In one minute
The Waterways Commission (July 6, 2026) opened, approved the June 1, 2026 minutes, reviewed staff's draft RFQ scope and procurement approach (staff recommended traditional design–bid–build to preserve grant eligibility), discussed RFQ scope details (phases/tasks, NEPA/permitting, landscape design, grant strategy, construction oversight limits, schedule milestones, bonding/insurance, public engagement, construction access), set meeting scheduling by need (no Aug 3 meeting; tentative Sept 14), and heard public comments requesting reconsideration of alternatives and more detailed plan/survey/cost info.
Executive summary
Chair Mike Sutton opened the July 6, 2026 Waterways Commission meeting. The Commission approved the June 1, 2026 minutes. Staff (Eric Claus/City) presented an overview of a draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for consultant services split into four phases and 12 tasks covering project management, public engagement, survey/technical analysis, 30/60/90% design, landscape architecture, NEPA/environmental review, grant strategy, construction support/CEI (construction engineering & inspection), and closeout/asset management. Staff recommended a traditional design–bid–build procurement (rather than design–build or CMAR) to avoid excluding some federal grant opportunities. The Commission discussed clarifying RFQ language to prevent conflict of interest between design teams and contractors, requiring firms to provide schedules/milestones for 30/60/90% deliverables, including construction access/staging information in public communications, and ensuring appropriate bonding/insurance and contract warranty language. Staff noted the RFQ document (full scope appended) will be posted and the RFQ period expected to be open by early August; as a result the Commission does not plan to meet August 3 and set a tentative meeting for September 14. Public commenters urged reconsideration of an alternative (steel sheet pile/bulkhead) and requested more plan-view/site-survey detail and clearer cost breakdowns.
Why it matters
The procurement approach, RFQ scope, permitting/NEPA strategy, grant strategy, schedule milestones, conflict-of-interest protections, and construction oversight approach shape how the waterfront promenade project advances and how much federal grant funding the city can pursue; public input highlighted potential lower-cost alternatives and gaps in existing site documentation that could materially affect cost and permitting outcomes.
Key decisions
Source/Context: "So, we got five people. Got two...Does anybody have any comments on the minutes?...We have a motion. We have a second. No further debate. We'll go ahead and call the question. I support it." and "All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes."
Source/Context: "we feel like if we don't go design bid build, we may exclude ourselves from the potential for some grant funding...so we feel like the best approach is to go design bid build on traditional method to traditional uh delivery method on this process."
Source/Context: "And right now, we do not plan to meet August 3rd." and "So, what I'm hearing is there's no meeting until possibly September 14th...It's a tentative meeting date so we can have it on the calendar."
Agenda items
Chair called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Source/Context: "We're going to go and open the July 6, 2026 uh waterways commission meeting...Once you're done, we'll stand up and do the pledge of allegiance..."
Commission considered and approved the minutes of the June 1, 2026 meeting after motion and second; no roll-call vote count recorded in transcript.
Source/Context: "So, we got five people...Does anybody have any comments on the minutes?...We have a motion. We have a second...We have a motion. We have a second. No further debate. We'll go ahead and call the question. I support it." and "All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes."
Staff presented an executive summary of a proposed RFQ broken into four phases and 12 tasks covering project management, public engagement, existing conditions, survey/technical analysis, 30% design and NEPA start, landscape architecture, environmental review, grant strategy, 60/90% and final design, cost estimating/value engineering/funding alignment, construction-phase support (CEI) and project closeout/asset management. Staff recommended design–bid–build procurement to preserve grant eligibility; commissioners discussed RFQ detail, scope, schedule milestones, conflict-of-interest protections separating design firms from construction bidders, bonding/insurance expectations, and public communication/construction access considerations.
Source/Context: "I've got before you...there is a proposed four different phases broken out into 12 different tasks...we feel like if we don't go design bid build, we may exclude ourselves from the potential for some grant funding...so we feel like the best approach is to go design bid build..."
Motions
Source/Context: "Can I get a motion?" "Motion." "We have a motion. We have a second. No further debate. We'll go ahead and call the question."
Votes
Source/Context: "We have a motion. We have a second...We'll go ahead and call the question. I support it...All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes."
Public comments
Source/Context: "I do not believe the city should write an RFQ specific for option two at this level of design...there is not enough information gathered to make a 60 to 70 million decision...The permit drawing show the BCM critical line at 25 ft from the edge of the water...or the 36t shown on the ground in the park. Which is correct?" (remarks by Mr. Beach)
Official sources
Civic Brief Alerts is an informational layer. Use these links for the official record and source materials.
Report a correction