Committee advances Sandy Cove bank-stabilization contract amid multimillion-dollar overrun

Chair Cat Cotton convened the Parks and Public Works Committee on June 16 and advanced agenda bill AB26-036—seeking authorization to execute the Sandy Cove bank-stabilization contract—to financial review and the full council after staff described multi-year permitting delays and a budget shortfall.

Parks and Public Works Director Jeff Hamlin and Project Manager Dylan Gamble told the committee the Sandy Cove work would stabilize an eroding grassy bank adjacent to the river to protect park infrastructure and stormwater outfalls. Hamlin said the effort began in 2015, Phase 1 was completed in 2023 as a temporary measure, and the follow-up phase was delayed more than two years by federal review. He warned permitting is complex and said the project’s scope is driven by permitting requirements and stormwater objectives.

Gamble said the project’s in-water work is limited by a narrow fish-passage/permitting window (July 15–Sept. 30) and that most of the construction must occur within that period. He and Hamlin described repeated value-engineering and alternatives analyses over multiple revisions but said constraints from permit conditions and stormwater connections limit how much scope can be reduced.

Council Member Brian Holloway pressed staff on erosion extent and cost, saying the committee was being asked to approve a project “50% above your budget.” Hamlin responded that erosion varies by location, that documented recession in places has been roughly 60–70 feet, and that some previous temporary measures were never intended as long-term fixes. He described the design as having a 50-year design life: “It’s a 50-year design life. I’m fairly certain that the park will be here in 50 years,” he said, while adding that riverine systems cannot be guaranteed.

The committee discussed cost drivers. Staff and council members pointed to supply-chain impacts, inflation, differing contractor capacities and equipment, and extended federal review—specifically Army Corps of Engineers concurrence and tribal consultation—as reasons the project’s final price changed over time. Gamble summarized the cost estimates: the engineering estimate range cited in the meeting was about $4.1–$5.1 million, and a bid figure cited in discussion was $3.4 million; staff also described an overrun relative to budget of roughly $1.6 million (later discussed in the meeting as about $1.7 million).

Mayor May explained the city’s financing approach to covering capital projects through utility rate studies and borrowing. He said the city updates a six-year rate study every two years and that, while the committee can decide on the contract, the overage would be rolled into future rates or handled through bond financing already planned for capital projects: “it rolls into future rates,” he said.

Several council members said they had reservations about advancing the contract without seeing a financing appropriation; others said the contract could be advanced and the funding mechanics handled in the forthcoming Financial and Neighborhood Affairs (FNA) review. The committee agreed to forward AB26-036 as a non-consent item for FNA and full-council consideration rather than rejecting it outright. No final appropriation or award was made at the committee meeting.

Next steps: the item will go to FNA for financing review and then to full council for appropriation and any final contract authorization. The committee also asked staff to provide clearer financing and CIP context when the item reaches FNA and the council.