Water, Shore, and Beach Advisory CommitteeThursday, May 7, 2026 · 5:30 PM · City Hall, Staff Conference Room 1st Floor.

Context: The July 9 entry states the motion 'passed' but names only Mr. Allen (motion) and Mr. Duhon (second), with no recorded vote count for this final action.

Recommended: Pull the certified July 9 minutes to verify quorum and the actual vote count on the motion to dismiss — the record names only two members as moving and seconding without stating a tally, so any effort to reopen the canopy issue could turn on whether the dismissal was procedurally valid.

Context: On April 2 the committee tasked staff with reporting how many metal canopies it services monthly, but by the July 9 dismissal (Allen motion, Duhon second) no such report appears in the timeline.

Recommended: File a records request for the staff report on monthly canopy volume that the committee asked for on April 2 — the topic was killed on July 9 with no indication in the record that the requested data was ever delivered.

Applies if: resident is concerned about canopy density or safety at the beach

Context: The committee dismissed the canopy discussion on July 9 (Allen motion, Duhon second) after opening the review in April with a data request that never surfaced in the record.

Recommended: The committee closed its three-month review of metal beach canopy tent rules on July 9 without adopting any new limits, so if canopy clutter or safety near the beach bothers you, you'll need to petition to reopen the item — it won't come back on its own.

Context: The record shows only "Discussed; no action taken" and a 0-0 non-vote across April 2, May 7, and June 4, with no authorizing instrument for the HDR assessment named anywhere in the file.

Recommended: Pull the HDR task order or professional services agreement and the authorizing resolution to confirm which body procured the assessment and who must accept it. With three meetings producing no formal vote, ask whether this advisory committee's recommendation is a prerequisite to any shoreline construction or permitting step, or whether the work can proceed on the engineering contract alone.

Context: HDR was described as "currently doing an assessment" on April 2, yet the May 7 and June 4 meetings each closed with only a promise to continue the discussion and a 0-0 non-vote.

Recommended: Request the HDR shoreline assessment scope, deliverable schedule, and invoices, plus any interim findings memo. The same erosion item has been carried at three consecutive monthly meetings with the study cited as pending each time and no findings ever entered into the record.

Context: Minutes state HDR is assessing "the best options to stabilize the shorelines" for Bay Park, but across the April 2, May 7, and June 4 meetings no option list was presented and no action was taken.

Recommended: Ask the committee to release HDR's list of shoreline stabilization alternatives at the next monthly session — the choice between hardened bulkhead-style armoring and a softer restored shoreline determines whether your waterfront access, sightlines, and beach area survive construction. Once a preferred option is forwarded for design, public input narrows to construction timing rather than the fix itself.