CAC Minutes 06/07/2001 RJune 7, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 7, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal
Area Advisory Committee met on this date at 1:30 p.m. In
REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Gary Galleberg
Anthony P. Pires, Jr.
David Roellig
John P. Strapponi
Ashley D. Lupo
Robert B. Stakich
William Kroeschell
Robert Gray
NOT PRESENT: James L. Snediker
ALSO PRESENT:
James Mudd, Public Utlilities Administrator
Roy Anderson, Public Utilities, Director
of Engineering
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
go~ ~f~zzb~ CC ENG PLaN RO0~ P~GE 02
NOTICEXOF PUBLICIZING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR HEETING OF THE COASTAL
ADVISORY CO~R~ITTEE AT THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY CO~ISSioNE~$'
MEETING ROOH ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE HARMON TURNER BUILDING,
3301TAMIA~I TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 ON JU~E 7, 2001
ac i:30 P.M. '
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Presentation to' Advisory Committee Members on the
Rev£ew of Government-in-the-Sunshine Laws by
David Weigel, Coun;y Attorney
3. Distribution of Ordinances that govern ~dvisory Committees. A. Length of Tenure/CCCAC Members
B. Distribution of excerpts of the TDC mlnutes.
4. Budget Overvimw
A. Work Plan FY02 - Adoption
5. Old Business
6. New Business
A. 10-Year Plan
~. Audieuce Participation
8. Adjournment
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE 'ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO
APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH
RESPECT TO ANY ~tATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A'
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED
TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, wHicH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL
IS TO BE BASED.
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. We'll call to order the June
7th, 2001, meeting of the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee. We'll call the roll. I'm Gary Galleberg, present. Mr. Roellig.
MR. ROELLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Kroeschell.
MR. KROESCHELL: Here.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Gray.
MR. GRAY: Here.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Strapponi.
MR. STRAPPONI: Here.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: Here.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Snediker.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Lupo. Pardon me, Ms. Lupo.
MS. LUPO: Here.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Stakich.
MR. STAKICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All present except Mr. Snediker.
Item on our agenda, presentation to the advisory committee
members on a review of the government and the Sunshine laws.
MR. WEIGEL.: Thank you, Mr. Galleberg. And hello,
committee members. Some of you I've worked with before and
some not, but it's certainly a pleasure to be before you today.
I'm David Weigel, your county attorney, and I wanted to take the
opportunity -- we appreciate that you could put us on your
agenda so that we could discuss briefly an overview of the
government -- governant (phonetic) and the Sunshine Law. And,
as you are aware, this committee, as approximately 39 other
committees of the Board of County Commissioners, as well as
Page 2
June 7, 2001
the -- the board itself, is subject to the strictest Sunshine Law in
the country, and that is the Florida Government in the Sunshine
Law, which is found in Section 286.011 of the Florida Statutes. It
actually even has a reference in the Florida constitution, so it's
certainly here to stay, it would appear.
I've provided for you-all a booklet, perhaps a book -- it's big
enough -- and it has four tabs in it. And the first tabbed area is
the "Government in the Sunshine Law" materials that we have.
And you'll note within that first tab three types of materials that
have been provided. After you get past the bullet-point pictures
that we have which would have been a PowerPoint presentation,
which technically we can't do -- but after you get past that, you'll
find that there is a synopsis and discussion of the Government in
the Sunshine Law.
Also included is what I call the December 12th, 1995, county
attorney memo on the Sunshine Law which was provided at that
time to the commissioners, all county advisory committees and
boards, and their liaisons with the hope at that time that it would
continue to be transmitted to new members and new committees
as they were created. To some extent that was fulfilled but not
entirely, so we've included that material with this package today.
And then the third element in the package that you have is an
Attorney General memo from 1992, 1993.
I've noted on that memo that although the material is dated,
that which is there is still valid. It also includes a public records
law synopsis which I think you'll find helpful as a reference point
in regard to public records and your activities on behalf of
government in Collier County.
Why are we here about the Sunshine Law? Well, we're here
to talk about the Sunshine Law because you have put yourselves
in a position of volunteer service, civic service. You're working
hard, going to be working hard over a potentially long period of
Page 3
June 7, 2001
time, and your efforts shouldn't go unrewarded, but they also
should not be put at risk. And there's certainly no need for
individuals of this committee to find through their efforts that
there is either a technical violation, a meaningful violation, or
even a perceived violation of the Government in the Sunshine
Law.
And so the materials we provide you today and the
discussion I'm going to give you in just a few minutes -- it will
take just a few minutes -- is here to make sure you're on the right
track and also give you opportunity to answer -- to ask and have
answered the workaday questions that may come along the line
here.
Now, Sunshine Law requires only three things. And if you
wish to follow what would have been the PowerPoint
presentation, under Tab I you'll see several pictures. The print's
a little fine. I have to use my glasses. But those -- I'm going to
be following that format there, and we would actually be on the
second picture on what's called page I in the first tab.
The Sunshine Law really requires just three things: that the
meetings of public boards and committees must be open to the
public; secondly, that reasonable notice of the meeting must be
given to the public; and, third, that minutes of the meeting must
be taken. Sounds pretty simple. Sometimes in the practice it
gets a little more difficult.
Now, the meetings must be open to the public. In this case
you're here in a boardroom; it's a very accessible facility at the
government center. And as long as you're meeting in facilities
like this, I expect you'll never have a problem with that element
of the Sunshine Law, and that is that the interested public, those
that wish to come at any given day for a noticed meeting, will
have an opportunity to see the decision-making process in
action, which is what you have in regularly -- in your regular-
Page 4
June 7, 2001
noticed meeting. This is the decision-making process.
But, secondly, there has to be adequate notice provided to
the public so that they will come to these meetings, if they have
a desire to, to observe the decision-making process. An
adequate notice can take several forms, and it has to be
reasonable under the circumstances. The county's typical notice
requirements and procedures that we follow is through -- through
our pers -- public information department, is that a committee
such as this will have a notice that is transmitted to all of the
print media, transmitted to the electronic media, television
stations. It will be posted at various regular-noticed places
around the county. It's available typically on -- on the
government TV channel, Channel 54. We try to make it as
available in as many different access points that the different
kinds of public that pick up information in different ways will be
aware of the meeting.
If there's something controversial, if there's something that
is of great public importance in the eyes of the public, they have
to have the opportunity to know to be there, but they also have
to have the opportunity ahead of time, appropriately ahead of
time, as opposed to last-minute notice, so that they can attend a
public meeting.
We've found in the past when our Board of County
Commissioners has wanted to have a -- an emergency or special
meeting and the time is very, very tight, county attorney office
has worked with the state attorney here posing the question: "if
we put notice out with less than 24 hours before the board wants
to hold its meeting and we get it out on the TV and we post it in
the libraries, physically post it on the libraries and the museum
and other -- other public places in the county but that -- that time
of notice is less than 24 hours before the proposed board
meeting, we asked the Amira Swett, the local representative for
Page 5
June 7, 2001
the state attorney, if a challenge was presented concerning an
alleged violation of the Sunshine Law for the Board of County
Commissioners under those circumstances, would you dismiss
the challenge upon the basis of reasonable notice and back-
breaking efforts to get it out in a very short period of time? And -
- and Miss Swett indicated to me that, no, out of hand she
wouldn't dismiss the challenge.
So we came back and advised our Board of County
Commissioners. "we think we've done wonderful notice in a very
short period of time. We're trying to put this thing together for
you, board." but at the same time we must advise the board --
and we did -- that they might be at some risk if a challenge were
to be filed at the state attorney level concerning an alleged
violation of the Sunshine Law. And so our board opted not to
have the meeting on that Friday. They had the meeting on the
following Monday afternoon. We got notice out with a few days'
notice, and there was no challenge filed. But beyond that we
also knew that we had coordinated well with the state attorney
office.
So in regard to notice, working with your liaison, this
committee itself, the county attorney office will always be
available to assist and make recommendations concerning the
scheduling that you may have for the meetings so that you can
conduct your business. You'll want to get your business done.
You want to do it efficiently. Business that is conducted
contrary to the Sunshine Law is business that is not given legal
validity.
So if you miss one of the elements of the Sunshine Law at a
regular meeting that you have, whether it's notice or the lack of
people to access the facility or failure to take minutes, it's very
possible that one of the outcomes of a failure to meet the
Sunshine Law is that the very business that you did in good faith,
Page 6
June 7, 2001
bringing people in, experts, whomever, will be ruled null and void
and have to be redone. And that's a separate and apart from any
challenge to you individuals on a civil or criminal liability
standpoint for the potential violation of the Sunshine Law.
What you'll find as a committee from time to time -- I know
this is a relatively new committee, this incarnation. You may find
from time to time that you will want to break out into subgroups.
You may want to have subcommittees to perform an assignment
for you. That's okay, not a problem. But you must take into
account that that subcommittee may well have to abide by those
three requisites of the Sunshine Law also; that is, the
subcommittee is performing a function which is part of the
decision-making process and information-gathering, decision-
making process of this committee. So, therefore, it and as a
subcommittee may have to provide reasonable public notice,
reasonable access to see what they're doing, that subcommittee
is doing, and that minutes must be taken of the activity that the
subcommittee does.
There is an exception to that, and that exception is when an
individual from a committee or a group of individuals of a
committee are delegated pure fact-finding tasks from the
committee at large -- in whole. Those two or more persons of the
committee who go and perform the fact-finding project can go
out, don't have to have notice, can ask questions and get facts.
They still can't really talk to each other about the decision-
making process, so that can be a problem from time to time.
Another thing to keep in mind is, when is a -- when are the
members of a committee potentially subject to having a meeting
outside of the Sunshine? Well, it's anytime that two or more
members come together. It doesn't take a quorum. It doesn't
take a supermajority. It's just two or more members getting
together. And if two or more members should discuss matters
Page 7
June 7, 2001
that reasonably would be expected to come before this
committee or, in fact, are part of their ongoing agenda with this
committee, then it would be a violation of the Sunshine Law for
two or more members to come together in any setting outside of
the regular-noticed, public access, minute-taking type of
circumstance to conduct the business that is really the business
of the committee as -- as a whole.
You'll find in the December I -- 22nd, 1995, memo that I've
provided you what I call the workaday questions and answers
that you may -- that you may have as you -- as you go about your
business in the future. It discusses chance meetings in
restaurants. It talks about where two or more members may find
themselves at a civic association, a neighborhood association,
maybe at the Heart Ball. You may find yourself at some
philanthropic endeavor.
These things are not problematic for you as individuals to go
to, but I will tell you how we advise our Board of County
Commissioners and advise and advise them. And that is that
they may find themselves at the civic organization, Republican
executive committee. It could be Second District. It could be
East Naples Civic Association. More than one commissioner may
be there. In your case more than one committee member may be
at a function which is not your function; someone else is holding
it, but you're there.
If it's purely a social function, things of that nature, well, you
can even talk with your fellow committee members there. Just
don't talk about business. And we also suggest that if you are in
a position where you come up against, brush up against, another
fellow committee member in public, it's not a bad thing to have a
totally outside party, nonconflicting party there to observe the
kind of discussion that you may have had, whether you're talking
about grandchildren or graduation or vacations or anything else
Page 8
June 7, 2001
but the business to which you're appointed.
At -- at -- if two or more committee members should find
themselves at civic associations where the discussion of the
civic association may be matters that are pertinent to the work
you do as a committee, well, that's okay for those committee
members to be there. And they can answer questions from the --
from the chair of the civic association. They can even appear on
the dais and talk to the public and answer questions to the
public. The individual committee members can do this. But you
cannot use that for a subterfuge for one committee member
indirectly to talk to another committee member.
What that means, then, is you may find yourself in a position
of perception as well as technical alleged violation. And we,
again, tell our other committee members and the commissioners,
"Remember, if you put yourself in a position of a perception
problem, we can defend you. We may win. We may even tell
them we think we'll win." but the fact is sometimes by the
allegation the damage is done. And for some of the committees
I've been handing out some of the recent copies of the recent
newspaper articles that talked about the school board finding
themselves together in a restaurant or even Board of County
Commissioners recently at a Conservancy function where a
question-answer situation came up. Those can be dicey, and
even though there may be no complaint that's filed, by virtue of
the fact that the committee members or board members may find
themselves in a position of -- call it visual compromise -- it puts
them on the defensive, and I think it -- it -- it takes them out of
the -- being on the clear track for the position that they're
appointed.
We don't need controversy, so it's often better -- you know,
discretion is the better part of valor sometimes -- to avoid finding
yourself in positions where someone can cast an allegation, an
Page 9
June 7, 2001
aspersion, even if it has no basis whatsoever.
You may find yourself in your communications amongst each
other -- well, let's put it this way: Communications amongst each
other must be very careful. As with our board members, there
can be one-way communications. We don't advise our board that
that's a wonderful thing to do. But if Commissioner Carter says,
'1 want to bring up X, Y, Z topic on the board meeting next
Tuesday," he, in fact, can send an e-mail or a letter, a memo to
the other committee -- commission members telling that, and he
won't be in violation of the Sunshine Law. I can assure you that.
But woe to the person who responds to that message because
once you have communication between two or more committee
members outside of a situation where the three requisites of the
Sunshine Law are in place, then you have clearly potentially a -- a
violation of the Sunshine Law.
So the chairman, in this case, my example, shouldn't ask
fellow commissioners, "What do you think of this?" or "Shall I do
this?" or "Do two or more of you want me to put this on the
agenda?" never ask a question like that. That's what we tell
them, and that's what I advise you. The same way with e-mail
and telephonic conversations. You can't call each other and talk
about business on the phone. That's outside the Sunshine. You
can't do it on the computer. Again, it's outside the Sunshine.
You're -- the -- the public has this jealous right to see every
aspect of the decision-making process, and it's supposed to be
done in the Sunshine with proper notice so that they can observe
what's going on.
That's pretty much the overview of the Sunshine Law, and
you may have some individual questions, and I'm sure happy to
answer any of those. But I also want to mention to you that if
you should have questions that come up on the Sunshine Law,
feel free to ask them. Field them, if you wish, through your
Page 10
June 7, 2001
liaisons, or come straight to the county attorney office. We will
respond individually. It doesn't take a vote of the committee to
send a question to us. We're here for you, both individually as
well as collectively, along that line.
And although our office is not talking to you today about the
public records law, the fact is, is you will create public records
from time to time. Public records of this committee will be
created, and the liaisons, the staff people will have those things.
There are some admonitions, some requirements under state law
that we would be telling you about in a little more in detail if we
have an opportunity to address that in the future, and we look
forward to do that.
The gift and ethics presentation, which we're not making
today, the materials for that are also in your book there. And I
think it makes for fairly interesting reading. If nothing else, you
can see what some of the other -- what the Board of County
Commissioners and the county staff have to contend with. This
body having its role with a -- as a recommendatory body with
certain decision-making authority may find itself at a slightly
lesser mode of the gift and ethics requirements than the
commissioners and the county staff themselves have to reckon
with. But I think that it's -- I'm glad you have the material. It's
there for source referral -- and be very happy to answer questions
on those things in the future too. So with that I'm finished, but if
you have any questions, I'm sure happy to respond, and thank
you for having us.
MR. GRAY: I'm curious. Is it okay for any of us as
individuals to correspond with staff, support staff, for this
committee, either by telephone, e-mail, regular mail?
MR. WEIGEL: Excellent question. I'm sorry I didn't cover
that. Yes, you as individuals can talk with staff. Staff can talk
with you. Staff shouldn't be used as a go-between to get to other
Page 11
June 7, 2001
committee members, but you can clearly have ongoing unlimited
dialogue with staff members.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And also it pertains just in --
among us as a committee. For example, you can speak to a
commissioner because you don't serve on the same body. It just
is restricted in this case to the nine of us.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Thank you. Thank you very
much. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We're passing
out the ordinances for the makeup of the board right now.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay.
MR. MUDD: One of the things that we talked -- I'm Jim Mudd,
public utilities administrator for the record.
I'm sorry I came in late, Commissioner. I was in a meeting.
Roy Anderson, did you introduce yourself?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I haven't actually officially introduced
myself, no.
MR. MUDD: Roy Anderson is the public utilities engineer
director. He comes to us from -- from Newport, Rhode Island,
where he was the public works administrator up there, a new
hire for us. Harry Huber works for him in his section.
Harry's still convalescing. He had to go under the knife. It
had -- it was a complication from last year's surgery, so he's
trying to get back on his feet again. So, again, Roy and I are
doing the best we can, what we're trying to get at.
One of the things you asked for last time -- and we'll
postpone it hopefully with your concurrence until the next
meeting when I can get Harry on board -- you asked to go over
the present program and how it's doing and those things that are
carried forward. If you would be so indulgent to give us another
month, and hopefully Harry will be on his feet, and he can give us
Page 12
June 7, 2001
all the nuances of that program and where it is and what things
are moving forward or didn't get done two years ago. They're
still on the plate and moving through that process. And I will tell
you as -- as public utilities got this program, I found out that --
that an awful lot of that corporate institutional knowledge rests
in Harry and nowhere else, so we're -- we're a little bit of -- at a
loss on this juncture.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You don't--you're not referring to
the fiscal '02 work plan; you mean what's already in the pipeline?
MR. MUDD: No. I'm talking what's already happening in
some of the older programs that didn't get funded because of a
permit issue, that the money's still there and it's rolling forward,
and we're waiting for the permit in order to get that. And that --
that way we can bring the board up on the active programs that
are actually -- that are actually on board and on -- on the -- on the
table to be done so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel
either. And we were hoping that Harry would be back and we'd
have that as part of your agenda this time. It just isn't there.
One of the things from the -- from the -- there was another
question that asked about swearing in of committee members.
That doesn't need to happen, nor does there need to be any
documents that are signed. So we went through that request for
legal service and got all of those things out of the way so we
didn't have some kind of an infraction or have the second
instance of an infraction, and the process doesn't have to
happen. It's been approved by the Board of County
Commissioners for -- for the membership of the committee, and --
and that's pretty much what they need.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So -- and there's no filing -- maybe
this hasn't been asked. But is anyone required to file with the --
the state as a -- we're not state officials by serving on this
committee.
Page 13
June 7, 2001
MR. MUDD.' That's right. You're county officials. So -- and --
and the minutes --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think the term is public officials.
There's a term, however, that requires -- MR. MUDD: I'll ask that question.
CHAIRMAN GAI. LEBERG: I'm not sure of the term, but that
may just be elected people. I'm not sure.
MR. MUDD: But we went through the -- and I asked. I
specifically got the -- after the last meeting I was a little unsure,
and it came up. And I basically asked the question: Do I need to
swear them in? Does there need to be documents that need to
be done and filed? And -- and I was told no, but I'll go back and
ask one more time.
MR. ROELLIG: One other question. On the previous
committee we had to do the short form of financial disclosure,
whatever they call it. I -- I don't know if that applies to this
committee or not.
MR. MUDD: I'll ask the question.
MR. ROELLIG: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's always -- financial disclosure is always an
interesting --
MR. ROELLIG: It's a minimal thing, but it still was required
on the other committee.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The -- and -- and, Mr. Chairman, if-- if your
members determine that they would like to -- to get the gift issue
from -- from Mr. Weigel, he'll be glad to come in. There's two
more parts that are in that booklet. He'll be glad to come back in
and do a 15- or 20-minute and make sure everybody's up to speed
on the committee and has all the issues in law just to -- to bring
you up to date.
But I -- I'd leave that up to you based on what you've been
given as far as a written product is concerned. And maybe -- I've
Page 14
June 7, 2001
looked at the charts. They seem to be pretty self-explanatory,
but there might be an issue or whatnot.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think what we can do -- we
all have these binders, and each of us should look at them. And
if you have any questions, as Mr. Weigel said, everyone should
feel free to contact him directly. If there's an issue that you
think merits a discussion with the group as a whole, raise that,
and we'll make sure we get it on an agenda.
MR. MUDD: I -- the -- another thing on the -- on the agenda
that we were going to talk about this meeting was -- was No. 3
on your agenda. We distributed the ordinances to govern the
advisory committee, and one of the things that we -- we're going
to tackle this time around was the length of tenure of the
members. Let me find it exactly in the -- in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think we have -- and this is so
that there isn't a complete turnover in any given year. The terms
are four years typically. But to get the ball rolling with us, we're
going to have three members that have a two-year term, three
members that have a three-year term, three members that have a
four-year term.
And I was thinking about that a little bit, and I'd be happy to
take any suggestions. I just thought since we have three
representatives from three different municipalities I guess you
would call it -- the county, Marco, and Naples -- it would seem to
me that one -- that -- that each -- each group should have a two-
year, a three-year, and a four-year. And beyond that I just made
little numbered slips to pull out of a cup. If anyone has a better
idea or a different -- a different preference, that's how we'll do it.
MR. ROELLIG:
· GALLEBERG:
big drama now.
MR. STAKICH:
Sounds fine.
Okay. So I will do that. This is going to be a
I'll volunteer for two-year for Marco.
Page 15
June 7, 200t
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay.
MR. STAKICH: So that will eliminate that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Stakich then will be a two-
year. I'm going to do it alphabetically by location and name. So
Mr. Pires is going to be this one. And that is -- these are Post-its,
so I'm going to have a devil of a time getting them open. Mr.
Pires is going to have a four-year term.
Mr. Roellig is next. And he -- I can see it in here now,
although I didn't see it before I pulled. He is the three-year term.
That will make Mr. Strapponi a two.
And if I recall the resolution correctly, any one of us may be
reappointed, so it doesn't mean service is limited to that. It's
just for your first term. I'm going to try to -- four, three, two, I'm
going to see if I can get them all mixed up.
Okay. Next is Marco. Ms. Lupo, we know we're not going to
have the two-year term. That is a two, so I'm going to take the
next one. Ms. Lupo will be three years. And Mr. Snediker, who --
is he still -- is he still on his same vacation?
MR. MUDD: Yes. I -- I called him this week -- or last week.
He -- I talked to him about what we did at the last meeting. He
will have to miss this one, but he will be at the next one. He's
still on a vacation. He was talking about Africa. MR. GALLEBERG: Oh, my gosh.
MR. MUDD: I said don't bring back anything.
MR. ROELLIG: He was a very faithful attendee of our other
committee so ...
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Well, that's naturally very
good to hear.
Then Naples, how about if I let you do the honors for Naples
since I'm one of the Naples people? This will be me since I'm
first alphabetically. Four. Pick a second one. Mr. Gray, two.
MR. KROESCHELL: Makes me three.
Page 16
June 7, 200t
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And Mr. Kroeschell, of course,
three. You can be sure this wasn't a setup since I pulled a four
for myself. Okay. I'll read -- I'll read through this now.
The Collier County reps, Mr. Pires will have the four-year
seat; Mr. Roellig will have the three-year seat; Mr. Strapponi, the
two-year seat. From Marco Island, Ms. Lupo, the three-year seat;
Mr. Snediker, the four-year seat; Mr. Stakich, the two-year seat.
From the City of Naples, Gary Galleberg, four-year seat; Mr. Gray,
two-year seat; Mr. Kroeschell, three-year seat.
And then I don't -- I don't know that we need it technically,
but it's probably good practice if someone would want to make a
motion to approve those terms to a second, and then we'll take a
vote.
MR. KROESCHELL: I so move.
MR. ROELLIG: Second.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, aye.
(Unanimous response.)
MR. GALLEBERG: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. GALLEBERG: It passes 8-0.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Galleberg, is it possible -- as
I'm not sure if the current iteration of the county's advisory board
ordinance that has to do with attendance requirements. Maybe
we just need to make a determination by this board that Mr.
Snediker's absences are satisfactory -- satisfactorily excused so
that there isn't any issue about him possibly --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We can -- yes, we can note for the
record that they're excused absences. I don't believe we do
have an attendance -- an explicit attendance policy in our
resolutions. In reading it, I don't recall if I did see that.
MR. PIRES: Yeah. I believe the county commission has
Page17
June 7, 2001
adopted overall advisory board ordinance that addresses
attendance requirements.
MR. LUPO: There's -- it's Ordinance 86 -41 under Section 4.
Can we get a copy of that? MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. PIRES: Do you want a copy?
MR. GRAY: I would just like to note that I -- I would think it
would be good for us to adhere to that, because in the previous
committee we did have a lot of absences, and it really caused us
problems. There were times we didn't have quorums and
couldn't get things done. So I would be very much in favor of
making sure that we follow some strict guidelines on that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think that's helpful too.
And I, quite frankly, don't know what 86-41 says exactly but in --
MR. MUDD: Sir, it -- I have it. Mr. Pires gave it to me. "any
board member shall be automatically removed" -- and this gets
into attendance requirements. "any board member shall be
automatically removed if he or she is absent from two connective
board meetings without a satisfactory excuse or if he or she is
absent for more than one-half of the board meetings in a given
physical year. A member of the board shall be deemed absent
from a meeting when he or she is not present during at least 75
percent of the meeting."
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: There are some amendments to that also that
would vary that, but I think it would -- that would be helpful for
the board to see that to stress the importance of attendance as
Mr. Gray's indicated.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Thank you. Now Item--
we're finished with that, if no one has anything else.
Item 3-B concerns excerpts from the TDC minutes.
MR. MUDD: You asked last time, sir, if you could -- if the
Page t 8
June 7, 2001
board mem -- or if the committee members could see the
excerpts of the Tourist Development Council meeting prior to
doing our budget for '02 to see exactly what was said during that
meeting and what was approved and not approved.
Roy, can you give me -- and -- and to -- to avoid going through
the entire meeting, okay, we tried to pull out just the parts that
had to do with the beach re -- beach renourishment and the
Category A projects that were of interest to this committee. So
that's what I've passed out to you as far as the TDC minutes.
The -- one of the things that -- that might be of -- of some
confusion -- I went before the -- the TDC asking for four-plus
million dollars. I think it was 4 1/2 with change. And when I got
finished, they gave me 8 million, the whole thing. That's not
what I asked for, and that was a mistake on their part. You'll see
on page 6 where it's asterisked, it says eight -- eight million
thirty-seven -- thirty-seven thousand two hundred and nineteen
dollars. That wasn't all Category A. That was the entire TDC
budget.
And the -- the chairman got confused and said, okay, we
approve the -- the 8 million subject to the approval of the Coastal
Advisory Committee of those projects on that -- on that sample
draft document that we gave them. And we'll talk about that at
some length.
But just to -- to get -- let the -- the committee members see
exactly what happened during that TDC -- I basically stood up,
explained the program, and -- and told them that -- that the
Coastal Advisory Committee was still in a formation stage, told
them that one of the reasons that we didn't go in front of the
Beach Renourishment Committee and get these approved it
would be -- it wouldn't serve the new committee correctly if they
just had to spend the year with somebody else's decision going
through that process, and they should at least have a say in
Page 19
June 7, 2001
what's going to happen in the '02 budget. And no -- no sense in
being an absentee landlord for a year. And that was kind of the
gist of what we were getting into.
They concurred with that idea. They listened to our
program, because it was part of the bigger program. And -- and I
thought it was beneficial for us to -- to put that out in forum to
make sure we had a bookmark in there, kind of a -- a placeholder
so that when the budget was done that they didn't have to
convene the whole thing over again and people would start
fighting for a thousand dollars or a half a million here or there,
that we already had our place set for those dollars. And so we
were successful in accomplishing that in that process.
They asked a little -- one of the members asked about turtle
monitoring and -- and how that got involved in beach
renourishment. And I think what our expert talked about last
time and gave you a handout that talked about how you have to
have turtle monitoring. If you're going to do any kind of
renourishment projects or any kind of coastal projects, you've
got to be able to monitor how you're impacting an endangered
species, and that's part of the program. So it's -- it's -- it's -- you
have to have it or you just -- you won't have your renourishment
program.
So -- and Maria runs a good program, as far as that's
concerned. I talked to her today. Of interest, she said we had
one big loggerhead that had problems on the pipes on Hideaway.
They're doing a little bit of dredging down at Hideaway now.
We've got an exception. One of the rather large female
loggerheads got stuck on the pipes and couldn't lay her eggs and
had about 12 of them laid around. We had one of our folks pick it
up and bury it for her and get her back in the water so she wasn't
disoriented.
But that's how our projects can impact turtles. So we've got
Page 20
June 7, 2001
to be very careful after the 1st of May -- normally May you can
get a waiver. You can also get a waiver in October, but you got
to watch your waivers for your projects, and you've got to be very
cognizant of the fact that you could have an adverse impact.
And those pipes on the beach, those dredging pipes, did have an
impact on that one turtle, but we worked it the best we could
with a little bit of human interface.
But that was a -- an issue; the turtle monitoring was an
issue. It was only the really -- it was the only big controversial
issue that I had. And -- and after the meeting was over, we got
back with them with -- with the fact sheet and answered their
questions as far -- as far as the turtle monitoring program was
concerned.
Subject to your questions, that's pretty much what
happened in my part of the TDC when I presented, and that's
what's in front of you in -- in written form.
MR. ROELLIG: Mr. Chairman, I noticed outside that there
apparently was a special TDC meeting this past Monday. Do you
know anything about that?
MR. MUDD: We're going to talk about that a little bit. We're
going to talk about how they -- there's a new ordinance about
how the money gets allocated, and we'll talk about -- we can
either talk about it when we talk about --
MR. GRAY: I'm curious. What -- what is the difference
between Category A and Category B? MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. GRAY: I've heard that come up before, and I just --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Also, Colonel Mudd, we -- we don't
have to do it today. It could be today or it can easily be next
meeting if we want to explicitly put it on the agenda, just a
general overview for the members of -- of what the TDC does and
how we relate to the TDC. It might be technically best to do that
Page 21
June 7, 2001
next meeting. We'll put it on the agenda. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So that we can more fully
understand how we fit into the entire process.
MR. MUDD: Category A, sir; that's the finance beach park
facilities or beach improvements, maintenance, renourishment,
restoration, and erosion con -- control, including pass and inlet
maintenance, shoreline protection enhancements, cleanup or
restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public
access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the
beach shoreline or inland lake or river.
Category B, to promote and advertise county tourism within
the State of Florida, nationally and internationally, which
encourages tourism with an emphasis on off-season visitors to
Collier County. However, if tax -- tax revenues are expended for
an activity -- for an activity, service, or venue or event, the
activity service or venue or event shall have, as one of its main
purposes, the attraction of tourists as evidenced by the
promotion of the activity, service, venue, or event to tourists.
Category C, because that's also -- there's a couple of them
that I'll get through we -- we really relate to Category A, but
there's a Category C in the tourist development, and that's to --
MR. GRAY: And all the money that funds these things comes
through the TDC?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They -- they've always talked three
pennies. I like to think of it as percent, but let's talk about it as
three pennies for simplicity.
Category A -- and this is what happened at that special
meeting, sir, on -- on Monday for the Tourist Development
Council. They basically were approving a new tourist
Page 22
June 7, 2001
development ordinance. And -- and what happens in this
particular case is, the pennies came at us in two increments.
There was a two-cent increment, and then later on about two
years ago there was the third penny that came in. The third
penny was specifically designated for Category A.
The two pennies, the previous ordinance said 30 perc --
excuse me, 70 percent of those -- of those 2 pennies would go to
beach renourishment Category A. The new ordinance says 50
percent. So in -- in other words, the Category A gets the 2 -- 2
pennies of the 3 that are collected in the tourist development
tax, okay. Before the -- the other -- the other piece to Category A
is we -- we put aside $200,000 each year for the Naples Pier for
maintenance and renovation that comes out of Category A and
that gets into the Category D part. And it's basically to acquire,
construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain,
operate, and promote one or more fishing piers which are
publicly owned and operated. And -- and so there's part of that
designation that goes to the Naples Pier, and it comes out of the
Category A to go into Category D.
Category C is to acquire, construct, extend, enlarge,
remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or
more county-owned museums or museums that are owned and
operated by not-for-profit organizations that are open to the
public. And so that's kind of how it goes through the process.
And we'll talk about the percentages. We have a handout for
that. Am I right, Roy?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we do.
MR. MUDD: Let me give it to them right now while we're on
the topic. Kind of give you an idea of how that breaks down.
So in the Category A particular field, we could get into -- I
won't call it a conflict, but we -- we would have to share some of
the proceeds with park and rec if they were doing beach access.
Page 23
June 7, 2001
And one of the projects on the ten-year program that you've got
is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, okay, and that has to do
with -- and that's been in the paper. I don't have to go over the --
the process there, but it -- but it's there, and it's in part of the
ten-year program, and we'll lay that specifically out when we get
to the ten-year program as far as new business is concerned.
But this is how -- and this is what they approved at the last
meeting with the percentages as far as museums and -- and
tourism and -- and then the money that they need for fishing piers
in that process.
So you've got A, B, and C. And, again, the D category comes
out of A in the tune of about $200,000 a year for the Naples Pier
right now. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't -- you couldn't,
as a committee, establish a fishing pier someplace else and use
those dollars. For instance, the Naples pier doesn't need to be
renovated or repaired this year and there's money in that
particular category and you -- you decided that there needed to
be another fishing pier someplace else, maybe not in such a
grandiose method but -- but another one where people could fish
from, then we could go out there and use those dollars in order to
get that done.
Do I have any questions on the TDC rec -- sir?
MR. STRAPPONI: Are these ones that have already been
collected, or are these -- are these projected funds?
MR. MUDD: These are -- these are projections.
MR. STRAPPONI: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You know, because we're not finished with '01,
and then they're talking about '02, so it's a projection on what
they'll get. They're pretty close, though. MR. STRAPPONI: Are they?
MR. MUDD: They really are. They're pretty close.
MR. STRAPPONI: Do you just adjust -- excuse me. You just
Page 24
June 7, 2001
adjust accordingly if it's over or under?
MR. MUDD: Based on the percentage, yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: So we essentially are having funding for
Category A, B, and C but not for D at this point?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. We have -- we have funding for all of
those. The D category isn't there because it's in the A category.
That's the $200,000 I talked about. MR. GRAY: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: And in -- and in particular, we -- you as a
committee deal with the Category A. There is another
committee that talks on the parks and rec side of the house for
beach access, and theY will do the parking-garage issue, so we
won't have to get into that. We'll concentrate on how do we
update the beach and how do we work the control structures in
that process.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But also we have -- on the ten-year
spreadsheet we got last time, we have A, B, C, D, E, F. Those are
not the same as -- A is not the same as A, etc. MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: They're two different designations.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. All I did on that sheet was have Harry
concentrate on Category A. And you do have some park and rec
stuff in there on the Category A business ten-year plan.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Mudd, if I may, the mission statement, then,
are those the guidelines in the ordinance, or are they the
guidelines adopted for the board for the TDC? Only because in
the grant app -- applications I see the phrase about whether or
not -- whether the proposed expenditure furthers the objectives
outlined in the mission statement. I'm just trying to get an
understanding of what the mission statement is.
MR. MUDD: The mission statement for this committee?
MR. PIRES: Or just the commission statement. That phrase
Page 25
June 7, 2001
is used in all the grant applications that we have in our packet.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It would be -- it would be to -- the
mission statement of the TDC based on the categories -- MR. PIRES: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and what it would be used for, not necessarily
the mission statement for the particular committee that came up
with those recommendations.
And as -- as my -- my finance director just came up to me, he
says that Category D, the pier, the money's there; the $200,000 is
there, but it doesn't necessarily get used every year. Okay. So
it's up to the committee to -- you know, you've just -- we've just
done a ma]or renovation. For instance -- let's take an example.
You just done a major renovation to the Naples pier last year.
You did -- we did something to it, okay, replaced the planks or
whatever. And it looks like it's going to be good for a three-year
period of time, and we don't foresee a problem.
You've got 200 K there and you decided that you wanted to
put a fishing pier in Marco Island someplace; you could use those
dollars in order to start that project, may it be a design or site -- a
site survey or the permit process in order to get ready to -- to do
that, and the pier could be -- could be done in stages. Okay, you
could put on one section, and then you could extend it out a little
bit farther the next year or whatever. But it's there, and it
doesn't get used every year and hasn't been used every year.
And I think that most people that have some -- some experience
with the committee, in the past we have not been very
successful in spending all our program, okay. And that -- and --
and I think that's a pretty true statement. And I think it would be
a real -- my -- my opinion it would be a real success story if we
put projects out on the agenda that were doable and we got the
TDC to allocate those dollars and then executed that program
instead of letting those dollars and projects just kind of slip away
Page 26
June 7, 2001
and then all of a sudden somebody has a good idea and -- and
they move those monies from its intended purpose.
So I will tell you, in the past we haven't been successful in
expending the dollars that have been allocated in order to get
the beach done, and I don't think it was because of a lack of
projects.
MR. GRAY: As -- as we are looking at the proposals for this
coming fiscal year, all of these projects have come from TDC.
Does that mean that projects will always come from TDC, or can
this committee bring forth projects of their own?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Those -- those projects all came from
the staff and were submitted to the TDC. The way -- the way I
look at your mission statement, your charter, this committee
devises the projects that need to be done for the beach and the
areas around the beach in order to maintain it as a quality -- as a
-- as a quality site for tourists. We go out -- once you -- once the
committee comes to consensus on it's a good project, then they
need more detail; then we'll go out there and get an AE firm to
look at it, do site surveys, get all those things that need to be
done, and come back with estimates. In that process I would
say to the committee, I wouldn't worry that much about the
dollars, okay. I really wouldn't. I'd really worry about the
projects. And we'll put them together. And we'll make them fit.
Okay. As far as the budget is concerned, I think we have
enough leeway -- and we'll talk about the ten-year program you
asked me about before, Mr. Chairman, where the latitude is in
that, and we'll talk about specifically where it is.
And once those projects are there and we start laying those
out as far -- in a prioritized manner and we can lay them out over
a ten-year program or whenever it needs to be, or if we want to
go out farther than that, we can -- or you can, and we'll lay those
out, and we'll start notching them down. And if somebody
Page 27
June 7, 2001
doesn't spend their dollars in their program, then we have a -- I
call it a UFR, an unfinanced requirement, but it's our next priority
down from the cut line, and we have the dollars based in the TD
fund -- TDC funds to -- to bring it up forward, we can -- you as a
committee can -- can go to the TDC and say, "Hey, we'd like to --
we'd like to bring that up on the line instead of doing it next
year," and that project that you have as a slippage, you can move
out in its place, and you can get your project done a little bit
earlier. We can do the savings and slippage, too, with them, and
we haven't done that in the past. At least I haven't seen it done
in the past.
MR. GRAY: So the projects can basically then come from
most anywhere but probably would be funneled through staff and
then to TDC and then to us. MR. MUDD: No, sir.
MR. GRAY: Or to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: It would be -- it could be funneled from the staff
or to you, and you can bring them up in this committee section,
or we'll bring them up to you. If -- if the TDC comes up with an
idea for a project, my recommend -- and the Board of County
Commissioners, my recommendation is that they talk to the
chairman or the vice-chairman or one of the members on the
Coastal Advisory Committee and get that project going through
the proper process.
I think some people have been frustrated in the Beach
Renourishment Council meetings that I saw -- I heard one time -- I
heard a couple times when I went to the meetings where they
said, "Well, it doesn't make a difference what we recommend
because they're going to outvote us." and I -- I think they got the
committees out of whack. If you think of the Coastal Advisory
Committee as the -- as the committee that has the ideas for the
projects, they submit them to the TDC for the dollars, and then
Page 28
June 7, 2001
those two things tie together, and they go to the Board of County
Commissioners for an approval. I think if they go that way like
they're supposed to in the manner I just described, you won't be
frustrated because you get overvoted because everybody knows
if you have an idea for a project, it goes to this forum and you
don't get circumvented at the TDC or the BCC.
And -- and I will try, when it -- if somebody comes up on the
di -- I've only heard it one time on the dais of the Board of County
Commissioners, and I talked to the commissioner afterwards and
asked if they would be so kind to put that down in the proper
process so that it could be -- it could be diagnosed -- the problem
could be diagnosed and a solution could be formed and,
therefore, put in -- in the proper perspective as far as the projects
are concerned.
So from my side, as the public utilities administrator, I will
try to make sure that the ideas for projects always come -- come
back to this committee and that they don't get formed someplace
else. They get formed here; they get examined here, scrutinized
here, and formed; and they're part of the overall program. And so
it just isn't a good idea that bounced around a little bit and then
showed up on a thing and then you're stuck with it, but it really
doesn't fit in, but it -- but it might have served a particular
interest.
MR. ROELLIG: Well, just as a matter of history for some of
the new board members, what happened this year was an
anomaly because most of these projects didn't come before the
old advisory committee. And then the TDC met, and they
approved them subject to the approval of -- of the new
committee, this -- the sitting committee. Normally these projects
would have been approved that we're looking today, let's say, in
the April time frame. And I assume that's what will happen next
year. Next April, somewhere around there, it will come before
Page 29
June 7, 2001
this committee, and then the TDC will meet in May or whatever,
and it will go up the normal progression, but this year is sort of
anomaly as far as how it's -- the TDC approved it subject to the
approval of this committee. But normally it would be the other
way around, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: When you talked earlier about not
effectively spending all the funds available in years past, even
our ten-year spreadsheet here shows substantial carry forwards.
And am I -- am I mixing apples and oranges or --
MR. MUDD: No, I think what -- as you lay out your ten-year
plan, you -- you've got a -- I'm looking for my ten-year plan.
MR. ANDERSON: This is the new one, the newer version.
MR. MUDD: As carry you carry out your ten-year plan, and I'd
really ask you to focus on the projects. To the top where it says
"revenues, alternative 1," ignore that because that's the old TDC
ordinance. I'd ask you to focus on "revenues, alternative 2,"
which is that shaded area.
Sir, you're absolutely right. You do have carry forward in --
in the -- on the programs. But if you take a look at the carry
forward down in Alternative 2, what'll happen is you'll have a
rather large event, in particular 2006 and 2007. And, oh, by the
way, this is the best the staff could do at the time.
You'll notice that there's a $6.1 million program in -- if you look at
Section B-2-A where it says construction, Collier County, City of
Naples, $6,100 (sic), that's the next ma]or hydraulic dredge
renourishment of the beach.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yeah. And -- and as you said last
time, it's fiscal year '07. We get down to half a million when
we're projecting out like that, that is, you know, for planning
purposes, more or less zero. But then I guess after that it builds
up significantly again. So -- a lot of it is -- maybe all of it is cash
flow management, I guess, waiting for the big projects --
Page 30
June 7, 2001
MR. MUDD: No, not necessarily. You were asking before
about where's our flexibility. And I -- and I think you'll see after
that big event -- oh, and by the way, we also talked about the
Corps of Engineers and the ability to cost share with federal
partners. If we're able to -- to get a coastal renourishment
project approved and cost shared through that -- it's normally a
two-year study process; we got time to do it -- if I can have them
belly up to the bar with 65 percent of that, okay, you're talking
about a $4 million influx of dollars from the federal government
against our 2 million, our 35 percent cost share. And oh, by the
way, you now have $4 million worth of flexibility in your budget
to bring in projects.
And -- and you were asking about where that leeway was,
and that carry forward is one place; that's in another. Those
dollars are allocated, and it -- and it behooves this committee to
have a list of potential projects lined up so that they're there.
They're based on a year's budget. If one slips because of a
permit issue, then you can slip one in that you had a permit for.
You can -- you can move that one to the next FY. The permit
comes in; you can add it to that budget.
If you have a couple that are below the line that we're
looking for that federal cost-share money or grant money that
costs in order to bring them above the cut line, it shows up,
we're now in business for those projects. So you're going to have
to have those permits there, the plans done, the design ready to
go. And then, oh, by the way, we have enough folks on standby
on -- independent -- excuse me, IDIQ, indefinite quantity type
quantit -- or contracts so that you can get them done.
One of the things I've asked the PMs to do is to -- in -- in the
upland sand issue, to -- to find at least three vendors that have
the right quality-type sand so we don't get into this dilemma that
we just went through with the -- with the sand we put on the
Page 31
June 7, 2001
beach this last time. We have the sand samples all approved by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We've
learned by our mistakes a little bit. Make sure that they're
sampled. The vendors are there. We give them a minimum
quantity that we want from them in any given year, and we also
give them a maximum that we could want from them, have that
truck contract set for multiple years, that hauling contract. And
then when our windows, our 45-day windows in the spring and
the fall, come upon us, we engage. We don't go through a panic
in order to get the sand and then another panic to get the truck
company bonded like we did this time. I mean, there was some
real panic.
I said, "Wait a minute. We got a contract with somebody
that isn't bonded?" well, they got a letter coming. I'm going,
"Oh, you got to be kidding me." And as the time's ticking away,
our -- it's -- we're in our 45 days, and now we've got 29 days to
execute. And then we -- we're jumping through hoops. That's not
the right way to do business. We know when those times are.
We should be ready. We've got 270 other days in a year we can
get ready to go do this. Let's get ready to go do this and make
sure that when the -- when the gun sounds we're out of the box
and we're running and we're executing.
And that's been one of problems in the past. We haven't
thought -- the staff hasn't thought far enough ahead -- and I -- I'll
say staff in this particular case, but when you only have one
person on it, you've got a lot of things going on, and that's why
we've added another PM in that process so that we can have
more eyes on -- on the different projects, and at the same time
we can get ahead of the ballgame a little bit as far as projects,
permits, and -- and the paper requirements from -- from all the
different bureaucracies that have to touch it before we can
execute and to get that ready to go in order to do it.
Page 32
June 7, 2001
So in the past we haven't been able to spend it for one
reason or another. We'd like to get ourselves in a very proactive
manner in the future so that if you have it on the agenda and it's
on for that year's budget, we're going to execute it to the best of
our ability.
Now, there's always some event that happens, the sea
turtles come in early or something -- I don't know -- you get
invaded by sea turtles, and it has to stop the project. Okay, you
have to postpone it maybe into the next FY, into the next fall.
But there's ways to do that, and there's projects that you can
bring on instead and still execute your program that you have
envisioned for the county, and it's a multiple-year program. It's
not necessarily what's tomorrow and what are we doing today.
But you got out there, and you've got some flexibility within your
own committee.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And I -- I think at -- at this juncture we need to
talk about the budget overview in the -- in the work plan. One of
the -- the key ingredients of this forum this time was to get the
tenures down and to get the work plan approved or not approved
or modified or whatever so that we could get to the TDC on the
25th of June before the summer recess so that we didn't miss
the budget window. And, again, the TDC has said, "It's
tentatively approved based on your approval." so if you don't like
it or you don't want it or you don't vote for it, it's not there. And
so that's -- it isn't a foregone conclusion is what I'm trying to say.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for discussion before
we get into the presentation, our law firm in the past has
performed legal services for Brett Moore individually. And we're
not retained by them at the present time, and I just wanted to
make sure -- I talked to David Weigel briefly about that. One of
our associates who used to be in our firm did do some other legal
Page 33
June 7, 2001
work for some individuals. And I'm not sure if they are under
contract with the county and that their contracts are contingent
upon any of the funding sources here. Just a quick reading of the
statute, I don't believe I have a conflict, but I wanted to make
that known to the committee and to the staff. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We'd like to make a little
presentation on the recommended projects for the FY '02. Once
again, I'm Roy Anderson, director of engineering for the public
utilities division.
Basically, we have -- we've based the projects that we've
contained in here on the submittal that was made by Harry Huber
-- well, by our department -- to the TDC. There have been some
minor changes here and there which I'll explain as we go
through, but it's mostly because this process occurred at the
same time our administrative budget process was going on
where we were, you know, projecting what we needed to spend
for next year, so there has been some upward and downward
refinement.
If you will open your package to the first page, that's where
the list of projects starts. And what I've also done is to insert
some photographic references in the back which -- where -- you
know, in cases where we had pictorials, you know, to iljustrate
what we're talking about or, you know, we -- or if we had them
available or if they fit, we -- we enclosed them to -- to help with
your understanding of the project.
The first project is project management fees, and that's
really the heart of our operation. It's this -- this element has a
total cost of $280,200, and it's comprised of three staff positions
which -- who run the program: Harry Huber, who is the project
leader, and a Project Manager 1/11 and a field inspector, Al
Madsen, who is our full-time field inspector. And basically this is
Page 34
June 7, 2001
the group that puts all this documentation together, coordinates
with all the consulting engineers, supervises the contractors, and
applies for any grants, whatever, takes care of public information
requests. So this is our core function.
And previously when we made the original submission, the
amount was $213,300, and now we're at 280,000. And there are
two primary reasons for that. One is just simply because we
went into a more detailed budget presentation -- or preparation
for the whole county for our entire budget. So there were some
refinements.
And, secondly, there was a -- a increase infringe benefit, you
know, in medical insurance and those kind of things which --
which caused the price to -- to go up. So that's -- but that's
where we are, and that's -- that's what's reflected in our
approved -- well, our -- our budget submittal to the county is
280,000.
Would you -- would you like to discuss each item
individually, or did you just want me just to run through
everything and hold the questions to the end, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, we -- we -- I'd welcome
questions from anyone, of course, but we discussed many of the
items in -- in some detail last time. So what I would suggest is
running through them very quickly -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- or -- or even just pausing at each
one to see if we have any further questions from the committee.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But we did do a lot of that last
time.
MR. GRAY: I have just one question. That difference
between the two thirteen and the two eighty, the app, grant
application that came through, is that going to be changed?
Page 35
June 7, 2001
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it will. Yes, yes. That will be updated
after this meeting. That is correct. Number two --
MR. ROELLIG: Are we going to approve each one as we go
along, make a motion to approve this?
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What I thought, we would go
through and discuss the work plan. MR. ROELLIG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And then take a motion to
approve. And if there's something that someone objects to, I'm
sure we can take a motion to approve except for this project or
that project.
MR. ANDERSON: The next project is the Wiggins Pass inlet,
and this is a project to do engineering and construction for
dredging in Wiggins Pass, $472,000.
MR. MUDD: Did you bring a -- did you bring one of those inlet
pass management -- MR. ANDERSON:
Caxambas Pass.
Yes, I did. I brought a sample for
MR. MUDD: Caxambas Pass. We asked last time what the
management plan looked like. We just bring it by. We didn't
bring stacks of them. They're pretty thorough when you -- when
you get into when you need to dredge and how you do the inlet
management so ...
MR. PIRES: If I may, the professional services that would be
needed for this, have they already been -- the design engineers or
engineers already been selected, or is that subject to an RFP
down the road?
MR. MUDD: That's -- that's subject to an RFP down the road.
We -- the county let Coastal leave, okay, and let them go, and
that's been in the paper here lately too. And I won't go back over
that. And Humiston we're using right now. We need to submit
back out for an IDIQ for an AE firm or two AE firms multiple years
Page 36
June 7, 2001
that will serve as -- as our architect engineering firms to help us
as we start examining projects and laying out that design. So
we're going to send out a RFP and probably select two firms to
help us in that process. But right now we're using Humiston
because they do have some subject matter expertise in their firm
as far as coastal engineering is concerned.
MR. PIRES: And so with the new FY 2001-2002, it will be a
new --
MR. MUDD: We're going to put out -- we're going to put out
new-- I'm sorry.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We're going to put out new contracts this -- this
summer and get those awarded before the new fiscal year starts.
MR. ANDERSON: The next item is sea turtle monitoring.
This is a program we discussed earlier. Maura Kraus, who was
here at the last meeting, is head of that program, $134,400. For
incremental beach maint--
MR. ROELLIG: I have a question on that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. ROELLIG: It talks about giving a grant to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service out of some of this money. I'd like -- you
know, it's just a little unusual to me for the county providing
grant money to the federal government. I don't know where I
picked that up.
MS. LUPO: The second-to-the-last page.
MR. ANDERSON: What are you referring to, Mr. Roellig?
MS. LUPO: It says under the question, "Does the proposed
expenditure promote environmental awareness?" my
understanding -- "Does the proposed project address
environmental considerations?" and it says yes. And then the
last sentence, "A separate grant to the USFWS will hopefully fund
this aspect of the program.".
Page 37
June 7, 2001
MR. ROELLIG: This is on -- that's -- well, it's just a bullet.
MR. MUDD: I will -- I will -- I will find out real quick, and we'll
make a phone call. But I think that's a grant from, not a grant to.
I agree with -- I agree with you, sir. We don't normally give grants
to federal agencies.
MR. ROELLIG: No. It's not unheard of, but it's a little
unusual. That's my comment.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: One thing, as we go through these
-- I raised this last week. If you could note with some of these --
we don't have to have exact dollar figures, but if you could note
items which are -- are really continuing programs that we do
annually. For example, I assume sea turtle monitoring would fall
into that --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yeah, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- in that -- you know, that is just a
normal progression in costs. It's not a -- an unusual or -- or
intermittent project, or there's not a huge change in activity.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That's certainly the case with 3, the
sea turtle monitoring. And it's the case with 4, the incremental
beach maintenance. That's the -- that's the placement of the
50,000, roughly, cubic yards of sand per year.
MR. MUDD: Now, that -- that hadn't been done for five years
and was done this year, should have been done every year.
We've got some catching up to do, as far as that's concerned.
And as the years progress, we're adding 5 cubic yards. And then
when you get around 2006 in the 10-year plan, when we get
there, we'll talk about it. We start doubling it, and we get into
quantities of a hundred thousand cubic yards, putting them on
the beach.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And the -- the surveying or
whatever you might call it to find exactly where the sand will be
Page 38
June 7, 2001
placed, that's not been done yet, has it, the locations that will be
MR. MUDD: It has. There's several places that we have
active permits for in order to -- to do the beach renourishment.
But I'd ask the committee as they go out and talk to their
constituents and people start funneling ideas or areas that need
to be refurbished, that you bring them to us so that we can get
out on the permit side of the house, find out if the permit is
active or if we have to go on out there and get one.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Does it typically work in a reactive
mode like that where -- where somebody from the public has to
say, "My beach isn't any good anymore" or -- or is there an
engineer or surveyor or something that -- that traverses the coast
annually ?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Our inspector does traverse the
area, so he's got a good -- a regular update on the conditions.
And I might add that that -- that's a good point that these
conditions are subject to change very rapid -- very rapidly with
storm events so that our priority list today may -- may need to
change tomorrow, but we would bring that information back to --
to you and --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So we'll take public's -- as we
always should, we'll take public comment, but also we actively
go out and -- and monitor.
MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. Yes, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: As a -- as a backup, the past meetings always
-- either a weekly or a biweekly inspection of all of the beaches
here -- Mr. Madsen -- and so at every meeting we got an update
on any hot spots or critical erosion areas that were coming up.
So we were always informed of that at every meeting as a matter
of history.
MR. MUDD: We still have that.
Page 39
June 7, 2001
MR. ROELLIG: Right.
MR. MUDD: The worst thing is Harry's in the hospital and
Al's on leave, so I'm at a little bit of a -- but -- but I've seen Al --
I've seen Al's logs, and he -- he does on a daily basis go out and
inspect and bring those logs back, take pictures and those kind
of things.
For instance, this year we put 41,000 cubic yards during the
month of April out on the beach. We kept 9,000 cubic yards as a
standby to see how the hurricane season goes. And if there is a
hot spot that we can get to it in October with sand that's
available and has already been produced and we still have some -
- some -- some truck money with the firm that we have that we
finally got them to be bonded in order to do that in the April time
frame.
MR. GRAY: Also, pricing this at $20 a cubic yard, then that's
assuming that our -- our source will be an inland source, as we
used this past year?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is -- this is -- this is specifically
laid on as an in -- as an upland source for sand. And we do it on a
-- on a yearly basis. And in about every five years, we do a very
large hydraulic renourishment effort. The last large hydraulic
effort that transpired had rocks on the beach, and -- and we -- I
think we all know about the consequences of that problem.
MR. GRAY: And I guess it could be that as we go forward,
we might want to always use an upland source, as long as there
is supply there --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: -- rather than go back to the gulf.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. One of the things that -- that I had a
conversation with -- with a person that we're going to hire, okay,
for -- for -- for beach -- we're going to move Harry to a -- to a
different job and transition another gentleman into the PM-3
Page 40
June 7, 2001
position, and we're out there looking for a hire right now, and I've
got a contingent hire on that person. He's an Annapolis
graduate, 20 years dredging coastland design, that process, all
kinds of training structures, pretty -- has the requirements for the
job.
But as I was talking to him, in the dredging event, you know,
he basically said, "Well, what happens if I have the dredging
event and -- and we've basically done our job but we still have
time and equipment and there's money out there, and it takes
time to mobilize a dredge?" I said, "You're absolutely right." and
he says, "Is there anything wrong with finding a storage site for
the material so that you could use it in follow-on years in order to
-- to put that sand out there?" I said, "Absolutely not." and he --
he said, "Is there anybody that says you can't do that?" and I
said, "Well, I don't think I want to put it next to the Ritz-Carlton."
but we can find those places, and it's that kind of initiative that
we need in the program to do those kind of things. But we're
concentrating in making sure that we have an upland source of
sand every year if we need it in those -- in those indefinite
delivery and definite quantity-type contracts there so that it's
there if we have to have it, and -- and we've got that sand to put
out there. And you're right; you need to have it. You need to
have that source there readily available, and you need to be able
to execute on it --
MR. GRAY: Quick.
MR. MUDD: -- quick. And you've got that -- again, you've got
that 45-day and -- 45-day window that you've got to work.
MR. ANDERSON: The next item, No. 5, is beach-cleaning
operations, and that's a slight -- that's a downward adjustment.
Originally we had 241,500, and based on updated projections, it's
206,400, and that's a continuing program.
No. 6 is beach-cleaning equipment, and this varies a little bit
Page 41
June 7, 2001
from year to year. Last year we bought a lot of equipment. This
year this -- for this proposed fiscal year we just proposed to
replace one beach rake for $42,000 so that the total for that is
forty-six five. And, again, that's a recurring --
MR. ROELLIG: I have a question on that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: The previous one you have parts and
maintenance for forty-six five. I presume it's just coincidental
they're both the same amount.
MR. ANDERSON: It's -- they're just termed different. They're
-- it's the same amount. It's the same item. It's the same item.
MR. ROELLIG: Well -- no. The -- this -- the item you're talking
about now, the forty-six five, is not included in the -- what was it -
- two oh six, is it?
MR. ANDERSON: That is -- that is over the two oh six.
MR. ROELLIG: What I'm saying, in the -- in the previous
number, two ten, there was item for parts and maintenance for
forty-six five.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: There's a line -- there's a line item
for beach-cleaning operations. Looking at the application,
there's a line item for parts and maintenance --
MR. ROELLIG: I just want to make sure we're not double
counting.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- which is forty-six five.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The beach --yeah. The breakdown
that I have here is Item A-6, beach-cleaning equipment, was in
the original application. That's forty-six five and --
MR. ROELLIG: The prior one, the beach-cleaning operation,
we have -- Item No. 2, parts and maintenance, also is
coincidentally two -- forty-six five.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In essence, I think the question is,
is it a coincidence that it's the same number, or is it a double
Page 42
June 7, 2001
count?
MR. MUDD'- Sir, I'm going to have to find that out.
MR. ROELLIG: No problem.
MR. GRAY: While we're talking about that, you said in Item 5
that we're going to two ten five? The app that we had from the
last time we met said two oh six four? I'm sorry. The last time it
said two ten five, and now it says two oh six four.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. You started it and said it -- he's come --
we've come down off that number a little bit as we sharpened our
pencil.
MR. GRAY: Okay. I thought he said that -- okay. I'm with
you.
MR. ANDERSON: The next item, No. 7, beach and inlet
maintenance, is -- is a continuing project, and we propose
$195,000 for that. And that's exactly as it was in the original
application.
Number 8, annual monitoring, likewise, that's the same as it
was previously. And I have a photo exhibit for that, 471,800.
MR. ROELLIG: Excuse me again. Item 7, on the first item,
dune maintenance, you have 2 1/2 acres at $5,000 an acre. Is
that -- I'm not nickel-diming you here, but I'm just kind of curious
what -- what that was --
MR. MUDD: What he basically does on those dunes?
MR. ROELLIG: Right.
MR. MUDD.' From what I can get from Harry when I talked
about dune maintenance with him, they go out in those particular
areas where there's erosions from the dunes, and they start
planting sea grasses and things like that that -- that -- that go
through that process in order to hold them in place. And that's
basically an estimate of what -- what's -- what it's cost us in a
particular area in the past. So he puts it down in the budget,
says, "Hey, it -- we normally do about 5 acres a year," and -- and
Page 43
June 7, 2001
that's how the budget part came about. MR. ROELLIG: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But it's a continuing effort to make sure that
they're planted. Once you've got dunes, you want to keep them.
MR. ROELLIG: Right.
MR. MUDD: And -- and so you got to stay on top of the -- that
process because as things die, you got to replant them to keep it
there so ...
MR. ROELLIG: So this has a lot of unit -- items on it. This
could fluctuate --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: -- year to year.
MR. MUDD: You could -- you could go out there and say,
"Hey, I don't -- I only had to do an acre this year." okay. And
those dollars would -- those dollars would move forward. And
that's -- that's the particular issue I was getting with you earlier.
Yes, you have a plan; you have the budget. It could change
based on whether it could be a really good year where you don't
have to maintain as much and then you've got those extra
dollars. That -- that's why it behooves the committee to have
several projects on -- on -- below the line but prioritized that
could slip in when those dollars are there in order -- in order to
get those projects funded because your next year could be a very
bad year. You could have -- I can't find any wood, but you could
have a severe -- an event, and it would cause you to put a lot of
extra dollars into -- into projects that you didn't have before. So
maybe some projects would have to not get done in that
particular year. So you've got some room, and we need to make
sure that we -- we're agile enough in that -- in that program in
order to get and have that room and have those projects
identified. And I would say in this budget submission they're not
there.
Page 44
June 7, 2001
I asked -- I asked Harry as he was drawing it up, I said,
"Harry, do me a favor." i said, "Show me what the budget's going
to look like based on stuff that we've habitually done." I don't
see anything new except Hideaway Beach, that -- that one area
that's in there as far as the boardwalk or beach renourishment is
the two options that we talked about last time that really jumped
out of the page at me. And that's because they were previously
submitted to several committees.
MR. ANDERSON: The next item is annual monitoring. And in
general this involves field measurements for recording and
preparation of reports that describe the -- the impact -- that refer
to the impact of the projects that we do and to create
background information. So these are the proposed locations,
and the amount is 47 -- $471,800.
MR. GRAY: Question on that: Does, in fact, it cost a half
million dollars to do this kind of work? Historically is that what
it's cost?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. For this magnitude of work. Yes.
There's a lot of mobilization, field work, putting of sophisticated
instrumentation there for continuous recording of-- of-- of water
levels and cross-sectional areas to see the change in the bottom
contours that occur so that there's a tremendous amount of field
work. And it's done by consulting engineers.
MR. GRAY: These -- these are through the engineer--
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. GRAY: -- like Humiston Moore or --
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
MR. GRAY: Also--
MR. MUDD: And, sir, you might have a -- and during this --
you know, this is -- this is a best guess of where it is right now. I
mean, the contract hasn't been cut for any of this yet, so it you --
it could come under. And -- and habitually in -- in the past if, for
Page 45
June 7, 2001
instance, you got this monitoring group and it's such and such a
dollar and you decide that you need a project in this particular
area that falls in that thing, that that -- that examination by the
AE firm for that project to lay that out would be part of the
dollars that were in there. So it does a little bit more. You'll
notice in the budget there's no place that says, well, this is for
AE firms, okay, to go out there and -- and examine your
particular areas. It basically happens in that annual monitoring
budget.
MR. PIRES: And with these, once again, as you indicated,
you're asking for RFPs or requests for proposals for the various
firms; are they annual contracts or multiyear contracts?
because, as Mr. Anderson indicated, that it entails mobilizing,
you know, various equipment and monitoring devices at times.
Are they out there continuously or just on an intermittent basis?
MR. MUDD: No. The -- for instance, the Coastal Engineering
contract was a multiple-year contract, and I can't tell you how
far it went back, but it --it was a fairly lengthy process. I mean, I
see Mr. Pollack -- Pollack's (phonetic) going all the way back to
'95, okay, as you went through the "beaches through the rocks
case." and -- so that was a lengthy con -- what I'd like to do is
get at least two contracts and have them so that they're offset
so that they don't give up both of them in -- in the third year. You
have one for three years; you have another for two, and then you
can start offsetting them so that you don't lose all your expertise
or your institutional knowledge in the -- in the contract process.
And you don't have all your eggs in one basket.
And I think we need to do that to be a little bit more
successful. And if -- and if we -- if you as a committee look at a
report that -- that one of those engineering firms provides to you
or the staff provides you and you -- and it doesn't pass the
common-sense test -- okay, you -- engineers are supposed to use
Page 46
June 7, 200t
that -- and it doesn't .- and it doesn't make it, you have another
firm that can go out and take a look and do an independent
technical review for you, and we haven't had that in the past.
And I think it -- it -- it would be smart business process for us
to have that so that you can -- you can get two opinions if you
need it. It isn't a simple project, and it looks a little complicated.
It just -- something just isn't right, doesn't smell right, doesn't
feel good in your gut; you can go out there and get a second
opinion.
MR. GRAY: I have another question on 8. I think this is a
safe assumption, but I have to ask. The Item 1, the 244,200 for
Collier County beach restoration, that's including Naples, City of
Naples, and Collier County, other than Marco Island -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: -- basically. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: I just want to make sure Naples is taken care of.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I don't think Dr. Staiger would let me
get away with that.
MR. ANDERSON: The next item is Hideaway Beach
renourishment, a project to renourish Hi -- Hideaway Beach on
Marco Island. This is the permits, the engineering design,
meetings, sand, survey, permits, and permit fees and -- and -- and
other contingencies, about 335,500. And, again, this is as per
the original application.
MS. LUPO: And that's for the entire area -- from the T-groin
at the west end of the fill, that's for the existing beach? That
doesn't include the proposed new fill that they've requested?
That's under a different item?
MR. MUDD: That's right, ma'am.
MS. LUPO: And this is just an annual renourishment?
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It's annual?
Page 47
June 7, 2001
MS. LUPO: Or biannual.
MR. MUDD: Well, this isn't -- this isn't -- this is not annual,
okay. This is -- this is -- right now Hideaway Beach has got
themselves a problem.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Because I was going to say-- I
mean, my understanding is -- I'm going to clearly not be very
technical, but what we consider renourishments generally need
to be done every five years or so; isn't that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I know that conditions can vary
along a coastline, but as a general statement -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- that would be pretty much on
the mark, I hope.
MR. MUDD: This is a particular project for Hideaway Beach.
In order to -- in order to get them up to -- Hideaway Beach is to
the point in time, the beach is going away. And it looks like
they're going to run into a bunch of walls if they don't do some --
some -- if we don't take some -- some -- I call it drastic action,
some immediate action. And this is part of that process in order
to get that beach in some kind of shape where it just doesn't
disappear on them.
This also gets into the T-groin aspect that we're doing right
now. We're putting two T-groins -- and we are right now taking
dredge material -- I talked about those pipes that the turtle got
stuck on. We're -- we're trying to renourish right now and get
part of that process done along with two additional T-groins put
in so that we try to protect that beach.
MS. LUPO: Is there public access to that beach right now?
MR. MUDD: Yes, there is. But right now you have to wade
through water in order to get to it. And if -- if we -- if we get to
Item No. 12, that's the access issue we need to talk about a little
Page 48
June 7, 2001
bit.
MR. KROESCHELL: That's what I -- my question is. This
assuming that there will be public access to the beach, then,
that --
MR. MUDD: Sir, it is a pub -- it is public beach right now.
MR. KROESCHELL: It is a public beach.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's just -- you've got to get through
private landowners in order to get there, okay. And that makes it
difficult. So the only way that you can get to the beach is
through Tigertail or to bring your boat and -- and -- and bring it up
to the sand side. But it is a public beach. If it wasn't a public
beach, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think, also, the question is more-
- even if the beach itself is public, you know, is it reasonably
easy to -- to get there?
MR. MUDD: Right now it's not --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: The answer is no.
MR. MUDD: It's not easy to get there, ma'am, unless you're
really determined. Now, I can get determined with you one day,
and we'll go find it, but you -- basically, if you're going to walk,
you need to get there from Tigertail Beach, which has parking
and things in order to get there, and you have to go north from
Tigertail and walk. And if it's Iow tide, you'll be high and dry.
And if it -- if the tide's going up, you're going to get knee deep.
MS. LUPO: So if we renourish their beach, we have to get to
the beach through adjacent landowners? We can't get through it
to Hide -- through Hideaway per se?
MR. MUDD: That's right.
MS. LUPO: Okay.
MR. GRAY: The $130,000 item in here that's labeled as
"sand search," is that the actual sand?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What -- what -- what we do with
Page 49
June 7, 2001
Hideaway, because you can't get to it with a truck, I have no way
-- we just talked about it. You can't get to it from somebody's
backyard or from a side street or whatnot. The only way to get
Hidea -- to get Hideaway Beach and get sand to it is to find a
sand source out in the water. And once you find it and it's the
right-quality sand and you test it, you do the samples, is to
hydraulically dredge that sand and put it on the beach. The other
way to do it is to bring it in by barge, but that's quite expensive.
MR. GRAY: We need --
MR. ROELLIG: I thought we brought some sand into
Hideaway this --
MR. MUDD: We--
MR. ROELLIG: -- past April.
MR. MUDD: We did -- we -- we did a little bit, and I think it
was a limited access. We didn't get as much as we would have
liked to. But it was about, I'd say, one-quarter of the total
quantity.
MR. ROELLIG: You know, prior knowledge, there was about
15,000 yards we were looking to put there earlier this spring.
MR. MUDD: I think we got about twelve.
MR. ROELLIG: Twelve.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You know, I think we almost have
to talk about 9, which is the renourishment, and 12 together,
because I'll be the first to admit, I have not -- I've been to Marco
Island. If you told me to meet you at Hideaway Beach, I'd have
to ask. I'll get familiar now that I'm serving on -- on this
committee. But I know in principle what I would object to, and
that is, even if it's a public beach, to renourishing it, if the only
reasonable access was if you own beachfront property right
there.
MS. LUPO: Do we have a presentation, or is a presentation
going to be made on No. 127 because I don't think that we
Page 50
June 7, 2001
actually got to that at the last meeting. I think that was towards
the end where we compiled them altogether and said we'd talk
about them next time.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And someone -- I think that's a
very good point. And anyone who is more familiar with Marco
than I -- I -- we need to -- to address the meat of what the access
will be and also my query. I don't think we should be -- I'll - I'll
hedge it because I -- I also understand that we need to maintain
our coastline. But in principle, if we're renourishing a beach that
has realistically only private access, even though it's a public
beach, I'd have a problem with that.
MR. PIRES: I guess, just following up on what you indicated,
the Item No. 12, I agree with you, tends to go together that when
we talk about in the applications, describe how the project
enhances county tourist development programs, No. 9 says it will
enhance the public access and viability of the area's major
tourist attraction, that seems like that almost goes with No. 12,
as opposed to No. 9, whereas No. 12 says the success of this
project will ensure appropriate use of public funds, which I'm not
sure where that goes. That's a big circle, that if you use money
right, then we will be -- so I think -- I tend to agree that No. 12
needs to be looked at in conjunction with No. 9, because if that's
successful and that works, then we have the beach access.
Number 9 by itself doesn't provide that.
MR. ROELLIG: I'd like to make a comment on this. And I'm --
I want to give a little more history on Hideaway Beach. And I
don't want to speak for the Marco Island people that are more
familiar, but there's two other reasons why this has been funded
in the past. One, back in the early '90s when they did a
renourishment on -- on Marco Island, this was part of that project,
so there is some precedent. That's No. 1.
Number 2, my understanding is -- and -- and if we had a
Page 51
June 7, 2001
consultant, they could discuss this -- the dredging of the passes
there has led to a condition where the -- the water is flowing out
faster during the tidal exchanges and has contributed to the
erosion here at Hideaway Beach. So there's a couple of other
factors that are -- come to play in this. And I just bring this up for
your consideration. And one is that, as I said, it had been in a
previous beach nourishment project; and, two, you might say
activities funded by the TDC, in a sense, dredging of those
passes, seems to increase the -- the speed of the flow which is a
cause of increased erosion there. It's not a -- quite a black-and-
white situation. And -- and I don't want to put words in the Marco
Island people's face -- mouth, but that's basically been my
somewhat comfort level with -- with doing Hideaway.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And that's why I'd like to
understand it a little bit more because that's what I was trying to
say by just saying, you know, I wanted to hedge myself a little bit
because there can be other coastal or environmental reasons.
But I think it's -- I think it's a hurdle to climb if -- if we're talking
about a beach that doesn't in -- in a common-sense fashion
doesn't have public access.
MR. MUDD: One of the -- one of the problems with the
Hideaway Beach has been the public access. And if-- and I don't
think this is too far of -- astray, but I -- if it would be all right with
the -- with the chairman, I'd like Mr. Anderson to talk about that a
little bit, if-- because he has more knowledge into this particular
issue than I do, okay, and he -- and everything I do know about it
he's given to me either in a paper or in conversations or -- or
whatever. Would that be--
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I'd be happy to do.
Mr. Anderson, are you appearing as a citizen or in an
advocacy role or -- or what?
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bruce Anderson.
Page 52
June 7, 2001
I'm here as the attorney for the Hideaway Beach Association.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: We have here in the audience a member of
the Hideaway Beach Association board and the general manager
of the Hideaway Beach Association. As the former chairman of
the beach renourishment committee was just sharing with you,
there is a long history to the renourishment efforts out on Marco
Island and at Hideaway Beach. And just by way of some -- I need
to get some legal background on -- to share with you.
In 1996 there was an appeal that went all the way to the
Florida Supreme Court about the legality of using tourist
development funds on Marco Island, including Hideaway Beach.
And the Florida Supreme Court upheld the use of TDC funds on
Marco Island for renourishment efforts.
This past January, January 9th, 2001, the county
commission made a finding that the use of TDC funds for
renourishment and erosion control in the context of the T-groins
at Hideaway Beach serves a public purpose. And it was at that
meeting that they also directed that the staff come back to them
with a plan to enhance the existing public access at Hideaway
Beach from Tigertail Beach Park to Hideaway Beach. That plan
is before you as Item No. 12 on your agenda. That plan is based
on a feasibility report that Hideaway Beach provided at its cost
to Collier County in order to enhance the public access.
I put up here an aerial photograph from 1973 that shows the
beach as it existed at that time. And, as you can see, one could
walk all the way from Hideaway -- or from Tigertail down here
(indicating) along a nice sandy beach to get all the way around
Hideaway. Through no fault of Hideaway Beach, this area
(indicating} has eroded. So people do need to get their feet wet
when they go to the beach if they want to go from Tigertail to
Hideaway.
Page 53
June 7, 2001
The proposal is, with Item No. 12, to either replenish this
beach with sand or to construct a boardwalk. Certainly the
preference of the Hideaway Beach Association is to have the
sand replaced. However, we -- we understand that that may or
may not be technically feasible to eventually do that, and that's
why you have Item No. 8 on there to explore those two
alternatives.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Also -- and I'm just being very
forthright about my lack of background at this stage. This is our
first real meeting. But those of you who know me know I'll get
up to speed. Is the Hideaway Beach Association a property
owners' association, and is -- are those -- is that development
reflected on that map, or did that come after? MR. ANDERSON: That came after.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So could you just point out from --
from our benefit, where it is?
MR. ANDERSON: The Hideaway Beach property begins
about here (indicating) and wraps all the way around on up.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So it begins at Tigertail, then
wraps into Hideaway?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, in fact. A portion of Hideaway
Beach -- sand of Hidea -- the sand meets from Tigertail to
Hideaway. It's just that a portion of Hideaway has eroded away
now. But you can still walk directly from Tigertail to -- to -- to
sand in front of Hideaway Beach. You just can't get all the way
around without getting your feet wet at the beach.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And the property on that map
behind -- behind where the Hideaway property owners currently
are -- not that, but on -- on that old map it -- it appears to just be
undeveloped land, you know, east of Hideaway Beach. What is
that now? Is this -- as you indicated is about 25-year old --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is all developed. I mean, it's a
Page 54
June 7, 2001
preserve area.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I would assume-- I had assumed
so, but I just wanted to be sure because, as I said, I'm not,
frankly, that familiar with Marco Island.
MR. ANDERSON: There are a number of preserve areas
within Hideaway Beach. So I don't want you to be misled that
this is all populated now. I mean, there are preserve areas.
MR. GRAY: That -- that is the only public access into
Hideaway Beach would be from Tigertail Beach. I think that's
been stated before. And this would -- this would be, I think,
similar to what we have in the county with Pelican Bay beach.
There's no public access to Pelican Bay beach except from an
upper or a lower beach through Pelican Bay itself. You cannot
get to Pelican Bay beach. It's a similar situation to that.
MR. PIRES: If I may ask a few questions, again, I'm -- trying
to get up to speed just on this particular issue. I'm not sure if it's
for Mr. Anderson or for some of the staff.
I guess to date the materials that we have, which were
handed out with the last package, were talking back and forth
between Items 9 and 12. Number 12 is a boardwalk alternative
plan, and Number 9 is a beach erosion control. Were those paid
for by TDC funds or by the Hideaway Beach property owners?
The initial sort of analysis --
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, this? This -- this report was paid for by
the Hideaway Beach Association.
MR. PIRES: The materials that we have here --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. PIRES: -- the analysis was paid for? What existing
beach access exists for the residents within Hideaway beach
now? They-- do they have a beach facility?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. They have a -- a clubhouse.
MR. PIRES: And from the standpoint of sequentially con --
Page 55
June 7, 2001
the permitability of the beach access plan under No. 12, is that
something that the staff feels is very permitable with a
boardwalk to extend from Tigertail, the boardwalk pedestrian
system, to go from Tiger -- Tigertail to Hideaway? I guess what
I'm getting at is the old cart before the horse. If there's
enhanced public access by virtue of the Project No. 12, that
creates the access to get to Hideaway. Then it makes it much
easier to say we have a continuous beach all the way around and
then to then look at No. 9 and say, yes, that works well.
MR. MUDD: If-- if there's a sand source that's close enough,
okay, to do the beach renourishment, it would behoove us to
probably do the beach renourishment instead of the boardwalk.
The reason for it, at least in the plan that I see, the boardwalk is
4 foot wide. You got to have places where you can get off the
boardwalk. And God help me if I go out there and have a heart
attack. Okay. You got to get to them somehow to extract and
do some other things. And I'm not saying we don't have
helicopters to do those kind of things, but you've got to think
through that process a little bit. It is a -- it is a feasible
alternative.
And one of the reasons that they put the boardwalk there is
because the sand source is important. You have to find it in
order to get it. And if you have to -- if the quantity of sand is -- is
such and there isn't a good source for it, that $130,000 worth of
search and define, if I can't find it in quantities enough and you
have to barge it in, then it gets expensive. If I have to truck it in,
it gets more expensive. So part of it is that -- that benefit cost
ratio you -- you have to do as you do that project.
They provided two alternatives. It doesn't mean there isn't a
third or a fourth, and it doesn't mean that when we get into it as
a committee as this summer rolls on that we couldn't find
different alternatives that are there.
Page 56
June 7, 2001
MR. PIRES: Is -- is it possible that for a recommendation of
the committee to be that --just without forecasting what the
committee's recommendations might be that No. 12 be
recommended for funding and also a contingent recommendation
for No. 9 dependent upon the permitting ability or the ability to
get the necessary permits and engage in the activity outlined in
No. 127 Does that pose difficulties for you?
MR. MUDD: I think -- I think they're two separate things.
Okay? And I think you still -- I think you still want to renourish
Hideaway Beach. I don't think you want that beach to get any
worse. And -- but I do think we need to think about how the
access needs to transpire in order to get there too. And it would
be a shame if we had one that was contingent on the access and
we had a permit issue that held it up for two years and then the
beach just eroded even further than it is today.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Why don't -- is it fair to -- to change
words? And we're -- we're raising some questions, and they -- at
least in my part, are -- really are questions. I don't know if I'm
right or wrong at this stage even on an opinion matter. We're
raising questions, kind of equity, everyone's tax money going to
possibly a beach that a limited number of people realistically can
use. And I think you're saying, even if that's true -- and I don't
know that it is -- even if that's true, there's sort of a health,
safety, and welfare aspect or a coastal management aspect
separate from public use of a beach that merits serious
consideration for doing this project.
MS. LUPO: Well, I would think that Hideaway Beach in a
certain aspect protects the beaches that are to the south end of-
- of the coastline. And if we lose Hideaway Beach, we might be
in danger of losing the beach off -- off residents' beach. I don't
know it, but I'd like to see the report on that.
MR. PIRES: I think -- following on what Ashley has indicated,
Page 57
June 7, 2001
and if that is the case, then I think that we may want to look at
the committee -- look at No. 12 of the grant application for the
Hideaway Beach renourishment because right now it states that
-- how does it enhance the existing TDC program? It says it will
enhance public access and viability if there's a better, more
honest reason for it, more -- more specific, accurate reason, I
mean, for it. I think we may want to do it if they -- if the
indication is that it protects other beaches, other facilities.
MS. LUPO: Well, the whole -- whole geology of the area, I
mean, the -- the beach is there for a reason. And if -- and if that
goes away, then it's going to have to affect other aspects of the
coastline.
I guess another question I would have is, how often -- if we
get into the fill aspect of that, how often are we going to have to
renourish that fill, and where is that fill going, I mean, as far as --
is it going to end up somewhere where we're going to have to
end up dredging in order to preserve other aspects of the
coastline, just to look at it from a cost-analysis basis of what we
want to do?
MS. LUPO: I just have a lot of questions, and I'd like to have
a presentation .
MR. ANDERSON: If I could, I'd like to ask Ken Humiston who
prepared this report for us to address your question, ma'am.
MS. LUPO: Thank you.
MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston with Humiston Moore
Engineers. I guess the first thing I'd like to mention is that we
are the county's consultant on the county project down on
Hideaway Beach. We also did prepare this little access report
for the Hideaway Beach Association. We did -- we were asked by
the Hideaway Beach Association to do that because we have a
fair amount of experience in the area, and they felt like we could
probably do that fairly easily with the background that we had in
Page 58
June 7, 2001
that area. And we discussed that with Harry Huber and the
county staff to be sure that there was no question of a conflict
for us to do that.
A couple of issues that were just raised: One is the question
of whether or not there are other benefits besides the beach
access that accrue from beach nourishment, and certainly there
are. There have been some fairly detailed economic studies of
beach restoration projects in Florida that quantify what are --
what are called secondary benefits from beach restoration
projects. They help the -- the property values in the area which
improves the tax base for the county, and the biggest beneficiary
of that is the county school system, for example.
The question of whether or not ongoing erosion in Hideaway
Beach could have adverse effects in other areas, it could -- if you
have erosion that's uncontrolled and it ends up being addressed
by building seawalls to protect the shoreline, what that does is it
transfers the erosion problems to the adjacent areas.
And the question of Hideaway Beach, if that weren't
nourished, then, you know, in the extreme situation, if that all
was -- that entire shoreline was sea-walled, it would essentially
remove some of the supply of sand and the natural transport
processes to the beaches to the south which is Tigertail Beach.
Of course, the other thing is that the beaches are also the
nesting habitat for the endangered turtles, and we have --
through the monitoring that Maura Kraus has been doing for the
county and the physical monitoring that we've been doing of the
county's erosion control efforts in there, we have been able to
demonstrate that there have been benefits to the nesting sea
turtles in that area as well.
Those are several questions that came up. I'll be glad to
answer any other questions that --
MR. STRAPPONI: I'd like to ask a question. I -- I'm first
Page 59
June 7, 2001
inclined to think that natural renourishment of the beach is -- is
probably the way to go as opposed to a boardwalk. I -- I share
the concerns of some of the other committee members on how
long that would stay there before we had to get into a
renourishment and what that cost would be. I don't know if you
can see this aerial from -- from there. My concern is this section
right here (indicating). I can't understand -- maybe you can
explain to me -- how we can put a natural nourishment in here so
that we could have foot traffic access to this beach without
blocking what appears to be a -- a small inlet there.
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah. The -- the figure that we're looking
at here is Figure No. 2 in the lower right-hand corner, that title
block. What's shown there, the -- the blue line is, of course, the
boardwalk. The little short segment of boardwalk that -- to the
south there actually goes across an inlet which is known as Clam
Pass. It's sometimes referred to as Little Clam Pass to avoid
confusion with the other Clam Pass that's up in Pelican Bay.
But there's no -- in this plan there was no proposal for
nourishment in that area. There is a wide natural beach there.
The only purpose in putting that boardwalk across that little inlet
is to facilitate pedestrian traffic across the inlet to the areas
further to the north. And that is why the -- that little segment of
boardwalk over the inlet is shown in both alternatives, the beach
restoration alternative as well as the boardwalk alternative.
This study that we prepared for the Hideaway Beach
Association was -- was not an in-depth study. It was a rather
cursory look at a couple of alternatives for improving access in
that area. There certainly are some permitting issues that would
have to be resolved, and there are permitting issues with both
the boardwalk and the beach restoration.
The beach restoration would be placing sand in front of
some mangroves that fringe that shoreline which would be a
Page 60
June 7, 2001
concern to the agencies. This is also close to the -- the Sand
Dollar Island area, which is a bird, rookery, and roosting area.
And it may very well be that the -- the optimum solution to this
might be a combination of nourishment and boardwalk. And I
think the next phase, the next step in pursuing this, would be a
consultation with the permitting agencies on those permitting
issues.
MR. STRAPPONI: So it's my understanding that if you went
strictly with beach renourishment, that would include this -- the
small section of boardwalk across the inlet?
MR. HUMISTON: Right. There would just be a little foot
bridge across that inlet.
MS. LUPO: It is a very small area for anybody who hasn't
been to that -- the boardwalk, the south boardwalk is -- is
minimal. I don't have a -- do you have a footage on that?
MR. HUMISTON: No. That -- that little inlet is only 15 or 20
feet wide.
MR. PIRES: I guess assuming for the sake of discussion that
all these were permitted and constructed, how would you get
access over the T-groins to get to the balance of Hideaway
Beach once you get off of the boardwalk and get to that --
MR. HUMISTON: The T-groins have essentially stabilized the
beach in that area. So the T-groins kind of stick out into the
water, but there are pocket beaches between the T-groins, and
there is no problem walking across there. The T-groins are very
Iow profile. And, in fact, the landward portion of them is under
the sand, and you don't even see them. MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. KROESCHELL: You touched on a problem that I -- that I
have in my mind, so I went down there. I went down -- I don't
know if anybody else has been down there, but I went down
there last week, and I walked the beach. I hadn't been down
Page 61
June 7, 2001
there since 1980, and then in 1980 I -- I walked that whole beach
from Tigertail around to Hideaway before Hideaway was much of
anything. And we got as far as -- well, beyond that little inlet.
We walked across the inlet -- that was no problem -- and -- and
got up a little ways further, and then we ran out of beach. And --
and as my -- those are mangroves after that; right? MR. HUMISTON: Some of it is mangrove.
MR. KORESCHELL: And -- and -- and would -- would
renourishing the beach do anything to the mangroves? Would
they just be destroyed?
MR. HUMISTON: I don't know that they would be destroyed.
It would certainly, in -- in the terms that the permitting agencies
use, it would sever the tidal exchange to the mangrove area
which can injure the mangroves.
MR. KROESCHELL: We might have trouble getting a permit
to do that.
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct. It might require some
mitigation. That's what was --
MR. KROESCHELL: And that's why I say to my colleague
here, I -- I'm -- I'm afraid that a boardwalk would be about the
only alternative because of that -- of those mangroves being in
there.
MR. HUMISTON: That's very possible. That's why I
mentioned the ultimate solution might be a combination of
nourishment in some areas where it won't affect the mangroves
and the boardwalk in other wear -- in other areas to preserve the
tidal exchange.
MR. KROESCHELL: As I recall, back in those days, I -- I --
there was some small amount of building going on, and I noticed
that some of the people were cutting down mangroves in -- in
those days. But I guess that was -- that was before the laws
started taking effect in this area. But -- but there are -- there are
Page 62
June 7, 2001
mangroves there.
MR. HUMISTON: A lot of it is. There are -- there are some
other species in there as well, but a lot of it is mangrove.
MR. KROESCHELL: Yeah. Just a -- a small point: It -- it -- it
would be accessible from Tigertail, but I'll bet there's nobody
going to do it because it's a long haul. It's a -- it's a -- we -- we
walked a half an hour before we got -- got -- got to the point
where we were turned off, and then we were still -- if you -- if you
had another -- it would take another 45 -- it would take 45
minutes to get to Hideaway Beach from Tigertail if you were
walking at any speed. It's -- it's not public access per se. It's --
it's a pretty difficult access.
MR. PIRES: Ken, two questions, if I may -- Ken, I guess --
how would you then for the Hideaway Beach renourishment --
how would you answer No. 12 on the grant application about
describing how the project enhances existing county towards
development programs? I'm wrestling with the existing answer
that says this project will enhance the public access and viability
of the area's major tourist attraction.
MR. HUMISTON: By improving access, you provide the
opportunity for people to walk from Tigertail Beach around to the
Hideaway Beach, which is public beach. There is an erosion
control line established there in the project in 1990. But there --
you know, I can't really address the question of, you know, to
what level will people who go to Tigertail beach use that beach.
MR. PIRES: And I guess from a concept of utilization,
assuming the boardwalk is in, is there a concept of-- in part of
the proposal to increase awareness of its existence and to have
other ways to encourage people's utilization of the facility other
than just mere beach access, such as, you know, stations where
they describe the -- you know, the nature of environment that's
out there a little ways to --
Page 63
June 7, 2001
MR. HUMISTON'. I think I would prefer to turn that back over
to Bruce Anderson to -- MR. PIRES: Okay.
MR. HUMISTON: -- address that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I wanted to ask Mr. Humiston if--
if this is something even possible to answer, how -- you know, I --
I had said before -- and I don't know if I'm literally correct, but
laymen at least generally anticipate that renourishments will --
should last around five years, and then you expect to have to
perhaps do more work on it. Would-- would this project fit into
that general observation, or is it even possible to answer
something like that? And I'm not asking you to, like, really
commit --
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And I'm saying look into the future,
but you do know more about this than I do.
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah. I can answer that in -- in general
terms. Basically when you do a beach restoration project, you
make a projection of how long it will last. And that projection is
usually simply based on what the background erosion rates are
prior to doing the nourishment project. In this particular area,
the nourishment proposed for access, I don't think the erosion
rates have been very high in that area. I think it's been a very
slow, gradual process. And just based on that, I would think it
would be a good prospect for a successful project with a
renourishment interval probably even greater than five years,
depending on how wide a beach would be constructed there.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And this will carry into fiscal '03,
right, because last time I asked, and I think you said this isn't --
this request -- I guess I'm addressing this to the county staff.
This request isn't really the actual renourishment; it's the design.
MR. MUDD: It's the design. It's getting everything set up so
Page 64
June 7, 2001
that you can do it in the next year. There's -- there's not a
dredging event in No. 9. Okay. It's the search, it's the permit, it's
the design, survey, and all of those other things that you must do
in order to get it done.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So then in '03 -- I realize I'm
shifting to the 10-year plan now and then -- even though it's a
separate item, but it's hard to do this in complete isolation. In
'03 city of Marco Island beach renourishment is 280,000 -- I -- no,
two -- no, two -- 638,000, and I couldn't see from our requests
here where that figure comes from. Mr. Huber did the
spreadsheet, I think.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. He did the spreadsheet. And Harry com --
and Harry combined some of the things so -- it's one of the things
that we've been trying to decipher because it isn't in the same
specificity as the -- as the budget request. So, you know, the
question was, well, where is turtle monitoring at? Well, we found
where that was. It's rolled up into the monitoring issue. But
that's a good question, okay, when you -- when you -- the city of
Marco, as far as beach renourishment is concerned, and I -- and I
can't tell you if part of the access route -- access is in there in
that number. I'm at a little disadvantage because Harry isn't --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: No, I understand. And that's why I
wanted to -- to say it out loud -- MR. MUDD: Sure.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- that we -- we all understand that.
MR. PIRES: One question, Mr. Mudd: The initial construction
of the two groin fields that were constructed as advanced
implementation of the management study, do you know if they
were paid for out of the TDC funds?
MR. MUDD: Yes. I can -- I can tell you that the previous T-
groins were -- were -- were paid for out of TDC, and the two that
we're inputting right now are paid out of the TDC funds.
Page 65
June 7, 2001
MR. PIRES: And this Hideaway Beach renourishment would
help with that initial groin-field construction and implementation
of the inlet management --
MR. MUDD: Yes. The T-groins are there to -- to try to keep
the beach that's there and to capture any that's -- that's eroding
out.
-- an
It's a -- it's a training mechanism.
One of the problems we're having is somebody mentioned an
island that's -- that's -- because of the Australian --
MR. ROELLING: Pines.
MR. MUDD: -- pines --
MR. GRAY: Coconut Island.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. -- Coconut Island and the Australian pines
-- help me out a little bit. I'm working through this one -- where
they took out the -- they took out the pines, and then now all of a
sudden the island's moving. Well, it's okay if the island's staying
in one place. Then you got the T-groins and water's going around
it, and you pretty much got the hydrology finished. The island
starts moving; which T-groin is going to be the final one? What
you'd like to do with those training structures is you'd like to
keep the last one on -- on -- in the inland side farther north, and
you'd like to have the -- the most southern one, for lack of
direction. And in the in-betweens you'd like to be able to pull out
sometime.
MR. PIRES: Is it possible, then, to say, as far as how this
project enhances the existing county tourist development
program, is that it compliments and supplements a prior TDC-
funded program and maintains its viability?. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. PIRES; I think that what it really does as opposed to
enhance its public access.
MR. MUDD.' Yes, sir. We can do -- we can do part of the --
MR. PIRES: Just a thought. I'm just trying to be more
Page 66
June 7, 2001
accurate as to what it does. I don't know how the rest of the
committee feels but --
MR. GRAY: I have another thought on it. I share, I think,
several of the opinions that have been expressed about what
we're theoretically looking at here is using public funds to fund a
private project. I would like to point out two things. I mean, I do
have some concerns about that, but I would like to point out two
things. I think that right now we have that in effect going on in
the county already. I mentioned Pelican Bay. You can make an
argument that that's going on there.
Number 2, I think to keep this beach in good shape is part of
the overall integrity of the beaches in Collier County, and I think
it's in the county's best interest and in our best interest to keep
that beach in good shape just because we need to have a good
beach program. And I think if this beach went away and caused
other problems, it would detract from our total beach situation in
the county.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you.
MR. STAKICH: I'd like to make some observations here. I've
been on Marco Island for 20 years and been involved in
renourishing the beach, the main beach. At that time, as the
picture up there shows, that area there was accessible from
Tigertail. We -- we have solved already the problem, all -- should
public money be spent for Hideaway Beach. It isn't being spent
for Hideaway Beach; it's being spent for Marco Island. The
people on Marco Island, the county, for years have been
complaining that they have not been able to get to the beach on
Marc -- on Hideaway Beach, and this solves that problem.
I think that tying -- as has been said here, tying these
beaches together are very important for the entirety of all the
beaches. I think the funds being spent there are intelligent. I
think that the use of the sand when we originally dredged the
Page 67
June 7, 2001
main beach, we had to go out in the gulf. We had to get the sand
out there. We brought it on the beach and did a magnificent ]ob.
As far as maintenance of this, whether it's going to be there
or not, I don't think anybody here, including our engineers, could
tell us that this is going to exist any more than it's going to tell
us that the stuff in the past is going to exist and how long it's
going to exist and whether we've got to maintain it.
I think our ]ob is to understand that if we're going to
maintain all the other places that are going to erode or move,
which it has been shown that Coconut Island, for example, is
moving. I remember 20 years ago it was a great picnic spot.
Today it's just an little -- unbelievable little -- little sand pit.
Things do change, and I think our job here is to understand that
these dollars are available to the city of Marco Island, to the
county for use to tie Tigertail and have public access to the
beach that we renourished at Hideaway Beach. And I think it is
well-spent dollars and consideration that we renourish and think
of -- of filling sand, if possible, if the engineering can be done and
if you can find it. I'm sure you can find sand to pump on this
area.
I -- as a final remark, I think a boardwalk there has a lot of
drawbacks: safety, getting to it, maintenance, blocking the
views of many things and adding another obstruction out there in
the water that I don't think we really need. So I'm not being
prejudiced, but remembering that 20 years of development and
concern of the people of Marco Island and the people of Collier
County that have always said, "Let's find a way to get to Tige --
to Hideaway Beach.".
Now, we certainly can get to Hideaway Beach by boat, and
we certainly can use the beach on Hideaway. I think the courts
have determined that the use of these funds are proper. I think
the county has already determined that the use of these funds for
Page 68
June 7, 2001
Hideaway Beach are proper. So I think continuation of this and
adding this sand to this portion pretty well develops the whole
situation that ties it altogether.
MR. ROELLIG: I'd like to make a comment. Because -- I
know we've discuss -- decided that we would vote on this in a
block, but there may be items like this that we may want to have
a separate vote on because we may not get, you know --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, right. Exactly right. What I
was going to sugg -- I said that in the beginning because I -- most
of these things I think we can group. But -- but when we get to
the end, we can have a little discussion, and we can tailor our
motion any way we choose to -- to separate certain ones out or
to put certain conditions -- for example, on Item 6, I would
assume we're going to want to discuss if that's an inadvertent
double count will accrue such confirmation that it's a unique
item, that type of thing.
I also wanted -- this is a little off topic. I meant to say this
at the beginning, and I forgot. I apologize. But I have to leave at
four. That, of course, doesn't end the meeting, but as -- as we're
gearing up here, we've all, I'm sure, had commitments we had
made before we knew we'd be on this committee. And then I'll --
I'll hand the chair over, of course, but I will have to leave at
about four o'clock.
Back to the -- the business at hand. I think we'll get to the
access -- get into it in more detail probably in sequential order. I
understand that 9 and 12 do relate. Is there anything more that
anyone has to ask or to comment on on the Hideaway Beach
renourishment or anyone from the public who wishes to say
anything?
MR. SOMERS: Just real quickly, My name's David Somers.
I'm the general manager at Hideaway. And just to go back to Dr.
Staiger's point that he brought out earlier, Hideaway was part of
Page 69
June 7, 2001
the original renourishment back in 1990 that occurred on all of
Marco's beaches. And the renourishment that occurred on really
the main portion of the beach has been very stable and has
lasted and gone, I think, well beyond what the engineers
anticipated. The area that we have that's adjacent to Hideaway
Beach is unique in the sense that it is on an inlet. It is on a river.
And it has a lot of different energies working into it besides just
the normal beach erosion that would come backwards and
forwards, the tidal flow, the river that goes in front. The Big
Marco Pass certainly creates a lot of difference on that.
I thought Mr. Moss, who's the city manager, would be here
today. I mentioned to him about the meeting. He wasn't able to.
And this item has been brought before the Marco Beach
committee when that was in existence. It was approved
unanimously before them, both projects. And I believe it did go
to the county -- or the city councilmen for review as well. And
Mr. Moss certainly is a supporter of this, and he feels that, as Mr.
Stak -- or Mr. Stackich mentioned, that, you know, this is part of
all of island and that this is an integral part to the rest of the
beach that if something does happen up here and occurs up here,
that it's just going to create additional property damage or
damages down the rest of the island and the island beaches.
So there has been a lot of discussion on Marco. It's not the
first time coming before you. And there have been a number of
items, I think -- I've been there nine years. We've been before the
TDC and the different -- Naples committee and the Marco Beach
committee. And all of the projects that have been for that
particular area, Hideaway Beach area, have always been
approved using the TDC funding. And as Bruce, Mr. Anderson,
mentioned, I think there has been a lot of resolve in the last six
months or so, in particular in response to the county
commissioners' questions of the use of that money and in
Page 70
June 7, 2001
reference to the meeting that that occurred at.
So if you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to help
with that, but I just wanted to get a little bit of the history into it
as well.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Are there any further
questions from the committee? Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Number 10 is Marco Island
segmented breakwater modifications, project to improve
performance of the breakwater. This involves engineering work
and modification of a -- of an underwater easement for 10,000
and construction and tote -- for a total of 705,100. And this
project is identical to what was in the original application.
MR. MUDD: This is a -- this is basically -- I think there's two
of them out there, breakwaters, right now. This is to add a third
and to bring the two that -- there a little bit closer together.
MR. ROELLIG: I understand the permit is basically approved
already on this --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: -- or it is approved.
MR. ANDERSON: Caxambas Pass, project to improve the
pass by dredging, engineering and dredging, 335,000. And that's
the -- the -- the report that we passed out. That's the project for
that that report refers to.
MR. KROESCHELL: Is this the -- is this the first dredging of
Caxambas Pass?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. I don't know.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think -- I think if you take a look at the
ten year -- now, I can't tell you the pass, but I think it's been
dredged before. In '02 there's -- there's three thirty-five in the
long-term plan for Caxambas. It's No. 6, A-6, on your ten-year
plan. There's some minor maintenance that goes on with it
around the tune of about 25,000 a year.
Page 71
June 7, 2001
MR. KROESCHELL: For, like, seven years; right?.
MR. MUDD: And then in 2009 you do it again, about seven
years --
MR. KROESCHELL: So was it done seven years ago? I -- I
just want -- want to know.
MR. MUDD: I can't tell you, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: My recollection, it was, but Mr. Humiston
probably could give us a specific answer.
MR. HUMISTON: Caxambas Pass was dredged back in 1990
and 1991 as part of the source for the beach restoration project
on Marco Island that was completed then. And it was dredged
again several years later, more for navigation purposes, I think,
about 1995 or '96. So it's been dredged twice before, actually.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any other questions on Item 117
MR. ANDERSON: The next item, then, would be No. 13,
Pelican Bay Services Division, the Clam Pass project. This would
dredge the inlet to provide for a -- a healthy ecosystem there. It's
monitoring and dredging for 169,100. In the original application
we showed an amount of 205,100. And the reason for this
reduction is that we've gone ahead with monitoring of -- in this
present fiscal year to the tune of $36,000 to advance that. That
was based on some previous discussions that Harry had, you
know, with -- on the project. So for the amount for FY '02, then,
would be $169,100.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Any questions?
MR. MUDD: This looks like a every-three-year event.
MR. ROELLIG: I might make a comment. This is an
excellent source of beach-quality sand for the Clam Pass county
park. It's very high-quality sand, and it's very Iow -- very Iow cost
to put on -- put on the beach. There is a strong benefit for
dredging this and placing the sand on the county beach typically.
MR. ANDERSON: Uh-huh.
Page 72
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Anything else on 137 I just want
to go back briefly and clarify for -- for the Hideaway Beach
projects, Items 9 and 12 -- and obviously they're getting the most
action from us -- the county staff recommends approval of those
item -- I appreciate Mr. Anderson's background, but he's here as
an advocate.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the county staff recommends those two
projects, one, to get the -- to get all the -- the permits and the
sand search and everything done so that you can renourish
Hideaway Beach the correct way. And the -- and the -- and the --
No. 12 and the fact that we go out and find a way to link those
beaches together, since they -- and as the gentleman at the far
end mentioned that when he took a walk, the only way to really
get in is to get in and out of those mangroves, you have to go
back in and kind of skirt it around in order to get up. We need to
improve that process.
Some beach has been lost. We haven't had a -- a gain of
beach, okay, in a very long time. We're losing it, and we're
fighting that process that nature has as far as erosion is
concerned. And it would be a shame if we -- if we get it any more
eroded than it already is, and then it gets to be at a point in time
that you'll never be able to bring them back together again.
MR. ANDERSON: On Item No. 12, I would mention that we
will be moving forward doing preliminary design work first and
looking at the two different alternatives and pursuing the permit
issues. So we -- we don't know which way we'll be going, but --
and we will certainly keep the committee informed of that
development.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Then if there aren't
any other further questions, I think -- I did want to avoid doing 13
motions when I or maybe 2 might do the trick just in hopes of
efficiency. Six is a fairly minor matter. But, nonetheless, we'll
Page 73
June 7, 2001
need to clarify if that's a double count or if it's a unique item. Is
there anything else that any member would -- would like to have
voted on separately?
MS. LUPO: Did we get an answer on No. 3 regarding the --
MR. MUDD: Yeah. We don't give -- we don't give grants to
the Fish and Wildlife Service. That's a typo. We accept them.
MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on -- back
on Item 12. What are the time lines? Are there any projected
time lines? Are we on a -- on a clock on this?
MR. MUDD: Sir, as soon as -- as soon as it gets -- as soon as
it gets through this process, then it becomes an accepted
project, and it -- and it gets approved by the TDC, then we need
to do staff work in order to cut the contracts in order to get that
to get it rolling, and you -- and we really don't get into '01 dollars
in order to get that done. So that would have to go to contract
and be ready to execute on I October. So we go out there into
the bid issue, ask -- ask firms to solicit their bids; go Iow -- Iow
bid, unless it gets very technical, and then you go best value, but
to get it ready to go so that when October comes, you can start
spending those dollars that you have allocated to that project on
that project. And then when -- once you -- once you have it
locked in, then you can start doing it.
In -- in this particular case, this shouldn't have a sea turtle
impact unless you're out there dredging where it's going to have
a sea turtle impact and you've got to worry about the incidental
takes. But because there's no beach there, there isn't much of a
nest area for them. So we will probably be into the execution
side of this project around this time next year. As you get
through the designs and that bit and the -- and the permits, next
year around this time you'll be into construction.
MR. STRAPPONI: Well, that -- that brings up my next
question: construction of what? That's the boardwalk?
Page 74
June 7, 2001
MR. MUDD: No. No, sir. What -- what will happen, as we go
out there and ask for the bid and that -- we'll go out to that
engineer firm. We'll meet with the -- with the permitting agencies
to figure out what they permit and what they won't permit. No
sense coming up with a project you're never going to see a
permit for. You're going to waste a lot of money to get nothing.
Get them on board as you go through that and figure out if you
can find a viable alternative that everybody can agree to that
gets the job done that acts as -- to the beach from Tigertail to --
to Hideaway and then go out there and get the AE firm to do the
design and then come back to this board with the design and
say, "Okay. Is this really what we want, and does anybody have
a tweak?".
You're the expert panel. We're going back to you with the
design. We don't go into autopilot. We're going to come back to
you as a board and say, "Okay. Is this -- is this what we had
envisioned? Is -- is this what we want to have?" and then if -- if
you say it is, fine. If you have a modification to it, we'll go back,
get the permitting agencies, go through that process. If you say,
"No, it's not," it's dead. Okay. We can go back and say, "We
can't get there from here. It was a good idea. We had it
budgeted, but we -- we can't spend the dollars." and then we'll
go back to the TDC with a different project and get that one
that's below the line brought up to the front.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you.
MR. GRAY: -- I would move that we accept all 13 of these
items.
MR. STAKICH: I second that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Would you add with the provision
as to Item 6 that we simply have confirmation that it is a unique
item?
Page 75
June 7, 2001
MR. GRAY: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Can -- can you also add that if when I find that
out I can confirm that, I can -- I can give it to the chairman and
say it is a separate item --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think we can approve -- I
think we can approve it subject to it being a distinct item. And if
it's not, you know, if we have -- we haven't approved it, it doesn't
exist.
MR. GRAY: I -- I think my motion has included in -- in it
inherently that we're just talking about one item here, that -- that
we're just buying one piece of equipment. That's included in one
place or the other or not both.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Right. In effect that's what
we're saying.
MR. GRAY: In effect that's what we're saying.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yes.
MR. GRAY: So I'll let my motion stand.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And then we did have a second?
MR. STAKICH: I second.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All in favor?
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It passes 8-0.
This will be a good time for me to exit since I do have to
exit. And, again, I apologize.
Our next scheduled meeting, I want to note, is July 5th,
which is an odd -- not an odd day, but being after the 4th, it may
be a -- a difficult day. I will, in general, be a good attendee, but I
probably will not be in town on July 5th. And maybe others can
communicate to -- to the staff whether we'll be available. And I
don't know if a lot of people might be gone. We -- are we going
Page 76
June 7, 2001
to have a quorum problem? Wait. Maybe that's -- is the 5th a
holiday?
MR. MUDD: No.
MR. ROELLIG: No.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Would it--would it be better-- I
know it's the first Thursday, but -- in this particular month,
because of the day that it falls on, it would be better to have it on
the second Thursday of July.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That would certainly work for me.
You know, I will --
MR. KROESCHELL: It doesn't make any difference to me. I'll
be gone both times.
MR. ROELLIG: Well, I'm gone the second Thursday. Maybe
we could just have a hand of who -- who will miss the first
Thursday and go from there.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I'll miss the first.
MR. GRAY: (Indicating)
MR. KROESCHELL: (Indicating)
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We still have a quorum.
MR. ROELLIG: Yeah. We have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But we'd have no Naples people. I
think all the Naples people put their hands up.
MR. STRAPPONI: I'd like to make a motion that we just
change it for the one time to the second Thursday.
MR. STAKICH: I have no problem with that. I -- I'll check on
that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay.
MR. ROELLIG: I know I'll miss the second Thursday.
MR. KROESCHELL: I'll miss the second Thursday.
MR. ROELLIG: Well, we have two missing the second
Thursday but --
MR. GRAY: I will too.
Page 77
June 7, 2001
MR. STAKICH: There's one missing on the second and two
on the first Tues -- so let's go with the second Thursday. And
don't forget; it's 1:30 instead of 1:00.
MR. ROELLIG: Well, first, we're missing three on both
Thursdays.
MR. STAKICH: You're --you're missing both?
MR. ROELLIG: No. But there's two people missing on both
the first Thursday and the second Thursday. I don't know what.
MR. MUDD: How about -- how about the third Thursday of
July?
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What day is that?
MR. GRAY: Still gone. I'm gone all of July.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Does it work--
MR. STRAPPONI: Or do you want --
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We just had a suggestion of the
last Thursday of June.
MR. STRAPPONI: That would work. I'll be back.
MR. GRAY: I -- I think that would be a good idea if we can
get all of us here because we are still a new committee, and
we're learning.
MR. ROELLIG: Right.
MR. GRAY: And we made some major decisions here today
in short order, and I'm not very comfortable with that, but I felt
like we should do it.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yeah. We have to -- we have to
start somewhere. I agree with you.
MR. GRAY: We got -- we got to get it going. But I think it
would be -- if we can get all of us here the last Thursday in June,
I would suggest we do that.
MR. ROELLIG: I can do that.
MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, the -- the last Thursday in
June is only three business days prior to the first Thursday in
Page 78
June 7, 2001
July, so I'm going to pass a motion that we have our next
meeting on the last Thursday in June. MR. GRAY: Second.
MR. ROELLIG: Second that.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Before we take a vote on
that, noting that it is only three business days' difference, does
that make sense from a work-flow standpoint, the staff and
commission??
MR. MUDD: That would be fine. The only thing I have to find
out, if this room is available. If it's not, I'll find an alternative
location.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. I'll do it formally then by
motion. All in favor of holding our meeting on June 28th? (All those in favor responded.)
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? It passes.
MR. KROESCHELL: Me. I'm opposed. I can't make that one
either.
CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. So we have our first dissent
as -- as a -- as a committee. That passes -- that passes 7 to 1.
As I said, this is a good time for me to break. I will hand the
chair to Mr. Roellig for the further business and see you-all in a
few weeks.
(Chairman Galleberg left the room.)
MR. MUDD: Is there any -- we're at the point in time of old
business. Is there any additional old business that we need to
talk about?
MR. ROELLIG: Are we going to talk about parks and
recreation and all of that kind of thing, or is that not in our
purview anymore?
MR. MUDD: That's no longer in our purview anymore, sir.
MR. ROELLIG: All right.
MR. MUDD: Now, I will -- now, I will say to you that I think it
Page 79
June 7, 2001
would -- it would benefit this committee if the parks and rec folks
came to us twice a year to tell you how their particular programs
are working because -- because it does come out of Category A.
And if they do have any slippages and we have projects that they
don't, that we could use those dollars to make sure -- I'll talk
staffwise, but I think it would be good if you knew how the
Vanderbilt Beach parking garage was coming and -- and that so
you have an idea on that. But there is another committee that
parks and recs uses to -- to provide those projects to them within
their purview of this budget.
MR. ROELLIG: The other point I might make on the earlier
Category A funding was this -- this sheet here, Item D, City of
Naples. That was passed by the previous committee in April. I
don't know if we need to revisit that.
MR. MUDD: And that -- and that was -- and that was
approved by the TDC because it had seen that beach --
MR. ROELLIG: Right. Just to give everybody -- so we're not
going to -- unless somebody has some questions on it, we're not
going to be looking at the monitoring of South Florida T-groins or
monitoring of Doctor's Pass.
MR. MUDD: But in -- in -- in the future, as we look at the
program, those particular projects are in that program.
MR. ROELLIG: Right, right.
MR. MUDD: Based on --
MR. ROELLIG: That would be one of the things we talked
about earlier that we will see how it's progressing.
Okay. So we're on to Item -- Item 5. Is there any old
business?
MR. GRAY: I don't know if this is old business or not, but I'll
bring it up now.
MR. ROELLIG: All right.
MR. GRAY: I would like to suggest that staff somehow
Page 80
June 7, 2001
provide us with some name placards to put up here. I think it
would help everyone, the transcriber, the folks in the audience,
even all of us, because we're new to each other.
MR. MUDD: Done. I had already -- making a note of it as we
were -- started. I said, "We need to do something for names.".
MR. ROELLIG: Okay. Going on to Item 6, do we need any
additional discussion on the ten-year plan?
MR. MUDD: Well, there's an old business that -- item that did
come up -- and I mentioned it earlier -- where we owe you a
briefing upon the present programming and what stuff moved
forward.
MR. ROELLIG: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay? So the next -- the next agenda that we
have, the last Thursday of -- of this month, we plan -- God willing
that Harry's back, and I'll get -- or I'll get Dr. Staiger to help me,
we owe you a briefing on the present program; what's been done,
what's been spent, what's being carried over for a project that
didn't get done last year so that you're up to speed where that is.
MR. GRAY: Along with that, would you include -- I guess this
would be under maybe old business. Rather than to go into the
ten-year plan today, I would like to go into it then. We've talked
about it to some degree, but as I've looked at it, there have been
a lot of questions that have come up in my mind. But with the
chairman having been gone and the hour is late, I would like to
put that on the agenda for next time.
MR. ROELLIG: You weren't looking for an approval of the
ten-year plan at this point anyway.
MR. MUDD: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. That -- the part -- the
reason the ten-year plan was there, you asked us to take a look
and show you where there was some flexibilities, and we talked
about it a little bit earlier.
MR. ROELLIG: All right.
Page 81
June 7, 2001
MR. MUDD: There's millions in there that you've got
flexibility with.
MR. ROELLIG'- Right. Well, we may want to talk about it
today, I mean, to get the background on it.
MR. MUDD'. And so what I wanted to show you, where --
where it is. And it's basically on that carry.forward line. MR. ROELLIG: Right.
MR. MUDD: And if you -- you look at the shaded area
underneath, you'll -- you'll see where that exists. And as projects
get completed and you get bids that come under what your
estimate is, you'll have additional dollars to put up against
different projects. So there -- there is flexibility in the process.
And, again, this was just our best guess.
MR. GRAY: I understand that. I -- I would like to put that on
the agenda for next time, though, and review it. MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. ROELLIG: Especially if Harry is available.
MR. GRAY: Yes. And I also wondered, too, is Dr. Staiger
going to be attending our meetings?
MR. MUDD: Yes. I've -- I've -- I've asked him to, and I -- I
think as -- as -- as I start -- well, when Harry comes back, that will
help a little bit as I transition to another lead PM in that I think
Dr. Staiger's presence, and his ex -- he doesn't carry any bias, I
don't think. He just comes out with expertise and gives you a lot
of data. He just said he couldn't make it today.
sir.
MR. GRAY: I see.
MR. MUDD: But -- but his plan is to make these meetings,
MR. ROELLIG: Good. I guess we could go on to Item 7,
audience participation. Is there any -- anybody from the
audience want to comment on anything?
(No response.)
Page 82
June 7, 2001
MR. ROELLIG: Seeing none, I guess my turn during the last
five minutes, we have a motion for adjournment.
MR. STAKICH: I make a motion that we adjourn.
MR. STRAPPONI: I second.
MR. ROELLIG: All in favor ...
(Uanimous response.)
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:05 p.m.
COASTAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE
GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR
Page 83