In one minute
July 6, 2026 Waterways Commission meeting. Staff presented an overview of a draft RFQ for design services for the waterfront promenade project (four phases, 12 tasks). Committee discussed procurement approach, RFQ scope details (project management, public engagement, surveys, 30/60/90% design milestones, NEPA/permitting, grant strategy, construction support, post-construction maintenance), expectations for schedule and conflict-of-interest language, bonding/insurance/warranty concerns, and public comments urging reconsideration of design Option 2 and/or exploration of a sheet-piled bulkhead alternative. Minutes of June 1, 2026 were approved. A tentative next meeting date of Sept 14, 2026 was placed on the calendar; no meeting planned Aug 3, 2026.
Executive summary
Chair Mike Sutton opened the July 6, 2026 meeting. Staff (Eric Claus/City staff) reviewed a draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the waterfront promenade project and recommended a traditional design–bid–build procurement approach (staff explained a CMAR or design–build route could limit federal grant eligibility). The RFQ overview described four phases and 12 tasks covering project management, public engagement, existing-conditions review, survey/technical investigations, preliminary (30%) design and NEPA start, landscape architecture, permitting/NEPA, grant strategy, 60/90/100% design and cost estimating/value engineering, construction-phase support (construction engineering & inspection/grant compliance), and post-construction maintenance planning. Committee members requested the RFQ require proposed milestone dates (30/60/90%), explicit language to avoid conflicts of interest (limiting consultant roles in contractor selection), clarity about consultant vs. contractor roles, and that construction bonding/insurance best practices be reviewed. Staff said the full RFQ and the detailed 13-page scope will be provided to the committee and indicated the RFQ would be advertised (on the street) in early August. Public commenters urged broader consideration of alternatives (including a sheet-pile bulkhead), questioned specific cost line items (e.g., hardscape/park items), and raised permit/survey clarifications (critical line dimension discrepancies). The June 1 minutes were approved. Committee set a tentative meeting on Sept 14, 2026 and did not plan to meet Aug 3, 2026.
Why it matters
The RFQ and procurement approach determine which consultants will shape design, permitting, grant applications, cost estimates, and construction documents for a major waterfront project with multi-million-dollar cost implications. Procurement choices affect grant eligibility, schedule, and whether the project scope preserves or removes existing in-water structures (which affects environmental permitting/NEPA scope and project cost). Committee direction on RFQ content (schedules, conflict-of-interest limits, consultant roles, bonding expectations) will shape contracting documents and oversight, and public comments flag potential alternative technical approaches and permit/estimate uncertainties that could materially change cost and timing.
Key decisions
Source/Context: "So, we approved the minutes." (transcript: "All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes.")
Source/Context: "And not meet on August 3rd." / "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." (transcript)
Agenda items
Chair Mike Sutton opened the meeting, led the pledge and introductions; Mr. Oliver participated via Zoom; new planning commission representative (Clinton Halman) noted but not present.
Source/Context: "We're going to open the July 6, 2026 uh waterways commission meeting. Uh today, Mike Sutton will be chairing." / "Mr. Oliver is in the audience via Zoom" / "He is the new representative from the planning commission... Clinton Halman." (transcript)
Committee considered and approved the minutes from the June 1, 2026 meeting after motion and second; members indicated support.
Source/Context: "So, we got five people. Got two... Does anybody have any comments on the minutes?... Can I get a motion? Motion. We have a motion. We have a second... I support it. I... I full support of the minutes." / "All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes." (transcript)
Staff presented an executive summary of a draft RFQ for Waterfront Promenade design services: proposed four phases and 12 tasks covering project management, public engagement, existing conditions review, survey/investigations, 30% preliminary design and NEPA start, landscape architecture, NEPA/permitting, grant funding strategy, 60/90/100% design milestones, cost estimating/value engineering/funding alignment, construction-phase support (construction engineering & inspection and grant compliance), and post-construction maintenance/capital planning. Staff recommended a traditional design–bid–build procurement (rather than design–build or CMAR) to preserve potential grant eligibility; RFQ is qualifications-based (select most qualified team, then negotiate price). Staff said the full scope (~13 pages) will be provided and the RFQ (≈10 pages) would be advertised; committee discussed schedules, conflict-of-interest language, consultant vs contractor roles, milestone dates, bonding/insurance, and public engagement/communication (including construction access/staging).
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." (transcript)
Source/Context: "All right. Any other questions... Can I get a motion?" (transcript)
Votes
Source/Context: "I support it... I full support of the minutes." / "All right. Well, that's uh we approved the minutes." (transcript)
Public comments
Source/Context: "in general I do not believe the city should write an RFQ specific for option two at this level of design" / "The permit drawing show the BCM critical line at 25 ft... or the 36t shown on the ground in the park" / "Is the new pavilion included in the $2 million hardscape budget?" (transcript)
Official sources
Civic Brief Alerts is an informational layer. Use these links for the official record and source materials.
Report a correction