SEBASTIAN — The Sebastian City Council on July 9 voted unanimously to tear down the historic Hurricane Harbor building and build a new structure in its place, following years of uncertainty about the site's future.
Karen Miller, the city’s community development director, opened the discussion by explaining how the city had waited to take action until the building’s most recent tenant left.
“Since we had estimates just to repair the eastern area, but we knew there were going to be concerns for the rest of the building, we decided to wait until the tenant that was in that space had left,” Miller said. “In 2024, they left that space. In that time, we’ve gone in, cleaned it up, and applied for a grant to help with the design, to help with the reconstruction.”
Miller noted that portions of the building date back to 1927.
“No matter what we do with the building, we want to showcase the history,” she said.
She outlined three options: Option One would remove the entire structure and build new to meet floodplain requirements. Option Two would demolish part of the building and restore the rest to resemble the original 1927 layout. Option Three would retain most of the building but require expensive repairs, including cutting off part of the deck and relocating elements out of the flood zone. The third option would also be the most expensive, exceeding $2.5 million.
During public comment, civil engineer Kevin Dixon urged the council to consider ongoing upkeep.
“You need to look at the operation and maintenance costs,” he said.
Former Councilman Damien Gilliams criticized previous efforts to repair the structure.
“You tried to fix something that cannot be fixed,” Gilliams said. “The whole thing needs to be scrapped, start from scratch, and make it a community center where it meets for the grants, the state money, and the federal money.”
Councilman Ed Dodd shared concerns about preserving the original structure.
“I have some concerns about trying to save that original building,” he said. “When we actually start getting into there and see what we have to do to do away with all the damage, I think we are taking on a project that will be difficult to understand where it goes.”
He reminded the council that the original setup involved a private restaurant owner, who ultimately left after business failed.
“We need to make decisions about what we want to do with the building. This was a public-private partnership at the beginning,” Dodd said.
“There are some reasons why we might want a fish market,” he added. “One of the things we are trying to do is bring forward the fisherman’s process.”
“I don’t think it’s advantageous to us to try and save that building,” Dodd said. “There’s almost as much space in storage rooms as there is display space. How do we restructure that to make it useful without tearing down walls that might be load-bearing?”
Vice Mayor Fred Jones strongly backed Option One.
“Having been in that building, I can tell you that I think the best thing for us to do fiscally is to tear down the building and start over new,” Jones said.
Council member Christopher Nunn agreed and emphasized the risks of unknown structural issues.
“To me, it’s a no-brainer,” Nunn said. “We can’t leave something with unknowns. We would be taking a chance with taxpayers’ money, and from what I hear it’s going to cost the same.”
Nunn also suggested the new facility include community-oriented uses, expressing support for turning it into a community center with a catering kitchen.
Jones added, “We have 4,000 square feet under option for interior space to design it. I think that’s a plus.”
Mayor Bob McPartlan also endorsed the demolition plan.
“I think the only way to go is Option Number One,” he said.
Wrapping up discussion, City Manager Brian Benton recommended the city incorporate public input into the design phase.
“I think it would be worthwhile for our consultant to also have a public meeting at the beginning of the process,” Benton said. “That way we can get a lot of public input before we sit down for design.”
Following discussion, a motion was made and the council voted unanimously in favor of Option One.