CAC Minutes 10/04/2001 ROctober 4, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 4, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Coastal Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 3:30 in REGULAR SESSION at
The Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Dave Roellig
Robert Gray
John Strapponi
William Kroeschell
Anthony Pires
Robert Stakich
ABSENT: Ashley Lupo
Gary Galleberg
ALSO PRESENT:
Ron Hovell, Public Utilities
Roy Anderson, Public Utilities
Jim Mudd, Public Utilities
Page 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER,
8962 Hammock Oak Drive, NAPLES, FL 34108 AT 1:30 P.M. ON OCTOBER 4,
2001. Beach visits will be made first and the meeting portion of the agenda will begin
promptly at 3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
Roll Call
Field Trip Procedures, reconvene at both locations
Additions to Agenda (time certain, 3:30 p.m.)
Old Business
a. Approval of Minutes for September 6, 2001
b. FEMA storm surge maps
c. Tigertail Beach / Sand Dollar Island
d. Potential TDC land purchase
o
New Business
a. TDC Category 'A' project status report / budget / reserves
b. Discussion of amendments to approved TDC Category 'A' grant
applications
i. Beach Maintenance Activities (10266)
ii. Incremental Beach Maintenance (10507)
iii.Repair Hideaway Beach T-Groins (10257)
iv. Clam Pass Dredging (10268)
o
Audience Participation
Schedule next meeting (proposed: Naples City Hall, November 1, 2001)
Adjournment
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISED THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO
APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER 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.
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's 3:30. We've completed the field
trip portion of our meeting today. I'll just give you a brief recap. We
went down to Seagate, planned county park. Went to county's Clam
Pass, saw the park facilities down there. It's obvious from looking at
it there had been during Gabrielle -- presumably there had been a
great deal of overwash, and a lot of sand had been pushed off the
beach and across the berm and is somewhere back in the mangroves
which is pretty typical of what's happened here. And then after that
we took a trip down to the end of Sanibel Beach Road and took a
look at the shoreline there, and we didn't have too much time to get
back here by 3:30.
So we'll start the meeting now with the roll call.
MR. GRAY: Bob Gray, City of Naples.
MR. STRAPPONI: John Strapponi, county.
MR. STAKICH: Bob Stakich, Marco Island.
MR. ROELLIG: David Roellig, county.
MR. KROESCHELL: Bill Kroeschell, City of Naples.
MR. PIRES: Tony Pires from the county.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Sitting as vice chairman, of course--
and Gary Galleberg was unable to make this meeting, so I'll be
chairing it.
Next item is any additions to the agenda. Any members have
any additions?
MR. KROESCHELL: I'd like to talk about the cleaning up after
Gabrielle. I'd like to talk about the minutes.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. We've got the minutes. We'll
make that 4-D, Gabrielle cleanup.
MR. KROESCHELL: This is not a correction to the minutes.
This is just a presentation.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Any other conditions? Staff
Page 2
October 4, 2001
have any additions you want to add to this? No. Okay. Well, we'll
move on.
Go to the approval of minutes then. Any comments on the
minutes?
MR. PIERS: Just one, page 7 in the third full paragraph in the
fourth line. I think that's Ken Humisten or Bob Devlin discussing
this. The fifth word is geodetic. I don't-- I believe that's what it
should be as opposed to geoditic. I believe it's the National Geodetic.
COURT REPORTER: Could you spell that, please.
MR. KROESCHELL: G-e-o-d-e-t-i-c, and the engineers can
correct me if I'm wrong. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Did you want to make a comment on
the minutes before we approve them?
MR. KROESCHELL: No. That's a presentation at issue.
Nothing.
MR. PIRES: I move to approve the minutes.
MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Second. Any discussion? All those
in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: No sign. Pass.
We go on to the next item on the agenda was the FEMA storm
surge maps.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I can give a report on that, Mr.
Chairman. Roy Anderson, engineering director, Collier County
Utilities. We -- at the last meeting it was agreed to that staff would
prepare a draft letter for Chairman Galleberg to send to FEMA
concerning some discrepancies and problems in the FEMA flood
maps.
Page 3
October 4, 2001
That has been done. Last week I drafted that and sent it to Mr.
Galleberg, and I expect to get his comments momentarily, so as soon
as I get those back, we'll finalize it, and it will be sent to FEMA and
give you-all the copies. Basically, it just indicates that there have
been some discrepancies found, and we're questioning some of the
assumptions of the FEMA flood maps.
There have also -- when I investigated this, I found that there
had been some previous correspondence by the City of Naples and
also by Collier County along the same -- these same lines. So this is
really just re-enforcing those same comments. So we can -- by the
time -- by the next meeting we'll give you the final copy of that letter.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Thank you. We didn't add it
to the agenda, but I think anyone who is reading the Naples Daily
News has a little information today as far as what the FEMA is doing
as far as the storm damage from Gabrielle. If you can give us just a
couple minutes on that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Ron.
MR. HAVELL: Ron Hovell, public utilities. On the last BCC
meeting, we went to the board for approval of $20,000 to use an
existing contract we have with Lightner Contracting to go do some --
some of the heavier cleanup. They were given their purchase order.
They started on Naples Beach. I believe they finished that last
Friday. As a matter of fact, if you noticed when we were out at the
end of Vanderbilt Beach Road just a few minutes ago, you could see
their heavy equipment on the beach down about as far south as you
can see when we were out there. I believe they're due to finish up
that section today or tomorrow, and I think that will probably be the
end of Lightner Contracting's efforts. Part of what they had to do for
us was to clear some of the bigger items to make way for the beach
rakes to be able to drive all sections of the beach, because the beach
rake can pick up anything up to about a eight or ten pound, you
Page 4
October 4, 2001
know, rocks, so most of the littler stuff the beach rakes can handle.
They picked up such things as -- I know we had a day marker
down with, you know, the orange triangular sign on it, that type of
thing. There was some pilings. There was big piles of sea grass that
needed to be moved, and in some cases we'd lost enough sand that it
had gotten down to the level where the rock groins or some other
structure that had been previously buried was no longer passable for
the beach rakes to get through. So that's the type of efforts that they
have been going through, and you probably also noticed some
amount of the sand has started to return to the beaches.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: As I understand there is a program
underway that since there has been a declaration that FEMA is
looking at reimbursing the county government for storm damage as
far as some -- probably some of the cleanup and the additional sand
that may be required to bring the cross-section back the way it was.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. As a matter of fact, FEMA was here a
couple of weeks ago and went out, and Harry Huber went out with
them and walked the entire beach, and it turned out that there was
about 243,000 cubic yards that would be eligible for reimbursement
by FEMA. So they reimburse us at the rate of 75 percent, and the
state picks up 12 1/2 percent, so it tums out to about $4 million
reimbursement we should -- will be able to have.
MR. STAKICH: Is there -- is the amount that they reimburse us
based on their estimate or on our replacement costs?
MR. HOVELL: Our replacement costs, the percentage, and
that's the reason they determined a quantity of sand because they'll
want to see our bills for that quantity of sand.
MR. STAKICH: So if we're using inland source, it's costing us
$18 to $20 a cubic yard, they will pay --
MR. HOVELL: They are aware of that. That's correct. They
will pay on that basis.
Page 5
October 4, 2001
MR. ANDERSON: We have to pay it first and then we get it
back from them, so it's all strictly a reimbursable program.
MR. HOVELL: And if I could add, this is on the agenda. It
might not appear that way, but under "New Business," Project 10507,
when we talk about the major renourishment, this will all be part of
that.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Next item on the agenda is the
Tigertail/Sand Dollar Island. Are we looking for a presentation on
that?
MR. HOVELL: This was raised at the last meeting. We had the
discussion, and the question was asked, could we go back and
research if any previous reports had been done. After talking to some
folks and looking to some various reports, the only thing I was able to
find was -- and I included it in here in your agenda packets -- the
selected pages from the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inland
Management Study dated July 1997. And so you have about four
pages in your package that has a few paragraphs on the subject. I
don't know that any of it was really on target as far as what's the long-
range plan for it, but really that's -- that's all I have to report back at
this time.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any comments from any board
members on this?
MR. STAKICH: I think at the last meeting we discussed the
idea that perhaps you would be giving the questions to look into what
-- what we can if there is no report or if there is nothing old that you
can find if you can look into what we could do to solve that problem
of the lagoon there. I think that was the question. If I read the
minutes right, that's what you were asked to do the last time and not
necessarily at this meeting but either at this meeting or the next
meeting.
MR. PIRES: IfI recall the discussion, Bob, I know some people
Page 6
October 4, 2001
may characterize it and some people have characterized it as a
problem, and I guess some people would characterize it as an
abundantly rich area for wildlife. That's why what's down there is
down there. And so I guess that's where some of the disagreement or
opinion occurs, and I think you're correct. I think there was
discussion about at least having some further discussion or
presentation of what is the feasibility of getting exploration of filling
that in. Quite frankly, I'm not in favor of that, but I think there was
sort of-- the consensus was let's at least have a discussion with some
good analysis as to feasibility.
MR. ANDERSON: I think as of last month we didn't know
what was out there in terms of previous studies, so I had indicated, as
I recall, to Chairman Galleberg that we want 60 days, you know, to
come back with something. So now that we know what's out there,
you know, we found out the studies that are there, and now we can
look at that or by the next meeting we can make a suggestion as far as
what the next step might be, whether it be a study or whatever. So
we'll have something back for you next month.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That will be on the agenda then.
Okay. We'll go on to the next item. The backup of this is the
potential TDC land purchase.
MR: HOVELL: I know we had discussed it at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The Barefoot Beach area?
MR. HOVELL: Right. That parcel on Barefoot, and the
question seemed to be hanging, can or should the Coastal Advisory
Committee be making a recommendation on any potential TDC land
purchase. There's really -- I wasn't able to find any new news on the
subject. I think, you know, in the background there probably is still
some discussions going on, but I don't think anything's changed, that
the owner is not really interested in selling, and so I'm not sure there
is any real direction on where that might head, and I think the only
Page 7
October 4, 2001
implication for this committee is the potential impact to the -- to the
budget.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Uh-huh. Right. I would guess that
the -- this would be handled by the county's parks and recreation or at
least whatever the line of acquisition would come out of.
MR. HOVELL: From the standpoint of if the county acquires it,
yes, but I think -- I think the negotiations at this point are between
either the county attorney and/or the real estate office.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Any other questions on that?
MR. STRAPPONI: I think the concern of this board was the
suggestion was made in the newspaper that it would be funded with
TDC funds, and we wanted to have an understanding how that was
going to impact on our budget for renourishment.
MR. HOVELL: I think we all would, but unless and until they
come up with a dollar figure to even banty about, it's kind of hard to
tell you what the impact's going to be to the budget when we have no
idea what we might be paying for it. And I don't know that they've
even finished the appraisal yet either. We don't even have a target
amount to talk about, if you will. But, yes, you're right. At some
point if we know a number we can take a look at the ten-year plan
and tell you how that might impact the rest of the program.
MR. STAKICH: In other words, it could affect our budget as a
committee insofar as beach renourishment is concerned. I don't know
who decides that, but is that just a given7
The ultimate decision is the Board of County
MR. HOVELL:
Commissioners.
MR. STAKICH:
As to where the money comes from.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments on that?
MR. KROESCHELL: I wonder if we should go on record in
some way of saying that we are concerned about this, that the amount
of money might affect the things that we want to do on the beach
Page 8
October 4, 2001
renourishment, and let the county commission know that we are
concerned about this.
MR. STAKICH: I agree.
MR. STRAPPONI: I support the purchase if that is a viable
option, but I'm really concerned about the ten-year plan to maintain
the beach that we have, and I think other sources of funds are going
to have to be looked into and I agree with you. I think this committee
should go on record with a position in that regard.
MR. KROESCHELL: Well, I'll make a motion to that affect,
then, that we inform the county commission that we are concerned
about the -- the amount of money allocated for this purchase, and we
would want to be kept abreast of the deliberations as far as the
quantity is concerned and that we are concerned about that. MR. STAKICH: I'll second that.
MR. PIRES: And as part of the discussion, I think it's also
possible for the next budget cycle that-- this issue has come up about
realizing the funds for this type of acquisition may be part of the
budgetary process. To ensure that this isn't taking away from the
other capital projects that are contemplated at the beach facility, put
an item in there, put a category in for beach, park, or park facility
acquisitions and maintenance facilities. And then if it's not utilized,
once again, just roll that over to the next -- forward to the following
year. I think that's a more forward-looking approach also. Maybe
that could be communicated to the county commission.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: All right. We have a motion and a
second. There's been some discussion. Any additional discussion on
that?
MR. STRAPPONI: Who will -- who will draft that -- the
position -- this board's position?
MR. ANDERSON: We can draft that for you, and then we can
send it to the vice-chairman and chairman for review and signature.
Page 9
October 4, 2001
MR. PIRES: Plus I think the -- all the minutes of these
committee meetings are filed with the board, direct to the board along
with the agenda packet for the county commission. MR. HOVELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I guess the only question I have is if
this -- we want to have a final vote on it now or whether we want to
have -- kind of a see what the draft is, and then have a vote at the next
meeting?
MR. PIRES: I'm comfortable taking a vote now. I think it's
general and generic enough. We're not saying don't use it, just saying
we're concerned, and look at the impact it has on the projects.
MR. STRAPPONI: I agree with Anthony. I think that this
particular motion is to request of staff to assist us in preparing
something to take that position.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right.
MR. STRAPPONI: You know, we're talking about ten-year
plan where several million dollars earmarked for the maintenance of
the beaches here in Naples and Collier County, and if that money is
used for this purchase, we're exposed to a -- disband this committee,
actually, because we won't have the funds to do it otherwise.
MR. STAKICH: And I would like to add that rather than us
take a chance on the commission picking that up from the minutes,
that we have a definite memo sent so that they are clear as to what
our feeling is and our interest.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG:
And I call for the question.
Okay. All those in favor.
Any opposed?
Passes.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if there's just one -- as we
finish up old business, there's one point of information I just wanted
Page 10
October 4, 2001
to bring up. There was the issue of the rocks on the beach, and I just
wanted to give you a brief update on that. We do have a final signed
consent order from DEP, and it's got a date of September 24th, and
we are obligated to have a plan into the state by October 24th, so we
-- we anticipate that we have a draft almost ready now, so we're
going to suggest that we would send it out to the members next week
and give you maybe three or four days to give us your comments
back, and then we'll send it in. So I just wanted to give you that
information, so we'll be giving you a package very shortly. Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, you know, I think with the
cover letter you will send to members who weren't able to be here
today because -- excuse me, I think it will be very important for us to
take a look at it, and if you have any comments to provide it as
quickly as possible.
We do have one item under old business, Gabrielle cleanup.
MR. KROESCHELL: Yes. I noticed-- Bill Kroeschell -- I
noticed that you mentioned that the county cleaned up the beach. I
just wanted you to be aware that whoever did that drove off the beach
through the Moorings property owners beach which is a private
beach. We have no objections to this kind of access, but we need --
we need -- we need you to let us know because that driving off can
ruin sprinkler systems.
MR. HOVELL: We, at the county, did not have anybody do
that, but the state emergency order sort of opened the door for
anybody to clean up anything, and there were all kinds of private
owners, hotels doing their own cleaning activities. I know we had an
issue where a lot of sand went up into people's yards or hotel's yards
or whatever. I forget the exact location but, you know, somebody
went in there and scooped up not only the sand but whatever
vegetation and what was mixed in with it and dumped it all back out
Page 11
October 4, 2001
on the beach and made it our problem, but that was not us. We know
where public access is.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments?
That concludes the old business.
We'll go on to the new business. Item A, public status report
and report of the --
MR. HOVELL: At the last meeting, we discussed getting a
status report, and I have mailed you one. I would just ask you to read
-- take this update. I think most of the information is the same with
the exception of the page for the City of Naples.
MR. STRAPPONI: Does that replace this?
MR. HOVELL: Yes. If you would, please, maybe take your old
one and fold it in half so you know which one's which. The idea was
to try and give you an idea of any open projects and what the status
is, how much money has been expended and whatnot, as well as on
the cover page in a summary form to give you an idea of where we
are with the budget and the reserves and whatnot.
The county's fiscal year ended on 30 September, and these
figures are meant to capture the end of the past fiscal year as opposed
to starting the new fiscal year. And if it's agreeable to everybody we
can provide a similar report at our monthly meetings that would then
have the new fiscal year's information on how we're tracking on the
new budget.
I think the only things I really wanted to point out were on the
first page -- on the first page under the -- about the 5th column over
it's total current-year budget, and the second row from the bottom it
talks about reserves for capital outlay. In the budget as the end of the
last fiscal year, we were carrying about $6.7 million in reserves. I'm
told that over the next couple days as they finalize and close out last
fiscal year -- I think their deadline is October 10th -- the carry
forward number and the new reserve number will be about $7 1/2
Page 12
October 4, 2001
million. So I guess there's some differences in maybe some increased
revenue or lowered expenses, whatever caused that. Anyway, you get
the idea that there is about $7 million to $7 1/2 million in reserves,
and each year we tend to budget in the neighborhood of anywhere
from six to eight million dollars of new TDC Category A projects.
The following pages are just a list of all the projects, and a lot of
these will -- will come off because they were finished in the last
fiscal year, and then they will be deleted. But the first two pages are
all projects that public utilities engineering department manages. The
following page is the grant applications that have been approved for
the City of Naples, and then the last page are grant -- grant
applications approved for execution by other entities, for instance, the
Clam Pass dredging which we were just out looking at and
discussing. That one gets managed by Pelican Bay Services
Division. We've got the Lake Trafford restoration, which our
agreement -- the county agreement is with or will be with South
Florida Water Management District, and then I think just about all
those other projects on that page are with parks and recreation
department.
MR. PIRES: For those -- how do we determine encumbered?
Can you explain what that means and how it affects fiscal and
budgetary standpoint?
MR. HOVELL: Okay. Now that we're in a new year, we're
given a budget, and this new year's budget, I think, is in the
neighborhood of about $8 million. As we develop new projects and
issue contracts and purchase orders against those budgets -- once we
have something signed in the form of a purchase order and/or
contract, then the money is encumbered. So encumbered just means
we have an obligation to execute something and ultimately pay for it.
There is another column further over that talks about expended; that's
once we've actually paid the bill against that encumbrance.
Page 13
October 4, 2001
MR. PIRES: And money to encumber in one fiscal year, say
there's a contract issued in the fiscal year that ends September 30,
2001, but the contract was entered into, say, in July 1 st, 2001, the
funds for that project would be encumbered and carried forward to
the following year?
MR. HOVELL: That's correct. And that's the very first column,
encumbered but unexpended roll-over from the previous fiscal year,
and they almost treat that like a budget amendment. You'll see those
figures, you know, change with the new fiscal year, but all the
projects that carry forward will wind up with an amount in that
column.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
You say we can get that each month when we
MR. STAKICH:
meet?
MR. HOVELL:
I would think so because I think the timing
works out more or less where I have to provide this on a monthly
basis anyway to my management chain, so I think it would be
available to distribute to'you-all on the same frequency. MR. STAKICH: That would be good.
MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I have a question. In the projected
revenue for the next fiscal year that the TDC will receive, I know that
we have plenty of history to determine that projection, but with
what's happened recently and the impact it's had on tourism -- and I'm
just looking at the chart, and it appears that the lion's share of that
revenue is from hotels and motels -- has anyone adjusted or made any
attempt to adjust what impact that may have?
MR. HOVELL: Not for the most recent events, but I think over
the summer -- and just as a matter of comparison, in the fiscal year
that just ended, the revenue budget for Fund 195, which is the TDC
Category A the budget projection, I guess back when the year started,
was about $7 million. We, in fact, got a total of 8.8 million, but 1.3
Page 14
October 4, 2001
of that was settlement funds from the lawsuit against Coastal
Engineering and T.L. James, but that still means we collected 7.5
million against a 7 million projection. The budget for this fiscal year
that we're now into is only $6.4 million, and you'll see when we talk
about some of the new projects here in a couple more agenda items
that when we start talking about reserves and being able to afford
things, there is a concern that the $6.4 million may now be too high
even though it's lower than last year's figure.
MR. MUDD: For the record, I'm Jim Mudd. Can you hear me?
Tom Olliff has asked his office of management and budget to
monitor the income because he has the same concerns that you do,
sir, about -- about the revenues that are going to come in, and they
might not be as high as we had expected because of the 1 lth of
September incident. He's going to keep that monitored on a monthly
basis and report that back to the Board of County Commissioners
because it impacts several people that budget was based on, a planned
revenue, okay, and if that revenue doesn't come in, it's going to be --
it's going to be quite tight. And there is an item on your addenda that
you're about to get to that's going to talk about moving $7.5 million
in reserves to replace the 400,000 cubic yards of sand that was lost
because of Gabrielle and the storm prior to that in July which will
leave $700 in reserve in the whole entire TDC budget.
There's another issue that you've got to worry about. You have
to have the expenditures -- expenditures, not obligations --
expenditures back to FEMA 18 months after the incident was
declared. So you got to have your bills to them in order to get those
dollars back. So if we -- if this committee decides to postpone that
fix, then you will give up the opportunity to get the federal dollars in
that process.
And you asked the question, sir, about the damage in total. The
damage in total to the county estimate was $4.8 million of which 4.6
Page 15
October 4, 2001
was beach related, that 87 percent which is 75 fed, 12 1/2 state, and
the other 12 1/2 comes from the county equates to about $4 million
payback from FEMA which equates to 234,000 in cubic yards. That
leaves us shy another 150,000 close to that 400,000, and the way they
-- they push that off is they basically said, "Well, that would be three
years worth of renourishment that you'd have to make into that
process," and that's how they want you to calculate for that estimate.
So that gets really specific at your concerns, but the real key is it's
going to be a month-by-month kind of thing that we're going to have
to monitor because it's not only going to impact beach renourishment
and contracts because of this emergency condition that we're in to try
to get the beach halfway back to what it used to be as far as cross-
section is concerned. But it's going to impact the Alliance. It's going
to impact the new Botanical Garden. We've already talked to parks
and rec to postpone the Vanderbilt Beach garage, so they will go into
design, but they won't go into construction, and they'll do it on a
separate contract, and they'll push that off a year in order to get at
those reserves so that we can make this a possibility. So there are
some things there -- some things are going to get postponed a year or
so if you decide to do this, and we've got to clear it with you and the
TDC and then go to the Board of County Commissioners with that
process. But short answer, yes, on a monthly basis you'll be brought
up to speed with a report.
this committee gets it.
MR. STRAPPONI:
a recommendation?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
When that report's available, I'll make sure
Thank you, Jim. And is staff going to make
The item is coming.
MR. HOVELL: We just went over the general budget, and then
the next agenda item is to go over the grant applications which will
be moving forward.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I'm very pleased with this. I think
Page 16
October 4, 2001
this has been a real problem in the past because we had no idea. I
mean, there was a lot of money encumbered or at least even if the
contract hadn't been signed yet, for instance, like the Parker Sand
Web, that's been around for a couple, three years, and we knew it was
more than a million dollars, and it's always been kind of floating out
there. But this way we can look at it and see what's -- what time
frame, what's coming down the pike. This is very valuable, and I
think this will be very helpful in our understanding of how this
program is going forward.
Any other questions on this? I think it's something we need to --
I think it's something you need to get used to a little bit. It's kind of a
different kind of tabulation, but after you've done this for a couple
months, I think you'll pick up which projects we might be having a
problem falling behind on and so forth and seeing if there's any
additional emphasis that needs to be placed, what the reason is.
Money is kind of tight for years without being spent.
Going on to the next item, discuss the amendments to the
approved TDC grants, and I will turn this over to staff.
MR. HOVELL: Okay. The first one on the list is for beach
maintenance activities, and that has a Project No. 10266. It's a-- it's
not a new project, and had it not been the end of the fiscal year
perhaps there would still be some money left where we would not
have had to go forward with an additional amount, but being only
two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, it basically was already
spent and so; therefore, at the last BCC meeting we went forward and
requested and received approval to spend the $20,000, but per the
requirements we're now coming back to the Coastal Advisory
Committee and next week to the Tourist Development Council to
apprise them of what we did.
And that was the contract with Lightner Contracting I mentioned
earlier. So the grant application in here we're adding $20,000 to it
Page 17
October 4, 2001
previously approved $145,000 project, and once this purchase order
gets closed out, which will be within the next few weeks that we
process the paperwork, then that whole project will be closed out as
well.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The way I would like to handle this,
we have four of them here. I would prefer to have a specific motion
on each one, so if someone would like to make a motion on this first
one.
MR. PIRES: I would like to ask a question first. So I
understand, this is a FY 2000/2001 activity that we're talking about
adjusting the number and then closing it out?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, that's correct. Because we went to the
board last week -- when it was still last year, we received the $20,000
amendment from the board. We encumbered the money like a
purchase order. We'll receive the bills in the new year, so the money
will roll forward to pay those bills, but it is a last fiscal year project.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. STAKICH: I move we approve this.
MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Motion. Second. Any other
discussion? All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Okay. We'll go on to the
next one.
MR. HOVELL: The next one on the list -- the next one on the
list is Incremental Beach Maintenance, Project No. 10507. This
project was originally approved for $1 million and has been included
in the new year's budget. This is typically the project that places
50,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach each year, and we usually
Page 18
October 4, 2001
choose where that goes based on the annual monitoring reports that
we hire engineering firms to go out and do the surveys on. However,
this year with a combination of the July storm which seemed to take
away some sand as well as Tropical Storm Gabrielle, we are asking
to amend that project to go up to 400,000 cubic yards which, in
essence, was the amount that we estimate we lost due to Tropical
Storm Gabrielle, and the amount of the amendment would be $7.5
million. So on top of the 1 million budgeted, it would be for a total
of $8 1/2 million.
We have to request the budget amendment for the full amount
even though we now, I believe, have something in writing from
FEMA that indicates we would get reimbursement, because it is a
reimbursment program and we cannot guarantee that we would get
that money back in the same fiscal year that we are trying to spend it,
so we need the budget amendment to cover the full amount of work
we're going to do, and then at some point in time we should get some
money back from FEMA and the state based on the quantities that we
discussed. And I think it was pointed out before, they came down for
a visit. They asked some questions. They looked at our figures. I
mean, when we say 400,000, we rounded it up a little bit, but they
had agreed to reimburse us for the cost to restore 234,200 cubic
yards, and so from a budget point of view, we just kind of threw
around a figure of $20 per cubic yard and use that number and the
234,000, we figure right around $4 million is what FEMA would
reimburse out of the total of $8 1/2 million that we're proposing.
MR. PIRES: Ron, I'd like to ask you a question on that. Since
Gabrielle -- since the storm has passed that 234,000 cubic yards and a
number of feet whatever obviously is less -- significantly less than
the 400,000 cubic yards. Is there an estimate that's kind of incurred
by the county consultants that would be significantly less than
400,000 cubic yards to restore the beaches?
Page 19
October 4, 2001
MR. HOVELL: Well, again, we did the damage assessment
right after the storm, and the numbers that we showed FEMA was
what was lost the day of the storm. Now, if you're asking me is there
a natural process that restores some of it, the answer is yes, there is. If
you're asking, do we have a better estimate than the initial damage
estimate, the answer is no. What we hope to do -- regardless of the
quantity and dollar figure that's ultimately approved, what we hope to
do is get engineering services going within about the next week or so
to do surveys, and then we'll know exactly where the beach profiles
are as compared to perhaps, you know, a desired level, and we can
adjust how much fill would be put in to try and stay within whatever
budget is ultimately approved.
MR. PIRES: I guess what I'm leading to here is that if it's less
than the 400,000, as opposed to taking the reserves down, I think,
$700 is what was indicated--
MR. HOVELL: Well, actually I could amplify on that some too.
The package we are presenting you today is in the format that goes to
the Tourist Development Council, but as you're probably aware if
you follow the Board of County Commissioners, we have to present
them with an executive summary that explains in detail what we're
going to do. And I don't recall if I had that done in time to include in
your package, but the gist of it as I think it got approved and is now
copied and available for public consumption is to do a $7.5 million
budget amendment for this project but to also take four other projects
and do budget amendments and, in essence, take money away from
them so that the reserves go back up to about $4 1/2 million. So the
net result would not be that we have only $700 in reserves.
And those specific projects, I know one of them everybody will
recognize is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. That is in the
budget for this year at $3.8 million, but in reality they have not yet
awarded an engineering contract to even design it. So the likelihood
Page 20
October 4, 2001
that they would be in a position to sign a contract for the construction
portion prior to September 30th of 2002 was pretty shaky anyway.
So it's just a way of recognizing that in this fiscal year we will not
encumber that money under this plan.
And we have a number of other smaller projects in the beach
program that are in the same position, because we don't even have a
coastal engineer hired. We anticipate getting one later this month.
We have a number of projects that we're saying it's not very likely we
could have the engineering work done and actually do the
construction work before turtle season starts on the first of May. So
it's just as easy to defer that money to a future year, and make it
available to say that we have a reserve cushion.
MR. PIRES: Would it from a budgetary standpoint-- not being
a buget kind of person, would it be easier to have a lesser amount,
than, as oppossed to taking it down so far and then having to transfer
it back later on back reserves or shifting it around again?
MR. HOVELL: I think from an executability standpoint we are
looking to get contracts in place before your next meeting, and
without the budgetary authority to do that, it makes it very
cumbersome to try and manage. I think we're in a much better
position to say, yes, perhaps we've done what I call a conservative
estimate. If we use $20 a cubic yard and it's really only going to cost
17 or 18, we hope not to spend the whole amount and ultimately we
hope to return some back to the reserves. But rather than having to
fast track everything, but then having to stop and say, oops, well,
wait, now I have to go to the TDC and the Board of County
Commissioners again, we wanted to do a conservative estimate so
that we have the flexibility to do what we need to do.
MR. STAKICH: When is it proposed or shall we say scheduled
for this sand -- for the renourishment to take place?
MR. HOVELL: What we're hoping to do is get the engineering
Page 21
October 4, 2001
services contractor going on the surveys, as I say, in about the next
week or so. Because of our existing permits we are precluded from
starting work before the first of November. Even though we can use
the state's emergency order to justify a quick review of our
construction application, we don't see a way of actually putting sand
on the beach prior to the 1st of November. So I think the short
answer to your question is probably in November-December time
frame is the bulk of what we would like to do.
MR. STAKICH: I think that's great because as I thought about
the beaches and the timing of things, I would hope that we would
always be set up to act in this time frame. The turtle season is over at
the end of this month. Of course, it's been pretty well wiped out
anyway, but if we were always in a position to react to the storms that
we have in the summers, in the months of November and December
have our beaches in good shape for the balance of the year or the
season. Let's say, through the season and then knowing that turtle
season is then coming up on May the 1 st and then we've got another
storm season to look at, so we have the same thing over and over
again. It sounds like that's what you're set up to do. And if the
money is there and the sand source is there, we can take care of this.
Now, the sand source I'm not quite sure about except for the
source that we used last spring.
MR. HOVELL: Well, part of the package that's going before
the board-- you know, again, from a procedural point of view, to try
and make all this happen, part of what we were asking the board to
do is waive the normal county competition rules and allow us to go to
three to five sources and get quotes rather than actually bidding it out
and going through a selection process and the normal thing because
then it would take a number of weeks. We hope to have the contracts
in place -- well, assuming the board approves it next week, we hope
to have the contracts in place within about a week or so after that.
Page 22
October 4, 2001
And the second piece of that is, you know, you mention do we
have a sand source lined up. You know, how are we going to do it? I
think pretty much everything is executable. The one concern -- out
of all the pieces that we have to -- I think the biggest concern is when
you do the math and you say 400,000 cubic yards, most dump trucks
are 20 cubic yards. That's 20,000 truckloads, and when you start
divvying it up between all the places it has to go and the number of
days that ideally, I'm sure, the community would like to see us do it
in, we're thinking that we're going to have to have four simultaneous
operations going seven days a week for the entire months of
November and December, and we just might make it. And so that's a
big challenge, not only to coordinate all that, but to even find that
many trucks in Southwest Florida to come do the job.
MR. MUDD: You know, as a fallback-- if I can add -- I'm Jim
Mudd, again -- as a fallback you can basically say 20,000 dump
trucks, if you figure you have a hundred days to do it, you can get
about 60 days November, December if you go to about the 10th of
January. Once you get after the 10th of January then you start getting
into the really high season. You kind of want to be gone, then you
get to ramp back up again after Easter. Easter falls on the 31 st of
March this -- this -- in '02. So you've got exactly 30 days before 1
May shows back up again. It basically gives you that 100 days. So
you're looking on the average of about 200 trips, 200 truckloads of
whatever you like to equate it to. I call it 200 trips of 20-ton dump
trucks per day during that 100-day period of time.
The sand sources, I think you've seen the samples of sand that
we got from our requests for proposals. We got them from Big Island
and got them from John, and Ron has been talking to those folks to
make sure they could make it fast enough, and it seems like we've got
that part under control. We just need to get the samples back for that
from Big Island. That was the sugar sand that we saw before that
Page 23
October 4, 2001
everybody likes better than the other one. So I think that's there.
It's the dump-truck issue now. Can you actually contract out
and have those folks on station staged and ready to go during that 60-
day window November-December, and then I talked to -- to Leo
Ochs the public services administrator and talked to him about a
staging area for the sand during the winter months where we could
have trucks that they had to go to John and to pick up sand if there
was a way to cut down on the -- on the transit time, because it's 90
miles away.
If we could stage the sand and stockpile it during January,
February, and March closer in -- and there is a regional park that's
going in off of Immokalee Road right there by the ramp at 75 -- and
he said he could make that available to us. I just told Leo, I said,
"Isn't there a sandbox part of that park?" He said, "Yeah, I'll find it."
I said, "When you do I'll make sure I leave a little for you."
And so maybe that could work out, too, 'cause you can never get
it down to the base grade when you're putting it on a dirt surface, so
if I can help then a little bit he can help us. If we can stockpile and
cut down on that trip. And then that last 30-day window that we have
we can really go at it with great guns because you can -- even if you
can't get that many dump trucks they can make more trips in a day
because the sources are closer.
MR. STAKICH: There is double handling there which adds to
the cost, but everything else taken into consideration probably makes
sense to go ahead and spend that money if we want to keep our
beaches good.
MR. MUDD: The good news on this whole process, sir, is the
fact that, yeah, we lost 400,000 cubic yards, okay, but we're going to
get 75 percent back. Ed, help me here. What's the percentage back
when we finally get back on from the natural process?
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's hard to say.
Page 24
October 4, 2001
MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's say 75 percent. Maybe I'm over,
maybe I'm below, but if you get that back, you're getting about
300,000 cubic yards back, but it's coming back to you on width. It's
not coming back to you on cross-section on the backside. It's giving
you a width issue and, sir, we get back to the issues during the '95
dredge event. We got gypped in certain areas on the width that was
supposed to be -- I think mother nature is going to help us a little bit
this time. So if you're working the cross-sectional area in the back
that got washed away, I think you're going to come out this year with
a relatively nice beach --
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Excuse me. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: -- all things considered.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: My only comment-- and we have this
estimate from FEMA -- in our prior life sometimes they've -- we have
been able to -- they put out an estimate with, and you come in with an
actual. Sometimes you can get them to revise their estimate. I don't
know what -- I don't want to sell any false hopes. That might be a
possibility that you may be able to help us out when we get down to
cases here.
MR. HOVELL: As I understand the process, I believe it's in the
next couple weeks once the presidential declaration is signed they
will actually come back in and receive initial applications from
everybody and then maintain a relationship and receive the bills that
they come in. And you're right, their initial visit, I would hazard to
say they probably only spent an hour or two on the subject of
beaches. They looked at some other issues in the area and then went
on to the next county, so I don't know how firm they are on that
estimate.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think typically they first come in
and get a ballpark and then go from there.
MR. MUDD: I think when you get your cross-sectional areas --
Page 25
October 4, 2001
when you go in this next week or so, and we start looking at exactly
-- and we fine-tune our pencils as far as the exact amounts that we're
missing because of the storm, and with that information I think you're
-- I think our chances of getting more if that's the case are quite good.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right.
MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I understand the concept of asking for
$7 1/2 million on top of the million that you have as a blanket. We
expect to recover a good portion of that from FEMA. We may not
need all of it. Nature may help us out along the way, and I don't have
a problem with that concept, but we are talking about a blanket so
that you don't have to piecemeal and come running back to us saying,
you know, "We need a little more. We need a little more." And I
think based on that, unless anyone has any more questions, I'm
prepared to make a motion that we go ahead and pass this. MR. GRAY: Second.
MR. KROESCHELL: I second.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think Mr. Gray beat you this time.
MR. STAKICH: You can have it.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other discussion on that item? If
not, I will call the question. All those in favor.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes.
MR. HOVELL: The next project on the list is repair of
Hideaway Beach T-Groins, Project No. 10257. This project is for all
intents and purposes completed but for the contractual documents.
There are some areas that are based on estimated quantities, and as
the surveys get done and we figure out the exact quantity of sand to
put in and whatnot, you know, we are in essense obligated to go back
and pay the contractor. So this is for $53,125 on top of an original
Page 26
October 4, 2001
split out -- I guess it started at 137,100. There had been previous
changes of $110,076. This additional $53,000 will bring the total to
$300,301, and once we process the change order and go back and pay
them, this project, too, will be closed out.
MR. PIRES: Move to prepare this for the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. STAKICH: Second.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other discussion on the item?
All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Go to the final one.
MR. HOVELL: The last project on the list is for the Clam Pass
Dredging, Project No. 10268. There is a grant application for
$50,000 that was filed based on the anticipated additional dredging
that might be needed in Clam Pass. However, as we just discussed,
when we went out there to visit there, it looks like some final surveys
after Tropical Storm Gabrielle might tend to indicate that we don't
need to dredge this year. However, I believe there was some public
comment out on the beach that perhaps that didn't include what they
considered the navigable channels. I don't know if you want to
discuss it. I know Kyle Lucas from Pelican Bay Services Division
administers this project that indicated he would like me to pull it from
the agenda and not present it to the county nor the TDC.
MR. PIRES: PBSD staff is requesting that we not consider this?
MR. HOVELL: That's correct.
MR. PIRES: They don't believe-- it is no longer needed?
MR. HOVELL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Talking about the addition; right?
MR. HOVELL: Well, actually the original project was
Page 27
October 4, 2001
approved for a total of about $205,000. They have done all the
engineering work, prepared the plans and specifications and, I
believe, even went so far as to receive bids, but they are now going to
purchasing and asking if they can either not award those bids or hold
them for a year under contract to do the dredging a year later. I
believe perhaps Ken Humiston from Humiston and Moore, the
engineer on the contract, could answer any more detailed questions
because he is working for Pelican Bay Services Division.
MR. PIRES: For the record, could you articulate the reason why
it is no longer necessary to have this work performed? MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Can you hear him all right? You can
use the microphone.
MR. HUMISTON: As I was explaining on the beach, two and a
half years ago there was a pretty extensive dredging project that was
done to improve the tidal flow in the inlet. That improved tidal flow
has successfully been keeping the inlet open. Higher current velocity
scoured the sand out that's put into the inlet by the waves moving the
sand along the beach. The storm that we just had really showed that
that system is working very well, and it actually cleaned some of the
sand out of the inlet that has accumulated there that we were looking
at dredging this fall. And based on the surveys and the tidal studies
that have been done there, it doesn't appear that the dredging is
necessary at this time. The purpose of the maintenance dredging is,
of course, to prevent the inlet from closing. It does not appear that
the inlet is in danger of closing in the near future, so the Pelican Bay
Services District staff has apparently decided to wait a year to do the
dredging.
MR. STAKICH: And I guess there's nothing to say that if things
change we can revisit this?
MR. STRAPPONI: Absolutely.
Page 28
October 4, 2001
MR. PIRES: Is Kyle formally asking it be withdrawn?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: There's no motion one way or the
other. There is no need for a motion one way or the other.
MR. HOVELL: I don't think we need to vote on it because I
don't believe it's going to be presented to the TDC. He told me,
literally, just before this meeting that come Monday I don't think it
will be on the TDC agenda.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right. That was one of the questions
I was going to ask later. When is the TDC; it's on Monday?
MR. HOVELL: It's on Monday the 8th.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: At 5 p.m. Again?
MR. HOVELL: I believe it's 5 p.m.
MS. DYKEMAN: Do you allow public speaking at this
hearing?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Yes, we have --
MR. HOVELL: I think that's next on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's next on the agenda.
MS. DYKEMAN: I was going to speak on this item.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, since it's the next item, why
don't we hear your views. And since we're not going to take any
action on the Clam Pass dredging at this time, we can skip down to
Item 6, which is Audience Participation, and we will recognize
anyone that has any comments and request that you come to the
microphone and identify yourself and I guess some indication of your
location.
MS. DYKEMAN: I'm Martha Dykeman, president of Seagate
Properties Owners Association. I want to speak on the Clam Pass
dredging project. I have a small boat and use the pass probably more
than most people in this room. The main thing is the bar in front of
the pass out in the gulf, and that's the biggest problem is it shifts all
the time, and it leaves very little room, and people constantly walk
Page 29
October 4, 2001
across that, but if that could be dredged and used on the beach I think,
you know, when you think about trucking all this sand in, and there's
plenty of sand right there you could be using. I don't say you need to
dredge the whole system and spend two hundred and some thousand
dollars on that one area which, you know, maybe you could speak to.
There is always that bar out there that's blocking the pass, and I
don't know if you can just use a part of the money to do that and
make sure that happens so that that will -- because that keeps washing
in and filling in and filling in -- the bar, it shifts around and moves
over to the other side, but it's constantly bringing sand in, and that's
our concern. We realize it's not supposed to be dredged for
navigation. We still use it as navigable waterway, though.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, is it possible for, I guess, Ken to
address that issue with regards to if there's no need to maintain that
pass or the inlet as per the request by PBSD withdrawing the request,
do we have any beach renourishment projects planned in that area
that we could use that as a sand source?
MR. HUMISTON: The sand is good beach-quality sand, and
the plan -- the dredging plan does include putting it on the beach, but
the purpose of the project is maintenance of the inlet for tidal
flushing. The purpose is not beach restoration or navigation, and
from a tidal flushing standpoint, it doesn't appear to be necessary to
do that dredging right now.
MR. PIRES: Would that require a separate permit application,
then, in order to do that dredging activity solely for navigational
purposes?
MR. HUMISTON: No. Under the existing permit, a portion
could be dredged. I think the problem is -- is in the justification
because the entrance to the inlet is the smallest cross-section. That's
really what controls the overall hydraulics of the inlet. That is
actually got a larger cross-section now than what we would have
Page 30
October 4, 2001
dredged it to, although it's at a slightly different location than where
we were going to dredge. The plans show removal of about 2,500
cubic yards from that area. The actual channel is adjacent to where
we would have dredged, and its got a larger cross-section than what
we were going to create, so from a tidal flushing standpoint it's really
not necessary.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Can I put my two cents in now? That particular --
that particular sandbar is adjacent to an area that's hard to get to from
upland sources, so as we do the cross-sectional loss areas to what's
going on and the City of Naples finally figures out what they're going
to do with their dredger down there at -- what is it, Doctor's Pass?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Doctor's.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And figure out what they're going to do
there, and if they ever get that person on station, there might be an
opportunity while that dredger is mobilized to -- and you find a good
one this time. I'm not picking on you, but there is some controversy
behind that dredger. Some of them are fly by night. I have -- I have
sympathy for you because I had to deal with them on the Mississippi
River, but if we can -- if there's a way to piggyback on that contract
and go find the sand source, we might be able to use that as -- I'm not
trying to build an expectation, but if it is an alternative that we can
take a look at to see if there is a ready source there and sample it, the
permits are easier to get this year because of the emergency, there
might be an opportunity to use that sandbar as a source to replenish
that part of the beach that's been damaged.
MR. HOVELL: If I could add, you know, I didn't go into all the
ins and outs of where we had permits and where we don't. You
know, we had not-- prior to Tropical Storm Gabrielle, we had not
been anticipating being able to start any beach renourishment on 1
November, and it's only because of the state emergency order that
Page 31
October 4, 2001
both the state and the Army Corps have agreed to fast track any
construction permits -- I don't think is even the right word --
construction notice -- notice to proceed under an existing permit.
The only existing permits we have to renourish our beaches this
year are for certain sections of beach, and adjacent to Clam Pass or
immediately adjacent to Clam Pass is not under an upland trucking
permit, but it's under the dredging of Clam Pass permit. The only
way we can restore that section of beach, including the dunes, is to do
some amount of dredging out of Clam Pass and I -- from what I
understand of the state emergency order and the existing permits and
perhaps some of the rationale, I think there would be an opportunity
to at least further explore getting a fast-track notice to proceed or
perhaps a smaller amount of dredging to do what was suggested by
public comment to both accomplish the water part of the dredging,
but also to help renourish the beach which probably could use it.
Otherwise, what you will see happen in that section of beach is
under the section of beach where we have the upland trucking permit,
we will be adding whatever it is, two, three feet of sand, and we'll
have to taper it down to the existing level for that last bit that goes all
the way up to Clam Pass. There may be an opportunity to try and do
something. I'll be happy to work with Kyle and Ken and the state
folks to try and figure out if they can get the authority, and I think the
other piece is as Mr. Mudd mentioned, is making sure dredging
contractors are mobilized. If we are only going to do a small
quantity, we'd be spending an awful lot of money on mobilization.
MR. STRAPPONI: We have any equipment already at Doctor's
Pass, is that what I'm understanding? MR. STAKICH: Shaky.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: There was an article in the paper a
day or so ago about they have not completed the hydraulic dredging
at Doctor's Pass, and there was another contractor that was going to
Page 32
October 4, 200 !
come down from Tampa to start it. There was some kind ofhangups
because they are in the bonding companies -- MR. STAKICH: It's a mess.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: You know what, we don't want to go
into the details, but from the bottom line if the hydraulic dredge
comes down to Doctor's Pass, it's probably worthwhile looking into
whether or not we should get them to go up there and do a little
cleanup, because as Ron indicated, just to bring a dredge in to do that,
the mobilization cost will kill you, but if he's down at Doctor's Pass, I
think it would be good if staff could look into this and talk to Mr.
Lucas, Pelican Bay Service Division, and see if whether or not that
could be accomplished as a modification to whatever contract they
may come up with. I guess it's with the City of Naples.
MR. PIRES: What I think is compelling, though, is the fact that
PBSD staff is asking it be withdrawn. It appears that the justification
outlined in paragraph 12 of the application it describes how the
project enhances existing county tourist development programs to
improve tidal flow by the dredging doesn't seem to exist any longer
because the tidal flows are sufficient based upon what Ken Humiston
has indicated to us, so I just feel that we need to -- out of the request
by PBSD at the present time as things occur in the future where there
might be some other possibilities like Colonel Mudd has indicated. I
think that there's some flexibility in the future, but I think we ought to
honor that request.
MR. STAKICH: I would suggest that we not even try to act
upon this grant application because of what's been said, but I think
this committee should endorse the idea of possibly using the dredger
at Doctor's Pass to move this sand onto the beach, if we can do it at
some reasonable cost.
MR. KROESCHELL: I agree.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That could be part of a -- rather than-
Page 33
October 4, 2001
- you know, not to worsen it at this particular -- it's not exactly to
cleanup the pass; it's more of a borrow for beach renourishment.
Yes, sir.
MR. HOVELL: If I could add, Mr. Chairman, on the last page
of that project status report, I gave you that first project is the Clam
Pass dredging. They already have in the last fiscal year they spent
the money to do the engineering and getting the plan and
specifications. In the new fiscal year in which we're in, they already
have almost $169,000 in the budget, and so I think Mr. Pires is right.
We don't need to act on the grant application, because that's just
increasing the budget, but within the budget I think there is some
room to discuss doing a smaller amount of dredging to accomplish
some amount of beach restoration in that area. And I believe if there
was a dredger in the area we may be able to do something and stay
well within that budget and make a compromise there.
I might also add, though, I'm not overly familiar with the
original grant application, but perhaps all that would need to be done
is both this committee and the TDC recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners that the grant application scope, if you will,
be allowed to include the different reason for doing it. As you
pointed out, the original reason for doing the dredging was to open up
the tidal flow, whereas, now we're still wanting to do the work and
use the same budget, but the reason we want to do it is to renourish
the adjacent beach.
MR. STRAPPONI: I have a question for Ken. Ken, you're
saying the width of the opening right now is greater than what you
would have dredged to?
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
MR. STRAPPONI: And this young lady's concern is the
sandbar that exists out off the pass. If we do get into this dredging
with the opportunity of having that equipment in the area, would we
Page 34
October 4, 2001
be taking that sandbar, which you say is quality sand? I mean, does
the permit allow us to do that?
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah. In fact, I wanted to add that under the
existing permit I don't believe there would be any problem at all in
doing that. It is good quality sand. Even from the standpoint of the
tidal hydraulics, if that maintenance was done right now, that would
just mean that we would be doing some maintenance now, and it
would -- the next maintenance event would be put off for several
years.
MR. STRAPPONI: And the cost of that sand would be about
half of the upland sand?
MR. HUMISTON: Based on the bid that they just received, the
cost of the sand, I believe the bid was $157,000 for 10,000 yards of
sand. So it's comparable to the cost of upland because it's such a
small project and the mobilization of the dredge is a big part of a
small job like this. If there was a dredge working at Doctor's Pass
and it was already mobilized to the area, that could be very
economical providing the dredge working at Doctor's Pass could
work in Clam Pass which is a much shallower depth than at Doctor's
Pass.
MR. STRAPPONI: Ken, the dynamics of that inlet, I don't
know how much history we have on it, but apparently it moves
around quite a bit. How long could you expect that bar to be gone if
we did move it? MR. HUMISTON:
MR. STRAPPONI:
The --
Do we have enough history to make a
determination? Apparently it shifts constantly.
MR. HUMISTON: The offshore bar-- the in-tidal bar that's out
in the gulf in front of the inlet is -- reforms very quickly after it's
dredged. That's the most --
MR. STRAPPONI: Where does that sand come from?
Page 35
October 4, 2001
MR. HUMISTON: It comes from the beach.
MR. STAKICH: That might be a continual source of sand then
forever and ever.
MR. STRAPPONI: Should we be looking at the possibility of
maybe -- and I would suspect would be on the north side of that inlet
-- of putting in a groin?
MR. HUMISTON:
MR. STRAPPONI:
the sand on the beach?
MR. HUMISTON:
That's a possibility.
Would that prevent the bar and also keep
It would help keep the sand on the beach,
and it would probably reduce the maintenance dredging requirement.
MR. STRAPPONI: Is that a project that staff maybe ought to
have a look at?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think that's something that you want
to -- we can have staff take a look at it. I think that's -- it's a road that
once you go down an inlet and put structures on you never come
back. You have to be very careful before you head down that road. I
don't think there's any --
MR. STRAPPONI: I meant a feasibility study.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Yeah. I don't know if there's even
much interest in a feasibility study.
MR. HOVELL: If I may, I believe -- I believe all the passes in
the county have an inlet management plan and -- although Clam Pass
might be a little different, Ken, do you know?
MR. HUMISTON: There was a plan prepared. I believe it's
I don't believe it was ever finalized for Clam
still in the draft form.
Pass.
MR. HOVELL:
or for --
Was that under Pelican Bay Services Division
MR. HUMISTON: It was done for the county.
MR. HOVELL: Okay. Well, maybe that's something that we
Page 36
October 4, 2001
could complete, then, is taking a look at what the inlet management
plan is, because I think that was meant to address all the forces acting
on an inlet, the sand bypass issues, sort of the whole picture
including, I believe, any recreational uses and trying to incorporate so
what is the best plan given all those factors; am I right? MR. HUMISTON: That's right.
MR. KROESCHELL: I don't want to throw a monkey wrench
into the machinery. I apologize for not being up to date on this whole
thing. I was out of town for the last two weeks and just got back, and
Dr. Staiger is not here today, but I'm a member of the Moorings Bay
Taxing District Advisory Board, and I'm well aware of what the
problems were with the previous contractor. If they have to go in
there to dredge it, I'm not sure because all that was left to be done
was to get a crane in there and lift the rocks up and the dredging was
completed. Now, maybe with this delay and the storms and so forth,
they are going to have to go in there and dredge again in order to get
at the rocks. That may be true, but right now as of the conclusion of
the contract in August -- or not the conclusion of the contract. That
contract was concluded way back in December, but the work done
and the last meeting of the advisory board there was only to be the
crane in there to remove the rocks, and there was no dredging
scheduled.
MR. PIRES: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, maybe for the next
meeting or the meeting thereafter, further update from staff on the
draft inlet and see where that stands for as far as --
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Sounds like a good idea.
MR. PIRES: -- Clam Pass and get further direction and request
direction from staff on that.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, I think the other thing is we
don't want to be making decisions and -- even though we know how
accurate the Naples Daily News is based on their articles. Any other
Page 37
October 4, 2001
audience participation. Go ahead.
MR. CARLSON: John Carlson, Pelican Bay. And it seems to
me that with that big sandbar out in front of the pass it's sort of like
trying to breathe with a ping-pong ball in your mouth. As that tide
washes in any sand, sand can then be forced back into the -- back into
Clam Pass, and unless we remove that sandbar we will begin filling
in Clam Pass again.
The other part of it is if you -- if you have that sandbar there,
your ability to exchange with the tide is diminished. I don't think
there is any doubt about that. If you take the sandbar out, you'll have
greater tide exchange. You'll have higher tides in Pelican Bay. I
happen to disagree with Kyle. I would not have taken removal or
remediation, I guess, of the pass out of the plan. I would have gone
forward with it.
The reason is that you don't want that washing back in. A lot of
that sand which formed there this time came out of Gabrielle --
Gabrielle washing sand out of the pass and dropping it as soon as it
hits calm water. You've got to keep removing it or put in some sort
of block of some sort to keep it from coming down and creating this
sandbar there. I personally would like to see that sandbar removed
because it makes navigation to and from my house a whole lot easier,
but it also has a big impact, I believe, on the Pelican Bay mangrove
system.
And if you -- in order for the Pelican Bay mangrove system and
these new areas where you've cut the cattails to get a full exchange of
tidal water of saltwater, you need as much water coming in as
possible, and anything which slows that down will have an impact on
the farthest reaches, not the near part, but the far reaches of Clam Bay
and the Pelican Bay mangroves. You've got to get it out of there. I
don't know how to do it, but you've got to get it out of there.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I heard from Ken
Page 38
October 4, 2001
Humiston -- Ken, correct me if I'm wrong, you did not indicate, quite
the contrary, the ability to exchange would be diminished by not
funding this project or not engaging this project?
MR. HUMISTON: What Mr. Carlson said is correct, that the
sandbar out there does to some extent slow down the flow. It's one of
many factors that control the flow in there. That sandbar by itself and
the size that it has grown since the last dredging has not significantly
diminished the flow in and out of the bay. We increased-- the
dredging from two and a half years ago increased the tidal range in
the bay by about 50 percent, and we've still got somewhere in the
neighborhood of a 40 percent increase over the predredging
conditions. So the system hydraulically is still functioning very well,
even with sandbar there.
MR. PIRES: Will the additional dredging as proposed under
this project assist in keeping Clam Pass open?
MR. HUMISTON: Yes. It would certainly. I think from an
engineering approach what we're trying to do is figure out what is the
most economical interval that we can dredge that inlet to prevent it
from closing and to maintain good flow in the bay. Prior to doing
restoration two and a half years ago, the inlet had been closing on an
annual basis. The county was reopening it just by taking sand out of
the entrance including that bar but not taking the sand out of the
shoals that accumulated in the interior waterways that was choking
the interior part of the system. All that was taken out two and a half
years ago, and since that was taken out the inlet has been much more
stable. There is enough flow going through there to scour sand out.
Over time some of the sand, as Mr. Carlson indicated, will be
carried into the inlet and be deposited on shoals inside the inlet. It
has been going on. The amount that's accumulated in there two and a
half years is about 7,500 yards, but that area or that 7,500 yards has
accumulated-- was dredged to a much larger cross-section than is
Page 39
October 4, 2001
necessary to carry the flow in and out of the inlet. So there's actually
advance dredging that was completed. That's kind of a storage area
that's beginning to accumulate sand, and it has not accumulated to the
point where it's adversely affecting the flow of system.
MR. PIRES: Pardon me for asking these questions. Those are
two of the criteria for the grant application, one was No. 9, the goal
and objective was additional dredging will assist in keeping Clam
Pass open. You indicated, yes, you could still do that.
MR. HUMISTON: I think it would be one way to look at it is if
it were dredged now then it may not have to be dredged again for
three to four years. We're just in the process of-- we are in the third
year of monitoring the performance of the dredging that was done
two and a half years ago in trying to determine what is the optimum
interval for doing maintenance dredging. Obviously, if it could be
dredged once every five years instead of once every three years, then
it would be a much more economical way to maintain the inlet.
MR. PIRES: I guess a question for Ron -- I don't mean to hog
the floor. You mention there is a budgetary number already for
dredging that pass. This is just an additional amount of dredging?
MR. HOVELL: The original intent of this request was based on
the Pretropical Storm Gabrielle survey results and/or maybe even
bids. I'm not sure which or both.
MR. LUCAS: Kyle Lucas with Pelican Bay Services. The
original application was based on the prestorm survey, and the
estimate and the engineers estimate and the increase was to go in
from the station zero. Originally the application was from station zero
to about 750 feet in, and then the additional increase that's being
submitted was from 750 to 1750. And now with the new survey
information it was recommended that that wasn't necessary.
MR. PIRES: The original application have gone into that
shoaled area?
Page 40
October 4, 2001
MR. LUCAS: No. That's why we sent in the amended
application.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: So, basically, to kind of summarize I
think the situation is what we're looking at dredging X amount.
When Gabrielle came through, it performed some of that work for us
so we have less to dredge regardless, and if we want to take a little
out of that offshore shoald, I guess that would be a possibility. But,
basically, the dredging that we -- the surveys that were done in July,
August, or whatever indicated there was more material there at that
time than there is now. So that's why and, of course, this extra
50,000 was predicated on the old surveys, and this other information
is just basically 48 hours old or something like that. So I think there's
plenty of money here if we decided to use some of this, or possibly
money could be used from the other source of-- the source could be
used for the actual beach renourishment. It wouldn't have to come
out of Clam Pass, you know, Pelican Bay Services Division number
necessarily.
MR. PIRES: I guess it's appropriate to have staff explore the
possibility that when the dredging activity occurred under the
previous budgetory number -- budgeted number that went out for bid
-- to look at -- and talk about that briefly --
MR. MUDD: I would. If I can ask staff-- Jim Mudd again. I
think Ken brought up a point that said, "Hey, the purpose of the grant
was for the tidal flow." Very different than navigation. I think this
committee has to expand -- if you want to get at that 167 or 50,
whatever it is on that sheet of paper, you'll have to expand the
purpose of project and get it so the grant says, "Tidal flow and/or
navigation" in that process. That gives you some flexibility to get at
that 167. I don't think you can get at that 167 based on what I just
heard Ken say, unless you have navigation in there to improve it.
The other avenue that you have is one that you just already
Page 41
October 4, 2001
passed where you've moved 700 -- or $7.5 million into beach
restoration because of Hurricane Gabrielle, and if you're going to use
that as a source of sand, you can get at it that way too. So you can
have two methods. If you want two methods, you're going to have to
increase the project definition for that 176 or that $176,000.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Otherwise, we'll settle for the $8 1/2
million, which I think--
MR. HOVELL: Well, my concern with that approach is that our
damage estimate was only for those sections of beach -- you know,
that total $8 1/2 million is only for those sections of beach that fall
under the permit for upland sand. We had always counted on this
additional quantity of sand being covered under this separate project
just as we're counting on a section of Barefoot Beach to be covered
under the Wiggins Pass dredging. Those are not included in the
400,000 cubic yards. So, I mean, not that there's not some flexibility
to move things around, but that additional quantity is not anticipated
in the 400,000 cubic yards.
MR. PIRES: Is it appropriate then for us to ask staff about the
possibility of re-evaluating the application and expanding the
application scope within the confines of the expenditure possibilities
under the tourist development tax and then come back with a revised
grant application to include the issue that was raised? I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I don't think we should wordsmith
their application. If you want to go back and look at it from that
standpoint in my point of view.
MR. STAKICH: The original application, as I see it, is pretty
much null and void based on what I've heard. And if staff feels like
after all this discussion we have had it is appropriate to come back
with another application on a different basis and has an avenue that
will satisfy what we're trying to get done, then bring it forward. I
don't really see too much sense about talking about it any more.
Page 42
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I agree.
MR. HOVELL: I would -- I would just point out that just
because of the timing of the TDC -- they are meeting on Monday, and
then the next opportunity to take something to the TDC won't be for
three months after that.
MR. STRAPPONI: But they've already tabled it, haven't they?
MR. LUCAS: I put a call into Jane Eichhom asking her to -- I
hadn't spoken to her yet. I just left her a message.
MR. STRAPPONI: Is that your recommendation, Kyle?
MR. LUCAS: Yeah. Based on the consultant's
recommendation because it doesn't have an adverse effect on the tidal
flow.
MR. STAKICH:
TDC is meeting?
MR. HOVELL:
MR. STAKICH:
Why does this -- why is it three months before
The TDC meets four times a year.
Really? I thought they met monthly too.
Well, we could revisit it in three months.
MR. STRAPPONI: Well, I think time is of the essence in terms
of this upcoming meeting.
MR. STAKICH: Well, yes, but if they're not going to consider
it, why should we? What I've heard is that they're not even looking at
it.
MR. KROESCHELL: We're not going to know whether we're
going to have a dredge there or not.
MR. GRAY: There are a lot of things we don't know.
MR. KROESCHELL: I don't see any reason to visit it any
further.
MR. PIRES: I think the chairman indicated I don't think it's our
prerogative to amend the application. Our role is to review the
applications and make recommendations. I think the sense is we
might be favorably inclined towards revised application and address
Page 43
October 4, 2001
the vote issue, but that's not in front of us right now.
MR. STAKICH: I would like to think we could do something
today, but I don't think we're going to have enough information, and I
don't think we have support and just a lot of things in our way.
MR. CARLSON: If you don't take it out -- if you don't take that
sand out of there, where is it going to go? Some of it will wash on
the beach, and a majority of it or a lot of it is going to wash back into
the pass. That's where sand in the pass comes from. It doesn't come
from inside from the mangroves. It comes off of the beach. You
have all of this sand out there just waiting to go somewhere.
MR. STAKICH: I sympathize with you, and I understand what
you're saying, and I'm in agreement with you, but I think our hands
are tied based on what I've heard here today. We have to do things in
concert with TDC, and if they're not going to be looking at this
project, there's not much reason for us to look at it, though. Am I
wrong?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The sand that comes in out of the
pass basically it's an -- we're talking quite a ways offshore for
navigability purposes, the sand is basically a vast majority of it is
moving along the shoreline, and then that sand is flushed out there
during the ebb tide and deposits out in the shoal, so I would take
some issue with Mr. Carlson of how much of that would actually
come in. I think a lot would stay out there and maybe move along the
contour offshore a distance. Do we have any other public comments?
MS. DYKEMAN: Martha Dykeman again, president of the
Seagate Property Owners Association. You know, we have -- our--
our neighborhood was designed in 1956 and developed in 1956
before Pelican Bay existed, and we've always been a boating
community. And we have a problem that Pelican Bay Service
District can decide when our pass needs to be dredged for our use,
and the whole south part like the Registry beach that's now
Page 44
October 4, 2001
devastated, you know, can't be dredged unless Pelican Bay Service
District says it can be. And, you know, I know that Pelican Bay
Service District paid money and the county didn't and that's why the
ten-year application is because the people in Pelican Bay and WCI
paid the $2 million for the ten-year permit; however, being a Collier
County resident and a taxpayer too, I don't like all the decisions being
made without our input as property owners and people that use the
system and have used the system as navigation for 55 years.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, my understanding -- and staff
can correct me. Maybe I should pass this. There's nothing that would
preclude Collier County from picking up something like this. I mean,
it's not -- as I understand it. I might be wrong -- I don't think this is at
the sole discretion of Pelican Bay Services. Collier County can make
a recommendation if they want. Do you have any comments on that?
MR. PIRES: No. Nothing more.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I don't think Pelican Bay Services has
recommended certain things and basic -- what they recommend
typically is what they fund. So that's, you know -- but if somebody
else wanted to recommend and fund something, that would be
another matter.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, recognizing that I think PBSD is
asking that be withdrawn, and at least I'll try, a motion made and get
a second that we ask the staff to explore the possibility of expanding
-- submitting a new grant application with expanded scope or
modified scope to address the navigability issue.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That's fine.
MR. STAKICH: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Just to have them look at it. Any
other comment? All those in favor? (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any opposed?
Page 45
October 4, 2001
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Okay. Any other-- yes, sir.
MR. KELLY: My name is Colin Kelly with Parker Beach
Restoration, and I appreciate the efforts that this committee makes on
behalf of the citizens of Collier County and this area. It's unfortunate
that events that's happened that we're pushed in a situation of pressed
into -- into service with trucking the sand, and once you take 400,000
cubic yards and divide by 18 come up with about 22,000 round trips,
about 44,000 round trips with an 18-yard dump trucks.
You do have a sand problem of being pulled off the beach.
That's what Gabrielle did, and we know-- we've had the good fortune
of having a helicopter at our service. We see a sandbar forming off
of-- which used to be sitting around where the concession stands are
on Naples pier now. There's another bar forming even farther out.
That's the original beach. We feel like that once we do our
experiment we can show this county that we can put -- bring that
beach back. That's original beach, and I look forward to coming back
before this committee again.
Like I say, it's unfortunate we're pressed into service that you
have to do what you have to do, but bear in mind down the road we're
looking at helping you put compatible sand back on your beach at
around $8 a cubic yard. That would solve a lot of problems that
you're in right now as far as vegetary problems. I appreciate this
committee's indulgence in letting me speak. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments from the
audience? Yes, sir.
MR. HOVELL: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I know we are
pretty much done. I believe it was an additional agenda item to talk
about the minutes. I realize there was one or two things here in my
piles that somehow didn't pop out with the various minutes. Bear
with me and back up a second.
Page 46
October 4, 2001
When we had talked about the potential TDC land purchase, the
only additional thing I had done and included in your packet was
Florida Attorney General's opinion is in there, if you get a chance to
read it. It explains the background of why the TDC can pay for it.
And the second thing is, I believe -- I don't even remember why
I got this request, but I brought copies for everybody of the -- what
used to be -- used to be the closed meeting last November concerning
the beach rock litigation, now that those are public record. Here's a
copy of the meeting minutes for everybody. I believe that's all I had,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Anything else? I guess we
can entertain a motion.
MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Ron.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay.
MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, based on the actions of the -- of the
committee today and recommendation that's made to the TDC on the
$7 1/2 million along with the very real possibility there may be a
reduction in the projected revenues at least for this season, it's going
to take our ten year -- when can we expect a revised one?
MR. HOVELL: I think it's -- assuming that this public meeting
and the next two I have to go to all go in a positive direction and
we're actually going to try to do this quantity of sand by truck, I think
I will find myself very busy between now and Christmas, and then
perhaps something like revising the ten-year plan will be a December
or January project.
MR. STRAPPONI: I will make a note.
MR. STAKICH: Pretty good answer.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's a good answer and a reasonable
answer.
MR. ANDERSON: Plus we'll have three or four more months
of information, revenue information so we will have a better fix on
Page 47
October 4, 2001
how things are shaping up. MR. STAKICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. PIRES: One more discussion about the minutes.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Oh, is that right. I'm sorry.
MR. KROESCHELL: I just -- I just got a hangup about the
minutes. I wonder why the minutes have to be printed in such large
print and take up so much paper. I don't know. Somebody says that
that's the deal back at the county.
MR. STRAPPONI: I think that's for the benefit of some of us
older members on the committee.
MR. KROESCHELL: This is better, though, than the lower
type.
MR. ANDERSON: See, they listened to you last month.
MR. HOVELL: I won't bore you with too many details, other
than to say the way I get the minutes printed out to you I have to look
them up on various web sites -- there is two possible web sites that I
draw these from.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Please step outside for your
conversations.
MR. HOVELL: There is two possible web sites, and so this last
time I got them from a different one with a little less paper intensive
format. Beyond that I'm not too good at trying to change how it
looks.
MR. KROESCHELL: Okay.
MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn I would
like to make a comment to the audience. This committee is not
insensitive to your concerns about that sandbar. I don't think any
attempt to remove it right now would be anything but a very, very
short term. I think that the long-term solution to that sandbar lies in
considering where the source of that sand is which apparently is
Page 48
October 4, 2001
coming not off the beaches and the possibility of maybe getting an L-
shaped groin in there or something to prevent that sandbar -- that's
something that's going to have to be looked at. It's going to take
more than just us making a decision today to go ahead and try to
remove it, because if we did we'd be back again in no time. The
solution is not in removing it. The solution is trying to remove it and
doing something to prevent it from reoccurring. I just want to make a
comment that we're not insensitive to your concerns of the
navigation.
MR. STAKICH: I will second that.
MR. STRAPPONI: I make a motion to adjourn.
MR. STAKICH: Second.
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: All in favor?
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Oh, I guess we should have -- my
fault. Our next meeting will be at the City of Naples City Council at
1:30 in the afternoon.
MR. HOVELL: Would you prefer to do the field trip first like
we did today?
CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think so.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:07 p.m.
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DAVID ROELLIG, CHAIRMAN
Page 49
October 4, 2001
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN
COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD
Page 50