SEBASTIAN — The Sebastian City Council is willing to allow its Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee take another crack at finding a home for a pavilion it wanted on the east end of Riverview Park.
Some Sebastian residents said they didn’t want it at the park. Others said they didn’t want it at the committee’s second choice spot – Hardee Park.
And the Sebastian City Council said it wasn’t ready to take a $6,650 hit on the contract to cancel the $26,000 pavilion construction contract, which has a 25 percent penalty clause.
Despite some support on the Sebastian City Council to locate the pavilion as the committee initially recommended, in the southeast corner of the event park, not enough council members were swayed.
“I’ve kind of reconsidered,” Councilman Richard Gillmor said, explaining that when he originally voted to put the pavilion in the northeast corner, next to the stamped pavement of the city’s seal, he thought the committee was fine with either location.
Committee Vice Chair Matt Sims brought the issue before the council, asking them to reconsider and, if not put the pavilion where the committee wanted, then to move it to Hardee Park, where there would be space for it.
He also said the committee had been under the impression that, when the pavilion went before the council, the council would approve the contract but not the site, that the committee would get more time to discuss where to place it.
Councilwoman Andrea Coy questioned whether the committee had considered what the future might hold next door to the park – at the Sportman’s Lodge, which is right next to where the pavilion would have gone if placed in the southeast corner.
Sims said the only discussion had been that the pavilion would follow the necessary setbacks on the city’s property and recommended a buffer be placed to screen the property.
Opponents of having the pavilion within Riverview Park’s east end, pointed to the blocked line-of-sight for the water and the seeming surprise by the committee’s own members regarding the size of the pavilion.
“It is yet another structure in our only remaining open space,” Louise Kautenburg said.
During the Fourth of July festivities, she said she and a few others conducted a “citizens opinion poll” to determine at which end of the park the pavilion should be and how many people even wanted it. Of the approximately 100 people she said they questioned, 70 didn’t want the pavilion. The rest were split between the two corners or didn’t have an opinion on the matter.
Jim Sunnycalb told the council that he, too, did his own survey and had a more favorable result for having the pavilion in Riverview Park.
“You can’t please everybody,” he reminded the council, adding that the debate and back-and-forth on the issue is taking its toll on the committee’s morale.
As a plan B, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommended Hardee Park as an acceptable location for the pavilion, considering the other improvements recently done at the park.
Residents who live adjacent to the park, however, objected to the idea of the pavilion, citing concerns that the pavilion would draw more people to the park and become a public safety concern.
Ponoka Street resident Dottie Rhea told the council that just because there was open enough space to place a pavilion did not mean a pavilion needed to be put there. She noted that often children use the open space to play soccer and football.
Fellow resident Melody Manning reminded the council that the park is more recreational and fitness-supportive in nature, not an event park. She said if a pavilion were to be placed at Hardee, it would attract events to the park, causing issues with noise and parking.
“Nobody seems to want this,” Sebastian resident Barbara Salmon told the council.
“This is the biggest joke,” Sebastian resident Damien Gilliams said, trying to hold back from laughing at the podium. He questioned why the council would put together a committee to advise them if they weren’t going to follow their advice.
He cautioned that doing so would lead to people not wanting to serve on the city’s committees.
Council members discussed two options after public input – cancel the contract and pay $6,650 to do so or send the issue back to the committee to find a better home for the pavilion.
“I would rather not throw good money after bad,” Mayor Jim Hill said, drawing a smattering of applause, adding he’d prefer to not move forward with the pavilion.
“I can’t agree with you more,” Coy added.
Gillmor tried again to get the council to support the pavilion as the committee requested, showing them a digital rendering of what the pavilion would look like just south of the twin piers along the river.
He reminded the council that the funding for the pavilion has been in the city’s books for a few years and was something the council supported at that time.
His motion to approve the southeast corner died for lack a second from a supporting council member.
Vice Mayor Don Wright said there did not appear to be enough support to have the pavilion on the south end of Riverview Park, so therefore, he would not support it. He did suggest the council send the pavilion back to the committee to determine if there were an acceptable location and encouraged the committee to reach out to residents of any parks they consider.
City Manager Al Minner told the council “there’s not a place in this city” that wouldn’t benefit from a pavilion, including the golf course between holes 12 and 16 to provide shelter to golfers caught in the rain.
He added that “$6,600 is not a large loss” and expressed concern about how long the contractor might be willing to hold the price to the $26,000. Minner said he was concerned that the committee might have to bounce from park to park to find a suitable location with community support.
“I think we need to cut our losses,” Minner said.
Councilman Eugene Wolff agreed with Hill and Coy that there was no support for the pavilion and expressed support for taking the $6,650 hit as a lesson learned.
“I’m very worried,” Wolff said of sending the issue back to the committee. “I’m very concerned.”
He explained he felt that way because, from what he could see from reading the committee’s minutes and attending a meeting, the committee made the decision on Hardee Park without any information or input and it could happen again.
“It’s very clear to me that the due diligence has not been done on this project,” Wolff said. “It made me lose confidence” in their due diligence and “they’re trying to get rid of it.”
By the end of the lengthy debate, the council voted unanimously to give the committee another chance to find a place for the pavilion before canceling the contract.
