE GOT THE WETLAND LINE RIGHT HERE IN THE FIRE HYDRANT HERE. IN ORDER TO CONNECT THIS WATER MAIN BACK IN AND RESTORE SERVICE WE WILL HAVE SOME SMALL AREA OF WETLAND IMPACTS. WE ARE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY REPLACING SERVICE THROUGH THE PROPERTY. DIFFERENT PERMIT FROM ARMY CORPS THAN THE PERMIT WE HAVE APPLIED FOR. IT'S A NATIONWIDE 58 PERMIT FOR 
          [00:10:02]
UTILITY CONNECTION. WE MEET THE THRESHOLD BUT ARMY CORPS LEAD TIMES ARE VERY LONG AND EVEN FOR SIMPLE PERMIT LIKE THIS WE WOULD EXPECT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX MONTHS. FOR THE REST OF THE SEGMENT TO COMPLETE THE RESILIENCY WALL WE WOULD USE A SET OF HYDRA PLANKS ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY, CONTINUING THE RESILIENCY WALL IN THE LAND AND ONCE WE GET TO THE RAIN YOUR PROPERTY IF THE EXISTING BERM IS THAT THE BERM THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE COULD DO MINOR CONNECT THE RESILIENCY WALL IN HERE AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE AN ELEVATION OF NINE ALL THE WAY ALONG THE WAY. SO, THAT IS THE GENERAL PLAN. IN SEGMENT ONE WE ARE LOOKING TO DO THIS AS A SEPARATE ST. JOHNS RIVER MET WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT BECAUSE IF WE DON'T NEED THE CORES INVOLVEMENT FOR THIS AND WE JUST NEED THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THIS WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD AREA TO START CONSTRUCTION WITH THE GRANT FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AND BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS WHILE WE ARE STILL WAITING ON THE PERMIT TO COME IN FOR SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR. 
          SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR, JUST TO RUN THROUGH SEGMENT TWO COVERS THE CONNECTION OF THE EXISTING RIVER WALK INTO THE BOAT RAMP AS WELL AS THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE BOAT RAMP. IF YOU GUYS ARE UNFAMILIAR THERE IS CURRENTLY A FIXED DOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BOAT RAMP. WE ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT WITH TWO FLOATING DOCKS ON EITHER SIDE TO PROVIDE MORE BOAT STAGING. IT INVOLVES IT WILL HAVE A NEW BULKHEAD WALL RIGHT AT THE RAMP AND THERE WOULD BE A SET OF HYDRA PLANKS ACROSS THE ROAD. THE HYDRA PLANKS YOU HAVE IN LOT C AND D WHERE THE CITY CAN COME IN AND INSTALL THOSE IN PREPARATION FOR STORM EVENT TO BUILD THE ENTIRE SYSTEM UP TO ELEVATION. IN SEGMENT THREE WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT A NEW SHEET PILE WALL WATER WORD OF THE EXISTING AND REPLACE THE RIVERWALK. SEGMENT FOR HIS FAMILY TO SEGMENT THREE BUT SOMETHING WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE EXISTING WALL IS SUPPORTED IF YOU SEE THE SUPPORTS ARE HERE THESE ARE CALLED BATTERED PILES. 
          THESE HELP ACT AS A BRACE ON THE WALL AND IN ORDER TO DRIVE THE NEW BULKHEAD WALL IN FRONT OF IT WE WOULD IMPACT THESE BETTER PILES AND CAUSES STRUCTURAL FAILURE AT THE EXISTING WALL. 
          THE PLAN IS TO INSTALL THE NEW WALL ON THE LAND SIDE AND THEN REMOVE THE OLD BULKHEADS SO AS IT REACHES THE SERVICE LIFE AND DETERIORATES OVER TIME IT DOESN'T JUST FALL INTO THE WATER. WE JUST CONNECTED INTO THE NEW WALL. SEGMENT FIVE. 
          THERE IS THREE OPTIONS FOR SEGMENT FIVE. WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT ANY SORT OF ALIGNMENT TO MAKE THIS WALL PERMIT A BULL AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED YOUR THREE POSSIBILITIES. EACH OF THEM HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE CHALLENGES. THE FIRST OPTION IS TO PUT THE WALL IN THE WATER. IF YOU DO THIS, IT'S A LARGE PERMITTING HASSLE WITHOUT TRUE JUSTIFICATION TO BE ABLE TO GO THAT FAR. THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING PILES YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH VIBRATIONAL MONITORING TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DAMAGE THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE. YOU NEED EVERY PROPERTY OWNER TO BUY-IN FROM LOT A NORTH SUPPORT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO IT AND ALL OF US WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILT FROM A BARGE. BARGE CONSTRUCTION FROM WALLS IS GENERALLY A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN BEING ABLE TO BUILD FROM A LANDSLIDE UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO GET AGREEMENTS FROM EVERY PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT JUST BUILD A WALL BUT ESSENTIALLY HAVE A CRANE IN THERE IN THE PROPERTY. SO, IF WE PULL WALL OUT OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD THAT IS GOING TO ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN, OUT OF ARMY CORPS'S PURVIEW. THE WATER LINE RUNS ALONG THE SHORE AND GIVEN THAT IT IS PAVED ROADWAY WE WOULD NOT EXPECT ANY WETLANDS IN THIS AREA. THERE'S TWO OPTIONS. 
          YOU CAN PUT THE WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OR THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD. EITHER WAY, THIS IS LIKELY GOING TO REQUIRE SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINES AND THE CLEARANCE FROM THE RAIL IF YOU'VE DRIVEN DOWN THE ROAD NOW EVEN WITH A HIGH BACK CURVED IT'S ALREADY PRETTY TIGHT FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INTRODUCING A SYSTEM SOMEWHERE IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WOULD NARROW IT DOWN. AS PART OF THIS PROJECT FOR A FULL SEGMENT FIVE DESIGN WE WOULD LIKELY NEED TO LOOK AT SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC RECIRCULATION. WITH PUTTING THE WALL ON THE WESTERN SIDE YOU HAVE VIEWED -- USE HYDRA PLANKS SO PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THE PROPERTY. IN PREPARATION FOR STORM EVENT ONCE A CITY PUTS THE HYDRA PLANKS IN AND UNTIL THEY WERE MOVED THEM THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THOSE PROPERTIES. THE SECOND IS THERE ARE OVERHEAD UTILITIES. I KNOW A LOT OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN RELOCATED AS PART OF I BELIEVE THE PROJECT BUT YOU DO STILL HAVE UTILITIES FURTHER DOWN AND WITH DRIVING SHEET PILE WALLS IT'S HARD WITH OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LARGE PIECE OF METAL DINGING IN THE POWER LINES. WE WOULD NEED TO RELOCATE THE UTILITIES TEMPORARILY DURING CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE SIDE. WE DON'T HAVE SURVEY. WE DON'T HAVE SUB SERVICE UTILITY ENGINEERING IN THE SEGMENT BECAUSE THE ROAD WAS NEVER A PART OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR 
          [00:15:03]
THE PROPOSAL. WE ARE IN THE DARK ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION BUT FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE SURVEY THAT WAS DONE FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED. 
          PUTTING A WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD FROM UTILITY PERSPECTIVE AND REALLY CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE THIS MAKES SENSE. THE ISSUE IS THE CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED BY THE RAILROAD. WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER THIS CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT, THE BLUE LINE IS THE RESILIENCY WALL AND YOU WILL SEE THIS SECTION HERE. BASICALLY WHAT THE PREMISE OF IT WAS WAS MOVING THE WALL NINE FOOT OFF THE NEAREST EDGE OF RAIL YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR RESILIENCY WALL THAT STICKS ABOVE GROUND. THAT WOULD BE A CONCRETE PORTION AND YOU WOULD HAVE SHEET PILE WALLS BELOW. THE BELOW GRADE PIECE IS NECESSARY TO BLOCK WHAT IS CALLED SEEPAGE AND THAT'S THE STAGES UP ON ONE SIDE. THERE'S ENOUGH PRESSURE THAT THE WATER CAN PENETRATE THROUGH THE FLOW NUTS UNDERGROUND AND POP OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOU NEED A HARD BARRIER TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING. DEPENDING ON THE GRATES OF THE ROAD WE HAVE SEEN IN SOME SURVEY SPOTS AS WELL AS ELEVATION 4.5. WE BELIEVE NEAR THE PORT TICKETS UP TO ABOUT ELEVATION 8.15 ELEVATION. THIS WALL IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4 1/2 FEET 1 FOOT TALL. THERE'S THINGS WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THE AESTHETICS. WE COULD GO WITH DECORATIVE CONCRETE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES BUT FOR CONCEPTUAL CONVERSATION WITH THE RAILROAD THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. THE FEEDBACK WE GOT DURING THAT MEETING WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE NINE FOOT CLEARANCE IS THE KNOWN STANDARD BASED ON THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES BY HAVING WORKERS HANG UP THE SIDE OF THE CAR THE MINIMUM CLEARANCE THAT YOU CAN HAVE IS 10 FEET AND EVEN DURING THAT THERE IS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE TO MAKE THAT CLEARANCE WORK. THEY EXPLICITLY SAID THAT THEY CANNOT APPROVE AN ALIGNMENT WITHOUT THE CITY CONTRACTIG THEM TO DO A FULL REVIEW OF THESE WERE THEY WOULD PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES AND LOOK AT THE PLANS WE HAVE IDENTIFY WORK FOR THEM OPERATIONALLY. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD APPROVE THIS ALIGNMENT BUT WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH SPACE AND IF WE SAY WE NEED TO BE 15 FEET OFF, WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD AND THEN ESSENTIALLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE TRAFFIC DOWN THE ROAD. SO, WE ARE STILL WORKING IN SEGMENT FIVE ON AN ALIGNMENT THAT WORKS. WE'VE IDENTIFIED PUTTING THE WALL IN THE ROADWAY IS THE MOST LIKELY SOLUTION FOR US. THE ISSUE IS GETTING WITH ALL THE NECESSARY STAKEHOLDERS WHETHER IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE THE RAILROAD AND FIGURING OUT EXACTLY WHERE THIS CAN BE. WHILE WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL DESIGN IN THIS AREA WE ARE WORKING WITH THE NECESSARY STAKEHOLDERS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS FEASIBLE AND THEN CAN DESIGN THIS AS SOON AS WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION. SO, IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. WHAT'S THE PATH FORWARD? STEP ONE IS WE NEED TO GET ADDITIONAL FIELD SERVICES IN SEGMENT ONE AND SEGMENT FIVE. 
          BIKES FIELD SERVICES I MEAN SURVEY, SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING, WE NEED THE WETLANDS DELINEATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCONSULTANT. THOSE WERE NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT SCOPE BECAUSE BASED ON THE INTENT TO CLOSE RESILIENCY SYSTEMS OFF A LOT OF THESE AREAS DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE AND WE ARE NOT DONE BY THE FIELD TEAMS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. WE NEED TO OBTAIN ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY LEASE AGREEMENTS. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY NOW TO ABSTAIN THOSE IN CITY ONE. AND WE WILL NEED TO REVISE AND SUBMIT -- DISTRICT PERMITS. WE HAVE THE SAINT JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT WITH TWO FOR FOUR THAT'S DIFFERENT THROUGH THE ARMY CORPS PERMIT AND ONCE WE GET ALIGNMENT IN SEGMENT FIVE IF IT'S IN THE ROADWAY WE WON'T NEED ANYTHING FROM ARMY CORPS BUT THAT STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WHILE WE ARE FINALIZING DESIGN AND SEGMENTS ONE AND SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO FIND AN ALIGNMENT THAT WORKS WITH THE RAILS AND THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY AND RESIDENTS. AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME. I'M SURE THERE IS A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE NOW. 
          >> ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I WILL START US OFF. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW BASED ON YOU MENTIONING THERE'S THINGS THAT WERE NOT ORIGINALLY IN THE BID. IF THERE'S A COST ESTIMATE IS ALL THE TIME ESTIMATE AND THEY WANT TO COME IN ULTIMATELY ONCE THIS IS AT 100% YOU COULD CONTINUE TO BE A PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF SEEKING UP PROJECT MANAGEMENT FROZE BIDS 
          INCORPORATING THE PROJECT. >> THE LAST PART OF THE QUESTION YOU ARE SAYING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE? WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE ARE BID PHASE SERVICES IN OUR CONTRACT TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATION BEHIND THE CONTRACT. THE WAY THE RFP WAS WRITTEN IT WAS FOR THIS PROJECT FOR ONE TIME ALL THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY. TO FINISH THE ENTIRE PROJECT SOME OF THE SERVICES THAT WE HAVE ARE SUBCONSULTANT SERVICES WITH THE SURVEY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND THE SUB SERVICE UTILITIES. I'VE PUT IN A REQUEST WITH THEM TO PROVIDE PROPOSALS TO DO THE WORK AND 
          [00:20:04]
SEGMENTS ONE AND SEGMENTS FIVE SO WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT DONE. 
          I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT COST IS GOING TO BE JUST YET. INTERNALLY FROM THE KIMLEY HORN SIDE WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE REMAINING FROM THE REST OF OUR CONTRACT AND WHAT BUDGET ALLOCATION WE CAN USE TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE CONTRACT VALUE. A LOT OF THIS WORK WE DID GET TO A 90% DESIGN LEVEL BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE RFP. WHILE SOME OF THAT THE DESIGN IN SEGMENT FIVE FOR EXAMPLE REMOVE THAT FROM THE PERMITTING THAT DESIGN MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE ANYMORE BUT WE DID PREPARE ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS, THE CALCULATION PACKAGES, WE SENT THE PERMIT ARMY CORPS. WE'D GOTTEN REALLY CLOSE . ALL OF THOSE THINGS NOW NEED TO BE AMENDED. I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER EXACTLY YET. ON WHAT THOSE COULD COST BUT WE ARE WORKING ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. 
          >> MR. MAYOR, THE CONSTRUCTION COST IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO ASSESS AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE OF THE GAPS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE. WE ARE SO GOING BACK AND FORTH ON WHAT IT IS. TO THROW OUT A NUMBER FOR THOSE PIECES, IT NEEDS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE REFINEMENT FOR THE SOLUTION. AS FAR AS BEING A PARTNER TO THE END, THAT IS OUR GOAL. ULTIMATELY, OUR SCOPE STOPS RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN RECEIVE CONTRACTORS FOR ONE BID PACKAGE AND WORKING THROUGH THOSE PIECES AS FAR AS IT BEING MULTIPLE BID PACKAGES. THE ORIGINAL RFP HAD A DIFFERENT LAYOUT AND A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION THAN THE CURRENT DIRECTION WITH THE CITY AND WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THOSE GAPS TOGETHER. AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION, WE DO OFFER THOSE. 
          WE HAVE TO BE A PARTNER ON THAT. WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE WHAT 
          LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SO, WE HAVE PAID Y'ALL $700,000? $600,000? SOMETHING LIKE THAT? 
          >> 560. >> 560. I GUESS I'M NOT CLEAR -- AND I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT WE HAVE GOTTEN FOR OUR $560,000. 
          >> RIGHT. THE MONEY WE HAVE SPENT THUS FAR WAS BASED ON THE ALIGNMENT THAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. 
          >> IN THE ORIGINAL LINEMAN. >> CORRECT. 
          >> IT WAS ALL THESE THINGS . >> CORRECT. A LOT OF THAT WAS A SUBCONSULTANT SERVICES. GETTING THE SURVEY DONE. GETTING THE WETLANDS DELINEATED. GETTING THE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES BEAR THAT $500,000 SPENT TODAY INCLUDES A LOT OF THOSE SERVICES. WHAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT ON IS ALL OF THE DESIGNING CALCULATIONS. 
          WE HAD ALL THE CALCULATIONS DONE FOR THE RESILIECY WALL AND ALL OF THE PLANS. WITH THE 90% SET OF DRAWINGS WE ARE BASICALLY AT A CONSTRUCTION LEVEL PENDING ANY COMMENTS FROM PERMITTING AND ANY COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS SUCH AS THE CLIENT IF THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT REVIEWER. MAYBE SMALL CONTENTION -- CONNECTION DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH. THAT WAS AT 90% 
          CONSTRUCTION LEVEL. >> SO, BUT I THOUGHT THE CONTRACT WAS FOR BID READY DESIGN DOCUMENTS. 
          >> YES. >> ARE THERE BID READY DESIGN DOCUMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE SECTION THAT WE DID ? THE ONE PIECE THAT 
          WAS DONE? >> THEY'RE NOT BID READY DESIGN DOCUMENTS. THERE'S MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS BAKED INTO THE DESIGN FEE. CONCEPTION OLD, 30%, 90% AND AFTER THAT WAS THE BID DOCUMENT. THE BID PHASE, ESSENTIALLY. WE GOT TO THE 90% DESIGN GOT COMMENTS FROM ARMY CORPS. WE ARE WORKING ON INCORPORATING THOSE AND CHANGING SOME OF THE LAYOUTS AND SINCE THEN THERE HAS BEEN A DESIRE TO MAKE THIS A COMPLETE RESILIENCY SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE SCOPE. UNFORTUNATELY WITH A LOT OF THE GAPS THAT NEED TO BE CLOSE THOSE ARE SOME OF THE HARDEST CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS. WE ARE NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO THROW AWAY ALL THE WORK THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE. 
          THE WORK IN SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR, THOSE PLANS ARE ESSENTIALLY ACCURATE AND FOR THE MOST PART GOOD TO GO PENDING ANY COMMENTS. SEGMENT ONE, THE DESIGN WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REUSE. WE HAVE WORK TO DO TO FIX THE ALIGNMENT, DO MORE WITH UTILITY COORDINATION BUT WE DO HAVE TO DESIGN EVERYTHING IN THIS AREA OVER HERE WHICH WE NEED ADDITIONAL FIELD INFORMATION FOUR. SEGMENT FIVE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE DESIGN HERE. BASED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN AT THE TIME WE HAVE PREPARED ALL OF OUR PLANS AND CALCULATIONS IN 
          ACCORDANCE WITH THAT. >> SO THEN, OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO SPEND ALMOST $1 MILLION WITH YOU AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN GO OUT TO BID ON. SO MY QUESTION REALLY 
          [00:25:02]
IS, I GUESS, HOW MUCH MORE MONEY ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT AT THIS TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN START CONSTRUCTION OR GO OUT, MAYBE, I MEAN, AT THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THIS WHOLE THING. PART OF OUR CONVERSATION WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOON IS HOW MUCH OF THIS DO WE WANT TO FLOAT A BOND FOR THIS AND SOME OTHER PROJECTS AND THEN BUT WE ARE GOING TO NEED A HARD NUMBER FOR THAT, RIGHT? I'M CONCERNED AND I WAS LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE ARE GOING TO EVER GET A HARD NUMBER. 
          >> IS A HARD NUMBER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE COST 
          OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN? >> BOTH. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I ASSUME RIGHT NOW. TWO THROUGH FIVE AS WAS ORIGINALLY CONFIGURED AND THOSE WERE OLDER ESTIMATES THAT WERE DONE IN PRIOR YEARS. THERE'S BEEN INFLATION AND THINGS WE HAVEN'T ADJUSTED AND THEN THE GAPS WHICH WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED THOSE. WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGN THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL THINGS WE ARE SEEKING IN ORDER TO EXPAND AND FILL IN THOSE GAPS . YOU HAVE $1 MILLION, WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO SPEND ALL OF THAT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING THE AMOUNT THAT IS NEEDED TO DO THE REMAINING SCOPE THAT IS IN PLACE. WE ARE ALSO USING THE REMAINING MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO RECONFIGURE THAT. THE DESIGN, AS COREY SAID, WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO THROW AWAY TWO, THREE, FOUR AT ALL. EVEN THE DESIGN IN ONE EVEN THE ENGINEERING IS REUSABLE. NOW JUST ADJUSTING THE ALIGNMENTS. 
          THE REAL DESIGN THAT REMAINS IS IN THE AREAS WHERE THE HOLES WERE AND THERE IS SOME DATA THAT IS MISSING ON THAT. OUR GOAL IS TO STAY UNDER THAT $1 MILLION AND I WILL POINT OUT ON A BUDGET LIKE THIS IT'S WELL IN EXCESS OF $10 MILLION, ONLY MORE CLOSE TO $15 MILLION. OUR FEES ARE VERY COMPARABLE OR EVEN LESS THAN THE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. 
          >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> MY BIGGEST CONCERN ON THIS WHOLE THING IS WE ARE SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY AND EVEN IF YOU COMPLETED EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING WE HAVE NO WALL. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THREE HOLES , YOU KNOW? YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVEN'T WORKED THROUGH THESE GAPS . SO, YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE A 90% -- THE DOLLARS THAT WE SPENT WERE AT ALMOST 90% READY TO GO TO QUOTE PERMIT OR THAT TYPE OF THING WITH AN UNRESOLVED THREE AREAS THAT UNLESS THAT GETS RESOLVED FOR GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH MORE MONEY WE HAVE NO RESILIENCY WALL TO 
          PROTECT THE CITY. >> IT IS A VALID CONCERN AND IT WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAD BROUGHT UP IN OUR LAST MEETINGS. WHY ARE THERE GAPS? WE WERE DIRECTED BY STAFF THROUGH THE RFP AND THAT INCLUDED THE GAPS IN IT. THE GOAL OF THIS RECONFIGURATION THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY , IN THE END OF THE GOAL IS TO HAVE A RESILIENT SYSTEM, TO GO TO THE PROPERTY AND CLOSE IT UP AT ELEVATION NINE AND GET UP NEAR THE PORT SO WHEN WE FINISH THAT WOULD BE THE INTENT. 
          >> OKAY. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS YOU GUYS ARE THE EXPERTS. WE ARE NOT. THIS COMMUNITY HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY WITH YOU GUYS AND WAS THERE NO PUSHBACK? YOU COULD DEAL WITH THE CORE. I'VE HEARD THAT THE CORE IS NOT GOING TO LET YOU PUT THE WALL OUT. WHY WOULD YOU DESIGN SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, I HEARD THE PRESENTATION BEFORE I WAS SITTING APPEAR AND ONE OF THE POINTS WERE, WELL, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM ALLOWING THIS WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT BUT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PURSUE THIS UNTIL WE ARE ALL DEAD FOR OUR FEE WHICH I GET. BUT I'M RELYING , IF I THINK THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND THIS COMMISSION IS ON YOUR EXPERTISE AND SAYING THAT WON'T WORK SO WE'RE TELLING YOU NOW THAT WON'T WORK. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE THINKING THIS IS GOING TO WORK INSTEAD OF JUST GOING ALONG WITH WHAT WE ARE SAYING COLLECTING YOUR FEES AND SAYING, WELL, WE NEVER SAID IT WAS GOING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU DON'T GUARANTEE THE PERMIT. YOU JUST GUARANTEE YOU WILL GET A PERMIT SENT -- SET. 
          [00:30:14]
YOU DON'T GUARANTEE THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET THE PERMIT IN YOUR 
          CONTRACT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE ARE NOT A PERMITTING AGENCY. WE CAN'T GUARANTEE WE'RE GOING TO GET A PERMIT. WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE POINT ABOUT PUSHING BACK ON THE DESIGN, SO, WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS AWARDED, KIRK WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH KIMLEY HORN AND CHARLIE WAS THE ENGINEER WITH THE CITY. A LOT OF THE DIALOGUE AND HOW WE GOT TO HER WHAT DESIGN DECISIONS WERE BEING MADE OR HANDLED BETWEEN KIRK AND CHARLIE. I'VE CORRELATED A LOT WITH KIRK ON, SORT OF, HOW THOSE -- CONVERSATIONS WENT. I RAISE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE GAP IN THE RESILIENCY WALL AND IF WE HAVE THIS GAP IT IS CLEARLY NOT PROTECTING FROM FLOODING BECAUSE IT CAN GO THROUGH AND EVEN AFTER THAT TIME I MET WAS CHARLIE AND THE INSTRUCTION WAS TO BASICALLY, EVEN WITH THE LAYOUT THAT WE SHOWED IN THE 90% DRAWINGS WHICH WAS THIS THE DIRECTION WAS TO JUST SHOW THE RESILIENCY WALL HERE AND THAT THEY WOULD FIGURE OUT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AGREEMENTS AFTER. TO AN EXTENT WE ARE WORKING AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY STAFF AND WHAT WE ARE DOING WELL WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS WE WOULD LIKE AND GIVE OUR INPUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE WORKING FOR THE CITY AND IF WE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PUT, DO THE PLANTS IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE BEING TOLD, THAT'S WHAT WE DID. 
          >> THERE'S ALSO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES OF GETTING THE WALL APPROVED ON THE ROADSIDE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE IN PLACE THERE AND THIS WAS AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALSO WITH THE CITY . IT IS A CHALLENGING PERMIT TO GET, FOR SURE. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE DOING FILLING. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ARMY CORPS HAS PUSHED BACK AND BASICALLY SAID SHOW SOMETHING ELSE. AND THAT IS THE PATH THAT WE ARE 
          TRYING TO GO TO NOW. >> MY QUESTION WAS EXACTLY COMMISSIONER TIM POYNTER'S QUESTION. SO, CAN I ASK, GOING FORWARD, WILL YOU PLEASE PUSHBACK ON US IF WE ARE TELLING YOU WHAT WE THINK WE WANT BUT WE ARE NOT THE EXPERTS, PLEASE TELL US. NO, THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK. I'M NOT A FLUID DYNAMICS EXPERT BUT EVEN THE 90 DEGREE ANGLES AND A WALL SEEM CHALLENGING. FOR RESILIENCY. AND WHERE IS THE WALL GOING TO FAIL FIRST? SO, I MEAN, YOU AS THE EXPERTS, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK WILL NOT WORK BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONFLICTING INFORMATION WITH THE RFP AND WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES BUT 
          WE DO NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> SO, TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT POINT IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS PROJECT WENT ALONG WE WERE LARGELY TAKING DIRECTION FROM CHARLIE. CHARLIE HAD A ROBUST MARINE STRUCTURAL BACKGROUND AND THAT WAS, SORT OF, THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT CHARLIE WAS GOING TO PROPOSE SOLUTIONS. 
          WE WOULD GIVE OUR INPUT, TRY TO MAKE THE DESIGNS WORK AND THEN RELAY BACK TO THEM AND ULTIMATELY THE FINAL SAY WAS BASED ON CHARLIE'S RECOMMENDATION. THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WORKING WITH MR. GLISAN AND MR. PLATT HAS BEEN TO RELY A LOT MORE ON EXPERTISE IN THIS FIELD AND OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS AS WE LOOK AT DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS WE'VE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A PERMITTING PERSPECTIVE . 
          WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE ROADWAY. WE HAVE ROADWAY IMPACTS. WE ARE SENSITIVE TO, SORT OF, PROVIDING A MORE 
          FORWARD INPUT FROM OUR SPOT. >> SO, YEAH. I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE CHANGED AND WE NEED YOU TO TELL US WHAT'S THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD ON THIS. THE OTHER THING I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WITH THIS AS WELL AS OTHER BIG PROJECTS IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT IS NOT A CORPS COMPETENCY OF THE CITY OR PROBABLY MOST CITIES . 
          ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR BACK FROM YOU IS A RECOMMENDATION IS EVEN THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, RIGHT , WHAT ARE THE PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGER REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU BELIEVE WE NEED TO BRING WHETHER WE HIRE SOMEBODY OR WE DESPERATELY HAVE GOT TO GET BETTER IN THAT AREA BECAUSE WE CANNOT LET THESE THINGS DRAG ON. EVERYONE'S INTENTIONS ARE GOOD AND IT IS A BIG COMPETENCY THAT'S MISSING IN THE CITY STAFF AND I DON'T EXPECT THE CITY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO STEP 
          [00:35:01]
UP. SO, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU CAN HELP US EITHER UNDERSTAND PUT TOGETHER OR UNDERSTAND WHAT A PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO MANAGE THIS PROJECT. IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ANSWER NOW. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. THE CITY STAFF HAS BEEN -- WORKING GIVING THE ANSWERS THAT WE NEED FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE PARTNERS THAT ARE GOING TO PUSH THE PERMIT ALONG AND BE A PART OF IT ALL BUT DEFINITELY YOU ARE HEARING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. 
          >> AT THE END OF THE DAY I'M USED TO WORKING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO GET TOLD SOMEBODY'S HEAD IS GETTING PAINTED RED AND THAT IS THE PERSON THAT IS RESPONSIBLE AND THERE IS NOBODY'S HEAD PAINTED RED FOR THIS. 
          >> WE ARE USED TO THAT AS WELL. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I NEED. I NEED YOU TO TELL US HOW BASED ON HOW YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY FUNCTIONS. HOW THAT WOULD WORK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BIG MISSING COMPONENT RIGHT NOW. NOT JUST WITH THIS PROJECT BUT FOR MOST OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS. I NEED TO KNOW WHOSE HEAD IS PAINTED RED. 
          >> YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP. >> I WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT WHEN THEY MENTION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THIS IS DESIGN WE ARE LOOKING AT WE HAVE $2 MILLION SET ASIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THERE IS A DEADLINE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 
          IN LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN DO MORE QUICKLY AND SOONER IT SEGMENT ONE AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE COME TO THE TABLE AS SEGMENT ONE. IT WILL BE SOMETHING AFFORDABLE. SOMETHING YOU CAN OPEN QUICKLY. IT'S OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE ARMY CORPS AND THE WATER RIVER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY THE CONVERSATION SHIFTED TO OUR NEXT STEP. THAT'S WHERE THAT CONVERSATION IS CHANGED BASED OFF OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU. KEEPING WITH THAT, THAT IS WHERE I WANT TO SEE CONSENSUS AMONG THIS COMMISSION TO MAYBE SOFTLY ENGAGE EITHER KIMLEY HORN OR OTHER PROJECT MANAGERS SO THIS PROJECT DOES GET MOVED ALONG BEFORE WE LOSE OPPORTUNITIES. 
          >> I JUST NEED TO SEE SOME OPTIONS AND HOW IT IS GOING TO WORK AND WHO IT IS GOING -- IS GOING TO DO IT. WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS AND WHAT IS THEIR EXPERTISE? IF IT IS SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THEN HOW DO WE FIND THAT COMPANY, THAT CONTRACTOR, WHATEVER AND BRING IT IN. I NEED TO SEE A PROPOSAL. 
          >> ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR OBJECTIVES -- OBJECTIONS? 
          >> I DON'T THINK SO. >> CONSENSUS ON THIS COMMISSION. 
          >> WHAT ARE WE ASKING THEM TO DO? 
          >> TO PROVIDE SOME GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK AND WHAT ACTUALLY BUILDING THIS LOOKS LIKE ONCE WE ARE READY TO GO. 
          >> OKAY. JUST A PROPOSAL. >> WE CAN WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO TALK THROUGH THE PIECES AND SCOPES AND LOOK THROUGH THE HOLES AND SEE WHAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS ON. CERTAINLY OUR SCOPE OF SERVICES IS INVOLVED WITH THE DESIGN PIECE BUT THERE ARE OTHER PIECES THAT WE RELY ON AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB BUT TO YOUR POINT WE WILL TALK 
          IT OVER. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LEAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
          COMMENT. >> THE STAFF NEED -- WANT US TO COME TO SOME CONSENSUS FOR MOVING ALONG WITH EXPENDITURE OF THE $2 MILLION? AND THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO SEGMENT ONE IF SEGMENT ONE IS AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS IT APPEARS? 
          >> WE ARE CONFIDENT, KIMLEY HORN AND I THAT SEGMENT ONE WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSTRUCTION. HAS ANYTHING 
          CHANGED? >> NO. NOTHING'S CHANGED. WE DO HAVE TO GET ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE AS FAR AS THINGS LIKE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS GO. THEIR CRAFTY STEPS THAT WE ARE TAKING TO EASE PERMITTING EFFORTS. WERE TRYING TO GET A MEETING SCHEDULED THEM BUT WE KNOW WE ARE A YEAR OUT FROM A PERMIT IN SEGMENTS TWO THROUGH FOUR JUST BECAUSE OF ARMY CORES LEAD TIMES. SEGMENT ONE IS OUR OPPORTUNITY OR WE HAVE A VIABLE OPTION TO ACTUALLY 
          BUILD SOMETHING. >> THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT WHY YOU NEED A PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS PROJECT, TO BE ABLE TO PUT THOSE DATES DOWN AND BE ABLE TO START CREATING A TIMEFRAME AND A TIMELINE TO SAY THIS HAS TO HAPPEN. THIS IS DEPENDENT ON THIS. THIS HAS TO HAPPEN IN THIS SEQUENCE. THIS IS WHEN THESE PERMITS HAVE TO BE DONE. THAT IS BASIC PROJECT MANAGEMENT. THAT IS A PIECE THAT IS MISSING IN THIS PROJECT, IN MY OPINION. AND THAT IS WHAT WE DESPERATELY NEED, WHETHER WE GET FROM Y'ALL, 
          [00:40:02]
WE GET IT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, WE JUST REALLY NEED IT. 
          >> MR. MAYOR, MAD SOMETHING? RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING AND PRIOR TO THAT WE HAD ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO DISCUSS AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS DOING A WORKSHOP INTERNALLY TO LAY THIS OUT AND COME UP WITH THE SEQUENCES AND TIMELINES AND SOME OF THOSE OUTSTANDING ITEMS AND SIGNING THOSE THINGS. THOSE ARE SOME OF THESE WEIRD THINKING ABOUT ALREADY INTERNALLY WITHIN THIS PROJECT JUST TO KEEP THEM MOVING FORWARD AND TO AID THE 
          CITY. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> VICE MAYOR? >> OKAY. I MEAN, I THINK WE ARE ALL IN THE GRANTS. ONE IS GOING TO BE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. 
          THAT'S EASY. WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE. WE HAVE THE MONEY. TWO THROUGH FOUR, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS WHICH SHOULDN'T, AS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, ISN'T THAT DIFFICULT. AS DIFFICULT AS FIVE WOULD BE GOING, YOU KNOW, BUT WATER WORD -- C WORD OF LAND THERE AND TAKING FIVE ALL THE WAY. 
          >> YES, SIR. >> SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY DON'T THINK -- IT WAS ALWAYS WHAT ARE WE DOING? ARE WE DOING SEGMENT TWO? WAS GOING TO BE $2 MILLION LESS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, AN ISSUE WITH THE BUILDING THAT'S IN THE WAY OR ONE WHICH ISN'T A PROBLEM AT ALL. ONE IS EASY. FOR THE MOST PART WE ONLY HAVE ONE TENANT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE MUCH OF AN ISSUE ONCE WE EXPLAIN WHAT WE ARE DOING. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. I THINK TWO THEREFORE IS GOING TO BE PRETTY EASY. FIVE IS THE PROBLEM. AT ONE POINT IN TIME WE ARE GOING TO HAVE DIVERS SAY THE SCOPE IS GOING TO END AT FOUR HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FIVE AT SOME OTHER POINT BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF IT BEING C WORD. IF IT'S LANDSID SEGMENT FIVE, I'M OUT. JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. 
          >> I CAN RESPECT THE CONCERNS. THERE IS THOSE WHO KNOW MORE ABOUT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING THAN I DO SAYS THAT WE HAVE MORE 
          [6. PUBLIC COMMENT]
PROBLEMS LANDWARD SO I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW US HOW WE WOULD MAKE 
          THAT FEASIBLE. >> CORRECT. 
          >> UNDERSTOOD. >> ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR COMMUNITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AS WELL. 
          WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS FOR THE WORKSHOP AND THEN I BELIEVE ARE OTHERS FOR THE GENERAL MEETING. MR. MORRIS, YOUR FIRST. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MAC MORRIS, A 21 PARK VIEW. I'M IMPRESSED WITH THIS PRESENTATION AND, I MEAN, LIKE SOME OF YOU I'VE BEEN WATCHING THESE PRESENTATIONS FOR DECADES AND I REALLY LIKE THIS PRESENTATION AND I REALLY AM GLAD THAT WITH GERMOND'S REMINDER THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON SEGMENT ONE BECAUSE THAT IS, AS YOU SAID, LOW HANGING FRUIT AND THAT WILL FIT WITHIN THE TIMELINE. SIX AND FIVE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN FOR SOME OF US A CONVERSATION FOR, I DON'T KNOW, 15 YEARS? AND I LIKE THE OPTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF FRONT STREET BECAUSE IT HAS FEWER PROBLEMS LONG-TERM . IF WE DO IT ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIDE, EVEN THOUGH WE COULD PUT THE BARRICADES IN AS NEEDED, IF THEY DO CONSTRUCTION, THEY COULD DAMAGE THE WALL AND IT HAS TO BE REBUILT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE -- COULD HAVE LAWSUITS BUT THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTIES ESPECIALLY THERE IS DAMAGE AND CAN GET STUFF OUT. IF WE HAVE TO TURN FRONT STREET INTO A ONE-WAY STREET AND MAYBE DO EMINENT DOMAIN ON ONE OR TWO PROPERTIES TO GET THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BACK THAT WE NEED ON THE PROPERTY SIDE THAN I THINK THAT IS THE SOLUTION GOING FORWARD. NOW, ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, I HAVE A MEETING WITH CHARLIE JUST BEFORE HE PASSED AND IT WAS ABOUT CONTINUING , IT'S NOT UP THERE, IT'S ABOUT CONTINUING THE BOARDWALK NORTH OF INAUDIBLE ] FURTHER NORTH AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND PROS AND CONS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUT WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND HE REALLY TOOK THAT IDEA AND TOOK IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL IS THAT WE ENDED UP WITH A RETAINING WALL BEING BUILT INTO IT. AS OPPOSED TO A SEAWALL. AND HE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THROUGH ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUT WITHOUT CHARLIE HERE AND HIS DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, THAT IS NOT -- I DON'T THINK THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN TO BE HONEST. EVEN THOUGH SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TRYING TO 
          [00:45:01]
DO FOR YEARS, GET THE BOARDWALK GOING NORTH. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THESE GENTLEMEN WERE LOOKING AT THAT GOING ON THE WATER BECAUSE CHARLIE THOUGHT IT WAS A VIABLE OPTION BUT THE ARMY CORPS WANTS EVERYTHING TO HUG THE WATER LINE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS EROSION AND WE HAVE PROVEN THERE IS EROSION WE STILL THINK YOU CAN'T GO OUT AND RECLAIM LAND EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN EROSION. YOU'VE GOT TO HUG THE WATER. THEIR SOLUTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF FRONT STREET IS THE MOST LOGICAL ONE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE COUPLE OF ISSUES BUT I THINK THAT IS THE LONG-TERM BEST SOLUTION. ANYWAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          >> MESSED UP -- NEXT UP, MR. MICHAEL SHARP. 
          >> I MIKE SHARP . MY QUESTION IS, DOES IT MATTER IF WE DO SECTION 1 IF THE OTHER SECTIONS AREN'T DONE? IF WE DO SECTIONS 1, THREE AND FIVE AND WE BIG GIANT HOLES IN IT, IS THAT A RESILIENCY WALL? IT'S NOT. WE ARE WASTING MONEY. UNLESS YOU HAVE A COMPLETE PLAN THAT SAYS WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE A WALL THAT'S CONTINUOUS I DON'T SEE THE POINT. IT LOOKS LIKE A GIANT CLUSTER AND A WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME . IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE WALL IS GOING TO PROTECT US FROM KING TIDE BUT LITTLE ELSE. I WILL POINT WILL THE STORM REACH THE WALL? AND WHEN IT DOES, WHERE'S THE WATER GOING? YOU HAVE GATES IN FRONT OF THOSE TEMPORARY EXITS. NOW THE WATER JUST DAYS DOWNTOWN. 
          UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME EQUIPMENT OUT THERE TO WADE THROUGH THE WATER AND OPEN THOSE GATES AND LET THE WATER BACK OUT. MY QUESTION, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IS HOW MUCH PROTECTION ARE WE BUYING? AT WHAT POINT DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHEN THAT WALL IS GOING TO BE BREACHED AND WHAT LEVEL OF STORM WOULD IT TAKE TO GO OVER THE TOP OR AROUND THE WALL? IF IT IS A CATEGORY ONE STORM PASSING BY 50 MILES OFFSHORE AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO BREACH THE WALL, WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE ARE JUST WASTING MONEY. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 35 YEARS, BEEN HERE FOR 200 YEARS, I'VE WATCHED IT FLOOD DOWN THERE , MINIMAL DAMAGE. SO, WHAT ARE WE PROTECTING OURSELVES AGAINST? IT IS NOT A BIG STORM BCAUSE A BIG STORM IS GOING AROUND THE WALL OR OVER THE TOP OF IT. SO, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND START BUILDING SEGMENTS WITHOUT HAVING A COMPLETE PLAN IN PLACE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A WALL. IT'S JUST A SEGMENT OF A WALL. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE TO 
          ME. >> THANK YOU, MR. SHARP. LASTLY 
          YOU HAVE MISSED SHIELD. >> SHEILA , I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE SITUATION IS WITH THE BACK BILL OF CHARLIE'S POSITION. I WOULD THINK THAT WITH ALL OF THE LARGE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS THAT WHERE TYPICALLY, LIKE, ENGINEERING, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING OR JUST A REGULAR PE SITUATION THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE COULD HIRE SPECIFICALLY FOR A PROJECT BUT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO HAVE IN-HOUSE PROJECT MANAGER, SOMEBODY WHO CAN CHECK OFF THOSE BOXES BECAUSE I THINK ALTHOUGH JEREMIAH HAS BEEN WEARING A LOT OF HATS FOR QUITE SOME TIME I THINK THAT WE NEED A CERTIFIED PROJECT MANAGER, SOMEBODY WITH THOSE CREDENTIALS WHO COULD MANAGE THESE PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY AT THESE PRICE TAGS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. NOW I HAVE NO MORE FORMS BUT WE DO A FEW MINUTES REMAINING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COME AND SPEAK?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.